Advertisement

Rating of Perceived Effort: Methodological Concerns and Future Directions

  • Israel HalperinEmail author
  • Aviv Emanuel
Review Article

Abstract

Rating of perceived effort (RPE) scales are the most frequently used single-item scales in exercise science. They offer an easy and useful way to monitor and prescribe exercise intensity. However, RPE scales suffer from methodological limitations stemming from multiple perceived effort definitions and measurement strategies. In the present review, we attend these issues by covering (1) two popular perceived effort definitions, (2) the terms included within these definitions and the reasons they can impede validity, (3) the problems associated with using different effort scales and instructions, and (4) measuring perceived effort from specific body parts and the body as a whole. We pose that the large number of interactions between definitions, scales, instructions and applications strategies, threatens measurement validity of RPE. We suggest two strategies to overcome these limitations: (1) to reinforce consistency by narrowing the number of definitions of perceived effort, the number of terms included within them, and the number of scales and instructions used. (2) Rather than measuring solely RPE as commonly done, exercise sciences will benefit from incorporating other single-item scales that measure affect, fatigue and discomfort, among others. By following these two recommendations, we expect the field will increase measurement validity and become more comprehensive.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No sources of funding were used for the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Israel Halperin and Aviv Emanuel have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Faulkner J, Eston RG. Perceived exertion research in the 21st century: developments, reflections and questions for the future. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2008;6(1):1–14.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haile L, Gallagher M, Robertson RJ. Perceived exertion laboratory manual. New York: Springer; 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haddad M, Stylianides G, Djaoui L, Dellal A, Chamari K. Session-RPE method for training load monitoring: validity, ecological usefulness, and influencing factors. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:612.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, et al. Novel resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(1):267–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen MJ, Fan X, Moe ST. Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2002;20(11):873–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, et al. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs matched for sets and repetitions. Front Physiol. 2018;9:247.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graham T, Cleather DJ. Autoregulation by “Repetitions in Reserve” leads to greater improvements in strength over a 12-week training program than fixed loading. J Strength Cond Res. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000003164(publish ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parfitt G, Evans H, Eston R. Perceptually regulated training at RPE13 is pleasant and improves physical health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(8):1613–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buskard ANL, Jacobs KA, Eltoukhy MM, Strand KL, Villanueva L, Desai PP, et al. optimal approach to load progressions during strength training in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000002038(publish ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abbiss CR, Peiffer JJ, Meeusen R, Skorski S. Role of ratings of perceived exertion during self-paced exercise: what are we actually measuring? Sports Med. 2015;45(9):1235–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcora S. Perception of effort during exercise is independent of afferent feedback from skeletal muscles, heart, and lungs. J Appl Physiol. 2009;106(6):2060–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pageaux B. Perception of effort in exercise science: definition, measurement and perspectives. Eur J Sport Sci. 2016;16(8):885–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noakes TD. Fatigue is a brain-derived emotion that regulates the exercise behavior to ensure the protection of whole body homeostasis. Front Physiol. 2012;3:82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hutchinson JC, Tenenbaum G. Perceived effort—can it be considered gestalt? J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2006;7(5):463–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venhorst A, Micklewright D, Noakes TD. Perceived fatigability: utility of a three-dimensional dynamical systems framework to better understand the psychophysiological regulation of goal-directed exercise behaviour. Sports Med. 2018;48(11):2479–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pereira G, Souza DMd, Reichert FF, Smirmaul BPC. Evolution of perceived exertion concepts and mechanisms: a literature review. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2014;16(5):579–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lampropoulou S, Nowicky AV. Evaluation of the numeric rating scale for perception of effort during isometric elbow flexion exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(3):1167–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swart J, Lindsay TR, Lambert MI, Brown JC, Noakes TD. Perceptual cues in the regulation of exercise performance—physical sensations of exercise and awareness of effort interact as separate cues. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(1):42–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steele J, Fisher J, McKinnon S, McKinnon P. Differentiation between perceived effort and discomfort during resistance training in older adults: reliability of trainee ratings of effort and discomfort, and reliability and validity of trainer ratings of trainee effort. J J Train. 2016;6(1):1–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pandolf KB, Billings DS, Drolet LL, Pimental NA, Sawka MN. Differentiated ratings of perceived exertion and various physiological responses during prolonged upper and lower body exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1984;53(1):5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shephard RJ, Vandewalle H, Gil V, Bouhlel E, Monod H. Respiratory, muscular, and overall perceptions of effort: the influence of hypoxia and muscle mass. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(5):556–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faulkner J, Eston R. Overall and peripheral ratings of perceived exertion during a graded exercise test to volitional exhaustion in individuals of high and low fitness. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;101(5):613–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robertson RJ, Gillespie RL, McCarthy J, Rose KD. Differentiated perceptions of exertion: part I. Mode of integration of regional signals. Percept Mot Skills. 1979;49(3):683–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adcock R, Collier D. Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2001;95(3):529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silvestrini N, Gendolla GHE. Affect and cognitive control: Insights from research on effort mobilization. Int J Psychophysiol. 2019;143:116–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Morree HM, Marcora SM. Psychobiology of perceived effort during physical tasks. Handbook of biobehavioral approaches to self-regulation. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 255–70.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2:92–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Borg G. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: Geissler HG, Petzold P, editors. Psychophysical judgement and the process of perception. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften; 1982. p. 25–34.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Borg E, Borg G. A comparison of AME and CR100 for scaling perceived exertion. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2002;109(2):157–75.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Borg G. Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign: Human kinetics; 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Noble BJ. Perceived exertion. Champaign: Human kinetics; 1996. p. 115–7.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Robertson RJ, Noble BJ. Perception of physical exertion: methods, mediators, and applications. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1997;25(1):407–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hampson DB, Gibson ASC, Lambert MI, Noakes TD. The influence of sensory cues on the perception of exertion during exercise and central regulation of exercise performance. Sports Med. 2001;31(13):935–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amann M, Venturelli M, Ives SJ, McDaniel J, Layec G, Rossman MJ, et al. Peripheral fatigue limits endurance exercise via a sensory feedback-mediated reduction in spinal motoneuronal output. J Appl Physiol. 2013;115(3):355–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marcora SM. Effort: perception of. In: Goldstein EB, editor. Encyclopedia of perception. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008. p. 380–3.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cafarelli E. Peripheral contributions to the perception of effort. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):382–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McCloskey D. Corollary discharges: motor commands and perception. In: Brooks VB, editor. Handbook of physiology: section 1: the nervous system; vol II: motor control, part 2. Washington: American Physiological Society; 1981. p. 1415–47.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Braith RW, Wood CE, Limacher MC, Pollock ML, Lowenthal DT, Phillips MI, et al. Abnormal neuroendocrine responses during exercise in heart transplant recipients. Circulation. 1992;86(5):1453–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pageaux B, Marcora S, Lepers R. Prolonged mental exertion does not alter neuromuscular function of the knee extensors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(12):2254–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pageaux B, Lepers R, Dietz KC, Marcora SM. Response inhibition impairs subsequent self-paced endurance performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014;114(5):1095–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Venhorst A, Micklewright D, Noakes TD. Towards a three-dimensional framework of centrally regulated and goal-directed exercise behaviour: a narrative review. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(15):957–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Borg G. Psychophysical studies of effort and exertion: some historical, theoretical and empirical aspects. In: Borg G, Ottoson D, editors. The perception of exertion in physical work. London: Macmillan; 1986. p. 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Micklewright D, Gibson ASC, Gladwell V, Al Salman A. Development and validity of the rating-of-fatigue scale. Sports Med. 2017;47(11):2375–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    De Morree HM, Klein C, Marcora SM. Perception of effort reflects central motor command during movement execution. Psychophysiology. 2012;49(9):1242–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Smirmaul BdPC. Sense of effort and other unpleasant sensations during exercise: clarifying concepts and mechanisms. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(5):308–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Meckel Y, Zach S, Eliakim A, Sindiani M. The interval-training paradox: physiological responses vs. subjective rate of perceived exertion. Physiol Behav. 2018;196:144–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Greer BK, Young PR, Thompson B, Rickert BJ, Moran MF. Impact of direction of unloading influence on template rate of perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(12):3398–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Christian RJ, Bishop D, Girado O, Billaut F. The role of sense of effort on self-selected cycling power output. Front Physiol. 2014;5:115.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Loenneke J, Thiebaud R, Fahs C, Rossow L, Abe T, Bemben M. Blood flow restriction: effects of cuff type on fatigue and perceptual responses to resistance exercise. Acta Physiol. 2014;101(2):158–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fisher JP, Steele J. Heavier and lighter load resistance training to momentary failure produce similar increases in strength with differing degrees of discomfort. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(4):797–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stuart C, Steele J, Gentil P, Giessing J, Fisher JP. Fatigue and perceptual responses of heavier-and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance exercise in males and females. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4523.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Steele J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether? Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(22):1586–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fisher J, Smith D. Attempting to better define “intensity” for muscular performance: is it all wasted effort? Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(2):4183–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pritchett RC, Green JM, Wickwire PJ, Kovacs M. Acute and session RPE responses during resistance training: Bouts to failure at 60% and 90% of 1RM. S Afr J Sports Med. 2009;21(1):23–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hatfield DL, Silvestre R, et al. Relationship between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(4):819–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lagally KM, Robertson RJ. Construct validity of the OMNI resistance exercise scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(2):252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Faull OK, Dearlove DJ, Clarke K, Cox PJ. Beyond RPE: the perception of exercise under normal and ketotic conditions. Front Physiol. 2019;10:229.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fairman CM, LaFountain RL, Lucas AR, Focht BC. Monitoring resistance exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion in previously untrained patients with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1360–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Borg G. A general scale to rate symptoms and feelings related to problems of ergonomic and organizational importance. G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2008;30(1):8–10.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Halaki M, Chow C-M. A novel scale to assess resistance-exercise effort. Sports Sci. 2012;30(13):1405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Steele J, Fisher J, Giessing J, Gentil P. Clarity in reporting terminology and definitions of set endpoints in resistance training. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(3):368–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Giebetasing J, Fisher J, Steele J, Rothe F, Raubold K, Eichmann B. The effects of low-volume resistance training with and without advanced techniques in trained subjects. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2016;56(3):249–58.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kinsman R, Weiser P, Stamper D. Multidimensional analysis of subjective symptomatology during prolonged strenuous exercise. Ergonomics. 1973;16(2):211–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ. Not what, but how one feels: the measurement of affect during exercise. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1989;11(3):304–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Borg G. Physical performance and perceived exertion [dissertation]. Lund: Gleerup; 1962.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gendolla GH, Wright RA. Effort. In: Sander D, Scherer KR, editors. Oxford companion to the affective sciences. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 134–5.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Robinson-Papp J, George MC, Dorfman D, Simpson DM. Barriers to chronic pain measurement: a qualitative study of patient perspectives. Pain Med. 2015;16(7):1256–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Williams ACDC, Davies HT, Chadury Y. Simple pain rating scales hide complex idiosyncratic meanings. Pain. 2000;85(3):457–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dannecker EA, Warne-Griggs MD, Royse LA, Hoffman KG. Listening to patients’ voices: Workarounds patients use to construct pain intensity ratings. Qual Health Res. 2018;29(4):484–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hartman ME, Ekkekakis P, Dicks ND, Pettitt RW. Dynamics of pleasure–displeasure at the limit of exercise tolerance: conceptualizing the sense of exertional physical fatigue as an affective response. J Exp Biol. 2019;222(3):jeb186585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Robertson RJ, Nixon PA, Caspersen CJ, Metz KF, Abbott RA, Goss FL. Abatement of exertional perceptions following dynamic exercise: physiological mediators. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(3):346–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Utter AC, Kang J, Nieman DC, Dumke CL, Mcanulty SR, Mcanulty LS. Carbohydrate attenuates perceived exertion during intermittent exercise and recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(5):880–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ekkekakis P, Parfitt G, Petruzzello SJ. The pleasure and displeasure people feel when they exercise at different intensities. Sports Med. 2011;41(8):641–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ekkekakis P. People have feelings! Exercise psychology in paradigmatic transition. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;16:84–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cabanac M. Pleasure: the common currency. J Theor Biol. 1992;155(2):173–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cabanac M, Leblanc J. Physiological conflict in humans: fatigue vs. cold discomfort. Am J Physiol. 1983;244(5):621–8.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. Acute aerobic exercise and affect. Sports Med. 1999;28(5):337–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Williams DM, Dunsiger S, Ciccolo JT, Lewis BA, Albrecht AE, Marcus BH. Acute affective response to a moderate-intensity exercise stimulus predicts physical activity participation 6 and 12 months later. Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;9(3):231–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rhodes RE, Kates A. Can the affective response to exercise predict future motives and physical activity behavior? A systematic review of published evidence. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(5):715–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hackett DA, Cobley SP, Davies TB, Michael SW, Halaki M. Accuracy in estimating repetitions to failure during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(8):2162–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Zourdos MC, Goldsmith JA, Helms ER, Trepeck C, Halle JL, Mendez KM, et al. Proximity to failure and total repetitions performed in a set influences accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000002995(publish ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ormsbee MJ, Carzoli JP, Klemp A, Allman BR, Zourdos MC, Kim JS, et al. Efficacy of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion for the bench press in experienced and novice benchers. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(2):337–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Helms ER, Storey A, Cross MR, Brown SR, Lenetsky S, Ramsay H, et al. RPE and velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(2):292–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Steele J, Endres A, Fisher J, Gentil P, Giessing J. Ability to predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training experience. PeerJ. 2017;5:e4105.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Sylvan Adams Sports InstituteTel Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  3. 3.School of Psychological SciencesTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations