Development of the Stressors among Parents in Youth Sport Survey (SPYSS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Parents of youth sport athletes report a variety of stressors associated with their child's participation in youth sport settings. However, research examining associations between parents' stressors and relevant outcomes is limited due to the lack of a comprehensive and validated measure of parents' stressors in youth sport. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to develop and provide preliminary validation of the Stressors among Parents in Youth Sport Survey (SPYSS). METHOD: In Study 1 we developed an initial version of the survey and tested the factor structure of the scale using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with a sample of 1187 Canadian parents of minor hockey athletes. In Study 2, we administered the SPYSS to an independent sample of 783 parents with children participating in multiple sports, who also completed measures of parent stress and well-being, as well as parent-athlete outcomes, to establish convergent and divergent validity evidence and test associations with relevant outcomes for youth sport parents. RESULTS: The results from Study 1 supported the development of a 42-item survey of parental stressors in youth sport. Results from Study 2 provided further evidence for the factor structure and validity evidence of a measure assessing parental stressors in youth sport. CONCLUSIONS: The SPYSS assesses the frequency and intensity of a variety of stressors relevant for parents of youth sport athletes. The measure may be a useful tool for researchers, sport organizations, and practitioners to assess, monitor, and target the stressors experienced by parents in youth sport settings.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".