Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 519–523

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

What is the size of the relationship between global mental toughness andyouth experiences?

Martin I. Jones ⇑, John K. ParkerFaculty of Applied Sciences, University of Gloucestershire, Oxstalls Lane, Gloucester, GLOS, GL2 9HW, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 August 2012Received in revised form 19 October 2012Accepted 26 October 2012Available online 1 December 2012

Keywords:Youth sportPsychological developmentPositive youth experiences

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.024

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of SApplied Science, Oxstalls Campus, University of Glouce+44 1242 715123.

E-mail address: mjones2@glos.ac.uk (M.I. Jones).

a b s t r a c t

Youth experiences are a core requirement for components of positive youth development and may beassociated with an athlete’s mental toughness. The purposes of this study were to examine the relation-ship between mental toughness and youth experiences. Two hundred and ninety nine athletes (Mage

19.48 years, SD 1.30) completed the Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire and Youth Experiences Sur-vey. We then conducted a standard multiple regression on the data. R for regression was significantly dif-ferent from zero, F(6, 292) = 8.106, p = .0001, with R2 at .14. Altogether, 14% (13% adjusted) of the variancein mental toughness was accounted for by youth experiences. These results reveal that initiative experi-ences have the strongest relationship with mental toughness; however, youth experiences may not be asimportant as previous studies suggest.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The purposes of this study were to examine the size of the rela-tionship between mental toughness and youth experiences in asample of youth athletes (i.e., 15–24 years: United Nations,2005). Gould, Griffes, and Carson (2011) suggested that mentaltoughness may be an outcome of positive youth developmentand there was a possibility of linking the two areas of researchby discussing their reciprocal augmentation. Gould and colleaguesstated that both fields emphasize the importance of developingself-belief, giving maximum effort, and dealing with failure andadversity, and they believed components of mental toughness havepotential to be life skills; however, researchers need to establishhow the two concepts are related. Youth need structured voluntaryactivities (e.g., sport) because these types of activities provide theconditions to facilitate development. Sport can provide opportuni-ties for growth; however, sport is certainly not a panacea for posi-tive development (Holt & Jones, 2008). Larson, Hansen, and Moneta(2006) reported that for some people sport was associated withhigher levels of stress and social exclusion as competition withpeers may lead to feelings of rivalry (Brustad, Babkes, & Smith,2001), impede empathy, and possibly interfere with moraldevelopment (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). For other athletes,sport can provide conditions for development of positive skills, likeidentity work, initiative, emotion regulation, and teamwork and

ll rights reserved.

port and Exercise, Faculty ofstershire, GL2 9HW, UK. Tel.:

social skills, interpersonal relationships, and adult networking(Hansen, Skorupski, & Arrington, 2010); particularly if sport is rulebound, structured, volitional and represents a context that ac-counts for a large proportion of youths’ free time (Larson & Verma,1999). Academics know that youth sport provides many positivelife experiences (Larson et al., 2006) and they know that youngathletes exhibit mental toughness attributes (Gucciardi, 2010);however, it is unclear which youth experiences are associated withmental toughness.

Gucciardi, Gordon, and Dimmock (2009) defined mental tough-ness in sport as a collection of values, attitudes, behaviors, andemotions that enable an individual to persevere and overcomeobstacles, adversities, or pressures, but also to maintain concentra-tion and motivation when things are going well to achieve goals.Over the past decade, researchers have diversified their researchquestions from asking what mental toughness is, to asking howpeople acquire it (Connaughton, Thelwell, & Hanton, 2011). In linewith this diversification, researchers expanded sampling framesfrom elite and super elite athletes (e.g., Jones, Hanton, & Connaugh-ton, 2002, 2007) to youth participants (e.g., Gerber et al., 2012;Gucciardi, 2009, 2010, 2011). With these changes, scholars havebegun to understand processes that may explain how athletes de-velop mental toughness.

Connaughton and colleagues (e.g., Connaughton, Hanton, &Jones, 2010; Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton, & Jones, 2008) exam-ined the development and maintenance of mental toughness insport by interviewing elite and super elite athletes, coaches andsport psychologists. The synthesis of both studies revealed thatmental toughness developed differently across the athletic lifespan(e.g., the early years, the middle years, and later years) with each

520 M.I. Jones, J.K. Parker / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 519–523

development period providing different developmental experi-ences. Participants reported factors that developed mental tough-ness during the initial involvement in sport (e.g., the early years)included being competitive in training and engaging in activitiesfor enjoyment, socialization, and skill mastery. The intermediateto elite level phase comprised discipline and structure in training,learning from role models, and doing what was necessary toachieve success. In the later years, when the super elite becameOlympic or World champions participants reported that theydeveloped mental toughness experiences of elite competition, anintense desire to win, a social support network, the use of mentalskills, attaining the correct balance in life, gaining knowledge fromrespected individuals (e.g., coaches, competitors, sport psycholo-gists), and reflective practice.

According to Connaughton et al. (2008, 2010), motivational cli-mate (e.g., enjoyment, challenge, mastery), external assets (e.g., so-cial support networks), and developmental experiences (e.g.,critical incidents, competitive rivalry, vicarious experiences, dem-onstration of ability) are all potential mechanisms that facilitatethe development of mental toughness. Connaughton and col-leagues provided an excellent example of how mental toughnessdevelops in elite and super elite athletes; however, it is unclearwhether non-elite sports people develop mental attributes in thesame way. Holt and Dunn (2004) identified that the majority of tal-ent development research in sport psychology has been retrospec-tive and descriptive, where successful athletes reflected on theirathletic career (often after they have retired). It is evident thatthe same is true of some mental toughness development literature.In line with Holt and Dunn’s suggestions, more research is requiredwith young athletes and non-athletes in order to understand moreabout the formation of mental toughness.

Researchers have suggested that a relationship exists betweenyouth experiences and mental toughness (e.g., Gucciardi, 2011;Gucciardi & Jones, 2012). Gucciardi and Jones investigated differ-ences in developmental assets and negative emotional states be-tween cricketers with high, moderate, and low levels of mentaltoughness in a sample of 226 community level cricketers. Gucc-iardi and Jones captured distinct mental toughness clusters, anddemonstrated that cricketers with high levels of mental toughnessreported possession of more developmental assets and lower levelsof negative emotional states in comparison to cricketers with mod-erate and low levels of mental toughness. Overall, Gucciardi andJones highlighted that mental toughness, and constructs associatedwith developmental success (e.g., developmental assets and youthexperiences), warranted further exploration.

Gucciardi (2011) collected data from adolescent cricketers inorder to examine the relationship between developmental experi-ences and self-reported mental toughness. Gucciardi tested therelationship between youth experience and mental toughness ina sample of 187 adolescent cricketers. Gucciardi’s structural equa-tion model demonstrated that positive and negative developmen-tal experiences explained 40% of the variance in global mentaltoughness, with initiative experiences exhibiting the strongestrelationship with mental toughness. Gucciardi noted that althoughthe single sport, homogenous design (i.e., male cricketers) hassome advantages, future research should examine the relationshipbetween developmental experience and mental toughness using aheterogeneous sample. It is possible that individual sports offerdifferent types of developmental experiences to team sport partic-ipants (Hansen et al., 2010) and females may experience differentthings compared with males (e.g., differences in identity develop-ment). Gucciardi stated that researchers should examine whethercricket specific findings generalize to other sports and across maleand female participants. However, Gucciardi used a sport-specificmeasure of mental toughness, therefore a direct replication ofGucciardi’s work is impossible if sampling across sports. In order

to understand whether a relationship exists between youth expe-riences and mental toughness across sports, researchers must usea sport-general measure of mental toughness. To this end, the pur-poses of this study were to examine the size of the relationship be-tween global mental toughness and youth experiences in a sampleof athletes across sports.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Following approval from the University Ethics Committee, wesampled 299 male (n = 186) and female (n = 112) athletes (Mage

19.48 years SD 1.30) from sports teams at a British University (oneparticipant, a 20 year old rugby player, did not report his or her gen-der). The sample consisted of athletes from 28 different sports (e.g.,association football, field hockey, rugby, netball, cricket, badminton,golf, athletics, and equestrianism). We recruited athletes becauseresearchers have recognized that mental toughness is a crucial attri-bute for success in sport and previous researchers have demon-strated that mental toughness exists in athletes (Sheard, Golby, &van Wersch, 2009). We do not believe that mental toughness isexclusive to athletes, in fact, researchers have shown that non-ath-letes demonstrate mental toughness attributes (e.g., Gerber et al.,2012); however, in the current study we focused on athletes be-cause Gucciardi (2011) stated that researchers should examinewhether cricket specific findings generalize to other sports.

The first author administered the instruments at prearrangedtimes when participants had no other commitments. All partici-pants voluntarily took part in the study. The testing protocol tookapproximately 10 min.

2.2. Measures

We asked participants to complete two self-report question-naires: The Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ: Sheardet al., 2009), and the Youth Experiences Survey (YES 2.0: Hansen &Larson, 2005).

2.2.1. Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ: Sheard et al.,2009)

The SMTQ is a 14-item instrument that measures three dimen-sions of mental toughness: confidence (a = .80, 6 items), constancy(a = .74, 4 items), and control (a = .71, 4 items). Participants rateditems on a four point Likert scale anchored by not true at all andvery true. Higher composite subscale scores reflect higher levelsof each dimension and higher scores a single composite score re-flects higher global mental toughness.

2.2.2. Youth Experiences Survey (YES 2.0: Hansen & Larson, 2005)The YES 2.0 is a 70-item instrument that measures 6 domains of

positive and 5 domains of negative experiences in youth activities.The 6 positive domains of the YES 2.0 are identity (a = .84, 6 items),initiative (a = .94, 9 items), basics skills (a = .87, 10 items), inter-personal relationships (a = .86, 8 items), teamwork and social skills(a = .93, 10 items), and adult networks and social capital (a = .87, 7items). The 5 negative domains of the YES 2.0 are stress (a = .86, 3items), negative peer influences (a = .94, 4 items), social exclusion(a = .82, 3 items), negative group dynamics (a = .75, 3 items), andinappropriate adult behavior (a = .94, 4 items). Participants ratethe extent to which they have had an experience in their currentor recent involvement in their chosen activity (i.e., primary sport)using a four point Likert scale (1 = yes definitely, 2 = quite a bit,3 = a little, 4 = not at all). All items were reverse scored so that ahigher number reported greater experience in the specific domain.We calculated a mean score for each YES 2.0 subscale.

M.I. Jones, J.K. Parker / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 519–523 521

3. Results

3.1. Data Screening

We conducted data analysis using SPSS 19.0. Missing data anal-ysis revealed that 0.49% of the data was missing however, Little’smissing completely at random (MCAR) test was not significant atthe .05 level (v2 = 3045.88, df = 3099, p = .75), so we replaced miss-ing data with the expectation maximization method. Skewness andkurtosis values of all positive YES 2.0 and SMTQ subscales werenormally distributed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). However, we ob-served non-normality (i.e., zskew and zkurt P 3.29) in the negativesubscales of the YES 2.0. We conducted separate transformationson the positively skewed subscales; but the transformations didnot correct the non-normality. The positive skewness showed thatthe majority of participants did not have, or did not report, nega-tive experiences in their sport. Many participants reported neverexperiencing stress (mode = 1, M = 1.75, SD 0.73), negative peerinfluences (mode = 1, M = 1.46, SD 0.61), social exclusion(mode = 1.33, M = 1.42 SD 0.49), negative group dynamics(mode = 1, M = 1.48, SD 0.55), or inappropriate adult behavior(mode = 1, M = 1.17, SD 0.34). We decided to exclude the negativesubscales in the main analysis and focused on the relationship be-tween positive youth experiences and global mental toughness.Next, we calculated an internal reliability estimate (Cronbach’s a)for all the study variables. The 6 positive youth experiences, confi-dence and a global mental toughness score demonstrated adequatereliability (i.e., Cronbach’s a > .70; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).However, constancy (a = .58), and control (a = .57) did not demon-strate adequate reliability. Based on the inadequate reliability ofcontrol and constancy, we used only the global mental toughnessscore as an outcome variable in the subsequent analyses.

We identified two univariate outliers (i.e., z P 3.29) on the ini-tiative subscale but no multivariate outliers through Mahalanobisdistance (i.e., using a p < .001 criterion for Mahalanobis D2). Wedecided to retain the outliers because it was clear that we had en-tered the data correctly, and the outliers were genuine members ofthis population. Given that extreme cases have too much impact onthe regression solution and affect the precision of estimates on theregression weights we decided to change to the two outlying scoresto the next most extreme score in the distribution (Tabachnick &Fidell, 2007). Case numbers 90 (a 20 year old male rugby player)and 214 (a 19 year old female equestrian athlete) both scored�3.61 standard deviations below the sample mean and wererecoded to the next most extreme score in the distribution thatwas not an outlier. The change in initiative score from 1.25 to

Table 1Descriptive statistics, internal reliability estimates, and correlations for variables and stan

Min Max M SD Positive youth

1 2

1. Identity experiences 1.17 4.00 2.65 0.60 (.72)2. Initiative experiences 1.25 4.00 3.07 0.50 .62** (.86)3. Basic skills 1.17 3.67 2.28 0.50 .48** .49**

4. Interpersonal relationships 1.00 4.00 2.78 0.61 .49** .47**

5. Teamwork and social skills 1.20 4.00 3.12 0.59 .37** .51**

6. Adult networks and social capital 1.00 4.00 2.57 0.71 .55** .55**

7. Global mental toughness 26.00 54.00 39.21 5.38 .20** .35**

Note: We present internal reliability estimates (a) on the diagonal in parentheses.** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).*** p < .001.

a Unique variability = 0.05, shared variability = 0.10, 95% confidence limits from .06 to

1.50 for the two outliers did not change the mean and standarddeviation (when rounded to 2 decimal places).

3.2. Standard Multiple Regression

Table 1 displays the correlations between the positive experi-ence variables and global mental toughness, the unstandardizedregression coefficients (B) and intercept, the standardized regres-sion coefficients (b), the estimated semi-partial correlations (sr2

i ),the R2, and adjusted R2. R for regression was significantly differentfrom zero, F(6, 292) = 8.106, p = .0001, with R2 at .14 and 95% con-fidence limits from .06 to .21. The adjusted R2 value of .13 indicatesthat positive youth experiences account for approximately 13% ofthe variability in global mental toughness.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship be-tween global mental toughness and youth experiences. This studyprovides a unique perspective on the relationship between youthexperiences and mental toughness by sampling participants froma greater variety of sports than in previous studies, sampling olderparticipants who are in the later years of mental toughness devel-opment (Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton, & Jones, 2008) and by sam-pling males and females (Gucciardi, 2011). Despite theseadvantages, we acknowledge that age range and gender differencemay have a potential impact on the data and therefore suggest thatfuture researchers may wish to replicate the current study with afocus on the moderation effect of age and gender using structuralequation modeling or MIMIC modeling. Additionally, R for regres-sion was significantly different from zero; however, the proportionof variance was small and the sample size was large (n = 299).

The current study extends previous research (e.g., Connaughtonet al., 2008, 2010; Gucciardi, 2011; Gucciardi & Jones, 2012) byproviding evidence that positive youth sport experiences are asso-ciated with mental toughness but the relationship is not as strongas previous researchers suggest. The participants in the currentstudy (Mage 19.48 years SD 1.30) were older than Gucciardi’s(2011) cohort (Mage = 16.15 years SD 1.46), yet initiative experi-ences were still the most important youth experience in terms oftheir strength of their relationship with mental toughness. Giventhat initiative experiences correlate with mental toughness inolder youth in the current study, and in younger youth in theGucciardi study, readers could conclude that initiative experiencesare important predictors of specific mental toughness attributes

dard multiple regression of positive youth experiences on global mental toughness.

experiences Global mental toughness Standard multiple regression

3 4 5 6 7 B SE B b sr2i

(unique)

�0.37 0.67 �0.41 .003.29*** 0.83 030 .05

(.79) 0.91 0.76 0.08 .00.50** (.80) �0.92 0.69 �0.10 .01.44** .60** (.87) 1.11 0.67 0.12 .01.56** .60** .50** (.81) 0.30 0.59 0.04 .00.24** .16** .26** .23** (.76)

Intercept = 25.29 Adjusted R2 = .13R2 = .14a R = .38***

.21.

522 M.I. Jones, J.K. Parker / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 519–523

developed in early ontogeny. Researchers may wish to considerthis question in future studies.

Results demonstrated that approximately 14% (13% adjusted) ofthe variance in global mental toughness was predicted by knowingscores on the 6 positive subscales of the YES 2.0. When comparedwith Gucciardi’s (2011) study, it is evident that the current rela-tionship between mental toughness and youth experiences ismuch smaller. The low proportion of variance (when comparedwith Gucciardi, 2011) may suggest that positive youth experiencesare less important than negative youth experiences, the number ofyears playing experience (i.e., duration) and hours per week (i.e.,intensity) dedicated to sport (see Gucciardi, 2011). Moreover, cur-rent results suggest that Gucciardi’s findings may not generalizebeyond cricket or to females.

A low R2 0f .14 leads us to conclude that other variables mustaccount for the remaining variance. Harmison (2011) suggestedthe mental toughness is multidimensional and a dynamic con-struct. Several different variables could account for the remainingvariance. For example, mental toughness could be a life skill (Gouldet al., 2011). Specifically, young people could develop mentaltoughness in non-sport domains and transfer it into the sportingcontext. Furthermore, mental toughness could have an inheritedaspect and therefore personality traits could account for a propor-tion of variance. The development of mental toughness most likelyis the culmination of a combination of ranges of developmentalsystems (see Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005). With thisin mind, it is important to understand that positive youth experi-ences are not a panacea for mental toughness development andscholars should not focus their efforts exclusively on manipulationof the youth sport experiences.

4.1. Limitations

It is important to acknowledge that regression analysis revealsrelationships among variables but researchers cannot use regres-sion alone to imply that the relationships are causal. It is not withinthe scope of the current study to draw conclusions regarding causeand effect. Gucciardi, Mallet, Hanrahan, and Gordon (2011) statedthat the SMTQ is limited in its ability to capture the breadth ofmental toughness attributes due to the three-factor model of men-tal toughness reported by Sheard et al. (2009). The lack of concep-tual coverage across the ranges of mental toughness attributes thatqualitative researchers have identified (e.g., Jones et al., 2002,2007) may explain why youth experience accounted for such alow proportion of variance in mental toughness. It is possible thatyouth experiences will account for significantly more variance inmental toughness if toughness attributes reflect the key facets ofmental toughness across the available literature (e.g., contextualintelligence, attention). Sheard et al. (2009) stated that the SMTQhas good internal consistency (Cronbach a > .72). In the currentsample, Cronbach a were lower (control a = .58, constancya = .60) suggesting that the SMTQ requires further refinement. Itis possible that the variance observed is attributable to themeasurement method rather than to the construct of interest(i.e., methods bias: Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,2003). Future researchers may choose to control for priming ef-fects, item-context induced mood states, and other biases relatedto the question context or item embeddedness by counterbalanc-ing the order of the measurement of the predictor and criterionvariables. Podsakoff and colleagues also suggested that it is alsopossible to reduce method biases through the careful constructionof the items themselves. Finally, we recruited only athletes andtherefore the present findings might not be transferred to non-athletes. Future researchers may wish to consider the relationshipbetween mental toughness and youth experiences in non-sporting

samples and by measuring mental toughness with generic mea-sures of mental toughness.

In conclusion, the present study is unique in quantifying therelationship between positive youth experiences and mentaltoughness in a sample of young male and female athletes fromteam and individual sports. Initiative experiences appear to bethe most important predictor of mental toughness in this sample.These results should remain tentative until researchers replicatethe current study; however, practitioners may wish to attempt tomanipulate and measure initiative experiences in young athletesin order to explore causal relationships between initiative andmental toughness. We hope that the current findings stimulate de-bate regarding a clear understanding of those factors that facilitatethe development of mental toughness.

References

Brustad, R. J., Babkes, M., & Smith, A. (2001). Youth in sport: Psychologicalconsiderations. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbookof sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 604–635). New York, NY: Wiley.

Connaughton, D., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2010). The development and maintenanceof mental toughness in the world’s best performers. The Sport Psychologist, 24,168–193.

Connaughton, D., Thelwell, R., & Hanton, S. (2011). Mental toughness development:Issues, practical implications and future directions. In D. F. Gucciardi & S.Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Development in theory and research(pp. 135–162). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Connaughton, D., Wadey, R., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2008). The development andmaintenance of mental toughness: Perceptions of elite performers. Journal ofSports Sciences, 26, 83–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410701310958.

Gerber, M., Kalak, N., Lemola, S., Clough, P. J., Pühse, U., Elliot, C., et al. (2012).Adolescents’ exercise and physical activity are associated with mentaltoughness. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 5, 35–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2012.02.004.

Gould, D., Griffes, K., & Carson, S. (2011). Mental toughness as a life skill. In D. F.Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Development in theoryand research (pp. 163–186). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Gucciardi, D. F. (2009). Do developmental differences in mental toughness existbetween specialized and invested Australian footballers? Personality &Individual Differences, 47, 985–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.001.

Gucciardi, D. F. (2010). Mental toughness profiles and their relations withachievement goals and sport motivation in adolescent Australian footballers.Journal of Sport Sciences, 28, 615–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410903582792.

Gucciardi, D. F. (2011). The relationship between developmental experiences andmental toughness in adolescent cricketers. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,33, 370–393.

Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2009). Evaluation of a mentaltoughness training program for youth-aged Australian footballers: 1. Aquantitative analysis. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 307–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200903026066.

Gucciardi, D. F., & Jones, M. I. (2012). Beyond optimal performance. Mentaltoughness profiles and indicators of developmental success in adolescentcricketers. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 16–36.

Gucciardi, D. F., Mallet, C. J., Hanrahan, S. J., & Gordon, S. (2011). Measuring mentaltoughness in sport: Status and future directions. In D. F. Gucciardi & S. Gordon(Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Development in theory and research(pp. 108–132). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W. (2005). The Youth Experiences Survey 2.0: Instrumentrevisions and validity testing. Unpublished manuscript. University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.

Hansen, D. M., Skorupski, W. P., & Arrington, T. L. (2010). Differences indevelopmental experiences for commonly used categories of organized youthactivities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 413–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.001.

Harmison, R. J. (2011). A social cognitive framework for understanding anddeveloping mental toughness in sport. In D. F. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.),Mental toughness in sport: Development in theory and research (pp. 47–68).Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Toward a grounded theory of the psychosocialcompetencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success.Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 199–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200490437949.

Holt, N. L., & Jones, M. I. (2008). Future directions for positive youth developmentand sport. In N. L. Holt (Ed.), Positive youth development through sport(pp. 122–131). London, UK: Routledge.

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called mentaltoughness? An investigation of elite sport performers. Journal of Applied SportPsychology, 14, 205–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200290103509.

M.I. Jones, J.K. Parker / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 519–523 523

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007). A framework of mental toughness inthe world’s best performers. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 243–264.

Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Profiles of developmentalexperiences in organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42,849–863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849.

Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time acrossthe world: Work, play and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin,125, 701–736.

Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youthdevelopment: A view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 10–16.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431604273211.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biasesin behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Sheard, M., Golby, J., & van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress toward construct validationof the sports mental toughness questionnaire (SMTQ). European Journal ofPsychological Assessment, 25, 186–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.186.

Shields, D. L. L., & Bredemeier, B. J. L. (1995). Character development and physicalactivity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,MA, Pearson. United Nations (2005). World youth report 2005: Young peopletoday and in 2015. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affair.