Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Youth Experiences Survey for Sport (YES-S)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on Positive Youth Development (PYD) has been hampered by lack of a valid measure for the construct, particularly for research in sport. The Youth Experiences Scale for Sport (YES-S) [1], is a five-factor measure of positive youth outcomes specifically designed for the sport context. The YES-S is a promising instrument that fills an important niche in PYD research, and MacDonald et al. provided support for many of its psychometric properties. However, the factor structure of the scale is currently based on an exploratory factor analysis and has not yet been subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The present study was designed to confirm the five-factor structure of the YES-S. A sample of 350 youth sport athletes (196 male, 153 female) completed the YES-S. A CFA showed that a modified version of the five-factor YES-S had excellent fit of the model to the data. An analysis of invariance showed no differences in responses in terms of gender. It is concluded that this short-form YES-S offers excellent psychometric properties while retaining the original factor structure of the YES-S. The results offer further support for the validity of the factor structure of the YES-S while providing a shorter version of the scale, which may be appealing for research with younger sport participants.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".