Examining Motivation Sources And Years Competing In Sport Among Ncaa Division Ii Student-athletes During Covid-19

Mindy Hartman Mayol, Lindsay Neighbors,Trent E. Cayot, Nathaniel R. Eckert,Gary M. Long,Brian Reagan, Richard Robinson

MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE(2023)

引用 0|浏览0
暂无评分
摘要
While it has been found that early sport specialization is a well-known predictor for future burnout, physical injuries and increased stress for student-athletes (SAs), few studies have explored sources of motivation using the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and years competing in one’s sport and during a pandemic. PURPOSE: To examine differences in motivation sources between SAs who have competed in their sport for more than 10 years versus those who have not. METHODS: 158 NCAA Division II SAs from 12 teams composed of SAs competing in their sport for 10+ years (n = 104) and SAs who have competed for less than 10 years in their sport (n = 54) were recruited to complete an online demographics questionnaire and the 18-item Sport Motivation Scale II (Pelletier et al., 2013) measuring six motivation sources during one time point during COVID-19: intrinsic (IR), integrated (INTR), identified (IDR), introjected (ITR), external (EXT), and amotivation (AMR) regulation/motivation. Independent samples t-tests were performed with an alpha level of p ≤ 0.05 to examine if differences between SA groups existed for each motivation source. It was hypothesized that differences would be seen in motivation source scores between the two SA groups, more specifically, higher amotivation scores and lower intrinsic-based motivation scores (IR, INTR, IDR) would be made evident in SAs competing in their sport for 10+ years. RESULTS: The analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences among the six motivation sources between SAs who have competed in their sport for more than 10 years versus those who have not (p > .05): IR (M = 16.33, SD = 3.58; M = 15.95, SD = 3.85); INTR (M = 16.33, SD = 3.89; M = 16.97, SD = 3.25); IDR (M = 17.31, SD = 3.40; M = 17.01, SD = 3.51); ITR (M = 14.46, SD = 4.29; M = 14.66, SD = 4.14); EXT (M = 8.19, SD = 4.22; M = 8.46, SD = 4.50); AMR (M = 7.20, SD = 4.60; M = 7.13, SD = 4.26). CONCLUSION: Study findings suggested that no differences were seen between the SA groups’ motivation sources across the SDT continuum. Competing in one’s sport for 10+ years and doing so during a pandemic does not appear to decrease scores in more self-determined motivation sources (IR, INTR, IDR) as well as present a risk for amotivation indicating that early sport specialization was not a factor contributing to burnout in this population of athletes.
更多
查看译文
关键词
motivation sources,sport,student-athletes
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要