https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть-43_ Том-1_ Май-2025
253
RATING OF PERCEIVED EXERTION IN PROFESSIONAL
VOLLEYBALL: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Usmonov Feruz Farhod ugli
Bukhara State Pedagogical Institute Faculty of Physical Culture theory and
methodology of Physical Culture
Abstract:The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is a non-invasive, cost
effective, and time efficient strategy to measure training loads. However, data can
be collected without following specific procedures and across a range of methods
(e.g., different RPE scales and/or different operational questions). Consequently,
practitioners working in professional volleyball can use this information in various
ways with different assessment standards between them. Therefore, the purpose of
the current review was to systematically and critically evaluate the use of RPE-
based methods in professional volleyball athletes. Electronic searches were
conducted in four The main findings indicate that, to minimize the effect of the last
exercise of the session, the athlete should be presented with the RPE question 10
to 30 minutes after the session is finished .
Key words workload, team sports, athletes, monitoring
Fatigue is a normal and desired part of the training process, and its severity
can be observed as a continuum (Halson and Jeukendrup, 2004). When the proper
balance between training stress and recovery is ensured, athletes experience acute
fatigue in response to training sessions and recover within hours or days
(Radojewski et al., 2018). However, if intense training continues without an
adequate recovery period, athletes may enter a state of overreaching (Halson and
Jeukendrup, 2004). When athletes experience a temporary reduction in
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть-43_ Том-1_ Май-2025
254
performance levels as a result of training, they enter a state of functional
overreaching (Meeusen et al., 2013). If training continues and unplanned fatigue
persists, athletes may experience non-functional overreaching that can last for
several weeks. The last phase of the fatigue continuum is called overtraining
syndrome, which is characterized by decreases in performance levels that are
usually accompanied by psychological disturbances that can remain for long
periods (Meeusen et al., 2013). To prevent these maladaptations associated with
excessive training loads, it is recommended that practitioners monitor training
loads to ensure adequate recovery. In addition to these negative performance
implications, excessive training loads increase the risk of injury and illness in
highperformance athletes (Gabbett, 2010). These heightened risks demonstrate the
importance of monitoring how athletes respond to training and competition,
showing that the key for a good exercise prescription is an adequate understanding
of the effect promoted by training loads on the human div (Busso, 2003).
Monitoring athletes’ training loads is better understood through sub-dividing loads
into two types: internal and external (Halson, 2014). The internal training load
(ITL) refers to the physiological stress that a training session induces in the athlete
(Impellizzeri et al., 2005). The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) has become the
most common method of monitoring the ITL as it is a non-invasive, cost effective,
and time efficient strategy to measure training loads (Halson, 2014). The RPE
method was originally developed by Borg (Borg, 1970), and Foster et al. (1995)
created a simple technique to quantify the ITL using a modification of this scale.
This technique is known as the session RPE (sRPE) and is derived by multiplying
the overall RPE obtained at the end of a training session (or a match), using the
Borg Category-Ratio 10 scale (BORG-CR10) by the total duration (in minutes) of
the training session, to provide a modified training impulse (TRIMP) score.
Developing an understanding of the ITL response to specific mesocycles and the
transition between mesocycles could inform future training prescription. However,
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть-43_ Том-1_ Май-2025
255
RPE data can be collected without following specific procedures and across a range
of methods (e.g., different RPE scales and/or different questions). For instance, in
order to prevent that sRPE scores are overly influenced by how athletes felt at the
end of the training session, the question should not be presented immediately after
the session is finished (Foster et al., 1995). Consequently, practitioners working in
professional volleyball can use this information in various ways with different
scales and questions to assess this information. Therefore, a review of the literature
specifically examining the available evidence and present suggestions to
effectively monitor athletes with the RPE in professional volleyball would be of
interest. Such a review can ensure that coaches would use quality information to
prescribe training in applied settings. Thus, the purpose of the current review was
to systematically and critically evaluate the use of RPE-based methods in
professional volleyball. Methods Literature Search Strategy Articles were
systematically identified via four electronic databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus,
Scopus, and Web of Science) using the search strategy presented in Table S1 of the
Supplementary File. The search string for each variable (the rating of perceived
exertion and volleyball) was used independently, after which both were combined
in the complete search strategy. The search was restricted to original peerreviewed
studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese with literature reviews and
conference proceedings excluded. The search was developed to consider research
articles published online or in print from the database inception until July 2022,
when the search was conducted. Selection Criteria The process for screening
articles followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2015). The study protocol was
registered in INPLASY (INPLASY202280034). Articles considered for inclusion
in the review were those examining professional volleyball athletes and reporting
RPE outcomes within, at least, one phase of the season (i.e., off-season, preseason,
or competitive period). The samples of participants consisted of volleyball athletes
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть-43_ Том-1_ Май-2025
256
who were part of a professional team. Therefore, collegiate and young volleyball
athletes were excluded from the present systematic review. Including experimental
studies that implemented an intervention may have misrepresented the results, thus
the review was restricted to crosssectional or longitudinal observational study
designs. Studies where player monitoring data were reported only during
competitive games or during a portion of a phase of the season (e.g., one week)
were excluded as they did not represent the complete workloads experienced by
players during a specific period of the annual training plan. Abstracts of all the
articles identified in the search were screened independently against the pre-
defined selection criteria by two authors (A.R. and D.V.M.). Any disagreements
between the two authors regarding article inclusion were further discussed and, if
agreement was not reached, a third author (J.R.P.) was consulted to establish
consensus. Full-text copies were acquired for all papers that met title and abstract
screening criteria. Full-text screening was performed by two reviewers (A.R. and
D.V.M.). Again, any discrepancies were discussed until the authors reached an
agreement and consulted a third author (J.R.P.) when required. Assessment of
Methodological Quality Methodological quality was assessed using a modified
version of the Downs and Black (1998) checklist for assessing the methodological
quality of healthcare interventions. This checklist had been validated for use with
observational study designs (Downs and Black, 1998) and had been previously
used to assess methodological quality in systematic reviews assessing
crosssectional and longitudinal studies (Fox et al., 2014, 2018). The number of
items from the original checklist can be tailored to the scope and needs of the
systematic review, with 10–15 items used in previous systematic reviews (Fox et
al., 2014, 2018). For this review, 11 items in the checklist were deemed relevant
(Table S2 of the Supplementary File). Each item was scored as “1” (yes) or “0”
(no/unable to determine), and the scores for each of the 11 items were summed to
provide the total quality score. The quality of each included article was rated
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть-43_ Том-1_ Май-2025
257
against the checklist independently by two authors (A.R. and D.V.M.). Any
disparity in the outcome of the quality appraisal was discussed, and a third author
(J.R.P.) was consulted if a decision could not be reached. Data Extraction and
Analysis Data were extracted from each article by the lead author (A.R.). Data not
provided or presented non-numerically were identified as “not reported”. The
following data, where possible, were extracted from each article: (1) participants’
characteristics (sample size, sex, age, div height, and div mass); (2) monitoring
period (i.e., seasonal phase(s) and duration); (3) objective measures (e.g., heart rate,
time motion analysis); (4) RPE scale methods (e.g., scale, operational question).
Results Search Findings and Study Selection The electronic search yielded 442
articles (PubMed = 56, SPORTDiscus = 123, Scopus = 143, Web of Science =
120). A total of 304 duplicate records were removed, and further 114 irrelevant
articles were excluded based on the title and the abstract; 24 full-text articles were
screened and 10 were removed, leaving 14 articles for inclusion in the review.
Reasons for exclusion were analysis only in a part of a period of the season (N =
5), nonprofessional athletes (N = 2), player monitoring limited to competitive
games only (N = 2), duplicate data (N = 1), and a conference paper (N = 1). Full
results of the search are presented in Figure 1. Methodological Quality The ratings
from the quality appraisal for each article are presented in Table S3 of the
Supplementary File. Methodological quality scores ranged from 7 to 9 out of 11.
In line with previous literature using the Downs and Black checklist (Fox et al.,
2014, 2018), no articles were excluded based on methodological quality.
Participant Characteristics Characteristics of participants investigated in the
included articles are presented in Table 1. Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 16 players.
In total, 12 studies monitored only male and two monitored only female athletes.
Collection of RPE Data The duration of the selected studies was from six (Horta et
al., 2019) to 36 weeks (Clemente et al., 2020; Debien et al., 2018; Mendes et al.,
2018). Data were predominantly collected during preparatory and competitive
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть-43_ Том-1_ Май-2025
258
periods (50%) (Andrade et al., 2021; Brandão et al., 2018; Debien et al., 2018;
Duarte et al., 2019; Horta et al., 2020; Mendes et al., 2018; Timoteo et al., 2021).
Three studies collected RPE-based data during the preparatory period only (21%)
(Berriel et al., 2022; Domingos et al., 2022; Horta et al., 2019), and other three
during the competitive period only (21%) (Clemente et al., 2020; Lima et al., 2020;
Ungureanu et al., 2021). One study reported data during the transition period
between clubs and national team camps (7%) (Rabbani et al., 2021). Only two
studies complemented RPE-based ITL data with objective measurements such as
inertial movement units (Lima et al., 2020) and the heart rate (Ungureanu et al.,
2021). A detailed description of RPE data collection procedures is reported in Table
2. All included studies used the BORG-CR10 scale to calculate the sRPE (Table
3). “How was your training session?” was the most used question (29%) (Andrade
et al., 2021; Brandão et al., 2018; Domingos et al., 2022; Duarte et al., 2019),
followed by “how was your workout?” (21%) (Debien et al., 2018; Horta et al.,
2019; Ungureanu et al., 2021). Four studies (29%) did not report the question that
was used (Berriel et al., 2022; Mendes et al., 2018; Rabbani et al., 2021; Timoteo
et al., 2021). Most studies included the weekly internal training load (wITL) in their
results (79%) (Andrade et al., 2021; Berriel et al., 2022; Brandão et al., 2018;
Clemente et al., 2020; Debien et al., 2018; Domingos et al., 2022; Duarte et al.,
2019; Horta et al., 2019, 2020; Mendes et al., 2018; Timoteo et al., 2021), while
few included derived variables such as training monotony (21%) (Clemente et al.,
2020; Debien et al., 2018; Timoteo et al., 2021), strain (14%) (Debien et al., 2018;
Timoteo et al., 2021), and the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) (21%)
(Clemente et al., 2020; Debien et al., 2018; Timoteo et al., 2021).
References
1.Akubat, I., Patel, E., Barrett, S., & Abt, G. (2012). Methods of monitoring
the training and match load and their relationship to changes in fitness in
professional youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(14), 1473–1480.
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть-43_ Том-1_ Май-2025
259
R., Reis Coimbra, D., & Bara Filho, M. G. (2021). Training Load and Recovery in
Volleyball During a Competitive Season. Journal of
2.
Sports
Medicine
and
Physical
Fitness,
62(3),
317–323.
https://doi.org/10.23736/s0022-4707.21.12107-3 Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G.
(1995). Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 1--
Correlation
within
subjects.
BMJ,
310(6977),
446.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6977.446 Borg, G. (1970).
3. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scandinavian Journal
of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2(2), 92–98. Brandão, F. M., Cunha, V. F., Timoteo,
T. F., Duarte, T. S., Dias, B. M., Coimbra, D. R., Miranda, R., & Filho, M. G. B.
(2018). Behavior of the training load, recovery and well-being in volleyball
professional athletes in weeks with and without matches. Educación Física y
Ciencia, 20(4). Busso, T. (2003).
4. Variable dose-response relationship between exercise training and
performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35(7), 1188–1195.
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.Mss.0000074465.13621.37 Clemente, F. M., Silva, A.
F., Clark, C. C. T., Conte, D., Ribeiro, J., Mendes, B., & Lima, R. (2020).
5.Analyzing the Seasonal Changes and Relationships in Training Load and
Wellness in Elite Volleyball Players. International Journal of Sports Physiology
and Performance, 15(5), 731–740.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0251
6.Adaptiv jismoniy tarbiya kamolot-2024
