Search Results

The aims of this study were to describe the internal and external match loads (ML) of refereeing activity during official soccer matches and to investigate the relationship among the methods of ML quantification across a competitive season. A further aim was to examine the usefulness of differential perceived exertion (dRPE) as a tool for monitoring internal ML in soccer referees. Twenty field referees (FRs) and 43 assistant referees (ARs) participated in the study. Data were collected from 30 competitive matches (FR = 20 observations, AR = 43 observations) and included measures of internal (Edwards’ heart-rate-derived training impulse [TRIMP_EDW]) ML, external (total distance covered, distance covered at high speeds, and player load) ML, and ML differentiated ratings of perceived respiratory (sRPE_res) and leg-muscle (sRPE_mus) exertion. Internal and external ML were all greater for FRs than for ARs (–19.7 to –72.5), with differences ranging from very likely very large to most likely extremely large. The relationships between internal-ML and external-ML indicators were, in most cases, unclear for FR (r < .35) and small to moderate for AR (r < .40). The authors found substantial differences between RPE_res and RPE_mus scores in both FRs (0.6 AU; ±90% confidence limits 0.4 AU) and ARs (0.4; ±0.3). These data demonstrate the multifaceted demands of soccer refereeing and thereby highlight the importance of monitoring both internal and external ML. Moreover, dRPE represents distinct dimensions of effort and may be useful in monitoring soccer referees’ ML during official matches.

Purpose: To quantify changes in differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) across a 2-wk repeated-sprint-training intervention that improved high-intensity intermittent-running ability and linear speed of semiprofessional soccer players. Methods: Thirteen players completed 3 (sessions 1–3) or 4 (sessions 4–6) sets of 7 sprints (group 1 [n = 7]: 30-m straight; group 2 [n = 6]: 2 × 10-m shuttle), with 20 s and 4 min of recovery between sprints and sets, respectively. Postset perceptions of breathlessness (RPE-B) and leg-muscle exertion (RPE-L) were rated using the CR100 scale. Results: Overall, RPE-B (mean [SD]: 46 [13] arbitrary units [AU], “hard”) was most likely higher than RPE-L (39 [13] AU, “somewhat hard,” mean difference: 8 AU; 90% confidence limits [CLs]: ±2). Set-to-set increases in dRPE (in AU; 90% CL: approximately ±2) were large in session 1 (RPE-B: 15; RPE-L: 14), moderate in sessions 2–5 (RPE-B: 7–10; RPE-L: 7–8), and small (RPE-B: 6) to moderate (RPE-L: 7) in session 6. Across the intervention, RPE-B reduced moderately in sets 3 (−13; 90% CL: ±4) and 4 (−12; 90% CL: ±12) and RPE-L reduced by a small magnitude in set 3 (−5; 90% CL: ±6). The set 4 change in RPE-L was unclear (−11; 90% CL: ±13). Conclusions: The authors observed systematic intrasession and intersession changes in dRPE across a 2-wk repeated-sprint-training intervention, with a fixed prescription of external load that improved semiprofessional soccer players’ high-speed-running abilities. These findings could support dRPE as a measure of internal load and highlight its usefulness in evaluating repeated-sprint-training dose–response.

Purpose: To understand the validity of differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) as a measure of girls’ training and match internal loads. Methods: Using the centiMax scale (CR100), session dRPE for breathlessness (sRPE-B) and leg muscle exertion (sRPE-L) were collected across a season of training (soccer, resistance, and fitness) and matches from 33 players (15 [1] y). Differences and associations between dRPE were examined using mixed and general linear models. The authors’ minimal practical important difference was 8 arbitrary units (AU). Results: Mean (AU [SD] ∼16) sRPE-B and sRPE-L were 66 and 61 for matches, 51 and 49 for soccer, 86 and 67 for fitness, and 45 and 58 for resistance, respectively. Session RPE-B was rated most likely harder than sRPE-L for fitness (19 AU; 90% confidence limits: ±7) and most likely easier for resistance (−13; ±2). Match (5; ±4) and soccer (−3; ±2) differences were likely to most likely trivial. The within-player relationships between sRPE-B and sRPE-L were very likely moderate for matches (r = .44; 90% confidence limits: ±.12) and resistance training (.38; ±.06), likely large for fitness training (.51; ±.22), and most likely large for soccer training (.56; ±.03). Shared variance ranged from 14% to 35%. Conclusions: Practically meaningful differences between dRPE following physical training sessions coupled with low shared variance in all training types and matches suggest that sRPE-B and sRPE-L represent unique sensory inputs in girls’ soccer players. The data provide evidence for the face and construct validity of dRPE as a measure of internal load in this population.

Purpose: To assess the reliability and construct validity of a self-paced, submaximal run test (SRT_RPE) for monitoring aerobic fitness. The SRT_RPE monitors running velocity (v), heart rate (HR_ex), and blood lactate concentration (B[La]), during three 3-minute stages prescribed by ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs) of 10, 13, and 17. Methods: Forty (14 female) trained endurance runners completed a treadmill graded exercise test for the determination of maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂max), v at VO₂max (vVO₂max), and v at 2 mmol·L⁻¹ (vLT1) and 4 mmol·L⁻¹ (vLT2) B[La]. Within 7 days, participants completed the SRT_RPE. Convergent validity between the SRT_RPE and graded exercise test parameters was assessed through linear regression. Eleven participants completed a further 2 trials of the SRT_RPE within a 72-hour period to quantify test–retest reliability. Results: There were large correlations between v at all stages of the SRT_RPE and VO₂max (r range = .57–.63), vVO₂max (.50–.66), and vLT2 (.51–.62), with vRPE 17 displaying the strongest associations (r > .60). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC_3,1) were moderate to high for parameters v (range = .76–.84), HR_ex (.72–.92), and %HR_max (.64–.89) at all stages of the SRT_RPE. The corresponding coefficients of variation were 2.5% to 5.6%. All parameters monitored at intensity RPE 17 displayed the greatest reliability. Conclusions: The SRT_RPE was shown to be a valid and reliable test for monitoring parameters associated with aerobic fitness, displaying the potential of this submaximal, time-efficient test to monitor responses to endurance training.

Purpose: To survey team-sport practitioners on current practices and perceptions of submaximal fitness tests (SMFTs). Methods: A convenience sample of team-sport practitioners completed an online survey (September to November 2021). Descriptive statistics were used to obtain information of frequencies. A mixed-model quantile (median) regression was employed to assess the differences between the perceived influence of extraneous factors. Results: A total of 66 practitioners (74 discrete protocols) from 24 countries completed the survey. Time-efficient and nonexhaustive nature were considered the most important features of implementation. Practitioners prescribed a range of SMFTs, administered mostly on a monthly or weekly basis, but scheduling strategies appeared to differ across SMFT categories. Cardiorespiratory/metabolic outcome measures were collected in most protocols (n = 61; 82%), with the majority monitoring heart-rate-derived indices. Subjective outcome measures (n = 33; 45%) were monitored exclusively using ratings of perceived exertion. Mechanical outcome measures (n = 19; 26%) included either a combination of locomotor outputs (eg, distance covered) or variables derived from microelectrical mechanical systems. The perceived influence of extraneous factors on measurement accuracy varied according to outcome measure, and there was a lack of consensus among practitioners. Conclusions: Our survey showcases the methodological frameworks, practices, and challenges of SMFTs in team sports. The most important features for implementation perhaps support the use of SMFTs as a feasible and sustainable tool for monitoring in team sports. The wide variety of protocols, scheduling strategies, and outcome measures, along with their associated collection and analytical techniques, may reflect the absence of robust evidence regarding the application of SMFTs in team sports.

Background: Athlete-reported outcome measures (AROMs) are frequently used in research and practice but no studies have examined their psychometric properties. Objectives: Part 1—identify the most commonly used AROMs in sport for monitoring training responses; part 2—assess risk of bias, measurement properties, and level of evidence, based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Methodological quality of the studies, quality of measurement properties, and level of evidence were determined using the COSMIN checklist and criteria. Results: Part 1—from 9446 articles screened for title and abstract, 310 out of 334 full texts were included; 53.9% of the AROMs contained multiple items, while 46.1% contained single items. Part 2—from 1895 articles screened for title and abstract, 71 were selected. Most measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs were adequate, but content validity and measurement error were inadequate. With the exclusion of 2 studies examining reliability and responsiveness, no validity studies were found for single items. Conclusions: The measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs derived from psychometrics were acceptable (with the exclusion of content validity and measurement error). The single-item AROMs most frequently used in sport science have not been validated. Additionally, nonvalidated modified versions of the originally nonvalidated items are common. Until proper validation studies are completed, all conclusions based on these AROMs are questionable. Established reference methods, such as those of clinimetrics, should be used to develop and assess the validity of AROMs.

Purpose: To examine the construct validity and reliability of 2 single items for fatigue and recovery in dancers. The construct validity was assessed using reference instruments: the fatigue items of the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS) and the Short Recovery and Stress Scale (SRSS). A secondary aim was to explore the respondent interpretation of these 2 items using a concept identification approach. Methods: Two hundred forty-three (N = 243) dancers completed single-item fatigue and recovery (unipolar and bipolar), BRUMS, and SRSS once for construct validity. For reliability,  49 dancers completed the questionnaires twice, 1 week apart. Using a concept identification approach, 49 dancers were also asked comprehension and interpretation of fatigue and recovery. Results: The fatigue item correlated with SRSS stress items (r _s = .37–.51) and BRUMs fatigue items (r _s = .63–.66). The recovery item was only partially confirmed in terms of construct validity, when using the SRSS recovery items as reference (r _s = .39–.43). Reliability was confirmed for the single items of fatigue (κ = .77–.78) and recovery (κ = .71–.78). Main responses for the concept of fatigue were tiredness (34.7%), muscle soreness (17.3%), and energy (13.0%). Main responses for the concept of recovery were muscle soreness (43.0%), tiredness (27.9%), and fatigue (24.0%). Conclusion: We provide preliminary confirmation of the validity and reliability of the single item fatigue in dancers. The recovery item was only partially confirmed in terms of construct validity, when using the SRSS recovery items as reference, but did display acceptable reliability and agreement. Further research is warranted further exploring other measurement properties.