Search Results

In this paper we outline a sport psychology service delivery program that has been implemented at Arizona State University. We feel this is a unique program in that it is housed within, and funded by, the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. The program has four major components: (a) an undergraduate psychological skills course, (b) psychological skills training programs for athletic teams and small groups of athletes, (c) individual psychological consultation for athletes, and (d) psychological skills seminars and consultations with coaches. Each of these components is explained in detail. In addition, information is presented regarding the future directions for the program.

A multidimensional scaling analysis was used to investigate the psychological structure underlying college students’ perceptions of 12 practitioners: sport psychologist, clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, coach, psychiatrist, counselor, performance consultant, nutritionist, sports medicine specialist, strength coach, hypnotist, and technical equipment advisor. For this analysis, 200 male and female undergraduates completed 66 scales rating the psychological similarity between all possible pairs of the 12 practitioners. The R² of .84 and stress value of .17 indicated that a two-dimensional solution was the best fit for the similarity ratings. The first dimension was identified as separating practitioners specializing in the mental aspects of performance from those specializing in the physical aspects of performance. The second dimension separated sport practitioners from nonsport practitioners. Interestingly, subjects perceived sport psychologists as being concerned with mental, nonsport issues. The results are discussed in terms of the relationships among the various practitioners.

This investigation was designed to assess the validity of the Sports Inventory for Pain (SIP; Meyers, Bourgeois, Stewart, & LeUnes, 1992). Study 1 used SIP responses to predict three objective measures of pain coping: pain threshold, pain tolerance, and the perception of a fixed, submaximal level of painful stimulation. Participants were 70 undergraduate volunteers (35 females, 35 males). Although two SIP subscales (Cognitive and Body Awareness) were related to at least one pain measure, another subscale (Coping) was negatively related to pain tolerance (opposite of predictions), and the composite HURT scores were not related to any of the pain measures. In Study 2,41 participants (31 females, 10 males) completed a wall sit (phantom chair) task and the SIP approximately 1 month after initially filling out the SIP. Test-retest reliabilities of the SIP were acceptable (average r = .75), but responses on the SIP did not predict performance on the painful physical endurance task. In Study 3, 54 participants (17 females, 37 males) completed the SIP approximately 1 month after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. SIP scores were not significantly correlated with measures of rehabilitation adherence and functional outcome at approximately 6 months postsurgery. Taken together, these three studies provide marginal support for the validity of the SIP and raise questions about the utility of the SIP as a predictor of participants’ ability to function while experiencing pain.