Using imagery to improve the self-efficacy of youth squash players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bandura (1997) proposed that imagery was one way to enhance self-efficacy. The purpose of the current study was to establish whether an individualized Motivational General-Mastery (MG-M) imagery intervention could help enhance self-efficacy among a youth athlete population. Participants included five youth squash players (Mage = 10.80 SD = 1.93) competing in either regional or provincial tournaments. A single subject multiple baseline design was employed spanning 13-18 weeks. Baseline, intervention and post-intervention measures included The Sport Imagery Questionnaire for Children (SIQ-C; Hall et al. 2009) and a squash specific self-efficacy questionnaire. The intervention consisted of daily imagery practice and weekly one on one meetings with the researcher to perform his or her imagery practice. Based on visual inspection of the data points (Beretvas & Chung, 2008) and d1 statistic as an effect size metric (Busk & Serlin, 1992), the results indicated marked improvements in self-efficacy for four of the five athletes. In addition, all but one athlete reported an increase in their use of MG-M imagery from baseline to post-intervention. The results from this study will help researchers and practitioners understand the use of MG-M imagery as a means to improve athletes' self-efficacy.Acknowledgments: SSHRC
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".