Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Athlete self-report measures (ASRMs) are an extremely popular athlete monitoring tool in professional sports.1 Their popularity stems from their ease of use, low/no cost, and a growing body of literature that highlights that ASRMs are more sensitive to injury/illness risk than many physiological biomarkers.2 Whether ASRMs are used to examine athletes’ data once (eg, preseason baseline testing) or to regularly monitor athletes over time (eg, daily or weekly), the results are often used to drive decision-making and load management in elite sport. However, these decisions may be flawed if inappropriate conclusions are reached. When sports medicine practitioners decide on an ASRM, tensions may exist between practical, short, custom solutions and generally longer, scientifically ‘validated’ surveys. In this editorial, we introduce unified validity theory and discuss how it might ease this tension.
The tension between research and practice when using ASRMs
Athlete engagement is a challenge in applied sport settings, and athletes report that the time it takes to complete surveys is a barrier to ASRM use.3 The more comprehensive the measure, the longer it takes for athletes to complete, and the lower the uptake. This has led to a plethora of ‘bespoke’, short surveys/questionnaires used in applied practice that often resemble the items (eg, sleep quality, stress, fatigue and muscle soreness) in the original work by Hooper et al.4
As ASRMs continued to rise in popularity, academic discussions brought validity considerations to the forefront—calling researchers to use …
Contributors All authors were responsible for the concept, writing and critical revision of the manuscript.
Funding JW is a Vanier Scholar funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.