ArticleSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Breaking Barriers: Understanding the Impact of Intellectual Impairment on Inductive Reasoning in Basketball.
Article in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Access to high-performance sports is crucial for the holistic development and well-being of athletes with intellectual impairment (II). However, ensuring fair and equitable participation requires effective eligibility systems. This study investigates how basketball-specific inductive reasoning impacts athletes with II. A total of 92 elite male players with II (average age 26.3 ± 7 years) and 128 control players without II participated. This study used a tailored test to assess the ability to quickly and accurately arrange 12 photo series depicting basketball sequences. Athletes with II were hypothesized to require more time and arrange the image sequences less accurately compared to their peers. The results indicated that athletes with II took significantly more time (41.2 s ± 20.2 s) and arranged the image sequences less accurately than senior players without II (19.2 s ± 5.9 s). A discriminant function analysis classified 84.1% of players accurately, confirming that athletes with II performed at a lower level in basketball-specific activities that require inductive reasoning. These findings contribute to the development of Phase 3 of the classification model for athletes with II, which consists of 4 phases. This helps establish the eligibility system boundaries in basketball for individuals with II, promoting equitable access for athletes to high-performance sports.
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.