Psychosocial outcomes in sport: Context-specific rumination for adolescent girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the benefits that sport participation can provide, adolescent girls are at least 3 times more likely to stop engaging in sport than adolescent boys. Body image processes have been identified as critical factors in hindering or supporting sport experiences for adolescent girls, yet are often not compared with other sport-specific processes. This study tested sport-specific and body-specific rumination (i.e., repetitive thinking, dwelling on negative feelings and consequences) as correlates of psychosocial outcomes among girl athletes. Adolescent girl athletes (N=619; M(SD) age = 14(1.34) years, involved in sport = 7(3.5) years, 67% at a competitive level) completed surveys at baseline and one year later. Regression models controlled for age, years involved in sport, competitive status, and body mass index. In cross-sectional analyses, body- and sport-specific rumination were independent significant (p < .05) correlates of flourishing (ß=-.10 & -.18; R2=.06), self-compassion (ß=-.49 & -.19; R2=.37), physical self-esteem (ß=-.14 & -.30; R2=.24), and sport anxiety (ß=.41 & .12; R2=.22) and commitment [OR(95%CI) = .65(.55-.77) & 1.59 (1.16-2.18)]. Body-specific but not sport-rumination was a correlate for enjoyment [OR(95%CI) =.76(.65-.89)]. Generally, these findings were consistent a year later in longitudinal analyses and suggest rumination processes negatively impact sport experiences for girls. Neither body- or sport-specific rumination directly predicted dropout a year later (p=.05 & .06). These results provide valuable insight for sport professionals to identify, evaluate, and design programs to prioritize and address the needs of girls in sport.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".