A comparison of response and production protocols for assessing perceived exertion

Abstract

Two cycle ergometer protocols for assessing perceived exertion were compared before and after a fatiguing run. In the response (R) protocol, the subject rated the perceived exertion (RPE) of a series of power outputs assigned by the investigator. In the production (P) protocol, the investigator selected the RPE values and the subject adjusted his power output using a hand-held control. The relationship between RPE and power output (the regression coefficient and the slope and intercept of the regression line) was the same for both protocols. Fatigue due to the run caused a small increase in RPE (average 1.5 units) at a given exercise intensity and a commensurate decrease in power output (average 19 W) for a given RPE. The P protocol is safer than the R protocol because it makes no assumptions with regard to the physical condition of the subject. It is superior to the R protocol because it is an interval scale. These advantages suggest that the P protocol should be used instead of, or at least in addition to, the more traditional R protocol.