Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of Rating of Perceived Exertion During Graded Exercise Testing in Apparently Healthy Adults and Cardiac Patients

Whaley, Mitchell H., Brubaker, Peter H., Kaminsky, Leonard A., Miller, Christopher R.·1997·Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1097/00008483-199707000-00007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Recent exercise guidelines recommend a generalized rating of perceived exertion (RPE) range of 12 to 16 (15-point Borg scale) as the perceptual range associated with a physiological training effect. However, whether an individual who selects an RPE within the generalized range during an graded exercise test or exercise training, is actually within the correlated physiological range (50 to 85% maximum oxygen consumption [VO2max]) has not been studied in large samples of apparently healthy individuals or cardiac patients. The purpose of the present study was to assess the validity of the generalized RPE recommendations in a large heterogeneous group of apparently healthy subjects and cardiac patients. Methods Subjects included apparently healthy adults (N = 463) and cardiac patients (N = 217) who presented for a sign-symptom limited maximal graded exercise test (SSLMGXT). Ratings of perceived exertion associated with relative exercise intensities of 60 and 80% of maximal heart rate reserve (MHRR) and peak exercise were selected for analyses. Results Significant interindividual variability in RPE was observed at both relative exercise intensities (6 to 20 RPE range at 60% MHRR; 8 to 20 RPE range at 80% MHRR) for both populations. Thirty-nine percent of healthy subjects and 32% of cardiac patients reported an RPE outside an 11 to 14 range at 60% of MHRR, whereas 32% of healthy subjects and 52% of cardiac patients reported an RPE outside of a 14 to 17 range at 80% of MHRR.…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00008483-199707000-00007

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Skinner, 1973, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 5, 94
  2. American College of Sports, 1990, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 22, 265
  3. Gutman, 1981, J Cardpulm Rehabil, 1, 52
  4. Chow, 1984, J Cardpulm Rehabil, 4, 382
  5. Bar-Or, 1972, Med Sci Sports, 4, 96
  6. Meyers, 1992, Chest, 101, 2305
  7. Pina, 1995, Circulation, 94, 857

Cited by

See all 67

Metadata

Authors
Whaley, M. H., Brubaker, P. H., Kaminsky, L. A., & Miller, C. R.
Venue
Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1997-07
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
261-267
ISSN
0883-9212
DOI
10.1097/00008483-199707000-00007
Cited by
67
References
22
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity of Rating of Perceived Exertion During Graded Exercise Testing in Apparently Healthy Adults and Cardiac Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00008483-199707000-00007
The paper
Whaley, M. H., Brubaker, P. H., Kaminsky, L. A., & Miller, C. R. (1997). Validity of Rating of Perceived Exertion During Graded Exercise Testing in Apparently Healthy Adults and Cardiac Patients. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008483-199707000-00007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.