ReviewPsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2025
Systematic review of measurement instruments for positive development in sports: main characteristics and reported validity evidence.
Review in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositive development in sports (PDS) is a theoretical framework emphasizing human potential development in sports participation. Despite theoretical advancements, operationalizing PDS remains challenging, given the scarcity of instruments that translate theoretical models into practical applications in sports.
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify measurement instruments for assessing positive development in sports, their theoretical foundations, and validity evidence supporting their use.
methodsThis study follows COSMIN guidelines and includes a comprehensive search across MEDLINE, PubMed PMC, PsycINFO, AgeLine, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The search strategy refined with expert input yielded 702 records, with 41 meeting inclusion criteria (i.e., peer-reviewed original studies focused on the development, adaptation, or validation of measurement instruments assessing positive development in sports or related constructs). Screening was performed by two researchers in a double-blind process, with conflicts resolved by a third researcher. Data extracted included sample characteristics, theoretical underpinnings, and psychometric properties.
resultsMost instruments were grounded in Positive Youth Development theories and Basic Psychological Needs. Internal structure validity and internal consistency were the primary types of evidence reported, with Cronbach's alpha widely used. Despite recognition that human potential can be developed across the lifespan, instruments primarily targeted youth in sports contexts, with limited tools for older cohorts, revealing a significant gap. Most instruments originated in high-income countries, such as those in North America and Europe, underscoring the need for adaptations of theories and tools for low- and middle-income regions.
conclusionsUnderrepresentation of diverse populations with regards to race, ethnicity, and gender, absence of interpretative norms, and limited focus on older cohorts were critical limitations. Addressing these gaps can enhance PDS instruments' inclusivity and applicability, ultimately fostering more inclusive and impactful sports practices. Furthermore, the results indicate the need to develop instruments rooted in robust PDS theoretical models alongside theoretical revisions to better represent diverse populations and people from middle- and low-income countries, in addition to the adequate adaptation of instruments.
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.