Five Meters Rope-climbing Test: Commando-specific Power Test of the Upper-Limbs

509

Original investigatiOn

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2015, 10, 509 -515http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2014-0334© 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Five-Meter Rope-Climbing: A Commando-Specific Power Test of the Upper Limbs

Wissem Dhahbi, Anis Chaouachi, Johnny Padulo, David G. Behm, and Karim Chamari

Purpose: To examine the concurrent validity and absolute and relative reliabilities of a commando-specific power test. Participants: 21 antiterrorism commandos. Methods: All participants were assessed on a 5-m rope-climbing test (RCT) and the following tests: pull-ups, push-ups, estimated-1-repetition-maximum (est-1RM), medicine-ball put, and handgrip-strength test. The stopwatch method related to the execution time (ET) was validated by comparison with video motion analysis. The best individual attempt of 3 trials was kept for analysis, and the performance was expressed in absolute power output (APO) and body-mass relative power output (RPO). Results: Stopwatch assessment had an excellent criterion validity (r = .99, P < .001), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,1) of .98, standard errors of measurement (SEM%) of 1.19%, bias ± the 95% limits of agreement of 0.03 ± 0.26 s, and minimal detectable change (MDC95) of 0.51 s. The ET, APO, and RPO were significantly correlated (P < .05) with all cited tests (absolute-value r range .55–.98), while est-1RM was not significantly correlated with the other tests. Test–retest reliability coefficients were excellent for ET, APO, and RPO (ICC3,1 > .90). The SEM% values for the ET, APO, and RPO were all under 5% (range 3.73–4.52%), all being smaller than the corresponding smallest worthwhile change. The coefficients of variation for the ET, APO, and RPO were all under 10%. %MDC95 ranged from 10.37% to 12.53%. Conclusions: Considering the strong concurrent validity and excellent test–retest reliability, the RCT is simple to administer, has ecological validity, and is a valid specific field test of upper-body power for commandos and, in addition, can be accurately assessed with a stopwatch.

Keywords: field test, muscle strength, sport army, upper-limb power test, validity and reliability

Since the events of September 11, 2001, most countries in the world increased the pace of the process of training Special Forces units to combat terrorism in their territory. They also participated in sending international missions to combat terrorism in vulnerable areas in the world.1 Commandos are elite Special Operations soldiers who possess a high level of fitness; are specialized in combat skills, sky diving, parachuting (static line and free fall), and scuba train-ing; and master various weapon qualifications.2 These soldiers are ground combatant forces, and they must maintain optimal physical attributes of strength, power, stamina, and endurance to be efficient.3 Identifying selection measures of Special Forces combatants is complex, but physical capability, motivation, and spatial ability have been recognized as key performance factors.3,4 Combat ability has been linked to the Army Physical Fitness Test, which has been used to determine fitness levels and promote health. To be success-ful in this test, each soldier must attain a minimum standard score for each individual subtest.5 According to the analysis of physical requirements of Special Forces soldiers,3 strength and power of the upper-limb muscles is required. During the diverse operations/tasks performed by the commando soldiers in their daily activities, they

have to bear their body mass (and the relatively heavy equipment they wear) with their upper limbs. Therefore, the latter performance is of paramount importance for their overall physical performance. These motor-ability requirements dictate that physiological assess-ment of elite soldiers is the only way to examine the extreme human adaptations to specific types of exercise and training and to accu-rately track changes in performance over time.

Power is defined as the amount of work performed per unit of time; therefore, it is a combination of strength and speed.6 The majority of tests and training protocols for soldiers emphasize lower-extremity muscle power. The upper-body Wingate anaerobic test and the medicine-ball put are most commonly used to examine maximal upper-extremity anaerobic capacity and power for most sports and physical activities. Each of these tests has been validated numerous times and has proven to be reliable across multiple popu-lations.7 Upper-limb power is a highly desirable fitness component for commandos.5 Historically, the usual methods for assessing power for the Special Forces have been pull-ups,8 push-ups,9,10 estimated 1-repetition-maximum bench press (est-1RM),10,11 and medicine-ball put tests.12 The handgrip test is also widely used as an adjunct index of upper-limb physical qualities in soldiers.13 Nevertheless, handgrip performance concerns the finger flexors, which are requisite for body-hanging performance, and does not elicit the entire upper limbs. In this context, to our knowledge, there is no commando-specific power test to assess the upper limbs of soldiers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and refine the methodology for administering a 5-m rope-climbing power test (RCT), to determine concurrent validity by determining the relationship between RCT scores and upper-limb power tests, and to assess the reliability of the measurements.

Dhahbi, Chaouachi, and Padulo are with the Tunisian Research Labora-tory “Sport Performance Optimization,” National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia. Behm is with the School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NL, Canada. Chamari is with Aspetar, Qatar Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar. Address author correspondence to Wissem Dhahbi at [email protected].

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015

510 Dhahbi et al

MethodsSubjects

Participants were 21 antiterrorism soldiers from the Tunisian National Guard commandos, 1st level (BS1), who voluntarily participated in the study (age 24.1 ± 1.8 y, body mass 74.9 ± 5.1 kg, body height 179.5 ± 4.0 cm, and body-mass index 23.3 ± 1.7 kg/m2). The inclusion criteria were having regularly trained for 17 weeks in the National Guard School of Commandos for ~32 h/wk, divided into ~14 h/wk for fitness training and ~18 h/wk dedicated to technical and tactical training. All the participants were free from any injury or pain that would prevent maximal effort during perfor-mance testing. All gave their written informed consent to the study after receiving a thorough explanation of the protocol. This protocol conformed to internationally accepted policy statements regarding the use of human subjects and was approved by the university ethics committee in accordance with the Helsinki declaration.

Design

A cohort study design was used. The experimental protocol con-sisted of performing the RCT 3 times. One session was carried out to familiarize the participants with the measurement protocol 1 week before baseline testing. The first session of baseline testing was dedicated to the assessment tests: 5-m RCT, handgrip strength (HGS), pull-ups 15 seconds, push-ups 15 seconds, est-1RM bench press, and medicine-ball put. The protocol consisted of performing the 6 tests in random order (3 trials for each test), with 5 minutes rest between trials and 10 minutes recovery between tests. The best attempt of the 3 trials was kept for analysis of the test performance. The same protocol was used in both the first and the second testing sessions, to keep the same conditions between test and retest. In order to study the criterion-related validity of the RCT, only the first session’s data were analyzed. To examine the test–retest reliability of the RCT, the best scores of testing sessions 1 and 2 were analyzed.

Methodology

Before starting the tests, the participants performed ~15 minutes of warm-up, which included circumduction and flexion/extension of

the upper limbs with self-selected intensity and dynamic stretching (pectorals, trapezius, arm flexor and extensor, flexors and extensors of the hand/fingers). After the warm-up, the participants recovered for ~5 minutes and then began tests. Test data were collected at approximately the same time of day (morning) in both sessions (between 9:00 and 11:00 AM) to eliminate any influence of circadian variations on performance.14 Participants performed the tests with clothes and shoes, without their usual specially designed bullet-proof vest (the mass of the equipment was of ~5 kg and consistent during the 2 test sessions). They were also asked to follow their normal diet, eat a light meal at least 3 hours before each session, sleep normally, and stop any strenuous activity during the 24 hours before the test. The experimenter provided strong verbal encourage-ment during the tests to obtain maximum efforts on all tests from the participants. RCT global ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs) were recorded immediately after the RCTs using the Borg scale (RPE 1–10).15 The test was performed outdoors in the following conditions (measurements taken every 30 min during the experi-ment): 17.4°C ± 0.9°C and 15.6°C ± 0.8°C for temperature, 56.0% ± 1.8% and 56.8% ± 1.3% for humidity, monitored by a digital environmental station (VaisalaOyj, Helsinki, Finland) during the test and the retest sessions, respectively. In both sessions, wind velocity was light (under 10 km/h).

Five-Meter Rope-Climbing Test

The participants climbed the rope as fast as possible and hit the finish mark (see Figure 1). The timer was triggered at the signal of the assessor and stopped when the participant touched the mark that was situated at a height of 5 m above the starting mark. The RCT began with the participant sitting on his buttocks (the seated position) with the rope between his legs, both hands placed on the rope without exceeding the starting mark situated at 1 m above the ground. The climbing was performed without skipping (without momentum), without the use of any gloves, and without using the lower limbs (ie, the legs were not allowed to touch the rope to help climbing but were free for movement).

Polyamide rope (4 strands wrapped together from left to right, length 9 m, diameter 40 mm; these features allow climbing without hand sliding but requiring high prehensile strength) attached to a rod

Figure 1 — The 5-m rope-climbing power test: (A) start, (B) execution, and (C) finish position.

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015

Rope Climbing: Commando-Specific Field Test 511

fixed through 8 m height was marked with a node mark at departure (1-m height) and taped mark at the finish (6-m height). For safety reasons, a carpet was present (3 × 2 × 0.3 m), with the distance between the upper surface of the carpet and the starting mark ~70 cm.

The parameter to be evaluated in this study was power—more precisely, a selected expression of upper-body power as determined by climbing a rope at maximum speed over a set distance. The argument for logical validity was based on the concept that to suc-cessfully execute a rope climb, strength is required, and, in addition, work is accomplished by the upper body. If time is factored into the work performance (ie, how quickly the repetition is executed), strength measures can legitimately be transformed to power mea-sures using the formula

Power (W)

body mass  kg 9.81 rope distance (m)

ET (s)

( )=× ×

where ET = execution time. The determination of ET allowed the estimation of the absolute (APO) and relative power output (RPO) developed by the participant according to the following equations:

APO (W)body mass  (kg) 9.81 5 m

ET (s)

49.05 body mass  (kg)

ET (s)=

× ×=

×

RPO (W/kg)

APO (W)

body mass (kg)

49.05

ET (s)= =

Climbing duration was assessed by manual timing (by a simple stopwatch) accompanied by a video recording (40 frames/s). Video sequences were treated with VirtualDub software (1.10.4) to verify the validity of manual timing of ET. ET was defined as the time between the start signal and the noise of the slap at the finish mark.

Handgrip Strength

This test was performed following the HGS protocol with the elbow flexed described by España-Romero et al.16 Both hands (left and right) were evaluated with 3 consecutive trials per hand (with 1-min rest between trials). The hand to be tested first was randomly chosen. The Takei handgrip dynamometer (Takei A5401 digital hand grip dynamometer; error 0.001 g) is a digital tool with an adjustable grip span to fit a wide range of hand sizes.

Pull-Up Test

Participants hung from a horizontal bar (diameter 5 cm), hands at least shoulder width apart (but no more than 1.5 shoulder width apart from the outsides of the hands) with pronated grip (palms turned away from the face) and arms fully extended. For a successful pull-up, the chin cleared the bar; attempts associated with body swing-ing, absence of full arm extension when returning to the starting position, or lifting the chin (neck extension) were excluded.17 The maximal-effort trials were performed for 15 seconds.

Push-Up Test

Participants were positioned prone with hands about shoulder width apart with the trunk held in a rigid, straight position. Push-ups were performed as quickly as possible. Participants began in the “up” position with their elbows fully extended. When descending the body toward the ground, participants flexed their elbows until the upper arm was parallel to the testing surface. The participants were

instructed to limit head and trunk motion.18 The maximal-effort trials were performed for 15 seconds.

Est-1RM Bench Press

Participants were asked to grasp the bar at approximately shoulder width apart and lift it off the rack. Spotters were in place through-out the testing. The participants then performed each repetition by lowering the bar to within ~2.5 cm of the chest and then raising it until the elbows reached full extension. The amount of weight that could be moved no more than 6 repetitions was recorded. The participants were not accustomed to training using the bench-press exercise.19 They had a total of 3 attempts to adjust the weight, with 5 minutes of rest between attempts. Est-1RM was calculated using tables provided by the National Strength and Conditioning Associa-tion and the American College of Sports Medicine.20

Medicine-Ball Put

A 45° inclined bench was used for the medicine-ball put to facili-tate an optimal trajectory of 45°. The medicine ball’s mass was 9 kg. The ball was covered with carbonate of magnesia before each attempt to facilitate the accurate measurement of thrown distances on contact with the floor. The test was conducted in a room with a ceiling clearance of 8 m. A measuring tape was placed on the floor with the near end positioned under the frame of the bench to anchor it. The tip of the tape was oriented so that it would coincide approximately with the posterior portion of the medicine ball as it rested on each participant’s chest in the ready position. The tape extended outward 7.6 m, well beyond the capabilities of all partici-pants, and was secured to the floor for increased stability. On each side of the measuring tape, a border was created with duct tape that determined a band of 0.6 m within which the ball had to land to be considered a regular throw. Any throw that landed outside the band was not counted and had to be repeated after a minimum of 5 minutes of passive recovery. Balls landing within the band were considered legitimate, and the distances were recorded to the nearest inch (2.5 cm). The near edge of the chalk mark (in the direction of the bench) was used to measure the thrown distance.21

Statistical Analyses

Data analyses were performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Win-dows. Means ± SD were calculated after verifying the normality of distributions using Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics. Systematic bias was investigated using a dependent t test. Estimates of effect size, mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) protected against type 2 errors.

Concurrent validity of the chronograph device was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) with 95% CIs, stan-dard errors of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change at 95% CI (MDC95), Bland-Altman plots and systematic bias ± random errors using the 95% limits of agreement (LOA),22 and Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were also used. Pearson correlation coefficients and stepwise regression tested the validity of RCT data. The relative reliability of the ET, APO, and RPO was determined by calculating ICC, and the absolute reliability was expressed in terms of SEM and coefficients of variation (CV). The sensitivity of the test was assessed by comparing the smallest worthwhile change and SEM, using the thresholds proposed by Liow and Hopkins.23 In both validity and reliability analyses, heteroscedasticity was examined. Significance for all the statistical tests was accepted at P ≤ .05.

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015

512 Dhahbi et al

Results

Validity of Stopwatch Measurements Compared With Video Timer

The mean ± SD of ET recorded by stopwatch and video timer during the RCT were 15.55 ± 3.48 and 15.52 ± 3.38 seconds, respectively. The pairwise analysis revealed no significant difference between the 2 tools (P = .68, dz = 0.10 [trivial]), with a low systematic bias (0.18 s) and low CI (–0.10 < 95% CI < 0.15 s). Moreover, coefficient of correlation between the 2 methods was r = .99 (P < .001). The ET showed a high degree of ICC between the 2 methods (ICC3,1 = .98). SEM was 0.18 (1.19%) second, the MDC95 was small (0.51 s), and the mean difference (bias) ± 95% LOA was 0.03 ± 0.26 second (Figure 2) for the ET between the 2 methods. Moreover, there was no heteroscedasticity in the raw data (r = –.04).

Concurrent Validity of the RCT

Descriptive variables including both the mean and SD of the test scores are presented in Table 1. Pearson product correlations between all functional-performance variables for participants are shown in Table 2. The ET, APO, and RPO were significantly cor-related (P < .05) with right and left HGS, pull-ups, push-ups, and medicine-ball put (absolute value of r .55–.98, P ≤ .05 and lower), while est-1RM had no significant correlation with the other tests. The corresponding regression equations are shown in Table 3.

Absolute and Relative Reliability of the RCT

Relative and absolute reliability indices are presented in Table 4. Dependent t tests evaluating the equality of means showed no significant test–retest bias for ET (s) (t = –0.82, P = .427, dz = 0.18 [trivial]), APO (W) (t = 0.08, P = .94, dz = 0.02 [trivial]), RPO (W/kg) (t = 0.11, P = .92, dz = 0.02 [trivial]), and RPE (t = 1.52, P = .14, dz = 0.34 [moderate]). Except for RPE, the estimated effect sizes (dz) were trivial. Heteroscedasticity coefficients for ET and RPE

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Entire Group, N = 21

Variable Mean Minimum Maximum SDexecution time (s) 15.55 9.29 20.93 3.48APO (W) 251.13 152.33 432.95 73.55RPO (W/kg) 3.33 2.34 5.28 0.85Right HGS (kg) 56.24 45.50 71.20 7.21Left HGS (kg) 53.57 43.90 69.30 6.42Pull-ups 15 s (score) 10.91 8.00 14.00 1.79Push-ups 15 s (score) 18.33 13.00 22.00 2.39est-1RM (kg) 80.65 66.96 92.00 7.06Medicine-ball put (cm) 444.76 400.00 490.00 25.47

Abbreviations: APO, absolute power output; RPO, relative power output; HGS, handgrip strength; est-1RM, estimated 1-repetition maximum on bench press.

Figure 2 — Bland-Altman plotting with limits of agreements between execution time measured by stopwatch and video analysis.

were all small and nonsignificant (r = .10, P = .67, and r = .21, P = .36, respectively), while the heteroscedasticity coefficients were statistically significant for APO and RPO (r = .66, P = .001, and r = .66, P = .001, respectively).

DiscussionThe aims of this study were to establish concurrent validity and absolute and relative reliability of a 5-m RCT by measuring the ET with a stopwatch. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such evaluation of this commando-specific upper-limb power field test has been reported. The main findings of this study suggest that the stopwatch is a valid tool for measuring ET of RCT performance in commandos. The RCT performance is highly reliable and strongly correlated with valid tests that assess muscle power of the upper limbs.

The use of automatic timers to record ET is very difficult to consider because the eventual setting of photocells along the rope (which is not rigid) may lead to erroneous measurements in addition to the practical issues arising from such a measurement process. Video recording is probably much more accurate for recording ET. Nevertheless, this method requires specific equipment and settings and further computerized treatment to collect ET. The stopwatch, on the other hand, is a more accessible instrument and often used in both sport and research settings to record ET for calculations of effort indicators.24 The results of the current study indicate excel-lent agreement both within and between stopwatch and video-timer assessments across 5-m rope-climbing distance in commando soldiers, with very little difference in SEM value (1.19%; <5%)25 between the 2 timing methods. The current study 95% CI of ICC is very strong (.993–.999). While the ICC value quantifies the reli-ability of both methods, when considered alone the results may be insufficient to evaluate patterns of discrepancy that may be present among differences in the data.26 In this context, the Bland-Altman test aids in determining whether 2 methods of clinical measurement agree sufficiently to be used interchangeably.22 The Bland-Altman analysis displayed a small range between the 95% LOAs (0.26 s or less), indicating a clinically acceptable degree of agreement. Thus, the use of stopwatch or video-recording methods over the other methods would not meaningfully affect interpretation of ET results. The MDC95 results indicate that a change in ET of 0.51

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015

Rope Climbing: Commando-Specific Field Test 513

second (3.29%) or more is necessary for 5-m rope-climbing assess-ments to be 95% confident that a true change has occurred beyond measurement error in healthy participants.

Power is a function of force and velocity, and thus in this context is the distance traveled up the rope in a given time frame. If mass and distance are held constant and time is accurately measured, power can be computed. The compact raw material of the rope, as well as its large diameter and its weight, gives stability to the rope during climbing. This allows for the assumption that the horizontal ripples are negligible and the length of the rope to be climbed is fixed at 5 m.

The current results show a moderate to high correlation between RCT (ET, APO, and RPO) and upper-body power and strength refer-ence tests (HGS, pull-ups, push-ups, and medicine-ball put) in the

absence of a “gold-standard test” (Table 2). This agrees with the findings of Bencke et al,27 who showed that strength correlates well with the performance of a complex power activity. The shoulder-muscle groups involved with the RCT are considered stabilizers and decelerators that serve to resist destabilizing forces about the shoulder girdle during pull-up, push-up, and throwing tests, which may explain the correlation between the 4 tests used in this investigation. This is consistent with the findings of Fleisig,28 who found that the force to decelerate the throwing arm was directly proportional to the ball velocity in medicine-ball-put test. When performing the RCT and pull-ups, the participant’s shoulders were abducted to approximately 90°. This position is similar to the ~95° shoulder-abduction position at ball release and the deceleration phase reported by Fleisig28 and also similar to the “up” phase when

Table 2 Correlation Matrix for the Entire Group

ET (s) APO (W) RPO (W/kg) HGSR (kg) HGSL (kg) PUL (score) PUS (score) est-1RM (kg) MBP (cm)

ET 1APO –.95** 1RPO –.98** .98** 1HGSR –.70** .71** .66** 1HGSL –.68** .71** .67** .83** 1PUL –.62** .62** .60** .25 .26 1PUS –.87** .81** .82** .61** .60** .67** 1est-1RM –.24 .20 .19 .23 .28 .28 .31 1MBP –.57** .56** .55* .38 .35 .64** .69** .563** 1

Abbreviations: ET, execution time; APO, absolute power output; RPO, relative power output; HGSR, right handgrip strength; HGSL, left handgrip strength; PUL, pull-ups 15 s; PUS, push-ups 15 s; est-1RM, estimated 1-repetition maximum on bench press; MBP, medicine-ball put.

*Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3 Regression Equations to Estimate Execution Time and Absolute and Relative Power Output From PUS and HGSL

Dependent variable Regression equation ± standard error R2 PExecution time (s) 38.65 – (1.26 × PUS) ± 1.77 .75 <.001Absolute power output (W) .66 <.001 model 1 –205.54 + (24.91 × PUS) ± 44.16 .73 <.001 model 2 –299.25 + (18.95 × PUS) + (3.91 × HGSL) ± 40.14Relative power output (W/kg) –1.98 + (0.29 × PUS) ± 0.51 .66 <.001

Abbreviations: PUS, push-ups 15 s; HGSL, left handgrip strength.

Table 4 Relative and Absolute Reliability Indices and MDC95 of the Rope-Climbing Test

Mean ± SD

Variable Session 1 Session 2 ICC3,1 (95%CI) CV SEM (%) SWC (%) MDC95 (%)Execution time (s) 15.55 ± 3.48 15.70 ± 3.75 .97 (.94–.99) 5.31% 0.58 (3.73%) 0.72 (4.60%) 1.62 (10.37%)APO (W) 251.13 ± 73.55 250.84 ± 78.57 .98 (.94–.99) 6.55% 11.35 (4.52%) 15.13 (6.03%) 31.45 (12.53%)RPO (W/kg) 3.33 ± 0.85 3.33 ± 0.91 .97 (.93–.99) 6.40% 0.15 (4.46%) 0.18 (5.27%) 0.41 (12.31%)RPE 8.07 ± 1.04 7.83 ± 0.90 .73 (.44–.88) 9.03% 0.52 (6.58%) 0.18 (2.27%) 1.45 (18.23%)

Abbreviations: ICC3,1 = intraclass correlation coefficient, model 3,1; CI, confidence interval; CV, coefficient of variation; SEM, standard error of measurement; SWC, smallest worthwhile change; MDC95, minimal detectable change at 95%CI; APO, absolute power output; RPO, relative power output; RPE, rating of perceived exertion.

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015

514 Dhahbi et al

performing standard push-ups. The similarity of these positions and the effect on the posterior musculature of the shoulder girdle may help explain the correlation identified in the current study. Despite the position of testing and the musculature used during the HGS, pull-ups, push-ups, and medicine-ball put and the fact that each test is different from the others, there was a significant correlation between them. Whereas the medicine-all put and bench press are considered open kinetic chain exercises, their correlation to closed kinetic chain activities (ie, pull-up and push-up) is difficult to rationalize.29 Possibly, learning effects could have been overcome by greater familiarization,30 but the lack of correlation between est-1RM bench press (open kinetic chain exercise) with the other tests can be explained by the fact that the participants were not trained for open kinetic chain exercises. Indeed, in commando training, closed kinetic chain exercises are most commonly used. Finally, the power outputs that we obtained should not be interpreted in any absolute value, because there were inevitable substantial losses of power in the gripping force exerted by the hand/fingers so that the body would remain attached to the rope with limited sliding.

In the current study, ICCs were .97, .98, and .97 for ET, APO, and RPO, respectively. Hence, the results demonstrated a very high level of relative reliability of the RCT.26 In this context, one of the weaknesses of ICC, as a measure of relative repeatability, is that it is affected by the heterogeneity of the sample.26 Therefore, an examination of the SEM, which provides an absolute index of reliability, in conjunction with the ICC is needed26 to confirm the ICC results. The SEM is not affected by intersubject variability26 and provides an estimate of measurement error. In addition, if data are homoscedastic, which is the case in the ET (r = .10, P = .67), SEM analysis may be more useful to establish absolute reliability.31 With heteroscedastic data, which is the case in the APO and RPO (r = .664, P < .001, and r = .664, P < .001, respectively), CV analysis is recommended.31 In the current study, SEM was about 3.73% for ET, which is below the reference value of 5% suggested as a limit of difference between any 2 performances in the same test performed on different days.25 The CVs of APO and RPO were 6.55% and 6.40%, respectively, which can be considered good (<10%).31 We also calculated the likelihood that differences in RCT outcomes were substantial (ie, smallest worthwhile change larger than the SEM); this was the case for ET, APO, and RPO irrespective of how these variables were expressed (Table 4), indicating that such data have a good potential to detect real changes in upper-limb power output. In contrast, the smallest worthwhile change for the RPE (2.27%) was smaller than its SEM (6.58%) (Table 4). The lack of experi-ence with the use of the RPE method for the study participants is certainly a factor that may have affected the results. Assessment of an apparent change in performance depends on the magnitude of the change in score relative to error size (MDC95).30 The MDC95 for the ET value was 1.62 seconds; thus, a change in the ET score exceeding 1.62 seconds can be accepted as a true response.31 In 95% of instances, the RCT will demonstrate a random variation of <1.62 seconds, 31.45 W, and 0.41 W/kg for ET, APO, and RPO, respectively, and 1.45 for RPE.

It should be noted that this test is not accessible to everyone; it is specific for trained people with high upper-limb strength who are able to support their own mass with their arms. Two limitations of the current study were that we did not examine blood lactate values or heart-rate responses. In that regard, it would be interesting to measure blood lactate after an RCT, but heart-rate measurement would be of insignificant interest due to the short effort duration (~15 s) and therefore limited cardiorespiratory contribution to test performance. According to Impellizzeri and Marcora,32 respon-

siveness is one of the most essential properties of an evaluative protocol. External responsiveness determines the ability of a test to discriminate athletes of different competitive levels. While external responsiveness of the RCT has not been reported in this study, future research is needed to determine the discriminant ability of the RCT to distinguish soldiers of different operational-capacity levels.

Practical ApplicationsThe results of this study should be of interest to military fitness trainers because the RCT represents the only field upper-limb-power-specific test. The concurrent validity and reliability of this test are 2 important aspects, allowing this test to be used to monitor training programs, especially those directed to improve upper-body power fitness in soldiers.

ConclusionsConsidering its strong concurrent validity, excellent test–retest reliability, and strong ecological validity, the RCT test may serve as a valid specific field test of upper-body power for commandos. Moreover, its evaluation can easily and accurately be performed with a simple stopwatch.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all the participants for their enthusiasm and commitment to the completion of this study. They also wish to express their sincere gratitude to Prof Laurence Chèze for advice and cooperation in this study.

References 1. Keeney GL, Von Winterfeldt D. Identifying and structuring the

objectives of terrorists. Risk Anal. 2010;30(12):1803–1816. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01472.x

2. Holcomb J, Caruso J, McMullin N, et al. Causes of death in US Special Operations Forces in the global war on terrorism: 2001–2004. US Army Med Dep J. 2007(Jan–Mar):24–37. PubMed

3. Carlson MJ, Jaenen SP. The development of a preselection physical fitness training program for Canadian Special Operations Regiment applicants. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(Suppl 2):S2–S14. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825d7ff9

4. Kilcullen RN, Chen G, Simsarian ST. Selection Measures for Special Forces. Alexandria, VA: Institute USAR, Defense Technical Informa-tion Center; 1997.

5. Hunt AP, Orr RM, Billing DC. Developing physical capability stan-dards that are predictive of success on Special Forces selection courses. Mil Med. 2013;178(6):619–624. PubMed doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00347

6. Nieman DC. Exercise Testing and Prescription: A Health Related Approach. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill; 2007.

7. Peterson MD. Power. In: NSCA, with Miller, T, ed. NSCA’s Guide to Tests and Assessments. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2012:315–317.

8. Sporis G, Harasin D, Bok D, Matika D, Vuleta D. Effects of a training program for special operations battalion on soldiers’ fitness charac-teristics. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(10):2872–2882. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318242966c

9. Cuddy JS, Slivka DR, Hailes WS, Ruby BC. Factors of trainability and predictability associated with military physical fitness test success. J

IJSPP Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015

Rope Climbing: Commando-Specific Field Test 515

Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(12):3486–3494. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318217675f

10. Thomas DQ, Lumpp SA, Schreiber JA, Keith JA. Physical fitness pro-file of Army ROTC cadets. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):904–907. PubMed

11. Warr BJ, Scofield DE, Spiering BA, Alvar BA. Influence of training frequency on fitness levels and perceived health status in deployed National Guard soldiers. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(2):315–322. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31827e1347

12. Sharp MA, Knapik JJ, Walker LA, et al. Physical fitness and body composition after a 9-month deployment to Afghanistan. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(9):1687–1692. PubMed doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318176b978

13. Myers SD, Dobbins TD, King S, et al. Physiological conse-quences of military high-speed boat transits. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(9):2041–2049. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00421-010-1765-3

14. Drust B, Waterhouse J, Atkinson G, Edwards B, Reilly T. Circa-dian rhythms in sports performance—an update. Chronobiol Int. 2005;22(1):21–44. PubMed doi:10.1081/CBI-200041039

15. Haddad M, Chaouachi A, Castagna C, et al. Validity and psycho-metric evaluation of the French version of the RPE scale in young fit males when monitoring training loads. Sci Sports. 2013;28:e29–e35. doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2012.07.008

16. 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(1):272–277. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b296a5

17. Burnstein BD, Steele RJ, Shrier I. Reliability of fitness tests using methods and time periods common in sport and occupational manage-ment. J Athl Train. 2011;46(5):505–513. PubMed

18. Negrete RJ, Hanney WJ, Kolber MJ, et al. Reliability, minimal detect-able change, and normative values for tests of upper extremity function and power. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3318–3325. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e7259c

19. Padulo J, Laffaye G, Chaouachi A, Chamari K. Bench press exercise: the key points. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2014; in press. PubMed

20. National Strength and Conditioning Association. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 3rd ed. Baechle TR, Earle RW, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008.

21. Clemons JM, Campbell B, Jeansonne C. Validity and reliability of a new test of upper body power. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(6):1559–1565. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181dad222

22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agree-ment between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–310. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8

23. Liow DK, Hopkins WG. Velocity specificity of weight training for kayak sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(7):1232–1237. PubMed doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000074450.97188.CF

24. Vicente-Rodríguez G, Rey-López JP, Ruíz JR, et al. Interrater reli-ability and time measurement validity of speed-agility field tests in adolescents. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(7):2059–2063. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e742fe

25. Nevill AM, Atkinson G. Assessing agreement between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science. Br J Sports Med. 1997;31:314–318. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.31.4.314

26. Weir JP. Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correla-tion coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–240. PubMed

27. Bencke J, Damsgaard R, Saekmose A, Jørgensen P, Jørgensen K, Klau-sen K. Anaerobic power and muscle strength characteristics of 11 years old elite and non-elite boys and girls from gymnastics, team handball, tennis and swimming. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002;12(3):171–178. PubMed doi:10.1034/j.1600-0838.2002.01128.x

28. Fleisig GS. The Biomechanics of Baseball Pitching [dissertation]. Birmingham: University of Alabama; 1994.

29. Rogol IM, Ernst G, Perrin DH. Open and closed kinetic chain exercises improve shoulder joint reposition sense equally in healthy subjects. J Athl Train. 1998;33(4):315–318. PubMed

30. Hachana Y, Attia A, Nassib S, Shephard RJ, Chelly MS. Test–retest reliability, criterion-related validity, and minimal detectable change of score on an abbreviated Wingate test for field sport participants. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(5):1324–1330. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182305485

31. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26:217–238. PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-199826040-00002

32. Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM. Test validation in sport physiology: lessons learned from clinimetrics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009;4(2):269–277. PubMed