Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32754092›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

The Susceptibles, Chancers, Pragmatists, and Fair Players: An Examination of the Sport Drug Control Model for Adolescent Athletes, Cluster Effects, and Norm Values Among Adolescent Athletes.

Adam R Nicholls, Andrew R Levy, Rudi Meir, Colin Sanctuary, Leigh Jones, Timothy Baghurst, Mark A Thompson, John L Perry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Adam R NichollsDepartment of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
Andrew R LevyDepartment of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom.
Rudi MeirSchool of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia.
Colin SanctuarySchool of Environmental and Life Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Leigh JonesHong Kong Rugby Foot-Ball Union, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Timothy BaghurstCollege of Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.
Mark A ThompsonDepartment of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
John L PerryDepartment of Psychology, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although there are few high-profile cases of adolescent athletes being caught doping, up to a third of young athletes may dope. In order to generate a more accurate understanding of why adolescent athletes dope, it is important to validate models that help to explain this behavior. The aims of this study were 3-fold: firstly, to test the Sport Drug Control Model for Adolescent Athletes (SDCM-AA); secondly, to generate athlete profiles that would help quantify the proportion of athletes who are at risk of doping; and thirdly, to create norm values for the Adolescent Sport Doping Inventory (ASDI), which would allow national doping organizations, sporting organizations, and clubs to benchmark the scores of their athletes for key psycho-social variables linked to doping. A total of 2208 adolescent athletes from the United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States completed the ASDI. The data presented an appropriate fit to the SDCM-AA model, in which 54% of the variance in susceptibility to doping was explained in the model, and 44.8% of attitudes toward doping was accounted for. Four distinct clusters of athletes emerged: the Susceptibles (i.e., identified with the benefits of doping, were willing to cheat, and viewed little threat), the Chancers (i.e., identified with the benefits of doping, scored high on willingness to cheat, and were highly influenced by their reference group, but had an average score for threat, self-esteem, and legitimacy), the Pragmatists (i.e., did not engage with any aspects of doping, but were more susceptible than the fair players), and Fair Players (i.e., high levels of sportspersonship, unwilling to cheat, and viewed doping as a threat). The revised SDCM-AA appears a valid model that helps explain the factors associated with doping attitudes and doping susceptibility. Adolescent athletes can be classified into one of four clusters, in relation to doping. Their cluster group could influence the content of the anti-doping education they receive.

Indexed as

adolescenceattitudesdopingnorm valuesperformance-enhancing drugs

Identifiers

PMID32754092
PMCPMC7366030

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.