Reliability and Validity of Subjective Measures of Aerobic Intensity in Adults With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize and appraise research regarding test-retest reliability or criterion validity of subjective measures for assessing aerobic exercise intensity in adults with spinal cord injury (SCI). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Pubmed, PsychINFO, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, and CINAHL) were searched from inception to January 1, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies involving at least 50% of participants with SCI who performed an aerobic exercise test that included measurement of subjective and objective intensity based on test-retest reliability or criterion validity protocols. DATA EXTRACTION: Characteristics were extracted on study design, measures, participants, protocols, and results. Each study was evaluated for risk of bias based on strength of the study design and a quality checklist score (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments [COSMIN]). DATA SYNTHESIS: The 7 eligible studies (1 for reliability, 6 for validity) evaluated overall, peripheral and/or central ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) on a scale of 6-20 (RPE 6-20). No eligible studies were identified for other subjective intensity measures. The evidence for reliability and validity were synthesized separately for each measure and were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Overall, very low GRADE confidence ratings were established for reliability and validity evidence generalizable to the entire population with SCI and various upper-body and lower-body modalities. There was low confidence for the evidence showing that overall RPE 6-20 has acceptable validity for adults with SCI and high fitness levels performing moderate to vigorous-intensity upper-body aerobic exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals and scientists need to be aware of the very low to low confidence in the evidence, which currently prohibits a strong clinical recommendation for the use of subjective measures for assessing aerobic exercise intensity in adults with SCI. However, a tentative, conditional recommendation regarding overall RPE 6-20 seems applicable, depending on participants' fitness level as well as the exercise intensity and modality used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
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 | 0.033 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".