Psychometric properties of the Brazilian-adapted version of Sport Imagery Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagery can be defined as the ability to represent and rehearse in the mind behaviors related to a given situation. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire was developed to measure the frequency of imagery use among athletes. The present study aimed to adapt and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of this instrument. Study 1 appraised content validity using five sport scientists as judges to quantify the quality of the adaptation for each item; then the Content Validity Coefficient was calculated. Study 2 had 260 athletes from six types of sport answer the Brazilian questionnaire. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test factorial validity, Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess reliability, and comparisons between groups were used as criterion validity. Study 1 results showed good quality of the adaptation according to the judges. Study 2 showed a 5-factor latent structure which corroborates with the literature. Reliability of the scale was high (α = .91), whereas separately subscales ranged between Motivational General: Arousal (α = .87) and Motivational Specific (α = .94). Regarding group differences, sex showed no significant difference between men and women (p = .55; d = .09) and neither did levels of practice between amateur, semi-professionals and professional athletes (p = .71; f = .07). Types of sports revealed moderate effect size and significantly less imagery practice among synchronized swimming, football and beach volleyball athletes, whereas mixed martial artists showed higher frequency of imagery (p < .05; f = .23). Factor structure, reliability and validity of mixed groups are evidence of a successful cross-cultural adaptation of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire to Brazil.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".