MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6911149849 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1058977

The Evaluation Of Mental Abilities Of Athletes In Different Branches

2017· article· en· W6911149849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesTurkishScale (ratio)Elite athletesInternal consistencyMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to evaluate the levels of mental ability of licensed athletes who are actively engaged in sports at branch level in Turkey. A total of 340 athletes, including 116 women and 224 men, from various regions of Turkey who are actively engaged in sports at elite level in different branches voluntarily participated in the survey which evaluates their levels and techniques of mental training. It was considered important that athletes participated in the survey should be licensed and importance of the study was emphasized to them. The survey model was used in this study. Current information related to research problem was systematically given by scanning of relevant literature, so a theoretical framework on the subject was created. First of all, a twelve-question personal information form developed by researcher was applied. Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment tool (OMSAT-3) which is developed by Durand-Bush, Salmela and Green-Demers (2001) and adapted to Turkish language by Erhan, Güler, Ağduman and Gerek was applied to evaluate the levels of athletes’ mental ability. In the adaptation phase, the scale was applied to 220 athletes and internal consistency value was found to be 0.94. The scale consists of 48 items and 12 subscales and these subscales are evenly divided into four items. The scale consists of a total of 48 items and constructed on a 7-point Likert-type. The scoring was formed from 1 to 7 according to the statements, “Strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Slightly disagree”, “Neither agree nor disagree”, “Agree”, “Slightly agree” and “Strongly agree”. Frequency Analysis was applied to determine the demographic characteristics of participants and Shapiro-Wilk Test was applied in order to decide whether the questionnaires are suitable to normal distribution and Mann-Whitney U test was applied in order to determine the dimensions according to parameters such as gender, marital status, and type of sports, level of contact and level of sport. Kruskal-Wallis H test was applied for analysis of the dimensions in terms of age, sports age and educational level. Finally, correlation analysis of Spearman was used in order to determine the relation between sub-dimensions of total satisfaction score. The significance level (p<0.05) was accepted in analysis. As a result, there is a significant difference in mental ability dimensions of active athletes in different branches according to their mental ability levels and variables such as age, type of sports, sports level and sports age. Therefore, it is observed that mental ability levels of athletes in different branches vary according to these variables. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de lisanslı ve branş düzeyinde spor yapan aktif sporcuların Mental yetenek düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Türkiye’nin çeşitli bölgelerinde aktif olarak spor yapan sporcuların zihinsel antrenman düzeylerinin ve tekniklerinin değerlendirmesi için çalışmaya elit düzeyde farklı branşlarda spor türleri ile ilgilenen 116 bayan, 224 erkek olmak üzere toplam 340 sporcu gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Çalışmaya katılan sporcuların lisanslı olmasına özen gösterilmiş ve sporculara çalışmanın önemi vurgulanmıştır. Araştırma tarama modelindedir. Araştırma problemine ilişkin mevcut bilgiler ilgili literatürün taranmasıyla sistematik bir şekilde verilmiş, böylece konu hakkında teorik bir çerçeve oluşturulmuştur. Çalışmada ilk olarak araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen 12 soruluk kişisel bilgi formu uygulanmıştır. Sporcuların mental yetenek düzeylerini belirlemek için ise Durand-Bush, Salmela ve Green-Demers (2001) tarafından geliştirilen ve Türkçe uyarlaması Erhan, Güler, Ağduman, Gerek tarafından yapılan “Ottawa Mental Yetenek Değerlendirme-3 Ölçeği’’ kullanılmıştır. Uyarlama aşamasında ölçek 220 sporcuya uygulanmış ve iç tutarlık değeri 0.94 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçek 48 madde, 12 alt boyut ve her alt boyut ise dört maddeden oluşmaktadır. Toplam 48 maddeden oluşan ölçek 7’li likert tipi ölçek yapısındadır. Puanlama, ‘Kesinlikle katılmıyorum’, ‘Katılmıyorum’, ‘Biraz katılmıyorum’, ‘Kararsızım’, ‘Biraz katılıyorum’, ‘Katılıyorum’, ‘Kesinlikle katılıyorum’ ifadelerine göre 1 ile 7 arasında, (4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 22, 24, 27, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 43 ve 44. Sorulara 7’den 1’e puanlanmış. Diğer sorulara verilen cevaplar ise 1 den 7’ye doğru puanlandırılmıştır. Katılımcıların demografik özelliklerinin saptanması için Frekans Analizi, anketlerin normal dağılıma uygun olup olmadığını test etmek için Shapiro-Wilk testi, cinsiyet değişkenine göre, Medeni duruma göre, spor türüne göre, temas düzeyine göre spor düzeyine göre boyutların analizi Mann-Whitney U testi ile yapılmıştır. Yaşa, spor yaşına ve eğitim düzeyine göre boyutların analizi Kruskall-Wallis H testi ile; alt boyutlar ve toplam tatmin puanı ilişkinin saptanması için Spearman Korelasyon analizi uygulanmıştır. Analizlerde anlamlılık düzeyi (p<0.05) olarak alınmıştır. Sonuç olarak, farklı branşlardaki aktif sporcuların mental yetenek düzeylerinin, yaş, spor türü, temas düzeyi, spor düzeyi ve spor yaşı değişkenleri ile tüm mental yetenek Dimensionları arasında anlamlı farklılık vardır. Bu doğrultuda farklı branşlardaki sporcuların mental yetenek düzeylerinin bu değişkenlere göre farklılık gösterdiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicSport Psychology and Performance→French-language works237,207→