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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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