Catherine Gammon1, Karin A Pfeiffer, James M Pivarnik, Rebecca W Moore, Kelly R Rice, Stewart G Trost. 1. 1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; 2Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI; and 3Eastern Oregon University, La Grande, OR; 4School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: RPE scales are used in exercise science research to assess perceptions of physical effort. RPE scale validity has been evaluated by assessing correlations between RPE and physiological indicators. Cross-sectional studies indicate that RPE scale validity improves with age; however, this has not been studied longitudinally. PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine age-related trends in OMNI-RPE scale validity, using a longitudinal study design, and HR and oxygen uptake (V˙O2) as criterion measures. METHODS: Participants performed eleven 5-min activity trials at baseline, 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up (V˙O2 data: N = 160; HR data: N = 138). HR and V˙O2 between minutes 2.5 and 4.5 of each activity were recorded. At the end of each activity, participants reported RPE. Children were stratified into the following age-groups: 6-8, 9-10, 11-12, and ≥13 yr. Within-subject correlations between OMNI-RPE and HR/V˙O2 were calculated at each time point. Differences between correlations for consecutive time points were evaluated using 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among children age 6-8 yr at baseline, correlations progressed from 0.67 to 0.78 (V˙O2) and from 0.70 to 0.79 (HR) for 36 months. Among children age 9-10 yr at baseline, the mean within-subject correlation was 0.78 at baseline and 0.81 at 36-month follow-up. Among children age 11-12 and ≥13 yr at baseline, OMNI-RPE ratings demonstrated strong validity (r ≥ 0.82) at each time point. CONCLUSIONS: For the 36-month follow-up, OMNI-RPE scale validity improved among children age 6-8 yr at baseline and remained strong among children age 9-10, 11-12, and ≥13 yr at baseline. Moderate correlations for the youngest participants suggest that caution should be used when interpreting OMNI-RPE reports from children younger than 8 yr.
UNLABELLED: RPE scales are used in exercise science research to assess perceptions of physical effort. RPE scale validity has been evaluated by assessing correlations between RPE and physiological indicators. Cross-sectional studies indicate that RPE scale validity improves with age; however, this has not been studied longitudinally. PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine age-related trends in OMNI-RPE scale validity, using a longitudinal study design, and HR and oxygen uptake (V˙O2) as criterion measures. METHODS:Participants performed eleven 5-min activity trials at baseline, 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up (V˙O2 data: N = 160; HR data: N = 138). HR and V˙O2 between minutes 2.5 and 4.5 of each activity were recorded. At the end of each activity, participants reported RPE. Children were stratified into the following age-groups: 6-8, 9-10, 11-12, and ≥13 yr. Within-subject correlations between OMNI-RPE and HR/V˙O2 were calculated at each time point. Differences between correlations for consecutive time points were evaluated using 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among children age 6-8 yr at baseline, correlations progressed from 0.67 to 0.78 (V˙O2) and from 0.70 to 0.79 (HR) for 36 months. Among children age 9-10 yr at baseline, the mean within-subject correlation was 0.78 at baseline and 0.81 at 36-month follow-up. Among children age 11-12 and ≥13 yr at baseline, OMNI-RPE ratings demonstrated strong validity (r ≥ 0.82) at each time point. CONCLUSIONS: For the 36-month follow-up, OMNI-RPE scale validity improved among children age 6-8 yr at baseline and remained strong among children age 9-10, 11-12, and ≥13 yr at baseline. Moderate correlations for the youngest participants suggest that caution should be used when interpreting OMNI-RPE reports from children younger than 8 yr.
Authors: Karin A Pfeiffer; James M Pivarnik; Christopher J Womack; Mathew J Reeves; Robert M Malina Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: R J Robertson; F L Goss; N Boer; J D Gallagher; T Thompkins; K Bufalino; G Balasekaran; C Meckes; J Pintar; A Williams Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: R J Robertson; F L Goss; N F Boer; J A Peoples; A J Foreman; I M Dabayebeh; N B Millich; G Balasekaran; S E Riechman; J D Gallagher; T Thompkins Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Lorna M Hatch; Ryan A Williams; Karah J Dring; Caroline Sunderland; Mary E Nevill; Simon B Cooper Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Stephanie L Duncombe; Alan R Barker; Lisa Price; Jacqueline L Walker; Paul E Dux; Amaya Fox; Natasha Matthews; Michalis Stylianou Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 2.567