It is generally recognized that athletes differ in their ability to function with pain following injury. In an effort to measure this differing ability, the Sports Inventory for Pain (SIP) was developed using input from injured athletes, a college student sample, and information generated through the pain research literature. The SIP consists of 25 items that identify five pain subscales (coping, cognitive, avoidance, catastrophizing, and body awareness) and a composite score (HURT). Cronbach's coefficient alpha levels, ranging from .88 to .61, confirmed internal consistency reliability. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .69 to .88. ANOVA and subsequent post hoc analyses that compared groups (categorized by number of injuries, years of sport participation, and number of sports played) on each subscale and on the composite promise satisfactory validity. Pearson correlations between social desirability and the SIP subscales were nonsignificant (p>.05; n=39), ranging from −.06 to .22. The SIP serves as a sport-specific measure of an athlete's capacity to perform while in pain. Further research aimed at establishing its validity is warranted.
Michael C. Meyers, Anthony E. Bourgeois, Stacey Stewart and Arnold LeUnes
Karyn L. Hamilton, Michael C. Meyers, William A. Skelly and Robert J. Marley
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of creatine monohydrate (
Louise C. Mâsse, Janet E. Fulton, Kathleen B. Watson, Susan Tortolero, Harold W. Kohl III, Michael C. Meyers, Steven N. Blair and William W. Wong
The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of 2 physical activity questionnaire formats—one that lists activities (Checklist questionnaire) and one that assesses overall activities (Global questionnaire) by domain.
Two questionnaire formats were validated among 260 African-American and Hispanic women (age 40–70) using 3 validation standards: 1) accelerometers to validate activities of ambulation; 2) diaries to validate physical activity domains (occupation, household, exercise, yard, family, volunteer/church work, and transportation); and 3) doubly-labeled water to validate physical activity energy expenditure (DLW-PAEE).
The proportion of total variance explained by the Checklist questionnaire was 38.4% with diaries, 9.0% with accelerometers, and 6.4% with DLW-PAEE. The Global questionnaire explained 17.6% of the total variance with diaries and about 5% with both accelerometers and with DLW-PAEE. Overall, associations with the 3 validation standards were slightly better with the Checklist questionnaire. However, agreement with DLW-PAEE was poor with both formats and the Checklist format resulted in greater overestimation. Validity results also indicated the Checklist format was better suited to recall household, family, and transportation activities.
Overall, the Checklist format had slightly better measurement properties than the Global format. Both questionnaire formats are better suited to rank individuals.