Psychometric study validates psychological readiness scale for young football players recovering from serious injury, indicating psychological factors influence return to sport.
This study aimed to develop and validate a culturally adapted instrument—the Psychological Readiness Scale after Serious Injury (PRS-SI)—for assessing the psychological readiness of young football players to return to sport following a serious injury. A total of 265 male football players aged 17–25 from Mashhad, Iran, who had sustained at least one serious sports injury requiring a minimum of three months of recovery, participated in this psychometric study. The PRS-SI was constructed by integrating key elements from two established tools: the Psychological Readiness of Injured Athlete to Return to Sport (PRIA-RS), tailored to football contexts, and the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI), which focuses on emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), the measurement model demonstrated strong internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and an excellent model fit. The final 21-item scale included four components: post-traumatic readiness, emotions, risk assessment, and confidence in performance. Structural analysis revealed that all four dimensions significantly and positively contribute to psychological readiness (R² = 0.99), with self-confidence in performance being the strongest predictor. The results underscore the importance of addressing emotional, cognitive, and confidence-related factors in rehabilitation, beyond physical recovery alone. The PRS-SI offers a reliable, valid, and contextually appropriate tool for evaluating athletes’ psychological states post-injury and can assist clinical decisions, psychological interventions, and return-to-sport protocols. Its application may enhance individualized rehabilitation strategies and promote safer, more effective returns to competition among young athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hofmeister et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: