Evaluating NFPA 1580 and NFPA 1582 Occupational Readiness Standards Via Physiological Profiling and Discriminative Analyses

Authors

Taylor Benard, Sam Houston State UniversityFollow
Regan Lariviere, Sam Houston State UniversityFollow
Michael Conner, Bond UniversityFollow
Micheil Spillane, Sam Houston State UniversityFollow
Steven E. Martin, Texas A&M University, College StationFollow
Drew E. Gonzalez, Sam Houston State UniversityFollow

Abstract

Firefighters are currently assessed using NFPA 1582 standards based on job-specific aerobic capacity. Recent shifts to broad percentile categories raise concerns that these criteria may be less strict and misclassify firefighters as fit. As more are deemed ready, there's worry that lowering fitness thresholds could weaken high-risk readiness screening occupation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how effectively NFPA 1580 and NFPA 1582 occupational readiness standards stratify firefighter fitness and discriminate pass/fail status using physiological and performance-based measures. METHODS: Archival data from annual clinical tests on 144 FFs were analyzed. FFs were classified per NFPA standards 1580 and 1582 using medical and fitness criteria: NFPA 1580 based on percentiles and NFPA 1582 on estimated METs. Ordinal NFPA categories were used for group analysis; binary pass/fail variables for classification. GLMs compared performance outcomes across classifications and measured separation with partial eta squared (ηp2). ROC curves evaluated the ability of individual variables to classify FFs as pass/fail, comparing AUC, confidence intervals, sensitivity, and specificity standards. RESULTS: GLM multivariate analysis revealed statistically significant Wilk’s Lambda for the NFPA 1582 (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.480) and 1580 (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.328). Regarding NFPA 1582, univariate analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the occupational readiness classifications for cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) time-to-exhaustion (TTE) (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.819), VO₂max (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.829), sit-ups (p = 0.001, η_p² = 0.204), and push-ups (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.311). Regarding NFPA 1580, univariate analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the occupational readiness CPET TTE (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.479), VO₂max (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.500), sit-ups (p = 0.001, η_p² = 0.103), and push-ups (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.175). Statistically significant and outstanding (i.e., AUC >0.9) ROC curves were found for NFPA 1582 (AUC = 1.000, p <0.001) and NFPA 1580 (AUC = 0.894, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that while the broader percentile-based approach in NFPA 1580 may lessen screening sensitivity in this high-risk demographic, the MET-based criteria in NFPA 1582 more effectively identify real occupational readiness.

Recommended Citation

Benard, Taylor; Lariviere, Regan; Conner, Michael; Spillane, Micheil; Martin, Steven E.; and Gonzalez, Drew E. (2026) "Evaluating NFPA 1580 and NFPA 1582 Occupational Readiness Standards Via Physiological Profiling and Discriminative Analyses," International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 2: Iss. 18, Article 213.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol2/iss18/213