Sport Participation Motivation in Young Adolescent Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the factor structure of the Sport Friendship Quality Scale (SFQS; Weiss and Smith, 1999) and compared two models in which (a) self-worth mediated the relationship between physical self/friendship quality and sport commitment and (b) friendship quality and physical self-perceptions directly predicted self-worth and sport commitment. Female team sport participants (N = 227) between the ages of 11 and 14 years completed measures of sport commitment, enjoyment, athletic competence, physical attractiveness, self-worth, and friendship qualities. A confirmatory factor analysis found an inadequate fit for the SFQS, mainly due to problems with the loyalty and intimacy subscale. Separating the loyalty and intimacy factor into two subscales provided an adequate fit. Examination of the two structural models indicated that both models provided an adequate overall fit but that self-worth only weakly predicted sport commitment, suggesting the mediator model was impractical. Friendship quality had a weak relationship with self-worth and sport commitment. Results are discussed in light of issues in measuring sport friendship quality and future directions in this developing field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".