Quantitative Instruments of Measurement

Three psychometric tests were employed in the pilot study. During the first seminar session, each participant received a preliminary data collection package which included a Cover Letter (as itemised in Appendix A, please see the enclosed CD-ROM;

document three) in addition to the three assessment tools detailed in the forthcoming section. For comparison purposes, the psychometric tests were administered pre- and post-intervention during the first and second last seminar session, respectively. Those particular times were chosen to ensure that the Flow-PST instructional content had been introduced only after the preliminary data collection. Therefore, the Flow-PST curriculum had been dealt with in entirety before the post-intervention data was collected. The instruments of measurement included the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-II; Pelletier et al.,

2013), the Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS 2; Hardy et al., 2010), and the LONG Dispositional Flow State Scale (DFS-2) - Physical, (Jackson et al., 2010). The versions of the Psychometric Tests Administered which the student-athletes completed have been provided in

the enclosed CD-ROM; please see document four.

3.4.1 The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-II). In order to assess the locus of

participants’ motivation while engaged in their respective sport, the revised Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-II; Pelletier et al., 2013) was employed under the pseudonymous title: Why Do You Practice Your Sport? The SMS-II was befitting as it provided insight pertaining to

characteristics and psychological processes underlying the locus of six forms of sport- specific motivational orientation and behavioural regulation as a reflection of the self- determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). It presupposes that one can exhibit multiple motives for engagement in an activity and hence the locus of motivation must be examined as on a continuum of autonomy which is influenced by factors emanating from the actor engaged in an activity (Ryan & Deci, 2007). Accordingly, the six 3-item subscales of the SMS-II assess three types of more autonomous behavioural regulation (intrinsic, integrated, and identified) and three types of less self-determined forms of behavioural regulation

(introjected, external, and amotivated), respectively. Reflecting the conceptual continuum of

loci of motivational regulation, the SMS-II is comprised of 18 items on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by the diametrically opposed statements does not correspond at all (1) and corresponds completely (7). Possible subscale scores could hence range from three to 21—the

higher of which would be demonstrative of higher levels of the type of motivational regulation in question. In a two-phase study to create and validate a revised version of the original sport motivation scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., 1995), Pelletier et al. (2013) assessed the SMS-II with provincial-level swimmers (n = 150) and basketball athletes (n = 140) and

yielded strong reliability and validity for the revised scale. Specifically, tests for internal consistency demonstrated support for the validity of the SMS-II; Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients ranged from 0.70 (introjected subscale; M = 4.15, SD = 1.33) to 0.88 (intrinsic

subscale; M = 4.72, SD = 1.51; mean alpha across the six subscales = 0.79). In the current

context, the two scales are comparable with caution because the original SMS entailed seven subscales, three of which—intrinsic motivation to know, intrinsic motivation to accomplish, and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation—were collapsed into the revised intrinsic motivation and integrated motivational regulation subscales. Nonetheless, Pelletier et al. (2013) demonstrated that, in comparison, the original SMS yielded Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients ranging from 0.73 (introjected regulatory subscale; M

= 4.18, SD = 1.39) to 0.87 (for the original subscale intrinsic motivation to know; M = 4.52, SD

= 1.49; mean alpha across the seven subscales = 0.81). While the introjected regulation subscale yielded a slightly lower reliability coefficient than the remaining subscales, it remained acceptable. Moreover, Pelletier et al. (2013) confirmed the existence of a simplex pattern in the SMS-II; each respective subscale revealed a greater correlation in a positive direction with the subscales in close proximity along the self-determination continuum and a weaker correlation with those diametrically opposed. The SMS-II was thus deemed to have sufficient support for the factorial validity of the scale. As a result, the SMS-II was employed in the current study because it was deemed superior to its predecessor due to its brevity, greater conformity with the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985a,

2008b), and the improved internal consistency (Pelletier et al., 2013). In addition to assessing the student-athletes’ level and locus of motivational regulation, the Flow-PST participants reported their engagement in performance strategies conducive to fostering optimal mental performance states.

3.4.2 Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS 2). A condensed version of the

revised Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS 2; Hardy et al., 2010) was employed in the pilot

study. Developed by Thomas et al. (1999), the TOPS is a sport specific self-report instrument consisting of 64 questions which enables measurement of psychological skills and strategies employed in practice and competition settings. As the present study emphasised practice settings, merely the practice relevant questions were utilised for the pre- and post-intervention psychometric assessment. This decision was deemed justifiable because the research focus was on initial mental skill acquisition and refinement. From a learning perspective, the systematic practice of psychological skills and performance strategies ought to be promoted and implemented in practice contexts first (Weinberg & Williams, 2001; Weinberg & Gould, 2015). Thus, the Flow-PST intervention pivoted around fostering general disposition and habitual behaviours which precede optimal mental performance as applied to practice contexts rather than focusing on their immediate transfer to competition per se. The TOPS 2 thereby provided a means of monitoring the psychological skills employed by the respondent and thus enabled assessment of the effects of the psychological skills training intervention on technique implementation and skill development in the actual practice settings pre- and post- intervention. The test administered to fulfil the needs of the Flow-PST pilot study was comprised of 32 remaining questions across eight subscales and provided under the pseudonymous title Which Strategies Do You Use in Practice?

The TOPS 2 assessed the frequency with which the respondent employed the practice strategies indicated using a 5-point Likert scale anchored by the diametrically opposed frequencies never (1) and always (5). The cognitive behavioural strategies assessed

in the TOPS 2 include activation, relaxation, attentional control, automaticity, emotional control, goal setting, imagery, and self-talk. Arousal regulation, assessed by the activation and relaxation performance strategies, refers to the skill of regulating levels of physiological arousal so as to thereby facilitate optimal performance states. Relaxation, for

example, is achieved by lowering somatic anxiety or physiological arousal by engaging in a form of arousal regulation such as one breath relaxation. Conversely, activation or increases

activity such as vigorously jumping up and down to increase blood flow. While attentional control refers to strategies such as pre-performance concentration routines which are

employed to purposefully facilitate gaining and maintaining the most appropriate attentional focus for the respective performance, the items related to automaticity assessed

the ability to perform to a high standard in absence of elaborate cognitive control, autonomously, if you will. Furthermore, the frequency with which the respondent employed strategies to effectively deal with negative emotions stemming from distractions and adversity, for instance, is measured through TOPS 2 items categorised under emotional control. Emotional control strategies could include the use of contingency plans to rehearse

subjectively optimal ways of dealing with adversity or distraction and using said plans when the need arises. The frequency with which the respondent engages in a goal setting

process whereby specific plans of what they wish to accomplish, ideally including an appropriate action plan, is also assessed. The TOPS 2 includes goal setting questions regards the planning process, goal specificity, and level of difficulty. Moreover, it assesses covert cognitive rehearsal of performance, imagery rehearsal. Questions encompass the

purposeful recollection of past successful performances, involvement of the kinaesthetic sense, and also enquire as to the perspective (internal versus external). Finally, the TOPS 2 facilitates assessment of whether the respondent purposefully implements and maintains internal discourse facilitative of performance; positive self-talk. The TOPS 2 hence enabled a

comprehensive assessment of the psychological performance strategies and skills each athlete employed pre- and post-intervention.

With a cohort of athletes of varying ability and representing different sports (n =

277), Hardy et al. (2010) found that the practice subscales on the refined version of the TOPS 2 yielded internal consistency in support of the validity thereof. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients ranged from 0.71 (activation; M = 3.41, SD = 0.63) to 0.85 (relaxation; M = 2.18, SD

= 0.83; mean alpha across subscales = 0.78). While the authors cited limitations with the automaticity subscale as a result of the double-negative phrasing of some items, for example, the generally good fit statistics nevertheless served as sufficient support for the factorial validity of the TOPS 2 used in this study. Deciphering increments in the use of performance strategies first required slight adaptation of the reported scores, however, as negatively phrased statements inherent in five of the TOPS 2 subscales initially lead to obscure final results. To present readily comparable results which can be interpreted unambiguously across subscales, the responses to the items in question were inverted. For example, TOPS 2 question number 10, an item on the emotional control subscale, reads: “I get frustrated and emotionally upset when practice does not go well” (Hardy et al., 2010, p.

32). A response of always (5) on the 5-point Likert scale is indicative of a lack of emotional

control. Inverting the response to never (1) effectively renders it a low score suggesting a

deficiency and thus fostering conformity with the scoring of the remaining positively phrased items. Therefore, scores for all negatively phrased items were inverted as follows:

always (5) was inverted to never (1); often (4) was inverted to rarely (2); sometimes (3)

remained constant; rarely (2) was inverted to often (4) and never (1) was inverted to always

(5). Consequently, the higher the reported score on any respective subscale (maximum 20), the more frequent the use of the performance strategy; a lower score (minimum four) therefore signifies infrequent implementation. In this pilot study, it was presumed that the greater frequency with which student-athletes reportedly employ mental performance strategies to enhance performance, the greater is the likelihood that they will also be able to foster optimal performance and dispositional flow.

3.4.3 LONG Dispositional Flow State Scale (DFS-2)—Physical. The LONG Dispositional Flow State Scale (DFS-2) – Physical (Jackson et al., 2010) was deemed most

efficacious for the assessment of each student-athlete’s multidimensional and unidimensional experiences of dispositional flow. For the self-report instrument is a reflection of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) theory of flow as further explicated in extensive qualitative research in sport contexts with elite athletes (Jackson 1992, 1995, 1996). The nine-dimensional conceptualisation of flow reflected in the subscales include measures of the challenge-skill balance, merging of action and awareness, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, concentration on the task at hand, sense of control, loss of self-consciousness, transformation of time, and

the autotelic experience. Individually, the respective subscales represent a singular

characteristic of the multidimensional flow experience. Cumulatively, however, an average of all subscale scores yields a global flow score and is thus demonstrative of the unidimensional experience of the optimal psychological state.

The LONG DFS-2 – Physical entails 36 questions across nine subscales. Provided to the participants under the pseudonymous title What Do You Experience When You Participate in Your Sport?, the DFS-2 – Physical assessed the frequency with which the characteristics of

dispositional flow were experienced. This is indicated via a 5-point Likert scale anchored by the diametrically opposed statements never (1) and always (5). Therefore, before

determining the average response, possible subscale scores could range from four to 20. A higher subscale score is indicative of the respondent’s affirmation of the frequency with which they experience the dimension of flow in question; lower subscale scores reflect the respondent’s objection to or lesser agreement with the subscale questions and thus lesser

experience of the dimension of flow in question (Jackson et al., 2010). Moreover, the global flow construct calculable within the LONG DFS-2 Physical scale allowed the unidimensional assessment of each subject’s general disposition for flow in sports conducive to the experience. As reported by Jackson et al. (1998), the reliability of the original trait flow scale revealed alphas ranging from .70 to .88 (mean alpha = 0.82), with a cohort of masters athletes (n = 398). In an evaluation of the construct validity and

reliability of the revised version of the dispositional flow scale with a physical activity sample (n = 652), Jackson et al. (2008) demonstrated that the LONG DFS-2 – Physical

yielded improved internal consistency estimates ranging from .80 (clear goals; M = 3.97, SD =

0.61) to .89 (loss of self-consciousness; M = 3.36; SD = 0.85). The mean alpha across

subscales = 0.85. This served as sufficient support for the reliability of the measure of dispositional flow in this pilot study.