Printer Friendly

Individual recovery profiles in basketball players.

In the competitive sport sphere, recovery (Brink, Nederhof, Visscher, Schmikli, & Lemmink, 2010; Jougla, Micallef, & Mottet, 2010; Tessitore et al., 2008; Wahl et al., 2013), the study of perceptions of recovery (Brink, Visscher, Coutts, & Lemmink, 2012; Laurent et al., 2011; Venter, 2014), and injured athletes' psychological response to recovery have received considerable attention in research, the goal being to reduce the time it takes to return to play (Ardern, Taylor, Feller, Whitehead, & Webster, 2013).

On a conceptual level, there has been a lack of consensus and clarity in how the literature defines recovery itself, and what exactly that entails (Kellman, 2002). Kellman and Kallus (2001) hold that recovery is both an inter-individual and intra-individual process (psychological, physiological, social, etc.) that re-establishes performance-related skills. They add that recovery has an activity-oriented component to systematically optimize the conditions of a situation. The same authors (Kallus, 1995; Kallus & Kellman, 2000) describe recovery from a psychophysiological perspective as a gradual, cumulative process involving various strategies and needs, which depend on the individual athlete. They highlight the individualistic and situational aspects of treatment.

One of the factors primarily responsible for overload or overtraining syndrome is insufficient recovery after intense physical training. Respondign to the need to pinpoint likely causes of overtraining and their role in the recovery process, Kentta and Hassmen (1998) identified four main recovery-focused categories: nutrition/ hydration, sleep/rest, relaxation/emotional support, and stretching/active rest. Using those categories, the authors proposed a practical, noninvasive method to monitor recovery state, the Total Quality Recovery (TQR) scale. It has two components: perceived recovery, tested on a scale analogous to Borg's Rating of Perceived Exertion (Borg, 1998); and recovery actions or behaviors, which fall into the 4 categories mentioned above, with each behavior assigned a score. While that system was innovative, people have questioned its applicability due to its difficulty and, consequently, low completion rates in athletes (Laurent et al., 2011). Furthermore, new technologies must be taken advantage of, which can also facilitate data collection in applied sport contexts (Dellaserra, Gao, & Ransdell, 2014). That being said, the aforementioned categories have been widely studied. Recent literature across different disciplines, and from different perspectives, has focused especially on examining the effectiveness of strategies to enhance athletes' recovery and well-being. Examples include nutrition and hydration (Erkmen, Taskin, Kaplan, & Sanioglu, 2010; Kreider et al., 2010), sleep and rest (Lahart et al., 2013; Leeder, Glaister, Pizzoferro, Dawson, & Pedlar, 2012; Mah, Mah, Kezirian, & Dement, 2011), and relaxation training (Elliott, Polman, & Taylor, 2014). On another note, it has been observed that steady accumulation in training load, followed by sufficient recovery, can improve performance (Halson & Jeukendrup, 2004; Meeusen et al., 2006); thus, planning training sessions is an important aspect of recovery.

On another note, to evaluate an athlete's recovery and response to training and competition, associated symptoms must be analyzed. Fry, Morton, and Keast (1991) posit four categories to analyze an athlete's response: physiological symptoms, psychological symptoms, biochemical symptoms, and immunological symptoms. On a physiological level, one of the most relevant and widely studied measures in the sport sphere is Heart Rate Variability (HRV). HRV analysis is well-established as a highly useful tool in the context of sport and health to assess states of overtraining (Kiviniemi, Tulppo, Hautala, Vanninen, & Uusitalo, 2014), fatigue (Leti & Bricout, 2013), and changes in the stress-recovery process (Morales et al., 2014). HRV has also been proposed to indicate stress, health (Capdevila et al., 2008; Thayer, Ahs, Fredrikson, Sollers, & Wager, 2012), and precompetitive anxiety (D'Ascenzi et al., 2014; Mateo, Blasco-Lafarga, Martinez-Navarro, Guzman, & Zabala, 2012).

In addition to an interest in studying HRV as a marker in multiple phenomena, there has been growing interest in how to meaure it. HRV recording systems have ranged from electrocardiogram (ECG) (Cassirame, Stuckey, Sheppard, & Tordi, 2013; Toufan, Kazemi, Akbarzadeh, Ataei, & Khalili, 2012) to more accessible systems like heart rate monitors (Gamelin, Baquet, Berthoin, & Bosquet, 2008; Parrado et al., 2010), to indirect measures using techniques such as photoplethysmograph (Capdevila, Moreno, Movellan, Parrado, & Ramos-Castro, 2012; Poh, McDuff, & Picard, 2010) or ballistocardiograph (Friedrich, Aubert, Fuhr, & Brauers, 2010; Ramos-Castro et al., 2012). These advancements in recording methodology are making it easier to record and analyze HRV in a less invasive, less costly manner, especially in the applied sport context. Given these considerations, it is important to mention that the complexity of the process, and the various factors it involves, mean that recovery--as well as issues like Overtraining Syndrome--must be addressed from a multidisciplinary perspective (Meeusen et al., 2006), whether from the point of view of prevention or treatment.

The present study's objective is, over the course of a season, to analyze the relationship between certain recovery behaviors used by athletes, their perceptions of recovery, and HRV in a sample of elite basketball players. By way of hypothesis, we expect to observe differences between players--or individual profiles--in terms of recovery behaviors and HRV, and that recovery behaviors will correlate positively with perceived recovery and parameters that indicate high heart rate variability.

Method

The procedure and recording systems utilized in this study were approved by the Independent Ethics Committee at the authors' university. The university has an official, signed aggreement with the club to which these athletes belong specifying the conditions approved by the committee. All study data remained confidential, and the Spanish law governing the protection of personal information was upheld.

Participants

A total of 196 recordings were taken from 6 players on a men's professional basketball team belonging to the Liga LEB Oro basketball federation (2012/2013 season). The players' average age was 20 years old (SD: 2.28), and their average height was 200.8 cm (SD: 8.18). All the players voluntarily agreed to participate in this study, and we received informed consent from them and from club medical staff.

Measures and Instruments

Individual assessments measured the following aspects:

Perceptions of recovery

This was evaluated using the Total Quality Recovery perceived scale (TQRper: Kentta & Hassmen, 1998). Scores on this instrument range from 6 to 20, where "6" corresponds to no recovery at all, and "20" to maximal recovery.

Recovery behaviors

To record specific recovery behaviors and actions, the Total Quality Recovery action (TQRact) scale was utilized; it is the second half of Kentta and Hassmen's TQR (1998). It taps 12 specific recovery behaviors, grouped into 4 thematic areas (Nutrition/Hydration, Sleep/Rest, Relaxation/Emotional Support, and Stretching/Warmdown). Each behavior is scored out of a total of 20 possible points (Recovery Points, RPs) based on their importance (Table 1). As Kentta and Hassmen (2002) indicate, the behaviors may be adapted to better fit the specific demands of each sport and each individual player's needs. In this study, we modified certain behaviors and explanations slightly to better fit the context of the players being assessed. After consulting with two trainers for the basketball federation, the criterion we applied was to modify any behaviors not practiced within this specific basketball club, or for which players would need further explanation. Specifically, we substituted the behavior "rapido restablecimiento de carbohidratos en conjuncion con el entrenamiento [fast carbohydrate refueling in conjunction with training]" for "tomar un batido energetico prescrito por los servicios medicos [drink an energy shake prescribed by medical staff]" (2 RP); and the behavior "hidratacion correcta en relacion a las condiciones de entrenamiento [adequate hydration given training conditions]" was divided in two to be more specific: "tomar 2 litros de agua durante el dia [drinking 2 liters of water throughout the day" (1 RP) and "realizar una correcta hidratacion post entrenamiento [adequate hydration post workouts]" (1 RP). Players were asked to respond Yes or No to each recovery behavior listed according to whether or not they had used it.

Analysis of Heart Rate Variability (HRV)

HRV data were obtained using the ballistocardiography technique, using accelerometers mounted to next-generation moving microchips (Ramos-Castro et al., 2012). Specifically, we utilized the 3-axis accelerometer built into the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and iPhone 5 (Apple) devices using an application developed specifically for this study. Each recording's R-R interval (time in milliseconds between consecutive heart beats for 5 minutes) was also collected through ballistocardiography, which analyzes the mechanical vibrations produced as the heart contracts with each beat, and which other studies have utilized similarly (Friedrich et al., 2010). HRV was tested for 5 minutes, with the player completely at rest, laying on his back, and breathing freely.

Procedure

Education Phase

To interfere as little as possible with the routine and training of the players and technical staff, an application was designed for mobile devices (smart phones) ad hoc so players could complete the assessments from their own smart phones. This application enabled us to collect all the measures described above in Measures and Instruments. Before beginning to collect data, a training session was held to give players information and explain how the application would work. This stage was crucial for the players, who were unfamiliar with the instruments they would use and who, as Seiler and Sjursen (2004) suggest, had to learn to calibrate their perceptions to be consistent over the course of the study.

Data Collection Phase: Measuring R-R and Calculating HRV Parameters

This paper presents a study with a repeated measures design. Those measures were collected over the course of the team's regular season. Coaching staff agreed to the study procedure. Players completed the assessments on their own between 8:00 and 10:00am, before their daily training session and after fasting, strictly adhering to the instructions provided. HRV data were analyzed individually. Z axis data from the accelerometer (mounting the device to the chest) were utilized to detect heart beat. A pass-band filter was used to filter the acceleration signal, specifically, a 4th-order Butterworth-type response filter with 6Hz and 25Hz frequency cut-off points. After filtering, the signal's energy was estimated and compared to baseline. The algorithm looks for the maximum amplitude between two consecutive threshold crossings with different slope, and its position on the energy signal. In addition to the position of the maximum, the algorithm finds the minimum of the acceleration signal corresponding to isovolumetric contraction (Ramos-Castro et al., 2012). HRV parameters were later computed according to the recommendations of the Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology, and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (1996). Those parameters included: the mean of R-R intervals (RRmean), average heart rate (HRmean), standard deviation of R-R intervals (SDNN), root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), percentage of consecutive R-R intervals differing by more than 50ms (pNN50), and high to low frequency ratio (LF/HF).

Data Analysis

To analyze whether the 6 players showed individual differences in terms of recovery behaviors and HRV parameters, a simple (one-way) analysis of variance was done, comparing each player's set of recordings and using a post hoc test to make partial comparisons between players. According to the Levene statistic, all the variables analyzed using this one-way ANOVA showed equality of variance. To analyze the relationship between recovery behaviors, HRV parameters, and perceptions of recovery, Spearman's correlation coefficient (Rho) was utilized. A level of significance of 0.05 was applied to both tests. For the data analysis, the SPSS statistical package (v. 21) for Mac OS X was utilized.

Results

Recovery Behaviors

Examining the 6 players' scores on all areas of recovery, as well as total scores (Table 2), significant differences were observed between them. Analyzing the partial comparisons among players, we found patterns of behavior that differentiated each player significantly from the rest. For example, players 2 and 4 had lower Nutrition scores, on average, than the others (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 2 and Player 1: -4.33, -1.99; p = .001; CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 4 and Player 1: -5.01, -2.6; p = .001). In terms of Hydration, Player 4 scored significantly higher than the other players on average (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 4 and Player 6: -2.03, -1.42; p = .001). It was again Player 4 who scored lower on Sleep and Rest, differing significantly from 4 players: Player 1 (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 4 and Player 1: -1.59, -0.18; p = .003), Player 3 (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 4 and Player 3: -1.93, -0.21; p = .004), Player 5 (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 4 and Player 5: -2.11, -0.33; p = .001), and Player 6 (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 4 and Player 6: -2.11, -0.56; p = .001). Last, Players 2 and 4 scored significantly lower than the others on total Recovery Points (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 2 and Player 1: -7.09, -3.17; p = .001; CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 4 and Player 1: -10.45, -6.41; p = .001).

Heart Rate Variability

Significant differences were observed between the 6 players on all the HRV parameters analyzed (Table 3). As in the case of recovery behaviors, on HRV parameters too we found patterns distinguishing each player from the rest. Player 1 had a higher RRmean, differentiating him significantly from the other players (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 1 and Player 2: 137.4, 294.76; p < .05). Similarly, Player 2's HRmean was significantly higher than the other players (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 2 and Player 1: 8.06, 16.36; p < .05). On the parameter SDNN, Players 1 and 5 scored significantly lower on average than the others (CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 1 and Player 2: -97.95, -42.47; p < .05; CI 95%, mean diff. between Player 5 and Player 2: -130.31, -52.77; p < .05). The RMSSD parameter, too, significantly (p < .05) discriminated two distinct groups of players: low RMSSD (players 1, 5, and 6) and high RMSSD (players 2, 3, and 4).

Individual Player Profiles

Next, we analyzed the relationship between recovery behaviors, perceptions of recovery (Table 4), and the HRV parameters, finding clearly defined individual profiles. That is, based on the HRV parameters and recovery variables that were found to be significant, each player showed a distinct pattern. For Player 1, the only correlation observed was between Stretching/ Warm-down and LF/HF ratio (rho = 0.273, p = .032). For Player 2, significant correlations occurred between Stretching/Warm-down and every HRV parameter except LF/HF: RRmean (rho = 0.518, p = .016), HRmean (rho = -0.518, p = .016), SDNN (rho = 0.470, p = .032), RMSSD (rho = 0.437, p = .047), and pNN50 (rho = 0.502, p = .02). For Player 3, significant differences were observed between Perceptions of Recovery and 3 areas of Recovery Action: Sleep/Rest (rho = 0.517, p = .012), Relaxation/Emotional Support (rho = 0.457, p = .028), and Stretching/Warm-down (rho = 0.426, p = .043). For the same player (3), correlations were observed between Nutrition and the parameters RRmean (rho = 0.622, p = .013) and HRmean (rho = -0.622, p = .013). For Player 4, the only correlation found was between Perceptions of Recovery and Sleep/Rest (rho = 0.551, p = .005). For Player 5, Perceived Recovery was found to correlate with Sleep/Rest (rho = 0.487, p = .029), as well as Recovery Points (rho = 0.470, p = .036). For the same player (5), correlations were also observed between Hydration and the parameters RMSSD (rho = 0.593, p = .033) and LF/HF (rho = -0.556, p = .049), and between the parameter RMSSD, and Recovery Points (rho = 0.759, p = .003) as well as Perceptions of Recovery (rho = 0.779, p = .002). Finally, for Player 6, Perceptions of Recovery was correlated with both Nutrition (rho = 0.473, p = .003) and Recovery Points (rho = 0.406, p = .013).

Discussion

This study's objective was to analyze the relationship between behaviors geared toward improving recovery, perceptions of recovery, and HRV in a sample of elite basketball players. We hypothesized that individual profiles of recovery behavior and HRV would surface. We also expected to find a positive correlation between the recovery behaviors studied and perceptions of recovery, as well as indicators of heart rate variability.

The results presented in this study expose individual differences in patterns of recovery-related behavior and HRV over the course of an elite sport season. A relationship was found between the recovery behaviors studied, perceptions of recovery, and HRV parameters, confirming our hypothesis. Nevertheless, the results reflect no systematic relationship or trend across the entire group. Instead, patterns occurred on an individual level, reiterating the need to personalize this type of data analysis.

This study evaluated the areas of recovery covered by Kentta and Hassmen's TQR scale (1998). It is important to consider that most of the behaviors, or strategies, this scale measures--which aim to facilitate and enhance athletes' recovery--are proactive. That is, the player is responsible for carrying out the strategy himself, for example, following the rules of nutrition and hydration, or getting adequate rest. In this study, different patterns emerged of players engaging in proactive behavior. Processes of education and learning are essential for coaches and players alike to facilitate proactive recovery (Bird, 2011). Other types of recovery behavior or strategy--both passive (massage, icing, hot baths, sauna) and active (muscle relaxation or stretching)--generally take place at the training site and under the direction of sport professionals (coaches, physicians, or trainers), so they are not the player's responsibility and tend to always get done. One limitation of this study is that it did not detect those other types of strategy. Nevertheless, since all these players were on the same team, we may hypothesize that they received the same type of attention from sport professionals.

In this study, we also saw that players respond differently to the prescribed strategies, whether subjectively, through perceptions of recovery, or objectively, through alterations in heart rate variability. Thus, in some players, we observed perceptions of recovery to be significantly related to Sleep/Rest, while in others, they were significantly related to Nutrition or Stretching/Warm-down. Similarly, the benefits observed in HRV also varied by player. These different responses to the same recovery plans may reflect each player's individual needs. In that sense, some authors (Burke, Loucks, & Broad, 2006; Jeukendrup, 2011) conclude that nutritional plans ought to be individualized to enhance their benefits. We believe this could extend to other recovery-related areas and strategies. It would be interesting to prescribe adapted, personalized recovery strategies tailored to the individual player, emphasizing the most beneficial ones and having them do on a daily basis those they currently do less regularly. In that vein, we believe it is important to analyze a player's lifestyle during the recovery process since it has been identified as a factor responsible for overtraining and low sport performance (Lehmann, Foster, Gastmann, Keizer, & Steinacker, 1999). Following Kentta and Hassmen's (2002) recommendations, we propose using the TQR scale and adapting the recovery-related behaviors or strategies to the particular context of the team or player being assessed.

Venter (2014) studied players' perceptions of how much recovery modalities matter, reporting individual differences in the importance they attributed to different modalities. She also concluded that even members of the same team have different perceptions, suggesting players' different needs should be addressed by individualized recovery protocols. In looking at individualized patterns and indicators of recovery, Hanin (2002) recommended evaluating these needs from a multidimensional perspective. In that sense, one of the instruments with the greatest advantages is the Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes (RESTQ-Sport) by Kellman and Kallus (2001). The RESTQ-Sport, used in many follow-up studies on the stress-recovery process or overtraining (Brink et al., 2012; Di Fronso, Nakamura, Bortoli, Robazza, & Bertolio, 2013; Nederhof, Zwerver, Brink, Meeusen, & Lemmink, 2008), allows researchers to identify what recovery-related areas players perceive as lacking, among other aspects. It will be especially important to conduct studies that further explore using this type of instrument to evaluate recovery strategies' efficacy from the standpoint of individualization.

One feature of the studies and tools assessing the recovery process is that they lack in-depth analysis of the qualitative component of recovery (Bird, 2011; Laurent et al., 2011). Although the training stage of our study did emphasize the qualitative component of each behavior, data collection captured only whether or not the behavior occurred. While some of the behaviors listed include a qualitative element (e.g. "noche completa de descanso de calidad [good night of quality sleep]"), other areas like Nutrition do not explicitly do so. We believe it is important for future research to record and evaluate both components of recovery strategies: qualitative and quantitative. In a study analyzing the effects of sleep on performance in basketball players, Mah et al. (2011) reported that players had difficulty measuring precisely how much sleep they got, concluding that athletes have erroneous perceptions about their rest. This tells us new methods are needed--whether in the form of self-report, questionnaire, or mobile device applications (apps)--to help athletes more precisely evaluate the recovery strategies they use.

We also observed differences in the 6 players' HRV parameters over the course of the season. Some authors (Meeusen et al., 2006) argue there is a need to standardize HRV parameters. However, published studies have reported numerous HRV-related differences, especially in the sport context, as a function of sport modality (Mal'tsev, Mel'nikov, Vikulov, & Gromova, 2010; Moreno, Parrado, & Capdevila, 2013), training load (Bricout, DeChenaud, & Favre, 2010), and individual differences, as our study found. Moreover, some studies (Grant, Murray, Janse van Rensburg, & Fletcher, 2013; Toufan et al., 2012) have observed very high standard deviations on parameters like SDNN and RMSSD, indicating highly dispersed, non-homogeneous values on those parameters. The occurrence of individual differences casts doubt on whether HRV parameters really need be standardized; with that in mind, we suggest that analysis and interpretation instead be done on an individual basis. Hence, this study presented and analyzed HRV data for each player, not for the sample as a whole.

On another note, we wish to point out that in this study, HRV was recorded using the ballistocardiography technique, taking advantage of the accelerometers already built into players' smart phones. Ballistocardiography has been shown to be a valid, noninvasive, and very accessible option that avoids using heart rate monitors, chest straps rigged with electrodes, or other external sensors to detect changes in the cardiovascular system (Bruser, Stadlthanner, Brauers, & Leonhardt, 2010; Castiglioni et al., 2011), especially in HRV analysis (Friedrich et al., 2010; Ramos-Castro et al., 2012). These results indicate it may be a good way to measure HRV in applied sport contexts where fast, easy-to-use tools are required to carefully follow recording protocols. Using this type of moving microchip also enabled us to measure recovery behaviors and perceptions of recovery after training on a daily basis, making it a good tool and an alternative to self-report measures or questionnaires. Laurent et al. (2011) suggest that tools be developed to assess recovery from an interdisciplinary standpoint (based on physiological, psychological, and emotional responses), which would be particularly advantageous in the sport context. Building on that, we propose that moving microchips--like the ones embedded in smart phones and tablets (which are usually present at training and competition sites)-be used as everyday tools to record multiple variables at once. Furthermore, everyday, systematic use of this integrated methodology could be highly useful as a complementary indicator of a player's stress-recovery balance, helping to prevent states like overtraining, which do not have one single marker, but many (Meeusen et al., 2006).

We believe several implications may be derived from this study in terms of intervention and monitoring athletes' stress-recovery states. First of all, we suggest creating more individualized recovery programs. We saw that different players responded differently to the same recovery strategies, indicating that particular attention should be paid to individual differences in prescribing programs to improve recovery. With regard to HRV analysis, we observed differences in temporal and spectral paramaters across players, so we believe that using this indicator to generate total scores for a team, or as a barometer for an entire population of athletes, would lead to errors of interpretation. Thus, if HRV is considered an individual marker in the stress-recovery process, HRV data should be analyzed and interpreted such that only intraindividual parameters are used for reference or comparison. Finally, we propose using moving microchips to evaluate psychophysiological variables, because they facilitate data collection in the real-life sport context.

This study's results indicated individual differences in recovery-related patterns of behavior in athletes over the course of a season, and that the TQR is a good instrument to detect those differences. Similarly, HRV parameters seemed to show a specific pattern for each player. Therefore, we believe they should be interpreted on an individual basis, not as a group or in comparison to other barometers, especially in the applied context. We also saw that not all players exhibit the same relationship between recovery behaviors, perceptions of recovery, and HRV parameters, suggesting differences in recovery needs as a function of player. Furthermore, considering that recovery integrates physiological, psychological, and behavioral responses, it is important to develop tools to evaluate this phenomenon from an interdisciplinary perspective.

doi: 10.1017/sjp.2015.23

References

Ardern C. L., Taylor N. F., Feller J. A., Whitehead T. S., & Webster K. E. (2013). Psychological responses matter in returning to preinjury level of sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 41, 1549-1558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0363546513489284

Bird S. P. (2011). Implementation of recovery strategies: 100-point weekly recovery checklist. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 16, 16-19.

Borg G. (1998). Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Bricout V. A., DeChenaud S., & Favre-Juvin A. (2010). Analyses of heart rate variability in young soccer players: The effects of sport activity. Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic and Clinical, 154, 112-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.autneu.2009.12.001

Brink M. S., Nederhof E., Visscher C., Schmikli S. L., & Lemmink K. A. P. M. (2010). Monitoring load, recovery, and performance in young elite soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24, 597-603. http://dx. doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c4d38b

Brink M. S., Visscher C., Coutts A. J., & Lemmink K. A. P. M. (2012). Changes in perceived stress and recovery in overreached young elite soccer players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 22, 285-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01237.x

Bruser C., Stadlthanner K., Brauers A., & Leonhardt S. (2010, September). Applying machine learning to detect individual heart beats in ballistocardiograms. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE (pp. 1926-1929). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2010. 5628077

Burke L. M., Loucks A. B., & Broad N. (2006). Energy and carbohydrate for training and recovery. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24, 675-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 02640410500482602

Capdevila L., Moreno J., Movellan J., Parrado E., & Ramos-Castro J. (2012, August/September). HRV based health & sport markers using video from the face. Proceedings of the 34th Annual International Conference of the IEEE (pp. 5646-5649). San Diego, CA: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). http://dx.doi. org/10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347275

Capdevila Ortiz L., Rodas Font G., Ocana Marine M., Parrado Romero E., Pintanel M., & Valero Herreros M. (2008). Variabilidad de la frecuencia cardiaca como indicador de salud en el deporte: Validacion con un cuestionario de calidad de vida (SF-12) [Heart rate variability as a health indicator in sport: Validation of a quality-of-life questionnaire]. Apunts deMedicina de l'Esport, 43, 62-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1886-6581(08)70073-2

Cassirame J., Stuckey M. I., Sheppard F., & Tordi N. (2013). Accuracy of the Minicardio system for heart rate variability analysis compared to ECG. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 53, 348-254.

Castiglioni P., Meriggi P., Rizzo F., Vaini E., Faini A., Parati G., ... Di Rienzo M. (2011, August/September). Cardiac sounds from a wearable device for sternal seismocardiography. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference of the IEEE (pp. 4283-4286). Boston, MA: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091063

D'Ascenzi F., Alvino F., Natali B. M., Camelli M., Palmitesta P., Boschetti G., ... Mondillo S. (2014). Precompetitive assessment of heart rate variability in elite female athletes during play offs. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 34, 230-236. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/cpf.12088

Dellaserra C. L., Gao Y., & Ransdell L. (2014). Use of integrated technology in team sports: A review of opportunities, challenges, and future directions for athletes. Strength and Conditioning Research, 28, 556-573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a952fb

Di Fronso S., Nakamura F. Y., Bortoli L., Robazza C., & Bertolio M. (2013). Stress and recovery balance in amateur basketball players: Differences by gender and preparation phase. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 8, 618-622.

Elliot D., Polman R., & Taylor J. (2014). The effects of relaxing music for anxiety control on competitive sport anxiety. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, S296-S301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.693952

Erkmen N., Taskin H., Kaplan T., & Sanioglu A. (2010). Balance performance and recovery after exercise with water intake, sport drink intake and no fluid. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 8, 105-112. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S1728-869X(10)60016-0

Friedrich D., Aubert X. L., Fuhr H., & Brauers A. (2010, August/September). Heart rate estimation on a beat-to-beat basis via ballistocardiography--a hybrid approach. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE (pp. 4048-5051). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. http://dx. doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627626

Fry R. W., Morton A. R., & Keast D. (1991). Overtraining in athletes: An update. Sports Medicine, 12, 32-65. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199112010-00004

Gamelin F. X., Baquet G., Berthoin S., & Bosquet L. (2008). Validity of the polar S810 to measure R-R intervals in children. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 29, 134-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-964995

Grant C. C., Murray C., Janse van Rensburg D. C., & Fletcher L. (2013). A comparison between heart rate and heart rate variability as indicators of cardiac health and fitness. Frontiers in Physiology, 4, 1-5. http://dx.doi. org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00337

Halson S. L., & Jeukendrup A. E. (2004). Does overtraining exist? An analysis of overreaching and overtraining research. Sports Medicine, 34, 967-981. http://dx.doi. org/10.2165/00007256-200434140-00003

Hanin Y. L. (2002). Individually optimal recovery in sports: An application of the IZOF model. In M. Kellman (Ed.), Enhancing recovery: Preventing underperformance in athletes (pp. 199-217). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Jeukendrup A. E. (2011). Nutrition for endurance sports: Marathon, triathlon, and road cycling. Journal of Sport Sciences, 29, S91-S99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414. 2011.610348

Jougla A., Micallef J. P., & Mottet D. (2010). Effects of active vs. passive recovery on repeated rugby-specific exercises. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13, 350-355. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.004

Kallus K. W. (1995). Der Erholungs-Belastungs-Fragebogen [The Recovery-Stress Questionnaire]. Frankfurt, Germany: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Kallus K. W., & Kellman M. (2000). Burnout in athletes and coaches. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 209-230). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kellman M. (2002). Underrecovery and overtraining: Different concepts-similar impact? In M. Kellman (Ed.), Enhancing recovery: Preventing underperformance in athletes (pp. 3-24). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kellman M., & Kallus K. W. (2001). Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes: User manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kentta G., & Hassmen P. (1998). Overtraining and recovery-a conceptual model. Sports Medicine, 26, 1-16.

Kentta G., & Hassmen P. (2002). Underrecovery and overtraining: A conceptual model. In M. Kellman (Ed.), Enhancing recovery: Preventing underperformance in athletes (pp. 57-59). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kiviniemi A. M., Tulppo M. P., Hautala A. J., Vanninen E., & Uusitalo A. L. T. (2014). Altered relationship between R-R interval and R-R interval variability in endurance athletes with overtraining syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24, e77-e85. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/sms.12114

Kreider R. B., Wilborn C. D., Taylor L., Campbell B., Almada A. L., Collins R., ... Antonio J. (2010). ISSN exercise & sport nutrition review: Research & recommendations. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 7, 1-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1550-2783-7-7

Lahart I. M., Lane A. M., Hulton A., Williams K., Godfrey R., Pedlar C., ... White G. P. (2013). Challenges in maintaining emotion regulation in a sleep and energy deprived state induced by the 4800km ultra-endurance bicycle race; The Race Across America (RAAM). Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 12, 481-488.

Laurent C. M., Green J. M., Bishop P. A., Sjokvist J., Schumacher R. E., Richardson M. T., & Curtner-Smith M. (2011). A practical approach to monitoring recovery: Development of a perceived recovery status scale. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 620-628. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c69ec6

Leeder J., Glaister M., Pizzoferro K., Dawson J., & Pedlar C. (2012). Sleep duration and quality in elite athletes measured using wristwatch actigraphy. Journal of Sport Sciences, 30, 541-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414. 2012.660188

Lehmann M. J., Foster C., Gastmann U., Keizer H. A., & Steinacker J. M. (1999). Definition, types, symptoms, findings, underlying mechanisms, and frequency of overtraining and overtraining syndrome. In M. J. Lehmann, C. Foster, U. Gastmann, H. Keizer, & J. M. Steinacker (Eds.), Overload, fatigue, performance incompetence, and regeneration in sport (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Plenum.

Leti T., & Bricout V. A. (2013). Interest of analyses of heart rate variability in the prevention of fatigue states in senior runners. Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic and Clinical, 173, 14-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.10167j.autneu.2012.10.007

Mah C. D., Mah K. E., Kezirian E. J., & Dement W. C. (2011). The effects of sleep extension on the athletic performance of collegiate basketball players. Sleep, 34, 943-950. http://dx.doi.org/10.5665/SLEEP.1132

Mal'tsev A. Y., Mel'nikov A. A., Vikulov A. D., & Gromova K. S. (2010). Central hemodynamic heart rate variability parameters in athletes during different training programs. Human Physiology, 36, 96-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0362119710010135

Mateo M., Blasco-Lafarga C., Martinez-Navarro I., Guzman J. F., & Zabala M. (2012). Heart rate variability and pre-competitive anxiety in BMX discipline. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112, 113-123. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s00421-011-1962-8

Meeusen R., Duclos M., Gleeson M., Rietjens G., Steinacker J., & Urhausen A. (2006). Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the Overtraining Syndrome: ECSS Position Statement Task Force. European Jorunal of Sport Science, 6, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17461390600617717

Morales J., Alamo J. M., Garcia-Masso X., Busca B., Lopez J. L., Serra-Ano P., & Gonzalez L. M. (2014). The use of heart rate variability in monitoring stress and recovery in judo athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28, 1896-1905. http://dx.doi. org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000328

Moreno J., Parrado E., & Capdevila L. (2013). Variabilidad de la frecuencia cardiaca y perfiles psicofisiologicos en deportes de equipo de alto rendimiento [Heart rate variability and psychophisiological markers in elite team sports]. Revista de Psicologm del Deporte, 22, 345-352.

Nederhof E., Zwerver J., Brink M., Meeusen R., & Lemmink K. (2008). Different diagnostic tools in nonfunctional overreaching. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 29, 590-597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/ s-2007-989264

Parrado E., Garcia M. A., Ramos-Castro J., Cervantes J. C., Rodas G., & Capdevila L. (2010). Comparison of Omega Wave System and Polar S810i to detect R-R intervals at rest. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 336-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1248319

Poh M. Z., McDuff D. J., & Picard R. W. (2010). Advancements in noncontact, multiparameter physiological measurements using a webcam. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 58, 7-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2010.2086456

Ramos-Castro J., Moreno J., Miranda-Vidal H., Garcia-Gonzalez M. A., Fernandez-Chimeno M., Rodas G., & Capdevila L. (2012, August/September). Heart rate variability analysis using a seismocardiogram signal. Proceedings of the 34th Annual International Conference of the IEEE (pp. 5642-5645). San Diego, CA: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). http://dx.doi. org/10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347274

Seiler S., & Sjursen J. E. (2004). Effect of work duration on physiological and rating scale of perceived exertion responses during self-paced interval training. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14, 318-325. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1600-0838.2003.00353.x

Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (1996). Heart-rate variability: Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation and clinical use. Circulation, 93, 1043-1065.

Tessitore A., Meeusen R., Pagano R., Benvenuti C., Tiberi M., & Capranica L. (2008). Effectiveness of active versus passive recovery strategies after futsal games. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22, 1402-1412. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31817396ac

Thayer J. F., Ahs F., Fredrikson M., Sollers J. J. III, & Wager T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: Implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 36, 747-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.neubiorev.2011.11.009

Toufan M., Kazemi B., Akbarzadeh F., Ataei A., & Khalili M. (2012). Assessment of electrocardiography, echocardiography, and heart rate variability in dynamic and static type athletes. International Journal of General Medicine, 5, 655-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM. S33247

Venter R. E. (2014). Perceptions of team athletes on the importance of recovery modalities. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, S69-S76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1746 1391.2011.643924

Wahl P., Mathes S., Koler K., Achtzehn S., Bloch W., & Mester J. (2013). Effects of active vs. passive recovery during Wingate-based training on the acute hormonal, metabolic and psychological response. Growth Hormone & IGF Research, 23, 201-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ghir.2013.07.004

Jordi Moreno (1), Juan Ramos-Castro (2), Gil Rodas (3), Joan R. Tarrago (3) and Lluis Capdevila (1)

(1) Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (Spain)

(2) Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (Spain)

(3) F. C. Barcelona (Spain)

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jordi Moreno. Laboratorio de Psicologia del Deporte, Departamento de Psicologia Basica, Evolutiva y de la Educacion. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Edificio B, 08193. Bellaterra (Spain).

E-mail: jordi.moreno.sanchez@uab.cat

This study was conducted thanks to Project I+D+I PSI2011-29807-C02-01, financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion. We especially want to acknowledge the players who participated in this study, and technical staff who made this research possible.
Table 1. Recovery Points (RPs) on the TQRact Scale for Each
Recovery Area and Recovery Behavior

Recovery Areas and Behaviors                     RPs

Nutrition and Hydration
  Breakfast                                      1 point
  Mid-day lunch                                  2 points
  Dinner                                         2 points
  Snacks between meals                           1 point
  Fast carbohydrate refueling in conjunction     2 points
    with training
  Adequate hydration given training conditions   2 points
Area Total                                       10 points

Sleep and Rest
  Full night of quality sleep                    3 points
  Nap during the day                             1 point
Area Total                                       4 points

Relaxation and Emotional Support
Full mental/muscular relaxation after practice   2 points
Psychological recovery                           1 point
Area Total                                       3 points

Stretching and Warm-Down
Adequate cooldown after practice                 2 points
Stretching to improve recovery                   1 point
Area Total                                       3 points

Total of all Recovery Areas                      20 points

Table 2. Each Player's Average Points (RPs) and Standard Deviations
on the TQRact Recovery Areas, and Perceptions of Recovery from the
TQRper Scale, with significance level (p) of the Analysis of Variance
(ONE-WAY) and the Sample's Average Total Scores

                           Player 1              Player 2
Recovery Areas and
Perceptions of Recovery    (66 recorded)         (26 recorded)

Nutrition
(Ranging from 0 to 8)       6.97 [+ or -] 1.61    3.81 [+ or -] 2.1
Hydration
(Ranging from 0 to 2        1.91 [+ or -] 0.29    1.08 [+ or -] 0.48
  points)
Sleep and Rest
(Ranging from 0 to 4        3.47 [+ or -] 1.08    2.96 [+ or -] 1.46
  points)
Relaxation and
  Emotional Support
(Ranging from 0 to 3        2.62 [+ or -] 0.92    2.92 [+ or -] 0.39
  points)
Stretching and
  Warm-down
(Ranging from 0 to 3        2.55 [+ or -] 1.03    1.62 [+ or -] 1.53
  points)
Recovery Points
(Ranging from 0 to 20      17.52 [+ or -] 3      12.38 [+ or -] 3.45
  points)
Perceptions of Recovery
(Rango de 6 a 20 points)   15.58 [+ or -] 2.87   11.92 [+ or -] 2.42

                           Player 3              Player 4
Recovery Areas and
Perceptions of Recovery    (23 recorded)         (24 recorded)

Nutrition
(Ranging from 0 to 8)       6.61 [+ or -] 0.94    3.17 [+ or -] 1.76
Hydration
(Ranging from 0 to 2        1.61 [+ or -] 0.5     0.25 [+ or -] 0.53
  points)
Sleep and Rest
(Ranging from 0 to 4        3.65 [+ or -] 0.49    2.58 [+ or -] 1.32
  points)
Relaxation and
  Emotional Support
(Ranging from 0 to 3         2.3 [+ or -] 1.02    1.67 [+ or -] 1.01
  points)
Stretching and
  Warm-down
(Ranging from 0 to 3        1.61 [+ or -] 0.89    1.42 [+ or -] 1.06
  points)
Recovery Points
(Ranging from 0 to 20      15.78 [+ or -] 2.56    9.09 [+ or -] 2.69
  points)
Perceptions of Recovery
(Rango de 6 a 20 points)   15.04 [+ or -] 2.21   13.88 [+ or -] 1.65

                           Player 5              Player 6
Recovery Areas and
Perceptions of Recovery    (20 recorded)         (37 recorded)

Nutrition
(Ranging from 0 to 8)       6.75 [+ or -] 1.07    6.08 [+ or -] 2.01
Hydration
(Ranging from 0 to 2        1.05 [+ or -] 0.51    1.97 [+ or -] 0.16
  points)
Sleep and Rest
(Ranging from 0 to 4         3.8 [+ or -] 0.7     3.92 [+ or -] 0.28
  points)
Relaxation and
  Emotional Support
(Ranging from 0 to 3        1.75 [+ or -] 1.02    2.57 [+ or -] 0.93
  points)
Stretching and
  Warm-down
(Ranging from 0 to 3         1.6 [+ or -] 0.94    2.54 [+ or -] 0.99
  points)
Recovery Points
(Ranging from 0 to 20      14.95 [+ or -] 1.91   17.08 [+ or -] 2.78
  points)
Perceptions of Recovery
(Rango de 6 a 20 points)    17.8 [+ or -] 2.53   16.76 [+ or -] 1.85

                                     Total
Recovery Areas and
Perceptions of Recovery    p         (196 recorded)

Nutrition
(Ranging from 0 to 8)      < 0.001    5.85 [+ or -] 2.2
Hydration
(Ranging from 0 to 2       < 0.001    1.48 [+ or -] 0.7
  points)
Sleep and Rest
(Ranging from 0 to 4       < 0.001    3.43 [+ or -] 1.07
  points)
Relaxation and
  Emotional Support
(Ranging from 0 to 3       < 0.001    2.41 [+ or -] 0.99
  points)
Stretching and
  Warm-down
(Ranging from 0 to 3       < 0.001    2.08 [+ or -] 1.18
  points)
Recovery Points
(Ranging from 0 to 20      < 0.001   15.26 [+ or -] 4.01
  points)
Perceptions of Recovery
(Rango de 6 a 20 points)   < 0.003   15.27 [+ or -] 2.91

Note: The values indicated are Recovery Points (RPs) on the TQR, and
are expressed as Mean [+ or -] SD.

Table 3. Each Player's Mean Scores and Standard Scores on HRV
Parameters, with Significance Level (p) of the Analysis of Variance
(ONE-WAY), and the Sample's Average Total Scores

HRV          Player 1                  Player 2
Parameters
             (62 recorded)             (21 recorded)

RRmean       1159.39 [+ or -] 121.69   943.31 [+ or -] 111.51
HRmean          52.3 [+ or -] 5.4       64.51 [+ or -] 8.03
SDNN           87.25 [+ or -] 30.07    157.46 [+ or -] 66.71
RMSSD          84.54 [+ or -] 37.07    153.41 [+ or -] 64.58
pNN50           38.6 [+ or -] 21.37      58.4 [+ or -] 12.57
LF/HF           2.26 [+ or -] 1.56       1.09 [+ or -] 1

HRV          Player 3                 Player 4
Parameters
             (15 recorded)            (21 recorded)

RRmean       1046.12 [+ or -] 109.5   1015.94 [+ or -] 73.34
HRmean         57.91 [+ or -] 5.7       59.35 [+ or -] 4.2
SDNN          123.65 [+ or -] 20.18    137.59 [+ or -] 28.96
RMSSD         121.64 [+ or -] 21.61    139.73 [+ or -] 26.74
pNN50          59.77 [+ or -] 8.95      67.88 [+ or -] 8.06
LF/HF           1.12 [+ or -] 1.02       0.68 [+ or -] 0.64

HRV          Player 5                 Player 6                  p
Parameters
             (13 recorded)            (36 recorded)

RRmean       1059.31 [+ or -] 66.4    1070.71 [+ or -] 127.42   < .001
HRmean         56.86 [+ or -] 3.72      58.19 [+ or -] 5        < .001
SDNN           65.92 [+ or -] 15.78    121.42 [+ or -] 38.06    < .001
RMSSD          72.69 [+ or -] 32.21     92.18 [+ or -] 50.97    < .001
pNN50          42.58 [+ or -] 13.97     53.49 [+ or -] 14.24    < .001
LF/HF           0.65 [+ or -] 0.31       1.92 [+ or -] 1.51     < .001

HRV          Total
Parameters
             (168 recorded)

RRmean       1070.71 [+ or -] 127.42
HRmean         56.82 [+ or -] 6.76
SDNN          111.24 [+ or -] 45.66
RMSSD         104.08 [+ or -] 49.92
pNN50          50.12 [+ or -] 19.23
LF/HF           1.62 [+ or -] 1.43

Note: All values are expressed as mean [+ or -] SD; RRmean: mean of
R/R intervals; HRmean: average heart rate; SDNN: standard deviation
of R/R intervals; RMSSD: square root of the mean squared differences
between sucessive R/R intervals; pNN50: percentage of consecutive R/
R intervals differing by more than 50ms; LF/HF: high to low frequency
ratio.

Table 4. Correlations (Spearman's Rho) between Recovery Areas on the
TQRact Scale, and Perceptions of Recovery on the TQRper Scale for
Each Player

Recovery Areas             Perceptions of Recovery

                           Player 1        Player 2

                           (66 recorded)   (26 recorded)

Nutrition                  Rho = -0.099    Rho = 0.008
                           NS              NS
Hydration                  Rho = -0.104    Rho = -0.206
                           NS              NS
Sleep and Rest             Rho = 0.212     Rho = 0.044
                           NS              NS
Relaxation and Emotional   Rho = 0.141     Rho = 0.136
  Support                  NS              NS
Stretching and Warm-down   Rho = -0.057    Rho = 0.084
                           NS              NS
Recovery Points            Rho = 0.038     Rho = 0.036
                           NS              NS

Recovery Areas             Perceptions of Recovery

                           Player 3        Player 4

                           (23 recorded)   (24 recorded)

Nutrition                  Rho = -0.022    Rho = 0.204
                           NS              NS
Hydration                  Rho = -0.041    Rho = 0.220
                           NS              NS
Sleep and Rest             Rho = 0.517     Rho = 0.551
                           p = .012        p =.005
Relaxation and Emotional   Rho = 0.457     Rho = -0.164
  Support                  p = .028        NS
Stretching and Warm-down   Rho = .426      Rho = -0.313
                           p = .043        NS
Recovery Points            Rho = 0.352     Rho = 0.260
                           NS              NS

Recovery Areas             Perceptions of Recovery

                           Player 5        Player 6

                           (20 recorded)   (37 recorded)

Nutrition                  Rho = 0.373     Rho = 0.473
                           NS              p = .003
Hydration                  Rho = 0.022     Rho = -0.058
                           p = .927        NS
Sleep and Rest             Rho = 0.487     Rho = 0.035
                           p = .029        NS
Relaxation and Emotional   Rho = 0.139     Rho = -0.097
  Support                  NS              NS
Stretching and Warm-down   Rho = 0.107     Rho = 0.164
                           NS              NS
Recovery Points            Rho = 0.470     Rho = 0.406
                           p = .036        p = .013
COPYRIGHT 2015 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Moreno, Jordi; Ramos-Castro, Juan; Rodas, Gil; Tarrago, Joan R.; Capdevila, Lluis
Publication:Spanish Journal of Psychology
Date:Jan 1, 2015
Words:7736
Previous Article:Psychological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis.
Next Article:Naive tests of basic local independence model's invariance.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters