Validity and Reliability of Facial Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales for Training Load Monitoring [Article Review]

Introduction

The article "Validity and Reliability of Facial Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales for Training Load Monitoring" was authored by Stephan van der Zwaard, Folef Hooft Graafland, Cerianne van Middelkoop, and Lotte L. Lintmeijer. The authors represent institutions including Leiden University, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Fitchannel.com, and Technical University Delft. Their study, published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2023), investigates the effectiveness of facial rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scales—specifically, a 5-point (FCR5) and a 10-point (FCR10) facial scale—compared to the traditional Borg’s category-ratio 10-point scale (CR10), which is considered the gold standard for monitoring exercise intensity and training load.

Key Takeaways from the Study

The study involved 49 healthy adults, divided into untrained, recreationally trained, and trained groups. Participants completed a series of home-based workouts at varying intensities, using all three RPE scales (CR10, FCR5, FCR10) to rate their exertion after each session. Heart rate data was collected to provide an objective measure of exercise intensity, and the relationship between session RPE (sRPE) and Edward’s training impulse (eTRIMP) was examined to assess the scales’ validity for monitoring internal training load.

The main findings highlight significant differences in the validity and reliability of the facial RPE scales depending on participants’ training status. For untrained individuals, both FCR5 and FCR10 demonstrated low validity and reliability (ICC ≤ 0.44), indicating these scales are not suitable for this group. In contrast, for recreationally trained and trained individuals, the FCR10 scale showed good validity (ICC ≥ 0.80) and moderate reliability (ICC = 0.74), while the FCR5 scale was only moderately valid (ICC = 0.72) and had poor reliability (ICC = 0.51). The traditional CR10 scale outperformed both facial scales in reliability (ICC = 0.92), confirming its status as the gold standard.

Importantly, the FCR10 scale also received the highest ratings for user experience, with participants favoring its emoticon-supported format for ease of use and comprehension, especially on digital platforms. The study also found strong correlations between sRPE (using FCR10 and CR10) and eTRIMP scores in trained and recreationally trained groups (r ≥ 0.70), supporting the use of these scales for practical training load monitoring.

Conclusion and Practical Takeaways

This study provides clear guidance for coaches, athletes, and digital sports platforms: while the traditional CR10 scale remains the most reliable tool for measuring perceived exertion, the 10-point facial RPE scale (FCR10) is a valid and user-friendly alternative for recreationally trained and trained individuals. The FCR10’s emoticon-based design enhances user experience, making it especially suitable for digital and mobile applications. However, neither facial scale is recommended for untrained individuals due to poor validity and reliability in this group.

Practical applications include:

• Digital sports platforms and coaches should incorporate the FCR10 scale for monitoring training load in recreationally trained and trained populations.

• The FCR10 scale’s intuitive, emoticon-based format can improve user engagement and compliance, especially in remote or app-based training environments.

• For untrained individuals, practitioners should continue to rely on the traditional CR10 scale to ensure accurate monitoring of exercise intensity and training load.

  
  

By adopting the FCR10 scale where appropriate, practitioners can balance validity, reliability, and user experience, enhancing the effectiveness of training load monitoring in real-world settings.

Article PDF

validity_and_reliability_of_facial_rating_of.26.pdf

Download PDF • 2.33MB