Development of, and Initial Validity Evidence for, the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale: A Multistudy Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this multistudy report was to develop, and then to provide initial validity evidence for measures derived from, the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale. Data were collected from referees (N = 1609) in the United States (n = 978) and Spain (n = 631). In Study 1 (n = 512), a single-group exploratory structural equation model provided evidence for four factors: game knowledge, decision making, pressure, and communication. In Study 2 (n = 1153), multiple-group confirmatory factor analytic models provided evidence for partial factorial invariance by country, level of competition, team gender, and sport refereed. In Study 3 (n = 456), potential sources of referee self-efficacy information combined to account for a moderate or large amount of variance in each dimension of referee self-efficacy with years of referee experience, highest level refereed, physical/mental preparation, and environmental comfort, each exerting at least two statistically significant direct effects.
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 | 0.026 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".