4.0 Article

Results of a Survey on Evidence-Based Sport Psychology Practice in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland

期刊

ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SPORTPSYCHOLOGIE
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 13-18

出版社

HOGREFE VERLAG
DOI: 10.1026/1612-5010/a000343

关键词

evidence-based practice; survey; German-speaking countries; sport psychological practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This survey examines the implementation, attitudes, skills, and suggestions for improvement of evidence-based practice (EBP) among sports psychologists in the German-speaking countries (D-A-CH). The results indicate that participants have positive attitudes towards EBP and possess higher skills in sharing and applying EBP. However, they perceive their own implementation and techniques for retrieving and reviewing evidence as areas for improvement. Lack of time is identified as a possible reason for low implementation. Practitioners suggest improved access to current literature, intervision groups, clear guidelines, and more practice-based research to better integrate EBP into their practice.
The present survey determines the implementation, attitudes, skills, and suggestions for improvement toward evidence-based practice (EBP) of sports psychologists working in the German-speaking countries (D-A-CH). To this end, 181 participants completed a translated and adapted version of the Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire (Upton & Upton, 2006) online (X-age =42.19, SD=1.09, n(woman) =80, n(men) =95). They reported more positive attitudes toward EBP and higher skills in sharing and applying EBP than they rated their own implementation and techniques for retrieving and reviewing evidence. Possible reasons for low implementation such as lack of time were identified. To better integrate EBP into their practice. the practitioners suggested improved access to current literature and intervision groups as well as clear guidelines and more practice-based research. These suggestions can serve as a guide for organizations and researchers to support the implementation of EBP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据