Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 105

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability of ratings of perceived exertion during progressive treadmill exercise.

Lamb, K L, Eston, R G, Corns, D·1999·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the test-retest reliability (repeatability) of Borg's 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale using a more appropriate statistical technique than has been employed in previous investigations. The RPE scale is used widely in exercise science and sports medicine to monitor and/or prescribe levels of exercise intensity. The "95% limits of agreement" technique has recently been advocated as a better means of assessing within-subject (trial to trial) agreement than traditional indicators such as Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients. METHODS: Sixteen male athletes (mean (SD) age 23.6 (5.1) years) completed two identical multistage (incremental) treadmill running protocols over a period of two to five days. RPEs were requested and recorded during the final 15 seconds of each three minute stage. All subjects successfully completed at least four stages in each trial, allowing the reliability of RPE responses to be examined at each stage. RESULTS: The 95% limits of agreement (bias +/- 1.96 x SDdiff) were found to widen as exercise intensity increased: 0.88 (2.02) RPE units (stage 1), 0.25 (2.53) RPE units (stage 2), -0.13 (2.86) RPE units (stage 3), and -0.13 (2.94) RPE units (stage 4). Pearson correlations (0.81, 0.72, 0.65, and 0.60) and intraclass correlations (0.82, 0.80, 0.77, and 0.75) decreased as exercise intensity increased. CONCLUSIONS: These findings question the test-retest reliability of the RPE scale when used to monitor subjective estimates of exercise intensity in progressive (or graded) exercise tests.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsm.33.5.336

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Morgan WP, Borg GAV. Perception of eVort in the prescription of physical activity. In: Craig TT, ed. Humanistic and mental aspects of sports, exercise and recreation. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1976:126–9.
  2. Walker CAH, Lamb KL, Marriott HE. The validity of using ratings of perceived exertion to estimate and regulate exercise intensity during stepping ergometry. J Sports Sci 1996; 14:102–3.
  3. American College of Sports Medicine. Guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991.
  4. British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences. Position statement on the physiological assessment of the elite competitor. Leeds: White Line Press, 1988.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lamb, K. L., Eston, R. G., & Corns, D.
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-10
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
336-339
ISSN
  • 0306-3674
  • 1473-0480
Cited by
105
References
17
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: Reliability of ratings of perceived exertion during progressive treadmill exercise. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjsm.33.5.336
The paper
Lamb, K. L., Eston, R. G., & Corns, D. (1999). Reliability of ratings of perceived exertion during progressive treadmill exercise. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.33.5.336

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.