ArticleSports medicine - open2026
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Arabic Rating-of-Fatigue Scale.
Article in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Rating-of-Fatigue (ROF) scale is increasingly used to quantify subjective sensations of fatigue in exercise science. However, despite its growing international use, its psychometric properties have not yet been examined in Arabic-speaking populations. This study aimed to translate the ROF into Arabic and evaluate its content validity, face validity, and construct validity relative to perceived exertion and heart rate (HR) responses during graded exercise and subsequent passive recovery.
methodsThe study was conducted in Tunisia and followed established international best-practice guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation. The ROF and its instructions were forward-translated, synthesized, and back-translated using blinded translators, with linguistic and conceptual equivalence evaluated using Sperber's framework and expert committee review. Face validity was assessed in 68 Arabic-speaking adults. Construct validity was examined in 43 adult participants during a modified Bruce treadmill test followed by 10 min of seated recovery, with the Arabic Rating-of-Fatigue scale (ROF-Ar), Borg CR10, and HR recorded at each exercise stage and during recovery. Within-participant correlations were pooled using Fisher's r-to-z transformation.
resultsSperber-based ratings indicated high linguistic and conceptual equivalence between the ROF-Ar and the original scale, with no item exceeding the predefined revision threshold. Face validity findings showed that participants predominantly interpreted the ROF-Ar as a measure of fatigue rather than exertion and that standardized instructions improved descriptor-related comprehensibility and reduced perceived difficulty. During graded exercise, ROF-Ar demonstrated very strong pooled correlations with Borg CR10 (r = 0.94; 95% CI 0.92-0.95; p < 0.001) and HR (r = 0.95; 95% CI 0.93-0.96; p < 0.001). During recovery, the association between ROF-Ar and Borg CR10 attenuated substantially (r = 0.35; 95% CI 0.15-0.52; p < 0.001), whereas the association with HR remained moderate (r = 0.63; 95% CI 0.49-0.74; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe Arabic version of the ROF demonstrated high linguistic and conceptual equivalence, adequate face validity, and strong construct validity. The recovery-phase dissociation between perceived fatigue and perceived exertion supports the intended conceptual distinction of the ROF and justifies the use of ROF-Ar for assessing subjective fatigue during exercise and recovery in Arabic-speaking research and applied settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.