GOAL ORIENTATION AND BELIEFS ABOUT THE CAUSES OF SUCCESS AMONG GREEK TRACK AND FIELD ATHLETES 1

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2007, 105,927-938. O Perceptual and Motor Skills 2007

GOAL ORIENTATION AND BELIEFS ABOUT THE CAUSES O F SUCCESS AMONG GREEK TRACK AND FIELD ATHLETES'

PANAYIOTIS VELIGEKAS, KOSTAS MYLONAS, AND YANNIS ZERVAS

University of Athens, Greece

Summary.-This study employed Nicholls' social-cognitive approach to achievement motivation along with beliefs about the causes of success. The aims of the study were (a) to test the factor structure of the Greek adaptation of the Perception of Suc- cess Questionnaire and the Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire in a sample of Greek track and field athletes, (b) to explore goal orientation and beliefs about the causes of success in the same sample of track and field athletes, and (c) to interpret both factor structures together, according to the respective theoretical frameworks of achievement motivation. The results verified the task and ego goal orientation dimensions for the Perception of Success Questionnaire. The proposed dimensions for the Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire were also supported. Two dimensions were found when the two sets of factors were conjointly described, named "winning by all means" and "working hard," which might act as an alternative framework when dealing with achievement issues in sports.

Achievement motivation has been widely addressed on several research grounds and constitutes an important issue in sport psychology. It is a drive that may motivate individuals to achieve goals and refers to the way individuals perceive their own abilities. Perception of ability serves as an organizing factor for an athlete's interpretation of activities and responses to achievement experiences (Nicholls, 1989). According to Nicholls (1984, 1989), there are two types of conceptions of ability operating in achievement contexts, namely task and ego goal orientations. The "self-referenced" task goal orientation is the undifferentiated manifestation of the conception of ability regarding mastery of the task. The "other-referenced" ego goal orientation is the conception of ability as a demonstration of superior ability compared to others. Research has indicated that the two orientations are somewhat inde- pendent of each other. However, individuals with both high task and ego orientations exhibit the highest motivation and perceived competence (Duda & Whitehead, 1998).

Self-perception of ability has a vital role to play as well. When a person is high in task or in ego orientation and is also convinced of high personal ability (high perceptions of ability), he is prone to adaptive motivational patterns such as choosing challenging activities, applying effort, and persisting

'Address correspondence to Panayiotis Veligekas, The University of Athens, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 41, Ethnikis Antistasis Str., 172 37, Athens, Greece or e-mail ([email protected]).

92 8 I-'. VELIGEKAS, ET AL.

in the face of difficulty. In contrast, when a person is high in task or ego orientation but is not convinced of high personal ability (low perceptions of ability), he is prone to maladaptive behaviors such as choosing very easy or very difficult tasks and failing to persist in attempts to engage obstacles (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989).

An integral part of goal orientation is an individual's belief system regarding how success is achieved. Goal orientation has important implications for achievement motivation, whereas beliefs about success play a significant role in the motivational process and achievement behavior (White, Kavussa- nu, Tank, & Wingate, 2004).

Goal orientation has been addressed through stringently devised and tested questionnaires. A goal orientation assessment method has been proposed by Duda, the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (1989). Roberts, Treasure and Balague, have also proposed an assessment method, the Perception of Success Questionnaire (1995, 1998), which has exhibited concurrent validity with the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. Beliefs about success have been previously assessed via the Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire proposed by Duda and White (1992). The questionnaire was found to assess "effort," "external factors," "illegal advantage drugs," and "ability."

Goal orientation and beliefs about the causes of success as well as the correlation between them has been examined in both academic and sport settings. In academic setting (Nicholls, 1989; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Patashnick, 1990), task goal orientation has been combined with beliefs that hard work and collaboration with peers lead to success. In sport settings a large number of studies (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Duda & White, 1992; Lochbaum & Roberts, 1993; Newton & Duda, 1993; Papaioannou & Mac- donald, 1993; Papaioannou, 1994, 1997; White & Zellner, 1996; White, et a/., 2004) have corroborated the respective findings in academic settings. In addition to this, ego orientation has been linked to the view that success in sports is essentially defined by external factors (Duda & White, 1992; New- ton & Fry, 1998), possession of high ability, and the use of deceptive strate- gies such as trying to impress the coach or pretending to like the coach.

A few studies have attempted to combine the two instruments-that is, Goal Orientation and Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success-into a single factor structure (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Duda & White, 1992; Newton & Duda, 1993; Treasure & Roberts, 1998). These efforts showed interrela- tions between the two sets of dimensions, suggesting that goal orientation is partly related to variance generated by beliefs and personal theories of athletic success.

The aims of the present study were (a) to explore the factor structures of the Greek adaptations of the Perception of Success Questionnaire and

GOAL ORIENTATION-BELIEFS ABOUT SUCCESS 929

Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire and to compare these with the structures originally and theoretically proposed, (b) to exam- ine goal orientation and beliefs about the causes of success in a sample of track and field athletes, and (c) to attempt a combination of goal orientation and beliefs about causes of success in reference to a wider social-cognitive framework of achievement motivation.

Participants and Procedure A total of 449 Greek track and field athletes (284 men and 165 wom-

en), with mean age 19.7 yr. (SD=4.4; range 15 to 33) participated in the study. No athletes refused to participate. The athletes specialized in different athletic events: sprint events [N=227: 60 m run (n = 82), 60 m hurdles (n =

28), 200 m run (n=67), and 400 m run (n =50)], middle and long distance running events [N= 93: 800 m run (n =50), 1,500 m run (n =27), and 3,000 m run (n = 16)], and jumping events [N = 129: long jump (n = 50), high jump ( n = 2 I) , triple jump (n = 33), pole vault (n = 25)l. There was no methodological intention to stratify the sample on the basis of population characteristics; however, it can be argued that the above distribution is a representative sample of track and field athletes, especially considering the rather large sample size. All assessments took place at the participants' training field, prior to each athlete's training session (approximately one hour before training).

Measures Two questionnaires were employed, the Perception of Success Ques-

tionnaire (Roberts, Treasure, & Balague, 1995, 1998) assessing Task and Ego goal orientations, and Duda and White's (1992) Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire. Both were translated into Greek by two bilin- gual sport psychologists and minor adjustments were made with regard to cultural aspects. Back translation techniques were employed to satisfy the basic methodological prerequisites (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).

The Perception of Success Questionnaire (Roberts, et al., 1995, 1998).- This questionnaire (Table 1) consists of 12 items assessing Task goal orientation (6 items) and Ego goal orientation (6 items) with Cronbach coefficients alpha of .84 and .90, respectively, in previous research. Alphas were satisfac- tory in this study as well (.70 and 31 , respectively). The respondents of the present study answered the 12 questions following the prompt "I feel successful when. . . ." Examples of items constituting the Task subscale are "I work hard" and "I show personal improvement." Examples of items constituting the Ego goal orientation subscale are "I am clearly superior" and "I am the best." The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from I: Strongly agree to 5: Strongly disagree.

P. VELIGEKAS, ET AL.

Beliefs About the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire (Duda & White, 1992).-This scale (Table 2) consists of 19 items representing four salient factors reported by Duda and White (1992) for a sample of skiers; originally, the scale consisted of 21 items (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). The items reflect beliefs about characteristics enhancing athletic success. For this questionnaire, the respondents answered to the prompt "Athletes are successful when . . . ," e.g., "they like improving," on a scale with anchors 1: I totally agree and 5: I totally disagree. The four factors that emerged in Duda and White's study via exploratory factor analytic techniques were Effort, Exter- nal Factors, Illegal Advantage Drugs, and Ability. Cronbach coefficients alpha for the four factors, as reported by Duda and White (19921, were .76, .73, .64, and .60, respectively.

RESULTS The collected data on Task and Ego goal orientation were tested for

factor structure. The analysis was mainly based on exploratory factor analysis techniques and some further indicative support was given by confirmatory factor analysis methods. Such an analytic strategy would require a different sample for the confirmatory factor analysis stage if the main objective had been to confirm the existence of theoretical constructs. However, the main aim in this study was not the quest for confirmation of the factor structure for the two questionnaires, but to investigate further the factor structures that emerged in the exploratory phase, a procedure normally applied in test con- struction and psychometric evaluation studies (e.g., Wechsler, 1992; Aluja & Blanch, 2002). Therefore, factor analysis for the present data was performed under a general exploratory rationale through the use of exploratory factor analysis aided by confirmatory factor analysis indications on the same sample.

In factor analysis, the principal components method of extraction and the orthogonal rotation of components was employed. Factor analysis re- sulted in two factors; however, two of the initial 12 items did not load on any of the two factors. The two items were "I perform to the best of my abilities" and "I reach a target I set for myself." The loadings for the 10 re- tained items are presented in Table 1, along with the variance explained by each of the factors. Other exploratory factor analytic methods (such as em- ploying the common factor model through maximum likelihood techniques) did not reveal different factor solutions. Additionally, oblique rotations re- sulted in a highly similar factor structure with the two factors only correlated at r = .02.

Confirmatory factor analytic techniques (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1999) were also employed. In these analyses, both the 12-item and the 10-item factor structures, in accordance with both the original version of the instrument

GOAL ORIENTATION-BELIEFS ABOUT SUCCESS 93 1

TABLE 1 PERCEPTION OF SULLESS QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM LOADINGS AND

PERCENT OF VARIANCE EXPLAINED BY EACH FACTOR -- -

Item Goal Orlentatlon Ego Task

I dm the best .80 - 02 I beat other people .76 - 03 I am clearly superlor .72 - 11 I show others that I am the best .70 - 04 I accompl~sh something others cannot do .69 0 1 I do better than opponents .65 21 I show personal improvement - 05 .82 I overcome d~fficult~es 06 .80 I work hard - 03 .74 I master something I could not do before 02 .58 E~genvalue 3 18 2 73 Varlance explamed, %I 26 5 22 7 Total explained variance, %

- 49 2

(12 items) and the exploratory factor analysis outcomes (10 items), were considered. Thus, appropriateness of both the theoretically proposed 2-factor model (Roberts, et al., 1995, 1998) and the 2-factor 10-item model that emerged from this study's exploratory factor analysis were examined.

Although other models were tested, a null model assuming unifactorial structure and goodness-of-fit inflation models, only the 2-factor models are reported here, for reasons of brevity. The analysis was performed on the variance-covariance matrix for the 449 athletes. In evaluating the adequacy of each of the 2-factor models, several criteria were considered: (a) the prob- ability levels for the normal theory-weighted least squares 2' criterion, (b) the root mean square error of approximation index (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993), (c) the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1999), and (d) the Ax2 of improvement between successive models. It has been supported that a x2 fit index suggesting that the data depart sig- nificantly from the specified model, especially with large sample sizes, may give excessive weight to trivial variations in fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995; Dun- bar, Ford, Hunt, & Der, 2000); thus, for the evaluation of goodness of fit in these models the main criterion was RMSEA, AGFI, and AX' indices, since the aim was not hypothesis testing at this stage.

The x2 criteria were statistically significant at the .01 level for both models, but the 10-item factor model, including six items assessing Ego goal orientation and four items assessing Task goal orientation, showed significant improvement (AX' = 105.13, Adf = 19, p < .OOl) with the AGFI index improving by .03 (from .88 to .91) and RMSEA decreasing from .09 to .08. It was concluded that the best estimates for Task and Ego goal orientation scores


in the sample were the two factors from the 10-item factor model. The internal consistency reliability coefficient for the 4-item Task subscale was .76. The 2-factor composite scores were used in further analyses in relation to the Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire.

The Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire data collected from the same pool of 449 athletes were analyzed in a similar fashion. The first method of analysis involved exploratory factor techniques and the second method employed confirmatory factor analytic techniques, under the same rationale of exploring the factor structures further. For the perceived causes of success, the factors that emerged from the exploratory analysis were Effort, Taking Advantage of Opportunities, Cheating, Ability, and Ille- gal Advantage Drugs. For most of these factors, the similarity with the 4- factor structure (Duda & White, 1992) was strong. However, the factors are not the same in number and a few items load on different factors than the theoretically expected ones (Table 2).

TABLE 2 BELIEFS ABOUT CAUSES OF SPORT SUCCESS QUESTIONNAIRF ITEM LOADINGS

AND PERCENTAGE OF VARIANCF EXPLAINED BY EACH FACTOR -- -

Item: "Athletes succeed if they. . ." Factor -

1 2 3 4 5

Like improving ( I ) .54 .16 .10 .O1 -.08 Train hard (1) .77 -.I4 .OO .04 -.06 Like to practice (1) .59 .33 .06 -.20 .12 Work really hard (1) .76 -.I8 -.02 .13 .04 Always do their best (1) .61 .20 -.08 .10 -.I2 Like to learn new skills/techniques (1) .48 .39 -.06 . I1 -.03 Compete fairly (1 ) .45 .25 ,009 -.04 -.42 Know how to impress the coach (2) .21 .47 .46 .04 -.22 Get the lucky breaks (2) . lo .63 .06 .02 .12 Know how to make themselves look better than

they are (2) ,001 .64 .21 .17 -.I2 Pretend they like the coaching staff (2) -.I5 .17 .64 .OO .18 Have the right equipment (2) .10 .52 -.I1 .20 .18 D o blood doping (3) -.I6 .01 .16 .09 .77 Know how to cheat (3) .00 .I2 .75 .03 .25 Use performance-enhancing drugs (3) .04 .14 .03 .07 .74 Try things they can't do (4) .10 -.I6 .60 .17 -.I4 Stick to skills or events they are good at (4) .02 .08 .13 .54 -.I0 Are better athletes than the others (4) .OO .12 .11 .76 .18 Are better than others in tough competition (4) .12 .12 -.07 .77 .15

Eigenvalues 3.29 2.44 1.48 1.21 1.17 Variance explained, 'Yo 17.3 12.9 7.8 6.4 6.2 Total explained variance, %

-. -- -.. 50.5

--

Note.-Parenthesized numbers denote the original 4-factor structure of Duda and White (1992).


For the confirmatory factor analysis, both the theoretically proposed 4-factor model (Duda & White, 1992) and the >-factor model that emerged from the exploratory factor analysis were examined. The AGFI goodness-of- fit index and the RMSEA index were computed and were evaluated in combination with the normal theory-weighted least squares x2 criterion of fit for the 4-factor theoretical model and the 5-factor model that emerged in the analysis.

The xZ indices were statistically significant at the .O1 level in both cases. It was also observed that the improvement from the 4-factor model to the 5- factor model was significant but quite small (AX' =21.01, Adf=6, p < .01), and that there was no improvement either in the AGFI indices ( 2 6 for both models) nor the RMSEA index (.07 for both models). Thus, along with comparisons of the exploratory factor solutions for Duda and White's 4-factor structure and the 5-factor structure derived from the Greek data, for reasons of comparability and parsimony, the theoretically driven 4-factor model was chosen for the purposes of this study.

In the third stage of analysis, an attempt was made to combine the factor analytic outcomes of the previous two stages. This could be done in mul- tiple ways, including exploratory factor analysis, simple correlational analysis, multidimensional scaling solutions, and other methods. The multivariate approach to the four belief factors and the two goal orientation factors mainly aimed at describing homogeneous patterns or combinations of latent traits. Therefore, on the basis of the exploratory nature of the analysis, (a) compu- tation and inspection of simple correlation statistics for the six factors in total composite factor scores, (b) exploratory factor analysis for these scores, and (c) a multidimensional scaling solution for the same factor scores were pursued.

The exploratory factor analysis approach, using the principal components method of factor extraction and the orthogonal rotation solution, re- sulted into two factors, explaining approximately 55% of the total variance. The rotated factor outcomes (with 31% of explained variance for the first and 24% for the second factor) showed Ego goal orientation, Ability, Exter- nal Factors, and Illegal Advantage Drugs as the first factor; this factor was named Winning by all means. The second factor, Working hard, included Task goal orientation, Effort, and Illegal Advantage Drugs with the latter being negatively correlated with the factor. The correlations among the six factors employed in this analysis (Ego, Task, Effort, External Factors, Illegal Advantage Drugs, Ability) are shown in Table 3.

Since Kline (1993) argues that less than 10 items in a factor analysis model may yield unstable results, the six composite scores were explored using multidimensional scaling analyzing similarities among the six measures, instead of correlations. The underlying dimensions of the data were explored


TABLE 3 PEARSON COR~LATIONS AMONG ROTATED FAC~ORS

-- -

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Ego 2. Task .02 3. Effort .O1 .39 4. External Factors .27 .07 .26 5. Illegal Advantage Drugs .18 -.I6 -.I4 .23 6 . Abilitv 3 9 .06 .14 .27 .2 1

for possible homogeneous sets among the factor outcomes for goal orientation and beliefs about the causes of sport success. These six measures were analyzed using a nonmetric multidimensional scaling solution. Although a single dimension solution might be more appropriate in respect to the number of measures analyzed, a two-dimensional solution was preferred so that the trigonometric properties of the resulting coordinates could be computed. Young's Stress index approached zero (.0031) and the RZ index approached 1 (.996). These partly artificial indices were a result of the two-dimensional model; the unidimensional solution proved equally successful (Young's Stress = .04, R2 = .99). For the two-dimensional solution, the stimulus coordinates were transformed to degrees through an arctangent-radian transformation and then the outcomes were plotted on the circumference of a semicir- cle in order to return to the more appropriate unidimensional interpretation. The outcomes are presented in Fig. 1. The first factor, Winning by all means, lies on the left side of the circumference and the second factor, Working hard, lies on the right side of the circumference. It is of interest to

FIG. 1. Multidimensional scaling solution (trigonometric transformation) for the two Perception of Success Questionnaire and the four Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Questionnaire factors.


note the position of the Illegal Advantage Drugs belief, which is a rather iso- lated part of the factor Winning by all means and is also the opposite end of the continuum in respect to part of the Working hard factor. These findings also corroborated the correlational approach by providing a statistically safe and a more easily understood graphical presentation of the data.

DISCUSSION The results of the present study verified a critical assumption for the

social-cognitive and motivational framework of achievement, also supported by previous literature: that is, the presence of "individual differences in the tendency to emphasize task- and/or ego-involved goals in achievement related contexts" (Duda & White, 1992, p. 339). The construct validity of this assumption was verified by means of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis outcomes for the Perception of Success Questionnaire, which supported the functional existence of the two goal orientation dimensions. Also, the 4-factor structure for the Beliefs about the Causes of Sport Success Ques- tionnaire was confirmed.

The exploratory factor analysis, along with the multidimensional scaling solution for the two goal orientation and four beliefs about success dimensions suggest that there is a distinction between the Winning by all means and Working hard dimensions. A similar finding has been already demon- strated for elite skiers by Duda and White (1992) where the task goal orientation, the "effort" belief and the "ability" belief formed one factor and the other factor was formed by three beliefs (illegal advantage drugs, external factors, ability) and ego goal orientation. In the present study, the distinction between the two dimensions is emphasized by the Illegal Advantage Drugs item which loads positively on Winning by all means and negatively on Working hard. The belief about ability loads positively on Winning by all means for the track and field athletes. The factor structure does not imply that some athletes supported the use of drugs, but on the contrary that, ste- reotypic characteristics for athletes with an ego goal orientation, ability traits, and reliance on external factors might also refer to the use of illegal advantage drugs. Athletic success could be contrastingly viewed by the ego goal oriented athletes and by the task goal oriented athletes.

The above findings are also in accord with previous research; it has been shown that task goal orientation is linked to hard work and self improvement and also that ego goal orientation is linked to natural ability and maximization of external factors (Duda & White, 1992; Newton & Fry, 1998). Also Liukkonen and Leskinen's (1999) support for the different cognitive and affective task outcomes and ego goal orientations are in line with studies such as Biddle, Soos, and Chatzisarantis's (1999). In their study, it was shown that task and ego goal orientation-both regarded as self-deter-


mined forms of behavioral regulation-may influence outcomes such as physical activity intentions through perceived competence. Such findings point out the links between goal orientation and perceived competence eval- uations, such as beliefs about the causes of sport success, leading to behavioral self-regulation in sports.

The two dimensions present in the data, apart from the different goal orientation element, also included Illegal Advantage Drugs, in accord with the remaining Winning by all means components and in contrast to the Working hard items. The finding that this component is common in both dimensions supports previous findings regarding the belief that deceptive techniques lead to success in conjunction to ego goal orientation, and also that task goal orientation is associated with hard work and effort (Spray, Biddle, & Fox, 1999). Additionally, Duda, Olson, and Templin (1991) have shown that ego goal orientation is associated with the endorsement of un-

- -

sportsmanlike play and cheating and that this goal orientation is also positively related to the rating of aggressive acts as more legitimate.

A point regarding future research is that parameters regarding equipment and materials, training conditions, nutrition factors, and scientific med- ical care and assistance would be of interest in further attempts concerning the beliefs about the causes in sport success. These external parameters would act in a complementary fashion to the internal parameters and could clarify further the means that athletes use to achieve goals. External parameters, such as the above, might relate either to the Winning by all means factor, or to the Working hard factor, or to both.

This study managed to partly support the use of both questionnaires in Greek athletic settings; the theoretical grounds for both assessment methods seem to be supported by the present data. Furthermore, the factors for the combination of the separate factor structures seem parsimonious and in accord with the previous literature. Although it was not possible to stringently test for this factor combination at this stage, it might act as an alternative framework providing a social-cognitive structure when dealing with achievement issues in sports.

REFERENCES

ALUJA, A., &BLANCH, A. (2002) The Children's Depression Inventory as predictor of social and scholastic competence. European Journal of Psychological A.s.ses.\ment, 18, 259-274.

BIDDLE, S. J. H., SOOS, I., &CHATZISARANTIS, N. (1999) Predicting physical activity intentions using goal perspectives and self-determination theory approaches. European Psychologist, 4, 83-89.

BROWNE, M. W., &CUDECK, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structuval equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 10- 39.

DUDA, J. L. (1989) The relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived pur- pose of sport among male and female high school athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise P.sychology, 11, 3 18-335.

GOAL ORIENTATION-BELIEFS ABOUT SUCCESS 93 7

DUDA, J. L., &WHITEHEAD, J. (1998) Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances zn sport and exercire p.\ychology measuremmt. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Pp. 21-48.

DUDA, J. L., & NICHOLLS, J. G. (1992) Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

DUDA, J. L., OLSON, L. K., &TEMPLIN, T. J . (1991) The relationship of task and ego goal orientation to s ortsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research

$r Exercise and Sport, 62, 79-87. DUDA, J. L., &WHITE, S. A. (1992) Goal orientations and beliefs about the causes of sport suc-

cess among elite skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 334-343. DUNBAR, M., FORD, G., HUNT, K., & DER, G. (2000) Question wording effects in the assess-

ment of global self esteem. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 13-19. DWECK, C. S. (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning. American P.\;ychology, 41, 1040-

1048. Hu, L. T., &BENTLER, P. M. (1995) Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equa-

tion mo&lliny: conceptr, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 77-99. JORESKOG, K., & SORBOM, D. (1999) LISREL 8: river's reft.rt,nce guidc. Chicago, IL: Scientific

Software International. KLINE, I? (1993) The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge. LIUKKONEN, J., &LESKINEN, E. (1999) The reliability and validity of scores from the children's

version of the Perception of Success Questionnaire. Educational and P.sychologica1 Mea- surement, 59, 65 1-664.

LOCHBAUM, M., & ROBERTS, G. C. (1993) Coal orientations and perceptions of sport experience. lourndl of Sport and Exercise I'.sychology, 15, 322-336.

NEWTON, M., & DUDA, J. L. (1993) Elite adolescent athletes' achievement goals and beliefs concerning success in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise I'sychology, 15, 437-448.

NEWTON, M., &FRY, M. D. (1 998) Senior Olympian's achievement goals and motivational responses. lournal of Aging and Phy.sica1 Activity, 6, 256-270.

NICHOLLS, J. G. (1984) Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

NICHOLLS, J. G. (1989) The conzpetztive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard Univer. Press.

NICHOLLS, J. G., COBB, P., WOOD, T., YACKEL, E., &PATASHNICK, M. (1990) Assessing students' theories of success in mathematics: individual and classroom differences. Journal for Rc- search in Mathematics Education, 2 1, 109-122.

PAPAIOANNOU, A. (1994) The development of a questionnaire to measure achievement orientation in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 11-20.

PAPAIOANNOU, A. (1997) Perception of motivational climate beliefs about the causes of success and sportsmanship behaviors of elite Greek basketball athletes. In R. Lidor & M. Bar-Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the IX World Congress of Sport I'sychology, Ikrt 11. Israel, July. Pp. 534-536.

PAPAIOANNOU, A,, &MACDONALD, A. (1993) Goal perspectives and purposes of physical education among Greek adolescents. Phy.sical Education Review, 16, 41-48.

ROBERTS, G. C., TREASURE, D., & BALAGUE, G. (1995) The development and validation of the Perception of Success Questionnaire. In R. Van Fraechem-Raway, & Y. Vanden Auseele (Eds.), Proceeding.\ of the IXth European Congress on Sport Psychology, Part I. Brussells, July. Pp. 75-81.

ROBERTS, G. C., TREASURE, D., &BALAGUE, G. (1998) Achievement goals in sport: the development and validation of the Perception of Success Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Sciences, 16, 337-347.

SPRAY, C. M., BIDDLE, S. J. H., &FOX, K. R. (1999) Achievement goals, beliefs about the causes of success and reported emotion in post-16 physical education. Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 213-219.

TREASURE, D. C., &ROBERTS, G. C. (1998) Relationship between female adolescents' achievement goal orientations, perceptions of the motivational climate, belief about success and sources of satisfaction in basketball. International journal of Sport P.sychology, 29, 211-230.


VAN DE VIJVER, F., & LEUNG, K. (1997) Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

WECHSLER, D. (1992) Wechslcr Intelligence Scale for Children. (3rd ed.) Kent, UK: The Psy- chological Corp.

WHITE, S. A., KAVLISSANU, M., TANK, K. M., & WINGATE, J. M. (2004) Perceived parental beliefs about the causes of success in sport: relationship to athletes' achievement goals and personal beliefs. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14, 57-66.

WHITE, 5. A,, &ZEI.LNER, S. R. (1996) The relationship between goal orientation, beliefs about the causes of sport success, and trait anxiety among high school, intercollegiate, and rec- reational sport participants. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 58-72.

Accepted October 17, 2007

Documents

GOAL ORIENTATION AND BELIEFS ABOUT THE CAUSES OF SUCCESS AMONG GREEK TRACK AND FIELD ATHLETES 1