Rehabilitation following a sports injury: Does it matter why the athlete and athletic therapist approach treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objective: Grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2002), the main aim of this study was to explore the effects of athlete and athletic therapists' motivations as they impact the rehabilitation process following a sports injury. Methods: Using an experimental (post-test only) research design, participants (N = 97) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions, each providing a unique vignette. The experimental stimulus (i.e., vignettes) differed in terms of the intrinsic/extrinsic approach to sport injury therapy adopted by the athletes and their athletic therapist. After reading the vignette, each participant completed a series of items adapted from Wild et al. (1998) to measure athlete interest in therapy, positive behaviour change, therapist interest, and therapist efficacy. Results: Score reliability estimates varied considerably across experimental conditions (MI± = 0.69; SDI± = 0.11). Athlete interest in therapy and positive behaviour change were highest when the athlete and athletic therapist were both intrinsically motivated (Pillai's Trace = 0.76, F(6, 186) = 19.12, p's < .01, partial eta-squared = 0.38). Therapist interest in working with the athlete in rehabilition and perceived therapist efficacy were highest when the athlete and athletic therapist were both intrinsically motivated (Pillai's Trace = 0.46, F(6, 186) = 9.31, p's < .01, partial eta-squared = 0.23). Discussion: Understanding the motivational basis for rehabiltation held by athletes and athletic therapists may play an important role in navigating the challenges of returning-to-sport competition following injury.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".