ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Design and validation of a questionnaire on the perception of cheating in traditional sporting games: CHEAT-1.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cheating in traditional sporting games (TSG) presents a significant challenge for values education and harmonious school coexistence. Despite its educational relevance, no validated instruments are currently available to assess students' perceptions of cheating in TSG contexts. Methods: This study aimed to design and validate the CHEAT-1 questionnaire, designed to assess perceptions of cheating in TSG. The instrument was created through a four-stage process involving item construction based on the internal and external logic of motor games, expert panel reviews ( Results: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor structure comprising Internal Logic and External Logic dimensions. The model demonstrated strong fit indices (RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.97). Internal consistency was high, with Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients both reaching 0.96. Content validity was confirmed, with all items exceeding a CVI of 0.80. Discussion: The CHEAT-1 instrument demonstrates strong psychometric properties and fills a critical gap in the assessment of ethical behavior in Physical Education settings. Its application can support teachers in detecting students' perceptions of cheating and implementing targeted pedagogical interventions. The tool offers a valuable resource for future research and practice in values-based education across different educational stages.
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.