Development and factorial validity of the Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports, Youth Version – Short Form: Assessment of the psychometric properties

Abstract

Researchers in sport often try to investigate relations between athletes’ psychological skills and their sports results to predict top athletic achievements or unexpectedly poor performances. The Psychology Skills Inventory for Sports (Youth version), PSIS-Y, was developed to measure psychological characteristics of young athletes–differentiating well more talented and less talented young athletes. Nevertheless, previous studies revealed its inadequate, factorial validity. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop and investigate the psychometric proprieties of a brief version of the PSIS-Y (PSIS-Y-SF) in a sample of young Croatian athletes. Participants ( n = 304; 188 females and 116 male) were recruited in clubs/teams all over Croatia and all of them competed in the Croatian Championship in youth ( n = 157) and junior category ( n = 147). The PSIS-Y-SF was derived by ten expert psychologists with five of them who had past experiences of agonistic sport practice. Psychometric analysis included Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), internal consistency analysis (Raykov’s Maximal Reliability), and correlation between subscales. Moreover, Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) was run to test statistical differences between the players’ categories (male youth vs . male junior vs . female youth vs . female junior ) in all of the subscales. Results of the CFA suggested the adequateness of the supposed six first-order factor solution for the PSIS-Y-SF. The Maximal Reliability statistics suggest a good internal consistency for all of the subscales and the MANOVA suggested differences between the player’s categories. The PSIS-Y-SF resulted to be a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of sports psychological skills. Findings from the psychometric evaluation of PSIS-Y-SF suggest that this is a useful tool, which may further assist in the measurement and conceptualization of sport psychological skills.

Development and Validation of a Self-Determination Theory-Based Measure of Motivation to Exercise and Diet in Children

“…Model comparisons were performed to exclude structures other than the one formulated in the a priori hypothesis for the MED-C (Boffo et al, 2012;Milavic et al, 2019;Rossi and Mannarini, 2019).…”

“…The item pool for the MED-C was developed using a three-step double-blind study procedure—already employed in other studies ( Milavic et al, 2019 ; Pietrabissa et al, 2019 ).…”

Assessing Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale

“…Model comparisons were performed to exclude factorial structures different than the original one (Milavic et al, 2019;Rossi and Mannarini, 2019;Pietrabissa et al, 2020a). Specifically, the following were tested: (A) a single-factor modelspecifying a single dimension called "Dispositional Forgiveness"; (B) a three-factor first-order model-specifying three simple first-order factors called "Self, Other, and Situation"; (C) a second-order model (hierarchical) with a general secondorder factor and three first-order factors respectively called "Dispositional Forgiveness, Self, Other, and Situation"; and (D) a second-order model (hierarchical) retracing the hypothesized original model without "positive" and "negative" valence factors (graphical representation of these models were reported in the Supplementary Material 1).…”

Psychological Differences Among Healthcare Workers of a Rehabilitation Institute During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Two-Step Study

“…The item pool for the CPI-HP was developed using a three-step double-blind study procedure—already employed in other studies (Simpson et al, 2018 ; Milavic et al, 2019 ; Pietrabissa et al, 2020a , b ).…”

“…The adjusted item–total correlation was also calculated. Also, given that the CPI-HP is a new instrument, the items' ability to discriminate subjects with low or high scores was tested (Milavic et al, 2019 ; Consoli et al, 2020 ; Pietrabissa et al, 2020a ); thus, the item discriminant power (IDP) was computed (Ebel, 1965 ; Chiorri, 2011 ). According to the literature about typical performance test items such as Likert scales, the maximum total score and the quartile rank were calculated for each participant.…”