Self‐Efficacy and Athletic Squat Performance: Positive or Negative Influences at the Within‐ and Between‐Levels of Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 2001) and perceptual control theory (Powers, 1978, 1991) have described the self‐efficacy/performance relationship in stark contrast. Additionally, recent work exploring these discrepancies has yielded future research suggestions yet to be undertaken (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002; Yeo & Neal, 2006). Thus, this study explored the relationship between self‐efficacy and performance between‐ and within‐individuals over time. Division I collegiate American football players (N = 115) completed self‐efficacy questionnaires and one‐repetition maximum squat tests at 3 time points during off‐season strength training. Results revealed that self‐efficacy was positively related to squat performance at both the within‐ and between‐person levels when controlling for athletes' raw past performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".