Validity of the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale: Training ...369180/UQ369180_OA.pdf ·...

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 10 · Number 2+3 · 2015 529

Validity of the Acute Recovery and StressScale: Training Monitoring of the German

Junior National Field Hockey TeamSarah Kölling1, Brit Hitzschke1, Theresa Holst1, Alexander

Ferrauti1, Tim Meyer2, Mark Pfeiffer3 and MichaelKellmann1,4

1Faculty of Sport Science, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.E-mail: [email protected]

2Institute of Sports and Preventive Medicine, University of Saarland,Saarbrücken, Germany.

3Department of Theory and Practice of Sports, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

4School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to examine the sensitivity of the Acute

Recovery and Stress Scale (ARSS). This new psychometric questionnaire

was developed to assess the physical, mental, emotional, and overall

recovery and stress states of athletes. During a five-day field hockey

training camp of the German Junior National Field Hockey Team (n = 25)

the ARSS was administered every morning and evening. The study

indicated swift reactions of the scores of the physical and general factors

as well as stability of scores for the emotional factors in accordance with

the training schedule. The straining effect of the camp was best reflected

by the adaptations of the scales Physical Performance Capability (F 2.9, 60.3

= 10.0, p < 0.001) and Muscular Stress (F 4, 84 = 16.7, p < 0.001). The results

support the ability of the ARSS to monitor recovery-stress (im-)balances in

this sample. Thus, the questionnaire has shown to be a sensitive and

practical tool that might be suitable for elite sport settings.

Key words: Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness, Maladaption,

Overreaching, Overtraining Syndrome, Training Camp, Youth Sport

INTRODUCTIONSpecific and intense training is central to performance enhancement and subsequent successin elite sports. Athletes aspire to be physically as well prepared as possible to compete in thehighest levels of competition. Coaches and athletes, therefore, are constantly searching for

Reviewers: Carl Foster (University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, USA)John Hough (University of Bedford, UK)

new training methods and strategies to gain a competitive edge. However, prolonged,excessive training stress accompanied with inadequate recovery can lead to signs ofoverreaching or the gradually built up overtraining syndrome, which is characterized bychronic maladaptive biological consequences and subsequent decrements in performance[1]. Specifically, key findings from research show that overtraining is associated with poorerperformances, lack of progression, altered mood states, persistently high ratings of fatigue,depressed reproductive function, and alterations in immune function [2]. Halson et al. [3]have shown that a seven-day period of intensified training with limited recovery can inducea state of overreaching among trained cyclists. Overreaching relates to a short-termdecrement in performance capacity and recovery may take several days to several weeks.The overtraining syndrome leads to a long-term decrement in performance capacity which isa result of accumulating training and/or non-training stress which may prolong restoration ofperformance capacity from several weeks to months [4].

Individual variability in responses to training plays an important role in relation to thedevelopment of perceived overtraining [5]. Athletes of similar performance standard maydisplay differential responses to a given training stimulus [6]. In other words, an appropriatetraining load for one athlete over a prolonged period may cause the overtraining syndromein another [7]. Such inter-individual differences in responses under identical conditions canbe explained by variations in the recovery potential, endurance capacities, stress tolerance ornon-training related stressors, genetics, training background, or current health status [4, 8].

Training camps are generally intense and are likely to induce increased stress andinsufficient recovery due to travel, increase in training load, pressure to be selected for theteam, and other social factors, which probably affect the recovery-stress balance of theathletes [9]. As Kellmann et al. [10] highlighted, elevated levels of stress and simultaneouslylowered levels of recovery are expected as a function of extended duration of high intensitytraining. Physical exercise is an energy-demanding activity, which over extended periodsmay empty the energy stocks within the body and raise the sensations of fatigue andexhaustion [11]. Athletes may, thus, experience acute feelings of fatigue and a decrease inperformance from a single intense training session or an intense period of training [4]. Smithand Norris [8] reported a continuum from day-to-day training fatigue to the fatigue generatedfrom an excessive overload. As a consequence, the stress state accumulates while therecovery state decreases due to the increased training load and probably insufficient time forrecovery during a training camp [10], which makes such a training camp an authentic andappropriate context to examine the recovery-stress state in elite athletes.

The early detection of an imbalance between stress and recovery is necessary to minimizepotential decrements in performance [12]. Regular monitoring of an athlete’s currentcondition using diagnostic tools can help to identify early signs and symptoms ofovertraining. However, since many physiological parameters change in the response tointense training, it appears difficult to distinguish normal from abnormal changes [13].Diagnostic tools, such as psychometric scales are useful complements to provide helpfulpsychological information of an athlete’s recovery-stress state in an efficient way [14].

The Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes (RESTQ-Sport) [15, 16] is a commontool for monitoring recovery and stress in sports, which was developed from a bio-psychological approach considering physiological, subjective, behavioural, and socialaspects [17]. The RESTQ-Sport has been frequently applied in training camps andovertraining research [e.g., 12, 18-20]. But from a practical perspective, the RESTQ-Sport isa rather lengthy questionnaire that is suitable for weekly application for the duration of asporting season [5]. However, it measures stress and recovery concerning the past three days

530 Validity of the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale

and does not represent the acute state of an athlete. Consequently, it is argued that a shorterinstrument is needed that is sensitive to the athlete’s current state [4].

Recently, researchers have developed a scale that measures the acute state of an athlete(Acute Recovery and Stress Scale, ARSS) using a list of adjectives [21]. The ARSS wasdeveloped for use in a larger research project “RegMan – Optimization of Training andCompetition: Management of Regeneration in Elite Sports”, which was initiated and fundedby the German Federal Institute of Sport Science.

Since the new instrument has not been applied in elite sport contexts yet, it was thepurpose of the present study to examine its sensitivity during a five-day field hockey trainingcamp of the German Junior National Field Hockey Team. It was hypothesised that reducedscores of the ARSS recovery scales and increased scores of the stress scales would be foundas the training camp progressed. The ARSS was also designed for monitoring daily training,and therefore deemed suitable for this study investigating the daily change in the recovery-stress state as well as the general trend of recovery and stress over the duration of the camp.Meeusen et al. [4] in reviewing the literature, reported significant increases in scores on otherpsychological scales after a two-day period of intensified training. Thus, if the ARSS scalesare sensitive, they should be able to reflect the training load.

METHODPARTICIPANTSThe twenty-five female field hockey players of the German Junior National Team agedbetween 18 and 20 years (M = 19.1 ± 0.8) voluntarily participated during a five-day trainingcamp. Subsequent to the indoor season in February, the primary purpose of the camp was thepreparation for the Hockey Junior World Cup in July 2013. Participants were assured thattheir individual data would be treated confidentially and would not be used for selectionpurposes. Because of delayed arrivals or early departures and occasional absences ofathletes, the sample size fluctuated for some measurements. Data sets of athletes who weremissing on three or more time points were excluded from statistical analyses.

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in theDeclaration of Helsinki.

PROCEDUREAn overview of the times of data collection combined with the volume and content of thetraining sessions is presented in Figure 1. In total, data were collected over nine time points.The duration of specific team training sessions ranged between 75 and 105 minutes. On threeoccasions, the team training was replaced by test matches against the Senior National FieldHockey Team, who were engaged in a training camp at the same time. Same playing timeswere arranged for all players during these matches. The goalkeepers and those athletes whowere appointed to execute corner situations were required to also complete additionaltraining sessions (average 40 minutes) daily. On the fourth morning, no hockey specifictraining but only athletic training was carried out. Additionally, the athletes were told to jogat low intensity for twenty minutes to recover every morning before breakfast, except themorning of day four. In addition, the coach was asked to evaluate each session in terms ofthe perceived training intensity on a scale ranging from 0 (no intensity) to 6 (maximalintensity). On average the sessions were rated 4.5 (medium to high intensity level). Oneexception was the evening session of day four designed for an intensity of 2 (Figure 1).


ACUTE RECOVERY AND STRESS SCALEThe German version of the ARSS consists of 32 adjectives describing physical, emotional,mental, and overall aspects of recovery and stress (e.g. powerful, tensed) [21]. Thesedescriptions are assessed with a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (does not applyat all) to 6 (fully applies). Subsequent to an exploratory factor analysis, Hitzschke et al. [22]examined the ARSS with a confirmatory factor analysis on a sample of performance orientedathletes (N = 429) resulting in satisfactory and good model-fit for the recovery factor(RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 1.0, SRMR = 0.04) as well as the stress factor (RMSEA = 0.09, CFI= 0.9, SRMR = 0.05). The eight scales of the ARSS scores have been found to possess goodinternal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha (Range = 0.84 to 0.94). The mean score of fouradjectives represents one of the following dimensions Physical Performance Capability,Mental Performance Capability, Emotional Balance, Overall Recovery, Muscular Stress,Lack of Activation, Emotional Imbalance, and Overall Stress.

The athletes were asked to answer the questionnaire every morning and evening at mealtimes.

RECOVERY-STRESS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ATHLETESData from the RESTQ-Sport [15, 16] was collected at the beginning and at the end of thetraining camp. Participants were asked to answer 76 statements regarding the frequency ofexperienced stressors and recovery-related activities in the past three days and nights (e.g. ...I felt physically fit; ... I was fed up with everything). These are likewise assessed with a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). These scales (4 items each) are


Figure 1. Procedure and schedule of the studyNote: ARSS = Acute Recovery and Stress Scale; RESTQ-Sport = Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes; DOMS = Delayed-onset musclesoreness.

divided into twelve general and seven sport-specific aspects of recovery and stress. TheGerman as well as the English RESTQ-Sport has been found to have acceptable internalconsistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranging between α = 0.67 and α = 0.89), and shown to bestable in regard to short-term functional fluctuations and short-term changes of state [14, 23].

DELAYED-ONSET MUSCLE SORENESSThe measurement of delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was conducted with a visualanalogue scale (VAS) [24] at the first, third, and fifth day of the training camp. The 100 mmline is anchored at the left by the words ‘no pain’ and at the right by the words ‘unbearablepain’. Participants were asked to draw a vertical line on the scale representing the currentintensity of muscle soreness. A pain-rating index was calculated from each VASmeasurement, with the intensity of pain considered to be the distance (in mm) of theparticipant’s mark from the left-hand side of the scale. The VAS is a common instrument toevaluate the intensity of one’s pain and is therefore frequently applied in experimentalstudies and DOMS research [25, 26]. Research has shown that the tool has good sensitivityto change as well as a very good repeatability with correlation coefficients ranging between0.97 and 0.99 [27].

STATISTICAL ANALYSESStatistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 21. In order to verify the sensitivity of theARSS, changes in scores were calculated: a) from the beginning to the end of the trainingcamp (day 1 vs. day 5; paired t-tests); b) from the morning to the evening measurements(paired t-tests); and c) for the morning values (ANOVA for repeated measurements, n = 22).RESTQ-Sport scores were examined with paired t-tests (n = 23), whereas the DOMSmeasures were examined with a repeated measures ANOVA (n = 21).

To prevent an undue decline of the sample size as a result of the listwise deletion, it wasrefrained from an ANOVA of all measurements. Instead, separate calculations wereexecuted.

RESULTS Descriptive results of the ARSS scales and number of participants throughout the trainingcamp are presented in Table 1. The distribution of the scores for the ARSS recovery scales isdepicted in Figure 2, and the ARSS stress scales are depicted in Figure 3. For reasons ofclarity, only those scales which revealed adaptations according to the training schedule aredepicted. The comparison of the RESTQ-Sport values is illustrated in Figure 4.

RECOVERY SCALESThe analysis of the pre-post data collection revealed a significant decrease of PhysicalPerformance Capability from the beginning to the end of the training camp: t 22 = 4.1, p <0.001. Day-to-day analyses exposed a decline from the morning to the evening, which weresignificant for day one: t 21 = 7.2, p < 0.001; as well as for day two: t 22 = 9.2, p < 0.001,and day three: t 22 = 4.1, p < 0.001. On day four, no significant results were found.Comparing the morning scores, the ANOVA showed significant changes over the course ofthe camp: F 2.9, 60.3 = 10.0, p < 0.001. According to the post-hoc test, the scores of the firstmorning and the second morning declined to day three (p1 < 0.030, p2 < 0.001), as well as today four (p1 < 0.014, p2 < 0.014) and to day five (p1 < 0.006, p2 < 0.003).

Scores for the second recovery scale labelled Mental Performance Capability displayed adecline of the baseline value compared to the final value: t 22 = 4.0, p < 0.001. Moreover,



Tab

le I.

Dis

trib

utio

n o

f th

e A

RS

S s

ca

les

(ra

ng

e f

rom

0 t

o 6

) th

rou

gh

ou

t th

e t

rain

ing

ca

mp

ARSS

Sca

leDa

y 1

Day

2Da

y 3

Day

4Da

y 5

Mor

ning

Even

ing

Mor

ning

Even

ing

Mor

ning

Even

ing

Mor

ning

Even

ing

Mor

ning

n=

22n

= 23

n=

23n

= 25

n=

23M

±M

±M

±M

±M

±M

±M

±M

±M

±Re

cove

ryPP

C#3.

83**

*0.

832.

660.

503.

73**

*0.

642.

470.

573.

12**

*0.

632.

470.

603.

030.

622.

930.

553.

050.

44M

PC#

4.11

***

0.88

2.72

0.87

3.97

***

0.82

2.95

0.90

3.93

***

0.69

3.13

0.78

3.54

*0.

713.

150.

763.

500.

70EB

#4.

24**

*0.

923.

700.

883.

910.

853.

710.

663.

88**

*0.

793.

600.

873.

640.

873.

650.

983.

720.

77OR

#3.

31**

1.29

2.50

0.52

3.18

***

0.74

2.08

0.73

2.39

***

0.71

2.16

0.81

2.84

0.80

2.84

0.80

2.90

0.73

Stre

ssM

S#1.

48**

1.19

2.83

0.91

2.02

***

0.94

3.21

1.20

3.30

1.11

3.42

1.16

2.92

1.24

2.70

1.01

2.96

1.20

LA1.

22**

1.21

1.99

0.86

1.22

***

0.92

1.95

0.85

1.52

0.98

2.03

0.88

1.57

0.97

1.88

1.07

1.53

0.83

EI1.

43**

1.06

1.38

0.80

1.26

0.87

1.43

0.87

1.33

*0.

791.

391.

051.

250.

851.

661.

261.

120.

86OS

#2.

03**

1.39

3.14

0.69

1.97

***

0.85

3.19

0.78

2.93

**0.

983.

611.

012.

881.

112.

760.

933.

020.

98

Not

e:PP

C =

Phy

sica

l Pe

rfor

man

ce C

apab

ility

; M

PC =

Men

tal

Perf

orm

ance

Cap

abili

ty;

EB

= E

mot

iona

l B

alan

ce;

OR

= O

vera

ll R

ecov

ery;

MS

= M

uscu

lar

Stre

ss;

LA

= L

ack

ofA

ctiv

atio

n; E

I =

Em

otio

nal

Imba

lanc

e; O

S =

Ove

rall

Stre

ss;

# =

sig

nifi

cant

pre

-pos

t ca

mp

diff

eren

ce,

p<

0.0

1; *

** =

sig

nifi

cant

mor

ning

-eve

ning

dif

fere

nce,

p<

0.0

01;

** =

sign

ific

ant m

orni

ng-e

veni

ng d

iffe

renc

e, p

< 0

.01;

* =

sig

nifi

cant

mor

ning

-eve

ning

dif

fere

nce,

p<

0.0

5.


Figure 2. Three out of four ARSS recovery scales ranging from 0 (does notapply at all) to 6 (fully applies) throughout the training camp

Figure 3. Three out of four ARSS stress scales ranging from 0 (does notapply at all) to 6 (fully applies) throughout the training camp

morning-evening variations were found daily with significantly reduced evening values: dayone t 21 = 7.5, p < 0.001; day two t 22 = 5.5, p < 0.001; day three t 22 = 4.9, p < 0.001; dayfour t 24 = 2.2, p < 0.035. Moreover, the ANOVA of the morning measurements detectedsignificant changes: F 2.9, 60.3 = 5.6, p < 0.002. Accordingly, the mean score of the fifthmorning was lower than the value of the first day (p < 0.011) as well as the third day (p <0.020).

Analyses of Emotional Balance featured a significant decrease from pre to post campmeasures: t 22 = 2.9, p < 0.009, accompanied with a significantly reduced evening score onthe first day: t 21 = 7.5, p < 0.001. While the other days proceeded almost unchanged, asignificant development of the morning values was found (F 3.0, 63.9 = 3.8, p < 0.013) and thescore of the first day was higher than the fourth (p < 0.036).

The assessment of Overall Recovery also resulted in a significant pre-post camp decrease:t 22 = 2.9, p < 0.009. Furthermore, the first two days of the training camp revealed significantchanges in scores: day one t 21 = 3.8, p < 0.001; day two t 22 = 7.9, p < 0.001. Additionally,variations were found among the morning scores: F 2.4, 50.8 = 4.4, p < 0.012, the post-hoc testresulting in a decline from day two to day three (p < 0.002).


Figure 4. RESTQ-Sport values at the beginning and the end of the campranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always)

STRESS SCALESRegarding the stress related scales, Muscular Stress presented a significant augmentationfrom the beginning to the end of the training camp: t 22 = -5.9, p < 0.001. Moreover,morning-evening comparisons resulted in significant intensifications on day one: t 21 = -7.2,p < 0.001, as well as on day two: t 22 = -5.8, p < 0.001. The analysis of the morning valuesrevealed a similar outcome: F 4, 84 = 16.7, p < 0.001. The values of the first and the secondday were lower than on day three (p1 < 0.001, p2 < 0.001), day four (p1 < 0.001, p2 < 0.023),and day five (p1 < 0.001, p2 < 0.005).

Although the pre-post camp comparison of scores did not indicate a significant change inLack of Activation, an escalation of the scores over the day was found on day one: t 21 = -2.8,p < 0.010, day two: t 22 = -3.7, p < 0.001, and day three: t 22 = -2.7, p < 0.015. The morningvalues remained unchanged.

The analyses of the scores for the scale Emotional Imbalance did not reveal anysignificant response during the course of the training camp.

The mean value of Overall Stress rose from the beginning to the end of the training camp:t 22 = -3.7, p < 0.001. In addition, there was an increase on day one: t 21 = -4.3, p < 0.001,day two: t 22 = -7.9, p < 0.001, and day three: t 22 = -3.1, p < 0.005. Furthermore, the ANOVAindicated a development of the morning values F 2.8, 58.1 = 9.0, p < 0.001. The post-hoc testrevealed an increase from day one to day five (p < 0.013), and from day two to day three (p< 0.001), day four (p < 0.016), and day five (p < 0.001).

RESTQ-SPORTThe results of the two measurements of the RESTQ-Sport factors are depicted in Figure 4.The analysis of the pre-post mean values revealed significant increases for PhysicalComplaints (1.6 ± 0.8 vs. 2.1 ± 0.8): t 22 = -3.0, p < 0.007; and Injury (1.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.8 ±1.0): t 22 = -4.9, p < 0.001. Scores for Physical Recovery decreased significantly from thebeginning to the end of the training camp (3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 2.8 ± 0.7): t 22 = 2.1, p < 0.047.

DOMSThe ANOVA for repeated measurements over the three assessments of the DOMS (i.e., dayone, three and five) yielded significant alterations: F 2, 40 = 14.2, p < 0.001. In particular, themean pain scale rose from day one (17.6 ± 18.1 mm) to day three (40.0 ± 17.9 mm, p <0.001) and to day five (39.0 ± 21.0 mm, p < 0.002).

DISCUSSIONThe purpose of this study was to examine the sensitivity of the new questionnaire, the ARSS, inrespect to its ability to assess the process of recovery and stress states in an elite sporting context.The setting of a five-day field hockey training camp was selected to administer the ARSSrepeatedly. As the RESTQ-Sport is a well-established monitoring instrument [e.g. 12, 18-20], itwas used as reference. Similar pre-post camp changes of both questionnaires were thereforeexpected. Moreover, daily fluctuations throughout the training camp were examined. The resultsindicated certain variability as well as a convenient stability for most of the scales as hypothesised.

When the baseline values were measured at the beginning of the training camp, thedistribution of the RESTQ-Sport team scores revealed a tendency to lower recovery andhigher stress values. Although most of the stress-related scales remained low, the scalesConflicts/Pressure and Fatigue displayed the highest scores. Considering the range of theseven-point rating scale, the recovery-related scales appeared somewhat in a mid-level fieldbetween 2.6 (± 1.2) and 3.8 (± 1.2). Thus, the athletes revealed indices of poor recovery


according to the scores for the last three days and nights, which, probably, can be attributedto final matches at the preceding weekend (end of the indoor season) and travel withinGermany as well as from abroad. Before the beginning of the first training session, the ARSSrecovery scores were also in the medium range, whereas the stress scales were located in thelower range. During the course of the camp, the ARSS showed swift and sensitive reactionsas well as adaptations according to the coach’s perceived training intensity. Because of thehigh volume and intensity of training (see Figure 1), especially on the first three days,variations of the physical and general components were expected. Also scores on the mentalscales were assumed to change due to frequent meetings and tactical discussions.

In general, sensations of fatigue and exhaustion are raised sooner or later by an emptyingof energy stocks or due to other physiological mechanisms during physical exercise [11]. Asingle intense training session or training period may cause acute feelings of fatigue anddecrease in performance [4]. An increase in training load and high duration of training aretherefore associated with elevated levels of stress and simultaneously lowered levels ofrecovery [14]. Therefore, the morning recovery scores were expected to be higher and thestress scores to be lower than the evening scores.

These prior findings ascertain the outcome of the ARSS scores of the present study. Thescores for the recovery scales of the ARSS were significantly higher at the beginning of thetraining camp than at the end, while Muscular Stress and Overall Stress increasedsignificantly. Furthermore, the physical, mental, and overall stress and recovery scoresshowed variations on every day as well as over the course of the camp. The first three daysconsisted of very intense training sessions, including two demanding test matches, which arerepresented by a decline of the recovery scales and a rise in the stress scales every evening.The process of Physical Performance Capability and Muscular Stress, moreover, revealedthe cumulative straining effect of the training. While recovery was resembled on the first twodays, from day three on the scores did not return to the baseline point; i.e., the scores ofPhysical Performance Capability were lowered and Muscular Stress rose. In accordancewith the training schedule, no variation was found on day four. As the early-morning joggingwas omitted, and only a short athletic session (60 min) and less intense hockey training(intensity rating = 2) were conducted, the morning and evening scores remained stable, andeven a small recovery trend could be derived from the stress component.

The non-training-related aspects of preparation camps have the potential to adverselyaffect the recovery-stress state of the athletes, for instance additional travel, sleeping in anunaccustomed environment, pressure to perform, or negative or lack of positive social factors[9]. This might explain why Emotional Balance decreased significantly by the end of thecamp. However, regarding the other measurements, Emotional Balance and EmotionalImbalance displayed least variability. Probably, an influence on emotional perceptions wasnot intended during the short period, as no selection decisions were discussed.

The changes of the RESTQ-Sport seem to confirm the conclusion that the camp wasreally demanding physical resources. Specifically, in terms of the physical aspects; i.e.,scores of Physical Complaints and Injury increased, while Physical Recovery scoresdeclined. Jürimäe et al. [28] found similar results after a six-day training camp of competitiverowers. Additionally, the assessment of DOMS reflects the exhausting effect of the trainingcamp. As the pain scores doubled in the course of events, a dose-response pattern of thetraining load was derived. This complies furthermore with the process of the scale MuscularStress. Moreover, our results correspond to an earlier work of Costill et al. [29], whereresembling processes were found in progressive muscle glycogen depletion in response tothree consecutive days of increased training.



Figure 5. ARSS profile of the recovery scales for a single player throughoutthe camp

Figure 6. ARSS profile of the stress scales for a single player throughout thecamp

In addition to monitor team scores, the questionnaire might be applied to identifyindividuals who are maladapting. Figures 5 and 6 depict an exemplary profile of a playerwho presented a rather recovered and less stressed profile at the beginning, but who seemedto indicate signs of maladaptation through the course of the camp compared to the team’smean scores. The scales Physical Performance Capability, Muscular Stress, and OverallRecovery and Overall Stress deviate remarkably from mean values, and especially the highrating of Emotional Imbalance on the last evening might reveal an important clue forinitiating individual countermeasures. Thus, the tool might provide helpful information forinterventions in the future.

All in all, we found evidence that the ARSS is a valid and sensitive tool for monitoringand assessing the recovery and stress responses during a training camp. However, using thefindings from this study to support the use of the ARSS for other sports and target groups atthis stage is premature. Apart from the rather small number of participants, the present studydealt only with female athletes. In addition, the aim of the training camp was not to evoke asystematic overload and it is noteworthy that the time frame of five days appears to be tooshort to predict primary indications of overload or the overtraining syndrome, as that maytake several weeks [4]. Nevertheless, the lack of physiological data is another limitation ofthis study. Despite arranging equal playing times during the test matches, individual physicalintensities could not be evaluated. Future studies should include physiological indicators,such as heart rate, lactate, or creatine kinase. Moreover, further longitudinal examinations arenecessary. In reference to the findings of the RESTQ-Sport [e.g., 18, 23], a similar adaptationof the ARSS scales over a longer period is conceivable. Therefore, the effects of (high)intensive training loads in strength and endurance training have to be analysed and correlatedwith physiological parameters. Maybe, cut-off values can be identified and markers of anegative development can be determined.

Furthermore, the suitability of the ARSS to other sports is yet to be examined andtherefore extrapolating the findings to other settings is cautioned against at this stage.Although field hockey is a team sport and may have similarities with other types of teamsport, each sport and context has its own nuances and specific training protocols, which maylead to different responses and profiles.

CONCLUSIONThe questionnaire manifested a practical and suitable versatility. From a practicalperspective, the strength of the ARSS is its shortness because it can be easily applied in highperformance sport settings in an efficient way. However, there is still a need for moreempirical evidence to support its utility and applicability in sport settings.

Further research is necessary, especially with focus on individual interpretations andrecommendations. As athletes with equal capability may display heterogeneous responses toa given stimulus [6], the establishment of normative standards might reveal to beproblematic. A similar approach like the suggestion of Kallus and Kellmann [30] with theRESTQ-Sport has merit. They recommend that training may be adapted for each athletebased on an individually determined (off-season) baseline level. When recovery scoresdecrease and stress scores are elevated and no regeneration seems to taking place, trainingload might be reduced or more time to rest be given in response. Another possibility is toregularly match the mean values of teammates, provided that they are undergoing the sametraining regimen.

However, a general problem of questionnaires is the response distortion by means ofeither faking good or bad [4]. Athletes might be worried about the consequences of not


reporting ‘desirable’ results that are not truly reflective of their recovery-stress state.Alternatively, in order to avoid another strenuous training session, athletes might exaggeratethe stress and understate the recovery dimensions. Therefore, it might be advisable to feedback to the coach anonymous mean scores rather than identifying the athlete. Nevertheless,there is significant merit in athletes using the ARSS to get individual feedback and to managetheir personalized training schedule independently.

Consequently, the utility of the ARSS is still a work in progress. Nevertheless, thepreliminary findings support its applicability in the high performance setting of women’sfield hockey. The ARSS potentially constitutes a valuable instrument to assess the acuterecovery and stress state of athletes in a time-efficient and sensitive way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe present study was initiated and funded by the German Federal Institute of Sport Science.The research was realized within RegMan – Optimization of Training and Competition:Management of Regeneration in Elite Sports (IIA1-081901/12-16). The authors would liketo thank the coaches and athletes for their participation.

REFERENCES1. Armstrong, L.E. and Van Heest, J.L., The Unknown Meachnism of the Overtraining Syndrome: Clues from

Depression and Psychoneuroimmunology, Sports Medicine, 2002, 32, 185-209.

2. Lehmann, M., Foster, C., Gastmann, U., Keizer, H. and Steinacker, J.M., Definition, Types, Symptoms,Findings, Underlying Mechanisms, and Frequency of Overtraining and Overtraining Syndrome, in:Lehmann, M., Foster, C., Gastmann, U., Keizer, H. and Steinacker, J.M., eds., Overload, PerformanceIncompetence, and Regeneration in Sport, Plenum, New York, NY, 1999, 1-6.

3. Halson, S.L., Bridge, M.W., Meeusen, R., Busschaert, B., Gleeson, M., Jones, D.A. and Jeukendrup, A.E.,Time Curse of Performance Changes and Fatigue Markers During Intensified Training in Trained Cyclists,Journal of Applied Physiology, 2002, 93, 947-956.

4. Meeusen, R., Duclos, M., Foster, C., Fry, A., Glesson, M., Nieman, D., Raglin, J., Rietjens, G., Steinacker,J.M. and Urhausen, A., Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Overtraining Syndrome: Joint ConsensusStatement of the European College of Sport Science (ECSS) and the American College of Sports Medicine(ACSM), Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2013, 45, 186-205.

5. Kellmann, M., Psychologische Methoden der Erholungs-Beanspruchungs-Diagnostik [PsychologicalMethods for the Assessment of Recovery and Stress], Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 2000, 51, 253-258.

6. Raglin, J.S., Overtraining and Staleness: Psychometric Monitoring of Endurance Athletes, in: Singer, R.B.,Murphey, M. and Tennant, L.K., eds., Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology, Macmillan, New York,NY, 1993, 840-850.

7. O’Toole, M.L., Overreaching and Overtraining in Endurance Athletes, in: Kreider, R.B., Fry, A.C. andO’Toole, M.L., eds., Overtraining in Sport, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 1998, 3-17.

8. Smith, D.J. and Norris, S.R., Training Load and Monitoring an Athlete’s Tolerance for Endurance Training,in: Kellmann, M., ed., Enhancing Recovery: Preventing Underperformance in Athletes, Human Kinetics,Champaign, IL, 2002, 81-101.

9. Foster, C., Snyder, A. and Welsh, R., Monitoring of Training, Warm Up, and Performance in Athletes, in:Lehmann, M., Foster, C., Gastmann, U., Keizer, H. and Steinacker, J.M., eds., Overload, PerformanceIncompetence, and Regeneration in Sport, Plenum, New York, NY, 1999, 43-51.

10. Kellmann, M., Altenburg, D., Lormes, W. and Steinacker, J.M., Assessing Stress and Recovery duringPreparation for the World Championships in Rowing, The Sport Psychologist, 2001, 15, 151-167.

11. Ament, W. and Verkerke, G.J., Exercise and Fatigue, Sports Medicine, 2009, 39, 389-422.


12. Brink, M.S., Visscher, C., Coutts, A.J. and Lemmink, K.A.M., Changes in Perceived Stress and Recovery inOverreached Young Elite Soccer Players, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2012, 22,285-292.

13. Hooper, S.L., Mackinnon, L.T., Howard, A., Gordon, R.D. and Bachmann, A.W., Markers for MonitoringOvertraining and Recovery, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1995, 27, 106-112.

14. Kellmann, M., Preventing Overtraining in Athletes in High-Intensity Sports and Stress/Recovery Monitoring,Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2010, 20, 95-102.

15. Kellmann, M. and Kallus, K.W., Der Erholungs-Belastungs-Fragebogen für Sportler; Manual [TheRecovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes; Manual], Swets & Zeitlinger, Frankfurt a.M., 2000.

16. Kellmann, M. and Kallus, K.W., Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes, Human Kinetics, Champaign,IL, 2001.

17. Kellmann, M. and Kallus, K.W., Mood, Recovery-Stress State, and Regeneration, in: Lehmann, M., Foster,C., Gastmann, U., Keizer, H. and Steinacker, J.M., eds., Overload, Performance Incompetence, andRegeneration in Sport, Plenum, New York, NY, 1999, 101-117.

18. Bresciani, G., Cuevas, M.J., Molinero, O., Almar, M., Suay, F., Salvador, A., de Paz, J.A., Marquez, S. andGonzáles-Gallego, J., Signs of Overload After an Intensified Training, International Journal of SportsMedicine, 2011, 32, 338-343.

19. Mäetsu, J., Jürimäe, J. and Jürimäe, T., Monitoring of Performance and Training in Rowing, Sports Medicine,2005, 35, 597-617.

20. Meister, S., Faude, O., Amman, T., Schnittker, R. and Meyer, T., Indicators for High Physical Strain andOverload in Elite Football Players, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2013, 23, 156-163.

21. Hitzschke, B., Holst, T., Ferrauti, M., Meyer, T., Pfeiffer, M. and Kellmann, M., Entwicklung des Akutmaßeszur Erfassung von Erholung und Beanspruchung im Sport [Development of the Acute Recovery and StressScale], 2014, in press, Diagnostica.

22. Hitzschke, B., Kölling, S., Holst, T., Ferrauti, M., Meyer, T., Pfeiffer, M. and Kellmann, M., Entwicklungeines psychometrischen Akutmaßes zur Erfassung von Erholung und Beanspruchung [Development of aPsychometric Acute Scale to Assess Recovery and Stress], in: Stoll, O., Lau, A. and Moczall, S., eds.,Angewandte Sportpsychologie, Abstractband zur 45. asp-Jahrestagung, Czwalina, Hamburg, 2013, 130.

23. Kellmann, M. and Günther, K.-D., Changes in Stress and Recovery in Elite Rowers During Preparations forthe Olympic Games, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2000, 32, 676-683.

24. Ohnhaus, E.E. and Adler, R., Methodological Problems in the Measurement of Pain: A Comparison Betweenthe Verbal Rating Scale and the Visual Analogue Scale, Pain, 1975, 1, 379-384.

25. Cleather, D.J. and Guthrie, S.R., Quantifying Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness: A Comparison ofUnidimensional and Multidimensional Instrumentation, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2007, 25, 845-850.

26. Nosaka, K., Newton, M. and Sacco, P., Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness Does Not Reflect the Magnitude ofEccentric Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2002,12, 337-346.

27. Williamson, A. and Hoggart, B., Pain: A Review of Three Commonly Used Pain Rating Scales, Journal ofClinical Nursing, 2005, 14, 798-804.

28. Jürimäe, J., Mäetsu, J., Purge, P. and Jürimäe, T., Changes in Stress and Recovery After Heavy Training inRowers, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2004, 7, 335-339.

29. Costill, D.L., Bowers, R., Branam, G. and Sparks, K., Muscle Glycogen Utilization During ProlongedExercise on Successive Days, Journal of Applied Physiology, 1971, 31, 834-838.

30. Kallus, K.W. and Kellmann, M., Burnout in Athletes and Coaches, in: Hanin, Y.L., ed., Emotions in Sport,Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2000, 209-230.


Validity of the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale: Training ...369180/UQ369180_OA.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Validity of the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale: Training ...369180/UQ369180_OA.pdf ·...