MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2596153420

Exploring the role of specific conscientiousness facets on sport-specific practice and skill development among athletes

2016· article· en· W2596153420 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rafael Ab Tedesqui, Bradley W. Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientiousnessAthletesPsychologyMultinomial logistic regressionPersonalityBig Five personality traitsScale (ratio)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologySet (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conscientiousness (C), the tendency to control one's behaviour in the service of goals (McCrae & Lockenhöff, 2010), is a dispositional variable consistently linked to performance achievement outside sport (e.g., Poropat, 2014). It also influences sport success (Malinauskas et al., 2014), however, research has yet to examine specific facets of C in relation to sport expertise development. Junior (ages 12-17) and senior (ages 18-43) athletes (120 male, 108 female; sport involvement = 14.05 hrs/wk, SD = 8.09) completed 60 survey items from the International Personality Item Pool assessing six C traits (i.e., self-efficacy, orderliness, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and cautiousness), questions to determine skill level (beginner/intermediate; advanced; expert groups), and items assessing sport-specific practice amounts, engagement in practice contexts, and threats to practice commitment. An original 6-factor measurement model showed very poor fit (CFI = .67) and inferior item loadings. EFA (direct oblimin) resulted in a refined 8-factor model with 32 items. We advanced all scale scores to concurrent validity tests. Controlling for age, only 'achievement striving' was correlated with practice amounts (r = .23, p = .005). Associations with engagement in practice and with threats to commitment were found for all other C traits suggesting that each uniquely contributes to athletes' involvement in practice contexts. Using multinomial logistic regression, we found that athletes who scored one unit higher on achievement striving were 5.34 times as likely to belong to the expert group compared to the beginner/intermediate group, suggesting that the tendency to set higher goals and work harder toward those goals is associated with more expert levels of skill development.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) through the Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship (767-2013-2136).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports→French-language works237,207→