ORIGINAL ARTICLE Development of a performance assessment tool for rock climbers SIMON BRENT 1 , NICK DRAPER 2 , CHRISTOPHER HODGSON 1 ,& GAVIN BLACKWELL 2 1 Centre for Sports Science and Medicine, University of Chichester, Chichester, UK, and 2 School of Sciences and Physical Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Abstract Rock climbing is a popular adventure sport for which there is a growing body of scientific knowledge. There is, however, a lack of sport-specific assessment tools to monitor performance. The aim of this study was to examine the potential of the rock-over climbing test (ROCT) as a measure of climbing performance. The ROCT was conducted on a climbaflex board and involved the climber making a rock-over move for which the height gained from lower to upper handhold was measured. Results indicated there was a significant relationship between scaled (to the height of the climber) ROCT scores and climbing ability (r 0.67, P B0.0005). Regression modelling revealed that the ROCT explained 45% of the variance in scores between climbers. The ROCT differentiated between climber ability levels. Mean ROCT scores for novice, intermediate, advanced, and elite climbers were 59.5%, 71%, 82%, and 90% of participant height respectively. Results of analysis of variance revealed that these differences were significant (F 3,42 13.38, P B0.0005). Limits of agreement and intra-class correlation indicated that the ROCT is a reliable performance measure. Our findings suggest that the ROCT is a useful measure of climbing performance. Keywords: Performance, rock climbing, fitness assessment, skill, rock-over Introduction The popularity of rock climbing and the research base for the sport have grown in parallel. The earliest paper relating to the science of climbing dates back to the 1970s and, perhaps ahead of its time, concerned biochemical aspects of the sport (Williams, Taggart, & Carruthers, 1978). Since then, most studies have concentrated on the physiological basis for perfor- mance, covering such aspects as performer profiles, local muscular fatigue, injuries, and the bioenergetics of climbing (Billat, Palleja, Charlaix, Rizzardo, & Janel, 1995; Bollen, 1988; Bollen & Gunson, 1990; Booth, Marino, Hill, & Gwinn, 1999; Draper, Bird, Coleman, & Hodgson, 2006; Grant, Hynes, Whittaker, & Aitchison, 1996; Grant et al., 2001; Mermier, Janot, Parker, & Swann, 2000; Mermier, Robergs, McMinn, & Heyward, 1997; Sheel, Seddon, Knight, McKenzie, & Warburton, 2003; Wall, Starek, Fleck, & Byrnes, 2004; Watts, Martin, & Durtschi, 1993; Wright, Royle, & Marshall, 2000). A number of studies have focused on the psychology of the sport and, most recently, cross-disciplinary research has started to examine the psychophysiology of rock climbers (Hardy & Hutchinson, 2007; Draper et al., 2008a; Draper, Jones, Fryer, Hodgson, & Blackwell, 2008b). The growth of the research base for climbing has led to the publication of three reviews of literature (Giles, Rhodes, & Taunton, 2006; Sheel, 2004; Watts, 2004). To date, there has been less of a research focus on performance for rock climbing, the development of sport-specific performance assessment instruments, and the basis behind performance improvement. As a consequence, rock climbers have employed fitness training and assessment techniques based almost entirely on ideas and methods adapted from other mainstream sports such as athletics, gymnastics, and power lifting (Gresham, 2007). From this basis, training principles for the sport have been developed, but these are largely based on evolved myth and anecdote, or from the trial-and-error experience of Correspondence: N. Draper, School of Sciences and Physical Education, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. E-mail: nick.draper@canterbury.ac.nz European Journal of Sport Science, May 2009; 9(3): 159167 ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2009 European College of Sport Science DOI: 10.1080/17461390902741132