MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984936347 · doi:10.1080/02640410512331334413

Using focus group interviews to explore sources of enjoyment among children in sport

2004· article· en· W2984936347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul McCarthy, Marc V. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchOnline · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupPsychologyGroup (periodic table)Focus (optics)Applied psychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the sources of enjoyment among a sample (n=45) of British children in middle to late childhood (ages 8-12 years) who participated in organized sport. Harter's competence motivation theory (1978: Human Development, 21, 34-64) suggests that individuals have a natural desire to experience feelings of competence and these feelings may be attained through mastery experiences in various achievement domains (e.g. academic, social relationships). Also, positive affective feelings (e.g. enjoyment) are associated with feelings of mastery which in turn increase motivation. Researchers in sport and exercise settings in North America and Canada have already identified perceived competence as being moderately or strongly related to sport enjoyment, with sport enjoyment being a dominant motive for participating in youth and elite sport. However, little qualitative or quantitative research examining the construct of sport enjoyment has emerged from other cultures such as Great Britain. Moreover, cognitive-developmental considerations in the design of research measures for use with children are scarce (see Brustad, 1998: In Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement, edited by J. Duda, pp. 461-470. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology). In the present study, focus group interviews were used as they have many practical applications when working with children. First, they allow the child's unique perspective to be examined. Second, they overcome the difficulties children may experience in understanding both the text and context of paper and pencil measures. Finally, cognitive-developmental differences between age groups can be minimized by grouping the participants within a two-year age span.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchOnlineSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207