Developmental correlates of perfectionism in sport: Task value, perceived competence, athletic identity, and competitive level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the extent to which levels of task value in sport, perceived competence in sport, and athletic identity during early adolescence were associated with current levels of perfectionism in sport among a sample of 377 undergraduate students (M age = 20.89 years). The study also assessed the degree to which the level of competitive sport in which students participated was associated with current levels of perfectionism in sport. Participants completed a self-report instrument that asked them to think back to when they were in junior high and to indicate the extent to which they valued sport, were competent in sport, and identified with ‘being an athlete’ during this period of early adolescence. Participants also completed a measure of sport perfectionism that contained subscales from the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Sport-MPS: Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002) and the Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport (MIPS: Stoeber, Otto, & Stoll, 2004). Correlation and regression analyses results revealed that retrospective levels of task value, perceived competence, and athletic identity during early adolescence were positively associated with sport-perfectionism levels later in life (ps < .05). MANOVA results indicated that sport-perfectionism levels were generally higher among students who participated in higher (e.g., intercollegiate) as opposed to lower (e.g., recreational) levels of competitive sport (ps < .001). Collectively, the results indicate that person factors (i.e., task value, perceived competence, and athletic identity) and environmental factors (i.e., competitive sport level) may play a role in the development of perfectionism in sport. Acknowledgments: Research supported by a grant from the Sport Science Association of Alberta
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".