A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Team Dynamics Perceptions, Motivation, and Anxiety in University Athletes
This study aimed to evaluate the interrelation between team dynamics with motivation types and anxiety factors in university athletes, highlighting the role played by team members’ point of view and coach’s point of view. Participants were 674 university athletes, men (46.4%) and women (53.6%), from different sports, with an age range between 18 and 28 years (M = 21.06; SD = 2.07). Instruments used were Cooperation Workteam Questionnaire (CWQ), the Sports Motivation Scale (SMS-II), and the Sports Anxiety Scale (SAS-2). The model from the team member’s point of view presented adequate fit indices (χ2 (924) = 2690.17, χ2/df = 2.91, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05), same as the model from the coach’s point of view (χ2 (924) = 2692.82, χ2/df = 2.99, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05). The results obtained in both models show five indirect effects, two of them between team dynamics from both points of view with somatic anxiety and deconcentration, with autonomous motivation as a mediator, and the other three between the team dynamics from both perspectives with somatic anxiety, worry, and deconcentration, having controlled motivation as a mediator.
Team Dynamics Perceptions, Motivation, and Anxiety in University Athletes
This study aimed to evaluate the interrelation between team dynamics with motivation types and anxiety factors in university athletes, highlighting the role played by team members’ point of view and coach’s point of view. Participants were 674 university athletes, men (46.4%) and women (53.6%), from different sports, with an age range between 18 and 28 years (M = 21.06; SD = 2.07). Instruments used were Cooperation Workteam Questionnaire (CWQ), the Sports Motivation Scale (SMS-II), and the Sports Anxiety Scale (SAS-2). The model from the team member’s point of view presented adequate fit indices (χ2 (924) = 2690.17, χ2/df = 2.91, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05), same as the model from the coach’s point of view (χ2 (924) = 2692.82, χ2/df = 2.99, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05). The results obtained in both models show five indirect effects, two of them between team dynamics from both points of view with somatic anxiety and deconcentration, with autonomous motivation as a mediator, and the other three between the team dynamics from both perspectives with somatic anxiety, worry, and deconcentration, having controlled motivation as a mediator.
Team Dynamics Perceptions, Motivation, and Anxiety in University Athletes
Orlando Reyes-Hernández (author) / José Tristán (author) / Jeanette M. López-Walle (author) / Alexandre García-Mas (author)
2021
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Team Organization Method Using Salary Auction Game for Sustainable Motivation
| DOAJ | 2015