The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The aim of this review is to (1) retrieve all data validating the Session-rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-method using various criteria, (2) highlight the rationale of this method and its ecological usefulness, and (3) describe factors that can alter RPE and users of this method should take into consideration. Method: Search engines such as SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases in the English language between 2001 and 2016 were consulted for the validity and usefulness of the session-RPE method. Studies were considered for further analysis when they used the session-RPE method proposed by Foster at al. in 2001. Participants were athletes of any gender, age, or level of competition. Studies using languages other than English were excluded in the analysis of the validity and reliability of the session-RPE method. Other studies were examined to explain the rationale of the session-RPE method and the origin of RPE. Results: A total of 950 studies cited the Foster et al. study that proposed the session RPE-method. 36 studies have examined the validity and reliability of this proposed method using the modified CR-10. Conclusion: These studies confirmed the validity and good reliability and internal consistency of session-RPE method in several sports and physical activities with men and women of different age categories (children, adolescents, and adults) among various expertise levels. This method could be used as ‘’standing alone’’ method for training load monitoring purposes though some recommend to combine it with other physiological parameters as heart rate.
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.
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
Cited by
Rating of perceived effort: methodological concerns and future directions
Halperin, I., & Emanuel, A. (2020) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01229-z · Cited by 149
Osmani, F., Lago-Fuentes, C., Alemany-Iturriaga, J., & Barcala-Furelos, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2023.1155037 · Cited by 6
Banks, N. F., Rogers, E. M., Helwig, N. J., Schwager, L. E., Alpers, J. P., Schulte, S. L., Trachta, E. R., Lockwood, C. M., & Jenkins, N. D. M. (2024) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1080/15502783.2023.2297988 · Cited by 4
“Specifically, following each visit, participants were asked to report how hard they felt each visit was on a 0–10 scale, with 0 representing rest and 10 representing maximal effort [39].”
BackgroundSemiautomatic Training Load Determination in Endurance Athletes
Dausin, C., Ruiz-Carmona, S., De Bosscher, R., Janssens, K., Herbots, L., Heidbuchel, H., Hespel, P., Cornelissen, V., Willems, R., La Gerche, A., et al. (2023) · Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour · doi:10.1123/jmpb.2023-0016 · Cited by 3
Oreská, Ľ., Kundeková, B., Varga, L., Stebelová, K., Okuliarová, M., Payer, J., & Sedliak, M. (2026) · Sports · doi:10.3390/sports14030121
Metadata
- Authors
- Haddad, M., Stylianides, G., Djaoui, L., Dellal, A., & Chamari, K.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2017-11-02
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 612-612
- ISSN
- 1662-453X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2765584430
- Cited by
- 530
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fnins.2017.00612
- The paper
- Haddad, M., Stylianides, G., Djaoui, L., Dellal, A., & Chamari, K. (2017). Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors. Frontiers in Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00612
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.