Impact of Direction of Unloading Influence on Template Rate of Perceived Exertion

The Rating of Perceived Exertion-Pediatric (RPE-P) Scale: Preliminary Validation

Physical activity is critical to functional rehabilitation for youth with chronic pain, which may be especially true for those with co-occurring obesity. To facilitate the development of physical activity interventions for youth with chronic pain, the newly developed "Rating of Perceived Exertion-Pediatric" scale was modeled after the widely used pain numeric rating scale-11. This study is an initial evaluation of the scale in a sample of adolescents (n = 157, 13-17 years, 51% female) with four subgroups: (1) healthy controls (healthy weight/no pain); (2) chronic pain/healthy weight; (3) obese (no pain); (4) chronic pain/obese. Participants rated perceived exertion using the new scale and the Borg 6-20 Scale of Perceived Exertion while holding a three-minute yoga pose (Warrior II). In the whole sample, the Perceived Exertion-Pediatric scale showed good concurrent (p < 0.001), convergent (all ps < 0.05), discriminant (p = 0.431), and known-groups validity (all ps < 0.05). The chronic pain subgroup also showed good concurrent (p < 0.001), mixed convergent (ps < 0.001 to 0.315), and good discriminant validity (p = 0.607). Limitations include the restricted age range, lack of diversity, and lack of test-retest reliability. The RPE-P shows promise as an assessment tool for perceived exertion in adolescents with and without chronic pain.

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.