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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Further, the reliability of RPE has been questioned by Lamb et al. in which participants reported conflicting RPE values during two identical graded exercise tests (23).”
From Comparison of a Continuous and Discontinuous GXT on VO2 in Resistance-Trained and Endurance-Trained Males (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Atkinson, G., & Nevill, A. M. (1998) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.2165/00007256-199826040-00002 · Cited by 3,779
Nevill, A. M., & Atkinson, G. (1997) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsm.31.4.314 · Cited by 317
Central signals of perceived exertion during dynamic exercise
Robertson, R. J. (1982) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/00005768-198205000-00014 · Cited by 220
The validity and reliability of a rating scale of perceived exertion
Skinner, J. S., HUTSLER, E., Bergsteinova, V., & BUSKIRK, E. R. (1973) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/00005768-197300520-00018 · Cited by 204
Clinical applications of perceived exertion
Noble, B. J. (1982) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/00005768-198205000-00016 · Cited by 200
ADVANCES IN THE STUDY AND APPLICATION OF PERCEIVED EXERTION
PANDOLF, K. B. (1983) · Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews · doi:10.1249/00003677-198301000-00005 · Cited by 139
Validity and Reliability of Subjective Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Work
STAMFORD, B. A. (1976) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140137608931513 · Cited by 121
Eston, R. G., & Connolly, D. (1996) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.2165/00007256-199621030-00003 · Cited by 113
Self-citationWhaley, M. H., Brubaker, P. H., Kaminsky, L. A., & Miller, C. R. (1997) · Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/00008483-199707000-00007 · Cited by 67
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 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.
- 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.
- American College of Sports Medicine. Guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991.
- British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences. Position statement on the physiological assessment of the elite competitor. Leeds: White Line Press, 1988.
Cited by
Cerebral perturbations provoked by prolonged exercise
Nybo, L., & Secher, N. H. (2004) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2004.03.005 · Cited by 398
Bok, D., Rakovac, M., & Foster, C. (2022) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01690-3 · Cited by 89
Tillaar, R. V. D., Ball, N., & Torvik, P. Ø. (2025) · Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology · doi:10.3390/jfmk10020155 · Cited by 5
(2022) · International Journal of Exercise Science · doi:10.70252/nhay2400 · Cited by 3
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
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.