Self-perception of dual career barriers and athletic identity in student-athletes with disabilities according to socio-demographic, sport and academic variables

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3068128/v1

The objective of this study was to analyse the perceived barriers to dual career success and athletic identity of student-athletes according to sociodemographic, sport, and academic variables. The final sample consisted of 203 student-athletes with disabilities from five European countries. The questionnaires used were ESTPORT, EBBS and AIMS. It was found that: a) women showed higher levels of tiredness (p=0.028); b) student-athletes with cerebral palsy and deafness showed higher barriers (p=0.023-0.001); c) semi-professional and professional student-athletes showed higher barriers (p=0.040-0.034) and identity as athletes (p=0.043-0.000); d) student-athletes who were at the end of their sports career showed significantly higher barriers (p=0.010) and lower athlete identity (p=0.022-0.000); and e) student-athletes in pre-university and university degree studies showed higher barriers (p=0.030-0.001). In conclusion, the self-perception of barriers is quite relevant, with differences arising from socio-demographic characteristics, type of disability, stage of sports career and type of education attended.

Health sciences/Health care

Biological sciences/Psychology

According to different research, people with disabilities experience distress and limitation due to their dysfunctional body ¹. These individuals define themselves through the body and relate to normality through their potential to perform various tasks specific to activities performed by others, seeking new resources to balance their level of self-worth and reduce the feeling of inferiority and pressure from the social environment ². In this respect, the practice of sport by people with disabilities has shown several benefits, both physical ³, and psychological and social ^1,3,4. Moreover, sport is used to reconstruct the identity of people with disabilities ⁴, through cognitive transformation of self-perceptions, which is rooted in the perception of one's own corporeality, providing both identity and possible stigmatisation ⁵.

In this regard, previous research has found that those students with a strong athletic identity tend to show a lower ability to adapt to professional careers and feel less prepared to change career plans in the future ⁶, making athletic identity a negative predictor of career adjustment ⁷. Accordingly, student-athletes, regardless of their level of performance, spend a significant amount of time on sports training, to the detriment of education ⁸ and it seems that those who are not prepared for post-sport life, have high rates of depression, anxiety and even substance addiction ⁹, as well as financial problems ¹⁰.

For this reason, dual careers for athletes are becoming increasingly important due to the process of combining a sports career with studies or work, making it the best option for successful transition to sporting retirement ^11–13. It seems that pursuing a dual career is usually a challenging balancing act for young student-athletes ¹⁴, mainly because both sport and studies are two time-consuming activities ⁸ posing this combination a number of difficulties in their attempt to reconcile the academic and sports training process ¹⁵, such as academic dropout, withdrawal from sport activity, the process of integration into professional activity, in relation to the emotional and financial aspects involved ^16,17 and relationship issues, with a greater proportion of time allocated to sports training at the expense of time for study, family and friends ¹⁸.

In the case of student-athletes with disabilities, although there have been few previous studies on this population ^13,19, these difficulties may be accentuated by the additional limitations they encounter in both the educational ¹³ and sporting spheres ²⁰. Therefore, the objective of this research was to analyse the differences in dual career of people with disabilities concerning interferences and barriers, exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on gender, type of disability, sport self-classification, stage of sports career and level of studies pursued.

Design

The study design was descriptive and cross-sectional, with non-probability convenience sampling. The STROBE statement ²¹ was followed for the research design and development of the manuscript. Study participants gave their consent to participate prior to data collection and were informed of the research objectives and the confidentiality of the data obtained during the research. The institutional ethics committee reviewed and authorized the protocol designed for data collection (code: CE012101), in accordance with the code of the World Medical Association and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Participants

The sample size was calculated using Rstudio 3.15.0 software (Rstudio Inc., USA). The significance value was set at α=0.05. The standard deviation (SD) was established attending to perceived barriers of previous studies (SD=0.75) ²². With an estimated error (d) of 0.10, the required sample size for a 99% confidence interval (CI) was 200 subjects. The final sample consisted of 203 student-athletes with disabilities from five European countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Romania). The inclusion criteria were established on the basis of previous studies ²³: a) have a physical, sensory (visual or hearing) disability or cerebral palsy; b) have been enrolled in a sports federation for at least three years; and c) to be currently enrolled in the last years of compulsory education (pre-university education), a university degree, a university master's degree, or a doctorate.

Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. Depending on gender, men were significantly older (p=0.013) and women spent more hours studying (p=0.006). Depending on the level of sports professionalisation, significant differences were found in the type of disability (p=0.007), in the stage of their sports career (p=0.002), in the hours per week studying (p=0.002) and doing sport (p=0.001). Bonferroni adjustment showed that, regarding hours spent studying, professional athletes spent significantly fewer hours than semi-professional athletes (Mean dif.: 9.83±2.84; p=0.002; 95%ICC: 2.96; 16.70) and amateur athletes (Mean dif.: 7.51±2.92; p=0.033; 95%ICC: 0.44; 14.59). Regarding the hours spent in sport, amateur athletes spent significantly fewer hours than professional athletes (Mean dif.: -10.88±3.04; p=0.001; 95%ICC: -18.24; -3.53) and semi-professional athletes (Mean dif.: -7.39±2.77; p=0.025; 95%ICC: -14.08; -0.70). Depending on the stage of their sports career, significant differences were found in age (p<0.001). The pairwise comparison showed that student-athletes who were at the end of their sport career were older than those who were at the highest level (Mean dif.: -4.75±1.79; p=0.026; 95%ICC: -9.08; -0.42) and at the beginning of their sport career (Mean dif.: -8.56±1.71; p=0.000; 95%ICC: -12.71; -4.42). The sports career stage also showed significant differences in studies (p=0.013) and self-consideration as an athlete (p=0.002). Depending on studies, significant differences were found in age (p=0.001) as pre-university student-athletes were significantly younger than those who studied a post-degree (Mean dif.: -5.76±1.52; p=0.001; 95%ICC: -9.44; -2.08). Significant differences were also found depending on the level of education in sports career stage (p=0.013).

-Table 1 here-

Measures

Perceptions of dual career student-athletes

To measure the perceptions of dual career student-athletes, the ‘Perceptions of dual career student-athletes’ (ESTPORT) questionnaire ²⁴ was used, as in previous research ^25,26. The internal consistency of the questionnaire is high (Cronbach's alpha coefficient > 0.70) reaching in this study a=0.857, understood as a high reliability ²⁷. The original version is composed of 84 items. To obtain information about sociodemographic and contextual variables, questions number 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, were included. Furthermore, to know the difficulty of reconciling sporting and academic life, question 20 was also included. Finally, to discover the perceived barriers, the scores obtained in items 26 to 37 of the questionnaire were included. These questions used a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 points (strongly agree).

Exercise Benefits/Barriers

To analyse the exercise benefits and barriers, the ‘Exercise Benefits/Barriers Scale’ (EBBS) ²⁸ was used. The resulting instrument was tested for internal consistency (𝛼=0.954), validity of its constructs (variance explained: 65.2%), and test-retest reliability (ICC=0.89) ²⁸. Cronbach's alpha coefficient in this study was 𝛼=0.776, understood as a high reliability ²⁷. For this research, items about the barrier scale were included. These questions used a Likert scale from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

Athletic Identity

The 'Athletic Identity Measurement Scale' (AIMS) was used ²⁹ to measure athletic identity. The scale has shown an internal reliability coefficient of 𝛼=0.81 ²⁹. Cronbach's alpha coefficient in this study was 𝛼=0.776, understood as a high reliability ²⁷. The AIMS is made up of seven items designed to assess aspects of athletic identification, with the athlete's role measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Procedure

Universities from the participant countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Romania) contacted their sports service to send the questionnaire to athletes with disabilities belonging to the universities, as well as local, regional and national associations and foundations whose main focus was on athletes with disabilities and the country's Paralympic Committee. The questionnaire was then circulated by email to all disabled athletes in their databases, specifying that it should only be completed by those who were currently enrolled in pre-university studies, university degree, or university post-degree studies.

Participants completed an informed consent form and a questionnaire anonymously and individually, without academic or competitive pressure. The questionnaire was disseminated through Google Forms® and the participants completed it in 20-30 minutes. All data was collected anonymously.

Statistical analysis

The normality of the data was initially assessed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, homogeneity with the Levene’s test, and sphericity with the Mauchly test. All the variables included in the analysis showed a normal distribution, so parametric tests were performed. The descriptive analysis of quantitative variables showed mean values and standard deviations, while frequencies and percentages were calculated for qualitative variables. The Student’s t-test for independent samples was performed to find the existing differences in age, the scores of hours per each activity, difficulty in reconciling sport and studies, barriers towards achieving a good balance between sport and studies, exercise benefits/barriers and athletic identity depending on gender. Cohen’s d was calculated to establish the effect size (ES) in these cases, defined as small when d < 0.2; moderate when d < 0.8; and large when d > 0.8 ³⁰. For the analysis of the differences in age, the scores of hours per each activity, difficulty in reconciling sport and studies, barriers towards achieving a good balance between sport and studies, exercise benefits/barriers and athletic identity depending on type of disability, level of sports professionalisation, stage of the sports career and level of education pursed, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, carrying out the Bonferroni pairwise comparison in the variables with statistical significance, adjusting for the value of p. Partial eta squared (η2) was used to calculate the effect size (ES), and was defined as small: ES ≥ 0.10; moderate: ES ≥ 0.30; large: ES ≥ 1.2; very large: ES ≥ 2.0 ³¹. The chi-square analysis (χ²) made it possible to establish the differences in the questions related to gender, type of disability, level of education, self-consideration as an athlete, and stage of the sports career. Cramér’s V was used for the post hoc comparison, and the contingency coefficient was used to obtain the statistical value. The maximum expected value was 0.707; r < 0.3 indicated a low association; r < 0.5 indicated a moderate association; and r > 0.5 indicated a high association ³². The p < 0.05 value was set to determine statistical significance. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS statistical package (v.25.0; SPSS Inc., IL, United States).

Table 2 shows the differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on gender. It was found that women tended to be more tired than men (p=0.028).

-Table 2 here-

Table 3 shows the differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on type of disability. Student-athletes showed statistically significant differences in difficulty in reconciling sport and studies depending on type of disability (p=0.001), with the Bonferroni adjustment showing that visually impaired athletes perceived statistically less difficulty than those with hearing impairment (Mean dif.: -0.54±0.19; p=0.029; 95%ICC: -1.06; -0.03) or physical (Mean dif.: -0.59±0.15; p=0.001; 95%ICC: -1.01; -0.18).

Statistically significant differences were also found in the perception that ‘the cost of education is high’ (p=0.023) and ‘I do not have enough university/educational institution support’ (p=0.014) as a barrier, with those student-athletes with hearing impairment showing higher scores compared to those with visual impairment in the first one (Mean dif.: -0.92±0.31; p=0.022; 95%ICC: -1.76; -0.08) and those student-athletes with cerebral palsy higher scores compared to those with visual impairment in the second (Mean dif.: -0.97±0.29; p=0.008; 95%ICC: -1.77; -0.18).

On the barrier ‘Exercise tires me’ also was found significant differences depending on the type of disability (p=0.013). Bonferroni adjustment showed that those student-athletes with physical impairment had significantly higher scores than those with hearing impairment (Mean dif.: 0.61±0.19; p=0.009; 95%ICC: 1.12; 0.10). On the barrier ‘Exercise facilities do not have convenient timetables for me’ (p=0.001), participants with cerebral palsy showed statistically higher scores than those with hearing (Mean dif.: -0.84±0.25; p=0.006; 95%ICC: -1.52; -0.16) and visual impairment (Mean dif.: -0.88±0.23; p=0.002; 95%ICC: -1.52; -0.25).

-Table 3 here-

Table 4 shows the differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on sports professionalisation level. On student-athletes' reported barriers to dual career success, significant differences were found on the barrier ‘the university/educational institution is far from my training center’ (p=0.040), showing semi-professional athletes statistically higher scores than professional athletes (Mean dif.: 0.58±0.23; p=0.037; 95%ICC: 0.02; 1.15). Significant differences were also found in the barrier ‘exercise takes too much time from family responsibilities’ (p=0.034), with professional athletes showing significantly higher values than amateur athletes (Mean dif.: -0.45±0.17; p=0.033; 95%ICC: -0.87; -0.02).

On athletic identity scale, significant differences were found in the dimensions a) ‘I consider myself an athlete’ (p<0.001); b) ‘I have many goals related to sport” (p<0.001); c) ‘Most of my friends are athletes’ (p<0.001); d) ‘Sports are the most important part of my life’ (p<0.001); e) ‘I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else’ (p<0.001); and f) ‘I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports’ (p=0.043), where professional athletes showed statistically higher scores than amateur and semi-professional athletes ( a) Mean dif.: -1.82±0.26; p=0.000; 95%ICC: -2.45; -1.19 and Mean dif.: -0.80±0.25; p=0.005; 95%ICC: -1.40; -0.1, respectively; b) Mean dif.: -1.67±0.27; p<0.001; 95%ICC: -2.33; -1.01 and Mean dif.: -0.72±0.26; p=0.019; 95%ICC: -1.36; -0.09, respectively; c) Mean dif.: -1.18±0.30; p<0.001; 95%ICC: -1.92; -0.45 and Mean dif.: -0.88±0.29; p=0.009; 95%ICC: -1.59; -0.17, respectively; d) Mean dif.: -1.81±0.27; p<0.001; 95%ICC: -2.48; -1.15 and Mean dif.: -1.00±0.26; p=0.001; 95%ICC: -1.64; -0.35, respectively; e) Mean dif.: -1.38±0.31; p=0.000; 95%ICC: -2.13; -0.63 and Mean dif.: -0.90±0.30; p=0.009; 95%ICC: -1.62; -0.17, respectively; and f) Mean dif.: -0.77±0.31; p=0.048; 95%ICC: -1.54; -0.01, respect to amateurs). Semi-professional athletes also showed statistically significant differences compared to amateurs for ‘I consider myself an athlete’ (Mean dif.: -1.02±0.23; p<0.001; 95%ICC: -1.59; -0.45); ‘I have many goals related to sport’ (Mean dif.: -0.94±0.24; p=0.001; 95%ICC: -1.54; -0.34) and ‘Sports are the most important part of my life’ (Mean dif.: -0.81±0.25; p=0.004; 95%ICC: -1.42; -0.20).

-Table 4 here-

Table 5 shows the differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depends on stage of sports career. Significant differences were found on the barrier ‘difficulty in reconciling sports and studies’ (p=0.010), in which student-athletes who were at the end of their sports career showed significantly higher scores than those who were at the beginning of their sports career (Mean dif.: -0.53±0.20; p=0.025; 95%ICC: -1.02; -0.04).

Regarding identity as an athlete, significant differences were found in the items: ‘I consider myself an athlete’ (p<0.001); ‘I have many goals related to sport’ (p<0.001); ‘sports are the most important part of my life’ (p=0.001); and ‘I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else’ (p=0.002). Athletes who were in the highest level of their sport career showed significantly higher scores on ‘I consider myself an athlete’ than those who were at the beginning of their sports career (Mean dif.: -0.83±0.23; p=0.001; 95%ICC: -1.40; -0.27). On the other hand, those who were at the end of their sports career showed significantly lower scores on ‘I have many goals related to sport’ and ‘sports are the most important part of my life’ than those who were at the beginning of their sports career (Mean dif.: 1.19±0.36; p=0.004; 95%ICC: 0.30; 2.08; and Mean dif.: 1.00±0.38; p=0.026; 95%ICC: 0.08; 1.92, respectively) or at the best moment on their sports career (Mean dif.: 1.70±0.38; p=0.000; 95%ICC: 0.77; 2.63; and Mean dif.: 1.51±0.39; p=0.001; 95%ICC: 0.54; 2.47, respectively); and on ‘I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else’ than those at the best moment on their sports career (Mean dif.: 1.20±0.43; p=0.018; 95%ICC: 0.15; 2.24).

-Table 5 here-

Table 6 shows the differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on the level of education. Significant differences were found in the barriers: ‘difficulty in reconciling sports and studies’ (p=0.001), ‘I have to take care of my family’ (p=0.030), and ‘I think people in exercise clothes look funny’ (p=0.024). Also, significant differences were found concerning athletic identity: ‘Most of my friends are athletes’ (p=0.025) and ‘I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports’ (p=0.034). Bonferroni analysis showed that pre-university students had significantly higher scores than university degree students in ‘difficulty in reconciling sports and studies’ (Mean dif.: -0.49±0.13; p=0.001; 95%ICC: -0.82; -0.17) and on ‘I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports’ (Mean dif.: -0.71±0.27; p=0.033; 95%ICC: -1.39; -0.04); and significantly lower on ‘I have to take care of my family’ (Mean dif.: 0.55±0.20; p=0.027; 95%ICC: 0.04; 1.05). In relation to the barrier ‘I think people in exercise clothes look funny’ and identity as an athlete item ‘most of my friends are athletes’, it was found that pre-university student-athletes reported significantly higher values than university post-degree student-athletes (Mean dif.: 0.53±0.22; p=0.040; 95%ICC: 0.01; 1.06; and Mean dif.: 0.94±0.34; p=0.021; 95%ICC: 0.10; 1.77, respectively).

-Table 6 here-

The aim of this study was to analyse the differences in dual career interferences and barriers, exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on gender, type of disability, level of sport professionalisation, stage of sports career and level of education. With respect to gender, this research found that women tended to be more tired than men. Previous studies have found that disabled women suffer a 'double whammy' due to their gender and disability ^33,34, with less structural and social ³⁴, and financial support ³⁵ in the pursuit of their dual career success, as well as negative experiences with male coaches ³⁶. This could lead to a high cost of high individual tiredness ^37,38.

Another important finding of this research is that there were differences in the perception of barriers depending on the type of disability. This study found that visually impaired student-athletes perceived the least difficulties in reconciling studies and sport. This could be due to a growing awareness of the need to adapt the education system to maximise learning opportunities for athletes with visual impairment, as well as the inclusion of administrators, curriculum planners, classmates and families for a holistic policy for the visually-impaired learners ³⁹.

At the other end of the spectrum, student-athletes with cerebral palsy showed the highest scores on the barrier ‘I do not have enough university/educational institution support’. Previous studies have found that an inclusive school culture was crucial for them ⁴⁰ but there is a lack of institutional and home-based support ⁴¹. Moreover, student and school success were impacted substantially by the capacity of adults in the student’s life to collaborate ⁴⁰. Also, student-athletes with cerebral palsy showed the highest scores in the barrier ‘Exercise facilities do not have convenient timetables for me’. All of this could affect the lack of perceived support as barriers to dual career success.

Furthermore, athletes with hearing impairment encountered the most barriers related to the cost of education. Previous studies have pointed to the large economic impact that hearing loss can have on earning power, which may be largely due to the fact that the disability ends up making it difficult to go to university, hindering their ability to find work and have an average quality of life ⁴².

Finally, physical impairment student-athletes were those with the highest scores in the barrier ‘Exercise tires me’, suggesting that they may have a greater physiological response to exercise than able-bodied athletes ⁴³. This could explain why the perception of fatigue with physical exercise is higher in this type of disability.

Another significant finding of this research was that there were differences in the perception of barriers by student-athletes according to their level of professionalisation. More specifically, semi-professional student-athletes had higher scores in ‘the university/educational institution is far from my training center’. Previous studies have already shown in non-disabled student-athletes that semi-professional student-athletes may have higher scores on perceived barriers than their professional counterparts. This could be due to the fact that semi-professional athletes are forced to make a more equal distribution of time between sport and studies as they find themselves in a situation where they do not know whether to prioritize their sporting or educational career ^22,44. In this study it was found that professional athletes spent the most hours on sport to the detriment of study hours, while semi-professional athletes sought a better balance between these facets, and pointed out the highest values in ‘exercise takes too much time from family responsibilities’. This may be due to the fact that professional athletes have employment contracts related to their sporting performance, which oblige them to devote more time to sport, to the detriment of the time they dedicate to their studies ^22,45 or other obligations, such as taking care of the family ^22,44.

In this study it was also found that professional athletes showed the highest values in most items related to their identity as athletes, followed by semi-professional athletes and amateur athletes. This suggests that sport plays an important role for individuals with disabilities to stay healthy, build social relationships, increase independence, and achieve personal goals ^46–48, which increases as the level of professionalization as athletes. Previous studies have pointed to a direct relationship between the level of professionalisation of able-bodied student-athletes and the importance they give to their role as athletes, prioritizing it over their status as students ^22,45.

Regarding the perception of barriers to success in the dual career depending on the stage of the sports career, this research found that student-athletes at the end of their sports career showed significantly higher scores in 'difficulty in reconciling sports and studies' than those at the beginning. Previous studies on non-disabled student-athletes have found that athletes at the end of their sporting career take twice as long to complete each academic year as those at other stages, which, together with the fact that they intend to stop sport as their main activity once they finish their studies ²².

Related to this, student-athletes at the end of their sporting career showed the lowest scores on their identity as athletes, while those at the peak of their career showed the highest scores on ‘I consider myself an athlete’. This could be because student-athletes who perceive themselves to be at the peak of their sporting career may have a large number of goals and future plans related to their role as athletes ²², leading them to reaffirm this identity.

Concerning to differences in student-athletes' perception of barriers and identity as athletes according to their level of education, pre-university student-athletes reported higher scores in difficulty reconciling sports and studies and experienced bad feeling due to unsatisfactory sport performances or their clothing as athletes. These findings are in line with the literature claiming that the developmental years are particularly critical for avoiding disengagement of youth athletes from dual career ^49,50, being important for young athletes with disabilities to receive special support from their entourage ^51,52.

In the light of the results of this study, student-athletes with disabilities need support measures, management, and policies ⁵³, creating a network of political and institutional support to integrate their student life into their sport cycle and avoid difficult transitions to work after the end of the sporting career ^54,55. However, being a pioneer study about dual career of athletes with disabilities, there are potential limitations such as the heterogeneity of the sample, disabilities, career stages, sport/education careers, age, inclusion of athletes with disabilities independently from their acquired or congenital disabilities, and different models between para-sports organizations and educational institutions/public and private companies in the Member States. Future research is needed to shed light on different aspects of dual career paths of athletes with disabilities.

In conclusion, among student-athletes with disabilities, women, student-athletes with cerebral palsy, hearing impairment or physical disability, semi-professional or professional athletes, athletes at the end of their sport career and pre-university students show higher scores in the perception of barriers to the success of their dual career. Furthermore, the importance that student-athletes with disabilities give to their identity as an athlete is higher for professional athletes, athletes who are at the best moment of their sport career and pre-university students.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the local, regional and national associations and foundations whose main focus was on athletes with disabilities and the Paralympic Committees of the involved countries, as well as all the participants in this study for their collaboration, as without their disinterested help this research would not have been possible.

Author contributions

M.J.M.-A., R.V.-C., L.C., M. S., A.M.A-P., A.L.-A. and A.D.-A. wrote the main manuscript text. F. J. C.-A., A. D.-A., M. D. and A. F. participated in the literature review. A.L.-A, A. S.-P., R. V.-C., L. M., A. M. A.-P, L. A.-C. and E. I. participated in the generation of the idea and method. R.V.-C., L. M., L.A.-C., J. A. G.-R. and F. M. participated in the analysis of the data and its discussion. M. J. M.-A., R.V.-C., L. C., A. L.-A. participated in the elaboration of the final version All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Data availability statement

The database was included in the Zenodo repository (link: https://zenodo.org/record/7956896#.ZGtReS8lOUk).

Competing Interests Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the European Commission under the Erasmus+ Programme [number 622213-EPP-1-2020-1-ES-SPO-SCP].

Niedbalski, J. The Process of Becoming an Active Disabled Person—the Psycho-Social Mechanisms of Sport’s Influence on Physically Disabled Individuals. Polish Sociological Review 529–548 (2015).
Coleman-Fountain, E. & McLaughlin, J. The interactions of disability and impairment. Social Theory & Health 11, 133–150 (2013).
Mazzeo, F. The role of sports activity for the formative development of disabled people. Medicina Sportiva 15, 3091–3096 (2019).
Niedbalski, J. Sport as an instrument of activation and social integration of physically disabled persons. Social Policy Issues 28, 101–118 (2020).
Charmaz, K. Experiencing Stigma and Exclusion: The Influence of Neoliberal Perspectives, Practices, and Policies on Living with Chronic Illness and Disability. Symb Interact 43, 21–45 (2020).
Tyrance, S. C., Harris, H. L. & Post, P. Predicting Positive Career Planning Attitudes Among NCAA Division I College Student-Athletes. J Clin Sport Psychol 7, 22–40 (2013).
Klasen, S. A. An examination of the athletic identity, identity foreclosure, and career maturity of Division I collegiate student-athletes in nonrevenue-producing sports. (Northern Illinois University, 2016).
Bastianon, S. & Greco, G. The Italian approach to the dual careers of University student-athletes. Kinesiologia Slovenica 24, 5–18 (2018).
Cosh, S. & Tully, P. J. “All I have to do is pass”: A discursive analysis of student athletes’ talk about prioritising sport to the detriment of education to overcome stressors encountered in combining elite sport and tertiary education. Psychol Sport Exerc 15, 180–189 (2014).
Aquilina, D. A Study of the Relationship Between Elite Athletes’ Educational Development and Sporting Performance. Int J Hist Sport 30, 374–392 (2013).
Geraniosova, K. & Ronkainen, N. The Experience of Dual Career through Slovak Athletes’ Eyes. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research 66, 53–64 (2015).
Ryba, T. V., Stambulova, N. B., Ronkainen, N. J., Bundgaard, J. & Selänne, H. Dual career pathways of transnational athletes. Psychol Sport Exerc 21, 125–134 (2015).
López-Flores, M., Penado, M., Avelar-Rosa, B., Packevičiūtė, A. & Ābeļkalns, I. May the Mentor be with You! An innovative approach to the Dual Career mentoring capacitation. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte 16, 107–116 (2021).
Kristiansen, E. Walking the line: how young athletes balance academic studies and sport in international competition. Sport Soc 20, 47–65 (2017).
Capranica, L. et al. Understanding dual career views of European university athletes: The more than gold project focus groups. PLoS One 17, e0264175- (2022).
Gouttebarge, V., Aoki, H. & Kerkhoffs, G. M. Prevalence and determinants of symptoms related to mental disorders in retired male professional footballers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 56, 648–54 (2016).
Torregrosa, M., Ramis, Y., Pallarés, S., Azócar, F. & Selva, C. Olympic athletes back to retirement: A qualitative longitudinal study. Psychol Sport Exerc 21, 50–56 (2015).
Barker, D., Barker-Ruchti, N., Rynne, S. & Lee, J. Moving out of Sports: A Sociocultural Examination of Olympic Career Transitions. Int J Sports Sci Coach 9, 255–270 (2014).
Magnanini, A., Isidori, E., Fazio, A. & Cioni, L. The university’s role in the dual career of student-athletes with disabilities: The preliminary data of the “PARA-LIMITS” Project. Giornale Italiano di Educazione alla Salute, Sport e Didattica Inclusiva 6, 1–12 (2022).
Duarte, T., Culver, D. M. & Paquette, K. Mapping Canadian Wheelchair Curling Coaches’ Development: A Landscape Metaphor for a Systems Approach. Int Sport Coach J 7, 117–126 (2020).
Vandenbroucke, J. P. et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg 12, 1500–1524 (2014).
Mateo-Orcajada, A. et al. Spanish Pre-Olympic Athletes’ Motivations and Barriers to Pursuing Dual Career as a Function of Sociodemographic, Sport and Academic Variables. Front Psychol 13, (2022).
Vaquero-Cristóbal, R. et al. Exploring the perception of barriers to a dual career by student-athletes with/out disabilities. PLoS One 18, e0286152 (2023).
Sánchez-Pato, A. et al. Design and validation of a questionnaire about the perceptions of dual career student-athletes (ESTPORT). Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte 11, 127–147 (2016).
Abenza-Cano, L. et al. Effect of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on Elite Spanish Student-Athletes’ Perception of the Dual Career. Front Psychol 11, (2020).
Gavala-González, J., Castillo-Rodríguez, A. & Fernández-García, J. C. Dual Career of the U-23 Spanish Canoeing Team. Front Psychol 10, 1783 (2019).
Corbetta, P. Social research methodologies and techniques. (McGraw, 2007).
Sechrist, K. R., Walker, S. N. & Pender, N. J. Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Exercise Benefits/Barriers Scale. Res Nurs Health 10, 356–365 (1987).
Visek, A., Hurst, J., Maxwell, J. & II, J. A Cross-Cultural Psychometric Evaluation of the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale. J Appl Sport Psychol 20, 473–480 (2008).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Second Edition. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988).
Hopkins, W. G., Marshall, S. W., Batterham, A. M. & Hanin, J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41, 3–13 (2009).
Cramér, H. Mathematical Methods of Statistics. (Princeton University Press, 1946).
Güven, B., Kara, F. M. & Özdedeoğlu, B. The socialization process for women with disabilities in sports: A double barrier? Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences 10, 7–17 (2019).
Culver, D. M., Shaikh, M., Alexander, D. & Fournier, K. Gender Equity in Disability Sport: A Rapid Scoping Review. J Clin Sport Psychol 1–23 (2022) doi:10.1123/jcsp.2021-0074.
Clark, B. & Mesch, J. A global perspective on disparity of gender and disability for deaf female athletes. Sport Soc 21, 64–75 (2018).
Alexander, D., Bloom, G. A. & Taylor, S. L. Female Paralympic Athlete Views of Effective and Ineffective Coaching Practices. J Appl Sport Psychol 32, 48–63 (2020).
Lupo, C. et al. Motivation towards dual career of European student-athletes. Eur J Sport Sci 15, 151–160 (2015).
Ryba, T. V., Ronkainen, N. J., Douglas, K. & Aunola, K. Implications of the identity position for dual career construction: Gendering the pathways to (Dis)continuation. Psychol Sport Exerc 53, 101844 (2021).
Kocyigit, N. & Artar, P. S. A Challenge: Teaching English to Visually-impaired Learners. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 199, 689–694 (2015).
Bourke-Taylor, H. M., Cotter, C., Lalor, A. & Johnson, L. School success and participation for students with cerebral palsy: a qualitative study exploring multiple perspectives. Disabil Rehabil 40, 2163–2171 (2018).
Odhiambo, J. A. Support Services Available for Kenyan Learners with Cerebral Palsy in Aid of the Performance of Activities of Daily Living. American Journal of Education and Learning 3, 64–71 (2018).
Jones, D. D. Relative Earnings of Deaf and Hard-of-hearing Individuals. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 9, 459–461 (2004).
Simim, M. A. M. et al. The Demands of Amputee Soccer Impair Muscular Endurance and Power Indices But Not Match Physical Performance. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 35, 76–92 (2018).
López de Subijana Hernández, C., Barriopedro Moro, M. & Alberto Muniesa, C. La retirada deportiva en deportes colectivos: comparativa profesionales y amateurs. SPORT TK-Revista EuroAmericana de Ciencias del Deporte 7, 41 (2018).
Gómez, M.-Á., Lago, C., Gómez, M.-T. & Furley, P. Analysis of elite soccer players’ performance before and after signing a new contract. PLoS One 14, e0211058 (2019).
Lumsdaine, G. & Lord, R. (Re)creating a healthy self in and through disability sport: autoethnographic chaos and quest stories from a sportswoman with cerebral palsy. Disabil Soc 1–20 (2021) doi:10.1080/09687599.2021.1983415.
Wiesel, I., Bigby, C., van Holstein, E. & Gleeson, B. Three modes of inclusion of people with intellectual disability in mainstream services: mainstreaming, differentiation and individualisation. Disabil Soc 1–22 (2022) doi:10.1080/09687599.2022.2060803.
Comella, A., Hassett, L., Hunter, K., Cole, J. & Sherrington, C. Sporting opportunities for people with physical disabilities: Mixed methods study of web‐based searches and sport provider interviews. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 30, 180–188 (2019).
Tessitore, A. et al. Parents about parenting dual career athletes: A systematic literature review. Psychol Sport Exerc 53, 101833 (2021).
Sorkkila, M., Aunola, K. & Ryba, T. V. A person-oriented approach to sport and school burnout in adolescent student-athletes: The role of individual and parental expectations. Psychol Sport Exerc 28, 58–67 (2017).
Dehghansai, N., Pinder, R. A., Baker, J. & Renshaw, I. Challenges and stresses experienced by athletes and coaches leading up to the Paralympic Games. PLoS One 16, e0251171 (2021).
Capranica, L. et al. Development of an Online Multilingual Educational Programme for Parents of Dual-Career Athletes: A Participatory Design. Front Psychol 13, (2022).
Patatas, J. M., De Bosscher, V., Derom, I. & De Rycke, J. Managing parasport: An investigation of sport policy factors and stakeholders influencing para-athletes’ career pathways. Sport Management Review 23, 937–951 (2020).
Izzicupo, P. et al. Dual Careers of Athletes During COVID-19 Lockdown. Front Psychol 12, (2021).
Izzicupo, P. et al. Exploring dual career quality implementation at European higher education institutions: Insights from university experts. PLoS One 17, e0277485 (2022).

Table 1

Differences in socio-demographic; time distribution; studying and sporting characteristics depending on gender, type of disability, level of sports professionalisation, stage of sports career and level of education

Gender	Male (n=130)	Female (n=73)	Group differences		d			Mean dif.	95%ICC
Age	25.70±8.79	22.86±5.20	t=2.51, df=201, p=0.013*		0.39			2.83±1.12	0.61; 5.05
Disability	H:20(15.4%)V:30(23.1%)Ph:58(44.6%)CP:22(16.9%)	H:14(19.2%)V:14(19.2%)Ph:29(39.7%)CP:16(21.9%)	χ²= 1.61, df=3, p=0.656		-
Education	Pre:43(33.1%) UD:63(48.5%) Post:24(18.5%)	Pre:24(32.9%) UD:34(46.6%) Post:15(20.5%)	χ²= 0.141, df=2, p=0.932		-
Professionalisation	Amateur:40(30.8%) Semi-prof.:55(42.3%) Prof.:35(26.9%)	Amateur:28(38.4%) Semi-prof.:25(34.2%) Prof.:20(27.4%)	χ²=1.57, df=2, p=0.454		-
Stage	Beginning:68(52.7%) Highest:43(33.3%) End:18(14.0%)	Beginning:41(56.9%) Highest:27(37.5%) End:4(5.6%)	χ²=3.36, df=2, p=0.186		-
Hours/week study	24.01±14.60	30.68±18.37	t=-2.80, df=195, p=0.006**		0.40			-6.66±2.37	-11.36; -1.97
Hours/week sport	15.96±20.77	12.89±7.71	t=1.21, df=201, p=0.226		-			3.07±2.52	-1.91; 8.05
Disability	Hearing (n=34)	Visual (n=44)	Physical (n=87)	Cerebral palsy (n=38)			Group differences				V
Age	23.00±6.01	23.97±7.51	26.02±8.58	23.92±7.41			F=1.63, df=3, p=0.182				-
Gender	♂︎29(58.8%)♀14(41.2%)	♂︎30(68.2%)♀14(31.8%)	♂︎58(66.7%)♀29(33.3%)	♂︎22(57.9%)♀16(42.1%)			χ²=1.61, df=3, p=0.656				-
Education	Pre:15(44.1%)UD:15(44.1%)Post:4(11.8%)	Pre:19(43.2%)UD:16(36.4%)Post:9(20.5%)	Pre:20(23.0%)UD:49(56.3%)Post:18(20.7%)	Pre:13(34.2%)UD:17(44.7%)Post:8(21.1%)			χ²=9.19, df=6, p=0.163				-
Professionalisation	Amateur:8(23.5%)	Amateur:9(20.5%)	Amateur:30(34.5%)	Amateur:21(55.3%)			χ²=17.84, df=6, p=0.007**				V=0.21
	Semi-prof.:20(58.8%)	Semi-prof.:19(43.2%)	Semi-prof.:31(35.6%)	Semi-prof.:10(26.3%)
	Prof.:6(17.6%)	Prof.:16(36.4%)	Prof.:26(29.9%)	Prof.:7(18.4%)
Stage	Beginning:14(41.2%)	Beginning:26(61.9%)	Beginning:48(55.2%)	Beginning:21(55.3%)			χ²=4.12, df=6, p=0.659				-
	Highest:16(47.1%)	Highest:13(31.0%)	Highest:29(33.3%)	Highest:12(31.6%)
	End:4(11.8%)	End:3(7.1%)	End:10(11.5%)	End:5(13.2%)
Hours/week study	31.12±19.18	24.23±14.16	25.00±16.41	28.06±15.54			F=1.51, df=3, p=0.212				-
Hours/week sport	18.58±38.24	13.09±6.34	15.31±9.04	12.52±8.31			F=0.92, df=3, p=0.427				-
Professionalisation	Amateur (n=68)	Semi-professional (n=80)	Professional (n=55)			Group differences				V/ η²
Age	24.25±7.68	24.38±7.35	25.63±8.60			F=0.57,df=2, p=0.566				-
Gender	♂︎40(58.8%)♀28(41.2%)	♂︎55(68.8%)♀25(31.3%)	♂︎35(63.6%)♀20(36.4%)			χ²=1.57, df=2, p=0.454				-
Disability	H:8(11.8%)V:9(13.2%)Ph:30(44.1%)CP:21(30.9%)	H:20(25.0%)V:19(23.8%)Ph:31(38.8%)CP:10(12.5%)	H:6(10.9%)V:16(29.1%)Ph:26(47.3%)CP:7(12.7%)			χ²=17.84, df=6, p=0.007**				V=0.21
Education	Pre:24(35.3%)UD:30(44.1%)Post:14(20.6%)	Pre:27(33.8%)UD:39(48.8%)Post:14(17.5%)	Pre:16(29.1%)UD:28(50.9%)Post:11(20.0%)			χ²=0.90, df=4, p=0.924				-
Stage	Beginning:42(62.7%)Highest:13(19.4%)End:12(17.9%)	Beginning:43(53.8%)Highest:29(36.3%)End:8(10.0%)	Beginning:24(44.4%)Highest:28(51.9%)End:2(3.7%)			χ²=16.58, df=4, p=0.002**				V=0.20
Hours/week study	27.56±16.49	29.88±16.62	20.04±14.08			F=6.22, df=2, p=0.002**				η²=0.06
Hours/week sport	8.99±5.37	16.38±25.31	19.88±8.52			F=6.92, df=2, p=0.001**				η²=0.06
Stage	Beginning (n=109)	Highest level (n=70)	End (n=22)			Group differences				V/ η²
Age	22.38±6.12	26.20±8.62	30.95±8.42			F=14.85, df=2, p<0.001***				η²=0.13
Gender	♂︎68(62.4%)♀41(37.6%)	♂︎43(61.4%)♀27(38.6%)	♂︎18(81.8%)♀5(18.2%)			χ²=3.36, df=2, p=0.186				-
Disability	H:14(12.8%)V:26(23.9%)Ph:48(44.0%)CP:21(19.3%)	H:16(22.9%)V:13(18.6%)Ph:29(41.4%)CP:12(17.1%)	H:4(18.2%)V:3(13.6%)Ph:10(45.5%)CP:5(22.7%)			χ²=4.12, df=6, p=0.659
Education	Pre:44(40.4%)UD:53(48.6%)Post:12(11.0%)	Pre:18(25.7%)UD:34(48.6%)Post:18(25.7%)	Pre:5(22.7%)UD:9(40.9%)Post:8(36.4%)			χ²=12.68, df=4, p=0.013*				V=0.18
Professionalisation	Amateur:42(38.5%)Semi-prof.:43(39.4%)Prof.:24(22.0%)	Amateur:13(18.6%)Semi-prof.:29(41.4%)Prof.:2(40.0%)	Amateur:12(54.5%)Semi-prof.:8(36.4%)Prof.:2(9.1%)			χ²=16.58, df=4, p=0.002**				V=0.20
Hours/week study	27.79±15.71	23.64±15.38	29.38±21.77			F=1.68, df=2, p=0.189				-
Hours/week sport	12.79±8.35	18.87±26.91	12.34±7.42			F=2.92, df=2, p=0.056				-
Education	Pre-University (n=67)	University Degree (n=97)	Post-U. Degree (n=39)				Group differences			V/ η²
Age	22.31±8.44	24.94±7.03	28.07±7.25				F=7.26, df=2, p=0.001**			η²=0.07
Gender	♂︎43(64.2%)♀︎24(35.8%)	♂︎63(64.9%)♀︎34(35.1%)	♂︎24(61.5%)♀︎15(38.5%)				χ²=0.14, df=2, p=0.932			-
Disability	H:15(22.4%)V:19(28.4%)Ph:20(29.9%)CP:13(19.4%)	H:15(15.5%)V:16(16.5%)Ph:49(50.5%)CP:17(17.5%)	H:4(10.3%)V:9(23.1%)Ph:18(46.2%)CP:8(20.5%)				χ²=9.19, df=6, p=0.163			-
Professionalisation	Amateur:24(35.8%)Semi-prof.:27(40.3%)Prof.:16(23.9%)	Amateur:30(30.9%)Semi-prof.:39(40.2%)Prof.:28(28.9%)	Amateur:14(35.9%)Semi-prof.:14(35.9%)Prof.:11(28.2%)				χ²=0.903, df=4, p=0.924			-
Stage	Beginning:44(65.7%)Highest:18(26.9%)End:5(7.5%)	Beginning:53(55.2%)Highest:34(35.4%)End:9(9.4%)	Beginning:12(31.6%)Highest:18(47.4%)End:8(21.1%)				χ²=12.68, df=, p=0.013*			V=0.05
Hours/week study	27.27±18.00	27.51±15.90	22.12±13.97				F=1.55, df=2, p=0.214			-
Hours/week sport	14.81±27.70	14.60±8.15	15.55±9.37				F=0.04, df=2, p=0.960			-

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; -: no significant differences.

Disability: H(Hearing), V(Visual), Ph(Physical), CP(Cerebral Palsy)

Table 2

Differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on gender

		Male (n=130)	Female (n=73)	Group differences (t, df, p)	η²	Mean dif.	95%ICC
		(Mean±SD)		Group differences (t, df, p)	η²	Mean dif.	95%ICC
Difficulty in reconciling sports and studies (scale: 1 to 5)		3.22±0.86	3.31±0.88	t=-0.75, df=200, p=0.453	-	-0.09±0.12	-0.34; 0.15
Barriers towards achieving a good balance between sporting life and studies (scale: 1 to 5)	The university/educational institution is far from my home	3.03±1.37	3.21±1.29	t=-0.91, df=201, p=0.360	-	-0.18±0.19	-0.56; 0.20
	The university/educational institution is far from my training centre	3.05±1.34	3.34±1.32	t=-1.47, df=201, p=0.142	-	-0.28±0.19	-0.67; 0.09
	I find myself unable to balance study and training time	2.64±1.28	2.54±1.39	t=0.506, df=201, p=0.613	-	0.09±0.19	-0.28; 0.48
	My current job does not allow me to study enough	2.46±1.39	2.80±1.41	t=-1.55, df=165, p=0.123	-	-0.34±0.22	-0.79; 0.09
	I have to take care of my family	2.24±1.34	2.15±1.31	t=0.48, df=201, p=0.626	-	0.09±0.19	-0.29; 0.48
	I am usually tired	2.85±1.20	3.26±1.35	t=-2.21, df=201, p=0.028*	0.24	-0.41±0.18	-0.77; -0.04
	I lose the rhythm of the academic year	2.86±1.28	2.94±1.27	t=-0.41, df=199, p=0.679	-	-0.07±0.18	-0.44; 0.29
	I lose touch with my classmates	2.72±1.28	2.90±1.46	t=-0.88, df=200, p=0.377	-	-0.17±0.19	-0.56; 0.21
	The cost of education is high	2.60±1.38	2.68±1.45	t=-0.41, df=201, p=0.681	-	-0.08±0.20	-0.49; 0.32
	I do not have enough university/educational institution support	3.08±1.36	3.13±1.41	t=-0.25, df=201, p=0.796	-	-0.05±0.20	-0.45; 0.34
	Students’ timetables are not flexible	3.27±1.31	3.30±1.36	t=-0.12, df=201, p=0.901	-	-0.02±0.19	-0.41; 0.36
	Training’s timetables are not flexible	2.78±1.34	2.98±1.39	t=-0.89, df=165, p=0.370	-	-0.19±0.21	-0.62; 0.23
Exercise barriers scale (scale: 1 to 4)	Exercising takes too much of my time	2.20±0.93	2.16±0.83	t=0.30, df=200, p=0.758	-	0.04±0.13	-0.22; 0.30
	Exercise tires me	2.46±0.94	2.43±0.98	t=0.16, df=201, p=0.869	-	0.02±0.14	-0.25; 0.30
	Places for me to exercise are too far away	2.25±0.90	2.27±1.03	t=-0.14, df=201, p=0.886	-	-0.02±0.13	-0.29; 0.25
	I am too embarrassed to exercise	1.41±0.81	1.39±0.79	t=0.15, df=201, p=0.878	-	0.01±0.11	-0.21; 0.25
	It costs too much to exercise	1.79±0.86	1.77±0.80	t=0.15, df=200, p=0.877	-	0.01±0.11	-0.21; 0.26
	Exercise facilities do not have convenient timetables for me	2.56±1.11	2.35±1.12	t=1.30, df=201, p=0.194	-	0.21±0.16	-0.10; 0.53
	I am fatigued by exercise	1.92±0.89	1.82±0.96	t=0.75, df=201, p=0.453	-	0.10±0.13	-0.16; 0.36
	My spouse (or significant other) does not encourage exercising	1.42±0.80	1.31±0.64	t=0.99, df=198, p=0.319	-	0.11±0.11	-0.10; 0.32
	Exercise takes too much time from family relationships	2.01±0.99	2.00±0.97	t=0.10, df=201, p=0.915	-	0.01±0.14	-0.26; 0.30
	I think people in exercise clothes look funny	2.29±1.03	2.47±1.16	t=-1.17, df=201, p=0.240	-	-0.18±0.15	-0.50; 0.12
	My family members do not encourage me to exercise	1.40±0.80	1.45±0.87	t=-0.41, df=200, p=0.678	-	-0.05±0.12	-0.29; 0.18
	Exercise takes too much time from my family responsibilities	1.89±0.96	1.83±0.83	t=0.42, df=201, p=0.674	-	0.05±0.13	-0.20; 0.32
	Exercise is hard work for me	2.03±0.93	2.01±0.93	t=0.12, df=201, p=0.901	-	0.01±0.13	-0.25; 0.28
	There are too few places for me to exercise	2.25±1.11	2.11±1.13	t=0.87, df=199, p=0.381	-	0.14±0.16	-0.18; 0.46
Athletic identity measurement scale (scale: 1 to 7)	I consider myself an athlete	5.48±1.61	5.45±1.58	t=0.13, df=201, p=0.890	-	0.03±0.23	-0.42; 0.49
	I have many goals related to sport	5.62±1.61	5.57±1.69	t=0.19, df=201, p=0.843	-	0.04±0.24	-0.42; 0.52
	Most of my friends are athletes	4.37±1.61	4.43±1.93	t=-0.24, df=201, p=0.809	-	-0.06±0.25	-0.56; 0.43
	Sports are the most important part of my life	5.11±1.72	5.13±1.58	t=-0.08, df=201, p=0.930	-	-0.02±0.24	-0.50; 0.46
	I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else	4.60±1.78	4.53±1.81	t=0.28, df=201, p=0.780	-	0.07±0.26	-0.44; 0.59
	I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports	4.84±1.75	4.83±1.81	t=0.04, df=200, p=0.961	-	0.01±0.26	-0.50; 0.52
	I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not compete in sports	5.24±1.84	5.23±1.76	t=0.05, df=201, p=0.960	-	0.01±0.26	-0.51; 0.53

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; -: no significant differences.

Table 3

Differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on type of disability

		Hearing (n=34)	Visual (n=44)	Physical (n=87)	Cerebral palsy (n=38)	Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
		(Mean±SD)				Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
Difficulty in reconciling sports and studies (scale: 1 to 5)		3.41±0.82	2.86±0.70	3.46±0.09	3.10±0.84	F=5.64, df=3, p=0.001**	0.08
Barriers towards achieving a good balance between sporting life and studies (scale: 1 to 5)	The university/educational institution is far from my home	3.23±1.15	2.90±1.37	3.08±1.39	3.26±1.36	F=0.596, df=3, p=0.618	-
	The university/educational institution is far from my training centre	3.17±1.14	3.06±1.40	3.11±1.35	3.34±1.43	F=0.332, df=3, p=0.802	-
	I find myself unable to balance study and training time	2.58±1.37	2.40±1.31	2.77±1.30	2.50±1.35	F=0.850, df=3, p=0.468	-
	My current job does not allow me to study enough	2.96±1.20	2.27±1.34	2.68±1.49	2.42±1.46	F=1.66, df=3, p=0.177	-
	I have to take care of my family	2.44±1.23	1.95±1.19	2.19±1.34	2.34±1.52	F=1.00, df=3, p=0.392	-
	I am usually tired	3.21±1.15	2.75±1.27	3.06±1.28	2.97±1.32	F=0.93, df=3, p=0.427	-
	I lose the rhythm of the academic year	2.91±1.19	2.88±1.22	3.01±1.31	2.63±1.36	F=0.77, df=3, p=0.512	-
	I lose touch with my classmates	3.11±1.34	2.59±1.36	2.77±1.32	2.76±1.40	F=0.99, df=3, p=0.398	-
	The cost of education is high	3.17±1.52	2.25±1.22	2.52±1.37	2.81±1.43	F=3.26, df=3, p=0.023*	0.05
	I do not have enough university/educational institution support	3.08±1.44	2.70±1.21	3.05±1.46	3.68±1.14	F=3.63, df=3, p=0.014*	0.05
	Students’ timetables are not flexible	3.41±1.25	2.95±1.29	3.29±1.43	3.52±1.20	F=1.42, df=3, p=0.238	-
	Training’s timetables are not flexible	2.81±1.25	2.70±1.35	2.84±1.43	3.11±1.34	F=0.58, df=3, p=0.626	-
Exercise benefits/barriers scale (scale: 1 to 4)	Exercising takes too much of my time	1.97±0.83	2.41±0.95	2.24±0.93	2.02±0.75	F=2.13, df=3, p=0.097	-
	Exercise tires me	1.97±0.75	2.52±0.90	2.58±1.00	2.50±0.97	F=3.66, df=3, p=0.013*	0.05
	Places for me to exercise are too far away	2.02±0.79	2.52±0.99	2.17±0.95	2.36±0.97	F=2.23, df=3, p=0.086	-
	I am too embarrassed to exercise	1.35±0.59	1.59±1.01	1.41±0.81	1.23±0.63	F=1.39, df=3, p=0.247	-
	It costs too much to exercise	1.58±0.65	1.88±0.82	1.82±0.91	1.76±0.85	F=0.88, df=3, p=0.448	-
	Exercise facilities do not have convenient timetables for me	2.17±1.05	2.13±1.06	2.56±1.14	3.02±0.94	F=5.77, df=3, p=0.001**	0.08
	I am fatigued by exercise	1.67±0.80	2.00±0.91	2.02±0.97	1.63±0.81	F=2.48, df=3, p=0.062	-
	My spouse (or significant other) does not encourage exercising	1.29±0.62	1.62±0.95	1.34±0.73	1.29±0.57	F=1.93, df=3, p=0.125	-
	Exercise takes too much time from family relationships	2.02±0.86	2.06±0.97	2.06±0.99	1.78±1.06	F=0.79, df=3, p=0.500	-
	I think people in exercise clothes look funny	2.47±1.02	2.54±1.02	2.20±1.12	2.39±1.12	F=1.13, df=3, p=0.336	-
	My family members do not encourage me to exercise	1.47±0.74	1.46±0.79	1.39±0.86	1.42±0.82	F=0.11, df=3, p=0.950	-
	Exercise takes too much time from my family responsibilities	1.73±0.79	1.97±0.97	1.88±0.94	1.84±0.91	F=0.45, df=3, p=0.712	-
	Exercise is hard work for me	1.85±0.78	2.09±0.93	1.97±0.98	2.21±0.93	F=1.03, df=3, p=0.380	-
	There are too few places for me to exercise	1.88±0.94	2.46±1.07	2.19±1.16	2.21±1.16	F=1.73, df=3, p=0.161	-
Athletic identity measurement scale (scale: 1 to 7)	I consider myself an athlete	5.67±1.49	5.70±1.59	5.48±1.63	5.00±1.57	F=1.61, df=3, p=0.187	-
	I have many goals related to sport	5.82±1.48	5.59±1.70	5.65±1.61	5.31±1.78	F=0.61, df=3, p=0.604	-
	Most of my friends are athletes	5.05±1.51	4.50±1.69	4.10±1.81	4.36±1.66	F=2.60, df=3, p=0.053	-
	Sports are the most important part of my life	5.58±1.35	4.97±1.54	5.11±1.81	4.89±1.70	F=1.22, df=3, p=0.301	-
	I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else	4.73±1.48	4.29±1.84	4.75±1.81	4.36±1.90	F=0.92, df=3, p=0.432	-
	I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports	4.52±1.63	4.83±1.58	5.10±1.75	4.52±2.07	F=1.39, df=3, p=0.247	-
	I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not compete in sports	5.20±1.70	4.97±1.87	5.35±1.75	5.31±2.00	F=0.45, df=3, p=0.717	-

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; -: no significant differences.

Table 4

Differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on sports level of professionalisation

		Amateur (n=68)	Semi-professional (n=80)	Professional (n=55)	Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
		(Mean±SD)			Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
Difficulty in reconciling sports and studies (scale: 1 to 5)		3.11±0.82	3.32±0.86	3.32±0.92	F=1.26, df=2, p=0.286	-
Barriers towards achieving a good balance between sporting life and studies (scale: 1 to 5)	The university/educational institution is far from my home	2.98±1.22	3.35±1.27	2.89±1.54	F=2.314, df=2, p=0.101	-
	The university/educational institution is far from my training centre	3.10±1.23	3.42±1.21	2.83±1.57	F=3.283, df=2, p=0.040*	0.03
	I find myself unable to balance study and training time	2.77±1.23	2.42±1.28	2.67±1.47	F=1.404, df=2, p=0.248	-
	My current job does not allow me to study enough	2.27±1.33	2.72±1.47	2.77±1.36	F=2.03, df=2, p=0.135	-
	I have to take care of my family	2.20±1.32	2.31±1.42	2.10±1.21	F=0.52, df=2, p=0.593	-
	I am usually tired	3.12±1.91	2.93±1.26	2.96±1.38	F=0.45, df=2, p=0.638	-
	I lose the rhythm of the academic year	2.91±1.08	2.91±1.28	2.85±1.50	F=0.42, df=2, p=0.958	-
	I lose touch with my classmates	2.57±1.13	3.02±1.43	2.72±1.44	F=2.15, df=2, p=0.119	-
	The cost of education is high	2.48±1.28	2.72±1.50	2.67±1.40	F=0.56, df=2, p=0.569	-
	I do not have enough university/educational institution support	2.97±1.32	3.26±1.38	3.03±1.43	F=0.91, df=2, p=0.404	-
	Students’ timetables are not flexible	3.26±1.19	3.30±1.34	3.29±1.51	F=0.13, df=2, p=0.987	-
	Training’s timetables are not flexible	3.18±1.18	2.66±1.35	2.77±1.52	F=2.36, df=2, p=0.097	-
Exercise benefits/barriers scale (scale: 1 to 4)	Exercising takes too much of my time	2.26±0.74	2.01±0.83	2.37±1.12	F=2.91, df=2, p=0.056	-
	Exercise tires me	2.60±0.97	2.31±0.89	2.47±1.01	F=1.70, df=2, p=0.184	-
	Places for me to exercise are too far away	2.25±0.90	2.31±1.00	2.20±0.95	F=0.23, df=2, p=0.793	-
	I am too embarrassed to exercise	1.33±0.63	1.46±0.91	1.41±0.83	F=0.44, df=2, p=0.645	-
	It costs too much to exercise	1.80±0.79	1.79±0.83	1.74±0.92	F=0.09, df=2, p=0.910	-
	Exercise facilities do not have convenient timetables for me	2.42±1.11	2.60±1.06	2.41±1.21	F=0.60, df=2, p=0.546	-
	I am fatigued by exercise	1.95±0.96	1.83±0.87	1.87±0.92	F=0.31, df=2, p=0.732	-
	My spouse (or significant other) does not encourage exercising	1.33±0.68	1.38±0.70	1.46±0.88	F=0.44, df=2, p=0.643	-
	Exercise takes too much time from family relationships	1.83±0.92	1.96±0.93	2.29±1.08	F=3.44, df=2, p=0.034*	0.03
	I think people in exercise clothes look funny	2.22±1.04	2.40±1.07	2.47±1.15	F=0.90, df=2, p=0.405	-
	My family members do not encourage me to exercise	1.39±0.79	1.35±0.69	1.56±1.01	F=1.10, df=2, p=0.335	-
	Exercise takes too much time from my family responsibilities	1.80±0.86	1.82±0.88	2.01±1.02	F=0.90, df=2, p=0.405	-
	Exercise is hard work for me	2.04±0.90	1.95±0.88	2.10±1.04	F=0.49, df=2, p=0.613	-
	There are too few places for me to exercise	2.38±1.14	2.23±1.09	1.94±1.09	F=2.38, df=2, p=0.095	-
Athletic identity measurement scale (scale: 1 to 7)	I consider myself an athlete	4.57±1.43	5.60±1.46	6.40±1.39	F=25.07, df=2, p<0.001***	0.20
	I have many goals related to sport	4.77±1.60	5.72±1.52	6.45±1.37	F=19.06, df=2, p<0.001***	0.16
	Most of my friends are athletes	3.95±1.57	4.26±1.68	5.14±1.76	F=8.10, df=2, p<0.001***	0.07
	Sports are the most important part of my life	4.30±1.67	5.12±1.54	6.12±1.27	F=21.60, df=2, p<0.001***	0.18
	I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else	4.01±1.76	4.50±1.71	5.40±1.65	F=10.06, df=2, p<0.001***	0.09
	I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports	4.42±1.84	4.94±1.60	5.20±1.83	F=3.19, df=2, p=0.043*	0.03
	I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not compete in sports	5.14±1.78	5.40±1.74	5.12±1.95	F=0.50, df=2, p=0.604	-

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; -: no significant differences.

Table 5

Differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depends on stage of sport career

		Beginning (n=109)	Highest level (n=70)	End (n=22)	Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
		(Mean±SD)			Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
Difficulty in reconciling sports and studies (scale: 1 to 5)		3.10±0.87	3.38±0.82	3.63±0.90	F=4.68, df=2, p=0.010*	0.04
Barriers towards achieving a good balance between sporting life and studies (scale: 1 to 5)	The university/educational institution is far from my home	3.04±1.28	3.21±1.43	3.13±1.39	F=0.33, df=2, p=0.716	-
	The university/educational institution is far from my training centre	3.14±1.27	3.10±1.43	3.50±1.37	F=0.77, df=2, p=0.462	-
	I find myself unable to balance study and training time	2.64±1.31	2.52±1.35	2.77±1.30	F=0.32, df=2, p=0.723	-
	My current job does not allow me to study enough	2.50±1.32	2.64±1.51	2.86±1.55	F=0.53, df=2, p=0.588	-
	I have to take care of my family	2.24±1.32	2.17±1.36	2.18±1.36	F=0.76, df=2, p=0.927	-
	I am usually tired	2.99±1.29	3.01±1.19	3.09±1.41	F=0.57, df=2, p=0.945	-
	I lose the rhythm of the academic year	2.92±1.23	2.89±1.40	2.81±1.13	F=0.65, df=2, p=0.937	-
	I lose touch with my classmates	2.61±1.31	3.08±1.43	2.81±1.18	F=2.62, df=2, p=0.075	-
	The cost of education is high	2.51±1.30	2.84±1.53	2.59±1.46	F=1.17, df=2, p=0.311	-
	I do not have enough university/educational institution support	3.07±1.28	3.20±1.50	3.04±1.46	F=0.20, df=2, p=0.812	-
	Students’ timetables are not flexible	3.19±1.27	3.40±1.43	3.50±1.30	F=0.79, df=2, p=0.453	-
	Training’s timetables are not flexible	2.81±1.33	2.91±1.40	2.93±1.48	F=0.13, df=2, p=0.876	-
Exercise benefits/barriers scale (scale: 1 to 4)	Exercising takes too much of my time	2.11±0.85	2.24±1.01	2.40±0.73	F=1.09, df=2, p=0.335	-
	Exercise tires me	2.51±0.94	2.40±0.99	2.36±0.95	F=0.41, df=2, p=0.663	-
	Places for me to exercise are too far away	2.32±0.98	2.15±0.89	2.31±1.04	F=0.66, df=2, p=0.516	-
	I am too embarrassed to exercise	1.43±0.87	1.32±0.71	1.54±0.73	F=0.69, df=2, p=0.498	-
	It costs too much to exercise	1.79±0.82	1.72±0.86	1.95±0.89	F=0.59, df=2, p=0.551	-
	Exercise facilities do not have convenient timetables for me	2.46±1.14	2.55±1.11	2.50±1.05	F=0.13, df=2, p=0.874	-
	I am fatigued by exercise	1.93±0.94	1.74±0.87	2.09±0.92	F=1.55, df=2, p=0.215	-
	My spouse (or significant other) does not encourage exercising	1.39±0.73	1.37±0.80	1.40±0.66	F=0.01, df=2, p=0.982	-
	Exercise takes too much time from family relationships	1.90±0.92	2.14±1.05	2.13±1.03	F=1.39, df=2, p=0.250	-
	I think people in exercise clothes look funny	2.36±1.10	2.38±1.05	2.31±1.17	F=0.03, df=2, p=0.968	-
	My family members do not encourage me to exercise	1.50±0.85	1.28±0.78	1.45±0.80	F=1.56, df=2, p=0.211	-
	Exercise takes too much time from my family responsibilities	1.85±0.89	1.87±0.91	2.00±1.11	F=0.23, df=2, p=0.794	-
	Exercise is hard work for me	2.04±0.90	2.05±1.00	1.86±0.88	F=0.38, df=2, p=0.678	-
	There are too few places for me to exercise	2.30±1.13	2.04±1.09	2.27±1.12	F=1.18, df=2, p= 0.307	-
Athletic identity measurement scale (scale: 1 to 7)	I consider myself an athlete	5.24±1.61	6.08±1.33	4.59±1.68	F=10.41, df=, p<0.001***	0.09
	I have many goals related to sport	5.55±1.65	6.07±1.32	4.36±1.86	F=9.95, df=2, p<0.001***	0.09
	Most of my friends are athletes	4.28±1.68	4.68±1.81	3.95±1.61	F=1.93, df=2, p=0.147	-
	Sports are the most important part of my life	5.05±1.70	5.55±1.53	4.04±1.52	F=7.38, df=2, p=0.001**	0.07
	I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else	4.55±1.76	4.88±1.71	3.68±1.96	F=3.88, df=2, p=0.022*	0.04
	I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports	4.71±1.80	5.14±1.70	4.54±1.79	F=1.60, df=2, p=0.204	-
	I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not compete in sports	5.40±1.73	5.25±1.82	4.45±2.08	F=2.53, df=2, p=0.082	-

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; -: no significant differences.

Table 6

Differences in dual career barriers; exercise barriers and athletic identity depending on the level of education

		Pre-University (n=67)	University Degree (n=97)	Post-U. Degree (n=39)	Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
		(Mean±SD)			Group differences (F, df, p)	η²
Difficulty in reconciling sports and studies (scale: 1 to 5)		2.95±0.84	3.45±0.90	3.28±0.69	F=6.89, df=2, p=0.001**	0.06
Barriers towards achieving a good balance between sporting life and studies (scale: 1 to 5)	The university/educational institution is far from my home	2.98±1.31	3.30±1.30	2.79±1.43	F=2.44, df=2, p=0.089	-
	The university/educational institution is far from my training centre	3.00±1.39	3.1±1.28	3.02±1.38	F=1.35, df=2, p=0.260	-
	I find myself unable to balance study and training time	2.65±1.36	2.65±1.31	2.41±1.29	F=0.55, df=2, p=0.577	-
	My current job does not allow me to study enough	2.66±1.30	2.50±1.48	2.68±1.44	F=0.29, df=2, p=0.744	-
	I have to take care of my family	2.52±1.41	1.96±1.96	2.28±1.43	F=3.56, df=2, p=0.030*	0.03
	I am usually tired	2.81±1.37	3.20±1.18	2.85±1.24	F=2.24, df=2, p=0.108	-
	I lose the rhythm of the academic year	2.85±1.23	3.03±1.25	2.63±1.42	F=1.38, df=2, p=0.252	-
	I lose touch with my classmates	2.52±1.31	2.91±1.35	2.94±1.35	F=2.02, df=2, p=0.135	-
	The cost of education is high	2.77±1.41	2.55±1.40	2.56±1.41	F=0.53, df=2, p=0.587	-
	I do not have enough university/educational institution support	2.97±1.39	3.20±1.33	3.07±1.47	F=0.58, df=2, p=0.558	-
	Students’ timetables are not flexible	3.04±1.44	3.41±1.21	3.38±1.42	F=1.63, df=2, p=0.197	-
	Training’s timetables are not flexible	2.68±1.37	2.87±1.35	2.86±1.36	F=1.24, df=2, p=0.290	-
Exercise benefits/barriers scale (scale: 1 to 4)	Exercising takes too much of my time	2.11±0.86	2.27±0.92	2.10±0.92	F=0.83, df=2, p=0.435	-
	Exercise tires me	2.38±0.99	2.42±0.93	2.64±0.95	F=0.94, df=2, p=0.389	-
	Places for me to exercise are too far away	2.08±0.86	2.32±0.96	2.38±1.04	F=1.68, df=2, p=0.189	-
	I am too embarrassed to exercise	1.41±0.81	1.47±0.89	1.23±0.48	F=1.28, df=2, p=0.280	-
	It costs too much to exercise	1.74±0.74	1.81±0.89	1.79±0.89	F=0.12, df=2, p=0.885	-
	Exercise facilities do not have convenient timetables for me	2.29±1.10	2.64±1.13	2.43±1.07	F=2.03, df=2, p=0.134	-
	I am fatigued by exercise	1.85±0.94	1.86±0.82	2.00±1.07	F=0.37, df=2, p=0.691	-
	My spouse (or significant other) does not encourage exercising	1.53±0.80	1.30±0.66	1.36±0.81	F=1.85, df=2, p=0.160	-
	Exercise takes too much time from family relationships	2.01±0.94	2.05±1.02	1.89±0.96	F=0.34, df=2, p=0.712	-
	I think people in exercise clothes look funny	2.64±1.04	2.26±1.07	2.10±1.11	F=3.79, df=2, p=0.024*	0.04
	My family members do not encourage me to exercise	1.41±0.81	1.47±0.85	1.30±0.76	F=0.59, df=2, p=0.551	-
	Exercise takes too much time from my family responsibilities	1.85±0.92	1.86±0.89	1.92±0.98	F=0.07, df=2, p=0.924	-
	Exercise is hard work for me	2.11±0.94	1.93±0.89	2.07±1.01	F=0.81, df=2, p=0.443	-
	There are too few places for me to exercise	2.26±1.12	2.14±1.08	2.23±1.22	F=0.24, df=2, p=0.785	-
Athletic identity measurement scale (scale: 1 to 7)	I consider myself an athlete	5.44±1.56	5.61±1.59	5.15±1.66	F=1.18, df=2, p=0.307	-
	I have many goals related to sport	5.58±1.58	5.77±1.64	5.23±1.70	F=1.53, df=2, p=0.218	-
	Most of my friends are athletes	4.76±1.65	4.38±1.72	3.82±1.77	F=3.74, df=2, p=0.025*	0.03
	Sports are the most important part of my life	5.17±1.65	5.27±1.61	4.64±1.79	F=2.09, df=2, p=0.126	-
	I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else	4.61±1.80	4.64±1.72	4.35±1.93	F=0.37, df=2, p=0.685	-
	I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports	4.38±1.85	5.10±1.74	4.97±1.58	F=3.42, df=2, p=0.034*	0.03
	I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not compete in sports	5.04±1.91	5.38±1.76	5.23±1.76	F=0.68, df=2, p=0.506	-

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; -: no significant differences.

No competing interests reported.

Self-perception of dual career barriers and athletic identity in student-athletes with disabilities according to socio-demographic, sport and academic variables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Design

Participants

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1