1. Literature Referenced Relationship of Variables
Comparing Self-efficacy Levels During Rehabilitation
Between Athletes and Non-athletes
Devin Douglas, M. Bamman and R. St. Martin Sport Science and Physical Education Department – Huntingdon College – Montgomery, AL
Abstract
Hypotheses
Results
Discussion
This study was designed to compare the self-efficacy levels during rehabilitation in individuals who have and have not participated in competitive sports, at the collegiate level. The goal of this study was to find statistical data showing the correlation between the self-efficacy levels during rehabilitation in individuals who were currently competing and individuals who had not competed recently. A questionnaire was given to 16 participants to discover the age and to assess their self-efficacy and perceptions about rehabilitation. From this information self-efficacy levels were calculated based off the responses from the Self-efficacy and Adherence Questionnaire. After all the results were recorded, the SPSS 18 statistical package was utilized to run a t-test and produce a p value of It was found that there was no significant difference between self-efficacy levels in athletes and non-athletes. The results that were recorded from this data shows that individuals who were in the “athlete” group did not have significantly higher levels of self-efficacy during rehabilitation.
To address the purpose of the study the following null hypotheses were tested.
Ho1: There is no significant difference in adherence levels in athletes vs. non-athletes.
Ho2: There is no significant difference in self-efficacy levels in athletes vs. non-athletes.
This study also considered the following alternative hypotheses.
Ha1: That athletes will have higher adherence levels due to more incentives for motivation.
Ha2: That non-athletes will have higher adherence levels due to the need to return to their daily activities.
The purpose of this study was to assess whether or not athletes have higher levels of self-efficacy and adherence to rehabilitation protocols than non-athletes. Based upon the t-test score and the data analysis collected, the following conclusions are warranted. Athletes do not reflect drastically higher levels of self-efficacy and adherence than those of non-athletes. The data collected showed little difference between self-efficacy and adherence levels for athletes and non-athletes.
The entire study consisted of a collection of individuals (n=16) that were separated according to their classification. Age and the average self-efficacy levels were recorded into SPSS with the data resulting as follows: Mean age for athletes was and the mean age for non-athletes was
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Group
Age (Mean)
Level (Mean)
Std. Deviation
Minimum Age
Maximum Age
Athlete (n=8)
19.75 42
4.38
18 y/o
21 y/o
Non-athlete (n=8)
20.38
41.25
6.50
23 y/o
Procedures
The study was completed in one session in which each subject completed an informed consent form (Appendix B). Each subject also took a short prior medical history questionnaire (Appendix C) and then completed the modified version of the SIRAS, RSEI and the APAPAR (Appendix D). Each subject was also given a description of the study and the questionnaires. Each consent form included a contact address for the primary investigator and the supervising instructor. The prior medical history questionnaire was used to asses the background of each subject’s prior experience with rehabilitation and injury history. The modified questionnaires used to assess adherence and its factors as well as the questionnaire to assess self-esteem were administered to each subject and upon completion of the questionnaires each subject was free to leave.
Literature Referenced
Corbillon, F., Crossman, J., & Jamieson, J. (2005). Injured Athletes' Perceptions of th Social Support Provided by Their Coaches and Teammates During Rehabilitation. Journal of Sport Behavior , 31(2), Retrieved February 4, 2013, from the EBSCOhost database.
Crossman, J. (2005). Assessment of the Injured Athlete. Coping with Sports Injuries: Psychological strategies for rehabilitation (pp ). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 2001).
Fisher, A. C., Mullins, S., & Frye, P. (1993). Athletic Trainers' Attitudes and Judgements of Injured Athletes' Rehabilitation Adhernece. Journal of Athletic Training, 28(1), Retrieved February 5, 2013, from the EBSCOhost database.
Milne M, Hall C, Forwell L. Self-efficacy, Imagery use, and Adherence to Rehabilitation by Injured Athletes. Journal of Sports Rehabilitation 14(1), Retrieved February 6, 2013, from the EBSCOhost database.
Methods
The results of the a two-tailed independent sample t-test were a score of with a p value of This shows that there is no significant difference between self-efficacy levels in athletes vs. non-athletes as it applies to a rehabilitation protocol.
Table 2 T-test Statistics
Subjects
This study took place at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Alabama. Huntingdon College is a private four-year liberal arts institution that has a co-ed student body of approximately 1100 students with seventy-five percent of the student body is student-athletes. Huntingdon College athletics is a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and competes at the Division III level. Subjects for this study were recruited from Huntingdon College Varsity athletic teams (n=8) and the Huntingdon College student body (n=8). Permission to assess each subject was obtained from each subject.
Relationship of Variables
Group
Athlete
Non-Athlete
Self-Efficacy 35 51 39 40 41 33 45 43 42 48 50
T-test
0.79
P value
0.46
Relationship of independent variable and dependent variable
The mean self-efficacy score for athletes was 42 ± and the mean self-efficacy score for non-athletes was ± The above data shows a close correlation of test scores between athletes and non-athletes with the difference between the two groups being a t-test score of and a p value of This shows that there is no significant difference between self-efficacy levels as it applies to adherence to a rehabilitation program in athletes versus non-athletes.
Instruments
Modified versions of three questionnaires designed to asses adherence, self-efficacy, and esteem were used. The Sport Injury Adherence Scale (SIRAS) is a three item questionnaire that measures adherence during injury rehabilitation (Brewer, 1995). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (RSEI) is used to assess global self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1968). The Athlete's Perceived Attitudes and Perceptions About their Rehabilitation.