ArticleScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2025
The Development of a Valid and Reliable Questionnaire to Measure Menstrual Cycle and Hormonal Contraceptive Knowledge Among Athletes and Sports Performance Support Staff.
Article in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2025. 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.
- Effects of a Menstrual Health Education Intervention on Female Athletes' Knowledge and Communication.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Development of a Valid and Reliable Questionnaire to Measure Menstrual Cycle and Hormonal Contraceptive Knowledge Among Athletes and Sports Performance Support Staff.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to develop the first valid questionnaire to assess menstrual cycle (MC) and hormonal contraceptive (HC) knowledge in athletes and sports performance support staff. Questions were developed following a literature review and four knowledge domains were identified: (1) Normal MC Function, (2) MC Dysfunction, (3) Oral Contraceptive Pills, and (4) Other HCs. Experts (n = 6) reviewed the initial questionnaire, followed by pre-testing with athletes and support staff (n = 19). Validity (item analysis, construct validity) and reliability (test-retest, internal consistency) were assessed following questionnaire administration to athletes and staff without MC education ("Low Knowledge" [LK] group; n = 156) and "High Knowledge" [HK] participants (n = 30) with MC education. Most (n = 122) LK participants completed the questionnaire twice to assess test-retest reliability. Expert review showed good agreement (> 80%) on item clarity and relevancy and pre-testing indicated good content and face validity. The HK group scored significantly higher than LK participants across the questionnaire (43 ± 5 vs. 28 ± 10; p < 0.001; d = 1.48 [1.05, 1.90]) and all knowledge domains (p < 0.05). High item discrimination parameters were found for all domains, indicating effective discrimination between respondents with different knowledge levels. Test-retest reliability was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient estimates from 0.93 [0.90, 0.95] to 0.98 [0.96, 0.99]), with all domains showing good-to-excellent reliability. Internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was considered acceptable (0.93 [0.92, 0.95]; α ≥ 0.7). This questionnaire delivers a valid and reliable tool to assess MC and HC knowledge amongst athletes and support staff and is recommended to guide and evaluate educational interventions to improve menstrual health literacy within sport.
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.