Achievement despite adversity: A qualitative investigation of undrafted national hockey league players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which athletes from various sports and competition levels overcome adversity has been a topic of interest in sport psychology for some time. In recognizing the theoretical and practical implications derived from this line of inquiry, the current study sought to further our understanding by investigating a sample of elite athletes who were expected to share long-term objectives, and who had experienced a common adversity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 professional athletes (Mage = 27.25; SD = 3.28) who had reached the National Hockey League (NHL; i.e., long-term objective) despite not being selected in the annual NHL Amateur Entry Draft (i.e., common adversity). As a general summary, four higher-order themes were gleaned from participant responses, including information pertaining to experienced adversities and stressors (e.g., organizational stressors), long-term objectives of playing in the NHL, psychological attributes (e.g., passion, focus) and mechanisms for goal attainment (e.g., deliberate practice, perceived social support). Interestingly, contextually relevant information emerged pertaining to the developmental stream that participants had taken (i.e., NCAA vs. Major Junior). Overall, our findings are in concert with previous literature that suggests the influence of various psychosocial factors for goal achievement when faced with adversity (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2015; Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013). Additionally, our findings indicate that an athletes’ ability to identify and address weaknesses following adversity is a main contributor to their subsequent success. Although undrafted NHL players were recruited because of their shared adversity, participants shared similar experiences as other elite athletes in describing a variety of adversities that contributed to their eventual achievement (e.g., Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014a). Future research could benefit from a longitudinal approach building from this study’s design, whereby athletes are interviewed prior to, during, and following the draft process, to gain insight into the timing and implementation of the factors and experiences that facilitate achievement despite adversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".