External Responsiveness and Intrasession Reliability of the Rope-Climbing Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dhahbi, W, Chamari, K, Chèze, L, Behm, DG, and Chaouachi, A. External responsiveness and intrasession reliability of the rope-climbing test. J Strength Cond Res 30(10): 2952-2958, 2016-Although the rope-climbing test (RCT) has been validated for upper-body power assessment of Commando soldiers, the external responsiveness and intrasession reliability of the RCT have not been reported. To examine RCT external responsiveness and intrasession reliability, this study consisted of 2 separate phases. Forty male soldiers belonging to the special units of the National Guard, selected on the basis of their training and specialty operations levels, participated in the first phase of the study to identify the discriminant ability of RCT. This group was then divided into anti-terrorism Commandos (21 soldiers) and Intervention-Brigade (19 soldiers). Only the anti-terrorism Commandos participated in the intrasession reliability study. The Commandos were significantly better than the Intervention-Brigade soldiers on execution time (ET), absolute power output (APO), and relative power output (RPO; p < 0.001). The areas under the receiver operator characteristics curves were all higher than 0.70: 0.91, 0.85, and 0.90 for ET, APO, and RPO, respectively. The RCT provided good external responsiveness; thus, RCT was considered to indicate "good" discriminative ability. No significant difference was found between groups in posttest rating of perceived exertion. The intrasession reliability coefficients were excellent for ET, APO, and RPO (intraclass correlation coefficient [3,1] > 0.90). The standard errors of measurement values for the ET, APO, and RPO were all less than 5% (range: 1.29-1.47%). The main findings of this study suggest that RCT is a tool with both high sensitivity and intrasession reliability, allowing the consistent detection of differences in upper-limb power performance between the 2 military groups of different operational capacity levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".