Measurement in Sport Psychology

Selen Razon and Gershon Tenenbaum
Measurement in Sport
and Exercise Psychology 13
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
M
easurement in sport and exercise psychology is a broad topic
that includes measurement of psychological factors related
to sport performance; of exercise adherence and related con-
structs; of team-related factors; of cognitive, affective, and
self-assessment of athletes; and more (Tenenbaum, Eklund,
& Kamata, 2012). There is not one “best” way to assess ath-
letes and exercisers for performance enhancement, clini-
cal concerns, or research purposes. Rather, the theoretical
orientation of the practitioner and/or researcher guides the
assessment and subsequent plan of action that is developed
(see Chapter 2, this volume).
The purpose of this chapter is to highlight key aspects of
measurement in sport and exercise psychology. We begin
with a brief history of measurement in sport and exercise
psychology, followed by an overview of methods for cap-
turing psychological processes in athletes. Next, we discuss
cultural, ethical, and other issues related to measurement
within sport and exercise psychology settings. We conclude
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14251-013
Exploring Sport and Exercise Psychology, Third Edition, J. Van Raalte and
B. Brewer (Editors)
Copyright © 2014 by the American Psychological Association.
All rights reserved.
279
280 R a z o n an d T enenba u m
with a presentation of tools for measuring psychological factors relevant

to sport and exercise psychology (e.g., psychological skills, motiva-
tion, cognitive and perceptual processes, self-perception, affect, mood
and emotion, perceived effort, team-related attributes, physical activity
outcomes).
History of Measurement in
Sport and Exercise Psychology
In the 1930s, Coleman Griffith designed surveys and questionnaires

to measure a set of psychological attributes (e.g., attitudes, percep-
tions, personality) in athletes and coaches. This early sport psychology
assessment work was followed by the design of the Athletic Motiva-
tion Inventory by Tutko, Lyon, and Ogilvie in 1969. Although both of
these early attempts at measurement were positive developments in
the field, they failed to meet the established psychometric standards
of their time.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the “sport personality debate” emerged,
focusing on the issue of whether there was an ideal personality for elite
sport performance. The debate was decided when it became evident
that the standardized personality tests were limited in their ability to
accurately predict sport performance outcomes from elite athlete per-
sonality types (for reviews, see Mahoney & Epstein, 1981; Straub,
1978). By 1976, psychological testing of athletes was widespread to
the point that the National Football League Players Association voted
against the psychological testing of its members. This decision was
largely due to the misuse of psychological tests and test results (Heil
& Henschen, 1996).
Rather than focusing on testing to determine an athletic personal-
ity ideal in the 1970s, W. P. Morgan and his colleagues (W. P. Morgan,
Brown, Raglin, O’Connor, & Ellickson, 1987; W. P. Morgan & Pollock,
1977) examined the mood and performance of athletes using the Pro-
file of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971). W. P. Morgan
et al. (1987) found that the best performers tended to report experienc-
ing higher than average drive and below average anxiety, irritation,
tiredness, and uncertainty.
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, a number of sport-
specific measurement tools, including the Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory—II (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1982; Martens,
Vealey, & Burton, 1990) and the Psychological Skills Inventory for
Sports (Mahoney, Gabriel, & Perkins, 1987), were developed. By 1990,
Measurement in Sport and Exercise Psychology 281
there were enough sport and exercise psychology tests to fill a book.
Ostrow (1990) collected and presented 175 tests designed to measure
aggression, anxiety, attention, attitudes toward sport and exercise,
attributions, body image, cognitive strategies, cohesion, confidence,
imagery, leadership, life adjustment, locus of control, motivation, sex
roles, and more. These sport and exercise psychology tools were well
received by applied sport psychologists because of their face validity and
unique fit to sport settings. However, as improved rigor was brought
to these sport-specific instruments, the psychometric integrity of some

was called into question (Dewey, Brawley, & Allard, 1989; Vallerand,
1983). Tenenbaum and Bar-Eli’s (1995) review concluded that sport
psychology lagged behind other disciplines and did not use the most
up-to-date measurement protocols. Andersen, McCullagh, and Wilson
(2007) criticized the arbitrary metrics used in many sport and exercise
inventories.
Zhu (2012) noted that the psychometric quality of sport and
exercise psychology measurement would be significantly improved
by (a) enhanced measurement training in sport and exercise psychol-
ogy curricula, (b) the promotion of measurement-specific research
in the field, (c) interdisciplinary thinking and research, (d) the adop-
tion of systematic approaches directed at avoiding the use of poorly
constructed measurement tools, and (e) the development of new
measurement tools of high validity and reliability. Some of the ideas
suggested are coming to fruition. For example, Tenenbaum et al.’s
(2012) text on measurement in sport and exercise psychology may
facilitate training and research on measurement-related issues in
the field. Psychophysiological assessments tools including biofeed-
back and neurofeedback are being developed and used in sport settings
for the assessment of psychological skills central to sport performance
(see Beauchamp, Harvey, & Beauchamp, 2012). Sport psychology con-
sultants are also using neuropsychological assessment tools for symptom
recognition and management for athletes with concussions (see Kontos,
Collins, & Russo, 2004).
Measurement in sport and exercise psychology is related to the
development of measurement within the psychological and educational
domains (Zhu, 2012). According to Zhu (2012), the most relevant
developments in psychological and educational testing include com-
puterized adaptive testing, cognitively based diagnostic assessment, and
the technological revolution.
Computerized Adaptive Testing

Adaptive tests allow test items to be administered on the basis of the
examinee’s performance on previously administered items. The concept
of adaptive tests was developed during World Wars I and II when the
military needed more efficient procedures than interviews for order-
ing the workforce into available occupations and improving training
and selection. Initial algorithms and software for computerized adap-
tive tests were designed in 1970 and 1980s (Wainer et al., 1990; Weiss,
1983). Currently, computerized adaptive testing is used in educational
realms to help determine proficiency and skill level on such exams as
the Graduate Record Examination and the Test of English as a Foreign
Language (Parshall, Spray, Kalohn, & Davey, 2003).
Cognitively Based Diagnostic Assessment

For a long time, measurement practice was focused on measuring the
product rather than the process. Starting in the late 1980s, however,
greater efforts have been made to integrate cognitive processes such
as level of knowledge, learning, memory, mental representations,
and schemas into measurement systems. The motive behind this
initiative was to learn how and why individuals score in a particular
way. Cognitively based diagnostic assessments typically are based on
the latest theories from the field of cognitive psychology, current sta-
tistical models, and up-to-date technology (Leighton & Gierl, 2007;
Tatsuoka, 2009).
Computers, the Internet,

and the Technological Revolution
Technology has facilitated measurement in three main ways: (a) improved
measurement efficiency by computerizing existing measurement tools,
(b) measurement of new constructs in an all-inclusive manner through
innovative formats (i.e., simulation), and (c) incorporation of measure-
ment within instruction and/or intervention (Bennett, 2008). Advances in
technology are expected to further the measurement process by allowing
direct measurement of more complex concepts and abilities (Quellmalz &
Pellegrino, 2009; Tucker, 2009).
Summary
Historically, measurement has not been a strength of the field of sport
and exercise psychology. However, increased attention, rigor, and col-
laboration among researchers in various fields of study have led to
improvements. Some particularly promising collaborations are found in
such areas as concussion assessment and psychophysiological testing.
Methods for Capturing

Psychological Processes
in Athletes
Introspection
Most sport and exercise psychology measures are introspective in

nature, gauging a skill or quality within a person (Tenenbaum et al.,
2012). To gather introspective data, practitioners or researchers speak
directly to exercisers, athletes, team members, coaches, and sports orga-
nizations or administer questionnaires on such topics as self-concept,
self-perception, self-efficacy, effort perception, motivation for sport and
exercise, affect, mood, emotions, burnout, coping, team cohesion, team
communication, and leadership. To the extent that introspective mea-
sures reflect subjective perceptions, results from introspective measures
should be interpreted cautiously. Specifically, practitioners, clinicians,
and researchers could use introspective data for purposes of descrip-
tion (i.e. diagnosis), prediction (i.e., prognosis), and process monitoring
(i.e., recording changes due to intervention). This said, one should be
cognizant of the fact that individuals differ in the ways they perceive
the world and themselves. Respondents’ preconceptions and biases are
an inherent part of introspective data.
Observation
During observation, a phenomenon of interest is observed in its natu-
ral environment. Typically, efforts are made to observe and describe
aspects of a setting without influencing the setting. The observer’s role
can range from complete observation to complete participation. Dur-
ing a complete observation, sport and exercise psychology practitio-
ners might observe team practices as outsiders. In such circumstances,
they are not members of the population that is being observed and
have no past experience with the setting in which the observation is
taking place. An example of complete observation would be the use
of the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS; Smith, Smoll, &
Hunt, 1977), which involves the assessment of 12 categories of coaching
behavior. With the role of complete observer comes the benefit of sepa-
rating oneself from the phenomenon under investigation and making
comparisons to other settings.
A complete participant in sport and exercise psychology is someone
who becomes immersed in the field setting and fully participates in the
events under investigation. An example of a complete participant is an

exercise psychologist interested in measuring the effect of recreational
settings (e.g., cycling clubs, running groups, walking squads) on exer-
cise participation. As a complete participant, the practitioner becomes
a club member and attempts to understand how the social dynamics in
the club and interactions among club members are related to exercise
behaviors. A benefit that comes with being a complete participant is the
opportunity to see and understand the events from the perspective of
other participants.
It is important to note that in the majority of field settings, the
observer may start in one role and shift to another. For example, a sport
and exercise psychologist may start as a complete observer interested
in effective coaching styles, observing coaches and their players. Over
time, the observer may take on some tasks that are typically completed
by an assistant coach, thus gradually increasing participation with the
team and shifting into the role of partial participant. In another situa-
tion, a sport and exercise psychologist interested in the effects of paren-
tal involvement on youth sport participation may assume a participant
role by enrolling in a program designed for young athletes’ parents.
Over time, the psychologist may gradually withdraw from the group
to become an observer. Some observations are actually collaborations
between the observer and the observed. For example, a coach might ask
a sport and exercise psychology consultant to observe practice and then
provide feedback to help improve coaching and training.
Observations can be documented in a number of ways, such as
through field notes, time sampling, checklists, and video recordings.
Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses. Use of a com-
bination of assessment tools has proven to be particularly effective in
many circumstances (for a review, see Tenenbaum & Driscoll, 2005).
Interviews
The purpose of an interview is to gather pertinent information from
the interviewee’s views and narratives (Patton, 2002). Interviews go
beyond regular observations in that practitioners ask specific questions
to interviewees, allowing meaning to be attached to answers. Interviews
range from open-ended and unstructured to structured and standard-
ized clinical intake and research-focused protocols. Detailed interview
guides can be useful to ensure consistency of questioning across mul-
tiple interviewers and interviewees for research purposes. However, an
overly detailed and structured approach may include leading probes
and jeopardize the validity of the collected data (Shank, 2002) or may
lead to missing important information that might otherwise have been
covered in less structured formats.
Think-aloud interviews are interviewee driven and can help iden-

tify cognitive processes that emerge during task execution (Ericsson &
Simon, 1993). During such interviews, interviewees are typically asked
to “think aloud” while performing a task (e.g., executing a move, solving
a problem, developing a strategy). The interviews are typically recorded
and analyzed (for a review, see Eccles, 2012). Think-aloud interviews
tend to provide more specific data than retrospective reports because
people often find it easier to speak their current thoughts aloud than
to fully and accurately recall their past thoughts and feelings. Further,
retrospective reports often include people’s beliefs and interpretations
of what occurred and may not fully reflect their actual experiences.
When one is using think-aloud interviews, it may be useful to provide
some training because it can take time some people a while to become
comfortable with speaking their thoughts aloud.
Focus group interviews typically involve six to nine people who are
asked to discuss specific topics of interest (Greenbaum 1997, 2000; D.
L. Morgan, 1988, 1998; D. L. Morgan & Krueger, 1997). During focus
group sessions, participants listen to others and can expand on their
own answers in relation to the discussion. Focus groups that include
interviewees who know one another can be challenging for the inter-
viewer. In these circumstances, some interviewees may be influenced
to articulate beliefs and attitudes that are consistent with the expecta-
tions of others in the group rather than those that are a true reflection
of their own beliefs (for a review, see Tenenbaum & Driscoll, 2005).
Special Measurement
Considerations
Cultural Issues
J. C. Watson, Etzel, and Vosloo (2012) noted that it is important for
sport and exercise psychologists to understand the cultural background
of the people or populations they are assessing. Understanding one’s
own and other cultures requires going beyond socioeconomic status,
country of origin, and religious background (Cohen, 2009) to consid-
eration of such issues as social identity and relatedness to social groups
organized around race, sexual orientation, ability, and age (Dadlani,
Overtree, & Perry-Jenkins, 2012). Because no measures are culture
free, efforts should be made to (a) use measurements with minimal
cultural biases, (b) take into account the original population the mea-
surement was developed for, and (c) be aware of the shortcomings of
the measurement tools used (Etzel, Yura, & Perna, 1998). Extra care
should be taken when using measurement tools that are not specifically
created for the population being assessed (C. B. Fisher, 2003). It may
be best to adopt a combination of several measures rather than rely-
ing solely on self-report measures (for reviews, see Fiske, 2002; Heine,
Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002).
Researchers in cultural sport psychology have clarified the intricate
definitions of sport psychological terms including motivation, emotion,
cognition, self, and identity in various cultural contexts (Ryba, Schinke, &
Stambulova, 2012). The major tenet of cultural sport psychology is that

it is culture that makes up one’s psyche and gives meaning to behaviors;
therefore, understanding psychological functioning requires understand-
ing cultural meaning. Krane and Baird (2005) noted that “it is impossible
to comprehend athletes’ mental states and behaviors without under-
standing the social norms and culture that encompass them” (p. 88).
Ethical Issues
Ethical guidelines provide guidance related to the construction, admin-
istration, interpretation, and application of the results of measurement
tools. For example, it is ethical for sport and exercise psychology prac-
titioners to use appropriate measurement tools (see J. C. Watson et al.,
2012), the most adequate measurement for the attributes and popula-
tions being assessed. This means that tools with demonstrated reliability
and validity with the population being tested are a good choice. Mea-
surement tools used in conjunction with broad unsubstantiated claims
(e.g., this measure identifies the “best mentally strong players”) are a
poor choice. The specific tool selected may depend in part on the knowl-
edge, skills, and training of the sport and exercise psychologist because
some questionnaires require test administrators to have special training.
Those who are assessed have the right to privacy and confidenti-
ality. That is, the data collected will be managed in such a way as to
ensure the privacy and confidentiality of the people who are assessed.
In sport and exercise psychology, maintaining privacy and confidential-
ity might include the use of pseudonyms and the omission of informa-
tion related to team, year of season, and the player’s nationality (for
a review, see Kristiansen, Roberts, & Sisjord, 2011). Issues of confi-
dentiality in sport and exercise psychology can be complicated by the
assessment of children whose legal rights are more limited than those
of adults and by the fame of some athletes. That is, there may be more
pressure and interest in confidential results of assessments with famous
athletes than with other populations.
Ethical standards hold that all people must be assessed of their own
free will and must have the option to stop being measured at any time
and at no cost (American Psychological Association, 2010, Standard 3.10,
Informed Consent). It is not ethical to force individuals to participate in a

measurement process. Many sport and exercise practitioners use signed
informed consent and/or assent forms at the start of the assessment pro-
cess to make sure that those being assessed understand (a) the rationale
for use of measurement, (b) pertinent costs, (c) interests of third parties
(e.g., coaches, trainers, managers) in the measurement process, (d) the
amount of time required for the assessment and feedback process, (e) the
limits of confidentiality (M. A. Fisher, 2009), and (f) the storage plan for
the data.
Common Measures of
Psychological Variables in
Sport and Exercise Psychology
Sport and exercise psychologists use numerous measures. Although it

is beyond the scope of this chapter to present and discuss all of them,
some of the most widely used assessment tools designed to measure
psychological skills, motivation, cognitive and perceptual processes, the
self, affect, mood, emotion, perceived effort, team factors, and physical
activity are presented in the subsections that follow. See Tenenbaum
et al. (2012) for a more thorough review of these and other measures.
Measurement of Psychological Skills

Psychological skills include a number of mental skills (e.g., imagery,
relaxation, goal setting, self-talk) that are critical to athletes’ optimal per-
formance (Weinberg & Forlenza, 2012). Measures have been developed
to assess athletes’ psychological skills, most of which involve retrospec-
tive reports of general psychological skill use and abilities. Unfortunately,
many of these measures are limited by the arbitrary metrics that they use
(Andersen et al., 2007).
Measures designed to assess psychological skills such as mental prep-
aration, focus, confidence, emotional control, goal setting, motivation
for achievement, self-talk, imagery, and relaxation include the Psycho
logical Skills Inventory for Sports (Mahoney et al.,1987), the Athletic
Coping Skills Inventory—28 (Smith, Schutz, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1995),
and the Test of Performance Strategies (Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy,
1999). To more precisely measure psychological skills, instruments have
been developed to assess particular skills such as imagery and self-talk.
For example, the Movement Imagery Questionnaire—Revised (MIQ–R;
Hall & Martin, 1997), Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire
(VMIQ; Isaac, Marks, & Russell, 1986), and Vividness of Visual Imagery
Questionnaire (Roberts, Callow, Hardy, Markland, & Bringer, 2008) all
measure athletes’ ability to use imagery. The Sport Imagery Question-
naire (Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 2007) evaluates the frequency
of use for various types of imagery. These measures have adequate reli-
ability. However, the MIQ–R may be the imagery measure of choice
because of its ease of administration. When working with teams with
limited physical space, the VMIQ could be the most appropriate because
unlike the MIQ–R, the VMIQ does not require test takers to perform any
physical movement during the test. Ideally, the VMIQ and the MIQ–R
can be used in conjunction and in a complementary fashion because
these measure different aspects of imagery ability (Hall & Martin, 1997).
Questionnaires designed to measure self-talk generally involve ret-
rospective recall of self-talk during past performances. These measures
have good reliability. However, the extent to which they fully assess ath-
letes’ self-talk during particular performances is unclear. Actual self-talk
used during sport performance can be hard to accurately recall. Some of
the more widely used self-talk questionnaires include (a) the Self-Talk
Use Questionnaire (J. Hardy, Hall, & Hardy, 2005), which measures the
frequency and the type (positive, negative) of self-talk; (b) the Functions
of Self-Talk Questionnaire (Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, & Chroni,
2008), which gauges the functions inherent in self-talk use and the rea-
sons prompting the athlete to use self-talk (e.g., focusing); and (c) the
Self-Talk Questionnaire (Zervas, Stavrou, & Psychountaki, 2007), which
assesses the extent to which self-talk is related to learning, performance,
focus, and confidence in sport.
Psychological skills assessment tools can be used to measure specific
variables at one point in time and to measure the effectiveness of psycho-
logical skills interventions when providing applied services to athletes and
teams or when assessing psychological skills for research purposes. Such
outcome assessments can be carried out using pretest–posttest or other
designs, providing useful data about (a) the psychological skills of athletes,
(b) the effects of psychological interventions, and (c) guiding the develop-
ment of future interventions. To support the collection of outcome data,
the American Psychological Association created PracticeOUTCOMES:
Measures for Psychologists, a database providing information about out-
come measures useful for practitioners (Nordal, 2012).
Measurement of Motivation
Motivation is “the hypothetical construct used to describe the internal
and/or external forces that produce the initiation, intensity, and persis-
tence of behavior” (Vallerand & Thill, 1993, p. 18). Intrinsic motivation
refers to the type of motivation experienced when one participates in an
activity for its own sake and for the satisfaction associated with participat-
ing in it (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Tennis players who are motivated
by the feeling of hitting the ball with a racquet and chasing down drop
shots are examples of intrinsically motivated athletes. Extrinsic motivation
refers to being motivated to participate in activities to gain something
positive or avoid something negative (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Tennis play-
ers who strive only to expand on trophies and tournaments won are
extrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation
are not mutually exclusive. A combination of intrinsic (e.g., enjoyment)

and extrinsic (e.g., winning prizes, losing weight) motivational factors
may factor into participation in sport and exercise. Finally, amotivation
(Deci & Ryan, 1985) represents the lack of motivation, either intrinsic
or extrinsic (Vallerand, 1997). Amotivation may help predict or explain
some people’s relative lack of persistence in sport and exercise settings.
A number of general measures of motivation in sport and exercise
have been developed. These measures focus on specific populations
or aspects of motivational processes. In addition to the questionnaires
described in the paragraph that follows, information pertaining to motiva-
tion may be gathered from athletes’ or exercisers’ significant others, train-
ing partners, athletic trainers, and coaches (see Reiss & Havercamp, 1998).
The Situation Motivation Scale (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000)
and the Sport Motivation Scale (Brière, Vallerand, Blais, & Pelletier, 1995)
are used to assess intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in athletes from
different age groups and cultures. The Pictorial Motivation Scale (Reid,
Vallerand, Poulin, & Crocker, 2009) is used with people with intel-
lectual disability to assess reasons for participating in sport and exercise.
The Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (Lonsdale, Hodge,
& Rose, 2008) is specifically designed to assess the motivation of elite
athletes. Sport and exercise psychologists generally use motivation scales
that have been validated with the population being studied and best
match their assessment question of interest.
Measurement of Cognitive
and Perceptual Processes
The term cognition means “to know” or “to recognize.” Cognitive pro-
cesses include perception, recognition, attention, memory, language,
knowledge, expertise, judgment, decision making, and reasoning. Thus,
cognitive and perceptual processes are more than just knowing and rep-
resent a range of skills that enable people to engage mentally with the
environment. A number of measures have been developed to assess
these capacities. Generally, these measures are used in a complementary
fashion as more than one assessment may be needed to best describe
cognitive and perceptual capacities.
Anticipation in sport is the cognitive ability to predict the intentions

of others, typically through bodily and other environmental cues. Tem-
poral occlusion methods expose athletes to selected game-related video
sequences gauging athletes’ ability to pick up on relevant bodily cues
and anticipate upcoming events (see A. M. Williams & Abernethy, 2012).
The spatial occlusion paradigm is used to identify cues athletes rely on when
anticipating opponents’ moves in the field. Spatial occlusion resembles
temporal occlusion, but in spatial occlusion, specific cues from video
sequences are occluded for the full period of the test (see Abernethy &
Russell, 1987; Müller, Abernethy, & Forrow, 2006; A. M. Williams &
Davids, 1998). Eye movement recording captures athletes’ gaze patterns,
often through head-mounted corneal reflection systems. These systems
identify the position of the pupil and the reflection of a light source off
the surface of the cornea in a video image of the eye. The relative posi-
tions of the signals from these two sources are used to compute the point
of gaze associated with the optics (for a review, see A. M. Williams,
Janelle, & Davids, 2004). Finally, verbal reports are helpful in identifying
thought processes during performances (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Verbal
reports require individuals to verbally express their thoughts aloud as
they perform tasks.
Sport-and-exercise-psychology-specific measures of attention, ori-
entation, executive functioning, and memory have not been created.
Therefore, sport and exercise psychologists interested in assessing these
variables use mainstream psychological measures such as the Califor-
nia Verbal Learning Test (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 1987) and
the Digit Span Test (Wechsler, 1997) to measure memory capacity; the
Flanker Test (Eriksen & Schultz, 1979) to measure executive functioning,
that is, higher order cognitive capacity that governs others functions,
including planning, scheduling, and working memory (Etnier & Chang,
2009); and the Stroop Test (Stroop, 1935) to measure attention and orienta-
tion. The Mini-Mental Status Exam (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975)
can be used to measure cognitive impairment and a range of cognitive
abilities, including orientation, attention, arithmetic abilities, memory,
and language.
Measurement of the Self

Self can be defined as a psychological construct that promotes conscious
reflection on the individual’s roles, descriptions, and assumed identi-
ties (Leary & Tangney, 2003). Self is a dynamic notion that is formed
through interactions with others (Harter, 1999). In sport and exercise
settings, self-concept (i.e., the way individuals describe themselves), pos-
sible selves (i.e., self-perceptions that are geared toward the future, such
as the attractive, fit, hoped for self and the feared unhealthy self), and
self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs individuals hold pertaining to how well they

can accomplish specific tasks) are frequently measured (Zaccaro, Blair,
Peterson, & Zananis, 1995). Results of self-measurement can be used to
assess individual states and the effects of interventions.
To measure self-concept related to physical abilities in adult, adoles-
cent, and youth populations, sport and exercise psychologists often use
the Physical Self-Perception Profile (Fox, 1990; Fox & Corbin, 1989),
the Self-Description Questionnaire III (Marsh & O’Neill, 1984), and the
Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception Profile (Whitehead, 1995),

respectively. Self-schemata pertaining to exercise behavior and overall
interest in and commitment to exercise may be assessed through the
Self-Schemata Measure (Markus, 1977), which requires test takers to
endorse statements related to the self from a designated list. Possible selves
can be assessed by the Close-Ended Possible Selves Measure (Markus &
Nurius, 1986), which requires respondents to report on the number of
positive and negative possible selves that they endorse from a provided
list, and by the Open-Ended Possible Selves Measure (Cross & Markus,
1991; Dunkel, Kelts, & Coon, 2006). Possible selves can also be explored
in depth by providing test takers with a blank sheet that includes lines
to describe their hoped-for selves and another sheet to describe their
feared possible selves (Cross & Markus, 1991). To explore the relation-
ship between possible selves and exercise behavior, respondents may be
asked to choose from their list of possible selves and the self that is most
closely associated with the current level of exercise behavior and/or to
answer specific closed-ended questions associated with the most impor-
tant exercise-related self (for a review, see Whaley, 2003).
Self-efficacy with regard to exercise can be assessed by scales such
as the Self-Efficacy for Exercise Scale (Resnick & Jenkins, 2000) and the
Self-Efficacy to Regulate Exercise (Bandura, 2006), which gauge indi-
viduals’ beliefs in their capacity to consistently participate in exercise
despite perceived barriers. It is important to note that several barrier
scales include relatively few items and thus may not assess relevant bar-
riers. Self-efficacy with regard to carrying out a specific physical activity
task can be measured using specific self-efficacy scales such as the Task-
Specific Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 2006) and the Tai Chi Exercise
Self-Efficacy (Taylor-Piliae & Froelicher, 2004). These scales are most
suitable for evaluating self-efficacy beliefs associated with a particular
behavior. General measures of self-efficacy may not fully reflect the
strength of an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs for a specific task.
Measurement of Affect, Mood, and Emotion

Affect, mood, and emotion are related but distinct concepts. Roughly
defined, the term affect represents mental states that result from the
experience of feelings (Coan & Allen, 2007). Individuals experience core

affects (e.g., pleasure, displeasure, tension, relaxation, energy, tired-
ness) continually, but the type and the degree of affect fluctuate over
time (Ekkekakis, 2012). Mood states reflect the sum of affective states
(D. Watson & Clark, 1997). Relative to affect, mood states endure longer
and are felt less intensely (Ekman & Davidson, 1994). Emotion is a sub-
jective feeling state that triggers the body for immediate vigorous reac-
tion, a reaction that is both psychological and physiological in nature
(The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2005). Anxiety is one of the most fre-

quently measured emotions in sport settings (Janelle & Naugle, 2012).
Because affective states are important determinants of behavior, it
can be useful to measure the fluctuation of affective states over time
(Ekkekakis, 2012). For example, participating in exercise is known to
decrease feelings of fatigue (Puetz, O’Connor, & Dishman, 2006) and to
increase feelings of strength and vitality (Reed & Ones, 2006). People
are more likely to continue to participate in exercise if they experience
pleasure during exercise (Kwan & Bryan, 2010; D. M. Williams et al.,
2008). With regard to sport performance, frequent and accurate assess-
ment of affect and emotions can be used to identify optimal levels of
emotion, precursors to optimal sport performance (Kamata, Tenenbaum,
& Hanin, 2002).
Sport-and-exercise-specific measures of affect include the Exercise-
Induced Feeling Inventory (Gauvin & Rejeski, 1993), the Subjective
Exercise Experience Scale (McAuley & Courneya, 1994), and the Physi-
cal Activity Affect Scale (Lox, Jackson, Tuholski, Wasley, & Treasure,
2000). General measures of affect used in sport and exercise psychology
include the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (D. Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988) and the Activation–Deactivation Adjective Checklist
(Thayer, 1989). Specific measures of affect were developed on the basis
of the premise that physical activity behaviors elicit specific affective
responses best captured by specific measures of affect. Criticisms asso-
ciated with these scales include their less than ideal fit with the latest
theoretical frameworks and their development based primarily on data
from select groups of young, healthy, active college students. The affect
of elderly, disabled, physically inactive, and chronically ill populations
may not be best captured using these scales (Ekkekakis, 2012). The
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule is one of the most widely used
measures of affect, but it has been criticized for its lack of items gaug-
ing fatigue and serenity (D. Watson & Clark, 1997), both of which are of
particular interest to exercise psychology (Ekkekakis, 2012).
For easy administration, some researchers have developed shorter
affect scales, such as the Self-Assessment Manikin (Bradley & Lang,
1994; Lang, 1980), the Affect Grid (Russell, Weiss, & Mendelsohn,
1989), the Feeling Scale (C. J. Hardy & Rejeski, 1989), and the Felt
Arousal Scale (Svebak & Murgatroyd, 1985). Because most of the

extremely short measures are single-item scales, administration of
these measures typically takes seconds, something that can be a strength
when trying to assess fleeting emotions.
To measure mood, sport and exercise psychologists often use the
Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair et al., 1971). The POMS was
initially developed for use with clinical populations; hence some cau-
tion may be needed when interpreting scores with nonclinical and
physically active populations. Another practical consideration with the

POMS is that its subscales measure primarily negative mood character-
istics (i.e., tension, depression, anger, fatigue, confusion). Those exam-
ining depression may consider the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI;
Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depres-
sion (HRSD; Hamilton, 1960). A self-administered instrument, the BDI
is easy to score and relatively inexpensive (Sharp & Lipsky, 2002). As
for the HRSD, it is important to note that the HRSD is not a diagnos-
tic tool but rather is designed for rating the severity of symptoms in
individuals with major depression (Berrios & Bulbena-Villarasa, 1990;
Hedlund & Viewig, 1979). Unlike the BDI, the HRSD is interviewer
administered and scored. To reduce the bias that may be associated
with the interviewer-administered format, a structured interview guide
for the questionnaire has been made available (J. B. W. Williams, 1988).
The most widely used measure of emotion in sport settings is the State–
Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983; Spielberger, Gorsuch,
& Lushene, 1970). The STAI helps distinguish feelings of anxiety from
depression. The STAI is fairly cost-effective and is best used with those
attempting to perform high-stress or anxiety-prone tasks. The STAI was
recognized for its cultural sensitivity and can be effectively used with
any individuals regardless of their race, gender, and spiritual beliefs (for
a review, see Tilton, 2008).
Measurement of Perceived Effort

Perceived effort represents an ensemble of perceptions inherent in effort
expenditure. Perceived exertion, fatigue, and motivation are central
to the effort experience and to the behaviors associated with exercise,
such as adherence and intensity (Razon, Hutchinson, & Tenenbaum,
2012). Measures of effort perception are built on the assumption that
individuals can accurately estimate and clearly express their perception
of effort. However, this assumption may not always hold true. It can
be difficult for people to report their effort perceptions while they are
exerting effort. In some circumstances, social desirability may affect
reporting. That is, people may inaccurately report their effort percep-
tions in an effort to appear fit and physically capable. Informing test
takers that their real perceptions are needed and providing them with
the opportunity to ask questions and practice using scales can mitigate
the impact of some measurement limitations and challenges (Maresh &
Noble, 1984; Noble & Robertson, 1996).
Borg’s 15-point scale (Borg, 1971) and Borg’s Category Ratio–10
(Borg, 1982) are widely used to measure perceived exertion in sport and
exercise settings. The anchors for the 15-point scale range from 6 (least
effort) to 20 (very very hard). The anchors for the 10-point scale range
from 0 (nothing at all) to 10 (very very hard, maximal). Both scales can be
used for description and monitoring purposes. When used descriptively,
the scales help evaluate perceived effort. When used for monitoring, the
scales assess the intensity of exercise training.
Scales to measure exertion have been developed for use with specific
populations. For example, the Braille Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale
(Buckley, Eston, & Sim, 2000) has been developed for people who are
visually impaired. Measures of perceived exertion that include images as
well as numbers and words, such as the Cart and Load Effort Rating Scale
(Eston, Parfitt, Campbell, & Lamb, 2000) and the Pictorial Children’s
Effort Rating Table (Yelling, Lamb, & Swaine, 2002), can be used with
adolescents and children. Finally, the Children’s OMNI Scale of Perceived
Exertion has been tailored to number of specific activities, including the
OMNI—Bike for cycling (Robertson et al., 2000), OMNI—RES for resis-
tance training (Robertson et al., 2003), OMNI—Step for stepping exercise
(Robertson et al., 2005), and OMNI—Walk/Run for walking and running
(Utter, Robertson, Nieman, & Kang, 2002).
Team-Related Measures
Numerous factors affect team performance and team members’ satis-
faction with the team experience. In team settings, it may be useful to
identify teams’ current needs and potential areas for improvement by
administering a team needs assessment. Such assessments are often
designed by practitioners and researchers to learn about teams’ past
experiences, current abilities and interests, and future goals. Specific
topics, such as cohesion, sport performance, leadership, and prosocial
and antisocial behaviors, may be presented or offered for further con-
sideration or discussion.
Cohesion, “a dynamic processes which is reflected in the tendency
for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its
instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective
needs” (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213), has long been
considered an essential aspect of group processes (Golembiewski, 1962;
Lott & Lott, 1965). Team cohesion may be related to and affected by
leadership. Leadership refers to “the behavioral process of influencing
individuals and groups toward set goals” (Barrow, 1977, p. 232). In sport
settings, leadership is a much sought after quality, and coach leader
ship is particularly emphasized (Chelladurai, 2012). Team cohesion
and leadership both affect and may be affected by team members’ pro-
social and antisocial behaviors. Prosocial behavior refers to any behav-
ior carried out with the intent to help or benefit others (Eisenberg &
Fabes, 1998). Letting opponents borrow equipment and congratulating
teammates are examples of prosocial behaviors in sport (Kavussanu &
Boardley, 2012). Antisocial behaviors are those carried out with the intent
to hurt or inconvenience others (Kavussanu, 2006; Sage, Kavussanu,
& Duda, 2006). Examples of antisocial behaviors in sport are purpose-
fully attempting to injure an opponent, violating the rules, and cheating
(Kavussanu & Boardley, 2012).
Several sport-specific questionnaires have been developed to measure
team cohesion. These include the Group Environment Questionnaire
(Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985), the Youth Sport Environment
Questionnaire (Eys, Loughead, Bray & Carron, 2009), and the Physical
Activity Group Environment Questionnaire (Estabrooks & Carron, 2000).
The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire and the Physical Activity
Group Environment Questionnaire address the two main limitations
associated with Group Environment Questionnaire, its low readability,
and its negatively phrased item structures. As a result, the Youth Sport
Environment Questionnaire and the Physical Activity Group Environ-
ment Questionnaire are effectively used when assessing team cohesion in
youth and cohesion in physical activity groups of elderly people (Carron,
Eys, & Martin, 2012; Estabrooks & Carron, 2000; Eys, Carron, Bray, &
Brawley, 2007).
Leadership has proven to be a particularly difficult construct to
measure, in part because leadership is affected by both personal and
environmental factors (Amorose & Horn, 2000; Chelladurai, 2012). The
Revised Leadership Scale for Sports (Zhang, Jensen, & Mann, 1997)
measures designated leaders’ (i.e., coaches’) behaviors. The CBAS
(Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978) gauges leadership behaviors as well as
athletes’ and coaches’ recollection of coach behaviors. The Coaching
Behavior Questionnaire (Kenow & Williams, 1992) measures athletes’
perception of a number of coaches’ characteristics including their abil-
ity to communicate, composure, emotional control, arousal levels, and
confidence. In contrast to this general measure of coach behavior, the
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (Amorose & Horn, 2000) measures
athletes’ perceptions of the feedback provided by the coach. The CBAS
remains the most frequently used measure of coaching behavior (Smith,
Smoll, & Curtis, 2007). The CBAS provides a comprehensive account of
the quality and frequency of the feedback provided by the coach during
both practice and competitive events (Smith et al., 2007). Practitioners
should make informed decisions as to whether a general (i.e., Revised

Leadership Scale for Sports) or specific (i.e., CBAS, Coaching Behavior
Questionnaire, and Coaching Feedback Questionnaire) measure is most
appropriate to use in a given situations.
The measurement of prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport and
exercise psychology has received limited attention, although sport-
related scandals do cause public attention to be paid to this topic. The Fair
Play in Physical Education Questionnaire (Hassandra, Hatzigeorgiadis,
& Goudas, 2005) is used to evaluate moral approach (Lee, Whitehead,

& Ntoumanis, 2007) and sportpersonship behaviors (Vallerand, Brière,
Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997) in the physical education context. The
Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale (Kavussanu & Boardley,
2009) provides test takers with prosocial and antisocial scenarios. Test
takers articulate what they would do were they in the situation in ques-
tion. Because these measures involve self-report, potential biases associ-
ated with social desirability (Arnold & Feldman, 1981) and retrospective
recollection (for a review, see Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011) may occur. Video
recordings can be used during training and contests to allow for later
analysis of real behaviors. When reviewing video, practitioners may be
able to identify the events that precede and follow prosocial and anti
social behaviors to determine their causes and consequences (see Kirker,
Tenenbaum, & Mattson, 2000).
Measurement of Physical Activity

Physical activity refers to any physical movement produced by muscles
and leading to energy expenditure (Caspersen, 1989). Exercise is a type
of physical activity that is recurrent, scheduled, structured, and helps
to improve or maintain physical fitness and health (Montoye, Kemper,
Saris, & Washburn, 1996). Measurement of physical activity and its
outcomes is crucial when attempting to develop or evaluate the suc-
cess of physical activity programs such as strength-training programs
for athletes and flexibility programs for older adults (Nigg, Jordan, &
Atkins, 2012). A number of strategies can be used to measure exercise
behavior, including direct observation, diaries and logs, questionnaires,
and physical activity monitoring tools. Direct observation allows for
assessment of exercise but can be subject to error. People often alter
their behavior when being observed. Furthermore, direct observations
can be taxing on the observer’s time and may require more than one
observer to fully capture a behavior in its entirety. Diaries and logs
require individuals to keep regular records of physical activity. Infor-
mation recorded in diaries might include the intensity, context, and
affective responses to the activity (Woods, Sivarajan-Froelicher, Underhill-
Motzer, & Bridges, 2005). The quality of information collected through
diaries and logs depends on the collaboration and meticulousness of the

participant keeping these records. Physical activity questionnaires such as
the Yale Physical Activity Survey (Dipietro, Caspersen, Ostfeld, & Nadel,
1993), and the Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors
(Stewart et al., 1997) can provide practitioners with extensive data on
individuals’ reported levels of physical activity. Physical activity monitor-
ing tools such as pedometers and accelerometers are less vulnerable to
social desirability biases but can fall prey to technical difficulties when
used in field settings. Testing of physiological markers through assays and

processes such as those that involve the use of doubly labeled water are
more expensive and often require exercisers to make visits to the lab, but
they may ultimately prove effective for assessing key aspects of exercise
behavior.
Summary and Conclusion
Measurement is an essential procedure for accurately describing phe-

nomena and fully understanding people’s motivations, cognitions, affect,
and behaviors. Measurement is essential not only for sound research
and new knowledge gain but also for evidence-based and responsible
practice. Throughout this chapter, we emphasized that to best capture
athletic and exercise behaviors, multiple methods (e.g., introspection,
observation, interview) should be used. Measurement tools must be reli-
able, valid, and sensitive to the culture within which they are admin-
istered. Following these guidelines and those of ethical measurement
practice is appropriate for all sport and exercise psychologists, who may
then incorporate the findings from assessment tools into ongoing pro-
grams of research or interventions to serve athletes, coaches, and teams.
References
Abernethy, B., & Russell, D. G. (1987). Expert–novice differences in an

applied selective attention task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 326–345.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psycholo-
gists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010). Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships
with collegiate athletes gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of
their coaches behavior. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 63–84.
Andersen, M. B., McCullagh, P., & Wilson, G. J. (2007). But what do
the numbers really tell us? Arbitrary metrics and effect size reporting
in sport psychology research. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29,
664–672.
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability response bias
in self-repot choice situations. Academy of Management Journal, 24,
377–385. doi:10.2307/255848
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Barrow, J. C. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and concep-
tual framework. Academy of Management Review, 2, 231–251.
Beauchamp, M. K., Harvey, R. H., & Beauchamp, P. H. (2012). An
integrated biofeedback and psychological skill training program for
Canada’s Olympic short-track speed skating team. Journal of Clinical
Sport Psychology, 6, 67–84.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric prop-
erties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of
evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100. doi:10.1016/0272-
7358(88)90050-5
Bennett, R. E. (2008). Technology for large-scale assessment (Report
No. RM-08-10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Berrios, G. E., & Bulbena-Villarasa, A. (1990). The Hamilton Depression
Scale and the numerical description of the symptoms of depression.
In P. Bech & A. Coppen (Eds.), The Hamilton scales (pp. 80–92). Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-75373-2_10
Borg, G. A. (1971). The perception of physical performance. In R. J.
Shephard (Ed.), Frontiers of fitness (pp. 280–294). Springfield, IL:
Charles C Thomas.
Borg, G. A. (1982). Psychological bases of perceived exertion. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14, 377–381. doi:10.1249/00005768-
198205000-00012
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-
assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59. doi:10.1016/0005-
7916(94)90063-9
Brière, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1995).
Developpement et validation d’une mesure de motivation intrinseque,
extrinseque et d’amotivation en contexte sportif: l’Echelle de motiva-
tion dans les sports (EMS) [Development and validation of the French
form of the Sport Motivation Scale]. International Journal of Sport Psy-
chology, 26, 465–489.
Buckley, J. P., Eston, R. G., & Sim, J. (2000). Ratings of perceived exer-
tion in braille: Validity and reliability in production mode. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 297–302. doi:10.1136/bjsm.34.4.297
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (2002). The Group
Environment Questionnaire: Test manual. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Martin, L. J. (2012). Cohesion. In G.
Tenenbaum., R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport
and exercise psychology (pp. 411–421).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The develop-
ment of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group
environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266.

Caspersen, C. J. (1989). Physical activity epidemiology: concepts, methods,
and applications to exercise science. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews,
17, 423–473.
Chelladurai, P. (2012). Models and measurement of leadership in sport. In
G. Tenenbaum., R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport
and exercise psychology (pp. 433–442). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of emotion elicitation
and assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64,
194–204. doi:10.1037/a0015308
Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the life span.
Human Development, 34, 230–255. doi:10.1159/000277058
Dadlani, M. B., Overtree, C., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). Culture at the
center: A reformulation of diagnostic assessment. Professional Psychol-
ogy: Research and Practice, 43, 175–182. doi:10.1037/a0028152
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination
in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. A. (1987). The Califor-
nia Verbal Learning Test. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.
Dewey, D., Brawley, L., & Allard, F. (1989). Do the TAIS attentional-style
scales predict how information is processed? Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 11, 171–186.
Dipietro, L., Caspersen, C. J., Ostfeld, A. M., & Nadel, E. R. (1993). A sur-
vey for assessing physical activity among older adults. Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 25, 628–642. doi:10.1249/00005768-199305000-
00016
Dunkel, C. S., Kelts, D., & Coon, B. (2006). Possible selves as mechanisms
of change in therapy. In C. Dunkel & J. Kerpelman (Eds.), Possible selves:
Theory, research and application (pp. 187–204). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA
Science.
Eccles, D. W. (2012). Verbal reports of cognitive processes. In G. Tenen-
baum, R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and exer-
cise psychology (pp. 103–117). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon

(Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Ekkekakis, P. (2012). Affect, mood, and emotion. In G. Tenenbaum., R. C.
Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and exercise psychology
(pp. 321–332).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion: Funda-
mental questions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Emotion. (2005). In The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (5th ed.). Springfield,
MA: Merriam-Webster.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual
search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Per-
ception & Psychophysics, 25, 249–263. doi:10.3758/BF03198804
Estabrooks, P. A., & Carron, A. V. (2000). The physical activity group
environment questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of cohe-
sion in exercise classes. Group Dynamics, 4, 230–243. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.4.3.230
Eston, R. G., Parfitt, G., Campbell, L., & Lamb, K. L. (2000). Reliability
of effort perception for regulating exercise intensity in children using
the Cart and Load Effort Rating (CALER) Scale. Pediatric Exercise Science,
12, 388–397.
Etnier, J. L., & Chang, Y. (2009). The effect of physical activity on execu-
tive function: A brief commentary on definitions, measurement issues,
and the current state of the literature. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychol-
ogy, 31, 469–483.
Etzel, E., Yura, M., & Perna, F. (1998). Ethics and testing in applied sport
psychology. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advances in measurement in sport and exer-
cise psychology (pp. 423–432). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2007). Item
wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: The Group
Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29,
395–402.
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Develop-
ment of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environ-
ment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 390–408.
Fisher, C. B. (2003). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psycholo-
gists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fisher, M. A. (2009). Ethics-based training for nonclinical staff in mental
health settings. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 459–466.
doi:10.1037/a0016642
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare

cultures—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs:
Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78–88.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.78
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state:
A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the
clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198. doi:10.1016/0022-
3956(75)90026-6
Fox, K. R. (1990). The Physical Self-Perception Profile manual. DeKalb: North-
ern Illinois University, Office for Health Promotion.
Fox, K. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The Physical Self-Perception Profile:
Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 11, 408–430.
Gauvin, L., & Rejeski, W. J. (1993). The exercise-induced feeling inven-
tory: Development and initial validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psy-
chology, 15, 403–423.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The small group: An analysis of research con-
cepts and operations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Greenbaum, T. L. (1997). The handbook for focus group research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenbaum, T. L. (2000). Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for
group facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment
of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational
Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175–213.
doi:10.1023/A:1005614228250
Hall, C. R., Mack, D. E., Paivio, A., & Hausenblas, H. A. (2007). Imagery
use by athletes: Development of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire. In
D. Smith & M. Bar-Eli (Eds.), Readings in sport and exercise psychology
(pp. 258–264). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hall, C. R., & Martin, K. A. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abili-
ties: A revision of the movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of
Mental Imagery, 21, 143–154.
Hamilton, M. (1960). A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology,
Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 23, 56–62. doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56
Hardy, C. J., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). Not what, but how one feels: The
measurement of affect during exercise. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psy-
chology, 11, 304–317.
Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., & Hardy, L. (2005). Quantifying athlete self-talk. Jour-
nal of Sports Sciences, 23, 905–917. doi:10.1080/02640410500130706
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hassandra, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Goudas, M. (2005). Confirmatory
factor analysis of the Fair Play in Physical Education Questionnaire.
In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference of Psychological Assessment

(pp. 82–83). Budapest: Hungarian Psychological Association.
Hedlund, J. L., & Viewig, B. W. (1979). The Hamilton Rating Scale for
Depression: A comprehensive review. Journal of Operational Psychiatry,
10, 149–165.
Heil, J., & Henschen, K. (1996). Assessment in sport and exercise psy-
chology. In J. L. Van Raalte & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring sport and
exercise psychology (pp. 229–255). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association. doi:10.1037/10186-010

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s
wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The
reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
903–918. doi:10.1037/effect0022-3514.82.6.903
Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in
sport: The role of coaching style, autonomous vs. controlled motiva-
tion, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
33, 527–547.
Isaac, A., Marks, D., & Russell, D. (1986). An instrument for assessing
imagery of movement: The Vividness of Movement Imagery Question-
naire (VMIQ). Journal of Mental Imagery, 10, 23–30.
Janelle, C. M., & Naugle, K. M. (2012). Emotional reactivity. In G.
Tenenbaum., R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport
and exercise psychology (pp. 333–348).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kamata, A., Tenenbaum, G., & Hanin, Y. L. (2002). Individual zone of
optimal functioning (IZOF): A probabilistic estimation. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 24, 189–208.
Kavussanu, M. (2006). Motivational predictors of prosocial and antisocial
behavior in football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 575–588.
Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. D. (2009). The prosocial and antisocial
behavior in sport scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 97–117.
Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. D. (2012). Moral behavior. In G. Tenen-
baum., R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and
exercise psychology (pp. 443–454).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kenow, L. J., & Williams, J. M. (1992). Relationship between anxiety,
self-confidence, and evaluation of coaching behaviors. The Sport Psy-
chologist, 6, 344–357.
Kirker, B., Tenenbaum, G., & Mattson, J. (2000). An investigation of
the dynamics of aggression: Direct observations in ice hockey and
basketball. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 373–386.
Kontos, A. P., Collins, M., & Russo, S. A. (2004). An introduction to sports
concussion for the sport psychology consultant. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 16, 220–235. doi:10.1080/10413200490485568
Krane, V., & Baird, S. M. (2005). Using ethnography in applied sport
psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 87–107. doi:10.1080/
10413200590932371
Kristiansen, E. E., Roberts, G. C., & Sisjord, M. K. (2011). Coping with
negative media content: The experiences of professional football
goalkeepers. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9,
295–307. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2011.623451
Kwan, B. M., & Bryan, A. D. (2010). Affective response to exercise as
a component of exercise motivation: Attitudes, norms, self-efficacy,
and temporal stability of intentions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11,
71–79. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.05.010
Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assess-

ment: Computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, &
T. A. Williams (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems
(pp. 119–137). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (2003). The self as an organizing construct
in the behavioral and social sciences. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney
(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Lee, M. J., Whitehead, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Development of the
Attitudes to Moral Decisions in Youth Sport Questionnaire. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 8, 369–392. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.12.002
Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (Eds.) (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment
for education: Theory and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611186
Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. A. (2008). The Behavioral Regulation
in Sport Questionnaire (BRSQ): Instrument development and initial
validity evidence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 323–355.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal
attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent
variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309. doi:10.1037/h0022386
Lox, C. L., Jackson, S., Tuholski, S. W., Wasley, D., & Treasure, D. C.
(2000). Revisiting the measurement of exercise induced feeling states:
The Physical Activity Affect Scale (PAAS). Measurement in Physical Educa-
tion and Exercise Science, 4, 79–95. doi:10.1207/S15327841Mpee0402_4
Mahoney, M. J., & Epstein, M. L. (1981). The assessment of cognition
in athletes. In T. V. Merluzzi, C. R. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive
assessment (pp. 435–451). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mahoney, M. J., Gabriel, T. J., & Perkins, T. S. (1987). Psychological
skills and exceptional athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1,
181–199.
Maresh, C., & Noble, B. J. (1984). Utilization of perceived exertion rat-
ings during exercise testing and training. In L. K. Hall (Ed.), Cardiac
rehabilitation: Exercise testing and prescription (pp. 155–173). Great Neck,
NY: Spectrum.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.35.2.63
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist,

41, 954–969. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
Marsh, H. W., & O’Neill, R. (1984). Self-Description Questionnaire
III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings
by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153–174.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00227.x
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. (1982).
Cognitive and somatic dimensions of competitive anxiety. Paper presented
at the meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of

Sport and Physical Activity, University of Maryland, College Park.
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in
sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McAuley, E., & Courneya, K. S. (1994). The Subjective Exercise Experi-
ences Scale (SEES): Development and preliminary validation. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 163–177.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). Profile of mood
states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.
Montoye, H. J., Kemper, H. C. G., Saris, W. H. M., & Washburn, R. A.
(1996). Questionnaires and interviews. In H. J. Montoye, H. C. G.
Kemper, & W. H. M. Saris (Eds.), Measuring physical activity and energy
expenditure (pp. 42–71). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guide book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1997). The focus group kit. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Morgan, W. P., Brown, D. R., Raglin, J. S., O’Connor, P. J., & Ellickson,
K. A. (1987). Psychological monitoring of overtraining and staleness.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 107–114. doi:10.1136/bjsm.21.3.107
Morgan, W. P., & Pollock, M. L. (1977). Psychological characterization
of the elite distance runner. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
301, 382–403. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1977.tb38215.x
Müller, S., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2006). How do world-class
cricket batsmen anticipate a bowler’s intention? The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 59, 2162–2186.
doi:10.1080/02643290600576595
Nigg, C. R., Jordan, P. J., & Atkins, A. (2012). Behavioral measurement of
physical activity. In G. Tenenbaum, R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.),
Measurement in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 455–462). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Noble, B. J., & Robertson, R. J. (1996). Perceived exertion. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Nordal, K. C. (2012, January). Outcomes measurement benefits psy-
chology. Monitor on Psychology, 43(1), 51.
Ostrow, A. C. (Ed.). (1990). Directory of psychological tests in sport and exer-
cise sciences. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2003). Practical
considerations in computer-based testing: Book review. Applied Psy-
chological Measurement, 27, 78–80.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Puetz, T. W., O’Connor, P. J., & Dishman, R. K. (2006). Effects of chronic
exercise on feelings of energy and fatigue: A quantitative synthesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 132, 866–876. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.866
Quellmalz, E. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2009, January 2). Technology and
testing. Science, 323, 75–79. doi:10.1126/science.1168046
Razon, S., Hutchinson, J., & Tenenbaum, G. (2012). Effort perception. In
G. Tenenbaum., R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport
and exercise psychology (pp. 265–277). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Reed, J., & Ones, D. S. (2006). The effect of acute aerobic exercise on
positive activated affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exer-
cise, 7, 477–514. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.11.003
Reid, G., Vallerand, R. J., Poulin, C., & Crocker, P. (2009). The develop-
ment and validation of the pictorial motivation scale in physical activity.
Motivation and Emotion, 33, 161–172. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9117-x
Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assess-
ment of fundamental motivation: Factor structure of the Reiss Profiles.
Psychological Assessment, 10, 97–106. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.97
Resnick, B., & Jenkins, L. S. (2000). Testing the reliability and validity
of the self-efficacy for exercise scale. Nursing Research, 49, 154–159.
doi:10.1097/00006199-200005000-00007
Roberts, R., Callow, N., Hardy, L., Markland, D., & Bringer, J. (2008).
Movement imagery ability: Development and assessment of a revised
version of the vividness of movement imagery questionnaire. Journal
Robertson, R. J., Goss, F. L., Andreacci, J. L., Dube, J. J., Rutkowski,
J. J., Frazee, K. W., & Snee, B. M. (2005). Validation of the chil-
dren’s OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale of perceived exertion. Med-
icine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37, 819–826. doi:10.1249/01.
MSS.0000162619.33236.F1
Robertson, R. J., Goss, F. L., Boer, N. F., Peoples, J. A., Foreman, A.,
Dabayebeh, I. M., . . . Thompkins, T. (2000). Children’s OMNI Scale
of Perceived Exertion: Mixed gender and race validation. Medicine
& Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 452–458. doi:10.1097/00005768-
200002000-00029
Robertson, R. J., Goss, F. L., Rutkowski, J., Lenz, B., Dixon, C., Timmer, J.,
& Andreacci, J. L. (2003).Concurrent validation of the OMNI Perceived
Exertion Scale for Resistance Exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 35, 3, 33–341.
Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect Grid: A
single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 493–502. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493
Ryba, T. V., Schinke, R. J., & Stambulova, N. B. (2012). Cultural sport
psychology: Special measurement considerations. In G. Tenenbaum,
R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and exercise psy-
chology (pp. 143–152). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sage, L., Kavussanu, M., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Goal orientations and
moral identity as predictors of prosocial and antisocial functioning in

male association football players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 455–466.
doi:10.1080/02640410500244531
Shank, G. D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sharp, L. K., & Lipsky, M. S. (2002). Screening for depression across the
lifespan: A review of measures for use in primary care settings. Ameri-
can Family Physician, 66, 1001–1008.
Smith, R. E., Schutz, R. W., Smoll, F. L., & Ptacek, J. T. (1995). Develop-
ment and validation of a multidimensional measure of sport-specific
psychological skills: The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory—28. Journal
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in little
league baseball. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspec-
tives in youth sports (pp. 173–201). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (2007). Coach effectiveness train-
ing: A cognitive–behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills
in youth sport coaches. In R. E. Smith, F. L. Smoll, & B. Curtis (Eds.),
Essential readings in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 393–400). Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behav-
ioral assessment of athletic coaches. Research Quarterly, 48, 401–407.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory
(Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. L. (1970). Manual for
the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Stewart, A. L., Mills, K. M., Sepsis, P. G., King, A. C., McLellan, B. Y., Roitz,
K., & Ritter, P. L. (1997). Evaluation of CHAMPS, a physical activity
promotion program for older adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 19,
353–361. doi:10.1007/BF02895154
Straub, W. F. (Ed.). (1978). Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behav-
ior. Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651
Svebak, S., & Murgatroyd, S. (1985). Metamotivational dominance: A

multimethod validation of reversal theory constructs. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 48, 107–116. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.107
Tatsuoka, K. K. (2009). Cognitive assessment: An introduction to the rule
space method. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Froelicher, E. S. (2004). Measurement properties
of tai chi exercise self-efficacy among ethnic Chinese with coronary
heart disease risk factors: A pilot study. European Journal of Cardio-
vascular Nursing, 3, 287–294. doi:10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2004.09.001

Tenenbaum, G., & Bar-Eli, M. (1995). Contemporary issues in exercise
and sport psychology research. In S. J. H. Biddle (Ed.), European per-
spectives on sport and exercise psychology (pp. 292–323). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Tenenbaum, G., & Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Methods of research in sport sci-
ence: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Oxford, England: Meyer
& Meyer Sport.
Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R. C., & Kamata, A. (Eds.). (2012). Measurement
in sport and exercise psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Chroni, S. (2008). Self-talk: It
works, but how? Development and preliminary validation of the
functions of Self-Talk Questionnaire. Measurement in Physical Educa-
tion and Exercise Science, 12, 10–30. doi:10.1080/10913670701715158
Thomas, P. R., Murphy, S. M., & Hardy, L. (1999). Test of performance
strategies: Development and preliminary validation of a comprehen-
sive measure of athletes’ psychological skills. Journal of Sports Sciences,
17, 697–711. doi:10.1080/026404199365560
Tilton, S. R. (2008). Review of the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).
News Notes, 48, 1–3.
Tucker, B. (2009). Beyond the bubble: Technology and the future of student
assessment. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
Tutko, T. A., Lyon, L. P., & Ogilvie, B. C. (1969). Athletic motivation
inventory. San Jose, CA: Institute for the Study of Athletic Motivation.
Utter, A. C., Robertson, R. J., Nieman, D. C., & Kang, J. (2002). Chil-
dren’s OMNI Scale of Perceived Exertion: Walking/running evalua-
tion. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 139–144.
Vallerand, R. J. (1983). Attention and decision making: A test of the
predictive validity of the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style
(TAIS) in a sport setting. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 149–165.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60019-2
Vallerand, R. J., Brière, N. M., Blanchard, C., & Provencher, P. (1997).

Development and validation of the Multidimensional Sportspersonship
Orientations Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 197–206.
Vallerand, R. J., & Thill, E. (Eds.). (1993). Introduction a la psychologie de
la motivation [Introduction to the psychology of motivation]. Laval,
Quebec, Canada: Etudes Vivantes.
Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Green, B. F., Steinberg, L., Flaugher, R.,
Mislevy, R. J., & Thissen, D. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement
of mood: Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 68, 267–296. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6802_4
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Watson, J. C., Etzel, E. F., & Vosloo, J. (2012). Ethics: Assessment and
measurement in sport and exercise psychology. In G. Tenenbaum.,
R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and exercise
psychology (pp. 169–176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—3rd edition (WAIS–3)
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Weinberg, R., & Forlenza, S. (2012). Psychological skills. In G. Tenen-
baum., R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and
exercise psychology (pp. 381–392). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weiss, D. J. (1983). Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive
testing. In D. J Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 257–283). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Whaley, D. E. (2003). Future-oriented self-perceptions and exercise
behavior in middle-aged women. Journal of Aging and Physical Activ-
ity, 11, 1–17.
Whitehead, J. R. (1995). A study of children’ s physical self-perceptions
using an adapted physical self-perception questionnaire. Pediatric
Exercise Science, 7, 132–151.
Williams, A. M., & Abernethy, B. (2012). Anticipation and decision
making: Skills, methods, and measures. In G. Tenenbaum, R. C.
Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and exercise psychol-
ogy (pp. 191–202). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Williams, A. M., & Davids, K. (1998). Visual search strategy, selective
attention, and expertise in soccer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 69, 111–128.
Williams, A. M., Janelle, C. M., & Davids, K. (2004). Constraints on the
search for visual information in sports. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 2, 301–318. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2004.9671747
Williams, D. M., Dunsiger, S., Ciccolo, J. T., Lewis, B. A., Albrecht,

A. E., & Marcus, B. H. (2008). Acute affective response to a moderate-
intensity exercise stimulus predicts physical activity participation
6 and 12 months later. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 231–245.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.04.002
Williams, J. B. W. (1988). A structured interview guide for the Hamilton
Depression Rating Scale. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 742–747.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800320058007
Woods, S., Sivarajan-Froelicher, E., Underhill-Motzer, S., & Bridges, E.

(Eds.). (2005). Cardiac nursing (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.
Yelling, M., Lamb, K. L., & Swaine, I. L. (2002). Validity of a pictorial per-
ceived exertion scale for effort estimation and effort production during
stepping exercise in adolescent children. European Physical Education
Review, 8, 157–175. doi:10.1177/1356336X020082007
Zaccaro, S., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zananis, M. (1995). Collective effi-
cacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: The-
ory, research, and application (pp. 305–328). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_11
Zervas, Y., Stavrou, N. A., & Psychountaki, M. (2007). Development and
validation of the Self-Talk Questionnaire (S-TQ) for sports. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 142–159. doi:10.1080/10413200601185156
Zhang, J., Jensen, B. E., & Mann, B. L. (1997). Modification and revision
of the leadership scale for sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 105–122.
Zhu, W. (2012). Measurement practice in sport and exercise psychology:
A historical, comparative, and psychometric view. In G. Tenenbaum,
R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and exercise psy-
chology (pp. 9–21). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Measurement in Sport Psychology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measurement in Sport Psychology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selen Razon and Gershon Tenenbaum

with a presentation of tools for measuring psychological factors relevant

Sport and Exercise Psychology

In the 1930s, Coleman Griffith designed surveys and questionnaires

to these sport-specific instruments, the psychometric integrity of some

Computerized Adaptive Testing

Language (Parshall, Spray, Kalohn, & Davey, 2003).

Cognitively Based Diagnostic Assessment

Computers, the Internet,

Methods for Capturing

Most sport and exercise psychology measures are introspective in

events under investigation. An example of a complete participant is an

Think-aloud interviews are interviewee driven and can help iden-

Stambulova, 2012). The major tenet of cultural sport psychology is that

Informed Consent). It is not ethical to force individuals to participate in a

Sport and exercise psychologists use numerous measures. Although it

Measurement of Psychological Skills

are not mutually exclusive. A combination of intrinsic (e.g., enjoyment)

Anticipation in sport is the cognitive ability to predict the intentions

Measurement of the Self

self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs individuals hold pertaining to how well they

Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception Profile (Whitehead, 1995),

Measurement of Affect, Mood, and Emotion

experience of feelings (Coan & Allen, 2007). Individuals experience core

(The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2005). Anxiety is one of the most fre-

Arousal Scale (Svebak & Murgatroyd, 1985). Because most of the

physically active populations. Another practical consideration with the

Measurement of Perceived Effort

should make informed decisions as to whether a general (i.e., Revised

& Goudas, 2005) is used to evaluate moral approach (Lee, Whitehead,

Measurement of Physical Activity

diaries and logs depends on the collaboration and meticulousness of the

used in field settings. Testing of physiological markers through assays and

Summary and Conclusion

Measurement is an essential procedure for accurately describing phe-

Abernethy, B., & Russell, D. G. (1987). Expert–novice differences in an

Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337).

environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon

mental questions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare

In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference of Psychological Assessment

logical Association. doi:10.1037/10186-010

Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assess-

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist,

at the meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of

exercise on feelings of energy and fatigue: A quantitative synthesis.

moral identity as predictors of prosocial and antisocial functioning in

Svebak, S., & Murgatroyd, S. (1985). Metamotivational dominance: A

vascular Nursing, 3, 287–294. doi:10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2004.09.001

Vallerand, R. J., Brière, N. M., Blanchard, C., & Provencher, P. (1997).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Williams, D. M., Dunsiger, S., Ciccolo, J. T., Lewis, B. A., Albrecht,

Woods, S., Sivarajan-Froelicher, E., Underhill-Motzer, S., & Bridges, E.

You might also like