Table 2

Differences in the ACWR, EWMA ratios with regard to the injury or no injury variable in the study participants.

95 % CI for the biserial 
correlation coefficient
WpBiserial correlation coefficientLowerHigher
RPE EW-MA 4 1611820.00<.01-.42-.60-.19
RPE EW-MA 7 2115437.50.03-.29-.50-.04
RPE EW-MA 7 2814477.00.05-.26-.48-.01
RPE ACWR 4 1645550.00.59.05-.14.24
RPE ACWR 7 2139359.00.93.01-.20.21
RPE ACWR 7 2837944.00.40.09-.12.30
SP EWMA 4 1611645.50<.01-.43-.60-.21
SP EWMA 7 2113877.00<.01-.36-.56-.12
SP EWMA 7 2813223.00<.01-.33-.54-.08
SP ACWR 4 1636537.50.07-.18-.36.01
SP ACWR 7 2137067.50.45-.08-.28.13
SP ACWR 7 2834943.50.79-.03-.24.19
LOAD EWMA 4 1637657.00<.01-.28-.45-.09
LOAD EWMA 7 2118206.00<.01-.59-.71-.43
LOAD EWMA 7 2818364.00<.01-.53-.67-.35
LOAD ACWR 4 1632760.00.02-.24-.41-.04
LOAD ACWR 7 2129235.50.02-.25-.43-.04
CAR ACWR 7 2827421.00.06-.21-.41.01
Note. RPE: ratings of perceived exertion; SP: specificity; LOAD: load; EWMA: exponentially weighted moving average; ACWR: acute:chronic ratio. Significance < .05