ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Reproducibility of the brief religious coping inventory with African athletes' sample using ordinal factor analytical approach.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survey of Preservice Teachers' Examination Stress Patterns: Contextualising the Transactional Stress Model in High-Stakes Testing.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Spiritual and religious aspects influence mental health and viral load: a quantitative study among young people living with HIV in Zimbabwe.BMJ global health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have revealed that religious coping strategy is common among athletes due to the stressful experiences before and during competitions as part of the mental preparations they go through, the uncertainty of sporting outcomes, and other organizational issues they encounter. This research assessed the reproducibility of the Brief Religious Coping (RCOPE) instrument in an African setting using athletes' samples from different countries. Particularly, the research sought to assess the (1) factor structure of Brief RCOPE with an African sample, (2) construct validity of the RCOPE measure, and (3) measurement invariance of the RCOPE instrument based on gender and nationality. Methods: The study surveyed a convenient sample of 300 athletes, including 164 male and 136 female athletes, from 3 African countries (Benin, Ghana, and Nigeria) who participated in the 2018 West African University Games. The Brief RCOPE instrument was administered to the athletes for validation purposes before the competition. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using the ordinal factor analytic approach. Results: This validation study confirmed the two-factor dimension (positive and negative religious coping) of the Brief RCOPE measure. Further, all items for each of the dimensions of the inventory contributed significantly to the measure of the Brief RCOPE domains. The positive and negative religious coping dimensions contributed more than half of the variance of their respective indicators. Measurement invariance across gender and nationality was confirmed. Conclusion: Sufficient evidence was gathered to support the interpretation and use of the Brief RCOPE measure. Coaches and sports psychologists could adopt the Brief RCOPE measure to understand the mental or thought patterns of religious athletes based on existential concerns or stress accrued from impending competitions to inform appropriate religious coping interventions. This notwithstanding, the Minimum Clinical Important Difference (MCID) of the Brief RCOPE should be further investigated to enhance the utility of the instrument for use in intervention-based studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.