Psychological readiness to return to the slopes following serious injury among competitive skiers and snowboarders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionDespite the traditional focus on assessment of athletes’ physical readiness to return to sport, mounting evidence suggests that consideration of psychological readiness is critically important in ensuring that individuals safely and effectively resume competitive activities.ObjectivesThe primary aims of this article are to: (1) evaluate existing measures assessing psychological readiness; among skiers and snowboarders (the focus of this special issue); (3) discuss biopsychosocial factors that facilitate or undermine psychological readiness; and (4) highlight implications of psychological readiness for return to sport outcomes and articulate future research directions.MethodsA literature search was performed in Scopus, PsycInfo, and PubMed using the keywords “psychological readiness,” “ski injuries,” “snowboard injuries,” “return to sport,” and “concussions.”ResultsExisting measures of psychological readiness are limited by conceptual ambiguities and measurement shortcomings. Limited research with skiers and snowboarders suggests that cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements of psychological readiness outlined in past work is apparent among skiers. Physical (issue healing and body system recovery), psychological (personality, recovery motivation), and social (social support, trust in rehabilitation providers) factors can facilitate or undermine psychological readiness. Psychological readiness predicts salient postinjury outcomes, such as the likelihood of returning to sport, reinjury, as well as the quality of postinjury performance.ConclusionsFuture research is needed to further delineate the nature of psychological readiness among skiers and snowboarders. Existing evidence, however, suggests a variety of biopsychosocial factors contribute to athletes’ psychological readiness which may be a key predictor of salient postinjury outcomes.
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".