ArticleBrain and behavior2026
Validation and Adaptation of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire in the Spanish Sport Context: The Inclusion of Novelty and Analysis of Coach-Athlete Perspectives.
Article in Brain and behavior, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeThe present study had a fourfold purpose: (a) to validate the interpersonal behaviors questionnaire (IBQ) and IBQ-Self, (b) to compare measurement models with and without the inclusion of the novelty construct, (c) to analyze the convergence/dissonance between coach and athlete perceptions, and (d) to examine the predictive validity of the model regarding athletes' motivation and intention to be physically active.
methodsParticipants were 2085 individuals (1587 athletes and 498 coaches). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM).
resultsCFA supported the structural validity of the IBQ, showing better fit indices for the hypothesized model including novelty (e.g., CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.042). Regarding coach-athlete perceptions, rather than asymmetry, the results demonstrated a significant alignment between both perspectives. Finally, the SEM confirmed the predictive utility of the model, where satisfaction of basic psychological needs positively predicted motivation (β = 0.43 and p < 0.001), which in turn positively predicted the intention to be physically active (β = 0.39 and p < 0.001).
conclusionThe IBQ with the addition of novelty is a reliable instrument that structurally improves the original scale, demonstrating that athletes' perceptions of the coach and coaches' self-perceptions are synchronized and play a key role in predicting physical activity intentions.
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.