Unit 5 research projects referral 1

Unit 5 Research Project
Worthing College Sports Science
By Anna D’souza
2015

Assessment Criteria
Pages 3-17 & 27-38
• P2: carry out sport science or exercise science-
based research
• P3: collect and record data from the research
project conducted
• M2: correctly analyse collected data, describing
techniques used
• D1: correctly analyse data, explaining techniques
used
• P4: produce a full research report using a
standard scientific structure

To investigate how physical
characteristics affects the
performance for elite standard
climbing performers
P2: Carry out / P4: Produce

AbstractThis study is a contribution to the discussion on the structure, of elite standard rock climbers. The subjects included 16 indoor
climbers. 5 variables were scrutinised for the participants, this included BMI a time trial sore on a specific climb, the
participants current onsite grade and climbing experience of climbers involved in research . A sample of 15- 25 elite level
climbing performers of any age, initially completed a PAR-Q in 10 minutes before testing began, after being read a set of
standardized instructions. Height and weight tests are then performed of each participant and recorded alongside participants
PAR-Q’s, to calculate BMI . A timed climb is then carried out on an unseen 6a climb for all 16 participants, which is recorded on
a digital stopwatch alongside an observation showing that they are elite performers and recorded on a tick list. An observation
of climbers completed another unseen limb at a 6b level with a big rockover, so that it can be compared to other participants
and ensure the participants are of elite level and performing difficult moves. The participants then complete a second
questionnaire which enables to show the participants climbing experience in years and months along with there current onsite
grade. This data is compared against one another to produce 6 different results. Results relate to first hypotheses, show that no
matter if the participants BMI is high then there grade is not low. There is a weak relationship between the two variables. These
results indicate that there is no relationship between having a high BMI, and current onsite grade being low. The reason for the
participants climbing grade is down to there experience and practice in the sport/specific climbs. Results formed in second
hypothesis , showed that the higher the climbers experience the lower there time trial score (panel 7 yellow 6a). There is a
strong relationship between climbers experience and being able to ascend up a wall quickly. This is due to the climbers
knowledge of the sport, in knowing there own strengths and having an understanding of this climbing centre and its grading
system. Through further research into how this result relates to other walls and their grading system, it would give stronger
evidence into why there is a relationship between the two variables. Results formed through exploring hypothesis, showed that
there is no correlation between having a low time trial score, and having a BMI being healthy. The scatter graph showed a
negative correlation of the two variables. These results show that having a low time trail score is affected by something other
then BMI, it is most likely due to being an elite performer and knowledge of the sport, how you should position yourself on the
wall. Further research would look into why BMI has no effect on time trial score, of participants and specifically their weekly
diet. Results produced through exploring hypothesis four showed that there is a negative trend between low BMI and current
onsite grade. The results disprove my hypothesis and show a weak correlation between variables. Therefore it shows that even
having a high BMI will not affect there onsite grade, over there whole climbing experience at elite standard of performance.
Further research that could look into the effect of BMI on current onsite grade, and what it does specifically looking at
foundation level performance, compared to elite standard climbers. Results formed in fifth hypothesis showed that if the
climbers have high climbing experience (in years and months), then the current onsite grade will match this. There is a strong
correlation between these two variables. If a climber has been climbing for a long time, or gained allot of training then this will
be reflected in the grade they are able to climb at. Further research would look into how the climbers performance can be
simulated, at other walls. See if there is any difference in ability. It would also look further, into why some of my participants
have reached such a high ability with only little experience. Results formed through exploring hypothesis six showed tat there is
a moderate correlation, between if climbers onsite grade is high then time trial score will be low. Through looking at the scatter
graph between onsite grade and time trial score, it shows a positive trend between the two factors. There is only a moderate
relationship, due to how some participants have the same onsite grade but differ in time trial score. Therefore further research
would look at how climbers have the same onsite grade, but don’t have the same time trial score. Is this due to experience,
the wall they are climbing or the age of the climbing?

Contents: GeneralPage 3: Aim
Page 4: Abstract
Page 5: Contents: General
Page 6: Contents: Appendices
Page 7: Contents: Figures and tables
Page 8: Acknowledgements
Page 9: Introduction
Page 10: Literature review and References
Page 11: Project hypothesis
Page 12: Method
Page 13: Data collection
Page 14: Data Analysis
Page 15-16: Results
Page 17: Discussion
Page 18-19: Conclusion
Page 20: Assessment criteria
Page 21: Review 1/3
Page 22: Review 2/3
Page 23: Review 3/3
Page 24: Future recommendations 1/5
Page 29- 42: Appendices
Page 43-56:Figures and tables

Contents: Appendices
Objective 1-
Page 30- Appendix 1: standardised instructions
Page 31 - Appendix 2:PAR-Q template
Page 32- Appendix 3: Participants PAR-Q’s who did not continue to be involved in research,
due to injury and the right to withdraw.
Page 33-35 -Appendix 4 PAR-Q’s of participants involved in research
Page 36- Appendix 5: standardised instructions for time trial
Page 37- Appendix 6: Time trial score of participants A-P doing panel 7 yellow 6a
Page 38- Appendix 7: Tick list to show that the participants are elite climbers, done after
completing the timed panel 7 6a climb
Page 39- Appendix 8: Videos of participants A-P doing panel 15 green 6b. Analysing there
performance on this harder climb and comparing it to all participants involved in research.
Page 40-Appendix 9: Climbing wall tick list of the entire wall at the AOAC, Shoreham
Objective 2-
Page 41- Appendix 10: Evidence of equipment used in research
Objective 3-
Page 42- Appendix 11: Questionnaire looking at climbing ability and experience of each
participants

Contents: Figures and Tables
Page 44-Figures and tables 1: All data collected for research project looking at
participants A- P
Page 45-48- Figures and tables 2: Bar graphs that represent each participant and the
data for each climber, which can be compared against one another
Page 49-Figures and tables 3: A scatter graph that represents the comparison between
BMI and climbing experience for all participants A-P
Page 50- Figures and tables 4: A scatter graph that represents the comparison between
BMI and current onsite grade for all participants A- P
BMI and the time trial score of participants A-P
climbing experience and current onsite grade of participants A-P
climbing experience and time trial score of participants A- P
Current onsite grade and time trial score for participants A-P
Page 55- Figures and tables 9: A table that shows the total difference squared, 6x
difference squared, spearman’s rank and the correlation measure of the comparison
between each aspect of research.
Page 56- Figures and tables 10: A bar graph to represent all 6 Spearman’s rank

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all who agreed to be involved
in my research and performed my basic tests, so
that I could collect data for my research. All who
attend the climbing community at the AOAC on a
Wednesday evening between 7-10pm. I would also
like to thank participant J, who helped me to
perform the height and weight tests on the climbing
subjects. Without the commitment of my
participants I would not have been able to complete
my research based on my aim: to investigate how
BMI affects the performance for elite standard
climbing performers.

Introduction:
For my research project I have decided to look at indoor rock climbing, in
particular I wanted to look at a climber and compare there physical
characteristics to how well they are able to climb if there is a relationship
between these two variables. The aim of my project is “By the end of my
research project, I aim to understand how physical characteristics affects the
performance of a 6a climber and above”. I chose this aim, due to being a
climber myself and looking at my own performance, and being part of an elite
climbing group I wanted to broaden my knowledge to understanding why
other climbers become elite performers. I was then able to break down my
thinking when looking at how climbers climb, from understanding that being
a good climber is affected by there knowledge and understanding along with
there size. There size was either a trait to their ability, or what comes with the
territory of being an elite performer. Through this thought process I come up
with the aim for my project. The timescale for my research is the initial
planning started on the 14th of February to the 20th , then the research
started on the 21st of February and finished by the 11th of march. The write up
and data collection will then be finished by the 27th of march, and uploaded
onto wordpress.

Literature Review and References
https://worthingsportscience.wordpress.com/20
15/03/27/unit-5-sports-science-research-
project-anna-dsouza/

Project Hypothesis
• I predict that the higher the BMI, the lower the current
onsite grade will be
• The higher the climbers experience of climbing, the
lower the time trial score will be on panel 7 yellow 6a.
• If the participants time trial score is low then there BMI
will be healthy
• There will be a positive trend between low BMI and
current onsite grade
• If the climbing experience is high then current onsite
grade will match this.
• If the climbers onsite grade is high then there time trial
score will be low.

Method
I will distribute 25 PAR-Q’s of opportunity for my research; from these initial 20 the results of there PAR-Q’s will
determine if they will continue to be involved I the research or not. This is determined on if they give any ‘yes’
answers to any of the health questions and there explanation/doctors consent of the issue. If the answers interfere
with the research and health of participants, then this person will not carry on with testing. Firstly I will read out the
standardised instructions (see appendix 1) to all participants and show the testing areas/climbs they will be doing.
I will then distribute the PAR-Q questionnaires (see appendix 2) found on Tuesday the 7th – 9th of October at
https://worthingsportscience.wordpress.com/category/unit-11-lessons/page/2/ . I give the participants 20 minutes
to complete questionnaire before collecting and identifying who will continue research from answers and who will
not. (see appendix 3 and 4)
I then distribute the second questionnaire (see appendix 10) on participants current grade of climbing and climbing
experience, with the same standardised instructions (see appendix 1). I give the participants 5 minutes to complete
questionnaires and collect in. This provides me with qualitative data that I will enter into excel by the 12th of march.
I then ask participants to complete the 6a climb on panel 7 in the quickest possible time and read the set of
standardized instructions to each participant (see appendix 5). This test of all participants will be completed by
Wednesday 11th march .
After this I then ask participants to complete the participants to complete the green 6b climb which is a harder
climb at an elite level of performance, this will be videoed and each participant will be compared to one another to
prove they are elite standard performers (see appendix 8). This will be completed by the 11th of march
After these climbs are completed by the climbers, I then ask them to complete further height and weight tests (see
appendix 10), with the help of participant J to conduct height test using a tape measure then weigh climbers in kg.
this data for each participant was written down and further entered into a BMI calculator
http://www.nhs.uk/tools/pages/healthyweightcalculator.aspx.
All participants personal info received will remain confidential. I will ensure that any personal data will be replaced
with a letter to represent participant and covered.
My research is field based and all participants were tested in their sporting environment. Through conducting a field
based research project this will gain me primary data that has higher validity as I am aware of how the testing is
conducted and the weakness and strengths of my research first hand.
P3: Collect and record / M2: Correctly analyse & describe techniques / D1: Correctly analyse & explain techniques

Data Collection
My data collection is of primary data, as I have collected and
researched the climbers myself. Collecting two types of data –
quantative and qualitative but through collecting qualitative data I will
produce quantative data this reacts to the hypothesis I formulated at
the beginning of the research, on what I predict to find.
The quantative data obtained is the age (years) of participants, heights
(cm) and weights (kg)(BMI) and if they can climb a 6a climb or not. The
quantative data is collected to compare to the climbers performance
(onsite grade) with knowledge of the sport.
The qualitative data collected through handing out a questionnaire 10
participants A-P in which there are 4 closed questions that the
participants answer alongside their PAR-Q. this is conducted to show a
correlation between their climbing experience, current onsite grade
and the climbers BMI if BMI has an high impact on their performance
as climbers.

Data Analysis
To analyse the data I have collected through conducting my
research, I will input what I have found on each participant
into excel, this makes it easier for me to produce tables and
graphs to show correlations. The data I have collected will
produce bar graphs on each participant that shows there
specific data and can be easily compared against one another
to show any similarities and differences. I have then
conducted scatter graphs to show correlation through all the
results and a spearman's rank table, which show how strong
the correlation is between two variables- very weak, weak,
moderate, strong or very strong. I will produce 6 spearman's
rank results from the data, on every aspect of the athlete each
compared against one another. This is BMI and climbing
experience, BMI and climbing onsite grade, BMI and time trial
score, experience and climbing onsite grade, experience and
time trial score and onsite grade and time trial score.

Results
- When looking at my hypothesis: I predict the higher the BMI the lower the current onsite
grade will be. The results show (see figures and tables 4) that there is a weak 0.25 correlation
between these two variables evidence using spearman's rank order ( see figures and tables 9).
This shows that this hypothesis was inaccurate and had a negative relationship. As evidence
looking at participant J (see figures and tables 1), who had the lowest BMI over all participants
at a score of 18.7. In conclusion with this has a low onsite grade that proves my hypothesis
wrong.
- I also found when looking at the hypothesis, the higher the climbers experience of climbing,
the lower the time trial score will be on panel 7 yellow 6a. The results shown (see figures and
tables 7) that there is a strong correlation between the two variables of 0.71, using spearman's
rank order correlation (see appendix 9). This shows that there is a strong positive relationship
subject D, who has the highest level of experience at 8 years. In conclusion with this, got the
best time trial score at 0:25.36 seconds, which is the best over all participants. This proves that
my original hypothesis was correct. Although within this data there is a clear anomaly with
participant H. Who has a rank score of 11 over all participants with some level of climbing
experience, would not result in the highest time trial score this doesn't fit in with the original
hypothesis.
- When looking at the hypothesis, if the participants time trial score is low then there BMI will
be healthy. My results show that if you have a healthy BMI, then generally the time trial score is
between 0.25 and 0.43 (shown in figures and tables 5). I found a 00.4 correlation between the
two variables, using spearman's rank correlation (shown in figures and tables 9). This shows a
very weak relationship between BMI and time trial score. Participant C had the highest BMI and
one of the highest time trial scores, this supports my original hypothesis. On the other hand
participant H, had one of the lowest BMI scores but one of the highest time trial scores. This
proves that there is a very weak correlation between the two variables. So the initial hypothesis
is incorrect.

- The hypothesis, there will be a positive trend between low BMI and current onsite grade. The results show
that there is a negative trend, between low BMI and current onsite grade (see figures and tables 4). Through
spearman's rank order correlation, I found a 0.25 correlation between BMI and current onsite grade ( see
figures and tables 9). Which shows there is a weak correlation between the two variables, this can be
evident when looking at participant J (see figures and tables 1). Who has a BMI of 18.7 and a current onsite
grade of 6a, this does not support my hypothesis. To support the hypothesis, participant J’s climbing grade
should be at the top end of the French grading system, rather then the bottom end.
- The results to evidence hypothesis, if the climbing experience is high then current onsite grade will match
this. The results show a variable spread of data, between climbing experience and grade of climbing (see
figures and tables 6). I found a 0.69 correlation between the two variables, using spearman's rank
correlation (see figures and tables 9) which is a strong correlation. Subject D had the highest years of
experience in total of 8 years, as a result had a high current onsite grade. This result supports the spearman’s
rank correlation. Although subject O has the highest current onsite grade, and with small climbing
experience (see figures and tables 1). This could be considered as an anomalous result, or looking at
participants practice over the short time of climbing, this participant may have done intensive climbing and
this is why participant O’s grade is high. This strong relationship from the spearman's rank correlation,
proves my initial hypothesis correct.
- If the climbers onsite grade is high then there time trial score, will be low. I found that there is a wide
spread of data in conclusion to these two variables (shown in figures and tables 8). I found a 0.47 spearman's
rank order correlation (see figures and tables 9). This shows a moderate relationship between these two
variables, due to the spread of results. Subject D has a current onsite grade of 6b+, which is middle range
over all the participants involved in research. But has the lowest time trial score , which is in conclusion with
the moderate spearman’s rank measure. Looking at participant A who has the same current onsite grade as
participant D the best time trial, representative for the 16 participants within research. A has a bottom end
time trial score of 1 min 14.4 seconds, this shows why the correlation measure is only moderate and not
strong. The score should be lower for there to be a strong relationship between climbers onsite grade and
time trial score.

• There was a very weak relationship between the lower a participants BMI, with their current onsite grade. This result was not
what I predicted after writing my hypothesis, which formed from my knowledge of the climbers who would be involved in the
research- There physical appearance and performance level. Climber J had a very low BMI and a low current onsite grade of 6a,
this showed the weak relationship between BMU and current onsite grade. A further research study would look into why this
has occurred, it is likely to be due to the climbers lack of experience in the sport. Further research would see if anything else
affected the results.
• I found a clear relationship between the higher the climbers experience and the lower the time trial score will be. This is what I
expected after writing my hypothesis. Although with participant H who had 1.3 years of experience this is ranked 11th overall,
which disproves the original hypothesis. Her time trial score was the highest overall at 3 minutes 47 seconds, which concludes
why the correlation was only strong sand not very strong.
• There was no correlation between time trial score being low and BMI being healthy. This result was surprising as I expected to
see a relationship of participants having a healthy BMI and low time trial score, due to having a first hand look at all my climbers
and there ability at an elite standard. Looking at participant C who had one of the highest BMI’s, classed as obese and similarly
one of the height time trial score. This result supports my hypothesis, but when looking at participant H who had a healthy BMI
deviated from the hypothesis, from having a high time trial score. This results shows my third hypothesis was not supported, I
would need to look further into this area to show evidence as to why this happened, compared to the other participants
• There was a negative trend in my data, showing a weak correlation between low BMI and current onsite grade. This result was
surprising due to the fact that all my performers, were of an elite standard of climbing. I was expecting a positive correlation
between variables, subject J who had a BMI of 18.7 and a positive onsite grade of 6a. Whereas participant O has a BMI of 21.1,
but has the highest onsite grade of 7a/b. There is a small difference between BMI with participants, but a large difference in
there current onsite grade that supports the weak correlation result. The result could be related to there experience in the
sport, this affects there climbing ability. Another reason for the results within participants may also relate to their gender. This
shows that my fourth hypothesis was not supported, further research is needed to show the reason for results of climbers with
BMI and current onsite grade.
• There was a positive trend in my data that shows a strong relationship between if climbing experience is high, then current
onsite grade will match this. Within my results there are some outliers, for instance participant D who has the highest years of
experience, but has an onsite grade of 6b+ (this is middle range between climbers). Participant O on the other hand has low
years of experience, but the higher onsite grade overall participants. This is not expected from my initial hypothesis, which
supports having low years of experience would mean his grade would match this. Overall my fifth hypothesis has been
supported by the results I found. I would need to look further if repeating the study, as to why participant O had this conclusion
from results. It could be due to the climbers constant practice in the sport in a short space of time, whereas participant D had
many breaks of the 8 years and his climbing performance has suffered.
• I found a moderate correlation between if the climbers onsite grade is high then there time trial score will be low. Initially I
believed that these two variables would show the strongest correlation due to having a high grade. This shows her experience
which relates to how fast they are able to climb, a low level wall for an elite performer. With subject D who has an onsite grade
of 6b, which is middle range alongside the lowest time trial score. This does not fit with the hypothesis, the onsite grade should
be higher to fit with the hypothesis. Participant A who has the same grade as participant D, although one of the lowest time
trial scores at 1 minute 14.4 seconds. This result concludes why there is a moderate correlation between variables.
Discussion

Conclusion
By the end of my research project I aim to understand how physical characteristics, affects the
performance of 6a climbers and above. When writing my literacy review and research 5 abstracts on the
same topic and 5 other sources of info on elite climbing performers. My overall findings were that, BMI
has no affect on there climbing ability but the amount of practise climbing and working on specific
moves, is key to the improvement of climbing ability at an elite performance level.
The initial hypothesis is not supported as the results are random, which shows a weak correlation
between BMI and current onsite grade (shown in Figures and tables 1). If a participant has the same BMI
or current climbing ability, the all results do not match or similar too which proves the weak correlation.
From my literacy review on elite performers, climbers improve through training and practicing difficult
climbs. It is not something based on your physique and being slim will decide that you are a 6a climber
before you have been on a wall. Being slim is a climber is something that comes with the territory.
My second hypothesis is supported by my results as I found a strong correlation between, the higher the
climbing experience with time trial score. This shows that training and knowledge of the sport is key to
the success of the climber and the speed the climber has when completing a climb. This is something
that is shown through my literacy review and is evident when looking at my different sources, from this
and my personal knowledge of the sport I can understand the strong correlation between variables.
My third hypothesis is not supported by the results and there is a very weak correlation of 0.04, looking
at if there time trial score is low then BMI will be healthy. There is a wide spread of data when looking at
the participants time trial score, but all but 1 participant’s BMI score is healthy (represents the weak
correlation). There may have been other factors that affected the time trial score of participants, for
instance the way they handled pressure and the fact that I was timing them when they climbed. The
intensity of the warm up may have been too much that could have weakened a participant, or too little
that there muscles were not warmed up enough for the intense exercise they completed. As well as this
for the participants to complete a climb that they had never seen before may have thrown some of
them as elite performers improve through practice, if they had time to practice there score may have
bee different and represent there BMI. This would change the strength of the correlation from being
very weak to being stronger.

- My fourth hypothesis is not supported, there was a negative trend between variables BMI and current
onsite grade. To support this there was a 0.25 spearman's rank correlation which is weak. This is due to
the fact that the data is widely spread, within my data some participants have some of the lowest BMI’s
overall along with a low current onsite grade, looking at participants H and J (shown in figures and
tables 1). This may be due to the there experience in the sport being low and have only begun climbing
recently (within the last year), which is why there onsite grade is low.
- My fifth hypothesis is supported by my results, there is a 0.69 spearman rank correlation between
climbing experience and current onsite grade. This shows that the correlation is strong as having higher
years of experience, increases the participants onsite grade. Which makes sense as the grades improve
your need a higher knowledge of skills and understanding of your ability to improve even further and
prevent plateauing. The results show only a strong correlation and not a very strong, one example of
this is looking at participant O (see figures and tables 1). This participant has quite a low experience in
years, but the highest climbing grade.
- My last hypothesis is moderately supported by my results, as I found a 0.47 spearman rank correlation
between climbing onsite grade and time trial score. This is shown when looking at the participants
spread of data, no two participant is the same. Generally as the participants grade decreases, there
time trial score increases to represent why it is moderately supported. There are a few anomaly's with
my results such as participant H , who’s time trial score is way above all other time scores. Even though
her current onsite grade is similar to 4 other participants. Participant A has a high current grade
(represents experience), but lacked when it came to time trial score. This result could be due to the fact
that these climbers strengths is not speed, instead concentrating on doing on having a high skill level
and technique. Another reason for these anomaly's is when the climbers ascended up these routes this
was at the end of there climbing session and used it as a cool down and did not put 100% of effort into
it.
To show the correlation between all hypothesis I have presented spearman rank order in Figures and
tables 10, which is in the form of a bar graph. This is done to show how each hypothesis can be
measured.

Assessment Criteria Pages 19-26
• P5: carry out a review of the research project
conducted, describing strengths, areas for
improvement and future recommendations.
• M3: carry out a review of the research project,
explaining strengths, areas for improvement
and future recommendations.
• D2: carry out a review of the research project,
justifying future recommendations for further
research.

Review (1/3)
I think that the project conclusions met the project aim. I was able to gain
results for all my hypothesis, that referenced the three objective in planning.
My first objective was to classify climbers as 6a + performers and above, that
was obtain through the video analysis of climbers on panel 15 green 6a. And
the time trial on panel 7 6a yellow where all my participants climbed as fast
as possible.
My second objective was to collect the height and weight of the 6a+
performers to calculate BMI , this was obtained my measuring the height with
a tape measure and weighing scales in kg.
The third objective was to collect data on how long the 6a+ performers have
been climbing along with their current climbing grade obtained by the
questionnaire I developed ,to ask each participant their current onsite grade
along with their climbing experience in years and months.
The strength of my research was that in my initial testing I stated that I
wanted to gather research of 15- 20 participants, from the climbing
community. Overall I have gained results on 16 participants shown in table 1.
That looked at four different components of my participants performance at
an elite standard of performance. Which included BMI, climbing experience,
current onsite grade and time trial score.
P5: Describe / M3: Explain / D2: Justify

Review (2/3)
The strengths of my research project were that I made sure all tests where
completed in the same way. For example when doing the time trials, each
participant had one leg on the hold before starting and I counted down from
three before go when I would start the timer and as soon as there hand touched
the top of the wall I stopped the timer. To ensure that this was accurate I gave
my participants a set of standardised instructions before starting the test.
Another strength of my research was that when conducting the height and
weight tests each participant was conducted in the same place, using the same
method for testing and the exact same instruments to take data.
I think that the whole research is valid and reliable and meets the data
protection guidelines stated in the project planning template. It is valid because
I was able to measure and collect data on what I set out to measure, from
objective 1- 3 in project planning template. The same standardised instructions
were used when gaining results on part I have done this for participants A-P. I
have met data protection guidelines as I have covered any personal info,
replaced with the letter they represent in my research from A- P.

Review (3/3)
One area of improvement for this investigation, would be when looking at the
videos of performers see if there is a specific number of steps it takes for my
participant to reach the top and if this is based on climbing experience or BMI
and how does this correlate to the other participants. This would allow my
research to be further extended as I would have more results.
I would see the participants repeat this climb over a series of weak to ensure
that there climbing was not changed under pressure (when filming) or there
ability is down to there experience and knowledge of the sport and the way
this related to other participants.
Before the participants climb the two panels for testing each member
warmed up, if repeating the investigation I would ensure that I monitor the
warm up more accurately so that they each have the same length of time,
stretching out the same types of muscles on the climbs that they are warming
up on. This would improve the reliability of the research in the future.
I would also use a speedometer that accurately measures time when climbing
and the exact point climbers reached the top of the wall to ensure that
observer validity has not compromised the results.

Future Recommendations (1/5)
If I was repeat this investigation again, I would
increase the number of participants that I
researched. This number of participants would
be representative of the climbing population in
the Uk. This would make my conclusion, have
higher validity, as I could use the results as
normative data for further research.
P4: Produce / P5: Describe / M3: Explain / D2: Justify

• If I was to repeat this investigation, I would
look at climbers who are leaders, TR and
outdoor climbers so that the results have a
higher internal validity. Due to the fact that as
a climber you experience the sport as a whole
to improve your performance, which is
particularly relevant to those who have been
climbing for a long time.

• If I was to repeat my research, I would see how
my results relate to other climbing walls looking
at the performance of elite standard climbers. I
would do this due to the fact that the French
grading system is subjective, there is no clear
guide as to how a climb should be graded. So
other walls may have variable levels of difficulty
for routes, I would use this to reflect how my
participants results fit in with other walls, or if
they were subjective to the wall of testing.

If I was to repeat this investigation again when
using a wall, I would ensure that my results can
be accurately converted to any climbing wall, by
gathering results for all grading systems used so
that my results are not subjective to one region
but coincide with all walls. This gives my results
higher validity as they can be used on a larger
scale.

• Increase the time frame that the research is completed in.
Due to the nature of the participants, some of them did not
come every weak. This made it difficult to process my
findings together and had to rely on others to come each
week for testing, and not until I had collected all data on
each participant could I gather and process my findings.
Through collecting my results sooner, I would be able to
complete findings sooner and notice any anomalies and
find reasons for these anomalies. Through collecting the
initial sample, I then broke this down to only 16
participants. Having more time would enable me to find
more participants, to be in my research. Doing this would
result in me having a more representative answer on elite
climbers.

Appendix 1
Standardised instructions:
• Have started to a research project to identify how BMI affects the
performance of elite standard climbers. This will be done through
collecting through the initial distribution of 25 PAR-Q’s that show if
you can be involved in research through the answers you give to the
questionnaire completed in 10 minutes. This looks at your health
and how fit you are, to ensure that my research will not put a strain
on your health. Secondly I will then collect the height and weight of
each participant. Thirdly I will distribute a second questionnaire
that identified your specific climbing experience and current onsite
grade.
• I will then carry our further testing by timing you on panel 7 yellow
6b, in comparison with other athletes. Along with a tick list tom
show you are a 6a climber that is ticked after completion of the
timed climb. I will then video you climbing the green 6b on panel
15, which will be analysed against your fellow participants.

Appendix 2
PAR-Q template used in
research, that is given to each
participant before involvement
in research .

Appendix 3
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
All these participants were willing to participate In my research, but as a result of filling out the PAR-Q had injuries and would not be safe for
them to participate further. Number 5. was will to participate at the beginning of my research, but when it come to testing he was unwilling.

Appendix 5
Standardized instructions:
• Ask participants to start with 1 leg on the first
yellow hold of the climb. This climb will be timed
so please complete in the quickest time possible
time without causing any injury. I will count down
from three and say go as soon as I have said this
you will start. The finish and when I stop the clock
is when you have touched the top of the climb.
• 1,2,3 Go!

Appendix 6
• Time trial on panel 7 yellow 6a: Participants A-P
to gain data for objective 1 Letter: Time trial
score Panel 7
yellow 6a
(minutes and
seconds):
A 00:14.5
B 00:33.2
C 01:49.6
D 00:25.3
E 00:36.5
F 00:28.5
G 00:58.3
H 03:47.2
I 00:34.1
J 01:35.0
K 00:32.5
L 00:33.6
M 01:34.9
N 00:33.2
O 00:28.4
P 00:54.1

Appendix 7
A tick list to show if they are 6a
climbers or not, completed
after they have done the time
trial on the 6a climb. To show if
they are elite performers or not
and can continue with the
research.

Appendix 8
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtGr1ahadSY
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6NSloCMb2w
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfKgc4GC2cE
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0hRHFmmUxI
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF85jvYNzss
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLlDHx45kw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvmGAKXiQT0
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7S4LxLGeB0&feature=youtu.be
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV0ZfYn6P8M&feature=youtu.be
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8bmbGAj-c&feature=youtu.be
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUDiAaJnqLw&feature=youtu.be
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ZbmnYEHRs
Videos of climbers doing panel 15 green 6b-
looking at elite performers and how they climb
compared to the other participants in my
research. To show if there is a difference between
there experience in climbing, and the way they
climb.
Objective 1:

Appendix 9Climbing wall list:
Panel number with
the grade of each
colour climbs in the
wall.

Appendix 10
Evidence of the equipment used in
the research project, to evidence
objective 2.

Appendix 11
Name: A- P
Age:
Sex:
Climbing ability = current onsite grade:
Climbing experience (how long have you been climbing in years and
months, be as specific as possible):
Questionnaire: To answer
objective 3 of the research
project.

Research Project Figures
and Tables

Figures and Tables 1
Letter: Age: BMI: Climbing
experience:
Current onsite
grade:
Time trial score 
Panel 7 yellow 6a
(minutes and
seconds):
A 51 23 5 4 01:14.5
B 22 21.1 0.6 5 00:33.2
C 30 25.1 0.72 7 01:49.6
D 35 24.5 8 4 00:25.3
E 37 24.6 2 5 00:36.5
F 37 21.7 2.72 6 00:28.5
G 42 22.2 6 7 00:58.3
H 33 19.3 1.3 7 03:47.2
I 28 21.7 3.72 3 00:34.1
J 35 18.7 0.6 7 01:35.0
K 39 24.6 4 5 00:32.5
L 24 20.1 2.84 5 00:33.6
M 50 22.2 4 7 01:34.9
N 51 23 7 2 00:33.2
O 34 21.1 1.24 1 00:28.4
P 23 21.2 0.72 7 00:54.1
Current
onsite grade
Rank
6a = 7
6a+= 6
6b = 5
6b+ = 4
6c = 3
6c+ = 2
7a = 1
There are 12 months in a year
this is divided by 10 =1.2 this
represents each month the
value in months is then
divided by 1.2, and the
number of years stays as a
whole number.

Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade Time trial
score: 00:14.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Participant A: Results
Age BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial
score: 00:33.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
Participant B: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial
score: 01:49.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Participant C: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial scale:
00:25.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Participant D: Results

Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial score:
00:36.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Participant E: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade Time trial
score: 00:28.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Participant F: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial scale:
00:58.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Participant G: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial score:
03:47.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Participant H: Results

Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade Time trial
score: 00:34.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Participant I:Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
scale
Time trial
scale: 01:35.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Participant J: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial
score: 00:32.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Participant K: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial
score: 00:33.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Participant L: Results

Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade Time trial
score:01:34.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Participant M: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial
score: 00:33.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Participant N: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial
score: 00:28.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Participant O: Results
Age
BMI
Climbing
experience
Current onsite
grade
Time trial
scale:00:54.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Participant P: Results

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Climbingenxperience
BMI
The comparison between BMI and climbing experience for all
participants A-P
BMI and climbing experience
Linear (BMI and climbing experience)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Currentonsitegrade
BMI scores
The comaprison between BMI and current onsite grade for all
participants A-P
BMI and current onsite grade
Linear ( BMI and current onsite grade )

00:00.0
00:43.2
01:26.4
02:09.6
02:52.8
03:36.0
04:19.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Timetrialscores
BMI
The comparison between BMI and the time trial
socre of participants A-P
Series1
Linear (Series1)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Currentonsitegrade
Climbing experience
The comparison between climbing experience and current onsite
grade for participants A-P
Series1
Linear (Series1)

00:00.0
00:43.2
01:26.4
02:09.6
02:52.8
03:36.0
04:19.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Timetrialscore(minutesandseconds)
Climbing experience (years and months)
The comparison between climbing experience and time trail score
for participants A-P
Series1
Linear (Series1)

00:00.0
00:43.2
01:26.4
02:09.6
02:52.8
03:36.0
04:19.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Timetrialscore
Current onsite grade
The comparision between current onsite grade and time
trial score of participants A-P
Series1
Linear (Series1)

Total difference
squared
6x differnce
squared Spearman's Rank
Correlation
measures
BMI and climbing
experience 534 3234 0.207352941Weak
BMI and climbing onsite
grade 509 3054 0.251470588Weak
BMI and time trial score 653 3918 0.039705882Very weak
Experience and climbing
onsite grade 638 1276 0.687254902Strong
Experience and time trial
score 584 1168 0.71372549Strong
Onsite grade and time trial
score 358 2148 0.473552941Moderate
.00 > .19 Very Weak
.20 > .39 Weak
.40 > .59 Moderate
.60 > .79 Strong
.80 > 1.0 Very Strong

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
BMI and
climbing
experience
BMI and
climbing
onsite grade
BMI and
time trial
score
Experience
and cimbing
onsite grade
Experience
and time
trial score
Onsite
grade and
time trial
score
Spearman's Rank
Spearman's Rank
.00 > .19 Very Weak
.20 > .39 Weak
.40 > .59 Moderate
.60 > .79 Strong
.80 > 1.0 Very Strong

Unit 5 research projects referral 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Unit 5 research projects referral 1

Similar to Unit 5 research projects referral 1 (20)

More from Worthing college

More from Worthing college (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Unit 5 research projects referral 1