The relationship of task self-efficacy and role efficacy beliefs to role performance in Spanish youth soccer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between role efficacy and role performance after controlling for the effects of task self-efficacy. Two hundred and ninety-five Spanish youth soccer players from 20 teams completed self-report measures of task self-efficacy, role efficacy and role performance at the mid-point of a competitive season. The 20 team coaches also provided ratings of each of their players' role performances at mid-season. Consistent with hypotheses, bivariate correlations showed task self-efficacy and role efficacy were positively related to role performance ratings. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that role efficacy contributed significantly to the prediction of athletes' ratings of role performance after controlling for task self-efficacy. Role efficacy also explained significant variation in the prediction of coach ratings; however, the effects were less dramatic and inconsistent. Our results support self-efficacy theory and reinforce the value of assessing efficacy beliefs representing behaviours carried out both independently and interdependently for the prediction of role performance within team environments. Future research directions are proposed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".