С¶÷ÑÅ

Well-trained Males:  (Doherty, Smith, Hughes, & Collins, 2001; n = 15; 30s of the subpraximal run for each test)

• 30 seconds: SEM = 0.79 (0.49-1.16)

• 60 seconds: SEM = 0.78 (0.50-1.12)

• 90 seconds: SEM = 0.80 (0.51-0.99)

• 120 seconds: SEM = 0.76 (0.47-0.93)

Male Rowers (Marriot & Lamb, 1996; n = 9; mean age = 28.6 (6.8) years)

• Mean RPE scores were 7.6 (SEM 0.9) and 18.9 (SEM 0.3) for entire group (n = 9)

Adolescent Girls (Pfeiffer, Pivarnik, Womack, Reeves, & Malina, 2002; n = 57; mean age = 15.3 (1.5) years)

• SEM for entire group: 1.24

Helsinki Participants (Scherr, Wolfarth, Christle, Pressler, Wagenpfeil, & Halle, 2012; n = 2,560; mean age = 24 (17-44) years; Helsinki, Finland participants)

• Total cohort:

  • RPE at LT1 = 10.8 ¡À 1.8 (SEM = 0.04)

  • RPE at LT2 = 13.6 ¡À 1.8 (SEM = 0.04)

  • Fixed lactate thresholds of 3 and 4 mmol/L were 12.8 ¡À 2.1 (SEM = 0.06) and 14.1 ¡À 2.0 (SEM = 0.06)

Frail older adults: (Mendelssohn et al., 2008)

• HR & METs (ICC = 0.85-0.91)

Healthy Male Athletes (Lamb, Eston, & Corns, 1999; n = 16; mean age = 23.6 (5.1))

• Excellent at Stages 1 - 4: (ICC = .82, .80, .77, .75)

Depression and Anxiety (Knapen et al., 2003)

• Reliability coefficients for males (r = 0.42, p < 0.05) & (r = 0.82, p < 0.01)

• Reliability coefficients for females (r = 0.48, p < 0.01) & (r = 0.58, p < 0.01)

Adolescent Girls (Pfeiffer et al., 2002)

• Excellent: (ICC = .78)

Interrater Reliability:

In Braille:

• In Braille: (Buckley et al., 2000; n = 10; female mean age = 22 (7.6); male mean age = 27.3 (11.7))

  • Three trials of exercise bouts at RPEs 9, 11, and 13

    • Between Trial 1 (RPE 9) and 3 (RPE 13) (ICC = .43)

    • Between Trial 1 (RPE 9) and 2 (RPE 11) (ICC = .69)

    • Between Trial 2 (RPE 11) and 3 (RPE 13): (ICC = .88)

Adolescent females: (Pfeiffer et al., 2002)

• Excellent: (ICC = 0.78)

Intrarater Reliability:

Physically Active Men and Women (Eston et al., 2006; n = 19; male mean age = 21.6 (0.8); female mean age = 21.4 (1.4))

• Predicted VO2 max from RPE: (ICC = 0.66-0.95)

• No gender differences

Healthy Men and Women: (Eston & Williams, 1988; n = 16; male mean age = 28.7 (12.5); female mean age = 31.8 (9.4))

• Between trials (ICC > 0.83)

Concurrent validity:

Male Rowers (Marriot & Lamb, 1996)

• Excellent: High Pearson correlation coefficients between HR and RPE (r = 0.95, p < 0.01) and Work Output and RPE (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) during the estimation trial. In addition, significant correlations (p < 0.01) were obtained between the estimation and production trials for HR (r = 0.82) and Work Output (r = 0.84). Post hoc analysis of variance revealed that the observed differences in mean HR were not significant (p > 0.05) at three of the five intensity levels (RPE 15, 17 and 19), but were at the two lowest RPE levels (11 and 13). Significant mean differences in Work Output were seen at all but RPE 17.

Young African-Americans (Karavatas & Tavakol, 2005; n = 12; mean age = 26.08 years)

• Adequate: The overall correlation between RPE and HR was 0.58 (p < 0.01)

  • Excellent: Males (n = 6), r = 0.60; p < 0.01

  • Adequate: Females (n = 6), r = 0.56; p < 0.01

RPE Across the Lifespan: (Groslambert & Mahon, 2006; n = 1,865)

• Poor: Correlation with HR in children 0-3 as children of this age are not able to rate their perceptions

• Variable: Correlation with HR in children 3-7 years

• Variable: Correlation with HR in children 8-12 years

• Good to Excellent: Correlation with HR in children 13+ years similar to adults

• No Significant Effect on Validity: With people ages 50-65, >65

Healthy Individuals: (Chen et al., 2002)

• A meta-analysis of criterion-related validity between RPE and physiological measures in healthy individuals (mean age of subjects in studies was 32.7; range 9 to 75 years).

Range of mean validity coefficients with RPE:

• Strongest relationships were noted in highly fit male participants at high (maximal) exertion.

Predictive validity

Pregnant Women: (O¡¯Neill et al., 1992; Group 1 (Treadmill), n = 11; Group 2 (Bicycle), n = 12; Group 3 (Circuit-training), n = 24; Group 4 (Aerobics), n = 48; Group 5 (Aerobics), n = 29)

• Excellent: HR during walking and cycling correlated significantly with RPE after delivery

  • Group 1 (Treadmill), r = 0.83, p < 0.01, n = 11

  • Group 2 (Bicycle), r = 0.74, p < 0.015, n = 12

• Adequate: There was no significant correlation when the same subjects were tested in the second trimester (Group 1 (Treadmill), r = 0.45) and/or in the third trimester (Group 1 (Treadmill), r = 0.47; Group 2 (Bicycle), r = 0.51) (p > 0.05).

• Poor: RPE and HR also failed to correlate in the pregnant women who participated in aerobics or circuit-training (p > 0.05)

  • Group 3 (Circuit-training), r = 0.39, n = 24

  • Group 4 (Aerobics), r = 0.27, n = 48

  • Group 5 (Aerobics), r = 0.35, n = 29

Helsinki Participants: (Scherr, Wolfarth, Christle, Pressler, Wagenpfeil, & Halle, 2012)

• Excellent relationship between RPE and blood lactate: r = 0.84, p < 0.001

• Excellent relationship between RPE and HR: r = 0.74, p < 0.001

• Strong correlations indicate high predictive value of RPE for HR and blood lactate.

• The RPE scale (with rating of 6 to 20) was developed so heart rate could be predicted by multiplying the RPE by 10 (Borg, 1982).

Convergent validity

Elite Swimmers (Psycharakis, 2011; males, n = 9; females, n = 8; males mean age = 23.4 (2.1); females mean age = 20.5 (1.9); male mean height = 186.6 cm (6.0 cm); female height = 170.1 cm (3.8 cm); male body mass = 83.7 kg (6.6 kg); female body mass 60.9 kg (5.6 kg)

• Excellent convergent validity of RPE at predicting %HRmax (r = 0.85)

• Excellent convergent validity of RPE at predicting La (r = 0.82)

Video Game Players (Pollock et al., 2013; n = 13; mean age = 53.5 (5.4))

• Adequate discriminant validity of RPE at predicting heart rate (r = 0.32)

Children and Adults (Gillach, Sallis, Buono, Patterson, & Nader, 1989; children, n = 283; adults, n = 295; children mean age = 11 (10-14); adults mean age = 36 (22-55))

• Excellent validity for HR and RPE in children based on mean of individual correlations

  • Test 1, r = .92, p < .001

  • Test 2, r = .94, p < .001

• Excellent validity for HR and RPE in adults based on mean of individual correlations

  • Test 1, r = .94, p < .001

  • Test 2, r = .95, p < .05

• Excellent validity for HR and RPE in children based on simultaneous analysis of entire group

  • Test 1, r = .64, p < .001

  • Test 2, r = .65, p < .001

• Excellent validity for HR and RPE in adults based on simultaneous analysis of entire group

  • Test 1, r = .63, p < .001

  • Test 2, r = .64, p < .001

Not reported in stroke, however, one study (Eng et al., 2002; n = 25; 4.4 ¡À 3.0 yrs) assessed RPE in people with stroke at minute 6 during a 6-minute walk test and a 12-minute walk test in the same subjects, with almost identical mean values (11.6 and 11.7) for the 2 assessments, as would be expected if test-retest reliability was high.

(Eng et al., 2002; n = 25; 4.4 ¡À 3.0 yrs)

• RPE poorly correlated with 6 MWT and 12 MWT distance in people with stroke. (r = -0.10 and -0.06 respectively)

• In stroke, predicted HR based on RPE was significantly higher than the actual HR during 6 minute and 12 minute walk tests, and predicted and actual HR were not correlated

(Tseng et al., 2010; n = 21; 4.1 ¡À 3.5 yrs)

• Strong correlation between RPE and ratings of exertion fatigue on a visual analog scale following exercise (r = 0.802, p = 0.00) in people with stroke.

Post-Stroke: (Sage et al., 2013. 37 patients post-stroke (14.5 ¡À 10.2 days post-stroke))

• Respiratory gas exchange was monitored for analysis of VO₂ while completing a graded maximal exercise test, while HR and RPE (Borg CR10 Scale) were measured at the end of each minute. 76.2%, 69.0%, and 38.9% of participants fell into the expected RPE range at each intensity. RPE appears to be a reasonable indicator of exercise intensity after stroke at moderate (60%-70% VO_2peak) but not high intensity exercise (80% V0_2peak).

Adolescent Girls: (Pfeiffer et al., 2002; n = 57)

• SEM = 1.24

Pediatric: (Hommerding et al., 2010; n = 41, mean age = 11.1)

• Reported RPE on 15-point scale of 9 indicates light work

• Reported RPE on on 11-point scale of 1 indicates very light work

• Reported RPE on 15-point scale of 17 indicates hard work

• Reported RPE on on 11 - point scale of 7 indicates very hard work

Concurrent validity

Adolescent Girls: (Pfeiffer et al., 2002; n = 57)

• Excellent correlation (r = 0.60) with a power of 0.80

Adolescent Boys (Eston & Williams, 1986; n = 30; mean age = 16 (1))

• Excellent: Correlation between RPE and power output: r = 0.78, p < 0.01

• Excellent: Correlation between RPE and heart rate: r = 0.74, p < 0.01

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

Convergent validity

Adolescent Girls (Pfeiffer et al., 2002)

¡ñ&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è; Excellent validity (%HRmax;r??) = 0.66, p < 0.05

¡ñ&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è;&²Ô²ú²õ±è; Excellent validity (%V0?max;r??) = 0.70, p < 0.05

Lumbar Disc Herniation (Dedering et al., 2010)

Patients¡¯ characteristics, median and range, n = 15

Lumbar Disc Herniation: (Dedering et al., 2010)

• Good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.85)

Chronic low back pain: (Armstrong et al., 2005)

• Moderate correlation for Peak SaO (Pearson's r = 0.66, p < 0.05)

• Moderate correlation for peak Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (Pearson's r = 0.75. p < 0.05)

Spina Bifida: (Crytzer et al., 2015)

• Significant variance (¦Ó = .70)

Predictive validity

±Ê²¹°ù°ì¾±²Ô²õ´Ç²Ô¡¯²õ (Penko, Barkley, Koop, & Alberts, 2017; n = 38; female mean age = 56.9 (5.5); male mean age = 58.7 (9.5); Hoehn and Yahr stage II-III: mild-moderate PD)

• Excellent: Association between RPE and heart rate was r = 0.61, p < 0.001

• Excellent: Association between RPE and work rate was r = 0.77, p < 0.001

Frail Older Adults (Mendelsohn et al., 2008; n = 18; mean age = 82 (5) years; women, n = 3; men, n = 15)

• HR & metabolic equivalents of task (METs) (ICC = 0.85-0.91)

Concurrent validity:

Older Japanese Adults: (Shigematsu, Ueno, Nakagaichi, Nho, & Tanaka, 2004; older group, n = 29; middle-aged group, n = 24; older group mean age = 75.5 (3.8); middle-aged group mean age = 46.9 (7.0); Toride City, Ibaraki prefecture, Japan participants)

• Excellent: Mean correlation between VO2 and RPE in older age group (r = .95, p < 0.05)

• Excellent: Mean correlation between VO2 and RPE in middle-aged group (r = .96, p < 0.05)