Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006: 16: 57–69                                                     COPYRIGHT & BLACKWELL MUNKSGAAR...
Borg & Kaijserthis scale has also had a follower, the CR100 (or                 psychological factors (Morgan, 1973, 1994;...
Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsoutput has been described in several ways (see, e.g.,                   ...
Borg & Kaijservisible to the subjects throughout the whole work         their perceived overall exertion. The test was int...
Three perceived exertion scales and two work tests                                                                 Study 1...
Borg & Kaijser                                        Women                                  Study 2                      ...
Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsTable 3. Mean values (m) and standard deviations (s) of the constants in...
Borg & KaijserTable 5. Mean values (m) and standard deviations (s) of the constants from eqn. [1] (for the measure constan...
Three perceived exertion scales and two work tests              22                                                 120    ...
Borg & KaijserBecause of the scale construction, an a-value of at       tained, n 5 1.42, was also very similar to what wa...
Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsdifferences in physical working capacity, in combina-        individual i...
Borg & Kaijserpreviously been found by Borg (1982b) for 30 s                       minute and short steps between power le...
Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsBorg G. A ratio scaling method for            Cafarelli E, Cain WS, Stev...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Borg, e e kaijser 2006 comparação de 3 escalas de percepçã


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Borg, e e kaijser 2006 comparação de 3 escalas de percepçã

  1. 1. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006: 16: 57–69 COPYRIGHT & BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD 2005Printed in Singapore . All rights reservedDOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00448.xA comparison between three rating scales for perceived exertionand two different work testsE. Borg1, L. Kaijser21 Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, SwedenCorresponding author: Elisabet Borg, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.Tel: 146 8 163850, Fax: 146 8 159342, E-mail: for publication 29 December 2004In the present article, three scales developed by Borg are tonously increasing functions that could be described bycompared on bicycle ergometer work. In the first study, power functions with a mean exponent of about 2.6comparing the Borg Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) (SD % 0.6) (with two additional constants included in theand Category scales with Ratio properties (CR10) scales, 40 power functions). In the second study, where also the morehealthy subjects (12 men and eight women for each scale) recently developed Borg CR100 scale (centiMax) waswith a mean age of about 30 years (SD % 6) participated. A included, 24 healthy subjects (12 men and 12 women) withwork-test protocol with step-wise increase of work loads a mean age of about 29 years (SD % 3) participated in aevery minute was used (20 W increase for men and 15 W for work test with a step-wise increase of work loads (25 W)women). Ratings and heart rates (HRs) were recorded every every third minute. Ratings and HRs were recorded. RPEminute and blood lactates every third minute. Data obtained values were described by linear regressions with individualwith the RPE scale were described with linear regressions, correlations of about 0.97. Data from the two CR scaleswith individual correlations of about 0.98. Data obtained were described by power functions with mean exponents ofwith the CR10 scale could also be described by linear about 1.4 (SD % 0.5) (with a-values in the power functions).regressions, but when described by power functions gave Mean individual correlations were about 0.98. In bothexponents of about 1.2 (SD % 0.4) (with one additional studies, a tendency for a deviation from linearity betweenconstant included in the power function). This was signifi- RPE values and HRs was observed. The obtained deviationscantly lower than the exponent of between 1.5 and 1.9 that from what has previously been obtained for work of longerhas previously been observed. Mean individual correlations duration (4–6 min) points to a need for standardization ofwere 0.98. Blood lactate concentration grew with mono- work-test protocols and to the advantage of using CR scales.Hundreds of studies every year show the value of for both perceptual and physiological variables, wasusing variables based on the psychological concept of proposed by Borg (1961, 1962):perceived exertion (Borg, 1962) as a complement to R ¼ a þ cðS À bÞn ½1Šphysiological variables in a wide range of areas inmedicine, ergonomics and sports (see, e.g., Mihevic, where c is a measure constant, n is the exponent, and1981; Noble, 1982; Pandolf, 1983; Carton & Rhodes, the constants a and b can describe the absolute1985; Noble & Robertson, 1996; Russel, 1997; Borg, threshold or the starting point of the function.1998; Buckworth & Dishman, 2002). Statistically, these can easily be obtained by fitting The psychophysical problem of relating physical a linear regression model to logarithms of raw datastimulus (S) and its perceived magnitude (R) to (because log(R–a) 5 log c1n log(S–b)).each other puts high demands on valid methods Borg’s (1961, 1962, 1998) range model with theand control of, for example, influences of instruction, assumption that the subjective range from a minimalexperimental design, rating behavior, context effects, to a maximal intensity (or at least the perception atetc. (see, e.g., Marks, 1994; Gescheider, 1997). Ac- maximum) may be set approximately equal for allcording to the theories developed by Stevens (1975) persons, provided the theory needed for the devel-direct responses on a ratio scale can be obtained by opment of a series of verbally level-anchored scalesusing techniques such as magnitude estimation, thus giving responses on an interval or ratio data level.allowing for use of metric statistics and enabling The most well known are the 6–20 RPE scale, fordescriptions of S–R functions. Resulting psychophy- Ratings of Perceived Exertion (Borg, 1970, 1985,sical relationships can be described mathematically 1998) and the 0–10 CR10 scale, a Category scaleby power functions. A general formulation, suitable with Ratio properties (Borg, 1982a, 1998). Recently 57
  2. 2. Borg & Kaijserthis scale has also had a follower, the CR100 (or psychological factors (Morgan, 1973, 1994; Weiser &‘‘centiMax’’ scale, giving ‘‘cM’’ values) (Borg & Stamper, 1977).Borg, 1994, 2001, 2002), see Fig. 1. There are several important physiological corre- The RPE scale was constructed to give data that lates for perceived exertion, two of these being HRgrow linearly with stimulus intensity, heart rates and blood lactate concentration ([La À ]). The ap-(HRs) and oxygen consumption for aerobic work proximately linear increase of HR with power closelyof steady-state character on a bicycle ergometer follows the oxygen demands in the muscles, and can(4–6 min). The linear growth function of RPE data be regarded as a good correlate for ‘‘central’’ factors.during an incremental work test has been confirmed in Lactate is produced in the muscles as a natural part ´several studies (see, e.g., Hassmen, 1991; Noble & of carbohydrate metabolism and has been suggestedRobertson, 1996; Borg, 1998). Data obtained with the to play a major role (even if not directly causal) inscale can thus preferably be described with linear muscle fatigue and pain experienced during exerciseregression models according to the following equation: (for a review, see, e.g., Miles & Clarkson, 1994). Lactate may thus be regarded as a good correlate for R ¼ a þ cS ½2Š some more ‘‘local’’ factors. The accumulation ofOn the CR10 scale, as well as on the more fine graded lactate in the blood has long been said to show thatCR100 (centiMax) scale, verbal anchors and num- anaerobic processes supplement aerobic productionbers are placed congruently to render ratio data that of adenosine triphosphate in the muscles. However,mimic what is obtained by magnitude estimation. some lactate seems to be produced in the musclesThe psychophysical growth function for overall per- also during fully aerobic conditions and, even at rest,ceived exertion on a bicycle ergometer has been [La À ] can be expected to be around 1 mM. A moredetermined by Borg (eqn. [1] with b 5 0) and the likely reason for blood lactate accumulation mayexponent found to be between 1.5 and 1.7 (see, e.g., therefore be that the production rate in the muscles isBorg, 1962, 1998). higher than the removal rate (see, e.g., Brooks, 1985; Already in his thesis Borg (1962) states that the ˚ Davis, 1985; Astrand & Rodahl, 1986, for a discus-concept of overall perceived exertion can be regarded sion of possible physiological reasons for lactateas a ‘‘Gestalt’’ made up of perceptions from several production).important cues. These may be physiologically ‘‘local’’ It has long been known that blood lactate starts tofactors, such as the skin, muscles, joints, and ‘‘cen- increase above a certain exercise level and then keepstral’’ factors, such as cardiovascular and pulmonary increasing as the exercise intensity is increased (Dou-organs (cp. Ekblom & Goldbarg, 1971), and also glas, 1927; Bang, 1936). The relationship with power 6 No exertion at all 0 Nothing at all Absolute maximum "No I" 7 0.3 Extremely light 0.5 Extremely weak Just noticeable 8 "Maximal" Max I 0.7 9 Very light 1 Very weak Light Extremely strong 10 1.5 Very strong 2 Weak 11 Light 2.5 12 3 Moderate Strong Heavy 4 13 Somewhat hard 5 Strong Heavy 14 6 Moderate 15 Hard (heavy) 7 Very strong 8 Weak Light 16 9 17 Very hard Very weak 10 Extremely strong "Strongest I" 18 11 Extremely weak Just noticeable "Minimum" 19 Extremely hard • Absolute maximum Highest possible Nothing at all 20 Maximal exertionFig. 1. Left: Borg RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion) scale (Borg, 1970, 1998, r G Borg); middle: Borg CR10 (CategoryRatio) scale (Borg, 1982a, 1998, r G Borg); and right: Borg centiMax (CR100) scale (Borg & Borg, 2002, r G Borg & EBorg).58
  3. 3. Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsoutput has been described in several ways (see, e.g., function for work tests with a shorter duration inBeaver et al., 1985; Keul et al., 1979; Hughson et al., the step-wise increase of physical power (1 and1987). Borg (1962) has, however, suggested that the 3 min). A comparison will also be made betweenbest description – according to the law of parsimony the Borg CR10 and Borg CR100 scales for the 3-– must be to use one monotonically increasing power min work test. Of interest are the psychophysicalfunction with at least one additional constant (eqn. functions obtained. The benefit of each scale will[1]). A power function also has advantages for the also be evaluated in comparison with physiologicalsake of comparison. Blood lactate exponents, ob- variables.tained by Borg (1962), Borg et al. (1985, 1987b,1989), Noble et al. (1983), have varied between 2.2and 3.5 for bicycle ergometer work. Method Clinically, an international agreement is lacking Study 1about what kind of work-test protocol should beused. The Sjostrand (1947) and Wahlund (1948) ¨ Forty subjects, 24 men and 16 women, participatedexercise test with 6 min at each load has been replaced in a work test to a voluntary maximum on a bicycleby protocols with shorter durations, e.g., in USA ergometer. All subjects were given a written and a3 min (e.g., Noble & Robertson, 1996), in Germany verbal information and signed an informed consent2 min (e.g., Lollgen, 2000), and in Sweden the popular ¨ to participate. The study had been approved by theuse of an increase of work load every minute (see, Karolinska Institute Ethics Committee. ˚e.g., Astrom & Jonsson, 1976; Nordenfelt et al., 1985; ¨ Subjects were divided into two groups of 12 menWallin & Brudin, 1988; Jorfeldt et al., 2003). and eight women in each group depending upon The kind of bicycle protocol mostly used in devel- which psychophysical method they were to use.oping the RPE scale has been work with a step-wise Individual data for the four groups of subjects areincrease of exercise levels every third to sixth minute. presented in Table 1. A commonly used measure-For determination of the general psychophysical ment of individual working capacity, the power levelgrowth function for perceived exertion with traditional at an HR of 170 b.p.m. (W170), is also includedratio scaling methods, work of shorter durations (obtained from individual HR–S functions, cp. Sjos-¨(perceived ‘‘pedal resistance’’ at 30–60 s of intermittent trand, 1947; Wahlund, 1948).work on randomized S levels) has sometimes been Subjects worked at an electrically braked bicycleused. This has been the case with the CR10 scale (see, ergometer (Rodby, Sodertalje, Sweden) and were ¨ ¨e.g., Borg, 1962, 1970, 1982a, 1998). In the develop- instructed to keep a pedaling rate of 60 r.p.m. Thement of the CR100 scale such randomized intermittent male subjects started at 20 W and work loads werework as well as incremental work of 3 min exercise at then increased by 20 W every minute, the femaleeach power level has been used, giving exponents subjects started at 15 W with a 15 W increase everybetween 1.6 and 1.9 (Borg & Borg, 1994, 2002). minute. Subjects were instructed to continue pedal- ing as long as they possibly could. During the lastPurpose 10 s of each work load, they were asked to give a rating of their perceived overall exertion. The psy-The aim of this article is a comparison between the chophysical methods used were the Borg RPE scalenow commonly used rating scales for perception of and the Borg CR10 scale presented in Fig. 1 (see alsoexertion, viz., the Borg RPE scale and the Borg CR10 Table 1). An instruction was read to the subjects atscale. It is of interest to study how these scales the beginning of the experiment and the scales wereTable 1. Mean values (m) and standard deviations (s) for age, height, weight, and estimated working capacity (W170) for the subjects in Study 1 andStudy 2Group (N) Age (years) Height (cm) Weight (kg) W170 (W) m s m s m s m sStudy 1 Men, RPE (12) 30.1 4.7 180.2 7.3 79.7 11.9 269.4 31.0 Men, CR10 (12) 32.1 5.8 182.2 6.2 80.4 8.9 275.4 44.7 Women, RPE (8) 29.4 5.9 167.8 9.6 70.5 12.4 181.1 43.1 Women, CR10 (8) 30.8 6.2 169.1 9.5 64.0 7.8 174.3 35.3Study 2 Men (12) 29.2 3.2 180.5 6.4 72.5 5.6 200.3 48.8 Women (12) 28.8 2.7 168.2 5.3 58.4 5.6 147.0 28.3RPE, Ratings of Perceived Exertion; CR, Category Ratio. 59
  4. 4. Borg & Kaijservisible to the subjects throughout the whole work their perceived overall exertion. The test was inter-test. HRs were first measured when the subjects were rupted when subjects gave ratings above 7 on thesitting on the bicycle ergometer without pedaling, CR10 scale or above 17 on the RPE scale, or if theand then continuously throughout the work test by subject obtained an HR of above 170 b.p.m. (cor-electrocardiometry. [La À ]’s were obtained at rest responding roughly to about the same degree of(sitting on the ergometer) and for men at 20 W and exertion). HRs were measured at the end of eachat 60 W, and for women at 30 W, and then at every work load by an HR micro-computer (Polar Favor,third stimulus level, as well as at the terminal level. Kempele, Finland).[La À ]’s were obtained through an Accusport LactateInstrument (Boehringer, Mannheim, Germany). If a subject stopped working without finishing the Resultsfull minute at the terminal level, the time spent was General resultsnoted and an interpolation of the corresponding S-value was calculated. One extrapolation was done in Study 2 for one subject with the CR10 scale by using the individual power function for the ratings and the individualStudy 2 linear regression relationship for HR. This was doneTwenty-four subjects, 12 men and 12 women, parti- in order to obtain an equal number of data pointscipated in a sub-maximal work test on a bicycle with all three scales for this subject.ergometer. All subjects were given written and verbal Individual results with ratings and physiologicalinformation and signed an informed consent to responses plotted as a function of stimulus intensityparticipate. The study had been approved by the are shown in Fig. 2 (Study 1) and Fig. 3 (Study 2).Karolinska Institute Ethics Committee. In psychophysical studies, aggregated data are Subjects were divided into two groups (A and B) traditionally used when the purpose is to describewith six men and six women in each group. Indivi- general S–R functions. Because of large individualdual data for the subjects are presented in Table 1, differences in working capacity there is, however, atogether with W170. In Study 2, HRs were measured large individual difference in stimulus ranges andon two occasions, giving two W170-values for each number of data points. Because the functions areindividual. Because these were very highly inter- monotonic, usually only stimulus levels in commoncorrelated (rxy 5 0.945) and only differed by one- to all subjects are utilized. In this article, it washalf heart beat (NS, t23 5 0.14, P 5 0.89), the value instead decided to use mean values of individualin Table 1 is the average W170 from the two repeti- functions to estimate the parameters of the generaltions. S–R functions. The same was done for the physiolo- The psychophysical methods used were the Borg gical variables.RPE scale, and the Borg CR10 and CR100 scalespresented in Fig. 1. Instructions on how to adminis-ter the scales were read to the subjects at the begin- Perceptual variablesning of the experiment. Group A used the RPE and For the RPE scale, linear regression of raw valuesCR100 scales on the first session. The RPE scale was (eqn. [2]) for each individual was used to describe thevisible to the subject during the entire experiment. S–R functions. For the CR scales, linear regressionThe CR100 scale was shown to the subject in a way of log values, power functions (eqn. [1], with b 5 0)such that both scales could not be viewed simulta- for each individual were used. Mean values andneously, and always after ratings had been made on standard deviations for obtained constants as wellthe RPE scale. Group B used the CR10 scale at the as for the best-fit correlation are presented in Tablesfirst session. The scale was visible to the subject 2 and 3.during the entire work test. At a second session, The mean intercept (a) with the RPE scale in Studyscales were shifted (Group A used the CR10 scale 1 was 7.6 for men and 7.0 for women, and the meanand Group B the RPE and CR100 scales). All slope (c) was 0.039 for men and 0.066 for women.subjects came back for the second session about The mean best-fit correlation was about rxy 5 0.982–3 weeks after the first occasion to repeat the (0.935–0.994). For Study 2, the mean intercept (a)work test with the other method. Subjects worked was 8.3 for men and 8.2 for women and the meanat an electrically braked bicycle ergometer (Rodby) slope (c) was 0.049 for men and 0.066 for women.and were instructed to keep a pedaling rate of The mean best-fit correlation was rxy 5 0.97 (0.906–60 r.p.m. For the male as well as female subjects 0.995). An unpaired t-test showed that the differencework loads were increased by 25 W every third in slope between men and women was significantminute (starting at 25 W). During the last 10 s of for Study 1 (t18 5 À 5.0, Po0.0001) and Study 2each work load, they were asked to give a rating of (t22 5 À 3.1, Po0.01).60
  5. 5. Three perceived exertion scales and two work tests Study 1 Women Men Women Men 12 20 10 18 8 R (CR10) 16 R (RPE) 6 14 12 4 10 2 8 0 6 200 200 HR (bpm) HR (bpm) 150 150 100 100 50 50 12 12 10 10 8 8 [La− ] [La− ] 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 S (W) S (W) S (W) S (W)Fig. 2. Study 1: left six panels, the Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) group, with RPE values (top), heart rate (HR) values(middle), and [La À ] values (bottom), for women (N 5 8) and men (N 5 12). Right six panels, the Category Ratio (CR)10group, with CR10 values (top), HR values (middle), and [La À ] values (bottom), for women (N 5 8) and men (N 5 12). When no a-values were used in the power law, the (s 5 0.35) without an a-value, and n 5 1.12 (s 5 0.21)mean exponent obtained with the CR10 scale in with an a-value in the power equation. For the maleStudy 1 was n 5 1.21 (men) and n 5 0.81 (women). group, the mean exponent was n 5 1.06 (s 5 0.37)An unpaired t-test showed that the difference in without an a-value, and n 5 1.17 (s 5 0.23) with an a-exponents between men and women was not signifi- value in the power equation.cant (t18 5 1.7, P 5 0.11). For the CR10 scale, an a- In Study 2, the mean exponent obtained withoutvalue in the power law gave a higher best-fit correla- an a-value in the power law was, with the CR10 scale:tion for 12 subjects. A mean a-value of about 0.6 (6% n 5 0.92 (men) and n 5 1.06 (women); and with theof the total subjective range) was obtained for the CR100 scale: n 5 1.02 (men) and n 5 1.10 (women).total group (no limits were imposed on the a-values). For the CR10 scale, an a-value in the power law gaveWith an a-value included, the mean exponent ob- a higher best-fit correlation for 20 subjects. A meantained was n 5 1.20 for the total group, n 5 1.30 for a-value of about 0.7 (7% of the total subjectivemen and n 5 1.05 for women. The difference in range) was obtained for the total group. With an a-exponents between men and women was not signifi- value included, the mean exponent was n 5 1.36 forcant (t18 5 1.3, P 5 0.20). The total mean exponent of men and n 5 1.49 for women. The mean best-fitn 5 1.20 was significantly lower than a predicted correlation was about rxy 5 0.99 (0.982–0.999). Forexponent of at least 1.5 (P 0.001). The mean the CR100 scale, an a-value in the power law gave abest-fit correlation was about rxy 5 0.98 (0.938– higher best-fit correlation for 12 subjects. A mean a-0.998). It was found that one man (subject 39) with value of about 3 (3% of the total range) was obtainedan exponent of n42.8 (no need for an a-value) highly for the total group. The mean exponent was then, forcontributed to the higher exponent for men. When he men n 5 1.23 and for women n 5 1.47. The meanwas excluded, the total mean exponent was n 5 0.95 best-fit correlation was about rxy 5 0.98 (0.917– 61
  6. 6. Borg & Kaijser Women Study 2 Men 20 20 18 18 16 16R (RPE) R (RPE) 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 120 12 120 12 100 10 100 10R (CR100) R (CR100) R (CR10) R (CR10) 80 8 80 8 60 6 60 6 40 4 40 4 20 2 20 2 0 0 0 0 200 200HR (bpm) HR (bpm) 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 S (W) S (W) S (W) S (W)Fig. 3. Study 2: left five panels, women (N 5 12) with Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) values (top), Category Ratio (CR)values (middle), and heart rate (HR) values (bottom). Right five panels, men (N 5 12) with RPE values (top), CR values(middle), and HR values (bottom).Table 2. Mean values (m) and standard deviations (s) of the constants differences in exponents for men and womenfrom eqn. [2] relating R to S for the RPE scale, based on individual ( À 0.6 t22 À 1.4). The obtained mean exponentfunctions for the subjects of Study 1 and Study 2 for the total groups was not significantly lower than aGroup (N) a c rxy predicted exponent of at least 1.5 (P40.5). An independent samples t-test was computed for m s m s m s the differences in exponents with the CR10 scale between Study 1 and Study 2. The mean differenceStudy 1 Total (20) 7.4 1.7 0.050 0.018 0.980 0.013 obtained, À 0.15, was not significant (t42 5 À 1.14, Men (12) 7.6 1.8 0.039 0.009 0.982 0.009 P 5 0.26), unless the one subject in Study 1 with an Women (8) 7.0 1.7 0.066 0.016 0.976 0.018 exponent exceeding n 5 2.8 was excluded, then theStudy 2 mean difference, À 0.24, was significant (t41 5 À 2.14, Total (24) 8.2 1.7 0.058 0.015 0.970 0.023 P 0.05). Men (12) 8.3 1.5 0.049 0.007 0.971 0.018 For Study 1, split-half functions were calculated Women (12) 8.2 1.8 0.066 0.017 0.969 0.027 to estimate the reliability of individual S–R func-RPE, Ratings of Perceived Exertion. tions. Reliability coefficients, rxx, were calculated as well as estimations of measurement errors, se p (rxx ¼ð2rxx1=2 Þ=ð1 þ 2rxx1=2 Þ; se ¼ sx ð1 À rxx Þ). For0.999). No limits were imposed on the a-values. A the RPE scale intercept (a) rxx 5 0.97 (se 5 0.29) andpaired t-test showed that the difference observed for the slope (c) rxx 5 0.98 (se 5 0.0023). For thebetween exponents obtained with the CR10 and the CR10 scale measure constant (c) rxx 5 0.91CR100 scales was not significant (without an a-value: (se 5 0.012) and for the exponent (n) rxx 5 0.95mean difference 5 À 0.072, t23 5 À 1.0, P 5 0.33; (se 5 0.097) (with individual a-values used). Measure-with an a-value: mean difference 5 0.074, t23 5 0.7, ment errors for RPE mean slope and mean interceptP 5 0.47). Unpaired t-tests showed no significant were approximately 4% and approximately 8% for62
  7. 7. Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsTable 3. Mean values (m) and standard deviations (s) of the constants in Table 4. Mean values (m) and standard deviations (s) of the constantseqn. [1] (for the measure constant also the geometric mean (gm)) from eqn. [2] relating HR to S, based on individual functions for therelating R to S for the CR scales, based on individual functions for the subjects in Study 1 and Study 2subjects of Study 1 and Study 2 Group (N) a c rxyGroup (N) a c n rxy m s m s m s m s m s gm m s m s Study 1Study 1, CR10 Total, RPE (20) 76.6 9.6 0.42 0.10 0.993 0.004 Total (20) – – 0.119 0.156 0.025 1.05 0.54 0.969 0.026 Total, CR10 (20) 71.8 11.8 0.45 0.12 0.992 0.005 0.6 0.7 0.032 0.041 0.010 1.20 0.44 0.982 0.014 Men, RPE (12) 74.2 8.8 0.36 0.05 0.994 0.003 Men (12) – – 0.060 0.072 0.009 1.21 0.62 0.973 0.017 Men, CR10 (12) 69.3 13.4 0.37 0.07 0.991 0.006 0.4 0.6 0.022 0.038 0.005 1.30 0.53 0.982 0.017 Women, RPE (8) 80.1 10.1 0.51 0.08 0.990 0.004 Women (8) – – 0.207 0.208 0.126 0.81 0.27 0.965 0.036 Women, CR10 (8) 75.7 8.4 0.56 0.10 0.993 0.003 0.8 0.9 0.047 0.043 0.030 1.05 0.17 0.982 0.011 Study 2Study 2, CR10 Total, RPE (24) 73.5 9.9 0.59 0.13 0.991 0.007 Total (24) – – 0.103 0.118 0.042 0.99 0.32 0.984 0.014 Total, CR10 (24) 77.0 9.8 0.57 0.13 0.991 0.008 0.7 0.6 0.032 0.069 0.004 1.43 0.51 0.994 0.004 Men, RPE (12) 70.2 8.3 0.52 0.12 0.988 0.009 Men (12) – – 0.117 0.135 0.034 0.92 0.30 0.984 0.016 Men, CR10 (12) 76.6 11.3 0.48 0.10 0.987 0.010 0.6 0.7 0.035 0.088 0.004 1.36 0.44 0.995 0.005 Women, RPE (12) 76.9 10.6 0.65 0.12 0.994 0.002 Women (12) – – 0.089 0.104 0.051 1.06 0.34 0.984 0.014 Women, CR10 (12) 77.4 8.5 0.65 0.11 0.995 0.002 0.7 0.7 0.028 0.045 0.005 1.49 0.59 0.994 0.004Study 2, CR100 HR, heart rate; RPE, Ratings of Perceived Exertion; CR, Category Ratio. Total (24) – – 0.48 0.56 0.242 1.06 0.28 0.974 0.023 3.1 4.3 0.24 0.37 0.055 1.35 0.44 0.982 0.018 0.48 (men, CR10) and 0.65 (women, CR10). The Men (12) – – 0.43 0.45 0.239 1.02 0.23 0.977 0.021 1.5 5.3 0.36 0.48 0.036 1.23 0.45 0.983 0.010 mean best-fit correlation was about rxy 5 0.99 Women (12) – – 0.53 0.67 0.245 1.10 0.32 0.970 0.026 (0.964–0.999). Unpaired t-tests showed that the dif- 4.8 2.3 0.12 0.15 0.083 1.47 0.41 0.981 0.024 ferences in slope between men and women were significant for Study 1 (t18 À 4.9, P 0.0001,CR, Category Ratio. both groups) as well as Study 2 (2.7 t22 3.8, P 0.05).CR10 mean exponents. When the subject with an In estimation experiments, an error in the expo-exponent exceeding n 5 2.8 was excluded, measure- nent may be expected because of regression effectsment errors for the CR10 mean exponents were that will lower the exponent somewhat as comparedapproximately 5%. The measure constant in the with a ‘‘true’’ exponent. The effect of this error canpower function is very positively skewed for why be estimated as was done by Bauman et al. (2004), asmeasurement error of log c may be more appropriate. n 0 5 n  rxy. This was done for the exponents ob-For log c, rxx 5 0.96 (se 5 0.25) and the measurement tained with the CR10 and CR100 scales. The relativeerror, approximately 7% of the mean. For Study 2, mean size of this error (computed as ((n À n 0 )/n) was,there were too few data points to enable this compu- for the CR10 scale, 1.8% (Study 1) and 0.6% (Studytation. 2), and for the CR100 scale, it was 1.8%. For [La À ] (measured only in Study 1), linear regression for log values, power functions (eqn. [1],Physiological variables with a- and b-values) were calculated for each in-For HR, linear regressions (eqn. [2]) were calculated dividual. To iteratively decide upon the best combi-for each individual. The results are presented in nation of a- and b-value, the a-value was chosen soTable 4. that ao[La À ]b mM and the b-value was chosen from For the group in Study 1 that used the RPE scale, below where the lactate function started to growthe mean intercept (a) was 74.2 b.p.m. for men and rapidly because of the additional work (because at80.1 b.p.m. for women, and the mean slope (c) was low work levels, the production rate in the muscles0.36 for men and 0.51 for women. The mean best- equals the removal rate). The results are presented infit correlation was about rxy 5 0.99 (0.984–0.997). Table 5. The mean a-values obtained were betweenFor the group that used the CR10 scale, the mean 1.2 and 1.6 mM. When b-values were used (for 35intercept (a) was 69.3 b.p.m. for men and 75.7 b.p.m. subjects), the mean b-values ranged from about 30 tofor women. The mean slope (c) was 0.37 for men and about 60 W. Obtained mean exponents were between0.56 for women, and the mean best-fit correlation 2.3 and 2.9. Mean values of the best-fit correlationswas about rxy 5 0.99 (0.979–0.996). For the HRs were about rxy 5 0.98–0.99 (individual values rangingobtained in Study 2, the mean intercept (a) was from 0.893 to 0.999).between 70.2 b.p.m. (men, RPE) and 77.4 b.p.m. For Study 1, split-half functions were calculated to(women, CR10), and the mean slope (b) was between estimate the reliability of individual S–HR functions. 63
  8. 8. Borg & KaijserTable 5. Mean values (m) and standard deviations (s) of the constants from eqn. [1] (for the measure constant also the geometric mean (gm)) relating[La À ] to S, based on individual functions for the four groups of subjects of Study 1Group (N) a b c n rxy m s m s m s gm m s m sTotal, RPE (20) 1.4 0.5 49.0 29.7 6.4E À 5 1.9E À 4 4.5E À 6 2.59 0.46 0.983 0.019Total, CR10 (20) 1.3 0.2 43.5 23.6 7.0E À 4 2.5E À 3 7.2E À 6 2.53 0.71 0.986 0.023Men, RPE (12) 1.6 0.5 61.7 21.8 2.9E À 5 8.7E À 5 1.7E À 6 2.72 0.46 0.981 0.022Men, CR10 (12) 1.3 0.3 45.0 22.8 1.2E À 3 3.2E À 3 1.8E À 5 2.29 0.71 0.981 0.029Women, RPE (8) 1.2 0.4 30.0 31.1 1.2E À 4 2.8E À 4 1.9E À 5 2.41 0.41 0.988 0.014Women, CR10 (8) 1.4 0.2 41.3 26.3 7.1E À 6 6.8E À 6 1.8E À 6 2.89 0.58 0.992 0.005RPE, Ratings of Perceived Exertion; CR, Category Ratio. 22 12 Man 20 10 Kvinna 18 8 16 R (CR10)R (RPE) 14 6 12 4 10 Man Fig. 4. Psychophysical scale values 2 8 Kvinna plotted against heart rate (HR) va- lues for Study 1. Left panel: Ratings 6 0 of Perceived Exertion (RPE) group 60 100 140 180 220 60 100 140 180 220 (N 5 8112), right panel: Category HR (bpm) HR (bpm) Ratio (CR)10 group (N 5 8112).Reliability coefficients, rxx, were calculated as well as the CR10 scale, CR10 5 À 5.1010.075 Â HR (rxy 5estimations of measurement errors, se. For the HR 0.881). Obtained power functions were RPE 5 0.821intercept, (a) rxx were 0.97 for the RPE group (HR À 50)0.64 (rxy 5 0.897) and for the CR10 scale,(se 5 1.80) and 0.98 for the CR10 group (se 5 1.73) CR10 5 2.19 Â 10 À 5 Â HR2.49 (rxy 5 0.815).and for the slope, (c) rxx were 0.98 for the RPE group Figure 5 shows individual ratings with the three(se 5 0.013) and 0.99 for the CR10 group scales in Study 2 as functions of HRs. Because(se 5 0.0089). Measurement errors for mean HR unpaired t-tests showed that there were no significantslopes and intercepts were approximately 2–3%. differences between men and women either forFor [La À ] as well as for HRs in Study 2, there HRs or for any of the subjective responseswere too few data points to enable this computation. ( À 0.4 t159 1.4), as well as because the assump- Figure 4 shows ratings as functions of HRs for tion could be made that the subjective dynamicmen and women and the two scales in Study 1. ranges were approximately equal for all subjects,Because the subjects worked on the bicycle ergometer group functions were calculated for the total datauntil a voluntary maximum was reached, the varia- set without using aggregated data. Linear regressionstion in HR (on the x-axis) closely represented a of raw data (eqn. [2]) as well as power functionssimilar HR range (and in this case the total HR (eqn. [1]) were used. For the RPE scale, eqn. [2] gaverange) for each subject. Unpaired t-tests showed that RPE 5 2.7210.085 Â HR (rxy 5 0.850), for the CR10there where no significant differences between men scale, CR10 5 À 4.2510.063 Â HR (rxy 5 0.846)and women for HRs or for any of the subjective and for the CR100 scale, CR100 5 À 36.161responses (t286 À 1.2 for the RPE group and 0.529 Â HR (rxy 5 0.857). When power functionst296 À 0.8 for the CR10 group). Thus, group (eqn. [1]) were applied, the relationships obtainedfunctions could be calculated including all stimulus were: RPE 5 2.95 (HR À 65)0.38 (rxy 5 0.855);levels (despite a difference in stimulus range among CR10 5 3.55 Â 10 À 3 (HR À 45)1.56 (rxy 5 0.793);subjects). It was also decided not to use aggregated and CR100 5 0.474 (HR À 70)1.02 (rxy 5 0.862).data. Both linear regressions of raw data (eqn. [2]) as To study how the physiological variables contrib-well as of logarithmic data (eqn. [1]) were used. For uted to the ratings given with the two scales in Studythe RPE scale, eqn. [2] gave for the total group 1, a step-wise regression with the three independentRPE 5 À 0.05710.104 Â HR (rxy 5 0.899) and for variables entering the regression (S, HR, [La À ]) was64
  9. 9. Three perceived exertion scales and two work tests 22 120 12 Man Man 20 100 Kvinna 10 Kvinna 18 80 8 R (CR100) R (CR10) 16 R (RPE) 14 60 6 12 40 4 10 Man 20 2 8 Kvinna 6 0 0 60 100 140 180 220 60 100 140 180 220 60 100 140 180 220 HR (bpm) HR (bpm) HR (bpm)Fig. 5. Psychophysical scale values plotted against heart rate (HR) values for Study 2. Left panel, Ratings of PerceivedExertion (RPE) values; middle panel, Category Ratio (CR)100 values; and right panel, CR10 values (N 5 12112).run. A forward solution with F-to-enter 5 4.000 was 36%, and 14%, respectively, and within segment (C),chosen. With ratings according to the RPE scale, 30%, 20%, and 16%.only HR entered into the equation explaining 85.6%of the total variance (F1,118 5 700.2). For the CR10scale, HR and [La À ] entered into the equation. HR Discussionalone explained 83.5% of the variance (F1,116 5588.7), and HR together with [La À ] explained The different groups of subjects used in the studies85.5% of the variance (F2,115 5 338.4). were comparable, as regards height and weight, to a normal Swedish population of the corresponding age group (men: height 5 181 cm and weight 5 81 kg;Scale comparisons women: height 5 167 cm and weight 5 65 kg, Statis-To further compare the CR10 and CR100 scales, the tics Sweden, 2002). The subjects used in Study 2subjective ranges used during the work (Rterminal/R1) had, however, a lower physical working capacity, aswere calculated for each individual in Study 2. The measured by W170, compared with those in Study 1.mean and standard deviations obtained were, for the This is, however, more likely a result of the differ-CR10 scale: 7.2 (3.7); and for the CR100 scale: 9.3 ences between the two test protocols because the(6.1). A paired t-test showed that this difference was effort needed (the total energy used) depends on bothnot significant, t23 5 À 1.6 (P 5 0.13). the power output and the time spent exercising, The number of responses given at the precise especially on higher power levels. The difference innumbers of the verbal expressions were compared working capacity between men and women, femalewith the total number of responses given with each subjects having a working capacity of 65% and 75%scale. With the CR10 scale, 34% (Study 1) and 37% of that of male subjects, is the difference usually(Study 2) of given responses were numbers from the ˚ found (Astrand & Rohdal, 1986).exact location of the verbal expressions, to be com- The purpose of this article was mainly to comparepared with 25% for the CR100 scale (Study 2). the three methods used with regard to general psy- The scales were then divided into three segments: chophysical group functions. In psychophysical stu-(A) bottom of scale to ‘‘weak’’ (weak being in- dies, aggregated data are traditionally used whencluded); (B) from just above ‘‘weak’’ to ‘‘strong’’; determining general S–R functions. In this article,(C) from just above strong to top of scale. Within however, individual functions were used. The reasonsegment (A) 22% (Study 1) and 33% (Study 2) of the for this was primarily differences in individual work-total answers with the CR10 scale, and 30% with the ing capacity and a desire to be able to use allCR100 scale were given. Within segment (B) 41% individual data points. Thus, individual differences(Study 1) and 43% (Study 2) of the total answers will not be discussed in this article.with the CR10 scale and 54% with the CR100 scale Because the RPE scale was constructed to fulfillwere given. And, finally, within segment (C), the the requirements of an interval scale, linear regres-corresponding figures were 37%, 24%, and 18%, sion of raw data was used to describe the S–Rrespectively. functions. Very high and significant correlations Within segment (A) 53%, 52%, and 52% of were found for Study 1 as well as for Study 2. Highernumbers chosen from each scale, respectively, corre- slopes were obtained for women than for men in bothsponded to the exact numbers at the verbal expres- experiments, indicating a lower functional capacitysions. Within segment (B), the figures were 27%, in the female groups compared with the male groups. 65
  10. 10. Borg & KaijserBecause of the scale construction, an a-value of at tained, n 5 1.42, was also very similar to what wasleast 6 can be expected for the RPE scale. In this obtained with the CR100 scale in the present, the mean a-values obtained, giving the best-fit For the a-value, a couple of different explanationscorrelations, were between 7.0 and 8.2. This can be can be given. First, it might be regarded as mainly ainterpreted as the existence of a basic noise corre- mathematical constant, needed because of somesponding to an ‘‘extremely light’’ exertion in the deviation from a ‘‘true’’ ratio scale. However, be-muscles and circulatory system. The intercepts (a- cause an a-value has also been obtained with suchvalues) and slopes (c-values) obtained coincide well ratio-scaling methods as, e.g., absolute magnitudewith what has previously been found, e.g., a 5 6, estimation (Borg & Borg, 2002) and ratio estimationc 5 0.047, male subjects (Borg et al., 1987b), (Borg, 1972), physiological and psychological/cogni-and a 5 7.6, c 5 0.048, male subjects (Borg et al., tive reasons are more likely. It is not at all strange to1987a). assume a basic background perception from the Because of their special construction, data ob- muscles even at complete rest. A good explanationtained with the CR scales can be interpreted as ratio is thus that the a-value should be regarded as adata. In both experiments, power functions could genuine basic constant corresponding to a sum ofsuccessfully be used to describe the S–R relation- the background noise from the muscles and theships. Higher best-fit correlations and mean expo- perception of exertion when pedaling the prescribednents between 1.05 and 1.49 were obtained when a- time at zero watts. This latter assumption was testedvalues were included in the power functions (eqn. in a study by Cafarelli et al. (1977) who concluded[1]). For work tests of longer duration, exponents of that ‘‘the additive constant does in fact seem toabout 1.5–2 have been obtained (see, e.g., Noble reflect the effort of pedaling against no load’’. Thiset al., 1983; Borg et al., 1985, 1987a, b; Borg, 1998; is also a good motivation for why one should notBorg & Borg, 2002). For Study 1 (especially with one limit the size of the individual a-value.outlier excluded), the difference was significant. With As is seen in Figs 2 and 3, HR values at low powerthis subject excluded, a significant difference was also levels may be elevated for other reasons than theobtained for the CR10 exponents between Study 1 physical work (e.g., emotional reasons, nervousness,and Study 2. etc.). If, for example, a correlation is computed In a study by Bauman et al. (2004), an error in the between individual HRs obtained at the two sessionsexponent because of regression effect was judged to in Study 2, a correlation of rxy 5 0.50 (P 0.05) isbe of no consequence for correlations above 0.82. In obtained for the lowest level, quickly rising to athis article, all individual correlations with the CR correlation of rxy 5 0.82 (Prxy 5 0.94 (Po0.001) atscales were above 0.90 and the resulting errors less the fifth. This insecurity at low levels will, however,than 2%. affect the RPE–HR relationship at lower levels con- When no a-values were used, power function tributing to the negatively accelerating function ob-exponents were close to one (0.8 n 1.10) suggest- tained between RPE and HR (n 5 0.64, Study 1;ing that the use of eqn. [2] would be sufficient. One n 5 0.38, Study 2). (this can also be seen from Figsreason, however, to continue using power functions 4 and 5 for some subjects). When it is of importancefor CR10 data is the relationship with HR. The to make extrapolations (e.g., to use RPE 5 20 todifferences in the R–HR relationships between the obtain an estimate of maximal HR that can in turnRPE and CR scales would be lost, if only linear be used to obtain an estimate of maximal workingregressions of raw data were to be used. A positively capacity), it may be more relevant to use data fromaccelerating power function will also do better justice RPE % 11 upward. Not doing so may induce error into higher values on the scale. This is important, the estimation of the individual working capacity.especially when estimations of a maximal or For healthy subjects, this usually implies no risk, but‘‘peak’’ performance is of interest. it may for different groups of patients. For the same The mean a-value was about 6–7% of the available reason, the relationship to the CR scales below thenumber range for the CR10 scale and about 3% for level ‘‘weak’’ (2 on the CR10 or 13 on the CR100)the CR100 (cM) scale. This corresponded to a level may be less reliable, and if this is found to be thejust above an ‘‘extremely weak’’ intensity, which is in case (the individual differences may be large in thisgood agreement with the 4–7% that has previously regard), one may want to exclude lower values.been obtained (Noble et al., 1983; Borg et al., 1985, HRs were described by linear regressions of raw1987b; Borg & Borg, 2002). This can also be com- data with very high best-fit correlations. The twopared with what was obtained by (1972) for ratio male groups had slightly lower intercepts and lowerestimation (percentage of the conception of maximal slopes than the female groups, showing that maleexertion, work on a bicycle ergometer with 50 W subjects, not surprisingly, had a higher functionalincrease every fourth minute) where the mean a-value capacity than female subjects. The differences inwas 3.6%. In this study, the mean exponent ob- slopes between the two studies are likely because of66
  11. 11. Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsdifferences in physical working capacity, in combina- individual interpretation of data. Sometimes it istion with differences in work-test protocols. For also of interest to make simultaneous ratings of otherStudy 2, it does, however, look as if HRs for some perceptions than effort and exertion (e.g., of otherindividuals follow a slightly positively accelerating symptoms, such as breathlessness and pain, or evengrowth function with power output even when the of other sensory modalities and/or emotional, andfirst one or two data points are omitted (Figs 2 and other, components). Then, the general CR scales are3). This further contributes to the negatively accel- needed.erating RPE–HR relationship in Study 2 (see Fig. 4). A drawback with the RPE scale is also (as with For Study 1, split-half reliability could be calcu- ordinal scales) that it is a closed scale with a risk oflated and measurement errors estimated. Reliability some truncation at the end values of the scale. As cancoefficients were very high (0.91–0.99) for both be seen from Fig. 2, some individuals used the ratingpsychophysical ratings and for HRs. This shows ‘‘20’’ more than ones. This has been taken care of inthat subjective ratings, according to the Borg RPE the CR scales by opening up the bottom and upperand CR10 scales, give reliable measurements similar parts, allowing for the use of decimals as well asto those obtained with HR. Measurement errors values above the printed figures (above 10 on thewere slightly higher for psychological than for phy- CR10 scale and above 100 on the CR100 scale). Assiological variables. This is not surprising because a can be seen from Fig. 2, a couple of individuals usedlarger individual variation should be expected with this possibility.psychological measurements. The calculations were The tendency of using primarily the numbers at thedone for Study 1, but it is reasonable to assume that exact locations of the verbal anchors was a little lessthis holds for ratings in Study 2 as well. with the CR100 scale (25% compared with 34% and Blood lactates could be described by general psy- 37% for the CR10 scale). The CR100 scale can thuschophysical power functions with two basic con- be said to meet with the demand of being a more fine-stants (eqn. [1]). The a-value, varying around 1.4, graded scale than the CR10 scale.can be thought of as a basic value of [La À ] in the There was no significant difference in exponentsblood when the metabolism is in equilibrium (pro- between the CR10 and CR100 scales, confirming thatduction rate equals removal rate). At some point the scales work in a similar way. This is also inclose to the b-value, however, the production rate agreement with Borg and Borg (2001) who showedincreases above removal rate and [La À ] starts to that one important factor influencing the exponent isaccumulate in the blood. It is likely that in a work the position of verbal anchors. However, despite atest with a short duration of each work load, a higher 1.8 times larger number range available to the sub-b-value will be obtained, as was also observed in this jects (between ‘‘extremely weak’’ and ‘‘extremelystudy. The exponents were similar to those obtained strong’’) on the CR100 scale (1:36), as comparedpreviously by Borg (1998). with the CR10 scale (1:20), there was only a small In the present Study 1, only two physiological and non-significant difference (of 1.3 times) betweenvariables were used, i.e. HR and [La À ]. Multiple the actual number ranges used from the first to thestep-wise regression showed HR to be the variable last work level. This may depend on differences in thecontributing the most to the RPE ratings and a visual designs of the scales.combination of HR and [La À ] to the CR10 ratings. The deviation from linearity between RPE and HRThis supports the differences between the scales as for both studies may depend on the special work testspostulated from their construction. It may seem used (1 and 3 min for each work load, respectively).surprising that S was not included in either model. The HR and the perception of exertion are influencedThis is, however, in agreement with the theoretical by a combination of the physical power on theapproach that it is proximal and not distal stimuli bicycle ergometer and the time used pedaling at(the physiological and not the physical variables) that that power. This combination may affect the physio-mediate the sensations to perception. logical and the psychological variables differently. In many situations, the RPE scale has advantages Johansson (1986) found that for prolonged exerciseas an instrument that is easy to understand and on the bicycle ergometer, HR came to a steady statesimple to use, giving data that are easy to interpret. with time rather rapidly. The growth of RPE, on theIf, however, the postulated linear relationship to HR other hand, also declined with time, but continued tois violated, e.g. by the exercise modality or the special grow throughout the entire work, especially at higherwork-test protocol used, these advantages are lost. power levels. The ratings thus grow more over timeThe CR scales have the advantage of psychophysical than HRs do, which means that for a work test withratio scales giving more correct growth functions several minutes on each load (steady-state character),(positively accelerating with power output). This one will obtain higher exponents than with one withgives a better understanding of the underlying phy- shorter durations, as was actually found in this study.siological and perceptual processes and enhances A deviation from linearity with the RPE scale has 67
  12. 12. Borg & Kaijserpreviously been found by Borg (1982b) for 30 s minute and short steps between power levels, theintermittent work (50 W increase). Especially for more fine-graded CR100 scale would be preferredthe male group, the growth of the RPE responses because it encourages subjects to use finer steps at thefollowed a slightly negatively accelerating curve (with lower part of the exponent of approximately 0.8). With the work-test protocol used in Study 1 (1 min Perspectiveson each load), significantly lower exponents were, onaverage, obtained with the CR10 scale than those The Borg RPE scale (6–20) is easy to understand andpreviously obtained in work with several minutes on interpret and may be regarded as rendering intervaleach load. With a duration of 3 min on each load, no data. This article, however, shows some drawbacksdifference was observed. With one subject excluded with the RPE scale that point to the advantage offrom Study 1, there was also a significant difference using psychophysical scales with better statisticalin exponents obtained with the CR10 scale between qualities, like the CR scales. The Borg CR10 scaleStudy 1 and Study 2, the 1 min protocol giving sig- has been in use mainly as a pain and dyspnea scalenificantly lower exponents. for more than two decades. This study suggests an In this study, a fixed-order presentation of stimuli increase in its use in the area of perceived exertion.was used. This manner is not usual in psychophysical Two CR scales were used in this article, viz., the Borgstudies, but commonly accepted in physiology and CR10 scale and the Borg CR100 scale (cM). Themedicine (ACSM, 1991). That this fixed stimulus latter has a wider numerical range and is a little moreorder presentation may have contributed to the lower fine graded with the advantage of giving associationsexponents obtained with the 1 min protocol is hinted to a percentage from the differences in the proportions of scale A problem in work physiology, training and reha-values chosen from different parts of the scales. bilitation is the lack of international agreement onWithin the lower segment of the scale (A), 22% of what scale and what work-test protocol to use. As hasthe responses with the CR10 scale for Study 1 were been shown in this study, even minor differences in thefound, as compared with 33% for Study 2. This may time  work load matrix can yield a difference, espe-mean that subjects in Study 1 overrated the feeling of cially in perceptual magnitudes. The results in thisexertion at low levels (using too-large steps on the article thus point to the need for standardization andscale for the corresponding increase in exertion). This the development of international norms in this further supported by the fact that, in this segment, Key words: Category Ratio, Borg scale, growth func-the same proportion of numbers from the verbal tion, exercise tests.anchors were used for both work tests, but in themiddle segment, subjects in Study 1 used a larger Acknowledgementsproportion of other numbers, thus compensating forthe too-large steps used in the beginning of the work This study was supported by a grant to Prof. Birgitta Berglund from the Swedish National Center for Research in Sports no.test. This would likely have been avoided with a 3/02. The authors also want to thank Prof. Gunnar Borg forrandomized stimulus presentation. Perhaps in a work important comments and suggestions for data treatment. Astest with a step-wise increase of power levels every well, we want to thank one reviewer for valuable comments.ReferencesACSM. Guidelines for exercise testing man. Scand Arch Physiol 1936: Borg E, Borg G. A comparison of AME and prescription. Philadelphia: Lea 74(Suppl 10): 51–82. and CR100 for scaling perceived Febiger, 1991. Bauman M, Moffat G, Roberts LE, exertion. Acta Psychol 2002: 109: ˚Astrom H, Jonsson B. Design of exercise ¨ Ward LM. Constrained scaling: 157–175. test, with special reference to heart achieving quantitative convergence Borg G. Interindividual scaling and patients. Br Heart J 1976: 3: 289–296. across laboratories. In: Oliveira perception of muscular force. K ˚Astrand P-O, Rodahl K. Textbook of AM, Teixeira MP, Borges GF, Fysiogr Saellsk Lund Foerh 1961: 31: work physiology. Physiological bases Ferro MJ, eds. Fechner day 117–125. of exercise, 3rd edn. Singapore: 2004. Coimbra: International Borg G. Physical performance and McGraw-Hill, 1986. Society for Psychophysics, 2004: perceived exertion (StudiaBaird JC, Noma E. Psychophysical study 304–309. Psychologica et Paedagogica. Series of numbers. I. Generation of numerical Beaver WL, Wasserman K, Whipp BJ. altera, Investigationes XI). Lund: responses. Psychol Res 1975: 37: Improved detection of lactate threshold Gleerup, 1962. 281–297. during exercise using a log–log Borg G. Perceived exertion as anBang O. The lactate content of the blood transformation. J Appl Physiol 1985: indicator of somatic stress. Scand J during and after muscular exercise in 59: 1936–1940. Rehab Med 1970: 2: 92–98.68
  13. 13. Three perceived exertion scales and two work testsBorg G. A ratio scaling method for Cafarelli E, Cain WS, Stevens JC. Effort Miles MP, Clarkson PM. Exercise- interindividual comparisons. Report of dynamic exercise: influence of load, induced muscle pain, soreness, and from the Institute of Applied duration, and task. Ergonomics 1977: cramps. J Sport Med Phys Fit 1994: 34: Psychology (no. 27), Stockholm, 20: 147–158. 203–216. Sweden, 1972. Carton RL, Rhodes EC. A critical review Morgan WP. Psychological factorsBorg G. A category scale with ratio of the literature on ratings scales for influencing perceived exertion. Med Sci properties for intermodal and perceived exertion. Sports Med 1985: 2: Sports 1973: 5: 97–103. interindividual comparisons. In: 198–222. Morgan WP. Psychological components Geissler H-G, Petzold P, eds. Davis JA. Anaerobic threshold: review of of effort sense. Med Sci Sports Exerc Psychophysical judgment and the the concept and directions for future 1994: 26: 1071–1077. process of perception. Berlin: VEB research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985: Noble BJ. Clinical applications of Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 17: 6–18. perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports 1982a: 25–34. Douglas CG. Coordination of the Exerc 1982: 14: 406–411.Borg G. Ratings of perceived exertion and respiration and circulation with Noble BJ, Borg GAV, Jacobs I, Ceci R, heart rates during short-term cycle variation in bodily activity. Lancet Kaiser P. A category-ratio perceived exercise and their use in a new cycling 1927: 210: 213–218. exertion scale: relationship to blood strength test. Int J Sports Med 1982b: 3: Ekblom B, Goldbarg AN. The influence and muscle lactates and heart rate. Med 153–158. of physical training and other factors Sci Sports Exerc 1983: 15: 523–528.Borg G. An introduction to Borg’s RPE on the subjective rating of perceived Noble BJ, Robertson RJ. Perceived scale. Ithaca, NY: Movement exertion. Acta Physiol Scand 1971: 83: exertion. Champaign, IL: Human Publications, 1985. 399–406. Kinetics, 1996.Borg G. Borg’s perceived exertion and Gescheider GA. Psychophysics. The Nordenfelt I, Adolfsson L, Nilsson JE, pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human fundamentals, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Olsson S. Reference values for exercise Kinetics, 1998. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997. tests with continuous increase in load.Borg G, Borg E. Principles and ´ Hassmen P. Perceived exertion: Clin Physiol 1985: 5: 161–172. experiments in category-ratio scaling. applications in sports and exercise Pandolf KB. Advances in the study and Reports from the Department of [dissertation]. Department of application of perceived exertion. Exerc Psychology (no. 789), Stockholm, Psychology, Stockholm University, Sport Sci Rev 1983: 11: 118–158. Sweden, 1994. Stockholm, Sweden, 1991. Russel WD. On the current status of ratedBorg G, Borg E. A new generation of Hughson RL, Weisiger KH, Swanson perceived exertion. Percept Motor scaling methods: level-anchored ratio GD. Blood lactate concentration Skills 1997: 84: 799–808. scaling. Psychologica 2001: 28: increases as a continuous function in Sjostrand T. Changes in the respiratory ¨ 15–45. progressive exercise. J Appl Physiol organs of workmen at an ore smeltingBorg G, Domserius M, Kaijser L. Effect 1987: 62: 1975–1981. works. Acta Med Scand (Suppl 196): of alcohol on perceived exertion in Johansson S-E. Perceived exertion, heart 1947: 196: 687–699. relation to heart rate and blood lactate. rate and blood lactate during prolonged Statistics Sweden, SCB 2002 Eur J Appl Physiol 1989: 60: 382–384. exercise on a bicycle ergometer. In: Undersokningar av ¨ ´Borg G, Hassmen P, Lagerstrom M.¨ Borg G, Ottoson D, eds. The ¨ ˚ levnadsforhallandena (ULF). Sveriges Perceived exertion related to heart rate perception of exertion in physical work. officiella statistik, SCB. Retrieved April and blood lactate during arm and leg London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1986: 8, 2003, from Statistics Swedens Web exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 1987a: 65: 46, 57–68. Site: 679–685. Jorfeldt L, Pahlm O, Brudin L le0101_Viktolangd.aspBorg G, Ljunggren G, Ceci R. The Standardarbetsprovet. In: Brauer K, Stevens SS., In: Stevens G., ed. increase of perceived exertion, aches Jorfeldt L, Pahlm O, eds. Det kliniska Psychophysics: introduction to its and pain in the legs, heart rate and arbetsprovet, 2nd edn. Lund, Sweden: perceptual, neural, and social prospects. blood lactate during exercise on a Studentlitteratur, 2003: 63–76. New York: Wiley, 1975. bicycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol Keul J, Simon G, Berg A, Dickhuth H-H, Wahlund H. Determination of the 1985: 54: 343–349. Goertler I, Kubel R. Bestimmung der physical working capacity. Acta MedBorg G, van den Burg M, Hassmen P, ´ individuellen anaeroben Schwelle Scand (Suppl 215): 1948: 215. Kaijser L, Tanaka S. Relationships zur Leistungsbewertung und Wallin L, Brudin LH. Physical working between perceived exertion, HR and Trainingsgestaltung. Deut Z Sportmed capacity determined by different types HLa in cycling, running and walking. 1979: 30: 212–218. of bicycle exercise tests. Clin Physiol Scand J Sports Sci 1987b: 9: Lollgen H. Kardiopulmonale ¨ 1988: 8: 529–537. 69–77. Funktionsdiagnostik, 3rd edn. Weiser PC, Stamper DA. PsychophysicalBrooks GA. Anaerobic threshold: review Nurnberg, Germany: Novartis Pharma ¨ interactions leading to increased of the concept and directions for future GmbH, 2002. effort, leg fatigue, and respiratory research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985: Marks LE. Sensory processes. New York: distress during prolonged, strenuous 17: 22–31. Academic Press Inc, 1994. bicycle riding. In: Borg G, ed.Buckworth J, Dishman RK. Exercise Mihevic PM. Sensory cues for perceived Physical work and effort. psychology. Champaign, IL: Human exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1981: New York: Pergamon Press, 1977: Kinetics, 2002. 13: 150–163. 401–416. 69