Abstract
The Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Scale (I-PRRS) is a brief, six-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess an athlete’s state-specific self-efficacy and psychological preparedness to re-enter athletic competition and training following a musculoskeletal or athletic injury. Developed by Douglas D. Glazer in 2009, the scale directly addresses an enduring clinical challenge in sports medicine and sport psychology: the divergence between an athlete’s physiological clearance and their cognitive-affective readiness to perform. Historically, sports medicine practitioners relied on broad personality assessments or trait-level sport confidence inventories, such as the Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory, which fail to capture the transient, situational anxieties and confidence deficits triggered by severe injury. The I-PRRS bridges this diagnostic divide by conceptualizing psychological readiness as an evolving, multidimensional state rather than a static psychological trait.
The instrument comprises six core items evaluated on a 100-point visual analogue or numeric rating format segmented into 10-point increments (ranging from 0 = ‘No confidence’ to 100 = ‘Utmost confidence’). Total scores are derived by summing all six item ratings and dividing by 10, producing an overall scale score between 0 and 60. Established clinical cut-offs categorize scores of 60 as reflecting utmost confidence, scores around 40 representing moderate confidence with remaining hesitations, and scores of 20 or below indicating severe psychological distress, apprehension, and an elevated risk for premature athletic re-entry. Initial psychometric validation was conducted using a sample of collegiate varsity athletes from NCAA Division II and III institutions across four longitudinal rehabilitation phases. Psychometric evaluations demonstrated robust content validity via a three-round Delphi consensus methodology (yielding Aiken’s V coefficients from 0.79 to 1.00) and substantial concurrent validity through statistically significant inverse correlations with the Profile of Mood States (POMS) Total Mood Disturbance subscale. The I-PRRS provides athletic trainers, physical therapists, and sport psychologists with an empirically validated, rapidly administered clinical metric to prevent compensatory reinjury and optimize athletic transitions.
Keywords
athletic injury, sport psychology, self-efficacy, return to sport, psychological readiness, confidence, rehabilitation, reinjury anxiety, athletic training, psychometrics, clinical assessment, sports medicine
Authors
The Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Scale was developed and empirically validated by Douglas D. Glazer, MS, ATC, CSCS. At the time of the instrument’s development and publication, Glazer was affiliated with the Department of Sports Science at Endicott College in Beverly, Massachusetts, United States. In addition to his faculty appointment, Glazer functioned as a certified athletic trainer (ATC) with extensive experience in the clinical rehabilitation and sports conditioning of collegiate student-athletes. Inquiries regarding the original scale development and psychometric inquiries can be directed to the author at [email protected].
Purpose
The primary clinical and academic objective of the Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Scale (I-PRRS) is to quantify an athlete’s subjective psychological readiness to safely resume competitive athletic participation following an injury. In modern orthopedic rehabilitation and sports medicine, objective physical criteria—such as bilateral limb symmetry indices, range of motion, manual muscle testing, electromyographic balance, and functional movement screens—serve as standard benchmarks for medical discharge. However, sports medicine practitioners have long observed that physiological healing does not uniformly correspond with cognitive-emotional readiness. Athletes who achieve full anatomical clearance frequently harbor underlying kinesiophobia (fear of movement or reinjury), catastrophic expectations, and a profound loss of self-confidence in their injured body parts.
Premature return to sport driven solely by physical benchmarks can lead to catastrophic consequences. Athletes experiencing psychological unpreparedness often demonstrate altered biomechanics, guarding patterns, avoidance behaviors, and muscle bracing, all of which substantially amplify the risk of secondary or compensatory injuries. Concurrently, pervasive cognitive disruption, divided attentional focus, and heightened somatic anxiety impair athletic performance, often triggering acute performance crises and depressive mood states. Prior to the introduction of the I-PRRS, clinicians had limited access to validated, time-efficient tools capable of identifying these cognitive deficits. Existing psychometric instruments in sports psychology primarily measured trait-like sport confidence (e.g., the Sport Confidence Questionnaire) or generalized affective states, which were insensitive to the dynamic, day-to-day fluctuations characteristic of late-stage orthopedic rehabilitation.
The I-PRRS fulfills this critical diagnostic need by providing a standardized, six-item state scale that can be administered in less than two minutes. The instrument offers athletic trainers, physical therapists, and team physicians actionable, objective data to guide shared decision-making regarding return-to-play timelines. In research contexts, the scale functions as an indispensable outcome measure for clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of psychological interventions—such as mental imagery, cognitive restructuring, biofeedback, and graded exposure therapy—in facilitating athletic rehabilitation.
Psychological Construct
The central construct evaluated by the I-PRRS is injury-related psychological readiness, defined within this framework as an athlete’s state-specific cognitive confidence and self-efficacy regarding their capacity to resume sport-specific activities, practices, and high-intensity competitions without debilitating apprehension or functional compromise. Rather than conceiving confidence as a fixed dispositional trait, the I-PRRS operationalizes psychological readiness as a dynamic, situation-dependent construct that evolves longitudinally throughout the stages of injury, acute care, formal physical therapy, sport-specific functional progression, and competitive re-entry.
Although the scale is structurally unidimensional, the operationalized construct encompasses six distinct yet interrelated cognitive-affective facets:
- Global Participation Confidence: The athlete’s overarching subjective assessment of readiness to step back into the competitive arena, reflecting an integration of physical, cognitive, and tactical preparedness.
- Pain and Functional Efficacy: The cognitive appraisal that one can perform sport tasks without experiencing debilitating physical pain or having performance derailed by somatic symptoms.
- Somatic Structural Trust: The extent to which the athlete trusts the structural integrity and resilience of the injured body part (e.g., knee ligament, shoulder joint, hamstring) under high-velocity athletic loading.
- Capacity for Maximal Effort: The psychological willingness to exert 100% effort without subconsciously holding back, guarding, or exhibiting inhibitory motor patterns.
- Attentional Freedom from Injury Preoccupation: The ability to maintain complete task-relevant focus on tactical game demands, external cues, and opponents, without intrusive thoughts, hypervigilance, or obsessive monitoring of the injured site.
- Pre-Injury Skill Benchmark Efficacy: The athlete’s confidence in their ability to execute complex, sport-specific motor skills at a standard comparable to their pre-injury athletic baseline.
By capturing these specific cognitive evaluations, the I-PRRS isolates the focal psychological barriers that impede a seamless return to play, distinguishing genuine athletic preparedness from superficial compliance or bravado.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical architecture of the I-PRRS is grounded primarily in Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy Framework (Bandura, 1977, 1997). According to Bandura, self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments. Bandura emphasized that self-efficacy beliefs are domain-specific and context-dependent rather than global. In athletic injury rehabilitation, an athlete may maintain elevated global self-esteem or baseline trait confidence while simultaneously experiencing severely depressed task-specific self-efficacy regarding explosive acceleration, physical collisions, or pivoting on a surgically reconstructed joint.
Bandura posited that self-efficacy is cultivated through four primary informational sources: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective states. The I-PRRS evaluates the cognitive integration of these sources during the final phases of rehabilitation:
- Mastery Experiences: As athletes successfully complete progressive functional progressions (e.g., straight-line running, non-contact drills, full-contact practice), their mastery experiences directly heighten the cognitive appraisals captured by the I-PRRS items.
- Physiological and Affective States: Athletes interpret autonomic arousal, residual muscle soreness, and joint stiffness as markers of vulnerability. When somatic symptoms are cognitively appraised as indications of impending failure or reinjury, self-efficacy declines. The I-PRRS directly captures this affective interplay by evaluating fear of pain and somatic preoccupation.
In addition to Bandura’s theory, the I-PRRS is informed by the Integrated Model of Psychological Response to the Sport Injury and Rehabilitation Process developed by Wiese-Bjornstal, Smith, and LaMott (1995). This model conceptualizes the injury trajectory through a continuous cycle of cognitive appraisals, emotional responses, and behavioral outcomes. Cognitive appraisals of injury severity and coping resources directly influence emotional responses (e.g., depression, anxiety, mood disturbance), which subsequently dictate behavioral adherence to rehabilitation and readiness to return to play. The I-PRRS serves as a direct psychometric metric of the cognitive appraisal component within this dynamic model.
Validity
The psychometric validity of the I-PRRS was systematically established through content, concurrent, and external validation procedures outlined in Glazer’s (2009) foundational validation study.
Content Validity
Content validity was evaluated using a rigorous, three-round modified Delphi technique. An expert panel consisting of certified athletic trainers and collegiate varsity head coaches reviewed an initial pool of 22 prospective items. Panelists evaluated each item on its relevance, clarity, and representativeness regarding psychological readiness to return to play. Following successive rounds of iterative refinement and elimination, the scale was reduced to six core items. Content relevance was quantified using Aiken’s (1985) V coefficient. All six retained items demonstrated high content validity, with Aiken’s V values ranging from 0.79 to 1.00, exceeding standard psychometric thresholds for affective test development.
Concurrent and Convergent Validity
Concurrent validity was examined by correlating athlete I-PRRS scores with the Profile of Mood States (POMS) short form across four distinct temporal stages of rehabilitation: (1) immediately post-injury (within 24–48 hours), (2) mid-rehabilitation, (3) immediately prior to returning to athletic practice, and (4) immediately prior to returning to full competition. In accordance with theoretical hypotheses derived from the Wiese-Bjornstal et al. (1995) model, the I-PRRS demonstrated statistically significant, inverse relationships with the POMS Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) score across recovery phases. As athletic self-efficacy and psychological readiness increased, mood disturbance systematically diminished.
Criterion and External Validity
External criterion-related validity was corroborated by administering a parallel, clinician-rated version of the I-PRRS to the certified athletic trainers overseeing the rehabilitation of the injured athletes. Significant positive correlations were observed between athlete self-ratings and the athletic trainers’ objective clinical assessments of readiness across the rehabilitation timeline. This concordance indicates that the internal cognitive appraisals measured by the self-report instrument manifest in observable functional behaviors recognizable to experienced sports medicine clinicians.
Reliability
In the original 2009 validation study, traditional internal consistency coefficients (such as Cronbach’s alpha or McDonald’s omega) were not formally reported due to the sample size of the initial cohort (N = 22 collegiate athletes). However, the scale demonstrated substantial construct stability and predictable longitudinal sensitivity across the four rehabilitation measurement points. The psychometric profile of the I-PRRS is characterized by high sensitivity to clinical change:
- Longitudinal Sensitivity: Mean I-PRRS scores exhibited a predictable clinical trajectory, reaching their lowest point immediately following injury onset, gradually increasing during mid-rehabilitation, and peaking prior to full return to competition. This systematic variation confirms the instrument’s utility as a dynamic state measure rather than an invariant trait scale.
- Parallel-Form / Inter-Rater Concordance: The high level of correlation between the athlete’s self-administered I-PRRS and the athletic trainer’s parallel observational rating provides strong evidence of measurement reliability across independent evaluative modalities.
Subsequent investigations in athletic training literature have supported the internal consistency of the scale, routinely finding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.85 when evaluated in larger cohorts of rehabilitating athletes, thereby verifying the internal homogeneity of the six items.
Factor Analysis
The original structural validation by Glazer (2009) relied on expert consensus and content-relevance statistics rather than exploratory factor analysis (EFA) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), primarily due to the focused, brief nature of the tool and the initial validation sample size. The instrument was conceptualized and implemented as a strictly unidimensional scale representing a single latent construct: state psychological readiness to return to athletic participation.
In subsequent independent psychometric evaluations of return-to-sport confidence tools, structural equation modeling and principal component analyses on similar six-item unidimensional architectures have confirmed a robust single-factor solution. The six items load heavily onto the primary general factor of return-to-sport self-efficacy, with factor loadings consistently exceeding 0.70. Model fit indices in contemporary factor-analytic follow-up studies typically meet standard structural benchmarks:
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): > 0.95
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): > 0.93
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): < 0.08
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): < 0.05
Because all six items converge on a single underlying factor, calculating subscale scores is unnecessary, and the aggregate composite score represents a statistically sound index of the latent readiness construct.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Test Type: Self-administered psychological rating scale (includes a matching clinician-report variant for athletic trainers and physical therapists).
- Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital clinical survey.
- Target Population: Competitive, recreational, and collegiate athletes recovering from musculoskeletal injury.
- Age Group: Adolescents and adults (validated originally on collegiate athletes aged 18–22 years).
- Item Count: 6 items.
- Response Scale: 0 to 100 continuous numeric or visual analogue scale in intervals of 10 (0 = ‘No confidence’, 50 = ‘Moderate confidence’, 100 = ‘Utmost confidence’).
- Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 3 minutes.
- Scoring Protocol: Sum the numerical ratings of all 6 items (raw range: 0 to 600) and divide the aggregate sum by 10. The resulting total score ranges from 0 to 60.
- Clinical Interpretation Benchmarks:
- Score of 60: Utmost psychological readiness and complete confidence in return to full, unrestricted athletic participation.
- Score of 40: Moderate psychological readiness; the athlete possesses emerging confidence but exhibits residual cognitive hesitation or guarding that may require ongoing psychological monitoring.
- Score of 20 or below: Severely compromised psychological readiness; high reinjury apprehension, marked lack of somatic confidence, and elevated risk of psychological distress upon physical re-entry. Postponement of full competition or structured psychological intervention is clinically indicated.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Scale was published in 2009 in the Journal of Athletic Training, the official peer-reviewed scientific journal of the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA). The scale was developed for open academic and clinical application to advance athletic rehabilitation practices.
While the conceptual model, scoring guidelines, and psychometric validation data are published in the open scientific literature, clinicians, researchers, and sports organizations seeking to implement the official proprietary scoring forms or integrate the instrument into digital electronic medical record (EMR) platforms should review the licensing terms of the original journal publication (DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-44.2.185) or contact the author, Dr. Douglas D. Glazer, directly at Endicott College ([email protected]). The tool is generally made accessible free of charge for non-commercial academic research and individual clinical rehabilitation monitoring.
References
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Andersen, M. B., & Williams, J. M. (1988). A model of stress and athletic injury: Prediction and prevention. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.10.3.294
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Brewer, B. W. (2001). Psychology of sport rehabilitation. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 787–809). John Wiley & Sons.
Dunn, J. G. H., Bouffard, M., & Rogers, W. T. (1999). Assessing item content-relevance in sport psychology scale-construction research: Issues and recommendations. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 3(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327841mpee0301_2
Feltz, D. L. (1988). Self-confidence and sports performance. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 16(1), 423–458. https://doi.org/10.1249/00003677-198800160-00016
Glazer, D. D. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Scale. Journal of Athletic Training, 44(2), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-44.2.185
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1992). Manual for the Profile of Mood States (POMS) (Rev. ed.). Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Udry, E., & Andersen, M. B. (2002). Athletic injury and sport behavior. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 529–553). Human Kinetics.
Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.8.3.221
Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., Smith, A. M., & LaMott, E. E. (1995). A model of psychologic response to athletic injury and rehabilitation. Athletic Training: Sports Health Care Perspectives, 11(1), 17–30.