Development and initial validation of Sport Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand sport participation, multiple scales exist to examine why people participate. However, no questionnaires have been devised to assess what sport experiences people declare most pleasurable. This study aimed to develop and provide initial validation of a scale measuring adolescent athletes’ retrospective reports of pleasure in three modern sports experiences: competition, progress, and risk taking. The first study examined the validity of a pool of 25 items. The second study examined the factor structure and reliability of a 14-item questionnaire among a sample of adolescent athletes, the measurement invariance across sexes and context of participation, and the differential item functioning and possible latent mean differences as a function of age. Results showed initial evidence regarding the reliability and validity of the scale. They showed invariance of the model across sexes and context of participation. This questionnaire could be used by sports federations and could help the development of sport promotion programs.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it