Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale (REFS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to translate into Spanish and analyze the reliability and validity of the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale (REFS). The English version of the 13-item REFS, which was created by Myers, Feltz, Guillen and Dithurbide (2012), was analyzed with data obtained from a sample of 490 Spanish referees representing three different team sports. The reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest. The validity was assessed through Confirmatory Factor Analyses and the correlations between the REFS subscales. The reliability estimated with Cronbach's alpha was (alpha =.85) which was acceptable for the 13-item REFS as well as its subscales ranged .72 to .80. The Confirmatory Factor Analyses were performed which supported a 13-item REFS, assessing the four hypothesized dimensions of self-efficacy: game knowledge, decision-making, pressure, and communication. The overall fit of the model was good showing value of .95 for AGFI, .97 for GFI and NNFI, .98 for CFI, and .04 for RMSEA. In conclusion, this version shows good properties in terms of its dimensionality and internal consistency. Guidelines are also provided for future research on its validity as a measure of self-efficacy in a sample of Spanish officials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".