An examination of hardiness throughout the sport injury process

Abstract

Objectives. This primary objective of the study was to examine the direct and moderating effects of hardiness on the prediction of sport injury, and the direct and indirect effects of hardiness on athletes’ responses to injury.Design. This study employed a longitudinal methodological design. Specifically, the injury status of 694 asymptomatic participants was monitored for 2 years. From the original sample, 104 athletes subsequently became injured and then completed a number of questionnaires throughout their recovery.Methods. Logistic regression, Pearson product‐moment correlation and Preacher and Hayes's (2008) bootstrapping procedure were used to analyse the data.Results. Findings revealed a direct and moderating effect of hardiness on the prediction of injury. Hardiness was also found to positively correlate with desirable, and negatively correlate with undesirable post‐injury psychological responses and coping strategies throughout recovery. Finally, problem‐focused coping was found to mediate certain effects of hardiness on injured athletes’ psychological responses.Conclusions. These findings have important implications for practitioners who have a vested interest in the health and well‐being of those who participate in sport and exercise in terms of minimizing rates of injury occurrence and/or facilitating recovery from injury.

Perfectionism predicts injury in junior athletes: Preliminary evidence from a prospective study

“…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 contributing 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).…”

Effect of Dispositional Optimism before and after Injury

“…Consistent with Williams and Andersen's (42) model and associated research (25,32), findings revealed that as major life events (i.e., total and negative) and the number of previous injuries increased, the likelihood of injury also increased. Wadey et al (39) recently suggested that one possible explanation for the effect of major life events on injury occurrence is that these events ofien require a substantial amount of physiological, psychological, and behavioral readjustment, which, in line with Williams and Andersen's model, may have the potential to exacerbate the stress response and as a result the likelihood of injury. In terms of the effect of previous injuries, Williams two explanations as to why this preinjury variable increases the likelihood of injury.…”

“…The number of injuries sustained by the participants served as the outcome variable for the prediction of injury occurrence (39). An injury was defined as a medical problem resulting from sport participation that prevented normal training and competition for a minimum period of 2 wk.…”

“…In relation to Williams and Andersen's model, researchers have examined the direct and moderating effects of the psychosocial variables proposed to indirectly affect one's susceptibility to injury. Specifically, scholars have observed a positive relationship between history of Stressors (i.e., negative major life events and previous injuries) and injury occurrence (18,25), with certain personality traits and coping resources moderating the strength of this relationship (32,39). In terms of postinjury responses and in line with the integrated model of Wiese-Bjomstal et al, researchers have also observed preinjury (e.g., major life events and hardiness) and postinjury variables (e.g., emotional climate and injury severity) to affect athletes' responses to injury (2,26,39).…”

“…Specifically, scholars have observed a positive relationship between history of Stressors (i.e., negative major life events and previous injuries) and injury occurrence (18,25), with certain personality traits and coping resources moderating the strength of this relationship (32,39). In terms of postinjury responses and in line with the integrated model of Wiese-Bjomstal et al, researchers have also observed preinjury (e.g., major life events and hardiness) and postinjury variables (e.g., emotional climate and injury severity) to affect athletes' responses to injury (2,26,39). Ftxrther, injured athletes' cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses have been found to change over time, from injury onset, throughout rehabilitation, and subsequent return to competitive sport (12,19).…”