Keywords
Physical fitness; fitness testing; adolescents; physical education; software; digital technology; tracking
-
Views
11
Downloads
How to cite this article
Joy E, Rocliffe P, Woods C and O' Keeffe B. Fitness Test Battery Software Platforms for Monitoring Physical Fitness Among Adolescents in Secondary Schools: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:89 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14208.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Study Protocol
Fitness Test Battery Software Platforms for Monitoring Physical Fitness Among Adolescents in Secondary Schools: A Scoping Review Protocol
[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 11 Aug 2025
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Corresponding author:
Eoin Joy
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information:
This scoping review is supported by funding from Research Ireland and an enterprise partner, Athena Analytics, through the Research Ireland Enterprise Partnership Scheme (Grant number: EPSPG/2024/2085).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:
© 2025 Joy E et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Joy E, Rocliffe P, Woods C and O' Keeffe B. Fitness Test Battery Software Platforms for Monitoring Physical Fitness Among Adolescents in Secondary Schools: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:89 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14208.1)
First published: 11 Aug 2025, 8:89 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14208.1)
Latest published: 11 Aug 2025, 8:89 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14208.1)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Introduction
Physical fitness (PF) is the ability to perform daily tasks with vigour and alertness, without undue fatigue, and with enough energy for leisure activities and unforeseen emergencies (Caspersen et al., 1985). PF is now widely accepted as a multidimensional construct composed of both health-related and performance-related components (Brazo-Sayavera et al., 2024; Ruiz et al., 2011). A growing body of evidence identifies PF as one of the most powerful indicators of health in children and adolescents (Demchenko et al., 2025; GarcÃa-Hermoso et al., 2020; Gilic et al., 2023), with strong associations between health-related fitness (HRF) and physical, psychological and cognitive health outcomes (Cadenas-Sanchez et al., 2021; Ortega et al., 2008). In particular, cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength and body composition have been consistently linked to reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and obesity (De Marco et al., 2025; GarcÃa-Hermoso et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2014). PF has also between associated with improved bone health (Chang et al., 2022; Linden et al., 2006) and higher academic performance (James et al., 2023; Syväoja et al., 2019). As many metabolic risk factors do not manifest until adulthood, adolescent fitness levels are regarded as an early marker of future cardiometabolic and cardiovascular health (Ruiz et al., 2016; Soric et al., 2024).
Schools have been identified as ideal settings for health promotion in young people due to their capacity to reach large populations systematically and equitably (Pulimeno et al., 2020; Welk et al., 2011). Within schools, physical education (PE) provides a structured opportunity to promote health-enhancing behaviours and monitor student wellbeing (Sun et al., 2024). PE has been identified as a key vehicle for the promotion of physical activity and lifelong healthy behaviours in youth (Cale, 2023), with PE teachers increasingly positioned as health advocates and change agents (Bulger & Housner, 2009). According to Csanyi et al. (2015), school-based PE programmes present the most powerful opportunity to influence the health of children and adolescents in a systematic manner. As such, school-based PF monitoring is receiving renewed interest from educators, researchers and policymakers as a means to promote awareness, inform targeted interventions and track progress towards health goals in young people (Brazo-Sayavera et al., 2024).
The assessment of adolescent fitness levels within PE curricula has a longstanding tradition in several countries, including Australia, the United States and Canada (Keating et al., 2020). Literature suggests that regular PF assessment can enhance student learning by supporting goal setting, personalised activity planning and self-monitoring, while also providing valuable information to teachers and public health systems (Csányi et al., 2015; Mahar & Rowe, 2008). Others highlight the potential for such programmes to support whole-school approaches to physical activity promotion and contribute to fitness surveillance at the population level (Cale et al., 2014; Lloyd et al., 2010; Soric et al., 2024). However, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts of fitness testing in schools, including the risk of stigmatisation, reduced motivation and inappropriate application (Naughton et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the prevailing consensus supports fitness testing when implemented as part of a supportive, educational and inclusive PE programme (Cohen et al., 2014; O’Keeffe et al., 2021).
While laboratory-based methods provide highly accurate assessments of PF, they are not feasible in most school contexts due to cost, equipment and technical expertise required to administer tests (Ruiz et al., 2011). Field-based fitness test batteries offer valid and reliable alternatives that are more practical and scalable in school settings (O'Keeffe et al., 2020a). These test batteries typically assess multiple components of PF through standardised procedures and have been implemented in many countries to support national fitness monitoring initiatives (Bianco et al., 2016; Marques et al., 2021). Countries such as Slovenia, Hungary, Japan and Finland have integrated field-based fitness assessments into their national education or public health systems (Brazo-Sayavera et al., 2024). These initiatives are often supported by centralised data collection platforms and national standards, enabling comparisons across regions and longitudinal tracking. Numerous field-based FTBs exist and are in use in schools globally for monitoring PF levels in adolescent populations. A recent systematic review identified 25 HRF FTBs from European, American, Asian, and Oceanian countries (Marques et al., 2021). Acknowledging the public health and educational importance of PF monitoring, many countries including Slovenia, Hungary, Japan, China and Finland, have mandated PF monitoring through school-based PE. A recent scoping review investigating FTBs in schools linked to public policy or government agency identified 15 national level monitoring systems (Brazo-Sayavera et al., 2024). In response to the growing use of school-based fitness assessment, researchers and practitioners have called for the development of innovative digital tools to support data collection, feedback and system-level reporting (Keating et al., 2020; Ruiz et al., 2016). FTB software platforms are digital tools used in educational settings to collect, store, analyse, and report students' PF test data. In this review, FTB software platforms are defined as systems to input students’ fitness test results for the purposes of generating individualised feedback, producing reports, and monitoring fitness over time in school settings. Despite the growing prominence of FTB software platforms in several countries internationally, there is a dearth of evidence that examines the key features and functionality of these platforms. This scoping review aims to address this gap by identifying FTB software platforms, and their functionality, used to assess PF in adolescents in secondary school settings. In doing so, it will support the development, evaluation and selection of appropriate digital tools for PE and contribute to the broader goal of promoting youth health through evidence-based school practices.
Rational for this scoping review
Given the exploratory nature of the topic, a scoping review is the most appropriate methodological approach to systematically map the available evidence on FTB software platforms. Scoping reviews are particularly suited to identifying key concepts, summarising diverse sources, and highlighting knowledge gaps in emerging or under-researched areas (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Munn et al., 2018). Conducting this scoping review will facilitate a summary of the literature on FTB software platforms, highlighting key characteristics and features, and identifying knowledge gaps to inform future research. Preliminary searches on FTB software platforms conducted in PubMed and SPORTDiscus suggest that, while prior studies have explored the validity of individual fitness test items (Bianco et al., 2015), the application of health-related FTBs in secondary schools (Marques et al., 2021), and national-level surveillance systems for monitoring student fitness (Brazo-Sayavera et al., 2024), no comprehensive synthesis exists of FTBs that integrate a software platform specifically for use in secondary school PE. This review will address that gap and provide an overview of the characteristics, implementation, and scope of such platforms, thereby informing future research, practice, and policy.
Scoping review aims
This scoping review aims to map and synthesise existing FTB software platforms used to monitor PF among adolescents in secondary school PE settings.
Methods
Protocol
This scoping review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and later refined by Levac et al. (2010). The process involves six key stages: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising, and reporting the results; and (6) consultation with knowledge users.
To support Stage 5, supplementary web searches (e.g., government websites, platform webpages) will be conducted to gather additional information on platform functionality. Where necessary, emails will be sent to platform developers or administrators to clarify unclear features or obtain data not publicly available.
This protocol was developed using the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist as a structural guide (Shamseer et al., 2015) (See Appendix 1 in extended data). While originally designed for systematic review protocols, PRISMA-P will be adapted here to enhance transparency and completeness in reporting the scoping review methods. The final review will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and its 22-item checklist (Tricco et al., 2018).
Step 1: Identifying the scoping review question
The primary aim of this scoping review is to summarise existing FTB software platforms used to monitor PF in adolescents within secondary schools. The research questions were developed using the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) framework recommended for scoping reviews. To this end, the review will address the following questions:
1. What FTB software platforms are currently used in secondary school PE settings?
2. What components of fitness and fitness test items are incorporated within these platforms?
3. What are the functionalities of these platforms, including their software inputs, software outputs, and software availability?
These questions are designed to guide the identification, categorisation, and synthesis of FTB software platforms relevant to secondary school PE.
Step 2: Identifying relevant studies
A comprehensive search strategy will be developed in consultation with an academic librarian and piloted in one database prior to full implementation to identify relevant studies. Searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and APA PsycInfo (via EBSCO). To identify literature not indexed in these databases (e.g. reports or organisational publications), a grey literature search will also be conducted. This is particularly important given that software platforms may be reported by institutions, governments, or commercial vendors outside academic journals. The grey literature search strategy will be informed by the three-stage framework proposed by Stansfield et al. (2016), which emphasises planning, execution and results management to ensure rigour and transparency.
Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria have been defined to guide study selection (see extended data Table 1 for full criteria and justifications). In summary, sources focusing on PF test battery software platforms used in secondary school settings will be included. Studies will be limited to those published from 2005 onwards, in English, to capture contemporary platforms and to reflect developments in digital technologies, which have become more prevalent and widely adopted in the past two decades. Both peer-reviewed publications and grey literature (e.g. government reports, technical documents, websites) will be considered. Opinion pieces or editorials will be excluded, as well as research focused exclusively on primary school or non-school contexts (e.g., club sports), as the focus is on platforms used in secondary schools.
Search Strategy: A sample search strategy for PubMed is provided in Appendix 1 (extended data). This strategy uses combinations of keywords and MeSH terms related to exercise testing, PF testing, adolescents, and schools, and will be adapted appropriately for each database.
Step 3: Study selection
All database search results will be imported into EndNote where duplicate records will be removed. The deduplicated references will then be uploaded to Covidence (covidence.org), an internet-based software platform designed to manage article screening and data extraction in reviews.
Study selection will be conducted in two stages. First, two independent reviewers (EJ, BO’K) will screen titles and abstracts using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Prior to full screening, a pilot screening of approximately 10% of records will be conducted to assess inter-reviewer consistency. This pilot sample will consist of the first 10% of imported citations in Covidence, as ordered in the system, and will serve as a representative subset for assessing agreement. Inter-rater reliability will be measured using Cohen’s kappa statistic, with a minimum threshold of 0.6 to indicate substantial agreement. Screening will proceed once this level of agreement is reached. Any discrepancies will be discussed to clarify and, if necessary, refine the screening criteria. Records with unclear eligibility at this stage will proceed to full-text review. In the second stage, the same reviewers (EJ, BO’K) will independently screen full-text articles. A similar pilot screening and reliability check will be conducted at this stage to ensure consistent application of the eligibility criteria. The same consensus process will apply, and disagreements will be resolved through discussion or, if required, by a third reviewer (PR). Reasons for excluding full-text articles will be documented. The review team will meet regularly throughout the screening process to address challenges, refine criteria as needed, and ensure consistent application across reviewers. A PRISMA flow diagram will be used to summarise the study selection process, illustrating the number of records identified, screened for eligibility, included in the review, and excluded at each stage.
Step 4: Charting the data
A structured data extraction framework will be used to systematically capture key information aligned with the review objectives. Data will be charted using two Microsoft Excel-based tables. The first (see extended data Table 2) will record general descriptive details for each software platform, including its name, acronym (if applicable), country or region of development and/or use, physical fitness components assessed, and fitness tests included. The second data extraction table (see extended data Table 3) will focus on software functionality, capturing information on inputs, outputs, availability, and other relevant features. For the purposes of this review, functionality is defined as comprising three aspects: (a) software inputs: who provides the data to the platform, what data are entered, and how data entry occurs; (b) software outputs: what results or feedback the software generates and who receives or can view these outputs; and (c) software availability: the accessibility of the software (for example, whether it is freely available or proprietary, whether it is universally available or restricted to certain regions or institutions, and any relevant factors such as cost or required hardware). These definitions will guide the data charting process and support the consistent recording of relevant details on each platform’s functionality.
The extraction framework will be piloted independently by two reviewers using two different platforms to ensure clarity and completeness. Following this, data will be extracted by one reviewer (EJ) and verified by a second (BO’K), with any discrepancies resolved through discussion or, if necessary, adjudicated by a third reviewer (PR).
Step 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting the results
i) Data collation and synthesis
A comprehensive narrative synthesis of the various FTB software platforms identified will be provided, offering a detailed descriptive summary of the charted data. A formal critical appraisal of individual platforms will not be conducted, as the primary goal is to map and synthesise their key features, functionalities, and differences, rather than to evaluate their effectiveness. The synthesis will highlight the range of platforms in use and any notable patterns or gaps.
At this synthesis stage, targeted supplementary grey literature searches will be undertaken to further inform understanding of each platform’s functionality. In particular, the official websites or user manuals of the identified software platforms will be examined for any supplementary information regarding their features. Where necessary, emails will be sent to platform developers or administrators to clarify specific features or to obtain additional details that are not publicly available. This iterative process (as an extension of Stage 5) will help ensure the most up-to-date and comprehensive information on each platform’s capabilities is reported. Insights gained through these means will be integrated into the narrative synthesis to provide a fuller picture of how each platform works and in what context.
ii) Reporting the results
The results will be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A PRISMA flow diagram will visually depict the study selection process, including numbers of records identified, screened, and included at each stage. Review findings will be organised into clear thematic categories corresponding to our objectives: such as fitness components assessed, test items included, and the types of software inputs and outputs reported for each platform. Platform availability and usage context (e.g., inclusion in national programmes, commercial use in schools, or regional restrictions) will also be summarised as part of the functionality mapping.
Organising the results in this way will offer a structured overview of the diverse approaches across platforms and facilitate meaningful comparisons. This structure will also help highlight any consistent patterns (for instance, common fitness tests that appear across many platforms) as well as key differences or unique features of certain platforms. In the discussion, the findings will be interpreted in terms of their implications for practice and research. Particular attention will be paid to areas where evidence is limited, inconsistent, or where further development of FTB platforms may be warranted.
Step 6: Consultation with knowledge users
Originally considered an optional stage by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), Levac et al. (2010) recommend consultation with stakeholders as a crucial component of scoping reviews because it can enhance the rigour of the review and the practical relevance of the findings. In line with this recommendation, our scoping review will include a consultation exercise with key stakeholders to enrich the review findings, identify potential gaps, and ensure the outcomes are grounded in real-world needs.
Stakeholders will be purposively selected through professional networks and existing collaborations in the field of adolescent physical fitness research. The key stakeholder group will consist of expert researchers with recognised experience in adolescent PF and fitness testing, representing a broad global geographical spread. The consultation will occur in two stages:
Stage 1: After a preliminary list of FTB software platforms is compiled from the literature (Stages 1–5 of the review), the panel of expert stakeholders will be asked to review the list. They will be invited to suggest any additional relevant platforms that our systematic search might have missed, particularly those that are known through professional networks or personal experience but have little presence in published literature. This first stage of consultation is intended to help identify tools that may be used in practice but are underrepresented in the literature.
Stage 2: Once the data from the included sources have been charted and summarised (Stage 5), the key findings will be presented to the stakeholders. This will include an overview of the identified software platforms, their main components and functionalities, and any preliminary conclusions. The stakeholders will be asked to provide feedback on these results, specifically regarding the feasibility and applicability of the platforms in real secondary school settings. They will be encouraged to discuss whether the identified platforms meet practical needs, whether the findings resonate with their experience, and to point out any features or contextual factors that should be considered. They may also highlight any aspects of the platforms’ implementation that were not evident in the literature. This second stage of consultation aims to enhance the validity of our findings and identify additional insights that may not be evident in the published literature.
Discussion/Conclusion
Schools are ideal settings to promote healthy lifestyle behaviours in youth populations (Pulimeno et al., 2020), given that they can reach large cohorts of children in a structured environment (Ortega et al., 2025; Welk et al., 2011). Within schools, PE plays a significant role in health promotion (Rocliffe et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2024), as recognised by international policymakers (O' Keeffe et al., 2020b). Incorporating fitness testing into PE curricula has been advocated due to its health and educational benefits for students (Marques et al., 2021). Recent research suggests that school-based PE provides the most feasible environment for widescale PF monitoring in children and adolescents (Joensuu et al., 2024). Experts have also emphasised the importance of modern, technology-driven approaches to fitness monitoring, calling for the development of innovative tools to facilitate large-scale fitness data collection and centralisation (Ruiz et al., 2016; Soric et al., 2024). To date, research on youth fitness testing in schools has primarily focused on the design and validation of fitness test batteries (FTBs) implemented (e.g. the specific tests included and their measurement validity) (Bianco et al., 2015; Marques et al., 2021). Other research on youth fitness has examined broad national surveillance systems designed to monitor population-level fitness trends and inform policy (Brazo-Sayavera et al., 2024). However, no research to date has reviewed FTB software platforms in use in secondary schools. This scoping review aims to address this gap by mapping the landscape of FTB software platforms used in secondary school settings and summarising their characteristics.
Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval was not required for this scoping review. The findings from this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant academic and professional conferences in PE, public health, and sports science. In addition, our industry project partner, Athena Analytics, will be briefed on the review outcomes. Athena Analytics specialises in educational data analysis, and the insights from this review will inform the design and development of their planned software platform for monitoring PF of secondary school students. As described in Step 6 above, a summary of results will be shared with key stakeholders (adolescent fitness researchers and PE teachers) to gather their feedback. This collaborative discussion will serve not only as a form of consultation to enrich the review, but also as a means of knowledge translation, enabling stakeholders to consider how the findings might be applied in practice (for example, in choosing or refining a fitness testing programme for their schools). By combining academic publication, conference presentation, and direct stakeholder engagement, the reach and impact of this scoping review’s findings will be maximised.
Download
Export To
CITE
how to cite this article
Joy E, Rocliffe P, Woods C and O' Keeffe B. Fitness Test Battery Software Platforms for Monitoring Physical Fitness Among Adolescents in Secondary Schools: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:89 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14208.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
- Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
- You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
- You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
- You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
- You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
- You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
- You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with HRB Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Comments on this article Comments (0)