Nixon’s (1994a; 1994b; 1996a; 1996b) research using a Risk, Pain, and Injury Questionnaire (RPIQ) is perhaps the most systematic in the risk, pain, and injury literature. The RPIQ is intended to measure the acceptance of dominant discourses on risk, pain, and injury among athletes and others. This article presents a face validity critique of the RPIQ and results of a subsequent content validity analysis based on a study of 171 athletes from a West Coast university. Structural equation modeling used to test Nixon’s original 3-factor model (M1) revealed poor model fit. Two alternate models (M2 and M3) tested reformulated subscale constructs and items. Whereas M2 demonstrated poor construct validity, limited support was found for items in M3. Further replications of this research are recommended.
The authors are with California State University–Fullerton, Department of Kinesiology, 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA.