Sources of Competence Information and Perceived ... · Sources of Competence Information and Perceived ... vide a unique window through which to study skill level variations in

396 / Halliburton and Weiss

396

JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 24, 396-419© 2002 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Sources of Competence Information and PerceivedMotivational Climate Among Adolescent Female Gymnasts

Varying in Skill Level

Amy L. Halliburton and Maureen R. WeissUniversity of Virginia

Theoretically grounded in the work of Harter (1978, 1981) and Ames (1992a),three research questions were addressed in the present study: (a) Do sourcesof competence information vary by skill level? (b) Do perceptions of the mo-tivational climate vary by skill level? and (c) Are sources of competence in-formation and perceived motivational climate related? Adolescent female gym-nasts (N = 103, ages 12–14 years) competing at Skill Levels 5 to 10 completedmeasures regarding sources of competence information and perceived moti-vational climate. Results revealed that: (a) gymnasts competing at lower lev-els (5–6, 7) used sources of effort and enjoyment more than did gymnastscompeting at higher levels (8, 9, and 10), who used feelings of nervousnessand spectator feedback more frequently; (b) no significant differences emergedin perceptions of the motivational climate among gymnasts competing at vari-ous skill levels; and (c) a significant relationship emerged between use ofsources of competence information and perceived motivational climate. Ingeneral, perceptions of a mastery climate were associated with the use of self-referenced sources of information, whereas perceptions of a performanceclimate were associated with the use of peer comparison and competition per-formance sources of information.

Key Words: perceived competence, gymnastics

The competitive nature of sport assumes the importance of success andachievement. Both theory and empirical literature indicate that successful perfor-mances and attainment of achievement goals result in greater self-esteem and,conversely, individuals with greater self-esteem demonstrate greater motivationlevels and achievement (Harter, 1990). With heightened self-esteem, motivation,and achievement being a common goal among educators, coaches, and parents,understanding the mechanisms by which this goal is attained is a salient issue.

A key determinant of self-esteem and motivated behavior is perceived com-petence in achievement domains valued as important (Harter, 1990). An athlete’s

Amy Halliburton is now with the Dept. of Human Development and Family Studies,Univ. of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211; Maureen Weiss is with the Kinesiol-ogy Program, Univ. of Virginia, PO Box 400407, Charlottesville, VA 22903-4407.

Sources of Competence Information / 397

perceptions of competence are influenced by a number of variables including thosethat provide information about his or her ability. Among these variables are anarray of self-referenced (e.g., effort, improvement) and socioenvironmental sources(parents, peers, coaches) (Harter, 1978, 1981; Weiss & Ebbeck, 1996). Within thephysical domain, isolating the sources that athletes use to define their competenceis a salient endeavor because perceived competence is inextricably linked to af-fect, self-esteem, and motivation.

Popular theoretical approaches to the study of motivation and achievementinclude competence motivation theory (Harter, 1978, 1981) and achievement goaltheory (Ames, 1992a; Nicholls, 1989). According to Harter, individuals are moti-vated to develop and demonstrate competence, and assess their competence usinginformation provided in their achievement environment. There are several typesof information sources in the sport context by which individuals judge their abil-ity, including feedback from significant adults and peers, social comparison, self-comparison (improvement, effort), and event outcome (Horn & Amorose, 1998).

An appealing characteristic of Harter’s model is that it is developmental innature. Thus it considers age-related changes in individuals’ desire to achieve inparticular domains and in perceptions of competence and control. Harter suggeststhat individuals gradually internalize a self-reward system and mastery goals withage, but this depends on the type of reinforcement and approval provided by sig-nificant others, especially parents, for attempts at mastery. If parents provide un-conditional approval and positive reinforcement for independent attempts at mastery,the child’s need for external reinforcement and goals should diminish and he orshe should gradually prefer internal criteria for judging personal competence andself-set goals regarding achievement.

Research in the physical domain has indicated an age-related trend in thesources of information that athletes use to assess their competence (see Horn &Harris, 1996, for a review). Specifically, children ages 8 to 9 use task completion,feedback from significant others (namely parents), sport attraction, and game out-come to assess their sport competence. Children ages 10 to 13 rely less on out-come and parent sources and instead use peer comparison, peer evaluation, andcoach feedback in assessing their competence. In later adolescence, the salientsources of competence information are peer evaluation, self-comparison, and in-ternalized standards such as effort and enjoyment (Horn, Glenn, & Wentzell, 1993;Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997).

While age-related trends in competence information sources have been notedin the literature, considerable variability exists within age groups. Children of thesame age often rely on sources of competence information in varying ways. Forexample, Horn and Weiss (1991) and McKiddie and Maynard (1997) found thatchildren comprising different age groups varied in the accuracy of perceptions ofcompetence and sources of information to assess their competence. However, vari-ability in accuracy and use of competence information sources were found notonly between age groups but also within age groups. Children who were accurateor inaccurate in judgments about ability used varying sources to assess their com-petence, regardless of age. Thus, other variables besides age may help explainwithin-group variability in the use of competence information sources.

Several studies have shown that other personal variables such as gender (Hornet al., 1993; McKiddie & Maynard, 1997) and psychological characteristics such


as perceived control, competitive anxiety, and goal orientation are related to theuse of physical competence sources (Horn & Hasbrook, 1987; Weiss et al., 1997;Williams, 1994). For example, Weiss et al. found considerable variability in theuse of competence information sources among children differing in age and psy-chological characteristics such as self-esteem, perceived competence, and traitanxiety. Other intrapersonal and interpersonal variables may also explain within-age-group variability in preference for sources of physical competence informa-tion. Two variables that may help explain variations in the use of competenceinformation sources are skill level and socioenvironmental factors (Ebbeck, 1994;Horn & Amorose, 1998).

In sport, skill or competitive level is often confounded with age in that asathletes get older, they participate at higher skill/competitive levels. Horn et al.(1993) found that older adolescent athletes differed from younger adolescents onpreferred sources of competence information. However, the older group was over-represented at the varsity level while younger athletes were playing on freshmanand junior varsity teams. Moreover, athletes varying in skill level on the sameteam may have different perceptions of information provided by coaches. For ex-ample, Horn (1984, 1985) found that higher and lower skilled players receiveddifferential coach feedback about their competence levels. Ebbeck (1990, 1994),using an objective tennis rating system, separated age and skill level in exam-ining their relationships to level and sources of perceived competence. Skilllevel was positively associated with level of perceived competence as well asthe use of specific sources for judging tennis competence (e.g., winning, so-cial comparison).

In the sport of gymnastics, skill level carries specific meaning that may pro-vide a unique window through which to study skill level variations in sources ofphysical competence information. Gymnasts of varying ages can be competing atthe same skill level or gymnasts of the same age can be competing at varying skilllevels. Therefore, identifying the sources of information that different skill leveland age groups use in assessing their gymnastics competence is an interesting wayto examine the variability that might exist in self-judgments of ability.

In women’s gymnastics, gymnasts advance through a progression of skilllevels, with 1 being the lowest, 10 being the highest (USA Gymnastics, 1997), andbeyond Level 10 considered the elite level. Levels 1 through 3 are noncompetitiveand focus on basic skills in the sport. Level 4 is the first competitive level, butcompetition at this level is rare. When gymnasts reach Level 5 their competitivecareers begin in earnest. Compulsory routines—every gymnast performs the exactsame routine—are performed by gymnasts on each event. Level 6 is similar exceptthat skills included in the compulsory routines become increasingly difficult. Level7 is the first opportunity that gymnasts have to compete in optional routines.

Optional routines are choreographed individually so that every gymnast per-forms a unique one. While each routine contains some identical skills as mandatedby the Code of Points, the choreography is left to the gymnast and her coach.Levels 8, 9, and 10 are strictly optional, no compulsories; the differences betweenthese levels lie in skill difficulty, the requirements for which increase with advanc-ing skill level. Thus, the built-in levels of skill defined by USA Gymnastics pro-vide a good opportunity for examining the relationship between skill level andsources of physical competence information.


Socioenvironmental factors have also been implicated as contributorsto individuals’ level and sources of competence information. For example, as youthtransition from elementary to middle school, the grading system, class structure,and emphasis on performance outcome may encourage dependence on peer com-parison and evaluation as information sources, which in turn may affect level ofperceived competence (Eccles & Midgley, 1990; Harter, 1992). In the sport achieve-ment context, Horn and colleagues (Horn & Amorose, 1998; Horn & Weiss, 1991;Horn et al., 1993) propose that socioenvironmental factors such as programstructure, coach philosophy and behaviors, and team climate all likely con-tribute to variations in sources of perceived competence. Perceptions of theachievement context are often referred to as the perceived motivational cli-mate (Ames, 1992a).

Ames (1992a, 1992b) emphasizes the importance of the motivational cli-mate in changing individuals’ competence perceptions, affect, and behaviors withinachievement contexts (Ames, 1992b). A mastery or task-involving motivationalclimate emphasizes effort, learning, and improvement whereas a performance orego-involving motivational climate emphasizes performance outcomes andnorm-referenced success. The way that the coach structures the learning envi-ronment, groups the athletes together, recognizes athletes for their accom-plishments, and evaluates their athletic performances contributes to theperceived motivational climate, which in turn affects athletes’ psychological andmotivational processes.

Research in the sport domain supports these assertions (Krane, Greenleaf, &Snow, 1997; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992; Theeboom, De Knop, & Weiss, 1995;Walling, Duda, & Chi, 1993). Taken together, research shows that a mastery ori-ented climate is positively related to task goals, enjoyment, satisfaction, interest,and intrinsic motivation. By contrast, a performance oriented climate is positivelyrelated to ego goals, negative affect, and feelings of pressure. In a related study,Chaumeton and Duda (1988) showed that perceived motivational climate in termsof goal emphasis differed according to skill level, with athletes at higher competi-tive levels perceiving a greater emphasis on performance outcome than athletescompeting at lower skill levels. Thus perceived motivational climate in sport isimportant to consider when studying athletes of varying skill levels.

The sport of gymnastics offers a good opportunity for assessing relation-ships among skill level, motivational climate, and sources of competence informa-tion. Because the structure and emphasis of classes vary by skill level, this is likelyto influence gymnasts’ perceptions of the atmosphere pervading their practicesand competitions. At the lower skill levels, the emphasis is primarily on fun andskill improvement. But as gymnasts progress in their careers they find themselvesspending more time in the gym because goals become increasingly competitive innature and performances are dependent upon the quality of compulsory and op-tional routines. Competitive events become more exclusive, and gymnasts oftenhave to place in a top percentile in order to advance to the next competition. Thusan increased emphasis is placed on winning, as progression becomes a process ofweeding out the less skilled gymnasts. The atmosphere changes from a primaryfocus on learning fundamentals in the lower skill levels to performance outcome(ratings, rankings, placing in meets) in the higher levels (see Weiss, Amorose, &Allen, 2000, for a review of relevant gymnastics studies).


Horn and colleagues (Horn & Amorose, 1998; Horn & Weiss, 1991; Weisset al., 1997) suggest the need for more research on the intrapersonal and socio-environmental factors that may be related to athletes’ use of competence informa-tion sources in the sport domain. The sport of gymnastics is ideal for such aninvestigation, as variations in sources of competence information and perceivedmotivational climate can be teased out by skill level and age. Drawing links amongskill level, perceived motivational climate, and competence information sourceswould expand the knowledge base about factors that affect motivation in this popu-lation. To address these links, the present study focused on adolescent gymnastsages 12 to 14 years competing at different skill levels (Levels 5–10).

The first purpose of the study was to examine sources of competence infor-mation used by adolescent female gymnasts competing at different skill levels.Because the emphasis at the lower skill levels is on skill improvement and fun, itwas expected that gymnasts competing at lower levels would cite the use of moreself-referenced sources of information such as effort, enjoyment, and skill im-provement than gymnasts at higher levels. Because the emphasis at higher skilllevels is on comparing favorably to competitors (winning, rankings, scores), itwas expected that norm-referenced competence information sources such as peercomparison and competition statistics would be more salient. In other words, theprogram structure and competitive philosophy that vary with skill level in gym-nastics may encourage young athletes to use certain information sources over oth-ers (Horn & Amorose, 1998). Although these gymnasts competed in the same agegroup (12–14 years), age and skill level are still potentially confounded. Thus wealso compared 12-, 13-, and 14-year-old competitors on information sources bycollapsing across skill level.1

The second purpose was to examine skill-related differences in perceivedmotivational climate. While gymnasts competing at various skill levels may per-ceive characteristics of both a mastery and a performance oriented climate, it wasexpected that gymnasts competing at lower skill levels would perceive a greatermastery climate whereas those at higher skill levels would perceive a greater per-formance climate. These hypotheses also stem from the program structure, com-petitive philosophy, and coaching behaviors that vary with lower to higher skilllevels, which are likely to align with perceptions of mastery and performance cli-mates, respectively. Age differences were examined along with skill level differ-ences on perceived motivational climate to address a possible confound betweenskill level and age.

The third purpose of this study was to examine the relationship betweensources of competence information and perceived motivational climate. It wasexpected that perceptions of a mastery oriented climate would be associated withgreater emphasis on self-referenced sources of competence information. As mas-tery oriented climates are characterized by an emphasis on effort, enjoyment, andlearning, corresponding sources would likely include skill improvement, achieve-ment of self-set goals, attraction to the sport of gymnastics, and mastery of newskills (Ames, 1992b). Conversely, it was hypothesized that perceptions of a per-formance oriented climate would be more highly associated with the use of norm-referenced sources of competence information, given the emphasis of this climateon comparing favorably to others. These sources might include peer comparison,winning, and advancing to select competitions.


MethodParticipants

A total of 103 female gymnasts participated in the study, ranging in age from12 to 14 years (M = 13.22, SD = .84) and competing at Skill Levels 5 to 10 (seeTable 1). Participants were recruited from 16 gymnastics clubs, with 2 to 13 gym-nasts meeting the skill level and age group criteria from each club. Gymnasts be-gan in the sport at around 5 years of age (M = 5.41, SD = 2.27) and started competingat about age 8 (M = 8.26, SD = 1.27). About 95% of the sample were Caucasian.

The skill levels were divided into three chunks for testing study hypotheses:Levels 5–6, 7, and 8–9–10. This resulted in sample sizes of 42, 31, and 30 gym-nasts at each skill level category, respectively. Levels 5 and 6 are compulsorylevels wherein all skill requirements are identical within the level. Level 7 is uniqueand represents the bridge between compulsory and optional gymnastics. Based onthe uniqueness of Level 7 in terms of meeting difficulty requirements and the largenumber of gymnasts competing at this level nationwide, Level 7 was treated as asingle category. Levels 8, 9, and 10 were grouped together, as they represent asignificantly higher and more challenging domain of gymnastics than Levels 5–7.Age was also included as an independent variable to test Hypotheses 1 and 2, withsample sizes being 43, 42, and 18 for ages 12, 13, and 14 years, respectively.

Gymnasts were chosen because the amount of training time, level of skilldifficulty, and amount of pressure differs between competitive levels; the intensityof these variables increases as skill level increases. Therefore this sample allowedfor a good test of the study hypotheses. Additionally, adolescent girls are suscep-tible to social influences in sport, particularly in relation to level and sources ofperceived competence (e.g., Horn et al., 1993).

Measures

Sources of Competence Information. The Sources of Competence Infor-mation Scale (SCIS; Horn & Amorose, 1998) assessed the extent to which gym-nasts use particular sources of information in judging their gymnastics competence.Several versions have been used across studies, depending on the age group sampled(Horn & Amorose, 1998).2 The version of the SCIS used in this study stemmedfrom the one by Horn et al. (1993) that used a total of 39 items, with 3 questions

Table 1 Number of Gymnasts Competing at Each Skill Level by Age

Skill Level

Age 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

12 17 7 12 6 1 0 4313 10 6 12 9 3 2 4214 1 1 7 6 2 1 18

Total 28 14 31 21 6 3 103


for each of 13 sources of competence information: parent feedback, coach feed-back, peer comparison, peer evaluation, attraction to gymnastics, internal infor-mation, speed/ease of learning, amount of effort exerted, skill improvement, gameoutcome, competition performance statistics, spectator feedback, and achievementof self-set goals.

In the present study the category of practice performance replaced gameoutcome to be more relevant to gymnastics. Four items were added to the overallscale, one item each for internal information, achievement of self-set goals, peercomparison, and competitive performance statistics for a total of 43 items.3 Theseitems were added to also accommodate the unique sport of gymnastics, as previ-ous studies using the SCIS have primarily tapped team sports (Horn & Amorose,1998). Adjustments were made to the number and wording of items so that thescale was specific to the sport of gymnastics. Generally the term gymnast was substi-tuted for “player” and the terms competition or meet were substituted for “game.”

The gymnasts were asked to think about how they know whether or not theyare good at gymnastics. Gymnasts then rated the importance of each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all important to 5 = extremely important.Content and construct validity have been established for versions of the SCIS (Hornet al., 1993; Horn & Hasbrook, 1986; Horn & Weiss, 1991; Weiss et al., 1997).

Perceived Motivational Climate. The Perceived Motivational Climate inSport Questionnaire-2 (PMSCQ-2; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000) assessed the ex-tent to which gymnasts perceived a mastery oriented (task-involving) or perfor-mance oriented (ego-involving) climate in the gym. The PMSCQ-2 was developedfrom an earlier version of the measure (PMCSQ; Seifriz et al., 1992) but specifi-cally sought to tap the underlying multiple dimensions of mastery and performanceclimates in the sport domain. The mastery climate dimensions were labeled coop-erative learning, effort/improvement, and important role, and consist of 17 items.The performance dimensions were labeled punishment for mistakes, unequal rec-ognition, and intrateam rivalry, and consist of 16 items. Factorial, concurrent, andconstruct validity were shown for the PMCSQ-2 (Newton et al., 2000).

Of the 33 items that comprise the PMCSQ-2, only 3 were irrelevant to gym-nastics (“players are taken out of a game for mistakes”; “players at all skill levelshave an important role on the team”; “if you want to play in a game you must beone of the best players”). One item (“gymnasts try to score higher than their team-mates”) was added to the intrateam rivalry subscale. Thus the scale used in thepresent study included 16 items for mastery climate and 15 items for performanceclimate. When filling out the PMCSQ-2, the gymnasts responded to the stem “Inthis gym…” by rating each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = stronglydisagree to 5 = strongly agree. Adjustments were made to the wording of the itemsso that the measure was specific to the sport of gymnastics. Generally, the termgymnast was substituted for “player” and the term meet replaced “game.”

Procedure

A letter explaining the general purpose and procedures of the study was sentto the head coaches at private gymnastics clubs, followed by a phone call. Prior toadministering the questionnaires to study participants, one of the researchers vis-ited local clubs during a practice to distribute parental consent forms or sent pack-ets containing consent forms to coaches at gyms in remote locations. Gymnasts


were asked to return the consent form to their coach before the day the question-naire would be administered.

A pilot study was conducted prior to the main study to determine compre-hension of items and time needed to complete the measures. Six competitive gym-nasts (Level 6) ages 10–11 years participated in the pilot study. Based on the results,we reworded the instructions in the SCIS for clarity, added an example item, andmade some wording revisions to items. Instructions for the SCIS were:

Some girls think that they are pretty good at gymnastics. Other girls thinkthey are not so good at gymnastics. We want to know how you decide whetheryou are good or not so good at gymnastics. Listed below are some thingsthat a gymnast might use in judging how good a gymnast she is. Circle thenumber that best describes how important each item is in helping you knowhow good you are at gymnastics.

The example item to familiarize the gymnasts with answering the questionswas, “How good my dog or cat thinks I am at gymnastics.” Wording revisions toSCIS items were described earlier in the Measures section.

On the day of data collection, one of the researchers told the gymnasts shewas interested in understanding their thoughts and feelings about competing ingymnastics. Specifically, she indicated that the questions centered on how theyjudge their gymnastics ability and what kinds of things are emphasized in the gymduring practice. To help control for social desirability, gymnasts were told thattheir coaches would not see their responses and that there were no right or wronganswers. After reading and signing their own assent form, the gymnasts completedthe SCIS, the PMCSQ-2, and background questions. They completed the ques-tionnaire in about 20 to 30 minutes.

Results

Factor Analysis and Scale Reliabilities

In order to determine whether the 43 items representing sources of compe-tence information could be reduced to a smaller number of categories, we per-formed a principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. The number of factorsretained for the final solution, after extraction of unique and error variance androtation of factors, included those with an eigenvalue greater than or equal to 1.0in the initial statistics (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).Items with factor loadings of .40 or higher were considered to comprise a factorand were interpreted in the solution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Due to the lowratio of participants to items (2.4:1), the results of the factor analysis should beinterpreted with some caution. Nonetheless, the solution converged easily and couldbe readily interpreted.

Twelve factors were initially extracted, accounting for 62% of the variancein the final solution. Nine of the factors were interpretable. Three independentraters were asked to submit labels for the factors so as to reduce bias in naming thefactors. The 9 factors were named as follows: Effort and Enjoyment, Peer Com-parison/Evaluation, Competition Performance, Parent Evaluation, Learning/Im-proving Skills, Practice Performance, Feelings of Nervousness, Spectator Feedback,and Achievement of Self-set Goals. Five items were complex, loading on more


than one factor. Subsequently, Factors 10 and 11 were left with one item, andFactor 12 consisted solely of one item. These factors were not considered in fur-ther analyses. Table 2 shows the factor loadings for each item. Coefficient alphawas used to compute factor scale reliabilities and all were greater than the .70criterion (range = .72 to .83; Nunnally, 1978).

Scale reliabilities for the PMCSQ-2 were also calculated using coefficientalpha. Alpha coefficients for effort/improvement, important role, punishment formistakes, and unequal recognition all exceeded the .70 criterion (range = .72 to.92). However, cooperative learning (.68) and intrateam rivalry (.65) fell belowthis criterion. Item analysis (squared multiple correlations, item-total correlations)indicated that one item on the cooperative learning subscale (“the coaches encour-age gymnasts to help each other”) and two items on the intrateam rivalry subscale(“coaches praise gymnasts only when they outscore their teammates” and “gym-nasts are encouraged to score higher than their teammates”) were unreliable.Removal of these items resulted in acceptable reliability indices of .76 and .74,respectively.

Do Sources of Competence Information Differ by Skill Level?

To answer the first research question, one-way multivariate analyses of vari-ance (MANOVA) were performed. Skill level (5–6, 7, 8–10) represented the inde-pendent variable in one analysis, age group (12, 13, 14 years) the independentvariable in the other analysis. Factor scores were calculated for each of the 9 com-petence information factors and these served as the dependent variables.4

Only the skill level main effect was significant, Wilks’ = .70, F(18, 184) =2.03, p < .01. The strength of association (1– ) indicated that 30% of the variancein sources of competence information was attributable to skill level differences.Follow-up univariate ANOVAs and discriminant function coefficients were exam-ined to determine which competence information sources distinguished the threegroups. Discriminant coefficients were relied upon more heavily than univariateF’s because of the multivariate manner in which variables are treated. Four sourcesof competence information maximized skill level differences (see Table 3). With.30 as a criterion, these factors were effort/enjoyment, feelings of nervousness,spectator feedback, and achievement of self-set goals. Factor score means andstandard deviations for all variables can be seen in Table 3.

For variables achieving univariate-F significance, Student-Newman-Keuls(SNK) post-hocs (p < .05) were calculated, while descriptive differences amongskill level groups were only possible for variables showing discriminant coeffi-cients greater than .30. Gymnasts comprising Skill Levels 5–6 rated effort/enjoy-ment as a more important source than did gymnasts at the higher skill levels. Incontrast, gymnasts at Levels 8–10 rated spectator feedback and feelings of ner-vousness higher than those at lower skill levels. Finally, Level 7 gymnasts ratedachievement of self-set goals significantly lower (p < .05) than the other skill levels.

These findings demonstrate statistically significant differences among skilllevels in sources of competence information. Despite these differences, descrip-tive or mean ratings indicated that some sources were considered more importantacross skill levels than others. For example, mean ratings for effort/enjoyment andachievement of self-set goals were above 4.0 for all skill levels, while mean rat-ings for peer comparison/evaluation, feelings of nervousness, and spectator feed-






back were around or just below the midpoint of 3.0 for all skill levels.5 Scores forpractice performance, competition performance, parental evaluation, and learn-ing/improving skills received ratings between 3 and 4 (somewhat to very impor-tant) for all skill levels. Thus gymnasts at all skill levels used all sources ofcompetence information, but to varying degrees.

Does Perceived Motivational Climate Differ by Skill Level?

To answer the second research question, a MANOVA was performed usingskill level (5–6, 7, 8–10) and age (12, 13, 14 years) as the independent variables inmain effects designs, and the six motivational climate subscales as the dependentvariables. Subscale scores were calculated by averaging the items comprising eachsubscale. Correlations among climate subscales indicated no multicollinearity (range= |.05 to .64|). The skill level effect was not significant, Wilks’ = .89, F(12, 190)= 0.95, p < .51. Means and standard deviations for all variables are shown in Table4. These results indicate that gymnasts in various skill level divisions did not differin their perceptions of task- and ego-involving climates of their gyms.

The age main effect was significant, Wilks’ = .80, F(12, 190) = 1.86, p <.042. The strength of association (1– ) indicated that 20% of the variance in per-ceived motivational climate was attributable to age differences. Follow-up univariateANOVAs (p < .05) and discriminant function coefficients (.30) were examined todetermine which climate dimensions distinguished the three age groups. Thesewere unequal recognition and intrateam rivalry (performance climate) and effort/importance and cooperative learning (mastery climate). SNK post-hocs (p < .05)revealed that 14-year-olds scored higher on unequal recognition and intrateam ri-valry dimensions (i.e., performance climate) than 12-year-olds, and that 13-year-olds scored higher on unequal recognition than 12-year-olds. Descriptive differencesshowed that 12- and 13-year-olds scored higher on the effort/improvement dimen-sion (i.e., mastery climate) than did 14-year-olds. For cooperative learning, 13-year-

Table 4 Skill Level Means (± SD) for Perceived Motivational ClimateSubscales (N = 103)

Levels 5–6 Level 7 Levels 8–10Climate (n = 42) (n = 31) (n = 30)subscale M SD M SD M SD

Performance Climate

Punishment for mistakes 2.12 .91 2.35 .88 2.71 .81 Unequal recognition 2.38 1.01 2.62 .99 2.83 1.02 Intrateam rivalry 3.08 1.06 2.89 1.11 3.20 .94

Mastery Climate

Cooperative learning 4.11 .72 4.11 .78 4.18 .77 Important role 4.08 .57 3.96 .74 3.98 .78 Effort & improvement 4.40 .44 4.25 .49 4.34 .49


olds scored lower than 12- and 14-year-olds. Univariate-F and discriminant coef-ficients, and means and standard deviations, for the age main effect on motiva-tional climate dimensions can be seen in Table 5.

Are Sources of Competence Information and PerceivedMotivational Climate Related?

To examine the relationship between sources of competence informationand perceived motivational climate, we performed a multivariate multiple regres-sion analysis using the motivational climate subscales as the predictor variablesand the sources of competence information factors as the criterion variables. Therelationship between these variables was significant, Wilks’ = .27, F(54, 453) =2.47, p < .001. Two canonical functions were significant. The canonical correla-tions for Functions 1 and 2 were Rc = .61 and .58, respectively, indicating a mod-erately strong association between the two sets of variables.

Canonical loadings represent the relative contribution of each variable to themultivariate relationship. Variables with loadings of .30 or higher are consideredsignificant contributors to the relationship between the sets of variables (Tabachnick& Fidell, 1996). Table 6 depicts the loadings for both functions. For the first ca-nonical function, loadings for the predictor variables indicated that all three ego-involving climate dimensions (punishment for mistakes, unequal recognition,intrateam rivalry) and one task-involving dimension (important role) contributedto the relationship. Criterion variables that contributed significantly were effort/enjoyment, peer comparison/evaluation, competition performance, and learning/improving skills. Essentially, perceptions of an ego-involving climate were posi-tively related to the use of peer comparison/evaluation, competition performance,and learning/improving skills, and negatively related to effort/enjoyment as sourcesof gymnastics competence. Perceptions of a task-involving climate in the form of

Table 5 Means (± SD), Univariate F, and Discriminant Function Coefficientsfor Perceived Motivational Subscales (N = 103)

12 years 13 years 14 yearsClimate (n = 43) (n = 42) (n = 18) Univar. Discr.subscale M SD M SD M SD F coeff.

Performance Climate

Punishment for mistakes 2.09 .87 2.49 .76 2.69 1.11 3.78* .235Unequal recognition 2.19 .82 2.76 1.01 3.09 1.15 6.74* .512Intrateam rivalry 2.76 1.04 3.15 1.00 3.56 .94 4.33* .608

Mastery Climate

Cooperative learning 4.21 .67 4.02 .84 4.18 .72 0.71 .385Important role 4.13 .66 3.98 .61 3.83 .86 1.30 .207Effort & improvement 4.40 .45 4.34 .46 4.17 .61 1.52 –.421

*p < .05


all gymnasts occupying an important role was positively associated with effort/enjoyment and negatively associated with peer comparison/evaluation, competi-tion performance, and learning/improving skills as sources of gymnastics compe-tence.

For the second function, loadings for the predictor variables revealed that allthree task-involving dimensions (cooperative learning, important role, and effort/improvement) and one ego-involving dimension (unequal recognition) were sig-nificant contributors to the relationship. Criterion variables that were importantcontributors were sources in the form of effort/enjoyment, practice performance,and achievement of self-set goals. Essentially, perceptions of a task-involving cli-mate were positively related to the use of effort/enjoyment, practice performance,and achievement of self-set goals as sources of gymnastics competence. Percep-tions of an ego-involving climate in the form of coaches giving unequal recogni-tion to gymnasts were negatively related to gymnastics sources of effort/enjoyment,performance in practice, and self-set goals.

The effect size is represented by the redundancy index, which indicates thepercentage of variance explained in one set of variables by the other set. The re-

Table 6 Canonical Loadings for the Relationship Between Sources ofCompetence Information and Perceived Motivational Climate (N = 103)

Canonical LoadingsVariables Function 1 Function 2

Predictor Variables

Punishment for mistakes –.515 –.209

Unequal recognition –.412 –.415

Intrateam rivalry –.801 .035

Cooperative learning .063 .752

Important role .491 .681

Effort & improvement .231 .886

Criterion Variables

Effort and enjoyment .577 .577

Peer comparison/evaluation –.608 .282

Competition performance –.406 .120

Parent evaluation .041 .246

Learning/Improving skills –.370 –.057

Practice performance –.164 .518

Feelings of nervousness –.223 .231

Spectator feedback –.012 .067Achievement of self-set goals –.009 .522


dundancy in the competence information sources explained by perceived motiva-tional climate was 8.6%. This value falls below the recommended 10% criteriondenoting significance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

These results suggest that perceptions of a mastery climate in terms of em-phasis in the gym on effort and improvement, the important role of gymnasts, andcooperative learning among gymnasts are associated with gymnasts’ use of effortand enjoyment, performance in practice, and achievement of self-set goals as sourcesof information. Perceptions of a performance climate in terms of unequal recogni-tion among gymnasts, punishment for mistakes, and intrateam rivalry among gym-nasts were associated with the use of peer comparison/evaluation, competitionperformance, and learning/improving skills. Items comprising the learning/improv-ing skills source included “how quick or slow I am in learning skills”; “whether ornot it takes me a long time to learn a new skill”; “whether or not I’m getting anybetter at gymnastics”; and “whether or not I am any better at gymnastics than I waslast year.” At face value it appears that these items represent self-referenced im-provement, but given this factor’s positive association with a performance climatethey may actually have been interpreted by gymnasts in a norm-referenced way(e.g., how quick or slow I am in learning skills compared to other gymnasts in myskill level).

Discussion

Do Sources of Competence Information Differ by Skill Level?

The first purpose of the present study was to examine skill level differencesin sources of competence information used by adolescent gymnasts (ages 12–14years). It was hypothesized that gymnasts competing at lower skill levels woulduse more self-referenced sources of information such as effort, improvement, andenjoyment, while gymnasts competing at higher levels would use more norm-referenced information sources such as peer comparison and competition perfor-mance statistics.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Gymnasts competing at lower skilllevels rated effort/enjoyment as more important than did those competing at higherlevels. By contrast, gymnasts competing at higher skill levels considered feelingsof nervousness more important, which does not support the hypothesis. However,in the sport of gymnastics, nervous feelings are mainly associated with competi-tion and performance that are typically viewed as norm-referenced sources of in-formation. Additionally, items comprising feelings of nervousness implied anxietyexperienced before meets and during practice. Gymnasts competing at higher lev-els might experience more performance-related anxiety, as their required skills aremore difficult and fear-provoking. Thus the finding that gymnasts competing athigher levels perceived feelings of nervousness as a more salient information sourcethan those competing at lower levels is not surprising.

Gymnasts competing at higher skill levels (8–10) considered spectator feed-back to be more important than did those at lower levels (5–6, 7). Similar to feel-ings of nervousness, spectators are associated with competition, as the itemscomprising the spectator feedback factor referred to audiences at gymnastics meets.These audiences usually consist of significant others such as parents and friends.Because the audience provides evaluative feedback about gymnasts’ performances


and because competition is more intense for higher level gymnasts, it is not sur-prising that gymnasts competing at higher levels considered spectator feedback tobe a more salient source of competence information than those competing at lowerlevels.

A unique finding was that achievement of self-set goals was considered lessimportant by Level 7 gymnasts than by those competing at Levels 5–6 and Levels8–10. Recall that those at Level 7 were considered a single chunk for data analysispurposes due to the uniqueness of this level. They are afforded the opportunity tohide their weaknesses and capitalize on their strengths due to the flexibility indifficulty requirements. Also, gymnasts who do not have the desire or physicalability to progress beyond Level 7 can successfully compete at this level for sev-eral years. Thus, perhaps gymnasts competing at this level have lower perceptionsof their future potential in the sport and may not be as active in setting goals forthemselves.

Our findings support those of studies examining age group differences. Hornet al. (1993) found that adolescent girls competing in various sports relied heavilyon the use of internal, self-referenced information, spectator feedback, and peersfor competence information. Weiss et al. (1997) also found that peer comparison andevaluation was an important source of competence information for adolescents.The present study supports these findings, as gymnasts relied heavily on effort andenjoyment, as well as spectator feedback and peer comparison/evaluation.

The notion of individuals using particular sources of information to judgetheir ability emanates from Harter’s (1978, 1981) competence motivation theory.According to the model, if individuals receive unconditional approval and positivereinforcement for independent mastery attempts and not just for performance out-come, they begin to rely more heavily on independent judgments and self-set goalsfor assessing competence and rely less on external reinforcement and goals. Thepresent study supports this notion, as gymnasts competing at all skill levels re-ported that effort and enjoyment, feelings of nervousness, and achievement of self-set goals were very important in helping them determine how good they were atgymnastics. Contrary to the theory, however, gymnasts still considered external ornorm-referenced sources of information such as performance in competition andpractice to be important. This is likely due to the nature of competitive gymnas-tics, wherein athletes are keenly aware of their scores at meets and how they com-pare to their teammates.

Does Perceived Motivational Climate Differ by Skill Level?

The second purpose of this study was to examine differences in perceivedmotivational climate among gymnasts competing at various skill levels. It washypothesized that gymnasts of all skill levels would perceive both a mastery and aperformance climate, but to relatively different degrees. Gymnasts competing atlower skill levels were expected to perceive more of a mastery motivational cli-mate whereas those competing at higher levels were expected to perceive more ofa performance climate. This hypothesis was partially supported, as gymnasts com-peting at all skill levels did perceive both a mastery and a performance climate. Allskill levels were high in perceptions of a mastery climate (M = 4 and above) andrelatively lower in perceptions of a performance climate (M = 3 and below). Re-sults revealed no significant differences in perceived motivational climate by gym-


nasts competing at different skill levels, although several trends were in the ex-pected direction. For all the performance climate dimensions, mean scores werehigher for Levels 8–10 than for the other levels as expected.

Our results regarding high perceptions of a mastery motivational climateacross skill levels support previous research. For example, Chaumeton and Duda(1988) looked at the relationship between coaching behaviors, goal perspective/perceived goal emphasis, and skill level among basketball players in elementarythrough high school. Results indicated that while athletes at higher skill levelsperceived greater emphasis on performance outcome, there were no skill leveldifferences in goal emphasis on task mastery. Athletes at all skill levels rated task-involving behaviors such as skill development as very important.

In contrast to nonsignificant differences in perceived motivational climateby skill level, age differences were uncovered. Specifically, 13- and 14-year-oldsscored higher on perceived performance climate dimensions than did 12-year-olds.Thus, lack of skill level differences are explained in part by age differences in thisgroup of gymnasts. These results may be related to the possibility that youngergymnasts (age 12) were more likely to be at the lower skill levels while oldergymnasts were more prevalent at the higher skill levels where performance is morehighly emphasized (see Table 1). Unfortunately, the small n’s in some cells pre-vented looking at the age skill level interaction to determine whether percep-tions of the motivational climate are particularly marked for older gymnasts at thehigher skill levels.

Are Sources of Competence Information and PerceivedMotivational Climate Related?

The third purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship be-tween sources of competence information and perceived motivational climate. Wehypothesized that perceptions of a mastery climate would be related to the use ofself-referenced sources of competence information while perceptions of a perfor-mance climate would be related to the use of norm-referenced sources of compe-tence information.

Some results revealed conceptually consistent findings. Perceptions of amastery climate (all subscales) were positively related to the use of effort/enjoy-ment and achievement of self-set goals. As effort/enjoyment and achievement ofself-set goals are self-referenced sources of information, these findings supportedthe hypothesis. Similarly, perceptions of a mastery motivational climate in termsof important role were also negatively related to the use of peer evaluation/comparison and competition performance. Finally, perceptions of a performanceclimate (all subscales) were negatively related to the use of effort and enjoymentand positively related to the use of peer comparison/evaluation and competitionperformance.

Contrary to hypotheses, perceptions of a performance motivational climatewere positively related to the use of learning/improving skills while perceptions ofa mastery motivational climate (important role) were negatively related to the useof this source. Since the items that loaded together on this factor imply norm-referenced skill improvement as a means of evaluating individual skill acquisitionand improvement, this finding makes conceptual sense. Norm-referenced successis characteristic of a performance climate.


Use of practice performance as a competence information source was posi-tively related to perceptions of a mastery climate and negatively related to percep-tions of a performance climate (unequal recognition). Inspection of items thatcomprise the practice performance source revealed that several items refer to self-referenced judgments of performance outcome. Items include “whether or not Imake my routines in practice”; “whether or not I stick my routines in practice”;and “whether or not I perform the way I expect to in practice.” Such judgmentscould be considered individualized to each gymnast, helping to explain the posi-tive relationship of this source to perceptions of a mastery climate.

Ames’ (1992a, 1992b) notion of the perceived motivational climate has re-ceived attention in both the academic and sport domains (see Ntoumanis & Biddle,1999; Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, 2002). The present study extends the knowledge baseby examining the relationship between perceived motivational climate and sourcesof competence information. This type of research is salient, as perceptions of themotivational climate influence sources of competence information, which are re-lated to level and accuracy of perceived competence, affect, and ultimately achieve-ment behaviors (Ames, 1992a; Harter, 1978, 1981).

Limitation in Conducting Skill- and Age-Related Research

There is an inherent confound when studying age and skill level differencesin the sport domain (see Horn & Harris, 1996). Younger children are likely toparticipate at levels that focus on skill development and fun. As children get older,for example ages 10–12, they can move up to higher competitive leagues (e.g.,club level soccer) or stay at a recreational level. By middle and senior high school,only the most skilled survive while those of lower skill are either cut by the coachor choose not to try out for a team. This was evident in our study in that the oldergymnasts, age 14, were more scarce at Skill Levels 5 and 6 while 12-year-oldswere more scarce at the highest two skill levels (Levels 9 and 10; see Table 1).This prevented us from running an analysis to determine whether skill level andage interact on sources of competence information and motivational climate.

This is a limitation of the present study, and of any study that attempts toexamine age and/or competitive level differences (e.g., Chaumeton & Duda, 1988;Horn et al., 1993). In an effort to neutralize this confound, we selected gymnastsfrom a very narrow age band (12 to 14 years) and chose a sport in which compet-ing at higher skill levels is based on competencies, not age. Nevertheless, the studyfindings are potentially influenced by a confound of age and skill level.

Future Research Directions

This study provides an initial attempt to broaden research on the relationshipamong skill level, perceived motivational climate, and sources of competence in-formation. As sources of competence information are related to perceptions ofcompetence, motivated behavior, and overall self-worth, expanding research inthis area is a salient task. To date, research on level, accuracy, and sources ofperceived competence has predominantly examined age and gender differences(see Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, 2002). Developmental research that goes beyond thesevariables to include competitive level would provide rich information that couldbe used to educate coaches, athletes, and parents.


Another avenue to be explored in relation to perceived motivational climateis the influence of peers. While coaches are considered to be heavily responsiblefor shaping the sport environment, evidence also points to peers as an influentialforce (Evans & Roberts, 1987; Kunesh, Hasbrook, & Lewthwaite, 1992; Weiss,Smith, & Theeboom, 1996). These studies indicate that peer relationships and in-teractions in sport settings affect participants’ self-perceptions, affect, and motiva-tional processes. Several of the PMCSQ-2 subscales implicate the role of peers(i.e., cooperative learning, important role, intrateam rivalry, unequal recognition).Thus, gaining a better understanding of how peer interactions shape the motiva-tional climate and affect achievement motivation is a worthwhile task. Finally,given the guidelines and models in the literature, it is surprising that more studieshave not employed interventions that seek to create a more positive achievementenvironment. Generating intervention research will provide physical activity pro-fessionals with useful information for structuring achievement environments thatelevate self-perceptions and motivation levels.

Conclusion

Many little girls dream of being the next Mary Lou Retton or Shannon Miller.Although few aspiring gymnasts actually realize that dream, the sport affords gym-nasts the opportunity to excel at many levels. Along the way, gymnasts encountera variety of information sources that provide them with knowledge about theircompetencies. The present study showed that gymnasts competing at various skilllevels rely on different sources of information, and that these sources of informa-tion are related to perceptions of the motivational climate in their gym clubs. Thecombination of these two salient factors, sources of competence information andmotivational climate, has a direct influence on gymnasts’ perceptions of compe-tence and ultimately their motivation. Using this knowledge to create a positiveachievement environment for gymnasts of all skill levels will enrich their sportexperiences and foster their self-worth. By promoting the sport in this way, moregirls can flip, tumble, and twist their way to successful gymnastics careers.

References

Ames, C. (1992a). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational process. InG.C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.

Chaumeton, N., & Duda, J. (1988). Is it how you play the game or whether you win orlose?: The effect of competitive level and situation on coaching behaviors. Journalof Sport Behavior, 11, 157-174.

Ebbeck, V. (1990). Self-perception and motivational characteristics of tennis participants:The influence of age and skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Or-egon, Eugene.

Ebbeck, V. (1994). Self-perception and motivational characteristics of tennis participants:The influence of age and skill. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 71-86.

Eccles, J.S., & Midgley, C. (1990). Changes in academic motivation and self-perceptionduring early adolescence. In R. Montemayor, G.R. Adams, & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.),


From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 134-155). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Evans, J., & Roberts, G.C. (1987). Physical competence and the development of children’speer relations. Quest, 39, 23-35.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model.Human Development, 21, 34-64.

Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differ-ences and developmental change. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Aspects of the developmentof competence: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 14 (pp. 215-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered(pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivationalorientation within the classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In A.K. Boggiano& T.S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement motivation: A social developmental perspective(pp. 77-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Horn, T.S. (1984). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic setting: Methodologicalconsiderations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 60-76.

Horn, T.S. (1985). Coaches’ feedback and changes in children’s perceptions of their physi-cal competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 174-186.

Horn, T.S., & Amorose, A.J. (1998). Sources of competence information. In J.L. Duda (Ed.),Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 49-63). Morgantown,WV: FIT Press.

Horn, T.S., Glenn, S.D., & Wentzell, A.B. (1993). Sources of information underlying per-sonal ability judgments in high school athletes. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 263-274.

Horn, T.S., & Harris, A. (1996). Perceived competence in young athletes: Research find-ings and recommendations for coaches and parents. In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith(Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 309-329).Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Horn, T.S., & Hasbrook, C. (1986). Informational components influencing children’s per-ceptions of their physical competence. In M.R. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport forchildren and youths (pp. 81-88). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Horn, T.S., & Hasbrook, C. (1987). Psychological characteristics and the criteria childrenuse for self-evaluation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 208-221.

Horn, T.S., & Weiss, M.R. (1991). A developmental analysis of children’s self-ability judg-ments in the physical domain. Pediatric Exercise Science, 3, 310-326.

Krane, V., Greenleaf, C.A., & Snow, J. (1997). Reaching for gold and the price of glory: Amotivational case study of an elite gymnast. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 53-71.

Kunesh, M.A., Hasbrook, C.A., & Lewthwaite, R. (1992). Physical activity socialization:Peer interactions and affective responses among a sample of sixth grade girls. Soci-ology of Sport Journal, 9, 385-396.

McKiddie, B., & Maynard, I.W. (1997). Perceived competence of schoolchildren in physi-cal education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 324-339.

Newton, M., Duda, J.L., & Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric properties ofthe Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a sample of femaleathletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 275-290.

Nicholls, J. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.


Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S.J.H. (1999). A review of motivational climate in physical activ-ity. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 643-665.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An inte-

grated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Seifriz, J.J., Duda, J.L., & Chi, L. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational cli-

mate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of Sport& Exercise Psychology, 14, 375-391.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:Harper Collins.

Theeboom, M., De Knop, P., & Weiss, M.R. (1995). Motivational climate, psychosocialresponses, and motor skill development in children’s sport: A field-based interven-tion study. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 294-311.

USA Gymnastics. (1997). Junior Olympic program: Women’s artistic gymnastics compul-sory exercises. Indianapolis: USA Gymnastics.

Walling, M.D., Duda, J.L., & Chi, L. (1993). The Perceived Motivational Climate in SportQuestionnaire: Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psy-chology, 15, 172-183.

Weiss, M.R., Amorose, A.J., & Allen, J.B. (2000). The young elite athlete: The good, thebad, and the ugly. In B.L. Drinkwater (Ed.), Women in sport: The encyclopaedia ofsports medicine, Vol. 8 (pp. 409-429). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific.

Weiss, M.R., & Ebbeck, V. (1996). Self-esteem and perceptions of competence in youthsport: Theory, research, and enhancement strategies. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The encyclo-paedia of sports medicine, Volume VI: The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 364-382). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

Weiss, M.R., Ebbeck, V., & Horn, T.S. (1997). Children’s self-perceptions and sources ofphysical competence information: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & ExercisePsychology, 19, 52-70.

Weiss, M.R., & Ferrer-Caja, E. (2002). Motivational orientations and sport behavior. InT.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 101-183). Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiss, M.R., Smith, A.L., & Theeboom, M. (1996). “That’s what friends are for”: Children’sand teenagers’ perceptions of peer relationships in the sport domain. Journal of Sport& Exercise Psychology, 18, 347-379.

Williams, L. (1994). Goal orientations and athletes’ preferences for competence informa-tion sources. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 416-430.

Notes1 Running a Skill Level Age interaction would address a potential confound be-

tween these variables. However, despite tapping 16 clubs, only two 14-year-olds were foundat Levels 5–6, too small a cell size to run an interaction. We tried to neutralize a potentialconfound by selecting a very narrow age band (ages 12 to 14 years) and running age maineffect analyses alongside the skill level main effect analyses.

2 Horn and Amorose (1998) indicate that factor structures for the SCIS should bedifferent for varying age groups, and confirmatory validation studies have not yet been


conducted. Thus we conducted an exploratory factor analysis in line with previous studies,as our study was not a measurement validation investigation. See Horn and Amorose for adiscussion of future validation research on the SCIS.

3 The practice performance items appear in Table 2. The four new items for the othersubscales, respectively, were “how nervous I feel before I try a new skill”; “whether or notI reach my gymnastics goals”; “whether or not I am one of the first or last of my teammatesto learn a new skill”; and “whether or not I do well in meets.”

4 Although cell sizes were unequal, this is not a concern with MANOVA if standardcomputer programs are used that control for unequal cell sizes. In our case, SPSS assumesthat the design being analyzed is an unbalanced one and controls for unequal cell sizes byinvoking a unique sums-of-squares partitioning method.

5 The raw score means and standard deviations for competence information factorsby skill level are available from the authors.

Author Note

This study was based on a master’s thesis conducted by Amy Halliburton under theguidance of Maureen Weiss at the University of Virginia. Amy Halliburton is now a doc-toral student in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the Univer-sity of Missouri-Columbia. The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful and constructive feedback.

Manuscript submitted: August 18, 2000Revision accepted: July 8, 2002

Documents

Sources of Competence Information and Perceived ... · Sources of Competence Information and Perceived ... vide a unique window through which to study skill level variations in