Imagery use and psychological resilience: sport confidence as a mediator in student athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives An athlete’s ability to buffer against negative effects of stressors has been attributed to their level of psychological resilience. Protective factors, specifically confidence, influences the development of resilience qualities. Moreover, utilizing mental skills (i.e., imagery) is beneficial for developing confidence and increasing levels of resilience-related outcomes. With confidence relevant in both resilience and imagery concepts, the purpose of the proposed study is to investigate relationships between imagery and psychological resilience in athletes and determine if this relationship is mediated by sport confidence. Methods A sample of 243 student athletes (M age = 21.27) competing at the varsity or club level completed questionnaires measuring psychological resilience, imagery use, and sport confidence. Results Results from bivariate correlations indicated that psychological resilience is related to all functions of imagery, save motivational specific, with the strongest relationship occurring between resilience and motivational general-mastery imagery. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was run on the Sport Imagery Questionnaire and Sport Confidence Inventory measurement models to ensure adequate model fit. As the CFA informed the revised measurement models for the Structural Equation Model (SEM), results indicated that sport confidence did not mediate the relationship between imagery and psychological resilience, as no indirect or total effects were significant. Conclusions Researchers should look to further examine the relationships between imagery and psychological resilience and consider other variables, such as coping and challenge appraisal, that could impact the strength of that relationship.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".