Test-Retest Reliability of a 4-Minute All-Out Critical Force Test in Rock Climbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 16(4): 912-923, 2023. The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of a 4-minute all-out critical force test in well-trained rock climbers. Thirteen rock climbers (n=4 females) completed a familiarization session and two all-out critical force tests on different days. During each trial, participants completed 24 repetitions of 7s right-handed, maximal effort hangs from a 20mm edge interspersed with 3 s rest. The end-test force (EF; i.e., critical force), impulse above EF (IEF), and peak force achieved durin g the test were analyzed with paired t-tests to determine differences between trials. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to quantify the relative and absolute reliability of the measure, respectively. The level of significance for this study was set at p<0.05. There were no significant differences between trials for any of the reported variables (P≥0.455). For EF, IEF, and peak force, ICC was 0.848, 0.820, and 0.938, respectively; and CV was 21.0%, 13.2%, and 5.6%, respectively. Bland-Altman analyses showed a mean relative bias of -2.3%, -2.8%, and -1.3%, with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of -62.6% to 58.1%, -40.5% to 30.9%, and -17.2% to 14.6% for EF, IEF, and peak force, respectively, however linear regression revealed a significant proportional bias for EF (p = 0.026, R2 = 0.377). The reliability of this protocol was good to excellent for all parameters; however, there was larger intra-individual variability for EF and IEF. This study suggests that when using the 4-min all-out critical force test in rock climbers, coaches and athletes should be aware that there may be a trade-off between the test’s practicality and the precision of its results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".