A confirmatory analysis of the short form youth experience scale for sport with a sample of Canadian university athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts have been made to validate an assessment tool for positive youth development (PYD) in younger sporting cohorts (MacDonald et al., 2012; Sullivan, LaForge-MacKenzie, & Marini, in press). MacDonald et al. created the Youth Experience Scale for Sport (YES-S), a five factor instrument with 4 positive developmental dimensions (i.e., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting, and initiative) and one negative dimension. Sullivan et al. ran confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) on the YES-S with a sample of 350 youth athletes and found support for a modified, 22 item Short Form YES-S. Rathwell and Young (2015) called for an assessment tool of PYD in the university sport domain. In this study, we explored the fit and factor structure of the Short Form YES-S with a sample of 605 Canadian university athletes (237m, 368f; Mage:20, range:17-25) from 26 different sports. Using AMOS software, CFAs were conducted to fit data to Sullivan et al.'s proposed 5 factor model. Results yielded a measurement model with good fit, CFI=.908, RMSEA=.058, and SRMR=.057. No modifications were made; factor composite reliability coefficients indicated strong reliability (CR = .70) and all factor loadings, except one, exceeded .5. This is the second confirmation for the Short Form YES-S facture structure, and a positive step towards creating a strong quantitative measurement tool for PYD. To improve the empirical evidence for the Short Form YES-S, factors that could affect PYD in a sport setting (e.g., specific age, sport type, individual vs. team sport, and gender) should be explored. 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".