ArticleHeliyon2024
Athletic justice: Scale development and validation.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Temporal trends in serum testosterone and luteinizing hormone levels indicate an ongoing resetting of hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal function in healthy men: a systematic review.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Pooled it
- Faculty development and career success in clinical teaching.International journal of medical education · 2025Article
- The personality factor in premium IOLs selection: quantifying Myers-Briggs personality types influence among cataract surgeons.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study aimed to create a reliable and valid scale to measure athletes' perception of fairness regarding coaches' behaviors. The study utilized a scale development process, including three steps: (a) item generation, (b) scale development, and (c) scale evaluation. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were utilized to generate items and achieve content validity. In developing the AJ scale, elite athletes from 29 different sports in Saudi Arabia were recruited for two rounds of data collection. The first data set (n = 279) was collected using an initial 35-item AJ scale developed from existing justice scales and interviews with elite athletes, while the second data collection (n = 503) was performed using a refined 12-item scale based on the analysis of the first data set. The results of ESEM showed an appropriate model fit for the scale with 12 items including four dimensions. In addition, the criterion validity was supported as each dimension of AJ was positively associated with athlete satisfaction. The newly developed AJ scale will help researchers measure perceived fairness toward coaches' behaviors based on the unique culture, climate, and environment that exists in the context of sports and explore the relationships between AJ and important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes that impact team performance.
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.