Jason Anson: Sport Technologist

HANDBOOK FOR UNDERSTANDING, INTERPRETING, AND USING THE COMPUTERIZED DAILY ANALYSIS OF LIFE DEMANDS FOR ATHLETES (DALDA) TEST CONTAINED IN THE OPTIMO SPORT TRAINING TOOL

Brent S. Rushall, Ph.D.,R.Psy.

Sports Science Associates

and

San Diego State University

Sports Science Associates

© 2011 Copyright

COPYRIGHT

Brent S. Rushall, Ph.D.,R.Psy.

4225 Orchard Drive

Spring Valley

California

U.S.A.

91977

The contents of this handbook cannot be reproduced in part or in total without the express permission of the copyright holder.

All rights reserved.

First produced in 1978

Revised 1982, 1987, 1992, 2000, 2003, 2011

PREFACE

This handbook is not meant to be a complete exposition of the non-computerized items contained in the Sport Psychology Consultation System. It marks the start of discussing and dispersing information about tests based on an alternative technology and that have been designed for specific use in sporting environments. As information becomes available, either in terms of new data or suggestions from users, it will be disseminated to users of the SPCS. Thus, this handbook should grow if SPCS users are willing to share information and ideas about the SPCS. I will serve as the “editor” of such information and will disperse items and ideas as they are drawn to my attention. I encourage all SPCS users to participate in this sharing of information.

Because this handbook will never be complete, there is no index to this volume because of the dynamic nature of its content and future contributions.

I look forward to this group participation project.

Brent S. Rushall, Ph.D.,R.Psy.
Proprietor
Sports Science Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

____________________________________________________________________________
Section        Title                                                                                         Page
____________________________________________________________________________

1. Understanding the Daily Analysis of Life Demands For Athletes (DALDA) 5

2. Measuring the Occurrence of Training Abuses

2. Uses of Self-report Stress Analyses 8

3. Monitoring Daily Training 22

4. Excessive Training Sessions 29

5. Training Sessions That Are Easy 35

6. Monitoring Overtraining 36

7. Monitoring Travel Disruptions 45

8. Monitoring Outside Stresses 50

9. Monitoring Peaking 50

10. References 50

11. Reprint: A Tool For Measuring Stress Tolerance in Elite Athletes 50

UNDERSTANDING THE DAILY ANALYSIS OF LIFE DEMANDS FOR ATHLETES (DALDA)

[This manual section is excerpted from Lesson 11 in Rushall, B. S. (1999). Foundational
principles of physical conditioning. Spring Valley, CA: Sports Science Associates.]

Measuring the Occurrence of Training Abuses

The first factors to be measured should be psychological, for they occur first in the breakdown of an athlete’s capacity to adapt to stress. It has been shown that self-report measures of psychological reactions and changes are satisfactory for appropriate tools (Goodyear 1973). Two self-report measurement techniques have been widely reported as being useful for sporting environments. The Profile of Mood States (POMS) (McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman 1971) is popular. A number of scale scores are developed and increases in some of these are related to increased stresses and state changes in athletes. The major drawback with the POMS is that it is not sport-specific, although that does not appear to be a severe problem after athletes adapt to using it. For example, Pyke, Craig, and Norton (1988) found that the POMS measures and physiological indices changed in concert during a tapering period with élite cyclists. However, the scale scores do not give specific information that can be verified by a coach’s own observations of athlete behaviors and nor do they indicate the individual idiosyncrasies of athlete reactions. The generation of a number of scales that are not related to the phenomena of importance makes the device a little cumbersome. Athletes are usually unable to directly interpret the POMS.

The Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes (DALDA — Rushall 1975a, 1979b, 1981a, 1981b) is a self-report sport-specific tool that has been used at events such as Olympic Games by several nations to refine the quality of coaching decisions about the stress reactions of individual athletes. It has the advantage of exactly describing the stress sources and characteristics of each person as seen in figure 1.1. Thus it allows the differentiation of the individuality of the stress responses as well as providing indices of what features are normal, worse than normal, and better than normal in an athlete’s life and stress symptoms. It appears to be the most relevant and credible tool for use with athletes.

Figure 1.1

The DALDA tracks 9 sources of Stress and 25 Symptoms of Stress below using the DALDA Stress Reponse Daily Report Card.

Dr Don McKenzie1 (personal communication), of Vancouver, Canada, researched topics associated with overtraining and attempted to locate those factors which best predict the emergence of overtraining symptoms. After exhaustive testing of blood, physiological, and psychological factors, the most significant indices that could be measured with predictive validity were psychological self-report measures. The measures contained in his final tool were quantified assessments of a number of items that yielded an overall score of stress severity. The higher the revealed score, the more stressed is the athlete. The scaled score loses information and individuality, the same drawbacks that are contained in the POMS. However, both tools are valid for predicting and measuring the stress of training.

The abuses of training principles cover a number of areas. They include exercising athletes who are in incomplete recovery, training when exhausted by jet-lag and travel fatigue, expecting high-level performances when a “peaked” state has not been attained, and expecting normal hard-training responses in athletes who have their performance capacities reduced because of the accumulated effects of stresses which occur outside the sporting environment. The responses of athletes to these situations and the quantification of the severity of the stress are measured by the DALDA. Such measures can be the basis for making sound coaching decisions. The following in depth discussion of the use of the tool is offered.

The response of an athlete to the matrix of life stresses depends upon the appraisal/coping capacity of the individual to each source of stress. The reactivity of an athlete to life stresses, including the activities associated with the sport, depends upon the number of stresses that exist at any particular time. If one accepts the assertion that one’s tolerance for stress is finite (Selye 1950), then the accumulated stresses could exceed an athlete’s capacity. It would be of advantage to both the coach and athlete to measure the sources of excessive stress that occur at any one particular time. Such knowledge would allow the training and handling of athletes to be appropriately modified.

Rushall (1975a, 1975b) published a Stress Index for swimmers. Consequent adaptation and use of that tool has verified its general utility for all athletes (Rushall 1981a). The inventory assesses whether an athlete is stressed and if so, what the factors are leading to the stressed condition. An athlete is required to consider a number of descriptions and determine whether his or her state is worse or better than normal. There are two parts to the inventory.

The validity of the DALDA (Rushall 1981a, 1987a) was established through content validity procedures after an item pool of 13 stresses and 44 symptoms was developed. The reliability of the tool was determined through test-retest procedures on 52 athletes repeated on 5 separate occasions, each at least 14 days apart. Items that were not reliable 80 percent of the time were deleted from the item pools. The validity and reliability screening procedure reduced the sources of stress to 9 areas and the symptoms of stress to 25 items. Thus a valid and reliable self-report inventory was established for use in sporting environments. Figure 1.2 illustrates the answer sheet for the tool. Part A allows for recording self-perceptions of sources of stress in an athlete’s life, while Part B lists possible symptoms of stress. The number of responses for each category is totaled into a cumulative graph Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.2 – DALDA Daily Questionnaire

Figure 1.3 – DALDA – Training Response Window Part B Graph

The first part of the inventory (Part A) describes the general stress sources that occur in the everyday living of an athlete (diet, home life, school/work, friends, training, climate, sleep,recreation, and health). The individual is asked to indicate the pertinent sources that are stressful to him or her at the time of answering the test. The information that is generated indicates those areas of the athlete’s normal daily activities that are perceived as being stressful.

The importance of this information is that it locates any general stresses that may be detracting from an athlete’s exercise-stress adaptation potential. When extraneous stress sources are indicated, steps can be taken to alleviate them. Athletic performances can deteriorate when stresses other than exercise are incurred. Thus, this section of the inventory can be used to locate possible causes of poor performance. An athlete can also be stressed by a number of factors but still not have succumbed to them. A coach can take appropriate steps to reduce the possibility of failing adaptation by taking corrective steps to remove unnecessary sources of stress in an athlete’s life.

The second part of the inventory (Part B) determines which symptoms of stress reaction exist in the athlete. Consequently, it can be used to conclude whether an athlete is or is not succumbing to the life stresses experienced. Questions concerning the symptoms of failing adaptation are evaluated as to whether they are worse than normal (negative), normal, or better than normal (positive). When the number of “worse-than-normal” responses increases markedly, that is, the athlete reports an unusual number of negative stress symptoms, it usually indicates that he or she is unable to cope with the stress of life at that time. Coaches can then alter the training program and/or remove some sources of stress as indicated in Part A so that the athlete is given a reduced “stress load” which should result in recovery.

The DALDA can be used periodically (possibly once every two or three days) throughout a period of training. It provides consistent, frequent evaluation of an athlete’s stress reactions. Its use does not inconvenience the coach. It can be incorporated into a logbook with a supply of answer sheets as was done with the Australian Olympic Swimming Team in 1980 (Rushall 1979b). The answer sheet requires the athlete to total all responses in each category for both test parts. The data are graphed. Thus, a marked increase in the total of either part for the “worse-than-normal” category serves as a warning for coaches to take corrective action before more serious states are developed.

The administration, answering, and scoring of the inventory are all done by the athlete. He or she maintains the periodic progress charts. When changes in trends on the chart are evidenced the athlete then indicates to the coach that consultation is required. Alternatively, the coach can periodically scan the progress chart for trend changes. This process increases the coach’s understanding of an athlete’s specific reactions to a unique set of life stressesOptimo Sport Training Tool. When changes in trends on the chart are evidenced,the athlete is notified in a change of the DALDA icons as seen in Figure 1.4 in the athletes daily newsfeed found in the Optimo Sport Training Tool. Alternatively, the coach can periodically scan the coaches daily newsfeed for each of their athletes and monitor the trend changes as seen in figure 1.5.”.)

Figure 1.5 – DALDA icons in the Coaches Daily Newsfeed found in the Optimo Sport Training Software.

The inventory has a number of valuable benefits that warrant its adoption by coaches. It provides important information about an athlete’s life that is not normally available under traditional coaching circumstances or recorded in other measurement tools. It locates both stress reactions and sources of stress. Apart from general use, it would also seem to have potential for beneficial use in the period before international competitions such as Olympic and Commonwealth Games and World Championships. In that period, the levels of psychological and physiological stresses are increased for all sports while a peaked state is being developed. The complexity of that circumstance warrants special attention.

Uses of Self-report Stress Analyses

The relationship between psychological assessments and stressed states is the basis of the structure for the DALDA booklet. The following sections describe how to use the DALDA booklet for monitoring features of athletes’ personal states during training.

The Training Response
Athletes in serious training usually attempt to attain a state of maximum adaptation to exercise stress. This is known as achieving the “stage of resistance” (Selye 1950) where the majority of the body’s resources are applied to coping with training loads. The cost of this specialized adaptation is that resistance to other stresses is lowered. Diminished capacities in other areas of living are often evident when an athlete trains intensely. This means that as he or she goes through cycles of fatigue and recovery, there are a number of “symptoms” of the stress of adaptation that occur. The DALDA booklet is a tool for measuring these.

The theoretical formulation for this assessment method is that during serious training there should be a number of symptoms that are reported by an individual that are “worse” than if the individual was not training at all. When an athlete copes with the stress of training loads, and is adapting in a satisfactory manner, the symptoms of coping are relatively stable. If an athlete works too hard in a training session, consequently requiring a longer-than-normal recovery period, the number of symptoms that will be reported will be increased over what is normal. Thus changes in the number of self-reported symptoms of adaptation to training are the clues that indicate whether an athlete is training too hard (the number of negative symptoms increases) (Figure 1.6) or training too easily (the number of negative symptoms decreases) (Figure 1.7). The number of symptoms reported as being “worse-than-normal”, “normal”, or “better-than-normal” indicates the training response of an athlete. (Figure 1.8)

Figure 1.6

Figure 1.7

Figure 1.8

Monitoring Daily Training

When an athlete is able to cope with training loads that are not complicated by outside-of-the sport stresses, the number of symptoms that are reported on a day-to-day basis are relatively consistent. This consistent response indicates specific adaptation to the stress of training. It will last for a period of time, that period being dependent upon the frequency of training sessions and intensity of training loads.

To establish the training response “window”, the following procedures are recommended: (Jason Anson – “Start by using the Optimo Sport Training Tool. In your daily newsfeed, as an athlete, you will see the start DALDA Stress Test button such as Figure 1.10“)

Figure 1.10

Complete the DALDAassessment procedure on a daily basis for a period of 2-4 weeks. This period should start after the athlete has become used to training. It should not include the first 3 weeks of a training season. (Jason Anson – “In the computerized version of the DALDA, when you click on the start button as seen in figure 1.9, a pop up window will appear and the athlete must answer the questions correctly for the OK button to appear as seen in Figure 1.11“)

Figure 1.11 -

Record the symptoms as required at the same time each day, preferably before an afternoon training session. This timing will give an index of the athlete’s ability to recover from the previous training session.

Continue the assessments until the total number of “worse-than-normal” symptoms that are reported are relatively stable. In the early assessments there may be some variability which results from “getting used to” the measurement procedure. Stability occurs when the data points for the alternatives marked “a” in Part B of the inventory appear to be of a restricted range. Figure 1.12 exhibits a set of stable data that varied for three assessments and then seemed to settle between a range of 3-5 symptoms. The 9 recordings in that range are then deemed to be the “window” of the training response. It is suggested that “windows” be considered after at least 10 data points have been collected. There could be considerable individual variability in the number of days it takes to establish a “window”, and the number of symptoms that exist in it. One should not be alarmed if the number of symptoms is high or low. It should be remembered that the data are self-reports and the criteria used by individuals for reporting states can vary greatly.

Figure 1.12 – A Training-response “window” for ‘a’ (‘worse-than-normal) Alternatives on Part B of ‘Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes’

Data points were collected once every two days. When data points are obtained daily and training loads are carefully planned, the day-to-day variations in symptoms which are worse than normal usually will be less variable. This ‘window’ appears to contain two cycles of response, and the tool is sensitive to locating such cycles.

When athletes have entered training from an untrained state, or when they are young, it is possible for them to have several “windows”. As they get stronger and their physical capacities change the symptoms of adequate training stress change in type and number. Thus, for a time after the commencement of training, a “window” will be displayed. Then with a change in type of training to suit new capacities, a new “window” will be likely to occur. With such athletes periodic tests should be made to see if they can tolerate different training loads and frequencies. Further, the stress of basic preparatory training will be different from that of specific preparatory training: different “windows” should be expected for each training phase. However, once athletes have entered maintenance training, “windows” should be stable.

The coach should determine the frequency of recording in the Optimo Sport Training Software. If training loads are primarily of low intensity, then every second day should be satisfactory. If training loads are heavy, then daily analyses are recommended. The aim of coaching should be to provide training stresses that will result in athletes reporting symptoms that fall within the “window”.

Excessive Training Sessions
If a data point from a day’s analysis is higher than the values included in the “window”, Figure 1.12 then it could be interpreted to mean that the previous session load was too hard. The extra symptoms that are reported mean a lack of adequate recovery. The subsequent training session should be of a lesser intensity to allow further recovery to take place. Increased training loads usually produce greater states of fatigue, require longer recovery periods, and cause an athlete to experience more training-stress symptoms that are worse than usual. Thus the monitoring of between-sessions recovery is possible with this measurement procedure. When symptoms are more numerous than those in the “window”, it can be concluded that previous training was too demanding and extra recovery is warranted. Figure 1.13 illustrates recordings that occur outside the “window.”

Figure 1.13 A Training-response “Window” for worse-than-normal Alternatives on Part B of “Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes”

The last data point is outside the “window”, indicating that the next training should be lighter than usual to allow the athlete to return to experiencing the number of symptoms associated with adaptation to exercise stress.

Training Sessions That Are Too Easy
When the number of symptoms that are recorded fall outside but below the “window”, then the athlete is not being stressed by training to the degree that produces optimum adaptation. The effects and fatigue resulting from training are not as much as could be tolerated. It could be interpreted to mean that too much recovery was being experienced and that the athlete was not undergoing an optimum level of specific training adaptation. The coaching response to an occurrence like this would be to increase the training load in the next training session.

The recording of symptoms yields an indication of how an athlete is reacting to the stress of training. Changes in the number of symptoms indicate changes in the training response. Subsequent training loads should be increased or decreased to return the number of reported symptoms back to the “window” of training responses. Figure 1.14 indicates these features. There is considerable variability between athletes as to how much training can be tolerated and how susceptible they are to excessive training loads.

Figure 1.14 – A Sample Answer Screen for the Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes in the Optimo Sport Training Tool.

Monitoring Overtraining
After a period of time, athletes lose the capacity to adapt to training programs. Should this occur in athletes using the DALDA in the Optimo Sport Training Software, it will be observed that the return to the “window” does not occur as easily as when the athlete is adapting. When workloads are reduced on three successive occasions and there are no outstanding stresses occurring in other aspects of the athlete’s life, but a reduction in “worse-than-normal” symptoms does not occur, it can usually be determined that an overtrained state has been reached. At least one complete unloading training microcycle should be implemented immediately in this situation. (Jason Anson – “When an athlete scores a reduced score below their ‘window’ for three successive occasions an overtraining alert will appear in their newsfeed in their Optimo Sport Training Tool such as figure 1.15″)

When athletes train consistently year-round, there comes a time when further performance improvement due to physiological adaptation is not possible. Increased workloads do not produce any further performance improvements. Athlete responses in the “window” indicate adequate tolerance of training loads in a physiological sense. But the physiological capacities of an individual are limited in their potential for improvement. Thus “windows” of stress symptom reports finally indicate the state of maximum physiological adaptation that is possible. Figure 1.16 illustrates recordings that indicate responses representing an overtrained state.

Figure 1.16 Typical worse-than-normal Symptoms Associated with Adaptation to Exercise Stress

The first stage, with elevated symptom numbers, is related to the alarm of reaction to the onset of training. The subsequent “window” is associated with the stage of resistance (successful adaptation). Within these data plots, there were two occasions when heavier-than-normal training sessions caused responses to occur outside the “window”. The separate graph depicts the transition from resistance (“window” to the stage of failing adaptating (overtraining). At that time, the data points remain outside the “window” even though training loads are reduced. Undesirable responses usually decrease when recovering from overtrained states.

Monitoring Travel Disruptions
There are uses for this booklet other than the monitoring of training. A common one for serious athletes is the assessment of recovery from time-zone shifts (“jet-lag”) and travel fatigue. The stresses that result from travel increase the number of “worse-than-normal” symptoms reported.
More symptoms occur but they are not necessarily those that are reported when training is excessive. This is because the stresses are different. A coach can monitor the type and number of symptoms that are reported as a consequence of travel. Light training sessions should only be considered until the number of negative symptoms returns to “window” values. Heavy training sessions during this recovery and adaptation period would serve no good purpose. They would only delay the adaptive/recovery reactions of the athlete. Figure 1.17 exhibits the jet-lag
responses of some Canadian Olympic ski jumpers at the 1984 Olympic Games.

Figure 1.17 The worse-than-normal Symptoms Daily Recordings for Three 1984 Olympic Athletes that illustrate the Execessive Stresses Caused by Time-Zone Shifts (Jet-Lag) and Travel Fatigue

Note: For Athlete A the window is zero.

Monitoring Outside Stresses
The discussion above has generally assumed that exercise stress is the only factor that is excessive in an athlete’s life. That rarely is the case. Since an individual has a finite capacity to handle life stresses, it is possible that the accumulated effects of training and other stresses may cause symptoms associated with increased stress. Thus it is essential that the possible incursion of other life stresses should be considered on a daily basis.

Before a decision is made about altering an athlete’s training load because data have fallen outside the “window”, the number of life stresses that are reported as being “worse-than-normal” should be considered. If they have increased, then it is possible that events other than training loads have caused them to be reported. If that is the case, then the athlete and coach together should attempt to reduce the outside stresses, for they detract from the exercise-tolerance capacity of the athlete. When outside-of-sport stresses are reduced, athletes can adequately handle heavy training loads, which in turn produce bigger training effects.

Figure 1.18 - The DALDA tracks 9 sources of Stress and 25 Symptoms of Stress below using the DALDA Stress Reponse Window

Monitoring Peaking
One further valuable use of this measurement procedure is the monitoring of the peaking state. Athletes who record values in the “window” are not capable of a maximum performance. A period of reduced training loads is necessary for peak performances to occur. With this tool, peaked states are indicated when the number of “better-than-normal” symptoms increases. This is why graphs of the three classes of response are maintained. Peaked states should prepare an athlete to feel as good as possible. Thus, an increase in the number of “c” (“better-than-normal”) symptom responses along with a reduction in the “a” (“worse-thannormal”) symptoms should be evidenced. Figure 1.19 illustrates changes that occur as the peaking state is developed.

This analysis technique measures how athletes feel at any particular time. The appraisal of various symptoms of stress indicates responses to it: the greater the number of symptoms that appear to be worse than usual, the greater an athlete is stressed. It is on this basis that responses to training stress and life stresses in general are monitored.

It is now possible to measure the following features:

1. training responses that indicate an athlete is either too stressed or under-stressed;
2. the ideal amount of stress to promote the optimum level of training effort;
3. the influence of outside-of-sport stresses that interfere with the training response;
4. initial features of over-training;
5. reactions to travel fatigue and jet lag; and
6. peaking responses

The use of this tool should promote better coaching decisions that will assist athletes to improve performances in a more efficient manner.

Figure 1.19 The Relationships Between Stress Symptoms Recorded as worse-than-normal During Specific and Peak Training Phases for an Elite Sculler

The increase in “better” and decrease in “worse” symptoms together indicate that a peaked-readiness state is being attained.

=======================================
Note

1Dr Don McKenzie of Vancouver, British Columbia, completed a study on the measurement of overtraining in canoeists. Psychological self-reports are among the best indices for measuring overtraining and highly fatigued states.

References

Goodyear, M. D. (1973). Stress, adrenocortical activity and sleep habits. Ergonomics, 16, 679-

681.

McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). POMS Profile of Mood States. San Diego, CA: EdiTS.

Pyke, F. S., Craig, N. P., & Norton, K. I. (1988). Physiological and psychological responses of sprint and pursuit track cyclists to a period of reduced training. In E. R. Burke & M. Newsom (eds), Medicine and Science in Cycling. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Rushall, B. S. (1975a). Applied psychology in sports. In B. S. Rushall (ed.), The Status of Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology Research. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: Sports

Science Associates.

Rushall, B. S. (1975b). Psychological aids for swimming coaches. In R. M. Ousley (ed.), 1975

American Swimming Coaches Association World Clinic Yearbook. Fort Lauderdale, FL:

American Swimming Coaches Association.

Rushall, B. S. (1979b). The Swimmer’s Race Preparation Checklists. Sydney, Australia: The

Forbes and Ursula Carlile Swimming Organization.

Rushall, B. S. (1981a). A tool for measuring stress in elite athletes. In Y. Hanin (ed.), Stress and

Anxiety in Sport. Moscow: Physical Culture and Sport Publishers.

Rushall, B. S. (1981b). Daily analyses of life-demands for athletes. In T. Valeriote (ed.), Level 3

National Coaching Certification Supplement. Ottawa: Coaching Association of Canada.

Rushall, B. S. (1987a). Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes. Spring Valley, CA: Sports

Science Associates.

Selye, H. (1950). Stress. Montreal, Canada: Acta Inc.

Section 8

REPRINT: A TOOL FOR MEASURING STRESS TOLERANCE IN ELITE

ATHLETES
[This section is a partial reprint of the most recent publication on the derivation of the DALDA. It contains the methodology of the tool's development but omits the "tool uses" section, which is redundant with the previous section of this manual. The article source is: Rushall, B. S. (1990). A tool for measuring stress tolerance in elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 51-66.]

ABSTRACT
A self-report inventory of sources of life-stress and symptoms of stress is described. The tool can be used to determine the nature of an athlete’s response to training, particularly his/her capacity to tolerate training loads. Data are used to demonstrate the use of the inventory to determine i) training responses that are either too stressed or under-stressed, ii) the ideal amount of stress to promote the optimum level of training effort, iii) the influence of outside-of-sport stresses that interfere with the training response, iv) preliminary features of overtraining, v) reactions to jetlag and travel fatigue, and vi) peaking responses.

It has been recognized over the past two decades that the stressors associated with 61ite athletic performance are quite varied and originate from outside as well as within the sporting environment. The reactivity of an athlete to all life stresses, including the activities associated
with a sport, depends upon the number of stressors which exist at any particular time (Fenz, 1974). If one accepts the assertion that one’s tolerance for stress is finite (Selye, 1950), then the accumulated stresses associated with athletic environments could exceed an athlete’s finite
capacity. Sources of stress can be facilitative (positive) or detrimental (negative) to behavior (Sarason, Johnson & Siegel, 1978). The response of an athlete depends upon the appraisal/coping capacity to each source of stress. It would be of advantage to both the coach and athlete to measure the sources and symptoms of stress that occur at any one particular time. Such knowledge could allow the training and handling of athletes to be modified appropriately to enhance the accommodations of the sporting experience (Zwaga, 1973).

The symptoms of stressed reactions are idiosyncratic (Lazarus, 1966). Few, if any, athletes react in the same manner to the same stressors. Single physiological indices are inadequate for predicting or assessing the types of stressors that are involved with sporting environments
(Carlile, 198 1; Rushall & Roaf, 1986). This is evidenced by the failure to replicate the original training-stress caused T-wave inversion phenomenon with Australian swimmers reported by Carlile and Carlile (1961). Behavioral indices of stress reaction are appropriate (Appley &
Trumbull, 1967; Lazarus, 1966). The accurate measurement of the symptoms of stress experienced by an athlete would allow a coach to assess the degree of stress experienced.

To understand an athlete’s responses to the specific stress of training, it is necessary to monitor the sources of stress outside of as well as in the sport. The measurement of stress responses needs to incorporate the individual patterns of symptoms that emerge.

Instrument Development
The instrument that is the focus of this paper underwent an evolutionary form of development. The initial attempts to measure stress reactions through psychological methods were made in swimming environments. The requirement to produce a simple and reliable procedure was
deemed important for applied sporting situations. Goodyear (1973) reported that self-reporting was adequate for the evaluation of changes due to stress. A pencil-and-paper methodology appeared to be appropriate. A survey of swimming literature indicated that 9 sources of lifestress
could affect performance and that 19 symptoms of stress reaction had been noted. An inventory of those sources and symptoms was constructed allowing a respondent to indicate whether each factor was “worse-than-normal” (negative), “normal,” or “better-than-normal”
(positive). Five elite swimmers, who were known to exhibit T-wave elevation and inversion as adaptation and failing-adaptation responses to training, served as subjects for validating the methodology. It was believed that if the number of negatively reported symptoms increased, it
would reflect the onset of failing adaptation to exercise stress. If that onset were correlated to the T-wave response, then the methodology would be considered valid. This association was demonstrated in all subjects but with one modification, the number of self-report symptoms that
indicated a deteriorating psychological state preceded the T-wave degradation by a period ranging from 9 to 15 days depending upon the subject. It was also noted that isolated T-wave depressions were related to transitory increases in both negative symptom and life-style segment reports. This exploratory work led to a more concerted effort to establish a self-report tool for measuring stress in applied sport situations.

Validity. The first step in the development of this methodology was to conduct a more rigorous evaluation of life-stresses and reactions. The definition of 12 areas of life-stress and 42 symptoms of stress reaction resulted. Descriptions of these factors were subjected to content
validation by nine competent authorities familiar with stress evaluation and high-level sports. They were asked to indicate if they had seen instances of the symptoms in athletes, and whether the sources of life-stress were appropriate for serious athletes. They were also encouraged to add extra items if they had not been listed. One further life-stress and two symptoms were added as a result of this procedure. Each item was labeled and defined by elements indicating representative situations and behaviors. The original three-alternative response option of negative, normal, and positive appraisal was retained. It was deemed that this accumulation of factors represented the scope of sources of stress and symptoms of stress reactions that were associated with sporting environments.

Readability. A booklet of instructions, definitions and examples, and an answer sheet was constructed. Pupils in a sixth-grade elementary school class were asked to read the booklet content and indicate words they could not understand. Seven definitions and four labels were
altered as a result of this procedure. It was concluded that the wording of the items was sufficient to be understood by persons 11 years of age or older,

Reliability. Since a valid and readable pool of items had been constructed, it was necessary to establish the reliability of each. The Nova Scotia Scientific Training Squad of competitive swimmers (N = 22; ages ranging from 11 to 19 years) served as subjects for this purpose. They
were selected because of the potential to control environmental and lifestyle sources of stress. Multiple-tests were conducted to indicate the consistency of individual response patterns to replicated life-style and swimming training stressors. To affect such control, subjects were
instructed to follow a planned life-style for three days before each testing. Their coaches were instructed to give the same training programs across those three days for each of the five replications. Assessments were made on the second day of each weekend training camp. It was
assumed that these control actions would produce consistent sets of life and training responses. Five evaluations were conducted, each being 14 days apart. Subjects were not allowed to review their previous responses. The reliability criterion was that if a stress source or symptom were not responded to in exactly the same manner on four of the five occasions by 80% of the subjects, the item would be deleted. This criterion was employed to indicate the reliability and consistency of individual response patterns. After this analysis, 9 sources of life-stress and 25 symptoms remained. The majority of the symptoms that were deleted were those that embraced psychological concepts (e.g., depression, aggression, vitality). The remaining factors after the validity and reliability analyses were then published as the Stress Index for Swimmers (Rushall,
1975a. 1975b).

Structure. Consequent adaptation and use of the tool has verified its general utility for all athletes (Rushall, 1981). It is now published in booklet form as the Daily Analysis of Life Demands for Athletes (DALDA) (Rushall, 1981, 1987) and is promoted as being an assessment
tool for evaluating whether an athlete is stressed and if so, what are the factors leading to the stressed condition. [See Figure 1 in the previous section for a picture of the DALDA answer sheet.]

The first part of the inventory (Part A) describes the general stress sources that occur in the everyday living of an athlete (diet, home-life, school/work, friends, training, climate, sleep, recreation, and health). Table 1 lists the definitions of those Sources. The individual is asked to
appraise the nature of the stressor at the time of answering. The information that is generated indicates those areas of the athlete’s normal daily activities that are perceived as being unusually stressful.

The importance of this section is that it locates any general stressors that might be detracting from an athlete’s exercise-stress adaptation potential. Athletic performances can deteriorate when stressors other than exercise are incurred. Thus, this analysis could be used to locate possible causes for poor performances in training or competition. When extraneous stress sources are indicated, steps could be taken to alleviate them.

Part B of the inventory is used to determine what stress-reaction symptoms exist in the athlete. Table 2 lists the symptom definitions. The pattern and number of negatively appraised symptoms could be used to conclude whether an athlete is or is not being adversely affected by life stressors. When the number of “worse-than-normal” responses increases markedly, that is, the athlete reports an unusual number of stress symptoms, it usually indicates that the athlete is unable to cope with the stress of life at that time.

TABLE 1. DEFINITIONS FOR PART A (SOURCES OF LIFE STRESS) FOR THE DAILYANALYSES OF LIFE DEMANDS FOR ATHLETES.
____________________________________________________________________________
1. Diet. Consider whether you are eating regularly and in adequate amounts. Are you missing meals? Do you like your meals?
2. Home-life. Have you had any arguments with your parents, brothers, or sisters? Are you being asked to do too much around the house? How is your relationship with your wife/husband? Have there been any unusual happenings at home concerning your family? How are you getting along with your roommates?
3. School/College/Work. Consider the amount of work that you are doing there. Are you required to do more or less at home or in your own time? How are your grades or evaluations? Think of how you are interacting with administrators, teachers, or bosses.
4. Friends. Have you lost or gained any friends? Have there been any arguments or problems with your friends? Are they complimenting you more or less? Do you spend more or less time with them?
5. Training and Exercise. How much and how often are you training? Are the levels of effort that are required easy or hard? Are you able to recover adequately between efforts? Are you enjoying your sport?
6. Climate. Is it too hot, cold, wet, or dry?
7. Sleep. Are you getting enough sleep? Are you getting too much? Can you sleep when you want to?
8. Recreation. Consider the activities that you do outside of your sport for enjoyable relaxation. Are they taking up too much time? Do they compete with your application to your sport?
9. Health. Do you have any infections, a cold, or other temporary health problems?
____________________________________________________________________________

The DALDA can be used repeatedly throughout a period of training. It provides consistent, frequent evaluation of an athlete’s stress reactions. The answer sheet requires the athlete to total all responses in each category for both test parts. The data are graphed to form an historical record. Thus, a marked increase in the total “worse-than-normal” responses in either part serves as a warning for coaches to take corrective actions before more serious states are developed. It can be incorporated into a log book with a supply of answer sheets as was done with the Australian Olympic Swimming Team in 1980 (Rushall, 1979).

The administration, answering, and scoring of the inventory can be done totally by the athlete. He/she should maintain the historical response charts. When changes in trends are exhibited, the athlete should indicate to the coach that consultation is required. Alternatively, the coach can
periodically scan the progress chart for trend changes. This process increases the coach’s understanding of an athlete’s specific reactions to a unique set of life-stresses.

TABLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF PART B (SYMPTOMS OF STRESS) FOR THE DAILY ANALYSES OF LIFE DEMANDS FOR ATHLETES.
__________________________________________________________________________
1. Muscle pains. Do you have sore joints and/or pains in your muscles?
2. Techniques. How do your techniques seem/feel to you? Have your technical skills changed?
3. Tiredness. Your general state of tiredness is:
4. Need for a rest. Do you feel that you need a rest between training sessions?
5. Supplementary work. How strong do you feel when you do supplementary training (e.g.,
weights, resistance work, stretching)?
6. Boredom. How boring is training?
7. Recovery time. Do the recovery times between each training effort need to be longer?
8. Irritability. Are you irritable? Do things get on your nerves?
9. Weight. How is your weight?
10. Throat. Have you noticed your throat being sore or irritated?
11. Internal. How do you feel internally? Have you had constipation, upset stomachs, etc.?
12. Unexplained aches. Do you have any unexplained aches or pains?
13. Technique power. How do you rate the level of power you develop in your techniques?
14. Enough sleep. Are you getting enough sleep?
15. Between sessions recovery. Are you tired before you start your second training session of the day?
16. General weakness. Do you feel weak all over?
17. Interest. Do you feel that you are maintaining your interest in your sport?
18. Arguments. Are you having squabbles and arguments with people?
19. Skin rashes. Do you have any unexplained skin rashes or irritations?
20. Congestion. Are you experiencing congestion in the nose and/or sinuses?
21. Training effort. Do you feel that you can give your best effort at training?
22. Temper. Do you lose your temper?
23. Swellings. Do you have any lymph gland swellings under your arms, below your ears, in your groin, etc.?
24. Likability. Do people seem to like you?
25. Running nose. Do you have a running nose?
___________________________________________________________________________

The athlete-coach relationship could modify the effective use of this instrument. If the association is positive and trusting then responses will be accurately recorded whereas responses will be compromised if difficulties exist. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to have an intermediary, such as a sport psychologist, relate the response implications to the coach. The descriptions of tool use in this paper assume that a desirable association exists between the athlete and coach.

The inventory has a number of valuable benefits that warrant its adoption by coaches. It provides important information about an athlete’s life that is not normally available under traditional coaching circumstances. It locates stress reactions and sources of stress. This assessment
technique has potential use in all sports.

Limitation. The nature of this instrument limits its evaluative properties to interindividual comparisons of frequency counts of nominal categories. The ascription of numbers to the response categories would be a spurious procedure. The principal reason why interindividual or
group comparisons cannot be made resides in the nature of the instrument items. It is inappropriate to assume that two individuals Will perceive a labeled concept in exactly the same terms. Because of such differences, numbers cannot be combined for they would not represent the same entity. Scale scores are not developed with this tool for the items and response options have neither ratio nor interval scale properties.

[For the remainder of the article a discussion ensues about the Uses of the DALDA. The content is similar to that of the previous section of this manual and is not reprinted here.]

References

Appley, M. H., & Trumbull, R. (1967). Psychological stress. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.

Carlile, F. (1981). Fifty years of swimming research. In Proceedings of the Pacific Coaches’Conference. Sydney, Australia: Australian Swimming Union.

Carlile, F., & Carlile, U. (1961). Physiological studies of Australian Olympic Games in hard training. Australian Journal of Physical Education (reprint).

Fenz, W. D. (1974). Arousal and performance of novice parachutists to multiple sources of conflict and stress. Studia Psychologica, 16, 133-144.

Goodyear. M. D. (1073). Stress, adrenocortical activity and steep habits. Ergonomics, 16, 679- 681.

Lazarus. R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, W. P. (May, 1980). Psychological monitoring of athletic stress syndrome. A paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, Las Vegas.

Rushall, B. S. (1975a). Applied psychology in sports. In B. S. Rushall (Ed.), The status of psychomotor learning and sport psychology research. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: Sports Science Associates.

Rushall, B. S. (1975b). Psychological aids for swimming coaches. In R. M. Ousley (Ed.), 1975 American swimming coaches association world clinic yearbook. Fort Lauderdale: American Swimming Coaches’ Association.

Rushall, B. S. (1979). The swimmer’s race preparation checklists. Sydney: The Forbes and Ursula Carlile Swimming Organization.

Rushall, B. S. (1981). A tool for measuring stress in elite athletes. In Y. Hanin (Ed.), Stress and anxiety in sport. Moscow: Physical Culture and Sport Publishers. 65

Rushall, B. S. (1987). Daily analyses of life demands for athletes. Spring Valley, CA: Sports Science Associates.

Rushall, B. S., & Roaf, W. A. (September, 1986). Physiological, sociological, and psychological responses of training-adapted talented age-group swimmers under three levels of training stress. A paper presented at the XXIII FIMS World Congress of Sports Medicine, Brisbane, Australia.

Sarason, 1. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. J. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(5), 932-946.

Selye, H. (1950). Stress. Montreal: Acta Inc.

Zwaga, H. J. (1973). Psychophysiological reactions to mental tasks: Effort or stress. Ergonomics, 16, 61-67.