NICHOLAS C. RINEHART

F. RICHARD FERRARO*

University of Nor th Dakota

The Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports: Correlation With Cognitive Function?

The Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports (PSIS) was designed to measure the following skills: Anxiety Control, Concentration, Confidence, Mental Prepara­tion, Motivation, and Team Emphasis. This study examined the internal consis­tency of PSIS scales, and examined whether specific scales discriminated among differently skilled athletes (predictive validity), and whether specific scales signifi­cantly correlated with other cognitive tasks (construct validity). Collegiate athletes, intramural athletes, and nonathletes completed the PSIS and 4 cognitive tasks designed to measure similar concepts. The Confidence and Motivation scales were the only scales that demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. A nalyses revealed the following: (a) the Motivation scale showed moderate predictive validity, (b) the Anxiety Control and Concentration scales showed mild predictive validity, and (c) the Confidence, Mental Preparation, and Team Emphasis scales demon­strated no predictive validity. rThe Anxiety Control scale was the only scale to show a relationship to cognitive function (construct validity). Data indicate the PSIS, in its present form, should not be used for applied purposes.

THE QUALITY OF COMPETITIVE ATHLETIC PER-

formance can be l inked to physical as well as psychological factors. Al though the impor­

tance of psychological factors in superior athletic per­f o r m a n c e has long b e e n recogn ized by a th le tes , coaches, and sport psychologists, research exploring this r e l a t i o n s h i p is relatively r e c e n t (Browne & Mahoney, 1984; Mahoney, 1989; Mahoney & Suinn, 1986). For example , when consider ing personality variables, Morgan (1985) repor ted fewer psychologi­cal problems for successful athletes when compared with less successful athletes. In addit ion to personal­ity variables , r esea rch has b e g u n to exp lo re the psychological skills of an athlete in o rder to under­s tand and possibly improve athlet ic p e r f o r m a n c e (Mahoney, 1979, 1989; Silva & Weinberg, 1984).

T h e Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports (PSIS; Mahoney, Gabriel, & Perkins, 1987) was de­signed to measure psychological skills of an athlete with the premise that h igher skilled athletes should demonstrate greater psychological skills. The PSIS was designed to measure the following six psychological skills of athletes: Anxiety Control , Concent ra t ion , Conf idence , Mental Prepara t ion , Motivation, and Team Emphasis. T h e PSIS was derived from more than 10 years of research with athletes ranging from collegiate to world-class level (Mahoney et al., 1987).

Research indicates mixed results for the validity and reliability of the PSIS.

Some studies suggest poor reliability and validity of the PSIS. For example, in testing the PSIS on a sample of 340 intercollegiate athletes, Char t r and , Jowdy, and Danish (1992) showed poor reliability in terms of internal consistency for five of the six PSIS scales (the exception being Confidence). In addition, using conf i rmatory factor analysis, the six factors (scales) did not fit the original model proposed by Mahoney eta l . (1987), which indicates poor construct validity. Also, Mahoney (1989; N= 67) repor ted that non-elite athletes performed better than elite athletes on five of the six PSIS scales, with the exception be­ing the Motivation scale. Poor internal consistency and negative findings from research (e.g., non-elite athletes per forming superior to elite athletes) ques­tion the validity of PSIS scales.

Fur thermore , even though the PSIS was designed to m e a s u r e skills solely based on athlet ic ability (Mahoney et al., 1987), studies have found signifi­cant sex differences between athletes at the same skill level. For example, Cox and Liu (1993), in a cross-cultural investigation exploring differences in Ameri­can and Chinese athletes (N= 350), showed overall that male athletes displayed superior per formance on the PSIS scales when compared to female athletes.

24 Psi C H I JOURNAL O F UNLIERORADLATE RESEARCH Spring 1998 Copyright 1998 by Psi Chi. The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 3, No. 1. 24 -33 / ISSN 1089-4136). 'Faculty Supervisor

T H E PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Ferraro

However, White (1993) found no sex differences in five of the six scales, and found that female collegiate skiers (N = 54) per formed significantly better than male collegiate skiers (N= 74) on the Team Empha­sis scale. T h e presence of significant and inconsistent sex differences found in studies also questions the validity of the PSIS in its present form.

Othe r studies suggest more positive results for the PSIS. For example, Mahoney et al. (1987; A/= 713) and Lesser and Murphy (1988) demonstra ted accept­able predictive validity of the PSIS by showing differ­ences in per formance between athletic groups of dif­ferent skill levels. Separate studies (Mahoney, 1989; White, 1993) have also demonst ra ted internal con­sistency values of .72 (Spearman-Brown coefficient) and in the range of .69-.84 (coefficient a lpha) . In addit ion, studies have shown that the factor structure of the PSIS is stable across samples of athletes at dif­ferent skill levels (Mahoney, 1989; Mahoney et al., 1987), which is inconsistent with the Char t rand et al. (1992) data. Fur thermore , Lesser and Murphy (1988) showed the ability of PSIS scales to correlate signifi­cantly with ins t ruments that measured ei ther anxiety or self-confidence (construct validity).

The inconsistent results across PSIS studies may be difficult to explain. O n e factor that may help ex­plain the discrepant results is individual differences in athletes across studies. However, no study has found completely negative results for the PSIS, and most studies have repor ted mixed results. For example, Mahoney (1989) and White (1993) found more posi­tive than negative results for the validity and reliabil­ity of the PSIS (i.e., internal consistency estimates and stable factor structure). Also, Cox and Liu (1993) used the PSIS as a tool to compare American and Chinese athletes across psychological skill levels (as if it were a valid ins t rument) and not to differentiate between differently skilled athletes.

Present Study Because of mixed results in previous studies, we

concluded more research is needed before the PSIS is disqualified as a reliable and valid measure of ath­letic psychological skills. T h e bulk of previous re­search focused on the strength of the PSIS as a uni­tary measure (i.e., a global measure of sport skills). T h e goal of the present study was the investigation of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the PSIS (i.e., which scales are reliable and valid and which scales are no t ) . The motivation beh ind this research was to identify possible PSIS scales that may be used in an appl ied setting. Basically, valid and reliable scales would be beneficial in applied athletic settings (from high school to professional sports) in that the scales

could provide an explanation of the strengths as well as potential weaknesses of the athlete.

As in o ther studies of the validity and reliability of the PSIS, the present investigation explored dif­ferences in the psychological skills of male and fe­male athletes at different sport skill levels. Unique to this study was the testing of nonathle tes in addit ion to athletes. Nonathletes were used as a control g roup and were instructed to apply the inventory statements to a competitive activity (e.g., career work) instead of athletic participation. In addit ion, nonathle tes were used because of the lack of access to a wide variety of differently skilled athletes, unlike many previous stud­ies which had access to and tested collegiate, national, and world-class athletes.

Another aspect of the present study is somewhat different from previous research. In the present study, four scales of the PSIS (Anxiety Control , Concentra­tion, Confidence, and Motivation) were correlated with cognitive tasks (as a measure of construct valid­ity) in o rder to establish if the scales measured what was in tended to be measured (i.e., in o rder to show a relationship to cognitive function). These procedures are in accord with previous research by Lesser and Murphy (1988) who correlated PSIS scales with mea­sures of anxiety and confidence. However, the present research is different in that measures of concentra­tion and motivation were matched to PSIS scales in addition to anxiety and confidence. It is also differ­ent in that two of the cognitive tasks (i.e., measures of concentrat ion and confidence) were performance tasks closer to athletic participation than pen-penc i l tasks such as questionnaires.

Three of the four matched cognitive tasks were chosen because of the effectiveness of the tasks in earlier research (i.e., they were designed to be used as valid and reliable measures of anxiety, confidence, or motivation, or were used in such a way in previous research) . The measure of concentrat ion (i.e., the WAIS-R Digit Symbol task; Matarazzo, 1972) was used because it was thought to be more similar to athletic competi t ion than a quest ionnaire . In addit ion, age, d e p r e s s i o n scores , a n d v o c a b u l a r y scores were measured to insure there were no group differences in age, mood, or verbal intelligence (i.e., potential confounds) .

The measurement of the internal consistency of the PSIS (reliability), the comparison of PSIS scores between differently skilled participants (validity), and the correlat ion of four PSIS scales with matched cog­nitive tasks (validity) offer a rigorous test for the spe­cific strengths and weaknesses of the PSIS. Scales from the PSIS should only be used in applied settings if they can demonst ra te adequate reliability ( internal

Psi C H I JOURNAL O F UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998 25

T H E PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Ferraro

consistency), and validity as indicated by the follow­ing: (a) the differentiation of athletes at different skill levels, (b) the lack of significant sex differences at the same skill levels, and (c) the significant correla­tion between PSIS scales and matched cognitive tasks.

Method Participants and Design

Participants were 79 undergradua tes and gradu­ate students (42 women, 37 men) at a midwestern university, who part icipated in exchange for extra course credit (n = 58) or $10 (n = 21). They ranged in age from 18 to 39 years of age (M = 21.73, SD = 4.55). T h e educational distribution by year in school was 37% freshmen, 44% sophomores , 13% juniors, 3 % seniors, and 3% graduate students.

Each participant was a m e m b e r of one of the fol­lowing groups: collegiate athletes, intramural athletes, or nonathletes. Collegiate athletes (n= 28,16 women, 12 m e n ) were individuals who par t ic ipa ted inter­collegiatelv at the Division I, II, or III level. Intramural athletes (n = 27, 14 men , 13 women) were individu­als who met the following criteria: (a) they had never part icipated intercollegiately at the Division I, II, or III level; (b) they had never participated at the ama­teur, semiprofessional, or professional sport level; and (c) they currently participated in intramural sport(s) . Collegiate and intramural athletes competed in one or more of the following sports: basketball, baseball, softball, football, track, and volleyball. Nonathletes {n = 24, 13 women, 11 men) were those individuals who had a low level of past athletic participation and had never competed at the intramural collegiate level.

T h e exper imental design was a 3 (group: colle­giate athlete, int ramural athlete, or nonathle te) x 2 (sex: male or female) factorial design. The inclusion of sex in the design was based on previous research which found differences between male and female athletes on PSIS scales (Cox & Liu, 1993; White, 1993).

Measures WAIS-R Vocabulary. T h e WAIS-R vocabuku v test

(Wechsler, 1981) contains 35 words a r ranged accord­ing to difficulty. For example, the first words in the WAIS-R test were basic words such as "bed" and "ship," whereas words at the end of the test were more diffi­cult such as "encumber" and "tirade" (for adminis­tration and scoring instructions see Wechsler, 1981). T h e test was used to provide an index of verbal intel­ligence.

M o o d - s c a l e . The M o o d - s c a l e ( B r a n n a n , Pignatiello, & Camp, 1986; Cwikel & Ritchie, 1988) is a shor tened version of the Geriatric Depression

Sta le ; it con ta ins 15 i tems des igned to m e a s u r e depression in a true-or-false format. Each negative answer counts as 1 point, and a score of greater than 5 points indicates probable depression. The Mood-scale has b e e n shown to be a valid m e a s u r e of depression in college students (based on a .67 corre­lation between the Mood-scale and the original scale from a sample of 168 college students at two univer­sities; Brannan et al., 1986).

The Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports (PSIS). The 45-item PSIS is in a 5-point Likert-type response format (endpoints anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree). The six scales of the PSIS are Anxiety Control (10 items), Concentrat ion (6 items), Confidence (9 i tems). Mental Preparation (6 i tems), Motivation (7 i tems), and Team Emphasis (7 items). Team Emphasis was designed to measure a team ver­sus an individual focus of the athlete (i.e., a success­ful at t i tude toward teamwork and cooperat ion; the remaining scales are self-explanatory). By using the 5-point Likert format, each response was awarded a numerical value, ei ther 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 points. Higher raw scores on each scale indicate better performance on what that scale measures. Because the PSIS was designed tor athletes, nonathle te participants were told to relate the inventory to something similar to athletic competi t ion such as schoolwork or career work. In addit ion, questions on the PSIS were not altered for nonathletes .

State-Trait Anxiety Scale. The 40-item State-Trait Anxiety Scale (Spielberger, Corsuch , & Lushene , 1970) served as a matched cognitive task for Anxiety Control-PSIS. For the first 20 items (state anxiety), participants responded how they felt "right now, at this m o m e n t " to each item statement on a 4-point Likert-type scale (endpoints anchored by not at all and very much so). For the last 20 items (trait anxi­ety) , participants responded how they felt "generally" to each i tem s t a t emen t ( e n d p o i n t s a n c h o r e d by almost never and almost always; for adminis t ra t ion and scoring instructions see Spielberger et al., 1970). Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety.

Digit Symbol. The Digit Symbol task was designed to measure capacity for sustained concen t ra t ion , effort , a t t e n t i o n , a n d men ta l efficiency (Gro th -Marnat, 1997; Matarazzo, 1972). The Digit Symbol task served as a cognitive match for Concentration— PSIS, and consisted of cognitively pairing the numer­als 1-9 with nine different shapes. The task was on a sheet of pape r which conta ined 10 blank sample boxes and 90 blank test boxes. Above each blank box was a n u m b e r (i.e., 1—9), and the object was to write the cor rec t symbol in the blank box below each number . Participants were told that speed was more

26 Psi C H I JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998

Tl IK PSYCHOLOGIC:AL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Ferraro

impor tan t than accuracy ("As long as each symbol that you choose to write looks similar to the correct symbol, it is fine"). Participants had 90 s to complete as many boxes as they could. T h e score for each par­ticipant was calculated by adding the n u m b e r of cor­rect shapes. The scores were used to provide a valid index of concentra t ion similar to the concentra t ion displayed by athletes in active sports (based on the parallel between cognitive skill in sports and o the r domains; Allard & Burnett , 1985). Similar to athletic compet i t ion, this task requires the ability to use eye -hand coordinat ion and to work unde r pressure (i.e., with the 90-s time limit).

Lynn's Achievement Motivation Questionnaire. Lynn's Achievement Motivation (nAch) quest ion­naire (Lynn, 1969), based on McClelland's (1961) concep t of nAch, served as a cognitive match for Motivation—PSIS. Twelve i tems from Lynn (1969) were used in the quest ionnaire completed by partici­pants. Ten of the 12 questions were used as a mea­sure of nAch (the o ther 2 questions were originally d r o p p e d by Lynn after his factor loadings analysis, and were used only as filler quest ions) . T h e nAch score was calculated by the addition of the item scores (i.e., 0 or 1 for each i tem). The use of Lynn's nAch Quest ionnai re as a measure of achievement motiva­tion is based on a study (N= 583, ranging from stu­dents to professors) in which higher nAch scores were associated with grea ter professional ach ievement (e.g., professors scored higher than college students).

Signal Detection task. The Signal Detection task from the Micro Experimental Laboratory (MEL LAB) compute r package (St. James , Schneider, & Hinds, 1992, pp . 37-42) served as a cognitive match for Conf idence-PSIS. It was changed for the p resen t study in that participants only completed one 150-trial block, were unaware of the probability of a sig­nal being present, and only responded verbally in­stead of using the compute r keyboard. In addit ion, the task was combined with a 3-point confidence judg­men t of e i ther "guessed," "pretty sure," or "positive" for each decision. T h e use of the Signal Detection task as a measure of confidence was based on previ­ous research in which confidence j u d g m e n t s were used with signal detection theory (see Paul, Kellas, & Juola, 1992). The Signal Detection is a difficult task with arbitrary per formance differences between par­ticipants. It was assumed that because confidence judgments were made before the feedback was given, participants who were more confident would respond so regardless of the accuracy of their responses.

For the Signal Detection task, each screen con­sisted of many letter Vs, which were or were not ac­companied by the signal, one letter U. After the screen

flashed for a fraction of a second, participants were told to first respond to whether the signal was present, and then respond to how confident their decision was. After a response , each par t ic ipant was given feedback on correctness (CORRECT or WRONG dis­played on the compute r screen) . The part icipants ' only responsibility was to watch the screen and ver­bally indicate the appropr ia te information; they did not use the compute r keyboard.

For the block of trials, the signal (/was present ei ther 80% of the time or 20% of the time. Approxi­mately half of the par t ic ipants received the 80%-signal-present blocks of trials, whereas the o ther half received the 20% blocks. For this task, the probabil­ity of a signal being present was un impor tan t because all participants were unaware of the signal probabil­ity. If part icipants were aware of the probability of a signal be ing present , their confidence j u d g m e n t s would be biased in favor of the probability of a sig­nal. The total score was obtained by adding the total times (out of 150) that participants responded "posi­tive" for the confidence j udgmen t .

Procedure Before beginning the actual exper iment , each

participant read and signed a consent form which explained the p rocedure and na ture of the study. In addit ion, each individual was assigned a participant n u m b e r a n d was asked verbally for the following information: birth date, high school graduat ion date, cur ren t collegiate year, t y p e / n u m b e r of medicat ions used, and sport (s) / recreat ional activity and skill level. After verbally responding to the information, partici­pants completed the exper iment which consisted of comple t ing the PSIS, the four ma tched cognitive tasks, as well as the WAIS-R vocabulary test and the Mood-scale. T h e r e was no specific o rder in which participants completed the various tasks, and order was not counterbalanced.

Data Analysis T h e internal consistency of the PSIS was analyzed

with the use of Cronbach 's coefficient a lpha (Cron-bach, 1951). In an analysis of g roup differences, data were analyzed using multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with follow-up un iva r i a t e analyses (ANOVAs). Planned comparison t tests were used to clarify the source and nature of significant relation­ships. For the MANOVA, group and sex served as the independen t variables; the WAIS-R vocabulary scores, Mood-scale scores, six PSIS scores, and four cognitive task scores served as the multivariate d e p e n d e n t vari­able. In addition, individual and combined group corre­lation analyses were performed on the percentile scale

Psi C H I JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998 27

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Ferraro

TABLE I

Internal Reliability (Coefficient Alpha) for the Six Scales of the Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports Across Individual and Combined Groups

Athlete/nonathlete group Anxiety

.36

.67

.64

.27

.52

.39

.46

.56

.51

Concentration

.51

.45

.46

.27

-.10

.28

.41

.68

.57

Confidence

.87

.90

.91

.86

.74

.82

.76

.86

.81

Mental preparation

-.87

-.23

-.39

-.47

-.74

-.37

.45

-.75

-.15

Motivation

.73

.69

.69

.38

.59

.48

.38

.75

.64

Team emphasis

.60

.44

.56

.59

.53

.52

-.38

.65

.43

Collegiate male

Collegiate female

Combined collegiate

Intramural males

Intramural females

Combined intramural

Nonathlete males

Nonathlete females

Combined nonathlete

Note. Values in boldface type indicate marginal to acceptable internal consistency.

scores of the following pairs (which served as the matched cognitive tasks): Anxiety Control-PSIS with State-Trait Anxiety, Concent ra t ion-PSIS with Digit Symbol, Motivation-PSIS with nAch quest ionnaire, and Confidence—PSIS with Signal Detection. An alpha level of .05 was adopted for all tests of significance.

Results Internal Consistency

The internal consistency (coefficient alpha) esti­mates for each scale were quite low, ranging from - .87 to .91. The negative values displayed in some of the scales (mainly in the Mental Preparat ion scale) indicate that several items were negatively correlated with one another . With the exception of the Confi­dence scale, the internal consistency estimates were considerably below .80, which is the min imum level r e c o m m e n d e d for a p p l i e d p u r p o s e s (Nunnal ly , 1978). However, previous research indicates that the range of .69 to .74 demonstra tes marginal internal reliability, and .78 to .84 demons t ra tes acceptable internal reliability (White, 1993). When considering these ranges, the Motivation scale demonst ra ted mar­ginal internal reliability for collegiate athletes, and the Confidence scale demons t ra ted acceptable inter­nal reliability for all groups (see Table 1).

Analysis of Group Differences Descriptive statistics for the six different groups

are p resen ted in Table 2. A 3 x 2 (Group x Sex) MANOVA resul ted in significant main effects for g roup , f (26, 122) = 2.10, p< .01, and sex, F(13, 61) =

4.42, p< .001. Interaction effects between group and sex were not significant. Follow-up univariate analy­ses (ANOVAs) were carried out separately for each of the measures.

T h e significant main effects are shown in Table 3. Consistent with the MANOVA, with one exception (WAIS-R vocabulary), none of the univariate .Ftests were significant for the interaction between g roup and sex. The following is a more in-depth analysis of the significant main effects.

Predictive Validity of the PSIS Anxiety Control . For the main effect of group,

nonathle tes averaged significantly lower scores than intramural athletes, f(49) = 3.84, p< .01, and colle­giate athletes, t(50) = 3.11, p< .01. With regard to the main effect of sex, women averaged significantly lower scores (M = 22.43) than men (M= 24.97). No o ther comparisons between the groups were signifi­cant. The Anxiety Control scale demonstra ted mild predictive validity (i.e., athletes per formed bet ter than nonathletes; however, the scale did not discrimi­nate between differently skilled athletes, and signifi­cant sex differences were present ) .

Concentration. For the main effect of group, non­athletes had significantly lower scores than intramural athletes, t(49) = 2.81, p< .01, and collegiate athletes, /(50) = 2.27, p< .05. No other comparisons were sig­nificant. The Concentra t ion scale showed mild pre­dictive validity (i.e., nona th le tes per formed worse than athletes; however, there were no significant dif­ferences between intramural and collegiate athletes).

28 Psi C H I JOURNAL O F UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Fermw

Mean

Age or test

Anxiety

PSIS

Concentrat ion

PSIS

Confidence

PSIS

Mental Preparation

PSIS

Motivation

PSIS

Team Emphasis

PSIS

Age

Mood

WAIS-R

Vocabulary

State-Trait Anxiety

Digit

Symbol

Signal

Detect ion

Achievement Motivat ion

T A B L E 2

and Standard Deviation D a t a for Demographic Factors and

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M

SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M

SD

M SD

M SD

Test Scores for th>

Collegiate male

athletes ( n = l 2 )

27.00 3.86

15.42

3.55

27.08

5.38

9.67

2.06

16.00

4.57

18.92

4.38

20.83

3.30

1.25

1.66

46.92

6.87

69.25 16.64

68.75

6.27

49.42

22.52

6.17

1.59

Collegiate female

athletes ( n = l 6 )

23.19

5.68

14.94

3.28

21.63

6.83

10.94

2.29

16.13

4.15

21.00

3.14

20.25

1.13

1.13

1.71

47.69

6.69

75.00

17.12

81.19

7.63

53.69

28.92

6.94

1.53

e S ix G r o u

Intramural male

athletes (n = 14)

25.86 3.44

16.86

2.91

23.86

6.04

8.71

2.27

14.07

3.20

19.07

3.60

22.86

5.27

1.29

1.14

56.21

7.52

71.71

10.56

67.36

7.22

40.64

29.10

6.43 1.70

ps

Intramural female

athletes ( n = l 3 )

24.23

4.38

14.23

2.55

23.77

4.23

10.08 1.89

12.85

3.36

20.00

2.80

20.15

1.07

1.08

1.04

49.85

7.40

68.00

17.93

77.31 7.17

42.00

28.39

6.69

1.75

Male nonathletes

(" = I I )

21.64

4.23

13.27

3.41

21.27

5.68

11.00

3.32

13.27

2.94

18.45

2.25

21.82

4.40

1.45

1.13

51.82

6.81

69.73

14.78

69.82

4.87

51.36

32.07

6.27 1.27

Female nonathletes

(n= 13)

19.69

4.55

12.46

4.52

20.00 6.1 1

11.38 1.71

13.00

5.26

19.46 3.91

24.69

7.64

1.08

1.50

55.08 5.51

67.46

13.75

77.08

5.48

31.69

27.04

7.15

1.41

Confidence. Analyses revealed n o significant main effects for g roup , sex, or for the g roup by sex interact ion. Because the Confidence scale did not adequately discriminate between the three groups, the scale did not demons t ra te predictive validity.

Mental Preparation. For the main effect of group, nonathle tes averaged significantly higher scores than intramural athletes, £(49) = 2.80, /; < .01. No o ther comparisons were significant. Because of the presence of g roup effects in the wrong direction (nonathletes > athletes), the Mental Preparation scale did not dem­onstrate predictive validity.

Motivation. For the main effect of group, colle­giate athletes had significantly h igher scores than

intramural athletes, ((53) = 2.52, p < .02, and non­athletes, £(50) = 2.49, p< .02. No o ther comparisons were significant. The Motivation scale demons t ra ted modera te predictive validity (i.e., collegiate athletes per formed significantly bet ter than all o ther groups; however, in t ramural athletes per formed similarly to nonathle tes) .

Vocabulary, Age , and Mood WAIS-R Vocabulary. For the main effect of group,

collegiate athletes had significantly lower WAIS-R vocabulary scores than intramural athletes, £(53) = 2.92, p< .01, and nonathletes , £(50) = 3.47, p< .01. For the significant group by sex interaction, intra-

Psi C H I JOURNAL O F UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998 29

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Ferraro

TABLE 3

F Values for the 3 x 2 (Group x Sex) ANOVA for Demographic Factor and Test Performance Differences Between the Groups

Age, test, or scale Group

F(2. 73) Sex

F(l,73) Group x Sex

F(2, 73)

Anxiety PSIS

Concentrat ion PSIS

Confidence PSIS

Mental Preparation PSIS

Motivation PSIS

Team Emphasis PSIS

Age

Mood

WAIS-R Vocabulary

State-Trait Anxiety

Digit Symbol

Signal Detect ion

Achievement Motivation

Note. *p < .05 **p < .01

8.04** 4.50* 2.96 3.92* 4.24* 0.55 2.47 0.03 6.71** 0.35 1.09 1.15 0.08

5.90* 2.85 2.97 3.78 0.25 2.98 0.02 0.56 0.25 0.00

43 40*** 0.54 3.28

0.47 0.77 1.59 0.35 0.20 0.24 2.58 0.05 3.46* 0.74 0.98 1.34 0.29

*p < .001

mural male athletes averaged significantly higher scores than collegiate male athletes, /(24) = 3.27, p< .01, collegiate female athletes, r(28) = 3.29, p< .01, and intramural female athletes, t(25) = 2.22, p< .05. Also, female nonathletes averaged significantly higher scores than male collegiate athletes, /(23) = 3.29, p< .01, and female collegiate athletes, ((27) = 3.19, p < .01. WAIS-R vocabulary performance was influ­enced by both group and sex (i.e., the comparative performance between men and women was different across the three groups, see Table 2). No other comparisons between the groups were significant. In addition, analyses revealed no significant main effects for group, sex, or for the group by sex interaction when considering age or mood.

Matched Cognit ive Task Analysis

Digit Symbol. For the main effect of sex, women averaged higher Digit Symbol scores (M= 78.71) than men (M= 68.54). There were no significant main ef­fects for group, sex, or for the group by sex interac­tion with regard to the other matched cognitive tasks.

Construct Val idity of the PSIS

Table 4 shows mean percentile scores and stan­dard deviations for the PSIS-cognitive task compari­sons for combined groups. Percentile scale scores were derived by dividing the raw score by the total pos­sible score in each of the eight measures. Results of the correlational analyses are presented in Table 5.

Analyses revealed a signifi­cant negative correlation between Anxiety Control-PSIS and State-Trait Anxiety when considering all partici­pants, r(77) =-.S7,p< .01, collegiate athletes, r(26) = - .70 , /; < .01, and non-athletes, r(22) = -.43, p< .05. This result demonstrates construct validity because better anxiety control (i.e., higher Anxiety Cont ro l -PSIS scores) was significantly related to the reporting of less state-trait anxiety (i.e., lower State-Trait Anxiety scores). With regard to the Concentration-Digit Sym­bol match, there was a sig­nificant negative correlation in the intramural group, r(25) = -.5 \,p<. 01. Because h igher scores indicate

greater concentration on both measures, these results question the validity of the Concentration scale and the Digit Symbol task as measures of concentration. No other correlations between matched scores were significant (see Table 5).

Discussion This study investigated the strengths and weak­

nesses of the PSIS. Before relevant group and sex differences are discussed, one caution that should be stressed concerns the number of participants in the present study. Internal consistency estimates and validity results may have been different with larger sample sizes in each of the groups.

Vocabulary, A g e , and Mood Groups did not differ significantly in age or level

of depression (which in effect controls for the poten­tial confounds). However, collegiate athletes in this study possessed weaker verbal intelligence than other groups, which is consistent with data from previous research. Kohl, Leonard, Ran, and Taylor (1991) showed that nonathletes (w = 2026) scored signifi­cantly higher than athletes (« = 434) on a measure of vocabulary. Therefore, collegiate athletes may pos­sess lower vocabulary ability than nonathletes. How­ever, vocabulary performance cannot adequately ex­plain group and sex differences on other measures. The significant group by sex interaction indicated that female intramural athletes and male nonathletes did

30 Psi CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998

THE PSYCI IOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Ferraro

Mean Percentile Scale Matched-Task C

PSIS scale/matched task

Anxiety PSIS

Concentration PSIS

Confidence PSIS

Motivation PSIS

State-Trait Anxiety

Digit Symbol

Signal Detection

Achievement Motivation

SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

T A B L E 4

: Scores and Standard Deviations for the omparisons for Combined Groups

All participants

(N = 79)

59.05 12.04

60.81 15.00

63.57 16.86

51.04 14.72

44.01 9.43

82.17 9.27

29.91 18.86

66.33 15.46

College Intramural athletes athletes (N = 28) (N = 27)

62.05 62.69 13.16 9.83

63.10 64.97 13.92 12.51

66.57 66.15 18.69 14.29

57.40 48.15 15.18 11.69

45.33 43.70 10.53 9.01

84.29 80.16 10.40 9.65

34.57 27.53 17.33 18.81

66.07 65.56 15.71 16.95

Non-athletes (N = 24)

51.46 11.06

53.47 16.61

57.18 16.17

46.87 15.24

42.81 8.73

81.94 7.00

27.14 20.32

67.50 13.91

not differ significantly from collegiate athletes. In addition, all questions used on tests were composed of basic vocabulary words understandable at the high school level.

Internal Consistency of the PSIS Only two PSIS scales demonstrated acceptable

internal consistency, Confidence (across all groups) and Motivation (in the collegiate athlete group).

Results are consistent with data reported by Chartrand et al. (1992) and are inconsistent with results from Mahoney (1989) and White (1993), who demon­strated acceptable internal consistency values for all PSIS scales. In order to improve internal consistency, future research should focus on the addition and deletion of items on the Anxiety Control, Concen­tration, Mental Preparation, and Team Emphasis scales.

T A B L E 5

Matched-Tasks Corre lat ion Analyses for Combined Groups

Matched tasks

Anxiety-PSIS with State-Trait Anxiety

Concentration-PSIS with Digit Symbol

Confidence-PSIS with Signal Detection

Motivation-PSIS with Achievement Motivation

Note. *p < .05 **p < .01.

All participants

(N = 79) r(77)

_ 37**

-.18

.22

-.05

College athletes (N = 28)

r(26)

- .70**

-.14

.31

.04

Intramural athletes (N = 27)

r(25)

-.06

_ 5 1 * *

-.21

-.06

Non-athletes (N = 24)

r(22)

-.43*

.08

.20

-.16

Psi CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998 Ml

T H E PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS

Predictive Validity of the PSIS Group differences. The success of the Anxiety

Control and Concentra t ion scales in differentiating between athletes and nonathle tes is consistent with data repor ted by Mahoney et al. (1987) and Lesser and Murphy (1988). O n e way to interpret the data would be to assume that the above scales differenti­ate between athletes at different skill levels (predic­tive validity). However, ano ther interpretat ion would be that because the PSIS was designed exclusively for athletes, nonathletes should score lower than athletes at any skill level. Also, validity for applied settings is quest ionable because collegiate and intramural ath­letes did not differ significantly on the above scales. Therefore , when considering the mixed results, the Concen t ra t ion and Anxiety Contro l scales at best demons t ra ted mild predictive validity.

Results from the Mental Preparat ion and Team Emphasis scales co r robora t e previous research by Char t rand et al. (1992) who concluded these con­structs may be poorly defined or too broad to mea­sure effectively. In effect, the PSIS may be strength­ened if these scales are d ropped completely. The lack of internal consistency and predictive validity indi­cates that the Mental Preparat ion and Team Empha­sis scales (in the present form) do not have potential for valid use in applied settings.

The finding that collegiate athletes per formed bet ter than the other groups on the Motivation scale (modera te predictive validity) is similar to data re­por ted by Mahoney (1989). However, there were no significant differences between intramural and non­athletes. O n e explanation may be that the Motiva­tion scale lacks validity to discriminate between dif­ferently skilled athletes. Another explanation may be that intramural athletes are no more motivated than nonathle tes because they participate mainly for rec­reation as opposed to compet i t ion . Most research used dedicated athletes for the lowest comparison group , as opposed to intramural athletes who may not have been very motivated to do well in their sport. If in t ramural athletes are similar to nonathle tes in Motivation-PSIS, it may also be expected that they would be similar in o the r PSIS skills. However, this result was not revealed in o ther analyses (with the exception of Team Emphasis in which all groups per­formed similarly).

Sex differences. Even though previous research has indicated differences based on sex (Cox & Liu, 1993; White, 1993), there should be no significant differences between male and female athletes because the PSIS is based on differentiating between athletes according to skill level (Mahoney e ta l . , 1987). Analy­ses revealed significant sex differences for the Anxi-

Rinehart and Ferraro

ety Control scale. This finding may mean that the Anxiety Control scale does not offer a rigorous mea­sure of validity. However, because this and other stud­ies have found significant sex differences on PSIS scales, an assumption may be that per formance com­parisons should only be made between same-sex in­dividuals. This issue may be dealt with by developing male and female norms, which may have impor tant implications if the PSIS is used in an applied setting. Another a rgument may be that the PSIS should only be used to compare athletes within the same sport (e.g., PSIS responses should not be compared be­tween basketball and track-and-field athletes at the same skill level). These issues should be addressed in future research.

Construct Validity of the PSIS Women had significantly h igher Digit Symbol

scores than men, which is consistent with findings from other studies (Dai, Ryan, Paolo, & Harr ington, 1991 ; K a u f m a n , K a u f m a n - P a c k e r , M c L e a n , & Reynolds, 1991). However, the significant difference between Digit Symbol performance due to sex is not impor tant for the present analysis.

No significant g roup differences were found on any of the four tasks. This finding has important im­plications for the construct validity analysis because the matched cognitive tasks did not detect differences between groups, whereas the three groups differed in Anxiety Control , Concentrat ion, and Motivation as measured by the PSIS. Thus, a comparison is being made between tasks detect ing differences between groups and tasks not detecting differences. There­fore, the matched cognitive tasks used in the present analyses may not have been effective in assessing ath­letic cognitive skills. However, the cognitive tasks used in the comparison were designed to measure a skill which at the very least corresponds to athletic skills (e.g., the athletic psychological skill of anxiety con­trol should be related to state-trait anxiety). There­fore , s igni f icant c o r r e l a t i o n s s h o u l d still have occurred in the matched-task analysis.

Only one match demonst ra ted a significant cor­relation in the predicted direction. The significant negative correla t ion between the Anxiety Contro l scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Scale (construct va­lidity) is consistent with data repor ted by Lesser and Murphy (1988) . No significant cor re la t ions were found in any other matches. In evaluating the corre­lational analyses, it is difficult to assess whether the PSIS scales were ineffective in showing a relationship to cognitive function, whether the matched cogni­tive tasks were ineffective, or whether both were inef­fective. It is possible that the Digit Symbol, Signal

32 Psi C H I JOURNAL O F UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS INVENTORY FOR SPORTS Rinehart and Ferraro

Detection, and the Achievement Motivation question­naire were not valid measures of athletic concentra­tion, confidence, and motivation. The Digit Symbol and Signal Detection tasks were used because it was thought that they were more similar to athletic per­formance than questionnaires, and the Achievement Motivation quest ionnaire was used because of previous research with college students (Lynn, 1969). Different results may have been obtained with other measures of concentration, confidence, and motivation.

Conclusion Data indicate the PSIS, in its present form, should

not be used for applied purposes. However, four of the six scales (Anxiety Control, Concentration, Con­fidence, and Motivation) have potential for valid use in applied settings provided that alterations are made to improve validity and reliability. Although there may be an infinite number of explanations that can ac­count for the present data, two issues will be explored. One explanation is that the PSIS as a whole is not an accurate measure of the psychological skills which differentiate between athletes at different skill levels. This view is similar to the conclusion drawn by Chartrand et al. (1992). The other explanation is that the six PSIS constructs are not the only factors that explain superior athletic performance. In effect, sev­eral other factors (not measured by the PSIS) may equally contribute to the development of skill in sports. Examples of these skills would be effort, per­sistence, satisfaction, experience, practice, commit­ment, enjoyment, attitude, and perceived self-efficacy (Vealey, 1986, 1989). In agreementwith Vealey (1986, 1989), future research should focus on more than

just six constructs in order to establish reliable and valid scales that can demonstrate the specific strengths and weaknesses of athletes, which can subsequently be used for applied purposes.

References

Allard, F., & Burne t t , N. (1985) . Skill in sport . Canadian Journal of Psychology, 5 9 , 2 9 4 - 3 1 2 .

B r a n n a n . J . R., Pignatiel lo, M. F., & C a m p , C.J. (1986) . Self-report measu re s of depress ion in college s tudents . Psychological Re­ports, 59, 761-762 .

Browne, M. A., & Mahoney, M.J. (1984). Sport psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 605 -625 .

C h a r t r a n d , J . M.,Jowdy, D. P., & Danish , S.J., (1992) . T h e Psycho­logical Skills Inventory for Sports : Psychometr ic character is­tics a n d a p p l i e d imp l i ca t ions . Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 405-413 .

Cox, R. H., & Liu, Z. (1993). Psychological skills: A cross-cultural

investigation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 326-340. C r o n b a c h , L . J . (1951) . Coefficient a lpha and in te rna l s t ruc ture

of tests. Psychomelrika, 16, 297-334. Cwikel, J., & Ritchie, K. (1988) . T h e Shor t CDS [Geriatric De­

pression Scale] : Evaluation in a h e t e r o g e n o u s , mult i l ingual popu la t i on . Clinical Ceronlologist, 8, 6 3 - 8 3 .

Dai, X., Ryan, J. J., Paolo , A. M., & H a r r i n g t o n , R. G. (1991) . Sex differences on the Wechsler Adult In te l l igence Scale-Revised for China . Psychological Assessment, 3, 282-284 .

Gro th-Marna t , G. (1997) . Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed . ) . New York: J o h n Wiley & Sons.

Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman-Packer, J. L., McLean, J . E., & Reynolds, C. R. (1991) . Is the pa t t e rn of intel lectual growth and dec l ine across the adul t life span different for m e n and women?Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 801-812.

Koh l , P. T., L e o n a r d , W. M., Ran , W., & Taylor, D. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Vocabulary and academic interest differences of a th le tes and nona th l e t e s . Journal of Sport Behavior, 14, 71 -84 .

Lesser, M., & Murphy, S. M. (1988, Augus t ) . The psychological skills inventory for sports: Normative and reliability data. Paper p resen ted at the annua l m e e t i n g of the Amer ican Psychological Associa­t ion, Atlanta, GA.

Lynn, R. (1969). An achievement motivation ques t ionna i re . British Journal of Psychology, 60, 529-534 .

Mahoney, M.J. (1979) . Cognitive skills a n d athlet ic p e r f o r m a n c e . In P. C. Kendal l & S. D. Hol lon (Eds.) , Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Theory, research, and procedures (pp . 423—443). New York: Academic Press.

Mahoney, M. [. (1989) . Psychological p red ic to rs of elite a n d non-el i te p e r f o r m a n c e in O lympic weight l i f t ing . International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 1-12.

Mahoney, M.J. , Gabriel , T.J., & Perkins, T. S. (1987) . Psychologi­cal skills a n d e x c e p t i o n a l a th le t ic p e r f o r m a n c e . The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181-199.

Mahoney, M. J., 8c Su inn , R. M. (1986) . His tory and overview of m o d e r n sport psychology. The Clinical Psychologist, 39, 64—68.

Matarazzo.J . D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal ofadult intelligence (5th e d . ) . Bal t imore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.

McClel land, D. C. (1961) . The achieving society. P r ince ton : Van Nos t rand .

Morgan , W. P. (1985) . Selected psychological factors l imit ing per­fo rmance : A men ta l hea l th mode l . In D. H. Clarke & H. M. E c k e r t ( E d s . ) , Limits of human performance ( p p . 7 0 - 8 0 ) . C h a m p a i g n , IL: H u m a n Kinetics.

Nunnally, J . C. (1978) . Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Paul, S. T , Kellas, G., & J u o l a , J. F. (1992) . P r iming effects on

lexical access and decision processes: A signal-detection analy­sis. Psychological Research, 54, 2 0 2 - 2 1 1 .

S t . J a m e s J . , Schneider , W., & Hinds , K. (1992) . MEL 1AB: Experi­ments in perception, cognition, social psychology, and human factors (pp . 3 7 - 4 6 ) . Pi t t sburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

Silva, j . M., & Weinberg , R. S. (Eds.) . (1984) . Psychological founda­tions of sport. C h a m p a i g n , IL: H u m a n Kinetics.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene , R. L. (1970). Manual for the stale-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consu l t ing Psychologists.

Vealey, R. S. (1986) . Conceptua l iza t ion of spor t -conf idence and compet i t ive o r ien ta t ion : Pre l iminary investigation and instru­m e n t deve lopmen t . Journal of Sport Psychology, S, 221-246 .

Vealey, R. S. (1989). Sport personology: A parad igmat ic and meth­odological analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 216-235 .

Wechsler, D. (1981) . Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corpora t ion .

White , S. A. (1993) . T h e rela t ionship between psychological skills, expe r i ence , and pract ice c o m m i t m e n t a m o n g collegiate male and female skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 49 -57 .

Psi CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998 33