Darren Paul1, Paul Read2, Abdulaziz Farooq2, Luke Jones3. 1. Research and Scientific Support, Aspetar - Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, PO BOX 29222, Doha, Qatar. Darren.paul@aspetar.com. 2. Research and Scientific Support, Aspetar - Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, PO BOX 29222, Doha, Qatar. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subjective monitoring of rate of perceived exertion is common practice in many sports. Typically, the information is used to understand the training load and at times modify forthcoming sessions. Identifying the relationship between the athlete and coach's interpretation of training would likely further benefit understanding load management. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the relationship between coaches' rating of intended exertion (RIE) and/or rating of observed exertion (ROE) and athletes' reported rating of perceived exertion (RPE). METHODS: The review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted a search of Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. We assessed the correlation between coach-reported RIE and/or ROE and RPE. Assessment for risk of bias was undertaken using the Quality Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Inclusion criteria were (1) male and/or female individuals, (2) individual and/or team sport active participants, and (3) original research article published in the English language. RESULTS: Data from 19 articles were found to meet the eligibility criteria. A random effect meta-analysis based on 11 studies demonstrated a positive association of player vs. coach rating of RIE (r = 0.62 [95% CI 0.5 to 0.7], p < 0.001). The pooled correlation from 7 studies of player vs. coach rating on ROE was r = 0.64 95% CI (0.5 to 0.7), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: There was a moderate to high association between coach RIE and/or ROE and athlete-reported RPE and this association seems to be influenced by many factors. The suggestions we present in this review are based on imploring practitioners to consider a multi-modal approach and the implications of monitoring when using RPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020193387.
BACKGROUND: Subjective monitoring of rate of perceived exertion is common practice in many sports. Typically, the information is used to understand the training load and at times modify forthcoming sessions. Identifying the relationship between the athlete and coach's interpretation of training would likely further benefit understanding load management. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the relationship between coaches' rating of intended exertion (RIE) and/or rating of observed exertion (ROE) and athletes' reported rating of perceived exertion (RPE). METHODS: The review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted a search of Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. We assessed the correlation between coach-reported RIE and/or ROE and RPE. Assessment for risk of bias was undertaken using the Quality Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Inclusion criteria were (1) male and/or female individuals, (2) individual and/or team sport active participants, and (3) original research article published in the English language. RESULTS: Data from 19 articles were found to meet the eligibility criteria. A random effect meta-analysis based on 11 studies demonstrated a positive association of player vs. coach rating of RIE (r = 0.62 [95% CI 0.5 to 0.7], p < 0.001). The pooled correlation from 7 studies of player vs. coach rating on ROE was r = 0.64 95% CI (0.5 to 0.7), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: There was a moderate to high association between coach RIE and/or ROE and athlete-reported RPE and this association seems to be influenced by many factors. The suggestions we present in this review are based on imploring practitioners to consider a multi-modal approach and the implications of monitoring when using RPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020193387.
Entities:
Keywords:
Exertion; Intended; Perceived; Rate; Sport
Authors: C Foster; J A Florhaug; J Franklin; L Gottschall; L A Hrovatin; S Parker; P Doleshal; C Dodge Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Jeroen de Bruijn; Henk van der Worp; Mark Korte; Astrid de Vries; Rick Nijland; Michel Brink Journal: J Sport Rehabil Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: Steven H Doeven; Michel S Brink; Wouter G P Frencken; Koen A P M Lemmink Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 4.010
Authors: Allan Inoue; Priscila Dos Santos Bunn; Everton Crivoi do Carmo; Eduardo Lattari; Elirez Bezerra da Silva Journal: Sports Med Open Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Renato Fernandes; João Paulo Brito; Luiz H Palucci Vieira; Alexandre Duarte Martins; Filipe Manuel Clemente; Hadi Nobari; Victor Machado Reis; Rafael Oliveira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-05 Impact factor: 3.390