An examination of the psychometric properties of the Youth Experiences Survey for Sport (YES-S)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Youth Experience Survey 2.0 (YES 2.0; Hansen & Larson, 2005) helps measure PYD of regular experiences, but has been found to have questionable validity when used in a sporting environment. The YES-Sport (YES-S) was developed from the YES-S to measure the positive and negative outcomes of PYD specifically within sport (MacDonald et al., 2012). The YES-S comprises five factors - personal and social skills, initiative experiences, cognitive skills, goal setting and negative experiences - that were determined through exploratory factor analyses. The current study was aimed to confirm this factor structure using confirmation factor analysis. A sample of 346 Canadian youth sport participants (M age = 15.41 years) completed the YES 2.0 and Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S). A confirmatory factor analysis of the YES-S factor structure showed a poor fit of the model to the data (CFI = .860, SRMR = .076, RMSEA = .071). However deleting the items with poor factor loadings (as per Hair et al., 2006) resulted in an excellent model fit (CFI = .955, SRMR = .054, RMSEA = .059). This revised version of the YES-S includes 22 items that reflect MacDonald et al.’s (2012) five-factor structure. Regressions predicting the YES-S from the CBS-S were significant for four of the five factors, with the perceived coaching behavior of positive rapport being the most consistent predictor. This revised version of the YES-S presents a valid and psychometrically sound scale for the much needed measurement of PYD outcomes specific to the sporting context.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (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 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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".