Author(s): DI ROCCO, F., IACOBAZZI, I., FILETTI, C., PADUA, E., GUIDOTTI, F., Institution: “SAN RAFFAELE” OPEN UNIVERSITY OF ROME, Country: ITALY, Abstract-ID: 2270

INTRODUCTION:
Perceived Recovery Status (PRS) and Rating of Physical Freshness (RPF) provide a low-cost and time-efficient feedback on recovery and readiness in relation to training. Since sleep is a key modifiable determinant of recovery, athletes may complement these self-reported measures with indicators of sleep quality and disturbances over the previous month (such as the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)). In sub-elite volleyball, congested training–match schedules may compromise athletes’ recovery, and monitoring is often limited. Hence, this study aimed to monitor in-season short-term patterns in perceived recovery and freshness, also in relation to the sleep quality in sub-elite volleyball players.
METHODS:
Eleven female volleyball players competing in the Italian National Serie B2 (age: 24.0 ± 6.4 years; height: 1.77 ± 0.05 m; weight: 69.75 ± 7.58 kg) were monitored in-season across three consecutive weeks including four training sessions and one match/week. Prior to the study, athletes’ chronotype and sleeping habits and quality were assessed through the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and PSQI, respectively. For each session and match, training load was evaluated through the Session Rating of Perceived Exertion (s-RPE) method (Borg scale CR-10). Furthermore, for each week, PRS (0-10), and RPF (1-7) were collected before the first training session. Linear mixed models with random intercepts were applied to assess week effects and associations between PSQI and PRS/RPF and s-RPE. Furthermore, the predictive relationship between PRS and RPF was investigated. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
RESULTS:
Across the considered weeks, RPE_ POST30 showed no significant changes (3.67 ± 0.09 AU, p > 0.05). No significant differences emerged also in weekly s-RPE (trainings: 658.75 ± 212.14 AU; matches: 298.06 ± 194.02 AU, all p > 0.05). Athletes classified in intermediate (63.5%) and moderately serotine (36.4%) chronotype for MEQ and reported a poor sleep quality (45.5%) for PSQI. No significant week effects were observed for PRS and RPF (p ≥ 0.74). PSQI was not associated with PRS (b = −0.159 ± 0.090, F(1,9) = 3.11, p = 0.112) nor with RPF (b = −0.026 ± 0.060, F(1,9) = 0.19, p = 0.672). In contrast, PRS was a strong positive predictor of RPF when controlling for PSQI and week (b = 0.361 ± 0.088, F(1,26.06) =16.89, p = 0.00035), suggesting that higher perceived recovery translated into meaningfully greater freshness.
CONCLUSION:
Across three competitive weeks, group-level recovery/readiness ratings remained stable, but perceived recovery emerged as a key determinant of next-day freshness. PSQI did not explain short-term variation in readiness in this sample, supporting the practical value of simple self-reported monitoring measures in sub-elite volleyball players. Future work should include larger samples and objective measures of sleeping patterns to clarify the role of chronobiological and sleep-related factors in relation to perceived recovery.