Rating of Perceived Effort: Methodological Concerns and Future Directions
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.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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.
- 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.Haile L, Gallagher M, Robertson RJ. Perceived exertion laboratory manual. New York: Springer; 2016.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.Borg G. Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign: Human kinetics; 1998.Google Scholar
- 31.Noble BJ. Perceived exertion. Champaign: Human kinetics; 1996. p. 115–7.Google Scholar
- 35.Marcora SM. Effort: perception of. In: Goldstein EB, editor. Encyclopedia of perception. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008. p. 380–3.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 65.Borg G. Physical performance and perceived exertion [dissertation]. Lund: Gleerup; 1962.Google Scholar
- 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.Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.Google Scholar
- 77.Cabanac M, Leblanc J. Physiological conflict in humans: fatigue vs. cold discomfort. Am J Physiol. 1983;244(5):621–8.Google Scholar
- 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