Validity and Reliability of Facial Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales for Training Load Monitoring

Validity and Reliability of Facial Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales for Training Load Monitoring

van der Zwaard, Stephan (Universiteit Leiden; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Hooft Graafland, Folef (Fitchannel.com, Amsterdam)
van Middelkoop, Cerianne (Fitchannel.com, Amsterdam)
Lintmeijer, L.L. (TU Delft Statistics)

2023

van der Zwaard, S, Hooft Graafland, F, van Middelkoop, C, and Lintmeijer, LL. Validity and reliability of facial rating of perceived exertion scales for training load monitoring. J Strength Cond Res 37(5): e317-e324, 2023 - Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is often used by coaches and athletes to indicate exercise intensity, which facilitates training load monitoring and prescription. Although RPE is typically measured using the Borg's category-ratio 10-point scale (CR10), digital sports platforms have recently started to incorporate facial RPE scales, which potentially have a better user experience. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a 5-point facial RPE scale (FCR5) and a 10-point facial RPE scale (FCR10), using the CR10 as a golden standard and to assess their use for training load monitoring. Forty-nine subjects were grouped into 17 untrained (UT), 19 recreationally trained (RT), and 13 trained (T) individuals Subjects completed 9 randomly ordered home-based workout sessions (3 intensities × 3 RPE scales) on the Fitchannel.com platform. Heart rate was monitored throughout the workouts. Subjects performed 3 additional workouts to assess reliability. Validity and reliability of both facial RPE scales were low in UT subjects (intraclass correlation [ICC] ≤ 0.44, p ≤ 0.06 and ICC ≤ 0.43, p ≥ 0.09). In RT and T subjects, validity was moderate for FCR5 (ICC ≥ 0.72, p < 0.001) and good for FCR10 (ICC ≥ 0.80, p < 0.001). Reliability for these groups was rather poor for FCR5 (ICC = 0.51, p = 0.006) and moderate for FCR10 (ICC = 0.74, p < 0.001), but it was excellent for CR10 (ICC = 0.92, p < 0.001). In RT and T subjects, session RPE scores were also strongly related to Edward's training impulse scores (r ≥ 0.70, p < 0.001). User experience was best supported by the FCR10 scale. In conclusion, researchers, coaches, strength and conditioning professionals, and digital sports platforms are encouraged to incorporate the valid and reliable FCR10 and not FCR5 to assess perceived exertion and internal training load of recreationally trained and trained individuals.

home-based exercise
training monitoring
RPE
criterion validity
user experience

http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:dfd4a932-813c-4cb3-a5be-e8d3879bd382

https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004361

Journal of strength and conditioning research, 37 (5), e317-e324

Institutional Repository

journal article

© 2023 Stephan van der Zwaard, Folef Hooft Graafland, Cerianne van Middelkoop, L.L. Lintmeijer