attentional style and basketball performance€¦ · attentional style and basketball performance...

JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 1991,8,239-253

Attentional Style and Basketball Performance

Jeffery J. Summers, Kerryn Miller, and Stephen Ford University of Melbourne

The Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS) has been used to examine the attention-performance relationship in sport with mixed results. However, sport-specific versions of the TAIS attentional subscales appear -.

to provide improved measurement of attentional processes in sport. The present study further evaluated the utility of a sport-specific TAIS. A second- ary aim was to examine the relationship between attentional style and competitive trait anxiety. The TAIS and a basketball-specific form (BB-TAIS) were administered to 110 basketball players classified into three skill-level groups. Both instruments were psychometrically similar. The bandwidth dimension was supported, although it appeared to be multidimensional. The validity of the direction dimension, however, remains inconclusive. Neither instrument was able to reliably discriminate between basketball players of different skill levels. Predicted relationships, however, were obtained between the BB-TAIS subscales and measures of competitive trait anxiety. The use of the TAIS as a research instnunent for examining attentional styles in sport is questioned.

Attentional factors such as sustained alertness and freedom from distraction are considered vital ingredients for effective athletic performance. In the field of sport psychology, research into the attentional processes that regulate human behavior and the subsequent implications for sport performance has been strongly influenced by Nideffer's (1976a, 1976b) model of attentional style. Drawing from the theoretical and empirical work of Easterbrook (1959), Silverman (1964), and Watchel (1967), Nideffer suggested that, conceptually, attention can be located simultaneously along two continuous dimensions: breadth and direction of attentional focus. Breadth refers to the number of elements one can attend to in the stimulus field; direction refers to whether attention is directed to internal or external stimuli.

According to Nideffer, individuals exhibit a natural tendency to function within a relatively restricted range along each of the two dimensions of attention. This predisposition toward a certain focus of attention is referred to as an individual's "preferred attentional style." It is further assumed that particular tasks and situations demand specific combinations of attentional breadth and direction for effective performance. Nideffer (1976a) suggested four distinct types of attentional demands: broad external, narrow external, broad internal, and narrow internal. A basic assumption of the model is that efficient task performance is dependent on the degree to which an individual's preferred attentional style is appropriate for the specific task and situational demands.

The authors are with the Department of Psychology at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 3052.

240 / Summers, Miller, and Ford

In an attempt to objectively measure and categorize individual attentional styles, Nideffer (1976b) developed the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS). This self-report measure consists of 144 items that, on the basis of an item analysis, Nideffer placed into 17 rationally defined subscales. Each subscale was considered to be potentially useful in predicting behavior over a wide range of situations. Of the subscales, 6 measure attentional processes, 2 are involved with behavioral and cognitive control processes, and 9 describe how an individual is most likely to behave in a variety of interpersonal situations.

To examine the relationship between attention and athletic performance, researchers have typically used only the 6 attentional subscales of the TAIS. Of these, 3 measure effective use of attention. These subscales assess to what extent an individual can effectively attend to external (broad external- BET) and internal (broad internal-BIT) cues and the extent to which an individual can effectively narrow his or her field of attention (narrow attentional focus-NAR). The other 3 subscales reflect an individual's tendency to adopt an inappropriate attentional focus. Specifically, these subscales indicate the extent to which one has a reduced attentional focus (RED) and is overloaded by external (OET) and internal (OIT) stimuli. The items of the TAIS are general in nature and do not refer to any specific sporting context.

The proposition that an appropriate attentional style is important for opti- mal performance in sport has led to many studies examining the relationship between the TAIS attentional scales and levels of performance in a variety of sports. These studies, however, have produced equivocal results. Meaningful relationships between attentional styles, as measured by the TAIS, and performance have been obtained in sports such as swimming (Nideffer, 1976a), diving (Nideffer, 1987), golf (Kirschenbaum & Bale, 1984), shooting (Landers, Furst, & Daniels, 1981), and baseball and softball batting (Albrecht & Feltz, 1987). Furthermore, some success in predicting skill-group membership was achieved by scoring individual TAIS attention profiles in a study of cricket players (Sum- mers & Maddocks, 1986). Incontrast, several other studies have failed to demonstrate any significant relationship between athletic performance and TAIS attentional measures (Aronson, 1981 ; Bond, Lowden, & Patrick, 1988; Landers, Boutcher, & Wang, 1986; Vallerand, 1983; Van Schoyck & Grasha, 1981; Zaichkowsky , Jackson, & Aronson, 1982).

Some investigators have argued that the lack of a consistent relationship between TAIS scores and skill level is due to the failure of the original TAIS to account for situational determinants of attentional style (e.g., Albrecht & Feltz, 1987; Van Schoyck & Grasha, 1981). Accordingly, sport-specific versions of the TATS have been developed in which items are given a context pertinent to the specific sport being studied. Van Schoyck and Grasha (1981) found that a tennis-specific version (T-TAIS) was psychometrically superior to the original TAIS and was also a significantly better predictor of the subjects' match performance.

Similarly, in an investigation of baseball and softball players, Albrecht and Feltz (1987) constructed a baseballlsoftball-specific version (B-TAIS) whereby test modification was limited to the single task of batting. Results suggested that an explicit sport-specific (and task-specific) version of the TAIS represented a more accurate and stable measure of attentional processes than the general TAIS. Further- more, scores obtained from the B-TAIS subscales demonstrated a more consistent relationship to baseballlsoftball batting ability than did the original TAIS subscales.

BB-TAIS / 241

There is clearly a need for further research examining the value of sport- specific versions of the TAIS attentional subscales. In the present study, the utility of constructing a basketball-specific form of the TAIS subscales was exarn- ined. Basketball was selected for study as it is a sport that places diverse attentional demands on the athlete. Basketball players are required to attend both broadly and narrowly, to either internal or external stimuli depending on the specific task being undertaken. For example, when making a fast break down the court, the player must be aware of his or her teammates' position and avail- ability as well as that of the opposition (TATS-BET subscale) in order to decide whether to pass to a teammate, shoot from the foul-line area, or penetrate for a lay-up. On the other hand, when attempting a foul shot, the player needs to focus narrowly on the basket and not allow distractions by other players or spectators to interfere (TAIS-NAR subscale).

The model of attentional style also makes predictions concerning the relationship between attention and anxiety. Specifically, Nideffer (1976a) suggested that as an individual's level of anxiety increases their attention involuntarily narrows-often to the point where task-relevant information may not be processed. The second change occurring with heightened anxiety is that individuals tend to become more internally focused. They become distracted by their own bodily feelings (e.g., accelerated heart rate) and thoughts (e.g., "What is the matter with me?"). Therefore, the ability to concentrate on the task at hand deteriorates as attention is directed internally.

Only a few studies have examined the relationship between competitive trait anxiety and the TAIS attentional scales, and the results have been mixed (e.g., Albrecht & Feltz, 1987; Maddocks, 1984). A second aim of this study, therefore, was to examine further the relationship between attentional style and competitive trait anxiety.

Method

Subjects The total sample consisted of 110 basketball players (61 males and 49

females) who ranged in age from 16 to 39. Participants were recruited, on a voluntary basis, from individuals playing basketball in the season in which testing took place. Basketball players competing in various organized competitions at interstate, lower metropolitan, and social levels were solicited from Knox Raid- ers, Melbourne University, and Elitzur basketball clubs.

Basketball-ability classification for each player was determined by the level of basketball played at the time of testing. On this basis, male and female players were assigned to one of three skill groups. Players competing in interstate competitions were classified advanced in skill (26 males and 22 females), players competing in lower metropolitan competitions were classed intermediate in skill (20 males and 13 females), and those players competing in organized competitions at a social level were classified beginners in skill (15 males and 14 females).

Measures Attentional Style. Two measures of attentional style were employed. The

first was the 59 items comprising the six attentional subscales (BET, BIT, OET, OIT, NAR, RED) and the cognitive control/information-processing subscale

242 1 Summers, Miller, and Ford

(INFP) of the original TAIS. These subscales contain varying numbers of items, with some items overlapping. The items are general in nature without reference to any specific sporting context, and each item is rated according to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never to always.

The second measure of attentional style was a basketball-specific form (BB-TAIS) of the original TAIS subscales.' The 59 items in the BB-TAIS paral- leled the TAIS items but contained a basketball frame of reference and appeared in a different sequential order. Examples of a TAIS item and the corresponding item on the BB-TAIS are as follows:

TAIS (BET): In a room filled with children or out on a playing field, I know what everyone is doing. BB-TAIS: On a basketball court, I know what everyone is doing. TAIS (OET): With so much going on around me, it's difficult for me to think about anything for any length of time. BB-TAIS: With so much going on around me during a basketball game, it's difficult for me to keep my concentration for any length of time.

Competitive Trait Anxiety. Competitive trait anxiety is defined as the tendency to perceive competitive situations as threatening and to respond to these situations with feelings of apprehension or tension (Martens, 1977). It is therefore a behavioral disposition, an enduring characteristic of an athlete. Two measures of competitive trait anxiety were used to compensate for possible test-form or response-set bias that may cause any one measure to elicit systematic variance in responses (Albrecht & Feltz, 1987). The 15-item Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT; Martens, 1977) was administered to subjects during the first testing session. The test items refer to sports in general, and the overall SCAT score, to which 10 of the items contribute, reflects an athlete's level of competitive trait anxiety. A Zpoint Likert scale ranging from hardly ever to ofen is used in rating each item.

In the second testing session, a trait version (CTAI-2) of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2), developed by Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, and Smith (1990), was employed to assess competitive trait anxiety. The CSAI-2 is a 27-item self-report instrument that was constructed in response to the demand for a multidimensional measure of competitive anxiety. The inventory assesses two subcomponents of anxiety-cognitive anxiety (worry) and somatic anxiety (physiological arousal)-and an athlete's level of self-confidence. A 4- point Likert scale ranging from not at all to very much so is used in rating each item.

Although the CSAI-2 was developed as a measure of state anxiety, by modifying the test instructions so that subjects were required to answer each item in terms of how they usually feel, a trait measure of competitive anxiety (CTAI- 2) was produced. This procedure was identical to that used by Albrecht and Feltz (1987).

Procedure Development of the BB-TAZS. Construction of the BB-TAIS was under-

taken by four experienced basketball players (three males and one female), two of whom also had extensive knowledge in psychology and test development. All 59 items of the TAIS were converted to a basketball-specific frame of reference,

q 3 ! q ~ 'ap3sqns L I O - S ~ , L ayl roj luay:,rj~ao:, lsalal-1sal ayl sy uza3uo3 np3!ued JO .uoualu3 OL- ayl lam ' S ~ L - B ~ ayl 303 XVN put! SWL pu@uo ayl 103 XVN pue J,IO 1da3xa 'spa!3gao:, lsa]al-lsal ' 6 ~ - jo luay3r~~a03 dma1s!suo~-pu -Jalu! w paMoqs ap3sqns S W L - ~ E [ %u~puodsar~o:, ayl sealaqM '(z-) erld@ M O ~

L1ama~lxa w peq SWL ayl jo ap3sqns no ayl '~aaoarom ~pwsuo3 a m s ayl aJnseam 6pol3ejs!1es IOU op mal! ayl 's! leyl-snoaua%ouxoq d11ua!31rjjns IOU ale sap3sqns SWJ, asayl leyl sagduq s y q ~ -d3uatsrsuo3 pma$F jo spAa1 ajqqda:, - 3 ~ aal~lsuowa~ o) P ~ P J (XVN) 3~3sqns SWL-88 auo p a ( a m 'WN ' ~ 3 8 ' ~ 1 0 ) sapsqns SWJ, lnoj 'uoua1u3 s r y l 8 ~ s n '0~' aaoqe sy saiur!lsa h!~qe!~a.r loj pnpuqs paldame lipraua% ayl leyl palsa%%ns seq (8~61) d p u u n ~

.ap%qns h a ~ a uo ( 9 ~ ' 03 92. = J ) SWL pq8po ayl myl raq%y sew (98- 01 99- =J) S W L - ~ ~ ayljo A3uals!suo3 p m a q aqL ' s w L - ~ ~ ayl .IOJ £8. 01 69-=J jo a % m ~ e pw S ~ L puy8po ayl ~ o j 16- 01 ~ s * = A jo a%uer e q l ! ~ ' q8yq dp~aua8 pw ~ ~ ~ I J ! U % ! S a.raM saJnseauI puo!luage yloq jo sa!lyFqeyIal ~saiar-lsal aqL '1 a1qeL q u ~ o q s are ap3sqns S W L - E [ ~ pw SWL q3ea ~ o j eydp ( ~ ~ 6 1 ) s'q3equ0.13 pue suoy~epo:, ~sala~-lsa~ ~uawow-wnpo~d uosnad

.uo!ssas 8ugsa~ is3g earl) se JapIo a m s ayl u~ sisal ayl pa1a1dmo3 slsfqns palsalal aqL ' s L q ~2 ol sdep 91 woq pa8ue.1 pouad isa1aJ-lsal aqL ' ~ ~ 3 s ayl jo a q d uy ' Z - W L ~ ayl pala~dmo~ pafqns q3aa 'uoyssas IsalaJ ayl 8uyrna -palsal -aJ %u!aq 03 paluasuo3 sparqns 01 1 ayl jo £9 'sapoluanu~ haprue OM$ ayl and -mo3 01 pue saJnsaauI puoyualle yloqjo &y~qe!~a-r lsala.1-1sa ayl ssasse o~

-Qr~qe jo sIaaa1 1e s~alCe1d lpqlayseq 01 saapsmayl andm03 01 'SW,L ayl JO suuo~ yloq 01 Zuypuodsa~ uaqM ' p a ~ ~ ~ ~ s u y araM dpms luasa~d ayl u! sl3afqns 'dl%up.~omv S(laaa1 rigs a m s ayl jo salawe 01 slaylo 'raurroj~ad pap! ayl 01 saqasmayl andmo:, dvux amos '.%.a) SWL ayl % q r a ~ m uaqM y l y ~

saaIaswayl a.1edwo3 salawe ayl m o q ~ Jaao pasp~axa uaaq seq p .1~~03 ou 's! ley& 'stas asuodsa~ ~o.~luo:, 01 ampej ayl uaaq seq 'SWL ayl 8uyd01dma qxeas -a2 sno~aald u~ paluasqo 'dyqsuoy~ep~ a~murropad-alhs puo!?uane )ua.ls:suo3u~ ayl JOJ uosrrar auo letp pan%~e seq ((~861) JagapIN -sa~!euuortsanb aaryl ayl jo sa8ed 1uo.g ayl uo paluasa~d aJaM s u o ~ ~ ~ n . ~ ~ s u ! ualpM .pa~mpq~aluno:, araM a1hs puoyluajle jo salnsaam OM$ ayl paia~dwo:, s~afqns y3ym u! raplo a u 'san -uaa qnp snopva ayl 1~ suoyssas a3!ve.1d pappaq:,s hln1n%a1 %uunp spafqns 01 paralspnupe aJaM J , V ~ S p w ' s w L - ~ ~ 'SJJIL a u 'uo~yv~ys?u~u1py ~ s a ~

'SWL puy8uo a q 01 pwmd pa~apysuo:, aJaM smaq ayl asnmaq SWJ, -88 ayl uo pa13npu03 IOU aJaM sasdpm urq~ .say31203 Ipqlayseq OMJ dq pawayaar saw 'SWL puy8~10 ayl y l ! ~ raqla8ol ' s w L - ~ ~ pa~~tu~suo:, d~hau ayl ' d ~ p q d -uasoq3 SEM srual! ayl 8uyuanuo3 loj papads epaiu:, ayl ol palarlpe dlaso13 ~som leql uo!sIaa ayl 'sura~! %up!auua~ ayl J O ~ * S W , L - ~ ~ aql jo ued se paldamv aJaM smaly asayl 'syseq syq u o -suogmy~pour alepdoldde ISOW

ayl8u1pn8ar s.ralpM ma$! ayljo OM$ ]seal $I? 6q snsuasuo:, e s r ? ~ a1aq 'smalr 6s ayl jo jpq d~a~vm!xo~ddv u o - s ~ o ~ e ~ ~ s a ~ u ! juasa~d ayl dq paMayaal araM ap3s 3gpads--[@qlayseq aql jo suo!sJaA moj ayl 'spnpyn!py moj atp dq Lpuapuad -apui pagqom uaaq peq suIay/$sa$ arl, lagv .%urpro~ pm 'a1m3ruls p ~ g v m r % 'lualuo3 SWL p!8!.1o arp 'alqyssod aJaqM ' u ~ u y ~ ~ 03 apem s e ~ xdmauv ue pug


Table 1

Test-Retest and Internal-Consistency Reliability Coefficients for TAIS and BB-TAIS Subscales

Test-retest coefficients Internal consistency

TAlS BB-TAIS TAlS BB-TAIS n=43 n-43 n=110 n=110

Overload external (OET) .82 .73 .76 .84 Overload internal (OIT) .58 .82 .24 .79 Broad external (BET) .79 .80 .63 .75 Broad internal (BIT) .89 .82 .74 .80 Narrow attention (NAR) .69 .69 .63 .66 Reduced attention (RED) .81 .72 .69 .70 Information processing (INFP) .91 .83 .74 .75

Note. All test-retest coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level.

represents only about 26% common variance between the two testing sessions. This reflects measurement instability due to temporal factors, which may be a result of, or at least exacerbated by, the low internal consistency of the scale.

Overall, the basketball-specific instrument demonstrated adequate reliability (test-retest and internal consistency).

Multivariate Analyses

Factorial Validity of the TAIS and BB-TAZS. According to Nideffer (1976a), attentional style is principally composed of breadth (narrow to broad) and direction (internal to external) dimensions. To gain insight into the validity of this proposition, the intercorrelations between the subscale scores on both versions of the TAIS were examined (see Table 2).

Inspection of the correlation table reveals a large positive correlation between BET and BIT subscales for both measures of attentional style. This suggests BET and BIT measure a common factor, a broad attentional focus. Likewise, OET and OIT also correlate strongly in a positive direction on both versions of the TAIS, which is again indicative of a common factor, the likelihood of becoming overloaded. There was no evidence of the existence of a dimension direction. The magnitude of many scale intercorrelations, particularly on the BB- TAIS, also suggests measurement redundancy, which is cause for concern.

To determine the clustering of subscales more precisely, separate principal- component analyses, followed by varimax rotations, were conducted on the TAIS and BB-TAIS subscale scores (see Table 3). Although there are limitations in the use of factor analysis (see Nideffer, 1990), it was reasoned that principal- component analyses would provide a means of testing the validity of the direction dimension. This is because as variance is extracted, it is partialled out and the next factor is extracted from the remaining pattern of variance. Therefore, it is possible that, after the variance due to bandwidth is extracted (because this was

BB-TAIS / 245

Table 2

TAIS and BB-TAIS Interscale Correlations

OET OIT BET BIT NAR RED

TAIS scales OET OIT BET BIT NAR RED INFP 135-TAIS scales OET OIT BET BIT NAR RED lNFP

the predominate dimension in other studies; e.g., Vallerand, 1983; Van Schoyck & Grasha, 1981), there may be some indication of a direction dimension. A direction dimension may, of course, be present but be too trivial to be extracted.

The factor analyses revealed two main factors (i.e., only factors with eigen- values greater than 1.0 were considered important) on each form of the TAIS. The two TAIS and two BB-TAIS factors accounted for 69.6% and 79.5%, re- spectively, of the total variance. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was large for both the TAIS (0.68) and the BB-TATS (0.81), and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (TAIS =398.16, p<0.05; BB- TAIS=600.61, p<0.05).

In interpreting the factor structures, only those loadings greater than .30 were considered (Child, 1970). Factor 1 of the TAIS and Factor 1 of the BB- TAIS were almost identical and loaded most heavily with the broad-focus subscales (BET and BIT) and the INFP subscale. The negative loading for the RED subscale is congruent with the interpretation that such factors reflect the ability to effectively allocate attention to many aspects of the stimulus field. This factor was labeled SCAN.

Factor 2 also revealed a similar scale-loading pattern for the two versions of the TAIS. Positive loadings were obtained for the overload subscales (OET and OIT) and the RED subscale, and negative loadings for the BIT and NAR subscales. The magnitude of the loading for NAR, however, was much greater in the BB-TATS than in the TAIS. The subscales with positive loadings (OET, OIT, RED) on the two factors assess negative attentional attributes. In contrast, the subscales with negative loadings (NAR and BIT) measure positive attentional


Table 3

TAIS and BB-TAIS Orthogonal Varimax-Rotated Factor Loadings

Subscale

TAlS BB-TAIS

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

OET OIT BET BIT N AR RED INFP

Eigenvalue % variance Cumulative % variance

*Absolute value of loading 20.30.

attributes. The direction and magnitude of the specific loadings suggests that Factor 2 reflects an ineffective attentional width combined with an overloading of information and a poor ability to concentrate. This factor was labeled FOCUS.

Attentional Style and Basketball Skill Level. Investigation of TAIS and BB-TAIS subscale score differences as a function of skill level followed an unbal- anced unifactorial design with three levels. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were performed separately on the two tests of attentional style so that the seven attention-related subscales in each test represented the dependent variables and skill level represented the independent variable.' The MANOVAs failed to demonstrate a significant skill-level effect for the TAIS subscale scores and the BB-TAIS subscale scores.

In view of the lack of significant multivariate results, and the suggestion that scanning and focusing dimensions form the basis of both general and sport- specific measures of attention, composite scale scores were formed from those subscales associated with common factors. Specifically, the algebraic sum of the BET, BIT, and INFP subscales formed a scale labeled SCAN-associated with attentional overload and inappropriate narrowing of attention. Similarly, the overload subscales (OET and OIT) and the narrow-attention subscales (NAR and RED) formed a scale labeled FOCUS-associated with attentional overload and inappropriate narrowing of attention. As the NAR subscale loaded negatively on this FOCUS scale, the scale score was formed by subtracting the NAR subscale score from the algebraic sum of the OET, OIT, and RED subscale scores.

MANOVAs were performed separately on the TAIS and BB-TAIS so that the SCAN and FOCUS scales in each test represented the dependent variables and skill level represented the independent variable. There was no significant skill-level effect for the SCAN and FOCUS scale scores on the TAIS. In contrast, a significant main effect of skill level was evident for the SCAN and FOCUS

BB-TAIS 1 247

Table 4

Ms, SDs, and Univariate FValues for Subjects on the TAIS and BB-TAIS Composite Scales as a Function of Skill Level

Beginner Intermediate Advanced (n=29) (n=33) (n=48)

Scale M SD M SD M SO F

TAlS 1 SCAN 78.76 13.38 74.88 0.40 79.65 12.26 1.61 FOCUS 33.53 12.61 31.55 11.96 30.35 14.44 0.51

BB-TAIS SCAN 71.35 16.31 71.64 10.72 80.21 11.33 6.40* FOCUS 24.24 16.69 22.58 13.12 19.08 19.25 0.93

scales on the BB-TAIS [Wilks' lambda =0.89, F(4,212) =3.34, p<0.05]. Uni- variate F tests showed a significant difference between the three skill-level groups on the BB-TAIS SCAN scale only (see Table 4).

To determine the direction of effect on the SCAN scale, post hoc compari- sons using the Scheffe technique were conducted. The results illustrated that the advanced group scored significantly higher than the intermediate and beginner groups on the scale; however, no significant difference was found between the intermediate- and beginner-level players. Such a finding indicates that highly skilled basketball players are more capable of scanning the environment and integrating and dealing with various pieces of information than lesser skilled players.

Attentional Style, Anxiety, and Self-confidence

The model of attentional style suggests that increases in individual anxiety levels will result in an involuntary narrowing of attentional breadth and a shift to an internal focus of attention. It was hypothesized, therefore, that the SCAT and cognitive and somatic measures of anxiety (CTAI-2) should be positively related to the RED, OIT, and FOCUS scales of the TAIS and BB-TATS and negatively correlated with the subscales assessing effective deployment of attention (BET, BIT, NAR, INFP, SCAN). It might also be expected that the confidence subscale of the CTAI-2 would be positively correlated with measures of effective attentional deployment and negatively related to subscales measuring ineffective deployment of attention (OET, OIT, RED, FOCUS). Correlations between the TAIS and BB-TAIS subscales and measures of competitive trait anxiety are shown in Table 5.

Examination of Table 5 reveals that all individual BB-TAIS subscale/SCAT score correlations were significant and in the predicted direction. In contrast, for the TAIS, predicted relationships were obtained only between SCAT scores and the RED, NAR, and FOCUS subscales. For the CTAI-2, the predicted anxiety-


Table 5

Correlation Coefficients Between TAIS and BB-TAIS Subscale Scores, SCAT, and CTAI-2 Scores

--

CTAI-2 (e42)

Subscale SCAT (e108) Cognitive Somatic Confidence

TAIS OET OIT BET BIT N AR RED INFP SCAN FOCUS

BB-TAIS OET 01T BET BIT N AR RED INFP SCAN FOCUS

attention relationships were again evident with the BB-TAIS. The OET, OIT, and RED subscales were significantly, positively correlated with the cognitive and somatic anxiety subscales of the CTAI-2 and negatively related to the confidence subscale (although the OETIconfidence correlation did not reach signifi- cance). Furthermore, as predicted, the BB-TAIS subscales assessing effective attentional deployment were positively correlated with the confidence CTAI-2 subscale and negatively correlated with cognitive and somatic anxiety.

Finally, the pattern of relationships between the composite BB- TAIS scales (SCAN, FOCUS) and the CTAI-2 subscales were in the predicted direction (see Table 5). For the TAIS, however, significant correlations in the expected direction were obtained only between the OET subscale and the cognitive and somatic anxiety subscales of the CTAI-2 and between NAR and the cognitive anxiety CTAI-2 subscale.

Discussion

The TAIS was developed by Nideffer (1976b) to assess attentional styles across a variety of contexts. Although the application of the TAIS to sport has produced mixed results, there is some evidence to suggest that sport-specific

BB-TAIS 1 249

versions of the test may provide a more accurate and valid measure of the attentional stylefperformance relationship (Albrecht & Feltz, 1987; Van Schoyck & Grasha, 1981). Consistent with this view, the present study showed that a basketball-specific version of the attention-related subscales (BB-TAIS) produced higher internal consistency than the general TAIS. Both measures showed high test-retest reliability.

Examination of the factor structure of the TAIS and BB-TAIS revealed two factors (SCAN and FOCUS) with similar scale-to-factor loadings to those reported by Dewey, Brawley, and Allard (1989) and Vallerand (1983). The specific attentional dimensions underlying the two factors extracted appear to be consistent with the multidimensional model of attention proposed by Wachtel (1967). According to the model, there are two logically distinct dimensions of attention: scanning and focusing. Using the analogy between attention and a beam of light, Wachtel portrayed scanning as a measure of how much the beam of light moves around the stimulus field; focusing was depicted as the actual width of the beam. These two relatively independent factors closely resemble the factors identified by Van Schoyck and Grasha (1981) as underlying their tennis- specific measure of attentional style.

There was, however, some support for a bandwidth dimension, although it appeared to be multidimensional, consisting of scanning and focusing compo- nents, rather than unidimensional, as Nideffer (1976b) proposed. However, there was no evidence that the direction of attention dimension (internal to external) is adequately assessed by either the TAIS or the BB-TAIS. It appears that bandwidth is, at least, a more pertinent dimension than the direction dimension. This may be because both dimensions are represented simultaneously on many items, and the bandwidth dimension may have dominated subjects' interpretation of the items (Van Schoyck & Grasha, 1981).

The factorial (or construct) validity of the scales must be questioned because of the magnitude of many correlations between the scales (which implies there may be redundancy in measurement), particularly in the BB-TAIS. It is, of course, reasonable to expect measures of the same overall construct (i.e., attention) to correlate; however, the issue of the discriminative value of the scales must be questioned with intercorrelations of a moderate or greater magnitude. This paper is, however, not designed to address this issue. At the very least, the claim of subscale independence is dubious.

The unsatisfactory internal-consistency coefficients of some scales, mainly in the general TAIS, also raises doubts whether the items on each scale are measuring the same contruct. Furthermore, Albrecht and Feltz (1987) reported that, for the TAIS and their sport-specific version (B-TAIS, about 50% of the items correlated better with scales other than their own. Taken together, these findings and others (see Dewey, Brawley, & Allard, 1989; Summers & Ford, 1990) strongly suggest that the factorial validity of the TAIS attention scales is questionable.

Comparison of the TAIS' and the BB-TAIS ' ability to discriminate between basketball players of different skill levels revealed that both tests failed to demonstrate a significant skill-level effect. This finding is inconsistent with those from previous studies using sport-specific versions of the TAIS. Albrecht and Feltz (1987) found that the BIT subscale from their baseball/softball batting-specific measure of attentional style (B-TAIS) had a significant, positive correlation with


batting performance. Although a similar relationship was not evident for the corresponding subscale of the general TAIS, significant, negative correlations between the TATS overload (OET, OIT) subscales and batting performance were observed. Similarly, Van Schoyck and Grasha (1981) found that the BET, BIT, and NAR subscales of a tennis-specific version of the TAIS (T-TAIS) differenti- ated among tennis skill levels better than the corresponding TAIS subscales. However, these investigators performed separate univariate analyses of variance on each TAIS and T-TAIS subscale, which increases the likelihood of Type I errors. A single multivariate analysis should be employed when there are multiple dependent variables.

Improved differentiation between skill levels was evident, however, when composite scales were formed from the basketball-specific test subscales. Ber- gandi, Shryock, and Titus (1990), in a study published after final preparation of this study for publication, reported similar findings using a basketball-specific TAIS (developed independently of the BB-TAIS in this study).

It may be argued that the lack of predictive validity observed in this study may be due to the present sample not containing a sufficiently wide range of skill levels or to the use of only 7 (attention-related) of the 17 TAIS subscales (Grove, Lewis, & Jones, 1985; Selder, 1989). However, the inability of the TAIS attentional subscales to adequately or reliably differentiate between athletes of different skill levels has been found in many other studies (e.g., Bond, Lowden, & Patrick, 1988; Hubl, 1986; Landers, Boutcher, & Wang, 1986; Maynard & Howe, 1989; Vallerand, 1983; Zaichkowsky, Jackson & Aronson, 1982). Fur- thermore, Abernethy, Coupland, and Salmela (1987) reported that a badrninton- specific version of the TAlS did not correlate with behavioral and psychophysio- logical measures of attention. Dewey, Brawley, and Allard (1989) also found no significant relationships between the TAIS attentional subscales and the attentional demands of visual-information processing.

On a more positive note, predicted relationships between the BB-TAIS subscales and measures of competitive anxiety were obtained in the present study. Albrecht and Feltz (1987) also found that a sport-specific version of the TAIS produced more predicted attentional stylelanxiety (SCAT) relationships than the parent instrument. Unlike the present study, however, the CTAI-2 attentional- subscale correlations in their study failed to clearly indicate that their sport- specific (and task-specific) measure of attentional style provided stronger support for the predicted attentiontanxiety relationships than the original TAIS. The present results are consistent with the findings of Selder (1989), suggesting that the TAIS may be particularly useful in predicting behavior in stressful performance situations.

In summary, the results of this study and others in the literature that demonstrate the low predictive and factorial validity of the TAIS attention-related subscales suggest that the TAIS model is questionable (see Summers & Ford, 1990, for further discussion). Furthermore, the failure of the BB-TAIS to improve discrimination between skill groups indicates that the problems with the TAIS lie deeper than merely failing to account for situational determinants of attentional styles. Perhaps it is time for the development of a new test of attentional style, incorporating dimensions of attention neglected to date. For example, attentional flexibility is clearly an important aspect of skilled performance but is

BB-TAIS / 251

not measured by the TAIS. Etzel(1979) has also suggested other dimensions of attention that could be considered (e-g., alertness, selective attention, sustained attention, attentional capacity).

References

Abernethy, B., Coupland, R., & Salmela, J.H. (1987). Thepredictive validity of the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS). Unpublished manuscript, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Albrecht, R.R., & Feltz, D.L. (1987). Generality and specificity of attention related to competitive anxiety and sport performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9,231-248.

Aronson, R.M. (1981). Attentional and interpersonal factors as discriminators of elite and non-elite gymnasts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.

Bergandi, T.A., Shryock, M.G., & Titus, T.G. (1990). The Basketball Concentration Survey: Preliminary development and validation. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 1 19-129.

Bond, J.W., Lowden, B.J., & Patrick, J. (1988). Attentional and interpersonal styles in elite surjboard riders: Is there a performance relationship? (Joint Tech. Rep. No. 1). Geelong: Deakin University and Australian Institute of Sport, Division of Computing and Mathematics.

Child, D. (1970). The essentials of factor analysis. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16,297-334. Dewey, D., Brawley, L.R., & Allard, F. (1989). Do the TAIS attentional-style scales

predict how visual information is processed? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 171-186.

Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 183-201.

Etzel, E.F. (1979). Validation of a conceptual model characterizing attention among international rifle shooters. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 281-290.

Grove, J.R., Lewis, J., &Jones, J.G. (1985). A comment on thepredictive validity of the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style in sport settings. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Hubl, B. (1986). The relationship between attentional style and fencing performunce. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Melbourne.

Kirschenbaum, D.S., & Bale, R.M. (1984). Cognitive-behavioral skills in golf. In R.M. Suinn (Ed.), Psychology of sports: Methods and application (pp. 334-343). Minneapolis: Burgess.

Landers, D.M., Boutcher, S.H., & Wang, M.Q. (1986). A psychobiological study of archery performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 236-244.

Landers, D.M., Furst, D.M., & Daniels, F.S. (1981, June). Amiety/attention and shooting ability: Testing the predictive validity of the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Boulder, CO.

Maddocks, D. (1984). Attentional style and cricket performance: The predictive validity of the TAIS. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Melbourne.

Martens, R. (1977). Sport Competition Anxiety Test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990).


Development and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI- 2). In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton, Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Maynard, I.W., & Howe, B.L. (1989). Attentional style in rugby players. Percepdual and Motor Skills, 69, 283- 289.

Nideffer, R.M. (1976a). The inner athlete: Mind plus muscle for winning. New York: Crowell.

Nideffer, R.M. (1976b). Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,394-404.

Nideffer, R.M. (1987). Issues in the use of psychological tests in applied settings. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 18-28.

Nideffer, R.M. (1990). Use of the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS) in sport. f ie Sport Psychologist, 4,285-300.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Selder, D.J. (1989). Prediction of performance under stress. In C.K. Giam, K.K. Chook,

& K.C. Teh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress in Sport Psychology @. 205). Singapore.

Silverman, J. (1964). The problem of attention in research and theory in schizophrenia. Psychological Review, 71,352-379.

Summers, J.J., & Ford, S.K. (1990). The Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style: An evaluation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 102-1 1 1.

Summers, J.J., & Maddocks, D. (1986). Attentional style profiles and sport performance. Behavior Change, 3, 105- 11 1.

Vallerand, R.J. (1983). Attention and decision making: A test of the predictive validity of the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS) in a sport setting. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,449-459.

Van Schoyck, R.S., & Grasha, A.F. (1981). Attentional style variations and athletic ability: The advantage of a sport-specific test. Jouml of Sport Psychology, 3, 149-165.

Wachtel, P.L. (1967). Conceptions of broad and narrow attention. Psychological Bulletin, 68,417-429.

Zaichkowsicj, L.D., Jackson, C., & Aronson, R. (1982). Attentional and interpersonal predictors of elite athletic performance. In T. Orlick & J. Partington (Eds.), Mental training (pp. 103-104). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Notes

'copies of the BB-TAIS may be obtained from Jeffery J. Summers. 'Gender was examined as a potentially confounding factor in these analyses. There

were, however, no interactions between gender and skill level on either form of the TAIS.

BB-TAIS 1 253

Acknowledgment

This manuscript was written while Jeffery J. Summers was a Fellow at The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, Wassenaar.

Manuscript submitted: May 7 , 1990 Revision received: December 28, 1990

attentional style and basketball performance€¦ · attentional style and basketball performance...

Documents