Development of a cohesion inventory for children's sport teams.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general purpose of this dissertation was to develop an inventory designed to measure cohesion in children’s (ages 9-12) sport teams. To this end, three studies were conducted. In Study 1, children became active agents in the process of test construction. More specifically, children (N = 167) participated in focus groups and completed open-ended questionnaires in order to provide information on their perceptions of cohesion as well as motives for participating, continuing, and ceasing involvement on sport teams. Study 2 involved the use of the information obtained from Study 1 to develop potential items for the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaires were distributed to child sport participants (N = 298) to determine factorial validity. Finally, the purpose of Study 3 was to establish construct validity for the Child Sport Cohesion Questionnaire (CSCQ) with a heterogeneous sample of children (N = 290). To accomplish this task, four separate tests of validity were assessed: convergent, discriminant, predictive, and factorial. The results from Study 1 indicated that children as young as 9 years can understand the cohesion construct. They are able to identify (a) advantages relating to cohesive teams, (b) disadvantages relating to non-cohesive teams, and (c) methods for increasing cohesion within teams. Finally, in Study 1, children advanced motives for (a) joining, (b) maintaining, and (c) ceasing involvement on sport teams. Study 2 resulted in the development of potential items for the questionnaire. The research team (N = 4) and age appropriate children (N = 8) provided content validity for the advanced items. Furthermore, factorial validity was demonstrated via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The resulting Child Sport Cohesion Questionnaire containing 16 items (task cohesion = 7, social cohesion = 7, negative spurious items = 2) and a 5-point Likert scale, demonstrated a strong model fit, good internal consistency values, and a moderate inter-factor correlation. The findings from Study 3 revealed that the newly developed CSCQ possessed (a) convergent validity, (b) discriminant validity, and (c) factorial validity. In addition, partial support for predictive validity was established. Overall, the combination of the results from Study 3 provides support for the construct validity of the CSCQ.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".