Borg Rating Of Perceived Exertion: Difference between revisions
(still in progress) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
! colspan="2" | '''Borg RPE Scale''' | ! colspan="2" | '''Borg RPE Scale''' | ||
! | |||
! | !'''Borg CR10 Scale/Modified Borg Dyspnoea Scale''' | ||
! | |||
|- | |- | ||
!''Scoring'' | !''Scoring'' | ||
!''Level of Exertion'' | !''Level of Exertion'' | ||
! | |||
!''Scoring'' | !''Scoring'' | ||
!''Level of Exertion/ Breathlessness/Pain/Leg fatigue'' | !''Level of Exertion/ Breathlessness/Pain/Leg fatigue'' | ||
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
!6 | !6 | ||
!No Exertion | !No Exertion | ||
! | |||
!0 | !0 | ||
!No Exertion/Breathlessness/''Pain/Leg fatigue'' | !No Exertion/Breathlessness/''Pain/Leg fatigue'' | ||
| Line 35: | Line 38: | ||
!7 | !7 | ||
!Extremely Light | !Extremely Light | ||
! | |||
!0.5 | !0.5 | ||
!Very very Slight | !Very very Slight | ||
|- | |- | ||
!8 | !8 | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
!1 | !1 | ||
| Line 45: | Line 50: | ||
!9 | !9 | ||
!Very Light | !Very Light | ||
! | |||
!2 | !2 | ||
!Slight | !Slight | ||
|- | |- | ||
!10 | !10 | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
!3 | !3 | ||
| Line 55: | Line 62: | ||
!11 | !11 | ||
!Light | !Light | ||
! | |||
!4 | !4 | ||
!Somewhat Severe | !Somewhat Severe | ||
|- | |- | ||
!12 | !12 | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
!5 | !5 | ||
| Line 65: | Line 74: | ||
!13 | !13 | ||
!Somewhat Hard | !Somewhat Hard | ||
! | |||
!6 | !6 | ||
! | ! | ||
|- | |- | ||
!14 | !14 | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
!7 | !7 | ||
| Line 75: | Line 86: | ||
!15 | !15 | ||
!Hard (Heavy) | !Hard (Heavy) | ||
! | |||
!8 | !8 | ||
! | ! | ||
|- | |- | ||
!16 | !16 | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
!9 | !9 | ||
| Line 85: | Line 98: | ||
!17 | !17 | ||
!Very Hard | !Very Hard | ||
! | |||
!10 | !10 | ||
!Maximal Breathlessness/''Pain/Leg fatigue'' | !Maximal Breathlessness/''Pain/Leg fatigue'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
!18 | !18 | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
! | ! | ||
| Line 95: | Line 110: | ||
!19 | !19 | ||
!Extremely Hard | !Extremely Hard | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
! | ! | ||
| Line 100: | Line 116: | ||
!20 | !20 | ||
!Maximal Exertion | !Maximal Exertion | ||
! | |||
! | ! | ||
! | ! | ||
Revision as of 05:19, 29 January 2024
Original Editor ' [[User:Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka|Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka]]
Top Contributors - Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka, Prashna Singh, Kim Jackson, Adam Vallely Farrell, Karen Wilson, Lauren Lopez and Ewa Jaraczewska
This article or area is currently under construction and may only be partially complete. Please come back soon to see the finished work! (29/01/2024)
Introduction[edit | edit source]
Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is an outcome measure scale used to gauge one's exercise intensity without the need to relay on physiological parameters such as peak O2 uptake, heart rate and lactate levels. RPE is used extensively by rehab professionals to aid in exercise prescription.[1] Borg RPE scale was developed by Gunnar Borg[2] for rating exertion, breathlessness and fatigue during physical activity; that is, how hard the activity is as shown by heart and respiration rate, profuse perspiration and muscle exertion.
The scale is also used in monitoring progress and mode of exercise in patient populations including those with cardiac, respiratory and neurogical diseases undergoing rehabilitation.
Versions And Scoring[edit | edit source]
The original Borg version is a scale of 6-20; it has a high correlation to one's heart rate and multiplying each number by 10 gives the training heart rate as at the time of scoring.
It was later reconstructed to category (C) ratio (R) scale of 0-10 termed Borg CR-10 Scale or modified Borg Dyspnoea Scale. It is mostly used in the assessment of the degree of dyspnea, chest pain and musculoskeletal pain. The CR-10 scale is best used in a specific area of the body sensation such as muscle pain, muscle fatigue or from pulmonary responses. [3]
| Borg RPE Scale | Borg CR10 Scale/Modified Borg Dyspnoea Scale | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring | Level of Exertion | Scoring | Level of Exertion/ Breathlessness/Pain/Leg fatigue | |
| 6 | No Exertion | 0 | No Exertion/Breathlessness/Pain/Leg fatigue | |
| 7 | Extremely Light | 0.5 | Very very Slight | |
| 8 | 1 | Very Slight | ||
| 9 | Very Light | 2 | Slight | |
| 10 | 3 | Moderate | ||
| 11 | Light | 4 | Somewhat Severe | |
| 12 | 5 | Severe | ||
| 13 | Somewhat Hard | 6 | ||
| 14 | 7 | Very Severe | ||
| 15 | Hard (Heavy) | 8 | ||
| 16 | 9 | Very very Severe | ||
| 17 | Very Hard | 10 | Maximal Breathlessness/Pain/Leg fatigue | |
| 18 | ||||
| 19 | Extremely Hard | |||
| 20 | Maximal Exertion | |||
In Borg RPE;
- 9 = ‘very light’ exercise which equals walking slowly for a few minutes at the own pace of a healthy individual.
- 13 = ‘somewhat hard’ but the individual is still able to continue the activity.
- 17 = ‘very hard’. A healthy person can continue but must push themselves beyond their comfort of being very fatigued.
- 19 = extremely strenuous exercise.for most people, the hardest they have ever experienced.
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
The original Borg scale is a simple numerical list. Participants are asked to rate their exertion on the scale during the activity, taking into consideration feelings of physical stress and fatigue, disregarding any factor such as leg pain or breathlessness but focusing on the whole feeling of exertion. This number chosen connotes the intensity of activity allowing the participant to speed up or slow down movements/activity. The scale takes a few seconds to complete, can be self or researcher administered on a single occasion or multiple times. The Borg CR10 questioning should focus on the symptom/sensation related to the body area of interest.
Reliability and Validity[edit | edit source]
The validity of the Borg scale has been previously been shown to be high though recent research in healthy individuals shows that the criterion related validity may not be as high as was thought and that the validity is only high under certain conditions.[4]However in individuals
Testing of the subject twice was used in ascertaining reliability in a study and Borg RPE was found to be reliable in rating exertion[5][6] The verbal anchor using VAS of the scale when tested in different clinical groups and settings was found to have no significant difference in meaning in the groups except for the group that has a brain injury.[7]
Originally RPE was validated against heart rate.[8] With time, RPE has since been researched extensively in a variety of different conditions and population groups.
Borg RPE scores were positively associated with heart rate in adults during exercise sessions using the Wii Fit Plus.[9]
Skinner et al found no significant differences in any of the physiological and perceptual variables in work intensity when the workload was presented in random order and compared with those obtained during the progressive exercise test.[5]
Evidence[edit | edit source]
- renal patients
- COPD/asthma
- Neuro
- A recent study reported that the Borg RPE scale may be used in individuals with Parkinson’s disease in which formal exercise testing may not be available.[11]
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
A work[12] done in a laboratory setting comparing physiological measurements and actual lifting tasks in the workplace found a relationship between perceived physical exertion and individual physical capacity; in both cardiovascular[13]and muscular work[14]. However, research by Village et al.[15] shows a weak relationship between perceived physical exertion and workload
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Hutchinson, M.J., Kouwijzer, I., de Groot, S. et al. Comparison of two Borg exertion scales for monitoring exercise intensity in able-bodied participants, and those with paraplegia and tetraplegia. Spinal Cord 59, 1162–1169 (2021)
- ↑ Rating of perceived exertion. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_of_perceived_exertion(accessed 24 May 2019)
- ↑ Williams N. The Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale. Occupational Medicine.2017; 67(5):404–405, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqx063
- ↑ Chen MJ, Fan X, Moe ST. Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2002;20(11):873-899.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Skinner JS, Hutsler R, Bergsteinová V, Buskirk ER. The validity and reliability of a rating scale of perceived exertion. Medicine and science in sports. 1973;5(2): 94-6.
- ↑ Lamb KL, Eston RG, Corns D. Reliability of ratings of perceived exertion during progressive treadmill exercise.Br J Sports Med 1999;33:336–339
- ↑ Dawes, Helen N. et al. Borg’s Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales: Do the Verbal Anchors Mean the Same for Different Clinical Groups? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005;86(5): 912 - 916
- ↑ American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013 Mar 4.
- ↑ Pollock BS, Barkley JE, PotenzinI N, Desalvo RM, Buser SL, Otterstetter et al. Validity of Borg Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Active Video Game Play. Int J Exerc Sci. 2013; 6(2): 164–170.
- ↑ Vivo Phys-Evan Mathews. RPE - Rating of Perceived Exertion. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEHl0-IB14[last accessed 30/4/2019]
- ↑ PENKO AL, BARKLEY JE, KOOP MM, ALBERTS JL. Borg scale is valid for ratings of perceived exertion for individuals with Parkinson’s disease. International journal of exercise science. 2017;10(1):76.
- ↑ Jakobsen MD, Sundstrup E, Persson R, Andersen CH, Andersen LL. Is Borg’s perceived exertion scale a useful indicator of muscular and cardiovascular load in blue-collar workers with lifting tasks? A cross-sectional workplace study. Eur J Appl Physiol 2014;114(2):425–434.
- ↑ Scherr J, Wolfarth B, Christle JW, Pressler A, Wagenpfeil S, Halle M. Associations between Borg’s Rating of Perceived Exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol 2013;113(1):147–155
- ↑ Fontes EB, Smirmaul BP, Nakamura FY, Pereira G, Okano AH, Altimari LR et al. The relationship between a rating of perceived exertion and muscle activity during exhaustive constant-load cycling. Int J Sports Med 2010;31(10):683–688.
- ↑ Village J, Frazer M, Cohen M, Leyland A, Park I, Yassi A. Electromyography as a measure of peak and cumulative workload in intermediate care and its relationship to musculoskeletal injury: an exploratory ergonomic study. Appl Ergon 2005;36(5):609–618
