See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232496845

Development and Validation of a

Multidimensional Measure of Sport-Specific
Psychological Skills: The...

Article in Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology December 1995

DOI: 10.1123/jsep.17.4.379

CITATIONS READS

210 2,844

4 authors:

Ronald E Smith Robert W. Schutz

University of Washington Seattle University of British Columbia - Vancouver
162 PUBLICATIONS 7,281 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 1,992 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Frank L. Smoll John Ptacek

University of Washington Seattle Bucknell University
93 PUBLICATIONS 4,132 CITATIONS 75 PUBLICATIONS 3,687 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Was contracted with anexternal agency; had no project name View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronald E Smith on 08 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1995.17.379-398
JOURNALOF SPORT& EXERCISEPSYCHOLOGY.
O 1995Humm KineticsPublishers,
Inc.

Developmentand Validation of a Multidimensional

Measureof Sport-SpecificPsychologicalSkills:
The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28

Ronald E. Smith Robert W. Schutz

University of Washington Universityof BritishColumbia

Frank L. Smoll J.T. Ptacek

University of Washington BucknellUniversitv

Confirmatory factor analysis was used as the basis for a new form of the
Athletic Coping Skills Inventory (ACSI). The ACSI-28 containssevensport-
specific subscales:Coping With Adversity, Peaking Under Pressure,Goal
Setting/N4entalPreparation, Concentration, Freedom From Worry, Confi-
dence and Achievement Motivation, and Coachabilily. The scales can be
summed to yield a PersonalCoping Resourcesscore, which is assumedto
reflect a multifaceted psychological skills construct. Confirmatory factor
analysesdemonstratedthe factorial validity of the ACSI-28, as the seven
subscalesconform well to the underlying factor structure for both male and
female athletes.Psychometric characteristicsare described,and preliminary
evidencefor constructand predictive validity is presented.

Key words: scale development, self-regulation, sport performance

Interest in the role of individual difference variables that are related to

psychological and performance outcomes has stimulated the development of a
number of sport-specific instruments, such as the Sport Competition Anxiety
Test (SCAT; Martens, 1977),the Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-
2; Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990), the Sport Anxiety Scale (Smith, Smoll, &
Schutz, 1990), and the Group Environment Questionnaire (Brawley, Carron, &
Widmeyer, 1987). In recent years, sport-specific instruments have largely sup-
planted more general measures of psychological functioning, such as Cattell's

Ronald E. Smith and Frank L. Smoll are with the Department of Psychology at
the University of Washington,Box 351525,Seattle,WA 98195-1525.Robert W. Schutz
is with the School of Human Kinetics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC Canada V6T lZ4. J.T. Ptacek is with the Departmentof Psychology at Bucknell
University, Lewisburg, PA 17837.

3'79
380 I Smith,Schutz,Smoll,and Ptacek

(1965) l6-PF, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Trait
Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) because domain-
specific measurestend to have higher predictive ability in their relevant domains
than do more global measures(Buss & Cantor, 1989; Martens, 1977; Ozer &
Reise, 1994; Sarason,1978).
A major tenet of sport psychology is that psychological skills are important
determinantsof sport performance,and considerableemphasishas been directed
at identifying relevant skills and instructing sport consultants,coaches,and ath-
letesin how to teach,leam, and apply them (see,for example,Williams' 1993).
Moreover, there is evidence that psychological skills are related to a number of
outcome variables, such as performance (Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg' l98l;
Greenspan& Feltz, 1989;Mahoney, 1989;Mahoney,Gabriel, & Perkins' 1987)
andinjury vulnerability(Hanson,McCullagh,& Tonymon, 1992;Smith' Smoll' &
Ptacek,1990;Williams, Tonymon, & Wadsworth, 1986).Finally, psychological
skills are often important outcome variables in performance enhancementinter-
vention programs, and it is therefore important to be able to assesschanges in
such skills as a meansof evaluating program efficacy (Smith, 1980' 1989b). For
all of thesereasons,there is a needfor psychometrically sound measuresof sport-
relatedcoping skills.
Severalpsychologicalskilts measureshavebeenusedin previousresearch.
In their search for moderator variables in the life stress-injury relation, Hanson
et al. (1992) and Williams et al. (1986) adaptedthe Coping Resourcessubscale
from the StressAudit Questionnaire(Miller & Smith, 1982).However,this scale
measuresa variety of coping resourcesin addition to stressmanagementskills,
including such resources as social support and regular exercise. Thus, it does
not have the degree of specificity that would be desirable in a psychological
skills measure.Ideally, such a scalewould contain subscalesthat measurea range
of relatively specific psychological skills, such as mental preparation,stress
management,and concentration.
In an attempt to develop such a measure, Mahoney and his coworkers
(Mahoney & Avener, 1977; Mahoney et al., 1987) have developedthe Psycho-
logical Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS). The scale has undergonecontinuous
development,and the most recently studiedversion (PSIS R-5) consistsof 45
items that are arrangedinto six subscales:Anxiety Control, Concentration,Confi-
dence,Mental Preparation,Motivation, and Team Focus. In its various forms, the
PSIS has been successfullyemployed by a number of investigatorsto differentiate
between elite athletes and nonathletes, male and female athletes, athletes in
varioussports,and athletesof differentnationalities(Cox & Liu, 1993;Mahoney,
1989; Mahoney & Avener, 1917: Mahoney et al., 1987; White' 1993).
Despite its promise as a researchinstrument,however, the PSIS R-5 appears
to have a number of serious psychometric shortcomings that limit its potential
usefulness.Chartrand,Jowdy, and Danish (1992) testedthe hypothesizedsix-
factor (subscale)model advancedby Mahoney et al. (1987) using confirmatory
factor analysis. They found no evidence for the factorial validity of the scale,
nor for any of the altemative models that they tested using structural equation
modeling. Many of the items loaded on severalof the factors, indicating that the
subscaleswere not measuring distinct constructs, and seven of the items failed
to load on any factor. It thus appearsthat in its present form, the PSIS R-5 does
 Athletic CopingSkills Inventory-28I 381

not meet the factorial validity standardsrequired of a multidimensional instrument

that is to be used for researchor applied purposes.
This article describes the development of a new multidimensional scale
that measuresseven classesof psychological coping skills with high factorial
validity. The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28) is a refined 28-item
version of a 42-item ACSI that has been used in several previous studies to
measure individual differences in psychological skills within a sport context
(Petrie, 1993; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek,1990; Smith, Racek, & Smoll, 1992).lt
was developed by means of a psychometric strategy that involved the use of
confirmatory factor analysis to derive subscalesthat conformed closely to an
underlying structural model of psychological skills.

Study I

Method

The ACSI was originally developed in the mid-1980s as part of a research

project on psychosocial vulnerability and resiliency factors related to athletic
injury. The theoretical model on which the researchwas based gave prominent
causal roles to the factors of life stress,social support, and psychological coping
skills (see Smith & Smoll, 1990).To measurethe latter variable, we neededa
scale that would measureindividual differences in general psychological coping
resourcesand that also might yield subscalesto measurespecific psychological
skills such as stress management,concentration, control of worry, and mental
preparation.
The first version of the ACSI consistedof 87 items of widely varied content
that was entitledSurvey of Athletic Experiences.Our strategywas to begin with
an intuitively deriveditem set of varying contentthat would eventuallybe pared
to a smallernumber of items by identifying, through exploratoryfactor analysis,
item clusterscorrespondingto specific psychologicalskills. The 87-item scale
was administeredto an initial sample of 637 male and female athletes who
respondedto eachitem on a 4-point scale:0 = almost never, | = sometimes,2=
often, and3 = almost always.The sampleincluded4l high schoolteamsin three
sports,and 135 college football players at a Division I university.

Results
Principal component analysesof the 87-item instrument followed by a
varimax rotation yielded eight factors with eigenvaluesexceeding1.00, which
accountedfor 49Voof the responsevariance.Similar factor structureswere found
in the male and female subsamples.By selectingthe items that met the dual
criteria of loading at .55 or aboveon a singlefactor and below .30 on all others,
we pruned the 87 items to a new scale consisting of 42 items. We named
the eight subscales Preparation, Freedom From Worry, Positive Orientation,
Resourcefulness, Coachability, Concentration, Peaking Under Pressure, and
StressManagement.Coefficient alphasfor the subscalesrangedfrom .64 to .81,
and the total-scale internal consistency was .90. Analysis of the 42 items with
the college football sample and with a cross-validation sample of 579 male and
female high school athletes revealed the same eight-factor structure.
382 I Smith,Schutz,Smoll,and Ptacek

This 42-item scale is the one described in subsequentresearch reports

(Petrie, 1993; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990;
Smith et al..1992\.In the Petrie(1993),Smith, Smoll, and Ptacek(1990),and
Smith, Smoll, and Schutz (1990) reports, the primary focus was on the total
ACSI scoreratherthan on the subscalesbecausethe investigatorswere interested
in a total coping resourcesscore as a potential moderator variable in the life
stress-athleticinjury relation. In the 1992 study, Smith et al. used the subscales
to assesscoping skill differencesbetweenhigh and low sensationseekers,but
the total score was used to test sensation seeking aS a moderator variable with
coping skill variation partialed out.

Study 2

Method

In Study 2, we evaluated the eight-factor structure identified through the

exploratory principal component analysesusing the more rigorous approach of
confirmatory factor analysis.Confirmatory factor analysis allows test developers
to evaluate the degree to which the structural characteristicsof a scale conform
to a hypothesizedunderlying model, as well as the degreeto which each item
maps appropriatelyonto the underlying subscalestructure(Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994).
All confirmatory factor analyses(CFAs) were conducted with LISREL 8
(Jcireskog& Sdrbom, 1993)maximum likelihood procedures,using a covariance
matrix as data input. The fit of each model was evaluated with a number of
indices,including the p value associatedwith the chi-squarestatistic,Steiger's
(1990) root mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA), the parsimony good-
ness-of-fitindex (PGFI; Mulaik et al., 1989),and Bentler's (1990) comparative
fit index (CFI). A RMSEA of .05 or less indicates that the model based on the
"close fit" to the population, and a value less than .08
sample data representsa
''reasonable fit" (Jiireskog & Scirbom 1993). The PGFI was selected
indicates a ,
becauseof its utility in comparing competing models (the larger the PGFI, the
more parsimoniousthe model), and CFI was chosenover other normed fit indices
becauseit is contained in the 0-l interval. CFI values of .90 and larger were
deemed to indicate an adequatefit of the model to the data, even with a PGFI
as low as .50 (Mulaik et al., 1989).To test if a reducedor altemativemodel was
a statistically significant improvement (or decrement) over another model, the
chi-squaredifference (r(t.,,,),or Q test (i.e., the difference in the chi-squarevalues
of the two models evaluatedin terms of the difference in the degreesof freedom)
was employed. A Q value of around 2.0 is consideredgood, and one of less than
5.0 is often deemed acceptable.

Results

The results of the confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) are presented in

Table l. Four different models were tested with the entire sample. The final
model was also tested with separatemale and female subsamples.
 Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 I 383

Table I Model-Testing Results From Confirmatory Factor Analyses

ACSI model x' df o PGFI CFI RMSEA

Original (42, 8) 2,287 79r 2.9 .77 .84 .047

Revision 1 (33,7) 1,157 4 74 2.4 .78 .90 .041 <.001
Final form (28, 7) 875 329 2.7 .75 .91 .044 <.001
Males only 6t7 329 1.9 .74 .90 .043
Femalesonly 649 329 2.0 .7| .90 .051
Single factor (28, l) 2,901 350 8.3 .50 .57 .092 <.001

Nole. Valuesin parentheses arenumberof itemsand numberof factorsin the model.

Q = ratioof 12to df; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fitindex;CFI = comparative
fit index;RMSEA = root meansquareerror of approximation; p - the probabilityasso-
ciatedwith the chi-squaredifferencetest with the precedingmodel.

In the first analysis,the 42-item, eight-factorACSI scale was evaluated.

The goodness-of-fitstatisticsindicatedthat the data did not conform well to the
hypothesized eight-factor structure. Inspection of the interfactor conelations,
modification indices, and normalized residuals suggestedthat a better-fitting
model could be achievedby combining the Positive Orientation and StressMan-
agementsubscales(whose raw scorescorrelated.83) into a new Coping With
Adversity scaleand deleting 9 items from the total scalebecauseof low loadings,
large residuals,or large modification indices. Doing so resulted in a new 33-
item, seven-factorscale. This revised model (Revision I in Table l) was a
significant improvementover the original model, X2oin = 1,130,dfon,= 317, p <
.001. However, the modification indices and r statisticssuggestedthat 4 items
were of questionablevalidity.
A seriesof controlled sequentialsteps(removing one item at a time) resulted
in a new 28-item, 7-factor scale that proved to have the strongest dimensional
structure.rAs can be seen in Table l, the CFI (.91) and the RMSEA (.G4)
indicate a good fit of the model to the data. Additionally, all factor loadings
were significant at p < .001, and26 of the 28 loadingsexceeded.50 (the other
two were .46). When reanalyzedseparatelyfor the male and female subsamples,
the model fit the male data well, and although the fit indices were not as good
in the female data, it is still a reasonably good model for these data and, as
indicated by the Q statistic, significantly better than the 33-item, seven-factor
revision.2Follow-up principal component analysesof the final form revealedthat
the seven factors accounted for 53Vo of the total scale variance for males and
58Voof the variance for females.
Based on their item content, the subscaleswere given the following labels:
Coping With Adversity, Peaking Under Pressure,Goal Settingflr4entalPrepara-
tion, Concentration,FreedomFrom Worry, Confidenceand Achievement Motiva-
tion, and Coachability. The items of the ACSI-28 that comprise each subscale,
together with the individual item means and their factor loadings, are presented
in Table 2.
384 I Smith, Schutz,Smoll, and Ptacek

Table 2 ACSI-28 ltem Means, Factor Loadings, and Subscale ltems

Factor
Subscale M loading Item

Coping With Adversity

1.5 .60 I maintain emotional control no matter how things
are going for me. (24)
1.6 .58 When things are going badly, I tell myself to keep
calm, and this works for me. (17)
1.3 .58 When I feel myself getting too tense,I can quickly
relax my body and calm mYself.(21)
1.8 .54 I remain positive and enthusiasticduring competition,
no matter how badly things are going. (5)
Peaking Under Pressure
1.6 .7'7 To me, pressuresituationsare challengesthat I wel-
come. (22\
1.5 .71 The more pressurethere is during a game, the more I
enjoy it. (18)
1.7 .64 I tend to play better under pressurebecauseI think
more clearly. (6)
1.7 .@ I make fewer mistakeswhen the pressure'son be-
cause I concentratebetter. (28)
Goal Setting/IvlentalPreparation
1.2 .69 On a daily or weekly basis, I set very specific goals
for myself that guide what I do. (l)
1.5 .68 I tend to do lots of planning about how to reach my
goals. (8)
1.4 .60 I set my own performance goals for each practice'
(13)
1.5 .51 I have my own game plan worked out in my head
long before the game begins. (20)
Concentration
1.8 .63 I handle unexpectedsituations in my sport very well'
(16)
1.8 .55 When I am playing sports, I can focus my attention
and block out distractions. (4)
1.5 .46 It is easy for me to keep distracting thoughts from in-
terfering with something I am watching or lis-
teningto. (ll)
1.9 .46 It is easy for me to direct my attention and focus on
a single object or Person. (25)
Freedom From Worry
1.7* .76 While competing, I worry about making mistakes or
failing to come through. (19)
l.l* .6 I put a lot of pressureon myself by worrying how I
will perform. (12)

(continued)
 Athletic CopingSkills Inventory-28/ 385

Tabfe 2 (continued)

Factor
Subscale M loading Item

1.7* .65 I think about and imagine what will happen if I fail
or screw up. (23)
1.3* .61 I worry quite a bit about what others think about my
performance. (7)
Confidence and Achievement Motivation
1.9 .65 I feel confident that I will play well. (9)
1.8 .62 I get the most out of my talent and skills. (2)
2.2 .52 When I fail to reach my goals, it makes me try even
harder. (26)
2.0 .51 I don't have to be pushed to practice or play hard; I
give lNVo. (14)
Coachability
1.9 .t7 If a coach criticizes or yells at me, I correct the mis-
take without getting upset about it. (15)
2.3* .57 When a coach or manager criticizes me, I become up-
set rather than helped.(10)
1.3 .) / I improve my skills by listening carefully to advice
and instruciton from coaches and managers.(27)
2.5* .56 When a coach or manager tells me how to correct a
mistake I've made, I tend to take it personally and
feel upset.(3)

Note.ltemnumberon the ACSI-28is givenin parentheses aftereachitem.Asterisks

indicateitemsthat are reversescored.The scaleis titled "survey of Athletic Experi-
ences"andcontainsthe followingwritteninstructions: "A numberof statements that
athleteshaveusedto describetheir experiences are given below.Pleasereadeachstate-
mentcarefullyand then recallas accuratelyas possiblehow often you experiencethe
samething. Thereare no right or wrong answers.Do not spendtoo muchtime on any
onestatement." Itemsarescoredon a 4-pointscalewith the followinglabels:0 = a/-
mostnever:1= sometimes;2= often;and3 = almostalways.

The final model that we tested was a single-factor,28-item model. This

model did not fare nearly as well as the 7-factor model, as is indicated by the
very poor fit statisticsin Table l. Ten of the 28 items had factor loadingsof less
than .40, with 5 of them being less than .30. This is in contrastto the 7-factor
model in which the two lowest factor loadings were .46, and all othersranged
from .5 I to .77.|n general,items associatedwith the FreedomFrom Worry and
coachability factors exhibited the weakest loadings on the general factor. This
pattem of results indicates that the construct of Personal Coping Resourcesas
indexedby the ACSI-28 total score is best regardedas a multifacetedconstruct
(Carver, 1989),having sevenunderlyingcoping skill facets.
386 I Smith, Schutz, Smoll, and Ptacek

P sychometric C haracteristics

Table 3 showsthe male and female means,standarddeviations,and internal

consistencystatistics(Cronbach'salphas) for the seven subscalesand for the
PersonalCoping Resourcesscorebasedon the sum ofthe subscales. Also included
are one-weel test-retestreliability coefficients derived from a sample of 94 male
and female college-age athletes who participated in a variety of intramural and
club sports.
The alpha coefficients are not large, but this is not surprising, given that
the scalescontain only four items and samplefairly broad coping skill constructs;
in such instances,factorial validity and high factor loadings are more meaningful
indices of scale integrity (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). The Concentration
subscaleis the weakest one from an internal consistencyperspective,and in the
male sample,all four of the item-totalcorrelationswere low (.35 to .40). These
low correiations help account for the CFA finding that the Concentration factor
containedthe only two items with loadingsof less than .50. On all sevenof the
subscales,internal consistencywas higher in the female sample than it was in
the male sample.
For the ACSI-2S total (PersonalCoping Resources)score,internalconsis-
rencieswere high for both males (.84) and females (.88). As alphasare highly
influenced by the number of items in the scale, this result is more a function of
the number of items than of the greater validity of a single factor scale (as was
demonstratedin the models tested by CFA). The item-total score correlations
for the FreedomFrom Worry items were all low (.26 to.37), as were two of the
items on the Coachability subscale.These results support the CFA findings'
which indicated that thesetwo factors did not fit well into the single-factormodel.

and Test'RetestReliabilities
Table 3 DescriptiveStatistics,Internal Consistency,
of the ACSI-28Subscalesand Total (PersonalCoping Score
Resources)

Males Females Total

Scale M SD M SD M SD ct Test-retest

Coping 6.37 2.17 .64 6.r l 2.30 .69 6.26 2.23 .66 .63
Peaking 6;76 2;10 .74 5.91 3.04 .82 6.40 2.87 .78 .87
Goal/Prep 5.84 2.67 ;70 4.98 2.78 .72 5.48 2.'15 ;71 .82
Concentration 7.20 2.08 .56 6.78 2.30 .67 7.O2 2.19 .62 .72
Worry 6.32 2.86 .74 6.64 3.00 .7'7 6.46 2.82 .76 .77
Confid 8.12 2.22 .64 7.50 2.33 .6'7 7.86 2.28 .66 .83
Coachability 8.85 2.32 .67 8.89 2.60 ;17 8.87 2.43 .72 .47
Total 49.46 9.25 .84 46.81 9.93 .88 48.35 9.64 .86 .8'7

Nole. Descriptivestatisticsand alphas(intemal consistencycoefficients)are basedon a

standardizationsampleof 594 male and 433 female varsity high school athletes-Test-
retest coefficients are based on 97 college athletes who were tested at one-week inter-
vals.
 Athletic CopingSkills Inventory-z8| 387

Table 4 ACSI-28 InterscaleCorrelationsand CorrelationsWith Other Scales

Coping Peaking Goal Conc. Worry Conf. Coach Total

ACSI-28 Scale
Coping With Adversity .40 .33 .55 .14 .50 .37 .77
Peaking Under Pressure .25 .42 .26 .39 .16 .66
Goal Setting/Preparation .27 -.10 .37 .24 .57
Concentration .10 .46 .28 .70
Freedom From Worry .21 .23 .55
Confidence .36 .73
Coachability .59
Total Score
Other Scales
Self-Control Schedule .42 .13 .36 .27 .14 .25 .28 .44
Self-Efficacy Scale .41 .40 .39 .43 .17 .47 .26 .58
Self-Esteem(WSDQ) .29 .26 .11 .29 .33 .44 .25 .45
SAS Somatic -.10 -.06 .09 .00 -.23 -.03 -.05 -.08
SAS Worry -.26 -.24 -.08 -.20 -.59 -.29 -.16 -.45
SAS ConcentrationDis. -)l -.t7 - . 0 8 - . 2 1 -.09 -.2s -.17 -.25
SAS Total Score -.29 -.25 -.03 -.22 -.54 -.28 -.25 -.43
Marlowe-Crowne .JJ .23 .19 .25 .33 .22 .29 .43

Note.Samplesizesrangefrom 295to 771 maleandfemalevarsityhigh schoolath-

letes.In the smallestsample,a correlation
of .08 is significantat p < .05.

The interscale correlations calculated from the raw score item totals for
eachsubscaleare shown in Table 4. The factorsshow no evidenceof multicollin-
earity, as evidencedby the relatively small correlationsamong them, and they
can thereforebe treatedas measuresofreasonablydistinct psychologicalcharac-
teristicsin multivariateanalysesand in other types of researchas well. Correla-
tions betweenthe latent constructs(the PHI matrix in LISREL) were somewhat
larger, being free of measurementenor, but these correlations(not shown in
Table 4) also indicatethe presenceof relatively independentpsychologicalskills
that, together,constitutea multifacetedcoping skills construct.

Validation Studies
Correlations With Other Measures

In order to assessconvergentand discriminantvalidity, athletesin the valida-

tion sample were administereda number of other relevant measures,including
Rosenbaum's (1980) Self-Control Schedule (a measure of cognitive-behavioral
coping skills), the Ways of Coping Checklist (Vitaliano, Russo, Can, Maiuro, &
Becker,1985),the SportAnxiety Scale(Smith,Smoll, & Schutz,1990),the Menral
Health Inventory (Veit and Ware, 1983),the WashingtonSelf-DescriptionQuestion-
naire (WSDQ, a measureof global self-esteem;Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett,
 Smoll,and Ptacek
388 I Smith,Schutz,

1993), and coppel's (1980) Self-Efficacy Scale (a measureof generalizedself-

efficacy). The athletes also completed the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
Correlationsbetween the ACSI-2S subscalesand selectedmeasuresare
presentedin Table 4. Relationswith the other measureswill be summarizedin
the text.
Correlations with other coping measureswere higher in the case of the
Self-Control Schedule(SCS), which measurescognitive-behavioralskills, than
they were with the more generalways of coping (woc) scale,which measures
coping preferences,not skills. As shown in Table 4, Coping With Adversity and
ttre toiai ACSI-28 scorecorrelated.42 and .M, respectively,with the SCS score.
The only WOC subscalethat related significantly to the ACSI-2S total score was
Problem-Focusedcoping, r = .30. This is the only woc coping strategythat
would be expected to relate to self-control skills on conceptual grounds.
As shown in Table 4, significant relations were found with the sport-
specific subscalesof the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS), as well as with the SAS
total score. In order to clarify the nature of these relations, the SAS was factor
analyzed and rotated to an orthogonal solution in order to obtain uncorrelated
factor scoresfor somatic anxiety, worry/, and concentrationdisruption (seeSmith,
1989a, for a discussion of this strategy). The correlations in Table 4 represent
the SAS subscalefactor scores,as well as the SAS total raw score.Evidence for
convergentand discriminant validity of the FreedomFrom Worry subscaleresides
in the Jubstantialnegative relation (r = -.59) of this scale with the SAS worry
factor, but not with the somatic or concentration disruption factors' In contrast,
the Concentration scale of the ACSI-28 did not demonstratea similar specific
relation with the concentrationdisruption scale of the SAS, perhaps becausethe
ACSI subscaleis less oriented toward anxiety-producedinterference'Total score
on the ACSI-28 was most strongly related to the worry factor of the SAS, and
it correlated -.43 with the SAS total score.
The strongestpattem of correlations with another measureoccurred on the
self-Efficacy Scale. which measuresgeneralized self-efficacy (coppel, 1980).
Increasesin scoreson this scale have previously been shown to be significantly
correlated with increasesin cognitive-behavioral coping skills achieved through
a stressmanagementintervention (Smith, 1989b).Concentration,Confidence and
Achievement Motivation, coping with Adversity, Goal Settingffental Prepara-
tion, and Peaking Under Pressure were most highly related to general self-
efficacy, and the Acst-za total score correlated .58 with the Self-Efficacy Scale.
This pittern of results provides evidence for convergent validity, for both scales
are aisumed to measureperceived effectivenessin behaving adaptively.
Scoreson the ACSI-28 did not correlatesignificantly with any of the mental
health subscalesof the Mental Health Inventory, indicating that the sport-specific
skills are not related to global psychological distressor well-being. On the other
hand, as shown in Table 4, severalof the ACSI-28 subscales,as well as the total
score, were positively related to the measureof general self-esteem..This result
is consistentwith speculationsthat an important factor in self-esteemis perceived
possessionof important domain-specific skills (Harter, 1983; Rosenberg, 1979).
The positive correlations between the ACSI-28 and the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale shown in Table 4 are not surprising. Their magnitudes
(particularly with total score) are similar to correlations obtained with other
 Athletic CopingSkills Inventory-28| 389

nonpathologicalscalesin which the socially desirableresponseis obvious. It is

noteworthy that higher correlations with social desirability measuresare obtained
when subjectsidentify themselves,as they did in this research.In other studies
in which anonymousACSI-28 datawereprovided,correlationswith the Marlowe-
Crowne tend to be approximately l0 points lower. Nonetheless,it is clear that
ACSI-28 scorescan be influencedby a desireto projectan unrealisticallypositive
image of oneself.

Relations With Performance

As noted above, psychological skills are thought to contribute in important

ways to quality of sport performance.we should thereforeexpect to find positive
relations between scores on the ACSI-28 and performance indices. However,
psychological skills are not the only factor that might influence performance.In
particular, it is important to rule out the influence of individual differences in
physical skills when evaluating the role of psychological skills, lest the two
classesof skills be confounded.we summarizetwo studiesin which physical,
as well as psychological,skills were taken into account.
Study l: High School Athletic Performance. The first study related the
ACSI-28 to postseasoncoach ratings of performance. It was conducted with a
portion of the high school sample used in the factorial validity studiesdescribed
above. The participants were762 male and female athleteswho competed in the
sports of football, soccer, basketball, gymnastics, cross-country, and wrestling
at l3 high schools.The athletescompletedthe psychologicalskills measurein
group sessionsprior to the season.At the end ofthe season,each athlete's coach
rated him or her on the variables of physical ability and quality of athletic
performance.
Instructions for the rating of physical ability read, "Rate this athlete's level
of physical ability and skills in comparison with other high school athletes in
his or her sport." A 6-point rating scale ranging from 6 = superior (top 5Vo) to
1 = far below average (bottom 20Vo) was used for the evaluation. The same
scale was used to rate performance level during the season,with the following
instructions: "How well did this athlete perform this seasonin comparison with
other high school athletes in his or her sport?"
when we correlatedACSI-28 scoreswith the physical skill and performance
ratings, we found no significant relations between the two coach ratings and any
of the subscalesor the total score. Thus, psychological and physical skills seem
relatively independentofone another,and the psychological skills did not predict
level of performance.
Because talent and performance were rated on the same scale, we were
then able to take physical talent into account by studying levels of discrepancy
betweentalent and performance.The following ih.ee athlJte groups were formed
by subtracting the coach's physical talent rating from the performance rating for
each athlete: (a) underachievers,whose talent ratings exceededtheir performance
ratings; (b) normal achievers, whose performance ratings were identical with
thei-rtalent ratings; and (c) overachievers,whose performance ratings exceeded
their physical talent ratings.The discrepancyscoresin the under- and overachiever
gtoups ranged from I to 3 points. These three groups were then compared by
means of planned contrastsusing the error terms derived from one-way analyses
390 I Smith, Schutz,Smoll, and Ptacek

Table 5 Mean ACSI-28 Scores for overachieving, Underachieving, and Normally

Achieving High school Athletes, Based on coach Ratings of Physical Ability and
Performance

Group
OverachieversNormal achieversUnderachievers
ACSI-28 scale 1n= 125) (n = 469\ (n = 164) F(2,755) P

Coping With Adversity 6.80^ 6.12b 6.360 4.78 .009

Peaking Under Pressure 6.70^ 6.26^ 6.48" 1.30 .2'l
Goal Setting/Preparation 5.55" 5.45" 5.33" 0.25 .78
Concentration 7.64^ 6.88b 7.09b 6.20 .002
Freedom From Worry 5.98" 5.37^ 5.60 2.12 .12
Confidence 8.26^ 7.77^ 7.86" 2.31 .10
Coachability 9.40^ g.g3b 8.99"b 2.89 .056
Total score 50.29^ 46.61b 47.79b 5.39 .005

Nole. Meanshavingcommonsuperscripts do not differ significantlyfrom one another

by the Tukey (b) for
procedure testingplannedcontrasts.

of variance on the ACSI-28 subscalesand total score. Group contrastswere

tested using the Tukey,6,procedure to maintain a constant alpha level of .05 for
the multiple contrasts.
The results are presentedin Table 5. Our interestwas in the group contrasts,
which do not requirea significantomnibusF value (O'Brien, 1983;Rosenthal&
Rosnow, 1985;Wilcox, 1987);nonetheless, the F valuesare presentedfor infor-
mational purposes.As shown in Table 5, the means of the overachieversas
defined by coaches'ratings were highest on all of the ACSI-28 subscalesand
on the total score, and they differed significantly (p < .05) from at least one of
the other groups on the coachability, concentration, and coping with Adversity
subscales,as well as the total Personal Coping Resourcesscore. In no instance
did the normal achievers and underachieversdiffer from one another. Thus, in
this sample, overachievementwas more strongly related to high psychological
skills scores than was underachievementrelated to low scores, and several of
the ACSI-28 measureswere predictive of overachiever status.
study 2: Pedormance in Professional Baseball. The secondperformance
prediction study involved an elite athletepopulation, namely professionalbaseball
play"rr (Smith & Christensen, 1995). The participants were lM minor league
baseball players (47 pitchers and 57 position players). The athletes completed
the ACSi-28 in group sessionsduring spring training. Organizational ratings of
their physical skills were also available. The two sets of measureswere used to
predict
' performance during the seasonfollowing spring training.
ftt" performance measure for position players was batting aYerage,and
eamed run average was the performance variable for pitchers. Correlations be-
tween the ACSI-28 subscalesand the performancemeasureswere generally low
and nonsignificant. For position players, the only significant predictor of batting
 Athletic CopingSkills Inventory-29I 391

averagewas Confidenceand AchievementMotivation, r6s1= .44, p < '01. For

pitchers, high Confidence and Peaking Under Pressurescoreswere significantly
relatedto a low (desirable)earnedrun average,rs1a5;= -.{f and-.37, respectively,
p < .Ol.The total score did not achieve significancefor either performance
measure.
As in the high school sample, we found expert ratings of physical skills
to be unrelated to any of the ACSI-28 scores,again indicating that physical and
psychological skills are relatively independent of one another. This does not
mean, however, that physical and psychologicalskills do not jointly influence
performance. In order to assessrelations between the psychological skills and
performancewith physical skill differencespartialed out, we conductedhierarchi-
cal regressionanalysesof the two performanceoutcome measures.In each analy-
sis, the summary measureof physical skills was entered into the equation first,
followed on the secondstep with the block of sevenACSI-28 subscalescores.
Of interest was the increment in performance variance accountedfor by the best
linear combination of psychological skills when variance attributable to physical
skill differences had been removed.
Psychologicalskills accountedfor statistically significant incrementsin
performancevariance for both batting and pitching. For batting average,physical
skills accountedfor 2l7o of the performancevariance (p < .001). When the linear
combinationof ACSI-28 subscalescoreswas then enteredon the secondstepof
the hierarchical analysis, the psychological skills accounted for an additional
23Voof the variance in batting average (p < .05). For pitchers, the contribution
ofpsychologicalskills wasevengreater.Physicalskills accountedfor a nonsignifi-
cant 3Voof the variance in eamed run average.Addition of the ACSI-2S subscale
scoresto the hierarchical analysisaccountedfor an additional34Voofperformance
variance (p < .01). Thus, performance in an elite sport was shown to be signifi-
cantly relatedto individual differencesin psychologicalskills when physicalskill
differences were partialed out. Semipartial conelations between the scale scores
and performancemeasuresindicated that the Confidence and Achievement Moti-
vation scalewas the strongestpredictor of both batting (.34) and pitching (.33)
performance, with lesser contributions being made by Coping With Adversity
and Goal SettingMental Preparation,each of which accountedfor approximately
67o of the performance variance in both groups.

Discussion
Measuresof psychologicalskills are being used in a variety of ways to
study the role of psychological factors in sport. Existing measureshave found
applicability in such areas as sport performance and prediction of injuries. The
evaluation of psychologically based performance enhancementprograms also
requires the assessmentof changes in the coping skills that are the focus of
intervention.In many instances,a global measureof psychologicalcoping skills
such as that provided by the PersonalCoping Resourcestotal score is sufficient,
but in others, investigators need a measure of specific and relatively distinct
psychological characteristics.The ACSI-28 is our initial attempt to provide a
psychometrically sound measurethat can meet both needs.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is proving to be a useful statistical
392 | Smith,Schutz,Smoll,and Ptacek

tool, both in evaluating the factorial validity of existing measuresand in devel-

oping new ones(Judd,Jessor,& Donovan, 1986;Smith, Smoll, & Schutz,1990).
The use of CFA to evaluate several widely used sport psychology measureshas
cast doubt on their adequacyas valid measuresof multidimensional constructs.
For example, the results of recent CFA studies have raised serious questions
concerningthe factorial validity of the Test of Attentional and InterpersonalStyle
(Ford & Summers, 1992), the Group Environment Questionnaire(Schutz, Eom,
Smoll, & Smith, 1994),and the PSIS-R5 (Chartrandet al., 1992).In each case,
the measurein question has failed to conform to its hypothesizedfactor structure,
suggestingthat the underlying theoretical model (where one exists) is invalid,
that the items designed to measure the constructs in the model are inadequate,
or both. Such results demand new researchefforts to either revise the underlying
model or to refine the test (or, perhaps, both). It has become abundantly clear
(as in our own experience with the earlier 42-item version of the ACSI) that a
test that appearsto have a solid factor structure using exploratory factor analysis
may fail the more stringent test of factorial validity that is provided by CFA
(Nunnally & Bernstein,1994).
More recently, researchershave begun to use CFA as a basis for designing
new measures(e.9.,Judd et al., 1986;Smith, Smoll, & Schutz,1990).Using this
approachearly in the test construction phasecan assistresearchersin developing
measuresthat conform to an underlying structureof latent variables (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). This structure may be derived from a formal theoretical model,
or it may emerge in the course of test development.In the case of the ACSI-2S,
we had a general idea of the range of psychological skills that we wanted to
measure,but no explicit theory. We do not in any way assumethat the variables
that we are measuring exhaust the domain of psychological skills that may
contributeto performance(or eventhat they are asimportant as other, unmeasured,
variables), but we do appear to have a measure that maps onto a set of seven
latent variables that conform to current conceptions of important psychological
skills. In this regard, it is well to keep in mind that (as in the caseof exploratory
factor analysis) what one gets out of CFA dependson what one puts into it. A
"athletic coping skills."
different set of items could produce a different set of
In the final analysis,the value of the ACSI-29 and other potential psychological
skills measureswill be defined by the construct validity they demonstratein their
relations with other meaningful variables.
A factorial validity approachto instrument development gives primacy to
the fit of the scale or subscaleswith the underlying factor structure. Achieving
such a fit may come at the cost of other aestheticand psychometricconsiderations.
"liked" the eight-factor model of the longer 42-item measure
In some ways, we
better, but the CFA data clearly indicated that two of the subscalesshould be
combined and that a number of items that appeareduseful should be dropped in
order to achieve acceptable goodnessof fit to the underlying factor structure.
Moreover, the internal consistenciesof someof the original subscaleswere higher
becausethey had more items than the current 4-item subscalesdo.
Indeed, the fact that several of our subscaleshave alphas in the .60s may
be regarded as problematic by some researchers.However, as Cronbach (1951)
pointed out, alpha is heavily influenced by test length. Given a small number of
items per subscale,low alphas can provide a practical underestimateof subscale
item intercorrelations,which are the basis for internal consistency(Nunnally &
 Athletic CopingSkills Inventory-z8I 393

Bemstein, 1994). For example, the averageitem intercorrelations (r = .26; mean

item-total r = .68) that produced a modest alpha of .56 for males in our four-
item Concentration subscale would yield an alpha of .72 if there were eight
items; for the combined genders, alpha would be .76 (Nunnally & Bemstein,
1994, p. 263). ln short scales of this type, the goodness of fit between the
subscalesand the underlying model in a CFA may be more indicative of the
adequacyof construct measurementthan is a borderline level of intemal consis-
tency (Nunnally & Bemstein, 1994;Pedhazur& Schmelkin, 199I ; seealso Green,
Lissitz, & Mulaik, 1977). However, this is not to suggestthat increasingthe
number of items in the subscaleswould not be useful in the future, as long as
the factorial integrity of the measureis preserved.It is also worth noting that it
is not necessaryto use all sevenof the subscales;each of them has a sufficiently
strong
' factor structure to be used as a specific measureif this is desired.
Test-retest reliability coefficients were reasonably high for most of the
subscalesand for the total score. One notable exception was the Coachability
subscale,which exhibitedrelativelylow stability over the one-weekperiod.This
evidenceof modest stability must be viewed with caution, however. A severe
problem with rangerestriction existed in this particular sample,and its Coachabil-
ity variances on both the pretest and posttest measures(slightly greater than I
on a l2-point scale) were 3-10 times smaller than those of other sampleswe
have tested, and at least 3 times smaller than any of their variances on the other
six subscales.This factor could be expectedto severely attenuatethe test-retest
correlation coefficient in this sample.Although range restriction is the most likely
reasonforthe atypicallylow test-retestcoefficient,the stabilityofthe Coachability
subscaleclearly needsto be assessedin other athletepopulations,becauseour
assumptionis that the skills indexed by the ACSI-28 are relatively stable.Al-
though we would expect some variation in coachability acrossdiffering situations
as a function of coach-athleterelationships,the relative transituationalconsis-
tency of Coachability(as well as the other psychologicalskills) is not known at
this time. Our preliminary evidence suggeststhat there may be some degree of
variation in stability coefficients across the skill categories.
Relations between the ACSI-2S and other scalesprovided evidence for
both convergentand discriminantvalidity. The measurecorrelatedmost highly
with measuresof cognitive-behavioralcoping skills (Self-ControlSchedule)and
generalizedbehavioral self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy Scale). The fact that the only
significant correlations with the Ways of Coping subscalesoccurred for Problem-
FocusedCoping is also consistentwith our conceptionof the ACSI-28 skills
as methods for coping directly with challenging and threatening sport-specific
situations. However, the fact that the highest correlations indicated only about
20-25Vocommon variancesuggeststhat the ACSI-28 may be relatively sport-
specific.The extentto which theseskills generalizeto other life situationsis an
intriguing questionthat deservesempirical attention.
Correlations with the factors of the Sport Anxiety Scale provided mixed
evidence for convergent validity. The Freedom From Worry subscalecorrelated
most strongly (and negatively) with the worry factor of the SAS. On the other
hand, the Concentrationsubscalefailed to correlate highly with the concentration
disruption factor on the SAS. None of the subscalescorrelated highly with the
somatic anxiety factor on the SAS, suggesting the need for a subscale that
measuresarousal-controlskills, specificallyrelaxation,more effectively than our
394 I Smith,Schutz,Smoll,and Ptacek

scaledoes.There is no reasonwhy additionalitems or even subscalescould not

be added to the scale, as long as they can be shown through CFA and other
researchmethodsto maintain or enhancefactorial, predictive, or constructva-
lidity.
High scoreson the ACSI-28 correlatedpositively and significantly with a
measure of general self-esteem, but no relations were found with the Mental
Health Inventory measuresof psychologicaldistressand well-being' This indi-
cates that the ACSI-2S is not a measureof generalpsychologicaladjustment,
but that the skills it measuresare relatedto positive self-evaluations.
Preliminary researchrelating the ACSI-28 to performance measuresindi-
cates that the subscalesand the total score are unrelated to expert ratings of
physical skills. Thus, physical and psychologicalskills appearto be relatively
independent of one another. In both studies, relations between subscalescores
and performance were enhancedwhen physical skills were taken into account.
In the study of over- and underachievers,the results indicated that the predictive
accuracyof high scoresin identifying overachievementmay exceedthe predictive
accuracy of low scores in identifying underachievers.The athletes whose level
of performanceexceededtheir level of physical skills had significantly higher
scoreson severalof the subscales,as well as higher total scores.This resulttends
to supportthe common assumptionthat psychologicalskills can assistathletes
in getting the most out of their physical abilities. The overachieverswere signifi-
cantly higher in their self-reported abilities to profit from coaching, to manage
stressand cope with adversity, and to control attentional focus.
In the study ofprofessional baseballplayers, psychological skills accounted
for as much performance variance in batting average as did physical skills. In
the case of pitchers, the linear combination of ACSI-2S subscalesaccountedfor
appreciably more performancevariance than did physical skills. The Confidence
and Achievement Motivation subscalecorrelated significantly with both batting
and pitching performance,and PeakingUnder Pressurewas also relatedto pitching
performance. The hierarchical regression analysesrevealed that even after the
performancevariance attributable to physical skill differences was partialed out,
psychological skills accountedfor significant increments in explained variance'
The results of the two validation studies suggeststhe importance of taking into
accountthe influence of physical skills when evaluating the role of psychological
factors in performance.
The ACSI-28 was developed as a research instrument. Like most other
self-report measuresof psychological skills, its items are quite transparent,and
the socially desirable response is evident in most cases. This fact makes it
potentially susceptible to responsedistortion; athletes could respond in such a
way as to present either a positive or negative image of themselves. In the
majority of instancesof distortion, we might expect athletes to respond to the
test items in such a way as to project an overly positive image of themselves,
and the positive relations that we found with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir-
ability Scale are consistent with this expectation. Paulhus (1986) has suggested
that socially desirable responding is of two varieties: impression management
and self-deception. Impression management is a conscious effort to project a
positive image to others that is not in accord with the individual's own self-
"faking good." In contrast, self-deception reflects a
concept; it is, essentially,
less conscious attempt to establishand maintain a highly positive self-image that
 AthleticCopingSkillsInventory-28I 395

is honestly held by the respondent.Measureslike the ACSI-28 are obviously

vulnerableto either of theseresponsetendencies,and Paulhus(1986) found that
the Marlowe-Crowneloads on both impressionmanagementand self-deception
factors.
Severalmeasurescan be taken to reduce impressionmanagement.First,
attemptsmay be made to enlist the cooperationof the participantsand to induce
them to respondhonestlyto the items. For example,both the CompetitiveState
Anxiety Inventory-2 (Martenset al., 1990)and the Sport Anxiety Scale(Smith,
Smoll, & Schutz, 1990) contain instructionsdesignedto normalize reports of
experiencinganxiety and thereby counter tendenciesto deny such reactions.
Second,as noted above, a common finding is that impressionmanagementre-
sponding is less likely to occur when participants are not asked to identify
themselves.Wheneverpossible,it is advisableto obtain data in an anonymous
fashion.If identificationis neededto matchscoreswith othervariables,a subject-
generatedcode number may help preserve anonymity. A third suggestion,made
by Williams and Krane (1992), is that social desirability should be assessedin
future studies that use self-report measures,and participants who obtain very
favorablescoresalong with high socialdesirabilityscoresmight well be excluded
from data analysesin order to reduce error variance.
Self-deception is more difficult to control than is impression management
becauseself-deceptionoccurswith minimal awarenesson the part of the individ-
ual. It is clear, however,that either processis likely to reducethe magnitudeof
relationsbetweenself-reportinstrumentslike the ACSI-28 andoutcomemeasures
that are not subject to the same defensive influences. Where sport performance
is concerned,for example,it seemshighly unlikely that eitherimpressionmanage-
ment or self-deceptionwill help to enhanceperformance.In contrast,both ACSI-
28 scoresand scoreson other measuresofadjustment(includingbehavioralones)
may be increasedby theseprocesses.In such cases,removing the influence of
"response sets" from the ACSI-28 could actually attenuaterelations be-
these
tween the scale and the criterion variables.
Given the potential influence of social desirability, we therefore wish to
emphasizethat the ACSI-28 (as well as similar self-reportmeasures)should not
be used for selectionpurposes,becauseit is too susceptibleto responsedistortion
to be a basisfor practical decisionsof this nature.Under conditions where athletes
might be particularly motivated to presenta positive image of themselves,high
scores and low scores may have differential validity. The high scores will be
difficult to interpret. For some subjects (true positives), the scores will be rela-
tively accuratereflections of their psychological skills. An unknown number of
other high scorerswill be false positives (impression managersor self-deceivers)
who do not possessthe skills they profess to have, and predictive validity will
be poor for this subsample.In contrast,low scoresmay be very meaningful under
such conditions, and a substantialproportion of low scorersare likely to be true
negatives who are accurately representing a low level of skill development.
Predictive validity may be quite impressive for such subjects.
Although preliminary results obtained with the ACSI-28 are encouraging.
much additional researchis neededto assessits constructvalidity and its predictive
utility within various populations of athletes.Much remains to be leamed about
the role of psychological factors in sport performance and in the physical and
psychological well-being of athletes. Our goal in developing the ACSI-2S is
396 I Smith, Schutz,Smoll, and Ptacek

to help advance research in this area by developing a psychometrically sound

multidimensional measure of coping skills. The availability of such a scale (and
future scales that improve upon it) may assist researchers in exploring the many
theoretical and practical issues that merit empirical attention.

References

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psyclrological Bulletin,
107, 238-246.
Brawley, L.R., Canon, A.V., & Widmeyer,W.N. (1987).Assessingthe cohesionof teams:
Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire.Journal of Sport Psychology,
9,275-294.
Buss, D.M., & Cantor, N. (Eds.) (1989). Personality psychology: Recent trends and
emerging directions. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver,C.S. (1989). How should multifacetedconstructsbe tested?Issuesillustratedby
self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness."/ournal of Personality and Social
P sychology, 56, 577-585.
Cattell, R.B. (1965). The scientific analysisof personality.Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Chartrand,J., Jowdy, D.P., & Danish,S.J. (1992).The PsychologicalSkills Inventory for
Sports: Psychometric characteristicsand applied implications. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 14, 405-413.
Coppel, D.B. ( I 980). The relationship of perceived social support and self-fficacy to major
and minor stressors.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
Cox, R.H., &Lil,Z. (1993).Psychologicalskills: A cross-culturalinvestigation.Interna-
tional J ournal of Sport P sychology, 24, 326-340.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika,
16,297-334.
Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scaleof social desirability independentof
psychopathology. I ournal of C onsulting P sychology, 24, 349-354.
Ford, S.K., & Summers, J.I. (1992). The factorial validity of the TAIS attentional-style
subscales.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14,283-297.
Gould, D., Weiss,M.,& Weinberg,R. (1981). Psychologicalcharacteristicsof successful
and unsuccessfulBig Ten wrestlers.Journal of Sport Psychology,3, 69-81.
Green,S.B., Lissitz, R.W., & Mulaik, S.A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an
index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement,3T,
827-838.
Greenspan,M.J., & Feltz, D.M. (1989). Psychological interventions with athletes in
competitive situations: A review. The Sport P sychologist, 3, 219-236.
Hanson, S.J., McCullagh, P., & Tonymon, P. (1992). The relationship of personality
characteristics,life stress,and coping resourcesto athletic injury. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psycholo gy, 14, 262-2'72.
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In M. Hetherington
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social and personality development(Vol. 4,
pp. 275-385).New York: Wiley.
Jtireskog, K.G., & Scirbom,D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the
SIMPUS command language. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Judd,C.M., Jessor,R., & Donovan,J.E. (1986).Structuralequationmodelsand personality
research.J ournal of P ersonality, 54, 149-198.
Mahoney, M.J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and nonelite performance in
Olympic weightlifting. International Journal of Sport Psychology,20, l-12.
Mahoney, M.J., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory
stldy. Cognitive Therapy and Research,l, 135-141.
 Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-z9 I 397

Mahoney,M.J., Gabriel,T.J., & Perkins,T.S. (1987).Psychologicalskills and exceptional

athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, I, l8l-199.
Martens, R. (1977). Sport Competition Awiety Tesr. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Vealey, R.S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign.
IL: Human Kinetics.
Miller, L.H., & Smith, A.D. (1982, December).Stressaudit questionnaire.Bostonia: In-
depth, pp.39-54.
Mulaik, S.A., James,L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett,N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D. (1989).
Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
r05,430-445.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bemstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometrictheory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
O'Brien, P.C. ( 1983).The appropriatenessof analysisof variance and multiple comparison
procedures.B iometrika, 39, 327-342.
Ozer, D.J., & Reise,S.P. (1994). Personalityassessment. Annual Review of Psychology,
45, 357-388.
Paulhus,D. L. (1986). Self-deceptionand impressionmanagementin test responses.In
A. Angleitner & J.S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessmentvia questionnaires:
Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 143-165). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Pedhazur,E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement,design,and analysis:An inte-
grated approacft. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petrie,T.A. ( 1993).Coping skills,competitivetrait anxiety,andplaying status:Moderating
effects on the life stress-injuryrelationship.,/ournal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
15,26r-274.
Rosenbaum,M. (1980). A schedulefor assessingself-control behaviors: Preliminary
findings. Behavior Therapy, ll, 109-121.
Rosenberg,M. (1979). Conceivingthe self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenthal,R., & Rosnow,R.L. (1985).Contrastanalysis.New York: CambridgeUniver-
sity Press.
Sarason,I.G. ( 1978).The Test Anxiety Scale:Conceptand research.In C.D. Spielberger&
I.G. Sarason(Eds.), Sress and awiety (Vol. 5, pp. 193-216).Washington,DC:
Hemisphere.
Schutz,R.W., Eom, H.J., Smoll, F.L., & Smith, R.E. (1994).Examinationof the factorial
validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire.Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport,65,226-236.
Smith, R.E. (1980). A cognitive-affective approach to stress management training for
athletes.In C.H. Nadeau, W. Halliwell, K.M. Newell, & G.C. Roberts (Eds.),
Psychology of motor behavior and sport-1979 (pp. 54-72). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Smith, R.E. (1989a).Conceptualand statisticalissuesin researchinvolving multidimen-
sionaf anxiety scales.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,11,452-45-l.
Smith, R.E. (1989b). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and
locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,228-233.
Smith, R.E., & Christensen,D.S. (1995).Psychologicalskills aspredictorsof performance
and survival in professional baseball.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,17,
399-415.
Smith, R.E., Ptacek,J.T., & Smoll, F.L. (1992). Sensationseeking, stress,and adolescent
injuries: A test of stress-buffering,risk-taking, and coping skills hypotheses.Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,62, L0l6-1024.
Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F.L. (1990). Behavioral researchand intervention in youth sports.
Behavior Therapy., 22, 329-344.
Smith, R.8., Smoll, F.L., & hacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive moderator variables in
398 | Smith, Schutz, Smoll, and Ptacek

vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress,social support and coping skills'
and adolescent sport injuries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,5S,
360-370.
Smith, R.8., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz,R.W. (1990). Measurementand correlatesof sport-
specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety
Research, 2, 263-280.
Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E., Barnett,N.P., & Everett,J.J. (1993).Enhancementof children's
self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of
Applied P sychology, 78, 602-610.
Spielberger,C.D., Gorsuch,R.L., & Lushene,R.E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory 6TN). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
approach.M ultivariate B ehavioral Research, 25, I 73- I 80.
Veit, C.T., & Ware, J.E. (1983). The structureof psychologicaldistressand well-being
in general populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,5l' 730-
742.
Vitaliano, P.P., Russo,J., Carr, J.E., Maiuro, R.D., & Becker, J. (1985). The Ways of
Coping Checklist: Revision and psychometric properties. Multivariate Behavioral
Research.20. 3-26.
White, S.A. (1993).The relationshipbetweenpsychologicalskills,experience,andpractice
commitment among male and female skiers. Tfte Sport Psychologist, 7 ' 49-51.
Wilcox,, R.R. (1987).New designsin analysisof variance.Annual Reviewof Psychology'
38,29-60.
Williams, J.M. (1993). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Williams, J.M., & Krane, V. (1992). Coping style and self-reportedmeasuresof state
anxiety and self-confidence.Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,4,134-143.
Williams, J.M., Tonymon, P., & Wadsworth,W.A. (1986).Relationshipof stressto injury
in intercollegiatevolleyball. Journal of Human Stress,12,38-43.

Notes
'Technically, the model changescan be construedas a specification search,a data-
driven processthat can result in nonreplicable models if done in a nonsystematicfashion
that, for example, allows new factors to be created. Our procedure was systematic and
controlled, involving testing one item at a time and not allowing discarded items to
load on other factors, thereby conforming to standard psychometric methods used in
contemporary modifications of psychological scales.
2Becauseof our interest in determining whether the underlying model applied to
both genders,the genderanalysiswas given priority over a cross-validationanalysisthat
would have entailed splitting the sample into halves and repeating the CFAs. Cross-
validation within genders was not carried out becausethe subsampleswould have been
too small by CFA standards,and replication of the model in both gendersalready provided
convincing evidenceof the model's stability.

Manuscript submitted: January 4, 1995

Revisionreceived:June 6, 1995

View publication stats