PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Auburn University]

On: 23 November 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917345050]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sports Sciences
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721847
Test of performance strategies: Development and preliminary validation of
a comprehensive measure of athletes' psychological skills
Patrick R. Thomas; Shane M. Murphy; Lew Hardy
To cite this Article Thomas, Patrick R. , Murphy, Shane M. and Hardy, Lew(1999) 'Test of performance strategies:
Development and preliminary validation of a comprehensive measure of athletes' psychological skills', Journal of Sports
Sciences, 17: 9, 697 711
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/026404199365560
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026404199365560
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Jour nal of Sports Sciences, 1999, 17, 697711
Jour nal of Sports Sciences ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447 X online Taylor & Francis Ltd
Test of performance strategies: Development and
preliminary validation of a comprehensive measure
of athletes psychological skills
PATRICK R. THOMAS,
1
* SHANE M. MURPHY
2
and LEW HARDY
3
1
Centre for Movement Education and Research, GriYth University, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Queensl and 4111,
Australia,
2
Gold Medal Psychological Consultants, 500B Monroe Tur npike, Suite 106, Monroe, CT 06468, USA and
3
School of Sport, Health and Physical Education Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK
Accepted 23 March 1999
We report the initial stages of validation of the 64-item Test of Performance Strategies, a self-report instrument
designed to measure the psychological skills and strategies used by athletes in competition and during practice.
Data were obtained from a sample of 472 athletes competing across a range of performance standards in a wide
variety of sports. Exploratory factor analyses of their responses produced eight competition strategy subscales
and eight practice strategy subscales, each consisting of four items. Internal consistencies of the subscales ranged
from 0.66 to 0.81 (x = 0.75). Correlations among strategies were examined within and between performance
contexts. Subgroups deW ned by age, sex and current standard of performance in sport diV ered signiWcantly in
their psychological skills and strategies.
Keywords: assessment, competition, instrument, practice.
Introduction
The assessment of athletes psychological skills is of
both theoretical and applied interest to sport psycholo-
gists; over the last 10 years or so, several psychological
skills inventories have been proposed. The Psycho-
logical Performance Inventory (PPI) was designed to
assess `mental strengths and weaknesses (Loehr, 1986,
p. 157) on a proW le that incorporated seven factors:
self-conW dence, negative energy, attention control,
visual and imagery control, motivational level, positive
energy and attitude control. The PPI was one of the
W rst instruments to include items describing athletes
speciW c psychological behaviours (e.g. `Before com-
petition, I picture myself performing perfectly; `My
muscles become overly tight during competition) and
their self-evaluations (e.g. `I see myself as more of a loser
than a winner in competition; `I am a mentally tough
competitor). The PPI was developed to improve
athletes awareness and understanding of their mental
skills. Although it has been used by consultants as an
* Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed. e-mail:
p.thomas@mailbox.gu.edu.au
assessment tool in applied settings, little research has
been conducted on the validity and reliability of the PPI,
and it has not been widely used as a research tool in
psychological interventions.
The Psychological Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS;
Mahoney et al., 1987) has probably been the most
popular and useful instrument for the assessment of
psychological skills. In a study of 44 North American
applied sport psychology consultants, Gould et al.
(1989) found that the PSIS was the only psychological
skills assessment instrument mentioned by more than
one respondent, and that it was rated as the most use-
ful test then available to applied consultants (it scored
a mean of 8.8 on a 10-point scale). The PSIS was
developed by Mahoney and co-workers (Mahoney and
Avener, 1977; Shelton and Mahoney, 1978; Mahoney
et al., 1987) in an attempt to assess the psychological
skills relevant to exceptional athletic performance. The
original PSIS consisted of 51 true-or-false items
developed to identify diVerences in the use of psycho-
logical skills by elite, pre-elite and collegiate-standard
athletes. Based on item, discriminant, factor and cluster
analyses of 713 athletes responses, six subscales of
the PSIS were identiW ed. These subscales were: anxiety
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
698 Thomas et al.
control, concentration, conW dence, mental preparation,
motivation and team emphasis. Mahoney et al. (1987)
then used the results of these analyses to develop a
revised 45-item version of the PSIS, using a 5-point
Likert type response format. Subsequent research
showed that the PSIS could successfully discriminate
between athletes of varying ability and between the
sexes (Lesser and Murphy, 1988; Greenspan et al.,
1989; White, 1993). However, Mahoney (1989) found
that a sample of non-elite weightlifters scored higher than
a sample of elite weightlifters on W ve of the six subscales.
Other research with the revised PSIS has revealed
several problems, including: very poor internal consist-
ency statistics for W ve of the six subscales proposed
(Chartrand et al., 1992); unreliability of the proposed
factor structure (Tammen and Murphy, 1990); and un-
acceptable goodness-of-W t statistics in a conW rmatory
factor analysis (Chartrand et al., 1992). Further con-
sideration of the item content of the PSIS enables at least
some possible causes of these problems to be identiW ed.
For example, `I often dream about competition loads
negatively on mental preparation; `I try not to think
about my performance during the 24 hours before a
meet loads positively on mental preparation; and `When
I mentally practise my performance I see myself per-
forming just like I was watching a videotape loads
negatively on mental preparation. These W ndings clearly
reXect some considerable diYculties with the PSIS.
A review of more recent assessment instruments
identiW ed only one which appeared to have adequate
psychometric characteristics. The Athletic Coping
Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28; Smith et al., 1985) grew
out of the original Athletic Coping Skills Inventory,
which was designed to measure ways in which athletes
cope with the stress of competition (Smith et al., 1990).
The ACSI-28 was designed to assess the psychological
skills that athletes use to manage their sports perform-
ance. It yields a total Personal Coping Resources score,
which is assumed to reXect a multifaceted psychological
skills construct. A principal components analysis of
data from 637 high-school and college athletes on an
87-item instrument yielded eight factors (Smith et al.,
1990). Using 42 items from the original instrument,
Smith et al. (1995) evaluated this eight-factor solution
using conW rmatory factor analysis. The eight-factor
solution was not conW rmed, but when two factors were
combined and a number of items deleted, a revised
seven-factor solution produced a reasonable goodness-
of-W t to the data. The W nal seven factors, using 28
items (the ACSI-28), accounted for slightly more than
50% of the variance in the data. The subscales corres-
ponding to these factors were labelled: coping with
adversity, peaking under pressure, goal-setting/mental
preparation, concentration, freedom from worr y, con-
W dence and achievement motivation, and coachability.
Internal consistency statistics for the seven ACSI-28
subscales ranged from 0.62 (for concentration) to 0.78
(peaking). A sample of 94 intramural and club sport
athletes took the test 1 week apart, and yielded test
retest correlation coeYcients of 0.470.87, although
W ve of the seven subscales had coeYcients over 0.70.
Using the ACSI-28, Smith and Christensen (1995)
examined the relationship between psychological skills,
physical skills and long-term survival in professional
baseball. The results showed that the ACSI-28 was a
useful predictor of which athletes remained active in
professional baseball over a 3-year period. The ACSI-28
was a much better predictor of athletic success for
pitchers than an assessment of physical skill.
The psychometric background of the ACSI-28 seems
stronger than that of previous assessment instruments,
but some cautions apply. The conW rmatory factor
analysis appears to have been conducted on the same
data as the original exploratory principal components
analysis. This violates normal conW rmatory factor
analysis procedures (Schutz and Gessaroli, 1993), so
the proposed factor structure of the ACSI-28 may need
to be interpreted with caution. Moreover, the ACSI-28
does not appear to provide a comprehensive assessment
of psychological skills. The authors acknowledge that
the scale measures `individual diVerences in general
psychological coping resources [as well as] speciW c
psychological skills such as stress management (Smith
et al., 1995, p. 381). Some skills and techniques (e.g.
concentration and goal-setting) are measured, whereas
others (e.g. visualization, self-talk and relaxation) are
not. We would contend that these areas should be
included in a comprehensive measure of sport psycho-
logical skills.
The research reviewed above suggests that a need
remains for a psychometrically sound general measure
of psychological skills that could be used for both
individual assessment purposes and to monitor the
eVects of psychological skills training programmes upon
skill development. In the remainder of this paper, we
describe the development and initial validation of such
an instrument. In developing this instrument, however,
we also wished to address one other issue that appears
largely to have been neglected in the previous literature
on psychological skills assessment; namely, the use of
psychological skills in practice. The psychological skills
training literature invariably emphasizes the importance
of practising psychological skills to gain proW ciency in
their use (see, for example, Vealey, 1988; Hardy et al.,
1996a). Consequently, it is surprising that the research
reviewed has focused exclusively upon the use of
psychological skills in competition, neglecting the use of
psychological skills during training. This is particularly
puzzling because committed athletes spend up to 99%
of their time in training (McCann, 1995). Thus, in
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 699
developing a new measure, a decision was made to focus
upon the assessment of psychological skill usage both
during practice and in competition.
Methods
Instr ument development
The development of the Test of Performance Strategies
(TOPS) was based upon the psychological processes
thought to underlie successful athletic performance as
delineated by contemporary theory. To select these
psychological skills, the three instruments described
earlier were reviewed, together with Vealey (1988),
Thomas and Over (1994) and Hardy et al. (1996a).
Vealey (1988) made the distinction between psycho-
logical skills and the methods or techniques used to
develop those skills. Sometimes, however, it is diYcult
to determine whether a construct should be regarded as
a skill or a method. For example, Vealey (1988)
described imagery as a method or technique, whereas
Hardy et al. (1996a) contended that imagery is a basic
psychological skill. Furthermore, Vealey (1988) listed
arousal control and attentional control as skills but
thought control as a method. It might be argued that
thought control ought to be considered as a skill that is
often developed through the use of more basic psycho-
logical skills such as self-talk. It seemed appropriate,
therefore, that the TOPS should target the most salient
psychological skills and techniques together with their
strategic use by athletes.
Although motivation has frequently been identiW ed as
a basic psychological skill, it is viewed by some as a trait
and by others as a transient, state-like characteristic that
is likely to change very easily. Similarly, the construct
`conW dence is frequently identiW ed as an important
skill in psychological skills training (Vealey, 1988). How-
ever, while it undoubtedly makes perfect sense to try to
measure an athletes conW dence before competition, it
is not clear what it would mean to say that an athlete
`used the skill of conW dence. Bandura (1977) proposed
that self-conW dence (or, more precisely, self-eYcacy)
is an aggregate expectation based upon an individuals
experience with similar situations, images of those
situations and feelings about them. Consequently, as
with motivation, the construct of conW dence was not
included in the TOPS, but the primar y skills that are
used to develop self-conW dence and motivation were.
In line with Banduras (1977) theory, these strategies
were: goal-setting, imagery, relaxation and self-talk.
Interactive or social variables such as teamwork, coach-
ability and interpersonal skills were excluded so as to
focus on the more generic intra-psychic factors under-
lying sports performance. A brief discussion of each of
the targeted constructs follows.
Attentional control. This factor was identiW ed in all the
research examined and is a central factor in cognitive
sport psychology (see, for example, Jones, 1990;
Boutcher, 1992; Hardy et al., 1996a; NideVer and Sagal ,
1998). Furthermore, Gould et al. (1989) reported that
80% of the sport psychology consultants they surveyed
conducted attention training with their clients.
Goal-setting. The use of goal-setting techniques is
regarded as one of the keys to motivation for better
athletic achievement (Burton, 1992; Hardy et al.,
1996a). Not surprisingly, therefore, sport psychology
consultants have reported using goal-setting more than
any other psychological intervention in their work with
athletes and coaches (Gould et al., 1989).
Imager y. This construct is widely agreed upon by
researchers as an important psychological skill in sport
(Vealey, 1988; Murphy and Jowdy, 1992; Hardy et al.,
1996a). Research also suggests that imagery is a skill that
can be practised and improved (George, 1986; Thomas
and Fogarty, 1997).
Relaxation and activation. Arousal control was identi-
W ed as an important psychological skill in most of the
sources that were reviewed. But research based upon
catastrophe theory (Hardy, 1990; Hardy and ParW tt,
1991) suggests that there is no reason to assume that the
skill of lowering high physiological arousal is the same
as the skill of raising it. Consequently, relaxation (or
the lowering of somatic anxiety) and activation (or the
raising of psychological and physiological energy) were
viewed as separate skills. By constructing separate
measures of these concepts, it was possible to examine
their relationship empirically.
Self-talk. The use of self-talk techniques was not
assessed in the instruments reviewed in the Intro-
duction, although self-talk appears to be closely related
to such constructs as attitude control (Loehr, 1986) and
thought control (Vealey, 1988). Whereas constructs
such as `attitude and `thought must be inferred
by participants, research shows that the amount and
quality of self-talk can be readily assessed by self and
by others (Van Raalte et al., 1994). Hardy et al. (1996a)
provide a review of the literature, which indicates that
the nature of ones self-talk is an important determinant
of athletic behaviour.
Emotional control. This construct has not been identi-
W ed directly in previous assessment instruments.
However, there is evidence that an ability to deal with
frustration and negative emotions is important for
competitive athletes. For example, Smith et al. (1995)
identiW ed `coping with adversity as an important factor
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
700 Thomas et al.
in successful athletic performance. Items loading on this
factor included `I maintain emotional control no matter
how things are going for me. Similarly, Thomas and
Over (1994) found that handling `negative emotions
and cognitions was an integral aspect of golf perfor-
mance. Their factor included items such as `I get angr y
and frustrated by a poor shot. Furthermore, the eVects
of a lack of control over certain speciW c emotions (e.g.
anxiety) upon performance are well-documented in the
sport psychology literature (Jones and Hardy, 1990;
Martens et al., 1990). Consequently, this construct was
included in the TOPS.
Automaticity. This factor emerged in only two of
the sources reviewed (Thomas and Over, 1994; Hardy
et al., 1996a). However, this construct is basic to
nearly all descriptions of expert performance, with
most cognitive theories of skill acquisition positing an
expert stage of development in which performance is
smooth and conscious cognitive control is minimal.
This stage has been called `autonomous (Fitts and
Posner, 1967), `procedural (Anderson, 1982) or
`automatic (Schneider and ShiVrin, 1977). Further-
more, the ability to perform at a high standard without
thinking about what one is doing is also central to
Csikszentmihalyis (1990) theory of `Xow, which has
been inXuential in recent sport psychology research
(Jackson, 1995).
Item pool development. An initial pool of 112 items was
developed by the authors to measure, in competition
and practice, athletes skills and strategies in each of the
eight areas outlined above. Items were written not only
to evaluate the athletes psychological skills in speciW ed
contexts (e.g. `I manage my self-talk eVectively during
competition), but also to measure their strategic use
of those skills (e.g. `I motivate myself to train through
positive self-talk; `I talk positively to myself to get the
most out of practice; `I say things to myself to help my
competitive performance). Feedback on the clarity of
the items obtained from athletes and sport psychologists
resulted in some modiW cations, additions and deletions.
The resulting pool of items was then given to a group of
10 applied sport psychology consultants, together with
the names and descriptions of the eight constructs that
the items were intended to represent. The consultants
were asked to conW rm the relevance of each item and
place it in one of the eight categories. Items that were
not considered relevant by all the consultants, and not
`correctly assigned by at least six of them, were deleted
from the pool. Slight modiW cations were also made to
some retained items based on feedback obtained from
the consultants.
The instrument used for the preliminar y investiga-
tions reported here consisted of 111 randomly ordered
items. In rating how frequently the item contents
applied in their own case, athletes used a 5-point scale
(1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 =
always). Participants were encouraged to be open and
honest in their responses, with the instructions stating
that `there are no right or wrong answers and that the
researchers expected variations in responses. Because of
the diversity of sports represented in the sample, the
instructions provided athletes with a glossary of eight
terms used in the items (competition, skill, perfor-
mance, routine, workout, and visualization/imagery/
rehearsal).
Participants
In generating the sample for this study, we sought to
include male and female athletes who were training and
competing in a wide variety of sports across a broad
range of performance standards. The W nal sample con-
sisted of 472 athletes (mean s: age 19.25 6.87 years)
drawn from three diVerent locations. Data were
obtained from 110 males (17.47 3.30 years) and 89
females (18.97 4.22 years) training at the Australian
Institute of Sport in Canberra. Data were also obtained
from 117 boys (16.10 1.38 years) active in sport who
attended a private high school in Sydney. Finally, data
were collected from 100 male athletes (24.23 9.85
years) and 56 female athletes (23.20 9.68 years) in the
Brisbane region.
At the time of the study, athletes in the sample had
been participating in 28 diVerent sports for 8.30 5.51
years. Responses provided by 461 of the 472 parti-
cipants indicated that 14.1% were competing inter-
nationally, 13.7% nationally, 8.7% at intercollegiate
or regional standard, 24.9% at junior national standard
and 11.5% at club or recreational standard. The other
27.1% of respondents included the sample of 117
boys in their W nal 2 years of high school and comprised
athletes who competed in inter-school sport.
Procedure
All athletes participated voluntarily in the study, the
instrument typically taking between 20 and 30 min to
complete. Athletes were made aware of the purpose of
administering the inventory and no W nancial induce-
ments were oVered for participation. Once the data
were collected and preliminary analyses conducted,
respondents received a summar y sheet describing
the eight constructs being targeted in the instrument,
together with their own proW le and group scores across
the intended subscales. Care was taken to emphasize
the tentative nature of this feedback, pending the results
of the thorough analyses of the data that are now
presented.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 701
Results
Preliminar y analyses
Preliminary analysis of item responses revealed very few
missing data and no item was omitted by 10 or more of
the 472 participants. The entire response scale (`never
to `always) was used for each of the 111 items,
suggesting that the items were sensitive to individual
diVerences. For 107 of the 111 items, the absolute
values of skewness and kurtosis were within 1.0,
supporting the use of factor analysis using common
estimation procedures (Schutz and Gessaroli, 1993).
Furthermore, none of the remaining four items had an
absolute value of skewness greater than 1.3 and so all
items were retained in subsequent analyses.
Inventory items were divided into two scales, one con-
taining the 56 items referring to competition, and the
other containing the remaining 55 items referring to
practice. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess
the dimensionality of each of these scales as recom-
mended for inventory development by Schutz and
Gessaroli (1993). Principal axis factoring was used
to extract factors based on the correlations among
variables, followed by oblique rotations with a delta
value of zero to allow for correlations among the factors.
Alternative rotated solutions were assessed on the basis
of the discontinuity (scree) principle for eigenvalues, as
well as the interpretability of factors.
Principal axis factor analysis of the competition
items produced 12 factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0, but three of these obliquely rotated factors
consisted of just one or two items with loadings of
0.30 or more. Consideration of the scree plot suggested
alternative solutions, with the number of factors varying
between 8 and 12. From these solutions we selected
the four items with the highest rotated loadings on
each of seven factors. We also selected the four items
that loaded highest on two other factors deW ning
energizing and psyching-up components of activation.
Thus, the 32 highest loading items of the original
56 competition-related items were retained for further
analysis.
The same procedures were adopted in analysing the
data from the 55 practice-related items. Principal axis
factor analysis again produced 12 factors with eigen-
values greater than 1.0, but one of these obliquely
rotated factors contained only two items with loadings
of 0.30 or more, and several other factors were not
readily interpretable. As the scree plot supported the
extraction of eight factors, we obtained alternative
solutions for 812 factors. By using the highest rotated
factor loadings in these solutions, we were able to select
four items for each of eight factors, retaining 32
practice-related items for further analysis.
Competition strategies
Factor analysis of the 32 retained items referring to
competition yielded eight factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 and which accounted for 62.5% of
the variance. Table 1 lists the four items deW ning each
factor, all having obliquely rotated factor loadings
and itemtotal correlations of 0.30 or more. Mean
ratings on the 5-point scale, together with standard
deviations, are also shown for each item and the factor
as a whole.
Factor 1 (alpha coeYcient of 0.80) was labelled self-
talk, factor 2 (alpha of 0.79) emotional control, factor
3 (alpha of 0.74) automaticity, factor 4 (alpha of 0.78)
goal-setting, factor 5 (alpha of 0.79) imagery, factor
6 (alpha of 0.76) activation, factor 7 (alpha of 0.74)
negative thinking and factor 8 (alpha of 0.80) relaxation.
There was only one instance of an item loading
0.30 or more on two factors. Item 109 (`I keep my
thoughts positive during competitions) loaded -0.45
on negative thinking and 0.31 on self-talk. As the
internal reliability of the four-item self-talk subscale
was high (0.80) and not improved signiW cantly by the
addition of a W fth item (0.82), there appeared to be no
need to include responses to item 109 when calculating
self-talk scores.
Practice strategies
Factor analysis of ratings of the 32 items referring to
practice also yielded eight factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0, and these accounted for 60.4% of
the variance. Table 2 lists the four items deW ning each
factor, all with obliquely rotated factor loadings and
itemtotal correlations of 0.30 or more. Mean
ratings on the 5-point scale, together with standard
deviations, are again shown for each item and the factor
as a whole.
Factor 1 (alpha coeYcient of 0.78) was labelled
goal-setting, factor 2 (alpha of 0.72) emotional control,
factor 3 (alpha of 0.67) automaticity, factor 4 (alpha
of 0.78) relaxation, factor 5 (alpha of 0.81) self-talk,
factor 6 (alpha of 0.72) imagery, factor 7 (alpha of
0.73) attentional control and factor 8 (alpha of 0.66)
activation. Again, one item showed a cross-loading of
0.30 or more. Item 104 (`I practise a way to energize
myself ) loaded -0.34 on relaxation and 0.30 on acti-
vation. Inclusion of this item had very little eVect on
the internal reliability of the relaxation subscale (alpha
of 0.785 as compared to 0.781). On the other hand,
the internal reliability of the activation subscale in-
creased from 0.59 to 0.66 when item 104 was included.
Accordingly, item 104 was included on the activation
subscale, as had been intended when the item was
written.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
702 Thomas et al.
Table 1 Item loadings, itemtotal subscale correlations, mean ratings and standard deviations for competition strategies
Competition strategy Factor loading Itemtotal correlation Mean s
Factor 1: Self-talk
Talk positively to get the most out of competitions
Say things to help competitive performance
Manage self-talk eV ectively
Say speciWc cue words or phrases to help performance
Self-talk subscale
0.89
0.74
0.53
0.50
0.72
0.67
0.62
0.53
3.75 0.95
3.90 0.99
3.63 0.88
3.22 1.34
3.62 0.84
Factor 2: Emotional control
Emotions keep me from performing my best
Emotions get out of control under pressure
When something upsets me, my performance suV ers
Make a mistake, trouble getting concentration back on track
Emotional control subscale
-0.76
-0.57
-0.48
-0.43
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.59
2.35 0.97
2.14 0.85
2.70 0.96
2.49 0.87
3.58 0.72
Factor 3: Automaticity
Perform without consciously thinking about it
Dont think about performing much just let it happen
Perform on `automatic pilot
Play/perform instinctively with little conscious eVort
Automaticity subscale
0.73
0.63
0.62
0.55
0.59
0.54
0.52
0.47
3.03 1.05
2.99 1.05
2.91 1.06
3.32 0.99
3.06 0.77
Factor 4: Goal-setting
Set personal performance goals
Set very speciW c goals
Set speciWc result goals
Evaluate whether I achieve competition goals
Goal-setting subscale
0.83
0.66
0.66
0.46
0.69
0.63
0.53
0.50
3.97 0.95
3.81 0.98
3.91 0.96
3.66 1.04
3.84 0.77
Factor 5: Imagery
Imagine competitive routine before I do it
Rehearse the feel of performance in my imagination
Rehearse performance in my mind
Visualize competition going exactly the way I want it
Imagery subscale
0.70
0.68
0.65
0.41
0.67
0.59
0.61
0.54
3.60 1.03
3.40 1.08
3.73 1.01
3.71 0.99
3.61 0.82
Factor 6: Activation
Increase energy to just the right level
Do what needs to be done to get psyched up
Psych myself up to get ready to perform
Raise my energy level when necessary
Activation subscale
0.60
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.60
0.60
0.55
0.53
3.79 0.82
3.76 0.94
3.93 1.02
3.92 0.81
3.85 0.68
Factor 7: Negative thinking
Imagine screwing up
Self-talk is negative
Thoughts of failure
Keep my thoughts positive
Negative thinking subscale
0.59
0.52
0.49
-0.45
0.54
0.52
0.50
0.57
2.08 0.99
1.96 0.94
2.44 0.93
4.02 0.81
2.12 0.68
Factor 8: Relaxation
Able to relax if I get too nervous
Find it diYcult to relax when I am too tense
When the pressure is on, know how to relax
When I need to, I can relax to get ready to perform
Relaxation subscale
0.63
-0.55
0.53
0.46
0.65
0.59
0.64
0.56
3.52 0.86
2.79 0.93
3.56 0.87
3.63 0.85
3.48 0.69
Note: Item responses were reXected before calculation of emotional control subscale scores.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 703
Table 2 Item loadings, itemtotal subscale correlations, mean ratings and standard deviations for practice strategies
Practice strategy Factor loading Itemtotal correlation Mean s
Factor 1: Goal-setting
Set realistic but challenging goals
Very speciW c goals
Set goals to help me use practice time eVectively
Dont set goals for practices, just go out and do it
Goal-setting subscale
0.75
0.61
0.60
-0.52
0.66
0.55
0.57
0.55
3.55 0.98
3.64 0.91
3.21 0.97
2.92 1.12
3.37 0.78
Factor 2: Emotional control
Trouble controlling emotions when things are not going well
Frustrated and emotionally upset when practice does not go well
When things are going poorly, stay in control of myself
emotionally
When I perform poorly I lose my focus
Emotional control subscale
-0.73
-0.66
0.53
-0.50
0.60
0.46
0.50
0.50
2.56 0.90
2.97 1.03
3.50 0.87
2.58 0.84
3.34 0.68
Factor 3: Automaticity
During practice sessions, seem to be in a Xow
Movements and skills seem to Xow naturally
Allow whole skill or movement to happen naturally without
concentrating on each part of the skill
Dont think about performing much just let it happen
Automaticity subscale
0.67
0.66
0.55
0.52
0.52
0.48
0.45
0.37
3.29 0.80
3.58 0.81
3.42 0.84
2.93 0.97
3.30 0.61
Factor 4: Relaxation
Use practice time to work on relaxation technique
Practise using relaxation techniques at workouts
Relax myself at practice to get ready
Practise a way to relax
Relaxation subscale
0.74
0.70
0.64
0.46
0.62
0.66
0.57
0.51
2.44 0.91
2.44 0.97
3.00 0.86
2.80 1.07
2.67 0.74
Factor 5: Self-talk
Talk positively to get the most out of practice
Motivate myself to train through positive self-talk
Say things to myself to help my practice performance
Manage self-talk eVectively
Self-talk subscale
0.68
0.62
0.60
0.60
0.68
0.61
0.59
0.61
3.55 0.93
3.61 1.03
3.41 1.00
3.29 0.98
3.47 0.79
Factor 6: Imagery
When I visualize my performance, I imagine watching myself as if
on a video replay
Visualize successful past performances
Rehearse my performance in my mind
When I visualize my performance, I imagine what it will feel like
Imagery subscale
0.61
0.55
0.55
0.52
0.52
0.50
0.55
0.49
3.10 1.17
3.40 1.01
3.08 1.00
3.42 1.08
3.25 0.79
Factor 7: Attentional control
Attention wanders while training
Trouble maintaining concentration during long practices
Focus attention eV ectively
Able to control distracting thoughts when training
Attentional control subscale
-0.71
-0.67
0.45
0.36
0.65
0.53
0.50
0.42
2.59 0.88
2.70 0.91
3.55 0.78
3.69 0.81
3.49 0.63
Factor 8: Activation
Trouble energizing if I feel sluggish
Practise energizing during training sessions
DiYculty increasing energy level during workouts
Practise a way to energize myself
Activation subscale
-0.54
0.49
-0.42
0.30
0.45
0.52
0.35
0.43
2.98 0.84
3.16 0.95
2.57 0.88
2.89 0.98
3.13 0.65
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
704 Thomas et al.
Correlations among strategies
Inspection of the coeYcients in Table 3 reveals
moderately strong correlations among many of the
strategies. Thus, for example, the skilful use of self-talk
in competition was positively associated with activation
(0.53, P < 0.001), imagery (0.51, P < 0.001), goal-
setting (0.43, P < 0.001), relaxation (0.39, P < 0.001)
and emotional control (0.28, P < 0.001) strategies.
Furthermore, strategic self-talk was inversely related to
negative thinking (-0.42, P < 0.001) and automaticity
(-0.13, P < 0.01).
A similar pattern of relationships is evident for these
strategies during practice. Self-talk correlated positively
with relaxation (0.52, P < 0.001), imagery (0.48,
P < 0.001), goal-setting (0.46, P < 0.001), activation
(0.45, P < 0.001), attentional control (0.38, P < 0.001)
and emotional control (0.13, P < 0.01). Self-talk was
unrelated to automaticity during practice, as indeed
were most other strategies.
The skilful use of self-talk techniques in competition
correlated strongly with the use of these techniques in
practice (0.69, P < 0.001). SigniW cant correlations
between the competition and practice contexts were
also noted for imagery (0.65, P < 0.001), emotional
control (0.56, P < 0.001), goal-setting (0.50, P <
0.001), activation (0.47, P < 0.001), automaticity
(0.44, P < 0.001) and relaxation (0.25, P < 0.001).
Negative thinking in competition was inversely re-
lated to both attentional control (-0.39, P < 0.001)
and emotional control (-0.44, P < 0.001) during
practice.
In summar y, athletes who use particular strategies in
competition, such as self-talk, imagery, goal-setting,
activation and relaxation, also tend to make use of the
other strategies measured. The same applies during
practice. Finally, there is considerable overlap in the use
of particular mental strategies across the two perform-
ance contexts.
Discriminant validity: Competition inventor y
DiVerences between the subgroups in the use of
psychological skills and strategies were analysed to
examine the validity of the subscales. Tables 4 and 5
show the competition subscale means and standard
deviations for males and females in each of the six
Table 3 Correlations between scores on the competition and practice strategies subscales
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Self-talk
2. Emotional control
3. Automaticity
4. Goal-setting
5. Imagery
6. Activation
7. Relaxation
8. Negative thinking
9. Attentional control
(0.69)
0.28
-0.13
0.43
0.51
0.53
0.39
-0.42

0.13
(0.56)
0.03
0.18
0.22
0.33
0.59
-0.52

0.00
0.11
(0.44)
-0.12
-0.10
-0.01
0.06
-0.03

0.46
0.13
-0.12
(0.50)
0.53
0.42
0.29
-0.26

0.48
0.10
0.00
0.47
(0.65)
0.50
0.30
-0.29

0.45
0.31
-0.02
0.45
0.45
(0.47)
0.44
-0.40

0.52
0.16
-0.02
0.46
0.46
0.45
(0.25)
-0.52

0.38
0.41
0.04
0.37
0.30
0.46
0.27

Note: Correlations among competition strategies are in the lower left diagonal; those for practice strategies are in the upper right diagonal; and
those for corresponding subscales are shown in parentheses. Correlations greater than 0.09 are statistically signiW cant (P < 0.05, two-tailed).
Table 4 Means and standard deviations for the competition strategies subscales for male athletes grouped by performance
standard
Competition
strategies
International
(n = 41)
National
(n = 31)
College and
regional
(n = 31)
Junior
national
(n = 71)
Recreational
(n = 30)
Other (e.g.
high school)
(n = 118)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Negative thinking
3.84 0.77
3.72 0.57
3.06 0.74
4.10 0.62
4.01 0.71
4.12 0.52
3.75 0.57
1.99 0.70
3.59 0.94
3.43 0.86
3.19 0.67
4.03 0.68
3.75 0.79
3.78 0.61
3.38 0.76
2.27 0.69
3.32 0.87
3.54 0.71
3.45 0.68
3.49 0.82
3.26 0.92
3.47 0.66
3.42 0.71
2.29 0.89
3.58 0.83
3.66 0.67
3.00 0.79
3.74 0.66
3.51 0.67
3.81 0.64
3.56 0.72
2.06 0.65
3.39 0.70
3.53 0.59
3.43 0.79
3.43 0.74
3.12 0.69
3.58 0.66
3.38 0.58
2.07 0.50
3.79 0.78
3.56 0.80
2.99 0.77
3.89 0.81
3.64 0.81
3.93 0.73
3.48 0.67
2.09 0.63
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 705
Table 5 Means and standard deviations for the competition strategies subscales for female athletes grouped by performance
standard
Competition strategies
International
(n = 24)
National
(n = 32)
Junior national
(n = 44)
Recreational
(n = 23)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Negative thinking
3.48 1.05
3.85 0.63
3.18 0.80
4.14 0.73
3.93 0.78
4.09 0.64
3.95 0.70
1.83 0.56
3.34 0.82
3.53 0.71
2.94 0.71
3.89 0.76
3.65 0.82
3.77 0.56
3.39 0.54
2.10 0.73
3.94 0.69
3.73 0.64
2.70 0.66
4.09 0.66
3.90 0.72
4.14 0.57
3.59 0.62
2.17 0.70
3.48 0.93
3.24 0.52
3.05 0.82
3.54 0.90
3.29 0.88
3.52 0.63
3.02 0.54
2.46 0.68
subgroups deW ned by current performance standard.
Preliminary age sex multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVA) were performed on both the competition
and practice data to determine if it was necessary
to control for their eVects in the main performance
standard analyses. For these age sex analyses, the
sample was divided into three age groups in such a way
that each contained suYcient participants for the results
to be meaningful. Group 1 comprised those athletes
younger than 17 years of age (n = 134), Group 2 those
athletes aged 1719 years (n = 215) and Group 3 those
athletes aged 20 years and older (n = 119).
For the competition data, the age sex MANOVA
revealed a main eVect for age (approx. F
16,910
= 2.88,
P < 0.001), which subsequent univariate analyses of
variance (ANOVA) suggested was due to signiW cant
diVerences in automaticity (F
2,462
= 3.50, P < 0.05),
imagery (F
2,462
= 3.91, P < 0.05) and activation (F
2,462
=
12.37, P < 0.001). Follow-up Tukey tests showed that,
in general, older performers used imagery and acti-
vation strategies less in competition than younger
performers, and reported more automaticity. The
age sex MANOVA also revealed a main eVect for sex
in the competition data (exact F
8,455
= 2.31, P < 0.05).
Subsequent univariate analyses of variance suggested
that this was due to signiW cant diVerences in auto-
maticity (F
1,462
= 4.71, P < 0.05) and imagery (F
1,462
=
3.78, P = 0.05). Examination of the cell means showed
that males scored higher on automaticity, but lower
on imagery, than females. The age sex MANOVA
did not reveal a signiW cant interaction eVect (approx.
F
16,910
= 0.98, P > 0.05).
In light of the above W ndings, the eVects of current
performance standard on the strategic use of psycho-
logical skills in competition were examined using
separate single-factor multivariate analyses of co-
variance (MANCOVA) for the male and female data
with age as a covariate in each case. Sex was not
included as a second independent variable in the
MANCOVA because there were not enough females in
the college/regional and other/high school categories.
For the males, the overall MANCOVA was signiW cant
(approx. F
40,1345
= 1.58, P < 0.02), with univariate
analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) suggesting that this
was due to signiW cant diVerences in automaticity
(F
5,315
= 2.40, P < 0.05), goal-setting (F
5,315
= 4.24,
P < 0.01), imagery (F
5,315
= 5.34, P < 0.001) and acti-
vation (F
5,315
= 2.64, P < 0.05). Boneferroni follow-up
tests indicated that other/high school athletes scored
signiW cantly lower than college/regional athletes on
automaticity. The diVerence between other/high school
athletes and club/recreational athletes was also very
close to signiW cant. International athletes, national
athletes and other/high school athletes all scored sig-
niW cantly higher than club/recreational athletes on
goal-setting, with international athletes also scoring
signiW cantly higher than college/regional athletes.
International athletes scored signiW cantly higher than
junior national, college/regional and club/recreational
athletes on imagery, with national athletes and other/
high school athletes also scoring signiW cantly higher
than club/recreational athletes. Finally, international
athletes scored higher than college/regional athletes
and club/recreational athletes on activation, with other/
high school athletes also scoring signiW cantly higher
than college/regional athletes. Male international and
national standard athletes, together with the other
(largely high school) athletes, tended to score higher
than the college/regional and club/recreational athletes
on most subscales. The exception was on automaticity,
where the reverse occurred (see Table 4).
For female athletes, only four standards of com-
petitive performance were examined: international,
national, junior national and club/recreational. The
overall MANCOVA was signiW cant (approx. F
24,322
=
3.27, P < 0.001) with univariate analyses of covariance
suggesting that this was due to signiW cant diVerences
in self-talk (F
3,118
= 4.16, P < 0.01), emotional control
(F
3,118
= 3.98, P < 0.05), automaticity (F
3,118
= 3.83,
P < 0.05), goal-setting (F
3,118
= 4.07, P < 0.01), imagery
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
706 Thomas et al.
(F
3,118
= 3.14, P < 0.05), activation (F
3,118
= 5.47, P <
0.01), negative thinking (F
3,118
= 3.45, P < 0.05) and
relaxation (F
3,118
= 9.65, P < 0.001). Bonferroni follow-
up tests indicated that junior national athletes scored
signiW cantly higher than national athletes on self-talk.
International athletes and junior national athletes
scored signiW cantly higher than club/recreational
athletes on emotional control. There were no signiW cant
diVerences between any of the groups for automaticity.
International and junior national athletes scored sig-
niW cantly higher than club/recreational athletes on
goal-setting, imagery, activation and relaxation. Inter-
national athletes also scored signiW cantly higher than
national athletes on relaxation. Finally, international
athletes scored signiW cantly lower than club/recreational
athletes on negative thinking. The female international
and junior national athletes tended to score higher than
the club/recreational athletes on all subscales except
negative thinking, where they scored lower, and
automaticity, where there was no clear pattern (see
Table 5).
Discriminant validity: Practice inventory
Tables 6 and 7 show the practice subscale means and
standard deviations for males and females in each of
the six subgroups deW ned by current performance
standard. The preliminary age sex MANOVA on the
practice data revealed a main eVect for age (approx.
F
16,910
= 2.72, P < 0.001), which subsequent univariate
analyses of variance suggested was due to signiW cant
diVerences in emotional control (F
2,462
= 4.41, P <
0.05), imagery (F
2,462
= 2.89, P < 0.06) and activation
(F
2,462
= 4.40, P < 0.05). Follow-up Tukey tests showed
that, in general, older performers used emotional
control strategies more, but imagery and activation
strategies less, than younger performers during practice.
The age sex MANOVA also revealed a main eVect for
sex in the practice data (exact F
8,455
= 2.33, P < 0.05).
Subsequent univariate analyses of variance suggested
that this was due to a marginally signiW cant diVerence
in goal-setting (F
1,462
= 3.71, P < 0.06), a signiW cant
diVerence in activation (F
1,462
= 4.26, P < 0.05) and a
marginally signiW cant diV erence in attentional control
(F
1,462
= 3.67, P < 0.06). Examination of the cell means
showed that males scored lower than females on all
three subscales. The age sex MANOVA did not reveal
a signiW cant interaction eVect (approx. F
16,910
= 0.77,
P > 0.05).
In light of these W ndings, the eVects of current per-
formance standard on the strategic use of psychological
skills in practice were agai n examined using separate
Table 6 Means and standard deviations for the practice strategies subscales for male athletes grouped by performance standard
Practice
strategies
International
(n = 41)
National
(n = 31)
College and
regional
(n = 31)
Junior
national
(n = 71)
Recreational
(n = 30)
Other (e.g.
high school)
(n = 118)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Attentional control
3.67 0.72
3.44 0.69
3.34 0.52
3.51 0.76
3.58 0.68
3.06 0.69
3.11 0.69
3.65 0.52
3.57 0.64
3.38 0.76
3.48 0.70
3.41 0.68
3.37 0.77
2.94 0.54
2.79 0.76
3.41 0.76
3.19 0.71
3.52 0.62
3.52 0.58
2.99 0.80
2.94 0.92
2.84 0.54
2.45 0.73
3.25 0.69
3.42 0.77
3.41 0.68
3.26 0.62
3.35 0.71
3.32 0.55
3.14 0.58
2.52 0.68
3.40 0.61
3.35 0.81
3.54 0.55
3.33 0.73
3.08 0.80
2.86 0.84
2.98 0.60
2.63 0.78
3.42 0.53
3.57 0.84
3.18 0.73
3.26 0.70
3.35 0.87
3.22 0.77
3.20 0.79
2.57 0.76
3.47 0.67
Table 7 Means and standard deviations for the practice strategies subscales for female athletes grouped by performance
standard
Practice strategies
International
(n = 24)
National
(n = 32)
Junior national
(n = 44)
Recreational
(n = 23)
Self-talk
Emotional control
Automaticity
Goal-setting
Imagery
Activation
Relaxation
Attentional control
3.43 0.90
3.54 0.66
3.36 0.52
3.72 0.79
3.43 0.76
3.30 0.61
2.60 0.62
3.60 0.71
3.34 0.74
3.27 0.67
3.27 0.50
3.59 0.74
3.13 0.80
3.16 0.54
2.83 0.58
3.63 0.60
3.62 0.70
3.30 0.63
3.08 0.50
3.53 0.63
3.55 0.83
3.37 0.52
2.92 0.75
3.72 0.38
3.22 0.86
3.24 0.58
3.34 0.42
3.33 0.65
2.89 0.81
3.11 0.63
2.58 0.65
3.25 0.57
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 707
single-factor multivariate analyses of covariance for
the male and female data with age as a covariate in
each case. For the males, the overall MANCOVA was
signiW cant (approx. F
40,1345
= 2.33, P < 0.001), with
univariate analyses of covariance suggesting that this was
due to signiW cant diVerences in automaticity (F
5,315
=
2.73, P < 0.05), goal-setting (F
5,315
= 2.25, P < 0.05),
imagery (F
5,315
= 3.47, P < 0.01) and relaxation (F
5,315
=
4.71, P < 0.001). Bonferroni follow-up tests showed no
signiW cant diVerences in automaticity or goal-setting.
However, the international, national, junior national
and other/high school athletes scored somewhat higher
than the club/recreational and college/regional athletes
on goal-setting. International athletes also scored
signiW cantly higher than club/recreational athletes and
college/regional athletes on imagery, and signiW cantly
higher than junior national, other/high school, and
college/regional athletes on relaxation. Male inter-
national and national standard athletes, and to a lesser
extent the other (largely high school) athletes, tended
to score higher than the college/regional and club/
recreational athletes on most subscales. The exception
was on automaticity, where no clear pattern emerged
(see Table 6).
For the female athletes, the same four standards of
competitive performance were examined as previously:
international, national, junior national and club/
recreational. The overall MANCOVA was again signiW -
cant (approx. F
24,322
= 1.65, P < 0.05), with univariate
analyses of covariance suggesting that this was due to
signiW cant diVerences in automaticity (F
3,118
= 2.82, P <
0.05), imagery (F
3,118
= 3.20, P < 0.05) and attentional
control (F
3,118
= 2.97, P < 0.05). However, the only sig-
niW cant diVerences identiW ed by Bonferroni follow-up
tests were that junior national athletes scored higher
than club/recreational athletes on imagery and atten-
tional control. No signiW cant diVerences were identiW ed
for automaticity. Female international and junior
national standard athletes tended to score higher than
the club/recreational athletes on all subscales except
automaticity and relaxation. On automaticity the junior
nationals scored lowest, while on relaxation the inter-
national athletes had almost the same mean as the
club/recreational athletes (see Table 7).
Discussion
Exploratory factor analyses of the Test of Performance
Strategies yielded very clear factor structures for
both the competition and the practice items. The eight
factors hypothesized to underlie the items were: goal-
setting, relaxation, activation, imagery, self-talk,
attentional control, emotional control and automaticity.
In the practice data, all eight of these factors were
obtained. In the competition data, seven of the eight
hypothesized factors were identiW ed, with negative
thinking replacing attentional control for the eighth
factor. The substitution of attentional control by nega-
tive thinking in competition is not unreasonable given
that negative thinking may well be the metacognitive
manifestation of a lack of attentional control. However,
an interesting feature of the exploratory factor analyses
of the competition data was that, despite using several
diVerent extraction and rotation procedures, the atten-
tional and emotional control items refused to separate
into two factors. Indeed, even in the W nal solution of
the factor analyses, the fourth item selected for the
emotional control subscale reXects diYculties in re-
instating concentration after a mistake. Furthermore, as
might be expected under such circumstances, emotional
control was quite strongly (negatively) correlated with
negative thinking in the competition data and quite
strongly (positively) correlated with attentional control
in the practice data. The data seem to be oVering a fairly
clear message that good attentional control and con-
centration is diYcult without good emotional control.
The W ndings of the factor analyses, together with the
descriptive statistics presented for each subscale, clearly
support previous literature (Loehr, 1986; Mahoney
et al., 1987; Vealey, 1988; Nelson and Hardy, 1990;
Thomas and Over, 1994; Smith et al., 1995; Hardy
et al., 1996a) in identifying the use of motivational
(e.g. self-talk and goal-setting), imaginal, relaxation,
attentional control and emotional control strategies as
an important feature of athletes psychological prepar-
ation for competition. However, the present data show
that athletes also make use of such strategies in training.
Furthermore, as one might expect, the use of certain
strategies in training was generally associated with their
use in competition.
One question remaining was whether activation (the
raising of psychological and physiological energy)
was the opposite of relaxation (the lowering of somatic
anxiety) or orthogonal to it. The items generated for
the TOPS also included the somewhat broader concept
of emotional control rather than just anxiety control.
Activation emerged as an independent factor, but
correlated with relaxation and emotional control in both
factor analyses. This suggests that there is some overlap
in athletes use of these three diVerent types of strategy,
but that high ability in the use of one type of strategy
does not necessarily imply high ability in the other two
areas. The W ndings in relation to diVerences in these
strategies between subgroups provide further support
for such a view. Although an extensive literature exists
on relaxation and emotional control (see, for example,
Greenspan and Feltz, 1989; Gould and Udry, 1994),
much less is known about appropriate strategies for
enhancing activation (Hardy et al., 1996a).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
708 Thomas et al.
Another interesting feature of the correlations among
the subscales of the TOPS was the strength of the rela-
tionships obtained. There were similar patterns in the
use of the basic psychological skills of goal-setting,
imagery and relaxation (see Vealey, 1988; Hardy et al.,
1996a), plus the possibly more advanced psychological
skill of activation, in both practice and competition. The
fact that self-talk was quite strongly correlated with all
the other subscales except automaticity during both
practice and competition is particularly interesting.
Self-talk appears to be a relatively under-researched
area in sport psychology, and few controlled studies
have been performed on how athletes self-talk might be
improved (see Hardy et al., 1996a). Although causality
clearly cannot be inferred from these correlations,
they provide some support for cognitive-behavioural
interventions which use self-talk techniques to change
athletes feelings and improve performance (Zinsser
et al., 1998). Recent evidence of the beneW ts of work
in this area was provided by Thomas and Fogarty
(1997), who reported a signiW cant reduction in
golfers negative emotions and cognitions, and improve-
ment in their performance, after imagery and self-talk
training.
The analyses of variance of the competition data
indicated that older performers reported less use of
imagery and activation strategies, but more auto-
maticity than their younger counterpar ts; males
reported less imagery but more automaticity than
females. They also showed that both male and female
international athletes generally used a wider range of
psychological strategies than those of a lower standard,
in particular college, regional and recreational perfor-
mers. When the eVects of age were removed from the
data, these diVerences were signiW cant for goal-setting,
imagery and activation in the males, and for self-talk,
emotional control, goal-setting, imagery, activation,
negative thinking and relaxation in the females. Fur-
thermore, although there were signiW cant diVerences
between ability groups in automaticity, neither male nor
female international performers reported more auto-
maticity than other performers.
These W ndings are broadly in line with the previous
literature (Mahoney et al., 1987; Thomas and Over,
1994; Smith et al., 1995; Hardy et al., 1996a), except
that one might reasonably have expected international
performers to have greater automaticity than the other
athletes. One possible explanation for this counter-
intuitive W nding for automaticity is that the subscale
automaticity is in fact mislabelled. It is possible that
some athletes (possibly from certain sports) confuse the
genuine automaticity that is supposed to be tapped by
the automaticity items with a generally disorganized
or laissez-faire approach to competition. This inter-
pretation is supported by the very weak or non-existent
correlations that automaticity had with the other
subscales.
On the other hand, the pattern of correlations pro-
vides support for the view that genuine automaticity is
independent of athletes use of psychological skills and
strategies measured on other subscales. Automaticity
is associated with peak performance, `playing in the
zone and the experience of Xow (Cohn, 1991; Moore
and Stevenson, 1991; Jackson, 1995). Psychological
skills training is often conducted to help athletes attain
automaticity and perform at their peak. On many
occasions, however, they do not experience such a state
in competition or in practice, and rely instead on con-
scious eVort and strategic use of psychological skills to
perform well.
Automaticity correlated strongly with mental prepar-
ation, concentration and a lack of negative thoughts in
Thomas and Overs (1994) study of golfers. It may
be that automaticity is more important for some sports
(e.g. golf) than others, and that most of the present
sample participated in sports in which performers have
to make use of both implicit and explicit knowledge to
perform optimally (Hardy et al., 1996a,b). All of these
explanations of the automaticity W nding are worthy of
further research.
Two other W ndings from the analyses of variance
deserve further comment. First, the smaller number
of signiW cant diVerences between male international
performers and other male performers is counter-
intuitive, particularly their use of self-talk and their
ability to control negative thinking, and runs counter
to some previous W ndings (e.g. Mahoney et al., 1987;
Thomas and Over, 1994). However, it does not run
counter to all other W ndings (e.g. Smith et al., 1995;
Smith and Christensen, 1995). Perhaps elite male
performers have lower levels of trait anxiety than their
non-elite counterparts (Krohne and Hindel, 1988), or
naturally interpret their anxiety symptoms positively
(Mahoney and Avener, 1977; Jones et al., 1994; Jones
and Swain, 1995); therefore, they do not need to
consciously use strategies to enhance positive self-talk.
However, such an explanation does not account for the
lack of signiW cant diVerences in negative thinking.
An alternative explanation is that elite Australian male
performers are more reluctant than elite Australian
female performers to admit that they experience any
psychological diYculties in competition or use psycho-
logical strategies to counter such diYculties. This
explanation is consistent with previous W ndings that
males often report lower state and trait competitive
anxiety than females (Martens et al., 1990; Jones et al.,
1991).
Second, in the male data, the high school/other
groups appeared to align much more closely with the
national and international athletes than with the club/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 709
recreational and college/regional athletes. This some-
what counterintuitive eVect could be a result of selec-
tion bias. The high school/other sample was largely
made up of boys from a single private high school
in Sydney. The simplest explanation of the test per-
formance of these boys is that they may have received
some psychological skills training, either formally or
informally, as a result of the school that they attended,
and that such training was not available to other
males in the club/recreational and college/regional
samples.
The analyses of variance of the practice data indicated
that older performers used emotional control strategies
more, but imagery and activation strategies less, than
younger performers, and that males used goal-setting,
activation and attentional control strategies less than
females. They also showed that, as with the competition
data, international performers generally practised
using their psychological skills more in training than
their non-elite counterparts. When the eVects of age
were removed from the data, these diV erences were
signiW cant for goal-setting, imagery and relaxation in
the males, and for imagery and attentional control in the
females. Again, as with the competition data, although
there were signiW cant diVerences in automaticity be-
tween ability groups, neither male nor female inter-
national performers reported more automaticity than
other performers. The W ndings that male international
performers practised the basic psychological skills of
goal-setting, imagery and relaxation more in training
than college, regional and recreational performers is
interesting, because it suggests that performers of a high
standard may generally have better developed psycho-
logical skills and strategies for competition because
they practise their basic psychological skills in training.
This possibility is important because it parallels the
received view from coaches with respect to physical
skills; that is, performers of a high standard need to have
good `basics. Again this W nding is worthy of further
investigation using a stronger design.
Other issues involving the relationship between
practice and competition also warrant further con-
sideration. The TOPS subscales measure a relatively
common set of skills or strategies in the two contexts.
There may be other psychological skills that are
exclusive to practice or competition, or the same skill
may be used in diVerent ways or to diVerent extents in
the two contexts. The signiW cant correlations between
competition and practice subscales do not imply that
the skills or strategies were used to the same extent in
those contexts. The subscale means suggest greater
use of skills in competition than during practice, but
caution is required, as the items comprising the respec-
tive subscales are not identical. The subscale means may
also have been inXuenced by other factors, including
whether the participants completed the inventory in or
out of season. Further research needs to explore both
the similarities and diVerences between these contexts.
In conclusion, we have presented preliminary data on
the development of an instrument to measure athletes
use of psychological skills and strategies both in training
and in competition. These initial data are encouraging
and suggest that the Test of Performance Strategies
is well-suited to assessing the eVectiveness of psycho-
logical skills training interventions. Further work is
needed to examine the reliability of the factor structure
of the TOPS using conW rmatory factor analysis, to
test its concurrent and discriminant validity, to explore
possible sport-speciW c diVerences in the subscales,
particularly those where the W ndings were counter-
intuitive (negative thinking and automaticity), and to
examine the link between the practice of basic psycho-
logical skills in training and the eVectiveness of
advanced psychological strategies in competition.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by GriYth University and the
United States Olympic Training Center, Colorado Springs.
We would like to thank Suzie TuV ey, Dorsey Edmonson,
Sean McCann and JeV Bond for their contributions to this
project.
References
Anderson, J.A. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psycho-
logical Review, 89, 369406.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-eYcacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191215.
Boutcher, S.H. (1992). Attention and athletic performance:
An integrated approach. In Advances in Sport Psychology
(edited by T.S. Horn), pp. 251266. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Burton, D. (1992). The Jekyll/Hyde nature of goals: Recon-
ceptualizing goal setting in sport. In Advances in Sport
Psychology (edited by T.S. Horn), pp. 267297.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Chartrand, J.M., Jowdy, D.P. and Danish, S.J. (1992). The
Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports: Psychometric
characteristics and applied implications. Jour nal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 14, 405413.
Cohn, P.J. (1991). An exploratory study on peak per-
formance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 114.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal
Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Fitts, P. and Posner, M. (1967). Human Perfor mance. Belmont,
CA: Brooke/Cole.
George, L. (1986). Mental imagery enhancement training
in behavior therapy: Current status and future prospects.
Psychotherapy, 23, 8192.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
710 Thomas et al.
Gould, D. and Udry, E. (1994). Psychological skills for
enhancing performance: Arousal regulation strategies.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 478485.
Gould, D., Tammen, V., Murphy, S. and May, J. (1989). An
examination of U.S. Olympic sport psychology consultants
and the services they provide. The Sport Psychologist, 3,
300312.
Greenspan, M.J. and Feltz, D.L. (1989). Psychological
interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A
review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219236.
Greenspan, M.J., Murphy, S.M., Tammen, V.V. and Jowdy,
D.P. (1989). EV ects of athletic achievement level and test
administration instructions on the Psychological Skills
Inventory for Sports (PSIS). Communication to the
Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of
Applied Sport Psychology, Nashua, NH.
Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of performance
in sport. In Stress and Performance in Sport (edited by
G. Jones and L. Hardy), pp. 81106. Chichester: Wiley.
Hardy, L. and ParW tt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of
anxiety and performance. British Jour nal of Psychology, 82,
163178.
Hardy, L., Jones, G. and Gould, D. (1996a). Understanding
Psychological Preparation for Sport: Theor y and Practice of
Elite Perfor mers. Chichester: Wiley.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R. and Jones, G. (1996b). Knowledge and
conscious control of motor actions under stress. British
Jour nal of Psychology, 87, 621626.
Jackson, S.A. (1995). Factors inXuencing the occurrence of
Xow state in elite athletes. Jour nal of Applied Sport Psych-
ology, 7, 138166.
Jones, G. (1990). A cognitive perspective on the processes
underlying the relationship between stress and per-
formance in sport. In Stress and Perfor mance in Sport
(edited by G. Jones and L. Hardy), pp. 1742. Chichester:
Wiley.
Jones, G. and Hardy, L. (eds) (1990). Stress and Performance
in Sport. Chichester: Wiley.
Jones, G. and Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predisposition to experi-
ence debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite and
nonelite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 201211.
Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J. and Cale, A. (1991). Gender dif-
ferences in precompetition temporal patterning and
antecedents of anxiety and self-conWdence. Jour nal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 13, 115.
Jones, G., Hanton, S. and Swain, A.B.J. (1994). Intensity
and interpretation of anxiety symptoms in elite and
non-elite sports performers. Personality and Individual
DiVerences , 17, 657663.
Krohne, H.W. and Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, state
anxiety, and coping behaviours as predictors of athletic
performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225235.
Lesser, M. and Murphy, S.M. (1988). The Psychological
Skills Inventory for Sports (PSIS): Normative and re-
liability data. Communication to the Annual Meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Loehr, J.E. (1986). Mental Toughness Training for Sports:
Achieving Athletic Excellence. Lexington, MA: Stephen
Greene Press.
Mahoney, M.J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and
non-elite performance in Olympic weightlifting. Inter -
national Jour nal of Sport Psychology, 20, 112.
Mahoney, M.J. and Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the
elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 1, 135141.
Mahoney, M.J., Gabriel, T.J. and Perkins, T.S. (1987).
Psychological skills and exceptional athletic performance.
The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181199.
Martens, R., Vealey, R.S. and Burton, D. (eds) (1990).
Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
McCann, S. (1995). Overtraining and burnout. In Sport
Psychology Inter ventions (edited by S.M. Murphy),
pp. 347368. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Moore, W.E. and Stevenson, J.R. (1991). Understanding
trust in the performance of complex automatic sport skills.
The Sport Psychologist, 5, 281289.
Murphy, S.M. and Jowdy, D.P. (1992). Imagery and mental
practice. In Advances in Sport Psychology (edited by
T. Horn), pp. 221250. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Nelson, D. and Hardy, L. (1990). The development of an
empirically validated tool for measuring psychological skill
in sport. Jour nal of Sports Sciences, 8, 71.
NideV er, R.M. and Sagal, M.S. (1998). Concentration and
attention control training. In Applied Sport Psychology
(edited by J.M. Williams), 3rd edn, pp. 296315. Palo Alto,
CA: MayWeld.
Schneider, W. and ShiV rin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and
automatic human information processing: I. Detection,
search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 166.
Schutz, R.W. and Gessaroli, M.E. (1993). Use, misuse, and
disuse of psychometrics in sport psychology research.
In Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology (edited by
R. N. Singer, M. Murphey and L.K. Tennant), pp. 901
917. New York: Macmillan.
Shelton, T.O. and Mahoney, M.J. (1978). The content and
eV ect of `psyching-up strategies in weightlifters. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 2, 275284.
Smith, R.E. and Christensen, D.S. (1995). Psychological skills
as predictors of performance and survival in professional
baseball. Jour nal of Spor t and Exercise Psychology, 17,
399415.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L. and Ptacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive
moderator variables in vulnerability and resiliency
research: Life stress, social support and coping skills, and
adolescent sport injuries. Jour nal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 360370.
Smith, R.E., Schutz, R.W., Smoll, F.L. and Ptacek, J.T.
(1995). Development and validation of a multidimensional
measure of sport-speciWc psychological skills: The Athletic
Coping Skills Inventory-28. Jour nal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 17, 379398.
Tammen, V.V. and Murphy, S.M. (1990). Reevaluating the
Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports: Factor analysis
and implications. Communication to the Annual Meeting
of the North American Society of Psychology of Sport and
Physical Activity, Asilomar, CA.
Thomas, P.R. and Fogarty, G.J. (1997). Psychological skills
training in golf: The role of individual diVerences in
cognitive preferences. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 86106.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0
Test of performance strategies 711
Thomas, P.R. and Over, R. (1994). Psychological and psycho-
motor skills associated with performance in golf. The Sport
Psychologist, 8, 7386.
Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B.W., Rivera, P.M. and Petitpas, A.J.
(1994). The relationship between observable self-talk and
competitive junior tennis players match performances.
Jour nal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 400415.
Vealey, R.S. (1988). Future directions in psychological skills
training. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 318336.
White, S.A. (1993). The relationship between psychological
skills, experience, and practice commitment among
collegiate male and female skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 7,
4957.
Zinsser, N., Bunker, L. and Williams, J.M. (1998). Cognitive
techniques for building conWdence and enhancing
performance. In Applied Sport Psychology (edited by
J.M. Williams), 3rd edn, pp. 270295. Palo Alto, CA:
MayW eld.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
A
u
b
u
r
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

A
t
:

1
8
:
2
6

2
3

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
0