Four studies were conducted to assess the psychometric properties and the theoretical basis of a version of the Inventory of Desirable Responding in Relationships, which was originally developed and validated for the assessment of romantic relationships, in a different relational context (i.e., coach-athlete relationships). The first study aimed to address the content validity of the modified inventory, the Inventory of Desirable Responding in Coach-Athlete Relationship (IDR-CART) scale. The second study employed factor analytic techniques to examine its psychometric properties. Results confirmed the two-factor structure of the inventory: self-deception (CART-SD) and impression management (CART-IM). In the third study, data were collected under public and anonymous conditions. Results revealed, however, that neither condition supported the factor structure, thereby casting doubt on theoretical assumptions. The fourth study demonstrated that CART-SD is associated with indices of relationship quality, providing evidence of convergent validity. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.
Mike B. Gross, Andrew T. Wolanin, Rachel A. Pess and Eugene S. Hong
Erik A. Wikstrom and Patrick O. McKeon
participants could have experienced a more dramatic improvement in DFROM had a treatment been chosen for their specific impairments. 20 Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) identify patients that would be more likely to favorably respond to a particular treatment because of the presence of specific impairments
Kristi Edgar, Aimee Appel, Nicholas Clay, Adam Engelsgjerd, Lauren Hill, Eric Leeseberg, Allison Lyle and Erika Nelson-Wong
. 10 Individuals classified as standing-intolerant in previous studies have been shown to respond positively to a stabilization-based exercise program similar to those prescribed for individuals with LBP. 16 , 17 Standing-intolerant individuals provided this exercise program demonstrated decreased
James Geiselman, Rachel Gillespie and Andrew Miller
imaging. 7 , 8 Based on the clinical presentation and assessment, imaging was not ordered, however, had the patient not responded to the prescribed treatments, diagnostic imaging would have been warranted. The combination of nonoperative, conservative treatments consisting of chiropractic care, soft
Stephanie M. Mazerolle and Chantel Hunter
have used online journaling as a practical means to access participants while respecting their time commitments. Finally, we asked our participants to respond to the work-family conflict scale, a previously validated instrument within athletic training. 18 The scale was anchored by a 7-point Likert
Robin S. Vealey, Nick Galli and Robert J. Harmison
members of the Certification Council charged with developing and overseeing the CMPC certification program, we were pleased to see their article establish a forum of discussion about the revised program. The purpose of this article is to continue that public discussion by responding to Scherzer and Reel
Jay R. Ebert, Kate E. Webster, Peter K. Edwards, Brendan K. Joss, Peter D’Alessandro, Greg Janes and Peter Annear
. The percentage of respondents selecting each response within the 14 survey questions was tabulated. Results Of the 85 AKS members that were provided the online survey link, 73 (86%) completed and submitted the questionnaire. The results of the survey based on responder status are provided in Table 1
Anne R. Schutte and John P. Spencer
The timed-initiation paradigm developed by Ghez and colleagues (1997) has revealed two modes of motor planning: continuous and discrete. Continuous responding occurs when targets are separated by less than 60° of spatial angle, and discrete responding occurs when targets are separated by greater than 60°. Although these two modes are thought to reflect the operation of separable strategic planning systems, a new theory of movement preparation, the Dynamic Field Theory, suggests that two modes emerge flexibly from the same system. Experiment 1 replicated continuous and discrete performance using a task modified to allow for a critical test of the single system view. In Experiment 2, participants were allowed to correct their movements following movement initiation (the standard task does not allow corrections). Results showed continuous planning performance at large and small target separations. These results are consistent with the proposal that the two modes reflect the time-dependent “preshaping” of a single planning system.
Jeroen B.J. Smeets, Leonie Oostwoud Wijdenes and Eli Brenner
We can adjust an ongoing movement to a change in the target’s position with a latency of about 100 ms, about half of the time that is needed to start a new movement in response to the same change in target position (reaction time). In this opinion paper, we discuss factors that could explain the difference in latency between initiating and adjusting a movement in response to target displacements. We consider the latency to be the sum of the durations of various stages in information processing. Many of these stages are identical for adjusting and initiating a movement; however, for movement initiation, it is essential to detect that something has changed to respond, whereas adjustments to movements can be based on updated position information without detecting that the position has changed. This explanation for the shorter latency for movement adjustments also explains why we can respond to changes that we do not detect.