A comparison of two time-domain analysis procedures in the determination of VO2 kinetics by pseudorandom binary sequence exercise testing

The purpose of this study was to apply and compare two time-domain analysis procedures in the determination of oxygen uptake (VO2) kinetics in response to a pseudorandom binary sequence (PRBS) exercise test. PRBS exercise tests have typically been analysed in the frequency domain. However, the complex interpretation of frequency responses may have limited the application of this procedure in both sporting and clinical contexts, where a single time measurement would facilitate subject comparison. The relative potential of both a mean response time (MRT) and a peak cross-correlation time (PCCT) was investigated. This study was divided into two parts: a test-retest reliability study (part A), in which 10 healthy male subjects completed two identical PRBS exercise tests, and a comparison of the VO2 kinetics of 12 elite endurance runners (ER) and 12 elite sprinters (SR; part B). In part A, 95% limits of agreement were calculated for comparison between MRT and PCCT. The results of part A showed no significant difference between test and retest as assessed by MRT [mean (SD) 42.2 (4.2) s and 43.8 (6.9) s] or by PCCT [21.8 (3.7) s and 22.7 (4.5) s]. Measurement error (%) was lower for MRT in comparison with PCCT (16% and 25%, respectively). In part B of the study, the VO2 kinetics of ER were significantly faster than those of SR, as assessed by MRT [33.4 (3.4) s and 39.9 (7.1) s, respectively; P<0.01] and PCCT [20.9 (3.8) s and 24.8 (4.5) s; P < 0.05]. It is possible that either analysis procedure could provide a single test measurement Of VO2 kinetics; however, the greater reliability of the MRT data suggests that this method has more potential for development in the assessment Of VO2 kinetics by PRBS exercise testing.

Testing of disability identification tool for schools

There has been an ongoing concern about the lack of reliable data on disabled children in schools. To date there has been no consistent way of identifying and categorising disabilities. Schools in England are currentlyrequired to collect data on children with Special Educational Need (SEN), but this does not capture information about all disabled children. The lack of this information may seriously restrict capacity at all levels of policy and practice to understand and respond to the needs of disabled children and their families in line with Disability Discrimination Act (2005) and the single Equality Act (2010). The aim of the project was to test the draft tools for identifying disability and accompanying guidance in a sample of all types of maintained schools in order to assess their usability and reliability and whether they resulted in the generation of robust and consistent data that could reliably inform school returns for the annual School Census.