World Applied Sciences Journal 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2011

Associations Between Self-Perceived and

Measured Physical Fitness of Male College Students
1
Farhad Rahmani-Nia, 1Arsalan Damitchi, 2Mohammad Azizi and 3Rastegar Hoseini

1
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Razi - Kermanshah, Iran
3
University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate associations between Self-perceived and measured
physical fitness of male college students. The target population consisted entirely of male students of
University of Guilan, Iran. Among them non- athlete male with mean age of 21.83±1.17 years, height 173.6±6.4
cm, weight 70.66±11.8 kg and body mass index 22.38±3. kg/m2, volunteered to participate in this study,
respectively. The participants (n = 150) completed a five item self-reported questionnaire to estimate their
physical fitness levels. Self-perceived fitness (SPF) was assessed using a five-component questionnaire in
which subjects indicated on a 13-point rating scale their perceived endurance, flexibility, strength, body
composition and overall fitness. Results show that there were significant correlations between self-perceived
of endurance and 1500-m running time (r = -.17); but, the correlation between self-perceived of strength and
composite strength scores (handgrip dynamometry, hand-grip tests) (r =.09); self-perceived of flexibility and
sit and reach scores (r =-.033) and self-perceived of body composition (r =.042) was not significant. The
collected data was analyzed by descriptive (mean and standard deviation) and deductive statistical used to
relations between variables were described by using Pearson correlation coefficient. In all subject, self-
perceived scores higher than actual fitness scores. The results clearly indicated that non-athlete male student’s
did not sufficient skills to competently undertake self-perceived of their fitness.

Key words: Students Physical fitness Self-perceived

INTRODUCTION structure as well as appearance [4, 5, 7]. According to the

theory by Soenstrom (1978), physical fitness affects
Physical fitness is an important part of human self-esteem through physical competence. Self-perceived
functionality related to health and wellbeing. Fitness is physical competence is part of the general self-perception
characterized by a person's capability to function in and and it is usually divided into physical competence, body
adapt to physical exercise and can be demonstrated image, self-estimated physical strength and physical
through the operation of body systems associated with fitness [8-11].
energy supply and energy transmission, circulation and Previous studies, reported low and non-significant
respiration and the performance of muscles and other soft correlations between perceived and measured fitness
tissues [1-3]. In a typical definition of health-related among adults [11-13]. Also Brandon and Evans (1988)
physical fitness, many components are measured, such observed notable discrepancies between Self-perceived
as cardio respiratory endurance, muscular strength and and measured fitness in their study [11]. Marsh and
endurance, flexibility and body composition. Self- Redmayne (1994) reported correlations between self-
perceived of one's own physical fitness is a multi- perceive and measured fitness that for the strength,
dimensional phenomenon. The concept of self-perceived flexibility and balance endurance were low [13]. Marsh
is usually divided into physical, emotional, cognitive and (1993) reported low, but significant (p<0.01) associations
social areas [4-6], whereas the conscious physical with numerous fitness indicators, including
concept of over self refers to the experience of the cardiovascular endurance (r=0.30), muscular strength
qualities of self-perceived physical fitness and body (r=0.29) and body composition (r=-0.33) [14].

Corresponding Author: Farhad Rahmani-Nia, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
Tel: 0098 - 9118474229.
1331
 World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

While inconsistent with these studies, Williams and scale of 1 to 13 their self-perceived of "Fitness",
Purewal (2001) observed that the correlation between "Strength", "Endurance", "Flexibility" and "Body
questions about self-perceived endurance and the results Composition", relative to actual fitness. The first of the
of the submaximal bicycle ergometer test and the five scales Fitness represented a general assessment
correlation between questions about effective without additional explanation, whereas the other four
performance and an anaerobic bicycle ergometer test was scales were qualified with a short description. All five
significant [15]. Lamb (1992) reported higher and components had verbal anchors against each odd value
significant correlations between self-perceived and on the rating scale; a value of 1 indicating a perceived lack
measured fitness [16]. Marsh and Redmayne (1994) of the attribute, a value of 7 indicating a normal amount
reported correlations between self- perceived and and 13 indicating an abundance of it (see Appendix).
measured fitness that for the endurance component was Measurement of fitness were conducted following the
highest (r=0.64) [13]. Lamb and Hayworth (1998) found completion of the SPF questionnaire and comprised tests
strong significant correlations between self-perceived which are commonly used in health-related fitness
and objective measures of endurance, strength and assessments of college student. The measurement taken
flexibility for large sample of English adolescents [17]. included height, weight, flexibility (in centimeters) and
The Vuori et al., (2004) found in 1986 that 57% of the girls strength (in kilograms) using the sit and- reach test,
and 62% of the boys estimated their physical fitness at handgrip dynamometry and endurance (running distance
good or very good [18]. In 2002, the results indicated that was set at 1500-m) respectively, using procedures
80% of the girls and 77% of the boys estimated that they described by Adams (1994). Body composition was
have good or very good physical fitness [18]. represented as the sum of the suprailiac, abdominal and
In general, Previous studies due to low sample, pectoral (chest) skinfolds (in millimeters), following the
poor physical fitness test program design, use of old recommendations of Boileau et al., (1985), measured in the
norms to evaluate fitness performance of the subjects, standardised manner described by Jackson and Pollock
Only a small number of studies have used more detailed (1978) [21-23].
self-estimation of fitness measures and compared the
results with actual measures of fitness and finally, from Data Analysis and Statistical Methods: The index of
these data, there are contradictory indications regarding Self-perceived physical fitness was calculated by
the correlations between self-perceived and measured summing up the scores of Self-perceived endurance;
physical fitness. For this reason the purpose of this study strength, flexibility and body composition (Table 2). The
was to study of an association between self-perceived index of endurance was calculated by summing up the
and measured physical fitness of male college students. scores of Self-perceived endurance and those of the
Self-perceived distance they could run. The index of
MATERIALS AND METHODS measured physical fitness was calculated separately by
summing up the scores of the z-scores of, body
Subject: The target population consisted entirely of composition test, hand-grip test, handgrip dynamometry
male students University of Guilan in Iran. Among them test, sit-and-reach test and endurance test.
150 non-athlete male selected randomly. The condition of SPSW statistical software (version 18) was used to
the study was thoroughly explained to all subjects and analyze the descriptive data (mean and standard
written informed consent was subsequently obtained. The deviation) and Deductive Statistical used to relations
study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of between variables were described by using Pearson
University of Guilan. correlation coefficient.

Procedures: Self-perceived fitness (SPF) was assessed RESULTS

using a slightly modified version of a questionnaire by
Delignieries et al., (1994). Delignieres et al. had adopted Subject anthropometric data are present in Table 1.
the four- factor model of perceived fitness identified by Correlations between self-perceived fitness items and
Abadie, (1988) amongst adults and added a fifth, more normative scores for the objective measures are shown
general 'fitness' factor [19, 20]. Accordingly, for the in Table 3. In Figure 1, show association between the
present study the subject were required to indicate on a indices of measured physical fitness (z-scores) and

1332
 World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

Table 1: Subjects’ characteristics

Characteristics Mean ±SD (n=150)
Age (years) 21.83±1.17
Height (cm) 173.6±6.4
Weight (kg) 70.66±11.8
BMI (kg/m2) 22.38±3
Percentage of fat (sum of the suprailiac, abdominal and pectoral) 17±2.1
BMI, body mass index, SD, standard deviation.

Table 2: Mean and standard deviation of the physical fitness tests

Physical fitness tests Mean ±SD (n=150)
Endurance 1500 m 7.21±0.740
Flexibility Sit and Reach (cm) 34.23±7.930
Body composition
Percentage of fat Pectoral 18.03± 8.50
Percentage of fat Abdominal 11.90±5.100
Percentage of fat Suprailiac 15.46±6.080
Strength
Test for the right hand - grip(kg) 44.31±7.770
Test for the left hand - grip (kg) 40.04±7.630
Test for the upper body handgrip dynamometry (kg) 42.64±12.46
Test for the lower body handgrip dynamometry (kg) 55.71±13.99

Table 3: Associations between Self-perceived physical fitness characteristics and measured physical fitness tests Pearson correlation coefficient of order)
Self-perceived
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure Endurance Flexibility Body composition Strength
Endurance -.17 **
Flexibility .033
Body composition .042
Strength .09
p < 0.01**

Fig. 1: Association between the indices of measured physical fitness (z-scores) and self-estimated physical fitness

1333
 World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

self-perceived physical fitness (Spearman’s correlation (2001), Mikkelsson et al., (2005) and Huotari et al.,
coefficient of order) were shown. Result show that (2009) [2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 19, 29]. However, may be the main
significant correlations were found between self- reason for correlations lower self-perceived of endurance
perceived of endurance and 1500-m running time (r = -.17); in this study, all subjects the high self-perceived
but, the correlation between self-perceived of strength demonstrated higher score corresponding objective
and composite strength scores (handgrip dynamometry, measures.
hand-grip tests) (r =.09); self-perceived of flexibility and The results of present study also not Significant
sit and reach scores (r =-.033) and self-perceived of body correlations were found between indicate that self-
composition (r =.042) was not significant. perceived of strength and (handgrip dynamometry,
hand-grip tests), flexibility and (sit and reach) body
DISCUSSION composition and (sum of the suprailiac, abdominal and
pectoral). These data in line with the study Huotari et al.,
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the (2009), reported correlations between the self-perceived
relationship between the self-perceived and objective and measure strength, flexibility were non-significant [3].
assessments of physical fitness for non-athlete male Previous study show that subject, gender and age,
students. measure of test, questionnaire type and BMI [15, 24-27],
Scores for the cohort were simply ranked from could effect on self-perceived they the difference between
highest to lowest, as with the five SPF scales. The result our results and Marsh et al., (1993) [13], Ellam et al.,
show that correlations between the indices of self- (1994) [29], Lamb et al., (1998) [17], Mikkelsson et al.,
perceived and measure physical fitness were low and non- (2005) [2], probably due to differences in subject (old men
significant. These data are similar to the study done by and women VS youth), (21 yr VS 40 yr), measure of test
Huotari et al., (2009) and Marsh (1993), reported (standing long jump, sit-ups and shoulder hand/pull-ups
correlations between the self-perceived and measure VS handgrip dynamometry, hand-grip tests and sum of
physical fitness were non-significant [3, 14]. But, in the tricep and subscapular skinfolds VS sum of the
contrast Mikkelsson et al., (2005), shows that subject can suprailiac, abdominal and pectoral), questionnaire type
estimate at group level their fitness [2], also Lamb et al., (self-estimated questionnaire VS self-perceived
(1998), Magnus et al., (2004) reported correlations questionnaire) and BMI (25 VS 22).
between the self-perceived and measure physical fitness Present finding is reinforced somewhat by the low,
were significant [16, 24]. non-significant association between perceived body
Previous study show that physical activity level, composition and skinfold thickness. Though this is
subject, gender and age, [2,16, 24, 25], could effect on self- surprising, given the specificity of the questionnaire item,
perceived they the difference between our results and such an apparent mis-Self-perceived of body composition
Lamb et al., (1998), Magnus et al., (2004), Mikkelsson et is not a new discovery. Fox (1994) hinted that adolescents'
al (2005), Chung may be is due to differences in subject notions of over-fat are inaccurate, resulting in
(old men and women, adolescent VS Youth) [2, 16, 24], unnecessary dietary restraint and possibly reduced self-
physical activity level (non-athlete VS. athlete) [25, 26], esteem [30].
gender (male and female VS male) [24, 27, 28] and age Previous studies demonstrated that athlete’s student
(21 yr VS 40 yr Mikkelsson, 15.4 yr Lamb and Maiano). college who usually spend more time on physical activity
Also The result show that significant correlations and sport training to have better in self-perceived fitness
were found between self-perceived of endurance than their non-athlete [14, 25]. Researchers believed that
cardiovascular and 1500m running time (r = -0.17) the athletes had invested heavily in their sports performance
result in this study is lower than that observed by and frequently received positive informational feedbacks
Marsh et al., (1993) (0.30) [13], Delignineres et al., (1994) were essential for the development and maintenance of
(r=0.74) [19], Ellam et al., (1994) (r=0.20) [29], Lamb et al., self-perceive [25, 30]. The studies revealing that strong
(1998) (r=0.70) [16], Mikkelsson et al., (2005) (r= 0.53) [2] relationships between actual and perceived physical
and Huotari et al., (2009), (r=-0.69) [3]. Previous study fitness [31], as well as physical fitness and physical ability
shows that subject, measure of test and questionnaire self - concept [13, 31]. Roid et al., (1988) stated that the
type [3, 15, 25, 26], the difference between our results individuals self-perceive has been demonstrated to be
and Marsh et al., (1993), Delignineres et al., (1994), highly influential in much his/her behavior and also to be
Ellam et al., (1994), Lamb et al., (1998), Williams et al., directly related to general personality and mental health

1334
 World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

[32]. It can be expected that individuals with positive 2. Mikkelsson, L., J. Kaprio, H. Kautiainen, U.M. Kujala
physical self-perceive may be more active and those who and H. Nuppone, 2005. Associations between self-
actively involved in physical activity may have higher estimated and measured physical fitness among
physical self-perceive. 40-year-old men and women Scand J. Med. Sci.
Sports, 15: 329-335.
CONCLUSION 3. Huotari, P., A. Sääkslahti and A. Watt, 2009.
Associations between the self - estimated and
The key implication of the present findings is that for activity physical fitness scores of fitness grade 6
future investigations in which student self-perceived of students Physical Education and Sport, 7(1): 27-36.
fitness are deemed important, such as those concerned 4. Shavelson, R.J., J.J. Hubner and G.C. Stanton, 1976.
with nurturing self-perceive through physical activity and Self-concept: validation of construct interpretations.
the development of physical abilities, or those dealing Rev. Educ. Res., 46: 407-441.
with the impact of university-based health-related fitness 5. Damon, W. and D. Hart, 1982. The development of
education and monitoring, measurement should be self-understanding from infancy through
addressed from a multi-dimensional perspective. Without adolescence. Child Dev., 53: 841-864.
this, the outcomes of any interventions may be obscured 6. Ommundsen, Y. and M. Bar-Eli, 1999. Psychological
or inappropriately evaluated. A questionnaire such as that outcomes: theories, research and recommendations
used in this study (or a modified version where language for practice. In: Y.V. Auweele, F. Bakker, S. Biddle,
comprehension is threatened) can provide the means to M. Durant and R. Selier, eds. Psychology for physical
represent the Self-perceived fitness construct in student. educators. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
In the future, it would also be interesting to focus 7. Lintunen, T., 1987. Perceived physical competence
physical fitness measurements by specifying the
scale for children. Scand J Sports Sci., 9: 57-64.
questions concerning, for example, those performances
8. Fox, K.R., 1994. Research perspectives on children's
that the subjects think they are capable of doing. For
competence and achievement in physical education
instance, the subjects could be asked, ‘‘How many
and sport. British J. Physical Education, 25: 20-22.
kilometers can you walk, jog or run?’’ and ‘‘When walking
9. McKenzie, T.L., 2007. The preparation of Physical
up stairs, do you get out of breath after one, two or three
Educators: A Public Health Perspective. Quest.,
floors?’’.
59: 346-357.
10. Soenstrom, R.J., 1978. Physical estimation and
Perspectives: On the one hand, the use of physical
attraction scales: rationale and research. Med. Sci.
activity is increasingly being promoted as a means of
Sports Exerc., 10: 97-102.
prevention of chronic disease (overweight, obesity and
11. Brandon, L.J. and R.L. Evans, 1988. Perceived and
blood pressure…) on other hand; the economic resources
measured physical fitness of physical educators.
for health care are limited. Tailoring a physical activity
program for the prevention of a disease is based on the J. Phys., 59: 73-75.
knowledge of the baseline fitness of the student. 12. Optenberg, S.A., D.R. Lairson, C.H. Slater and
M.L. Russell, 1984. Agreement of self-reported and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT physiologically estimated fitness status in symptom-
free population. Prev. Med., 13: 349-354.
The authors would like to thank the Physical 13. Marsh, H.W. and R.S. Redmayne 1994. A
Education staff at University of Guilan and the non- multidimensional physical self-concept and its
athlete male student for their willing participation in this relations to multiple components of fitness. J. Sport
study. and Exercise Psychol., 16: 43-55.
14. Marsh, H.S., 1993. The multidimensional structure of
REFERENCES physical fitness: invariance over gender and age.
Res. Q. Exerc Sport, 64: 256-273.
1. Åstrand, P.O., K. Rodahl, H. Dahl and S. Stromme, 15. Williams, J.G. and R.S. Purewal, 2001. Development
2003. Textbook of work physiology. Physiological and initial validation of the Effort Sense Rating Scale
Bases of Exercise. 4th edition. New York: McGraw- (ESRS): a self-perceived index of physical fitness.
Hill. Prev. Med., 32: 103-108.

1335
 World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

16. Lamb, K.L., 1992. Correlates of self-perceived fitness. 25. Chung, P.K., 2003. Physical self-concept between PE
Percept Mot Skills, 74: 907-914. major and non-PE major students in Hong Kong. J.
17. Lamb, K.L. and W.B. Haworth, 1998. Self-Perceived Exercise Science and Fitness, 1(1): 41-46.
Fitness among Adolescents Schoolboys. Physical 26. Maiano, C., G. Ninot and J. Bilard, 2004. Age and
Education & Sport Pedagogy, 3: 167-177. gender effects on global self-esteem and physical
18. Vuori, M., L. Kannas and J. Tynjälä, 2004. Young self-perception in adolescents. European Physical
people's health in context. Health Behaviour in Education Review, 0(1): 53-69.
School-aged Children (HBSC) study 20 years. In L. 27. Sollerded, A.C., E. Apitzsch, L. Rastam and
Kannas, (Eds.) School-aged health and health G. Ejlertsson, 2008. Factors associated with young
behavior in change. Health Promotion Research children’s self-perceived physical competence and
Center. University of Jyväskylä. Self-reported Physical Activity, 23: 125-136.
19. Delignieres, D., A. Marcellini, J. Brisswater and 28. Deborah, H.J. and V. Ebbeck 2008. Gender -
P. Legros, 1994. Self-perception of fitness and differentiated association among objectified body
personality traits. Perceptual and Motor Skills, consciousness self-conception and physical activity.
78: 843-851. Sex. Roles, 59: 623-632.
20. Abadie, B.R., 1988. Construction and validation of a 29. Ellam, L.D., G.B. Fieldman, M. Fordham, R. Goldsmith
perceived physical fitness scale. Perceptual and and P. Barham, 1994. The perception of physical
Motor Skills, 67: 887-892. fitness as a guide to its evaluation in firemen.
21. American College of Sports Medicine (ACMS), 1995. Ergonomics, 37: 943-952.
ACMS’s guidelines for exercise testing and 30. Fox, K.R. and S.J.H. Biddle, 1988. The use of
prescription, 5th edn. Pennsylvania: Williams and fitness tests: Educational and psychological
Wilkin, 49: 127-128. considerations. J. Physical Education, Recreation
22. Bouchard, C., S.N. Blair and W.L. Haskell, 2007. and Dance, 59: 47-53.
Physical Activity and Health. Champaign, IL: Human 31. Chung, P.K., 1996. Perceived and actual physical
Kinetics. fitness in university student. The Hong Kong Journal
23. Jackson, A. and M. Pollock, 1978. Generalized Sport Medicine and Sports Sci., 3: 59-64.
equations for predicting body density of men and 32. Roid, G.H. and W.H. Fitts, 1988. Tennessee self-
woman. Br. J. Nutr., 40: 497-504. concept Scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA:
24. Magnus, L. and P. Hassme, 2004. The role of exercise Western Psychological Services.
and gender for self-perception and importance rating
in Swedish university students. Scand J. Med.
Sports, 14: 373-380.

Appendix
Self-Perceived Fitness Questionnaire
In each of the fitness scales below, please circle the value (1 to 13) that you think best describes your current level. The
statements that appear above the options are there as a guide to help you understand what each scale refers to. Please
answer honestly, as all information given will be treated in strict confidence.
Fitness
1. I am completely unfit.
2. …………………………………………………………
3. I have a poor fitness level with regard to my age.
4. …………………………………………………………
5. My fitness is slightly below the average for those of my age.
6. …………………………………………………………
7. My fitness is quite normal with regard to my age.
8. …………………………………………………………
9. My fitness is slightly above average for those of my age.
10. …………………………………………………………

1336
 World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

11. I have a very good fitness level with regard to my age.

12. …………………………………………………………
13. I am exceptionally fit.

Strength
This scale refers to your capacity to perform intense muscular work of a short duration, e.g. lifting, carrying heavy
objects (weights).
1. I have absolutely no strength
2. …………………………………………………………
3. I have poor strength with regard to my age.
4. …………………………………………………………
5. My strength is slightly below the average for those of my age.
6. …………………………………………………………
7. My strength is quite normal with regard to my age.
8. …………………………………………………………
9. My strength is slightly above average for those of my age.
10. …………………………………………………………
11. I am very strong with regard to my age.
12. …………………………………………………………
13. I have exceptional strength.

Endurance
This scale refers to your ability to sustain prolonged effort, e.g. in running, walking, cycling.
1. I have absolutely no endurance.
2. …………………………………………………………
3. I have poor endurance with regard to my age.
4. …………………………………………………………
5. My endurance is slightly below the average for those of my age.
6. …………………………………………………………
7. My endurance is quite normal with regard to my age.
8. . …………………………………………………………
9. My endurance is slightly above average for those of my age.
10. …………………………………………………………
11. I have very good endurance with regard to mv age.
12. …………………………………………………………
13. I have exceptional endurance.

Flexibility
This scale refers to your capacity to perform movements requiring bending, stretching etc.
1. I am definitely not flexible.
2. …………………………………………………………
3. I have poor flexibility with regard to my age.
4. …………………………………………………………
5. My flexibility is slightly below the average for those of my age.
6. …………………………………………………………
7. My flexibility is quite normal with regard to my age.
8.
9. My flexibility is slightly above average for those of my age.
10. …………………………………………………………

1337
 World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (9): 1331-1338, 2011

11. I have very good flexibility with regard to my age.

12. …………………………………………………………
13. I have exceptional flexibility.

Body Composition
This scale refers to the relative amounts of fat and muscle in your body.
1. I am abnormally fat.
2. …………………………………………………………
3. I am too fat with regard to my age.
4. …………………………………………………………
5. I am a little too fat with regard to my age.
6. …………………………………………………………
7. My body fat is quite normal with regard to my age.
8. …………………………………………………………
9. I am quite lean with regard to my age.
10. …………………………………………………………
11. I am very lean with regard to my age.
12. …………………………………………………………
13. I am exceptionally lean.

1338