Sport psychology consultation: The attitudes of New Zealand athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine New Zealand athletes' attitudes towards sport psychology consultation as no similar study has been conducted in New Zealand since 2004.Sixty-two New Zealand athletes (ranging from age-group to international-level), were administered the Sport Psychology Attitudes -Revised questionnaire (SPA-R).New Zealand athletes' attitudes towards sport psychology have become more positive since 2004.Independent group t-tests demonstrated that athletes in 2020 had significantly higher confidence in sport psychology, and significantly lower levels of personal openness and cultural preference compared to athletes in 2004.There was no significant difference found in stigma tolerance scores.Chi-squared tests were carried out on nine different categories: gender, sport type (contact/non-contact and team/individual), previous exposure, age, current competitive level, top competitive level, number of individual and group sport psychology sessions, and employment level.Non-contact sport athletes were found to have significantly higher confidence than contact sport athletes and individual sport athletes were found to have significantly higher confidence and cultural preference than team sport athletes.A trend was found with higher level athletes having greater confidence in sport psychology and national level athletes were found to have higher cultural preference than junior athletes.These findings are useful for organisations and practitioners as they provide an understanding of athletes' current perceptions and attitudes towards the field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".