The Role of Climbing Exercises in Developing Balance Ability in Children

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the possibility of developing balance ability, highlighting symmetries, asymmetries, and levels of proprioception, in children aged 11–13 from practicing indoor and outdoor climbing and bouldering/escalation exercises. The research subjects were 54 children (both boys and girls) aged 11–13, divided into two groups: an experimental group of 28 students (14 boys and 14 girls) who participated in an extracurricular climbing activity twice a week during the 2023–2024 school year, and a control group of 26 students (13 boys and 13 girls) who did not engage in extracurricular motor activities. During the initial and final evaluations, 12 tests were used to assess balance ability, symmetries, and asymmetries—10 tests were conducted using the Sensbalance MiniBoard 1.0 platform in addition to the Standing Stork test for each leg. The analysis of the results showed statistically significant differences between the groups, with the experimental group recording improvements in symmetry and proprioception related to increased balance levels. This work is addressed to teachers, trainers, and physical therapists who, in the educational process, aim to develop balance and proprioception as objectives that improve children’s motor skills. In conclusion, the study results reveal the impact of a program based on climbing and escalating exercises in extracurricular activities on the development of static and dynamic balance ability.

1. Introduction

Symmetry can be defined as the property of an object having two perfectly equal halves in size and shape when divided along a median axis [1]. According to Weyl [2], the modern concept of symmetry refers to inter-limb symmetry, the symmetry between the right and left sides. Maloney notes that any deviation from perfect symmetry between the body’s two halves is referred to as bilateral asymmetry, frequently encountered in sports activities [1]. Carpes [3] adds that lateralization is established during early human development, with a preference for movements on one side of the body influencing subsequent performance asymmetries. However, the author mentions that lateralization is only 10–20% genetically determined and is more significantly influenced (80–90%) by environmental factors. It is also influenced by proprioceptive training, during which muscles learn to act quickly and accurately depending on the characteristics of the movements.

In improving sensorimotor skills, movement produces the greatest effect, as highlighted by Winter [4], which means that the active participation of children, both in school and extracurricular activities, positively influences their development. It has been observed that children are increasingly attracted to online activities and less to physical activities, which negatively affects the normal development of motor skills. This reduction in motor activities, as well as their complete lack thereof, “has a negative influence on the body’s motor control systems” according to Edwards [5]. Starting from Aman’s statement [6], according to which “proprioceptive training contributes to the organization and reorganization of motor engrams in the cerebral cortex”, we considered that an approach based on the use of climbing exercises would improve the development of motor skills.

An innovative perspective on working with children involves viewing their bodies as information systems, acting as receptors and transmitters of internal and external information. According to Gagea [7], “our body functions as a cybernetic system where input, output, and feedback regulate structure and function. Movement, encompassing posture, locomotion, and manipulation, occurs through a continuous interplay of closed-loop feedback mechanisms, some voluntary and others reflexive”. This explains findings indicating that children’s motor development undergoes improvement over time, influencing the quality of their motor performance [8].

Intervention programs involving physical activity for children and teenagers with a developmental coordination disorder improve motor behavior and have positive effects on social and emotional development according to Zaragas [9]. Middle school students are characterized by a spirit of adventure and a desire to escape daily routines, as well as by an attraction to trips and hikes. Mocanu [10] states that this necessitates identifying and promoting new ways to motivate and involve them in such activities. In response to the need for diverse physical activity approaches and an emphasis on their effects, studies have been conducted showcasing the benefits of practicing various sports disciplines, including climbing and bouldering/escalation, in improving one’s physical, motor, and psychological capacities. Gull et al. [11] emphasize that climbing on ladders, trees, and artificial or natural surfaces increases endurance, strength, and balance and encourages socialization and emotional expression. Sport climbing is considered a highly complex activity with multiple influences on physical, motor, and psychological aspects. Daily physical activity contributes to improving physical fitness, stimulates active involvement, prevents sedentarism, and increases motivation for movement, ensuring rapid and positive integration [12].

The Romanian middle school curriculum includes the development of climbing skills, and some schools have installed climbing walls. Unfortunately, only some teachers address such exercises. Since the teacher has the right to choose the content to be taught, to develop the skills established by the school curriculum, it is essential to highlight the ways of practicing and the positive effects of these exercises [13]. In most schools, the contents of physical education lessons are limited to a few sports games, elements of athletics, and basic gymnastics. And this fact was one of the reasons that led us to propose diversifying these elements using climbing exercises, both as a more attractive means and as a way to develop balance skills. The interest shown by students in extracurricular sports activities is increasingly noticeable, and research emphasizes that these have positive effects on motor development [14]. The attractiveness and variety of extracurricular activities contribute to motor development during the child’s growth period [15].

This study aims to analyze the possibility of developing balance ability, highlighting symmetries, asymmetries, and levels of proprioception, in children aged 11–13 as a result of engaging in climbing, bouldering, and escalation exercises conducted as extracurricular activities from September 2023 to June 2024. To achieve the general objective (GO) stated above, we have established the following specific objectives:

-

SO1: correlation of some previous research with this topic;

-

SO2: experimental validation of a climbing and bouldering extracurricular activity project for students aged between 11 and 13;

-

SO3: highlighting the effects of using climbing exercises as extracurricular activities on the evolution of balance, proprioception, symmetry, and asymmetry values.

The hypothesis is that implementing a program based on climbing and escalator exercises applied as extracurricular activities influences the development of balance ability in 11–13-year-old students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The study sample consisted of 54 students, fifth and sixth graders, both boys and girls, from the “Gheorghe Vrănceanu” National College in Bacău. Simple random sampling was performed so that each student had an equal chance of being included in the sample, based on their freely expressed option. Participation required informed consent from both parents and students. The students were divided into two groups: an experimental group (EG) of 28 students (14 boys and 14 girls) and a control group (CG) of 26 students (13 boys and 13 girls). The inclusion criteria for the EG were the following: fit for physical effort; age 11–13 years; written consent from parents and students for Saturday extracurricular activities; and willingness to engage in climbing exercises on both indoor and outdoor walls. The students in the experimental group who participated in a leisure activity based on the global project of extracurricular climbing, bouldering, and escalation activities were also informed that they could withdraw from the group at any time for health reasons. The exclusion criteria were as follows: refusal to participate in Saturday activities, reluctance to climb walls, and a lack of written consent from parents and students. The CG included students who opted not to participate in the project.

2.2. Research Instruments

The students were initially and finally evaluated on two developmental levels: physical and motor development. To assess physical development, body height (BH), body weight (BW), and body mass index (BMI) were measured and recorded.

The following tests were used to measure the level of motor ability development:

(a) The Standing Stork test (Figure 1) was used for two tests: static single-leg balance ability on the right foot (SSB-R) and the left foot (SSB-L).

The Standing Stork test [16] was conducted as follows: standing on both feet, palms on the hips, the participant lifts their right foot and places their sole on the lateral-internal side of the left foot (Figure 1). At the assessor’s command, the participant lifts the heel of their supporting (left) foot and stands on tiptoe for as long as possible. The timer, which is started when the heel of the right foot is placed on the left foot, stops when the heel of the left foot touches the floor or when the right foot moves from its original position. After a 3 min break, the test continues with the other foot.

(b) Balance tests using the Sensbalance MiniBoard 1.0 system [17] for 10 tests:

-

lateral dynamic two-leg balance with eyes open (LDB_EO) and eyes closed (LDB_EC);

-

vertical dynamic balance with eyes open (VDB_EO) and eyes closed (VDB_EC);

-

static balance on both feet with eyes open (SBFB_EO) and eyes closed (SBFB_EC);

-

static balance on the right foot with eyes open (SRFB_EO) and eyes closed (SRFB_EC);

-

static balance on the left foot with eyes open (SLFB_EO) and eyes closed (SLFB_EC).

The Sensbalance MiniBoard 1.0 system consists of the following:

-

a mini-board device with a maximum tilt of 10° on all sides (Figure 2);

-

a computer on which the image is generated and recorded (Figure 3);

-

basic and supplementary software packages that generate data regarding balance and the directions of the general center of gravity (GCG) movement (Figure 4).

The Sensbalance MiniBoard (Sensbalance MiniBoard; Sensamove^®, Utrecht, The Netherlands) is an assessment tool also used in training and therapy. This innovative device was designed and developed by the Dutch company Sensamove and is part of their range of interactive balance equipment. It is equipped with five measurement devices; includes basic and additional software packages for evaluating and improving balance stability, and coordination; and stores information in Notepad, Excel, and graphic files. The SensBalance MiniBoard was used successfully in several studies, which confirms its reliability and validity. Valodwala [18] compares the effectiveness of conventional physiotherapy training with and without visual feedback in ambulatory stroke patients and concludes that the use of the Sensbalance MiniBoard equipment with visual feedback was the most effective.

The assessment process involves activating the stabilometric platform; providing instructions to the student and recording their personal data (height, weight, age); setting up the test and placing one or both feet on the mini-board; conducting the evaluation; which lasts 30 s; recording the data on the computer; and transferring the data from the computer to tables for processing and analysis. The test requires participants to complete it twice: first with their eyes open and then with their eyes closed.

The dynamic balance test evaluates an individual’s ability to maintain the projection of the GCG within the base of support. Vertical dynamic balance assesses an individual’s ability to maintain the CGG projection above the base of support without lifting or lowering. Establishing an evaluation grid is challenging because anterior–posterior deviations of the GCG depend on its height relative to the support surface and the length of the lower limb. In contrast, median–lateral deviations are influenced by the GCG height and the lateral distance between the feet [19]. These factors vary between individuals. The placement of the feet on the sensitive mini-board allows for recording overall performance and deviations (e.g., forward inner deviation, backward inner deviation, forward average deviation, backward average deviation, left average deviation, and right average deviation).

The static balance test evaluates the visual and proprioceptive control through three variations (both feet, right foot, and left foot) over 30 s. For the two-foot (bipedal) balance test, participants stand on the mini-board with their feet close together, toes at a 30° angle, body vertical, arms on their chest, and eyes on the monitor. For the single-foot balance test, the participant stands on one foot on the mini-board while holding the other leg bent, arms on the chest, body vertical, and eyes on the monitor. The right foot is tested first, followed by a 2–3 min break, and then the left is tested.

The tests used are relevant for the analysis of functional parameters in climbing as each activity requires stability, coordination, and the ability to quickly recover body position. The tests assess static and dynamic balance, and their correlation with climbing at the anatomical level is given by the involvement of the stabilizing muscles of the lower limbs and trunk. At the functional level, the correlation is supported by the fact that static balance is essential for maintaining stability in static positions on small holds, adjusting the center of gravity, and preventing loss of control in fine movements, and dynamic balance is essential in climbing, especially in dynamic movements and sudden changes in position. Climbers must quickly adjust their balance depending on the surface they are on, so a poor result on this test may indicate difficulties in managing complex movements.

2.3. Research Procedure

The experiment involved a structured global training project with climbing and bouldering/escalation activities divided into five modules, encompassing 14 learning units completed over 45 lessons. This study spanned nine months, from September 2023 to June 2024, associated with the school year.

In school physical education lessons (2 times a week for one hour), the two groups were given the same normal school program. This program also included 1–2 climbing exercises on different objects (on cubes, fixed ladders, and ropes).

Each Saturday, the lesson lasted 1.5–2 h, and the experimental group was divided into two subgroups of 14 students to ensure sufficient exercise repetitions. The lessons included a warm-up (20 min) and a cool-down (10 min). The exercises were initially performed slowly, increasing execution speed and static balance duration from the fourth to the sixth repetition. The rest intervals were 1–2 min, depending on the execution pace. During the lessons without evaluations (43 lessons), six exercises were performed, each repeated at least 6 times, with 36 repetitions per lesson. Each student in the experimental group performed a balance or coordination exercise learned that day at the end of the lesson.

In the 43 lessons, several series of exercises were practiced, aiming to teach the elements of climbing techniques but also to improve motor skills. The exercises used involved climbing and descending (of benches, cubes, beams, fixed ladders, and vertical ropes), gripping the handles with the hands and placing the soles on the handles, and moving left and right on the climbing wall. In performing the exercises proposed in the activity project, the motor skills necessary for postural balance were strength, coordination of movement, balance, tactile and visual perception, and orientation in space.

In developing the modules, we also took into account the fact that the effectiveness of applying neuromuscular training programs to improve balance was demonstrated, with an effect on increasing sports performance in mountaineering practice [20]. Also, attractive physical activities that contribute to children’s motor development can improve the level of coordination development [9].

For Module 1, which took place from 11 September to 27 October 2023, a structured training model was established for 9 weeks, with 9 days of training. This preparatory module consisted mainly of general balance, height adjustment, and turning exercises. In Module 2, conducted from 6 November to 22 December 2023, the activity was structured over 8 weeks of 8 days, during which exercises were performed to learn gripping holds, foot placement, and trunk positioning. In Module 3, from 8 January to 24 February 2024, the training was carried out over 8 weeks of 8 days. At this stage, to increase safety and eliminate the possibility of injury, the first three lessons were dedicated to balance exercises using fixed ladders and boxes, followed by four lessons with exercises to strengthen grip, hand and foot movements between holds, and trunk positioning. In Module 4, which lasted from 2 March to 4 May 2024 and consisted of 10 lessons (9 lessons in the classroom and 1 lesson outdoors), the training process mainly involved exercises to learn and reinforce climbing and descending on indoor and outdoor walls. In Module 5, which was conducted from 6 May to 21 June 2024 (performing nine lessons in the classroom between 5 May and 21 June 2024, of which one lesson was held in the park on 11 June 2024), the lesson focused mainly on vertical and ceiling climbing, indoor wall exercises, and outdoor wall climbing and descending.

The assessment tests were taken for the initial assessment on 11 September 2023 and for the final assessment on 21 June 2024 in the gym. The order of taking the tests was the following: the Standing Stork test on the right and left leg; dynamic lateral balance on both legs with eyes closed and eyes open; dynamic vertical balance on both legs with eyes closed and eyes open; static balance on both legs with eyes closed and eyes open; static balance on the right leg with eyes closed and eyes open; and static balance on the left leg with eyes closed and eyes open.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data were processed using SPSS Statistics version 16.0, developed by IBM, and the analysis involved the paired samples t-test, Mann–Whitney test, and Wilcoxon test. In analyzing the results obtained by the two groups, we first checked the normality of the data distribution. We used two types of statistical tests: parametric for normally distributed data on the Gaussian curve (dependent samples t-test) and non-parametric for not-normally distributed data on the Gaussian curve (Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon tests). It was taken into account that the values calculated using the paired samples t-test indicated that the school and out-of-school activities produced progress that was reflected in significant differences between the initial and final assessment of motor and mental abilities, with significance thresholds (p) ranging from <0.001 to <0.05.

Being a small sample (n < 30), we used “Find Out the Sample Size”. This calculator computes the minimum number of necessary samples to meet the desired statistical constraints. This means 27 or more measurements/surveys are needed to have a confidence level of 95%, showing that the real value is within ±5% of the measured/surveyed value.

-

confidence level: 95%;

-

margin of error: 5;

-

population proportion: 50%;

-

population size: 28.

2.5. Research Ethics

Parental confidentiality was ensured following the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacau, registered as no. 2/2/27.02.2025.

3. Results

The results are categorized into three groups to assess the following: anthropometric development; the general balance ability using the Stork test on each foot (symmetries and asymmetries); balance ability using platform tests through dynamic lateral and vertical bipedal balance tests with eyes open and closed (symmetries and asymmetries) and static balance tests on both feet, the right foot, and the left foot with eyes open and closed (proprioception).

Table 1. The level of anthropometric indicators for EG and CG.

Anthropometric Indicators	BH (m)			BW (kg)			BMI kg/m2
	IE	FE	Diff.	IE	FE	Diff.	IE	FE	Diff.
MEG	1.54	1.58	0.04	42.18	45.47	3.29	17.53	18.09	0.56
MCG	1.58	1.62	0.04	45.22	48.67	3.45	17.96	19.31	1.35
Diff. MEG—MCG	−0.04	−0.04	0	−3.04	−3.20	−0.16	−0.43	−1.22	−0.79

Legend: BH = body height; BW = body weight; BMI = body mass index; MEG = mean of the experimental group; MCG = mean of the control group; IE = initial evaluation; FE = final evaluation.

records the differences (Diff.) in the mean (M) recorded from the initial evaluation (IE) to the final evaluation (FE) for the anthropometric indicators determined at the group level for the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG): height, weight, and body mass index.

As can be seen in Table 1, the dynamics of the means recorded for anthropometric development show the following: a height increase of 0.04 m in both the EG and CG; a weight increase of 3.29 kg in the EG and 3.45 kg in the CG, and a BMI increase of 0.56 kg/m² in the EG and 1.35 kg/m² in the CG. The differences between groups (Diff. MEG—MCG) and the differences from initial to final testing are insignificant.

The dynamics of the BMI values (

Table 2. Representation of differences in BMI values in the EG and CG.

Groups	Number of Students
	h.s.uw.	s.uw.	m.uw.	n.w.	ow
EG IE	12	2	5	9	0
EG FE	8	3	6	10	1
Diff.	4	1	1	1	1
CG IE	6	3	6	11	0
CG FE	2	3	8	12	1
Diff.	4	0	2	1	1

Legend: h.s.uw. = highly severe underweight; s.uw. = severe underweight; m.uw. = moderate underweight; n.w. = normal weight; ow = overweight.

) recorded small fluctuations in both groups from IE to FE. The analysis and interpretation were based on the values recorded and interpreted using the standards of the National Institutes of Health, USA [21]. The classification is as follows: highly severe underweight (values < 16); severe underweight (values from 16 to 17); moderate underweight (values from 17 to 18.5); normal weight (values from 18 to 25); and overweight (values from 25 to 30). From IE to IF we observe a non-significant increase in the number of children in the moderate underweight (EG: 1, CG: 2), normal weight (EG: 1, CG: 2), and overweight (EG: 1, CG: 2) categories. Clearer differences from IE to IF were in the highly severe underweight category (EG: 4, CG: 4). The BMI results show small fluctuations in some categories and are attributed to an increase in somatic indices associated with uncontrolled eating in some students at this age.

The result processing and analysis of the balance ability dynamics highlighted interesting aspects. The results of the Stork test (

Table 3. Dynamics of the differences between the means for EG, CG, SSB-R, and SSB-L at IE and FE.

Tests/ Groups	Stork Test (s)				Mean Diff.
	SSB-R		SSB-L		SSB-R–SSB-L EG		SSB-R–SSB-L CG
	IE	FE	IE	FE	IE	FE	IE	FE
M EG	5.10	7.98	3.44	5.95	1.66	2.03	1.89	1.85
Diff EG	2.88		2.51		asymmetry		almost symmetry
M CG	4.98	5.94	3.09	4.09
Diff CG	0.96		1.00
Diff EG-Diff CG	1.92		1.51

Legend: SSB-R = static single-leg balance on the right foot; SSB-L = static single-leg balance on the left foot; M = mean; IE = initial evaluation; FE = final evaluation.

) show an improvement in the mean (M) for time: SSB-R increased by 2.88 s in EG and 0.96 s in CG from IE to FE, and SSB-L increased by 2.51 s in EG and 1.00 s in CG. The differences in the arithmetic mean between the two groups indicate improved performance in this test by 1.92 s for SSB-R and 1.51 s for SSB-L in EG.

We consider that proprioception, assessed by improved times in both groups from the IE to FE, shows that the difference in the mean of the SSB-R and SSB-L values for the IE is 1.66 s, and for the FE is 2.03 s in the EG; for the CG, the difference in the mean values for the IE is 1.89 s and for the FE 1.85 s. This highlights an increased degree of asymmetry in the EG and a slight decrease in the CG.

Figure 5 illustrates the mean results achieved by the students during the tests performed using the Stork test on the right and left legs. For the EG, the values were the following: SSB-R: 5.10 s (IE) and 7.98 s (FE); SSB-L: 3.44 s (IE) and 5.95 s (FE). For the CG, they were the following: SSB-R: 4.98 s (IE) and 5.94 s (FE); SSB-L: 3.09 s (IE) and 4.09 s (FE).

Detailing these results, the means within the analysis groups (EG, CG) between the IE and FE, using the Wilcoxon non-parametric test, show significant differences: in the EG, for SSB-R, from IE to FE, the standardized value (Z) is −4.62 at a value of significance threshold (p) = 0.0001, and for SSB-L, it is Z = −4.49 on p = 0.0001. In the CG, for SSB-R, Z = −3.64 with p = 0.0001, and for SSB-L, Z = −4.05 with p = 0.0001.

Table 4. Dynamics of statistical significance indicators of differences between two groups in Standing Stork test, IE-FE.

Statistical Indicators	SSB-R_IE EG and CG	SSB-R_FE EG and CG	SSB-L_IE EG and CG	SSB-L_FE EG and CG
Mann–Whitney U	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001
Wilcoxon W	325.00	325.00	325.00	325.00
Standardized value Z	−6.23	−6.23	−6.11	−6.23
Significance threshold (p)	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001

Legend: SSB-R = Static single-leg balance on the right foot; SSB-L = static single-leg balance on the left foot; IE = initial evaluation; FE = final evaluation; EG = experimental group; CG = control group.

shows the evolving statistical indicators from the IE to FE in both groups in the Standing Stork test on each leg, showing statistically significant differences calculated by the Mann–Whitney test with a significance threshold p = 0.0001 between the EG and CG and by the Wilcoxon test with the significance threshold p = 0.0001 between the IE and FE both in the EG and CG.

Regarding the development of balance, measured on the Sensbalance MiniBoard 1.0 Balance Platform, at this age, increases between the IE and FE were observed, as determined by recording the average value and calculating the significance threshold using the dependent samples t-test and non-parametric tests, such as Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney U, in the 10 trials where the increase in performance was recorded. Subsequently, we present the results obtained from the bipedal dynamic balance tests with open and closed eyes in the two investigated planes, lateral and vertical. On the platform, for each of the four tests, the results are recorded for seven trials: performance for maintained forward interior space, maintained backward interior space, average forward deviation, average backward deviation, average right deviation, and average left deviation. This analysis presents only the dynamics of the performance trial.

The detailed results of LDB_EO (

Table 5. Dynamics of the results of the significance indicators of the differences between the two groups in the lateral dynamic balance test and the vertical dynamic balance test.

t-Test		DiffM	SD	SEM	CI (95%)		t	(df)	(p)	d
					LL	UL
EG	LDB_EO_IE and_FE	−10.28	16.46	3.11	−16.66	−3.90	−3.30	27	0.003	0.62
CG	LDB_EO_IE and_FE	−2.44	6.74	1.34	−5.22	0.34	−1.80	24	0.083	0.36
EG	LDB_EC_IE and FE	−13.78	10.27	1.94	−17.77	−9.80	−7.09	27	0.0001	1.34
CG	LDB_EC_IE and FE	−7.96	18.01	3.60	−15.39	−0.52	−2.21	24	0.037	0.44
EG	VDB_EO_IE and_FE	−13.78	16.09	3.04	−20.02	−7.54	−4.53	27	0.0001	0.85
CG	VDB_EO_IE and FE	−12.68	16.77	3.35	−19.60	−5.75	−3.79	24	0.001	0.75
GE	VDB_EC_IE and FE	−14.39	16.42	3.10	−20.76	−8.02	−4.63	27	0.0001	0.87
CG	VDB_EC_IE and FE	−12.92	12.38	2.42	−17.92	−7.25	−5.32	25	0.0001	1.04

Legend: DiffM = Difference between means; CI = confidence interval; IE = initial evaluation; FE = final evaluation; EG = experimental group; CG = control group; SD = standard deviation; SEM = standard error of the mean; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; t = t-test value (dependent samples t-test); (df) = degrees of freedom; (p) = significance threshold; d = Cohen’s D; LDB_EO = lateral dynamic balance test with eyes open; LDB_EC = lateral dynamic balance test with eyes closed; VDB_EO = vertical dynamic balance test with eyes open; VDB_EC = vertical dynamic balance test with eyes closed.

), by analyzing the differences between the means for the dependent samples in the two groups between the IE and FE, using the parametric t-test, highlight that for performance, there were no significant differences in the CG, with p = 0.083, and significant differences in the EG, where t = −3.30, with a p-value of 0.003.

This aspect emphasizes the impact of practicing climbing exercises as extracurricular activities on the development of balance ability. Following the calculation of the parametric t-test for the dependent samples, the results between the groups’ means in the IE and FE show significant differences at LDB_EC (Table 5), where the performance of the CG was t = −2.21 at a significance threshold of p = 0.037, and of the EG was t = −7.09 at a significance threshold of p = 0.0001.

The d index (Cohen) of the effect size of the applied program shows the existence of relatively important differences between the means of the two moments (IE and FE). In the EG, the effect size is large: at LDB_EO, d = 0.62, and at LDB_EC, d = 1.34. In the CG, the effect size is medium: at LDB_EO, d = 0.36, and at LDB_EC, d = 0.44.

In the performance test for LDB_EC, the data highlight statistically significant differences between the students in the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG), with better results observed in the EG. Additionally, statistically significant differences were recorded when comparing the results obtained by each group between the initial and the final evaluation. This underlines the impact of practicing exercises in an extracurricular activity on improving balance ability development.

For the dynamic vertical balance test in the VDB_EO and VDB_EC trials, the results are presented in Table 5. Using the dependent samples t-test, the differences between the means within the groups (between the IE and FE) indicate significant performance differences for VDB_EO: in CG: t = −3.79, p = 0.001; in EG: t = −4.53, p = 0.0001.

For VDB_EC, based on the dependent samples t-test, the differences between the means within the groups (between the IE and FE) are also found in Table 5. Analyzing the differences between the means in the analysis groups (CG and EG) between the IE and FE using a dependent samples t-test shows significant differences: in CG: t = −5.32, p = 0.0001; in EG: t = −4.63, p = 0.0001.

We emphasize that for VDB_EO and VDB_EC, the analysis of the difference between the means within each group between the initial evaluation and the final evaluation highlights statistically significant differences. For CG, p = 0.001, and for EG, p = 0.0001.

The d index (Cohen) of the effect size of the applied program shows that it is large in both groups: in EG: (VDB_EO) d = 0.85, (VDB_EC) d = 0.87; and in CG: (VDB_EO) d = 0.75, (VDB_EC) d = 1.04.

The data indicate that there are no statistically significant differences between the students in the CG and EG regarding VDB_EC performance, which was equally good in both groups. However, the differences in the mean values recorded by the two experimental groups show that at the final testing, the CG students achieved a high level of performance, though slightly lower than that of the EG students. The better mean values at the FE demonstrate the effectiveness of physical activities and emphasize the impact of climbing, escalation, and bouldering in extracurricular activities on balance development.

Regarding the SBFB_EO test (

Table 6. Dynamics of statistical significance indicator results for differences between two groups (IE-FE).

t-Test		DiffM	SD	SEM	CI (95%)		(t)	(df)	(p)	d
					LL	UL
EG	SBFB_EO _IE and _FE	−2.78	8.86	1.67	−6.22	0.65	−1.66	27	0.108	0.31
CG	SBFB_EO _IE and_FE	−0.65	15.33	3.00	−6.84	5.53	−0.21	25	0.830	0.04
EG	SRFB_EO_IE and _FE	−4.40	7.26	1.45	−7.39	−1.40	−3.02	24	0.006	0.61
CG	SRFB_EO_IE and _FE	−4.00	11.56	2.18	−8.48	0.48	−1.83	27	0.078	0.34
EG	SRFB_EC_IE and _FE	−5.07	8.03	1.51	−8.18	−1.95	−3.33	27	0.002	0.63
CG	SRFB_EC_IE and _FE	−5.20	14.52	2.90	−11.19	0.79	−1.79	24	0.086	0.35
EG	SLFB_EO_IE and _FE	−0.44	1.20	0.22	−0.91	0.01	−1.97	27	0.058	0.36
CG	SLFB_EO_IE and _FE	−0.26	1.15	0.23	−0.74	0.20	−1.15	24	0.258	0.22
EG	SLFB_EC_IE and _FE	−5.07	8.03	1.51	−8.18	−1.95	−3.33	27	0.002	0.63
CG	SLFB_EC_IE and _FE	−5.20	14.52	2.90	−11.19	0.79	−1.79	24	0.086	0.35

Legend: DiffM = Difference between means; CI = confidence interval; IE = initial evaluation; FE = final evaluation; EG = experimental group; CG = control group; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; SEM = standard error of the mean; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; t = t-test value (dependent samples t-test); (df) = degrees of freedom; (p) = significance threshold; d = Cohen’s D; SBFB_EO = static balance on both feet with eyes open; SBFB_EC = static balance on both feet with eyes closed; SRFB_EO = static balance on the right foot with eyes open; SRFB_EC = static balance on the right foot with eyes closed; SLFB_EO = static balance on the left foot with eyes open; SLFB_EC = static balance on the left foot with eyes closed.

), the results of the dependent samples t-test reveal interesting dynamics. The mean values for the two groups, between the IE and FE, show no significant differences in performance: for EG, p = 0.108; for CG, p = 0.830.

The d (Cohen) index of the effect size of the therapeutic program shows the existence of relatively important differences between the means of the two moments as follows: in the EG (SBFB_EO), d = 0.31, which means that the effect size is large; in the CG (SBFB_EO), d = 0.04, which means that the effect size is small. The absence of statistical significance is most likely due to the very small sample size and the existence of extreme scores by some of the subjects.

Due to the variability of the data, the distribution scores are scattered from the mean, fluctuating in our case by random sampling and possibly by the inequality of the number of study participants (CG = 26 students versus EG = 28 students). In the EG, the t-Student difference test has a value of −1.66 with a significance threshold of 0.108 and degrees of freedom of 27, which means that the difference between the means is statistically insignificant because there is high variability in the measured data. In the CG, the t-Student difference test has a value of −0.21 with a significance threshold of 0.830 and degrees of freedom of 25, which means that the difference between the means is statistically insignificant, and we find high variability in the measured data.

Regarding the values in Table 6, significant differences were recorded between the IE and FE for the EG: at SRFB_EO, p = 0.006; at SRFB_EC, p = 0.002. However, for the CG, the differences were not significant: at SRFB_EO, p = 0.078; at SRFB_EC, p = 0.086.

It was observed that the CG students at the FE recorded a lower performance level in SRFB_EC_FE compared to the EG students. The significant results recorded in the FE for the EG emphasize the impact of indoor and outdoor climbing and bouldering/escalation exercises in extracurricular activities on children’s balance development and demonstrate improvements in proprioception. It was also noted that the asymmetry level decreases in the EG and increases in the CG.

The d index (Cohen) is presented as follows: for the EG, (SRFB_EO) d = 0.61 and (SRFB_EC) d = 0.63, meaning that the effect size of the applied program is large; for CG, (SRFB_EO) d = 0.34 and (SRFB_EC) d = 0.35, meaning that the effect size of the applied program is medium.

A detailed analysis of the results and the differences between the means within the control and experimental groups between the initial and final moments, revealed significant differences (Table 6). For the dependent samples t-test, a significant difference in performance was observed at SLFB_EC_IE and the FE for the EG, where p = 0.002. No significant difference was found for the same test in the CG, where p = 0.086. At SLFB_EO, no significant differences were observed for the EG (p = 0.058) or the CG (p = 0.258).

At SLFB_EO and SLFB_EC, the d (Cohen) index is presented as follows: in the EG, (SLFB_EO) d = 0.36, where the effect size of the applied program is medium, and (SLFB_EC) d = 0.63, meaning the effect size of the applied program is large; in the CG, (SLFB_EO) d = 0.22 and (SLFB_EC) d = 0.35, meaning the effect size of the applied program is medium.

In the case of EG (SLFB_EO), the t-Student test for the difference between means has a value of −1.97 with a significance threshold of 0.058 and degrees of freedom of 27, which means that the difference between means is statistically insignificant because there is high variability in the measured data. And in the case of the CG (SLFB_EO), the t-Student test for the difference between means has a value of −1.15 with a significance threshold of 0.258 and degrees of freedom of 24, which means that the difference between the means is statistically insignificant, and we find high variability in the measured data.

On the other hand, in the EG (SLFB_EC), the t-Student test for the difference between means has a value of −3.33 with a significance threshold of 0.002 and degrees of freedom of 27, which means that the difference between the means is statistically significant, although there is high variability in the measured data. And in the case of the CG, the t-Student test for the difference between the means has a value of −1.79 with a significance threshold of 0.086 and degrees of freedom of 24, which means that the difference between the means is statistically insignificant, and we find high variability in the measured data.

Analyzing the statistically significant differences between the IE and FE for the two groups, we found that in the CG, no substantial changes were observed at the FE. However, the EG students achieved a higher level of performance at SLFB_EC during the FE, underscoring the impact of indoor and outdoor climbing and bouldering/escalation exercises in extracurricular activities on balance development.

When compiling a table of significant and non-significant values (

Table 7. Dynamics of significant and non-significant values recorded for experimental and control groups, IE-FE.

t-Test	EG		CG			EG		CG
	Signif. (p) < 0.05	Not Signif. (p) > 0.05	Signif. (p) < 0.05	Not Signif. (p) > 0.05		Signif. (p) < 0.05	Not Signif. (p) > 0.05	Signif. (p) < 0.05	Not Signif. (p) > 0.05
SSB-L_IE_FE	0.000		0.0000		SBFB_EO_IE_FE		0.108		0.830
SSB-R_IE_FE	0.000		0.0000		SBFB_EC_IE_FE	0.014		0.008
LDB_EO_IE_FE	0.003			0.083	SRFB_EO_IE_FE	0.006			0.071
LDB_EC_IE_FE	0.000		0.037		SRFB_EC_IE_FE	0.002			0.086
VDB_EO_IE_FE	0.000		0.01		SLFB_EO_IE_FE		0.127		0.258
VDB_EC_IE_FE	0.000		0.000		SLFB_EC_IE_FE	0.002			0.086

Legend: EG = experimental group; CG = control group; IE = initial evaluation; FE = final evaluation; SSB-R = static single-leg balance on the right foot; SSB-L = static single-leg balance on the left foot; LDB_EO = lateral dynamic balance test with eyes open; LDB_EC = lateral dynamic balance test with eyes closed; VDB_EO = vertical dynamic balance test with eyes open; VDB_EC = vertical dynamic balance test with eyes closed; SBFB_EO = static balance on both feet with eyes open; SBFB_EC = static balance on both feet with eyes closed; SRFB_EO = static balance on the right foot with eyes open; SRFB_EC = static balance on the right foot with eyes closed; SLFB_EO = static balance on the left foot with eyes open; SLFB_EC = static balance on the left foot with eyes closed.

), recorded for the student progress assessment tests using the dependent samples t-test and Wilcoxon test, we observed that out of the 12 tests, statistically significant results (p < 0.05) were found in 10 tests for the EG and 6 tests for the CG. Non-significant results were observed in two tests for the EG and six tests for the CG. The results presented in Table 7 highlight the effects of practicing indoor and outdoor climbing and bouldering/escalation exercises on stimulating symmetry and improving proprioception in the manifestation of balance.

4. Discussion

As a result of the study conducted, we found that the proposed extracurricular activity project influenced the development of dynamic balance, as evidenced by the values obtained in the following tests: lateral dynamic balance test with eyes open and eyes closed; vertical dynamic balance test with eyes open and eyes closed; static balance on both feet with eyes open; static balance on the right foot with eyes open and with eyes closed; and static balance on the left foot with eyes closed. These results confirm the hypothesis that the implementation of a program based on climbing and ascent exercises applied as extracurricular activities influences the development of balance ability in students aged 11 to 13. The results obtained are in line with expectations, but to increase credibility, the program should be applied to a larger group of subjects.

The results recorded at the two measurement times, namely an initial and final evaluation, show no significant differences between the two groups in terms of anthropometric development at the initial evaluation and final evaluation. This development aligns with current societal norms, supporting studies suggesting that climbers are of short stature, with a low body mass and low body fat [22,23].

The improved results of the students in the experimental group in terms of static single-leg balance ability using the Standing Stork test compared to those in the control group highlight the impact of practicing climbing, escalating, and climbing exercises as an extracurricular activity in the development of balance motor ability as well as general motor ability. The data agree with Wang et al. [24], who claim that “extracurricular sports activities improve proprioceptive acuity and stability in school-aged children”. These findings suggest statistically significant differences between the students from the experimental and control groups regarding general balance ability in the Stork test for each leg.

The results obtained at the final evaluation highlight the impact of climbing exercises on the development of balance and improvement in proprioception in children, even though the Standing Stork test results indicated an increase in asymmetry in the experimental group.

The analysis of the results regarding the balance ability using the platform measurements and the differences in the means for the experimental and control groups indicated the achievement of distinct developments. For dynamic two-leg balance ability through the lateral dynamic balance test with eyes open, the differences in the means for the two groups, analyzed with the dependent samples t-test, revealed insignificant differences between the initial and final evaluation.

Referring to the vertical dynamic balance tests, a performance analysis of the mean differences within each group, experimental and control, revealed statistically significant differences. At the final evaluation, the high level of significance highlights the positive impact of physical exercises in extracurricular climbing activities and physical education lessons on balance ability development. Statistically significant differences between the mean values at the initial and final evaluation and between the two groups confirm that school physical education and extracurricular activities improve proprioception. The results underscore a high level of motor behavior among children aged 11–13 practicing climbing in their free time, consistent with Sylos-Labini et al. [25], who noted that “motor control in climbing and escalation must address a certain level of flexibility and nonlinearity.”

Comparing the average values and progress recorded in vertical dynamic balance with eyes open with those obtained in lateral dynamic balance with eyes open, the performance component was found to be better both in the experimental group and in the control group.

The values for static balance on both feet reveal statistically significant differences between the experimental and the control group for static balance on both feet with eyes closed, with higher performance levels at the final evaluation of the students from the experimental group compared to the students from the control group. An analysis of within-group differences showed that students from the control group achieved higher performance in static balance on both feet with eyes closed at the final evaluation, while students from the experimental group achieved higher performance in static balance on both feet with eyes open at the final evaluation. These findings are consistent with other studies [26,27,28,29,30,31,32], which confirm the role of neuromuscular training in improving dynamic balance on both sides. However, the progress in static balance on both feet with eyes closed and with eyes open confirms high motor behavior levels among children practicing climbing, consistent with Cross [33], who noted enhanced personal control in experimental groups following a climbing program.

The value of the results obtained by the experimental group is motivated by the performance of climbing activities that led to improvements in lateral dynamic balance with insignificant differences and vertical dynamic balance with significant differences. These advances are due to improvements in spatial-temporal orientation, muscle contraction ability, and movement coordination ability. The improvement in these capacities occurs as a result of the interaction of the sensory components (vestibular and visual) with the proprioceptive system that coordinates muscle contractions.

Previous research has shown that climbing and escalating exercises provide children with the opportunity to analyze and make decisions while also allowing them to solve problems on their own, through self-control, in certain environmental conditions [34]. Similarly, as a result of our intervention, we found that climbing activities provide children with opportunities to improve their behavior and increase their skills in carrying out various practical activities. Tezel et al. [35] also identified a significant correlation between coordination and balance in children. The higher values obtained by the students in the experimental group certify the efficiency of the applicative intervention carried out within the extracurricular activity, in which proprioceptive means were used to improve balance.

From a methodological point of view, climbing and escalating in physical education lessons or sports training lessons are approached as topics, but also as means of training, application, and warming up that contributes to the formation of the ability to maintain and control balance, which represents the basis for the design and construction of complex motor skills in the context of sports performance and especially balance control [36]. The statistically significant differences obtained in the applied tests confirm the efficiency of the experimental intervention based on improving balance ability.

The improvement in average values across all 12 balance tests emphasizes that children aged 11–13 begin to control their bodies in motion, demonstrating their ability to engage in climbing exercises. The efficiency of the additional sports activity program in the experimental group, carried out within the extracurricular activity, consists of improving the somatosensory senses represented by the following: mechano-sensation (sensation of pressure, push, and selective touch), equilibrioception (sense of balance), and proprioception (sense of positioning and movement in space). The results of the experimental group support the need to develop a program with a varied content of physical activities. This reinforces the idea that diversifying the approach to content improves proprioception and body awareness.

Limitations and Future Directions

The limits of this research are determined by the fact that it was not possible to achieve homogeneity of the level of the two groups in the initial assessment, since one of the inclusion criteria was the agreement of the parents and children to practice climbing on the inner and outer walls. We consider the need to carry out a study with approximately equal groups at the beginning of the experiment.

The results obtained in the present study are encouraging, even though the number of subjects in the two groups was low. This motivates us to reapply the proposed practical program and reevaluate its effectiveness on a larger sample of subjects, representative of the population. A longitudinal design with a much stronger methodology (LMM—linear mixed-effects model) is also required.

5. Conclusions

This research highlighted the impact of a program based on climbing and bouldering/escalation exercises carried out as a part of extracurricular activities on the development of the static and dynamic balance capacity in students aged 11 to 13. We also emphasize that the development of balance ability, as a result of the use of climbing activities, is influenced by the following factors: improved stability, the action of stabilizing muscles, neuromuscular adaptation to changes in position, improved coordination and neuromuscular responses, quick and efficient reactions, the ability to maintain a center of gravity in challenging positions, and becoming used to the specific requirements of climbing.

Climbing exercises positively influence motor capacity, contributing to the formation of motor skills. The results obtained using the Standing Stork test highlighted the improvement in static balance on the left and right leg, as well as an increase in asymmetry, in students in the experimental group. Also, the results obtained using the Sensbalance MiniBoard device indicated an improvement in dynamic and static balance capacity, both with eyes closed and with eyes open. We can conclude that the results of the experiment reveal the contribution of practicing these extracurricular activities in the development of motor self-control and proprioception through systematic repetition under conditions of dynamic balance.