Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 16,285 items for :

  • Sport and Exercise Science/Kinesiology x
Clear All
Restricted access

Ric Lovell, Sam Halley, Jason Siegler, Tony Wignell, Aaron J. Coutts and Tim Massard

Purpose: To examine the concurrent and construct validity of numerically blinded ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs). Methods: A total of 30 elite male youth soccer players (age 16.7 [0.5] y) were monitored during training and matches over a 17-wk in-season period. The players’ external loads were determined via raw 10-Hz global positioning system. Heart rate (HR) was collected continuously and expressed as Bannister and Edwards training impulses, and minutes >80% of the players predetermined the maximum HR by the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1. RPE was collected confidentially 10 to 15 min after training/matches using 2 methods: (1) a traditional verbal response to the 0 to 100 category-ratio “centiMax” scale (RPE) and (2) numerically blinded RPE centiMax scale (RPEblind) with the response selected manually via a 5 × 7-in tablet “slider.” The RPE and RPEblind were divided by 10 and multiplied by the duration to derive the sessional RPE. Linear mixed models compared ratings, and within-subject repeated-measures correlations assessed the sessional RPE versus HR and external load associations. Results: There were no differences between the RPE and RPEblind (0.19; 95% confidence intervals, −0.59 to 0.20 au, P = .326) or their session values (13.5; 95% confidence intervals, −17.0 to 44.0 au, P = .386), and the ratings were nearly perfectly correlated (r = .96). The associations between the sessional RPE versus HR and external load metrics were large to very large (r = .65–.81), with no differences between the RPE methods (P ≥ .50). The RPEblind also reduced verbal anchor clustering and integer bias by 11% and 50%, respectively. Conclusions: RPEblind demonstrated concurrent and construct validity versus the traditional method, and may be used in situations where practitioners have concerns regarding the authenticity of athlete ratings.

Restricted access

Jordan L. Fox, Cody J. O’Grady and Aaron T. Scanlan

Purpose: To compare the concurrent validity of session-rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) workload determined face-to-face and via an online application in basketball players. Methods: Sixteen semiprofessional, male basketball players (21.8 [4.3] y, 191.2 [9.2] cm, 85.0 [15.7] kg) were monitored during all training sessions across the 2018 (8 players) and 2019 (11 players) seasons in a state-level Australian league. Workload was reported as accumulated PlayerLoad (PL), summated-heart-rate-zones (SHRZ) workload, and sRPE. During the 2018 season, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was determined following each session via individualized face-to-face reporting. During the 2019 season, RPE was obtained following each session via a phone-based, online application. Repeated-measures correlations with 95% confidence intervals were used to determine the relationships between sRPE collected using each method and other workload measures (PL and SHRZ) as indicators of concurrent validity. Results: Although all correlations were significant (P < .05), sRPE obtained using face-to-face reporting demonstrated stronger relationships with PL (r = .69 [.07], large) and SHRZ (r = .74 [.06], very large) compared with the online application (r = .29 [.25], small [PL] and r = .34 [.22], moderate [SHRZ]). Conclusions: Concurrent validity of sRPE workload was stronger when players reported RPE in an individualized, face-to-face manner compared with using a phone-based online application. Given the weaker relationships with other workload measures, basketball practitioners should be cautious when using player training workloads predicated on RPE obtained via online applications.

Restricted access

Daniel Viggiani, Erin M. Mannen, Erika Nelson-Wong, Alexander Wong, Gary Ghiselli, Kevin B. Shelburne, Bradley S. Davidson and Jack P. Callaghan

People developing transient low back pain during standing have altered control of their spine and hips during standing tasks, but the transfer of these responses to other tasks has not been assessed. This study used video fluoroscopy to assess lumbar spine intervertebral kinematics of people who do and do not develop standing-induced low back pain during a seated chair-tilting task. A total of 9 females and 8 males were categorized as pain developers (5 females and 3 males) or nonpain developers (4 females and 5 males) using a 2-hour standing exposure; pain developers reported transient low back pain and nonpain developers did not. Participants were imaged with sagittal plane fluoroscopy at 25 Hz while cyclically tilting their pelvises anteriorly and posteriorly on an unstable chair. Intervertebral angles, relative contributions, and anterior–posterior translations were measured for the L3/L4, L4/L5, and L5/S1 joints and compared between sexes, pain groups, joints, and tilting directions. Female pain developers experienced more extension in their L5/S1 joints in both tilting directions compared with female nonpain developers, a finding not present in males. The specificity in intervertebral kinematics to sex-pain group combinations suggests that these subgroups of pain developers and nonpain developers may implement different control strategies.

Restricted access

Byungmo Ku, Megan MacDonald, Bridget Hatfield and Kathy Gunter

The purpose of this study was to test a modified conceptual model of the associations between parental supports and physical activity (PA) orientations and the PA behaviors of young children with developmental disabilities (DDs). In total, 135 parents of young children with DDs completed a questionnaire, which consisted of 67 questions. A pathway analysis indicated that tangible and intangible parental supports were significantly associated with PA behaviors in young children with DDs (β = 0.26, p = .01, and β = 0.24, p = .02, respectively). Tangible parental support was positively associated with parents’ PA behaviors and PA enjoyment (β = 0.22, p < .001, and β = 0.13, p = .04, respectively). Intangible parental support was positively associated with parents’ PA behaviors and PA importance (β = 0.19, p = .05, and β = 0.33, p < .001, respectively). In addition, parental PA behaviors and parents’ perceptions of their children’s motor performance were both directly associated with PA behaviors in young children with DDs. These results highlight the importance of parental support and PA orientations in relation to the PA behaviors of young children with DDs.

Restricted access

Shaima Alothman, Jeffrey C. Hoover, Mohammed M. Alshehri, Aqeel M. Alenazi, Jo Wick, Joseph LeMaster, Jason Rucker and Patricia M. Kluding

Background: To investigate how changes in sedentary behavior relate to health outcomes, it is important to establish the test–retest reliability of activity monitors in measuring habitual sedentary behavior in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) as a prerequisite for interpreting this information. Thus, the authors’ objective was to examine the test–retest reliability of a common activity monitor (activPAL) in measuring sedentary behavior and physical activity in people with T2D. Methods: Sedentary-time, standing-time, stepping-time, step-count, and sit-to-stand transitions were obtained from two 7-day assessment periods separated by at least 1 week. Test–retest reliability was determined with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to compare sedentary and activity measures between the 2 time points. Results: A total of 30 participants with self-reported T2D completed the study (age 65 [6] y, 63% women, body mass index 33.3 [5] kg/m2). High test–retest reliability was found for sedentary-time (ICC = .79; 95% confidence interval [CI], .61–.89) and standing-time (ICC = .74; 95% CI, .53–.87). Very high test–retest reliability was found for stepping-time (ICC = .90; 95% CI, .81–.95), step-count (ICC = .91; 95% CI, .83–.96), and sit-to-stand transitions (ICC = .90; 95% CI, .79–.95). Conclusion: The activPAL device showed high to very high test–retest reliability in measuring all tested activity categories in people with T2D.

Restricted access

Fabio Bertapelli, Ken Pitetti, Ruth A. Miller, Adam Jaeger, Michael Loovis, Wilson D. do Amaral-Junior, Marcos M. de Barros-Filho and Gil Guerra-Junior

Youth with intellectual disabilities (IDs) demonstrate below-criteria motor competence (MC) compared with typically developing (TD) youth. Whether differences in MC exist for youth with ID from different countries is unknown. This study examined the MC of youth with ID from Brazil (BR) and the United States (US) and compared it with norms for TD youth as established by the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2). The authors measured 19 BOT-2 test items for bilateral coordination, balance, and upper limb coordination of 502 youth (BR = 252, US = 250) with ID (6–21 years). Raw scores were converted to %ceiling (percentile of highest expected scores). For all test items, no significant differences were seen between BR and US participants in %ceiling scores. Participants from both countries demonstrated equivalent to slightly below BOT-2 norms in 14 of the 19 test items, with lowest scores seen in contralateral synchronizing bilateral coordination, balancing on one leg, and ball handling.