Identification and characterization of the criticalphysically demanding tasks encountered bycorrectional officers

Veronica K. Jamnik, Scott G. Thomas, Jim A. Shaw, and Norman Gledhill

Abstract: The purpose of this investigation was to identify the critical tasks encountered by correctional officers (COs) onthe job and to conduct a comprehensive assessment and characterization of the physical demands of these tasks. These arethe first steps in developing a fitness screening test for COs in compliance with recent legislation. The most important,physically demanding, and frequently occurring tasks were identified using Delphi methodology, focus groups, and ques-tionnaire responses from 190 experienced front-line COs. These tasks were structured into emergency response scenariosfor which a physical and physiological characterization was conducted to verify their relative physical demands analysis.Oxygen consumption and the forces exerted by COs were quantified while they were responding and then controlling andrestraining inmates. The female COs used less force than the male COs did to control and restrain the same inmates (bodycontrol = 46 vs. 60 kg, wrist hold = 32 vs. 49 kg, and arm retraction = 37 vs. 47 kg) and did not exert their maximalstrength during their control and restraint activities. The mean oxygen consumption of the female and male COs while per-forming the on-the-job tasks was similar (39.5 vs. 38.5 mL�kg–1�min–1). We concluded that the essential components of afitness screening protocol for CO applicants are cell search, expeditious response, body control, arm restraint, inmate relo-cation, and an assessment of aerobic fitness. The criterion performance standards for completing these tasks in a circuitwere set at the job performance level of safe and efficient female COs.

Key words: Meiorin Decision, due diligence, physically demanding occupation, BFOR, public safety occupation, fitnessscreening, pre-employment.

Resume : Cette etude se propose d’identifier les taches critiques demandees aux agents de readaptation (COs) au travail,de mener une evaluation globale de ces taches et de les classer en categories selon les exigences physiques des taches.Cette etude constitue la premiere etape de developpement d’un test de selection base sur la condition physique conforme-ment a la recente legislation. C’est au moyen de la methode Delphi, de groupes de discussion et des reponses a des ques-tionnaires de 190 COs de premiere ligne qu’on determine les taches les plus importantes, les plus exigeantesphysiquement et les plus frequentes. On integre ces taches dans des scenarios d’intervention d’urgence et on evalue les ca-racteristiques physiques et physiologiques pour en determiner les exigences physiques relatives. Par la suite, on evalue laconsommation d’oxygene et la force deployee par les COs appeles sur les lieux pour controler et maıtriser les detenus.Les agentes de readaptation utilisent moins de force que les agents pour controler et maıtriser les memes detenus : maıtrisedu corps (46 kg comparativement a 60 kg), prise de poignet (32 kg comparativement a 49 kg) et prise de bras (37 kg com-parativement a 47 kg). De plus, les agentes n’exercent pas leur force maximale dans les activites de controle et de maı-trise. Le consommation d’oxygene moyen des agentes et des agents exercant leurs taches est du meme ordre :(39,5 mL�kg–1�min–1 comparativement a 38,5 mL�kg–1�min–1). En conclusion, les composantes essentielles d’un test de se-lection base sur la condition physique a l’intention des candidats au poste d’agent de readaptation sont : fouille des cellu-les, procedure d’urgences, maıtrise du corps, prise de bras, transfert des detenus et evaluation de la condition physiqueaerobie. Les standards de performance pour la realisation de ces taches dans un circuit sont etablis en fonction d’une exe-cution securitaire et efficace de la part des agentes de readaptation.

Mots-cles : arret Meiorin, diligence raisonnable, professions physiquement exigeantes, EPJ, professions liees a la securitepublique, selection basee sur la condition physique, preembauche.

[Traduit par la Redaction]

Received 23 December 2008. Accepted 1 October 2009. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at apnm.nrc.ca on 27 January2010.

V.K. Jamnik,1 J.A. Shaw, and N. Gledhill. School of Kinesiology and Health Science, Faculty of Health, Norman Bethune College,York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada.S.G. Thomas. Graduate Department of Exercise Science, Faculty of Physical Education and Health, University of Toronto, Toronto,ON M5S 2W6, Canada.

1Corresponding author (e-mail: ronij@yorku.ca).

45

Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 35: 45–58 (2010) doi:10.1139/H09-121 Published by NRC Research Press

IntroductionThe application of exercise science methodology and rig-

our to the development of occupational fitness screeningtests is becoming increasingly prevalent, sophisticated, andstandardized (Gledhill et al. 2001a, 2001b; N. Gledhill1995,2 Gledhill 1997, 2001; Gledhill and Jamnik 1992a,1992b). This is particularly evident in those physically de-manding occupations in which safe and efficient job com-pletion is critical to the protection of life and (or) property(Gledhill et al. 2001a, 2001b; Deakin et al. 1996; N. Gled-hill 1995,2 Gledhill 1997; Gledhill and Jamnik 1992a,1992b; Jackson 1994; Jamnik and Gledhill 1992; Marchantet al. 1995; Human Resource Directorate, RCMP NHSPC1981). However, official endorsement of fitness screeningprotocols was hindered in the past by the lack of an ap-proved framework for their development and validation. Re-cent delineation of criteria to guide the establishment ofbona fide occupational requirements (BFORs), and in partic-ular the 1999 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada (com-monly referred to as the Meiorin Decision), have enabledthe development of assessment protocols within an acceptedtemplate.

A pre-employment fitness screening test can only be man-dated for physically demanding public safety occupations inwhich ‘‘ineffective or inefficient job performance is a threatto the safety of self, co-workers, the public or property’’(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2007; CanadianEmployment Equity Act 1995; Canadian Human RightsCommission 2007; Criminal Code of Canada 2004; SupremeCourt of Canada 1999). Therefore, fitness screening tests arean integral part of the hiring process for applicants for occu-pations such as the military, policing, firefighting, and cor-rectional services. Prominent examples of such tests are thePhysical Readiness Evaluation for Police (PREP) (N. Gled-hill 19952), the Fitness York fire fighter fitness test (Gledhilland Jamnik 1992a, 1992b), the physical readiness evaluationfor initial attack forest fire fighters (PRE-FIT) (Gledhill1997), the physical ability readiness evaluation (PARE) forthe Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Human Resource Di-rectorate, RCMP NHSPC 1981), the Canadian Forces firefighter physical fitness performance standard (Deakin et al.1996), the correctional officer physical ability test (COPAT)(Farenholtz et al. 1994; Rhodes and Farenholtz 1992), andthe Ontario correctional officer physical ability test(Marchant et al. 1995). The intent of a fitness screening testis to determine whether an applicant possesses the necessaryphysical attributes to safely and efficiently perform the im-portant, physically demanding, and frequently occurring on-the-job tasks encountered in a public safety occupation.

The Canadian Human Rights Act requires that all individ-uals have an equal opportunity of employment and theirneeds accommodated without being hindered by discrimina-tory practices (Canadian Human Rights Commission 2007).The idiom BFOR was formally enacted by the Governmentof Canada in 1988 and refers to ‘‘a condition of employmentthat is imposed in the belief that it is necessary for the safe,efficient and reliable performance of the job and which isobjectively, reasonably necessary for such performance’’

(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2007). An im-portant exception stipulated in the Act is that ‘‘it is not adiscriminatory practice if any refusal, exclusion, expulsion,suspension, limitation or preference in relation to employ-ment is established by an employer based on a BFOR.’’ Inaddition, 3 key factors were provided in the Act to justifythe imposition of a BFOR. The employer must identify(i) the essential components of the job; (ii) the capabilitiesrequired for safe, efficient, and reliable performance of thejob tasks; and (iii) a means of assessing whether an em-ployee has the capacity to fulfill these requirements (Cana-dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 2007; CanadianHuman Rights Commission 2007; Supreme Court of Canada1999).

Scholarly opinions and legal precedents further delineatedthe requirements for establishing a BFOR. Applicant selec-tion protocols must be objective, based on scientific evi-dence, supported by expert opinion on the subject matter,and relevant to the detailed nature of the tasks to be per-formed. Existing workplace conditions and the effect ofthose conditions on employees must be considered to the ex-tent that if a task can be changed to accommodate differen-ces in the capacity to perform the task, the requiredcondition is not a BFOR (Eid 2001; Hatfield 2005; Kuru-ganti and Rickards 2004; Rayson 2000). However, until re-cently, the methodology used to obtain and validate theessential information, beginning with the physical demandsanalysis (PDA) and ending with the establishment of per-formance standards, was neither systematic nor standardized.Consequent court challenge decisions and evolving legisla-tion have forced a review of the methodologies that havebeen applied to the development of fitness screening testsand the associated performance standards (Barr and Flan-nery v. Treasury Board (Department of National Defence)2006; Ontario Human Rights Commission 2002).

The 1999 Meiorin Decision established a 3-part test to as-sess whether a job standard is justifiably discriminatory andtherefore qualifies as a BFOR (Supreme Court of Canada1999). As a result, to impose a fitness screening require-ment, the employers must be prepared to justify that

(1) They adopted the standard for a purpose rationally con-nected to the performance of the job.

(2) They adopted the particular standard in an honest andgood faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillmentof that legitimate work-related purpose.

(3) The standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplish-ment of that legitimate work-related purpose. To showthat the standard is reasonably necessary, it must be shownto be impossible to accommodate individual employeeswithout imposing undue hardship on the employer.

Addressing tests 1 and 2 and the first condition of test 3was reasonably straightforward, but the second condition intest 3, in particular the working definition of ‘‘undue hard-ship’’, was deemed by both employers and researchers to beunclear and highly problematic. Consequently, in 2000, theBFOR Forum was convened to provide employers and re-searchers involved in the development and (or) administra-tion of BFORs for physically demanding public safety

2 N. Gledhill. 1995. Constable Selection Project: Report on the Characterization, Test Construction, and Validation Phase of the Medical,Physical, Skills and Abilities Project. Submitted to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

46 Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 35, 2010

Published by NRC Research Press

occupations with an opportunity to clarify the Meiorin Deci-sion requirements and the challenges that the requirementsposed for developing, evaluating, and applying these BFORs(Gledhill et al. 2001a, 2001b; Gledhill and Bonneau 2001).

The 1999 Supreme Court of Canada’s Meiorin Decisionimposed definitive requirements for a fitness screening pro-tocol and the associated performance standards to qualify asa BFOR. Interpreting the Meiorin Decision requirementswas a major focus of the 2001 BFOR Forum. This forumled the authors to the formation of the following guidingprinciples, which they presented as the basis for the success-ful defence and approval of the BFOR status of a fitnessscreening protocol for police officer applicants (Ontario Hu-man Rights Commission 2002):

� The test standards must be based on the performance ofthe critical and physically demanding job tasks, not onthe characteristics of the workers (criterion based ratherthan characteristics based).

� The test standards must take into account the diversecharacteristics of the workers (age, gender, minority sta-tus, and disability status).

� The test standards must be based on the current ability toperform the job and not on future likelihood of failure toperform the job.

� When front-line male and female incumbents perform thesame critical job tasks in a safe and efficient manner (asjudged by their supervisors), the standards must be basedon the forces and energy demands used by the subgroupwith lower physical abilities. This generally means thatthe job standards will be based on the safe and efficientjob performance of front-line female rather than front-line male workers, although they could also be based onolder front-line male workers.

� Adverse impact describes the situation in which group dif-ferences in performance, relative to a common standard,result in a disproportionate failure rate in a subgroup.Although the determination of the disproportionate failurerate is subject to court judgments (Eid 2001), researchershave commonly adopted the 80% rule (Gledhill et al.2001a; Jackson 1994), which specifies that an adverse im-pact exists when the pass rate of a subgroup is less than80% of the majority group being tested. When adverse im-pact is evident, the employer must either accommodatethis subgroup or demonstrate that accommodation is notfeasible because the safety risk of lowering or altering thestandards for the applicants would constitute undue hard-ship (Hatfield 2005).In addition, the BFOR Forum provided a convincing argu-

ment that the employer has a due diligence responsibility toself, co-workers, and the public to ensure that front-line pub-lic safety workers are capable of meeting the physical de-mands of the job. It was agreed that it is completelyunacceptable to compromise the safety of workers or thepublic while undertaking the challenging situations encoun-tered in physically demanding emergency occupations inwhich safe and efficient job completion is critical to thesafety of life and property (Laursen and Jenkins 2002; Wil-liams 2004). Therefore, the safety risk of providing accom-modation that lowers the standards for certain applicantswould constitute ‘‘undue hardship’’ (Gillis and Darby 2001).This final resolution was enforced by changes to the Crimi-

nal Code of Canada in 2004, which legislated that supervi-sors and management personnel will be deemed negligentand liable if they fail to take reasonable measures to ensure

� the bodily safety of persons doing the work or task� that when public safety workers require the physical and

physiological attributes necessary to avoid foreseeablerisks, an employer has a duty of care to ensure that thosephysical and physiological attributes are present.A pivotal outcome of the BFOR Forum was a consolida-

tion of the best practices of researchers, legal experts, andemployers, resulting in a comprehensive template for devel-oping and validating a physical fitness BFOR that wouldconform to the Meiorin guidelines (Gledhill and Bonneau2001) (Table 1).

The Meiorin Decision (Supreme Court of Canada 1999),together with the BFOR Forum clarifications, necessitated are-examination of the fitness screening protocols already inuse for all physically demanding public safety occupations,including the position of correctional officer (CO) in Ontar-io’s adult correctional institutions (Barr and Flannery v.Treasury Board (Department of National Defence) 2006;Criminal Code of Canada 2004; Gledhill 2001; Ministry ofCommunity Safety and Correctional Services 2006–2007;Ontario Human Rights Commission 2002). The Ontariophysical abilities test (OCPAT) was implemented in the fallof 1996 but associated performance standards were never es-tablished. As is characteristic of most applicant fitnessscreening tests, the OCPAT is documented in an unpub-lished technical report that remains the property of the Min-istry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services(Marchant et al. 1995).

The COPAT, which was the precursor to the OCPAT, iscurrently used in 3 other provinces in Canada for fitnessscreening applicants. Given the reported very high COPATpass rates for both male (98%) and female (70%) applicants,the BFOR nature of the COPAT has been questioned,although never legally challenged (Correction Service Can-ada Employment Equity Compliance Audit 2002). An initia-tive to implement the COPAT nationally was suspendedbecause of resistance by incumbent COs and the findings ofthe Employment Equity Compliance Audit of CorrectionalService of Canada. Similar to the OCPAT, the COPAT isan unpublished technical report (Farenholtz et al. 1994).

The OCPAT and the COPAT were developed prior to theMeiorin Decision and do not meet the various requirementsstipulated by the Supreme Court of Canada (for example,the use of criterion-based standards) to qualify as a BFOR.In particular, because the performance standards for deter-mining successful completion of the OCPAT were never es-tablished and, for the COPAT, were based on theperformance of a primarily male participant pool, these pro-tocols undoubtedly do not meet the Meiorin Decision re-quirements.

The hiring practices of the Ontario Ministry of Commun-ity Safety and Correctional Services (OMCSCS) must com-ply with evolving legislation and ensure that prospectiveCOs are capable of safely and efficiently completing the es-sential functions of the job. In response to concerns ex-pressed by both management and union in Ontario’scorrectional services regarding the increasing burden of ac-

Jamnik et al. 47

Published by NRC Research Press

commodating front-line COs who were either unable to meetthe physical demands of the job or who had incurred earlycareer job-related infirmities, the OMCSCS commissionedthe development of a fitness screening protocol for CO ap-plicants, called the Fitness Test for Correctional Officer Ap-plicants (FITCO). The Ministry deemed it essential that theFITCO conform to the Meiorin Decision requirements forestablishing a BFOR and comply with the amended 2004Criminal Code of Canada. This initiative was to be con-ducted with the understanding that the OMCSCS had ruledout alternative means of performing the essential physicallydemanding on-the-job tasks of front-line COs. As well, theFITCO was to be developed with the expectation that anysuccessful CO applicant, regardless of gender, could beplaced in either a male or a female correctional institution.

The objectives of the present investigation were (i) to de-velop an operational definition for a public safety task; (ii) toidentify a rank-ordered list of the most important, physicallydemanding, and frequently occurring tasks encountered byCOs on the job; and (iii) to conduct a comprehensive charac-terization of the physical demands of these tasks.

Materials and methodsThe research was conducted in accordance with the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada–Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council ofCanada–Canadian Institutes of Health Research Tri-CouncilResearch Policy, with joint approval from the HumanParticipants Review Sub-Committees of York Universityand the University of Toronto (Toronto, Ont.). In this paperwe present results from completing the first 5 steps of theBFOR Forum template (Table 1).

The project management teamThe project management team (PMT) consisted of repre-

sentatives from all stake-holder groups: scientific experts,experienced COs who were institutional training managersand (or) union representatives, human resource representa-tives, an in-house fitness and health coordinator, a legalcounsel, and an employment equity officer. The PMT could

only provide an unofficial profile of the current CO popula-tion in adult correctional institutions. The PMT approved anoperational definition for a public safety task in the contextof the on-the-job requirements of COs as follows: ‘‘A publicsafety task is a task in which personal safety, the safety ofthe co-worker, the offender, or a citizen may be compro-mised by ineffective performance or failure to complete therequired task.’’ When performing a public safety task, a safeand efficient CO does not compromise personal safety, thesafety of co-workers, the offender, or a citizen by ineffectiveperformance or failure to complete the required task. ThePMT also made the necessary arrangements for site visits tocorrectional institutions and access to representative samplesof COs, as requested during the PDA and characterization.In addition, the PMT appointed a liaison representative forthe day-to-day research project requirements, including ac-cessing resources, facilitating site visits, and scheduling re-search participants.

Prior to the initiation of data collection, the PMT pro-vided detailed project information to officials at adult cor-rectional institutions to gain their assistance in conductingthe project. The PMT provided advance information andregular updates through electronic mailings or newsletter ar-ticles to all COs. The COs who participated in the researchwere recruited from adult correctional institutions acrossOntario. Participation was requested via e-mail and companynewsletters. All COs who volunteered to participate in anyaspect of the study were ‘‘on duty assignment’’ (i.e., normalwork time and benefits) but were freed from all institutionalresponsibilities during that shift. The supervisor of each par-ticipant indicated that he or she was a safe and efficient COon the job. The on-site subject matter expert verifiedwhether each participant conducted the job simulations at asafe and efficient pace. Prior to taking part, all participantscompleted a Physical Activity Readiness Questionaire(PAR-Q 20023) and provided informed consent.

Familiarization with the job and associated requirementsA comprehensive overview of existing documentation re-

lated to the job of the front-line CO included a review of an

Table 1. Template for establishing a bona fide occupational requirement in conformity with the Meiorin Decision.

Step Components of the template1 Form a project management team including all stakeholders.2 Become familiar with all of the job description and associated requirements.3 Conduct a physical demands analysis.4 Establish a representative, rank-ordered subset of the most important, physically demanding, and frequently occurring on-the-job tasks.5 Characterize the subset of most important, physically demanding, and frequently occurring tasks.6 Develop a draft test protocol based on the most important, physically demanding, and frequently occurring tasks, then pilot test

and refine the protocol with job incumbents.7 Establish a standardized, objective assessment procedure for administering the test protocol.8 Establish the scientific accuracy of the test protocol.9 Develop performance standards for the test protocol.10 Evaluate the results of applying the test standards to test performances, then address any adverse impact and the possibility of

accommodation.11 Implement the test protocol.12 Maintain an ongoing review of the test protocol.

3 Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). 2002. Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP). PAR-Q # 2002. Used withpermission from CSEP (www.csep.ca).

48 Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 35, 2010

Published by NRC Research Press

existing PDA report (Ergonomics Plus Inc., 2005); the Cor-rectional Services Act (Ministry of Community Safety andCorrectional Services 2006–2007); Correctional Studies Pro-gram and associated training materials, relevant studies, andmedia reports; the report on the development and applicationof physical fitness standards; the report on performance re-quirements in various tasks; existing CO applicant screeningpractices (OCPAT, COPAT); and other occupational appli-cant screening physical ability tests (e.g., PREP). This infor-mation was used to prepare and design materials for use infocus group interviews and for a job-related questionnairecentered on physically demanding tasks commonly encoun-tered by COs. The conditions and environment under whichthe job of a CO is conducted were documented by visiting arepresentative sample of adult correctional institutionsthroughout the province of Ontario.

Physical demands analysisDelphi survey methodology (Thomas and Nelson 2001)

was employed to establish a consensus among 190 incum-bent COs regarding the list of workplace scenarios and spe-cific job tasks. The outcome was a rank-ordered list of themost important, physically demanding, and frequently occur-ring on-the-job tasks whose ineffective or inefficient com-pletion could compromise public safety. The process wasinitiated by consultation with correctional institution trainingmanagers and union representatives to review a referencelist of all public safety scenarios identified in the PDA andto delineate those public safety scenarios that representedcritical occurrences and response requirements of COs inadult correctional institutions (Table 2).

These public safety scenarios were further scrutinized dur-ing 9 focus group sessions with incumbent male and femaleCOs prior to finalizing the questionnaire. The focus groupinterviews were conducted in 6 representative adult correc-tional institutions (Table 3).

These focus group sessions provided jurisdictionally spe-cific details pertaining to importance to public safety, jobcompletion expectations, possible accommodation, time ofday that these incidents typically occur, the circumstancesthat lead to a typical incident, who is involved in the inci-dent, the environmental conditions under which these inci-dents occur, what equipment would be used during theincident, and any other critical considerations. In addition,the focus group participants addressed the following list ofquestions and points when reviewing each of the scenarios:(i) Are the COs expected to intervene? (ii) Is a newly hired

CO expected to intervene? (iii) Outline the steps and activ-ities taken in the successful management of the incident,from dispatch to the end of the scenario. (iv) What is physi-cally demanding in the successful completion of the stepsand activities identified? (v) What makes the steps and ac-tivities physically demanding (characteristics or circumstan-ces)? (vi) What are the physical skills and abilities requiredto successfully manage the incident?

The scenarios and list of identified on-the-job tasks werethen rated by 190 incumbent COs using a Likert-type5-point rating scale. The importance of the task or scenariowas rated as follows: 1 = critically important, 2 = very im-portant, 3 = important, 4 = somewhat important, and 5 =not very important. The physically demanding nature ofthe task or scenario was rated as follows: 1 = very highdemand, 2 = high demand, 3 = moderately high demand,4 = low demand, and 5 = no demand. The frequency ofthe task occurrence was evaluated as follows: 1 = continu-ously or daily, 2 = frequently or weekly, 3 = occasionallyor monthly, 4 = seldom or yearly, and 5 = rarely, if ever.The questionnaire was distributed to front-line COs at 6 rep-resentative adult correctional institutions all over the prov-ince of Ontario. Considerable effort was made by theresearchers and Correctional Services throughout the devel-opment of the FITCO to ensure that the COs who partici-pated in each phase of the project included representation bygender, age, years of experience, minority status, and disabil-ity or constraint status. Note that when a participant wascoded by the term ‘‘disability’’, he or she fell under the Hu-man Rights definition of ‘‘persons with a disability’’. When aparticipant was coded by the term ‘‘constraint’’, he or shehad disclosed to the researchers the existence of a long-termlimitation such as a back or knee problem, hypertension, or aheart problem, which, in the past, had impaired his or herability to meet the physical demands of the job.

Table 2. Summary of the public safety scenarios that represent critical occurrences and response requirements of correctional officers(COs) in correctional institutions.

Scenario Brief descriptionAssault on a CO Deemed to pose a risk to a CO, resistance by an inmate leads to control techniques and application of restraints.Two inmates fighting Deemed to pose a risk to one or both inmates, aggressive resistance leads to use of force to control and restrain

inmates.Escort to segregation A resisting inmate is aggressive and unwilling to move from a living unit to segregation.Cell search There is suspected contraband or a contrived weapon in a cell in a living unit and inmates are unwilling to

cooperate with CO in identifying the location of the contraband or contrived weapon.Attempted escape Inmate attempts to escape during an escorted community visit and poses a risk to the public.Institutional fire alarm Smoke detected in facility poses a risk to the COs and inmates.

Table 3. Description of focus group participants.

Correctional facility (size) Male COs Female COsA (large) 6. 6B (large) 10. 2C (large) 3. 3D (small) 3. 2E (large) 8. 4F (medium) 4. 2

Note: Large: >1000 inmates; medium: 200–1000 inmates;small: <200 inmates. COs, correctional officers.

Jamnik et al. 49

Published by NRC Research Press

Rank-ordered list of the most important, physicallydemanding, and frequently occurring tasks

The questionnaire responses were used to accomplish thefourth step, the development of a rank-ordered list of themost important, physically demanding, and frequently occur-ring on-the-job tasks. The rank ordering was based on theaverage score assigned to the importance of the task whilestill meeting minimum thresholds for the associated physicaldemand and frequency of occurrence.

Characterization of the rank-ordered list of on-the-jobtasks

Both before initiating and throughout the physiologicalcharacterization of the tasks identified in the PDA, discus-sions with experienced COs further assisted in refining thefinal list of the most important, physically demanding, andfrequently occurring tasks into realistic emergency scenariosthat could be performed in a standardized manner by a rep-resentative sample of COs during the characterization.

In preparation for the on-site data collection, the researchteam made visitations to a representative sample of adultcorrectional institutions. The visitations established a sup-portive relationship with key management personnel and al-lowed identification of unique structural designs, workingconditions, and circumstances encountered by COs at thedifferent institutions. Measurements were made of the nor-mal emergency response distances, inmate relocation distan-ces, and physical factors that impacted on the demands ofthese response distances (e.g., stairs, ramps). The forces ex-erted by COs to restrain and control inmates and the forcesexerted to push, pull, lift, and (or) remove items that werefrequently encountered on the job were measured using amodified dynamometer (Fig. 1) and an upper body forcemeter (Fig. 2) (N. Gledhill 19984). These data provided thecriterion-based forces to be embodied in the job simulationtasks. In addition, maximal hand grip strength and maximalupper body push and pull strength were measured. Thesemaximal strength measurements were used to substantiatethat the forces exerted to control and restrain inmates re-flected the requirements of the job (criterion based) and notthe characteristics of the COs.

The characterization scenarios devised with the advice ofthe incumbent COs included a variety of emergency re-sponses (at a self-selected ‘‘emergency’’ pace) of varyinglength (60–500 m): chasing and cornering an elusive inmatein a common area, forcing a resisting inmate into a cell,extricating a resisting inmate from a cell, separating fight-ing inmates, controlling and restraining a noncompliant in-mate, and forcibly relocating an inmate to a segregationarea. Each scenario was completed by an average of 10(range 5–14) COs. The distance covered in the scenariosvaried from 60 m to 500 m and the average time to com-plete a scenario was 84 ± 24 s. Because COs are randomlyassigned to male or female correctional institutions, to pro-vide the worst case scenario all acting inmates were male,with mean age 31 years (range 24–45 years), mean mass85 kg (range 75–105 kg), and mean height 1.78 m (range1.67–1.86 m). The average mass and height of male in-

mates in Ontario’s correctional institutions are 78.4 kg and1.77 m, respectively. The acting inmates were instructed tobe evasive and difficult to catch, to physically positionthemselves so that they would be difficult to restrain andcontrol, to engage in a pushing and pulling altercation withthe responding CO, and to be physically ‘‘noncompliant’’when they were being restrained and relocated to segrega-tion. However, they were not permitted to hit or kick theCOs. The energy demands associated with performing the

Fig. 2. Measuring the push and pull forces used by correctional of-ficers while controlling inmates.

Fig. 1. Measuring the forces used by correctional officers while re-tracting an arm during an inmate restraint.

4 N. Gledhill. 1998. Report on the standardization and validation of a new upper body strength device. Submitted to Canadian Forces Per-sonnel Support Agency. Ottawa, Ont.

50 Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 35, 2010

Published by NRC Research Press

essential tasks were assessed by instrumenting the COs withan electronic heart rate (HR) monitor (Polar, Image Moni-toring Inc., Mississauga, Ont.) and a portable metabolicmeasurement device (COSMED FITMATE PRO, ImageMonitoring Inc.) (Nieman et al. 2007) for the determinationof task or scenario oxygen consumption ( _VO2). In addition,the COs’ rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was docu-mented using the Borg scale (Borg 1982). The precision ofall testing apparatus was verified and documented by regu-lar calibration. The coefficient of variation for the determi-nation of _VO2 was ±2.3%. The coefficient of variation forthe determination of upper body strength was 0.6% (Kolleret al. 1999). These job performance _VO2 measurements(plus a 5% margin of safety) were subsequently used to es-tablish the aerobic fitness standard for the FITCO becausethe Meiorin Decision guidelines indicate that job selectionstandards cannot be based on the characteristics (maximaloxygen consumption ( _VO2 max)) of the incumbents.

The _VO2 max and maximal HR of a subset of COs weremeasured using an incremental to maximum, then supramax-imum, treadmill protocol (Gledhill et al. 1994; Howley et al.1995). The attainment of _VO2 max was confirmed when _VO2achieved a plateau (within 2.0 mL�kg–1�min–1 of the previousworkload) or decreased with progressively increasing work-loads (Howley et al. 1995). From this information, it waspossible to calculate the relative intensity of the _VO2 andHRs recorded while COs were performing the most impor-tant, physically demanding, and frequently occurring on-the-job tasks, and thereby verify that the _VO2 used by COsto complete the on-the-job tasks was at the expected 90% oftheir actual _VO2 max.

Statistical analysesThe study used a multimethod research design that in-

cluded survey, observational, correlational, and group com-parisons, with the specific statistical analyses associatedwith each method detailed below. The SPSS statistical pack-age (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.) was used to compute the sta-tistics, with a threshold for statistical significance of £0.05.

Physical demands analysisThe statistics used to rank order the most important,

physically demanding, and frequently occurring on-the-jobtasks from the questionnaire data are descriptive (mean ±standard deviation (SD)). Independent samples t test andLevene test of variance were used to examine possible gen-der differences. Dependent and multiple comparisons amongmeans and analysis of variance (ANOVA), Levene test ofvariance, Tukey’s test for equal variance, and Games–Howell for unequal variances were used to determinewhether there were differences in the job task rankingswith reference to the importance, physical demands, andfrequency of occurrence of the essential job tasks amongthe demographic groups (by age, years of work experience,institutional size, and disability or constraint).

Job task characterizationThe demographic, physical, and performance characteris-

tics of the participants were summarized using descriptivestatistics (mean ± SD). Independent samples t test and Levenetest of variance were used to examine possible gender differ-

ences in the physiological responses ( _VO2, HR, and RPE)when carrying out the important, physically demanding, andfrequently occurring tasks. Because of the small sample sizes,it was not possible to perform statistical analyses to determinewhether there were differences among the subgroups (age,years of work experience, and disability or constraints).

Results

Physical demands analysisThe perceptions of incumbent COs regarding the physical

and physiological abilities required to deal with each on-the-job scenario identified by the focus groups were cataloguedand summarized (Table 4). The information gathered fromboth experienced male and female COs during the focusgroup discussions and through the questionnaires indicatedthat endurance or cardiovascular fitness was the most impor-tant physical ability for effective job performance. The COsindicated that the most important physically demandingtasks performed on the job in isolation might not fully en-gage the aerobic energy system, but when they are per-formed in combination or repeatedly, they impose asignificant aerobic demand. Consequently, the final recom-mendation from the PDA was that the physical fitness stand-ard for CO applicants include an aerobic fitness component.

The second goal of the PDA was to compile a rank-ordered list of the most important, physically demanding,and frequently occurring tasks that could be encounteredon the job by a CO. A total of 190 out of 500 question-naires were completed, for an overall return rate of 38%.The characteristics of the questionnaire respondents aresummarized in Table 5. It was not possible to statisticallycompare the demographics of the respondents with those ofthe incumbent CO population because management andunion disagreement mitigated against the collection ofsuch information, which also explains the number of ‘‘notdeclared’’ responses to various questions.

The importance, level of physical demand, and frequencyof occurrence of on-the-job tasks were examined with con-sideration to living units, patrolling, restricted offenderareas, common areas, interior escorting, external communityescorting, offender processing, property handling, emergen-cies, and facility size. The cut-points on the 1 to 5 Likertscales used to select the final list of on-the-job tasks wereestablished in consultation with experienced COs after ex-amining the questionnaire responses from the 190 COs.Thresholds of £2 for importance (very important or criticallyimportant), £3 for physical demand (moderately high, high,or very high) and £3.5 for frequency (monthly, weekly, ordaily) were applied.

There were no apparent differences in the resultant list ofmost important, physically demanding, and frequently occur-ring tasks with respect to gender, age, societal factors, yearsof service, and institutional size (Table 6).

Note that there are no tasks simulating an ‘‘attempted es-cape’’, an ‘‘external or community escort’’, or an ‘‘institu-tional fire alarm’’, because these tasks had a frequency ofoccurrence requirement well below the minimum. This lowoccurrence rate was confirmed during the characterization,because none of the COs who participated had been in-volved in external or community escort and none had ever

Jamnik et al. 51

Published by NRC Research Press

experienced an attempted escape or responded to an institu-tional fire alarm. No differences in the resultant rank-ordered list of tasks were observed between subpopulationsof COs based on age, gender, years of experience, minoritystatus, or disability or constraint status.

Characterization of the rank-ordered on-the-job tasksThe characteristics of the COs who participated in the

characterization are contained in Table 7.

The correctional facility emergency responses descriptionsand distances and the inmate transfer to segregation descrip-tions and distances ranked by frequency of occurrence aresummarized in Table 8.

The standard-issue uniforms worn by COs, together withthe equipment generally carried on the belt or elsewhere bythem, ranged in mass from 5.3 kg (women) to 7.0 kg (men).In applicant fitness screening protocols, it is common to en-cumber test participants with a mass equivalent to the stand-

Table 4. The essential physical and physiological abilities required to deal with each critical, physically demanding on-the-job scenario.

Scenario Essential physical and physiological abilitiesAssault on a CO Muscular endurance (30 s to 30 min): hold, push, wrestle

Upper–lower body strength: block punches, muscular strength to get control, need to be able to lift(dead mass) and carry inmate

Total core strengthEndurance (cardiorespiratory): need to carry through from start to finish, having to respond to alarm through

long halls and stairs and then engage in fight, then assist in carrying of inmate to segregationFlexibility: capable of exerting force in unusual positionsGood understanding of use-of-force techniquesGood peripheral vision to maintain awareness of everything else going on in the area, such as other offenders,

furniture, potential weapons, other COs coming to assistStrong voice to maintain tactical communication to control inmate and other inmates in the area

Intervene with 2 inmatesfighting

Muscular endurance (30 s to 30 min): hold, push, wrestleUpper–lower body strength: block punches, muscular strength to get control, need to be able to lift

(dead mass) and carry inmateTotal core strengthFlexibility: strength through the full range of motionCardiorespiratory fitness: having to respond to alarm through long halls and up or down stairs and then engage

in fight, then assist in managing fight; need to carry through from start to finish (may take 30 s to get inmateto the floor)

Good understanding of use-of-force techniquesAbility to climb stairs quicklyGood physical health

Escort uncooperativeinmate to segregation

Hand grip strength:, manual dexterityEndurance (cardiorespiratory and muscular), staminaGood upper body strengthGood leg strengthStrong backGood balanceFlexibility, agility

Cell search Continual bendingGetting up and going down on kneesWorking overhead, stretchingUpper body strengthFlexibility, overallLeg strength for stepping up and climbingHand grip strength: to support self and reach with other armStrength to move object (i.e., mattress)Mobility, agility, balanceEndurance (cardiorespiratory and muscular): extended search

Attempted escape Tactical communicationStamina and cardio capabilities: catch, restrain, escortAbility to runStrength: hold and restrain, lift, push–pull, wrestleAgility: manoeuvre around obstaclesStrength through range of motion: using ASP, striking, wrestling

Institutional fire alarm Cardiorespiratory: to get to site and don MSA, to clear roomFlexibility to get into equipmentDexterity to don MSA and use equipment

Note: CO, correctional officer; ASP, tactical baton; MSA, safety breathing mask.

52 Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 35, 2010

Published by NRC Research Press

ard uniform worn and equipment borne on the job (Gledhillet al. 2001a, 2001b; N. Gledhill 1995,2 Gledhill 1997; Gled-hill and Jamnik 1992b). However, after the external or com-munity escort scenario was dropped because of an extremelylow frequency of occurrence for incumbent COs (becauseonly a few specialized COs are involved in this responsibil-ity), the mean mass of the remaining uniforms and personalequipment worn and (or) borne by COs (approximately5.5 kg) was not substantially above that of normal clothingto warrant such a mass addition. The absence of heavyequipment on COs is due to policies that reduce the risk ofpotentially harmful CO equipment falling into the hands ofinmates. It was decided, therefore, that FITCO participantswould not be encumbered by extra weight while performingthe job simulation tasks.

The maximal hand grip, wrist hold, arm retraction, andpush–pull strength characteristics of male and female COsand the forces recorded while these same COs were control-ling and restraining acting inmates on the job are summar-ized in Table 9.

These data indicate that for female COs, the wrist holdforce applied while holding the wrists of inmates was85.6% of their maximal hand grip strength, the arm retrac-

tion force exerted while they were retracting the arms of in-mates was 80.9% of their maximal arm pulling force, andthe upper body push and pull force exerted while they werecontrolling inmates was 70.6% of their maximal push andpull force. For the male COs, the wrist hold force appliedwhile holding the wrists of inmates was 85.1% of their max-imal hand grip strength, the arm retraction force exertedwhile they were retracting the arms of inmates was 76.4%of their maximal arm pulling force, and the upper bodypush and pull force exerted while they were controlling in-mates was 50.8% of their maximal push and pull force.

The _VO2, HR, and RPE ratings recorded for both femaleand male COs during the performance of emergency re-sponses of varying distance at their self-selected safe and ef-ficient emergency pace, followed by the control and restraintof an inmate, then the relocation of the inmate to a segrega-tion area at a purposeful walking pace are summarized inTable 10. The mean _VO2 of the female COs during theseemergency tasks was 39.5 ± 4.3 mL�kg–1�min–1, which wasnot significantly different from the corresponding mean_VO2 of the male COs (38.5 ± 4.7 mL�kg–1�min–1).

Ten of the same female COs (mean age 33 ± 10 years)who took part in the task characterization were randomly se-lected to undergo a direct assessment of their _VO2 max in thelaboratory. These individuals reflected the diversity of the fe-male COs who participated in the characterization phase. Themean _VO2 of these same 10 female COs while they were per-forming the most important, physically demanding, and fre-quently occurring on-the-job tasks at a self-selected safe andefficient emergency pace was 41.2 ± 3.8 mL�kg–1�min–1,which was equivalent to 90.1% of their measured _VO2 max(46.2 ± 6.7 mL�kg–1�min).

DiscussionThe proper design and conduct of a PDA requires identi-

fication of the most important, physically demanding, andfrequently occurring tasks, which become the basis of a fit-ness screening test. From a Human Rights and EmploymentEquity perspective, decisions concerning which tasks can beincluded in the final list from the PDA must be based on thepremise that the tasks are directly related to the objectives ofthe job. To recap, extensive involvement of subject matterexperts using the Delphi methodology (Thomas and Nelson2001) resulted in the identification of such tasks, whichwere then further refined by front-line incumbent COs in fo-cus groups. The resultant information was assembled into anobjectively answered questionnaire and distributed to alarger group of experienced front-line COs to gather inputfrom a broader sample of the workforce.

Several factors, including experience and age, may influ-ence perceptions of job tasks. Job-related inexperience couldresult in a higher level of perceived importance and per-ceived physical demands of the job tasks. Conversely, expe-rienced COs could diminish the perceived importance andphysical demand because their acquisition of specific exper-tise affords them an economy of physical demand. Jurisdic-tional characteristics could also have an impact on theperceived level of importance, physical demands, and fre-quency of occurrence of on-the-job tasks. Similarly, COs atsmaller correctional institutions may not experience certain

Table 5. Characteristics of thequestionnaire respondents, n = 190.

Characteristics n

GenderMale 122Female 57Not declared 11

Facility (size)A (medium) 20B (small) 8C (large) 59D (medium) 20E (large) 60F (medium) 15Not declared 8

DemographicsAboriginal 2Disability 8Minority 17Caucasian 93Not declared 70

Age<25.y 17

24.–34 y 5735.–44 y 5645.–54 y 40

>54.y 12Not declared 8

Work experience<5.y 49

6.–10 y 4511.–20 y 47

>20.y 41Not declared 8

Jamnik et al. 53

Published by NRC Research Press

incidents or the physical design may exclude certain inter-vention strategies. The nature of the individual correctionalinstitutions could also have an impact on the perceived levelof importance, physical demand, and frequency of occur-rence of on-the-job tasks; some correctional institutions con-fine less-violent offenders, whereas other facilities confinemore-violent offenders. The broad sample we gathered

through the questionnaire helped capture these sources ofvariability in the task ratings.

The tasks included in the assessment were delimited bythe Likert scale cut-points £2, (importance), £3 (physical de-mand), and £3.5 (frequency), respectively. These cut-pointswere derived in consultation with the subject matter expertsafter examining the questionnaire data. Those tasks that

Table 6. Summarized ratings for the most important, physically demanding, and frequently occurring tasks encountered by correctionalofficers (COs) on the job.

TaskImportance(high = 1, low = 5)

Physical demand(high = 1, low = 5)

Frequency(high = 1, low = 5)

Responding to a riot, moving rapidly to area up or down stairs or dis-tance, moving over debris and unstable footing on site, and using forceto restrain offenders on arrival (separate, control, apply restraints)

1.22±0.77 1.55±0.82 3.14±1.33

Responding to a code for a fight, moving rapidly to area up or downstairs over distance using force to restrain inmates on arrival(intervene, control, apply restraints)

1.27±0.80 1.68±0.87 2.82±1.06

Being the first responder to a partner CO being attacked by inmate 1.25±0.79 1.60±0.81 3.22±1.11Conducting strip search of a noncompliant inmate suspected of having

contraband or missing utensil1.39±0.78 2.12±0.92 2.47±1.09

Controlling and applying restraints on an inmate who showsaggression toward the CO

1.38±0.91 1.85±0.83 2.44±1.04

Separating and restraining 2 or more inmates fighting in the recreationarea (intervene, control, and apply restraints)

1.39±0.82 1.78±0.80 2.90±1.09

Separating and restraining 2 or more inmates fighting in the commonday area (intervene, control, and apply restraints)

1.40±0.87 1.80±0.83 2.70±1.08

Conducting strip search of an noncompliant inmate being admitted torestricted offender unit

1.41±0.89 2.16±0.95 2.54±1.16

Using force to put a noncompliant inmate in restraints (take-down,hand restraints, legs irons, and restraint belt)

1.41±0.90 1.73±0.85 3.00±1.02

Separating and restraining 2 or more inmates fighting in a commonliving unit area (as described above)

1.42±0.91 1.94±0.90 2.71±1.02

Putting a noncompliant inmate in restraints into a vehicle while CO iswearing soft body armour and equipment belt

1.43±0.89 1.74±0.83 3.27±1.13

Separating and restraining 2 or more inmates fighting in a washroom(intervene, control, and apply restraints)

1.44±0.89 1.78±0.77 2.78±1.05

Moving a fully restrained, noncompliant inmate to a cell fromAdmitting and Discharge

1.46±0.86 1.97±0.87 2.87±1.21

Separating and restraining 2 inmates fighting in a cell (enter, control,and apply restraints)

1.46±0.92 1.80±0.76 2.73±1.04

Moving a noncompliant inmate in restraints from escort vehicle intocorrections facility

1.47±0.96 1.76±0.82 3.28±1.13

Removing a noncompliant inmate from a vehicle while CO is wearingsoft body armour and equipment belt

1.50±0.94 1.78±0.87 3.37±1.13

Putting a noncompliant inmate in restraints into a cell while CO iswearing full uniform

1.51±0.98 1.96±0.88 2.58±1.07

Moving a noncompliant inmate through Admitting and Discharge aspart of community escort

1.52±1.01 2.02±0.85 2.92±1.21

Lifting, carrying, or transferring a noncompliant inmate (>55 kg) infull restraints from living unit to segregation

1.56±1.0 1.67±0.83 3.05±1.14

Conducting the search of a cell looking for contraband or a missingutensil taking up to 10 min (enter cell, physically handle all cellitems by lifting, shaking, or moving, and examine all surfaces)

1.74±0.94 2.88±0.73 1.86±0.83

Conducting the search of the living unit looking for contraband ormissing utensil, taking up to 2 h (enter cells, physically handle allcell items by lifting, shaking, or moving, and examine all surfaces)

1.64±0.90 2.74±0.77 2.19±0.97

Note: All values represented as means ± standard deviation. The scenarios and list of identified on-the-job tasks were rated by 190 incumbent COs usinga Likert-type 5-point rating scale. The importance of the task or scenario was rated as follows: 1 = critically important (high), 2 = very important,3 = important, 4 = somewhat important, and 5 = not very important (low). The physically demanding nature of the task or scenario was rated as follows:1 = very high demand (high), 2 = high demand, 3 = moderately high demand, 4 = low demand, and 5 = no demand (low). The frequency of the task occurrencewas evaluated thusly: 1 = continuously or daily (high), 2 = frequently or weekly, 3 = occasionally or monthly, 4 = seldom or yearly and 5 = rarely, if ever (low).

54 Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 35, 2010

Published by NRC Research Press

were not perceived as important or essential to fulfill the ob-jectives of the job could not be included, regardless of theirassociated physical demand. However, unless the frequencyof occurrence of a task was extremely low, this was not usedas a sole criterion to exclude tasks. Similarly, a task that washighly important to public safety, had only a modest physi-cal demand, but occurred very frequently was included.

Because female and male COs used from 53% (push pullmales) to 85% (grip strength) of their maximal strengthwhen controlling and restraining inmates during on-the-jobtasks (Table 9), the forces exerted are obviously not thestrength characteristics of female or male COs. The variabil-ity in the amount of force exerted by different COs whilecontrolling and restraining different acting inmates reflectsthe variability in both their perception of and the actual size

and strength of the acting inmates that they were bringingunder control and restraining. Therefore, the forces exertedby the female COs represent the criterion forces required tocontrol and restrain inmates as specified by the Meiorin De-cision (Supreme Court of Canada 1999).

The observed male/female ratio in combined maximalhand grip strength (1:0.64) is similar to the ratio of maximalcombined hand grip strength reported between females(60.2 ± 1.7 kg) and males (99.0 ± 3.3 kg) in the Canadianpopulation (Payne et al. 2000). Maximal push and pullforces observed in the sample (Table 9) are within thepush–pull force ranges (females: 43.6–54.7 kg and males:87.0–105.4 kg) of Canadians of all ages (Payne et al. 2000).Male COs used more force in controlling inmates than didfemale COs for the same inmates (Table 9). As required by

Table 8. Correctional institution size, emergency response, or inmate transfer descriptions and distances, ranked byfrequency of occurrence.

Facility size: emergencyresponse or inmate transfer

Emergency response or inmate transferdescription Distance, m

Frequency ofoccurrenceranking(1 = highest)

Large: emergency response Cell unit 6 to cell unit 5 or 7 60.(16 up stairs) 1Cell unit 10 to cell unit 11 73. 2Front entrance to cell unit 10 or 11 120. 3Front entrance to cell unit 8 or 9 240.(16 up stairs) 4Front entrance to cell unit 6 470.(16 up stairs) 5

Large: inmate transfer Admission and Discharge to segregation 40. 1Admission and Discharge to cell unit 10 or 11 120. 2

Medium: emergency response Admissions and Discharge to cell units 70.(2 long ramps) 1Medium: inmate transfer Admission and Discharge to segregation 40. 1Small: emergency response Admissions and Discharge to cell units 60.(24 up stairs) 1Small: inmate transfer Admission and Discharge to segregation 20. 1

Table 7. Characteristics of the correctional officers who participated in thecharacterization.

Characteristics Male, n = 38 Female, n = 36Age, y 37.6±6.9 32.8±7.6Work experience, y 12±7.0 7.5±5.5Height, m 1.82±0.08 1.71±0.08Mass, kg 95.4±16.8 73.1±13.1Body mass index, kg�m–2 28.7±4.0 25.0±4.0

Demographics, n (%)Racial minorities 4.(10.5) 3.(8.3)Aboriginal persons 4.(10.5) 5.(13.9)Persons with disabilities or constraints 6.(15.8) 6.(16.7)Majority group Caucasians 24.(63.2) 22.(61.1)

Work experience, n (%)<5.y 10.(26.3) 14.(38.8)

5.–10 y 7.(18.4) 15.(41.7)11.–20 y 16.(42.1) 5.(13.9)

>20.y 5.(13.2) 2.(5.6)

Age, n (%)<25.y 1.(2.6) 4.(11.1)

25.–34 y 12.(31.6) 19.(52.7)35.–44 y 18.(47.4) 10.(27.8)

>45.y 7.(18.4) 3.(8.3)

Note: All values represented as means ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

Jamnik et al. 55

Published by NRC Research Press

the Meiorin Decision, the lower on-the-job forces used bysafe and efficient female COs were employed to establishthe forces embodied in the FITCO.

Owing to the small sample sizes, it was not possible tomake statistical inferences regarding differences betweenthe subgroups of COs who participated in the characteriza-tion. However, participants with different ages, years of ex-perience, minority status, and disability or constraint statusfell well within the measured normal distribution.

The _VO2 measured while COs were conducting on-the-job tasks did not differ between female COs (39.5 ±4.3 mL�kg–1�min–1) and male COs (38.5 ± 4.7 mL�kg–1�min–1),although female COs tended to use a longer time to com-plete the tasks (Table 10). That is, despite differences inforce exerted to control inmates, the metabolic cost perunit time of responding to an emergency, controlling, andrestraining and relocating a resisting inmate was similarfor male and female COs. It must be emphasized that theon-the-job _VO2 measurements of the female COs do notrepresent their aerobic fitness characteristics. The 10% co-efficient of variation in the on-the-job _VO2 measurementsamong COs reflects the variability in the size and strengthof the acting inmates involved, the individual differencesin the forces used, and the speed of the emergency pacethat these COs self-selected. As specified by the MeiorinDecision (Supreme Court of Canada 1999), these slightlylower _VO2 measurements of the female COs represent thecriterion energy demands required to respond to an emer-gency call and to control, restrain, and relocate acting in-mates.

Based on the results from the PDA, the findings duringthe characterization, and the feedback received from partici-pating COs during the characterization phase, it was con-cluded that the following 5 essential physical competenciesshould be the basis for the development of the FITCO proto-col: expeditious response, body control, arm restraint, in-mate relocation, and aerobic fitness. The searching of cellswas also identified as an essential job task. Although thesearching of cells does not have a high physical demandand is not conducted at an emergency pace, it received thehighest importance rating and the highest frequency-of-occurrence rating during the PDA. Importantly, feedbackfrom COs during both the PDA and the characterization in-dicated that a number of incumbent COs were unable toperform this task effectively because of limitations instrength and (or) range of motion. Because failure to com-plete, or an ineffective, cell search could result in not find-ing concealed weapons, the inability to conduct this task isa clear threat to personal safety and the safety of a co-worker, an inmate, or the general public. Therefore, it wasconcluded that a cell search simulation should be includedas a component of the FITCO.

ConclusionsThe PDA and characterization were conducted in con-

formity with the principles and guidelines stipulated by theMeiorin Decision and clarified by the BFOR Forum. Thecomponents of the FITCO are based on the on-the-job tasksthat were identified equally by both male and female COs inthe PDA. The FITCO will consist of the following compo-T

able

9.Su

mm

ary

ofth

em

axim

alst

reng

thm

easu

rem

ents

ofm

ale

and

fem

ale

corr

ectio

nal

offi

cers

and

the

forc

esth

atth

eyex

erte

dw

hile

cont

rolli

ngan

dre

stra

inin

gin

mat

es.

Han

dgr

ipfo

rce,

kgA

rmpu

ll–re

trac

tion

forc

e,kg

Upp

erbo

dyfo

rce,

kg

Max

imum

Dur

ing

inm

ate

wri

stho

ldM

axim

umD

urin

gin

mat

ear

mre

trac

tion

Max

imum

Whi

leco

ntro

lling

inm

ates

Gen

der

(n)

Rig

htL

eft

Rig

htL

eft

Rig

htL

eft

Rig

htL

eft

Push

Pull

Push

Pull

Fem

ales

(36)

38.6

±5.

9(3

1.4–

50.9

)36

.4±

5.9

(29.

0–49

.0)

33.2

±6.

8(1

9.5–

44.5

)31

.8±

6.4

(19.

5–41

.4)

46.3

±7.

9(3

6.8–

56.8

)45

.9±

7.5

(33.

2–56

.8)

38.2

±9.

1(2

8.2–

59.0

)36

.4±

6.8

(27.

3–53

.2)

66.4

±14

.1(3

6.8–

100.

0)63

.6±

9.5

(37.

7–86

.4)

44.1

±5.

9(3

5.0–

53.6

)47

.7±

7.7

(31.

4–58

.2)

Mea

nof

fem

ales

a37

.7±

5.9

32.3

±6.

446

.1±

7.7

37.3

±8.

265

.0±

12.3

45.9

±6.

8M

ales

(51)

60.0

±6.

8(4

0.9–

90.0

)56

.4±

8.2

(39.

0–85

.0)

50.0

±7.

3(3

3.2–

59.5

)48

.6±

7.7

(37.

7–75

.9)

63.0

±7.

1(5

4.1–

70.9

)59

.4±

7.5

(51.

5–68

.0)

48.2

±2.

3(2

4.0–

68.2

)45

.9±

12.3

(24.

0–65

.0)

115±

21.4

(87.

7–18

0.0)

109±

16.8

(85.

5–15

5.9)

55.9

±13

.6(3

5.5–

82.3

)64

.1±

15(2

9.0–

79.5

)M

ean

ofm

ales

a57

.7±

8.2

49.1

±7.

761

.2±

7.3

46.8

±12

.311

1.8±

19.7

60.0

±15

Not

e:A

llva

lues

repr

esen

ted

asm

eans

±st

anda

rdde

viat

ion

(ran

ge).

a Rig

htan

dle

ftor

push

and

pull.

56 Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 35, 2010

Published by NRC Research Press

nents: cell search, expeditious response, body control, armrestraint, inmate relocation, and aerobic fitness. The forcesand _VO2 requirements built into the FITCO standards willbe based on the on-the-job performances of safe and effi-cient incumbent female COs.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank Mr. Anthony Streppel for recruiting

and facilitating the participation of the subjects. This projectwas funded by the Ontario Ministry of Community Safetyand Correctional Services.

ReferencesBarr and Flannery v. Treasury Board (Department of National De-

fence). 2006. C.P. S. L. R. B. no. 88, online QL (CSBB). Files166-02-31991 and 166-02-031992. Available from http://pslrb-crtfp.gc.ca/decisions/summaries/2006-85_e.asp. [AccessedOctober 2006.]

Borg, G.A. 1982. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med.Sci. Sports Exerc. 14(5): 377–381. PMID:7154893.

Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms. 2007. Public ServiceCommission of Canada. Available from http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca. [Accessed December 2006.]

Canadian Employment Equity Act. 1995. Public Service Commis-sion of Canada. Available from http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca. [Ac-cessed January 2007.]

Canadian Human Rights Commission. 2007. Bona fide occupa-tional requirements and bona fide justification under the Cana-dian Human Rights Act: the implications of Meiorin andGrismer. Cat. no. HR21–53/2007. Ministry of Public Works andGovernment Services. Available from www.chrc-ccdp.ca. [Ac-cessed March 2007.]

Correction Service Canada Employment Equity Compliance Audit.2002. Available from www.csc-scc.gc.ca. [Accessed December2007.]

Criminal Code of Canada. 2004. Section 217.1 Bill C-45. Availablefrom http://www.cca-acc.com/news/government/billc45/summary.pdf [Accessed January 2006.]

Deakin, J.M., Pelot, R., Smith, T.J., Stevenson, J.M., Wolfe, L.A.,Jaenen, S.P., et al. 1996 Development and validation of bonafide physical performance standard for CF and DND fire fighters.Ergonomics Research Group, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

Eid, E. 2001. Challenges posed by the Supreme Court of Canada inthe Meiorin. In Proceedings of the Consensus Forum on Estab-lishing BONA FIDE Requirements for Physically DemandingOccupations, York University, Toronto, Ont., 13–16 September2000. Edited by N. Gledhill, J. Bonneau, and A. Salmon.pp. 53–61.

Farenholtz, D.W., Rhodes, E.C., and Regimal, M. 1994. Bona fideoccupational medical and physical requirements (standards) forthe occupation of correctional officers. Correctional Services ofCanada. New Reach Consultants Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.

Gillis, A.D., and Darby, B. 2001. To serve and protect, post

Meiorin; an argument for due diligence is an argument for un-due hardship: the liability labyrinth faced by the public safetyemployer in recruitment and retention of competent employees.In Proceedings of the Consensus Forum on Establishing BONAFIDE Requirements for Physically Demanding Occupations,York University, Toronto, Ont., 13–16 September 2000. Editedby N. Gledhill, J. Bonneau, and A. Salmon. pp. 85–111.

Gledhill, N. 1997. Physical readiness evaluation for initial attackforest firefighters (PRE-FIT). Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-sources.

Gledhill, N. 2001. Post Meiorin re-examination of the developmentand validation of the physical readiness evaluation for police(PREP). Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Ser-vices. Commissioned Report, Ont.

Gledhill, N., and Bonneau, J. 2001. Objectives, process and con-sensus summary of the National Forum on Bona Fide Occupa-tional Requirements. In Proceedings of the Consensus Forum onEstablishing BONA FIDE Requirements for Physically Demand-ing Occupations, York University, Toronto, Ont., 13–16 Septem-ber 2000. Edited by N. Gledhill, J. Bonneau and A. Salmon.pp. 1–7.

Gledhill, N., and Jamnik, V.K. 1992a. Characterization of the phy-sical demands of firefighting. Can. J. Sport Sci. 17(3): 207–213.PMID:1325260.

Gledhill, N., and Jamnik, V.K. 1992b. Development and validationof a fitness screening protocol for firefighter applicants. Can. J.Sport Sci. 17(3): 199–206. PMID:1325259.

Gledhill, N., Cox, D., and Jamnik, R. 1994. Endurance athletes’stroke volume does not plateau: major advantage is diastolic func-tion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26(9): 1116–1121. PMID:7808245.

Gledhill, N., Bonneau, J., and Salmon, A. 2001a. Proceedings ofthe Consensus Forum on Establishing BONA FIDE Require-ments for Physically Demanding Occupations. York University,Toronto, Ont., 13–16 September 2000.

Gledhill, N., Jamnik, V., and Shaw, J. 2001b. Establishing a bonafide occupational requirement for physically demanding occupa-tions. In Proceedings of the Consensus Forum on EstablishingBONA FIDE Requirements for Physically Demanding Occupa-tions, York University, Toronto, Ont., 13–16 September 2000.Edited by N. Gledhill, J. Bonneau, and A. Salmon. pp. 9–13.

Hatfield, R. 2005. Duty to accommodate. Just Labour. 5: 23–33.Howley, E.T., Bassett, D.R., Jr., and Welch, H.G. 1995. Criteria for

maximal oxygen uptake: review and commentary. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc. 27(9): 1292–1301. PMID:8531628.

Human Resource Directorate, RCMP NHSPC. 1981. Physical Abil-ities Requirements Evaluation (PARE). Available from www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca. [Accessed January 2007.]

Jackson, A.S. 1994. Preemployment physical evaluation. Exerc.Sport Sci. Rev. 22(1): 53–90. doi:10.1249/00003677-199401000-00005. PMID:7925553.

Jamnik, V.K., and Gledhill, N. 1992. Development of fitnessscreening protocols for physically demanding occupations. Can.J. Sport Sci. 17(3): 222–227. PMID:1325262.

Koller, M., Gledhill, N., Payne, N., Fisher, K., Jamnik, V.K.,Gordon, C., et al. 1999. Evaluation of a new force metre for as-

Table 10. Summary of the physiological measurements recorded while correctional officers were per-forming the most demanding portions of critical on-the-job tasks during the characterization.

Gender (n) VO2, mL�kg–1�min–1 HR, beats�min–1 RPE, 6 to 20 scale Time, sMales (38) 38.5±4.7 (31.4–49.8) 174±11 (155–190) 15±2 (11–20) 74±20 (44–117)Females (36) 39.5±4.3 (31.0–48.4) 177±11 (150–200) 15±2 (12–18) 84±24 (54–149)

Note: All values represented as means ± standard deviation (range). VO2, oxygen consumption; HR, heart rate; RPE,rating of perceived exertion.

Jamnik et al. 57

Published by NRC Research Press

sessing upper body strength. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.31(Suppl. 5): S114.

Kuruganti, U., and Rickards, J. 2004. The role of human factors en-gineering in establishing occupational fitness standards. Interna-tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 34(6): 451–457. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.05.004.

Laursen, P.B., and Jenkins, D.G. 2002. The scientific basis forhigh-intensity interval training: optimising training programmesand maximising performance in highly trained endurance ath-letes. Sports Med. 32(1): 53–73. doi:10.2165/00007256-200232010-00003. PMID:11772161.

Marchant, R., Reed, A.T., Thoden, J.S., and McNeely, E. 1995.Physical screening protocol for correctional officer applicants.Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services ofOntario. Worksafe Inc., St. Catharines, Ont.

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. 2006–2007. Accessibility plan. Available from http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca. [Accessed August 2007.]

Nieman, D.C., Lasasso, H., Austin, M.D., Pearce, S., McInnis, T.,and Unick, J. 2007. Validation of Cosmed’s FitMate in measur-ing exercise metabolism. Res. Sports Med. 15: 67–75. PMID:17365948.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2002. Stevens, C. v. NiagaraRegional Police Services. File No RCHS-3YBQKC.

Payne, N., Gledhill, N., Katzmarzyk, P.T., Jamnik, V., andFerguson, S. 2000. Health implications of musculoskeletal fit-ness. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 25(2): 114–126. PMID:10815849.

Rayson, M.P. 2000. Fitness for work: the need for conducting a jobanalysis. Occup. Med. (London), 50(6): 434–436. PMID:10994247.

Rhodes, E.C., and Farenholtz, D.W. 1992. Police Officer’s PhysicalAbilities Test compared to measures of physical fitness. Can. J.Sport Sci. 17(3): 228–233. PMID:1325263.

Supreme Court of Canada. 1999; British Columbia (Public ServiceEmployee Relations Commission v. BCGSEU), 3 S.C.R. 3(Meiorin Decision).

Thomas, J.R. and Nelson, J.K. 2001. Research methods in physicalactivity. 4th ed. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill.

Williams, D. 2004. Workplace safety and the law. Mariner Life,December. Available from www.williamsandcompany.ca. [Ac-cessed June 2007.]

58 Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Vol. 35, 2010

Published by NRC Research Press