ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023
Are we really studying resilience in sport? A critical review of adopted methodologies.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. 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.
- "We're forced to be resilient": exploration of prospective risk and protective factors of resilience among women athletes.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- A Positive Impact of Sport-Related Musculoskeletal Pain on the Quality of Life and Pain Attitudes in Adolescents with Lower-Limb Disability.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychological resilience has gained considerable attention in sport. Nevertheless, the construct often remains poorly understood and multiple conceptual and methodological issues pervade the literature. The purpose of the present article is to provide a critical review of the commonly adopted methodologies to study resilience in sport. This review is divided into four sections. The first section will briefly discuss opposing conceptualizations of resilience as a static trait or a dynamic process. The second section will then discuss key methodological implications relating to the conceptualization of resilience as a dynamic process. In the third section, common methodologies to study resilience in sport are presented and critically reviewed. These methodologies are broadly divided into: (i) self-report resilience measures, (ii) qualitative research, and (iii) direct assessment of functioning in relation to observed adversity. In the final section, some avenues for future research are offered.
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.