GA PT Academy Ne Programming- A Pilot Study
The purpose of this study was to evaluate performance outcomes between a traditionally designed physical conditioning program and an evidenced-based conditioning program for law enforcement recruits. Two metropolitan state law enforcement training centers in the southeast United States volunteered to participate in the investigation. Each academy program lasted 12 weeks and consisted of 5 days/ week of physical training. The experimental group (n = 46) was provided with an evidence-based physical conditioning program that consisted of anaerobic and aerobic conditioning, agility, power, movement quality, defensive tactics, and muscular endurance. The comparison group participants (n = 18) were assigned a traditional instructor-led physical training program which consisted of calisthenics and running. Of the fourteen fitness variables measured, the intervention group displayed significant improvements in ten variables, while the comparison group significantly improved six.
Steps to reproduce
The participants were LEO recruits (n = 64) enrolled at the Public Safety Training Centers throughout a southern state. Two training centers were utilized for this study, the intervention group (n = 46) and a control group (n = 18). Physical fitness assessments were conducted at the beginning (Week 1) and end (Week 12) of the training academies at both locations. Data IBM SPSS Version 27.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for all analyses. All data are reported as means ± SD and demographics as frequencies. Shapiro-Wilks test was used to assess the normality of the distribution of data. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted on both groups to determine potential pre-intervention differences between the two groups. Paired-samples t-tests were used to compare the results of the intervention for all variables of interest within each group. Significance was set at p < 0.05 for all tests. Practical significance was assessed using Cohen's d effect size statistics with the Hopkins' scale of magnitude (Hopkins, 2012).