Assessment of validity of the MCOPE for hockey officials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modified-COPE (MCOPE) scale consists of 48 items divided over 12 subscales and was originally developed to measure coping strategies employed by athletes (Crocker & Graham, 1995). In this study, the MCOPE was used in a sample of hockey officials. It can be argued that officials face stressful situations that are comparable to those of athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to validate the MCOPE for hockey officials. Minor modifications were made to some of the original items. Items were changed because they were double-barrelled (i.e., items referring to more than one concept that may be interpreted differently), or to reflect the unique situations hockey officials find themselves in. Based on initial correlational and reliability analyses, further changes were made so the scale could be used in the main study (e.g., subscales were removed due to low reliability scores). A total of 35 items across nine subscales were included in the adapted MCOPE. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the fit of the scale's structure using responses from 244 hockey officials. Goodness-of-fit indices showed a moderate fit to the data: ?2 (524, n = 244) = 1025; RMSEA = 0.062; SRMR = 0.081; CFI = 0.919; NNFI = 0.908), which was deemed acceptable for an adapted version of a questionnaire. Reliability coefficients ranged from .68 to .87. In conclusion, the MCOPE used in this study is a valid and reliable option to measure coping strategies adopted by hockey officials.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".