The Athletic Identity Measurement Scale: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis from 1993 to 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a systematic review about studies analyzing Athtletic Identity which have used AIMS to measure this construct.

While the work makes an interesting and valuable contribution to the existing literature, there are some aspects which should be improved.

 

Introduction

Information regarding the construct under study (athletic identity) is missing. While the authors nicely describe he development of the measurement, a strong rationale on the relevance of athletic identity as a construct worthy to explore is missing. I think a general overview of the construct (e.g., why is it studied? What do we know about it? Are there any relevant evidence-based implications from previous studies?...) should be provided before describing the AIMS.  

Secondly, since one of the aims in the review is to gain some understanding on the subscales correlates, a rationale to do this is also expected. What are the limitations of exploring athletic identity as a unidimensional construct? How would contribute to the current knowledge to examine the different dimensions? Can the authors hypothesize what can be found if exploring athletic identity as a multidimensional construct?)

Lastly, the paragraph about the present study should align with the aims presented in the abstract. In the abstract the authors state:

“This quantitative 13 review examined three questions: (1) whether competitive level moderates the AIMS, (2) whether 14 correlate relationships differ with the AIMS, and (3) whether the AIMS subscales within the first 15 two questions are of value.”

However, in the last part of the introduction, the authors present the aims in the following way:

Hence, we sought 124 with meta-analytic methods and analyses to address Brewer and colleagues two main 125 AIMS propositions. First, individual who are most engaged in sports (e.g., a career, or a 126 sizeable portion of their daily lives) will identity most as an athlete; and thus, score higher 127 on the AIMS. Second, athletic identity might be related to positive (Hercules’ muscles) 128 and negative (Hercules’ Achilles heel) factors. Last, we sought to examine whether the 129 AIMS subscales, not designed first by Brewer and his colleagues, improve an understand-130 ing of our main research questions.

I highly recommend the authors to be consistent in the writing of the aims throughout the manuscript.  

 

Methods

The section is clear and help the reader to understand the procedure followed in the research.

The Eligibility criteria section needs some revision to clarify the criteria. More specifically,

In “b) peer-reviewed journals containing mean or correlate original data.” These are two different criteria and they should be presented as such. Regarding the second criteria (“containing mean or correlate original data”), some clarification is needed (mean scores? Correlations?). It is not clear in the current state. It concerns me why the authors included studies reporting on correlate (not sure what they mean by this) with different Likert Scales, but excluded not using a 1-7 likert scale when they reported means. This seems inconsistent. In my opinion, there is no reason why use the range of the scale as an inclusion criteria for some cases but not for others. Using standardized scores could be a solution to deal with these data.

Regarding the risk of bias criteria, why did the authors rely on these and not in others? Have they been found to be the best criteria to examine risk of bias? Why did not the authors provide some quality assessment on the studies included in the review?

Results

What criteria did the authors use to order the studies in Table 2? I would recommend the authors use alphabetical order; it looks rather disorganized in its current state. In the first column, the year is displayed for some studies but not for others. This should be homogenized (for informative purposes, the year should be shown in all of them).

Table 3 would also need to be reordered.

Figure 4 lacks the last plot which should be renamed in the caption as e. I think it would be more illustrative if the authors replaced the letters (a,b,c,d,e) for the actual correlates they are reporting on. The same applies for the rest of the figures in which letters are used to identify the different plots.

I think the information provided in the last subsection of the Results section and in Table 8 would fit better in the discussion section (I do not think a Table is needed to display this information). I wonder whether what authors identify as research questions are questions or hypotheses.

 

Discussion

I would recommend the authors to bring to this section the information provided in the last subsection of the results section and make more explicit when they are discussing the different aims of the work. While this section provides interesting information, it might be difficult to follow at some points. Using the same structure in the organization of the ideas regarding each aim (for instance, stating the aim-research question-hypothesis, summarizing the findings regarding that aim, discussing the findings in relation to other studies, conclude that might be the take-home message, and propose future research possibilities) would greatly help the reader to follow this section.

 

Author Response

See attached response file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. The topic is relevant.

The study can contribute to the extant literature providing new theoretical insights.

I would like to make some suggestions that should be considered by the authors in order, in my opinion, to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Introduction

The fact that the covering period was limited to 1993 and 2021 is a limitation of this study. This point must be justified in the introduction (and not only methods) and evoked as a limitation because it can explain why only a trend was obtained concerning the results.

The fact that relevant databases (e.g., Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar) were not included is another important limitation…

The aim and objectives must be clearly evoked at the end of the introduction. 

 

Materials and Methods: 

Please:

IBM-SPSS Statistics? Version? Level of Significance?

Again, the fact that relevant databases (e.g., Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar) were not included is another important limitation.

The authors must justify the choice of using the covering period. 

 

References: The references must follow the guideline.  

11. Edison, B.R., M.A. Christino, and K.H. Rizzone, Athletic Identity in Youth Athletes: A Systematic Review of the Literature. 512 International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. 18(14) xxxx

22. Ohji, S., et al., Athletic identity and sport commitment in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction who have 531 returned to sports at their pre-injury level of competition. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 2021. 13(1): p. 37 xxxx

27. Koper, M., et al., Relationship between pre-competition mental state and sport result of disabled boccia athletes. International 541 Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020. 17(21). xxxx

94. Mateos, M., M. Torregrosa, and J. Cruz, EVALUATION OF A CAREER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME FOR ELITE ATHLETES: 675 SATISFACTION LEVELS AND EXPLORATION OF CAREER DECISION MAKING AND ATHLETIC-IDENTITY. / OCENA 676 PROGRAMA POMOČI ZA RAZVOJ KARIERE VRHUNSKIH ŠPORTNIKOV: STOPNJA ZADOVOLJSTVA TER 677 PROUČEVANJE KARIERNEGA ODLOČANJA IN ŠPORTNE IDENTITETE. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 2010. 16(1/2): p. 30-43.

 

98. Steinfeldt, J.A., C. Reed, and M.C. Steinfeldt, Racial and athletic identity of African American football players at historically 685 black colleges and universities and predominantly white institutions. Journal of Black Psychology, 2010. 36(1): p. 3-24. xxxx

112. Horton, R.S. and D.E. Mack, Athletic Identity in Marathon Runners: Functional Focus or Dysfunctional Commitment? Journal 717 of Sport Behavior, 2000. 23(2): p. 101. Xxxx

114. Lantz, C.D. and P.J. Schroeder, Endorsement of Masculine and Feminine Gender Roles: Differences Between Participation. Jour- 721 nal of Sport Behavior, 1999. 22(4): p. 545. Xxxx

120. Lochbaum, M., et al., A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENT GOAL ORIENTATION CORRELATES IN COM- 733 PETITIVE SPORT: A FOLLOW-UP TO LOCHBAUM ET AL. (2016). Kinesiology, 2016. 48(2): p. 159-173. 734 121.

Lochbaum, M., et al., TASK AND EGO GOAL ORIENTATIONS IN COMPETITIVE SPORT: A QUANTITATIVE REVIEW OF 735 THE LITERATURE FROM 1989 TO 2016. Kinesiology, 2016. 48(1): p. 3-29.

Thanks,

Kind Regards

Author Response

See attached response file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for the work carried out to improve the manuscript.

In my opinion the relevance of the construct is now clearer thanks to the new information provided in the introduction.

With regards to the methods section, the eligibility criteria section has been considerably improved. Still, I fail to completely understand the answer to the comment about the scales. I agree that different scales (1-5, 1-7, 1-9) might lead to different responses. I was just wondering when reading the former version whether, by excluding the studies in which a scale different from 1-7, some valuable information could be missing. Personally, I would think that this review would be more comprehensive if studies using other scales were included. However, I understand the author’s response. If only studies using a 1-7 scale have been included, this should be mentioned in the eligibility criteria section. Maybe, the exclusion of other studies could be pointed out as a limitation.

On the other hand, I think the Table 2 is much clearer once the year column has been included.

Author Response

Thank you for helping us improve our manuscript. Please, see attached response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks 

Kind Regards 

Author Response

Thank you for your time. Please see our attached response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx