The underuse of cardiovascular recovery as an adjunct
to reactivity may stem from a lack of research on how to
assess the process reliably. We explore the test–retest
reliability of three simple, intuitive approaches to measuring
recovery, and of a more sophisticated curve-fitting technique.
Eighteen young normotensive subjects experienced three
stressors twice each, with 10-min baseline, 3-min task,
and 20-min recovery periods and continuous monitoring of
heart rate and blood pressure. Reactivity showed moderate
reliability, but the three simple approaches to measuring
recovery revealed essentially none. However, the curve-fitting
approach, using a three-parameter (amount, speed, and level
of recovery) logistic function was reliable. This approach,
capturing the inherently dynamic process of cardiovascular
recovery, may allow researchers to usefully add the assessment
of recovery to paradigms exploring reactivity as a risk
factor for cardiovascular disease.