Abstract inclusion data extraction
Each abstract was entered into a database with the following information recorded: authors’ names, abstract title, year of abstract presentation, presentation type (lecture vs poster), institution of origin of the abstract, section in which the abstract was presented, study design, whether the abstract focused on coaches, athletes or a combination of both (mixed), and whether the abstract was specific to a particular sport or not.
Institution of origin was determined from the primary/first-listed affiliation on the abstract, which was searched within the 2015 edition of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.5 Institution of origin was categorised according to the institution’s basic classification within the Carnegie database as ‘doctoral’ (awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctorates in 2013–2014), ‘master’s’ (awarded at least 50 master’s degrees in 2013–2014, but fewer than 20 research doctorates) or ‘baccalaureate’ (bachelor’s degrees accounted for at least 50% of all degrees awarded and they awarded fewer than 50 master’s degrees in 2013–2014). Non-listed institutions were categorised as either ‘international’ (ie, outside the USA) or ‘other’ (ie, non-degree-granting institution).
There were initially nearly 30 different presentation sections between the two conference years. In an effort to make analyses more manageable, the sections were reduced to the following eight that were representative of the original 30 sections: (1) transition through sport; (2) aspects of coaching; (3) mental skills/interventions; (4) specific populations/novelty approaches; (5) health issues; (6) aspects of groups; (7) professional and academia; and (8) emotional and behavioural aspects of sport and exercise.
Design of the work within the presented abstract was categorised as (1) analytical, (2) descriptive, (3) experimental, (4) qualitative, (5) mixed or (6) other, as defined according to study designs presented in Thomas et al.6 Abstracts categorised as analytical presented indepth study and evaluation of available information, usually in the form of a review or meta-analysis. Abstracts using a descriptive approach attempted to capture or describe patterns of thought or behaviours in a given group of people and were most commonly collected through surveys, but also included case studies, observational research and correlational studies. Abstracts categorised as experimental presented studies designed to estimate the casual impact of a variable on a target outcome using a randomised controlled or quasi-experimental (non-randomised) study design. Qualitative abstracts used interviews, focus groups or observational data. Abstracts categorised as mixed methods reported information collected using a combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Abstracts categorised as other were those that did not clearly fit into the previous categories and had a tendency to be non-empirical studies proposing research that had not yet been conducted.
Population of focus referred to individuals included in the sample population. There were four categories: (1) athletes, (2) coaches, (3) mixed and (4) other. Mixed populations were samples of combined individuals, such as coaches and athletes or sport psychologists and athletic trainers. Abstracts categorised as having other population of focus were individuals (eg, college or high school students) who were not well represented in the other categories.
Systematic search for full-text publications
Systematic searches were sequentially conducted in Google Scholar, WorldCat, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO to determine whether the abstract-presented work had been published in full-text format in the 5 years following presentation. The initial search was through Google Scholar given its access to hundreds of thousands of journal articles, reports and other peer-reviewed publications7; the subsequent search in WorldCat was conducted for this same reason. SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO were used given a high rate of indexing of journals relevant to sport and exercise psychology.
Publications were initially sought by searching for the title of the conference abstract and the first author’s last name in Google Scholar. If the search did not yield any results, the title was removed from the search and replaced with keywords from the title, while keeping the first author’s last name in the search. This strategy was repeated three times in Google Scholar with varying keywords and then again in WorldCat, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO. If a potential full-text publication was identified, information from the conference abstract (eg, results, number of participants in the sample(s), measurement tools used and so on) was compared with the full text to ensure the two entities represented the same body of work.
The 5-year publication window was selected due to recommendations that work presented in abstract form be disseminated in a timely manner to maintain relevance, and previous research indicates that more than 90% of full-text publications occur in the 5 years following presentation of work in abstract form.8 9 Full-text publications from conference abstracts published before the conference or outside of the 5-year window following the conference were recorded, but not included in the analyses.
Full-text publication data extraction
Each full-text publication was reviewed and the following information was collected: publication title, authors’ name, journal name, date of publication and impact factor of the publishing journal. When a specific publication date was not available, the date was set as the first day of the respective month for journals publishing 12 issues per year or the first day of the respective season for those publishing quarterly. Time from the conference abstract presentation date to full-text publication was calculated in months. Impact factors were obtained from the Institute of Scientific Information’s Journal Citation Reports Science Edition for 2015.10
Statistical analyses
Two-tailed analyses with α=0.05 were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics (V.24), unless otherwise specified. Counts and percentages were used to summarise nominal data. Interval and continuous data were summarised using means and 95% CIs. The influences of AASP topic section, year of abstract presentation, presentation type, study design, institution of origin, population of focus in the study and focus on a specific sport on the odds that the abstract-presented work progressed to a full-text publication within 5 years following presentation were assessed using logistic regression, with ORs and 95% CIs being generated. A false discovery rate threshold set at q=0.05 was used to correct for multiple comparisons.11 Occurrence of full-text publication at 5 years was the outcome of interest; however, one minus survival plots graphing the percentage of abstracts that progressed to full-text publication as a function of time were generated for data visualisation.