Grounded theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this paper were to (a) describe and assess the use of grounded theory methodology (GTM) in sport psychology over the past 11 years and (b) provide some guidance for best practices moving forward. Following a brief summary of the history of GTM, we present the results of a rapid review of seven sport psychology journals from 2009 to 2021. A total of 35 articles that made claims regarding the use of GTM as a methodology were retained. The retained articles were assessed using 11 criteria. Overall, the methodological completeness of GTM studies in sport psychology appears to have improved over the past decade. Twenty-two of the 35 articles met all, or all but one, of the criteria. Thirteen articles did not meet two or more of the criteria. In terms of areas for improvement, the least widely reported procedures were theoretical sampling (reported in 22 of 35 studies), theoretical saturation (22 of 35 studies), and assessment of theory (22 of 35 studies). Furthermore, the sophisticated positioning of theoretical sensitivity was sometimes lacking in the articles. We discuss ways in which researchers can increase the conceptual and theoretical sophistication of methodologically sound GTM studies.
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 | 0.073 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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".