8/12/2019 Sport Psychologist's Digest

1/3

322 / Sport Psychologist s Digestgroup of elite women marathoners hada mean score that reflected higher ex-traversion than the general populationnorm (12.08) reported by Eysenck andEysenck (1968) and the other threegroups of this study. The mean of theentire sample (11.63), however, wascloser to the general population normand thus indicative of less introversionthan norms reported in previous sportresearch. Further, no differences wereobserved between the introversion-extraversion scores of lit and noneliterunners. Frazier concluded that, on thebasis of this relatively large sample ofheterogeneous marathoners, distancerunners do not have the strongly in-troverted personalities attributed tothem by earlier research with smallsamples of perhaps m ore elite athletes.Frazier, S.E. (1987). Introversion-extraversion measures in elite and non-elite distance runners. Perceptual andMotor Skills 64, 867-872.

Are We MeasuringWhat We Claim to MeasureThis article examined critical validity is-sues conceming research in sport psy-chology. Four types of validity withinquasi-experimentation (construct, c on-clusion, internal, and extemal) werepresented along with the problems andpossible solutions for the sport psychol-ogy researcher. Construct validity wasdiscussed in terms of instrumentation,performance measures, treatments,samples, and experimental settings.Various sources of Type II error were

and the selection-by-maturation inter-action. Ex tema l validity was discussedin terms of the dimensions in sportsresearch that limit the generality ofresearch fmdings. Cautions about gen-eralizing across sports, ability levels,age groups, and gender were advanced.Although the author suggests that it isthe inve stigator s responsibility to de -cide which of the validity issues takesprecedence, the following guidelineswere advanced: (a) predictive researchshould emphasize construct and exter-nal validity, and (b) construct and con-clusion validity should be stressed inintervention research.Tay lor, J. (1987). A review of validityissues in sport psychological research :Types, problems, solutions. Joumal ofSport Behavior 10, 3-13.

Imagery Styiesand Free TTirow PerformanceZie gle r s study examined the effects ofimagery training on free-throw shoot-ing in 92 college women with varyinglevels of previous basketball experiencebut no current involvement in the sport.Subjects were randomly assigned to oneof five cond itions: (a) a passive-imagerygrou p, (b) an active-imagery grou p, (c)a passive-imagery-with-physical-prac-tice group, (d) a physical-practice-onlygroup, and (e) a control group that com-pleted only the pretest, posttest, andretention tests of the study. Experi-mental subjects received their respec-tive training in 9 sessions of 20 trialseach. Passive-imagery subjects w ere in-

8/12/2019 Sport Psychologist's Digest

2/3

Sport Psychologist's Digest / 323Passive-imagery-with-physical-practicegroup m embers completed an image ofthemselves doing the task and then ex-ecuted an actual free throw with theball. The active imagery and passive-imagery-with-physical-practice groups(who had the least prior basketball ex-perience) had significantly higher per-centage change scores from pre- toposttest than did the physical-practice-only group. W hen years of prior basket-ball playing experience and pretestscores were included as covariates, thepassive- and active-imagery groups per-formed the best on the posttest. How-ever, on a retention test given 3 weeksfollowing the posttest, the passive-imagery group, which had the mostprior experience, performed best.Ziegler, S.G. (1987). Comparison ofimagery styles and past experience inskUls pe rfonnance. erceptualand Mo-tor Skills 64, 579-586.Is the Sky the LimitShould one set goals that are withinreach or should goals be higher than onecould ever achieve? The purpose of thisstudy was to determine if unrealisticallyhigh goals will in fact produce perfor-mance decrements in a physical educa-tion activity setting when compared tomore realistic goals. In Experiment 1,subjects (A^=30) were matched by pre-sit-up assessment scores and randomlyassigned to one of three goal-settingcond itions: easy goals, mod erately dif-ficult goals, and very difficult goals.The task was3 min timed sit-ups. Ev-ery Monday and Wednesday the sub-

mine the relationship between subjects'own weekly goals and performanceyielded a significant positive relation-ship,r = .84,;? < .00 1. Questionnaireresults indicated that all subjects accept-ed their assigned goal and we re intend-ing to try v ery hard to reach their goal.Those in the very difficult goal groupperceived their goal as significantlymore difficult than those in the easygroup. In Experiment 2, subjects (A^=123) were random ly assigned to one ofthe following conditions: very hardgoals, highly improbable goals, 60% in-crease, and do your be st goals. A 3X 4 repeated measures ANOVA re-vealed a significant trials main effect,indicating that subjects improved overtrials. No other significant effectsemerged. Zero-order correlations werecalculated which showed a strong rela-tionship between subjects' weekly goalsand performances, r = .92, /? < .0 01 .Questionnaire results indicated that94% of the subjects accepted the as-signed goals with no differences acrossgoal conditions. Also, there were nosignificant differences between goalcond itions on how m uch effort subjectsbelieved they would expend to reach thegoals. Subjects in the highly improba-ble goal group and very hard goal groupperceived their goals as significantlymore difficult than subjects in the d oyour b es t goal grou p. Although themost difficult cond ition did not signifi-cantly differ from the other groups, itdid consistently produce the highestlevels of performance. The authors con-clude that goal attainability may not bea prerequisite for performance im-provement.

8/12/2019 Sport Psychologist's Digest

3/3