Cited by 94Sports Performance and TrainingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Athlete-reported outcome measures for monitoring training responses: A systematic review of risk of bias and measurement property quality according to the COSMIN guidelines

Jeffries, Annie C., Wallace, Lee, Coutts, Aaron J., McLaren, Shaun J., McCall, Alan, Impellizzeri, Franco M.·2020·International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Athlete-reported outcome measures (AROMs) are frequently used in research and practice but no studies have examined their psychometric properties. OBJECTIVES: Part 1-identify the most commonly used AROMs in sport for monitoring training responses; part 2-assess risk of bias, measurement properties, and level of evidence, based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Methodological quality of the studies, quality of measurement properties, and level of evidence were determined using the COSMIN checklist and criteria. RESULTS: Part 1-from 9446 articles screened for title and abstract, 310 out of 334 full texts were included; 53.9% of the AROMs contained multiple items, while 46.1% contained single items. Part 2-from 1895 articles screened for title and abstract, 71 were selected. Most measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs were adequate, but content validity and measurement error were inadequate. With the exclusion of 2 studies examining reliability and responsiveness, no validity studies were found for single items. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs derived from psychometrics were acceptable (with the exclusion of content validity and measurement error). The single-item AROMs most frequently used in sport science have not been validated. Additionally, nonvalidated modified versions of the originally nonvalidated items are common. Until proper validation studies are completed, all conclusions based on these AROMs are questionable. Established reference methods, such as those of clinimetrics, should be used to develop and assess the validity of AROMs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0386

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeffries, A. C., Wallace, L., Coutts, A. J., McLaren, S. J., McCall, A., & Impellizzeri, F. M.
Venue
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Published
2020-10-01
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
1203-1215
ISSN
  • 1555-0265 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-0273
OpenAlex
W3087156594
Cited by
94
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
psychometric properties, COSMIN guidelines, risk of bias, measurement properties, content validity, measurement error, single-item questionnaire, reliability statistics, responsiveness, clinimetrics, sports science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review