No abstract

This study aimed to explain how injured athletes high in hardiness experienced stress-related growth (SRG) and why athletes low in hardiness are less likely to derive such benefits. Twenty participants were theoretically sampled into high (N=10) and low (N=10) hardiness groups. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. Findings revealed that athletes high in hardiness experienced SRG from having an emotional outlet, which enabled them to reframe their injury and experience positive affect. In contrast, athletes low in hardiness had no emotional outlet, which led to sub-optimal outcomes. These findings have important implications for practitioners working with injured athletes.

1This study examined the relationship between hardiness, coping and perceived stress-related 2 growth (SRG) in a sport injury context. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, a cross-3 sectional design was employed, whereby 206 previously injured athletes (148 male, 58 4 female, M age = 22.23 years) who had recently returned to sport completed three 5 questionnaires: Dispositional Resilience Scale, Stress-Related Growth Scale, and Brief 6 COPE. Pearson product-moment correlations and Preacher's and Hayes's (2008) 7bootstrapping procedure were used to analyze the data. Findings revealed a significant 8 positive relationship between hardiness and perceived SRG (r = .36; p < .05). Two coping 9 strategies were found to mediate this relationship (i.e., emotional support and positive 10 reframing). That is, the reason why athletes higher in hardiness had higher SRG scores is 11 because they reported greater use of their social support for emotional reasons (e.g., moral 12 support, sympathy or understanding) and were able to construe their injury in positive terms. 13 These findings support some of the central tenets of Joseph and Linley's (2005) organismic 14 valuing theory and provides implications for professional practice. Future researchers should 15 embrace qualitative inquiry to enhance the interpretability and meaningfulness of these 16 findings (e.g., interpretative phenomenological analysis, narrative analysis), and use a 17 prospective, longitudinal pre-to-post sport injury design to further substantiate them.18 19

Background: We aimed to determine if a shock absorbing pylon (SAP) influenced the ground reaction force characteristics and the shock absorbing mechanisms compared to a rigid pylon (Rigid) during the loading phase in running. Objectives: To determine if the SAP influences the mechanisms of loading compared to the Rigid condition. Study Design: A convenience sample of transtibial amputees participated in a laboratory-based study. The prosthetic set-up was randomly altered fd\sdsd. Methods: Five recreationally active male transtibial amputees age: 18-50 years; mean mass: 86.7 ± 17.5 kg; height: 1.77 ± 0.07 m) volunteered from a population-based sample. They completed a within-participant-designed study assessing a SAP and a Rigid condition during running. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during two sessions following a one-week customization period. Results: Loading rate, peak vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces and the time to each measure along with knee and hip angular displacement, absorbing powers and work done between the SAP and Rigid conditions were not systematically affected by the prosthetic condition. Conclusions: The effect of the SAP was minimal and inconsistent in the loading phase, with only some amputees presenting higher and others with lower values for the tested variables. Clinical relevanceThe inclusion of a prosthetic shock absorber in the form of a SAP did not systematically alter the kinetic characteristics or shock absorbing mechanisms of the residual joints. It appears that the prescription of a SAP is not justified for these recreationally active amputees.