Development and validity of the subjective training quality scale

Abstract

This study aimed to define, develop, and validate a subjective scale of training quality. Two related studies were used to 1) define training quality and 2) develop and validate a subjective scale. Part One: a purposive sample of 15 sub-elite (i.e. national) and elite (i.e. international) swimmers participated in one, 20-30-min semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis of interview responses established three constructs to define training quality. These were the physical, technical, and mental aspects of training. Part Two: development of the Subjective Training Quality (STQ) scale based on the three constructs identified in Part One. 252 sub-elite and elite athletes, across eight sports completed the STQ scale. Cronbach's alpha (α) assessed internal consistency, histogram plot analysis assessed face validity, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) compared physical, technical, and mental constructs with training quality. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) evaluated CFA quality of fit. Physical, technical, and mental constructs demonstrated a high "acceptable" level of internal consistency (α = 0.85) and excellent face validity. Comparatively, the CFA quality of fit was "excellent" (RMSEA = <0.01 "good", SRMR = 0.00 "perfect"). The STQ scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency and face validity, establishing capacity to monitor training quality. The STQ scale could be used in conjunction with traditional training monitoring tools to provide additional insight into athlete's training quality. Further investigation is required to determine how the STQ scale may interact with subjective and objective training performance measures, and how it could be incorporated into daily training monitoring. Highlights. Athletes perceive the subjective training quality (STQ) scale adequately represents the physical, technical, and mental constructs of training quality. . Excellent internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis fit demonstrates the STQ scale is an effective tool to monitor training quality. . With additional validation, the STQ scale could be used in conjunction with traditional load monitoring tools to provide greater insight to an athlete's training response, and subsequently inform training prescription.

Training Quality—What Is It and How Can We Improve It?

“…It is not just about training hard but trying to focus on what really matters for that specific session : : : ." 10 This is in line with Shell et al, 11 who defined training quality as an athlete's capacity to complete a training session to the desired level. However, we argue that training quality has (at least) 2 dimensions:…”

“…Shell et al 11 divided quality indicators within a training session into physical, technical, and mental factors. According to the authors, understanding these respective categories must be aligned with the session intention and goal(s).…”

“…However, the athlete is key to high quality during single training sessions, demonstrated by their ability to execute each session according to reach the intended goal. 11 Our experience from combined decades in elite sports is that the best practitioners have established a culture of continuous learning and development through appropriate systems and processes. The best athletes are continuously searching for improvements, and the best coaches manage to challenge and guide their athletes in a way where training quality develops.…”

Validation of a Novel Neurologic Assessment Test for Healthcare Staff

“…23 The range in scores further supports the face validity of the NAT, as it implies effective differentiation of knowledge levels among participants. 24 Additional face validity can be provided in future studies wherein baseline knowledge (eg, years performing a neurological assessment) are included in data collection. 25 As previously noted, test-takers with varying levels of clinical experience in neuroscience were recruited to participate in the NAT.…”