(61) Exploring the Perceived Recovery Status Scale's Sensitivity to Training Stress in Women's Lacrosse

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the validity of the Perceived Recovery Status (PRS) scale as a practical tool for monitoring athlete recovery following sport-specific training. Specifically, it evaluated whether PRS scores were related to practice-induced stress during the off-season training of a Division I women's lacrosse team. Additionally, the study aimed to explore inter-individual differences in how athletes interpret the PRS scale. Methods: Twenty-six athletes (height = 1.6±0.26 m, body mass = 65.3±8.6 kg, body fat = 24.5±3.6%) participated in the study. The athletes wore GPS monitors during all off-season team practices from September to November 2024, averaging 43.2±6.2 practices per athlete. PRS scores were collected once a week following a standardized dynamic warm-up routine. Training stress was defined as the seven-day rolling average of Player Load derived from the Catapult™ Vector Pro system. Linear mixed-effects models of increasing complexity were employed to assess the relationship between PRS scores and training stress due to the nested nature of the data. Nonlinear models were tested to evaluate the potential non-linear nature of PRS. Model performance was assessed using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), conditional R², and root mean square error (RMSE). Results: The null model indicated that a significant portion of the variance in PRS scores was attributable to individual differences, underscoring the personalized nature of recovery perceptions. The random intercept model, which included training stress as a fixed effect, provided a significantly better fit than the null model (p = 0.041). Training stress emerged as a significant predictor of PRS scores (p = 0.043), although the inclusion only explained an additional 2.1% of the variance in PRS scores. Non-linear models did not significantly enhance model fit compared to the linear model. Conclusions: The PRS scale demonstrated limited sensitivity to changes in training stress, suggesting it may not be a strong predictor of recovery status based solely on workload metrics from sport specific training. Significant individual differences in PRS responses emphasize the importance of interpreting PRS scores at the athlete level rather than applying a uniform standard across a team. The findings suggest that athletes may interpret and use the PRS scale differently, meaning that identical PRS scores could reflect varied recovery states depending on the individual. The study also highlighted the need for a broader approach to monitoring training-induced stress. While GPS-based acute workload provides valuable insights, it only captures a portion of the overall stress experienced by athletes. Other factors, such as resistance training loads, sleep, and nutrition, may also influence PRS scores and should be considered in future research. Practical Applications: The findings of this study provide actionable insights for human performance staff and coaches. Individualized PRS assessments can be used to monitor athlete recovery and adjust training programs accordingly. Although PRS alone may not serve as a robust standalone measure of training-induced stress, it remains a practical and accessible tool when combined with other performance metrics. Acknowledgements: None