4.5 Article

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for use with athletes

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 761-770

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.001

关键词

Reappraisal; Suppression; Affect; Mood; Psychological skills

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F037449/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. ESRC [ES/F037449/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Three studies examine the factorial validity, internal consistency, test-retest stability, and criterion validity of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ: Gross & John, 2003) for use with athletes. Design: Factorial validity, internal consistency, test-retest stability and criterion validity of the ERQ were examined over three stages, using three separate samples. Method: In stage 1 the factorial validity and internal consistency of the ERQ subscales were examined based on responses from 433 sport participants. In stage 2,176 sport participants completed the ERQ on two occasions separated by an interval of two weeks. In stage 3, the criterion validity of the ERQ was examined. Sport participants (n = 88) completed the ERQ and reported the intensity, frequency and direction of a range of emotions experienced when competing in sport. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis results lend some support to a two-factor model when reappraisal and suppression are allowed to correlate. Alpha coefficients were acceptable. Test-retest stability analyses indicated poor agreement and a greater influence of situational, as opposed to trait factors, in the variance of item scores on the second test administration. In addition, results were partially consistent with findings of Gross and John (2003): reappraisal scores were associated with pleasant emotions, but suppression scores were not associated with unpleasant emotions. Conclusion: Results provide mixed support for the validity of the ERQ in sport. Because the ERQ is intended to assess stable patterns of emotion regulation, the instability of items is a concern and reasons for this require further investigation. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据