Physical performance testing in climbing—A systematic review

Abstract

Due to the increasing popularity of climbing, the corresponding diagnostics are gaining in importance for both science and practice. This review aims to give an overview of the quality of different diagnostic testing- and measurement methods for performance, strength, endurance, and flexibility in climbing. A systematic literature search for studies including quantitative methods and tests for measuring different forms of strength, endurance, flexibility, or performance in climbing and bouldering was conducted on PubMed and SPORT Discus. Studies and abstracts were included if they a) worked with a representative sample of human boulderers and/or climbers, b) included detailed information on at least one test, and c) were randomized-controlled-, cohort-, cross-over-, intervention-, or case studies. 156 studies were included into the review. Data regarding subject characteristics, as well as the implementation and quality of all relevant tests were extracted from the studies. Tests with similar exercises were grouped and the information on a) measured value, b) unit, c) subject characteristics (sex and ability level), and d) quality criteria (objectivity, reliability, validity) were bundled and displayed in standardized tables. In total, 63 different tests were identified, of which some comprised different ways of implementation. This clearly shows that there are no uniform or standard procedures in climbing diagnostics, for tests on strength, endurance or flexibility. Furthermore, only few studies report data on test quality and detailed information on sample characteristics. This not only makes it difficult to compare test results, but at the same time makes it impossible to give precise test recommendations. Nevertheless, this overview of the current state of research contributes to the creation of more uniform test batteries in the future.

Full text

EDITED BY
Ludovic Seifert,
Université de Rouen, France
REVIEWED BY
Jiri Balas,
Charles University, Czechia
Vegard Vereide,
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences,
Norway
*CORRESPONDENCE
Kaja Langer
Kaja.Langer@sport.tu-darmstadt.de
†
These authors have contributed equally to this
work and share last authorship
RECEIVED 23 December 2022
ACCEPTED 17 April 2023
PUBLISHED 09 May 2023
CITATION
Langer K, Simon C and Wiemeyer J (2023)
Physical performance testing in climbing—A
systematic review.
Front. Sports Act. Living 5:1130812.
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Langer, Simon and Wiemeyer. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in
other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
Physical performance testing in
climbing—A systematic review
Kaja Langer*, Christian Simon†and Josef Wiemeyer†
Laboratory for Movement & Exercise Science, Institute of Sports Science, Department of Human Sciences,
Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
Due to the increasing popularity of climbing, the corresponding diagnostics are
gaining in importance for both science and practice. This review aims to give an
overview of the quality of different diagnostic testing- and measurement
methods for performance, strength, endurance, and flexibility in climbing. A
systematic literature search for studies including quantitative methods and tests
for measuring different forms of strength, endurance, flexibility, or performance
in climbing and bouldering was conducted on PubMed and SPORT Discus.
Studies and abstracts were included if they a) worked with a representative
sample of human boulderers and/or climbers, b) included detailed information
on at least one test, and c) were randomized-controlled-, cohort-, cross-over-,
intervention-, or case studies. 156 studies were included into the review. Data
regarding subject characteristics, as well as the implementation and quality of all
relevant tests were extracted from the studies. Tests with similar exercises were
grouped and the information on a) measured value, b) unit, c) subject
characteristics (sex and ability level), and d) quality criteria (objectivity, reliability,
validity) were bundled and displayed in standardized tables. In total, 63 different
tests were identified, of which some comprised different ways of
implementation. This clearly shows that there are no uniform or standard
procedures in climbing diagnostics, for tests on strength, endurance or flexibility.
Furthermore, only few studies report data on test quality and detailed
information on sample characteristics. This not only makes it difficult to
compare test results, but at the same time makes it impossible to give precise
test recommendations. Nevertheless, this overview of the current state of
research contributes to the creation of more uniform test batteries in the future.
KEYWORDS
performance, strength, endurance, flexibility, bouldering, testing, measuring
1. Introduction
Climbing (lead climbing, speed climbing, bouldering) has become an increasingly
popular sport attracting a growing number of researchers around the world. This has led
to a constantly growing database with many insights into the performance-determining
factors of climbing. A broad overview of this is given in Figure 1.
It has been shown that performance in climbing and bouldering depends on
psychological, skill-related, anthropometric, tactical-cognitive, and on conditional factors
(1). As shown by MacLeod et al. (2), Grant et al. (3), Laffaye et al. (4), and Saul et al. (1),
one of the most important conditional factors in climbing is finger strength. Moreover,
MacLeod et al. (2) found greater finger endurance in intermittent tests in climbers
compared to non-climbers, and Saul et al. (1) emphasized the importance of aerobic
forearm capacities and hand grip endurance. In addition to these factors, mental
endurance, and anthropometric factors explained 77% of climbing ability in a study
conducted by Magiera et al. (5). Laffaye et al. (4) found that 64% of the total variance in
TYPE Review
PUBLISHED 09 May 2023
|
DOI 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 01 frontiersin.org

climbing ability could be explained by trainable variables such as
upper limb and finger strength and anthropometric variables
such as body composition and biacromial breadth. Trainable
variables including upper limb and finger strength, lower limb
power, as well as shoulder and knee flexibility according to
Mermier et al. (6) explained 58.9% of the total variance in
climbing ability. In addition, Grant et al. (3) found greater
shoulder girdle endurance and hip flexibility in advanced
climbers compared to both recreational climbers and non-
climbers, and Saul et al. (1) emphasized the importance of
postural stability and selected anthropometric factors such as a
low body fat percentage and large forearm volume for climbing
ability. Furthermore, they described climbers as having high
mental endurance and low in tension, depression, anger, and
confusion. Although differences in the weighting of the various
factors were found between the different climbing disciplines
(4,7–10), the overall requirements for the disciplines formally
correspond to the same categories.
Based on the findings on performance requirements in
climbing, research in the field of training to improve climbing
ability has been increasing. Performance diagnostics in climbing
have therefore become increasingly important in order to
determine performance deficits and measure training effects.
However, the diagnostic tests lack consistency and only few
studies include quality assessments for the tests used.
Within this review climbing performance as an empirical
indicator is defined as a measurable variable represented by a test
score. Climbing ability on the other hand is defined as the
potential to achieve high climbing performance and refers to the
theoretical construct which all variables are set in relation to. It
is assessed individually through self-reporting of ability level with
the help of (inter-)national grading systems in each study.
The most important criteria for test quality are validity and
reliability. Validity “refers to the degree to which evidence and
theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of
tests”(11). Therefore, validity is not a feature of the test itself but
rather of test interpretation. Different subcategories of validity can be
distinguished. This review especially addresses construct and
criterion validity as two closely related concepts. Construct validity
refers to “the concept or characteristic that a test is designed to
measure”(11). Regarding physical climbing diagnostics, test
interpretations have high construct validity when there is evidence
that test scores represent theoretical components of climbing ability
or tests show a predefined/theoretical factor structure; for example,
correlation with self-estimated climbing ability or Cohen’sdasa
measure of the difference between different ability groups is an
indicator of construct validity. Criterion validity refers to the
correlation between a test score and a measured criterion variable
(11), which in this case is climbing performance. For example,
Spearman’sandPearson’scorrelationcoefficients between test scores
and climbing performance were used for assessing criterion validity.
High validity requires high reliability. Reliability refers to
measurement consistency or in other words an acceptable
measurement error allowing effective practical use of
the measurement (12). In this review we will differentiate between
intra-session and inter-session reliability referring to measurement
consistency within and between sessions, respectively. The
prerequisites for measurement consistency are a high conformity
across raters (inter-rater reliability) and within the ratings of a single
rater (intra-rater reliability) (12). Reliability can be measured with
different tools. In this review intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC),
concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Spearman’s and Pearson’s
correlation coefficient were considered. In addition, the coefficient of
variation (CV) and the standard error of mean (SEM) were
considered as indicators of reliability.
The heterogeneity of the tests and the lack of reports on test
quality can lead to problems when comparing the effects of
different training interventions (13). In addition, researchers,
FIGURE 1
Performance structure of climbing (own figure).
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 02 frontiersin.org

coaches, and athletes find it difficult to select appropriate tests for
their diagnostic test batteries. Approaches to create and validate a
sport-specific test battery for climbing revealed low construct
validity in relation to climbing ability for most of the selected
tests, as well as tests that only allowed differentiation between
specific performance groups (14,15).
The aim of this review was therefore to give an overview of the tests
for performance, strength, endurance and flexibility in climbing and
their quality in order to identify strengths and weaknesses of existing
tests and to support more homogeneous test batteries for future
performance assessments and quantification of training effects.
2. Methods
2.1. Search strategy and data sources
The literature research and analysis followed the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) guidelines (16), and the study selection process described
by Meline (17).
A systematic literature search on PubMed and SPORTDiscus was
performed in June 2022. Additionally, the retrieved articles were
manually searched for additional articles possibly fulfilling the
inclusion criteria. The search was conducted with the following
terms: “performance”,“strength”,“force”,“power”,“endurance”,
“aerobic capacity”,“anaerobic capacity”,“flexibility”,“agility”,
“boulder”,“climb”,“assess”,“measur”,“hand dynamomet”,“test”,
“diagnostic”.Thewildcardsymbol“*”and Boolean operators (OR
and AND) were included to maximize and optimize the search.
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
To be included, studies had to be published in either English or in
German. All studies including detailed information on at least one
quantitative method of testing or measuring forms a) strength, b)
endurance, c) flexibility, or d) performance in climbing and/or
bouldering were included into the review. As we were interested in the
quality of the tests in climbing and bouldering, only studies examining
a representative sample of human boulderers and/or climbers were
considered. In addition, studies had to contain detailed information
on the subjects (age, sex, discipline, and experience) and report
climbing ability levels using a recognized national or international
scale. Randomized-controlled, cohort-, cross-over-, intervention- and
case(-control) studies were included into the review. Publication types
included were journal publications, dissertations, abstracts, and articles
published in conference proceedings. Qualitative, explorative, and
anecdotal research were not included into the review as they do not
allow a quantitative analysis of the tests and measurements used.
2.3. Data extraction
The data on the diagnostic tests was extracted using a
standardized form including sample characteristics (sample size,
sex, discipline, ability level, age, experience, health), and variables
related to each test and measuring method reported in the
studies (test design, exercise, device, measured value, unit,
reliability, validity). Reported grades for climbing and bouldering
performance were standardized according to the International
Rock Climbing Research Association (IRCRA) reporting scale (18).
2.4. Test classification and quality analysis
In a next step, the tests were sorted according to the exercises the
subjects had to perform. For example, all tests in which the subjects
had to do pull-ups were grouped together. Subsequently, the tests
within each test group were classified according to a) measured
values, b) exercise intensity (edge depth, percentage of MVC), c)
exercise duration (time under tension/work time), d) involved body
parts (fingers, upper limbs, lower limbs, core), and e) test execution
(continuous or intermittent; isometric or dynamic). The quality of
all tests within each test group in combination with sex and ability
level of the respective subjects was then sorted according to the
respective classification in a respective table. In a last step, the
reliability and validity ranges for each test group were determined
and summarized depending on the muscle groups (upper limbs,
lower limbs, core, fingers) and the variable tested (strength,
endurance, flexibility, or climbing performance). Regarding
strength, a distinction was made between maximum strength,
explosive strength (power), and strength endurance. In addition,
strength endurance was divided into three subcategories. High
intensity strength endurance was defined as maximum strength
endurance (intensity: 90%–100%), submaximal strength endurance
was defined as muscular endurance (intensity: 40%–80%) and
explosive contractions to failure were defined as explosive strength
endurance (intensity: 30%–60%, maximal power or rate of force
development). Furthermore, static and dynamic flexibility as well as
anaerobic and aerobic endurance were distinguished.
Correlations, effect sizes, and coefficients were rated as
proposed by Akoglu (19), Koo and Li (20), Cohen (21), and
Reed et al. (22)(Table 1). To facilitate understanding the
different scales were transformed to a common three-point scale:
low—middle-sized—high. In addition, we transformed r
2
values
to r values in order to apply the three categories. SEM was
evaluated for each study individually according to the
recommendations by Denegar and Ball (23).
3. Results
3.1. Study selection and characteristics
A total of 1,128 studies were identified by searching PubMed
and Sport DISCUS. By manually searching the reference lists of
these articles, 51 further studies were identified. After the
removal of the duplicates and 463 studies, which did not fulfill
the content or language requirements, 187 full texts were
assessed for eligibility. Due to different reasons such
as insufficient content relevance or inadequate study design,
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 03 frontiersin.org

31 studies were excluded. In the case of six studies (24–29), the
abstract was found to provide sufficient information to include
the conducted tests into the study. Ultimately, 156 studies were
included in the review (Figure 2).
Figure 3 shows the climbing ability of the various samples
investigated in the studies according to the IRCRA reporting
scale (18). It also gives an overview of the number of studies
focusing on similar sample characteristics regarding climbing
ability. While 32 studies included advanced to elite climbers, 27
focused on intermediate to advanced athletes. Only one study
exclusively included higher elite climbers while four studies each
included lower grade to higher elite and elite to higher elite
climbers. Three studies focused on intermediate to higher elite
and two on advanced to higher elite climbers. Thirteen and ten
studies dealt with climbers from the intermediate and lower
levels to the elite, respectively. In seven, five, and six studies only
lower grade, advanced, intermediate and elite climbers were
considered, respectively. Four studies each included lower grade
to intermediate and lower grade to advanced climbers. Nineteen
studies did not report the climbing ability of their sample.
Within the studies a total of 429 strength, endurance, flexibility
and performance tests were identified. 53% of the studies included
upper limb and finger strength tests, 23% included climbing
performance tests, 7% included lower limb flexibility tests,
5% each included core strength and lower limb strength tests, 3%
each included upper and lower limb endurance tests, and 1%
included upper limb flexibility tests (Figure 4).
3.2. Findings
A total of 66 test groups were identified. For many of these,
many different ways of implementation of the respective tests
were found. Seven tests measuring tactics, technique, hip
flexibility, core strength endurance, and upper limb and finger
strength endurance and maximum strength, were not included
into the analysis as the studies did not include enough
TABLE 1 Ratings of correlations, effect sizes, and coefficients.
Parameter Grading
ICC <0.5 –Poor
0.5–0.75 –Moderate
0.76–0.89 –Good
≥0.9
CCC <0.90 –Poor
0.9–0.95 –Moderate
0.96–0.98 –Substantial
≥0.99 –Almost perfect
Pearson’s and Spearman’sr 0 –No correlation
0.1–0.3 –Weak
0.4–0.6 –Moderate
0.7–0.9 –Strong
1–Excellent
Cohen’s d < 0.2 –Negligible
0.2-<0.5 –Small
0.5-<0.8 –Medium
≥0.8 –Large
CV ≤20% –Acceptable
>20% –Poor
Own terminology
No correlation, negligible –No correlation
Poor, weak, small –Low
Moderate, medium –Middle-sized
Good, substantial, strong, large –High
Excellent, almost perfect –Very high
Acceptable –Acceptable
Poor –Poor
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; CCC, concordance correlation coefficient.
FIGURE 2
PRISMA flow diagram.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 04 frontiersin.org

information on the test execution (5,30,31). One test examining
route reading skills conducted by two studies (15,32) was also
not included into the analysis as it does not relate to physical
climbing skills. One study conducted a 100-metre run (33). This
test was also not included into the analysis due to its lack of
specificity.
The tables presenting the quality of all tests within a test group
in combination with sex and ability grading of the respective
subjects can be found in the supplementary material
(Supplementary Material Tables S1–66). Tables 2–9sum up the
reliability and validity ranges for each test group.
3.2.1. Climbing performance
Climbing performance tests (Table 2) take on a special
position. This is due to the fact that the measured value through
the following tests highly depends on the design of the climbing
wall:
•Pepeated ascent of one boulder
•Bouldering in a circuit
•Treadwall climbing
•Traverse bouldering
•Top-rope and/or lead climbing
•Bouldering
Other tests work with a standardized wall design:
•Pock over climbing test
•ne speed climbing run
•Speed climbing start
Medernach et al. (34) reported a high inter-session reliability and a
high correlation between climbing ability and the test results for the
repeated ascent of one boulder. Deyhle et al. (36) asked their
subjects to boulder in a circuit following the rhythm of a
metronome until exhaustion while Limmer et al. (26) only state
FIGURE 3
Overview of the samples in the included studies.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 05 frontiersin.org

that their subjects had to do some lap climbing. Both do not report
any test quality data.
Both Michailov et al. (38) and Sas-Nowosielski et al. (39) tried
to assess climbing performance through a boulder traverse.
Sas-Nowosielski et al. (39) included a hard traverse with crimp
and half-crimp holds and an easy traverse with pinch holds
which the subjects had to climb back and forth until exhaustion.
Michailov et al. (38) also included two routes, one of which had
holds with an inclined contact surface and the other holds with a
horizontal contact surface. Sas-Nowosielski et al. (39) did not
FIGURE 4
Overview of the distribution of tests within the identified studies.
TABLE 2 Reliability and validity measures for climbing and bouldering performance tests.
Bouldering/climbing Measured variable Reliability Construct validity (correlation
with self-reported climbing ability)
Repeated ascent of 1 boulder (34,35)Bouldering/climbing E Inter session: r= .99 (34)r= .87 (34)
Boulder in a circuit (26,36,37)Bouldering/climbing E –r= -.84 –.43 (37); r= .88 (37)
Boulder traverse (38,39)Bouldering/climbing E –r= .52 –.94 (38)
Treadwall climbing (40–47)Bouldering/climbing E Inter-session: r= .99 (40)r= .81 –.91 (41,42); r= -.66—−0.28 (43);
d = .02–1.46 (41)
Top-rope and lead climbing combined (28,48)Climbing E ––
Outdoor climbing (49)Climbing E ––
Rock over climbing test (50)Bouldering/climbing
ability
Inter-session: ICC = .90 (50)–
Bouldering (7,51–55)Bouldering ability –r= -.47 –.39 (52)
Top-rope climbing (24,56–71)Climbing E/ability/speed Inter-session: ICC = .97 (59); r= 0.10–0.48 (62);
d = 0.69 (62)
–
Climbing kinematics Inter-rater: r= .88 (70)r= .99 (68)
Climbing dynamics ––
Lead climbing (6,7,28,72–77)Climbing E/ability Inter-session: r= .81 (6)r= .45 –.69 (73); r= .77 (6)
Climbing kinematics Inter session: r= .71 –.92 (74)
Inter-rater: r > .81 (74)
–
Climbing dynamics ––
Speed climbing start (78)Speed climbing dynamics ––
1 speed climbing run (33,79)Speed climbing ability ––
E, Endurance.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 06 frontiersin.org

provide test quality data. Michailov et al. (38) on the other hand
report a high correlation between time to failure and climbing
ability for the hard traverse and a middle-sized correlation for
the easy traverse.
Treadwall climbing was used as a diagnostic tool by Schoeffl
et al. (40) who report a high inter-session reliability. They had
askedtheirsubjectstoclimbagivenrouteonatreadwallat
constant speed and inclination until exhaustion. Studies by
Balášet al. (41) and Limonta et al. (42)reporthightovery
high correlations between treadwall peak angle, systemic V˙O
2
from submaximal climbing, local muscle tissue oxygen
saturation (StO
2
) from submaximal climbing, and muscle
oxygenation breakpoint and climbing ability. Balášet al. (41)
conducted a test in which the subjects started at an inclination
of 0° and had to climb until exhaustion, with the inclination of
the treadwall increasing by 5° every minute. They also found
low to high differences between intermediate and elite climbers
regarding Treadwall peak angle. In another study Balášet al.
(43) conducted a similar test starting at +6° and an increasing
angle of inclination of -3° per minute to identify the critical
angle and multiple exhaustive tests at various fixed angles to
estimate the critical angle. While the peak angle reached
during the incremental test showed middle-sized correlations to
both climbing and bouldering ability, the estimated critical
angle showed only low correlations to climbing and bouldering
ability.
Limonta et al. (42) conducted a discontinuous test in which the
subjects started with 5 min of baseline measurements followed by
the same two workloads, controlled over the speed, for all
participants and three more workloads, each lasting 4 min, with
5 min of rest in between according to individual
cardiorespiratory response to reach peak aerobic power in 5
workloads. Booth et al. (44) conducted a test with a similar
protocol including three trials at increasing velocity and 20 min
rest between the trials. Fryer et al. (45), Potter et al. (46), Booth
et al. (44), and España -Romero et al. (47) do not report quality
data. While Fryer et al. (45) and España -Romero et al. both
conducted an incremental test, Fryer et al. (45) gradually
increased the inclination of the wall, with the subjects starting at
different angles according to their climbing ability, whereas
España-Romero et al. (47) gradually increased the climbing
speed. Potter et al. (46) asked their subjects to do three self-
paced climbs on the treadwall until exhaustion. Balášet al. (37)
measured mean oxygen consumption and heart rate during
bouldering in a circuit until exhaustion with an increase in wall
inclination by 10° every three minutes. They reported a high
negative correlation between mean oxygen consumption and
climbing ability and a middle-sized negative correlation between
heart rate and climbing ability. Additionally, they found a high
correlation between climbing ability and the wall inclination at
the moment of exhaustion. Deyhle at al (36). and Limmer et al.
(26) did not provide any quality data.
Top-rope climbing was used in several different ways to assess
multiple different factors of climbing performance. Jurrens (56)
and Kingsley (57) provided 12 climbing routes with various
levels of difficulty and awarded points for each handhold reached
by the participants. Barton (58), and McNamee and Steffen (59)
conducted a similar test. The subjects started with a route of
their choice. If they reached the top, they continued with the
next more difficult route. If they did not reach the top, they
continued with an easier route. At the end, the highest grip
reached on the most difficult route was counted if the next easier
route was topped. Fraser (60) determined the highest hold
achieved on the most difficult route attempted. Heyman et al.
(61) asked their subjects to climb a route twice to volitional
exhaustion. If they reached the top they immediately started
again from the bottom. The test conducted by Limmer et al. (62)
is very similar. Their subjects were asked to climb a route as
often as possible with no rest in between the attempts. Hermans
et al. (63) and Hermans (64) assessed the point of failure of each
subject in a route they were asked to climb to failure once. While
the participants in the study of Valenzuela et al. (65) had to
cover as much distance as possible in one route within two
minutes, Bertuzzi et al. (66) assessed the distance climbed up and
down a route in three minutes. Sanchez et al. (67), Seifert et al.
(68,69), Jones et al. (70), and Mitchell et al. (24) assessed
different factors while their subjects climbed one to three routes
at their own pace. The participants of a study by Balášet al. (71)
however, climbed a route up and down twice at a given pace.
Vertical reaction force under each foot was assessed. McNamee
and Steffen (59) reported a very high inter-session reliability for
their test for climbing ability. Limmer et al. (62) reported low to
middle-sized correlation between test trails for time to failure
and post activity lactate levels. Additionally, they reported
middle-sized differences for post activity lactate levels between
trials. Jones et al. (70) assessed climbing kinematics through the
score on an observer scale and found a high correlation between
the ratings by different experts. No further quality data were
reported on top-rope climbing tests.
Lead climbing was also used as a diagnostic tool to assess
climbing ability, endurance, kinematics, and dynamics. Multiple
authors (6,7,72–74) have asked their subjects to climb one or
two routes until failure. Magiera et al. (75)haveassessedmean
climbing difficulty through the performance of the subjects on
multiple routes. Assessing performance during a competition is a
tool used by Sanchez et al. (76) and Fuss et al. (77). Magiera et al.
(75) reported a high correlation between the climber’s
performance on different routes. Middle-sized to high correlations
were found by Taylor et al. (74) for the expert ratings between
sessions and high correlations between the ratings of various
experts regarding technical and tactical factors. The only data on
test validity for lead climbing are reported by Gajewski et al. (73)
and Mermier et al. (6). The former found a middle-sized
correlation between climbing ability and post-exercise lactate
recovery. The latter report a high correlation between the trainable
variable in climbing, including climbing rating, and multiple
power, and flexibility measurements, and climbing ability. Few
studies assessed climbing endurance through a mixture of top-
rope and lead climbing, or outdoor climbing, but did not provide
data on the quality of the tests (28,48,49).
Brent et al. (50) have tried to assess bouldering or climbing
ability through a complex test called the rock over climbing test.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 07 frontiersin.org

They reported a high inter-session reliability but did not provide
any data on the correlation with climbing ability.
Numerous studies have investigated bouldering ability through
bouldering itself, using different approaches. White and Olsen (51)
conducted a competition-like bouldering test with five 5 boulder
problems for which the participants had six minutes each to
solve and another six minutes rest in between. Zemtsova and
Vavaev (52) observed the performance of their participants at the
world championships 2018 in Innsbruck and 2019 in Hachioji
including five boulder problems. The participants of the study by
Frauman had to solve three boulder problems within five
minutes each and five minutes rest in between. Stien et al. (7,53)
included three and four boulder problems respectively and gave
the subjects four minutes to solve each of them and a three-
minute rest between the boulder problems. Nichols et al. (54)
also included three boulder problems. The only study reporting
quality data were Zemtsova and Vavaev (52). They report
middle-sized negative to middle-sized positive correlations
between the test outcomes and climbing ability for multiple
factors assessed (number of attempts per top and zone, number
of grips, attempt time, recovery time, climbing time, and
viewing time).
Speed climbing ability and speed climbing dynamics were
assessed through the time taken for one speed climbing run (33,
79) and the directions of the mean forces during the speed
climbing start (78). All three studies did not provide any
information on the reliability of the tests or the correlation of
their outcomes with (speed-) climbing ability.
In summary, climbing performance was assessed through nine
different tests differentiating between climbing endurance, ability,
kinematics, and dynamics. No study reported both reliability and
validity data for any of the tests. However, the repeated ascent of
one boulder, treadwall climbing, the rock over climbing tests, and
top-rope climbing were shown to be highly reliable. The highest
correlation with climbing ability was reported for the repeated
ascent of one boulder.
3.2.2. Upper limb and finger strength
The following tests were used to assess upper limb and finger
strength (Table 3):
•Dead hang
•Βent arm hang
•Pull-up
•Push-up
•Campus board performance test
•Βench press
•Pull down
•Traction test
•Medicine ball throw
•Shoulder strength tests
•Biceps strength test
•Elbow strength tests
•Power-slap test
•Arm jump test
•Gripping a dynamometer
•Applying force on a hold
•Pinching a dynamometer
The dead hang was used to assess finger isometric muscular
endurance in continuous and intermittent tests. It was also used
to assess finger isometric maximum strength by holding
maximum weight for 3–7 s. A mixture of muscular endurance
and maximum strength was assessed by hanging to failure on
very narrow edges or the one-arm dead hang. The
implementation of the test varies substantially in terms of the
grip type, the edge depth and the grip width used. High to very
high inter-session reliability is reported for the tests on finger
isometric intermittent muscular endurance and finger isometric
maximum strength. Medernach et al. (34,80) worked with a
hang to rest ratio of 8:4 s on a 30 mm edge with open crimp.
Bergua et al. (81) used a 40 mm edge and let their participants
(advanced to elite males and females) choose between open- and
half crimp, whereas López-Rivera and Gonzáles-Badillo (82) used
a 15 mm edge when testing elite climbers and allowed half crimp
only. The reliability of the dead hang tests to assess sustained
isometric muscular endurance of the fingers is reported to be
very high by Bergua et al. (14 mm or 25 mm edge with open- or
half crimp) (81), Draper et al. (14) (30 mm edge with self-chosen
grip), and López-Rivera and Gonzáles-Badillo (11 mm edge with
half crimp) (82). Ozimek et al. (83) used a metal bar instead of
an edge and reported a low to high inter-session reliability for
elite male climbers. No reliability data is provided for tests
combining muscular endurance and maximum finger strength.
Validity data is reported for the sustained muscular endurance
tests. The correlations between the test results and climbing
ability cover a wide range. Bergua et al. (81) report high negative
correlations for the minimum edge depth the participants could
hang from for 40 s. Balášet al. (84) and Kitaoka et al. (27)
report high to very high positive correlations for maximum
hangtime and post exercise lactate concentrations, respectively.
Middle-sized to high correlations are reported between finger
isometric maximum strength test results and climbing ability.
Like the dead hang, the bent arm hang was implemented with
various grip types, edge depths and shoulder widths. Time to
failure was assessed during a unilateral or a bilateral bent arm
hang. Augste et al. (15) also assessed maximum weight held for
3 s in a unilateral bent arm hang. Thus, through different
implementations, the bent arm hang can be used to assess upper
limb isometric muscular endurance and maximum strength. If
small holds are used, finger isometric maximum strength or
muscular endurance also play a role in this test. Studies
providing data on inter-session reliability, report very high
ratings, including acceptable CV values, for the test design used
in the IRCRA test-battery (14) and very high correlations
between sessions for the maximum weight held for 3s in a one
arm bent arm hang (15). Low to high correlations between test
results and climbing ability were reported. Additionally, Mermier
et al. (6) report a high correlation between the strength and the
endurance component, including other strength and endurance
tests, and climbing performance tested on multiple routes.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 08 frontiersin.org

TABLE 3 Reliability and validity measures for upper limb and finger strength tests.
Upper limb and finger
strength
Measured variable Reliability Construct validity (correlation with self-
reported
climbing ability)
Dead hang (14,15,25,27,31–
34,54,62–64,80–93)
Finger iso. ME Inter-session: ICC = .13—>.99 (14,81–83), CV% =
18.0 (14), CV% = 23.4–29.9 (83), CV% = 12.8 (82)
r= -.26 –.87 (27,62,81,83,85,87,88);
r= .90 –.93 (84)
Finger iso. inter. ME Inter-session: ICC = .97 (80); r= .86 (34)–
Finger iso. MS inter-session: ICC = .93 –.99 (81,82),
CV% = 7.8 (82)
r= .58 –.84 (81,83)
Finger iso. ME/MS ––
Bent arm hang (3,6,14,15,30,
31,46,54,63,64,82,84,94–99)
Upper limb + finger iso. SE/
MS
Inter-session: ICC = .89, CV% = 15.0 (14);
r= .97 –.99 (15)
r= .23—>.80 (15,84,94,99)
r= .77 ( 6)
+
Pull-up (3,7,14,31,33,46,53,
54,83,85,87,89,94,95,97,
100–106)
Upper limb con. MS Inter-session: ICC = .84 –.99,
CV% = 1.0–6.62 (100)
–
Upper limb ESE ––
Upper limb con.-ecc. ME Intra-session: ICC = .97, CV% = 14.0 (14)
Inter-session: ICC = .96 –.99 (14,102), CV% = 14.0
(14)
r= .08 –.72 (83,94)
Upper limb + finger con.-ecc.
MSE
––
Upper limb + finger iso. MS ––
Upper limb iso. ES and Upper
limb + finger MS
Intra-session: ICC = .88 –.99, CV% = 9.1–12.9 (103)r= .61 –.77 (85)
Pinch a dynamometer (3,6,24,
94,95,97,102,107–110)
Pinch/pincer iso. MS Intra-session: r > .99 (108)r= .22 –.59 (94,109,110); r= .77 (6,95); CCC = .99
(107)
r= .77 ( 6)
+
(performance on multiple routes
combined)
Grip a hand dynamometer (3,
4,6,24,34,38,45–47,49,56,
57,61,62,65,73,75,80,83–85,
94–97,99,109,111–129)
Hand iso. MS Intra-session: ICC≤.97 (4,117), CV% = 3.2 (4)
Inter-session: ICC = .91 –.98 (80,112)
Intra-rater: ICC = .88 (118)
r= -.96 –.72 (24,73,94,95,99,121,123)
r= .77 ( 6)
+
;r= -.97—-.88 (24)
+
;r= .11 (121)
+
Hand iso. ES ––
Hand iso. MS + ES Intra-session: ICC = .94 –.99, CV% = 3.79–22.96 (115)
Inter-session: ICC = .83 –.98, CV% = 4–6(119)
–
Hand iso. ME –r= .76 (6)
+
Hand inter. iso. MSE Inter-session: ICC = .93, CV% = 3.2 (4)r= -.60 (62)
Apply force on hold (2,7–9,14,
15,24,29,32,35,38,41,47,54,
90,93,96,99,101,105,106,
109,110,117,122,130–155)
Finger iso. ES + MS Intra-session: ICC = .21 –.99 (130,140), CV% = 2.64–
28.34 (140)
Inter-session: ICC = .40 –.94 (130); 0.60 < r< 0.80
(140)
r= .65-.76 ( 130)
Finger iso. (inter.) ME Intra-session (sus + inter): ICC = .85 –.92 (138)
Inter session (inter): ICC = .29–91 (130,142), CV%
<2.5 (142)
Sus: r= -.26 –.72 (110,138,156); d = .44–1.47 (41);
r= .76 ( 41)
Inter: r=—27 –.19 (156); d = .07 –.33 (41); r= .65
(41)
Finger iso. (inter.) MSE/CF Intra-session (sus): ICC = .85 –.92 (138)
Inter session (sus): ICC = .92 –.94 (130); (inter):.87
–.96 (132)
Sus: r=80–.82 (138,156); r= .65–73 (130)
Inter: r= .60 (99); r= .51 –.78 (132)
Finger iso. (inter.) MS Inter-session (sus): ICC = .88 –.92 (96,130,144), CV
% = 2.2 (96); r= .88 –.99 (136,143)
Intra-session (sus): ICC = .97 –.98 (117); r= .88 –.95
(136,138); Cronbach’s alpha = .99 (110)
Sus: r= -.96 –.81 (2,24,99,110,136,138,144,156);
r= .04 –.92 (41,95,130,131,134,147)
r= -.94—-.77 (24)
+
,r= .43 –.67 (131)
+
Finger + wrist con.-ecc . MS –r= .57 ( 133)
Power-slap test (4,14,31,32,
53,54,112,134,157,158)
Upper limb con. ES Intra-session: ICC = .98, CV%<4.89 (157)
Inter-session: ICC = .95 –.98 (14,112,157,158), CV%
<4.89 (157), CV%=7.0 (14)
r= .69 –.73 (14,157,158)
Upper limb con. ESE ––
Medicine ball throw (31,112)Upper limb ES Inter-session: ICC = .96 (112)–
Elbow strength tests (159)Upper limb MS –r= .51 –.63 (159)
Biceps strength test (95)Biceps MS –r= .29 –.45 (95)
Shoulder strength test (6,160)Shoulder con.-ecc. MS ––
Shoulder con. MS –r= 0.77 ( 6)
+
Push-ups (31)Upper limb ESE ––
Campus board performance
(39,53)
Upper limb ESE ––
Arm jump test (161)Upper limb (ecc.)-con. ES ––
Bench press (4)Upper limb con. ES + MS ––
(continued)
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 09 frontiersin.org

The pull-up was used to assess upper limb explosive strength
(endurance) (33,100,101) and muscular endurance (14,83,94,
102). Furthermore, it was used to measure upper limb and finger
maximum strength (endurance) (31). The isometric pull-up was
implemented to assess upper limb isometric explosive strength
(85,103) as well as upper limb maximum strength and finger
maximum strength (if small holds were used). Inter- and intra-
session reliability measures, ranging between high and very high,
were reported for multiple different pull-up variations (14,102,
103,111). Muscular endurance measures through the number of
pull-ups performed show no to middle-sized correlation to
climbing ability (83,94). Middle-sized correlations were also
found for peak force, and rate of force development (RFD)
measured during an isometric pull-up by Vereide et al. (85).
Multiple tests such as push-ups, campus board performance,
bench press, pull down and a traction test were used to assess
upper limb explosive strength (endurance) and maximum
strength (endurance). However, no quality data on any of these
tests were reported.
Upper limb explosive strength was also assessed by measuring
the maximum distance of a medicine ball throw. While no data on
the correlation of the test measures with climbing ability were
reported, Cochrane and Hawke (112) report a very high inter-
session reliability.
For a test implemented by Mermier et al. (6) to assess shoulder
concentric maximum strength, no quality data are being reported,
except for a high correlation between shoulder strength and other
strength and endurance tests, and climbing performance, measured
on multiple routes. Wong (160), who tested eccentric and
concentric strength of the shoulders did not provide any test
quality data.
The only test implemented to specifically measure biceps
maximum strength was conducted by MacKenzie et al. (95) who
report a low to middle-sized correlation to climbing ability.
Augustsson et al. (159) were the only ones to examine elbow
maximum strength in four tests including elbow flexion,
extension, pronation, and supination. While no data on test
reliability was reported, middle sized correlations to bouldering
ability were reported.
The power-slap test is one of the most common tests used to
assess upper limb explosive strength in climbers. Authors have
measured the maximum height slapped with one hand or both
hands at the same time and the highest rung reached and held
for two seconds with one hand, respectively. Very high inter-
and intra-session reliability were reported for the maximum
height slapped with both one and two hands by multiple studies.
However, no correlations with climbing ability were reported.
The same is the case for quality data on the measurement of the
fatigue index during multiple power-slaps to assess explosive
strength endurance as conducted by Laffaye et al. (4).
Abreu et al. (161) asked their participants to perform an arm-
jump test. This test is similar to the power slap test with both hands
but instead of slapping the wall, the subjects are asked to reach and
hold the highest possible rung. No quality data on measuring upper
limb explosive strength through this test are reported.
Force parameters of the hand and fingers were assessed in
multiple different ways. Three groups of tests were identified.
Firstly, hand dynamometers were used to measure hand force,
which requires the use of the opposing thumb. Various different
arm positions (shoulder flexion, elbow flexion, shoulder ab-/
adduction), hand position (supination), and body positions
(sitting or standing) were applied. In addition, the forearm was
supported in some studies. Isometric maximum hand strength
was assessed by measuring (mean) maximum force. Intra-rater
reliability was reported to be high. In addition, intra-and inter-
session reliability were reported to be very high. A very high
negative correlation between the test results and top rope
climbing time was reported by Mitchell et al. (24), while other
authors have reported low to high positive correlations with top
rope climbing time and self-reported climbing ability. Hand
isometric explosive strength was assessed measuring RFD. No
quality data are reported for these tests. Few studies measured
both maximum strength and explosive strength during one test.
Middle-sized correlations to climbing ability are reported for
these tests and they show a very high intra- and inter-session
reliability. Hand isometric muscular endurance was also tested
through handheld dynamometry. Subjects were asked to
maintain 50 or 80% of their MVC for as long as possible. While
no data on the reliability of these tests are reported, Mermier
et al. (6) report a high correlation between a group of strength
and endurance tests including a handheld dynamometry test at
50% of MVC until exhaustion, and climbing ability. Moreover,
hand intermittent isometric maximum strength endurance was
assessed by measuring maximum force and fatigue index
during repeated MVCs. A very high inter-session reliability
and a middle-sized negative correlation with climbing ability
are reported.
Secondly, finger strength without an opposing thumb was
conducted by applying force on holds. Different hold types, hold
depths, and various finger positions (slope crimp, half crimp,
TABLE 3 Continued
Upper limb and finger
strength
Measured variable Reliability Construct validity (correlation with self-
reported
climbing ability)
Pull down (63,64)Upper limb con.-ecc. MSE ––
Traction test (139)Upper limb con. ES ––
Upper limb con.-ecc. ME ––
CF, critical force; MS, maximum strength; ME, muscular endurance; ES, explosive strength; MSE, maximum strength endurance; ESE, explosive strength endurance; iso.,
isometric; con., concentric; ecc., eccentric; sus, sustained contraction; inter, intermittent contraction; CV, coefficient of variation; +, criterion validity (correlation with
climbing performance test scores).
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 10 frontiersin.org

open crimp, pinch, jug, and sloper) were used. Furthermore,
different arm positions (shoulder flexion, elbow flexion, shoulder
ab-/adduction), and body positions (sitting, standing, hanging,
crouching or leaning over a table) were applied. The forearm was
supported during the tests in some studies. A combination of
finger isometric explosive and maximum strength was assessed
through one explosive MVC. Intra- and inter-session reliability
were reported as low to very high. The test results explained 65%
to 73% of the variability in climbing ability as reported by
Michailov et al. (130). Finger isometric muscular endurance was
assessed in both sustained and intermittent tests. Intra-session
reliability for both variants was reported as high to very high.
Inter-session reliability was only reported for the intermittent
tests and ranged from low to very high. The correlation between
the results from the sustained tests with climbing ability ranged
from low negative to high positive. As reported by Balášet al.
(41), the test results were able to explain 56% of the variability in
climbing ability. Furthermore, they found significant low to high
differences between the test results of intermediate and advanced
climbers. The correlation between the results from the
intermittent tests with climbing ability ranged from low negative
to low positive. As reported by Balášet al. (41), the test results
explained 43% of the variability in climbing ability. Furthermore,
they found low but significant differences between the test results
of intermediate and advanced climbers. In addition, Wall et al.
(131) and Mitchell et al. (24) report high negative to middle-
sized positive correlations with climbing performance on
multiple routes and top-rope climbing time, respectively.
Finger maximum strength endurance and finger flexor critical
force (132) were assessed through sustained and intermittent MVCs
until failure, respectively. Intra-session reliability was reported to
range between high and very high for the sustained tests. Inter-
session reliability was reported to be very high for the sustained
tests and high to very high for the intermittent tests. While high
correlations to climbing ability were reported for the sustained tests,
middle-sized correlations were reported for the intermittent tests.
Tests assessing solely finger isometric maximum strength through
intermittent and sustained contractions are reported to have a very
high intra- and inter-session reliability. The correlation between the
testresultsrangesfromhighlynegativeasreportedbyMitchell
et al. (24) to highly positive. One study by Schweizer and Furrer
(133) assessed finger and wrist concentric-eccentric maximum
strength with an especially designed apparatus. They reported a
middle-sized correlation to climbing ability.
Thirdly, isometric pinch or pincer (only thumb and index
finger) maximum strength were also assessed with a
dynamometer. Depending on the study, different body positions
were applied during the test. This includes shoulder and elbow
flexion, body position (standing or sitting) and the fingers
included into the pinch (I/II | I/III | I/II-III | I/II-IV | I/II-V).
Studies report a high inter-session correlation and low to middle-
sized correlation with climbing ability. Mundry et al. (107) report
a high correlation with climbing ability. They had asked their
participants to pinch a dynamometer while sitting on a chair
with the upper arm leant on the thorax, the elbow at a 90° angle
and the hand in a pronated position.
In summary, a total of sixteen tests for assessing upper limb
and finger strength in climbing were identified. Several tests were
used in multiple ways to assess different types of strength
(maximum strength, muscular endurance, explosive strength,
explosive/maximum strength endurance). Furthermore, test
implementation varied greatly between the different studies. It
was found that most tests still lack reliability assessment and
validation. Few tests were reported to be highly reliable. This
includes dead hang, bent arm hang, pull up, pinching a
dynamometer, applying force on a hold, and the power-slap test.
Due to the variety of test implementations, correlation ranges are
large for most of the tests. Some of the highest correlations with
climbing ability were reported for applying force on a hold or
pinching a dynamometer.
3.2.3. Upper limb endurance
Upper limb endurance was assessed by two tests (Table 4):
•Arm crank ergometry
•Rowing ergometry
Arm crank ergometry was used in several studies and different
values such as maximum and average power, maximum force,
maximum oxygen uptake, time to failure, and heart rate were
measured. No data on the reliability of arm crank ergometry are
reported and while Pires et al. (165) found significant differences
between climbers and non-climbers regarding VO
2
-peak, the
correlation with climbing ability was reported to be only low to
middle-sized (95).
A high correlation with climbing ability was, however, found
for maximum oxygen uptake during rowing ergometry by
Michailov et al. (162). Marino et al. (163) used rowing ergometry
to assess upper limb concentric maximum strength. The
measurement through the one repetition maximum indicates a
high reliability and a high correlation with climbing ability.
In summary, two tests were used to assess upper limb
endurance in climbing but only few validity and reliability
measures have been reported to this date.
3.2.4. Upper limb flexibility
Upper limb flexibility was tested through two tests (Table 5):
•Shoulder abduction and flexion
•Shoulder flexibility test
TABLE 4 Reliability and validity measures for upper limb endurance tests.
Upper limb
endurance
Measured
variable
Reliability Construct validity
(correlation with
self-reported
climbing ability)
Rowing
ergometry
(162–164)
Con.-ecc. E –r= .85 (162)
Con. MS Inter-session:
ICC = .79 –.85
(163)
r= .72 –.73 (163)
Arm crank
ergometry (30,
49,95,165)
Con.-ecc. E r = .20 –.56 (95)
MS, maximum strength; E, endurance; con., concentric; ecc., eccentric.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 11 frontiersin.org

Mermier et al. (6) assessed shoulder abduction and flexion through
a test for the maximum active range of motion while standing with
palms facing inward. Giles et al. (134) instead assessed the
minimum distance between both hands gripping the same
wooden stick that allowed for a full overhead rotation of the said
stick without bending the arms. None of the two studies reported
reliability measures. Validity measures were only reported by
Mermier et al. (6) who found a low correlation between the
flexibility component, including shoulder and lower limb
flexibility, and climbing performance.
In summary, two tests assessing upper limb flexibility were
implemented in climbing research, with only little data reported
on test quality.
3.2.5. Lower limb strength
Several tests used to assess lower limb strength were identified
(Table 6):
•Squat jump
•Standing long jump
•Jump with high foot
•Counter movement jump (CMJ)
•Vertical jump
•One legged squat
•Unnamed lower limb strength test
While no study reported both reliability and validity data on any of
the tests, Mermier et al. (6) report a high correlation between the
strength and endurance component including the lower limb
strength test and other strength and endurance tests, and
climbing performance in climbers.
Augste et al. (15) specified a high intra-session and an
unacceptable inter-session reliability for the test jump with high
foot.
According to Augste et al. (32), the CMJ proved to be relevant
to speed climbing and bouldering. In addition, Krawczyk et al. (79)
found a high negative correlation between height and power for the
CMJ and climbing time in speed climbing. Both España-Romero
et al. (47) and Giles et al. (134), however, found no significant
differences between climbers of different ability levels.
The squat jump was used in studies by España -Romero et al.
(47), Augste et al. (15) and Arazi et al. (94). The latter could
identify a low correlation between jump height and climbing
ability in both males and females.
For the standing long jump used by Kozina et al. (33) and
Stancovićet al. (31), the vertical jump conducted by Nichols
et al. (54), and the one legged squat applied by Čular et al. (113),
no data on test quality is provided.
In summary, six different tests were used to measure lower
limb strength in climbing research. While only very little quality
data was reported, research points toward squat jump, and CMJ
measurements as possible indicators of climbing-specific lower
limb strength.
3.2.6. Lower limb endurance
Lower limb endurance was tested through two tests (Table 7):
•Treadmill running
•Cycle ergometry
Only five studies used the cycle ergometer to conduct a
discontinuous incremental test (42,166–168) and the Wingate
test protocol (6). Unfortunately, no data on the reliability or
validity of the test were reported by Limonta et al. (42).
However, the authors stated that they could not find any
difference in maximum oxygen uptake between climbing and
cycling. Mermier et al. (6) report a high correlation between the
strength and endurance component including other upper- and
lower limb endurance and strength test, and climbing performance.
MacKenzie et al. (95) found that aerobic capacity during a
treadmill test with progressive inclination until volitional
exhaustion shows a low correlation with climbing ability of both
males and females. Michailov et al. (162) and Fryer et al. (45)on
the other hand found no significant correlation between
exhaustive treadmill running (continuous test with progressive
TABLE 5 Reliability and validity measures for upper limb flexibility tests.
Upper limb
flexibility
Measured
variable
Reliability Construct validity
(correlation with
self-reported
climbing ability)
Shoulder
flexibility test
(6,134)
Shoulder active
dynamic FLEX
(overhead)
––
Shoulder
abduction and
flexion (6)
Shoulder active
static FLEX (range
of motion)
–r= .14 (6)
+
FLEX, flexibility;
+
, criterion validity (correlation with climbing performance test
scores).
TABLE 6 Reliability and validity measures for lower limb strength tests.
Lower limb strength Measured variable Reliability Construct validity (correlation with
self-reported climbing ability)
Lower limb strength test (6)Con. MS –r=0.77 (6)
+
jump with high foot (15,32)Con. ES Intra-session: r= .76–92 (15)–
Counter movement jump (32,47,79,134)Ecc.-con. ES –r=.79 (79)
Squat jump (32,47,94)Con. ES –r=.23 –.33 (94)
Standing long jump (31,33)Ecc.-conc. ES ––
Vertical jump (54)(Ecc.-)con. ES ––
One legged squats (113)Con.-ecc. ME ––
MS, maximum strength; ES, explosive strength; ME, muscular endurance; con., concentric; ecc., eccentric;
+
, criterion validity (correlation with climbing performance test
scores).
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 12 frontiersin.org

speed and progressive speed and inclination respectively) and
climbing performance. Balášet al. (37) conducted a treadmill
running test with progressive speed at constant inclination (5%)
until exhaustion but did not report any reliability or validity
data. Balášet al. (41) found low differences between intermediate
and advanced climbers during a treadmill running test with
progressive inclination (%) to failure regarding time to failure,
slope, tidal volume, respiratory exchange rate and heart rate.
In summary, two tests were established to measure lower limb
endurance in climbing. No significant correlations were found
between oxygen uptake during cycling and climbing, and
treadmill running showed little or no correlation with climbing
ability.
3.2.7. Lower limb flexibility
Lower limb flexibility was assessed through multiple tests
(Table 8). While some tests are also known in other sports, more
climbing specific tests were developed:
•Sit and reach
•Lateral foot reach
•Grant foot raise
•Climbing specific foot raise
•Hip abduction test
•Draga test
•Hip slide test
•Foot loading flexibility test
•Asymmetry in reach test
•Froggies
•Straddle test
•Hip flexion and rotation
•Leg flexion
The sit and reach test as a test for low back and hamstring active
static flexibility was used in multiple studies. Except for one
study by Siegel et al. (114), who conducted the back saver sit and
reach test, all studies conducted the sit and reach test with both
legs. The only authors reporting reliability data are Draper et al.
(169), who report a very high inter-session reliability. MacKenzie
et al. (95) found a low and middle-sized correlation with
climbing ability in males and females respectively.
Active static hip flexibility was assessed through several tests.
Draper et al. (169) report a very high inter-session reliability but
only a low correlation between test results and climbing ability
for the lateral foot reach test.
A very high inter-session reliability is also reported for the
Grant foot raise test by Draper et al. (169) for implementing the
test both with and without lateral hip movement. However, only
low to middle-sized correlations with climbing ability are
reported for both males and females for all ways of
TABLE 7 Reliability and validity measures for lower limb endurance tests.
Lower limb endurance Measured variable Reliability Construct validity (correlation with self-reported climbing ability)
Treadmill running (37,41,45,95,162)E–d = .17 –.43 (41); r= .17-.28 (95), ns (162)
Cycle ergometry (6,42,166–168)E––
E, Endurance; ns, non-significant.
TABLE 8 Reliability and validity measures for lower limb flexibility tests.
Lower limb
flexibility
Measured variable Reliability Construct validity (correlation with
self-reported climbing ability)
Sit and reach (3,47,95,
97,114,169)
Low back + hamstring
Active static FLEX
Inter-session: ICC = .97 (169)r= 0.17 –0.42 (95)
Lateral foot reach (169)Hip active static FLEX Inter-session: ICC = .93 (169)r= .24 –.30 (169)
Grant foot raise (3,95,97,
110,169,170)
Hip active static FLEX Inter-session: ICC = .90 –.93 (169)r= .20 –.34 (110,169); r= .26 –.49 (95)
Climbing specific foot
raise (14,15,32,169)
Hip active static FLEX Inter-session: ICC = .89 (169); r= .95 –.99 (15)r= .53 –.95 (14,15,169)
Hip abduction test (6,
131)
Hip active static FLEX –r= .14 (6)
+
Draga test (170)Hip active static FLEX ––
Hip slide test (134)Hip active static FLEX ––
Foot loading flexibility
test (169)
Hip active static FLEX/
Climbing ability
Inter-session: ICC = .96 (169)r= .56 –.65 (169)
Asymmetry in reach test
(113)
Hip active static FLEX/
Climbing ability
Intra-session: ICC = .89—>.99, CV% = 1.31–35.20, SEM%=.09 –.61
(113), inter-session: ICC = .87 -.96, CV% = 4.96–41.98, SEM% = .07–
1.57 (113)
–
Froggies (5,30)Hip passive static FLEX ––
Straddle test (3,95,97,
134,170)
Hip + lower limb passive
Static FLEX
–r= -.48—-.41 (170); r= .16 –.57 (95)
Hip rotation and flexion
(131)
Hip active FLEX ––
Leg flexion (131)Lower limb active FLEX ––
FLEX, flexibility; CV, coefficient of variation; SEM, standard error of mean;
+
, criterion validity (correlation with climbing performance test scores).
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 13 frontiersin.org

implementation (with or without lateral hip movement and with a
23 cm or arm length distance to the wall).
The climbing specific foot raise test is very similar to the Grant
foot raise test. The participants stand on footholds with their hands
on a rung or handholds around head height. They then raise one
foot as high as possible either with or without lateral rotation of
the body to the wall. Draper et al. (169) found high inter-session
reliability for the test without lateral rotation. Very high inter-
session reliability was reported by Augste et al. (15). Middle-
sized and high correlations were found between the test measures
without and with rotation, respectively, and climbing ability.
Mermier et al. and Wall et al. (6,131) conducted a hip
abduction test. No test related quality data was reported.
However, a low correlation between the flexibility component,
including shoulder, and lower limb flexibility, and climbing
performance on multiple routes was stated.
Two other tests that were used to assess active static hip
flexibility are the Draga- and hip slide test by Draga et al. (170)
and Giles et al. (134), respectively. No quality data were reported
on either test.
The foot loading flexibility test conducted by Draper et al. (169)
and the asymmetry in reach test conducted by Čular et al. (113)
combine active static hip flexibility with a climbing movement
and are thus more complex compared to tests focused solely on
hip flexibility. The inter-session reliability of both tests is rated as
high to very high. Čular et al. (113) additionally report an
equally high intra-session reliability for the asymmetry in reach
test. While they, however, do not report any correlations to
climbing ability, Draper et al. (169) report a middle-sized
correlation between the results from the foot loading flexibility
test and climbing ability.
Two tests were used to assess passive static hip and lower limb
flexibility. During the so called froggies, the participants are asked
sit or stand with their feet placed together and to then spread their
legs as far as possible to the sides. Both studies conducting this test
did not provide any data on the test’s quality (5,30). The straddle
test, which is also used in other sports, was implemented in three
different ways. The implementations differ in the body position
of the subjects (lying, sitting, standing) while spreading their legs
as far as possible. No data on the reliability of the straddle test
are reported. However, a middle-sized negative correlation
between the test outcomes in a sitting position and climbing
ability was reported by Draga et al. (170). MacKenzie et al. (95)
on the other hand report no correlation with climbing ability for
males and a low correlation for females.
Wall et al. (131) conducted three different tests to assess frontal
hip flexion, hip rotation and leg flexion but did not report any data
on test quality.
In summary, fourteen different tests for the assessment of lower
limb flexibility in climbing were identified. While high to very high
inter-session reliability was reported for six of these tests, mainly
low to middle-sized correlations with climbing ability were
reported. Only the climbing specific foot raise was reported to
highly correlate with climbing ability.
3.2.8. Core strength
The following core strength tests were identified (Table 9):
•Super-man
•Momentum absorption
•Core rotation test
•Body lock off
•Plank
•Sorensen test
•Kraus Weber test battery
•Sit-ups
•Curl-ups
•Fishing kicks
•Leg raise
No quality data are provided for the following tests: core rotation
test, plank, Sorensen test, Kraus Weber test battery, sit-ups, and
curl-ups. During the fishing kicks tests, participants held on to a
bar attached to a 60-degrees overhanging wall. They were then
asked to touch a foot plate on the wall with each foot for one
second, starting in a vertical position and without swinging their
legs. The test was repeated until the plate had not been loaded
on three consecutive attempts. Augste et al. (15) reported low to
moderate negative correlations to climbing ability. A similar test
TABLE 9 Reliability and validity measures for core strength tests.
Core strength Measured variable Reliability Construct validity (correlation with
self-reported climbing ability)
Super-man (86)Con.-ecc. MS Inter-session: ICC = 0.87 (86)–
Momentum absorption (15,32)Con. MS –r= -.01 –.31 (15)
Core rotation test (86)Con. MS ––
Body lock off (86)Iso. SE Inter-session: ICC = .79 (86)–
Plank (14)Iso. SE ––
Sorensen test (4,96)Iso. SE ––
Kraus Weber test battery (96)Iso. SE ––
Sit-ups (31)Con.-ecc- SE ––
Curl-ups (3,97,114)Con.-ecc- SE ––
Fishing kicks (15,32), (86)Con.-ecc. SE Inter-session: ICC = 0.91 (86)r= -.42—-.12 (15)
Leg raise (14,95,96)Core + lower leg iso. SE –r= .30 –.45 (95)
MS, maximum strength; ME, muscular endurance; iso., isometric; con., concentric; ecc, eccentric.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 14 frontiersin.org

was conducted by Saeterbakken et al. (86) who report a very high
inter-session reliability.
They also report high inter-session reliabilities for the super
man and the body lock off test (86). During the super man test,
participants adopted a push-up position with their hands on a
slide board and their feet against a wall. They were then
askedtoslidetheirarmsasfarforwardaspossiblesothey
could still return to the starting position. For the body lock
off test, participants adopted a horizontal position with one
foot on a campus rung and both hands on another. They were
then asked to lift their second foot to the same height as the
first and to lift their body so that shoulders, pelvis and ankle
formed a horizontal line. They then had to hold the position
for as long as possible. Augste et al. (15)reportedlow
correlations between “momentum absorption”and climbing
ability. For this test participants were asked to position both
hands and feet on a 60-degrees overhanging wall. They then
simultaneously released both feet and tried to allow as little
back swing as possible. Whereas Draper et al. (14)aswellas
Macdonald and Callender (96) found no significant
differences between climbers of different ability levels
regarding leg raise measurements, MacKenzie et al. (95)
found a low correlation to climbing ability in females and a
middle-sized correlation in males.
In summary, eleven different tests were identified to assess core
strength in climbing. For six of them no quality data are reported.
High reliability measures were reported for body lock off, super-
man, and fishing kicks. Low correlations with climbing ability are
reported for leg raise and middle-sized to high correlations for
“momentum absorption”.
4. Discussion
The aim of this review was to give an overview over the quality
of different test- and measurement methods for performance,
strength, endurance, and flexibility in climbing. The type and
frequency of the tests used (Figure 3) correspond to the
performance structure of climbing shown in Figure 1. This
shows that research is representing the conditional requirements
of the climbing sport. Nonetheless, the climbing ability of most
samples range across two or more ability levels (IRCRA) and
only very few studies focused on specific ability levels. This leads
to the fact that only broad assumptions within the field of
climbing diagnostics can be made. In addition, all
recommendations on testing need to be viewed in context of the
population included in the respective study.
Based on current evidence, it is difficult to determine whether
individual tests are superior to others in terms of reliability and
validity. However, individual tests may be identified as
particularly good based on multiple studies and quality checks,
while others may need further exploration. Although a large
number of studies and tests were included in this review, it
should be noted that the majority of the studies (a total of 82 =
55,4%) did not provide data on test quality, which may have
biased our analysis.
4.1. Performance tests
Climbing and bouldering performance were measured
through several tests. Their high complexity and variability
are both advantageous and disadvantageous at the same time.
On the one hand they can be adapted to focus on various
different performance factors such as endurance, strength,
climbing ability, dynamics, and kinematics. Additionally, they
can be implemented easily and most of them don’trequire
expensive and unwieldy equipment. On the other hand, the
fact that they are implemented in various different ways
makes it hard to compare the results of different studies.
Furthermore, the variability of the routes and walls used lead
to substantial differences in the requirements needed to fulfil
a test among different ability levels. For example, a test route
designed to test climbing endurance in elite climbers might
require more strength than endurance in intermediate and
advanced climbers.
While there is little quality data reported on performance tests,
the correlation between test scores and reported climbing ability is
high or up to very high. Especially the repeated ascent of one
boulder, and bouldering in a circuit stand out due to a high
validity. Even though the test results might seem to be vague,
due to the high complexity of the tests, various studies report
very high inter-session reliability for top-rope, and treadwall
climbing, as well as the rock over climbing test, and the repeated
ascent of one boulder. Moreover, studies that evaluated climbing
kinematics through expert ratings report high inter-rater
reliability. A new attempt to measure climbing performance
through climbing kinematics through the assessment of the jerk
of the hip trajectory showed high correlations with climbing
ability (68,69). Tests that lack construct validity regarding
climbing ability are traverse bouldering, bouldering and lead
climbing.
One factor, researchers might criticize about tests that involve
bouldering or climbing is the impact of route preview on the test
results. While, according to Sanchez et al. (67), route preview
does not lead to a climber being more likely to finish the ascent
of a route, it is likely to influence the performance on the route
itself. The ability to visually inspect a climb before its ascent or
not may thus represent a key factor in performance testing (67).
Some climbing performance tests have been used to assess
climbing specific endurance. While it was shown that both
systemic and localized endurance are important in climbing
ability and several tests are needed for a full picture of an athlete
(171), there is still no consensus on the most appropriate tests.
In general, five climbing performance tests have not been
validated and only eight studies report reliability data.
Furthermore, the included population covers different ability
levels, which is why no definitive recommendations for climbing
performance tests can be given at present.
While we decided to classify the tests according to the exercises
performed, another idea would be to classify them according to the
intensity of the exercise. To our knowledge, no study has so far
distinguished between exhaustive or submaximal tests which
would be an interesting topic for future analyses.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 15 frontiersin.org

4.2. Upper limb and finger strength
A total of 16 different test groups for upper limb and finger
strength were identified. They were applied by 120 out of 156
studies included in this review. This represents the importance of
upper limb and finger maximum strength, muscular endurance
and explosive strength in climbing.
All tests conducted to measure finger strength are isometric
tests, except for one test by Schweizer and Fuller (102) which is
isokinetic. In total, four test groups were identified. However,
these consist of almost 230 different ways of implementation
regarding hold type, hold depth, arm- and body position,
distance between the hands, force thresholds, contraction type,
and work to rest ratios. Furthermore, the same tests were
modified to assess not only finger isometric maximum strength
but also isometric muscular endurance in both sustained and
intermittent setups, explosive strength, and maximum strength
endurance. The dead hang was reported to have very high
reliability ratings by many studies. In addition, acceptable
coefficients of variation were reported by Draper et al. (14) and
López-Rivera and González-Badillo (82). Only Ozimek et al. (83)
report poor CV values (23.4%–29.9%). Both gripping a hand
dynamometer and applying force on a hold were also reported to
be highly reliable. Acceptable CV-values are additionally reported
by multiple studies (4,96,115–117,135). The reliability for
pinching a dynamometer has so far only been assessed by in one
study (108) reporting very high intra-session reliability.
Correlations with climbing ability were on the other hand
studied less frequently reported. The dead hang seems to be a
valid measure to assess finger isometric muscular endurance and
maximum strength. New findings however show that the test is
more likely to assess maximum strength rather than muscular
endurance (171).
Both gripping and pinching a dynamometer for measuring
finger maximum strength seem to be valid ways to assess finger
isometric muscular endurance and maximum strength. Applying
force on a hold might be a less valid procedure, however all
these findings need to be treated with caution as test setups and
included populations vary substantially.
One of the tests assessing maximum strength endurance of the
fingers that has recently been introduced also assesses finger flexor
critical force (132). This parameter is new to climbing research and
holds great potential for further investigations of specific strength
profiles of climbers and their correlation with climbing ability.
Both gripping a dynamometer and applying force on a hold
have been reported to hold high and very high test reliability,
respectively, and high levels of standardization in assessing hand
strength (172,173). While we cannot give a final answer to the
question which arm- and body positions should be used for
finger flexor strength testing, we are able to summarize the
current findings in this field. One of the first studies investigating
this question found that the most appropriate protocol seems to
be to assess maximum grip strength in adolescents with the
elbow extended rather than bent at 90 degrees (174). Whether
this applies to adult climbers of different ability levels as well,
remains to be investigated. Michailov et al. (130), state that,
while finger strength testing with arm fixation is more reliable,
tests without arm fixation are more related to climbing ability.
Amca et al. (175) observed different forms of increase in force
with increasing hold depth, depending on the grip technique.
This points towards climbers adopting individual choices of body
position while climbing according to the chosen grip technique.
Consequently, some freedom of choice regarding the type of grip
and body positioning during finger strength testing might lead to
more reliable and valid results. Balášet al. (136) assessed the
differences between various grip types and report open grip and
crimp grip as most closely related to self-reported climbing
ability. Additionally, two finger grips might provide more
detailed information on individual grip performance variations
(136). Bourne et al. (137) assessed the effect of edge depth and
found that finger strength measured on deep edges do not
predict finger strength on shallow edges. In addition, individual
anthropometric factors such as fingertip pulp may influence
strength measurements. A recent study by van Bergen et al. (176)
suggest to conduct finger strength testing and training with
different holds and body positions.
Another factor that many tests differ on is the type of
contraction (continuous or intermittent). It was shown that
aerobic, alactic, and lactic relative energy contributions differ
significantly between both test set ups (138). Researchers and
coaches should thus choose the test set up according to the
variable they wish to measure. Nonetheless, it remains unclear
which work to rest ratio intermittent testing holds the highest
correlation to climbing ability in different performance groups.
Augste et al. (177) recently published a study aimed at
optimizing the correlation of test performance in intermittent
finger muscular endurance tests with climbing ability. They
found the highest correlations for women and men when 9% and
6% deviation in required force and one second deviation in
required pulling time were tolerated, respectively. This might be
a good starting point for future research on intermittent finger
strength testing.
Low to high reliability and middle-sized correlations to
climbing ability have been reported for the assessment of finger
flexors RFD. New findings suggest, that RFD plays an important
role especially in high elite climbing (178,179) and should
therefore be considered in more detail in future.
As can already be seen form these findings, sex plays an
important role in strength testing. Findings by Peterson et al.
(180) indicate that relative grip strength measured with a hand
dynamometer could be greater in males compared to females due
to the decreased hand size of females in relation to males. This
has to be taken into account when interpreting forces measured
with a hand grip dynamometer.
Two isometric tests assessing upper limb strength were
identified. The bent arm hang was used to measure upper limb
muscular endurance. When conducted on small holds, however,
finger maximum strength also played a role. It was reported to
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 16 frontiersin.org

be a reliable test by multiple studies. In addition, diagnostic
literature as identified the bent-arm hang as a test with a high
level of standardization and a high reliability for young adults
(181). Correlations to climbing ability covered a broad range
from low to high. Again, the variety of implementations and
within sample climbing ability levels is very high. The “best”way
to implement this test can thus not be identified. However, it
was reported to differentiate between climbers of different ability
levels (3,96,97). The bent arm hang thus remains a valid test
for upper limb strength in climbing. The same was found for the
isometric pull up.
Although many dynamic tests to assess upper limb strength in
climbing were identified, most of them were applied in only one
or two studies (medicine ball throw (31,112); elbow strength tests
(159); biceps strength test (95); shoulder strength test (6,160);
push-ups (31), campus board performance (39,53); arm jump test
(161); bench press (4); pull down (63,64); traction test (139)). In
addition, quality data are only reported for medicine ball throw,
the power-slap test and pull-ups. A very high inter-session
reliability is reported for all of them by multiple studies. On top of
that, Draper et al. (14), Levernier et al. (100), Stien et al. (103)
and Laffaye et al. (157)reportacceptableCVvaluesforthepower
slap test and the pull up. While the correlation with climbing
ability for these tests only ranges from low to middle-sized, the
power-slap test was found to differentiate between different ability
levels when assessing upper limb explosive strength and explosive
strength endurance (4,158). Furthermore, the pull up was found
to differentiate between boulderers and climbers when assessing
upper limb explosive strength (100,101). In addition, Fetz and
Kornexl (172) report a very high level of standardization and high
reliability. A high level of standardization and high inter-rater
reliability are also reported for the medicine ball throw when
performed in a standing position by Bös and Schlenker (181).
While no quality data was reported for push-ups, Bös and
Schlenker (181), and Fetz and Kornexl (172) state a high level of
standardization and high inter-session reliability for push-ups
performed with a clap behind the back after every repetition.
Augustsson et al. (159) were the only ones to report data on
elbow strength. While this test seems to be a valid test especially
in bouldering, further analysis need to be conducted.
This shows that even though climbing is often characterized as
a series of isometric contractions, and dynamic tests are not often
used, dynamic explosive strength of the shoulders and upper arms
plays an important role in climbing and should thus be included
into performance assessments in addition to isometric tests.
4.3. Upper limb endurance
Although upper limb endurance is an important factor in
climbing, it was only investigated by a total of seven of the 156
included studies. Reliability measures for rowing ergometry are only
reported by one study, while two report correlations to climbing
ability. High correlations are reported for maximum strength
assessed through the one repetition maximum and endurance
assessed through maximum oxygen consumption. While no data
on the reliability of arm crank ergometry are reported by the
included studies, the test has been shown to hold a high inter-
observer and inter-session reliability by Bulthuis et al. (182).
However, only low to middle-sized correlations with climbing
performance are reported by one study for arm crank ergometry.
These findings suggest that both tests could be valid for the
assessment of upper limb endurance in climbing. However, more
research by multiple studies is needed in this field (178).
4.4. Upper limb flexibility
While upper limb flexibility is reported to be one of the key
factors of climbing (6), only two studies have assessed active
dynamic shoulder flexibility. Additionally, only one study reports
data regarding test quality (6). General diagnostic literature has
already shown that shoulder flexibility assessed with a scaled rod
moved over the head with straight arms is a measure with very
high objectivity, and high intra-session reliability (183). However,
more research regarding upper limb flexibility in climbing is
needed to be able to provide test recommendations.
4.5. Lower limb strength
Lower limb strength was reported to be a key factor in
climbing. In addition, coaches report an increasing importance of
lower limb strength in modern bouldering and speed climbing
(184). Nonetheless, very few studies included lower limb strength
tests into their test batteries. The studies that did include lower
limb strength tests mainly focus on lower limb explosive
strength. Only one of the seven tests found focuses on maximum
strength and one on lower limb muscular endurance. This is in
line with the results of Mermier et al. (6) who found that lower
body explosive strength plays an important role in climbing ability.
Nonetheless, hardly any data is reported on test quality. It can
only be assumed that the jump with high foot (15), has high to
very high inter-session reliability. The authors, however, emphasize
that this test should only be included in a test battery if both
angular position of the knee and test performance are closely
monitored (15). All tests for which correlation values to climbing
ability are reported, show low to high correlation with climbing
ability. Nevertheless, this information should be taken with caution,
as it is based only on the results of single studies and is therefore
not conclusive. As shown by Krawczyk et al. (79)lowerlimb
strength is a key factor, in speed climbing, and this relationship
should thus be evaluated further. General sports diagnostics have
shown that the standing long jump shows a very high level of
standardization, and middle-sized to high inter-session reliability
(172). In addition, both vertical jump and one legged squats have
been shown to hold a high inter-session reliability in general
strength testing (172,181,185) which is a good starting point for
future climbing-specific assessments to provide valid test
recommendations.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 17 frontiersin.org

4.6. Lower limb endurance
Lower limb endurance was not reported to be a key factor of
climbing. Nevertheless, six studies included treadmill running or
cycle ergometry into their test batteries. The aim of the studies was
to compare the respiratory requirements of running or cycling with
those of climbing. While only three of the studies report low
correlations with climbing ability, all indicate that climbing ability is
not dependent on aerobic capacity as determined by a traditional
treadmill analysis or cycle ergometry (37,41,42,45,95). In addition,
no study reports reliability data, which shows another gap in
climbing research. Nonetheless, it has been shown that incremental
treadmill tests are a reliable tool for measuring lactate thresholds,
blood lactate concentrations, and maximum oxygen consumption
(186). It can be concluded that traditional lower limb endurance
tests most probably do not directly contribute to climbing ability
and should thus not be included in performance analysis.
4.7. Lower limb flexibility
As supported by multiple studies, lower limb flexibility is a key
performance component of climbing (3,6). However, the test battery
included lower limb flexibility tests in only a few studies. For all tests
for which inter-session or intra-session reliability data are reported,
the reliability is very high. Additionally, Čular et al. (113)reportan
acceptable CV and SEM for the right and left hand individually, but
not for the absolute values in the asymmetry in reach test. The high
reliability of the flexibility tests is in line with diagnostic literature
reporting high inter-rater and inter-session reliability for the sit and
reach and the straddle test (172,183). In contrast, the correlation to
climbing ability ranges from middle-sized to high only for the
climbing specific foot raise and the foot loading flexibility test and is
low for the remaining tests. While researchers have emphasized that
climbing specificflexibility tests are superior to less specifictests
(169), our results show that both specifictestsperformedona
climbaflex board and existing tests used in many other sports only
show low to middle-sized correlations with climbing ability. This
could indicate that despite previous findings lower limb flexibility is
a less important factor in climbing. Another possible explanation
could be that due to their complexity these tests might not only
refer to flexibility. The asymmetry in reach test for example might
also include factors of shoulder strength. In addition, the current
state of research may not be strong enough to support either
position. As the samples of most studies focusing on lower limb
flexibility range from lower level to elite or even to higher elite
climbers, no ability group has specifically and thoroughly been
investigated until now. More research in this area is thus needed and
should thus focus on specificabilitygroups.
4.8. Core strength
Even though core strength was reported to be a key component
of climbing, only 11 out of 156 studies conducted core maximum
strength tests and muscular endurance tests of the core. Diagnostic
literature reports high intra- and inter-tester, as well as high inter-
session reliability for the Sorensen test, sit-ups, curl-ups, and leg
raise (181,185,187). In climbing specific research, however, only
one study reports reliability data and only two report on the
validity of a single test each. While the inter-session reliability of
the super-man, the body-lock, and fishing kicks are reported to
range from high to very high, the correlations reported for the
leg raise and “momentum absorption”range from low to high
only. This again highlights the need for further research in the
field of strength testing in climbing.
4.9. Practical applications
The large variety of tests used, and the large number of factors
influencing the measured values (ability level, wall inclination,
loads, test implementation, etc.), makes it hard to give concrete
test recommendations to coaches and researchers. Our suggestions
reflect the current state of evidence; we only recommend tests with
high validity.
According to our findings, the most valid tests for bouldering
endurance, climbing performance, and climbing kinematics are
the repeated ascent of one boulder, lead climbing, and top-rope
climbing, respectively. Finger maximum strength is best assessed
through applying force on a hold, rather than using a hand
dynamometer. Intermittent dead hang protocols are reliable and
valid tests for finger muscular endurance. Upper limb maximum
strength and strength can be measured through the bent arm
hang and pull-ups. Isometric pull-ups additionally allow the
assessment of explosive strength, for which the power-slap test
can also be used. Regarding the lower limbs, currently no test
can be recommended due to low or missing validity.
5. Conclusion
When creating a test battery and comparing and analyzing test
results, researchers are almost overwhelmed by the multitude and
variability of diagnostic options. To date, no between test
correlation analysis or multiple regression analysis has been
carried out to find out whether it might be sufficient to perform
only few tests in order to successfully map climbing ability. Of
course, this does not apply to diagnostics which aim to identify
deficiencies or weaknesses. However, when evaluating training
effects, for example, a reduced test battery could save a lot of time
and work.
While some tests have been validated mainly in the area of upper
limb and finger strength, especially the assessment of climbing
performance, core strength, global endurance, and lower limb
strength and flexibility lack valid and reliable testing methods.
Standardized settings such as the moon or the kilter board have
not been used to assess performance to this day and might hold
potential for future examinations within performance testing.
This review might give the impression that in order to reach a
“perfect test”, authors should strive towards optimized reliability
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 18 frontiersin.org

and validity measures. While low-complexity tests are not
characterized by a particular proximity to climbing, they might,
however, lead to significantly more reliable test results. This is
why the aim of this review was not to find the test with the
highest quality data reported. Instead, it was our aim to give an
overview of the variety of tests and their current state of quality
assessment. Researchers can use this information to create future
test batteries or to further assess test quality.
In this context it also has to be kept in mind that the term
“climbing specific”is not clearly defined to this day due to the
great complexity and variability of the climbing movement. As
already postulated by Stien et al. (188), further biomechanical
analyses of the climbing movement need to be conducted to
formulate concrete test recommendations. During the last years,
for example, coaches have reported an increasing importance of
lower limb coordination (184) in bouldering and speed climbing.
On top of that, we were able to confirm that discipline-specific
tests do not exist in climbing to this date. Many studies did not
include the discipline, the climbing ability, reported by the
participants, was related to. This makes it hard to give coaches
discipline-specific advice which is why we ask authors to
specifically name the climbing discipline used to calculate
correlations with the test results in future. Nonetheless, it has to
be taken into account, that our goal was to conduct a generic
review regarding diagnostics in climbing which is why our
literature search might not have allowed us to identify some
discipline-specific studies. Future research could focus on this topic.
As criticized by Stien et al. (188) and confirmed in this review,
research on testing in climbing lacks data on test quality. Future
research on strength, endurance and flexibility in climbers should
thus aim to provide detailed information on the test reliability
and validity. Furthermore, authors should strive to use similar
tests in future studies to increase comparability of test results.
First steps towards a uniform test battery have already been
taken recently (14) and should be followed up in future as they
are not only important for research. Test results should also
form the basis for training organization (189) and are a key
factor of injury prevention (184).
Furthermore, inadequate descriptions regarding the ability
level, sex and main discipline of the subjects examined in the
studies also posed a major challenge in the context of this
review. The IRCRA scale (18), introduced a few years ago, has
enabled a uniform assessment of performance. In addition,
future research should include clear information on the subject’s
sex and main discipline.
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the design and conceptualization of
the review. KL conducted the search, extracted, and analysed the
data, and drafted the article. All remaining authors critically
revised the draft.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge support by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG—German Research Foundation)
and the Open Access Publishing Fund of Technical University of
Darmstadt.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.
1130812/full#supplementary-material.
References
1. Saul D, Steinmetz G, Lehmann W, Schilling AF. Determinants for success in
climbing: a systematic review. J Exerc Sci & Fit. (2019) 17:91–100. doi: 10.1016/j.
jesf.2019.04.002
2. MacLeod D, Sutherland DL, Buntin L, Whitaker A, Aitchison T, Watt I, et al.
Physiological determinants of climbing-specificfinger endurance and sport rock
climbing performance. J Sports Sci. (2007) 25:1433–43. doi: 10.1080/
02640410600944550
3. Grant S, Hynes V, Whittaker A, Aitchison T. Anthropometric, strength,
endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite and recreational climbers. J Sports
Sci. (1996) 14:301–9. doi: 10.1080/02640419608727715
4. Laffaye G, Levernier G, Collin J-M. Determinant factors in climbing ability:
influence of strength, anthropometry, and neuromuscular fatigue. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. (2016) 26:1151–9. doi: 10.1111/sms.12558
5. Magiera A, Roczniok R, Maszczyk A, Czuba M, Kantyka J, Kurek P. The structure
of performance of a sport rock climber. J Hum Kinet. (2013) 36:107–17. doi: 10.2478/
hukin-2013-0011
6. Mermier CM, Janot JM, Parker DL, Swan JG. Physiological and anthropometric
determinants of sport climbing performance. Br J Sports Med. (2000) 34:359–65.
doi: 10.1136/bjsm.34.5.359
7. Stien N, Frøysaker TF, Hermans E, Vereide VA, Andersen V, Saeterbakken AH.
The effects of prioritizing lead or boulder climbing among intermediate climbers.
Front Sports Act Living. (2021) 3:1–9. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.661167
8. Sveen J, Stone K, Fryer S. “Strength and forearm volume differences in boulderers
and sport climbers,”. In: Draper N, Drum S, Joubert L, Watts P, editors. Proceedings
of the 3rd international rock climbing research congress. Telluride, Colorado (2016).
p. 10–1.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 19 frontiersin.org

9. Fanchini M, Violette F, Impellizzeri FM, Maffiuletti NA. Differences in climbing-
specific strength between boulder and lead rock climbers. J Strength Cond Res. (2013)
27:310–4. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182577026
10. Winkler M, Künzell S, Augste C. The load structure in international competitive
climbing. Front Sports Act Living. (2022) 4:1–10. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.790336
11. American Educational Research Association. Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing. Washington DC: National Council on Measurement in
Education (2014)).
12. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error
(reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Medicine. (1988)
26:217–38. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199826040-00002
13. Langer K, Simon C, Wiemeyer J. Strength training in climbing: a systematic
review. J Strength & Cond Res. (2022) 37:751–67. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004286
14. Draper N, Giles D, Taylor N, Vigouroux L, España-Romero V, BalášJ, et al.
Performance assessment for rock climbers: the international rock climbing research
association sport-specific test battery. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2021)
16:1242–52. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0672
15. Augste C, Winkler M, Künzell S. Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlich fundierten
Leistungsdiagnostik im Sportklettern.Augsburg. (2022) 1–31.
16. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies
that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J. (2009)
339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700
17. Meline T. Selecting studies for systemic review: inclusion and exclusion criteria.
CICSD. (2006) 33:21–7. doi: 10.1044/cicsd_33_S_21
18. Draper N, Giles D, SchöfflV, Konstantin Fuss F, Watts P, Wolf P, et al.
Comparative grading scales, statistical analyses, climber descriptors and ability
grouping: international rock climbing research association position statement. Sports
Technol. (2015) 8:88–94. doi: 10.1080/19346182.2015.1107081
19. Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish J Emerg Med. (2018)
18:91–3. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
20. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation
coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. (2016) 15:155–63. doi: 10.1016/j.
jcm.2016.02.012
21. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge (1988).
22. Reed GF, Lynn F, Meade BD. Use of coefficient of variation in assessing
variability of quantitative assays. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. (2002) 9:1235–9. doi: 10.
1128/cdli.9.6.1235-1239.2002
23. Denegar CR, Ball DW. Assessing reliability and precision of measurement: an
Introduction to intraclass correlation and standard error of measurement. J Sport
Rehabil. (1993) 2:35–42. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2.1.35
24. Mitchell AC, Bowhay A, Pitts J. Relationship between anthropometric
characteristics of indoor rock climbers and top roped climbing performance.
J Strength & Cond Res. (2011) 25:S94–95. doi: 10.1097/01.JSC.0000395728.22365.7d
25. López-Rivera E, González-Badillo JJ, España-Romero V. Which is the most
reliable edge depth to measure maximum hanging time in sport climbers? Gait
Posture. (2022) 91:59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.09.200
26. Limmer M, de Marées M, Roth R. “Compression sleeves in sports
climbing_effects on muscular strength and endruance parameters of finger flexors
in recreational climbers,”. In: Espana-Romero V, Reed T, Giles D, Vigouroux L,
Seifert L, Fryer S, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 5th international rock climbing
research congress; Tokyo, Japan (2021). p. 146.
27. Kitaoka K. Evaluation method for sport climbing-specific forearm endurance by
blood lactate concentration. Adv in Exerc & Sports Physiol. (2014) 20:121.
28. de Ghetaldi LR. The effect of self-modeling on climber self-efficacy, motivation,
actual and perceived rock climbing skills, and knowledge in beginning rock climbers.
Greeley, CO: Dissertation (1998).
29. España Romero V, López-Rivera E, Garrido-Palomino I. “Differences in
maximal volunatry contraction, strength and enduracne, and neuromuscular
function during half-crimp and slope grip positions in elite and expert rock
climbers,”. In: Espana-Romero V, Reed T, Giles D, Vigouroux L, Seifert L, Fryer S,
et al., editors. Proceedings of the 5th international rock climbing research congress;
Tokyo, Japan (2021). p. 58–9.
30. Magiera A, Roczniok R. The climbing preferences of advanced rock climbers.
Human Movement. (2013) 14:254–64. doi: 10.2478/humo-2013-0031
31. StankovićD, IgnjatovićM, RakovićA, PuletićM, HodžićS. The strength
structure of sport climbers. Facta Universitatis: Series Physical Education & Sport.
(2014) 12:11–8. UDC: 796.525.012.11.
32. Augste C, Winkler M, Künzell S. Performance diagnostics in sport climbing—test
manual.Augsburg. (2022) 1–17.
33. Kozina Z, Ubarova N, Cieslicka M, Bejtka M, Jagiello M. Experimental
substantiation of the program of the annual cycle of preparation of climbers 16-17
years to the competitive discipline "climbing combined". J Phy Edu & Sport. (2020)
20:1250–6. 10.7752/jpes.2020.s2174
34. Medernach JP, Kleinöder H, Lötzerich HH. Effect of interval bouldering on
hanging and climbing time to exhaustion. Sports Technol. (2015) 8:76–82. doi: 10.
1080/19346182.2015.1063643
35. Medernach J, Kleinöder H, Lötzerich H. “Vibration training in indoor
bouldering: effects on strength and endurance,”. In: Radmann A, Hedenborg S,
Tsolakidis E, editors. Proceedings of the 20th annual congress of the European
college of sports science; Malmö, Sweden (2015). p. 599.
36. Deyhle M, Hung-Sheng HS, Fairfield T, Cadez-Schmidt T, Gurney B, Mermier
C. Relative importance of four muscle groups for indoor rock climbing performance.
J Strength & Cond Res. (2015) 29:2006–14. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000823
37. BalášJ, Panáčková M, Strejcová B, Martin AJ, Cochrane DJ, Kaláb M, et al. The
relationship between climbing ability and physiological responses to rock climbing.
Scientific World J. (2014) 2014:678387. doi: 10.1155/2014/678387
38. Michailov M, Rokowski R, Regwelski T, Staszkiewicz R, Brown LE, Szygula Z.
Physiological responses during two climbing tests with different hold types. Int
J Sports Sci Coach. (2017) 12:276–83. doi: 10.1177/1747954117694740
39. Sas-Nowosielski K, Wyciślik J, Kaczka P. Beta-Alanine supplementation and
sport climbing performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 10:18. doi: 10.
3390/ijerph18105370
40. SchoefflVR, Moeckel F, Koestermeyer G, Roloff I, Kuepper T. Development of a
performance diagnosis of the anaerobic strength endurance of the forearm flexor
muscles in sport climbing. Int J Sports Med. (2006) 27:205–11. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-
837622
41. BalášJ, Gajdošík J, Giles D, Fryer S, Krupková D, Brtník T, et al. Isolated finger
flexor vs. Exhaustive whole-body climbing tests? How to assess endurance in sport
climbers? Eur J Appl Physiol. (2021) 121:1337–48. doi: 10.1007/s00421-021-04595-7
42. Limonta E, Brighenti A, Rampichini S, Cè E, Schena F, Esposito F.
Cardiovascular and metabolic responses during indoor climbing and laboratory
cycling exercise in advanced and élite climbers. Eur J Appl Physiol. (2018)
118:371–9. doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3779-6
43. BalášJ, Gajdošík J, Giles D, Fryer S. The estimation of critical angle in climbing
as a measure of maximal metabolic steady state. Front Physiol. (2021) 12:1–9. doi: 10.
3389/fphys.2021.792376
44. Booth J, Marino F, Hill C, Gwinn T. Energy cost of sport rock climbing in elite
performers. Br J Sports Med. (1999) 33:14–8. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.33.1.14
45. Fryer SM, Giles D, Palomino IG, de la O Puerta A, España-Romero V.
Hemodynamic and cardiorespiratory predictors of sport rock climbing performance.
J Strength Cond Res. (2018) 32:3534–41. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001860
46. Potter JA, Hodgson CI, Broadhurst M, Howell L, Gilbert J, Willems ME, et al.
Effects of New Zealand blackcurrant extract on sport climbing performance. Eur
J Appl Physiol. (2020) 120:67–75. doi: 10.1007/s00421-019-04226-2
47. España-Romero V, Ortega Porcel FB, Artero EG, Jiménez-Pavón D, Gutiérrez
Sainz A, Castillo Garzón MJ, et al. Climbing time to exhaustion is a determinant of
climbing performance in high-level sport climbers. Eur J Appl Physiol. (2009)
107:517–25. doi: 10.1007/s00421-009-1155-x
48. Rodio A, Quattrini FM, Fattorini L, Egidi F, Marchetti M. Physiological
significance of efficiency in rock climbing. Med Sport (Roma). (2006) 59:313–7.
Available at: https://www.minervamedica.it/en/journals/medicina-dello-sport/article.
php?cod=R26Y2006N03A0313.
49. Hardy L, Hutchinson A. Effects of performance anxiety on effort and
performance in rock climbing: a test of processing efficiency theory. Anxiety Stress
Coping. (2007) 20:147–61. doi: 10.1080/10615800701217035
50. Brent S, Draper N, Hodgson C, Blackwell G. Development of a performance
assessment tool for rock climbers. Eur J Sport Sci. (2009) 9:159–67. doi: 10.1080/
17461390902741132
51. White DJ, Olsen PD. A time motion analysis of bouldering style competitive
rock climbing. J Strength Cond Res. (2010) 24:1356–60. doi: 10.1519/JSC.
0b013e3181cf75bd
52. Zemtsova YS, Vavaev AV. “Video analysis of the men’s Bouldering world
climbing championship performance,”. In: Espana-Romero V, Reed T, Giles D,
Vigouroux L, Seifert L, Fryer S, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 5th international
rock climbing research congress; Malmö, Sweden (2021). p. 149–54.
53. Stien N, Pedersen H, Vereide VA, Saeterbakken AH, Hermans E, Kalland J, et al.
Effects of two vs. Four weekly campus board training sessions on bouldering
performance and climbing-specific tests in advanced and elite climbers. J Sports Sci
Med. (2021) 20:438–47. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2021.438
54. Nichols J, Wind D, Bellicini Z, Bates R, Hall D, Hall M, et al. Climbing-Specific
fitness profiles and determinants of performance in youth rock climbers. J Sports Sci.
(2018) 6:257–67. doi: 10.17265/2332-7839/2018.05
55. Frauman E. An Examination of Climbing Performance and its Relationship to
Perceived Abilities and Experience among Boulderers,’. In: Association of Outdoor
Recreation & Education Conference Proceedings.p.32–5.
56. Jurrens JD. The effects of hang board exercise on grip strength and climbing
performance in college age male indoor rock climbers. La-Crosse, WI: Masterthesis
(1997).
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 20 frontiersin.org

57. Kingsley AM. The effects of hangboard exercise on climbing performance and grip
strength in college age female indoor rock climers. La-Crosse, WI: Masterthesis (1997).
58. Barton K. The effect of mental imagery on sport climbing performance of college
students. La-Crosse, WI: Masterthesis (1996).
59. McNamee J, Steffen J. The effect of performance cues on beginning indoor rock
climbing performance. Physical Educator. (2007) 64:2–10. Available at: https://eric.ed.
gov/?id=EJ768185.
60. Fraser RG. The effect of relaxation training on sport climbing performance of
college students. La-Crosse, WI: Masterhesis (1998).
61. Heyman E, de Geus B, Mertens I, Meeusen R. Effects of four recovery methods
on repeated maximal rock climbing performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2009)
41:1303–10. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318195107d
62. Limmer M, Buck S, de Marées M, Roth R. Acute effects of kinesio taping on
muscular strength and endurance parameters of the finger flexors in sport climbing:
a randomised, controlled crossover trial. Eur J Sport Sci. (2020) 20:427–36. doi: 10.
1080/17461391.2019.1633415
63. Hermans E, Andersen V, Saeterbakken AH. The effects of high resistance-few
repetitions and low resistance-high repetitions resistance training on climbing
performance. Eur J Sport Sci. (2017) 17:378–85. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1248499
64. Hermans E. “Effect of maximal- and local muscular endurance strength training
on climbing performance and climbing-specific strength in recreational climbers: a
randomized controlled trial”. In: Draper N, Drum S, Joubert L, Watts P, editors.
Proceedings of the 3rd international rock climbing research congress. Telluride,
Colorado (2016). p. 38–9.
65. Valenzuela PL, de La Villa P, Ferragut C. Effect of two types of active recovery on
fatigue and climbing performance. J Sports Sci Med. (2015) 14:769–75. PMCID:
PMC4657419.
66. Bertuzzi R, Franchini E, Tricoli V, Lima-Silva AE, Pires FD, Okuno NM, et al.
Fit-climbing test: a field test for indoor rock climbing. J Strength Cond Res. (2012)
26:1558–63. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318231ab37
67. Sanchez X, Lambert P, Jones G, Llewellyn DJ. Efficacy of pre-ascent climbing
route visual inspection in indoor sport climbing. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2012)
22:67–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01151.x
68. Seifert L, Orth D, Boulanger J, Dovgalecs V, Hérault R, Davids K. Climbing skill
and complexity of climbing wall design: assessment of jerk as a novel indicator of
performance fluency. J Appl Biomech. (2014) 30:619–25. doi: 10.1123/jab.2014-0052
69. Seifert L, Orth D, Davids K. Hold design supports learning and transfer of
climbing fluency. Sports Technol. (2014) 7:159–65. doi: 10.1080/19346182.2014.968250
70. Jones MV, Bray SR, Mace RD, MacRae AW, Stockbridge C. The impact of
motivational imagery on the emotional state and self-efficacy levels of novice
climbers. J Sport Behav. (2002) 25:57. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/
2002-00861-004
71. BalášJ, Panáčková M, Jandová S, Martin AJ, Strejcová B, Vomáčko L, et al. The
effect of climbing ability and slope inclination on vertical foot loading using a novel
force sensor instrumentation system. J Hum Kinet. (2014) 44:75–81. doi: 10.2478/
hukin-2014-0112
72. Philippe M, Filzwieser I, Leichtfried V, Blank C, Haslinger S, Fleckenstein J, et al. The
effects of 8 weeks of two different training methods on on-sight lead climbing performance.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. (2019) 59:561–8. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.18.08399-8
73. Gajewski J, Hübner-Woźniak E, Tomaszewski P, Sienkiewicz-Dianzenza E.
Changes in handgrip force and blood lactate as response to simulated climbing
competition. Biol Sport. (2009) 26:13–21. doi: 10.5604/20831862.890171
74. Taylor N, Giles D, Panáčková M, Mitchell J, Chidley J, Draper N. A novel tool
for the assessment of sport Climbers’movement performance. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. (2020) 15:795–800. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0311
75. Magiera A, Roczniok R, Sadowska-Krępa E, Kempa K. Changes in performance
and morning-measured responses in sport rock climbers. J Hum Kinet. (2019)
70:103–14. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0050
76. Sanchez X, Boschker MS, Llewellyn DJ. Pre-performance psychological states
and performance in an elite climbing competition. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2010)
20:356–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00904.x
77. Fuss FK. Instrumented climbing holds and performance analysis in sport
climbing. Sports Technol. (2008) 1:301–13. doi: 10.1080/19346182.2008.9648487
78. Wolf P, Wittmann F, Scheuber P, Legreneur P. “Performance analysis in speed
climbing: first insights into accelerating forces during starting phase,”. In: Espana-
Romero V, Reed T, Giles D, Vigouroux L, Seifert L, Fryer S, et al., editors.
Proceedings of the 5th international rock climbing research congress; Malmö, Sweden
(2021). p. 69–72.
79. Krawczyk M, Pociecha M, Ozimek M, Draga P. The force, velocity, and power of
the lower limbs as determinants of speed climbing efficiency. Trends in Sport Sci.
(2020) 27:219–24. doi: 10.23829/TSS.2020.27.4-5
80. Medernach JP, Kleinöder H, Lötzerich HH. Fingerboard in competitive
bouldering: training effects on grip strength and endurance. J Strength Cond Res.
(2015) 29:2286–95. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000873
81. Bergua P, Montero-Marin J, Gomez-Bruton A, Casajús JA. Hanging ability in
climbing: an approach by finger hangs on adjusted depth edges in advanced and elite
sport climbers. Int J Perfor Analy in Sport. (2018) 18(3):1–14. doi: 10.1080/24748668.
2018.1486115
82. López-Rivera E, González-Badillo JJ. 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 Technol. (2012) 5:100–10. doi: 10.1080/19346182.
2012.716061
83. Ozimek M, Staszkiewicz R, Rokowski R, Stanula A. Analysis of tests evaluating
sport Climbers’strength and isometric endurance. J Hum Kinet. (2016) 53:249–60.
doi: 10.1515/hukin-2016-0027
84. BalášJ, Pecha O, Martin A, Cochrane D. Hand–arm strength and endurance as
predictors of climbing performance. Eur J Sport Sci. (2012) 12:16–25. doi: 10.1080/
17461391.2010.546431
85. Vereide V, Kalland J, Solbraa AK, Andersen V, Saeterbakken AH. “Correlation
between relative peak-, isometric force and RFD and climbing performance,”. In:
Draper N, Drum S, Joubert L, Watts P, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd international
rock climbing research congress. Telluride, Colorado (2016). p. 12–3.
86. Saeterbakken AH, Loken E, Scott S, Hermans E, Vereide VA, Andersen V.
Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance
among highly trained climbers. PLoS One. (2018) 13:e0203766. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0203766
87. Ozimek M, Rokowski R, Draga P, Ljakh V, Ambroży T, Krawczyk M, et al. The
role of physique, strength and endurance in the achievements of elite climbers. PLoS
One. (2017) 12:e0182026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182026
88. López-Rivera E, González-Badillo JJ. Comparison of the effects of three
hangboard strength and endurance training programs on grip endurance in sport
climbers. J Hum Kinet. (2019) 66:183–95. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2018-0057
89. Hermans E, Saeterbakken AH, Vereide V, Nord IS, Stien N, Andersen V. The
effects of 10 weeks hangboard training on climbing specific maximal strength.
Explosive strength, and finger endurance. Front Sports Act Living. (2022) 4:146.
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.888158
90. Usaj A, Jereb B, Robi P, von Duvillard SP. The influence of strength-endurance
training on the oxygenation of isometrically contracted forearm muscles. Eur J Appl
Physiol. (2007) 100:685–92. doi: 10.1007/s00421-007-0461-4
91. López-Rivera E, González-Badillo JJ. “Comparison of the effects of three
hangboard training programs on maximal finger strength in rock climbers,”. In:
Draper N, Drum S, Joubert L, Watts P, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd international
rock climbing research congress. Telluride, Colorado (2016).
92. López-Rivera E, González-Badillo JJ. “The effects of a weighted dead-hang
training program on grip strength and endurance in expert climbers with different
levels of strength,”. In: Draper N, España-Romero V, Fuss T, Schweizer A,
Legreneur P, Seifert L, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 4th international rock
climbing research congress; Chamonix, France (2018).
93. Giles D, Chidley JB, Taylor N, Torr O, Hadley J, Randall T, et al. The
determination of finger-flexor critical force in rock climbers. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. (2019) 14:972–9. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0809
94. Arazi H, Rashidlamir A, Zahed Abolhasani M, Askari Hosaini S. Profiling and
predicting performance of indoor rock climbers. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho
Hum. (2018) 20:82–94. doi: 10.5007/1980-0037.2018v20n1p82
95. MacKenzie R, Monaghan L, Masson RA, Werner AK, Caprez TS, Johnston L,
et al. Physical and physiological determinants of rock climbing. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. (2020) 15:168–79. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0901
96. Macdonald JH, Callender N. Athletic profile of highly accomplished boulderers.
Wilderness and Environmental Medicine. (2011) 22:140–3. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2010.
11.012
97. Grant S, Hasler T, Davies C, Aitchison TC, Wilson J, Whittaker A. A
comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility
characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers. J Sports
Sci. (2001) 19:499–505. doi: 10.1080/026404101750238953
98. Došla J, Meško J. The influence of strength abilities on sports performance in
climbing. J Human Sport & Exerc. (2016) 11:S159–67. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2016.11.
Proc1.06
99. Marcolin G, Faggian S, Muschietti M, Matteraglia L, Paoli A. Determinants of
climbing performance: when finger flexor strength and endurance count. J Strength
Cond Res. (2020) 36(4):1–6. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003545
100. Levernier G, Samozino P, Laffaye G. Force–velocity–power profile in high-elite
boulder, lead, and speed climber competitors. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2020)
15:1012–8. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0437
101. Stien N, Saeterbakken AH, Hermans E, Vereide VA, Olsen E, Andersen V.
Comparison of climbing-specific strength and endurance between lead and boulder
climbers. PLoS One. (2019) 14:e0222529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222529
102. Bacon N, Ryan G, Wingo J, Richardson M, Pangallo T, Bishop P. Effect of
magnesium carbonate use on repeated open-handed and pinch grip weight-assisted
pull-ups. Int J Exerc Sci. (2018) 11:479–92. PMCID: PMC5841679.
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 21 frontiersin.org

103. Stien N, Vereide VA, Saeterbakken AH, Hermans E, Shaw MP, Andersen V.
Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates
performance levels in sport climbing. PLoS One. (2021) 16:e0249353. doi: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0249353
104. Rokowski R, Tokarz R. Imp ortance of mo toric capabilities of energy
ground in sport climbing in competition of on sight. Antropomotoryka.
(2007) 17:81–91. GICID: 01.3001.0002.2203.
105. Saeterbakken AH, Andersen V, Stien N, Pedersen H, Solstad TE, Shaw MP,
et al. The effects of acute blood flow restriction on climbing-specific tests.
Movement & Sport Sci/Sci & Motricité. (2019) 109:1–8. doi: 10.1051/sm/2020004
106. Vigouroux L, Devise M, Cartier T, Aubert C, Berton E. Performing pull-ups
with small climbing holds influences grip and biomechanical arm action. J Sports
Sci. (2019) 37:886–94. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1532546
107. Mundry S, Steinmetz G, Atkinson EJ, Schilling AF, SchöfflVR, Saul D.
Hangboard training in advanced climbers: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep.
(2021) 11:13530. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92898-2
108. Assmann M, Steinmetz G, Schilling AF, Saul D. Comparison of grip strength in
recreational climbers and non-climbing athletes-A cross-sectional study. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. (2020) 18:1–11. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010129
109. Cutts A, Bollen SR. Grip strength and endurance in rock climbers. Proc Inst
Mech Eng H. (1993) 207:87–92. doi: 10.1243/PIME_PROC_1993_207_275_02
110. Ezzy AC, Hagstrom AD, Shorter KA, Gray AJ. Anthropometric, strength,
climbing and training characteristics that predict outdoor rock climbing performance.
J Austr Strength & Cond. (2018) 26:7–15. Available at: https://strengthandconditioning.
org/jasc-26-4/1991-original-scientific-research-study-anthropometric-strength-climbing-
and-training-characteristics-that-predict-outdoor-rock-climbing-performance.
111. Limonta E, Cè E, Veicsteinas A, Esposito F. Force control during fatiguing
contractions in elite rock climbers. Sport Sci Health. (2008) 4:37–42. doi: 10.1007/
s11332-008-0065-3
112. Cochrane D, Hawke E. Effects of acute upper-body vibration on strength and
power variables in climbers. J Streng & Cond Res. (2007) 21:527–31. doi: 10.1519/R-
18505.1
113. Čular D, Dhahbi W, Kolak I, Dello Iacono A, Bešlija T, Laffaye G, et al.
Reliability, sensitivity, and minimal detectable change of a new specific climbing
test for assessing asymmetry in reach technique. J Strength Cond Res. (2021)
35:527–34. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002694
114. Siegel S, Robinson J, Jonston S, Lindley M, Pfeiffer K. Health-related fitness and
energy expenditure in recreational youth rock climbers 8-16 years of age. Int J Exerc
Sci. (2015) 8:174–83. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol8/iss2/8.
115. Levernier G, Laffaye G. The rate of force development a new biomechanical key
factor in climbing (2018) (cited 2023 Apr 04). Available at: https://www.
semanticscholar.org/paper/The-rate-of-force-development-%3A-a-new-biomechanical-
Levernier-Laffaye/027fa10111baefe8fae34f94887451f964920680
116. Gürer B, Yildiz M. Investigation of sport rock Climbers’handgrip strength.
Biology of Exercise. (2015) 11:55–71. doi: 10.4127/jbe.2015.0092
117. BalášJ, Panáčková M, Kodejška J, Cochrane JD, Martin JA. The role of arm
position during finger flexor strength measurement in sport climbers. Int J Perform
Analy in Sport. (2014) 14:345–54. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2014.11868726
118. Matsouka O, Nani S, Papadimitriou K, Astrapellos K, Beneka A, Malliou P.
Time course changes in hand grip strength performance and hand position sense in
climbing. J Human Sport & Exerc. (2020) 15:23–33. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2020.151.03
119. Levernier G, Laffaye G. Four weeks of finger grip training increases the rate of
force development and the maximal force in elite and top world-ranking climbers.
J Strength Cond Res. (2019) 33:2471–80. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002230
120. Limonta E, Cè E, Gobbo M, Veicsteinas A, Orizio C, Esposito F. Motor unit
activation strategy during a sustained isometric contraction of finger flexor muscles
in elite climbers. J Sports Sci. (2016) 34:133–42. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1035738
121. Smetanka RG, Armenta RF, Nessler JA, Newcomer SC. Heart rate response,
duration, grip strength, and anthropometric characteristics in recreational indoor rock
climbers. J Streng & Cond Res. (2022) 36:832–7. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003540
122. Michailov M, Mladenov L, SchöfflV. Anthropometric and strength
characteristics of world-class boulderers. Medicina Sportiva. (2009) 13:231–8.
doi: 10.2478/v10036-009-0036-z
123. Gajewski J, Jarosiewicz B. Post-exercise decrease in handgrip force following a
single training session in male and female climbers. Human Movement. (2008)
9:121–3. doi: 10.2478/v10038-008-0015-6
124. Thompson EB, Farrow L, Hunt JE, Lewis MP, Ferguson RA. Brachial artery
characteristics and micro-vascular filtration capacity in rock climbers. Eur J Sport
Sci. (2015) 15:296–304. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.940560
125. Watts PB, Joubert LM, Lish AK, Mast JD, Wilkins B. Anthropometry of young
competitive sport rock climbers. Br J Sports Med. (2003) 37:420–4. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.
37.5.420
126. Watts PB, Martin DT, Durtschi S. Anthropometric profiles of elite male and
female competitive sport rock climbers. J Sports Sci. (1993) 11:113–7. doi: 10.1080/
02640419308729974
127. Watts PB, Daggett M, Gallagher P, Wilkins B. Metabolic response during sport
rock climbing and the effects of active versus passive recovery. Int J Sports Med. (2000)
21:185–90. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-302
128. Green J, Stannard SR. Active recovery strategies and handgrip performance in
trained vs. Untrained climbers. J Streng & Cond Res. (2010) 24:494–501. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181c06af3
129. Watts PB, Jensen RL, Gannon E, Kobeinia R, Maynard J, Sansom J. Forearm
EMG during rock climbing differs from EMG during handgrip dynamometry. Int
J Exerc Sci. (2008) 1:4–13.
130. Michailov ML, BalášJ, Tanev SK, Andonov HS, Kodejška J, Brown L.
Reliability and validity of finger strength and endurance measurements in rock
climbing. Res Q Exerc Sport. (2018) 89:246–54. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2018.1441484
131. Wall C, Starek J, Fleck S, Byrnes W. Prediction of indoor climbing performance
in women rock climbers. J Streng & Cond Res. (2004) 18:77–83. doi: 10.1519/1533-
4287(2004)018&lt;0077:poicpi>2.0.co;2
132. Giles D, Hartley C, Maslen H, Hadley J, Taylor N, Torr O, et al. An all-out test
to determine finger flexor critical force in rock climbers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
(2021) 16:942–9. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0637
133. Schweizer A, Furrer M. Correlation of forearm strength and sport climbing
performance. Isokinetics & Exerc Sci. (2007) 15:211–6. doi: 10.3233/IES-2007-0275
134. Giles D, Barnes K, Taylor N, Chidley C, Chidley J, Mitchell J, et al.
Anthropometry and performance characteristics of recreational advanced to elite
female rock climbers. J Sports Sci. (2021) 39:48–56. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1804784
135. BalášJ, Kodejška J, Krupková D, Hannsmann J, Fryer S. Reliability of near-
infrared spectroscopy for measuring intermittent handgrip contractions in sport
climbers. J Strength Cond Res. (2018) 32:494–501. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002341
136. BalášJ, MrskoČJ, Panáčková M, Draper N. Sport-specificfinger flexor strength
assessment using electronic scales in sport climbers. Sports Technol. (2014) 7:151–8.
doi: 10.1080/19346182.2015.1012082
137. Bourne R, Halaki M, Vanwanseele B, Clarke J. Measuring lifting forces in rock
climbing: effect of hold size and fingertip structure. J Appl Biomech. (2011) 27:40–6.
doi: 10.1123/jab.27.1.40
138. Maciejczyk M, Michailov ML, Wiecek M, Szymura J, Rokowski R, Szygula Z, et al.
Climbing-Specific exercise tests: energysystem contributions and relationships with sport
performance. Front Physiol. (2022) 12:787902. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.787902
139. Berrostegieta JI. “Relation between specific force tests and chained degree in
high level sport climbers,”. In: Developments for disciplines: Proceedings of the ISEA
(2006), Munich, Germany. p. 275–80.
140. Levernier G, Laffaye G. Rate of force development and maximal force: reliability
and difference between non-climbers, skilled and international climbers. Sports
Biomech. (2021) 20:495–506. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2019.1584236
141. Fryer SM, Stoner LE, Dickson TG, Draper SB, Mccluskey MJ, Huges JD, et al.
Oxygen recovery kinetics in the forearm flexors of multiple ability groups of
rock climbers. J Streng & Cond Res. (2015) 29:1633–9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.
0000000000000804
142. Phillips K, Noh B, Gage M, Yoon T. The effect of cold ambient tempe ratures on
climbing-specificfinger flexor performance. Eur J Sport Sci. (2017) 17:885–93. doi: 10.
1080/17461391.2017.1328707
143. Morenas Martín J, Del Campo VL, Leyton Román M, Gómez-Valadés Horrillo
JM, Gómez Navarrete JS. Description of the finger mechanical load of climbers of
different levels during different hand grips in sport climbing. J Sports Sci. (2013)
31:1713–21. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.797592
144. Torr O, Randall T, Knowles R, Giles D, Atkins S. Reliability and validity of a
method for the assessment of sport rock Climbers’isometric finger strength.
J Strength Cond Res. (2020) 36(8):2277–82. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003548
145. Fryer S, Stoner L, Lucero A, Witter T, Scarrott C, Dickson T, et al.
Haemodynamic kinetics and intermittent finger flexor performance in rock
climbers. Int J Sports Med. (2015) 36:137–42. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1385887
146. Watts PB, Jensen RL. Reliability of peak forces during a finger curl motion
common in rock climbing. Measurement in Phy Educ & Exerc Sci. (2003) 7:263–7.
doi: 10.1207/S15327841MPEE0704_4
147. Philippe M, Wegst D, Müller T, Raschner C, Burtscher M. Climbing-specific
finger flexor performance and forearm muscle oxygenation in elite male and female
sport climbers. Eur J Appl Physiol. (2012) 112:2839–47. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2260-1
148. Grant S, Shields C, Fitzpatrick V, Loh WM, Whitaker A, Watt I, et al.
Climbing-specificfinger endurance: a comparative study of intermediate rock
climbers, rowers and aerobically trained individuals. J Sports Sci. (2003) 21:621–30.
doi: 10.1080/0264041031000101953
149. Kodejška J, Michailov M, BalášJ. Forearm muscle oxygenation during
sustained isometric contractions in rock climbers. Acta Universitatis Carolinae:
Kinanthropologica. (2015) 51:48–55. doi: 10.14712/23366052.2015.31
150. Fryer S, Stone KJ, Sveen J, Dickson T, España-Romero V, Giles D, et al.
Differences in forearm strength, endurance, and hemodynamic kinetics between
male boulderers and lead rock climbers. Eur J Sport Sci. (2017) 17:1177–83. doi: 10.
1080/17461391.2017.1353135
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 22 frontiersin.org

151. Kodejška J, BalášJ, Draper N. Effect of cold-water immersion on handgrip
performance in rock climbers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2018) 13:1097–9.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0012
152. Watts PB, Jensen RL, Agena SM, Majchrzak JA, Schellinger RA, Wubbels CS.
Changes in EMG and finger force with repeated hangs form the hands in rock
climbers. Int J Exerc Sci. (2008) 1:62–70. PMCID: PMC4739290.
153. López-Rivera E., España-Romero V. “Relationship between forearm pump and
decreased force in expert and elite rock climbers,”. In: Espana-Romero V, Reed T,
Giles D, Vigouroux L, Seifert L, Fryer S, et al.. Proceedings of the 5th international
rock climbing research congress; Tokyo, Japan (2021). p. 51–5.
154. SchoefflVR, Einwag F, Strecker W, SchoefflI. Strength measurement and
clinical outcome after conservatively treated pulley ruptures in climbers. (abstract).
Sports Engineering (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.). (2006) 9:188–9.
doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000210199.87328.6a
155. BalášJ, Michailov M, Giles D, Kodejška J, Panáčková M, Fryer S. Active
recovery of the finger flexors enhances intermittent handgrip performance in rock
climbers. Eur J Sport Sci. (2016) 16:764–72. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1119198
156. Rokowski R, Michailov M, Maciejczyk M, Więcek M, Szymura J, Draga P, et al.
Muscle strength and endurance in high-level rock climbers. Sports Biomech.
(2021):1–16. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2021.1916577
157. Laffaye G, Collin J-M, Levernier G, Padulo J. Upper-limb power test in rock-
climbing. Int J Sports Med. (2014) 35:670–5. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1358473
158. Draper N, Dickson T, Blackwell G, Priestley S, Fryer S, Marshall H, et al. Sport-
specific power assessment for rock climbing. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. (2011)
51:417–25. PMID: 21904280.
159. Augustsson S, Frodi-Lundgren A, Svantesson U. Elbow strength profiles and
performance level in Swedish climbers. HSOA J Phy Med, Rehab and Disabil.
(2018) 26. doi: 10.24966/PMRD-8670/100026
160. Wong EK, Ng GY. Strength profiles of shoulder rotators in healthy sport
climbers and nonclimbers. J Athl Train. (2009) 44:527–30. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-
44.5.527
161. Abreu E, Araújo SR, Da Cançado GH, Andrade AGPD, Chagas MH, Menzel
H-JK. TEST-retest reliability of kinetic variables measured on campus board in
sport climbers. Sports Biomech. (2019) 18:649–62. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2018.
1456558
162. Michailov ML, Morrison A, Ketenliev MM, Pentcheva BP. A sport-specific
upper-body ergometer test for evaluating submaximal and maximal parameters in
elite rock climbers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2015) 10:374–80. doi: 10.1123/
ijspp.2014-0160
163. Marino TK, Coelho DB, Lima-Silva AE, Bertuzzi R. MBboard: validity and
reliability of a new tool developed to evaluate specific strength in rock climbers.
J Hum Kinet. (2021) 79:5–13. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2021-0060
164. Michailov M, Moritz EF, Haake S. “Evolvement and experimentation of a new
interval method for strength endurance development”. In: Moritz EF, editor.
Developments for disciplines. The Engineering of Sport. New York, NY: Springer
(2006). Vol. 6, p. 291–6.
165. Pires FO, Lima-Silva AE, Hammond J, Franchini E, Dal’Molin Kiss MA,
Bertuzzi R. Aerobic profile of climbers during maximal arm test. Int J Sports Med.
(2011) 32:122–5. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1268007
166. Rodio A, Fattorini L, Rosponi A, Quattrini FM, Marchetti M. Physiological
adaptation in noncompetitive rock climbers: good for aerobic fitness? J Strength
Cond Res. (2008) 22:359–64. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181635cd0
167. Sheel AW, Seddon N, Knight A, McKenzie DC, Warburton DE R. Physiological
responses to indoor rock-climbing and their relationship to maximal cycle ergometry.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2003) 35:1225–31. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000074443.17247.05
168. Rosponi A, Schena F, Leonardi A, Tosi P. Influence of ascent speed on
rock climbing economy. Sport Sci Health. (2012) 7:71–80. doi: 10.1007/s11332-
012-0115-8
169. Draper N, Brent S, Hodgson C, Blackwell G. Flexibility assessment and the role
of flexibility as a determinant of performance in rock climbing. Int J Perform Analy in
Sport. (2009) 9:67–89. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2009.11868465
170. Draga P, Ozimek M, Krawczyk M, Rokowski R, Nowakowska M, Ochwat P,
et al. Importance and diagnosis of flexibility preparation of male sport climbers. Int
J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:1–9. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072512
171. BalášJ. “Endurance testing in sport climbing,”. In: Book of abstracts form 10th
International Montain and Outdoor Sports Conference (2022). p. 20).
172. Fetz F, Kornexl E. Sportmotorische Tests.Wien: Pädagogischer Verlag (1993) p.
20–77. ISBN: 3215113252.
173. Kellawan JM, Tschakovsky ME. The single-bout forearm critical force test: a
new method to establish forearm aerobic metabolic exercise intensity and capacity.
PLoS One. (2014) 9:e93481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093481
174. España-Romero V, Ortega FB, Vicente-Rodríguez G, Artero EG, Rey JP, Ruiz
JR. Elbow position affects handgrip strength in adolescents: validity and reliability of
jamar, DynEx, and TKK dynamometers. J Strength Cond Res. (2010) 24:272–7. doi: 10.
1519/JSC.0b013e3181b296a5
175. Amca AM, Vigouroux L, Aritan S, Berton E. Effect of hold depth and grip
technique on maximal finger forces in rock climbing. J Sports Sci. (2012) 30:669–77.
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.658845
176. van Bergen NG, Soekarjo K, van der Kamp J, Orth D. Reliability and validity of
functional grip strength measures across holds and body positions in climbers:
associations with skill and climbing performance. Res Q Exerc Sport. (2022):1–11.
doi: 10.1080/02701367.2022.2035662
177. Augste C, Winkler M, Künzell S. Optimization of an intermittent finger
endurance test for climbers regarding gender and deviation in force and pulling
time. Front Sports Act Living. (2022) 4:902521. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.902521
178. Michailov M. “Performance limiting factors in climbing,”. In: Book of abstracts
form 10th International Montain and Outdoor Sports Conference (2022). p. 25.
179. Vereide V, Andersen V, Hermans E, Kalland J, Saeterbakken AH, Stien N.
Differences in upper-body peak force and rate of force development in male
intermediate, advanced, and elite sport climbers. Front Sports Act Living. (2022)
4:888061. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.888061
180. Peterson E, Murray W, Hiebert JM. Effect of gender and exercise type on
relative hand grip strength. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. (2010)
24:1. doi: 10.1097/01.JSC.0000367192.78257.72
181. Bös K, Schlenker L. “Testaufgaben zur erfassung von komponenten der
motorischen leistungsfähigkeit: krafttests,”. In: Bös K, editor. Handbuch motorische
tests: sportmotorische tests, motorische funktionstests, fragebögen zur körperlich-
sportlichen aktivität und sportpsychologische diagnoseverfahren. Göttingen: hogrefe
(2017). p. 28–49.
182. Bulthuis Y, Drossaers-Bakker W, Oosterveld F, van der Palen J, van de Laar M.
Arm crank ergometer is reliable and valid for measuring aerobic capacity during
submaximal exercise. J Strength Cond Res. (2010) 24:2809–15. doi: 10.1519/JSC.
0b013e3181e31242
183. Bös K, Schlenker L. “Testaufgaben zur erfassung von komponenten der
motorischen leistungsfähigkeit: beweglichkeitstests,”. In: Bös K, editor. Handbuch
motorische tests: sportmotorische tests, motorische funktionstests, fragebögen zur
körperlich-sportlichen aktivität und sportpsychologische diagnoseverfahren. Göttingen:
hogrefe (2017). p. 82–90.
184. Ebenchoch F, Höllrigl L, Ebenbichler C, Krassnitzer F, Luchner R, Patterson C,
et al. “Current performance testing in elite Austrian sport climbers,”. In: Book of
abstracts form 10th International Montain and Outdoor Sports Conference (2022).
p. 23–4.
185. Grosser M, Starischka S. Konditionstests: theorie und Praxis aller Sportarten.
München: blv Sportwissen. (1981) p. 8–106. ISBN: 3405122244.
186. Weltman A, Snead D, Stein P, Seip R, Schurrer R, Rutt R, et al. Reliability and
validity of a continuous incremental treadmill protocol for the determination of lactate
threshold, fixed blood lactate concentrations, and VO2max. Int J Sports Med. (1990)
11:26–32. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1024757
187. Steib S, Streber R, Pfeifer K. “Motorische tests für bewegungsbezogene
gesungheitsförderung: einzeltests zur erfassung motorischer grundfunktionen,”. In:
Bös K, editor. Handbuch motorische tests: sportmotorische tests, motorische
funktionstests, fragebögen zur körperlich-sportlichen aktivität und sportpsychologische
diagnoseverfahren. Göttingen: hogrefe (2017). p. 334–468.
188. Stien N, Saeterbakken AH, Andersen V. Tests and procedures for measuring
endurance, strength, and power in climbing—a Mini-review. Front Sports Act
Living. (2022) 4:43. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.847447
189. Müller E, Benko U, Raschner C, Schwameder H. Specificfitness training and
testing in competitive sports. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2000) 32:216–20. doi: 10.1097/
00005768-200001000-00032
Langer et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 23 frontiersin.org