Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Physiol.

Sec. Exercise Physiology

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1668250

This article is part of the Research TopicAssessment and Monitoring of Human Movement Volume IIView all 6 articles

Re-examining the Reliability and Validity of 30-15IFT for VO₂max Prediction in Male Collegiate Soccer Players: A Pilot Study

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Shanghai University of Sport School of Athletic Performance, Shanghai, China
  • 2East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
  • 3Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China
  • 4Central South University, Changsha, China
  • 5Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Purpose: This pilot study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) in male collegiate soccer players. A secondary aim was to develop a population-specific equation for predicting maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and to compare its predictive validity against a widely used equation. Methods: Twenty well-trained male collegiate soccer players (age 19.5 ± 1.3 y, height 177.8 ± 6.3 cm, body mass 68.0 ± 14.3 kg; training experience 10.8 ± 3.0 y) participated in this study, and goalkeepers and players with injuries were excluded. A repeated-measures design was utilized. The participants completed three testing sessions separated by one-week intervals: one trial of a continuous treadmill running test (CT) with running speed increasing by 1 km/h every minute to assess the validity of the 30-15IFT and two trials of the 30-15IFT to evaluate reliability. The 30-15IFT involves 30-s runs across a 40-m course interspersed with 15 s of walking, with running speed increasing by 0.5 km/h every 45-s stage. Maximal intermittent running velocity (VIFT), maximum heart rate (HRmax), and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) were collected for both tests. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and typical error (TE). Validity was evaluated via Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. A multiple linear regression model was developed, with its predictive accuracy and agreement compared to those of the Buchheit (2008) equation. Results: The 30-15IFT demonstrated high reliability for all metrics (ICC = 0.81-0.92, CV = 1.43-1.69%). Despite large correlations with CT measures (r = 0.62-0.77), Bland-Altman analysis revealed significant bias and wide limits of agreement. The developed population-specific equation (r = 0.72, SEE = 2.90 ml/kg/min) demonstrated lower bias (SEE = 2.90 ml/kg/min) compared to the general Buchheit (2008) equation when applied to this cohort (SEE = 4.91 ml/kg/min). Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates that the 30-15IFT is a reliable tool for monitoring sport-specific performance, but should not be used interchangeably with laboratory-based tests due to significant disagreement. The application of general prediction equations can lead to considerable error. Future research should focus on developing and validating these prediction models in larger, more diverse populations.

Keywords: field test, Change of direction, between-efforts recovery, Anaerobic capacity, aerobic capacity

Received: 17 Jul 2025; Accepted: 06 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Cheng, Weian, Lin, Pan, Ning and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Wang Ning, 2206934303@qq.com
Xiaotian Li, xiaotianli@csu.edu.cn

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.