In considering the factors described throughout this chapter, the following points for instructing participants, patients and athletes have been recommended (adapted from Maresh and Noble, 1984; Borg, 1998, 2004).
1 Make sure the participant understands what an RPE is. Before using the scale see if they can grasp the concept of sensing the exercise responses (breathing, muscle movement/strain, joint movement/speed).
2 Anchoring the perceptual range, which includes relating to the fact that no exertion at all is sitting still and maximal exertion is a theoretical con-cept of pushing the body to its absolute physical limits. Participants should then be exposed to differing levels of exercise intensity (as in an incremental test or during an exercise session) so as to understand to what
the various levels on the scale feel like. Just giving them one or two points on the scale to aim for will probably result in a great deal of variability.
3 Use the earlier points to explain the nature of the scale and that the par-ticipant should consider both the verbal descriptor and the numerical value. The participant should first concentrate on the sensations arising from the activity, look at the scale to see which verbal descriptor relates to the effort he/she is experiencing and then linking this to the corresponding numerical value.
4 Unless specifically directed, ensure that the participant focuses on all the different sensations arising from the exercise being performed. For aerobic exercise, the participant should pool all sensations to give one rating. If there is an overriding sensation then additionally make note of this differentiated rating. Differentiated ratings can be used during muscular strength activity or where exercise is limited more by breathlessness or leg pain, as in the case of pulmonary or peripheral vascular disease, respectively.
5 Confirm that there is no right or wrong answer and it is what the partic-ipant perceives. There are three important cases where the particpartic-ipant may give an incorrect rating:
(a) When there is a preconceived idea about what exertion level is elicited by a specific activity (Borg, 1998).
(b) When participants are asked to recall the exercise and give a rating. As with heart rate, RPEs should be taken while the participant is actually engaged in the movements; not after they have finished an activity.
(c) When participants attempt to please the practitioner by stating what should be the appropriate level of RPE. This is typically the case when participants are advised ahead of time of the target RPE (e.g. in education sessions or during the warm-up). In the early stages of using RPE, the participant’s exercise intensity should be set by heart rate or work rate (e.g. in METs) and participants need to reli-ably learn to match their RPE to this level in estimation mode. Once it has been established that the participant’s rating concurs with the target heart rate or MET level reliably, then moving them on to production mode can be considered.
6 Keep RPE scales in full view at all times (e.g. on each machine or station or in fixed view in the exercise testing room) and keep reminding partici-pants throughout their exercise session or test to think about what sort of sensations they have while making their judgement rating. Elite endurance athletes are known to be good perceivers, because in a race situation they work very hard mentally to concentrate (cognitively associate) on their sensations in order to regulate their pace effectively (Morgan, 2000).
REFERENCES
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (2005). Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 7th edn. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.
126 JOHN BUCKLEY AND ROGER ESTON
Berry, M.J., Weyrich, A.S., Robergs, R.A., Krause, K.M. and Ingallis, C.P. (1989).
Ratings of perceived exertion in individuals with varying fitness levels during walking and running. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 58: 494–499.
Biddle, S.J.H. and Mutrie, N. (2001). Psychology of Physical Activity; Determinants, Well-being and Interventions. London: Routledge.
Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Borg, G. (2004). The Borg CR10 Folder. A Method for Measuring Intensity of Experience. Stockholm, Sweden: Borg Perception.
Boutcher, S.H., Seip, R.L., Hetzler, R.K., Pierce, E.F., Snead, D. and Weltman, A. (1989).
The effects of specificity of training on the rating of perceived exertion at the lactate threshold. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 59: 365–369.
Brisswalter, J. and Delignierè, D. (1997). Influence of exercise duration on perceived exertion during controlled locomotion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85: 17–18.
Buckley, J.P., Eston, R.G. and Sim, J. (2000). Ratings of perceived exertion in Braille:
validity and reliability in production mode. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34: 297–302.
Buckley, J.P., Quinlivan, R.C.M., Sim, J. and Eston, R.G. (2003). Ratings of perceived pain and the second wind in McArdle’s disease. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(Suppl. 5): 1604.
Buckley, J.P., Sim, J., Eston, R.G., Hession, R. and Fox, R. (2004). Reliability and validity of measures taken during the Chester step test to predict aerobic power and to prescribe aerobic exercise. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38: 197–205.
Cafarelli, E. (1977). Peripheral and central inputs to the effort sense during cycling exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 37: 181–189.
Cafarelli, E. (1982). Peripheral contributions to the perception of effort. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14: 382–389.
Chen, M.J., Fan, X. and Moe, S.T. (2002). Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20: 873–899.
Dishman, R.K. and Landy, F.J. (1988). Psychological factors and prolonged exercise. In D.R. Lamb and R. Murray (eds), Perspectives in Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, pp. 281–355. Indianapolis, IN: Benckmark Press.
Eston, R.G. and Connolly, D. (1996). The use of ratings of perceived exertion for exercise prescription in patients receiving -blocker therapy. Sports Medicine, 21: 176–190.
Eston, R.G. and Lamb, K.L. (2000). Effort perception. In N. Armstrong and W. Van-Mechelen (eds), Paediatric Exercise Science and Medicine, pp. 85–91, Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Eston, R.G. and Parfitt, G. (2006). Perceived exertion. In N. Armstrong (ed.), Paediatric Exercise Physiology. Elsevier, London (in Press).
Eston, R.G., Lamb, K.L., Bain, A., Williams, M. and Williams, J.G. (1994). Validity of a perceived exertion scale for children: a pilot study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78: 691–697.
Eston, R.G., Parfitt, G., Campbell, L. and Lamb, K.L. (2000). Reliability of effort perception for regulating exercise intensity in children using a Cart and Load Effort Rating (CALER) Scale. Pediatric Exercise Science, 12: 388–397.
Eston, R.G., Parfitt, G. and Shepherd, P. (2001). Effort perception in children: implica-tions for validity and reliability. In A. Papaionnou, M. Goudas and Y. Theodorakis
(eds), Proceedings of 10th World Congress of Sport Psychology, Skiathos, Greece, Volume 5, pp. 104–106.
Eston, R.G., Lamb, K.L., Parfitt, C.G. and King, N. (2005). The validity of predicting maximal oxygen uptake from a perceptually regulated graded exercise test. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 94: 221–227.
Gearhart, R.F. Jr, Goss, F.L., Lagally, K.M., Jakicic, J.M., Gallagher, J., Gallagher, K.I.
and Robertson, R. (2002). Ratings of perceived exertion in active muscle during high-intensity and low-intensity resistance exercise. Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(1): 87–91.
Head, A., Maxwell, S. and Kendall, M.J. (1997). Exercise metabolism in healthy volun-teers taking celiprolol, atenolol, and placebo. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 31: 120–125.
Kohl, R.M. and Shea, C.H. (1988). Perceived exertion: influences of locus of control and expected work intensity and duration. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 15: 225–272.
Lagally, K.M. and Costigan, E.M. (2004). Anchoring procedures in reliability of rat-ings of perceived exertion during resistance exercise. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3 Pt 2): 1285–1295.
Lamb, K.L. and Eston, R.G. (1997). Effort perception in children. Sports Medicine, 23: 139–148.
Lamb, K.L., Trask, S. and Eston, R.G. (1997). Effort perception in children: a focus on test-ing methodology. In N. Armstrong, B.J. Kirby and J.R. Welsman (eds), Children and Exercise XIX Promoting Health and Well Being, pp. 258–266. London: E & FN Spon.
Maresh, C. and Noble, B.J. (1984). Utilization of perceived exertion ratings during exer-cise testing and training. In L.K. Hall, G.C. Meyer and H.K. Hellerstein (eds), Cardiac Rehabilitation: Exercise Testing and Prescription, pp. 155–173. Great Neck, NY: Spectrum.
Morgan, W.P. (1973). Psychological factors influencing perceived exertion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 5: 97–103.
Morgan, W.P. (1994). Psychological components of effort sense. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26: 1071–1077.
Morgan, W. (2000). Psychological factors associated with distance running and the marathon. In D. Tunstall-Pedoe (ed.), Marathon Medicine. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
Noble, B. and Robertson, R. (1996). Perceived Exertion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
O’Donnell, D.E., Fluge, T., Gerken, F., Hamilton, A., Webb, K., Make, B. and Magnussen, H. (2004). Effects of tiotropium on lung hyperinflation, dyspnoea and exercise tolerance in COPD. European Respiratory Journal, 23(6): 832–840.
Pincivero, D.M., Campy, R.M. and Coelho, A.J. (2003). Knee flexor torque and perceived exertion: a gender and reliability analysis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(10): 1720–1726.
Pollock, M.L., Wilmore, J.H. and Fox, S.M. (1978). Health and Fitness Through Physical Activity. New York: Wiley: American College of Sports Medicine Series.
Rejeski, W.J. (1981). The perception of exertion: a social psychophysiological integration.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4: 305–320.
Robertson, R.J. (1997). Perceived exertion in young people: future directions of enquiry.
In J. Welsman, N. Armstrong and B. Kirby (eds), Children and Exercise XIX Volume II, pp. 33–39. Exeter: Washington: Singer Press.
Robertson, R.J. and Noble, B.J. (1997). Perception of physical exertion: methods, mediators and applications. Exercise and Sports Science Reviews, 25: 407–452.
128 JOHN BUCKLEY AND ROGER ESTON
Robertson, R.J., Goss, F.L., Boer, N.F., Peoples J.A., Foreman A.J., Dabayebeh I.M., Millich N.B., Balasekaran G., Riechman S.E., Gallagher J.D. and Thompkins T.
(2000). Children’s OMNI Scale of perceived exertion: mixed gender and race valida-tion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32: 452–458.
Robertson, R.J., Goss, J.L., Bell, F.A., Dixon, C.B., Gallagher K.I., Lagally K.M., Timmer J.M., Abt K.L., Gallagher J.D. and Thompkins T. (2002). Self-regulated cycling using the Children’s OMNI Scale of Perceived Exertion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34: 1168–1175.
Robertson, R.J., Goss, J.L., Andreacci, J.L. Dube J.J., Rutkowski J.J., Snee B.M., Kowallis R.A., Crawford K., Aaron D.J. and Metz K.F. (2005). Validation of the Children’s OMNI RPE Scale for stepping exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37: 290–298.
Roemmich, J.N., Barkley, J.E. and Epstein, L.H., Lobarinas, C.L., White T.M. and Foster J.H. Validity of PCERT and OMNI walk/run ratings of perceived exertion.
(2006). Validity of the PCERT and OMNI-walk/run ratings of perceived exertion scales. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38: 1014–1019.
Smutok, M.A., Skrinar, G.S. and Pandolf, K.B. (1980). Exercise intensity: subjective regulation by perceived exertion. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 61: 569–574.
Utter, A.C., Robertson, R.J., Nieman, D.C. and Kang, J. (2002) Children’s OMNI Scale of perceived exertion: walking/running evaluation. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34: 139–144.
Williams, J.G. and Eston, R.G. (1989). Determination of the intensity dimension in vigorous exercise programmes with particular reference to the use of the rating of perceived exertion. Sports Medicine, 8: 177–189.
Williams, J.G., Eston, R.G. and Stretch, C. (1991). Use of rating of perceived exertion to control exercise intensity in children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 3: 21–27.
Williams, J.G., Eston, R.G. and Furlong, B. (1994). CERT: a perceived exertion scale for young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79: 1451–1458.
Williams, J.G., Furlong, B., MacKintosh, C. and Hockley, T.J. (1993). Rating and regulation of exercise intensity in young children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1993, 25 (Suppl. S8) (Abstract).
Yelling, M., Lamb, K. and Swaine, I.L. (2002). Validity of a pictorial perceived exertion scale for effort estimation and effort production during stepping exercise in adolescent children. European Physical Education Review, 8: 157–175.
INTRODUCTION
Maximum strength can be defined as the ‘maximum force or torque a muscle or group of muscles can generate at a specified determined velocity’ (Komi et al., 1992: 90–102). Information regarding a person’s strength is often sought in order to monitor longitudinal adaptations to training and rehabilitation, compare strength levels between individuals (or groups of individuals), determine the importance of strength to performance in other physical tasks, and to determine single limb or inter-limb strength inadequacies/imbalances.
The three main forms of strength testing are: isometric, isokinetic and iso-tonic (isoinertial). Importantly, each form of testing measures different qualities so the tests cannot be used interchangeably. This is largely due to the complex interaction of muscular, tendinous and neural factors impacting on strength expression. In order to determine the best possible battery of tests, it is impor-tant to consider issues of test specificity and reliability, the safety of subjects and the ease of test administration (and re-administration: for example, repro-ducibility of environment, subject motivation to re-perform, etc.). However, Abernethy and Wilson (2000: 149) ask five important questions to determine which form/s of strength assessment is/are most appropriate:
1 How reliable is the particular measurement procedure?
2 What is the correlation between the test score and either whole or part of the athletic performance under consideration? (If the performances are not related, are they specific enough to each other?)
3 Does the test item discriminate between the performances of members of heterogeneous and/or homogeneous groups?
4 Is the measurement procedure sensitive to the effects of training, rehabilitation and/or acute bouts of exercise?
CHAPTER 14