Imagery Use in Elite Youth Sport Participants: Reinforcing the Applied Significance of Achievement Goal Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the motivational profiles of elite youth athletes to determine whether individual differences in goal orientation corresponded with differential levels of imagery use. Two hundred ninety male (n = 88) and female (n = 202) young athletes (M = 16.6 years, SD = 1.48) completed the Perceptions of Success Questionnaire (POSQ, Roberts, Treasure, & Balague, 1998) to assess dispositional goal orientations and the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998) to assess frequency and function of imagery use. A two-stage cluster analysis on the POSQ scores revealed a three-cluster solution with a multivariate analysis of variance indicating significant differences among cluster groups in imagery use. Athletes in Cluster 3 (higher task/higher ego) used significantly more imagery, regardless of the function than athletes in Cluster 1 (lower task/moderate ego) or Cluster 2 (moderate task/lower ego). These findings are discussed with reference to the role of achievement motivation in influencing young athletes' behavioral investments in mental strategies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".