Paul Darren, Read Paul, Farooq Abdulaziz, Jones Luke
Research and Scientific Support, Aspetar - Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, PO BOX 29222, Doha, Qatar.
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
Sports Med Open. 2021 Jan 5;7(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s40798-020-00287-2.
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).
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.
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.
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.
CRD42020193387.
主观监测自感用力度在许多运动项目中是常见做法。通常,该信息用于了解训练负荷,有时还用于调整即将进行的训练课程。确定运动员与教练对训练的理解之间的关系可能会进一步有助于理解负荷管理。本系统评价的目的是评估教练的预期用力评分(RIE)和/或观察到的用力评分(ROE)与运动员报告的自感用力度(RPE)之间的关系。
本评价按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南进行。我们检索了Medline、谷歌学术、科学Direct、SPORTDiscus和科学网数据库。我们评估了教练报告的RIE和/或ROE与RPE之间的相关性。使用可靠性研究质量评估(QAREL)清单对偏倚风险进行评估。纳入标准为:(1)男性和/或女性个体;(2)个人和/或团体运动的活跃参与者;(3)以英语发表的原创研究文章。
发现19篇文章的数据符合纳入标准。基于11项研究的随机效应Meta分析表明,运动员与教练对RIE的评分呈正相关(r = 0.62 [95%CI 0.5至0.7],p < 0.001)。7项关于运动员与教练对ROE评分的研究的合并相关系数为r = 0.64 95%CI(0.5至0.7),p < 0.001。
教练的RIE和/或ROE与运动员报告的RPE之间存在中度至高度关联,这种关联似乎受多种因素影响。我们在本评价中提出的建议基于恳请从业者在使用RPE时考虑多模式方法以及监测的影响。
CRD42020193387。