Concurrent validity and reliability of the session rating of perceived exertion scale among high-trained rower during training sessions.

Objective: In athlete monitoring, the use of subjective scales to assess training load is highly feasible and can serve as a valuable complement to objective method. However, the reliability and validity of subjective approaches remain unclear. This study investigated the relationship between session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) and both internal and external training load (TL) in professional rowers across various training sessions. Additionally, it evaluated the reliability and validity of sRPE method in different training courses. The study hypothesizes that the sRPE method will exhibit high reliability and validity across different rowing training sessions, particularly in ergometer training, where HR responses are more stable.

Methods: TL data were systematically collected over 12 consecutive months from 30 professional rowers, encompassing four distinct training modalities: explosive power training, endurance strength training, ergometer training and functional training. We quantified TL using multiple metrics, including Banister's Training Impulse (BTRIMP), sRPE, and total weight lifted. The reliability and validity of the sRPE scale across different training of rowers were assessed by test-retest reliability and criterion-related validity methods.

Results: The research collected 194 training sessions with effective data and included them in the final data analysis, and significant correlations were evident (r = 0.758, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.543 to 0.876; ICC = 0.755, 95% CI: 0.412 to 0.910) between both ergometer tests, demonstrating that the reliability of the sRPE scale was high in the measurement process; A significant correlation between TRIMP and sRPE_TL was observed in ergometer 6 km × 3 training (r = 0.811, p < 0.001), while this correlation was lowest in functional training(r = 0.258, 95%CI: -0.111 to 0.565); Bland-Altman plots were used to validate the consistency of the different methods, the results indicated good agreement between the different monitoring methods for both explosive power training and 10 min × 3 ergometer training(p>0.05), 93.4% and 98.6% of the observations fell within the 95% limits of agreement(-0.599 to 0.690 and - 0.533 to 0.577, respectively), a small number of observations lay outside the consistency boundary, indicating strong consistency between the two datasets.

Conclusions: The sRPE method demonstrated high feasibility and reliability across five typical rowing training sessions. Notably, the strongest concurrent validity with BTRIMP was observed during ergometer training. In contrast, weaker correlations were evident in strength and functional training sessions, potentially attributable to the disproportionate HR response characteristic of these training types. In further studies, the correlation of sRPE_TL with other measurements of TL needs to be investigated to further elucidate the complex interplay between subjective and objective TL measures.