Test-Retest Reliability of Rating of Perceived Exertion and Agreement With 1-Repetition Maximum in Adults.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016 Sep; 46(9):768-74.JO
Study Design Clinical measurement. Background It has been suggested that rating of perceived exertion (RPE) may be a useful alternative to 1-repetition maximum (1RM) to determine proper resistance exercise dosage. However, the test-retest reliability of RPE for resistance exercise has not been determined. Additionally, prior research regarding the relationship between 1RM and RPE is conflicting. Objectives The purpose of this study was to (1) determine test-retest reliability of RPE related to resistance exercise and (2) assess agreement between percentages of 1RM and RPE during quadriceps resistance exercise. Methods A sample of participants with and without knee pathology completed a series of knee extension exercises and rated the perceived difficulty of each exercise on a 0-to-10 RPE scale, then repeated the procedure 1 to 2 weeks later for test-retest reliability. To determine agreement between RPE and 1RM, participants completed knee extension exercises at various percentages of their 1RM (10% to 130% of predicted 1RM) and rated the perceived difficulty of each exercise on a 0-to-10 RPE scale. Percent agreement was calculated between the 1RM and RPE at each resistance interval. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient indicated excellent test-retest reliability of RPE for quadriceps resistance exercises (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.895; 95% confidence interval: 0.866, 0.918). Overall percent agreement between RPE and 1RM was 60%, but agreement was poor within the ranges that would typically be used for training (50% 1RM for muscle endurance, 70% 1RM and greater for strength). Conclusion Test-retest reliability of perceived exertion during quadriceps resistance exercise was excellent. However, agreement between the RPE and 1RM was poor, especially in common training zones for knee extensor strengthening. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(9):768-774. Epub 5 Aug 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6498.