Subject K: Talent Identification Test Batteries

Introduction

Talent identification test batteries are a collection of performance tests and anthropometric measurements used to predict a person’s potential ability and suitability to particular sports. Subject K is a 37 year old female, with no major sporting accomplishments of note to report. Subject K’s sporting history includes gymnastics, athletics (100m, 200m, 400m, and 1500m), netball, touch football, soccer, rugby league and recreational rock climbing.

PART A

Anthropometry Tests and Results

Subject K is an ectomorph-mesomorph, she was measured as per instructions (Introduction to Coaching Science Manual (ICSM), 2015), an average or highest level was recorded (Appendix 1). Compared with normative data, she was found to be above average for height, arm span and ape index (Table

1). However, low BMI and body mass, above average leg length and ape index suggests she could be best suited for rock climbing (also referred to as sport climbing) (Grant et al., 2001). When compared with rock climbers, most of her measurements were within range of average or above (Appendix 2).
Table 1: Comparison of anthropometrics (mean +- SD) of normative, elite rock climbers and Subject K
Measurements Norm Percentile Subject K Climber
Mass (kg) 63.4 +- 12 25 (55.8) 50.4 60.1+- 5.9
Height (standing) (cm) 164.0 +- 6.7 75 (168.2) 170.2 166.4 +-5.47
BMI (quetelet) 23.6 +- 4.1 5 (18.6) 17.26
Waist girth (cm) 77.2+-10.2 25 (70.3) 65
Hip girth (cm) 99.4+-9 5 (87.7) 85.5
Leg length (cm) 83.3 77.3+-4.0
Arm span (cm) 164.8+- 6.6 75** 177.2 168.6+-8.4
Ape index (%)* 1.0** 104.1 1.0+-0.03
* Mean arm span/mean height ratio ** Estimated from the sourced data. (Gore & Edwards, 1992 cited in ICSM, 2015; Mermier, Janot, Parker, & Swan, 2000; Steele & Chenier, 1990 cited in ICSM, 2015)
Strength, Flexibility and Power Results (reliability, validity and accuracy)
Subject K presented relatively poor results in sit up strength and sit-and -reach flexibility scores (Table 2). Additionally, her grip strength, vertical jump and broad jump placed her above the average when compared to normative data. However, when compared to elite climbers, her grip strength was just below average (some comparison data was not available for elite climbers).

Table 2: Strength, Power and flexibility comparisons (mean+-SD where applicable)
Test Rock climber Norm Subject K
Sit up (strength) No comparative data found 5+-1.1 (Australian open netball) 1
grip (strength, N*) 337.4+-11.8 31.3 +-5.8 (kg)
307.053 32 (kg)
313.92
Standing vertical jump (cm) No comparative data found 30-31 (51st-60th percentile) 37
Standing broad jump (m) No comparative data found 1.63 1.74 (70th percentile)
Sit & reach (flexibility, cm) 42.9+-4.7 45.0+-9.7 33 (5th percentile)
*if in kg conversion to N x 9.81 (Gore & Edwards as cited in ICSM, 2015; Gore, 2001 as cited in ICSM, 2015; Grant et al., 2001; Leerlarthaepin, 1985 as cited in ICSM, 2015; Reiman & Manske 2009).

As with any test battery set, the question of reliability and validity (and accuracy) arises. Some of the tests Subject K completed were questionable in a few areas (Table 3).Thus, a rock climbing specific test battery should be used.
Table 3: Reliability, validity and accuracy of strength, power and flexibility tests.
Test Meant to test Reliable Valid Accurate Really testing
Sit up Core strength questionable no questionable Trunk and hip flexor flexibility
Grip Strength of hand grip yes yes yes Hand grip strength
Vertical Jump (VJ) Lower limb muscular power (vertical direction) Questionable Yes, as long as procedures are the same. yes lower limb muscular power
Broad jump Lower limb muscular power (horizontal direction) yes Questionable Human error issues with measurement Lower limb muscular power
Sit and reach Hip joint flexibility Questionable questionable Limited due to other variables Hamstring flexibility
(Brown & Weir, 2001; Burnstein, Steele, & Shrier, 2011; Calder, 2015)

Agility, Endurance and Speed results (reliability, validity and accuracy)
Subject K was found to be relatively skilled with agility and above average for her sprinting ability (Table 4). However, her shuttle test results were rated ‘very poor’. This could be due to the (relatively minor) ankle injury incurred on her sprint test that was completed prior to the shuttle test. No comparison data for elite climbers were found for this particular set of tests, possibly due to these tests not being specific for rock climbing.
Table 4: Agility, endurance and speed tests comparisons with norms (no rock climber data available).
Test Comparative norms Subject K Rock climber
505 (right foot, Agility, s)
2.47 (national senior netball)
2.34 No comparative data found
Multistage fitness test (endurance, level-shuttle number)
11-2 (national senior netball) 4-1 No comparative data found
40m Sprint (speed, s) 7.3 (college students 50th percentile) 6.76 No comparative data found
(Gore, 2000 as cited in ICSM, 2015; Leerlarthaepin, 1985 as cited in ICSM, 2015)

Hetzler et al. (2008), claims accuracy and reliability issues arise with hand-held timers as used with the 505 and 40m sprint tests (Table 5). Additionally, validity limitations need to be acknowledged with the 505 test as it is more a test of change of direction speed and acceleration rather than agility (Young, Dawson & Henry, 2015).
Table 5: Reliability, validity and accuracy of speed, agility and endurance tests
Test Meant to test Reliable Valid Accurate Really testing
40m sprint Speed Limitations
Limitations
Human error issues Acceleration

505
Agility questionable questionable Questionable
Acceleration/deceleration, change of direction

Shuttle test Aerobic power Yes Yes
Yes Cardio-respiratory fitness/endurance

(Brewer et al. 1988, Leger et al., 1988, as cited in Reiman & Manske, 2009; Calder, 2015; Hetzler et al., 2008; Young, Dawson, & Henry, 2015).

PART B
Advantages and Limitations
As previously mentioned, the test batteries Subject K took part in had limitations, especially in the context of rock climbing specific testing. While the data collected enabled comparisons to eliminate any sports not suited to her body type, it did leave many gaps in tests required for determining her suitability for elite level rock climbing. Consequently, the tests conducted were advantageous for being quick, easy and general allowing for an open-minded view of her abilities. However, the accuracy, validity and reliability of some of the tests would need to be readdressed in addition to rock climbing specific tests.

Elite climber potentiality test battery recommendations
Rock climbing requires high hand grip and individual finger grip (in different combinations) strengths in addition to upper body strength and reach (Grant et al., 2001). Upon review of rock-climber research, Giles et al. (2006) stated that while body composition plays some part they also acknowledged that finger, hand grip and forearm strength was important. Furthermore, flexibility and endurance concerning the individual’s ability to perform isometric contractions was also shown to be statistically significant in higher level rock climbers (Giles et al., 2006). However, ‘a high strength to body mass ratio’ was found to be a recurring characteristic of elite rock climbers (Giles et al., p.254, 2006).
Thereby, in addition to body composition measurements, varying grip strength and upper body strength tests should be included in a test battery specific to rock climbing (Table 6).

Thus, to enable strength to body mass ratio to be calculated. Additionally, it was mentioned balance and problem solving skills of the individual could play an important role (Giles et al., 2006).Suggesting problem solving skills should also be assessed. Furthermore, it would be advisable to assess the individual’s ability to climb rock walls with varying grades in difficulties.

Table 6: Additional tests for Talent identification test battery specific to rock climbing

Test To assess

Flexed arm hang or pull-up test Upper arm and forearm endurance

Hand grip Strength of total hand

Pincer and individual finger grip Strength of each different combination of digits

Star excursion balance test Postural control and dynamic balance

Stork test Static balance

Rotational stability assessment Trunk stability while upper and lower limb muscle movements occur

BMI to body strength ratio strength ability relative to size

Rock climb wall Ability to climb

(Adapted from Grant et al., 2001; Reiman & Manske,

2009).
Conclusion
In summary, talent identification test batteries need to be general at first to offer a broad data set to compare with normative and sport specific data. Thus, allowing the general data to offer a wide range of potential sports to choose from. However, after initial testing more specific testing batteries would be required to determine the suitability of the individual being assessed in comparison to elite athlete norms in the chosen sport.