MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168545818 · doi:10.1123/jsep.22.2.183

Reexamining the Factorial Composition and Factor Structure of the Sport Anxiety Scale

2000· article· en· W2168545818 on OpenAlexaff
John G.H. Dunn, Janice Causgrove Dunn, Philip Wilson, Daniel G. Syrotuik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyWorryConfirmatory factor analysisAnxietyExploratory factor analysisAthletesFactorialScale (ratio)Somatic anxietyPsychometricsClinical psychologySocial psychologyStructural equation modelingStatisticsPhysical therapyPsychiatryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since Smith, Smoll, and Schutz (1990) published their work describing the development of the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS)—a multidimensional measure of competitive trait anxiety—few researchers have evaluated or replicated the factorial composition and factor structure of the instrument. The purpose of this article was to investigate the factorial composition and factor structure of the SAS among 3 independent samples of male intercollegiate and high-school-age athletes (N = 504). In accordance with theoretical expectations, results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the SAS consists of 3 subscales measuring somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety/worry, and concentration disruption. However, exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic results showed that 2 items originally designed to measure concentration disruption did not load on the expected factor. Explanations as to why the concentration disruption subscale did not function in accordance with theoretical expectations are offered, along with recommendations for continued psychometric assessment of the instrument.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207