Exploring Fitness Testing for Tactical Roles: A Personal Journey
One of my greatest passions is delving into how we can best prepare and maintain the physical fitness of individuals in demanding roles such as police officers, firefighters, and soldiers. These careers require a significant level of physicality, and I’m particularly interested in how different organisations use testing to select those most likely to succeed.
Back in 2017, I had the incredible opportunity to be awarded a Winston Churchill Trust Fellowship. This allowed me to travel to the US, UK, Netherlands, and Italy, exploring how these countries recruit individuals with the necessary physical attributes for demanding jobs. I was fortunate to meet people from a variety of backgrounds, all dedicated to recruiting the best candidates and keeping them injury-free throughout their careers. Despite their different approaches, they all emphasised the importance of evidence-based testing over guesswork.
The Challenge of Inconsistent Standards
Take Australia’s fire services, for example. While the core duties are similar across the country, each service has its own standards and testing methods. The same goes for police services. This raises a crucial question: why is there such a disparity in standards and testing procedures across different services?When testing potential recruits, two key questions should guide the process:
- Physical Capability: Does this person have the necessary physical attributes to successfully perform tasks like dragging a hose or chasing a suspect over a fence?
- Injury Resilience: Is this person resilient enough to minimize the risk of both acute and chronic injuries? For instance, consider a firefighter who carries around 23 kg of equipment every time they step out of the truck.
Are We Using the Right Tests?
This brings me back to my original question: Are we using the right tests to support these goals? And how can we be sure our tests are accurate? In many places, introducing a new test requires justification for both the test itself and the standards being assessed. For example, in the UK, fire services require an aerobic fitness level equivalent to about 8.7 on the beep test. What about in Australia?Many testing regimes are rooted in history, often based on the best guesses of well-intentioned training staff. Without scientific credibility, we risk selecting the wrong people—potentially excluding those who could succeed and including those who might not. Consider a female firefighter: do we want someone who can run a 10 on the beep test, or someone who might be slightly less fit but possesses the strength and endurance needed for daily tasks?
A Call to Action
So, here’s my challenge to all tactical services: Are your tests defensible as valid assessments of your day-to-day work needs? How many of your tests are designed to assess an individual’s “ticker” rather than their ability to do the job?This journey has taught me the importance of aligning fitness tests with the real-world demands of the job. By focusing on evidence-based, job-specific testing, we can improve recruitment and retention while minimising injury risks. Let’s ensure our tests truly reflect the needs of these vital roles.
