ArticleCureus2026
Development and Content Validity of a Pre-participation Evaluation Tool for Recreational Athletes Engaged in High-Intensity Sports.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipation in high-intensity sports among recreational athletes has increased substantially, accompanied by a higher incidence of preventable cardiovascular and musculoskeletal adverse events. Existing pre-participation evaluation (PPE) tools are largely designed for elite or scholastic athletes and frequently lack rigorous psychometric validation for recreational populations.
objectiveTo develop a novel PPE questionnaire tailored for recreational athletes engaged in high-intensity sports and to establish its face validity and content validity using a systematic, theory-driven methodology.
methodsInstrument development followed a two-phase qualitative design. Phase I involved a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review and expert consultation to define relevant domains and generate an initial item pool. Phase II focused on tool development and validation, including face validity assessment by a multidisciplinary panel of 20 experts and content validity evaluation using Lawshe's content validity ratio (CVR). Pilot testing was conducted on 30 recreational athletes to assess feasibility and clarity.
resultsThe systematic review and expert consultation yielded an initial pool of 65 items across five domains. Following face validity assessment, several items were revised or eliminated for clarity and relevance. Content validity analysis using CVR resulted in retention of 59 items, with 80% of items achieving CVR values ≥0.49. Pilot testing demonstrated high acceptability, clarity, and feasibility, with the majority of participants reporting ease of administration and reasonable completion time.
conclusionThe developed PPE instrument demonstrates excellent face validity and strong content validity for recreational athletes participating in high-intensity sports. The final 59-item questionnaire provides a comprehensive, context-specific screening tool and is suitable for progression to reliability testing and further psychometric evaluation in larger prospective cohorts.
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.