IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i9p5106-d799665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Correspondence and Concordance of Retrospective and Concurrent Responses to Physiotherapists and Sport Psychology Questionnaire Items

Author

Listed:
  • Ashlee E. Groover

    (Department of Psychology, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA)

  • Britton W. Brewer

    (Department of Psychology, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA)

  • Daniel M. Smith

    (Department of Physical Education and Health Education, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA)

  • Judy L. Van Raalte

    (Department of Psychology, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA
    College of Health Sciences, Wuhan Sports University, 461 Luoyu Road, Wuhan 430079, China)

  • Christine N. May

    (Department of Psychology, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA)

Abstract

Orthopedic and sport-related injuries are a major public health concern and a common reason for referral to physical therapy. The use of psychological techniques by physical therapists has been assessed in research studies primarily with retrospective self-report questionnaires that have not been validated against concurrent assessments of the same behaviors. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the results obtained from physical therapists’ retrospective self-reports of their use of psychological techniques reflect their use of the techniques assessed concurrently. Physical therapists ( N = 14) completed the Physiotherapists and Sport Psychology Questionnaire (PSPQ) at the beginning of this study and a checklist based on the PSPQ at the end of the sessions with patients ( N = 306). Patients also completed the checklist at the end of the sessions. Across 12 psychological techniques, the physical therapists’ retrospective (PSPQ) responses showed relatively weak correspondence (mean r = 0.31) and poor concordance with their concurrent (checklist) responses. Compared to the physical therapists’ checklist responses, the patients’ checklist responses showed weaker correspondence (mean r = 0.03) and better concordance with the physical therapists’ PSPQ responses. The findings suggest that retrospective self-reports may not accurately reflect the use of psychological techniques by physical therapists and, consequently, that physical therapists should consider documenting their use of psychological techniques as close to their implementation as possible. Suggestions for improved assessment are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashlee E. Groover & Britton W. Brewer & Daniel M. Smith & Judy L. Van Raalte & Christine N. May, 2022. "Correspondence and Concordance of Retrospective and Concurrent Responses to Physiotherapists and Sport Psychology Questionnaire Items," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5106-:d:799665
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5106/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5106/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua K. Matthews & Kayleigh A. De Koker & Zachary K. Winkelmann, 2023. "Athletic Trainers’ Perceptions of Responsibilities and Use of Psychosocial Interventions for Patients Following an ACL Injury," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(18), pages 1-14, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5106-:d:799665. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.