QUEST, 1991.43.

296-306

A Multidimensional Hierarchical
Model of Physical Fitness:
A Basis for Integration
and Collaboration
Charles B. Corbin
For operational purposes, physical development is characterized using a
multidimensional hierarchical model. Optimal physical development is described as a combination of good physical fitness and a high level of skill
development. Physical fitness has multiple subdimensions of its own. Developing each subdimension requires regular physical activity, which is not
likely to occur without the collaboration of many, including the individual,
family, friends, schools, community, and private agencies.

Over the years, physical fitness has come to mean many different things to
many different people. Often the meaning or definition of physical fitness is based
on the types of tests most commonly used to measure it. In the first section of this
paper, a brief history of physical fitness testing is presented to illustrate the evolution
of the meaning of physical fitness. As tests of fitness have changed, the definition
of physical fitness has evolved from a unidimensional to a multidimensional concept.
The second section is devoted to discussing the hierarchical nature of fitness. A case
is made for classifying the many different fitness dimensions within a hierarchy.
Because physical fitness is multidimensional, its development requires specific
attention to each of its many components. The third section of the paper is devoted
to a discussion of the specificity of fitness. Subsequently, a case is made for the
need to integrate the many parts of fitness to achieve total physical development,
the highest level in the hierarchy. The final section of the paperis devoted to discussing the need for collaboration in facilitating optimal development for all dirnensions of physical fitness. A brief discussion of the roles of parents, schools,
community agencies, and other agents in the development of physical fitness is
presented.

The Multidimensionality of Physical Fitness

Clarke (1967) noted that definitions of fitness at the turn of the century and
in the early 1920s centered around muscle strength. Sargent's strength battery
About the Author: Charles B. Corbin is with the Department of Exercise Science
and Physical Education at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.

A MODEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS

297

of the 1880s and Rogers' Physical Fitness Index, which was principally comprised of strength measures, were the most commonly used measures of fitness.
By the end of World War I cardiovascular fitness began to receive considerable
attention. Physical fitness was beginning to be described as more than one factor.
In addition to strength measures, blood pressure, resting heart rates, and postexercise heart rates were commonly used to assess physical fitness.
It was not until well after World War I1 that true multidimensional physical
fitness test batteries were developed. The Kraus-Weber test, the first to be administered to large numbers of school children, had multiple items measuring
strength and flexibility (Kraus & Hischland, 1954). Subsequently, the American
Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (AAHPER) developed a multidimensional test battery designed to measure more than strength and
flexibility (AAHPER, 1958).
In an attempt to measure different components of fitness, early AAHPER
tests included items to measure "proficiency in running, jumping and throwing"
(AAHPER, 1965). Multidimensionality, as represented in the AAHPER battery,
had evolved well beyond earlier concepts, primarily because of convenience of
measurement and desire to develop a battery that measured "things" done in
schools, rather than to test a priori concepts of fitness. Other similar motor fitness
batteries were developed during the 1950s, including the Oregon Motor Fitness
Test and the California Physical Performance Test (Clarke, 1967).
Accompanying the national concern for fitness was the development of
new evidence to aid in defining physical fitness. Fleishman's (1964) classic work,
which identified specific factors of fitness, reinforced the emerging concept of
physical fitness as multidimensional. At the same time, several important books
on fitness were published, each reinforcing the multidimensionality of fitness as
illustrated by Fleishman (Bender & Shea, 1964; Cureton, 1965).

The Hierarchy of Physical Fitness

In addition to multidimensionality, the concept of a hierarchy of fitness
components began to emerge. Cureton (1965), for example, spoke primarily of
the health basis of fitness. His notion of fitness was clearly influenced by Kraus
and the early physical educators coming from medical backgrounds. Fitness for
health was distinguished from fitness for performance.
By the late 1960s, the concept of a hierarchical multidimensional model of
physical fitness was delineated in the literature (Corbin, Dowell, & Landiss,
1968; Johnson, Updyke, Stolberg, & Schaefer, 1966). Physical fitness consisted
of various components thought to help the individual function effectively in society without undue fatigue and have reserve energy to enjoy leisure time (Corbin,
1969). Subsidiary to physical fitness were health-related fitness and skill-related,
or motor, fitness. Subsidiary to health-related fitness were cardiovascular fitness,
strength, muscular endurance, flexibility, and body composition. Subsidiary to
skill-related fitness were agility, balance, coordination, power, speed, and reaction time. Health-related fitness components were so labeled because of their
purported association with disease prevention and positive wellness. Skill-related
fitness components were thought to contribute to enhanced performance in work,
sport, and other types of physical activity.

298

CORBIN

In 1980, the American Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) developed the Health Related Physical Fitness
Test. It included test items designed to measure health-related fitness components. It acknowledged the existence of skill-related fitness components but considered them to be measures of athletic or motor fitness, not directly associated
with good health. Position statements by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM, 1988) and the American Academy of Physical Education (1987)
encouraged an emphasis on health-related fitness. Several recent papers have
argued in favor ofthis approach (Bouchard, Shephard, Stephens, Sutton, & McPherson, 1990; Caspersen, Powell, & Christenson, 1985; Pate, 1983, 1988).
Likewise, most of the current youth fitness batteries are based on the testing of
health-related physical fitness (AAHPERD, 1989; Institute for Aerobics Research, 1988).

Physical Development
In this section a multidimensional hierarchical model of physical development is presented (see Figure 1). Two principal subdimensions of physical development are described: physical fitness and skill development. No doubt there are
others. The model is presented to illustrate the multidimensional and hierarchical
nature of physical fitness and to provide a basis for proposals to improve the
fitness of the masses.
At the top of the model is physical development. This superordinate category is used as a general descriptor. The accomplishment of physical development is dependent on skill development and the development of physical fitness,
the two subdimensions used in this operational model. Physical fitness and skill
development are dependent on the development of various subdomains subsumed
under each category.

Skill Development
Included in the skill development subdimension is the acquisition of skilled
motor behavior. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to completely
describe this dimension, it may be said that skills are motor behaviors ranging
from walking, throwing, and running to more complex techniques used in sports
and other types of sophisticated physical performances. Skill development requires prerequisite amounts of various physical fitness types, particularly skillrelated components that are thought to be central to its development. It should
be emphasized that skill-related fitness components are abilities that underlie skill
learning. Although these abilities effect the level of skill learning that can be
achieved, they should not be confused with skill learning. One can have a high
level of coordination, for example, without having achieved significant skill
learning.

Physical Fitness
As illustrated in Figure 1, physical fitness has two principal subdimensions:
physiological fitness and health-related fitness. Skill-related fitness is a parallel
dimension related to the other two dimensions but, for operational purposes, is
classified as a subdomain of skill development. All three parallel subdimensions
are described here.

A MODEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS

Figure 1

- The physical domain: a multidimensional hierarchical model.

Physiological fitness, as defined in a recent consensus statement (Bouchard

et al., 1990), is made up of such nonperformance components as blood pressure,
blood profiles, bone integrity, and so on. Each of these components has subcomponents; for instance, blood pressure is made up of diastolic and systolic measures. Bouchard et al. (1990) included body composition in their category of
physiological fitness. Operationally, others (Caspersen et al., 1985; Pate, 1988),
including this author, have included body composition as a component of healthrelated physical fitness.
Health-related physical fitness components, consistent with modern definitions, include cardiovascular fitness, muscular endurance, strength, flexibility,
and body composition (Caspersen et al., 1985; Pate, 1988). Each component has
subcomponents; for example, isometric and isotonic strength are subcomponents
of strength. Skill-related fitness includes components such as agility, balance,
coordination, power, and reaction time, and each of these has its own subcomponents (Corbin & Lindsey, 1991; Pate, 1988). Skill-related fitness is also frequently referred to as motor fitness or athletic fitness because possession of its
components and subcomponentsare principally related to success in skilled motor
performance and athletics.

300

CORBIN

Although current definitions acknowledge the existence of physiological,

health-related, and skill-related dimensions of physical fitness, it should be acknowledged that health-related fitness is the dimension commonly considered
"physical fitness" for use in fitness testing. This is because physiological fitness
testing is somewhat invasive and may require equipment and expertise not generally available in nonmedical settings (i.e., blood profdes). Skill-related fitness
components can be measured in the field setting. However, skill-related fitness
links more directly to skill learning than to physical fitness. For this reason, such
measures are not included in most current field batteries.

Integration, Specificity, and Total Development

Long ago, Steinhaus (1963) outlined the principle of integration and integrity as one of the principal principles of physical education. It is my belief that
the model presented here meets the requirements of his basic principle. Integrity
is soundness. Integration is two or more things together in a whole. Physical
fitness is part of total development. Many subcomponents of physical fitness are
necessary for its integral development. Experiences of all kinds are necessary
for total physical development.
Figure 1 not only illustrates the multidimensional hierarchical nature of the
physical domain but also illustrates its integrity. The vertical lines depict the
upward and downward flow between and among various dimensions within the
hierarchy. Cardiovascular fitness, a health-related physical fitness component,
contributes vertically to physical fitness and in turn to physical development. At
the same time, cardiovascular fitness, as illustrated by the horizontal dotted lines,
contributes horizontally to altered blood lipid profiles, a component of physiological fitness. Both vertical and horizontal paths allow cardiovascular fitness to
play a role in skilled motor performance, and, conversely, skilled motor performance can play a role in enhancing cardiovascular fitness. All subdimensions
and components operate interactively to produce total physical development.
The possession of very specific subcomponents from each of the many
subdomains of total development can be likened to the threads that are woven
together to produce a fine fabric. A variety of threads of all colors must be
available to create the desired pattern, the completed fabric. If inadequate threads
are available, the cloth cannot be woven. If threads of only one kind are available,
the quality of the cloth will be limited. Special care must be taken in producing
the threads and weaving them into the final product. Physical development is an
integration of many threads in the multidimensional hierarchy. Physical fitness
is one important subdimension in this hierarchy.

Collaboration
Four major factors interact to influence physical fitness as described in this
paper. These factors include heredity, maturation, physical activity, and other
factors such as nutrition and environment. It is clear that heredity (Bouchard,
1990; Bouchard & Malina, 1983; Krahenbuhl, Skinner, & Kohrt, 1985) provides
a basis for fitness development. Genetics set limits for specific fitness accomplishments. Maturation also can have a significant effect on fitness test performances, especially in childhood and adolescence, allowing some to score higher

A MODEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS

301

than others during the growing years. Typically, older, more mature students
perform better than those who are younger and less mature (Pangrazi & Corbin,
1990). Although there is little we can do by way of intervention to alter heredity
and maturation as they effect physical fitness, we can effect nutrition and other
life-style habits such as regular physical activity. These habits, principally physical activity, are factors of principal consideration in the following discussion of
collaborative efforts.

The Schools
Recently, the United States Public Health Service (1991) has outlined
health goals for the nation for the year 2000. In recognition of the importance of
regular exercise (Paffenbarger, Hyde, Wing, & Hsieh, 1986; Powell, Thompson, Caspersen, & Kendrick, 1987) and fitness (Blair et a]., 1989) to good health,
the goals call for an increased level of regular activity among adults. In recognition of the fact that childhood risk levels are predictive of adult disease risk
(Cresanta, Burke, Downey, Freedman, & Berenson, 1986) and that regular physical activity in childhood can have health benefits (Sallis, Patterson, Buono, &
Nader, 1988), the Public Health Service has also set activity goals for youth.
The most obvious place to begin exercise programs to build lifetime fitness
and related good health is in the school. Recently, Sallis and McKenzie (1991)
have outlined the role of school education in public health. Their recommendations call for changes in the school curriculum to ensure that programs are included to help children learn lifetime activities and to provide moderate to
vigorous physical activity. In general, these recommendations have the support
of other leaders in the field (Haywood, 1991; McGinnis, Kanner, & DeGraw,
1991; Morris, 1991; Nelson, 1991).
To be sure, the recommendation of Sallis and McKenzie (1991) calling for
increased activity in the schools is a worthwhile goal, and one I support wholeheartedly. There is evidence that, when teachers are trained to focus on children's physical activity levels, these levels can be doubled (Simons-Morton, Parcel, & O'Hara,
1988). However, even under the best of circumstances schools cannot be held responsible for providing all of the physical activity needed to produce optimal physical fimess. Even if all of the time children spent in physical education was devoted
to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, many children would not get the desired
amount of activity because they are not involved in enough total physical education
each week (Ross, Pate, Caspersen, Damberg, & Svilar, 1987).
Of course, for total physical development to occur (see Figure l), school
physical education must devote time to skill development and other important
objectives (Haywood, 1991) as well as fitness development. Because fitness is
specific, care should be taken to ensure that activity designed to build all parts
of fitness be included in school programs (Bar-Or, 1987; Corbin, 1987; Cureton,
1987; Seefeldt & Vogel, 1987). Daily physical education could go a long way in
developing multidimensional hierarchical physical fitness, but school physical
education, as it currently exists, cannot be expected to get children fit by itself.
In addition to increasing physical activity levels designed to promote fitness
development, school programs can be planned to teach youth to be informed
exercise and fitness consumers and effective exercise and fitness planners (Corbin, 1986). These conceptual programs can also be useful in conveying important
concepts about other healthy life-styles, such as nutrition and stress management.

302

CORBIN

Within schools, collaboration of classroom teachers and school nurses,

among others, can encourage physical activity and other healthy life-styles that
are necessary for fitness development. For example, it has been shown that health
education programs in combination with physical education can increase physical
activity levels. However, health education without physical education does not
seem effective (Sallis & McKenzie, 1991). Collaboration among subject matters
is important, as is collaboration among teachers and representatives of nonschool health agencies. Sallis and McKenzie (1991) have been particularly emphatic about the need for school physical educators to collaborate with public
health professionals "in developing and evaluating school physical education
programs that will improve the health of the nation's youth" (p. 124).
Collaboration within the school can provide fitness opportunities in addition to formal classes. Athletic programs can contribute to fitness development,
but they are often for the gifted, who already excel. Intramural programs can
provide extra experiences that can contribute, but in most schools these programs
are lacking or completely absent. If available, clubs and other opportunities for
school-related physical activity could be a significant part of a total school program designed to promote physical fitness. In addition, these school activities can
contribute to skill development, an important part of total physical development.
Efforts to expand programs such as those described would be beneficial to fitness
development and total physical development. Unfortunately, these programs are
often considered extracurricular; when funds are tight, with the exception of
varsity athletics, these are often the first deleted. Recently, even athletic programs have not been spared cuts in some regions of the country.

The Family
Evidence suggests that active parents are likely to have active children
(Moore et al., 1991; Ross et al., 1987). Further, parental activity with children
is associated with enhanced activity levels for both children and parents. Family
involvement has been shown to increase the effectiveness of school physical
education programs. Intervention programs designed to help low-fit children
have not always proved successful, but those that are successful have included
significant involvement from parents (Epstein, Valoski, Wing, & McCurley,
1990; Taggert, Taggert, & Siedentop, 1986).
The average child spends 24 hours a week watching television. Television
viewing time has been associated with excess body fatness (Dietz & Gortmaker,
1985). Presumably, parents could be part of the collaborative effort to improve
youth fitness by restricting viewing time, particularly during the hours when
activity involvement opportunities are high. Spousal support and support of the
extended family, including friends, is an incentive to exercise adherence for
people of all ages (Dishman, 1990). Family collaboration can be a significant
part of the physical fitness development equation.

Community Opportunities
Community recreation and sports programs promote many activities but
probably do much more for high-fit than for low-fit children and youth. Nevertheless, they are an important part of the collaborative effort to build lifetime fitness.
Community programs that provide nonthreatening physical activity programs for

A MODEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS

303

the unskilled as well as the skilled and for people of all ages will contribute most.
Community programs could do much more by way of collaboration for teenagers
who are not included in school sports programs. Few programs are available that
encourage physical activity for these school-sports dropouts perhaps because the
team sports that are popular with children are only popular among a select group
of teens. A true collaborative community effort would involve the organization
of programs that would encourage inclusion rather than exclusion of teens in
activity. Of course, community programs that encourage inclusion rather than
exclusion would be important to fitness development for people of all ages.
Those interested in more information concerning community interventions for
promotion of physical activity and fitness are referred to an extensive review of
the topic by King (1991).

Other Collaboration
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can plan
perfect programs of integrated development that include fitness development,
but you can't make people do them. The exercise adherence literature tells us
much about the factors that predispose us to fitness, that enable us to be fit, and
that reinforce our regular efforts to remain fit (Center for Disease Control, 1988;
Dishman, 1990). Knowledge, beliefs, positive attitudes, self-motivation, selfconfidence, and a previous history of exercise are all factors that predispose
people to do physical activity. Schools can be particularly effective in teaching
knowledge and attitudes and in working to alter other factors that predispose
people to exercise, but so can family, church, and community.
Enabling factors include skill acquisition, good fitness, and self-monitoring
abilities. Also, accessibility to facilities and equipment enables a person to be
active. Commercial, school, and community agencies can collaborate to help
people to learn skills, to learn to self-monitor their activity levels, and to achieve
fitness at an early age. They can also do much to make facilities accessible to all
people. Reinforcing factors include the previously mentioned support of family,
friends, and outside agents such as the media, who can help make regular fitness
and exercise the social norm, the "in" thing to do (Corbin & Lindsey, 1991).
Particularly important to youth is peer acceptance; thus peer support is a very
important reinforcing factor for teens and preteens.
Collaborative efforts by school, community, family, and such private
agents as physicians can be very effective in promoting and influencing fitness
development and exercise involvement. Clearly, neither fitness development nor
total physical development can occur without the collaboration of many.

References
AAHPER. (1958).AAHPER Youth Fitness Test manual. Washington, DC: Author.
AAHPER. (1965).AAHPER Youth Fitness Test manual. Washington, DC: Author.
AAHPERD. (1980). AAHPERD Health Related Fitness Test manual. Reston, VA:
Author.
AAHPERD. (1989). Physical Best Test manual. Reston, VA: Author.

304

CORBIN

ACSM. (1988). Physical fitness and youth. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
20,422-423.
AMERICAN Academy of Physical Education. (1987). Resolution on youth fitness. The
AAPE News, 8, 1-2.
BAR-OR, 0. (1987). A commentary to children and fitness: A public health perspective.
Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 58, 304-307.
BENDER, J., & Shea, E. ( 1964). Physicalfitness: Tests and exercises. New York: Ronald
Press.
BLAIR, S.N., Kohl, H.W., Paffenbarger, R.S., Clark, D.G., Cooper, K.H., & Gibbons,
L.W. (1989). Physical fitness and all-cause mortality: A prospective study of healthy men
and women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 2395-2401.
BOUCHARD, C. (1990). Discussion: Heredity, fitness and health. In C. Bouchard, R.J.
Shephard, T. Stephens, J.R. Sutton, & B.D. McPherson (Eds.), Exercise, fitness, and
health (pp. 147-153). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
BOUCHARD, C., & Malina, R.M. (1983). Genetics of physiological fitness and motor
performance. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 11, 304-339.
BOUCHARD, C., Shephard, R.J., Stephens, T., Sutton, J.R., & McPherson, B.D.
(1990). Exercise,fitness, and health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
CASPERSEN, C.J., Powell, K.E., & Christenson, G.M. (1985). Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public
Health Reports, 100, 126- 13 1 .
CENTER for Disease Control. (1988). Promoting physical activity among adults. Atlanta:
Author.
CLARKE, H. H. (1967). Application of measurement to health and physical education.
Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
CORBIN, C .B. (1969). Becoming physically educated in the elementary school. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
CORBIN, C.B. (1986). Fitness in children: Developing lifetime fitness. Journal ofPhysicnl Education, Recreation & Dance, 57, 82-84.
CORBIN, C.B. (1987). Youth fitness, exercise and health: There is much to be done.
Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 58, 303-3 14.
CORBIN, C.B., Dowell, L.J., & Landiss. C. (1968). Concepts and experiments inphysical education. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
CORBIN, C.B., & Lindsey, R. (1991). Concepts ofphysicalfitness (7th ed.). Dubuque,
IA: Wm. C. Brown.
CRESANTA, J.L., Burke, G.L., Downey, A.M., Freedman, D.S., & Berenson, G.S.
(1986). Prevention of atherosclerosis in childhood: Prevention in primary care. Pediatric
Clinics of North America, 33, 835-858.
CURETON, T.K. (1965). Physicalfitness and dynamic health. New York: Dial Press.
CURETON, K.J. (1987). Commentary on children and fitness: A public health perspective. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 58, 315-320.

A MODEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS

305

DISHMAN, R.K. (1990). Determinants of participation in physical activity. In C. Bouchard, R.J. Shephard, T. Stephens, J.R. Sutton, & B.D. McPherson (Eds.), Exercise,
fitness, and health (pp. 75-101). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
DIETZ, W.H., & Gortmaker, S.L. (1985). Factors within the physical environment
associated with childhood obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 39, 619-624.
EPSTEIN, L.H., Valoski, A., Wing, R.R., & McCurIey, J. (1990). Ten year follow-up
of behavioral family-based treatment for obese children. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 264,25 19-2523.
FLEISHMAN, E.A. (1964). The structure and measurement of physical jtness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HAYWOOD, K.M. (1991). The role of physical education in the development of active
lifestyles. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 151-156.
INSTITUTE for Aerobics Research. (1988). Fitnessgram user's manual. Dallas, TX:
Author.
JOHNSON, P.B., Updyke, W.F., Stolberg, D.C., & Schaefer, M. (1966). Physical
education: Aproblem-solving approach to health andfitness. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
&Winston.
KING, A.C. (1991). Community intervention for promotion of physical activity and
fitness. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 19, 21 1-259.
KRAHENBUHL, G.S., Skinner, J.S., & Kohrt, W.M. (1985). Developmental aspects
of maximal aerobic power in children. Exercise and Sports Science Reviews, 12, 503538.
KRAUS. H., & Hirschland, R.P. (1954). Minimum muscular fitness tests in school children. Research Quarterly, 25, 178-185.
McGINNIS, J.M., Kanner, L., & DeGraw, C. (1991). Physical education's role in
achieving national health objectives. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 62, 138142.
MOORE, L.L., Lombardi, D.A., White, M.J., Campbell, J.L., Oliveria, S.A., & Ellison, R.C. (1991). Influence of parents' physical activity levels on activity levels of
young children. Journal of Pediatrics, 18,215-219.
MORRIS, H.H. (1991). The role of school physical education in public health. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 143-147.
NELSON, M.A. (1991). The role of physical education and children's activity in public
health. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 62, 148-150.
PAFFENBARGER, R.S., Hyde, R.T., Wing, A.L., & Hsieh, C. (1986). Physical activity, all-cause mortality, and longevity of college alumni. New England Journal of Medicine, 314, 605-613.
PANGRAZI, R.P., & Corbin, C.B. (1990). Age as a factor relating to physical fitness
test performance. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 61,410-414.
PATE, R.R. (1983). A new definition of youth fitness. 7he Physician and Sportsmedicine,
11, 77-83.
PATE, R.R. (1988). The evolving definition of physical fitness. Quest, 40, 174-179.

306

CORBIN

POWELL, K.E., Thompson, P.D., Caspersen, C.J., & Kendrick, J.S. (1987). Physical
activity and the incidence of coronary heart disease. Annual Review of Public Health, 8,
253-287.
ROSS, J.G., Pate, R.R., Caspersen, C.J., Damberg, C.L., & Svilar, M. (1987). Home
and community in children's exercise habits. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
&Dance, 58, 85-92.
SALLIS, J.F., & McKenzie, T.L. (1991). Physical education's role in public health.
Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 62, 124-137.
SALLIS, J.F., Patterson, T.L., Buono, M.J., & Nader, P.R. (1988). Relation of cardiovascular fitness and physical activity to cardiovascular disease in children and adults.
Journal of Epidemiology, 127,933-941.
SEEFELDT, V., & Vogel, P. (1987). Children and fitness: A public health perspective:
A response. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 58, 33 1-333.
SIMONS-MORTON, B.G., Parcel, G.S., & O'Hara, N.M. (1988). Implementing organizational changes to promote healthful diet and activity at school. Health Education
Quarterly, 15, 1 15-130.
STEINHAUS, A. (1963). Toward an understanding of health and physical education.
Dubuque, IA: Wm. C . Brown.
TAGGERT, A.C., Taggert, J., & Siedentop, D. (1986). Effects of a home-based activity
program: A study with low-fit elementary school children. Behavior Modi$cation, 10,
487-507.
UNITED States Public Health Service. (1991). Healthy people 2000. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.