Training distress and performance readiness: Laboratory and field validation of a brief self‐report measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three studies were conducted to validate the Training Distress Scale (TDS), a 19-item measure of training-related distress and performance readiness. Study 1 was a randomized, controlled laboratory experiment in which a treatment group undertook daily interval training until a 25% decrement occurred in time-to-fatigue performance. Comparisons with a control group showed that TDS scores increased over time within the treatment group but not in the control group. Study 2 was a randomized, controlled field investigation in which performance capabilities and TDS responses were compared across a high-intensity interval training group and a control group that continued normal training. Running performance decreased significantly in the training group but not in the control group, and scores on the TDS mirrored those changes in performance capabilities. Study 3 examined the relationship between TDS scores obtained over a 2-week period before major swimming competitions and subsequent performance in those competitions. Significantly, better performance was observed for swimmers with low TDS scores compared with those with moderate or high TDS scores. These findings provide both laboratory and field evidence for the validity of the TDS as a measure of short-term training distress and performance readiness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".