SELF-EFFICACY AND TIME MANAGEMENT OF STUDENTS IN MAPEH SUBJECT

Chapter 1
Introduction of the Study

Chapter 1 is divided into five parts: (1) Background and Theoretical

Framework of the Study, (2) Statement of the Problem and the Hypothesis, (3)
Significance of the Study, (4) Definition of Terms, and (5) Delimitation of the Study.
Part One, Background and Theoretical Framework of the Study, presents the
introduction to the study, and discusses the rationale for choosing the study and its
theoretical framework.
Part two, Statement of the Problem and Hypothesis, described the purposes
in conducting the study and enumerates the specific objectives of the research.
Part three, Significance of the Study, states the benefits that could be derived
from the findings of the study.
Part Four, Definition of Terms, lists alphabetically the research terminologies
for the purpose of clarity and understanding. The terms are defined both
conceptually and operationally.
Part five, Delimitation of the Study, identifies the coverage of the
investigations.

Background and Theoretical Framework of the Study

People with disabilities usually have problems with self-efficacy and other ego-
related issues because they are perceived to be different (MacMaster, Donovan, &
Macintyre, 2002; George, 1994). Their disability may be a factor for not striving and
giving their best. Significant others of children diagnosed with disabilities may be
disposed to treating them differently, and these children have psychosocial problems
inside and outside the classroom (MacMaster, Donovan, & Macintyre, 2002; Gould,
Hodge, Peterson, & Giannini, 1989). Many studies have found involvement in physical
activities to have positive effects on self-efficacy. According to many studies regarding
sport psychology, sports develop confidence among athletes. This study discusses the
relation of self-efficacy to motivation and performance in cognitive and sport domains,
Self-efficacy refers to one's beliefs about accomplishing a task and can influence choice
of activities, effort, persistence, and achievement. People enter activities with varying
levels of self-efficacy derived fund prior experience, personal qualities, and social
support. As they work on tasks they acquire information about how well they are doing.
This information influences their self-efficacy for continued learning and performance.
Research is described in which interventions involving models, goal setting, and
feedback, were employed to affect self-efficacy. Regardless of domain, research shows
that self-efficacy helps to predict motivation and performance, and studies testing
causal models highlight the important role played by self-efficacy.

The role of self-efficacy in motivation and performance has been increasingly

explored since Bandura's (1977a, 1977b) original publications. Self-efficacy refers to,
"People's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action
required to attain designated types of performances" (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Stated
differently, we might say that self-efficacy involves one's beliefs about accomplishing
a task. Research shows that self-efficacy predicts such outcomes as cognitive skill
learning, smoking cessation, pain tolerance, athletic performance, career choices,
assertiveness, coping with feared events, recovery from heart attack, and sales
performance (Bandura, 1986; Maddux, 1993; Schunk, 1989). Children with special
needs start to feel important when they are given the opportunity to participate in
physical activities conducted by trained individuals (Payne & Isaacs, 2008; Dunn,
1997). These are only some of the reasons why self-esteem and self-confidence should
be considered significant factors in the development of the character of every child.

Confidence, a mental factor, becomes increasingly important as the skill level

of play increases (Woodman & Hardy, 2003). The relationship between confidence
and level of play, plus the mental demands of the game might make psychological
qualities as well as physical skills important to a coach during performance
assessments. According to many studies regarding sport psychology, sports develop
confidence among athletes. Sport confidence as defined by Vealey (1986) is the
degree of certainty one possesses about the ability to be successful in a sport. Sport
confidence is an essential element in every athlete. When athletes feel confident
about their abilities, they can easily turn their sporting potential into superior
performance. A decrease in their sport confidence may result in poor performance.
Bandura (1977a) hypothesized that self-efficacy affects choice of activities,
effort, persistence, and achievement. Compared with persons who doubt their
capabilities, those with high self-efficacy for accomplishing a task participate more
readily, work harder, persist longer when they en-counter difficulties, and achieve at
a higher level. People acquire information to appraise self-efficacy from their
performances, vicarious (observational) experiences, forms of persuasion, and
physiological reactions. One's performances offer reliable guides for assessing self-
efficacy. Successes raise efficacy and failures lower it, but once a strong sense of
efficacy is developed a failure may not have much impact (Bandura, 1986).
Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000) provides a
theoretical framework to understand sport motivation. According to SDT, motivation
is self-determined when individuals perceive their behavior to be autonomously
controlled and relatively free from external constraints. SDT proposes a continuum of
seven types of motivation. However, research on individuals with intellectual
disabilities has found that participants can meaningfully differentiate four types of
motivation: a motivation (the absence of motivation), external regulation (performing
an activity to receive a reward or avoid a punishment), identified regulation
(performing an activity because it is perceived to be important to the individual), and
intrinsic motivation (performing an activity for the sake of the activity itself and for
the inherent pleasure one receives from doing the activity; Reid, Poulin, & Vallerand,
1994). Self-determined forms of motivation (intrinsic motivation and identified
regulation) are promoted by social contexts that serve to enhance or support an
individual’s sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Feelings of
competence arise when people feel effective at achieving desired outcomes.
Autonomy occurs when people feel that they have choice and are in control of their
own behavior. Feelings of relatedness develop when people can authentically
connect with others and feel involved in the social context. Fostering self-determined
motiva-tion is considered desirable as it has positive influences on persistence,
performance, and development (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). Sport
provides opportunities for optimal challenge, feedback, and personal exploration that
foster self-determined forms of motivation (Vallerand, 1999). Extrinsic awards (such
as medals and trophies), however, may foster an externally regulated orientation
toward participating in an activity (Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan, 1987). Individuals with
intellectual disabilities are often encouraged to perform behaviors through the use of
extrinsic rewards (Cohen, 1986), which SDT suggests will undermine self-
determination and lead to a decline in spontaneous activity. Social contexts that
facilitate perceptions of competence, relatedness, or autonomy enhance motivation,
with autonomy being necessary for an individual to feel self-determined (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Activities perceived to be less inherently interesting, nonetheless, may
need to be externally prompted in the beginning stages of participation. Individuals
are likely to initiate or continue such behaviors if they are reinforced with extrinsic
rewards or if the tasks are valued by significant others with whom they feel related
or would like to feel related. By exploring sport motivation from a theoretical
perspective with this population, it is possible to both further knowledge and suggest
new hypotheses about how motivation may operate in a meaningful way (Crocker,
1993).

Self-Efficacy

Age
Sex
Disability
Sport Preference

Motivation
 Figure 1. Self-Efficacy and Motivation of Student-Athlete with disability

Statement of the Problem and the Hypotheses

This study aimed at determining the level of self-efficacy and motivation of
student-athlete with disability in the Province of Antique.
Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions:
1. What is the level of self-efficacy of student-athlete with disability in the
province of Antique as an entire group and when grouped according to age, sex,
disability and sport preference?
2. What are the motivations employed by the student-athlete with disability in
the province of Antique as an entire group and when grouped according to age, sex,
disability and sport preference? How the motivations do employed by the student-
athlete with disability rank as a whole group and when grouped according to age,
sex, disability and sport preference?
3. Is there any significant difference in the level of self-efficacy of student-
athlete with disability in the province of Antique when grouped according to age, sex,
disability and sport preference?
4. Is there any significant difference in the motivations employed by the
student-athlete with disability in the province of Antique when grouped according to
age, sex, disability and sport preference?
5. Is there any significant relationship between the level of self-efficacy and
and motivations employed by the student-athlete with disability in the province of
Antique?
Based on the preceding problems, the following hypothesis are advanced:
1. There is no significant difference in the level of self-efficacy of student-
athlete with disability in the province of Antique when grouped according to age, sex,
disability and sport preference.
2. There is no significant difference in the motivations employed by the
student-athlete with disability in the province of Antique when grouped according to
age, sex, disability and sport preference.
 This study predominantly relies on the cooperation of each participant and
the fit of each measure to the population. An assumption is made in executing this
investigation: Athletes will understand and provide honest responses to the two
questionnaires: Solomon Pictorial Motivation Scale (PMS) and the Sources of Sport-
Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ). To obtain qualitative information the participants
will be interviewed.

Significance of the Study

The result of the study may be beneficial to the following:

Coaches. The Coaches who train student athletes with disabilities in various games.
They will have more knowledge on how to deal to this kind of athletes.
Special Education Teachers. The Special education teachers to be more
observant in the attitude and behaviors of student athlete with disabilities. This will
serve as wake up call to the adaptive teachers who will encounter this kind of
situations.
The design of this research is subject to boundaries on account of different coaching
defects in their student athlete with disabilities. If coaches cannot reflect on the
information sources used when assessing players with disabilities then the accuracy
of this study will be limited. Some athletes suffer from different emotions imbalance
in different sports they will engage, this study will help them discover how
confidence and passion uplift their imbalance emotions.

Definition of Terms
Researchers and practitioners have developed a number of terms to describe
the psychological phenomenon observed in the field of sport psychology. The
research guiding this project makes frequent use of some language specific to the
field. The following terms appear in this thesis and must be defined:

SPORT-CONFIDENCE- Trait – “...belief that an athlete possesses about his

or her ability to be successful in sport in general” (Callow & Hardy, 2001, p. 2).
 Sources of Sport-Confidence – Nine types of information drawn from
when evaluating selfefficacy in sport settings (Vealey, Hayashi, Garner-Holman, &
Giacobbi, 1998).
a. Coach’s Leadership is a source of sport-confidencegathered from faith in a
coach‟s leadership and decision-making ability.
b. Demonstration of Ability occurs when an athlete shows athletic prowess or
outdoes an opponent.
c. Environmental Comfort contributes to sport-confidence through an athlete
feeling 5 secure or at ease in a competitive setting.
d. Mastery contributes to sport-confidence when an athlete increases or
perfects a personal skill.
e.Physical/Mental Preparation is being in a peak physical and mental
performance state before competition.
f. Physical Self-Presentation encompasses the perceptions an athlete has
about his or her own body and beliefs about how one‟s body looks to others.
g. Situational Favorableness provides confidence when an athlete feels luck,
calls, breaks or pre-game rituals have the game going in his or her favor.
h. Social Support is the perceived support an athlete receives from significant
others, like coaches, teammates, peers and family. i. Vicarious Experience is derived
from watching the successful performance of a significant other or model.
SELF-EFFICACY – Self-efficacy refers to, "People's judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated
types of performances" (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). STUDENT ATHLETES WITH
DISABILITIES – are students who are with disabilities and still engaging in sports
and physical activities of the school. Regardless of their disabilities they choose to be
an athlete. (http://www.unc.edu)

Delimitation of the Study

This study conducted in January 2017 sought to identify the level of self-
efficacy and motivation of student-athlete with disability in the Province of Antique.
The subjects of this study were the 33 randomly selected student-athlete with
disability in the Province of Antique.
 The data needed for this investigation were gathered through the use of a
personal profile, Solomon Pictorial Motivation Scale (PMS) and the Sources of Sport-
Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ). To obtain qualitative information the participants
will be interviewed.
All statistical computations were processed through the statistical package for
social science (SPSS 17) software.
 Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature

The literatures related to the present investigation are reviewed

in this chapter.
The review includes four parts: (1) Self-Efficacy, (2) Motivations, (3) Related Studies,
and (4) Summary
Part One, Self- Efficacy, discusses the meaning of self-efficacy; its relations to
the things people do; its components and aspects of self-efficacy theory.
Part two, Motivations, presents different kind of motivation; intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations
Part three, Related Studies, recapitulates the main points of the related
literatures and studies presented in this chapter
Part Four, Summary, summarizes the content of the chapter.

Self- Efficacy

The humanistic philosophical approach has markedly influenced

adapted physical education. Humanism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes
the development of self-concept, positive interpersonal relationships, intrinsic
motivation, and personal responsibility. Humanistic physical education uses physical
activity to help individuals in developing self-esteem, self-understanding, and
interpersonal relations. It seeks to identify and meet exceptional needs, abilities, and
interests through individualized instruction that includes student choice (Winnick,
1995).

The concept of self-efficacy was introduced by Bandura (1977) to explain the

effects of self-referent thoughts on psychological functioning and refers to the way
people judge their capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required
to attain designated types of performance. Self-efficacy beliefs are said to influence
not only the courses of action pursued but also the effort expended, endurance when
facing difficulties, the nature of thought patterns and affective reactions (Bandura,
1977). Perceived Self Efficacy is defined as a judgement of individual’s potential
ability to carry out a certain task, rather than an effective measure of whether or not
that individual can or does perform that specific task.
In exercise and sport contexts, the Exercise and Self-Esteem Model
(Sonstroem & Morgan, 1989) is used as a self-system to explain how the effects of
physical training generalise to Global Self-Esteem (Sonstroem, 1997). This model is
based on dimensions of Perceived Physical Competence and Self-Acceptance that are
referenced in the literature as the foundations involved in the establishment of a
favourable self- -esteem (Harter, 1985). The hierarchical and multidimensional
organization of the self in the physical domain suggested by Fox and Corbin (1989)
when developing the Physical Self- -Perception Profile (PSPP) offered the opportunity
to replace the unidimensional perceived Physical Competence level of the EXSEM
model with a multidimensional physical self-concept profile providing an example of
how improved instrumentation in combination can offer a more comprehensive and
systematic framework for the study of self-perceptions through exercise (Fox, 2000).
The baseline of the model consists of objective evaluations of physical performance
that might be enhanced through training. A Self-Efficacy statement based on
objective measures of physical performance such as game statistics represents the
first self-perception variable and provides the bridge from the physical to
representations of the physical within the mind of the person (Sonstroem, 1997).
Within this model Self-Efficacies are believed to be closely related to
perceived physical competence as well as to present moderate to large associations
with Global Self-Esteem (Fox, Corbin & Couldry, 1985). This relationship found in the
review of the literature among sport and exercise participants are not deeply
analysed in athletes with physical disabilities. Recently Ferreira and Meek (2001),
Ferreira and Fox (2004, 2005) and Ferreira (2006) used a standardized instrument –
the Portuguese version of the PSPP - to assess physical self-perceptions is wheelchair
sport participants but no associations with self-efficacy or performance were studied.
 “Sources of sport confidence” is a relatively new topic in sport psychology. At
present, there only a few published researches about sport confidence. Most
researches on sport psychology tackle motivation techniques. It is vital to
comprehend how the sources of sport confidence could influence the athlete’s level
of sport confidence, cognition, emotion, behavior, and performance. These are
closely examined to properly address and look for the support needed by the
athletes in order for them to perform better in their chosen sports. According to
Chase (1998), sport confidence can be sourced from important people’s praise and
encouragement. Sport confidence is the belief or degree of certainty individuals
possess about their ability to be successful in sports (Vealey, 1986). Sport confidence
of athletes is definitely an important tool for success. Families and coaches can
influence the confidence of athletes through their expectations, behavior, and
interactions with them. Coaches’ positive remarks on athletes’ performances can
greatly influence what athletes believe they can achieve and the goals they set,
which can then influence the effort they give to achieve those goals (Feltz, Short, &
Sullivan, 2008).

4 Ways to Build Self-Efficacy

1) Mastery Experiences
Is experiencing the results of self-efficacy first hand. The key to mastery is
approaching life with dedicated efforts and experimenting with realistic but
challenging goals. Essential to mastery is also acknowledging the satisfaction of goals
that are achieved. Easy success with little effort can lead to us to expect rapid results
which can in turn make us easily discouraged by failure (Bandura, 2008).
Experiencing failure is important so that we can build resilience to it. This is done by
treating every failure as a learning opportunity and a chance to reach competence
with a different approach.

2) Social Modeling
This means choosing role-models that can demonstrate their self-efficacy. Observing
those who employ this in their lives and have reached their goals despite adversity
can provide great motivation.
Bandura notes that due to modern technology, it is not necessary to draw role-
models from one’s own social surroundings. The internet and other digital resources
can provide windows into the lives of many inspiring models.

3) Social Persuasion
This is about ‘finding the right mentor’. While social modeling refers to the
observation of a role model, social persuasion is about having others directly
influence one’s self-efficacy by providing opportunities for mastery experiences in a
safe and purposeful manner.
Due to the specific nature of self-efficacy strengthening experiences (avoiding easy
successes and overwhelming failures) it essential to have a mentor that is
“knowledgeable and practice[s] what they preach” (Bandura, 2008).

4) States of physiology
Our emotions, moods, and physical state can influence our interpretation of self-
efficacy. It is easy to judge oneself with bias based on the state one in when a
failure occurs.

Self-efficacy is an individual’s beliefs about their competence and the ability to

execute a plan of action as a coping mechanism (Keogh, 1984, p. 1). Gifted students
have high academic self-efficacy and expect to succeed in school but an investigation
showed that this trait does not transfer to the playing field provided mixed results.
There does not appear to be a gap in self-efficacy in how they feel about their
abilities in each field but there is a definite discrepancy in terms of how they
(Sternberg & Williams, 2002, p. 26).
When competing with a team of similar ability, the gifted students-athletes under-
achieved. Gifted learners often exemplify many positive study habits for a test but
they do not prepare for an athletic event as rigorously. Players may have high
personal self-efficacy but they do not have confidence in their teammates and give
the opponent more credit than they deserve. The players did not display strong
coping skills and the pressure of athletic competition proved detrimental to their
fragile self-concept. Resolving these issues can lead to improved motivation in school
and life, effective goal setting and reduced performance anxiety.
Self-efficacy was a common coping strategy and people avoided threatening
situations that they believed exceeded their coping skills (Keogh, 1984, p. 2). In the
case of many failures, individuals may attribute higher self-efficacy to others, such as
teammates or opponents, who they feel are out of their league (Keogh, 1984, p. 6).
Self-efficacy can predict how well an individual handles pressure as perceived
incompetence may trigger an abandonment of any coping strategies (Keogh, 1984,
p. 14). High self-efficacy can lead to a raised level of arousal and vice-versa (Keogh,
1984, p. 5). Each student-athlete has a personal ideal level of arousal for competition
and coaches must identify this level throughout the season. A combination of
strategies should be employed, in conjunction with post-competition feedback, to
help adjust arousal for optimal performance (National Coaching Certification
Program, 1999, pp. 5.7-5.14).

Confidence is a quality found in many aspects of society. Therefore, confidence isn’t

a stranger to sport, when it can be associated with qualities like mental toughness,
poise, grit, belief, courage, and heart. These qualities are descriptive verbs that are
constantly used when describing someone who is successful. Recent research has
shown that success has affected the level of confidence and confidence can affect
success (Covassin & Pero, 2004; Hays, Maynard, Thomas, & Bawden, 2007; Hays,
Thomas, Maynard, & Bawden, 2009). Elite athletes have revealed that confidence
affects their performance through their thoughts, behaviors, and feelings (Hays et al.
2009). Levy, Nicholls, and Polman (2010) found that subjective performance and
confidence were statistically significant and positively correlated. The world of sport
recognizes the importance that confidence has on success (Vealey & Chase, 2008).
Athletes are constantly evaluated on the level of confidence they have in their
abilities to perform. Coaches, fans, and media constantly discuss confidence when
talking about the ability to win. Confidence can affect performance when our efficacy
expectation is strong and our abilities are clearly developed (Bandura, 1977). Self-
confidence is a term known to more than sport, influencing Vealey (1986) to coin the
term “sport-confidence.”

Currently, the "sport builds character" claim is highly debated, most often in the
ideological sense rather than based on any reliable and valid empirical evidence
(Shields et al., 2001). The argument for sport building character is focused on the
ideas that participants in sport must overcome adversity, learn persistence, develop
self-control, learn cooperation, and deal with victory or defeat and, as a result,
develop a sense of fairness, courage, persistence, self-control, and courage (Shields
& Bredemeier, 1995). From this viewpoint, sport is viewed as an embodiment of
freedom and equality and is a context in which the participant chooses to engage.
Conversely, the argument against sport as a means to build character focuses on
sport as a morally neutral domain, that the positive attributes one may develop
through sport are not necessarily transferred and utilized outside of the sport
context, and that sport merely "builds characters" (Chandler, 1988; Shields &
Bredemeier, 1995, p. 175).

Motivations

Students with learning disabilities often become frustrated because they see
themselves as being incompetent in many areas of school, thus generally making
them unmotivated and unexcited to read, write, and complete tasks for fear of
failure, embarrassment, and disrespect. As competence in a subject or task
improves, however, motivation typically increases, generating a cycle of
engagement, motivation, and competence that supports better academic
achievement for students with varying abilities (Irvin, Meltzer, & Dukes, 2007).
Because motivation leads to engagement, motivation is where parents and teachers
need to begin, especially for students that are experiencing learning disabilities (LD)
in reading, writing, spelling, and mathematic problem solving.
Kamil et al. (2008) suggest that motivation in school refers to whether
students possess the “desire, reason, and predisposition to become involved with a
task or activity,” while engagement refers “to the degree to which a student
processes [the activity or] the task deeply through the use of active strategies and

thought processes and prior knowledge” (p. 26). Other researchers and psychologists
think that students’ active participation in their learning is highly linked with
motivation, and then in turn, motivation is highly correlated to academic
performance. Take reading in school, for example. Engagement may make the most
difference in students’ comprehension and their ability to participate in discussions,
activities, and higher-level thinking skills such as analyzing, inferring, questioning,
and evaluating (e.g., Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Wood & Blanton,
2009). However, if a student is unmotivated by the subject or is unable or unwilling
to read the text, comprehension fails and students will not have the opportunity to
develop higher level reading skills. This also pertains to other content areas such as
mathematics, science, history, and social studies.
Extrinsic motivation is used more often in schools because students get
instant gratification for completing a task. This type of motivation occurs when the
source of the motivation comes from outside the student and task; another person
(e.g., the teacher or a parent) is rewarding or punishing the student to finish an
assignment or another task (Witzel & Mercer, 2003). Examples of extrinsic
motivation include stickers, candy, rewards, verbal recognition from others, studying
to get a good grade, special privileges, or it could be fear of receiving a punishment.
While students may seem to be motivated by extrinsic motivators, these motivators
can have some serious drawbacks: (1) when motivators are not sustainable – when
the reward or punishment is withdrawn, the motivation often disappears; (2) when
the effect of the motivator wears off – when the reward or punishment stays the
same, the motivation tends to slowly drop off and often requires a bigger reward as
the next motivator; and (3) when the motivation prevents intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, occurs when the source of motivation comes
from within the student and task. Students with intrinsic motivation see the task as
enjoyable, interesting, and worthwhile and seek selfapproval for completing
assignments and other tasks. When students set learning or performance goals,
work to meet these goals, and hopefully do meet their goals, they generally tend to
feel more intrinsically motivated and have a greater sense of accomplishment. An
intrinsically motivated student will solve mathematical word problems because they

find the challenge fun and interesting or may read independently after school
because they find it entertaining. When students are completing assignments for an
extrinsic outcome, it tends to hurt intrinsic motivation; motivating with extrinsic
rewards or punishments can remove students’ own internal desire to complete a task
on their own (Wery & Thomson, 2013).
Students with LD generally experience a strong correlation between their low
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and their poor academic performances (Lepper,
Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; McGeown, Norgate, & Warhurst, 2012), whereas higher-
achieving students tend to be motivated by strong levels of mostly their intrinsic
motivation (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Wang and Guthrie, 2004). In
fact, all of these aforementioned researchers have found that while many teachers
offer extrinsic motivators to encourage things such as engagement, academic
outcomes, and good behavior, these types of rewards are generally negatively
correlated with students’ academic performance. Other studies, however, have
suggested that extrinsic motivators may be helpful for students with LD who
experience very low intrinsic motivation mostly due to believing they are unable to
learn (e.g., Park, 2011).
Participation motivation encompasses factors influencing initiation,
continuation, and withdrawal from sport and physical activities. It includes behavioral
elements such as current participation, intensity, and persistence as well as
cognitions such as commitment and future expectancies (Weiss & Chaumeton,
1992).
Sport provides opportunities for optimal challenge, feedback, and personal
exploration that foster self-determined forms of motivation (Vallerand, 1999).
Extrinsic awards (such as medals and trophies), however, may foster an externally
regulated orientation toward participating in an activity (Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan,
1987). Individuals with intellectual disabilities are often encouraged to perform
behaviors through the use of extrinsic rewards (Cohen, 1986), which SDT suggests
will undermine self-determination and lead to a decline in spontaneous activity.
Social contexts that facilitate perceptions of competence, relatedness, or autonomy
enhance motivation, with autonomy being necessary for an individual to feel self-

determined (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Activities perceived to be less inherently

interesting, nonetheless, may need to be externally prompted in the beginning
stages of participation. Individuals are likely to initiate or continue such behaviors if
they are reinforced with extrinsic rewards or if the tasks are valued by significant
others with whom they feel related or would like to feel related. By exploring sport
motivation from a theoretical perspective with this population, it is possible to both
further knowledge and suggest new hypotheses about how motivation may operate
in a meaningful way (Crocker, 1993).

Related Studies
According to a study by Faith P. Sampan and Marie Grace A. Gomez (Sources
of Sport Confidence of Student Athletes with Disabilities), a primary interest of the
study is identifying the sources of sport confidence among athletes with disabilities.
Based on the Cochran Q Test, there is no sufficient evidence to show that there are
more athletes with disabilities who lean towards particular sources of sport
confidence, since the p-value is 0.715, which is greater than the 10% level of
significance. Based on the results, the null hypothesis is accepted, and it is concluded
that there is no significant difference in the sources of sport confidence of student
athletes with disabilities. Hence, athletes with disabilities, in general, take an equal
perspective in each source of sport confidence.
Base on the study of European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 7(1), 32–
48 © European Federation of Adapted Physical Activity, 2014, for several years, elite
athletes have benefitted from understanding of psychological factors and have used
that knowledge to enhance their performance. There is a strong need to provide
equivalent knowledge for the growing field of elite disability sports. At present,
empirical findings regarding the achievement motivation of athletes with a disability
are quite rudimentary as psychological studies have mainly focused on
monotheoretical approaches and have not considered developmental aspects. To
reduce this deficit in the literature, we used an action-theoretical (Nitsch, 1985) and
lifespan developmental perspective (Baltes et al., 2006) for our comparative study.
Focusing on elite athletes with and without a disability, we conceptualized

achievement motivation as a multidimensional and possibly multidirectional

construct. With the results of the first problem statement, the spectrum of
motivational incentives was demonstrated. Elite athletes from disability sports
engaged in their sport to experience enjoyment and to improve their athletic level,
whereas material incentives such as career opportunities, traveling and earning
money proved, at best, to be only a minimal incentive. The results are consistent
with other studies analyzing German disability sports, where professionalism and
commercialization seem to be less advanced compared to countries such as the USA
or the UK (Scheid, Rank & Kuckuck, 2003). Rather, the results of our study resemble
the empirical findings from China (Chen, Wang, Jin & Lau, 2007) and Norway
(Pensgaard, Roberts & Ursin, 1999); further generalization of these results appears
to be difficult due to diverging states of commercialization in elite disability sports.
Results were replicated by using alternative methods (Likert-scale and open-ended
questions) and therefore the validity of the applied ranking method was satisfying.
Only the motivational incentive “team spirit”, which was mentioned most frequently
in the open-ended method, was not addressed within the ranking method or within
the Likert-based analysis. This incentive Achievement motivation of elite athletes
should be included in further empirical studies. The results of the second problem
statement showed that in the current phase of mastery, athletes with a disability
differed significantly from athletes without a disability with respect to personal
factors (medium effect η2 = .08) and even more so with respect to their perception
of motivational incentives (large effect η2 = .27). The difference regarding personal
factors can be predominantly attributed to different goal orientations as well as to a
lower self-efficacy among athletes with a disability. The results for goal orientation
confirm other empirical findings that claim athletes with a disability to be generally
more task than ego orientated (e. g. Kemper & Teipel, 2007; Skordilis et al., 2001).
Furthermore, athletes with a disability demonstrated a significantly higher task
orientation compared to athletes without a disability. However, the results regarding
ego orientation of elite athletes displayed an inverse trend. This phenomenon can be
interpreted as evidence of increased pressure on personal competition within elite
sports. The ego-oriented facet of self-competence (“I want to be better than other

athletes”), as compared to the task-oriented facet (“I want to perform my very best
at this task”), receives more importance among athletes without a disability. Working
with athletes from disability sports, these results can be seen as a means to motivate
these athletes by focusing explicitly on task-oriented challenges and on ways to
strengthen their self-efficacy by including practice situations that promote personal
competence. With respect to the other personal factors, no significant group
differences were found in this study. According to these results, it can be concluded
that psychological consultations of athletes from disability sports can principally rely
on existing diagnostics and standard values developed for athletes without a
disability (e.g., the Sport Psychology Internet Service of the German Federal Institute
of Sport Science, Wenhold et al., 2008).

Summary
Confidence is a quality found in many aspects of society. Therefore,
confidence isn’t a stranger to sport, when it can be associated with qualities like
mental toughness, poise, grit, belief, courage, and heart. These qualities are
descriptive verbs that are constantly used when describing someone who is
successful. Recent research has shown that success has affected the level of
confidence and confidence can affect success (Covassin & Pero, 2004; Hays,
Maynard, Thomas, & Bawden, 2007; Hays, Thomas,
Maynard, & Bawden, 2009). Elite athletes have revealed that confidence affects their
performance through their thoughts, behaviors, and feelings (Hays et al. 2009).
Levy, Nicholls, and Polman (2010) found that subjective performance and confidence
were statistically significant and positively correlated. The world of sport recognizes
the importance that confidence has on success (Vealey & Chase, 2008). Athletes are
constantly evaluated on the level of confidence they have in their abilities to perform.
Coaches, fans, and media constantly discuss confidence when talking about the
ability to win. Confidence can affect performance when our efficacy expectation is
strong and our abilities are clearly developed (Bandura,1977). Self-confidence is a
term known to more than sport, influencing Vealey (1986) to coin the term “sport-
confidence.” Bandura (1977) established that there were four sources of efficacy
(confidence): personal accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,
and physiological states. Vealey et al. (1998) added onto Bandura by establishing the
Sources of Sport Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ) and found nine sources of
confidence: mastery, social support, physical/mental preparation, coach’s leadership,
demonstration of ability, vicarious experience, environmental comfort, situational
favorableness, and physical self- presentation. Wilson et al. (2004) found that a
confirmatory factor analysis failed to find the same 9-factor structure found by the
SSCQ, but rather an 8-factor minus the situational favorableness as well as fewer
items. More recent research has been conducted and found that 9 sources of
confidence were instrumental in confidence: Preparation, performance
accomplishments, coaching, innate factors, social support, experience, competitive
advantage, self-awareness, and trust (Hays et al. 2007).
Confidence still must be strong, leading researchers to determine from a
qualitative analysis, with a small focus group and individual interviews of elite
athletes, that in order to have a “robust” sport-confidence level, the athlete(s) need
to have “A set of enduring, yet malleable positive beliefs that protect against the
ongoing psychological and environmental challenges associated with competitive
sport.” Emphasis was placed on a “set” of positive beliefs and not just one factor
(Thomas, Lane, & Kingston, 2011). Understanding the need for steady, strong, and
modest confidence, Vealey et al. (2008) suggests that research is needed to
investigate the resiliency of athletes’ confidence across time and different obstacles.
 Chapter 3
Research Design and Methodology
This chapter consists of two parts: (1) Research Design, and (2) Methodology
Part One, Purpose of the Study and Research Design, restates the purpose of
the study and describes the research design employed.
Part Two, Method, Introduced the respondents, the data-gathering instruments
employed, and the research procedure and presents the statistical tools utilized to
interpret the result.
Part Three, Data Analysis Procedure, explains the statistical tools utilized to
analyze and interpret the data.
 Purpose of the Study and Research Design

This descriptive aimed of determining the level of self-efficacy and motivation

of student-athlete with disability in the Province of Antique.
The descriptive research, according to Dr. Y.P Aggarwal (2008), id devoted to
the gathering of information about prevailing conditions or situations for the purpose
of description and interpretation.

 Method

The respondents. The respondents of this study were the 33 randomly

selected student- athlete with disability in the Province of Antique
The student-athlete with disability were classified according to age,
sex, disability, and sports preference
(Sample participants) When the student-athlete with disability were classified
according to age, 4 (12%) were fifteen years old and below and 29 (88%) were
above fifteen years old. When the student-athlete with disability were classified
according to sex, 3 (10%) were females and 30 (90%) were males. When the
student-athlete with disability were classified according to disability, 6 (18%) were
classified as handicap and 27 (22%) were classified with intellectual disability.
Finally, when the student-athlete with disability were classified according to sport
preference, 7 (21%) were into swimming and 26 (79%) were into athletics.
 Data Gathering Instrument

The instruments used in gathering the data were: Personal Profile, Solomon
Pictorial Motivation Scale (PMS) and the Sources of Sport-Confidence Questionnaire
(SSCQ). General Self-efficacy (GSE).
Each statement has five choices: These five choices are: 1 – Strongly
Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Uncertain, 4 – Agree, 5 – Strongly Agree. The total
weighted average becomes the respondent’s score. Each range of scores has a
corresponding quantitative description which tells of the respondent’s level of self-
concept, as follows:

Range of Scores Quantitative Description

4.20 – 5.00 Very strong Self-concept
3.40 – 4.19 Strong Self-concept
2.60 – 3.39 Fairly Strong Self-concept
1.80 – 2.59 Weak Self-concept
1.00 – 1.79 Very Weak Self-concept

Sources of Sport-Confidence Questionnaire (SSCQ) is used to measure

sources of confidence information specific to the sport setting and to test the
predictive strength of these sources on SC-trait. Through confirmatory factor
analysis, they identified 9 sources of sport confidence for high school and
college athletes: mastery; demonstration of ability; physical/ mental
preparation; physical self-presentation; social support; coaches’ leadership;
vicarious experience; environmental comfort; and situational favorableness.
Data Analysis Procedure

The data were gathered from this study are subject to certain computerized
statistics through the following statistical tools:

Mean. To ascertain the level of self-efficacy and motivation of the

respondents, mean was employed.

Standard Deviation. To determine the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the

scores, standard deviation was used.

Mann-Whitney U test. To find out the significant difference in the level of self-
efficacy and motivation of the respondents, the Mann-Whitney U test was utilized.

Pearson’s r. To determine the significant relationship between the levels of

motivation of the respondents, the pearson’s r was used.

The inferential statistics was set at 0.05 alpha.