Confirmatory factor analysis to validate the short version of the Ottawa mental skill for sports (OMSAT-3) in Portuguese athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The development of psychological skills plays an important role in improving performance and achieving excellent results in sports. Objective: The aim of this study was to validate the Portuguese short version of the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3). Methodology: By means of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a total of 524 Portuguese athletes of both sexes aged between 12 and 42 (M = 19.21; SD = 5.46) were recruited for the present study. Results: The results indicate that the reduced version of the OMSAT-3 (30 items) has adequate psychometric qualities, enabling an assessment of Foundation, Psychosomatic and Cognitive Skills (SRMR = 0.052; CFI = 0.983; TLI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.031 CI 90% [0.026, 0.037]; χ²/df = 1.52). There was high concurrent validity between the reduced version (30 items) and the full version (48 items). Conclusions: The results suggest that the reduced OMSAT-3 can be used with confidence to assess psychological skills in a 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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".