Examining the validity of the polish short form version of the self-regulated learning—sport practice survey among competitive athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Self-regulated learning entails psychological processes that elite athletes employ to optimize their practice. Although self-regulated learning provides insights into athlete-led practice, research has been limited to few cultures, and the particularities of how SRL surveys perform in new cultural contexts require attention. Moreover, there exists no measure to assess SRL and its relationship to quality sport practice in Polish. Thus, we examined the Short Form of the Self-Regulated Learning—Sport Practice survey in Polish. Analyses addressed the factorial validity and reliability, the criterion validity (by assessing differences in scores between competition levels), and the concurrent validity (by correlating scores with conceptually related constructs) of a Polish Short Form survey. Methods Athletes (N = 324, Mage = 21.4, nfemales = 144, nmales = 180) from amateur, regional, national, and international-elite levels completed the survey, along with concurrent subscales (General Self-Efficacy Scale; GSES; Metacognitive-Self Scale; MS-24; Action Control Scale; ACS-90). Results Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a two-factor (metacognitive; motivational) model (RMSEA = 0.082, SRMR = 0.057, CFI = 0.89). Between-group tests showed international-elite scoring higher than all other groups on metacognitive and motivational subscales. On both subscales, significant trends indicated that more skilled levels consistently reported higher scores than lesser-skilled levels. The short form scores were associated with certain concurrent variables, including GSES (rmeta = 0.41, rmotiv = 0.48), MS-24 (rmeta = 0.39, rmotiv = 0.24), and ACS-90 (AOF subscale: rmotiv = 0.26). Discussion On the basis of strong criterion validity, and moderate evidence for concurrent validity, we conclude that the Polish Short Form of the Self-Regulated Learning—Sport Practice survey is a promising tool for use in Polish sport and we discuss future avenues of work to enhance its validation. Limitations that inform future research include our reliance on a mixed-sport sample, the lack of priming of obstacles/challenge ahead of self-report, and a lack of consideration of sport-specific practice variables in analyses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".