Cargando…
Assessing affective valence and activation in resistance training with the feeling scale and the felt arousal scale: A systematic review
Evidence suggests affective responses to exercise can influence exercise adherence. However, there is a limited understanding of how and when to measure core affect in resistance training. As such, the objective of this systematic review was to analyze how the Feeling Scale and/or the Felt Arousal S...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10653427/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37972201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294529 |
Sumario: | Evidence suggests affective responses to exercise can influence exercise adherence. However, there is a limited understanding of how and when to measure core affect in resistance training. As such, the objective of this systematic review was to analyze how the Feeling Scale and/or the Felt Arousal Scale have been used in resistance training to assess core affect. Focus was given to the contextual feasibility, timing, and frequency of assessment. A search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases was conducted (last search date July, 2022) with the purpose of including experimental and non-experimental studies, utilizing the Feeling Scale and/or the Felt Arousal Scale in resistance training, and focused on apparently healthy individuals of any age. Twenty-seven studies (N = 718 participants) published between 2009–2022 were qualitatively analyzed. Both scales appeared to be able to detect core affect within a wide array of intensities, ages, and equipment. As for the timing and frequency of measurement, no apparent standardization was evident. The use of the Feeling Scale, the Felt Arousal Scale, or both, to measure core affect appears to be feasible in resistance training practices. However, a lack of methodological background raises concerns regarding the quality of previous studies’ assessments and comparisons of results across studies. |
---|