Critical Consciousness in Sport Scale (CCSS): development and initial psychometrics properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critical consciousness refers to the ability to recognize and analyze the oppressive forces in society and to act against them. Researchers have emphasized that sport has the potential to help athletes develop their critical consciousness regarding the forces that shape society, as well as the systems of privilege and deprivation that influence access to sport. OBJECTIVE: The present study describes the development of the critical consciousness in sport scale, offering initial validity evidence based on test content, internal structure, relations with other variables, and reliability. METHODS: An initial set of 50 items was develop and reviewed by expert judges who assessed the clarity, practical relevance, and theoretical adequacy of the items using the content validity coefficient (CVC). To investigate the internal structure of the CCSS, factor retention methods such as parallel analysis and exploratory graph analysis were employed, followed by an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), along with an assessment of the internal consistency of the factors. Validity evidence based on relations with other variables was estimated using Pearson correlations. The sample was comprised of 263 Brazilian psychology and physical education students (mean age: 26.95 ± 9.69; 70.02% women). RESULTS: Factor retention methods that included parallel analysis, exploratory graph analysis, and a categorical exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a three-dimensional structure comprised of 36 items, as theoretically hypothesized, with desirable internal consistency indices (ω = 0.868, 0.906, and 0.924, respectively). A brief version of the instrument is also presented, which adequately reproduced the psychometric properties of the initial version. Correlations with measurements of social justice and anti-racism efficacy suggested validity evidence based on relations with other variables. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the instrument is an appropriate measure of critical consciousness in sport. It is recommended that future efforts focus on estimating further validity evidence and reliability of the CCSS in diverse samples of athletes from different competitive levels, sports coaches, fans, and other key figures within the sports context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".