Content uploaded by Pablo Caballero
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pablo Caballero on Jun 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
VOLUME 9 | ISSUE 1 | 2014 |
111
Design and validation of an observational
instrument to assess the technical execution in
top-rope climbing
ELENA HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, PABLO CABALLERO BLANCO 1 , ALEJANDRO GÓMEZ
RODRÍGUEZ, JESUS MORENAS MARTÍN
University of Pablo de Olavide of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
ABSTRACT
Hernández-Hernández, E., Caballero-Blanco, P., Gómez-Rodríguez, A., & Morenas-Martín, J. (2014).
Design and validation of an observational instrument to assess the technical execution in top-rope climbing.
J. Hum. Sport Exerc., 9(1), pp.111-123. The aim of this study was to design and validate an observational
instrument to assess the technical execution in top-rope climbing. This observational instrument allows
researchers to assess the progression of climbers in relation to the achievement of key aspects of climbing
movements. Firstly, a review of the specialized literature was performed to establish a set of criteria for
observation. Secondly, content validation was carried out through the agreement and consensus method
among ten expert judges at the qualitative level (degree of understanding, appropriateness of wording,
relevance of questions, etc.), and quantitative level (global assessment on a scale from 0 to 10). Thirdly,
this instrument was applied to a sample of seven climbers on an indoor climbing wall. Reliability was
calculated through the application of the test-retest method. The results indicated that the instrument has
optimal levels of reliability and validity for evaluating the technical execution of beginning climbers. The
instrument can be considered as a useful tool which could be applied by instructors and teachers for
discriminating the learning stage in beginning climbers. Key words: SPORT CLIMBING, BEGINNING
CLIMBERS, OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS, KEY ASPECTS, EVALUATION
1 Corresponding author. Carretera Utrera, km. 1, 41013 Sevilla.
E-mail: pcaballero@upo.es
Submitted for publication October 2013
Accepted for publication March 2014
JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE ISSN 1988-5202
© Faculty of Education. University of Alicante
doi:10.4100/jhse.2014.91.12
Original Article
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
112
| 2014 | ISSUE 1 | VOLUME 9 © 2014 University of Alicante
INTRODUCTION
Climbing is a physical activity that consists in ascending on a sloped wall. This activity involves physical
and psychological components. Sport climbing is a style of climbing where the climber progresses through
permanent anchors placed on the rock or on the climb wall with the main help of hands and feet, or other
parts of the body. Sport climbing is the most popular modality of climbing for a wide range of persons
(children, teenagers, adults) in recreational and competition activities (Bourne et al., 2011).
Performance in climbing largely depends on climber’s physical capacity. During the ascension the
efficiency depends on two components: a) physical components, in particular, muscular endurance and
strength (Lopez-Rivera & González-Badillo, 2012), and b) technical components, in particular, the
execution of climbing gesture (Winter, 2000). These two dimensions are present in the whole bibliography
dealing with climbing performance. Indeed, an extensive review of the specific literature shows that
numerous studies explain the climbing performance through physical components in conjunction with
others parameters. Most of them stress the importance of endurance and different strength training
methods (Cuadrado et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2003; Janot et al., 1999; Lopez-Rivera & González-Badillo,
2012; MacLeod et al., 2007; Schweizer et al., 2007) and physiological and psychological components (Billat
et al., 1995; Draper et al., 2010; Janot et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2002; Pijpers et al., 2003; Sánchez et al.,
2010).
In contrast, there are fewer studies focusing on technical components. In such instances, the technical
execution is understood as the climber´s level and his/her experience (Bergua, 2009; Fuss & Niegl, 2012;
Mace & Carroll, 1985; Nieuwenhuys et al., 2008; Russell et al., 2012), or is described through kinematics
and biomechanical parameters (Quaine & Martin, 1999; Schweizer, 2001; Schweizer, & Hudek, 2011;
Schweizer et al., 2007). Within this set of studies, only few authors centre on the climber´s execution
considering the two extremities: arms and legs (De Benito et al., 2012), and none of them divide it into key
aspects of the movement (Knudson & Morrison, 2002). At the end of the day, only De Benito et al. (2011)
designed an instrument to measure the technical execution. In their following studies, these authors divided
the execution of climbing movements into key aspects (De Benito et al., 2012), and subsequently, they
described the rate of use of each extremity during the climbing phase (De Benito et al., 2013). In these
studies, all participants were experienced climbers.
Lastly, other documents – such as handbooks and methods for beginners – provide valuable information
about the technical base for the realization of climbing movements (Fontaine & Deconinck, 2005; Lourens,
2005; Testevuide, 2003; Winter, 2000). From this perspective, the technical execution is usually divided
into: position of the arm, weight distribution between arms and legs, location of the feet in relation to the
grip, location of the body regarding the vertical axis and the wall. Drawing on these findings, the aim of this
study was to design and validate an observational instrument to assess the technical execution of
beginning climbers in top-rope climbing.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Participants
First of all, the content validation of the instrument was performed through the agreement and consensus
method among ten expert judges. The expert judges were divided into two groups: a) five of them had a
degree in Sport and Physical Education and at least five years of experience as teachers in adventure
sports and school-to-work education; and b) five of them were B.A. in Sport and Physical Education and at
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
VOLUME 9 | ISSUE 1 | 2014 |
113
least five years of experience in climbing. Secondly, the instrument was applied to a sample of seven
students aged 12 (four girls and three boys) who were members of the Municipal school of climbing of
Cortegana (Andalusia, Southwestern Spain). A voluntary informed consent was signed by their parents
previously. Reliability was calculated by applying the test-retest method.
Design
On the one hand, validity refers to the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure
(Thomas & Nelson, 2007). The validity of contents was carried out through the agreement and consensus
method among ten expert judges. The content validation of the instrument was established qualitatively as:
a) the degree of understanding, b) the appropriateness of wording, and c) the relevance of questions. The
content validation of the instrument was performed quantitatively as a global assessment on a scale from 0
to 10. Drawing on the proposal of Bulger & Housner (2007), items obtaining a value lower than 7 were
eliminated. Items valued between 7 and 8 were modified, and items which scored more than 8 were
accepted. On the other hand, reliability can be defined as the consistency of a measure (Thomas & Nelson,
2007). The reliability of this instrument was achieved applying the test-retest method through a pilot study.
Instruments
This observational instrument was supposed to allow assessing the technical execution of beginning
climbers during their ascent. Such an assessment relied on the achievement of key aspects of climbing
technique. The observer had to indicate with “yes” or “no” whether the beginning climbers met the
conditions defined for each key aspect. Among them, five key aspects were assessed through a threefold
scale (level 1, 2 or 3).
Procedures
The research design followed five steps (Carretero-Dios & Pérez, 2007). The first step consisted in
designing a proposal for elaborating an observational instrument. A review of the major databases
(SportDiscus®, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Google Books, Sponet, and Dialnet) was
realized. The key words used were: climbing, performance analyses, handgrips and evaluation. The titles
and abstracts of the articles and the index of books were analyzed. As a result, it was observed that
authors usually divided climbing movements into four positions: position of the arm, weight distribution
between arms and legs, location of the feet regarding the grip, location of the body in relation to the vertical
axis and the wall (Fontaine & Deconinck, 2005; Lourens, 2005; Testevuide, 2003; Winter, 2000). The initial
proposal of observational categories was made following the criteria proposed by Anguera (2003) and
Knudson & Morrison (2002). Afterwards, the instrument was tested on beginners on an indoor climbing wall
using the top-rope technical.
Secondly, content validity was established through the agreement and consensus method among ten
expert judges. Those experts were asked to evaluate different facets of the observational instrument. The
third phase involved the analysis of expert judges’ answers; all the aspects observed and criticized by the
expert judges were modified. During the fourth phase the reliability was calculated by applying the test re-
test method. A voluntary informed consent of the beginning climbers’ parents was signed previously. The
instrument was applied at two different moments with one week of difference (Baumgartner, 2000; Nevil, et
al. 2001). As usually, the instrument was tested in the same conditions on an indoor climbing wall. Lastly,
the fifth step consisted in analysing the results.
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
114
| 2014 | ISSUE 1 | VOLUME 9 © 2014 University of Alicante
Statistical analysis
A descriptive analysis of the different variables was carried out. The degree to which test scores were
consistent was obtained applying a Cronbach's alpha test of internal consistency. The Lowenthal value was
taken as reference (Lowenthal, 2001).
RESULTS
As stated previously, the review of literature demonstrated that the majority of authors divided the climbing
movements into four basic positions: position of the arms, weight distribution between arms and legs,
location of the feet in relation with the grip, and location of the body vis-à-vis the vertical axis and the wall
(Fontaine & Deconinck 2005; Lourens, 2005; Testevuide, 2003; Winter, 2000). In the final proposal sent to
the experts, the repertoire of climbing movements also included other criteria focusing on the ascending
and descending phases, and on the communication between climber and belayer (table 1). This instrument
aimed to assess whether beginning climbers needed to improve some features of their technique of
execution.
Table 1. Description of key aspects used by the instrument’s design to assess the technical execution in
top-rope climbing.
Key aspects
Description
1) Use of three supporting points.
The climber uses at least three supporting points (two hands and
one foot, or one hand and two feet) during the ascent.
2) Balanced position
The climber is balanced during the ascent. The center of gravity
projection lies between the feet or on one of them.
3) Arms and legs action
The climber uses the arms for balancing during the ascension. The
legs bear the most weight with a relevant role during the ascent.
4) Fluency during the ascent
The climber follows the route with fluency. He/she does not stay too
much time in the same position.
5) Observation of the supporting
points
The climber looks for a grip option before he/she makes the next
movement during the ascent.
6) Grip
Look at the part of the hold gripped by the climber and indicate
his/her technical level using the picture.
7) Feet´s supporting points
Look at the part of the foot used by the climber to step on the hold
and indicate his/her technical level using the picture.
8) Interaction zone between
hands and feet
Look at the extent between the hands and the feet of the climber
and indicate his/her technical level using the picture
9) Displacement of the hip
Look at the displacement of the climber’s hip compared with the
vertical line of the feet and indicate his/her technical level using the
picture.
10) Action line
Look at the action line between the hands and feet of the climber
during the ascent and indicate his/her technical level using the
picture.
11) Crossed force
The climber uses the opposite hands and feet (right hand with left
foot, and vice versa) during the ascent.
12) Arms stretched
The climber keeps the arms stretched during the ascent.
13) Position and damping during
a fall
The climber adopts a semi-flexed position and he/she puts his/her
arms and legs in front of his/her body. The impact against the wall is
limited by the use of the feets and hands. His/her back side is not in
contact with the wall.
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
VOLUME 9 | ISSUE 1 | 2014 |
115
14) Descent of the route
The climber shouts to the belayer: “on belay!” The whole weight of
the climber relies on the rope. The climber is ready for abseiling.
15) Climbing command
The climber communicates constantly with the belayer during the
ascent. They use sentences as: “take” or “on belay!”
The expert judges suggested that the key aspects included in the instrument were relevant to assess the
technique of beginning climbers. However, five parameters scored worse than the rest (items: 8, 9, 10, 11 y
13) and were eliminated. Expert judges explained that the reason was the difficulty to analyse those
parameters only through observation (J2, J3, J6, J8, J9, and J10). For example, “a displacement of the hip”
can be difficult to observe without a biomechanical analysis. Indeed, it can be interpreted in different ways
by two observers. The aspects related to the “Position and damping during a fall” were also eliminated.
Expert judge suggested that these features were not relevant in top-rope climbing since climbers are
belayed. As a consequence, climbers cannot fall more than a short distance and they only realize a slight
displacement with no flight (J2, J3, J5 and J10).
The expert judges noted that the instrument was appropriate and understandable. Table 2 displays the
quantitative assessment for each aspect. The global assessment was 8.42. The global assessment without
the eliminated parameters reached 8.9 (table 2). Experts also stressed the need to clarify expression for a
better understanding. For example, a) the expression “looking at a grip” was replaced by the expression:
“looking for a grip option” (judges 1 y 8); b) the expression “three supporting points” also included more
information through the inclusion of the sentence “two hands and one foot or one hand and two feet”
(judges 5 y 6); and eventually c) the expression “the weight should fall between the feet or on one of them”
(judge 2) substituted for “the weight is on the centre of gravity projection”.
Table 2. Average results obtained by the instrument according to the expert judges’ evaluation.
Experts
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Global
assessment
Three
supporting
points
9
10
8
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9.6
Action
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Balanced
position
9
8
10
10
7
10
9
9
10
10
9.2
Action
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Arms and
legs
movements
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
9.7
Action
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Fluency
during the
ascent
9
7
8
7
8
10
7
9
8
10
8.3
Action
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
116
| 2014 | ISSUE 1 | VOLUME 9 © 2014 University of Alicante
Observation
of the
supporting
points
7
10
10
10
10
9
7
7
8
9
8.7
Action
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Grip
9
7
7
10
10
8
8
9
7
9
8.4
Action
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Feet´s
supporting
points
8
8
9
10
10
9
8
8
7
9
8.6
Action
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Arms
stretched
9
10
9
10
10
9
8
9
7
9
9
Action
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Descent of
the route.
9
10
9
10
7
10
10
9
10
10
9.4
Action
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Climbing
command
9
10
8
10
8
10
7
9
10
10
9.1
Action
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Total
8.9
Results higher than 8 (items were not modified: no), results between 7 and 8 (items were modified: yes), results lower
than 7 (items were eliminated: e)
Table 3 shows the reliability results for each observed item. The instrument achieved a high internal
consistency with a value of 0.76. After that, the statistical test was repeated without the lower value. In this
case, the instruments got a very high level of reliability (Lowenthal, 2001).with a value of 0.92 (table 4).
Table 3. Reliability results obtained in test re-test.
Scale´s mean
eliminating the
element
Scale´s variance
eliminating the
element
Total
correlation
adjusted
elements
Cronbach's alpha
eliminating one
elements
support_pre
28,1429
19,143
,967
,704
support_post
28,2857
20,571
,710
,726
balance_pre
28,2857
20,571
,710
,726
balance_post
28,2857
20,571
,710
,726
action_pre
28,1429
19,143
,967
,704
action_pos
28,0000
20,000
,767
,719
fluency_pre
28,2857
21,238
,551
,736
fluency_post
28,1429
19,143
,967
,704
observat_pre
28,1429
19,143
,967
,704
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
VOLUME 9 | ISSUE 1 | 2014 |
117
observat_post
28,1429
19,143
,967
,704
grip_pre
28,0000
27,000
-,600
,806
grip_post
28,1429
28,476
-,843
,819
feet_pre
27,7143
29,238
-,626
,844
feet_post
27,8571
31,476
-,790
,862
stretch_pre
28,0000
20,000
,767
,719
stretch_post
28,0000
20,000
,767
,719
descent_pre
28,0000
20,000
,767
,719
descent_post
28,0000
20,000
,767
,719
command_pre
28,1429
21,476
,442
,742
command_pos
28,1429
21,476
,442
,742
< 0.4 no unacceptable reliability; 0.41-0.6 poor reliability; 0.61-0.8 questionable to acceptable
reliability; >0.8 good reliability, >0.9 excellent reliability. Value obtained by Lowenthal (2001)
Table 4. Reliability results obtained in test re-test if one item was eliminated.
Scale´s mean
eliminating the
element
Scale´s variance
eliminating the element
Total correlation
adjusted elements
Cronbach's alpha
eliminating one
elements
support_pre
24.5714
32.286
.949
.909
support_post
24.7143
34.238
.675
.916
balance_pre
24.7143
34.238
.675
.916
balance_post
24.7143
34.238
.675
.916
action_pre
24.5714
32.286
.949
.909
action_pos
24.4286
32.619
.889
.910
fluency_pre
24.7143
34.571
.614
.918
fluency_post
24.5714
32.286
.949
.909
observat_pre
24.5714
32.286
.949
.909
observat_post
24.5714
32.286
.949
.909
grip_pre
24.4286
42.619
-.655
.946
grip_post
24.5714
44.619
-.920
.951
stretch_pre
24.4286
32.619
.889
.910
stretch_post
24.4286
32.619
.889
.910
descent_pre
24.4286
32.619
.889
.910
descent_post
24.4286
32.619
.889
.910
command_pre
24.5714
34.619
.545
.919
command_pos
24.5714
34.619
.545
.919
< 0.4 no unacceptable reliability; 0.41-0.6 poor reliability; 0.61-0.8 questionable to acceptable reliability; >0.8 good
reliability, >0.9 excellent reliability. Value obtained by Lowenthal (2001)
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
118
| 2014 | ISSUE 1 | VOLUME 9 © 2014 University of Alicante
DISCUSSION
The main aim of this study consisted in designing and validating an observational instrument to assess the
technical execution in top-rope climbing. The objective was to build a specific tool able to discriminate the
learning stage in beginning climbers, viz. to check if beginning climbers had a good command of the
different techniques used in top-rope climbing. In addition, this proposal aimed to fill the gap of academic
literature on inexpert climbers since the majority of scientific studies focus on top level climbing.
The references checked for this study demonstrated that most authors divided the climbing movements into
four simple positions: position of the arms, weight distribution between arms and legs, location of the feet in
relation to the grip, and location of the body regarding the vertical axis line and the wall (Fontaine &
Deconinck, 2005; Lourens, 2005; Testevuide, 2003; Winter, 2000). Nevertheless, climbing does not allow
isolating a series of muscles. Instead of this, climbing mobilizes large muscular groups. Consequently –
and drawing on the proposal of De Benito et al. (2011, 2013) – features like the use of three supporting
points, the arms and legs’ movements, the fluency during the ascent, the interaction zone between hands
and feet and the displacement of the hip were included in the roster of parameters composing the
instrument.
The results of this study demonstrated that the designed instrument provided optimal levels of reliability and
validity. This means the instrument can be implemented in other similar circumstances. This study used the
same methodology than previous analyzes led in other fields like volleyball (Hernández-Hernández &
Palao, 2012; 2013; Moreno et al., 2010), basketball (Ortega et al., 2008) and physical education lessons
(Ortega et al., 2008; Wright & Craig, 2011). In general, expert judges made important contributions for
improving the instrument. One of these suggestions proposed to eliminate three aspects of the instrument:
the displacement of the hip, the interaction zone between hands or the feet, and the application of crossed
force. The judges suggested that those aspects could only be observed through a biomechanical analysis.
Furthermore, the judges concluded that their inclusion in the instrument could provoke divergent results
among two observers. As a consequence, it could damage the psychometric properties of the instrument.
For this reason it was decided to eliminate those aspects.
Others expert judges´ proposals consisted in eliminating the parameter referring to the body´s position and
damping during a fall. Expert judges suggested that this aspect was not relevant in top-rope climbing
because this modality limits fall flights. In top-rope climbing, the climber is always belayed by his/her
climbing partner (Draper et al., 2010). In case of slip, the climber can only realize a slight displacement with
no consequence (Fontaine & Deconinck, 2005; Testevuide, 2003). However, this affirmation cannot be
discussed with others studies since reviewed analyses usually focus on top level climbers.
Lastly, expert judges suggested improving the clarity of expression of the observed parameters. These
qualitative contributions were essential for improving the design of the instrument (Bulger & Housner, 2007;
Carretero-Dios & Pérez, 2007; Padilla et al., 2007; Subramanian & Silverman, 2000; Wieserma, 2001)
because they provided relevant information to modify or to eliminate the items (Dunn et al., 1999). The
expert judges’ contributions are included in the final version of the instrument (annex 1). The judges also
considered this instrument as necessary while stressing the comprehensiveness and the difficulty to
analyse each stage of the climber`s movements during the ascent. Finally, the climbers’ technique was
divided into ten key aspects which can be observed during the ascent. Thus, the final instrument is easy to
apply in beginner’s schools and others similar contexts.
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
VOLUME 9 | ISSUE 1 | 2014 |
119
The result of the reliability test showed a Cronbach's alpha value close to 0.8. This result clearly indicates
that the instrument reached an acceptable reliability level (Lowenthal, 2001). This is a remarkable score
considering this internal consistency test was used in other studies where the reliability of instruments had
been accepted with values about 0.70 (Hernandez-Hernandez & Palao, 2013; Moreno et al., 2010).
However, the level of reliability improved when one of the parameters was eliminated. As a consequence,
the “feet´s supporting points” feature is an aspect that should not be included in the final instrument –
contrary to the comments by Testevuide (2003). In those circumstances, this aspect must be reformulated
for being part of the instrument.
CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The results indicated that the instrument to assess the technical execution in top-rope climbing has optimal
levels of reliability and validity. Therefore, this instrument can be considered as a useful tool which could be
applied by instructors and teachers for discriminating the learning stage in beginning climbers.
The main limitations of the study were: a) the absence of values of references about beginning climbers’
technique, and b) the number of participants. Future studies dealing with that issue will have to increase the
number of participants and observations. Furthermore, it could be interesting to apply this instrument on
other surfaces like natural rock formations, and to design an instrument set that assesses others climbing´s
aspects as the technique of the belayer, or the leading climber´s skills.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the instructor and the students´ parents of the Municipal
school of climbing of Cortegana to give their authorization to use the video recording.
REFERENCES
1. Anguera, M.T. (2003). Observational Methods (General).In R. Fernández-Ballesteros (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment. Vol. 2. London: Sage.
2. Baumgartner, T. A. (2000). Estimating the stability reliability of a store. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci.
4(3), pp.175-178.
3. Bergua, P. Entrenamiento para escalada. La técnica. Revista Digital Barrabés. 2009. Available
from: http://www.barrabes.com/revista/preparacionfisica/26287/entrenamiento-
escaladatecnica.html.
4. Bourne, R., Halaki, M., Vanwanseele, B., & CLARKE, J. (2011). Measuring lifting forces in rock
climbing: Effect of hold size and fingertip structure. J Appl Biomech. 27, pp.40-46.
5. Billat, V., Palleja, P., Charlaix, T., Rizzardo, P., & Janel, N. (1995). Energy specificity of rock
climbing and aerobic capacity in competitive sport rock climbers. J Sport Med Phys Fit, 35(1),
pp.20-24.
6. Bulger, S.M., & Housner, L.D. (2007). Modified Delphi investigation of exercise science in physical
education teacher education. J Teach Phys Educ, 26(1), pp.57-80.
7. Carretero-Dios, H., & Pérez, C. (2007). Normas para el desarrollo y revisión de estudios
instrumentales: consideraciones sobre la selección de test en la investigación psicológica. Int J
Clin Health Psychology, 7(3), pp.863-882.
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
120
| 2014 | ISSUE 1 | VOLUME 9 © 2014 University of Alicante
8. Cuadrado, G., De Benito, A.M., Flor, G., Izquierdo, J.M., Sedano, S., & Redondo, J.C. (2007).
Estudio de la eficacia de dos programas de entrenamiento de la fuerza en el rendimiento de la
escalada deportiva. Mot Eur J Hum Mov, 19, pp.61-76.
9. De Benito, A.M., García-Tormo, J.V., Izquierdo, J.M., Sedano, S., Redondo, J.C., & Cuadrado, G.
(2011). Análisis de movimientos en escalada deportiva: propuesta metodológica basada en la
metodología observacional. Mot Eur J Hum Mov, 27, pp.21-42.
10. De Benito, A.M., García-Tormo, J.V., Izquierdo, J.M., Sedano, S., Redondo, J.C., & Cuadrado, G.
(2013). Análisis cualitativo de las implicaciones musculares de la escalada deportiva de alto nivel
en competición. Int J Sport Sci, IX (32), pp.154-180.
11. De Benito, A.M., Sedano, S., Redondo, J.C., & Cuadrado, G. (2012). Análisis y cuantificación de
las acciones técnicas de la escalada deportiva de alto nivel de competición. Mot Eur J Hum Mov,
28, pp.15-33.
12. Draper, N., Jones, G.A., Fryer, S., Hodgson, C.I., & Blackwell, G. (2010). Physiological and
psychological responses to lead and top rope climbing for intermediate rock climbers. Eur J Sport
Sci, 10(1), pp.13-20.
13. Dunn, J.G., Bouffard, M., & Rogers, W.T. (1999). Assessing item content-relevance in sport
psychology scale-construction research: Issues and recommendations. Meas Phys Educ Exerc
Sci. 3(1), pp.15-36.
14. Fontaine, E., & Deconink, O. (2005). Les fondamentaux de l'escalade: De l'initiation au
perfectionnement. París: Anphora. 2005.
15. Fuss, F.K., Niegl, G. (2012). Finger load distribution in different types of climbing Grips. Sports
Technology, 5 (3-4): pp.151–155.
16. Grant, S., Shields, C., Fitzpatrick, V., Ming Loh, W., Whitaker, A., Watt, I., & Kay, J. (2003).
Climbing specific finger endurance: A comparative study of intermediate rock climbers, rowers and
aerobically trained individuals. J Sports Sci, 21, pp.621-630.
17. Hernández-Hernández, E., & Palao, J.M. (2012). Diseño y validación de instrumento para evaluar
los contenidos conceptuales sobre voleibol en Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Apunts.
Educación física y deportes, 111(1), pp.38-52.
18. Hernández-Hernández, E., & Palao, J.M. (2013). Diseño y validación de un conjunto de
instrumentos de observación para valorar la ejecución de los gestos técnicos en la iniciación al
voleibol. TRANCES: Revista de transmisión del conocimiento educativo y de la salud, 4(2),
pp.125-146.
19. Janot, J., Mermier, C., Parker, D.L., & Robergs, R.A. (1999). Supplement The relationship between
muscular strength and endurance and rock climbing performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 3(1),
pp.1-6.
20. Jones, M.V., Mace, R.D., Bray, S.R., Macrae, A.W., & Stockbridge, C. (2002). The impact of
motivational imagery on the emotional state and self-efficacy levels of novice climbers. J Sport
Behav, 25(1), pp.57-72.
21. Knudson, D., & Morrison, C. (2002). Qualitative analysis of human movement. Human Kinetics
Publishers.
22. Lopez-Rivera, E., & González-Badillo, J.J. (2012). The effects of two maximum grip strength
training methods using the same effort duration and different edge depth on grip endurance in elite
climbers. Sports Technology, 5 (3-4), pp.100-110.
23. Lourens, T. (2005). Manual completo de escalada. Barcelona: De Vecchi.
24. Lowenthal, K.M. (2001). An introduction to psychological test and scales (2.ª Ed.). Philadelphia:
Psychology Press.
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
VOLUME 9 | ISSUE 1 | 2014 |
121
25. Mace, R.D., & Carrol, D. (1985). The control of anxiety in sport: stress inoculation training prior to
abseiling. Int J Sport Psychol, 16, pp.165-175.
26. Macleod, D., Sutherland, D.L., Buntin, A., Whitaker, A., Aitchison, I., Bradley, J., & Grant, S.
(2007). Physiological determinants of climbing-specific finger endurance and sport rock climbing
performance. J Sports Sci, 25(12), pp.1433-1443.
27. Moreno, A., Moreno, M.P., García-González, L., Gil, A., & Del Villar, F. (2012). Desarrollo y
validación de un cuestionario para la evaluación del conocimiento declarativo en voleibol.
Motricidad. Mot Eur J Hum Mov, 25, pp.183-195.
28. Nevil, A.M., Lane, A.M., Kilgour, L.J., Bowes, N., & Whyte, G.P. (2001). Stability of psychometric
questionnaires. J Sports Sci, 19(4), pp.273-278.
29. Nieuwenhuys, A., Pijpers, J.R., Oudejans, R.R., & Bakker, F. C. (2008). The influence of anxiety on
visual attention in climbing. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 30, pp.171-185.
30. Ortega, E., Calderón, A. Palao, J.M., & Puigcerver, C. (2008). Diseño y validación de un
cuestionario para evaluar la actitud percibida del profesor en clase y de un cuestionario para
evaluar los contenidos actitudinales de los alumnos durante las clases de educación física en
secundaria. Retos. Nuevas tendencias en educación física, deporte y recreación, 14, pp.22-29.
31. Ortega, E., Giménez, J.M., Palao, J.M., & Sainz de Baranda, M.P. (2008). Diseño y validación de
un cuestionario para valorar las preferencias y satisfacciones en jóvenes jugadores de baloncesto.
Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte, 8(2), pp.39-58.
32. Padilla, J.L., Gómez, J., Hidalgo, M.D., & Muñiz, J. (2007). Esquema conceptual y procedimientos
para analizar la validez de las consecuencias del uso de los test. Psicothema, 19(19), pp.173-178.
33. Pijpers, J.R., Oudejans, R.R.D., Holsheimer, F., & Bakker, F.C. (2003). Anxiety-performance
relationships in climbing: a process-oriented approach. Psychology Sport Exerc, 4, pp.283-304.
34. Quaine, F., & Martin, L. (1999). A biomechanical study of equilibrium in sport rock climbing. Gait
and Posture, 10, pp.233-239.
35. Russell, S.D., Zirker, C.A., & Blemker, S.S. (2012). Computer models offer new insights into the
mechanics of rock climbing. Sports Technology, 5(3-4): pp.120-131.
36. Sanchez, X., Boschker, M.S.J., & Llewellyn, D.J. (2010). Pre-performance psychological states and
performance in an elite climbing competition. Scand J Med Sci Sport, 20(2), pp.356-363.
37. Schweizer, A. (2001) Biomechanical properties of the crimp grip position in rock climbers. J
Biomech, 34, pp.217-223.
38. Schweizer, A., & Hudek, R. (2011). Kinetics of crimp and slope grip in rock climbing. J Appl
Biomech, 27(2), pp.116-215.
39. Schweizer, A., Schneider, A. & Goehner, K. (2006). Dynamic eccentric-concentric strength training
of the finger flexors to improve rock climbing performance. Isokinetic Exerc Sci, 1, pp.131-136.
40. Subramanian, P.R., & Silverman, S. (2000). Validation of scores from an instrument assessing
student attitude toward physical education. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci, 4(1), pp.29-43.
41. Testevuide, S. (2003). L’escaladae en situation. París: Revues Education phisique et Sportive.
42. Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (2007). Métodos de investigación en actividad física. Barcelona:
Paidotribo.
43. Winter, S. (2000). Escalada deportiva con niños y adolescentes: Ejercicios y entrenamiento para el
ocio, el deporte escolar y la práctica deportiva en las asociaciones. Madrid: Desnivel.
44. Wiersma, L.D. (2001). Conceptualization and development of the Sources of enjoyment in youth
sport questionnaire. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci, 5(3), pp.153-177.
45. Wright, P.M., & Craig, M. W. (2001). Tool for Assessing Responsibility-Based Education (TARE):
Instrument Development, Content Validity, and Inter-Rater Reliability. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci,
15, pp.204-219.
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
122
| 2014 | ISSUE 1 | VOLUME 9 © 2014 University of Alicante
ANNEX 1. Final proposal of the instrument to assess the technical execution in top-rope climbing.
Instrument to assess the technical execution in top-rope climbing.
1) Use of three supporting
points.
The climber uses at least three supporting points (two hands and one foot, or one hand and two feet)
during the ascent.
(Yes) The climber uses at least three supporting points during the ascent.
(No) The climber does not use at least three supporting points. Either he/she only uses the hands, or
he/she uses one hand and one foot, or he/she keeps on his/her four extremities.
2) Balanced position.
The climber is balanced during the ascent. The centre of gravity projection lies between the feet or on
one of them.
(Yes) The climber is usually balanced. The centre of gravity projection lies between the feet or on
one of them.
(No) The climber is not balanced. The centre of gravity projection lies out of the feet area.
3) Arms and legs action.
The climber uses the arms for balancing during the ascension. The legs bear the most weight with a
relevant role during the ascent.
(Yes) The climber uses the arms for balancing during the ascension. The legs bear the most weight
with a relevant role during the ascent.
(No) The climber uses almost exclusively the arms during the progression. The weight bears on the
arms and he/she does not use the feet.
4) Fluency during the
ascent
The climber follows the route with fluency. He/she does not stay too much time in the same position.
(Yes) The climber follows the route with fluency. He/she does not stay too much time on the same
holds.
(No) The rhythm of ascending is irregular. He/she spends a long time on the same holds, or he/she
uses the same holds twice.
5) Observation of the
supporting points.
The climber looks for a grip option before he/she makes the next movement during the ascent.
(Yes) The climber usually looks for a grip option before he/she makes the next movement during the
ascent. He/she keeps looking at the next hold until he/she finishes the movement.
(No) The climber does not look for a grip option before he/she makes the next movement; or he/she
feels for a grip without finish the ascending movement.
6) Grip
Look at the part of the hold gripped by the climber and indicate his/her technical level using the
picture.
Level 1 ( ) Level 2 ( ) Level 3 ( )
7) Feet´s supporting points
Look at the part of the foot used by the climber to step on the hold and indicate his/her technical level
Hernández et al. / Design and validation of an observational instrument JOURNAL OF HUMAN SPORT & EXERCISE
VOLUME 9 | ISSUE 1 | 2014 |
123
using the picture.
Level 1 ( ) Level 2 ( ) Level 3 ( )
8) Arms stretched
The climber keeps the arms stretched during the ascent.
(Yes) The climber keeps the arms stretched during the ascent.
(No) The climber does not keep the arms stretched during the ascent.
9) Descent of the route.
The climber shouts to the belayer: “take!” The whole weight of the climber relies on the rope. The
climber is ready for abseiling.
(Yes) The climber shouts: “take”. The whole weight of the climber relies on the rope. The climber is
already for abseiling.
(No) The climber does not shout: “on belay”. His/her whole weight does not rely on the rope. The
climber is not ready for abseiling.
10) Climbing command.
The climber communicates constantly with the belayer during the ascent, the descent and when
he/she reached the top rope anchor. They use sentences as: “take!” or “on belay!”
(Yes) The climber communicates constantly with the belayer during the ascent, the descent and
when he/she reaches the top rope anchor. They use sentences as: “take!” or “on belay!”
(No) The climber and the belayer do not communicate sufficiently during the ascent and when the
climber reaches the top rope anchor.
Legend: The observer should indicate “yes” or “no” whether the beginning climbers met the conditions defined for each key aspect. It
will be considered that a key aspect has been reached when the climber key aspects are marked as “yes” at least 70% of the time.
Items 6 and 7 are assessed through a scale from 1 to 3.
