Should the APFT scores be normed on factors other than age and gender?

MAJ (Join to see)

As I considered the question, with the changes being pushed down on the military, I wondered "Should there be any normed factors? IF we are going to bring women into combat arms jobs, maybe we need to gender and age from the equation? Can one meet the requirement? Maybe instead of trying to change the factors for the pegs, we need to look at setting standards for the hole we are placing pegs? Make physical standards for the various jobs?

These other factors include things identified in the Triad of Fitness (sleep, nutrition, activity). They also could be things like elevation, pollution, wind speed and direction, temperature, or other environmental conditions.
I live in Ankara, Turkey, where the elevation is about 1100 meters, where pollution is pretty bad, and where its quite windy. I was previously stationed in Cyprus, which has the worst air pollution in Europe. Things like elevation hugely impact run times; in prep for my last APFT, I was struggling to break the 13:36 I needed for 100 points while running in Ankara; I took the AFPT, though, at Ft. Eustis (elevation: 3 meters) and, purely based on elevation change (and maybe pollution and a couple other factors) in literally a couple days dropped more than 30 seconds from my run time.
We live in an age where we can model just about any condition using scientific methods. Should the Army create an algorithm for APFT scores that accounts for more than just age and gender norming? For example, the Army could say a "standard" APFT is administered at sea level, on a perfectly straight and flat 2-mile course, in a location with zero air pollution, no wind, and at, say, a temperature of 62 degrees...and then build an algorithm to norm the score according to differences. We could also add things like: hours of sleep the night prior (with 9 being ideal, for example) and the average number of hours of sleep per day the previous 30 days; a nutrition factor (if a Soldier was forced to eat MREs for a month prior to the APFT, that really isn't fair to the Soldier); etc, etc.
Or is such an approach just "too hard" for the Army, meaning the non-scientific way we evaluate fitness currently is just fine?
I've previously stated that I believed that APFT scores should be required entries on evaluations. My view is shifting: I think now that I believe the Army is right, that the APFT is really just a PASS/FAIL event, and that scores aren't all that important. Maybe the Army should do away with the score concept in favor of simple pass/fail standards normed by age and gender (and maybe other environmental factors)? Especially if we aren't going to incorporate an assessment of environmental factors into scoring the APFT, I believe it should be a PASS/FAIL event and that we should eliminate the score tables in favor of simple PASS/FAIL raw scores normed by age and gender.

is the APFT really broken? why do we strive to make it so? for the last 17 years i have heard how we need to change the APFT but not once have i seen the Army act on fixing the tape test.

Really interesting question, and one I think raises a valid point.

That being said, I think we would lose "standardization" if we added more variables.

The simple answer is yes. The more complex answer is, "how would we do it based on all the variables?"

You bring up a great point regarding altitude in your post below (the USMC has an adjusted run portion for that). Table 2-8 (19:30 3 mile run vs 18:00 3 mile run at sea level)

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCO%206100.13%20W_CH%201.pdf

You also bring up a great point regarding HEAT. to simplify the math a bit, the "optimal" running temperature is "about" 50~ degrees F. For every 20 degrees above that, we burn TWICE as much energy to perform the same task at the same level. That means if you run a mile at 6:00, it takes TWCE as much energy on a 70deg day as it does on a 50deg day if you are at the same fitness level. And FOUR TIMES on a 90deg day. (The USMC runs our PFT in the Winter and Summer....)

As for pollution... I'm not sure how we can reasonably account for that variable. I'm not saying it can't be done, just how it can reasonably be done.

My "major" gripe with our (A)PFT system is that it promotes a "Strong But Dumb" Leadership style. I'll probably get a lot of "Lead from the Front" responses regarding that comment, and I absolutely agree that people should lead from the front... however Leadership in and of itself is NOT a Physical Skill/Trait. It has LINKS to physicality, and has benefits from the physical, but they are all indirect).

Additionally, we give WAY TOO MUCH weight to the (A)PFT for promotion, and have allowed Leadership to apply additional Subjective Standards in addition to the listed Objection Standards that already exist. On the various posts you will hear comments about "I wouldn't recommend anyone with a XXX PFT Score" even though the score is part of a composite point total (Total Soldier Program). As I said, it gives "undue weight to a specific aspect of performance."

This is not to say Physical Fitness is not important, it absolutely is. And we absolutely should incentivize it. However we currently allow Subjectivity into the process.

As MAJ (Join to see) stated in his post, we would probably be better with a simple Pass/Fail system, even if it was a MUCH harder test which took an entire day to complete.

Why are there APFT scores? If they are variable, will assignments be conditional based on scores? No, there should be properly evaluated requirements needed to complete all assigned duties of your branch of service. No exceptions to something that could result in not achieving the mission.

And this is why I would like a one standard chart for everyone regardless of age or gender one army standard with some units and or MOS's with additional standards/requirements.

Leave as them as they are, a person needs to stay fit , so try to run every day to put the body in shape for the run.