Examination of Burnout and Perfectionism Levels in Physically Disabled

This study comparatively examines athlete burnout and sport-specific multidimensional perfectionism among basketball athletes with and without physical disabilities and investigates the relationships between these psychological variables within each group. A cross-sectional correlational survey design was used. The sample comprised 205 athletes, including 86 athletes with physical disabilities and 119 athletes without physical disabilities. Data were collected using a personal information form, the Sport-Specific Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and the Turkish adaptation of the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire. Independent-samples t tests and Pearson correlation analyses were used to evaluate the reported scores. Athletes without physical disabilities had significantly higher overall burnout scores and emotional/physical exhaustion scores than athletes with physical disabilities. They also had higher overall perfectionism scores and higher scores for concern over mistakes, perceived family pressure, and personal standards. Within both groups, overall burnout scores were positively correlated with each burnout subscale, and overall perfectionism scores were positively correlated with each perfectionism subscale. However, the burnout subscales were not significantly correlated with one another. Overall burnout was not significantly correlated with overall perfectionism or any perfectionism subscale in either group. Among athletes without physical disabilities, reduced accomplishment was positively associated with concern over mistakes (r = 0.240, p = 0.009), representing an exception to the otherwise nonsignificant associations between the two constructs. These findings describe differences within the sampled basketball athletes and do not establish that disability status causes psychological differences. Performance expectations, training demands, and environmental conditions are possible explanations that require direct investigation. The results support assessing distinct psychological dimensions separately, while the cross-sectional design, unadjusted subgroup comparisons, and unresolved reporting details require cautious interpretation.