Initial examination of the validity of 'consideration of future consequences' scales in an adolescent sport sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consideration of future consequences (CFC) represents the extent one considers the long-term implications of current actions (Strathman et al., 1994). Unexamined in sport, CFC may influence individuals' capability to self-regulate long-term deliberate practice (Barone et al. 1997). We compared the factor structure and concurrent validity of the original CFC-12 scale to our scale (CFC-A) which had added items (totaling 17) reflecting achievement striving among adolescents. Seventy-eight athletes (41 females, ages 13-18) completed both scales, and questions on performance level, deliberate practice amounts, and sport aspirations. We examined fit indices for three measurement models: unidimensional CFC-12, two-factor (Future, Immediate) CFC-12, two-factor (Future, Immediate) CFC-A. Unidimensional CFC-12 showed very poor fit (CFI=.72) and inferior item loadings. After eliminating two items, CFC-A showed superior fit (CFI=.92) to the two-factor CFC-12 (CFI=.88) and stronger item loadings on Future (7 items>.54) and Immediate (8 items>.57) factors. We advanced all scale scores to concurrent validity tests. Elite and non-elite groups did not differ on any scale and no scale correlated with deliberate practice, ps>30. Controlling for age, unidimensional CFC-12 (r=.28) and CFC-12 Future (r=.24) correlated with the number of years athletes were willing to continue to reach their peak, ps Acknowledgments: This research was funded by a grant from the Research Development Program and the Faculty of Health Sciences at University of Ottawa
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".