![]() ![]() The explanation for this is that objective measures such as blood markers or changes in exercise response may take time to manifest themselves, and therefore show different timing to the immediate self-reported measures. However the key findings were as follows: Finding #1: The relationships between objective and subjective measures were generally poor.ĭespite some moderate evidence for relationships in a few examples, in most cases the subjective and objective measures failed to agree. The review uncovered a range of interesting findings and I would encourage you to read the full article. The various studies also looked at which measures tended to be more sensitive and show changes during acute increases or decreases in training load, or with chronic ongoing training loads. Performance in short and sustained endurance tasks.Physiological response measures during exercise (submaximal and maximal lactate, oxygen consumption and heart rates).Urinary measures of muscle damage (creatinine, urea and others).Blood measurements of stress and muscle damage (cortisol, creatine kinase, T:C ratio, growth hormone and more).The range of objective measures included data such as: State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI).Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2).Multi-Component Training Distress Scale (MTDS).The Overtraining Questionnaire of the Societe Francaise de Medicine du Sport (SFMS).Daily Analyses of Life Demands of Athletes (DALDA).Recovery Stress Questionnaire for Athletes (RESTQ-S).Profile of Mood States (POMS) – including derivatives of the POMS.The most common subject measures of athlete wellbeing were: Timing: the subjective and objective measures had to be taken at the same time, taken regularly and not in a competition setting.Īfter starting with over 4000 potential articles, the short list was 54 high quality research papers that went into the analysis.Methods: studies had to employ both a valid and reliable subjective method, and at least one objective measure of wellbeing.Population: only studies using people engaged actively in routine training.How do subjective vs objective measures relate to each other in a typical “mixed methods” approach? The ResearchĪ wide variety of literature was reviewed in a very systematic manner, taking into account:.Sensitivity – how able were the measures to show change, even when the changes were subtle? Was this different for acute (short term) and chronic (long term) changes?.Consistency – how reliable and repeatable were the measures?. ![]() They reviewed a wide range of research articles looking at a wide range of subjective and objective athlete monitoring methods, in particular focusing on: Many performance departments are divided on the relative merits of self-reported subjective measures, versus the objective measures of time, distance and quantities offered by physical measurements.Ī recent systematic review of the literature by Anna Saw and Colleagues at Deakin University in Australia set out to answer this eternal question. So what is the best way to monitor your athletes – subjective self-reporting, or the cold hard facts of objective measurements? This is the ongoing debate in athlete monitoring circles today. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |