Purpose: The study examined wrestling-related knowledge among state-level wrestlers and described the development and preliminary measurement properties of a questionnaire covering five knowledge domains. Methods: The source chapter reports an 86-item questionnaire comprising History of Wrestling (15 items), Rules and Regulations (17), Training and Practice (13), Nutrition (26), and Doping (15). Expert review was used to assess content validity, and test–retest reliability was examined in a pilot group of 30 wrestlers over four weeks. The survey results reported in the chapter refer to 500 state-level wrestlers. Descriptive statistics and item-wise percentages were summarized. Results: The reported overall mean was 66.75 (SD = 8.91) out of 86, equivalent to 77.62% of the maximum score. Domain mean percentages ranged from 74.53% for Doping to 79.00% for Rules and Regulations and Nutrition. The overall content validity index was reported as 0.90, while domain test–retest coefficients ranged from 0.68 to 0.84, with an overall coefficient of 0.78. In a separate categorical summary, adequate knowledge was reported as highest for Rules and Regulations (78%) and lowest for History of Wrestling (42%). The findings of the present study indicate that state-level wrestlers demonstrated a generally favourable level of knowledge across the various domains assessed by the Wrestling Knowledge Questionnaire. However, relative gaps were observed in wrestling history, anti-doping practices, nutrition, and selected training concepts, highlighting the need for targeted educational interventions. The findings emphasise the importance of integrating theoretical knowledge with practical wrestling training to enhance athletes’ understanding of the technical, nutritional, regulatory, and ethical aspects of the sport. Structured awareness programmes, workshops, and periodic knowledge assessments may help strengthen these areas and support the holistic development of wrestlers. Overall, the study highlights the significance of sport-specific knowledge in promoting informed participation and responsible sporting practices among state-level wrestlers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghadage et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: