Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Whether we are developing young athletes, designing injury prevention programmes, preparing high-level athletes for competition or rehabilitating an athlete back to sport, the technical skill performance of the athlete(s) needs to be considered. Usually, technical skill performance is captured by training time (minutes), training frequency (number of sessions) or movement repetitions.1 However, this approach is limited by only assessing the external workload of the technical skill. Beyond the external workload, the athlete’s physiological and psychological response to the load can also be assessed (termed internal load).1 One commonly used internal load measurement is the rating of perceived exertion (RPE)—a 0–10 or 0–100 category ratio rating scale where the lower end represents rest and the upper end maximal effort. Typically, the RPE scale is used to capture the athlete’s global perceived experience of the physical work load. From a skill perspective however, this method provides little insight into the perceived technical demands of the movement(s). Weston and colleagues recognised this limitation and asked athletes to provide an RPE for the technical demand of matches and training (RPE-T).2 3 RPE scales, however, are proposed as general intensity scales.4 This characteristic, arguably, can be considered as both an advantage (can be used for various applications) or a disadvantage if …
Contributors SH drafted the first draft of the manuscript and all authors provided feedback and edits towards the final version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.