Source notes

A number describing how hard exercise feels only helps when people understand what the scale is asking. The authors examined 14 studies involving 426 healthy adults that evaluated versions of Borg's perceived-exertion scale across languages and cultures. Only four reported using a version that had undergone cross-cultural adaptation, and only one carried out that adaptation within the study itself. Most work instead compared ratings with measures such as heart rate. Instructions and familiarization were inconsistently reported. The central concern was not whether effort can be felt, but whether translated ratings mean the same thing.

A rating that rises alongside heart rate provides evidence that it reflects exercise intensity in that setting. It does not establish that wording is understood equally across cultures or that every version has been thoroughly validated. The included studies examined this kind of concurrent validity, meaning agreement with another measurement at the same time. They did not provide a complete evaluation of all the scale's measurement properties.

How Does This Show Up in Real Life?

Imagine choosing an effort rating in an exercise app. Before comparing today's number with someone else's, the relevant question is whether you used the same scale and understood its instructions. This paper concerns the Borg scale running from 6 to 20, not every tool labeled an effort scale. The authors emphasize explaining perceived exertion and allowing people to become familiar with the procedure. A translated label alone is not evidence that those steps have happened. The findings can therefore inform how a coach or service introduces a rating system, rather than supplying a target number for your workout. They also offer a reason to ask what a number represents before relying on it: a seemingly precise response can still rest on unclear wording or a different testing procedure.

The evidence was restricted to healthy adults, with only three studies involving older people. Searches were limited by language, and missing descriptions do not prove that researchers never gave instructions. Study quality and procedures varied. These findings identify gaps in the literature searched at the time, not the present validation status of every language version.

Why We Cite It

Alpekin can use this work to define what information accompanies an effort rating in a data system: the scale version, language, and instructions used. Keeping those details attached to the number would make later comparisons more interpretable, rather than silently treating every translated rating as an interchangeable entry in a dataset.

The takeaway is to take subjective measurement seriously enough to define it carefully. The paper does not argue against listening to effort. It shows why understandable instructions and appropriate validation matter before a personal sensation becomes a number used for decisions.