Reliability of finger strength assessment methods in climbing: a systematic review
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Pérez-Cordero, Jorge; Jerez Mayorga, Daniel Alejandro; Rodríguez Perea, Ángela; Soto García, DiegoEditorial
Frontiers Media
Materia
Sport climbing finger flexor strength grip strength
Fecha
2025-10-01Referencia bibliográfica
Pérez-Cordero J, Jerez-Mayorga D, Rodríguez-Perea Á and Soto García D (2025) Reliability of finger strength assessment methods in climbing: a systematic review. Front. Sports Act. Living 7:1650198. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1650198
Resumen
Background: This systematic review examined the reliability of finger flexor
strength assessments in climbers, addressing the absence of a prior synthesis
on this topic. The work is timely given sport climbing’s inclusion in the
Olympic Games and the growing focus on sport-specific performance
diagnostics. Fifteen studies, comprising 747 participants (sample sizes 13–
244) with varying skill levels, were included.
Methods: Conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and based on a
protocol registered in INPLASY, the search encompassed Web of Science,
PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus, using MeSH terms and relevant keywords.
Eligible studies involved climbers, employed a test–retest design, reported
strength variables, and provided reliability parameters (ICC). Methodological
quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT) and the Quality
Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL).
Results: Fourteen studies reported high reliability (ICC > 0.75) in at least one
assessment, while 12 studies showed very high ICC values for maximum
isometric finger strength (MIFS) tests (median range: 0.85–0.99), indicating
good to excellent reliability. Most studies (n = 12) used varied grip types and
edge depths (6–60 mm). Bilateral measurements were included in eight
studies, though five used non-simultaneous protocols, potentially limiting
ecological validity.
Discussion: Adoption of advanced measurement technologies and harmonized
protocols is recommended to enhance comparability, practical relevance, and
training effectiveness. These measures may also contribute to greater
standardization in research designs and facilitate translation of findings into
applied settings.
Conclusion: MIFS assessments with fixed-depth edges of approximately 20–
23 mm consistently demonstrate high reliability and should be prioritized for
standardized monitoring in both applied and research contexts.





