EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY LABORATORY
MANUAL
9TH EDITION
• AUTHOR(S)WILLIAM BEAM, GENE
ADAMS
TEST BANK
1) Reference
Chapter 1 — Measurement Error: Systematic vs. Random
Stem: In a lab, repeated VO₂ measurements from a metabolic
cart on the same steady-state cyclist are consistently 6% higher
than a calibrated reference gas analyzer. Repeating the test on
different days yields similar +6% bias. Which interpretation is
best?
A. The cart has high random error; increase sample size.
B. The cart has systematic bias (accuracy issue); calibration or
correction factor needed.
C. The cart shows poor reliability (inconsistent results); re-train
,the operator.
D. The cart’s precision is low; replace the oxygen sensor
immediately.
Correct answer: B
Rationale — Correct (B): Reproducible, consistent offset vs.
reference indicates a systematic error (lack of accuracy). A
correction factor or recalibration against the reference reduces
bias. This is an accuracy problem, not random variability.
Rationale — Incorrect:
A: Random error would show results scattered around the true
value, not consistent +6%.
C: Poor reliability implies inconsistent within/in-between trials;
here results are consistently biased.
D: Low precision would produce variable readings; consistent
offset suggests a biased (accurate) rather than imprecise
instrument.
Teaching point: Systematic bias causes consistent offsets;
calibration or correction preserves validity.
Citation: Beam, W., & Adams, G. (9th ed.). Exercise Physiology
Laboratory Manual. Chapter 1.
2) Reference
Chapter 1 — Validity Types: Criterion vs. Construct Validity
,Stem: A new wearable estimates energy expenditure (EE) from
accelerometry. Compared to indirect calorimetry (metabolic
cart), the wearable correlates r = 0.88 but underestimates
during high-intensity intervals. Which validity statement is most
accurate?
A. High construct validity, low criterion validity for high-intensity
exercise.
B. High criterion validity overall; wearable is interchangeable
with calorimetry.
C. Low construct validity; correlation proves nothing about
measurement.
D. Wearable is invalid for all exercise intensities due to
underestimation.
Correct answer: A
Rationale — Correct (A): Strong correlation indicates the device
captures the construct of EE generally (construct validity), but
systematic underestimation at high intensity shows reduced
criterion validity (agreement) in that domain.
Rationale — Incorrect:
B: High correlation does not mean interchangeability—
agreement (bias, limits) matters.
C: Correlation contributes to construct validity; it’s not
meaningless.
D: Invalid for all intensities is too strong—device performs
acceptably overall but poorly at high intensity.
, Teaching point: Correlation ≠ agreement; assess criterion
validity across intensity ranges.
Citation: Beam, W., & Adams, G. (9th ed.). Exercise Physiology
Laboratory Manual. Chapter 1.
3) Reference
Chapter 1 — Reliability: Test–Retest & CV
Stem: Ten subjects perform a submaximal step test twice; VO₂
responses yield mean ± SD: Trial1 28.4 ± 3.2 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹,
Trial2 28.6 ± 3.3. The within-subject coefficient of variation (CV)
is 2.1%. How should the lab interpret reliability?
A. Excellent test–retest reliability; CV < 5% indicates high
consistency.
B. Poor reliability; use a different test with CV < 1%.
C. Intrarater error dominates; retrain testers to reduce SD.
D. Results indicate systematic bias between trials; apply
correction.
Correct answer: A
Rationale — Correct (A): CV of 2.1% indicates low relative
variability and excellent test–retest reliability for physiological
measures. Small mean difference (0.2 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) further
supports consistency.
Rationale — Incorrect:
B: Expecting CV <1% is unrealistic for physiological tests; 2.1% is
MANUAL
9TH EDITION
• AUTHOR(S)WILLIAM BEAM, GENE
ADAMS
TEST BANK
1) Reference
Chapter 1 — Measurement Error: Systematic vs. Random
Stem: In a lab, repeated VO₂ measurements from a metabolic
cart on the same steady-state cyclist are consistently 6% higher
than a calibrated reference gas analyzer. Repeating the test on
different days yields similar +6% bias. Which interpretation is
best?
A. The cart has high random error; increase sample size.
B. The cart has systematic bias (accuracy issue); calibration or
correction factor needed.
C. The cart shows poor reliability (inconsistent results); re-train
,the operator.
D. The cart’s precision is low; replace the oxygen sensor
immediately.
Correct answer: B
Rationale — Correct (B): Reproducible, consistent offset vs.
reference indicates a systematic error (lack of accuracy). A
correction factor or recalibration against the reference reduces
bias. This is an accuracy problem, not random variability.
Rationale — Incorrect:
A: Random error would show results scattered around the true
value, not consistent +6%.
C: Poor reliability implies inconsistent within/in-between trials;
here results are consistently biased.
D: Low precision would produce variable readings; consistent
offset suggests a biased (accurate) rather than imprecise
instrument.
Teaching point: Systematic bias causes consistent offsets;
calibration or correction preserves validity.
Citation: Beam, W., & Adams, G. (9th ed.). Exercise Physiology
Laboratory Manual. Chapter 1.
2) Reference
Chapter 1 — Validity Types: Criterion vs. Construct Validity
,Stem: A new wearable estimates energy expenditure (EE) from
accelerometry. Compared to indirect calorimetry (metabolic
cart), the wearable correlates r = 0.88 but underestimates
during high-intensity intervals. Which validity statement is most
accurate?
A. High construct validity, low criterion validity for high-intensity
exercise.
B. High criterion validity overall; wearable is interchangeable
with calorimetry.
C. Low construct validity; correlation proves nothing about
measurement.
D. Wearable is invalid for all exercise intensities due to
underestimation.
Correct answer: A
Rationale — Correct (A): Strong correlation indicates the device
captures the construct of EE generally (construct validity), but
systematic underestimation at high intensity shows reduced
criterion validity (agreement) in that domain.
Rationale — Incorrect:
B: High correlation does not mean interchangeability—
agreement (bias, limits) matters.
C: Correlation contributes to construct validity; it’s not
meaningless.
D: Invalid for all intensities is too strong—device performs
acceptably overall but poorly at high intensity.
, Teaching point: Correlation ≠ agreement; assess criterion
validity across intensity ranges.
Citation: Beam, W., & Adams, G. (9th ed.). Exercise Physiology
Laboratory Manual. Chapter 1.
3) Reference
Chapter 1 — Reliability: Test–Retest & CV
Stem: Ten subjects perform a submaximal step test twice; VO₂
responses yield mean ± SD: Trial1 28.4 ± 3.2 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹,
Trial2 28.6 ± 3.3. The within-subject coefficient of variation (CV)
is 2.1%. How should the lab interpret reliability?
A. Excellent test–retest reliability; CV < 5% indicates high
consistency.
B. Poor reliability; use a different test with CV < 1%.
C. Intrarater error dominates; retrain testers to reduce SD.
D. Results indicate systematic bias between trials; apply
correction.
Correct answer: A
Rationale — Correct (A): CV of 2.1% indicates low relative
variability and excellent test–retest reliability for physiological
measures. Small mean difference (0.2 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) further
supports consistency.
Rationale — Incorrect:
B: Expecting CV <1% is unrealistic for physiological tests; 2.1% is
