Search

Background: Emerging evidence indicates that the provision or experience of "variety" may be an important determinant of physical activity behavior. Variety refers to diverse endeavors, opportunities, or tasks and, in the context of physical activity, has been examined as a feature of an activity or environment (i.e., variety support) and an experience (i.e., one's felt experience or perceived variety)., Objective: The primary aim of our review was to synthesize studies investigating the provision or experience of variety in physical activity settings on health and well-being, behaviors, and motivation. Our secondary aim was to examine quantitative data reporting on different facets of variety in physical activity settings., Methods: We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases (Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Science Direct, MEDLINE, and the Human Kinetics Library) to identify studies providing a quantitative or qualitative assessment of variety in physical activity settings., Results: We identified 5,576 potentially relevant articles to examine. After title and abstract screening (and removal of duplicates), 74 articles remained for full-text screening, from which 28 studies were deemed eligible. Our findings from qualitative and quantitative (experimental and cross-sectional) studies demonstrate that the provision and experience of variety relates to participation and engagement in physical activity, motivation for exercise and physical activity, and well-being outcomes. Our results also indicate that the provision of variety can increase enjoyment, interest (i.e., motivation), and adherence to a physical activity program., Conclusion: Our findings support the assertion that variety should be considered during planning, implementation, and evaluation of physical activity programs. Additional experimental studies are needed to gain a better understanding of how elements of physical activity and exercise programs, delivery, and environment can be manipulated to increase variety and foster participation in physical activity.

Introduction: Two parallel versions (A and B) of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) were developed in the United Kingdom (UK) as a stroke-specific screen of five key cognitive domains commonly affected post-stroke. We aimed to develop the Australian versions A and B (OCS-AU), including Australian cut-scores indicative of impairment. We hypothesised there to be no difference in performance between the UK and Australian normative data cohorts., Methods: Our multidisciplinary expert panel used the UK pre-defined process to develop the OCS-AU versions A and B. We then conducted a cross-sectional normative study. We purposively recruited community-dwelling, Australian-born, and educated adults; with no known cognitive impairment; representative of age, sex, education level, and living location; at seven sites (four metropolitan, three regional) across four Australian states. Participants completed one or both OCS-AU versions in a randomised order. Australian cohorts were compared with the corresponding UK cohorts for demographics using Pearson's chi-squared test for sex and education, and Welch two-sample t test for age. For the cut-scores indicating cognitive impairment, the fifth (95th) percentiles and group mean performance score for each scored item were compared using Welch two-sample t tests. The pre-defined criteria for retaining OCS cut-scores had no statistically significant difference in either percentile or group mean scores for each scored item., Results: Participants (n = 83) were recruited: fifty-eight completed version A [age (years) mean = 61,SD = 15; 62% female], 60 completed version B [age (years) mean = 62,SD = 13, 53% female], and 35 completed both [age (years) mean = 64,SD = 11, 54% female]. Education was different between the cohorts for version B (12 years, p = 0.002). Cut-scores for all 16 scored items for the OCS-AU version B and 15/16 for version A met our pre-defined criteria for retaining the OCS cut scores., Conclusions: The OCS-AU provides clinicians with an Australian-specific, first-line cognitive screening tool for people after stroke. Early screening can guide treatment and management., (© 2022 The Authors. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Occupational Therapy Australia.)

Although there are few high-profile cases of adolescent athletes being caught doping, up to a third of young athletes may dope. In order to generate a more accurate understanding of why adolescent athletes dope, it is important to validate models that help to explain this behavior. The aims of this study were 3-fold: firstly, to test the Sport Drug Control Model for Adolescent Athletes (SDCM-AA); secondly, to generate athlete profiles that would help quantify the proportion of athletes who are at risk of doping; and thirdly, to create norm values for the Adolescent Sport Doping Inventory (ASDI), which would allow national doping organizations, sporting organizations, and clubs to benchmark the scores of their athletes for key psycho-social variables linked to doping. A total of 2208 adolescent athletes from the United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States completed the ASDI. The data presented an appropriate fit to the SDCM-AA model, in which 54% of the variance in susceptibility to doping was explained in the model, and 44.8% of attitudes toward doping was accounted for. Four distinct clusters of athletes emerged: the Susceptibles (i.e., identified with the benefits of doping, were willing to cheat, and viewed little threat), the Chancers (i.e., identified with the benefits of doping, scored high on willingness to cheat, and were highly influenced by their reference group, but had an average score for threat, self-esteem, and legitimacy), the Pragmatists (i.e., did not engage with any aspects of doping, but were more susceptible than the fair players), and Fair Players (i.e., high levels of sportspersonship, unwilling to cheat, and viewed doping as a threat). The revised SDCM-AA appears a valid model that helps explain the factors associated with doping attitudes and doping susceptibility. Adolescent athletes can be classified into one of four clusters, in relation to doping. Their cluster group could influence the content of the anti-doping education they receive., (Copyright © 2020 Nicholls, Levy, Meir, Sanctuary, Jones, Baghurst, Thompson and Perry.)

A significant barrier to understanding the psychosocial antecedents of doping use among adolescent athletes is the lack of valid measures. In order to address this issue, the first aim of this paper was to develop and validate the Adolescent Sport Drug Inventory (ASDI) among adolescent athletes from Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania. The second aim was to assess the construct validity of the ASDI. As such, this paper is divided into two parts. Part 1 relates to the development of the ASDI and contains two studies: item development (Study 1) and factorial validity (Study 2). Part 2 contains information on how the psychosocial variables measured in the ASDI are associated with situational temptation, and honesty (Study 3), maturation (Study 4), stress and coping (Study 5), and coaching (Study 6). In devising the ASDI, 19 different models were examined, which culminated in a 9-factor, 43-item ASDI. Coping, mastery-approach goals, and cognitive-social maturity were associated with doping attitudes. Caring motivational climates, strong coach-athlete relationships, and positive coach behaviors were associated with athletes being less susceptible toward doping, which provides construct validity for the ASDI. The ASDI is a valid tool to assess the psychosocial factors associated with doping among adolescent athletes. This questionnaire can be used to identify athletes who are the most at risk of doping, assess how the psychosocial factors associated with doping change over time, and to monitor the impact of antidoping interventions for adolescent athletes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Aim: We conducted two studies that examined different models, which included mental toughness and psychological constructs that have been found to be related to this construct., Methods: In Study 1, 531 athletes completed measures of mental toughness, resilience, and emotional intelligence. In Study 2, 522 athletes completed measures of mental toughness, sport motivation, and self-efficacy., Results: There were positive paths between the constructs in the model, which were mediated by mental toughness in Study 1. Further, there was a positive path between mental toughness and self-efficacy, but negative paths with introjected regulation and amotivation in Study 2., Conclusion: This two study paper suggests that it might also be the presence of constructs such as resilience, emotional intelligence, motivation, and/or self-efficacy that enable mentally tough individuals to excel under stressful circumstances rather than just coping.