Development of a performance assessment tool for

European Journal of Sport Science, May 2009; 9(3): 159
167

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Development of a performance assessment tool for rock climbers

SIMON BRENT1, NICK DRAPER2, CHRISTOPHER HODGSON1, & GAVIN BLACKWELL2 1

Centre for Sports Science and Medicine, University of Chichester, Chichester, UK, and 2School of Sciences and Physical Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract Rock climbing is a popular adventure sport for which there is a growing body of scientific knowledge. There is, however, a lack of sport-specific assessment tools to monitor performance. The aim of this study was to examine the potential of the rock-over climbing test (ROCT) as a measure of climbing performance. The ROCT was conducted on a climbaflex board and involved the climber making a rock-over move for which the height gained from lower to upper handhold was measured. Results indicated there was a significant relationship between scaled (to the height of the climber) ROCT scores and climbing ability (r0.67, P B0.0005). Regression modelling revealed that the ROCT explained 45% of the variance in scores between climbers. The ROCT differentiated between climber ability levels. Mean ROCT scores for novice, intermediate, advanced, and elite climbers were 59.5%, 71%, 82%, and 90% of participant height respectively. Results of analysis of variance revealed that these differences were significant (F3,42 13.38, P B0.0005). Limits of agreement and intra-class correlation indicated that the ROCT is a reliable performance measure. Our findings suggest that the ROCT is a useful measure of climbing performance.

Keywords: Performance, rock climbing, fitness assessment, skill, rock-over

Introduction The popularity of rock climbing and the research base for the sport have grown in parallel. The earliest paper relating to the science of climbing dates back to the 1970s and, perhaps ahead of its time, concerned biochemical aspects of the sport (Williams, Taggart, & Carruthers, 1978). Since then, most studies have concentrated on the physiological basis for performance, covering such aspects as performer profiles, local muscular fatigue, injuries, and the bioenergetics of climbing (Billat, Palleja, Charlaix, Rizzardo, & Janel, 1995; Bollen, 1988; Bollen & Gunson, 1990; Booth, Marino, Hill, & Gwinn, 1999; Draper, Bird, Coleman, & Hodgson, 2006; Grant, Hynes, Whittaker, & Aitchison, 1996; Grant et al., 2001; Mermier, Janot, Parker, & Swann, 2000; Mermier, Robergs, McMinn, & Heyward, 1997; Sheel, Seddon, Knight, McKenzie, & Warburton, 2003; Wall, Starek, Fleck, & Byrnes, 2004; Watts, Martin, & Durtschi, 1993; Wright, Royle, & Marshall, 2000).

A number of studies have focused on the psychology of the sport and, most recently, cross-disciplinary research has started to examine the psychophysiology of rock climbers (Hardy & Hutchinson, 2007; Draper et al., 2008a; Draper, Jones, Fryer, Hodgson, & Blackwell, 2008b). The growth of the research base for climbing has led to the publication of three reviews of literature (Giles, Rhodes, & Taunton, 2006; Sheel, 2004; Watts, 2004). To date, there has been less of a research focus on performance for rock climbing, the development of sport-specific performance assessment instruments, and the basis behind performance improvement. As a consequence, rock climbers have employed fitness training and assessment techniques based almost entirely on ideas and methods adapted from other mainstream sports such as athletics, gymnastics, and power lifting (Gresham, 2007). From this basis, training principles for the sport have been developed, but these are largely based on evolved myth and anecdote, or from the trial-and-error experience of

Correspondence: N. Draper, School of Sciences and Physical Education, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. E-mail: nick.draper@canterbury.ac.nz ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2009 European College of Sport Science DOI: 10.1080/17461390902741132

160

S. Brent et al.

elite climbers. These principles have been formalized through the publication of training and coaching manuals, as well as being the focus of many climbing magazine articles (Binney & McClure, 2006; Bollen, 1994; Fyffe & Peter, 1990; Goddard & Neumann, 1993; Gresham, 2007; Ho¨rst, 2003; Sagar & Sagar, 2001). Draper and Hodgson (2008) produced a summary of the physiological components for performance that had been identified most commonly in climbing literature and examined the commonality between writers. It is of interest to note that, although the terminology used differs between authors, many of these texts identify four key components to successful climbing performance (Berry & McClure, 2006; Bollen, 1994; Goddard & Neumann, 1993; Kascenska, Dewitt, & Roberts, 1992; Peter, 2004; Richardson, 2001; Sagar & Sagar, 2001). These key areas for successful climbing performance are strength, power, endurance, and flexibility. In terms of skilful climbing, writers have identified a number of climbing-specific techniques that enable smooth and economical ascents (Berry & McClure, 2006; Bollen, 1994; Goddard & Neumann, 1993; Peter, 2004; Sagar & Sagar, 2001). These include moves such as bridging, twist-locking, Egyptians, dynos, and rock-overs. The ability to perform a ‘‘rock-over’’ move has been identified as an important component of a climber’s movement repertoire (Ho¨rst, 2003; Richardson, 2001). A rock-over involves a climber placing one foot on a higher foothold, transferring most of their mass to the higher foothold, and then pressing out the newly loaded leg to reach a higher handhold. To complete a rock-over, the climber must move their hips from over the lower leg to above the upper leg, thereby transferring (rocking-over) their mass to the higher placed foot. A rock-over requires a combination of flexibility (to reach and load the upper foothold) and strength (to pull-push on the starting handholds and press-out the rock-over to reach a higher handhold). Flexibility and strength represent two of the four fitness components consistently identified by climbers as fundamental to successful climbing performance. Consequently, the rock-over represents a climbing movement that could be harnessed to develop a sport-specific performance measure that efficiently assesses both fitness components. Each of the reviews of climbing physiology research highlighted the need to develop sport-specific performance measures (Giles et al., 2006; Sheel, 2004; Watts, 2004). This work will enable future studies to examine the criteria essential to successful climbing performance and the efficacy of proposed training methods. The sports specificity of the rockover move and the availability of a test apparatus that would enable the re-creation of the move in a

laboratory setting provided an opportunity for the development of a rock climbing performance measure. The aim of this study was to develop a sportspecific performance test based on the rock-over move, and subsequently to assess its validity and reliability for rock climbing. Methods A panel of five expert climbers joined with the research team to develop a novel test of climbing performance, which became known as the rock-over climbing test (ROCT). The expert climbers consulted for the study had between 14 and 25 years experience in climbing and instruction. Two were current elite competition climbers, with route-setting experience, and the remaining three had Mountain Instructor Award (British Mountaineering Council) qualifications as a minimum. The ROCT was developed on a climbaflex board, which had previously been used to assess flexibility for climbers. A schematic representation of the climbaflex is provided in Figure 1. As can be seen from this diagram and from the sequence of photographs in Figure 2, the backboard for the climbaflex was designed using existing climbing wall technology. The adjustable foothold frame, however, was specially designed to allow the foothold to be moved in both vertical and horizontal planes to enable precise placement for each climber. To evaluate the effectiveness of the ROCT, two experiments were conducted to assess its validity and reliability. Participants The participants for each of the experiments were drawn from local climbing clubs and were fully acquainted with the nature of the study. The climbers in each of the experiments were active climbers and had a mean (9s) climbing experience of 593 years. Each climber was informed that they could leave at any stage, gave written informed consent, and completed a health history questionnaire before participation. Ethical approval for both experiments was obtained from the University of Chichester Ethics Committee. Climbing ability assessment To examine the validity of the ROCT, it was necessary to ascertain the climbing ability of each of the participants. A climbing ability conversion table (Table I) was created to enable each climber to record their highest grade ascent for sport climbing, traditional climbing, and bouldering. The study scores for the table were established through consultation with the five expert climbers who assisted

Performance assessment for rock climbing

20mm Birch Ply boards

'Mirrored' layout for LEFT Handed Climbers

RIGHT Handed Climbers

Upper

3850 mm

3650 mm

Machined Slots

2565 mm

2410 mm

CLIMBING WALL

Adjustable Lower Handholds

Handholds

(Through baseboard)

1435 mm

Adjustable Foothold Frame

MINIMUM

Max

MAXIMUM

Min

Foothold Adjustment

Foothold Height

Footholds

300 mm

100mm x 50mm Battens

600 mm 1740 mm

Title: Date:

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the climbaflex test apparatus.

Climbing Flexibility Rig 13th December 2006

161

162

S. Brent et al.

F B T

C E D

A

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Figure 2. The sequence for the rock-over climbing test.

with the development of the climbaflex. The overall grade ascribed to a climber was taken from the discipline that corresponded to the highest study score (column 2). Climbing ability study scores ranged from 1 to 14 (where 14 is a high score). The scale of 1
14 was decided upon after the other climbing grade system had been equated. As Table I indicates, the divisions across systems naturally fell into 14 categories, which we numbered sequentially. The climbers were then categorized as novice (study score 1
2), intermediate (3
5), advanced (6
9), and elite (10
14). The boundary for each category was also set after advice from the expert climbers. The four categories of climbing ability were introduced for this study in recognition of the difficulties that have arisen in previous research in which climbers have been reported as either elite or recreational (Grant et al., 1996, 2001; Schoeffl, Klee, & Strecker, 2004; Schweizer & Furrer, 2007). It was the belief of the expert climbers and the researcher team for this study that a wider range of climber ability needed to be recognized.

Anthropometric data A portable stadiometer (Cranlea Instruments, Birmingham, UK) was used to measure the height and mass of each climber. The method described by Lohman and colleagues (Lohman, Roche, & Martorell, 1991) was used to identify each climber’s biacromial breadth, and percent body fat was assessed by the method of McCarthy and colleagues (McCarthy, Cole, Fry, & Jebb, 2006) using a Tanita BC-418MA body composition analyser (Tanita Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The methods reported by Grant et al. (1996) and Lohman et al. (1991) were used to measure leg and arm spans respectively. Ape index, the difference between arm span and height, as reported by Mermier et al. (2000), was calculated from arm span and height data.

Warm-up Before completion of the ROCT, each climber followed a climbing-specific warm-up. The warm-up

Table I. Climbing ability conversion table

Climbing level

Study score

Sport grade

British technical grade

Fontainebleau bouldering grade

Yosemite decimal system

Novice

1 2

54 5

54b 4c

54 4

55.8 5.9

Intermediate

3 4 5

5 6a to 6a 6b

5a 5b/5c 5c

5 5 6a

5.10a 5.10b to 5.10c 5.10d

Advanced

6 7 8 9

6b to 6c 7a to 7b 7b to 7c 7c

5c/6a 6a/6b 6b/6c 6c

6a 6b to 6b 6c to 6c 7a to 7a

5.11a to 5.11c 5.11d to 5.12b 5.12c to 5.12d 5.13a

8a 8a to 8b 8b to 8c 8c ]9a

6c/7a 6c/7a 7a/7b 7b 7b

7b to 7b 7c to 7c 8a to 8a 8b to 8b 8c to 8c

5.13b 5.13c to 5.13d 5.14a to 5.14b 5.14c ]5.14d

Elite

10 11 12 13 14

Performance assessment for rock climbing protocol was adapted from the methods proposed by Binney and McClure (2006), Gresham (2007), Maud and Foster (1995), and Tenke and Higgins (1999). The warm-up consisted of an aerobic component followed by mobilizing exercises. The warm-up began with 7 min of walking and jogging followed by 10 min of general mobilizing and 5 min of specific mobilizing exercises. Then, each participant completed climbing moves specific to the test. These included finding the adjustable foothold height for the test (explained in detail in the next section) and completing three practice trials of the test movement with the adjustable foothold set at 85 cm (minimum height for this foothold) to re-familiarize the participant with the ROCT movement sequence. The rock-over climbing test Before taking part in the study, the participants attended three separate pre-assessment sessions to familiarize them with the movements required for the ROCT. The movement sequence for the ROCT is shown in Figure 2. To make the ROCT more realistic to the sport, each climber started from an active ‘‘on-the-rockface’’ start position (Figure 2.1). The starting hand and footholds for each participant were set apart by the biacromial breadth for each climber (A) and set at the participant’s height (B). The sequence of photographs in Figure 2 shows the two parts of movement in a rock-over move. From the active start position, the climber has to transfer their weight on to the adjustable foothold (C), target a finishing hold (Figure 2.3), and then reach up to grasp a finishing hold (Figure 2.4). The height for the adjustable foothold (D) was set by first assessing the maximum height at which each climber could load the hold
moving from the starting position to transfer their weight on the adjustable hold
with most of their weight on their right foot and their hips above the loaded foot (illustrated by the movement from Figure 2.1 to Figure 2.2). For the ROCT, the adjustable foothold was set at 80% of the loading maximum height (D). This was judged by the expert climbers to be the optimum height for the climber to reach their true ROCT maximum. From the loaded position (Figure 2.2), the climber initiated the second phase of the movement, a vertical drive upwards, brought about through extension of the right leg while reaching with the right arm for a targeted upper handhold (campus rung). This drive phase had to be conducted in a controlled manner for the climber to maintain their position on the wall and be able to grasp the upper hold. The test movement was complete when the climber held one of the campus rungs from the upper handholds (Figure 2.4). Throughout the second movement (the reach), the climber’s left hand had to remain in

163

contact with the initial left handhold (E). The test measure was taken from the top of the start handhold to the top of the held campus rung (F). The ROCT score for each climber (F) was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm. The whole test movement was completed by each participant in approximately 5
10 s and as a consequence the ROCT can be seen as a short-duration test of conjoint strength and flexibility in a vertical plane. The ‘‘held’’ end position was maintained for a count of two after which the climber safely dismounted onto a landing mat having been spotted throughout. The test was repeated until the climber had reached their maximum height on the climbaflex (i.e. reached the highest upper rung they could hold).

Experiment 1: Test validity Participants The participants for Experiment 1 consisted of 46 climbers (34 males and 12 females: 5 novice, 23 intermediate, 15 advanced, and 3 elite climbers) with a mean (9s) climbing ability rating of 5.392.5 points. The mean (9s) age, height, biacromial breadth, mass, and percent body fat of the participants was 24.097.2 years, 1.7590.08 m, 43.193 cm, 70.4910.8 kg, and 15.996.7% respectively. The participants had mean (9s) leg and arm spans of 1.2790.11 m and 1.7990.10 m respectively, and a resultant ape index of 494.0 cm. Procedure In Experiment 1, the participants were required to attend one ROCT assessment session. Each participant agreed to refrain from maximal exertion and alcohol for at least 48 h before testing. Before attending the test session, each climber attended the three required practice sessions. The participants followed the warm-up protocol described above, and the preparation testing exercise required to identify 80% of their maximal foothold loading height, before completing the ROCT. Statistical analysis Before further statistical analysis, all variables were assessed for normality of distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Due to the influence of height on the score achieved, raw and scaled (to the height of each participant) scores were analysed. The scaled score was obtained by expressing the distance measured as a percentage of height. Pearson product
moment correlation coefficients were calculated to identify the relationship between climbing abilities and score on the ROCT. Then, regression modelling

164

S. Brent et al. Climbing Ability (Study Score)

was employed to identify the predictive possibilities of the ROCT. Finally, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons was calculated to assess differences between ability groups for the ROCT. All statistical analyses were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2000 and SPSS 12.0.01 for Windows. Statistical significance was set at P B0.05 (two-tailed).

The participants for Experiment 2 consisted of 21 climbers (13 males and 8 females; 10 intermediate, 9 advanced, and 2 elite) with a mean (9s) climbing ability rating of 5.092.0 points. The mean (9s) age, height, biacromial breadth, mass, and percent body fat of the participants was 22.497.1 years, 1.7490.08 m, 42.693.2 cm, 67.899.3 kg, and 16.496.9% respectively. The participants had mean (9s) leg and arm spans of 1.2990.08 m and 1.789 0.09 m respectively, and a resultant ape index of 3.593.7 cm. Procedure For the second experiment, 21 of the climbers who participated in Experiment 1 agreed to attend a second test session that was at least 7 days but within 14 days of the first trial. Each participant agreed not to alter their training regime between the trials and to refrain from maximal exertion and alcohol for at least 48 h before testing. Before completing the ROCT, each climber completed the warm-up as described above, with the second test session being identical to the first. Statistical analysis The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess normality of distribution for all variables in Experiment 2. Descriptive statistics, means, and standard deviations were calculated before assessment of the reliability of the ROCT. The limits of agreement method of Altman and Bland (1983) was used to confirm repeatability between test scores (score 1 and 2). To establish test
retest reliability, the limits of agreement between the test scores for the ROCT were identified using a 95% sample confidence interval. From this, the upper and lower limits of the population confidence intervals were calculated. The Altman and Bland limits of agreement were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2000. In addition, to enable further analysis of the data, the intra-class correlation coefficient across trials was determined, as suggested by Bland and Altman (1999).

14 12 10 8 6 4 y = 0.15x - 5.44 R2 = 0.45

2 0 50

Experiment 2: Test reliability Participants

16

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Scaled ROCT Score (% of Height)

Figure 3. Regression model for the rock-over climbing test using the scaled scores against climbing ability.

Results Experiment 1 Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that all variables in Experiment 1 displayed normality of distribution. The mean (9s) ROCT raw scores and scaled scores were 130.5921.0 cm and 74.69 11.6% respectively. There was a significant Pearson product
moment correlation between scores on the ROCT and climbing ability (raw score: r 0.61, P B0.0005; scaled score: r 0.67, PB0.0005). These results indicate that the most appropriate measure to use for the subsequent analyses was the ROCT scaled scores. The scaled score on the ROCT was therefore used for the regression analysis and ANOVA. The regression model for the ROCT scores and climbing ability can be seen in Figure 3. The regression equation for the model was y 0.15x 5.44 (R2 0.45) and the standard error of estimate was 1.88%. By using scaled scores of the ROCT, it was possible to explain 45% of the variance in climbing ability. The mean (9s) ROCT raw and scaled scores for the novice, intermediate, advanced, and elite climbing groups are shown in Table II. The trend was as expected, with mean ROCT scores improving with climbing ability. Results of ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference between the groups (F3,42 13.38, P B0.0005). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons indicated that elite climbers scored Table II. Mean (9SD) raw scores and scaled scores on the ROCT for climbers of differing ability Climbing ability

Raw score (cm)

Scaled score (%)

Novice Intermediate Advanced Elite

100.6 (11.13) 124.89 (18.81) 144.93 (15.56) 152.5 (8.18)

59.48 71.03 82.06 89.97

a

(6.52)a,b,c (9.53)a,b (8.11) (3.72)

Significantly lower scores than elite climbers (P B0.005). Significantly lower scores than advanced climbers (PB0.0005). c Significantly lower score than intermediate climbers (P B0.01). b

Differences Between Scores (cm)

Performance assessment for rock climbing 95% confidence interval Upper and lower limits of agreement

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

Mean of Scores for Trials 1 and 2 (cm)

Figure 4. Limits of agreement for trials 1 and 2 of the ROCT.

significantly better than the novices (P B0.0005) and intermediates (P 0.001). Advanced climbers scored significantly higher than novices (P B0.0005) and intermediate climbers (PB0.0005), and intermediate climbers scored significantly better than the novices (P0.01). There was a 7.9% difference in the mean scaled ROCT scores for the elite and advanced climbers; however, the results of the Tukey HSD test found this to be non-significant.

Experiment 2 Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that all study variables displayed normality of distribution. The mean (9s) score for the ROCT in trials 1 and 2 were 125922 cm and 133919 cm respectively (n 21). The limits of agreement plot for the ROCT is shown in Figure 4. Although there was a significant improvement in mean scores between trials 1 and 2 (P B0.05), the Altman and Bland plots indicated relatively close agreement between the two trials. The intra class correlation coefficient was 0.90, which indicated good reliability between the trials. Further examination of the raw data indicated that there were five intermediate climbers who had large (20
30 cm) improvements in scores between the trials. The significant difference between scores for trials 1 and 2 was affected by the results of these participants.

Discussion The participants in our experiments generally showed similar characteristics to those in previous studies of elite and recreational climbers (Grant et al., 1996, 2001). The advanced male climbers in the present study had similar mean scores for height, mass, and percent body fat to the elite climbers in the study by Grant et al. (1996), as did the intermediate and novice climbers when compared with the recreational climbers in the same study. The elite male climbers in our experiment, however, were shorter and had lower body mass and percent body fat than

165

the elite climbers studied by Grant et al. (1996). Likewise, the advanced female climbers had similar biographical data to those reported for the elite climbers in the study by Grant et al. (2001) and the novice and intermediate climbers matched the recreational climbers. The use of four categories for reporting climbing ability, as used in the present study, does appear justified, as the elite climbers in our study appear to represent a different population than those reported previously to be elite. The mean scaled scores, although non-significantly different from those of the advanced climbers, were 7.9% higher than those achieved by the advanced climbers. This compares well with the 11% difference between the mean scores for the intermediate and advanced climbers. With a greater number of elite participants, this difference might have proved significant. Further research with a larger sample of elite climbers would help to examine more closely possible differences between advanced and elite climbers, and the potential of the ROCT to differentiate these groups. The results of Experiment 1 indicate the ROCT was able to differentiate between climber abilities. In other words, the higher the ability of the climber, the better they scored on the ROCT. The significant differences in ROCT scores for the climbing ability groups (novice, intermediate, advanced, and elite climbers) suggest the test is a valid measure of this aspect of climbing performance. The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the ROCT can provide a reliable assessment tool for use with rock climbers. The results of the limits of agreement assessment and intra-class correlation indicated that the ROCT had good reliability. These results were influenced, however, by the improvement of five intermediate climbers in particular between trials. Our findings suggest that, despite the practice sessions conducted before the experiment, there was still a learning effect for these climbers. For future studies, where the test is to be used with intermediate climbers, a longer habituation phase may be necessary. The results for the novice, advanced, and elite climbers were in closer agreement between trials. Taken together, the results of the present study indicate that the ROCT provides a valid and reliable measure of specific climbing performance. Sheel (2004) and Watts (2004) indicated the need for such assessment instruments and the ROCT provides a measure that can help to fill this void. The limb length and height of climbers have an impact on climbing performance. It is for this reason that previous studies have taken height together with arm and leg span into account when assessing such variables as flexibility (Grant et al., 1996; Mermier et al., 2000). Test development work prior to our experiments indicated that scaling scores to participant height, rather than other scaling measures,

166

S. Brent et al.

produced scores that were valid and reliable as well as simple to calculate. Scaled ROCT scores were therefore used for ANOVA and regression modelling. The results of the ANOVA post-hoc testing indicated that the ROCT was able to distinguish between climbing abilities. It is for this reason that we suggest that ROCT scores be reported scaled to the height of each climber in future studies. The development of the ROCT as a sport-specific measure of performance, conjointly assessing more than one component of fitness, is not unique to rock climbing. Physiologists concerned with measuring sport-specific performance improvement have developed a number of tests to assess athlete improvement. The British Canoe Union developed the 20
100 test as a measure of power and anaerobic capacity for slalom kayakers (Edge, 2006). British Judo developed a 6 150-m row as a measure of these components for elite judoka (Draper & Hodgson, 2008). The line drill is a popular test of agility and anaerobic endurance used in basketball and by a wide variety of athletes and sports (Harman, Garhammer, & Pandorf, 2000). Data from the Wingate anerobic test can be used to provide information about an athlete’s power and anaerobic endurance (Maud & Foster, 1995). Not all these tests, however, have been assessed for validity and reliability. The need for performance tests to be valid and reliable is self-evident, if they are to be useful measures of training programme success. The ROCT represents a sport-specific performance measure that has undergone such an assessment process. The purpose of the present research was to examine the usefulness of the ROCT as a performance measure for future rock climbing studies. The results of our experiments indicate that the ROCT is a valid and reliable measure of climbing performance. It would appear that the ROCT is a useful performance measure for future research; however, in making this suggestion, we recognize that it is primarily a sport-specific measure of strength and flexibility. Although strength and flexibility are considered vital components to successful performance, the importance of power and endurance to rock climbing is also widely recognized. Through the use of the ROCT it was possible to explain 45% of the variance in scores for the climbers. While this is a positive finding, and reflects the value of the ROCT, it also leaves 55% of the variance unexplained. This is not necessarily a weakness in the ROCT, but an indication of the importance of power and endurance to climbing performance. This finding further highlights the need to develop a number of sportspecific tests to assess climbing performance. The development of climbing-specific measures of power and endurance would be a useful direction for future research (Giles et al., 2006; Sheel, 2004; Watts, 2004). Subsequent studies could then focus on the

efficacy of training programmes that have been proposed as methods for improving climbing performance. The ROCT could be used as one of a battery of sport-specific tests to assess improvement in performance over time. The present study included only a small number of elite climbers and an extension to the existing research would be to further develop the ROCT with larger samples of elite climbers. To facilitate this process, a portable version of the ROCT may be beneficial for accessing elite climbers in future studies.

Conclusion The rock-over climbing test was designed as a sportspecific performance measure based on the conjoint assessment of strength and flexibility. The results of this study indicate that the ROCT provides a performance assessment tool that can differentiate between climbers of different abilities. In addition, limits of agreement and intra-class correlation coefficients indicate the test has good repeatability. Taken together, our findings suggest that the ROCT is a valid and reliable measure of performance for rock climbing. Researchers interested in rock climbing could use the ROCT as one of a battery of tests to assess climbing ability. This would be especially important in studies where the focus is on improvement in performance. Additional measures in a battery of tests for rock climbers should include assessment of power and power endurance abilities. The development of valid and reliable tests to assess these components of fitness is perhaps a necessary next stage in the field.

References Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1983). Measurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician, 3, 307
317. Berry, A., & McClure, S. (2006). Sport climbing: The positive approach to improving your climbing. Sheffield, UK: RockFax Ltd. Billat, V., Palleja, P., Charlaix, T., Rizzardo, P., & Janel, N. (1995). Energy specificity of rock climbing and aerobic capacity in competitive sport rock climbers. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 35, 20
24. Binney, D., & McClure, S. (2006). Aerobic and anaerobic power: Power endurance. Climb, 26, 64
66. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999). Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 135
160. Bollen, S. R. (1988). Soft tissue injury in extreme rock climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 22, 145
147. Bollen, S. (1994). Training for rock climbing. London: Pelham Books. Bollen, S. R., & Gunson, C. K. (1990). Hand injuries in competition climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, 16
18.

Performance assessment for rock climbing Booth, J., Marino, F., Hill, C., & Gwinn, T. (1999). Energy cost of sport rock climbing in elite performers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 14
18. Draper, N., Bird, E., Coleman, I., & Hodgson, C. (2006). Effects of active recovery on lactate concentration, heart rate and RPE in climbing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 5, 97
105. Draper, N., & Hodgson, C. (2008). Adventure sport physiology. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Draper, N., Hodgson, C. I., McMorris, T., Jones, G., Fryer, S., & Coleman, I. (2008a). Perceived anxiety and plasma cortisol concentrations following rock climbing with differing safetyrope protocols. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 14
18. Draper, N., Jones, G., Fryer, S., Hodgson, C., & Blackwell, G. (2008b). Effect of an on-sight lead on the physiological and psychological responses to rock climbing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 7, 492
498. Edge, A. (2006). Canoe slalom racing. In British Canoe Union coaching handbook (pp. 319
348). Caernarfon, UK: Pesda Press. Fyffe, A., & Peter, I. (1990). The handbook of climbing. London: Pelham Books. Giles, L. T., Rhodes, E. C., & Taunton, J. E. (2006). The physiology of rock climbing. Sports Medicine, 36, 529
545. Goddard, D., & Neumann, U. (1993). Performance rock climbing. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Grant, S., Hasler, T., Davies, C., Aitchison, T. C., Wilson, J., & Whittaker, A. (2001). A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 499
505. Grant, S., Hynes, V., Whittaker, A., & Aitchison, T. (1996). Anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite and recreational climbers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 301
309. Gresham, N. (2007). Training and technique for climbers of all levels. Climber, 12, 78
80. Hardy, L., & Hutchinson, A. (2007). Effects of performance anxiety on effort and performance in rock climbing: A test of processing efficiency theory. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 147
161. Harman, E., Garhammer, J., & Pandorf, C. (2000). Administration, scoring, and test interpretation of selected tests. In T. R. Baechle & R. W. Earle (Eds.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning (pp. 287
317). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ho¨rst, E. J. (2003). Training for climbing: The definitive guide to improving your climbing performance. Guildford, CT: Falcon Press. Kascenska, J. R., Dewitt, J., & Roberts, T. (1992). Fitness guidelines for rock climbing students. Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance, 63, 73
79. Lohman, T. G., Roche, A. F., & Martorell, R. (1991). Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

167

Maud, P. J., & Foster, C. (1995). Physiological assessment of human fitness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. McCarthy, H. D., Cole, T. J., Fry, T., & Jebb, S. A. (2006). Body fat reference curves for children. International Journal of Obesity, 30, 598
602. Mermier, C. M., Janot, J. M., Parker, D. L., & Swann, J. G. (2000). Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 359
366. Mermier, C. M., Robergs, R. A., McMinn, S. M., & Heyward, V. H. (1997). Energy expenditure and physiological responses during indoor rock climbing. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 224
228. Peter, L. (2004). Rock climbing: Essential skills and techniques. Capel Curig, UK: Mountain Leader Training. Richardson, A. (2001). Rock climbing for instructors. Marlborough, UK: Crowood Press. Sagar, H. R., & Sagar, N. (2001). Climbing your best: Training to maximize your performance. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Schoeffl, V., Klee, S., & Strecker, W. (2004). Evaluation of physiological standard pressures of the forearm flexor muscles during sport specific ergometry in sport climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 422
425. Schweizer, A., & Furrer, M. (2007). Correlation of forearm strength and sport climbing performance. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 15, 211
216. Sheel, A. W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock climbing. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 355
359. Sheel, A. W., Seddon, N., Knight, A., McKenzie, D. C., & Warburton, D. E. (2003). Physiological responses to indoor rock-climbing and their relationship to maximal cycle ergometry. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35, 1225
1231. Tenke, Z., & Higgins, A. (1999). Warm-up and preparation for athletes of all sports. Toronto: Sports Book Publishers. Wall, C. B., Starek, J. E., Fleck, S. J., & Byrnes, W. C. (2004). Prediction of indoor climbing performance in women rock climbers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 77
83. Watts, P. B. (2004). Physiology of difficult rock climbing. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 361
372. Watts, P., Martin, D. T., & Durtschi, S. (1993). Anthropometric profile of elite male and female competitive sport rock climbers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11, 113
117. Williams, E. S., Taggart, P., & Carruthers, M. (1978). Rock climbing: Observations on heart rate and plasma catecholamine concentrations and the influence of oxprenolol. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 12, 125
128. Wright, D. M., Royle, T. J., & Marshall, T. (2000). Indoor rock climbing: Who gets injured? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 35, 181
185.