Development and validity of the subjective training quality scale

Stephanie J. Shell, Katie Slattery, Brad Clark, James R. Broatch, Shona L. Halson, Aaron J. Coutts
{"title":"Development and validity of the subjective training quality scale","authors":"Stephanie J. Shell,&nbsp;Katie Slattery,&nbsp;Brad Clark,&nbsp;James R. Broatch,&nbsp;Shona L. Halson,&nbsp;Aaron J. Coutts","doi":"10.1080/17461391.2022.2111276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This study aimed to define, develop, and validate a subjective scale of training quality. Two related studies were used to 1) define training quality and 2) develop and validate a subjective scale. Part One: a purposive sample of 15 sub-elite (i.e. national) and elite (i.e. international) swimmers participated in one, 20–30-min semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis of interview responses established three constructs to define training quality. These were the physical, technical, and mental aspects of training. Part Two: development of the Subjective Training Quality (STQ) scale based on the three constructs identified in Part One. 252 sub-elite and elite athletes, across eight sports completed the STQ scale. Cronbach's alpha (α) assessed internal consistency, histogram plot analysis assessed face validity, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) compared physical, technical, and mental constructs with training quality. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) evaluated CFA quality of fit. Physical, technical, and mental constructs demonstrated a high “acceptable” level of internal consistency (α = 0.85) and excellent face validity. Comparatively, the CFA quality of fit was “excellent” (RMSEA = &lt;0.01 “good”, SRMR = 0.00 “perfect”). The STQ scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency and face validity, establishing capacity to monitor training quality. The STQ scale could be used in conjunction with traditional training monitoring tools to provide additional insight into athlete's training quality. Further investigation is required to determine how the STQ scale may interact with subjective and objective training performance measures, and how it could be incorporated into daily training monitoring.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":93999,"journal":{"name":"European journal of sport science","volume":"23 7","pages":"1102-1109"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17461391.2022.2111276","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of sport science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/17461391.2022.2111276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to define, develop, and validate a subjective scale of training quality. Two related studies were used to 1) define training quality and 2) develop and validate a subjective scale. Part One: a purposive sample of 15 sub-elite (i.e. national) and elite (i.e. international) swimmers participated in one, 20–30-min semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis of interview responses established three constructs to define training quality. These were the physical, technical, and mental aspects of training. Part Two: development of the Subjective Training Quality (STQ) scale based on the three constructs identified in Part One. 252 sub-elite and elite athletes, across eight sports completed the STQ scale. Cronbach's alpha (α) assessed internal consistency, histogram plot analysis assessed face validity, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) compared physical, technical, and mental constructs with training quality. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) evaluated CFA quality of fit. Physical, technical, and mental constructs demonstrated a high “acceptable” level of internal consistency (α = 0.85) and excellent face validity. Comparatively, the CFA quality of fit was “excellent” (RMSEA = <0.01 “good”, SRMR = 0.00 “perfect”). The STQ scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency and face validity, establishing capacity to monitor training quality. The STQ scale could be used in conjunction with traditional training monitoring tools to provide additional insight into athlete's training quality. Further investigation is required to determine how the STQ scale may interact with subjective and objective training performance measures, and how it could be incorporated into daily training monitoring.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主观训练质量量表的编制与有效性
本研究旨在定义、发展并验证训练质量的主观量表。两个相关的研究被用于1)定义培训质量和2)开发和验证一个主观量表。第一部分:15名亚优秀(即国家)和优秀(即国际)游泳运动员参加了一次20 - 30分钟的半结构化访谈。访谈回答的专题分析建立了三个构式来定义培训质量。这些是体能、技术和心理方面的训练。第二部分:在第一部分的三个构念的基础上编制主观训练质量量表。252名亚优秀和优秀运动员完成了8个项目的主观训练质量量表。Cronbach's alpha (α)评估内部一致性,直方图分析评估面部效度,验证性因子分析(CFA)比较身体、技术和心理构念与训练质量的关系。均方根近似误差(RMSEA)和标准化均方根残差(SRMR)评估CFA的拟合质量。身体、技术和心理构念表现出较高的“可接受”内部一致性水平(α = 0.85)和优异的面部效度。相比之下,CFA的拟合质量为“优秀”(RMSEA = <;0.01为“良好”,SRMR = 0.00为“完美”)。STQ量表具有良好的内部一致性和面效度,具有监控培训质量的能力。STQ量表可以与传统的训练监测工具结合使用,以提供对运动员训练质量的额外洞察。需要进一步研究确定STQ量表如何与主观和客观的训练绩效测量相互作用,以及如何将其纳入日常训练监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
National-Standard Middle-Distance Runners Maintain 1500 m Time Trial Running Performance on Successive Days. The Assessment of the Effect of Gaze Direction Instruction on the Stabilisation During Artistic Gymnastic Landing Physical Characteristics of Fast Roping in British Elite Law Enforcement Officers Issue Information Balance Training: Toward a Comprehensive Understanding and Application of the Overload Principle in Motor Skill Acquisition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1