1. SCHOOL OF SPORT, COACHING AND EXERCISE SCIENCE FACULTY OF HEALTH, LIFE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Development and Validation of the Perceived Social Influences in Sport Scale-2 (PSISS-2): A cross cultural study Richard J. Keegan 2, Derwin K.-C. Chan 1, & Chris Lonsdale 3 University of Nottingham 1, University of Lincoln 2, University of Western Sydney 3

2. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Background / justification Participation in youth sport is suggested to be a significant predictor of physical activity and health in later life (Seefeldt et al., 2002; Trudeau et al., 1999, 2000) A growing body of research identifies influential roles for coaches, parents and peers in influencing the children’s enjoyment and participation in sport (e.g., Keegan et al., 2009; 2010a). Calls to assess the relative influence of coaches, parents and peers remain relatively unheeded (Chan et al., 2011; the main exception being Carr et al., 1999)

3. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com “Can’t I just pick a theory I believe and study it?” The vast majority of questionnaires to assess social influences on motivation are derived from theories and mirror the structure of those theories (e.g., PMCQS-2, PIMCSQ-2, PeerMCYSQ) This means effectively accepting the theory is ‘true’ and ‘the best’ theory before setting out to study an area/topic What if you want to remain “theoretically agnostic” (cf. Henwood & Pidgeon, 2003; Sandelowski, 1993) What if ‘picking’ a theory before engaging with your subject matter was doing more harm than good?

4. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Perceived Social Influences in Sport Scale-1 (PSISS-1; Chan, Lonsdale, Fung, 2011) Positive ReinforcementPunishment Emphasises always trying my best.Criticises me when I make a mistake. Encourages me to keep trying after I make a mistake. Makes negative comments when I play poorly. Praises me when I try hard.Gets angry when I make a mistake. Encourages me to try my hardest.Criticises me when I play poorly. My coach/ father/ mother/ teammates …. Limited to competence No evidence from qualitative data and expert review No assessment about other type of social influences

5. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com New Conceptualisation Competence information Relationship information Positively valenced “Positive reinforcement” “Affiliation” Negatively valenced “Punishment”“Dysfunction”

6. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Competence informationRelationship information +ive Praise Encouragement Displays +ive emotion Rewards Criticisms Punishments Negative reactions -ive Understanding Affection Supportiveness Respect Causing neg. emotions Conflicts Negative behaviour (unfavourable or harmful) Lack of respect Operationalising

7. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Methodology 1. Item Pool (N = 49) PSISS-1Qualitative dataConceptualisation Seven existing measures 2. Panel Review (N=16) First Review for Item Pool (11 Experts) Second Review for Revised Items 3. Psychometric Test 98 Young Athletes in China for Exploratory Factor Analysis 366 Young Athletes in China for Confirmatory Factor Analysis 166 Young Athletes in UK for Confirmatory Factor Analysis

8. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Panel Review (Dunn, Bouffard, & Rogers, 1999) The experts were familiarised with the definitions of the four constructs of PSISS-2, but they were blinded from the hypothesised factor of each item. Experts judged each item using 5-point Likert scales for: –Content - Validity coefficient (V-match; Aiken, 1985) calculated from the item- scores should only be significant (p <.05) on its corresponding factor. –Relevance - Item loading onto its proposed factor should be significantly higher than that on the other factors (ES > 0.8 – cf. Dunn et al., 1999). –Clarity - (to a 7-year old child) –Applicability to each social agent: Using validity coefficients (V-applicability) and the homogeneity coefficients (H-applicability – cf. Aiken, 1985). Additional comments from the experts are obtained for revising problem items

9. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Psychometric Test Questionnaire Layout –Aims to compare the relative role of social influences –Randomised the order of items Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree In my sport ， He / She / They praise(s) me when I perform well My coach 12345 My Father 12345 My mother 12345 My teammates 12345

10. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Psychometric Test Exploratory Factor Analysis (Variance explained > 57.07%) –Chinese Athletes (N = 98; M-age = 13.53, SD = 3.80) Factor 1 1. Praises me when I perform well 2. Encourages me when I do something good 3. Makes me feel good when I perform well 4. Is happy with me for the things I do 5. Respects me 6. Understands me Factor 2 7. Makes me feel bad when I make mistakes 8. Reacts badly when I do wrong things 9. Is disappointed if I do not perform well Factor 3 10. Often has arguments/fights with me 11. Does not respect my thoughts or opinions 12. Does bad things to me Punishment Positive influence Dysfunction

11. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Cross cultural comparison + validity checks Models were highly comparable for Chinese and UK samples (Δ CFI <.01) suggesting that the parameter was invariant across the Chinese and UK samples (cf. Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Discriminant validity (cf. Bagozzi, Yi & Phillips, 1991) 3 developed factors significantly differentiated from each other within each agent But within each factor, the scores between the four social agents were highly correlated and generally not differentiable Criterion validity (Pearson Correlation) Effort (McAuley, Duncan, Tammen, 1989) (PI↑ + Dys↓) Enjoyment (Duda & Nicholls, 1992) (PI↑) Anxiety (Smith et al., 2006) (Pun↑ + Dys↑)

12. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com ‘So there we have it…’ A new, theory-neutral questionnaire for assessing perceived social influences during sport participation With the added benefit of being able to compare the relative influences of coaches, fathers, mothers and peers. We are still adding data and refining the model We fully expect to be flooded with requests to use it (!)

13. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Three critical issues Should we expect any similarities between peer influences and coach/parent influences? ● Qualitative studies suggest fundamentally different influences from coaches, parents and peers (e.g., Keegan et al., 2009; 2010) ● The separate validation of questionnaires for each may have missed this Given the complex and rich interactivity of the social milieu (cf. Keegan et al., 2009; 2010), should we (at least) allow cross loadings? Does the questionnaire methodology force us to simplify something rich and complex to the point where we lose valuable knowledge/insights?

14. rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk kc.derwin@gmail.com Questions Or… if we’ve run out of time… please consider: email: rkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk or kc.derwin@gmail.comrkeegan@lincoln.ac.uk twitter: @SportPsychUK or @Mindset_Match Skype: richardo.keeganini2 or derwin.chan Websites: www.lincoln.ac.uk/sport/staff/2206.aspwww.lincoln.ac.uk/sport/staff/2206.asp www.derwinchan.com