Breve descripción del artículo “Usual variables and odour concentration

Diane M. Wiese-Bjornstal

, Courtney B. Albinson, Shaine E. Henert, Elizabeth A. Arendt, Susan J. Schwenz,

Shelly S. Myers and Diane M. Gardetto-Heller

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, US

A

Authors of the integrated model of psychological response to the sport injury and rehabilitation process (Wiese-Bjornstal, Smith, Shaffer, & Morrey, 1998) conceptualized sport injury as influenced by preinjury psychosocial factors (Williams & Andersen, 1998), acting as a negative life event stressor, and comprising a dynamic process of ongoing cognitive appraisals influencing emotional and behavioral responses affecting recovery outcomes (Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009; 2010; Wiese-Bjornstal, Smith, & LaMott, 1995). The purpose of this project was to simultaneously examine these three primary model components and associated predictions while controlling for within team and school-related factors through repeated measures sampling of injured and noninjured teammates. Within a prospective mixed factorial study design, NCAA Division I male and female athletes (N = 74) from four sports (women’s softball, track and field, and tennis, and men’s baseball) completed multiple psychosocial measures at repeated time points from baseline to postseason. Results supported (a) the ability of psychosocial variables to predict sport injury, (b) conceptualizing sport injury as a stressor, and, (c) the role of affect as a precursor and response to sport injury. A unique aspect to this study was reflected in the matching of psychological data from injured and noninjured teammates during the specific weeks in which injuries occurred, thus controlling for non-injury related factors such as team and school related variables that may have influenced the mood state and life event stress of all athletes on the teams aside from injury.

* Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Diane M. Wiese-Bjornstal, School of Kinesiology, Cooke Hall, University of Minnesota, 1900 University Ave. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail:

[email protected].

Furthermore, this study lends support to the idea that negative mood states are not only responses to but also risk factors for sport injury, and thus provides grounding for identifying psychological interventions to ameliorate negative moods.

Keywords: intercollegiate athletes, sports medicine, sport psychology, mood state, life event stress

I

Once thought of in purely physical terms, interest in sport injury has long since moved into the psychosocial domain. Conceptual models of sport injury have focused on preinjury and postinjury dimensions. From a preinjury standpoint, the conceptual model of stress and athletic injury developed by Andersen and Williams (1988) has generated a significant amount of interest in psychosocial factors influencing injury vulnerability. This model provides a framework for the prediction and prevention of sport injuries and includes personality, stress history, and coping resources variables that may influence the occurrence of injury through the mechanism of the stress response. Andersen and Williams proposed that an athlete who has a lot of stress in his or her life, who possesses personality characteristics that tend to exacerbate the stress response, and who has few coping resources will, when placed in a potentially stressful situation, be more likely to appraise the situation as stressful and exhibit greater muscle tension and attentional disruptions. Considerable research support has been obtained for this preinjury stress model, particularly with respect to the history of stressors and coping resources portions (see Williams & Andersen, 1998 for a review).

Other researchers have looked into to the postinjury psychosocial processes occurring among athletes after they have sustained sport injuries. A stress process based model of response to sport injury was first developed by Wiese and Weiss in 1987, who conceptualized sport injury as a stressor and the recovery from sport injury as a dynamic process of cognitive appraisals and emotional and behavioral responses influencing recovery outcomes. Wiese-Bjornstal and Smith (1993) and Wiese-Wiese-Bjornstal et al. (1995) expanded the development of this conceptual model of response to injury based on an inductive approach, analyzing the specific research findings of existing empirical research pieces and ordering them into the broader generalizations and patterns of a predictive model. Wiese-Bjornstal et al. posited that the stress-based precursors to injury described by Andersen and Williams continue to affect athletes’ postinjury responses by filtering through other moderating and mediating factors (classified into personal and social categories; see Wiese-Bjornstal et al. for a list of hypothesized moderators and mediators) to influence postinjury psychological responses.

Athletes’ responses to injuries are considered cyclic longitudinal dynamic processes, in which athletes’ cognitions (defined as interpretations, beliefs and appraisals) influence their emotions (defined as affects, feelings, and moods) and behaviors (defined as efforts, actions, and activities). These psychological response cycles affect athlete recovery outcomes (defined as results, effects, and consequences) such as health status, recovery progress, or return-to-play (see Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009, 2010 for further specific examples of cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and outcomes).

Since the initial development of this model several investigations have provided support for various postinjury components, particularly with respect to cognitive and emotional

responses (e.g., Albinson & Petrie, 2003; LaMott, 1994; Morrey, Stuart, Smith, & Wiese-Bjornstal, 1999; Shaffer, 1991; Smith, Stuart, Wiese-Wiese-Bjornstal, Milliner, O’Fallon, &

Crowson, 1993). The prospective repeated measures designs employed by several of the studies showed the greatest strengths for documenting that postinjury changes are a consequence of the injury and not of other stressors in the sport or school environment.

Research has also supported the idea that injury is a source of stress for athletes (Gould, Udry, Bridges, & Beck, 1997; Selby, Weinstein, & Bird, 1990), although not conducted in direct tests of the Wiese-Bjornstal et al. (1998) model predictions.

No one study has examined the model as a whole, yet testing the central predictions of the model simultaneously within the same sample would have great theoretical and practical value. The information could confirm or disconfirm stress-based models of response to injury and would allow sport psychologists and coaches to better assist injured athletes in coping with their injuries by understanding their influences and consequences. Therefore, the purpose of this project was to simultaneously examine the primary model components and associated predictions while controlling for within team- and school-related factors through prospective repeated measures sampling of injured and noninjured teammates. The following three research questions were examined. First, do the preinjury factors specified by the Williams and Andersen (1998) model, and incorporated into the Wiese-Bjornstal et al. (1998) model, predict future injury status among initially noninjured male and female intercollegiate athletes? Second, is sport injury a stressor, as predicted by the Wiese-Bjornstal et al. (1998) model? Third, do cognitive appraisal and emotional response factors differ between injured and noninjured teammates in the specific times surrounding injury, as predicted by the Wiese-Bjornstal et al. (1998) model?

M

Participants

Intercollegiate athletes were chosen for model evaluation because all athletes shared similar school and sport-related influences and thus it would be possible to control for more competing explanations if differences were found between injured and noninjured athletes.

Therefore, the overall sample of athletes used in this investigation consisted of 74 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I level university athletes competing on the following spring intercollegiate sport teams during the 1996 – 1997 season: women’s tennis, women’s softball, women’s track and field, and men’s baseball. The athletes ages ranged between 18 and 23 years (M = 20.32 years, SD = 1.40) and they self-reported having participated in their respective sports an average of 9.43 years (SD = 4.57). Participants were included in this study if they were a member of the university women’s varsity track and field (n = 32), softball (n = 20) or tennis (n = 7) team or men’s baseball team (n = 15), if they signed an informed consent form, and if they were not injured at the outset of the study. The NCAA definition of sport injury from the Injury Surveillance System (ISS; National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1995 - 96) was used in this study for establishing non-injury status at baseline and for reporting injury occurrence during the course of the study.

Specifically, a sport injury was defined as: (a) having occurred as a result of participation in

an organized intercollegiate practice or game, (b) as requiring medical attention by a team athletic trainer or physician, and (c) as having resulted in a restriction of the athlete’s sport participation or performance for one or more days beyond the day of injury.

Figure 1. Measures included in the present study to evaluate multiple components of the integrated model of psychological response to the sport injury and rehabilitation process (Wiese-Bjornstal et al., 1998).

 ISP (weekly)

 POMS-SF for validity COGNITIVE APPRAISAL

 WES hassles (post)

 ALES negative (post)

 WES hassles (weekly)

 WES uplifts (weekly)

 PSOM (weekly)

 WT (weekly)

 HUS for validity PERSONAL MODERATORS