ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

According to the stress-injury model (Williams & Andersen, 1998), personality factors predisposing athletes to elevated levels of stress may increase the risk of injury. As perfectionism has been associated with chronic stress, it may be one such personality factor. So far, however, no study has investigated the relationships between perfectionism and injury utilising a prospective design. Therefore, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and injury in 80 junior athletes from team and individual sports (mean age 17.1 years, range 16-19 years) over 10 months of active training. The results of logistic regression analyses showed that perfectionism positively predicted injury, but only perfectionistic concerns emerged as a significant positive predictor. The likelihood of sustaining an injury was increased by over 2 times for each 1 SD increase in perfectionistic concerns. The findings suggest that perfectionistic concerns may be a possible factor predisposing athletes to an increased risk of injury.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Perfectionism predicts injury in junior athletes: Preliminary evidence from a
prospective study
Daniel J. Madigan
a
, Joachim Stoeber
b
, Dale Forsdyke
a
, Mark Dayson
c
and Louis Passfield
c
a
School of Sport, York St John University, York, UK;
b
School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK;
c
School of Sport & Exercise
Sciences, University of Kent, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK
ABSTRACT
According to the stressinjury model (Williams & Andersen, 1998), personality factors predisposing
athletes to elevated levels of stress may increase the risk of injury. As perfectionism has been associated
with chronic stress, it may be one such personality factor. So far, however, no study has investigated the
relationships between perfectionism and injury utilising a prospective design. Therefore, the present
study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns and injury in 80 junior athletes from
team and individual sports (mean age 17.1 years; range 1619 years) over 10 months of active training.
The results of logistic regression analyses showed that perfectionism positively predicted injury, but
only perfectionistic concerns emerged as a significant positive predictor. The likelihood of sustaining an
injury was increased by over two times for each 1 SD increase in perfectionistic concerns. The findings
suggest that perfectionistic concerns may be a possible factor predisposing athletes to an increased risk
of injury.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Accepted 20 April 2017
KEYWORDS
Perfectionistic strivings;
perfectionistic concerns;
injury; junior athletes; long-
itudinal study
Introduction
Injury is a serious negative outcome that can occur as the
result of participation in sport (Ekstrand, Hägglund, & Waldén,
2011). Injury has a number of cognitive, affective, behavioural
and financial implications for athletes (e.g., Hagger,
Chatzisarantis, Griffin, & Thatcher, 2005; Hallén & Ekstrand,
2014; Wiese-Bjornstal, 2010). As such, sport scientists have
sought to identify factors that may predispose athletes to an
increased risk of injury with a view to reducing this risk (see
Bahr & Krosshaug, 2005). Whereas extensive research exists on
physiological, nutritional and biomechanical factors, few stu-
dies have examined the role of personality factors (see
Forsdyke, Smith, Jones, & Gledhill, 2016). The extant research,
however, suggests that personality factors are important (see
Ivarsson et al., 2017, for a review). One personality factor that
scholars have suggested may play an important role in injury
is perfectionism (e.g., Williams & Andersen, 1998). This asser-
tion is supported by previous retrospective research in gym-
nasts and dancers that has shown perfectionism to be related
to injury (Krasnow, Mainwaring, & Kerr, 1999). However, no
study has yet investigated the relationship between perfec-
tionism and injury in athletes employing a prospective design.
Therefore, the aim of the present study was to provide a first
prospective investigation of multidimensional perfectionism
and injury in junior athletes.
Perfectionism
Perfectionism is a personality disposition characterised by
striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high
standards of performance accompanied by tendencies for
overly critical evaluations of ones behaviour (Flett & Hewitt,
2002). However, perfectionism has various aspects, and there
are different dimensions of perfectionism with different char-
acteristics. Therefore, perfectionism is best conceptualised as a
multidimensional disposition (Frost, Marten, Lahart, &
Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; see Enns & Cox, 2002,
for a review). According to the two-factor model of perfection-
ism (Stoeber & Otto, 2006), two higher-order dimensions
should be differentiated: perfectionistic strivings which capture
perfectionist personal standards and a self-oriented striving for
perfection and perfectionistic concerns which capture concern
over mistakes, feelings of discrepancy between ones stan-
dards and performance and negative reactions to imperfection
(see Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for a review).
Differentiating perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
concerns is important when investigating perfectionism in
sport because the two dimensions show different, often oppo-
site, patterns of relationships with psychological processes and
outcomes. Perfectionistic concerns are consistently associated
with negative processes and outcomes (e.g., maladaptive cop-
ing and negative affect), whereas perfectionistic strivings are
often associated with positive processes and outcomes (e.g.,
adaptive coping and positive affect) or inversely with negative
processes and outcomes. The latter is particularly evident
when the overlap between perfectionistic strivings and per-
fectionistic concerns is controlled for and perfectionistic striv-
ingsunique relationships are examined (Gotwals, Stoeber,
Dunn, & Stoll, 2012; Stoeber, 2011). Controlling for the overlap
between the two dimensions is also important for perfectio-
nistic concerns because the associations with negative
CONTACT Daniel J. Madigan d.madigan@yorksj.ac.uk School of Sport, York St John University, Lord Mayors Walk, York, YO31 7EX, UK
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2018
VOL. 36, NO. 5, 545550
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1322709
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Downloaded by [213.123.5.165] at 23:43 21 November 2017
processes and outcomes emerge more clearly when the over-
lap with perfectionistic strivings is controlled (Stoeber &
Gaudreau, 2017).
Perfectionism and injury
Injuries occur in all sports and at all levels. Research suggests
that junior athletes may be particularly at risk (e.g., Frisch,
Croisier, Urhausen, Seil, & Theisen, 2009; Renshaw &
Goodwin, 2016). Importantly, there is increasing evidence
highlighting the importance of psychological factors in con-
tributing to the risk of injury in junior athletes (e.g., Ivarsson,
Johnson, Andersen, Fallby, & Altemyr, 2015; Steffen,
Pensgaard, & Bahr, 2009; Wadey, Evans, Hanton, & Neil, 2012).
According to Williams and Andersens(1998) stressinjury
model, personality factors that exacerbate the stress response
(cause individuals to appraise a situation as more stressful) can
cause greater physiological activation and attentional disrup-
tions for the athlete increasing the likelihood of injury. Thus,
the severity of the resulting stress response provides the
mechanism for the associated injury risk. The stressinjury
model has received empirical support from studies investigat-
ing personality factors and injury. For example, a recent meta-
analysis provided evidence for a relationship between stress
and injury (β= 0.27) and for a relationship between person-
ality and stress (β= 0.14; Ivarsson et al., 2017). Furthermore,
the diathesisstress model of perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett,
1993,2002) posits that perfectionism is a vulnerability factor
putting people at risk of chronic stress. Moreover, athletes
high in perfectionistic concerns may be at an even higher
risk of stress (Flett & Hewitt, 2005). As such, perfectionistic
concerns may be related to injury risk via stress. Further
evidence for a theoretical and empirical link between perfec-
tionism and injury comes from research on training distress (a
proxy of overtraining syndrome). First, there are research find-
ings suggesting that training distress increases the risk of
injury (e.g., Foster, 1998). Second, there are findings suggest-
ing that athletes high in perfectionistic concerns train harder
and for longer time than athletes low in perfectionistic con-
cerns (Madigan, Stoeber, & Passfield, 2017). Consequently,
perfectionistic concerns can be expected to be related to
injury risk via stress and training distress as shown in our
theoretical model (Figure 1). According to this model,
perfectionism could be a personality factor predisposing ath-
letes to injury.
So far, however, only one study has investigated this pos-
sibility. Using a retrospective design, Krasnow et al. (1999)
examined gymnasts and dancers and found a significant posi-
tive correlation between concern over mistakes (a key indica-
tor of perfectionistic concerns) and the number of self-
reported injuries. Retrospective designs, however, have a num-
ber of limitations. In particular, it is difficult to establish a
temporal (or causal) link between variables. Moreover, retro-
spective self-reports can be affected by recall bias (Euser,
Zoccali, Jager, & Dekker, 2009).
A prospective approach can overcome the limitations of
retrospective designs. Support for the utility of a prospective
approach in research on perfectionism and injury comes from
the dance domain. Liederbach and Compagno (2001), investi-
gating dancers over a 2-year period, found that levels of
perfectionism were higher in injured than in non-injured dan-
cers. However, this study conceptualised perfectionism as a
one-dimensional disposition (measured with the Eating
Disorder Inventory-2; Garner, 1991). Consequently, it is unclear
which dimensions of perfectionism perfectionistic strivings,
perfectionistic concerns or both were responsible for this
relationship (cf. Sherry, Hewitt, Besser, McGee, & Flett, 2004).
Moreover, although the study by Liederbach and Compagno
(2001) provides prospective evidence for the role of perfec-
tionism in injury, it is unclear whether the findings of a study
on dancers would generalise to athletic populations who likely
experience different stressors relating to the exertion of train-
ing and competition (Hanton, Fletcher, & Coughlan, 2005).
The present study
Against this background, the aim of the present study was to
provide a first prospective investigation of the relationships
between multidimensional perfectionism and injury in junior
athletes over a 10-month period of active training. Based on
the combination of two theoretical models the stressinjury
model (Williams & Andersen, 1998) and the diathesisstress
model of perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1993,2002)and
empirical findings linking perfectionistic concerns to training
distress (Madigan et al., 2017) and perfectionism to retrospec-
tively reported injury (Krasnow et al., 1999), we expected that
perfectionistic concerns would be a positive predictor of injury
Injury
Perfectionistic
concerns
++
Stress
Training
distress
++
Figure 1. Theoretical model of the relationship between perfectionistic concerns and injury and potential pathways.
546 D. J. MADIGAN ET AL.
Downloaded by [213.123.5.165] at 23:43 21 November 2017
(Figure 1). In contrast, we had no clear expectations for per-
fectionistic strivings. Whereas the diathesisstress model of
perfectionism posits that perfectionistic strivings are asso-
ciated with stress, the majority of studies investigating perfec-
tionism and stress found only perfectionistic concerns to
predict stress, but not perfectionistic strivings (e.g.,
Prudhomme et al., 2017). Likewise, Madigan et al.s(2017)
study found only perfectionistic concerns to predict training
distress, not perfectionistic strivings. Still, our analyses
included perfectionistic strivings to give a comprehensive
account of perfectionism and examine the unique effects of
perfectionistic concerns (Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017).
Method
Participants
A sample of 80 junior athletes (65 male and 15 female) was
recruited at a sports academy to participate in the present
study. As part of the United Kingdoms further education
system, sports academies aim to recruit and develop pro-
mising junior athletes. Academy athletes are provided with
a professional coaching environment while they study
alongside their sporting commitments. They are selected
based on their ability by taking part in competitive perfor-
mance in trials to enter the academy and regularly compete
at a regional, national or international level. Participants
mean age was 17.1 years (SD = 0.6; range = 1619 years).
Participants were involved in a range of sports (25 in soccer,
19 in basketball, 18 in athletics, 13 in rugby and 5 in other
sports [e.g., cricket and swimming]) and trained on average
10.3 h per week (SD = 4.9).
Procedure
A university ethics committee approved the study. Informed
consent was obtained from all participants. In addition, par-
ental consent was obtained from participants below 18 years
of age. Questionnaires were distributed during training in the
presence of the first author. A trained physiotherapist (the
fourth author) recorded all injury data entering into a compu-
ter database the date of the injury occurrence as well as the
type of injury. Participants were administered questionnaires
in September (2015), and injury was recorded for a period of
10 months (until May 2016). During this period, all participants
were in regular seasonal training and competition. We chose
this period to allow us to capture an entire season for as many
athletes as possible.
Measures
Perfectionism
To measure perfectionism, we followed a multi-measure
approach (Stoeber & Madigan, 2016) and used four sub-
scales from two multidimensional measures of perfectionism
in sport: the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
(SMPS; Dunn et al., 2006) and the Multidimensional
Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport (MIPS; Stoeber, Otto,
Pescheck, Becker, & Stoll, 2007). To measure perfectionistic
strivings, we used two indicators: the 7-item SMPS subscale
capturing personal standards (e.g., Ihaveextremelyhigh
goals for myself in my sport) and the 5-item MIPS subscale
capturing striving for perfection (Istrivetobeasperfectas
possible), and then we standardised the scale scores before
combining them to measure perfectionistic strivings (cf.
Madigan, Stoeber, & Passfield, 2015). To measure perfectio-
nistic concerns, we also used two indicators: the 8-item
SMPS subscale capturing concern over mistakes (People
will probably think less of me if I make mistakes in compe-
tition) and the 5-item MIPS subscale capturing negative
reactions to imperfection (I feel extremely stressed if every-
thing does not go perfectly), and again we standardised
the scale scores before combining them to measure perfec-
tionistic concerns. The four subscales have demonstrated
reliability and validity in previous studies (e.g., Madigan,
2016;Stoeber,Stoll,Salmi,&Tiikkaja,2009). Moreover,
both are reliable and valid indicators of perfectionistic striv-
ings and perfectionistic concerns (e.g., Gotwals et al., 2012;
Stoeber & Madigan, 2016). Participants were asked to indi-
cate to what degree each statement characterised their
attitudes in their sport responding on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Injury
Following recommendations by Clarsen and Bahr (2014),
we chose to define injury specifically for the present
studys context and population. As such, an athlete was
defined as injured if the athlete required medical treat-
ment and missed at least one training session or competi-
tion (see Ivarsson, Johnson, & Podlog, 2013). Of the 80
athletes, 38 experienced no injury, 24 one injury, 14 two
injuries and 4 three injuries over the course of the study.
Of these injuries, 52 were traumatic and 12 were non-
traumatic. For the present study, because we were inter-
ested in determining whether perfectionism predicted
injury, we treated injury as a dichotomous variable (i.e.,
injured: 1 = yes, 0 = no; e.g., Hegedus et al., 2016;seealso
Devantier, 2011).
1
Data screening
First, we inspected the data for missing values. Because
very few item responses were missing (i= 11), missing
responses were replaced with the mean of the item
responses of the corresponding scale (ipsatised item repla-
cement; Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003). Next, we
computed Cronbachs alphas for our variables which were
all satisfactory (see Table 1). Following recommendations
by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), data were screened for
multivariate outliers. No participant showed a Mahalanobis
distance larger than the critical value of χ2(3) = 16.27,
P<.001.
1
Additional analyses showed that results were the same when the number of injuries was used in the correlation and regression analyses.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 547
Downloaded by [213.123.5.165] at 23:43 21 November 2017
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations
First, we inspected the bivariate correlations between all
variables (see Table 1). As in previous research (e.g.,
Madigan et al., 2017), the dimensions of perfectionism
showed a large significant positive correlation with each
other.
2
Furthermore, perfectionistic concerns showed a sig-
nificant positive correlation with injury that approached
medium size, but perfectionistic strivings did not (showing
a small non-significant positive correlation). Next, we com-
puted partial correlations to control for the overlap between
perfectionistic strivings and concerns and examine the two
dimensionsunique relationships with injury (cf. Stoeber &
Gaudreau, 2017). Results showed that perfectionistic con-
cerns continued to show a significant positive correlation
approaching medium size with injury when perfectionistic
strivings were controlled, whereas the correlation between
perfectionistic strivings and injury was reduced near zero
(see Table 1).
Logistic regression analyses
Finally, we conducted a logistic regression analysis
(Pampel, 2000) to examine how perfectionism predicted
the likelihood of becoming injured over the 10 months of
the study. For this, we entered perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns simultaneously into the regression
(see Table 2). Results showed that the model explained
11% of the variance in injury. As expected, perfectionistic
concerns significantly predicted injury, whereas residual
perfectionistic strivings did not. Moreover, the analysis
suggested that the likelihood (odds ratio) of sustaining
an injury was increased by over two times for each 1 SD
increase in perfectionistic concerns, whereas perfectionistic
strivings played no role in the perfectionisminjury rela-
tionship (see Table 2).
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relation-
ships between perfectionism and injury in junior athletes,
differentiating perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic con-
cerns. Providing the first prospective investigation of these
relationships, we found that perfectionism positively predicted
injury, but only perfectionistic concerns emerged as a signifi-
cant positive predictor. As to the size of this effect, the find-
ings suggest that the likelihood of sustaining an injury was
increased by over two times for each 1 SD increase in perfec-
tionistic concerns.
This is the first study to show that perfectionism predicts
injury in athletes over time. These findings are supported by
those of previous research employing a retrospective design
(Krasnow et al., 1999). The use of a prospective design in the
present study, however, eliminates response bias and allows
the elucidation of temporal precedence (Euser et al., 2009). As
such, the present study provides stronger evidence for the
role of perfectionism in injury. Furthermore, the findings
reiterate the importance of personality variables in injury risk
(see Ivarsson et al., 2017).
The present study suggests that perfectionism may be a
factor predisposing athletes to injury. However, only perfec-
tionistic concerns emerged as a significant predictor. This
dovetails with previous research in sport that suggests that
the concerns dimension of perfectionism is associated with
outcomes that are considered maladaptive (see Jowett,
Mallinson, & Hill, 2016). Whereas the bivariate correlations
showed that perfectionistic strivings had a small positive rela-
tionship with injury, the relationship was non-significant. More
importantly, once the significant overlap with perfectionistic
concerns was statistically controlled (r= 0.60), perfectionistic
strivings then showed a negative near-zero relationship with
injury. This is in contrast to the findings for perfectionistic
concerns, as the positive relationship with injury held for
perfectionistic concerns and residual perfectionistic concerns
(i.e., when the overlap with perfectionistic strivings was con-
trolled; Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017). In addition, the present
findings corroborate previous research that finds that perfec-
tionistic strivings are not always associated with maladaptive
outcomes (and are often associated with positive outcomes;
see Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011).
If we were to compare any two athletes from the present
sample, the athlete with higher perfectionistic concerns would
show a higher risk of injury than the athlete with lower
perfectionistic concerns. Moreover, if we were to compare
two athletes who had the same level of perfectionistic striv-
ings, the athlete with higher perfectionistic concerns would
still show a higher risk of injury than the athlete with lower
perfectionistic concerns. Controlling for the overlap between
perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns is like
holding perfectionistic strivings constant, and this allows us
to examine the unique relationships of perfectionistic
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, Cronbachs alphas, bivariate and partial
correlations.
Variable 1 2 3
1. Perfectionistic strivings .02
2. Perfectionistic concerns .59*** .25*
3. Injury .16 .29**
M0.01 0.00
SD 0.92 0.92
Cronbachs alpha .79 .81
N= 80. Injury was coded 1 = yes, 0 = no. Bivariate correlations are reported below
the diagonal and partial correlations above the diagonal (see column 3).
*P< .05; **P< .01; ***P< .001.
Table 2. Logistic regression predicting injury.
Injury (yes/no)
Nagelkerke R
2
BOR (95% CI)
Perfectionism .114*
Perfectionistic strivings .060 0.95 (0.501.77)
Perfectionistic concerns .734* 2.08 (1.064.09)
N= 80.
OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
*P< .05.
2
Following Cohen (1992), correlations with absolute values of .10, .30 and .50 are regarded as small, medium sized and large.
548 D. J. MADIGAN ET AL.
Downloaded by [213.123.5.165] at 23:43 21 November 2017
concerns (see Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017, for details). Thus, we
can conclude that both perfectionistic concerns and residual
perfectionistic concerns appear to be important within the
perfectionisminjury relationship.
What, then, may explain why perfectionistic concerns pre-
dict injury? Our theoretical model (Figure 1) suggests two
pathways by which perfectionistic concerns may predispose
athletes to injury. The first pathway is based on the stress
injury model (Williams & Andersen, 1998). According to this
model, the likelihood of injury is increased when athletes are
exposed to stress and that this relationship is moderated by
personality factors (i.e., personal factors that predispose ath-
letes to increased stress responses). Previous research utilising
the diathesisstress model of perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett,
1993,2002) has demonstrated that perfectionism is associated
with chronic stress, and this stress in turn may provide a
mechanism for increased injury risk. Further support for this
assertion comes from research suggesting that only the per-
fectionistic concerns dimension of perfectionism is associated
with maladaptive strategies for coping with stress (Hill, Hall, &
Appleton, 2010). The second pathway proposed in our theo-
retical model of perfectionistic concerns and injury is training
distress (a proxy of overtraining syndrome). Previous research
has shown that perfectionistic concerns predict increases in
training distress over time (Madigan et al., 2017). As such, the
perfectionistic athletes in the current study may have over-
trained, that is, trained harder and for longer time than the
non-perfectionistic athletes, making them more susceptible to
an increased risk of injury (cf. Ekstrand et al., 2011). Future
research is required to test the mediational pathways in our
theoretical model (Figure 1) and explore if stress and/or over-
training are responsible for the relationships we found in the
present study.
Furthermore, it is important to note that we currently do
not know the relative importance of perfectionism in predict-
ing injury when examined alongside other personality factors
(cf. Ivarsson et al., 2017). However, it could be expected that
perfectionism may be a relatively important factor. This is for
two reasons. First, perfectionism appears to be a characteristic
that is common in athletes (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2005). Second,
perfectionism predicts several other important outcomes in
sport such as performance (e.g., Stoeber, Uphill, & Hotham,
2009). Nonetheless, future research is required to explore the
relative importance of perfectionism in the personalityinjury
relationship. It should, however, also be noted that even small
effects can be important when they accumulate over time (cf.
Prentice & Miller, 1992).
Limitations and future research
The present study had a number of limitations. First, whereas
our sample size was in line with previous research (e.g., Laux,
Krumm, Diers, & Flor, 2015), it may be considered relatively
small. As such, we may have been unable to detect smaller
meaningful effects. Therefore, future research should aim to
recruit larger samples and reinvestigate these relationships to
determine if smaller effects exist. Second, our study focused on
a sample comprised exclusively of junior athletes. Future stu-
dies should therefore examine whether the findings generalise
to other populations (e.g., adults). Third, our study had a greater
proportion of male athletes. As such, future research should
reinvestigate the perfectionisminjury relationship employing
samples with a greater proportion of female athletes. Finally,
our study included athletes from both team and individual
sports. Future research is required to determine if the type of
sport an athlete competes in affects the perfectionisminjury
relationship.
Conclusion
The present study contributes to our understanding of the
relationships between multidimensional perfectionism and
injury, being the first to identify perfectionistic concerns as a
potential factor predisposing athletes to an increased risk of
injury over time. Based on the present findings, we recom-
mend that coaches and support staff looking to monitor risk
factors for injury monitor athleteslevels of perfectionistic
concerns as one such potential factor (see Stoeber &
Madigan, 2016, for an effective way to do this).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Louis Passfield http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6223-162X
References
Bahr, R., & Krosshaug, T. (2005). Understanding injury mechanisms: A key
component of preventing injuries in sport. British Journal of Sports
Medicine,39, 324329. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.018341
Clarsen, B., & Bahr, R. (2014). Matching the choice of injury/illness definition to
study setting, purpose and design: One size does not fit all! British Journal
of Sports Medicine,48,510512. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-093297
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112, 155159.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Devantier, C. (2011). Psychological predictors of injury among professional
soccer players. Sport Science Review,20,536.
Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., Gotwals, J. K., Vallance, J. K. H., Craft, J.
M., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2006). Establishing construct validity evidence for
the sport multidimensional perfectionism scale. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise,7,5779. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.003
Ekstrand, J., Hägglund, M., & Waldén, M. (2011). Injury incidence and injury
patterns in professional football: The UEFA injury study. British Journal
of Sports Medicine,45, 553558. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.060582
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfection-
ism: A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 3362). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Euser, A. M., Zoccali, C., Jager, K. J., & Dekker, F. W. (2009). Cohort studies:
Prospective versus retrospective. Nephron Clinical Practice,113, c214
c217. doi:10.1159/000235241
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An
overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In P. L.
Hewitt & G. L. Flett (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment
(pp. 531). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The perils of perfectionism in sports and
exercise. Current Directions in Psychological Science,14,1418.
doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00326.x
Forsdyke, D., Smith, A., Jones, M., & Gledhill, A. (2016). Psychosocial factors
associated with outcomes of sports injury rehabilitation in competitive
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 549
Downloaded by [213.123.5.165] at 23:43 21 November 2017
athletes: A mixed studies systematic review. British Journal of Sports
Medicine,50, 537544. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094850
Foster, C. (1998). Monitoring training in athletes with reference to over-
training syndrome. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,30,
11641168. doi:10.1097/00005768-199807000-00023
Frisch, A., Croisier, J. L., Urhausen, A., Seil, R., & Theisen, D. (2009). Injuries,
risk factors and prevention initiatives in youth sport. British Medical
Bulletin,92,95121. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldp034
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions
of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research,14, 449468.
doi:10.1007/BF01172967
Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory-2: Professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J. G. H., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectio-
nistic strivings in sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory,
contradictory, and mixed evidence. Canadian Psychology,53, 263279.
doi:10.1037/a0030288
Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling
missing data. In J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Research methods in psychology (Vol. 2,pp.87114). New York: Wiley.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., Griffin, M., & Thatcher, J. (2005). Injury
representations, coping, emotions, and functional outcomes in athletes
with sports-related injuries: A test of self-regulation theory. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology,35,23452374. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.
tb02106.x
Hallén, A., & Ekstrand, J. (2014). Return to play following muscle injuries in
professional footballers. Journal of Sports Sciences,32, 12291236.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.905695
Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., & Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite sport performers: A
comparative study of competitive and organizational stressors. Journal of
Sports Sciences,23, 11291141. doi:10.1080/02640410500131480
Hegedus, E. J., McDonough, S., Bleakley, C., Baxter, G. D., DePew, J. T.,
Bradbury, I., & Cook, C. (2016). Physical performance tests predict injury
in National Collegiate Athletic Association athletes: A three-season
prospective cohort study. British Journal of Sports Medicine,50, 1333
1337. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094885
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social
contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psycho-
pathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,60, 456470.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress,
and depression: A test of the specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology,102,5865. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.102.1.58
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2002). Perfectionism and stress in psychopathology. In
G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment
(pp. 255284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Appleton, P. R. (2010). Perfectionism and athlete
burnout in junior elite athletes: The mediating influence of coping
tendencies. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping,23, 415430. doi:10.1080/
10615800903330966
Ivarsson, A., Johnson, U., Andersen, M. B., Fallby, J., & Altemyr, M. (2015). It
pays to pay attention: A mindfulness-based program for injury preven-
tion with soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,27, 319
334. doi:10.1080/10413200.2015.1008072
Ivarsson, A., Johnson, U., Andersen, M. B., Tranaeus, U., Stenling, A., &
Lindwall, M.. (2017). Psychosocial factors and sport injuries: meta-ana-
lyses for prediction and prevention. Sports Medicine,42 (353365). doi:
10.1007/s40279-016-0578-x
Ivarsson, A., Johnson, U., & Podlog, L. (2013). Psychological p redictors of injury
occurrence: A prospective investigation of professional Swedish soccer
players. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation,22,1
926. doi:10.1123/jsr.22.1.19
Jowett, G. E., Mallinson, S. H., & Hill, A. P. (2016). An independent effects
approach to perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise. In A. P. Hill
(Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism in sport, dance and exercise (pp.
85149). London: Routledge.
Krasnow, D., Mainwaring, L., & Kerr, G. (1999). Injury, stress, and perfectionism in
young dancers and gymnasts. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science,3,5158.
Laux, P., Krumm, B., Diers, M., & Flor, H. (2015). Recoverystress balance and
injury risk in professional football players: A prospective study. Journal of
Sports Sciences,33,21402148. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1064538
Liederbach, M., & Compagno, J. M. (2001). Psychological aspects of fati-
gue-related injuries in dancers. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science,5,
116120.
Madigan, D. J. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional
inventory of perfectionism in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,26,
4851. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.06.003
Madigan, D. J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2015). Perfectionism and burnout
in junior athletes: A three-month longitudinal study. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology,37, 305315. doi:10.1123/jsep.2014-0266
Madigan, D. J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2017). Perfectionism and training
distress in junior athletes: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Sports
Sciences,35, 470475. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1172726
Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer. New York: Sage.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive.
Psychological Bulletin,112, 160164. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.160
Prudhomme, J., Dunkley, D. M., Bernier, E., Berg, J.-L., Ghelerter, A., & Starrs,
C. J. (2017). Specific perfectionism components predicting daily stress,
coping, and negative affect six months and three years later. Personality
and Individual Differences,111,134138. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.034
Renshaw, A., & Goodwin, P. C. (2016). Injury incidence in a premier league
youth soccer academy using the consensus statement: A prospective
cohort study. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine,2, e000132.
doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2016-000132
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., McGee, B. J., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Self-
oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism in the eating disorder
inventory perfectionism subscale. International Journal of Eating
Disorders,35,6979. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-108X
Steffen, K., Pensgaard, A. M., & Bahr, R. (2009). Self-reported psychological
characteristics as risk factors for injuries in female youth football.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports,19, 442451.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00797.x
Stoeber, J. (2011). The dual nature of perfectionism in sports: Relationships
with emotion, motivation, and performance. International Review of Sport
and Exercise Psychology,4,128145. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2011.604789
Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of partialling perfectio-
nistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recom-
mendations. Personality and Individual Differences,104, 379386.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.039
Stoeber, J., & Madigan, D. J. (2016). Measuring perfectionism in sport,
dance, and exercise: Review, critique, recommendations. In A. P. Hill
(Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism in sport, dance and exercise (pp.
3156). London: Routledge.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism:
Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology
Review,10, 295319. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., Pescheck, E., Becker, C., & Stoll, O. (2007).
Perfectionism and competitive anxiety in athletes: Differentiating striv-
ing for perfection and negative reactions to imperfection. Personality
and Individual Differences,42, 959969. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.006
Stoeber, J., Stoll, O., Salmi, O., & Tiikkaja, J. (2009). Perfectionism and
achievement goals in young Finnish ice-hockey players aspiring to
make the Under-16 national team. Journal of Sports Sciences,27,85
94. doi:10.1080/02640410802448749
Stoeber, J., Uphill, M. A., & Hotham, S. (2009). Predicting race performance
in triathlon: The role of perfectionism, achievement goals, and personal
goal setting. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,31, 211245.
doi:10.1123/jsep.31.2.211
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Wadey, R., Evans, L., Hanton, S., & Neil, R. (2012). An examination of
hardiness throughout the sport injury process. British Journal of
Health Psychology,17, 103128. doi:10.1111/bjhp.2012.17.issue-1
Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M. (2010). Psychology and socioculture affect injury
risk, response, and recovery in high-intensity athletes: A consensus
statement. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports,20,
103111. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01195.x
Williams, J. M., & Andersen, M. B. (1998). Psychosocial antecedents of
sport injury: Review and critique of the stress and injury model.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,10,525. doi:10.1080/
10413209808406375
550 D. J. MADIGAN ET AL.
Downloaded by [213.123.5.165] at 23:43 21 November 2017
... Therefore, perfectionism is a factor predisposing athletes to injury. [22] Li et al. suggested in their research that athletes, irrespective of gender, who experienced anxiety symptoms at the preseason were at a higher risk of getting injured during the prospective season than those without. In contrast, only male athletes with co-occurring symptoms of anxiety and depression were more likely to experience injury when compared to male athletes with no symptom co-occurrence. ...
... Statistical analysis: ANOVA, and linear regression analysis Wadey et al., 2012 [22] An examination of hardiness throughout the sport injury process ...
... In general, personality traits are an important predictor of sports participation (Levitch et al., 2020), and according to the stress injury model (Williams & Andersen, 1998), the high level of stress that causes injuries to athletes may be due to the personality type of the athlete (Madigan, Stoeber, Forsdyke, Dayson, & Passfield, 2018). In this context, our study aimed to reveal how the personality type of tennis players affects some variables related to sports injury. ...
Article
Full-text available
This research aims to investigate how tennis players' personality structures affect some variables related to the injuries they experience in sports. The research population consists of tennis players between the ages of 10-18 in Turkey. A total of 158 (female: 87, male: 71) tennis players between the ages of 10-18 who had at least one tennis-specific injury participated in the study. Demographic questions (gender, age, height, weight, time of sports injury, repetition of the same injury, and injury measure) used in the study were created by the researchers. The personality of the athlete was determined by the athlete himself, and the survey questions were determined by using the survey questions used in Kirişci's (2011) study. Data from tennis players were collected online via 'Google Form'. There is a low level of statistically positive correlation between re-experiencing the sports injury and the time of the sports injury (r=0.18, p=0.03). There is a low level of statistically positive correlation between the gender of the participants and taking precautions for sports injury (r=0.20, p=0.01). There is a low negative correlation between the gender of the participants and their athlete personality (r=26, p=0.001). There is no statistically significant difference between the participants' re-experiencing the same injury, taking precautions in sports injury, and athlete's personality (r=-0.013, p=0.87, r=0.010, p=0.90). It can be said that the sports injuries experienced by tennis players are related to their personality types and their gender. It can be said that injuries seen in tennis sports are more common during matches and women take more precautions for sports injuries than male athletes. In addition, it can be said that female athletes have both courageous-attentive and emotional-calm personality types, while males have the most courageous-active personality type. Article visualizations: </p
... pain normalisation) risk factors to influence the risk of overuse injury. For example, previous findings indicate that individuals with elevated perfectionistic concerns are more likely to experience chronic psychosocial stress [54,55], thus leading to a higher risk of sustaining athletic injuries [53], which is consistent with our results. Athletes may also cope differently when experiencing physical complaints depending on certain dimensions of perfectionism [57], which may influence the development of an overuse injury. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background While the psychosocial risk factors for traumatic injuries have been comprehensively investigated, less is known about psychosocial factors predisposing athletes to overuse injuries. Objective The aim of this review was to systematically identify studies and synthesise data that examined psychosocial risk factors for overuse injuries in athletes. Design Systematic review. Data Sources MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases, supplemented by hand searching of journals and reference lists. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies Quantitative and qualitative studies involving competitive athletes, published prior to July 2021, and reporting the relationship between psychosocial variables and overuse injury as an outcome were reviewed. This was limited to academic peer-reviewed journals in Swedish, English, German, Spanish and French. An assessment of the risk of bias was performed using modified versions of the RoBANS and SBU Quality Assessment Scale for Qualitative Studies. Results Nine quantitative and five qualitative studies evaluating 1061 athletes and 27 psychosocial factors were included for review. Intra-personal factors, inter-personal factors and sociocultural factors were found to be related to the risk of overuse injury when synthesised and reported according to a narrative synthesis approach. Importantly, these psychosocial factors, and the potential mechanisms describing how they might contribute to overuse injury development, appeared to be different compared with those already known for traumatic injuries. Conclusions There is preliminary evidence that overuse injuries are likely to partially result from complex interactions between psychosocial factors. Coaches and supporting staff are encouraged to acknowledge the similarities and differences between traumatic and overuse injury aetiology.
... Perfectionistic strivings tend to show positive relations with processes or outcomes that typically are valued and considered positively, such as self-determined motivation, optimism, group cohesion, competitive self-confidence and performance [13][14][15][16][17]. In contrast, perfectionistic concerns tend to show positive relations with non-adaptive processes and outcomes, such as motivation that is anchored to environmental influences, competitive anxiety, burnout or sports injury [16][17][18][19]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The present research focused on the general theme of perfectionism in the sport domain, and it provided the first empirical validation of the original 72-item “Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport” (MIPS) among Italian athletes. The study, specifically, also focused on the relations linking personal and interpersonal components of perfectionism to athletes’ competitive anxiety. The research overall relied on data from 644 Italian sport science students and professional athletes and included both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. Data analyses primarily focused on structural equation modeling, and the findings overall supported the psychometric and construct validity of the Italian version of the MIPS, also highlighting the key role of the personal components of perfectionism.
... This finding is in line with previous research in sport . Due to these complexities, once again, we reiterate calls for more studies examining perfectionistic concerns and performance (e.g., injury, and negative pre-competition emotions (Donachie, Hill, & Madigan, 2019;Madigan, Stoeber, Forsdyke, Dayson, & Passfield, 2018;Madigan, Stoeber, & Passfield, 2017). As such, further studies are required that also account for these complexities. ...
Article
Full-text available
Field tests are commonly used by sport scientists for performance monitoring and evaluation. While perfectionism predicts performance in a range of contexts, it is currently unclear whether perfectionism predicts performance in such tests. To address this lack of understanding, the present study examined the relationships between perfectionism and fitness-based field test performance across three athlete samples. After completing a measure of perfectionism (striving for perfection and negative reactions to imperfection), sample one (n = 129 student athletes) participated in a series of countermovement jumps and 20-metre sprint trials, sample two (n = 136 student athletes) participated in an agility task, and sample three (n = 116 junior athletes) participated in the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test (level one). Striving for perfection predicted better sprint and Yo-Yo test performance. Negative reactions to imperfection predicted worse sprint performance. Mini meta-analyses of the combined data (N = 381) showed that striving for perfection was positively related to performance (r+ = .24), but negative reactions to imperfection was unrelated to performance (r+ = -.05). The present findings indicate that striving for perfection may predict better fitness-based field test performance, while negative reactions to imperfection appears to be ambiguous.
Article
Full-text available
Context Most available data on athletic development training models focus on adult or professional athletes, where increasing workload capacity and performance is a primary goal. Development pathways in youth athletes generally emphasize multisport participation rather than sport specialization to optimize motor skill acquisition and to minimize injury risk. Other models emphasize the need for accumulation of sport- and skill-specific hours to develop elite-level status. Despite recommendations against sport specialization, many youth athletes still specialize and need guidance on training and competition. Medical and sport professionals also recommend progressive, gradual increases in workloads to enhance resilience to the demands of high-level competition. There is no accepted model of risk stratification and return to play for training a specialized youth athlete through periods of injury and maturation. In this review, we present individualized training models for specialized youth athletes that (1) prioritize performance for healthy, resilient youth athletes and (2) are adaptable through vulnerable maturational periods and injury. Evidence Acquisition Nonsystematic review with critical appraisal of existing literature. Study Design Clinical review. Level of Evidence Level 4. Results A number of factors must be considered when developing training programs for young athletes: (1) the effect of sport specialization on athlete development and injury, (2) biological maturation, (3) motor and coordination deficits in specialized youth athletes, and (4) workload progressions and response to load. Conclusion Load-sensitive athletes with multiple risk factors may need medical evaluation, frequent monitoring, and a program designed to restore local tissue and sport-specific capacity. Load-naive athletes, who are often skeletally immature, will likely benefit from serial monitoring and should train and compete with caution, while load-tolerant athletes may only need occasional monitoring and progress to optimum loads. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) B.
Article
Full-text available
Overuse injuries account for a substantial part of sport injury incidence among athletes of various sports and levels. Despite the gradual onset of symptoms, athletes often persevere in training and competing. The present exploratory study aimed to identify a psychological risk profile for overuse injury. One hundred and forty-nine athletes competing in various sports responded to a range of questionnaires measuring the following psychological variables: negative life stress, perfectionistic concerns, perfectionistic strivings, athletic identity, and the coach-athlete relationship. Participants subsequently answered the OSTRC Overuse Injury Questionnaire on a weekly basis during a 10-week period. Using a latent profile analysis, athletes were classified into three latent profiles regarding their psychological characteristics. Athletes in the second profile, characterized by a combination of high athletic identity, perfectionistic concerns and negative life stress and poor coach-athlete relationship, were found to be significantly more often affected by overuse injuries (74% of the time) than individuals in the two other profiles (52% and 48% of the time, respectively). In conclusion, psychological factors may contribute to the risk of overuse injuries through complex interactions (i.e. accounting for interdependencies within a specific configuration of variables) rather than through their independent influences.
Article
Sports-related injuries contribute to a considerable proportion of pediatric and adolescent craniofacial trauma, which can have severe and longstanding consequences on physical and mental health. The growing popularity of sports within this at-risk group warrants further characterization of such injuries in order to enhance management and prevention strategies. In this study, the authors summarized key trends in 1452 sports-related injuries among individuals aged 16 to 19 using the American College of Surgeon's Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from 2014 to 2016. The authors observed a preponderance of injuries associated with skateboarding, snowboarding, and skiing, with significantly higher percentages of traumatic brain injuries among skateboarding-related traumas. Notably, we observed that traumatic brain injurie rates were slightly higher among subjects who wore helmets. Intensive care unit durations and hospital stays appeared to vary by sport and craniofacial fracture. Altogether, this study contributes to the adolescent sports-related injuries and craniofacial trauma literature.
Article
Full-text available
This article deals with the issue of overtraining among elite adolescent athletes. The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between certain personality traits, as perfectionism, extraversion, neuroticism and other Big 5 traits and subjective perception of training load (which is one of the best indicator of overtraining syndrome). We also focused on the relationship between a perceived training difficulty and perceived training load too find out, if there is some kind of integral relationship. To collect data we used a questionnaire, which were given to adolescent elite athletes playing team sports in a mid-season period. The results show significant relationship between perceived training load and overall perfectionism (r=0.189, p<0.001), extraversion (r=-0.241, p<0.001), neuroticism (r=0.343, p<0.001) and consciousness (r=-0.287, p<0.001). After the closer examination we found an interesting relation between single dimension of perfectionism and perceived training load, suggesting the contribution of maladaptive perfectionism on development of overtraining syndrome. Besides that, we differentiated athletes into two groups, according to the level of perceived training difficulty. Those, who perceived training as difficult to exhausting (M=2,19, SD=0.50) were significantly higher than low to medium group (M=1.99, SD=0.47) in the perceived training load t(178)=-0.894, p=0.007. Those results extend our knowledge of overtraining topic and can be used in coaching practice to help identify athletes with higher risk of overtraining, or even prevent these states among young athletes before they occur. Hereby results suggest the importance of psychological aspects in sport preparation.
Research
Full-text available
The goal of my dissertation was to understand Sport Commitment Model and their relationships with psychological behavior and other motivational theories. The Sport Commitment Model distinguishes two types (Enthusiastic and Constrained Commitment) and seven possible source of commitment. Two data collection was conducted and a total of 860 adolescent athletes participated in the studies. During my research three scales were adapted (sport commitment questionnaire-2, sport enjoyment scale, athletic identity scale). I can conclude from my results that if the athletes are committed to a sport enthusiastically, they will participate because they enjoy it and they find opportunities in it, which encourage them to put more energy and effort into their sport and they also find their goals in the activity. From my sample, it turned out that, the enthusiastically committed athlete trains more, competes higher level and most of them are representative of a team sport. On the other hand, Constrained Commitment has a positive effect on sport participation, but also has negative effect on adolescent motivational attitude since alternatives play a big role in their commitment and it seems they are staying in sport for acknowledgment from others and they do not want to lose the effort and energy what they already put into their sport activity. The adolescent who feels obligation in their commitment does not train much and does not compete at a high level. My results also showed that higher sport commitment not only increased sport participation, but also it could affect the individual’s health psychology, hence their life goals and well-being. For example, my studies showed that subjective well-being, future orientation, perfectionism, aspirations, not only could be increased by regular physical activity, but also it seems that level of commitment is affecting psychological behavior as well. I believe my findings may help psychologists and coaches to facilitate adolescents engagement in sports activities since the beginning of their sports, as per the fact that it can have many beneficial effects on their health behavior.
Chapter
Full-text available
A large portion of research that has examined perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise has done so by examining the effects of dimensions of perfectionism separately and, in many cases, their unique effects. In this chapter, we describe this approach and provide a summary of research that has adopted it in sport, dance, and exercise. In reviewing research, particular attention is given to studies that have examined the relationship between perfectionism and athlete burnout. This is because, more so than other outcomes, there are ample studies on which to draw that have examined this relationship. In addition, these studies illustrate nicely the divergent processes associated with dimensions of perfectionism. We conclude by offering a caveat to this approach that centres on the ‘perils of partialling’ and the importance of viewing ‘pure’ dimensions of perfectionism as potentially distinct from their original counterparts.
Article
Full-text available
Background There is an established risk of injury to young athletes exposed to high training loads. Identifying and monitoring injury risk is essential to aid prevention. The aim of this study was to use the consensus statement to determine the incidence and pattern of injury in 1 English Premier League soccer academy during 1 season. Methods A prospective cohort study included 181 elite academy soccer players during the 2012–2013 season. Players were divided into 5 age groups between 9 and 18 years. The number, type and incidence of injuries were recorded during matches and training. Incidence was calculated per 1000 hours of exposure. Results 127 injuries occurred during 29 346 hours of soccer exposure. 72% of injuries were non-contact related. Under (U)18 players sustained the highest number of match injuries. U12–14 players sustained the highest number of training injuries and injuries overall. U16 players sustained the highest number of severe injuries, and U18 players sustained the highest number of moderate injuries. U18 players sustained the highest number of injuries/1000 hours of training and overall. U15 players sustained the highest number of injuries/1000 hours of matches, the highest number of recurrent injuries and the highest incidence of recurrence. The most common injuries were muscle injuries in U15 and U18 players. The most common injury location was the anterior thigh, with the majority of these occurring in training. Conclusions Using the consensus statement, this study used a repeatable method to identify the injury profile of elite academy-level soccer players.
Article
Full-text available
Background Several studies have suggested that psychosocial variables can increase the risk of becoming injured during sport participation. Objectives The main objectives of these meta-analyses were to examine (i) the effect sizes of relationships between the psychosocial variables (suggested as injury predictors in the model of stress and athletic injury) and injury rates, and (ii) the effects of psychological interventions aimed at reducing injury occurrence (prevention). Methods Electronic databases as well as specific sport and exercise psychology journals were searched. The literature review resulted in 48 published studies containing 161 effect sizes for injury prediction and seven effect sizes for injury prevention. Results The results showed that stress responses (r = 0.27, 80 % CI [0.20, 0.33]) and history of stressors (r = 0.13, 80 % CI [0.11, 0.15]) had the strongest associations with injury rates. Also, the results from the path analysis showed that the stress response mediated the relationship between history of stressors and injury rates. For injury prevention studies, all studies included (N = 7) showed decreased injury rates in the treatment groups compared to control groups. Conclusion The results support the model’s suggestion that psychosocial variables, as well as psychologically, based interventions, can influence injury risk among athletes.
Article
Objective: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the existence and the importance of the distinction between self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism in the Eating Disorder Inventory Perfectionism subscale (EDI-P). Method: Trait perfectionism, measured by the EDI-P, and eating disorder symptoms, measured by the 26-item Eating Attitudes Test, were examined in 220 university students (110 women and 110 men) belonging to a campus-based fitness facility. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that, for both genders, the EDI-P is best represented by a multidimensional factor structure with three self-oriented perfectionism items (EDI-SOP) and three socially prescribed perfectionism items (EDI-SPP). Structural equation modeling demonstrated that, for both genders, EDI-SOP and EDI-SPP are related independently to eating disorder symptoms. Moderational analysis indicated that, for women, the impact of EDI-SOP on eating disorder symptoms is dependent on the level of EDI-SPP. Discussion: It is suggested that future research should acknowledge the empirical and theoretical implications of having EDI-SOP and EDI-SPP in the EDI-P. It is cautioned that EDI-SOP and EDI-SPP are a partial representation of an already published multidimensional model of trait perfectionism.
Article
This study of community adults compared the relative predictive value of specific perfectionism components in predicting daily stress, coping, and affect in the short- and long-term. Participants completed several measures of higher-order dimensions of personal standards perfectionism (PSP) and self-critical perfectionism (SCP) at Time 1, including the Blatt, D’Afflitti, and Quinlan (1976) Depressive Experiences Questionnaire, the Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, the Hewitt and Flett (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and the Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, and Ashby (2001) revised Almost Perfect Scale. Then, six months and three years later, participants completed daily questionnaires of stress, coping, and negative affect for 14 consecutive days. Correlational and multiple regression analyses showed that the DEQ self-criticism measure of SCP uniquely predicted aggregated daily event stress and negative affect at Month 6 and Year 3, whereas the FMPS concern over mistakes measure of SCP uniquely predicted negative social interactions and HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism measure of SCP uniquely predicted avoidant coping. The APS-R high standards measure of PSP uniquely predicted problem-focused coping at Month 6 and Year 3. These findings demonstrate the differential predictive value of specific perfectionism components in prospectively predicting various aspects of daily psychosocial (mal)adjustment.
Article
According to the two-factor theory of perfectionism (Stoeber & Otto, 2006), perfectionism comprises two superordinate dimensions—perfectionistic strivings (PS) and perfectionistic concerns (PC)—that show different, and often opposite, relations with psychological adjustment and maladjustment, particularly when their overlap is partialled out. Recently, Hill (2014) raised concerns about the interpretation of the relations that PS show after partialling. The present article aims to alleviate these concerns. First, we address the concern that partialling changes the conceptual meaning of PS. Second, we explain how the relations of residual PS (i.e., PS with PC partialled out) differ from those of PS, and how to interpret these differences. In this, we also discuss suppressor effects and how mutual suppression affects the relations of both PS and PC with outcomes. Furthermore, we provide recommendations of how to report and interpret findings of analyses partialling out the effects of PS and PC. We conclude that, if properly understood and reported, there is nothing to be concerned about when partialling PS and PC. On the contrary, partialling is essential if we want to understand the shared, unique, combined, and interactive relations of the different dimensions of perfectionism.
Article
Objectives and method: The Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport (MIPS; Stoeber, Otto, & Stoll, 2006) is a commonly used measure of perfectionism in sport. However, there is limited empirical evidence supporting its subscale structure and composition. Therefore, the present study investigated the factor structure of the MIPS in a sample of 470 athletes (mean age 20.0 years). Results: Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the data supported the hypothesized four-factor structure of the MIPS, differentiating: striving for perfection, negative reactions to imperfection, parental pressure to be perfect, and coach pressure to be perfect. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the MIPS has acceptable factorial validity and therefore may be a useful measure to explore individual differences in perfectionism in sport.