Sport Inventory for Pain - Annotated Bibliography Example

Annotated critique of pain assessment tools “Sport Inventory for Pain” Griffith, J. et al. (n.d Response to the sports inventory for pain among base jumpers. Journal of Sports Behavior, 29. 3, 242- 254. Griffith, J., Hart, C., Kessler, M. and Whitmire authored the article that aimed at quantifying jumpers potential to cope with pain. Even though the authors did not explicitly stipulate a research question for their initiative, this can be derived from the scope of the research and its aim. The implied question would be, ‘what is the level of pain coping skills among jumpers?’ and ‘does such level of skills vary with experience?’ in order to answer the questions, the research adopted a hypothesis that the level pain coping skills depends on jumper’s experience. The research used a sample 134 base jumpers and Sports Inventory for Pain as its measurement instrument. The participants were approached prior to an event and their involvement was based on free informed consent. The paper concludes that personality traits possibly exist to determine pain coping responses among base divers.i Base diving organizers and participants should therefore consider personal experience in predicting involved pain in base diving (Griffith, Hart, Kessler and Whitmire, n.d.). Bourgeois, A., Meyers, M. and LeUnes, A. (n.d.). The Sports Inventory for Pain: Empirical and Confirmatory Factorial Validity. Journal of Sports Behavior, 32.1, 19- 35. The research article, as was authored by Bourgeois, Meyers and LeUnes, sought to examine applicability of Sports Inventory for Pain as a tool for measuring the level of pain among sports participants. The research does not have direct research questions but develops a clear objective. With its primary objectives of improving the version of Sports Inventory for Pain and to determine the “factorial and empirical validity” of the improved version, an implied research question would be, ‘do the revised version of Sports Inventory for Pain have a factorial and empirical validity?’ The research, upon consent from both participants and the University’s review board, subjected participants to an initial version of the tool as well as the improved version. SAS was then used to evaluate the two measurement tools.ii The research concludes that the revised tool is potentially applicable in forecasting individual’s ability to endure pain. It therefore offers a basis, to athletes and physicians, for ensuring safety measures upon injuries (Bourgeois, Meyers and LeUnes, n.d.). Bartholomew, J. et al. (n.d.). A psychometric evaluation of the sports inventory for pain. The Sports Psychologist, 12.1, 29- 39. This research aimed at examining the degree of validity of the tool, Sports Inventory for Pain. This develops a general scope for the research’s question, ‘does Sports Inventory for Pain have a psychometric validity?’ In order to conduct the investigations, the researchers conducted three studies in which volunteer university students participated. In the first study, seventy participants of equal gender ratio were subjected to measurements of capacity to cope up with pain. The measures involved maximum level of pain that an individual can sustain, ability to endure a level of pain and perception over pain triggers. In the second study, a different sample was subjected to two Sports Inventory for Pain tests, a month apart. The same method applied to the third study. The measurement tool, in the first study, identified relationships in psychological and physical responsiveness and coping only. The research also identified significance of the tool in the second study though the scope of the third study did not reflect significance of the tool.iii The identified significance however implies the tool’s applicability to evaluating pain among sports participants (Bartholomew, Brewer, Raalte, Lander, Cornelius and Bart, n.d.). Meyers, M. et al. (2012). Predicting Pain Response in Athletics: Developing and Assesment of the Sports Inventory for Pain. The Sports Psychologist, 14.3, 249- 261. The research initiative by Meyers and co authors sought to develop and monitor a Sports Inventory for Pain tool for forecasting athletes’ conditions following injuries. The research sought to answer the general question, ‘is the Sports Inventory for Pain’ a good measure of athletes’ response to pain?’ The research’s methods adopted a sample of college athlete students who had injuries at that moment. The measurement tool was structured with 25 elements for pain determination at different levels. This was followed by a triangulated analysis that included Cronbach’s analysis, analysis of variance, and post hock analysis. The research affirmed internal validity of the measurement tool and established the tool as good measure of the athletes’ potential to compete despite of pain.iv The research’s conclusion is significant to physicians as well as athletes as it establishes confidence in the tool’s ability to protect athletes from further pain (Meyers, Bourgeois, Stewart and LeUnes, 2012). McDowell, P. and LaChapelle, D. (2005). Evaluation of pain appraisals and coping styles among athletes dealing with training related pain. University of New Brunswick. Retrieved from: http://www.sirc.ca/documents/PetraMcDowell.pdf The research initiative aimed at conducting analysis of measures of pain and coping techniques among injured athletes. In order to explore its objective, the research established two research questions that were presented in statement form. The first question was “the internal consistency of the WCQ and SIP was examined in order to determine the reliability of these questionnaires when used with athletes with pain.” The second question was “the pain appraisal of athletes was explored in order to determine whether the majority of athletes tend to appraise their pain as a threat or as a challenge” (McDowell and LaChapelle, 2005, p. 23). The research method used questionnaire to collect data from a sample of university students. Sports Inventory of Pain, among other measures, was then applied to determine the participants’ ability to cope with pain. The research concluded that Sports Inventory for Pain was not a good measurement tool for the sample, indicating deviation from previous findings.v This is partly attributable to characteristics of the measured athletes. As a result, care should be taken while using the tool (McDowell and LaChapelle, 2005). Bartholomew, J. (1998). The Sports Inventory for Pain: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. University of Texas, 69.1, 24-29. The research initiative’s objective was to evaluate factorial validity of the measurement tool, Sports Inventory for Pain. Its methods used a sample of university students to generate responses for analysis. Even though the research did not have a research question, it was based on a hypothesized model. The research then conducted analysis to determine the measure’s correspondence with the predetermined model. The researchers however noted inconsistency between results from Sports Inventory for Pain and the established model. Following failures from several modifications of the used factor variables, the research concluded inconsistency and recommended redefinition of the Sports Inventory for Pain. This means that the applied tool did not offer a good measure under factor analysis.vi Since the research’s conclusion is not isolated, as there have been similar conclusions that discredit applicability of the tool, athletes, physicians and sports administrators should be careful in using Sports Inventory for pain to predict athletes’ conditions following injuries (Bartholomew, Edwards, Brewer, Raalte and Linder, 1998). References Bartholomew, J. (1998). The Sports Inventory for Pain: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. University of Texas, 69.1, 24-29. < http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Sports-Inventory-Pain-confirmatory-factor/9532619.html > Bartholomew, J. et al. (n.d.). A psychometric evaluation of the sports inventory for pain. The Sports Psychologist, 12.1, 29- 39. < http://journals.humankinetics.com/tsp-back-issues/tspvolume12issue1march/apsychometricevaluationofthesportsinventoryforpain > Bourgeois, A., Meyers, M. and LeUnes, A. (n.d.). The Sports Inventory for Pain: Empirical and Confirmatory Factorial Validity. Journal of Sports Behavior, 32.1, 19- 35. < http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/sports-inventory-pain-empirical-confirmatory/194101810.html > Griffith, J. et al. (n.d.). Response to the sports inventory for pain among base jumpers. Journal of Sports Behavior, 29. 3, 242- 254. < http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Responses+to+the+Sports+Inventory+for+pain+among+BASE+jumpers.-a0149908532 > McDowell, P. and LaChapelle, D. (2005). Evaluation of pain appraisals and coping styles among athletes dealing with training related pain. University of New Brunswick. Retrieved from: http://www.sirc.ca/documents/PetraMcDowell.pdf Meyers, M. et al. (2012). Predicting Pain Response in Athletics: Developing and Assesment of the Sports Inventory for Pain. The Sports Psychologist, 14.3, 249- 261. < http://journals.humankinetics.com/jsep-back-issues/jsepvolume14issue3september/predictingpainresponseinathletesdevelopmentandassessmentofthesportsinventoryforpain > Read More