Article Data

  • Views 1179
  • Dowloads 232

Original Research

Open Access


  • Eun-Hyung Cho1
  • Hyo-Jun Yun2
  • Wi-Young So3

1Department of Sports Science, Korea Institute of Sport Science, Seoul, Republic of Korea

2Center for Sports and Performance Analysis, Korea National Sport University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

3Sports and Health Care Major, College of Humanities and Arts, Korea National University of Transportation, Chungju-si, Republic of Korea

DOI: 10.15586/jomh.v16i1.166 Vol.16,Issue 1,January 2020 pp.10-18

Published: 09 January 2020

*Corresponding Author(s): Wi-Young So E-mail:

PDF (675.26 kB)


Background and objective

The purpose of this study was to identify how the difficulty level of the Alternative Hand Wall Toss (AHWT) test changed according to the distance between the wall and the subject (2.0 or 1.2 m) and to determine the proper distance for 11–12-year-old elementary school students.

Material and methods

Fitness measurement data from participants of “A Study on Development of Fitness Accreditation Standards for National Fitness Award 100 Elementary School Students (aged 11 to 12) in 2018” (total n=2753; 2.0 m, n=1428; 1.2 m, n=1325) were selected. The ratios of numbers, means, and stan-dard deviations of subjects who were unable to measure according to distance were calculated. Difficulty levels of six fitness tests including the AHWT test were calculated by applying the Rasch model of the Item Response Theory (IRT), and AHWT test difficulty levels according to distance, 2.0 and 1.2 m, were compared. All statistical significance levels were set at p<0.05.


Our findings were as follows: First, the ratios of subjects who performed 0 point (action) according to distance were 41 and 5.2% at 2.0 and 1.2 m, respectively. Second, there was no difference in the diffi-culty level among five test items except for the AHWT test; the difficulty level of the AHWT test was higher at 2.0 m than at 1.2 m. Third, there was test partiality based on gender when the distance was set to 2.0 m, but there was no test partiality when the distance was set to 1.2 m.


In conclusion, it is difficult to discriminate the ability of 11–12-year-old subjects if the distance to the wall is set to 2.0 m in the AHWT test because the difficulty level is too high. Therefore, we recommend setting the distance to 1.2 m for 11–12-year-old subjects. 


alternative hand wall toss; elementary school students; item response theory; 

Rasch model

Cite and Share

Eun-Hyung Cho,Hyo-Jun Yun,Wi-Young So. THE VALIDITY OF ALTERNATIVE HAND WALL TOSS TESTS IN KOREAN CHILDREN. Journal of Men's Health. 2020. 16(1);10-18.


1. Buys JHC, Ferreira JT. The development of pro-tocols and norms for sports vision evaluations. S Afr Optom 2008;67(3):106–17. 10.4102/aveh.v67i3.187

2. Robert W. Alternate hand wall Toss test. 2019. [cited 2019 March 22]. Available from:

3. Du Toit PJ, Kruger PE, Mahomed AF, et al. The effect of sports vision exercises on the visual skills of university students: sport science. Afr J Phys Health Educ Recreat Dance 2011;17(3):429–40.

4. Kadir MR, Irfanuddin I, Fediani Y, et al. The rec-ommended aerobic gymnastics has better effects on improving cognitive and motoric ability in children. BioScientia Medicina 2018;2(3):25–34.

5. Marcus MA. Comparison of physiological and psy-chological characteristics among sport baton twirl-ers, competitive cheerleaders, and modern dancers. Open Access Dissertations 2014;1267:1–23.

6. Weedon BD, Liu F, Mahmoud W, et al. The rela-tionship of gross upper and lower limb motor competence to measures of health and fitness in adolescents aged 13–14 years. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2018;4(1):e000288. 10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000288

7. Çetin O, Beyleroğlu M, Bağış YE, et al. The effect of the exercises brain on boxers’ eye-hand coordination, dynamic balance and visual attention performance. Phys Educ Students 2018;22(3): 112–19. https://doi. org/10.15561/20755279. 2018.0301

8. Du Toit PJ, Kruger PE, Govender C, et al. Initial assessment of well-being in South African armed services personnel. Afr J Phys Health Educ Recreat Dance 2012;18(Supplement 1):144–58.

9. Welk G, Meredith MD. Fitnessgram and activity-gram test administration manual (4th ed.). Dallas, TX: Human Kinetics; 2010.

 10. Ross JG, Dotson CO, Gilbert GG, et al. New standards for fitness measurement. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance 1985;56(1):62–6. .1080/07303084.1985.10603687

 11. Reiff G, Dixon W, Jacoby D, et al. The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports 1985. National School Population Fitness Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 1986.

 12. Lee JW, Lee HW, Kim SH. Validity of model of all-round ranking in PGA. Korean J Measure Eval Phys Educ Sport Sci 2013;15(1): 13–20. 1.002

 13. Linacre JM, Wright BD. Winsteps. 2019.[cited 2019 Jan. 27]. Available from: http://www.

 14. Wright BD. Comparing Rasch measurement and factor analysis. Struct Equ Modeling 1996;3(1): 3–24. 9609540026

 15. Wright BD, Master GN. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982.

 16. Wolfe EW, Smith EV Jr. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part II--validation activities. J Appl Meas 2007;8(2):204–34.

 17. Camilli G, Shepard L. Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.

 18. Lord FM. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. New York, NY: Routledge; 2012.

 19. Faber IR, Oosterveld FG, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Does an eye-hand coordination test have added value as part of talent identification in table tennis? A validity and reproducibility study. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e85657.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Citation Index contains over 3,400 journals across 58 social sciences disciplines, as well as selected items from 3,500 of the world’s leading scientific and technical journals. More than 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in the social and behavioral sciences.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

SCOPUS Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

DOAJ DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

CrossRef Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref committed to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path.

Portico Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.

Submission Turnaround Time