Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
0.13
(0.56)
0.03
0.18
0.22
0.33
0.59
-0.52
0.00
0.11
(0.44)
-0.12
-0.10
-0.01
0.06
-0.03
0.46
0.13
-0.12
(0.50)
0.53
0.42
0.29
-0.26
0.48
0.10
0.00
0.47
(0.65)
0.50
0.30
-0.29
0.45
0.31
-0.02
0.45
0.45
(0.47)
0.44
-0.40
0.52
0.16
-0.02
0.46
0.46
0.45
(0.25)
-0.52
0.38
0.41
0.04
0.37
0.30
0.46
0.27
Note: Correlations among competition strategies are in the lower left diagonal; those for practice strategies are in the upper right diagonal; and
those for corresponding subscales are shown in parentheses. Correlations greater than 0.09 are statistically signiW cant (P < 0.05, two-tailed).
Table 4 Means and standard deviations for the competition strategies subscales for male athletes grouped by performance
standard
Competition
strategies
International
(n = 41)
National
(n = 31)
College and
regional
(n = 31)
Junior
national
(n = 71)
Recreational
(n = 30)
Other (e.g.
high school)
(n = 118)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Negative thinking
3.84 0.77
3.72 0.57
3.06 0.74
4.10 0.62
4.01 0.71
4.12 0.52
3.75 0.57
1.99 0.70
3.59 0.94
3.43 0.86
3.19 0.67
4.03 0.68
3.75 0.79
3.78 0.61
3.38 0.76
2.27 0.69
3.32 0.87
3.54 0.71
3.45 0.68
3.49 0.82
3.26 0.92
3.47 0.66
3.42 0.71
2.29 0.89
3.58 0.83
3.66 0.67
3.00 0.79
3.74 0.66
3.51 0.67
3.81 0.64
3.56 0.72
2.06 0.65
3.39 0.70
3.53 0.59
3.43 0.79
3.43 0.74
3.12 0.69
3.58 0.66
3.38 0.58
2.07 0.50
3.79 0.78
3.56 0.80
2.99 0.77
3.89 0.81
3.64 0.81
3.93 0.73
3.48 0.67
2.09 0.63
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 705
Table 5 Means and standard deviations for the competition strategies subscales for female athletes grouped by performance
standard
Competition strategies
International
(n = 24)
National
(n = 32)
Junior national
(n = 44)
Recreational
(n = 23)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Negative thinking
3.48 1.05
3.85 0.63
3.18 0.80
4.14 0.73
3.93 0.78
4.09 0.64
3.95 0.70
1.83 0.56
3.34 0.82
3.53 0.71
2.94 0.71
3.89 0.76
3.65 0.82
3.77 0.56
3.39 0.54
2.10 0.73
3.94 0.69
3.73 0.64
2.70 0.66
4.09 0.66
3.90 0.72
4.14 0.57
3.59 0.62
2.17 0.70
3.48 0.93
3.24 0.52
3.05 0.82
3.54 0.90
3.29 0.88
3.52 0.63
3.02 0.54
2.46 0.68
subgroups deW ned by current performance standard.
Preliminary age sex multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVA) were performed on both the competition
and practice data to determine if it was necessary
to control for their eVects in the main performance
standard analyses. For these age sex analyses, the
sample was divided into three age groups in such a way
that each contained suYcient participants for the results
to be meaningful. Group 1 comprised those athletes
younger than 17 years of age (n = 134), Group 2 those
athletes aged 1719 years (n = 215) and Group 3 those
athletes aged 20 years and older (n = 119).
For the competition data, the age sex MANOVA
revealed a main eVect for age (approx. F
16,910
= 2.88,
P < 0.001), which subsequent univariate analyses of
variance (ANOVA) suggested was due to signiW cant
diVerences in automaticity (F
2,462
= 3.50, P < 0.05),
imagery (F
2,462
= 3.91, P < 0.05) and activation (F
2,462
=
12.37, P < 0.001). Follow-up Tukey tests showed that,
in general, older performers used imagery and acti-
vation strategies less in competition than younger
performers, and reported more automaticity. The
age sex MANOVA also revealed a main eVect for sex
in the competition data (exact F
8,455
= 2.31, P < 0.05).
Subsequent univariate analyses of variance suggested
that this was due to signiW cant diVerences in auto-
maticity (F
1,462
= 4.71, P < 0.05) and imagery (F
1,462
=
3.78, P = 0.05). Examination of the cell means showed
that males scored higher on automaticity, but lower
on imagery, than females. The age sex MANOVA
did not reveal a signiW cant interaction eVect (approx.
F
16,910
= 0.98, P > 0.05).
In light of the above W ndings, the eVects of current
performance standard on the strategic use of psycho-
logical skills in competition were examined using
separate single-factor multivariate analyses of co-
variance (MANCOVA) for the male and female data
with age as a covariate in each case. Sex was not
included as a second independent variable in the
MANCOVA because there were not enough females in
the college/regional and other/high school categories.
For the males, the overall MANCOVA was signiW cant
(approx. F
40,1345
= 1.58, P < 0.02), with univariate
analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) suggesting that this
was due to signiW cant diVerences in automaticity
(F
5,315
= 2.40, P < 0.05), goal-setting (F
5,315
= 4.24,
P < 0.01), imagery (F
5,315
= 5.34, P < 0.001) and acti-
vation (F
5,315
= 2.64, P < 0.05). Boneferroni follow-up
tests indicated that other/high school athletes scored
signiW cantly lower than college/regional athletes on
automaticity. The diVerence between other/high school
athletes and club/recreational athletes was also very
close to signiW cant. International athletes, national
athletes and other/high school athletes all scored sig-
niW cantly higher than club/recreational athletes on
goal-setting, with international athletes also scoring
signiW cantly higher than college/regional athletes.
International athletes scored signiW cantly higher than
junior national, college/regional and club/recreational
athletes on imagery, with national athletes and other/
high school athletes also scoring signiW cantly higher
than club/recreational athletes. Finally, international
athletes scored higher than college/regional athletes
and club/recreational athletes on activation, with other/
high school athletes also scoring signiW cantly higher
than college/regional athletes. Male international and
national standard athletes, together with the other
(largely high school) athletes, tended to score higher
than the college/regional and club/recreational athletes
on most subscales. The exception was on automaticity,
where the reverse occurred (see Table 4).
For female athletes, only four standards of com-
petitive performance were examined: international,
national, junior national and club/recreational. The
overall MANCOVA was signiW cant (approx. F
24,322
=
3.27, P < 0.001) with univariate analyses of covariance
suggesting that this was due to signiW cant diVerences
in self-talk (F
3,118
= 4.16, P < 0.01), emotional control
(F
3,118
= 3.98, P < 0.05), automaticity (F
3,118
= 3.83,
P < 0.05), goal-setting (F
3,118
= 4.07, P < 0.01), imagery
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
706 Thomas et al.
(F
3,118
= 3.14, P < 0.05), activation (F
3,118
= 5.47, P <
0.01), negative thinking (F
3,118
= 3.45, P < 0.05) and
relaxation (F
3,118
= 9.65, P < 0.001). Bonferroni follow-
up tests indicated that junior national athletes scored
signiW cantly higher than national athletes on self-talk.
International athletes and junior national athletes
scored signiW cantly higher than club/recreational
athletes on emotional control. There were no signiW cant
diVerences between any of the groups for automaticity.
International and junior national athletes scored sig-
niW cantly higher than club/recreational athletes on
goal-setting, imagery, activation and relaxation. Inter-
national athletes also scored signiW cantly higher than
national athletes on relaxation. Finally, international
athletes scored signiW cantly lower than club/recreational
athletes on negative thinking. The female international
and junior national athletes tended to score higher than
the club/recreational athletes on all subscales except
negative thinking, where they scored lower, and
automaticity, where there was no clear pattern (see
Table 5).
Discriminant validity: Practice inventory
Tables 6 and 7 show the practice subscale means and
standard deviations for males and females in each of
the six subgroups deW ned by current performance
standard. The preliminary age sex MANOVA on the
practice data revealed a main eVect for age (approx.
F
16,910
= 2.72, P < 0.001), which subsequent univariate
analyses of variance suggested was due to signiW cant
diVerences in emotional control (F
2,462
= 4.41, P <
0.05), imagery (F
2,462
= 2.89, P < 0.06) and activation
(F
2,462
= 4.40, P < 0.05). Follow-up Tukey tests showed
that, in general, older performers used emotional
control strategies more, but imagery and activation
strategies less, than younger performers during practice.
The age sex MANOVA also revealed a main eVect for
sex in the practice data (exact F
8,455
= 2.33, P < 0.05).
Subsequent univariate analyses of variance suggested
that this was due to a marginally signiW cant diVerence
in goal-setting (F
1,462
= 3.71, P < 0.06), a signiW cant
diVerence in activation (F
1,462
= 4.26, P < 0.05) and a
marginally signiW cant diV erence in attentional control
(F
1,462
= 3.67, P < 0.06). Examination of the cell means
showed that males scored lower than females on all
three subscales. The age sex MANOVA did not reveal
a signiW cant interaction eVect (approx. F
16,910
= 0.77,
P > 0.05).
In light of these W ndings, the eVects of current per-
formance standard on the strategic use of psychological
skills in practice were agai n examined using separate
Table 6 Means and standard deviations for the practice strategies subscales for male athletes grouped by performance standard
Practice
strategies
International
(n = 41)
National
(n = 31)
College and
regional
(n = 31)
Junior
national
(n = 71)
Recreational
(n = 30)
Other (e.g.
high school)
(n = 118)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Attentional control
3.67 0.72
3.44 0.69
3.34 0.52
3.51 0.76
3.58 0.68
3.06 0.69
3.11 0.69
3.65 0.52
3.57 0.64
3.38 0.76
3.48 0.70
3.41 0.68
3.37 0.77
2.94 0.54
2.79 0.76
3.41 0.76
3.19 0.71
3.52 0.62
3.52 0.58
2.99 0.80
2.94 0.92
2.84 0.54
2.45 0.73
3.25 0.69
3.42 0.77
3.41 0.68
3.26 0.62
3.35 0.71
3.32 0.55
3.14 0.58
2.52 0.68
3.40 0.61
3.35 0.81
3.54 0.55
3.33 0.73
3.08 0.80
2.86 0.84
2.98 0.60
2.63 0.78
3.42 0.53
3.57 0.84
3.18 0.73
3.26 0.70
3.35 0.87
3.22 0.77
3.20 0.79
2.57 0.76
3.47 0.67
Table 7 Means and standard deviations for the practice strategies subscales for female athletes grouped by performance
standard
Practice strategies
International
(n = 24)
National
(n = 32)
Junior national
(n = 44)
Recreational
(n = 23)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Attentional control
3.43 0.90
3.54 0.66
3.36 0.52
3.72 0.79
3.43 0.76
3.30 0.61
2.60 0.62
3.60 0.71
3.34 0.74
3.27 0.67
3.27 0.50
3.59 0.74
3.13 0.80
3.16 0.54
2.83 0.58
3.63 0.60
3.62 0.70
3.30 0.63
3.08 0.50
3.53 0.63
3.55 0.83
3.37 0.52
2.92 0.75
3.72 0.38
3.22 0.86
3.24 0.58
3.34 0.42
3.33 0.65
2.89 0.81
3.11 0.63
2.58 0.65
3.25 0.57
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 707
single-factor multivariate analyses of covariance for
the male and female data with age as a covariate in
each case. For the males, the overall MANCOVA was
signiW cant (approx. F
40,1345
= 2.33, P < 0.001), with
univariate analyses of covariance suggesting that this was
due to signiW cant diVerences in automaticity (F
5,315
=
2.73, P < 0.05), goal-setting (F
5,315
= 2.25, P < 0.05),
imagery (F
5,315
= 3.47, P < 0.01) and relaxation (F
5,315
=
4.71, P < 0.001). Bonferroni follow-up tests showed no
signiW cant diVerences in automaticity or goal-setting.
However, the international, national, junior national
and other/high school athletes scored somewhat higher
than the club/recreational and college/regional athletes
on goal-setting. International athletes also scored
signiW cantly higher than club/recreational athletes and
college/regional athletes on imagery, and signiW cantly
higher than junior national, other/high school, and
college/regional athletes on relaxation. Male inter-
national and national standard athletes, and to a lesser
extent the other (largely high school) athletes, tended
to score higher than the college/regional and club/
recreational athletes on most subscales. The exception
was on automaticity, where no clear pattern emerged
(see Table 6).
For the female athletes, the same four standards of
competitive performance were examined as previously:
international, national, junior national and club/
recreational. The overall MANCOVA was again signiW -
cant (approx. F
24,322
= 1.65, P < 0.05), with univariate
analyses of covariance suggesting that this was due to
signiW cant diVerences in automaticity (F
3,118
= 2.82, P <
0.05), imagery (F
3,118
= 3.20, P < 0.05) and attentional
control (F
3,118
= 2.97, P < 0.05). However, the only sig-
niW cant diVerences identiW ed by Bonferroni follow-up
tests were that junior national athletes scored higher
than club/recreational athletes on imagery and atten-
tional control. No signiW cant diVerences were identiW ed
for automaticity. Female international and junior
national standard athletes tended to score higher than
the club/recreational athletes on all subscales except
automaticity and relaxation. On automaticity the junior
nationals scored lowest, while on relaxation the inter-
national athletes had almost the same mean as the
club/recreational athletes (see Table 7).
Discussion
Exploratory factor analyses of the Test of Performance
Strategies yielded very clear factor structures for
both the competition and the practice items. The eight
factors hypothesized to underlie the items were: goal-
setting, relaxation, activation, imagery, self-talk,
attentional control, emotional control and automaticity.
In the practice data, all eight of these factors were
obtained. In the competition data, seven of the eight
hypothesized factors were identiW ed, with negative
thinking replacing attentional control for the eighth
factor. The substitution of attentional control by nega-
tive thinking in competition is not unreasonable given
that negative thinking may well be the metacognitive
manifestation of a lack of attentional control. However,
an interesting feature of the exploratory factor analyses
of the competition data was that, despite using several
diVerent extraction and rotation procedures, the atten-
tional and emotional control items refused to separate
into two factors. Indeed, even in the W nal solution of
the factor analyses, the fourth item selected for the
emotional control subscale reXects diYculties in re-
instating concentration after a mistake. Furthermore, as
might be expected under such circumstances, emotional
control was quite strongly (negatively) correlated with
negative thinking in the competition data and quite
strongly (positively) correlated with attentional control
in the practice data. The data seem to be oVering a fairly
clear message that good attentional control and con-
centration is diYcult without good emotional control.
The W ndings of the factor analyses, together with the
descriptive statistics presented for each subscale, clearly
support previous literature (Loehr, 1986; Mahoney
et al., 1987; Vealey, 1988; Nelson and Hardy, 1990;
Thomas and Over, 1994; Smith et al., 1995; Hardy
et al., 1996a) in identifying the use of motivational
(e.g. self-talk and goal-setting), imaginal, relaxation,
attentional control and emotional control strategies as
an important feature of athletes psychological prepar-
ation for competition. However, the present data show
that athletes also make use of such strategies in training.
Furthermore, as one might expect, the use of certain
strategies in training was generally associated with their
use in competition.
One question remaining was whether activation (the
raising of psychological and physiological energy)
was the opposite of relaxation (the lowering of somatic
anxiety) or orthogonal to it. The items generated for
the TOPS also included the somewhat broader concept
of emotional control rather than just anxiety control.
Activation emerged as an independent factor, but
correlated with relaxation and emotional control in both
factor analyses. This suggests that there is some overlap
in athletes use of these three diVerent types of strategy,
but that high ability in the use of one type of strategy
does not necessarily imply high ability in the other two
areas. The W ndings in relation to diVerences in these
strategies between subgroups provide further support
for such a view. Although an extensive literature exists
on relaxation and emotional control (see, for example,
Greenspan and Feltz, 1989; Gould and Udry, 1994),
much less is known about appropriate strategies for
enhancing activation (Hardy et al., 1996a).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
708 Thomas et al.
Another interesting feature of the correlations among
the subscales of the TOPS was the strength of the rela-
tionships obtained. There were similar patterns in the
use of the basic psychological skills of goal-setting,
imagery and relaxation (see Vealey, 1988; Hardy et al.,
1996a), plus the possibly more advanced psychological
skill of activation, in both practice and competition. The
fact that self-talk was quite strongly correlated with all
the other subscales except automaticity during both
practice and competition is particularly interesting.
Self-talk appears to be a relatively under-researched
area in sport psychology, and few controlled studies
have been performed on how athletes self-talk might be
improved (see Hardy et al., 1996a). Although causality
clearly cannot be inferred from these correlations,
they provide some support for cognitive-behavioural
interventions which use self-talk techniques to change
athletes feelings and improve performance (Zinsser
et al., 1998). Recent evidence of the beneW ts of work
in this area was provided by Thomas and Fogarty
(1997), who reported a signiW cant reduction in
golfers negative emotions and cognitions, and improve-
ment in their performance, after imagery and self-talk
training.
The analyses of variance of the competition data
indicated that older performers reported less use of
imagery and activation strategies, but more auto-
maticity than their younger counterpar ts; males
reported less imagery but more automaticity than
females. They also showed that both male and female
international athletes generally used a wider range of
psychological strategies than those of a lower standard,
in particular college, regional and recreational perfor-
mers. When the eVects of age were removed from the
data, these diVerences were signiW cant for goal-setting,
imagery and activation in the males, and for self-talk,
emotional control, goal-setting, imagery, activation,
negative thinking and relaxation in the females. Fur-
thermore, although there were signiW cant diVerences
between ability groups in automaticity, neither male nor
female international performers reported more auto-
maticity than other performers.
These W ndings are broadly in line with the previous
literature (Mahoney et al., 1987; Thomas and Over,
1994; Smith et al., 1995; Hardy et al., 1996a), except
that one might reasonably have expected international
performers to have greater automaticity than the other
athletes. One possible explanation for this counter-
intuitive W nding for automaticity is that the subscale
automaticity is in fact mislabelled. It is possible that
some athletes (possibly from certain sports) confuse the
genuine automaticity that is supposed to be tapped by
the automaticity items with a generally disorganized
or laissez-faire approach to competition. This inter-
pretation is supported by the very weak or non-existent
correlations that automaticity had with the other
subscales.
On the other hand, the pattern of correlations pro-
vides support for the view that genuine automaticity is
independent of athletes use of psychological skills and
strategies measured on other subscales. Automaticity
is associated with peak performance, `playing in the
zone and the experience of Xow (Cohn, 1991; Moore
and Stevenson, 1991; Jackson, 1995). Psychological
skills training is often conducted to help athletes attain
automaticity and perform at their peak. On many
occasions, however, they do not experience such a state
in competition or in practice, and rely instead on con-
scious eVort and strategic use of psychological skills to
perform well.
Automaticity correlated strongly with mental prepar-
ation, concentration and a lack of negative thoughts in
Thomas and Overs (1994) study of golfers. It may
be that automaticity is more important for some sports
(e.g. golf) than others, and that most of the present
sample participated in sports in which performers have
to make use of both implicit and explicit knowledge to
perform optimally (Hardy et al., 1996a,b). All of these
explanations of the automaticity W nding are worthy of
further research.
Two other W ndings from the analyses of variance
deserve further comment. First, the smaller number
of signiW cant diVerences between male international
performers and other male performers is counter-
intuitive, particularly their use of self-talk and their
ability to control negative thinking, and runs counter
to some previous W ndings (e.g. Mahoney et al., 1987;
Thomas and Over, 1994). However, it does not run
counter to all other W ndings (e.g. Smith et al., 1995;
Smith and Christensen, 1995). Perhaps elite male
performers have lower levels of trait anxiety than their
non-elite counterparts (Krohne and Hindel, 1988), or
naturally interpret their anxiety symptoms positively
(Mahoney and Avener, 1977; Jones et al., 1994; Jones
and Swain, 1995); therefore, they do not need to
consciously use strategies to enhance positive self-talk.
However, such an explanation does not account for the
lack of signiW cant diVerences in negative thinking.
An alternative explanation is that elite Australian male
performers are more reluctant than elite Australian
female performers to admit that they experience any
psychological diYculties in competition or use psycho-
logical strategies to counter such diYculties. This
explanation is consistent with previous W ndings that
males often report lower state and trait competitive
anxiety than females (Martens et al., 1990; Jones et al.,
1991).
Second, in the male data, the high school/other
groups appeared to align much more closely with the
national and international athletes than with the club/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 709
recreational and college/regional athletes. This some-
what counterintuitive eVect could be a result of selec-
tion bias. The high school/other sample was largely
made up of boys from a single private high school
in Sydney. The simplest explanation of the test per-
formance of these boys is that they may have received
some psychological skills training, either formally or
informally, as a result of the school that they attended,
and that such training was not available to other
males in the club/recreational and college/regional
samples.
The analyses of variance of the practice data indicated
that older performers used emotional control strategies
more, but imagery and activation strategies less, than
younger performers, and that males used goal-setting,
activation and attentional control strategies less than
females. They also showed that, as with the competition
data, international performers generally practised
using their psychological skills more in training than
their non-elite counterparts. When the eVects of age
were removed from the data, these diV erences were
signiW cant for goal-setting, imagery and relaxation in
the males, and for imagery and attentional control in the
females. Again, as with the competition data, although
there were signiW cant diVerences in automaticity be-
tween ability groups, neither male nor female inter-
national performers reported more automaticity than
other performers. The W ndings that male international
performers practised the basic psychological skills of
goal-setting, imagery and relaxation more in training
than college, regional and recreational performers is
interesting, because it suggests that performers of a high
standard may generally have better developed psycho-
logical skills and strategies for competition because
they practise their basic psychological skills in training.
This possibility is important because it parallels the
received view from coaches with respect to physical
skills; that is, performers of a high standard need to have
good `basics. Again this W nding is worthy of further
investigation using a stronger design.
Other issues involving the relationship between
practice and competition also warrant further con-
sideration. The TOPS subscales measure a relatively
common set of skills or strategies in the two contexts.
There may be other psychological skills that are
exclusive to practice or competition, or the same skill
may be used in diVerent ways or to diVerent extents in
the two contexts. The signiW cant correlations between
competition and practice subscales do not imply that
the skills or strategies were used to the same extent in
those contexts. The subscale means suggest greater
use of skills in competition than during practice, but
caution is required, as the items comprising the respec-
tive subscales are not identical. The subscale means may
also have been inXuenced by other factors, including
whether the participants completed the inventory in or
out of season. Further research needs to explore both
the similarities and diVerences between these contexts.
In conclusion, we have presented preliminary data on
the development of an instrument to measure athletes
use of psychological skills and strategies both in training
and in competition. These initial data are encouraging
and suggest that the Test of Performance Strategies
is well-suited to assessing the eVectiveness of psycho-
logical skills training interventions. Further work is
needed to examine the reliability of the factor structure
of the TOPS using conW rmatory factor analysis, to
test its concurrent and discriminant validity, to explore
possible sport-speciW c diVerences in the subscales,
particularly those where the W ndings were counter-
intuitive (negative thinking and automaticity), and to
examine the link between the practice of basic psycho-
logical skills in training and the eVectiveness of
advanced psychological strategies in competition.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by GriYth University and the
United States Olympic Training Center, Colorado Springs.
We would like to thank Suzie TuV ey, Dorsey Edmonson,
Sean McCann and JeV Bond for their contributions to this
project.
References
Anderson, J.A. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psycho-
logical Review, 89, 369406.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-eYcacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191215.
Boutcher, S.H. (1992). Attention and athletic performance:
An integrated approach. In Advances in Sport Psychology
(edited by T.S. Horn), pp. 251266. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Burton, D. (1992). The Jekyll/Hyde nature of goals: Recon-
ceptualizing goal setting in sport. In Advances in Sport
Psychology (edited by T.S. Horn), pp. 267297.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Chartrand, J.M., Jowdy, D.P. and Danish, S.J. (1992). The
Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports: Psychometric
characteristics and applied implications. Jour nal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 14, 405413.
Cohn, P.J. (1991). An exploratory study on peak per-
formance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 114.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal
Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Fitts, P. and Posner, M. (1967). Human Perfor mance. Belmont,
CA: Brooke/Cole.
George, L. (1986). Mental imagery enhancement training
in behavior therapy: Current status and future prospects.
Psychotherapy, 23, 8192.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
710 Thomas et al.
Gould, D. and Udry, E. (1994). Psychological skills for
enhancing performance: Arousal regulation strategies.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 478485.
Gould, D., Tammen, V., Murphy, S. and May, J. (1989). An
examination of U.S. Olympic sport psychology consultants
and the services they provide. The Sport Psychologist, 3,
300312.
Greenspan, M.J. and Feltz, D.L. (1989). Psychological
interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A
review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219236.
Greenspan, M.J., Murphy, S.M., Tammen, V.V. and Jowdy,
D.P. (1989). EV ects of athletic achievement level and test
administration instructions on the Psychological Skills
Inventory for Sports (PSIS). Communication to the
Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of
Applied Sport Psychology, Nashua, NH.
Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of performance
in sport. In Stress and Performance in Sport (edited by
G. Jones and L. Hardy), pp. 81106. Chichester: Wiley.
Hardy, L. and ParW tt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of
anxiety and performance. British Jour nal of Psychology, 82,
163178.
Hardy, L., Jones, G. and Gould, D. (1996a). Understanding
Psychological Preparation for Sport: Theor y and Practice of
Elite Perfor mers. Chichester: Wiley.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R. and Jones, G. (1996b). Knowledge and
conscious control of motor actions under stress. British
Jour nal of Psychology, 87, 621626.
Jackson, S.A. (1995). Factors inXuencing the occurrence of
Xow state in elite athletes. Jour nal of Applied Sport Psych-
ology, 7, 138166.
Jones, G. (1990). A cognitive perspective on the processes
underlying the relationship between stress and per-
formance in sport. In Stress and Perfor mance in Sport
(edited by G. Jones and L. Hardy), pp. 1742. Chichester:
Wiley.
Jones, G. and Hardy, L. (eds) (1990). Stress and Performance
in Sport. Chichester: Wiley.
Jones, G. and Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predisposition to experi-
ence debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite and
nonelite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 201211.
Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J. and Cale, A. (1991). Gender dif-
ferences in precompetition temporal patterning and
antecedents of anxiety and self-conWdence. Jour nal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 13, 115.
Jones, G., Hanton, S. and Swain, A.B.J. (1994). Intensity
and interpretation of anxiety symptoms in elite and
non-elite sports performers. Personality and Individual
DiVerences , 17, 657663.
Krohne, H.W. and Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, state
anxiety, and coping behaviours as predictors of athletic
performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225235.
Lesser, M. and Murphy, S.M. (1988). The Psychological
Skills Inventory for Sports (PSIS): Normative and re-
liability data. Communication to the Annual Meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Loehr, J.E. (1986). Mental Toughness Training for Sports:
Achieving Athletic Excellence. Lexington, MA: Stephen
Greene Press.
Mahoney, M.J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and
non-elite performance in Olympic weightlifting. Inter -
national Jour nal of Sport Psychology, 20, 112.
Mahoney, M.J. and Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the
elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 1, 135141.
Mahoney, M.J., Gabriel, T.J. and Perkins, T.S. (1987).
Psychological skills and exceptional athletic performance.
The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181199.
Martens, R., Vealey, R.S. and Burton, D. (eds) (1990).
Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
McCann, S. (1995). Overtraining and burnout. In Sport
Psychology Inter ventions (edited by S.M. Murphy),
pp. 347368. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Moore, W.E. and Stevenson, J.R. (1991). Understanding
trust in the performance of complex automatic sport skills.
The Sport Psychologist, 5, 281289.
Murphy, S.M. and Jowdy, D.P. (1992). Imagery and mental
practice. In Advances in Sport Psychology (edited by
T. Horn), pp. 221250. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Nelson, D. and Hardy, L. (1990). The development of an
empirically validated tool for measuring psychological skill
in sport. Jour nal of Sports Sciences, 8, 71.
NideV er, R.M. and Sagal, M.S. (1998). Concentration and
attention control training. In Applied Sport Psychology
(edited by J.M. Williams), 3rd edn, pp. 296315. Palo Alto,
CA: MayWeld.
Schneider, W. and ShiV rin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and
automatic human information processing: I. Detection,
search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 166.
Schutz, R.W. and Gessaroli, M.E. (1993). Use, misuse, and
disuse of psychometrics in sport psychology research.
In Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology (edited by
R. N. Singer, M. Murphey and L.K. Tennant), pp. 901
917. New York: Macmillan.
Shelton, T.O. and Mahoney, M.J. (1978). The content and
eV ect of `psyching-up strategies in weightlifters. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 2, 275284.
Smith, R.E. and Christensen, D.S. (1995). Psychological skills
as predictors of performance and survival in professional
baseball. Jour nal of Spor t and Exercise Psychology, 17,
399415.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L. and Ptacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive
moderator variables in vulnerability and resiliency
research: Life stress, social support and coping skills, and
adolescent sport injuries. Jour nal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 360370.
Smith, R.E., Schutz, R.W., Smoll, F.L. and Ptacek, J.T.
(1995). Development and validation of a multidimensional
measure of sport-speciWc psychological skills: The Athletic
Coping Skills Inventory-28. Jour nal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 17, 379398.
Tammen, V.V. and Murphy, S.M. (1990). Reevaluating the
Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports: Factor analysis
and implications. Communication to the Annual Meeting
of the North American Society of Psychology of Sport and
Physical Activity, Asilomar, CA.
Thomas, P.R. and Fogarty, G.J. (1997). Psychological skills
training in golf: The role of individual diVerences in
cognitive preferences. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 86106.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 711
Thomas, P.R. and Over, R. (1994). Psychological and psycho-
motor skills associated with performance in golf. The Sport
Psychologist, 8, 7386.
Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B.W., Rivera, P.M. and Petitpas, A.J.
(1994). The relationship between observable self-talk and
competitive junior tennis players match performances.
Jour nal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 400415.
Vealey, R.S. (1988). Future directions in psychological skills
training. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 318336.
White, S.A. (1993). The relationship between psychological
skills, experience, and practice commitment among
collegiate male and female skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 7,
4957.
Zinsser, N., Bunker, L. and Williams, J.M. (1998). Cognitive
techniques for building conWdence and enhancing
performance. In Applied Sport Psychology (edited by
J.M. Williams), 3rd edn, pp. 270295. Palo Alto, CA:
MayW eld.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
B
y
:
[
A
u
b
u
r
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
A
t
:
1
8
:
2
6
2
3
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0