The female adolescent team sport athlete: Stress and ways of coping.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to identify the meanings of stress, the stressors, experienced, the coping strategies used, and the development of coping strategies by female adolescent team sport athletes. The research questions are: (a) What does stress mean to female adolescent athletes? (b) What everyday or ambient stressors do female adolescent athletes encounter in sport and in their daily lives? (c) What coping strategies do female adolescent athletes use when faced with ambient stressors in their sporting context and in their everyday lives? and (d) How did the athletes develop these coping strategies? With respect to the first research question, results showed that athletes in the present study stated that stress held a variety of meanings for them. They cited examples of being stressed in situations where they were nervous, anxious or worried, but noted that they also became stressed in situations where they were frustrated, upset or angry. Thus, the present study supports the need for researchers to move away from defining stress for their athlete participants and instead examining the athletes' own perceptions of stress (i.e., in their own words). The five athletes experienced a range of stressors related to soccer competition as well as from sport stressors considered to fall outside of the competitive arena. The athletes were found to also experience stress in their lives outside of sport. The fact that the athletes experienced significant stress due to their participation in a team sport context is a unique finding and makes a significant contribution to the literature. Furthermore, the finding that many of the team dynamic issues were especially stressful for the three athletes in leadership roles is an interesting finding and one that warrants further investigation. The athletes used behavioral control strategies, task focus strategies, thought control strategies and emotional release strategies when dealing with stress. The use of emotional release strategies appears to be a relatively new finding and makes a unique contribution to the literature. Interestingly, emotional control strategies such as visualization or imagery and other relaxation techniques were important strategies for only one athlete. The question regarding the development of coping strategies provided information related to the origin of coping strategies, but not the process used in their development. The present study makes a contribution, however, by providing insight into the people thought to be important influences in coping strategy development. Parents, coaches and friends were cited as influential models and as the people with whom athletes shared learning experiences. Thus, future research could focus on the impact of these significant others when investigating the development of coping strategies. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".