Child Development, November/December 2007, Volume 78, Number 6, Pages 1640 – 1656

Longitudinal Study of Preadolescent Sport Self-Concept and Performance:

Reciprocal Effects and Causal Ordering
Herbert W. Marsh Erin Gerlach
University of Oxford University of Paderborn

Ulrich Trautwein and Oliver Lüdtke Wolf-Dietrich Brettschneider

Max Planck Institute for Human Development University of Paderborn

Do preadolescent sport self-concepts influence subsequent sport performance? Longitudinal data (Grades 3, 4,
and 6) for young boys and girls (N 5 1,135; mean age 5 9.67) were used to test reciprocal effects model (REM)
predictions that sport self-concept is both a cause and a consequence of sport accomplishments. Controlling prior
sport performance (performance-based measures and teacher assessments), prior sport self-concept had positive
effects on subsequent sport performance in both Grade 4 and Grade 6 and for both boys and girls. Coupled with
previous REM studies of adolescents in the academic domain, this first test for preadolescents in the sport domain
supports the generalizability of REM predictions over gender, self-concept domain, preadolescent ages, and the
transition from primary to secondary school.

The overarching purpose of our longitudinal panel
study is to test the causal ordering of sport self-
concept and physical performance as posited in the
reciprocal effects model (REM; Marsh, 1990a, 1990b,
1993a, 2007b; Marsh & Craven, 1997, 2006). The
reciprocal pattern of relations between self-concept
and performance posited in the REM is also repre-
sented in many other theoretical accounts of related
self-belief constructs (e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1997; Byrne,
1996, 2002; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Harter, 1998, 1999;
Hattie, 1992; Skaalvik, 1997; Skaalvik & Hagtvet, 1990;
Valentine & DuBois, 2005; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002) as
well as in the broader themes of reciprocal patterns of
relation in developmental psychology (e.g., Lerner,
1982, 1996). Thus, for example, expectancy-value the-
orists (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) hypothesize academic
self-beliefs to be a function of prior academic suc-
cesses and to affect subsequent academic success
directly or indirectly through their influence on other
mediating constructs. More generally, in their theo-
retical review and meta-analysis of empirical
research, Valentine and DuBois concluded that recip-
rocal effects relating academic self-beliefs and
achievement are consistent with theories of learning
and human development that view the self as a causal
agent (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Carver & Scheier, 1981;
Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Two critical questions identified by both the Marsh
and Craven (2006; also see Marsh, Byrne, & Yeung,
1999) review and the Valentine and Dubois (2005)
meta-analysis form the focus of the present inves-
tigation. First, does support for REM predictions
generalize over age, particularly for responses by
preadolescents (because existing support is limited
largely to adolescents)? Second, does support for the
REM generalize over different domains, particularly
the sport domain (because existing support is limited
largely to the academic domain)?
Developmental Perspectives on REM

Work on the present investigation was conducted, in part, while
H.W.M. was a visiting scholar at the Center for Educational
Research at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development
and was supported in part by the University of Western Sydney and
the Max Planck Institute. These data are from a large-scale German
project directed by W.-D.B. (Department for Sport & Health,
University of Paderborn). The study was supported by a grant
from the Foundation of the Sparkasse Bank of Paderborn.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Professor Herbert W. Marsh, Department of Educational Studies,
University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, Uni-
ted Kingdom. Electronic mail may be sent to herb.marsh@edstud.
ox.ac.uk.
From a theoretical perspective, many researchers
posited that young children’s understanding of com-
petence changes with age such that with increasing
age, academic self-concepts are likely to be less
positive, more stable, and more systematically related
to external academic outcomes. Thus, for example,
# 2007 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2007/7806-0002

Wigfield and Karpathian (1991) argued that: ‘‘Once
ability perceptions are more firmly established the
relation likely becomes reciprocal: Students with high
perceptions of ability would approach new tasks with
confidence, and success on those tasks is likely to
bolster their confidence in their ability’’ (p. 255).
Skaalvik and Hagtvet (1990) also proposed that in
early school years, academic self-concept might be
shaped more by achievement but that as self-concept
becomes more established, it may influence subse-
quent achievement. Consistent with this perspective,
Skaalvik and Hagtvet found support for the REM for
older students (sixth and eighth grades) but not for
younger students (third and fourth grades). Similarly,
Skaalvik (1997) reported support for reciprocal effects
for high school students but support for only the effect
of performance on self-concept during primary
school. Hence, developmental theory and these lon-
gitudinal studies suggest that during primary school
years, academic achievement influences academic
self-concept but that self-concept may not influence
achievement, whereas this relation becomes recipro-
cal in adolescence.
In their review, Marsh et al. (1999) argued that
although relations between academic self-concept
and achievement become stronger and more stable
with age, there was insufficient evidence to determine
whether the causal ordering of relations between
these variables actually changes with age or whether
any such differences reflect underlying processes or
researchers’ inability to measure these constructs
reliably with young children (see Marsh, Debus, &
Bornholt, 2005). In their meta-analysis of REM studies
based on academic self-beliefs and achievement,
Valentine and colleagues (Valentine, 2001; Valentine
& Dubois, 2005) also predicted that REM support
would be stronger in middle and high school than in
primary school. However, Valentine found the small-
est effects for middle and junior high school students.
Even those studies specifically chosen to provide the
strongest tests of age as a moderator effect produced
results that were ‘‘mixed, suggesting the need for
further focused study of the effects of age on the
relations between age, self-concept, and achieve-
ment’’ (Valentine, 2001, p. 55).
Guay, Marsh, and Boivin (2003) pursued this chal-
lenge for developmental researchers that was pro-
posed by Marsh et al. (1999) and by Valentine (2001).
Guay et al. used a multivariable – multioccasion –
multicohort design (i.e., three age cohorts—students
in Grades 2, 3, and 4, each with three measurement
occasions separated by 1-year intervals). They found
that as children grew older, their academic self-concept
responses became more reliable, more stable, and more
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1641
strongly correlated with academic achievement. How-
ever, the magnitude of these developmental differ-
ences was small. Importantly, there was strong support
for the REM for all the three age cohorts, and these
results were reasonably invariant over age when
rigorously tested with multigroup tests of invariance
across the three age cohort groups. Although this study
provides good support for the generalizability of
reciprocal effects for young children, there is a need
to replicate and extend this study as it apparently runs
counter to prevailing conclusions in developmental
psychology.
Generalizability to the Sport Domain
Nearly all REM tests have been based on self-concepts
and school performance in traditional academic sub-
jects for which school grades provide such a salient
source of feedback about performance. However,
there is limited research to test the generalizability
of these results in other domains. Sport is ideally
suited for this purpose because feedback about
sport performance—particularly in preadolescence—
comes largely from social comparison with the per-
formances of peers, direct feedback from peers, and
a variety of sources that are not directly related to
school performance in traditional academic subjects.
This also means that children have much more
flexibility in the way that they form their sport self-
concepts. In particular, they typically receive more
direct and salient feedback from other children in
sport (e.g., striking out with the bases loaded, being
the last child chosen to be on a team, etc.) than in
traditional school subjects. In the present investiga-
tion, for example, young children in the early stages of
our study received no formal feedback from teachers
about their performance in sport. Hence, this crit-
ical source of feedback—school grades and feed-
back from teachers—in the formation of academic
self-concepts in traditional academic domains was
completely absent. Also, because many sports in-
volve improvement over time in the same activity
(running faster, jumping higher, hitting a ball fur-
ther, increasing accuracy, etc.), there is more scope
to use improvement on previous performance along
a reasonable absolute metric that does not depend
on external feedback as a basis for self-concept for-
mation than is typical for school grades (which are
typically idiosyncratic and normatively scored).
Also, because sport is primarily an extracurricular
activity and extracurricular sport is typically optional
for children, support for the REM should be even
stronger than in academic domains. Thus, even
1642 Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider
though physical education classes are obligatory for
the German preadolescent students in the present
investigation, much of the sporting activity takes
place outside of the normal school curriculum (e.g.,
at recess, after school, or on the weekend)—unlike,
for example, traditional academic subjects such as
mathematics. Particularly during preadolescence,
decisions about whether or not to participate in
traditional academic school subjects are highly con-
strained. These constraints are considerably less
strong, more varied, and more idiosyncratic for sport
(Eccles & Harold, 1991). Hence, children with low
levels of sport self-concept have much more oppor-
tunity to opt out of sporting activities that are option-
ally available to them outside the physical education
classes, and opting out should lead to poorer sport
performance that reinforces negative sport self-
concepts—a negative pattern of reciprocal relations.
Recently, there have been several tests of the REM
in the sport domain. Marsh, Chanal, Sarrazin, and
Bois (2006) demonstrated REM support for gymnas-
tics self-concept and performance measures collected
before and after a 10-week high school gymnastics
program. As predicted by the REM, the results in this
short longitudinal study showed that gymnastics self-
concept and gymnastics performance were both de-
terminants and consequences of each other. Marsh
and Perry (2005) tested the effects of sport self-
concept on subsequent performance for 270 elite
swimmers from 30 countries participating in the Pan
Pacific Swimming Championships and the World
Short Course Championships. Whereas subsequent
championship performance was highly related to
prior personal best performances (r 5 .90), structural
equation models (SEMs) demonstrated that elite ath-
lete self-concept contributed significantly to the pre-
diction of subsequent championship performance,
explaining approximately 10% of the residual vari-
ance after controlling for personal best performances.
However, support for the REM provided by these
studies is limited. The Marsh and Perry study was
based on only a single wave of self-concept data and
was not a true longitudinal study (although the
existence of prior personal best performances and
subsequent performance provided two measures of
performance), thus precluding a full test of the REM.
Although the Marsh, Chanal, et al. study included
self-concept and performance data on two occasions
over a 10-week period, stronger tests require at least
three waves of data collected over a longer period of
time to more adequately assess developmental trends
in the data. Furthermore, neither of these studies
focused on the formation of sport self-concept in
relation to performance during preadolescent ages
that is the focus of the present investigation and
where support for the REM is more tenuous.
Gender-Stereotypic Self-Concept Differences,
the REM, and Sport
Small gender differences in self-esteem favoring boys
(Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999) mask larger,
counterbalancing gender-stereotypic differences in
specific components of self-concept. Here, as in so
many other areas of self-concept research (Marsh,
2007b; Marsh & Craven, 2006), it is important to take
a multidimensional perspective and evaluate how
differences vary for particular self-concept domains.
Consistently across age groups, males report higher
sport, physical appearance, and math self-concepts,
whereas females report higher verbal and social self-
concepts (Marsh, 1989; also see Crain, 1996; Jacobs,
Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield
et al., 1997). Although there are small, gender-
stereotypic differences in academic components of
self-concept, the largest differences are for physical
and sport self-concepts.
In relation to the evaluation of the REM, it is
important to test the generalizability of results over
gender—particularly in gender-stereotypic domains
such as math, verbal, and sport self-concept. Marsh
(1989; also see Eccles, 1987; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) posited and tested a differ-
ential socialization hypothesis in which ‘‘sex-linked
differences in socialization patterns may fail to rein-
force adequately boys’ positive attitudes, expecta-
tions, and performance in verbal areas as well as
failing to reinforce adequately girls’ positive atti-
tudes, expectations, self-concepts, and performance
in mathematics’’ (Marsh, 1989a, p. 195). Although he
found small gender differences in the expected direc-
tion for math and verbal constructs, relations among
variables were largely invariant over gender. Marsh
(1993a, 1993b) provided an alternative test of the
differential socialization model, in which it was
predicted that: verbal self-concept would be more
highly related to academic and general self-concept
for girls; math self-concept would be more highly
related to academic and general self-concept for boys;
and these gender differences would grow larger with
age. These predictions were consistent with Eccles’
finding that gender differences in the value placed on
math and verbal competence grew larger with age
and with what Hill and Lynch (1983) called ‘‘gender-
role intensification’’ in which conformity to gender
role stereotypes becomes increasingly important with
age. However, Marsh (1993b) found no support for

these predictions as relations were similar across
eight groups (2 gender  4 adolescent age groups).
Eccles and Harold (1991) extended research on
gender stereotypes to the sport domain in relation to
expectancy-value theory. Consistent with other
research, they found that gender-stereotypic differ-
ences in favor of boys were much larger for sport self-
concept (8% of variance explained) than those in math
and reading (1% of variance explained) and that these
differences generalized over age. However, there
were no systematic differences between boys and
girls in the correlation between sport self-concept
and performance. Although consistent with findings
by Marsh (1993a, 1993b, 2007b) in academic domains,
none of these studies tested the juxtaposition of the
REM and gender-stereotypic models proposed in the
present investigation. However, bringing together
these two research literatures into a common theoret-
ical perspective is particularly relevant in sport
because gender differences in sport self-concept are
larger than in other domains and because children
have more flexibility in participating in sport than
typically is the case for academic domains.
The Present Investigation
In the present investigation, we extend REM tests to
the sport domain for preadolescent German boys and
girls (N 5 1,135; mean age 5 9.67) based on longitu-
dinal data collected in Grades 3, 4, and 6. In addition
to this focus on the REM in the sport domain and the
preadolescent age period that are our overarching
concerns, important features include questions
such as:
1. Do expected gender differences in favor of boys
for physical performance and sport self-concept
change with age?
2. Does support for REM predictions generalize
over gender and age?
3. Do results differ depending on different forms
of physical achievement (school grades, teacher
ratings, and standardized physical performance
tests)? This question is relevant because aca-
demic self-concept research shows that aca-
demic self-concept is less strongly related to
standardized achievement tests than to school
grades that reflect features (e.g., effort, timely
completion of materials, improvement time,
and other considerations) that are more sensi-
tive to processes instigated by a high academic
self-concept than standardized test scores (see
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1643
Marsh & Craven, 2006; Marsh, Trautwein,
Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2005);
4. Does the shift from primary school to secondary
school disrupt sport self-concept and its relation
to sport accomplishments beyond what might
be expected by typical developmental changes?
Although not the major focus of our study, this
question is relevant to the growing body of
largely North American research showing neg-
ative psychosocial consequences of the shift
from primary to secondary school that are
associated with changes in educational de-
mands, teacher attitudes, grading systems, and
social networks (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Harter, 1990; Jacobs et al., 2002; Wigfield, Eccles,
Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). In most
of this research, transitional (shift from primary
to secondary school) and developmental (onset
of adolescence and puberty) factors are con-
founded. However, in contrast to most North
American settings, in the German system this
transition occurs at the end of Grade 4—prior to
the typical onset of adolescence and puberty.
Hence, developmental theory and previous
empirical research suggest that self-concept
and its relations with external criteria should
become increasingly stable with age, whereas
research based on transitions suggests that
stability should be lower during the period of
transition.
Method
Sample
The data considered here are drawn from a larger
study (see Brettschneider & Gerlach, 2004) consisting
of a representative sample of approximately one third
of the students living in the city of Paderborn,
Germany.
At Time 1 (T1; March 2001), third-grade students
(N 5 1,438; 50.0% female) with a mean age of 9.67
years (SD 5 0.64, range 5 8 – 12) completed a self-
concept questionnaire and were evaluated by teach-
ers in terms of sport performance. Approximately 15
months later, when students were near the end of
fourth grade (Time 2 [T2]; June and July, 2002, prior to
the 6-week summer vacation) and again approxi-
mately 15 months after that, when students were in
sixth grade (Time 3 [T3], late 2003), the same children
completed the questionnaire measure again. Most
students were Caucasian (more than 95%) and had
1644 Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider
German citizenship (83.8%). Children with Russian
(6.7%) and Turkish citizenship (2.2%) represented the
largest minority groups. Because the sample was
representative, it was diverse in terms of socioeco-
nomic background. The high response rate and the
focus of the present investigation on the relations
between constructs collected at different measure-
ment occasions meant that we only considered the
1,135 students with reasonably complete data for all
three measurement occasions (i.e., did not have
complete missing data for any one wave).
Instruments and Procedures
Standardized test of basic physical test scores. At T1
only, students’ overall physical skills were tested with
the Hagedorn Obstacle Course (Riepe & Zindel,
1996), which is a standardized test of coordination,
balance, and speed. The course consists of slalom,
a balancing exercise, a forward roll, and getting over
and through obstacles. Students completed the test
twice, and the performance score was the average
time a student needed to complete the course across
the two trials. To facilitate interpretations, the test was
reverse scored so that higher scores represent better
performances. This performance test was conducted
during regular physical education lessons by trained
research assistants (mostly physical education uni-
versity students). This test is routinely administered
to students in the third grade across the school district
every year to evaluate sport potential and, thus, is
widely accepted by teachers, parents, and students.
Its validity is supported by significant correlations
with observer ratings and other fitness measures. For
example, in the present investigation, test scores were
substantially correlated with teachers’ overall evalu-
ation of sporting potential at T1 (r 5 .52) collected
during the same school year and with T2 physical
education class performance based on school grades
collected the following school year (r 5 .46).
Performance in physical education classes. Grades in
physical education classes were the main perfor-
mance measure in the present investigation. How-
ever, school grades were not available at T1 because
students had not previously received grades in phys-
ical education. Hence, only for T1, physical education
teachers were asked to rate each child on a single
global item, asking whether the child had the appro-
priate prerequisites for sports in terms of sport en-
durance, coordination, and appropriate physique on
a 5-point response scale: below average ( 2) . . . average
(0) . . . above average (+2). At T2 and T3, sport perfor-
mance was based on school grades on report cards
using the six-level grading system implemented
throughout Germany, ranging from excellent to very
poor. We reverse coded school grades, resulting in the
following six levels: excellent (6), good (5), satisfactory
(4), sufficient (3), poor (2), and very poor (1). Importantly,
these school grades were based on physical perfor-
mance in physical education classes and not on
written examinations, as is typically the case for other
school subjects. In this regard, T1 measures consisting
of teacher ratings are a reasonable approximation of
school grades at T2 and T3. T1 teacher ratings also
differ from T2 and T3 school grades in that students
did not actually know what T1 teacher ratings they
received. Interestingly, even though T1 ratings vary
along a 5-point response scale (rather than the 6-point
response scale used for school grades at T2 and T3),
standard deviations [SDs] of T1 scores were not
smaller than SDs for the corresponding T2 and T3
measures (see Appendix). T1 teacher ratings were
also as highly correlated with T3 sport self-concept
scores (.46) as were T2 school grades (.44), even
though the T1 – T3 time gap (30 months) was twice
the length of the T2 – T3 time gap. These preliminary
results suggest that T1 teacher ratings are a reasonable
measure of sport performance.
Sport self-concept. A German adaptation of the
sport self-concept scale from Harter’s Self-Perception
Profile for Children (Harter, 1985) was administered.
Students responded to the five items (I am very good
at sport, I learn quicker than others of my age in sport,
I learn new exercises very quickly in sport, I am as
good as others of my age in sport, and I am just not
good at sport) on a 4-point Likert response format
(ranging from 1 5 disagree to 4 5 agree). To ensure high
data quality, the self-concept instrument was admin-
istered during regular school hours by trained
research assistants (university students) in small
groups of about six students. Whereas sport self-
concept was significantly higher at T1 than either T2
or T3 (p , .01)—because in part of the large sample
size—the differences were not large (effect sizes of
about 0.1 SD) and there were no significant differ-
ences between T2 and T3 sport self-concept (p . .05).
Statistical Analysis
SEMs were conducted with LISREL (Version 8.54)
using maximum likelihood estimation (for further
discussion of SEM, see Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 1998;
Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993; Kaplan, 2000; Marsh,
2007a). As emphasized by Cole and Maxwell (2003)
and others (e.g., Marsh & Craven, 2006), important
advantages of the SEM approach to multivariable –
multioccasion data include the following: (a) mea-
surement error can be controlled by the incorporation

of measurement models based on multiple indicators,
(b) relations among all latent variables can be ana-
lyzed simultaneously, (c) reciprocal relations can be
evaluated, and (d) various potentially confounding
variables can be included to test the construct validity
of causal interpretations.
Diagrams of selected models to be tested (Figure 1)
are discussed in more detail as part of the results,
whereas specific methodological issues are described
below. Although the interpretation of relations in an
SEM as causal effects should always be done with
appropriate caution, the use of longitudinal data
provides a much stronger basis of inference than
cross-sectional studies or studies that do not represent
the variables as latent constructs. As a part of the
analyses, we consider the robustness of interpreta-
tions in relation to gender and age and to alternative
representations of the sport performance variable.
Model evaluation. Following Marsh, Hau, and
Grayson (2005; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; but
also see Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004), we considered the
Tucker – Lewis index (TLI), the relative noncentrality
index (RNI), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate goodness of fit,
as well as the normal theory chi-square test statistic
and an evaluation of parameter estimates. The TLI
and RNI vary along a 0 – 1 continuum, in which
values greater than .90 and .95 are typically taken to
reflect acceptable and excellent fits to the data,
respectively. RMSEA values of less than .05 and .08
are taken to reflect a close fit and a reasonable fit,
respectively, whereas RMSEA values between .08 and
.10 reflect a mediocre fit, and values greater than .10
are generally unacceptable.
Following recommendations by Marsh and Hau
(1996; Jöreskog, 1979) and general recommendations
for the evaluation of the REM (Marsh et al., 1999),
correlated uniquenesses were included for the match-
ing sport self-concept items collected at T1, T2, and
T3. Their exclusion would have positively biased the
corresponding test – retest stability estimates and
resulted in a poorer fit. However, their inclusion had
no substantively important effect on the pattern of
parameter estimates, suggesting that the inclusion of
correlated uniquenesses was not a critical issue. To
facilitate interpretation of the substantive import of
the results, only the models with correlated unique-
nesses are presented.
Missing data. In longitudinal research, missing
data are an inevitable problem—particularly in stud-
ies that incorporate responses from more than 1 year
in school and across important transitions in school
such as the shift from primary to secondary school.
Because results from the present study are based on
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1645
schools within the same city and the extreme dili-
gence was used in pursuing students with missing
data, we had reasonably complete data for all three
occasions of data for 1,135 of the 1,438 students who
responded at T1. For this final sample of 1,135
students with data from all three occasions, there
were small amounts of missing data for individual
items (less than ½ of 1% of responses—whereas the
typical guideline for missing data becoming an
important issue is 5%; e.g., Graham & Hofer, 2000).
Because there were so little missing data in this final
sample, the choice of how we dealt with missing data
was not a particularly critical issue. Nevertheless,
there is growing evidence that the expectation max-
imization (EM) algorithm that we chose to use is
superior to traditional methods such as pair-wise
deletion or case-wise deletion.
In order to explore further the implications of
missing data, several additional analyses were under-
taken. First, we evaluated the nature of this missing-
ness by comparing scores for the 1,135 students who
had data from all three occasions and the remaining
students with data completely missing at T2 or T3.
There were no significant differences between these
two groups in terms of age, T1 or T2 sport self-
concept, T1 physical test scores test, and T1 or T2
teacher performance ratings (all p . .05). Whereas the
final sample with complete data for all three occa-
sions had a significantly higher proportion of girls,
the difference was not large (51% vs. 43%, p , .05),
and gender was included as a background variable in
models reported in the Results section. Second, we
used the EM algorithm to impute missing data for the
entire set of 1,438 students—the 1,135 with data from
all three occasions and the remaining students with
completely missing data from T2 or T3. Noting that
the amount of missing data for this sample was
substantially larger (9.75% of the data points), the
parameter estimates using this approach were nearly
the same as for the final sample. These supplemental
analyses suggest that the results are reasonably
robust in relation to problems associated with miss-
ing data.
Tests of invariance. Multiple-group SEM tests of
invariance (Byrne, 1998; Marsh, 1994, in press) were
used to test the generalizability of the results based on
analyses of separate covariance matrices for boys and
girls. Tests of factorial invariance traditionally posit
a series of nested models in which the end points are
the least restrictive model with no invariance con-
straints and the most restrictive (total invariance)
model with all parameters constrained to be the same
across all groups. Differences between nested models,
under appropriate conditions, can be tested for
1646 Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider

Figure 1. Three tests of the reciprocal effects model (REM). Note. In

each of the models, only selected paths central to the REM are
presented (see Tables 1 and 2 for full set of parameter estimates). In
T1-SSC T2-SSC T3-SSC Model 2, we present a full-forward multioccasion – multivariable
.23* model with five multiple indicators of sport self-concept (SSC) and
.23*
sport performance (Perf) collected in three successive occasions
.01
.16*
(Time 1 [T1], Time 2 [T2], and Time 3 [T3]). The boxes represent
indicators (of SSC or Perf each occasion). Ovals represent latent
.21*
-.06 constructs (SSC or Perf factors); straight, single-headed arrows
T1-Perf T2-Perf T3-Perf represent ‘‘causal’’ paths. In the full-forward model, each latent
construct has paths leading to all latent constructs on subsequent
occasions. Paths connecting the same variable on multiple occa-
sions reflect stability (the solid gray paths in Model 1) but may be
very different from the corresponding test – retest correlations
(which do not include the effects of other variables). The self-
enhancement model (SSC/Perf) predicts that the dashed black
paths are positive. The skill development model (Perf/SSC)
Sex T1-SSC T2-SSC T3-SSC predicts that the solid black paths are positive. The REM predicts
.23*
.24* that the solid and dashed paths are both positive. All three models
.02 assume stability over time for each construct (solid gray lines are
Age
.15* positive). Model 3 differs from Model 2 through the inclusion of age,
.21* gender (sex), and their interaction (new paths associated with these
-.06 variables are presented as solid black lines, whereas paths consid-
AgeXSex T1-Perf T2-Perf T3-Perf
ered in Model 2 are in gray). Model 4 differs from Model 3 by the
inclusion of the standardized physical test (Phys Test at T1 only;
new paths associated with this variable are presented as solid black
lines, whereas paths considered in Model 3 are in gray). Within each
occasion for all three models, SSC and Perf (and Phys Test at T1 in
Model 4) are correlated, but these correlations are not presented in
order to avoid clutter (but see Tables 1 and 2). Similarly, control
.12* variables (age, gender, and their interaction) are assumed to be
Sex T1-SSC T2-SSC T3-SSC
19* correlated in Models 3 and 4, but these correlations are not
.18* presented (see Tables 1 and 2). Correlated uniquenesses (covarian-
.00
Age ces between measured variable residuals) associated with each SSC
.12*
indicator are included between occurrences of the same SSC
.13* indicator on different occasions.
-.08*
AgeXSex T1-Perf T2-Per 3-Perf .20*
.22*
.24*
parameter estimates based on Grade 6 responses
Phys following the transition to secondary school. For the
Test purposes of these analyses, we began with a confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA) model with the two
factors (sport self-concept and performance) for each
of the three occasions. In the least restrictive model, all
statistical significance. However, Marsh, Hau, et al. parameters were freely estimated. In the most restric-
(2005; also see Marsh, 2007a) emphasized that the tive model, the set of five factor loadings for sport self-
limitations in the use of the chi-square test statistic to concept, the corresponding set of five uniquenesses,
test the difference between two models are even more and the correlation between sport self-concept and
problematic than when the statistical test is used to performance were all constrained to be the same for
evaluate the fit of a single model, so that it is typically each of the three occasions of data. (We did not
more appropriate to compare different models in constrain the factor loadings for the performance
terms of the fit indexes. factor because it was based on a single indicator, it
Although tests of invariance typically are con- was not based on responses by the children, and the
ducted over different groups, for longitudinal data it variance of the teacher rating at T1 was systematically
is also possible to evaluate the invariance of corre- larger than the variance of school grades at T2 and
sponding parameters from different occasions (e.g., T3). In alternative models, we freed parameters from
Marsh & Grayson, 1995). Of particular interest in the T1, T2, or T3 (holding invariant parameters across T1
present investigation is whether parameter estimates and T2, T1 and T3, and T2 and T3, respectively). To
from the two primary grades (Grades 3 and 4) are the extent that the transition from primary to second-
more similar to each other than to the corresponding ary school substantially disrupts self-concept, we

would expect better support for the invariance of T1
and T2 than for T2 and T3. Alternatively, based on
developmental theory, we would expect responses to
be as similar or more similar for T2 and T3, when
children are older, better able to cope with the
demands of completing a self-concept instrument,
and have more accurate perceptions of their relative
strengths and weaknesses as one basis for forming
self-perceptions.
Results
Relations Among the Constructs
In Model 1, an initial CFA based on all variables,
the a priori factor structure provided a very good fit to
the data (e.g., TLI 5 .989, Model 1 in Table 2). Factor
loadings for the five sport self-concept items were
all statistically significant and substantial at T1, T2,
and T3. Of particular relevance is the pattern of cor-
relations among the different constructs. Sport self-
concept is reasonably stable over time; test – retest
correlations varied from .57 (for T1 – T3) to .69 (T1 –
T2) and .74 (for T2 – T3). At T1, sport self-concept was
substantially related to both the physical test scores
(.45) and the teacher ratings of sporting potential (.42),
whereas the two performance measures correlated .52
with each other. Correlations between sport self-
concept and performance were .60 at both T2 and T3.
Girls had significantly lower scores than boys for
both T1 test scores and T1 teacher ratings and lower
sport self-concepts at all three occasions (see correla-
tions with gender in Table 1). Interestingly, there were
no significant gender differences on physical educa-
tion school grades at T2 and T3, and even the gender
differences on teacher ratings at T1 (r 5 .10) were
significantly smaller than corresponding test scores at
T1 (r 5 .25). Apparently, teachers used different
standards for boys and girls rather than a common,
‘‘absolute’’ metric that was independent of gender (as
with T1 physical test scores). Given the restricted age
range because of consideration of only a single ‘‘year
in school’’ cohort, it is not surprising that age was not
significantly related to any of the sport self-concept or
teacher assessment measures, although older students
had significantly higher scores on the T1 physical test
scores test (r 5.12). There were no statistically significant
Age  Gender interaction effects for any outcomes.
Tests of the REM and its Extension
In addition to Model 1 (the CFA model in Table 1),
we pursued a set of three additional models to test the
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1647
REM (see Models 2, 3, and 4 in Figure 1). Because the
measurement component (factor loadings and
uniquenesses) of these SEMs was nearly identical to
the corresponding CFA Model 1(Table 1) and Models
2, 3, and 4 all provided excellent fits to the data
(Table 2), we limit attention to the path coefficients
(Table 3) used to test the REM.
Model 2 (Table 3 and Figure 1) most closely
matches the prototypical REM, consisting of parallel
measures of performance (based on teacher assess-
ments) and sport self-concepts at T1, T2, and T3.
Stability coefficients (Table 3) relating the measures
of the same construct on different occasions were all
positive and highly significant (although these values
differ from the corresponding test – retest correlations
in Table 2 because the path coefficients in Table 3
control for the effects of other, preceding variables).
Of critical importance are the path coefficients relat-
ing sport self-concept and sport performance. In sup-
port of the REM, the effects of T1 sport self-concept on
T2 performance (.23) and of T1 performance on T2
sport self-concept (.21) are both statistically signifi-
cant. The effect of T2 sport self-concept on T3 perfor-
mance (.23) is also statistically significant and similar
in size to the corresponding path coefficient from T1
sport self-concept to T2 performance. Interestingly,
the path from T2 performance to T3 sport self-concept
is not statistically significant, although there is a sta-
tistically significant path from T1 performance to T3
sport self-concept (.16). This result is consistent with
the observation that T3 sport self-concept was some-
what more highly related to T1 performance than T2
performance (Table 1), suggesting that T1 teacher
ratings of sporting potential are qualitatively some-
what different from the physical education class
grades and, perhaps, more relevant to sport self-
concept than physical education class grades (see
subsequent discussion).
In Model 3 (Figure 1 and Table 3), the effects of
gender, age, and gender – age interaction were added
to Model 2 but had almost no effect on the path
coefficients from Model 2. Whereas girls had signif-
icantly lower sport self-concept and performance
scores at T1, path coefficients relating gender to T2
and T3 measures were largely nonsignificant. There
was, however, a small, statistically significant nega-
tive effect of gender on T3 sport self-concept ( .05).
Hence, whereas gender differences on subsequent
measures were largely mediated by gender differ-
ences in prior measures, the girls’ lower sport self-
concepts at T3 remained even after controlling for T1
and T2 measures of sport self-concept and performance.
In Model 4, the T1 physical test scores were added
to Model 2. These test scores were substantially
Table 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model 1: Sport Self-Concept, Performance, and Covariates at Times 1, 2, and 3 1648

T1Prf T1SSC T2Prf T2SSC T3Prf T3SSC Sex Age Sex  Age Test scores Uniqueness T1Ub T2CUb

Factor loadings
T1
T1Prf 1.00a .00a
T1SSC1 .81* .34*
T1SSC2 .58* .67*
T1SSC3 .66* .57*
T1SSC4 .60* .64*
T1SSC5 .48* .77*
T2*
T2Prf 1.00a .00a
T2SSC1 .85* .28* .00*
T2SSC2 .64* .59* .12*
T2SSC3 .71* .49* .04*
T2SSC4 .71* .50* .12*
T2SSC5 .60* .64* .08*
T3*
T3Prf 1.00a .00a
T3SSC1 .82* .32* .02 .04*
T3SSC2 .63* .61* .07* .16*
T3SSC3 .68* .53* .02 .06*
T3SSC4 .66* .56* .06* .05*
Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider

T3SSC5 .66* .56* .09* .04*

Covariates
Sex (M 5 0, F 5 1) 1.00a .00a
a
Age 1.00 .00a
Sex  Age 1.00a .00a
Test scores 1.00a .00a
Factor correlations
T1Prf 1
T1SSC .42* 1
T2Prf .50* .40* 1
T2SSC .46* .69* .60* 1
T3Prf .37* .33* .44* .44* 0
T3SSC .46* .57* .44* .74* .60* 1
Sex .10* .23* .06 .15* .03 .18* 1
Age .01 .06 .01 .06 .02 .05 .07 1
Sex  Age .01 .01 .02* .01 0 0 .02 .03 1
Test scores .52* .45* .46* .52* .42* .51* .25* .12* 0 1

Note. Times 1, 2, and 3 (T1, T2, and T3) are Grade 3, Grade 4, and Grade 6. Prf 5 performance (based on a teacher rating at T1 and school grades in physical education at T2 and T3); SSC 5
sport self-concept; test scores 5 a standardized physical achievement test administered at T1.
a
Constructs inferred from a single indicator had factor loadings fixed to 1 and uniqueness terms fixed to be 0.
b
Correlated uniquenesses hypothesized a priori for responses to the same self-concept items are measured in different occasions.
*p , .05.

correlated with the sport self-concept ratings and the
other sport performance measures—but qualitatively
different from the other performance measures that
were based on teacher assessments. Thus, not sur-
prisingly, the path coefficients in Model 4 differed
somewhat from those in Models 1 and 2. The pattern
of effects of prior sport self-concept on subsequent
performance was the same, but the coefficients were
smaller (reflecting the fact that some of the variance in
subsequent performance measures could be ex-
plained by the T1 test scores). Similarly, the pattern
of effects of T1 performance and T2 performance on
subsequent sport self-concept measures was the
same, but the sizes of these paths were somewhat
smaller. Consistent with these observations, all four
paths leading from the T1 test scores to the sub-
sequent T2 and T3 sport performance and sport self-
concept measures were statistically significant and
positive. In particular, the T1 test scores had direct
effects on T3 sport self-concept and T3 performance in
addition to the effects that were mediated by the
corresponding T2 outcomes.
Generalizability of the REM Predictions Over Gender
In the next set of models (Models 5a – 5e in Table 2),
we evaluated the invariance of the factor structure in
Model 4 over gender, that is, whether the parameter
estimates differed as a function of gender. In pursuing
these tests of invariance, separate covariance matrices
were constructed for responses by boys and girls
based on all measures in Model 4. In the detailed set
of models, we evaluated the goodness of fit in
a partially nested set of models, varying from the
least restrictive model with no invariance constraints
(Model 5a) to the most restrictive model in which all
parameter estimates were constrained to be the same
for boys and girls (Model 5e). Although the models
are complex, the results are easy to summarize.
Particularly for indexes that incorporate controls
for parsimony (TLI and RMSEA in Table 2), the
model with complete invariance of all parameter
estimates (Model 5e) provided a better fit than the
corresponding model with no invariance con-
straints. Of particular relevance to the present inves-
tigation was the invariance of path coefficients that
are critical for testing REM predictions. Comparing
Model 5b (factor loadings invariant) with Model 5c
(factor loadings and path coefficients invariant) pro-
vided a multivariate test of the invariance of the path
coefficients. However, the TLI and RMSEA goodness
of fit indexes are better for the more restrictive Model
5c, and the nonsignificant change in chi-square
values (15.5) is less than the change in degrees of
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1649
freedom (df 5 23). In summary, the tests of invariance
demonstrated that REM support generalizes over
gender.
The Transition From Primary to Secondary School:
Generalizability Over Time
The question addressed in this section is whether
the transition from primary to secondary school
(between T2 and T3) substantially altered the factor
structure for sport self-concept and performance and
particularly the relation between self-concept and
performance. According to a ‘‘transitional perspec-
tive,’’ results should be more similar for T1 and T2
(that did not contain a transition) than for T2 and T3
(that did not contain a transition). In contrast, devel-
opmental theory predicts that self-concept stability
and its relations with external constructs should
become stronger with age. Hence, according to this
perspective, that the results should be as similar as, or
even more similar, for responses by the children at T2
and T3 when students are older than for responses by
the same children at T1 and T2 when they are
younger.
Several preliminary observations based on results
already presented bear on this issue. For instance,
internal consistency estimates (see Appendix) were
lower at T1 (.76) than at T2 and T3 (.83 and .84,
respectively). Whereas the mean sport self-concept
was significantly higher at T1 than T2 or T3, the means
at T2 and T3 were not significantly different from
each other (see earlier discussion). In Table 1, the
correlation between T1 performance and T1 sport
self-concept (.42) is substantially lower than the
corresponding correlations at T2 (.60) and T3 (.60).
Similarly, factor loadings are somewhat lower at T1
than the corresponding factor loadings at T2 and T3.
These results do not support a transitional perspec-
tive in that T2 and T3 results (before and after the
transition) are more similar to each other than are T1
and T2 results.
In order to provide a more formal test of some of
these observations, we posited a series of models in
which these parameters were held invariant across all
three occasions or across all combinations of two
occasions (T1 and T2, T1 and T3, and T2 and T3).
Even the most restrictive model provided a good fit to
the data (TLI 5 .979; RMSEA 5 .052), but this fit was
poorer than the corresponding values for the model
with no invariance constraints (TLI 5 .985; RMSEA 5
.044). Consistent with our preliminary observations,
freeing the parameter estimates for T1 improved the
fit more than freeing the corresponding parameters
for T2 or T3. In fact, the goodness of fit statistics for the
1650 Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider

Table 2
Summary of Goodness of Fit for All Models

Model v2 df TLI RNI RMSEA Description

Total group tests

1 418.2 156 .989 .990 .035 CFA: SSC, Perf,
covariates, and test scores
2 342.1 108 .985 .990 .044 SEM: SSC, Perf
3 404.4 144 .983 .989 .040 SEM: SSC, Perf,
covariates (see Table 3)
4 418.2 156 .989 .990 .038 SEM: SSC, Perf,
covariates, and test scores
Multiple-group tests: invariance over gender
5a 526.6 265 .984 .989 .042 SEM: no invariance
5b 548.8 277 .984 .988 .042 SEM: invariant 5 factor
loadings (FL)
5c 564.3 300 .986 .989 .040 SEM: IN 5 FL and path
coefficients (PC)
5d 586.5 312 .991 .992 .039 SEM: IN 5 FL, PC, and factor
variance/covariance (FV/CV)
5e 654.2 342 .985 .986 .040 SEM: IN 5 FL, PC, Fc/Rfc, U/Cu
(total invariant)
Invariance over three occasions (T1, T2, T3)
6a 342.1 108 .985 .990 .044 CFA: no invariance
6b 444.2 119 .981 .985 .049 CFA: T1 and T2 invariant, T3 free;
Perf vars free
6c 469.5 119 .979 .984 .051 CFA: T1 and T3 invariant, T2 free;
Perf vars free
6d 377.0 119 .985 .988 .044 CFA: T2 and T3 invariant, T1 free
6e 524.1 130 .979 .982 .052 CFA: total
invariance; Perf vars free

Note. N 5 1,135. CFA 5 confirmatory factor analysis; TLI 5 Tucker – Lewis index; RNI 5 relative noncentrality index; RMSEA 5 root mean
square error of approximation; SRMR 5 standardized root mean square residual; Perf 5 performance; SSC 5 sport self-concept. See Table 1
for results of Model 1 and Table 3 for selected parameter estimates from Models 2 – 4. In Models 5a – 5e, the invariance over gender of
different parameters was evaluated. In Models 6a – 6e, the invariance of parameters (FLs for self-concept ratings, uniquenesses for self-
concept ratings, and the correlation between self-concept and performance) across the three occasions was evaluated.

model that constrained parameters to be equal at T2 Discussion

and T3 (TLI 5 .985; RMSEA 5 .044) were nearly the
same as those for the model with no invariance
constraints and better than models that freed param-
eters associated with measures at T2 or at T3. This
invariance over time provides no support for a transi-
tional perspective. Indeed, consistent with develop-
mental theory, the results for T2 and T3 are more
similar than the results for T1 and T2. Although
differences over time are not large, the direction of
these differences is statistically significant and in the
opposite direction from those predicted by the transi-
tional perspective; results are significantly more dif-
ferent between T1 and T2 (before the transition) than
between T2 and T3 (before and after the transition). In
summary, these results provide good support for the
invariance of the results over time and grade level,
reasonable support for a developmental perspective,
and no support for the transitional perspective.
The results of the present investigation demonstrate
clear support for REM predictions that sport self-
concept and sport performance for young children are
each a cause and an effect of the other and that this
support for their reciprocal effects generalizes over
age, gender, and the transition from primary to secon-
dary school. Developmentally, the study is important
because most previous research has been based on
adolescents and some researchers (e.g., Skaalvik &
Hagtvet, 1990) even speculated that REM predictions
may only apply to adolescents (for alternative per-
spectives, see Marsh et al., 1999; Marsh & Craven,
2006). Support for the REM in the sport domain is
important because most REM research is based on the
academic domain. Although there have been pre-
vious studies of the REM in the sport domain, the
present investigation is apparently stronger—including

sport performance and sport self-concept measures in
each of the three occasions for a large, representative
sample of young children. Hence, support for REM
predictions in the sport domain based on responses by
young children provides important new support for the
generalizability of the REM.
Representation of Performance in Sport and Academic
Domains
In most REM studies in the academic domain, aca-
demic performance measures are based on school-
based performance (e.g., school grades or teacher
ratings), standardized achievement test scores, or
both. Academic self-concept is typically more highly
related to school-based performance measures—
particularly school grades—than standardized achieve-
ment tests (e.g., Marsh & Craven, 1997). The theo-
retical and substantive rationale for this finding is that
school-based performance is a more immediate basis
of feedback about academic accomplishments and is
likely to be more strongly affected by motivational
influences (e.g., effort, persistence, conscientiousness)
that are related to academic self-concept (for further
discussion, see Marsh, Trautwein, et al., 2005). For this
reason, Marsh et al. (1999; Marsh & Craven, 2006)
recommended that school grades and test scores
should be considered as separate constructs rather
than combined to form a single construct.
Somewhat analogously to research in the academic
domain, performance in the present investigation was
based on performance on standardized physical test
scores (T1), teacher ratings of sporting potential (T1),
and performance based on grades in physical educa-
tion classes (T2 and T3). Unlike typical findings in the
academic domain, T1 sport self-concept was more
strongly related to the T1 physical test scores (.52)
than the T1 teacher ratings (.42). Even at T3, the T1
physical test scores collected several years previously
were substantially correlated with T3 sport self-
concept (.51)—more highly correlated than the T2
school-based performance measure (.44)—and nearly
as highly correlated as the T3 school-based perfor-
mance measure (.60). Consistent with this finding, the
T1 physical test scores continued to make a significant
contribution to the prediction of T2 sport self-concept
and T3 sport self-concept even after controlling for the
effects of the other performance measures (Model 4 in
Table 3). Whereas academic self-concepts for students
are likely to reflect primarily what happens in class-
room settings, sport self-concepts are apparently more
likely to reflect extracurricular activities that may not
even be formally associated with the school but which
provide a basis of self-evaluation in addition to that
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1651
provided by school-based measures. This reinforces
critical differences between the sport and the aca-
demic domains and supports the need to more fully
test the REM in the sport domain. Clearly, this is a
relevant area for further research, with potentially
important theoretical and practical implications about
how children incorporate information about their
performances in different domains into the formation
of their self-concepts and how these influence future
physical performance, health-related physical activ-
ity, physical fitness, and associated outcomes such as
obesity.
Gender Differences in Sport Self-Concept and REM
Predictions
Gender differences in mean levels of sport self-
concept were in the expected, stereotypic direction
(higher values for boys). However, in contrast to
predictions based on the ‘‘differential socialization’’
model (that paths from sport self-concept to sport
performance and from sport performance to sport
self-concept would be stronger for boys than for girls),
the results were reasonably invariant over gender.
However, this invariance over gender is consistent
with previous research showing a similar pattern of
invariance of relations among variables in gender-
stereotypic academic (math and verbal) domains.
Hence, support for the generalizability of REM pre-
dictions over gender is consistent with these a priori
expectations based on previous research. However,
because gender differences in sport are stronger and
more consistent than those in other self-concept
domains, our study offered an even stronger test of
the generalizability of REM predictions over gender.
Taken together with previous research, our results
provide strong support for the generalizability of
REM predictions over gender.
The Effects of Transition From Primary to Secondary
School
An interesting feature of the present investigation
is that German students moved from primary school
to secondary school at the end of Grade 4 (between T2
and T3 in our study). Thus, during the T1 – T2 period,
students moved from Grade 3 to Grade 4 within the
same school, whereas during the T2 – T3 period
students moved from Grade 4 in primary schools to
Grade 6 in secondary schools. Here, as is typically the
case, the effect of the transition is confounded with
age-related differences. However, because the transi-
tion occurs earlier in the German school system than
in many systems, the transition is less likely to be
1652 Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider

Table 3
Path Coefficients From Models 2, 3, and 4

T1Prf T1SSC T2Prf T2SSC Sex Age Sex  Age Test scores

Model 2: sport self-concept and performance

T1Prf — — — —
T1SSC — — — —
T2Prf .40* .23* — —
T2SSC .21* .60* — —
T3Prf .15* .01 .21* .23*
T3SSC .16* .08 .06 .66*
Model 3: sport self-concept, performance, and covariates (gender and age)
T1Prf — — — — .10* .00 .01
T1SSC — — — — .23* .04 .00
T2Prf .40* .24* — — .03 .03 .02
T2SSC .21* .60* — — .01 .02 .02
T3Prf .16* .02 .21* .23* .04 .01 .01
T3SSC .15* .06 .06 .66* .05* .00 .01
Model 4: sport self-concept, performance, covariates (gender and age), physical test scores
T1Prf — — — — .10* .00 .01 —
T1SSC — — — — .23* .04 .00 —
T2Prf .30* .18* — — .07* .05* .02 .24*
T2SSC .13* .55* — — .04 .00 .02 .22*
T3Prf .10* .00 .19* .19* .07* .01 .01 .20*
T3SSC .12* .05 .08* .63* .04 .01 .00 .12*
Test scores — — — — .24* .11* .00

Note. Times 1, 2, and 3 (T1, T2, and T3) are Grade 3, Grade 4, and Grade 6. Prf 5 performance (based on a teacher rating at T1 and school grades
in physical education at T2 and T3); SSC 5 sport self-concept; test scores 5 a physical test scores test administered at T1. Sex: 0 5 male, 1 5
female. Coefficients represent standardized path coefficients leading from constructs listed in the top of each table to constructs listed in the
left-hand column for each model.
*p , .05.

confounded with the onset of adolescence and
puberty than in most research (typically based on
North American settings).
Developmentally, we expected self-concept respon-
ses to become slightly lower, more reliable, more
stable, and more highly correlated with performance
as children grow older. In the present investigation,
we compared predictions from a transitional perspec-
tive (that T1 and T2 scores before the transition would
be more similar to each other than to the T3 scores
after the transition) and a developmental perspective
(that T3 score would be more similar to T2 scores
than to the T1 scores). Although there was reasonably
good support for the invariance of the REM over time,
there was support for the developmental perspective
and evidence against the transitional perspective.
The results still leave unanswered the question as
to why the transition effects were so weak in our
study—a result that runs counter to many studies
showing the negative consequences of educational
transitions. However, several features of the present
investigation bear on interpretations of these results.
First, most previous research has not specifically
contrasted a developmental perspective as an alter-
native explanation to the results. Second, most
research in this area (based on North American
research) confounds the results of the actual transi-
tion with developmental changes associated with
the onset of puberty and adolescence, whereas in the
present investigation this transition occurred at an
earlier preadolescent age (at the end of fourth grade).
Finally, much of the focus of sport in Germany
occurs outside of school so that the potential disrup-
tion because of a school transition might be smaller
in sport than other academic and nonacademic
components of self-concept more directly related to
school. Hence, there is need for further research that
specifically contrasts developmental and transi-
tional perspectives for different components of
self-concept (as well as other variables) at different
developmental stages and that unconfounds the
effects of the transition from the effects of the onset
of adolescence and puberty. In this respect, our study
offers an alternative, apparently novel approach to
studying the effects of transitions from a develop-
mental perspective.

Conclusions and Practical Implications
In conclusion, the direction of causality between self-
concept and performance has profound practical
implications for educators, counselors, and parents,
as well as for applied and academic psychologists.
Historically, research in this area has focused on two
models that offer contrasting interpretations with
important theoretical and practical implications
(Marsh, 2007b; Marsh & Craven, 2006). According to
the self-enhancement model, the direction of causality
is from self-concept to performance. Support for this
model would justify placing more effort into enhanc-
ing students’ self-concepts rather than focusing solely
on performance and achievement. In opposition to
the self-enhancement model, the skill development
model predicts that the direction of causality is from
performance to self-concept. Support for this model
implies that educators should focus solely on improv-
ing performance and test scores, as this would be the
best way to improve self-concept. In contrast to both
these apparently simplistic (either – or) models, the
REM implies that self-concept and performance are
reciprocally related and mutually reinforcing. Im-
proved self-concepts will lead to better performance,
and improved performance will lead to better self-
concepts. Thus, for example, if educators enhance
self-concepts without improving corresponding lev-
els of test scores and performance, then the gains in
self-concept are likely to be short lived (as empha-
sized in the REM as well as related research such as
Bandura’s, 1986, self-efficacy theory). However, if
educators improve students’ test scores and perfor-
mance levels without also fostering students’ self-
beliefs in their capabilities, then the performance
gains are unlikely to be long lasting. If educators
focus on one construct to the exclusion of the other,
then both are likely to suffer. The REM suggests that
the most effective strategy is to improve both self-
concept and performance simultaneously. The results
of the present investigation extend the generalizabil-
ity of these conclusions in relation to the sport
domain, preadolescent ages, gender, and the critical
transition from primary to secondary school.
Research in the academic domain suggests that the
REM generalizes to a variety of academic outcomes
(Marsh, 2007; Marsh & Craven, 2006). Although
beyond the scope of the present investigation, this
suggests the relevance of the REM in the physical
domain to a variety of physical outcomes such as
health-related physical activity, physical fitness, obe-
sity, and cardiovascular problems associated with
sedentary lifestyles that are likely to have their origin
in childhood.
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1653
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York: Freeman.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brettschneider, W.-D., & Gerlach, E. (2004). Sportliches
Engagement und Entwicklung im Kindesalter [Sports
involvement and development in children]. Aachen,
Germany: Meyer & Meyer.
Byrne, B. M. (1996). Academic self-concept: Its structure,
measurement, and relation to academic achievement. In
B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 287 –
316). New York: Wiley.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with
LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMLIS: Basic concepts, applications
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. M. (2002). Validating measurement and structure
of self-concept: Snapshots of past, present and future
research. American Psychologist, 57, 897 – 909.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-
regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational
models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the
use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 112, 558 – 577.
Crain, R. M. (1996). The influence of age, race, and gender
on child and adolescent multidimensional self-concept.
In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept: Develop-
mental, social, and clinical considerations (pp. 395 – 420).
New York: Wiley.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum
Press.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and achievement patterns:
An expectancy value perspective. In J. M. Reinisch, L. A.
Rosenblum, & S. A. Sanders (Eds.), Masculinity/feminin-
ity: Basic perspectives (pp. 240 – 280). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in
sport involvement: Applying the Eccles‘ expectancy-
value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7 – 35.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs,
values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109 –
132.
Graham, J. W., & Hofer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation
in multivariate research. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, &
J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel
data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific exam-
ples (pp. 201 – 218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-
concept and academic achievement: Developmental
perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 95, 124 – 136.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for
Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
1654 Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider
Harter, S. (1990). Processes underlying adolescent self-
concept formation. In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, &
T. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: A transi-
tional period? (pp. 205 – 239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harter, S. (1998). Developmental perspectives on the self-
system. In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 553 – 618). New York: Wiley.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental
perspective. New York: Guilford.
Hattie, J. A. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hill, J. P., & Lynch, M. E. (1983). The intensification of
gender-related role expectations during early adoles-
cence. In J. Brooks-Gunn & A. C. Peterson (Eds.), Girls at
puberty (pp. 201 – 228). New York: Plenum Press.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., &
Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence
and values: Gender and domain differences across grades
one though twelve. Child Development, 73, 509 – 527.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural
models in longitudinal investigations. In J. R. Nessel-
roade & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the
study of behavior and development (pp. 303 – 351). New
York: Academic Press.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 [Computer
software manual]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software Inter-
national.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations
and extensions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N.
(1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470 – 500.
Lerner, R. M. (1982). Children and adolescents as producers of
their own development. Developmental Review, 2, 342 – 370.
Lerner, R. M. (1996). Relative plasticity, integration, tem-
porality, and diversity in human development: A devel-
opmental contextual perspective about theory, process,
and method. Developmental Psychology, 32, 781 – 786.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Marsh, H. W. (1989a). Age and sex effects in multiple
dimensions of self-concept: Preadolescence to early-
adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 417 – 430.
Marsh, H. W. (1989b). Sex differences in the development
of verbal and math constructs: The High School and
Beyond study. American Educational Research Journal, 26,
191 – 225.
Marsh, H. W. (1990a). The causal ordering of academic
self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave,
longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82, 646 – 656.
Marsh, H. W. (1990b). A multidimensional, hierarchical
self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification.
Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77 – 172.
Marsh, H. W. (1993a). Academic self-concept: Theory
measurement and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological
perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 59 – 98). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Marsh, H. W. (1993b). The multidimensional structure of
academic self-concept: Invariance over gender and age.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 841 – 860.
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models
of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 1, 5 – 34.
Marsh, H. W. (2007a). Application of confirmatory factor
analysis and structural equation modeling in sport/exercise
psychology. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),
Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 774 – 798). New
York: Wiley.
Marsh, H. W. (2007b). Self-concept theory, measurement and
research into practice: The role of self-concept in educational
psychology. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988).
Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis:
The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
391 – 410.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Yeung, A. S. (1999). Causal
ordering of academic self-concept and achievement:
Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recom-
mendations. Educational Psychologist, 34, 154 – 157.
Marsh, H. W., Chanal, J. P., Sarrazin, P. G., & Bois, J. E.
(2006). Self-belief does make a difference: A reciprocal
effects model of the causal ordering of physical self-
concept and gymnastics performance. Journal of Sport
Sciences, 24, 101 – 111.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept:
Beyond the dustbowl. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of
classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment
(pp. 131 – 198). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of
self-concept and performance from a multidimensional
perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimen-
sional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
1, 133 – 163.
Marsh, H. W., Debus, R., & Bornholt, L. (2005). Validating
young children’s self-concept responses: Methodological
ways and means to understand their responses. In D. M.
Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental
science (pp. 138 – 160). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent-variable
models of multitrait-multimethod data. In R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues and applications
(pp. 177 – 198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of
fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimen-
tal Education, 64, 364 – 390.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness
of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In
A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. McCardle (Eds.), Contemporary
psychometrics. A festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp.
275 – 340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of
golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches
to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in
overgeneralising Hu & Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struc-
tural Equation Modelling, 11, 320 – 341.

Marsh, H. W., & Perry, C. (2005). Does a positive self-
concept contribute to winning gold medals in elite
swimming? The causal ordering of elite athlete self-
concept and championship performances. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27, 71 – 91.
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., &
Baumert, J. (2005) Academic self-concept, interest, grades
and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of
causal ordering. Child Development, 76, 397 – 416.
Riepe, L., & Zindel, M. (1999). Talentsuche und Talentförder-
ung in NRW [Talent selection and promotion in North-
Rhine Westphalia]. Düsseldorf, Germany: Ministerium
für Arbeit, Soziales und Stadtentwicklung, Kultur und
Sport des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept. In
M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation
and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 51 – 98). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Hagtvet, K. A. (1990). Academic
achievement and self-concept: An analysis of causal
predominance in a developmental perspective. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 292 – 307.
Valentine, J. C. (2001). The relation between self-concept and
achievement: A meta-analytic review. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri, Columbia.
A Reciprocal Effects Model 1655
Valentine, J. C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Effects of self-
beliefs on academic achievement and vice-versa: Sepa-
rating the chicken from the egg. In H. W. Marsh, R. G.
Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances
in self research (Vol. 2, pp. 53 – 78). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of com-
petence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement
values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield
& J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation
(pp. 173 – 195). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D., &
Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions at early adolescence:
Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions
and general self-esteem across the transition to junior
high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552 – 565.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D.,
Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, K., et al. (1997). Changes
in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task
values across the elementary school years: A three-year
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451 – 469.
Wigfield, A., & Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can
I do? Children’s self-concepts and motivation in achieve-
ment solutions. Educational Psychologist, 26, 233 – 261.
 1656

Appendix
Means, Standard Deviations (SDs), and Correlations Among Variables Considered in the Present Investigation

Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 T1PGRD 0.537 0.937 1.0

2 T1SS1 3.174 0.852 .391 1.0
3 T1SS2 2.244 1.059 .200 .462 1.0
4 T1SS3 3.171 0.900 .227 .508 .443 1.0
5 T1SS4 3.239 0.931 .211 .478 .335 .446 1.0
6 T1SS5 3.650 0.721 .223 .406 .194 .322 .332 1.0
7 T2PGRD 4.828 0.678 .495 .359 .202 .235 .215 .183 1.0
8 T2SS1 2.922 0.894 .408 .499 .353 .366 .328 .293 .557 1.0
9 T2SS2 2.271 0.985 .264 .367 .363 .297 .255 .154 .360 .555 1.0
10 T2SS3 3.089 0.896 .278 .400 .301 .344 .281 .228 .355 .585 .532 1.0
11 T2SS4 3.161 0.954 .344 .414 .233 .315 .395 .273 .389 .592 .438 .527 1.0
Marsh, Gerlach, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Brettschneider

12 T2SS5 3.677 0.676 .302 .355 .201 .269 .274 .281 .373 .510 .300 .429 .465 1.0
13 T3PGRD 4.733 0.773 .374 .285 .141 .177 .209 .191 .435 .379 .277 .308 .329 .250 1.0
14 T3SS1 3.001 0.857 .397 .418 .273 .288 .243 .199 .383 .553 .400 .447 .436 .401 .530 1.0
15 T3SS2 2.363 0.932 .238 .339 .283 .242 .228 .151 .241 .394 .452 .390 .302 .230 .370 .530 1.0
16 T3SS3 3.122 0.859 .293 .327 .223 .256 .207 .184 .242 .394 .319 .420 .347 .321 .344 .548 .470 1.0
17 T3SS4 3.209 0.859 .290 .326 .201 .231 .265 .193 .296 .400 .271 .395 .410 .368 .379 .510 .388 .528 1.0
18 T3SS5 3.572 0.721 .343 .309 .200 2.30 .222 .220 .320 .408 .275 .370 .370 .403 .419 .548 .355 .446 .480 1.0
19 Sex 1.518 0.500 .099 .201 .204 .111 .082 .126 .062 .159 .126 .085 .064 .068 .034 .160 .156 .130 .075 .093 1.0
20 Age 9.674 0.634 .011 .043 .024 .059 .030 .015 .013 .046 .067 .071 .001 .021 .022 .064 .017 .031 .026 .005 .065 1.0
21 ZS  ZA 0.064 0.967 .008 .004 .002 .025 .014 .015 .017 .032 .039 .004 .003 .023 .003 .001 .036 .000 .025 .014 .023 .030 1.0
22 PSKIL 0.027 0.930 .515 .409 .251 .249 .225 .222 .458 .460 .315 .343 .342 .339 .418 .437 .269 .341 .335 .345 .245 .122 .003 1.0

Note. Each variable that was measured on multiple occasions has a prefix indicating the occasion (T1 5 Time 1, T2 5 Time 2, T3 5 Time 3). On each occasion, there are five sport self-concept
items (labeled SS1 – SS5). PGRD 5 physical education grade; Sex 5 gender (0 5 male, 1 5 female); ZS  ZA 5 Sex  Age cross product after each variable had been standardized (M 5 0,
SD 5 1); PSKIL 5 physical test scores of sport ability (measured at T1 only). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .76, .83, and .84 for responses at T1, T2, and T3, respectively.
Coefficient alpha estimates of reliability were nearly the same for girls and boys (T1: .74 vs. .76; T2: .83 vs. .82; T3: .81 vs. .82), although sport self-concept scores for girls were lower and had
larger SDs (see subsequent discussion of gender difference).