Development and Validity of the Rating-of-Fatigue Scale.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of these experiments was to develop a rating-of-fatigue (ROF) scale capable of tracking the intensity of perceived fatigue in a variety of contexts. METHODS: Four experiments were carried out. The first provided the evidential basis for the construction of the ROF scale. The second tested the face validity of the ROF, and the third tested the convergent and divergent validity of the ROF scale during ramped cycling to exhaustion and 30 min of resting recovery. The final experiment tested the convergent validity of the ROF scale with time of day and physical activity (accelerometer counts) across a whole week. RESULTS: Modal selections of descriptions and diagrams at different levels of exertion and recovery were found during Experiment 1 upon which the ROF scale was constructed and finalised. In Experiment 2, a high level of face validity was indicated, in that ROF was reported to represent fatigue rather than exertion. Descriptor and diagrammatic elements of ROF reportedly added to the coherence and ease of use of the scale. In Experiment 3, high convergence between ROF and various physiological measures were found during exercise and recovery (heart rate, blood lactate concentration, oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide production, respiratory exchange ratio and ventilation rate were all P < 0.001). During ramped cycling to exhaustion ROF and RPE did correspond (P < 0.0001) but not during recovery, demonstrating discriminant validity. Experiment 4 found ROF to correspond with waking time during each day (Mon-Sun all P < 0.0001) and with physical activity (accelerometer count) (Mon-Sun all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The ROF scale has good face validity and high levels of convergent validity during ramped cycling to exhaustion, resting recovery and daily living activities. The ROF scale has both theoretical and applied potential in understanding changes in fatigue in a variety of contexts.

Wound healing of endosteal vitreous carbon implants in dogs.

Endosteal vitreous carbon implants are biocompatible and were well-tolerated by the alveolar process of dogs but were not accepted by the gingival margin and the mucosa. A continuous gingival recession with 2 to 3 mm sulcus depth was not similar to that around adjacent natural teeth. There was no epithelial attachment around the neck of vitreous carbon implants, and there was very little or no resistance to probing. The feasibility of using vitreous carbon as it presently exists for the maintenance and preservation of alveolar bone is unfavorable and should be revised. Endosteal vitreous carbon implants require more intense laboratory and clinical studies. Therefore, the practical value of the vitreous carbon implant is questionable, and further investigations are needed before vitreous carbon can be declared acceptable in clinical dental practice.