This study aimed to define, develop, and validate a subjective scale of training quality. Two related studies were used to 1) define training quality and 2) develop and validate a subjective scale. Part One: a purposive sample of 15 sub-elite (i.e. national) and elite (i.e. international) swimmers participated in one, 20-30-min semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis of interview responses established three constructs to define training quality. These were the physical, technical, and mental aspects of training. Part Two: development of the Subjective Training Quality (STQ) scale based on the three constructs identified in Part One. 252 sub-elite and elite athletes, across eight sports completed the STQ scale. Cronbach's alpha (α) assessed internal consistency, histogram plot analysis assessed face validity, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) compared physical, technical, and mental constructs with training quality. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) evaluated CFA quality of fit. Physical, technical, and mental constructs demonstrated a high "acceptable" level of internal consistency (α = 0.85) and excellent face validity. Comparatively, the CFA quality of fit was "excellent" (RMSEA = <0.01 "good", SRMR = 0.00 "perfect"). The STQ scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency and face validity, establishing capacity to monitor training quality. The STQ scale could be used in conjunction with traditional training monitoring tools to provide additional insight into athlete's training quality. Further investigation is required to determine how the STQ scale may interact with subjective and objective training performance measures, and how it could be incorporated into daily training monitoring.HighlightsAthletes perceive the subjective training quality (STQ) scale adequately represents the physical, technical, and mental constructs of training quality.Excellent internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis fit demonstrates the STQ scale is an effective tool to monitor training quality.With additional validation, the STQ scale could be used in conjunction with traditional load monitoring tools to provide greater insight to an athlete's training response, and subsequently inform training prescription.

Purpose: This study aimed to independently validate a wearable inertial sensor designed to monitor training and performance metrics in swimmers. Methods: A total of 4 male (21 [4] y, 1 national and 3 international) and 6 female (22 [3] y, 1 national and 5 international) swimmers completed 15 training sessions in an outdoor 50-m pool. Swimmers were fitted with a wearable device (TritonWear, 9-axis inertial measurement unit with triaxial accelerometer, gyroscope, andmagnetometer), placed under the swim cap on top of the occipital protuberance. Video footage was captured for each session to establish criterion values. Absolute error, standardized effect, and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to determine the validity of the wearable device against video footage for total swim distance, total stroke count, mean stroke count, and mean velocity. A Fisher exact test was used to analyze the accuracy of stroke-type identification. Results: Total swim distance was underestimated by the device relative to video analysis. Absolute error was consistently higher for total and mean stroke count, and mean velocity, relative to video analysis. Across all sessions, the device incorrectly detected total time spent in backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, and freestyle by 51% (15%). The device did not detect time spent in drill. Intraclass correlation coefficient results demonstrated excellent intrarater reliability between repeated measures across all swimming metrics. Conclusions: The wearable device investigated in this study does not accurately measure distance, stroke count, and velocity swimming metrics or detect stroke type. Its use as a training monitoring tool in swimming is limited.

This study aimed to investigate swimmer's use and coach prescription of recovery strategies during training and competition while examining perceived challenges, barriers, and beliefs in the importance of their effectiveness. A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was implemented. Thirty-seven male and 45 female sub-elite to elite swimmers (age 18 +/- 3 y), and 4 male and 6 female coaches (age 40 +/- 9 y) completed an online, 78-item recovery strategy survey. Swimmers and coaches responded to questions regarding when, why, and how they used recovery strategies, perceived challenges and barriers to strategy inclusion during training and competition. Data were coded and analysed thematically. Fisher's Exact Test was conducted on 5-point Likert scale responses. Most recovery strategies were used and prescribed more during competition. Swimmers reported active recovery as the most effective recovery strategy (44%), whereas coaches rated sleep or napping (40%). Swimmers and coaches perceived most recovery strategies to be more effective and important during competition than in training. Swimmers used, and coaches prescribed, recovery strategies more during the competition, highlighting the discrepancies in use between training and competition. Targeted education programmes should enhance athletes and coach's recovery knowledge and practical application of strategies, while accounting for individual sport and life demands.