Abstract

Nixon’s (1994a; 1994b; 1996a; 1996b) research using a Risk, Pain, and Injury Questionnaire (RPIQ) is perhaps the most systematic in the risk, pain, and injury literature. The RPIQ is intended to measure the acceptance of dominant discourses on risk, pain, and injury among athletes and others. This article presents a face validity critique of the RPIQ and results of a subsequent content validity analysis based on a study of 171 athletes from a West Coast university. Structural equation modeling used to test Nixon’s original 3-factor model (M1) revealed poor model fit. Two alternate models (M2 and M3) tested reformulated subscale constructs and items. Whereas M2 demonstrated poor construct validity, limited support was found for items in M3. Further replications of this research are recommended.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.