Modification and Applicability of Questionnaires to Assess the Recovery-Stress State Among Adolescent and Child Athletes

Abstract

Despite the general consensus regarding the implementation of self-report measures in the training monitoring, there is a lack of research about their applicability and comprehensibility among developing athletes. However, this target group needs special considerations to manage the increasing training demands while maintaining health and performance. This study deals with challenges of applying recovery-stress questionnaires which were validated with adult populations among developing athletes and presents a possible approach to enhance their applicability. In two phases, the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale (ARSS), a 32-adjective list covering eight scales, and the 8-item derived version, the Short Recovery and Stress Scale (SRSS) were answered by 1052 athletes between 10 and 16 years. Phase 1 included 302 14- to 16-year-old athletes who used the original questionnaires with the additional option to mark “I don’t understand,” while modified versions with additional explanations (phase 2) were applied to 438 adolescents (14.7 ± 0.6 years) and 312 child athletes (11.8 ± 1.1 years). Data of the original validation sample (n = 442) were reanalyzed to examine measurement invariance between adults and adolescents. The results showed comparable psychometric properties to the validation sample (e.g., rit > 0.30) and acceptable fit indices via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), although more difficulties and limitations were present within the younger groups (e.g., Cronbach’s α between 0.50 and 0.87), especially among 10- and 11-year-olds. The original as well as the modified SRSS, on the other hand, indicated good applicability (Cronbach’s α between 0.72 and 0.80). Multigroup CFA revealed measurement invariance of the original ARSS among adults and adolescents and of the modified ARSS among adolescents and children. Overall, the present study confirmed the assumption that questionnaires designed by and for adults cannot be directly transferred to younger athletes. The peculiarities and differences in the cognitive and affective development of each age group need to be considered. Future research needs to identify a cut-off age to start the proper use of psychometric tools, especially for state-oriented assessments for routine application in training monitoring. Further modifications and long-term investigations are necessary to implement psychometric monitoring in high-performance environments within youth sport.

Recovery management in sport: Overview and outcomes of a nine-year multicenter research program

“…The objective of the initial phase of the research program was to explore the usefulness and accuracy of various monitoring measures in capturing fluctuations in short-term fatigue and recovery stemming from training and competitive workloads (Project Module: Measures for Training and Competition Monitoring). 6,7,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] This phase was complemented by the development and validation of two concise self-report tools for assessing recovery and stress in sports, namely the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale (ARSS) and the Short Recovery and Stress Scale (SRSS), 8,9,24,[70][71][72] which have been used in most of the studies. As a preliminary step and as part of preparatory trials, we devised and assessed training protocols that induce temporary fatigue in athletes while maintaining an acceptable level of tolerability (Project Module: Fatigue-Inducing Exercise Protocols).…”

“…This tool allows for personalized configuration of monitoring and analysis processes, while athletes retain full control over access permissions to their data. Thanks to supplementary funding, the monitoring platform 13 2016 Original Research LSCT: Indicating Fatigue and Recovery Hecksteden et al 14 2016 Original Research Blood-Borne Markers of Fatigue in Competitive Athletes Hecksteden et al 15 2016 Original Research miRNAs and Sports Hitzschke et al 16 2016 Original Research Development of the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale for Sports Kölling et al 17 2016 Original Research Sleep Monitoring of a Six-Day Microcycle Kölling et al 18 2016 Original Research Comparing Subjective to Objective Sleep Parameters Reader et al 19 2016 Original Research Assessment of Fatigue in Heavy Strength Training Hecksteden et al 20 2017 Original Research Individual Ranges for Markers of Muscle Recovery Hitzschke et al 21 2017 Original Research Psychological Measures for the Assessment of Recovery and Stress Julian et al 22 2017 Original Research Individual Patterns in Blood-Borne Indicators of Fatigue Nässi et al 23 2017 Systematic Review Psychological Tools for Athlete Monitoring Nässi et al 24 2017 Original Research Development of Two Short Measures for Recovery and Stress in Sport Schneider et al 25 2018 Literature Review Contextualizing HR Measures: Methods and Applications Barth et al 26 2019 Original Research Individualized Monitoring in Badminton Kölling et al 27 2019 Original Research Modification of Questionnaires Schneider et al 28 2019 Original Research HRV Monitoring During Overload Training Hof zum Berge et al 29 40 2013 Meta-Analysis Cooling and Performance Recovery Meyer et al 41 2014 Literature Review Regenerative Interventions in Professional Football Fullagar et al 42 2015 Literature Review Sleep and Recovery in Team Sport Kölling et al 43 2016 Literature Review Sleep in Sports Pelka et al 44 2016 Systematic Review Relaxation Techniques in Sports Poppendieck et al 45 2016 Meta-Analysis Massage and Performance Recovery Wiewelhove et al 46 2016 Original Research Active Recovery During High-Intensity Interval Training Pelka et al 47 2017 Original Research Effects of Psychological Relaxation Techniques Pelka et al…”

“…For details see original publications. 4,7,10,13,15,20,26,27 performed at high intensities or for extended periods may not produce enough trauma producing muscular stress to require cooling as an initial recovery strategy. 79,80 Furthermore, in order to promote potential positive or prevent negative interactions with training adaptations, recovery interventions should not only be individualized and specified, but also appropriately periodized.…”

Are Measurement Instruments Responsive to Assess Acute Responses to Load in High-Level Youth Soccer Players?

“…Items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale with single point increments, ranging from does not apply at all (0) to fully applies (6). Structural, construct and cross-cultural validity and strong internal consistency have been reported for both the recovery (α = 0.73-0.78) and stress scale (α = 0.72-0.80) in youth and adolescent athletes (Kölling et al, 2019). Reliability of the selected parameters were assessed in a recent short-term between-days reliability study conducted in youth soccer players (Ruf et al, 2021b).…”

Portable PSG for sleep stage monitoring in sports: Assessment of SOMNOwatch plus EEG

“…In addition, this study revealed that expert scoring according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) guidelines (Berry et al, 2012) showed superior sensitivity (97.8%) and specificity (87.2%) compared to the embedded semiautomatic scoring of the software (93.0% sensitivity, 80.9% specificity). Since athletes are exposed to a multitude of ever‐changing external influences such as different training and competition schedules or non‐sport related obligations (Kölling, Ferrauti, Meyer, Pfeiffer, & Kellmann, 2016b), a mobile sleep monitoring device might serve as an economical and efficient option in order to understand and later intervene in sleep‐behavioural issues. However, as correct positioning of scalp electrodes requires a trained sleep nurse or researcher, modification to forehead EEG electrodes could serve as a suitable option to obtain reliable scoring, as these are easily self‐applied at home (Myllymaa et al, 2016; Younes, Younes, & Giannouli, 2016).…”