Athletes Training Condition Monitoring Scale Developed

Overtraining is harmful to not only the physical health of athletes and physical activity participants, but also harmful to their sport / exercise motivations and emotions. Severe overtraining even leads to dropping off. The best way of avoiding overtraining is the systematic monitor and effective prevention. Referring to the measurement to overtraining, Shephard et al. have suggested that sometimes psychological indices were more sensitive and effective than physiological or biochemical ones. This opinion has been accepted by most researchers (Junzong Pu, 2000). However, there hasn't been a standardized psychological scale of our own country for measuring overtraining at present day. Therefore the goal of present study was to try to supply the gap through the development of the Athletic Training State Monitor Scale, (ATSMS).By means of transcultural validation to (he Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athlete, (RESTQ76-Sport)(Kellmann & Kallus, 2001) and through a non-structured interview to some Chinese coaches and athletes, a eleven-factor model on overtraining for Chinese athletes was preliminarily established, which consisted of eight layer-1 factors (emotion stress, well-being, fatigue, self-efficacy, self-regulation, physical recovery, burnout, and staleness), two layer-2 factors (stress and recovery) and one layer-3 factor (overtraining). This model was assumed to be more suitable to Chinese culture, and more concise than RESTQ76-Sport.Four questionnaires were conducted to investigate 1805 university athletes and professional athletes. As the product, the Athletic Training State Monitor Scale and its three simplified versions were developed. This set of scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistence, test-retest reliability, content validity, construct validity and concurrent validity. Meanwhile, the assumed eleven-factor theoretical frame on overtraining was also validated via the method of structural equation modeling. Moreover, these scales practically provided coaches, sports scientists and exercise instructors with a new measurement tool, which is relatively simple, reliable, and valid for monitoring the training state of athletes or exercise participants.There are at least two defects in the present study. The first one is that the application of research findings must within the confines of samples, although these scales with satisfying reliability and validity. The second one is that reliability and validity tests of the shortened versions of the scale needs further validation.