Originally Posted by noisebeam
Keep in mind that one does not need to score 100% to be competent with this specific test. 70% and above is considered competent. Given this it makes sense to have nuances to cycling skill as part of the test. Some may not have the 'correct' cadence, but make up for the gap in other ways. If the test only scored the very basic, then the results would not be in a 'bell curve' type distribution.
It is also just one test, not THE test. JF put time and effort into creating it - if folks object, spend the time to develop a different test. In many (but not all) disciplines there are a often variety of tests each with their pros/cons.
I don't object to the Forester test. I object to those who draw any significance from the test subjects' score.
What does a 70% or 100% or even a zero% score signify? Not a bloody thing except to Forester and his accomplices, who fantasize that it correlates with anything else.
The grade doesn't mean a dang thing. It is no indicator of past, present or future cycling behavior; nor is it a measure of accomplishment, skill, or competence, except as defined by Forester and pals.