Perceptions Of Control In The Rehabilitation Of Athletic Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceptions of control are an integral part of psychological functioning. Most research has focused on individual perceptions of control (self-efficacy), however, Thompson et al., 1993 found that with illness, patient perceptions of doctors (proxy control) influenced recovery as well. Athletic injury is similar to illness in that the rehabilitation process includes third-party influences. All individuals involved (e.g., patient, therapist, doctor, etc.) will hold varying perceptions of control regarding the recovery of the athlete. Each perception may differentially influence actual recovery outcomes. PURPOSE To determine whether three forms of control exist when individuals seek the aid of massage therapy in recovery from an athletic injury. METHODS Twenty participants (7 males, 13 females; mean age=39.3 yrs, s.d.=10.5) receiving massage therapy for injury rehabilitation took part in the study. On the patient's first visit, participants completed a questionnaire evaluating previous and current activity levels, history with massage therapy and two perceptions of control; personal efficacy (perceptions of one's own capabilities) and proxy efficacy (perceptions of therapist's ability and treatment plan). At this time, the therapist evaluated the patient and constructed a treatment plan that was described fully to the patient. The therapist also evaluated their confidence in the patient's ability to recover (therapist efficacy). All efficacy measures were multi-item and evaluated on 100% confidence ratio scales. RESULTS Participants indicated that their injury had been limiting their physical activity for a mean of 1.6 months (s.d.=1.0) Nine participants had seen a massage therapist previously for exercise-related injuries. The injuries that the patients were experiencing were diverse but mostly located in the leg or arm region. All participants agreed that they understood the prescribed treatment plan. Patients indicated a mean personal efficacy score of 91.9% (s.d.=8.6) and a mean proxy efficacy score of 95.7% (s.d.=5.5). Mean therapist efficacy was found to be 96.2% (s.d.=2.7). A repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant differences among the three confidence measures (F=3.2, p=.10). CONCLUSIONS Although not significantly different, 3 distinct forms of control (personal, proxy, and therapist efficacy) exist in the rehabilitation setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".