Longitudinal Patterns of Stability and Change in Coping across Three Competitions: A Latent Class Growth Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An unresolved issue in the coping literature concerns the traitlike versus statelike nature of coping utilization. The aim of this study was to illustrate the benefits of moving beyond the sole reliance on mean-level and rank-order analyses in order to identify heterogeneous patterns of longitudinal stability and change in coping utilization. More specifically, this study hypothesized that not all athletes would change their coping across competitions, nor do all "changers" change in a similar manner. Male soccer players (N = 107) completed a self-reported coping measure after three competitions held over a 6-month period. Results of latent class growth modeling showed three distinct trajectories for each coping dimension (i.e., task, distraction, and disengagement coping), not only indicating linear or quadratic change, but also stability in longitudinal coping utilization. These results highlight the need to account for the multinomial heterogeneity in longitudinal coping utilization and to identify the correlates associated with distinct trajectories of change and stability of coping across competitions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".