Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21541317›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: in which measure do we trust?

Andrea Petróczi, Martina Uvacsek, Tamás Nepusz, Nawed Deshmukh, Iltaf Shah, Eugene V Aidman, James Barker, Miklós Tóth, Declan P Naughton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrea PetrócziSchool of Life Sciences, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, United Kingdom. A.Petroczi@kingston.ac.uk
Martina Uvacsek
Tamás Nepusz
Nawed Deshmukh
Iltaf Shah
Eugene V Aidman
James Barker
Miklós Tóth
Declan P Naughton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial psychology research on doping and outcome based evaluation of primary anti-doping prevention and intervention programmes have been dominated by self-reports. Having confidence in the validity and reliability of such data is vital. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThe sample of 82 athletes from 30 sports (52.4% female, mean age: 21.48±2.86 years) was split into quasi-experimental groups based on i) self-admitted previous experience with prohibited performance enhancing drugs (PED) and ii) the presence of at least one prohibited PED in hair covering up to 6 months prior to data collection. Participants responded to questionnaires assessing a range of social cognitive determinants of doping via self-reports; and completed a modified version of the Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) assessing implicit attitudes to doping relative to the acceptable nutritional supplements (NS). Social projection regarding NS was used as control. PEDs were detected in hair samples from 10 athletes (12% prevalence), none of whom admitted doping use. This group of 'deniers' was characterised by a dissociation between explicit (verbal declarations) and implicit (BIAT) responding, while convergence was observed in the 'clean' athlete group. This dissociation, if replicated, may act as a cognitive marker of the denier group, with promising applications of the combined explicit-implicit cognitive protocol as a proxy in lieu of biochemical detection methods in social science research. Overall, discrepancies in the relationship between declared doping-related opinion and implicit doping attitudes were observed between the groups, with control measures remaining unaffected. Questionnaire responses showed a pattern consistent with self-reported doping use. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Following our preliminary work, this study provides further evidence that both self-reports on behaviour and social cognitive measures could be affected by some form of response bias. This can question the validity of self-reports, with reliability remaining unaffected. Triangulation of various assessment methods is recommended.

Indexed as

AttitudeCultureTrustBehaviorCognitionDietary SupplementsDoping in SportsFemaleHairHumansMalePerformance-Enhancing SubstancesSelf ReportYoung AdultPerformance-Enhancing Substances

Identifiers

PMID21541317
PMCPMC3082532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.