对运动强度的偏好和耐受性问卷是否以PRITIE-Q(运动强度偏好和耐受性问卷)相关构念来测量偏好和耐受性,以了解体育活动中的运动强度?范围检讨

Q2 Health Professions Kinesiology Review Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1123/kr.2023-0021
Filipe Santos, Diogo Teixeira
{"title":"对运动强度的偏好和耐受性问卷是否以PRITIE-Q(运动强度偏好和耐受性问卷)相关构念来测量偏好和耐受性,以了解体育活动中的运动强度?范围检讨","authors":"Filipe Santos, Diogo Teixeira","doi":"10.1123/kr.2023-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individual preference and tolerance can be seen as relevant traits for the understanding of the relationship between exercise intensity and behavioral outcomes. To better understand that relationship, this scoping review aimed to analyze preference for, and tolerance of, exercise intensity constructs in physical activity settings by verifying the contextual utility and feasibility of the subscales in the multiple settings of their application, the interpretation of the subscales, associations with other variables, and the reported limitations of the subscales’ use. The search was conducted through PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and B-on databases. Inclusion criteria were healthy individuals including athletes, experimental and nonexperimental studies written in English based on the assessment of subjective intensity in exercise; studies including the variables tolerance and/or preference. Exclusion criteria were instrument validation studies with no concurrent data, gray literature, and systematic reviews. Thirty-six studies published between 2005 and 2022 were analyzed. Results indicate that both constructs appear to be useful and feasible in various physical activity settings. No relevant limitations were reported for its use. Preference and tolerance constructs assessed with the PRETIE-Q (Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionaire) seem to offer a simple but useful understanding of the individual relation with exercise intensity in several physical activity–related outcomes.","PeriodicalId":37468,"journal":{"name":"Kinesiology Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Preference and Tolerance Measured With the PRITIE-Q (Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionaire) Relevant Constructs for Understanding Exercise Intensity in Physical Activity? A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Filipe Santos, Diogo Teixeira\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/kr.2023-0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Individual preference and tolerance can be seen as relevant traits for the understanding of the relationship between exercise intensity and behavioral outcomes. To better understand that relationship, this scoping review aimed to analyze preference for, and tolerance of, exercise intensity constructs in physical activity settings by verifying the contextual utility and feasibility of the subscales in the multiple settings of their application, the interpretation of the subscales, associations with other variables, and the reported limitations of the subscales’ use. The search was conducted through PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and B-on databases. Inclusion criteria were healthy individuals including athletes, experimental and nonexperimental studies written in English based on the assessment of subjective intensity in exercise; studies including the variables tolerance and/or preference. Exclusion criteria were instrument validation studies with no concurrent data, gray literature, and systematic reviews. Thirty-six studies published between 2005 and 2022 were analyzed. Results indicate that both constructs appear to be useful and feasible in various physical activity settings. No relevant limitations were reported for its use. Preference and tolerance constructs assessed with the PRETIE-Q (Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionaire) seem to offer a simple but useful understanding of the individual relation with exercise intensity in several physical activity–related outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kinesiology Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kinesiology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2023-0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kinesiology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2023-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个体偏好和耐受性可以被视为理解运动强度与行为结果之间关系的相关特征。为了更好地理解这种关系,本综述旨在通过验证子量表在多种情境下应用的情境效用和可行性、子量表的解释、与其他变量的关联,以及报告的子量表使用局限性,来分析体育活动环境中运动强度结构的偏好和耐受性。搜索是通过PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO和B-on数据库进行的。纳入标准为健康个体(包括运动员)、基于主观运动强度评估的实验性和非实验性英文研究;研究包括变量耐受性和/或偏好。排除标准为无并发数据的仪器验证研究、灰色文献和系统评价。他们分析了2005年至2022年间发表的36项研究。结果表明,这两种结构在各种体育活动环境中都是有用和可行的。其使用无相关限制报道。用PRETIE-Q(运动强度偏好和耐受性问卷)评估的偏好和耐受性结构似乎提供了一个简单但有用的理解,在几个体育活动相关的结果中,个人与运动强度的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Preference and Tolerance Measured With the PRITIE-Q (Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionaire) Relevant Constructs for Understanding Exercise Intensity in Physical Activity? A Scoping Review
Individual preference and tolerance can be seen as relevant traits for the understanding of the relationship between exercise intensity and behavioral outcomes. To better understand that relationship, this scoping review aimed to analyze preference for, and tolerance of, exercise intensity constructs in physical activity settings by verifying the contextual utility and feasibility of the subscales in the multiple settings of their application, the interpretation of the subscales, associations with other variables, and the reported limitations of the subscales’ use. The search was conducted through PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and B-on databases. Inclusion criteria were healthy individuals including athletes, experimental and nonexperimental studies written in English based on the assessment of subjective intensity in exercise; studies including the variables tolerance and/or preference. Exclusion criteria were instrument validation studies with no concurrent data, gray literature, and systematic reviews. Thirty-six studies published between 2005 and 2022 were analyzed. Results indicate that both constructs appear to be useful and feasible in various physical activity settings. No relevant limitations were reported for its use. Preference and tolerance constructs assessed with the PRETIE-Q (Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionaire) seem to offer a simple but useful understanding of the individual relation with exercise intensity in several physical activity–related outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Kinesiology Review
Kinesiology Review Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Kinesiology Review (KR) is the official journal of the National Academy of Kinesiology and the American Kinesiology Association. KR provides a forum for discussion and analysis of kinesiology research and its applications. Although many journals publish reviews on select topics, KR stands alone in its focus on scholarly reviews from all subdisciplines of kinesiology. This rigorously peer-reviewed journal serves the interests of those in all areas of study related to kinesiology—sport and exercise psychology, motor behavior, exercise physiology, biomechanics, sports medicine, sport history, sport philosophy, sport sociology, physical education pedagogy, and sport management. The insightful review articles in KR address important issues and emerging research in all areas of kinesiology. KR also publishes theoretical papers, critical analyses of significant issues and scientific methods, and position papers pertinent to kinesiology. One issue each year contains papers based on scholarly presentations of the annual meeting of the National Academy of Kinesiology, which provides commentaries on timely issues in the field, and another issue contains papers reflecting the topic of the annual leadership workshop of the American Kinesiology Association. Articles featured in KR have touched on recovering from spinal cord injuries, the role of physical activity in successful aging, diversity in kinesiology, and the history of organized youth sport in the United States. Future articles will continue to explore new research in kinesiology and other topics of importance to the field. KR’s broad coverage makes it a perfect source of information for faculty, researchers, and professionals who want to stay up to date on emerging research across the subdisciplines, as well as students who are starting their exploration of this fascinating field of study.
期刊最新文献
The 2022 Janus 2.0 Conference Papers: Introduction to the Special Issue From the Past and Into the Future: Lessons From Janus 2.0 An Overview of Dissemination and Implementation Science in Physical Activity and Health Promotion Translating and Implementing Kinesiology Research Into Society Erratum. Physical Activity and Health Equity for Middle-Aged and Older Adults
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1