Collective efficacy or team outcome confidence? Development and validation of the Observational Collective Efficacy Scale for Sports (OCESS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although collective efficacy has been demonstrated to be an important precursor of team performance, there remains some ambiguity concerning its assessment. Therefore, the main aim of the present study was to test the validity of previous collective efficacy measures. An online survey was completed by 4,451 Flemish players and coaches from nine different team sports. The results revealed two distinct and reliable scales; process-oriented collective efficacy (i.e., the confidence in the team’s skills to accomplish processes that could lead to successes) and outcome-oriented team confidence (i.e., the confidence in the team’s ability to obtain a goal or win a game). Furthermore, we established the validity of a 5-item Observational Collective Efficacy Scale for Sports (OCESS) as short measure of process-oriented collective efficacy. Because the OCESS only includes observable behaviors, this scale has the potential to be a starting point for the development of a continuous in-game measure of collective efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".