You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2017.00612 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monoem Haddad, Georgios Stylianides, Leo Djaoui, Alexandre Dellal, Karim Chamari |
| Abstract |
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 et 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 (TL) monitoring purposes though some recommend to combine it with other physiological parameters as heart rate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 11% |
| Australia | 9 | 10% |
| Spain | 4 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 35 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 59 | 63% |
| Scientists | 27 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,005 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1005 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 171 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 161 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 100 | 10% |
| Researcher | 60 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 49 | 5% |
| Other | 171 | 17% |
| Unknown | 293 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 455 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 58 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 1% |
| Other | 74 | 7% |
| Unknown | 334 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2023.
All research outputs
#429,529
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#191
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,184
of 340,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.