Measuring Competitiveness in Sports: Conceptual Framework and Scale Development
Aylin ZEKIOGLU¹ 1✉ Email
Hilal TINAZ² 1 Email
F. Zisan KAZAK 3 Email
1
A
Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sport-Manisa Celal Bayar University Turkey
2 İzmir Provincial Directorate of Youth and Sports Izmir Turkey
3 Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sport Ege University Izmir Turkey
Aylin ZEKIOGLU¹*, Hilal TINAZ²†, F.Zisan KAZAK3†
1Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sport-Manisa,Turkey
2 İzmir Provincial Directorate of Youth and Sports,Izmir, Turkey
3 Ege University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sport,Izmir, Turkey
*Corresponding author(s). E-mail(s): aylinzekioglu@yahoo.com; Contributing authors: aylinzekioglu@yahoo.com; hilaltinaz@hotmail.com; f.zisan.kazak@ege.edu.tr. These authors contributed equally to this work.
A
Abstract
Objective
Competitiveness is a crucial psychological factor influencing individual and team sports performance. However, comprehensive and valid measurement tools are lacking to assess competitiveness levels across different sports disciplines. This study aims to develop and validate the Sports Competitiveness Scale (SCS) to measure athletes' competitiveness levels.
Methods
The scale development process involved three stages: (1) item pool generation based on a literature review, (2) pilot testing with 69 athletes, and (3) final validation with 470 athletes. Psychometric analyses, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, were conducted to ensure the scale's validity and reliability.
Results
The final version of the scale includes 39 items, showing strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93) and acceptable construct validity. The findings suggest that the SCS can be a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating competitiveness in sports environments.
Conclusion
This study contributes to sports psychology literature by providing a standardized tool to measure competitiveness and its impact on athletes’ performance. Future research should examine the scale’s applicability across cultural contexts and professional levels.
Keywords:
sports competitiveness
psychometric validation
scale development
athlete performance
sports psychology
A
A
INTRODUCTION
Competition is recognized as one of the fundamental determinants of individual and team performance in sports (7). Research in sports psychology has extensively examined competition's psychological and motivational aspects, revealing its impact on athletes’ motivation, performance, and psychological resilience (18). Given this context, measuring and evaluating competition levels are critical for understanding and enhancing athletes' psychological preparation processes (6, 20).
Studies aimed at understanding the psychological components of competition focus on the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes that athletes experience during competitive situations (11, 10). In particular, research on the effects of mental readiness on competition has shown that athletes’ attitudes toward competition, stress management skills, and motivation levels directly impact their competitive performance (17). At this point, how athletes perform under pressure and manage this process has become a central issue in the psychology of competition (19).
Beyond its psychological implications, competitiveness plays a vital role in sports performance, influencing training intensity, physiological adaptations, and overall athlete development. Research indicates that competitive environments can enhance physical conditioning, improve motor skill acquisition, and increase endurance in athletes (16, 2). Furthermore, structured competitive settings during training can enhance tactical decision-making and resilience under pressure, which are essential for peak performance in individual and team sports. Given these findings, accurately measuring competitiveness is crucial for psychological evaluation and structuring personalized training regimens that maximize athletic potential and optimize performance outcomes.
Despite numerous studies on the psychological aspects of sports competition, the development of valid and reliable measurement scales in this area remains limited (3). While the existing literature provides various scales for assessing the effects of competition on individuals, these scales are often tailored for specific sports disciplines or individual athletes. Therefore, creating a valid and reliable scale that comprehensively addresses competition in sports and can be applied across different disciplines would significantly enhance the field of sports psychology.
A
In recent years, advancements in sports technologies and interventions targeting psychological skills in sports have increased attention on new scale development efforts for measuring competition. For instance, Şimşek and Devecioğlu (2024) created a scale to assess attitudes toward sports technologies. Additionally, systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of interventions designed to enhance psychological skills in sports have been documented in the literature (5). Furthermore, studies analyzing the relationship between talent development and performance offer a deeper understanding of the impact of competition on athletes (1).
This study aims to develop a comprehensive scale for assessing the level of competitiveness among athletes. First, the concept of competition and relevant scales in the literature will be reviewed. Then, the development process of the new scale will be detailed. The process will involve psychometric analyses, reliability, and validity studies. Based on the findings, the potential applications of the scale in sports psychology will be discussed.
METHOD
Item Pool Development
In this study, an initial pool of 53 items was established based on a comprehensive review of the relevant literature aimed at developing a scale for measuring sports competition levels. The items, initially drafted separately by the researchers, were refined through integration, review, revision, and standardization. The final version of the item pool was utilized in the preliminary application phase.
Participants
A
A total of 69 athletes participated in the preliminary phase of the study. Only the item pool was administered during this phase, and no socio-demographic information was collected. In the study's second phase, 470 athletes participated, ranging in age from 11 to 63 years (M = 19.33, SD = 7.99). The sample included 239 women (50.9%), 226 men (48.1%), and 5 participants (1.1%) who did not specify their gender. The third phase of the study involved 101 athletes aged between 11 and 37 years (M = 18.67, SD = 3.15), consisting of 43 women (42.6%) and 58 men (57.4%).
Instruments
In the preliminary application, the initially developed item pool, which consisted of 53 items, was utilized. A refined 44-item form was administered following the initial application in the second phase. In the third phase, a draft scale comprising 39 selected items for measuring competition levels in sports (included in the appendix) was employed. All three applications presented the items using a five-point Likert-type response format, ranging from Always = 1 to Never = 5. Part of the Sports Competition Level Scale validity procedures was conducted during this study phase.
The developed scale was administered alongside the Individual Competition Scale, which comprises two dimensions: Enjoyment of Competition and Avoidance of Competition. The Enjoyment of Competition dimension includes items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, whereas the Avoidance of Competition dimension contains items 3, 4, and 5.
Procedure
The study was conducted in three phases: a preliminary application involving 69 participants, an item pool application with 470 participants, and a validity application with 101 participants.
A
The data collection process for the study adhered to ethical principles, ensuring participant anonymity and confidentiality protection. All phases of data collection were conducted via an online platform, ensuring that no personally identifiable information was collected at any stage.
A
Following the preliminary application, the second and third rounds were systematically conducted in accordance with the same methodological standards and ethical protocols.
Data Analysis
In this study, item selection during the preliminary and second applications was carried out using classical test theory item analysis and reliability analyses. Descriptive statistics were applied in all three applications, and Pearson correlation analysis was utilized in the second and third applications to assess the levels of relationships.
Results
Preliminary Application Results
The results from the item analysis of the preliminary application showed that the item-total score correlations ranged from 0.07 for item 23 to 0.68 for item 21 (Table 1). The Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient for the item pool was determined to be 0.90.
Table 1
Results of Item Analysis for the Preliminary Application of the Sports Competition Level Scale
Items
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Item-Total Score Correlation
Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
item1
123,31
526,85
0,36
0,90
item 2
122,26
513,76
0,47
0,90
item 3
123,11
520,70
0,54
0,90
item 4
122,46
521,99
0,36
0,90
item 5
122,89
518,54
0,45
0,90
item 6
122,93
527,63
0,26
0,90
item 7
121,30
513,85
0,35
0,90
item 8
121,16
535,31
-0,01
0,90
item 9
122,10
512,16
0,41
0,90
item 10
122,26
508,50
0,52
0,90
item 11
121,18
521,98
0,29
0,90
item 12
121,21
535,10
0,00
0,90
item 13
122,98
514,28
0,52
0,90
item 14
122,66
506,76
0,56
0,90
item 15
121,70
496,31
0,58
0,90
item 16
121,93
520,43
0,26
0,90
item 17
122,18
521,65
0,26
0,90
item 18
122,92
528,28
0,19
0,90
item 19
121,97
508,07
0,50
0,90
item 20
121,97
516,70
0,38
0,90
item 21
122,07
497,10
0,67
0,90
item 22
123,25
528,36
0,20
0,90
item 23
121,49
539,15
-0,08
0,90
item 24
122,13
509,65
0,44
0,90
item 25
123,28
527,97
0,28
0,90
item 26
122,80
512,93
0,42
0,90
item 27
122,90
516,99
0,43
0,90
item 28
122,95
514,41
0,48
0,90
item 29
121,64
520,30
0,22
0,90
item 30
122,82
513,35
0,49
0,90
item 31
122,10
516,26
0,38
0,90
item 32
122,61
515,98
0,42
0,90
item 33
122,66
511,33
0,51
0,90
item 34
122,79
528,10
0,17
0,90
item 35
120,95
532,38
0,05
0,90
item 36
122,77
528,51
0,15
0,90
item 37
122,00
512,30
0,41
0,90
item 38
121,54
515,35
0,32
0,90
item 39
122,13
518,42
0,27
0,90
item 40
122,90
513,32
0,56
0,90
item 41
122,79
511,67
0,52
0,90
item 42
120,49
532,22
0,04
0,90
item 43
123,30
522,45
0,35
0,90
item 44
122,33
512,56
0,42
0,90
item 45
122,33
507,32
0,48
0,90
item 46
122,52
504,12
0,59
0,90
item 47
122,77
511,45
0,49
0,90
item 48
123,18
529,02
0,17
0,90
item 49
122,75
506,32
0,66
0,90
item 50
122,87
509,05
0,57
0,90
item 51
123,05
518,95
0,43
0,90
item 52
121,56
503,35
0,48
0,90
item 53
121,61
508,71
0,41
0,90
In these analysis results, one item (item 28) was removed due to content redundancy (with item 40 retained), and eight items (8, 12, 23, 34, 35, 36, 42, 48) were excluded from the item pool because their item-total score correlations were below 0.20 in the item analysis. The remaining 44 items were renumbered and formatted as a new form for the second application.
Second Application Results
In this phase of the study, the item analysis results for the draft scale indicated that the item-total score correlations ranged from 0.10 (item 20) to 0.66 (item 27). Five items (3, 15, 20, 22, and 35) were removed from the draft scale because their item-total score correlations were below 0.30, with values between 0.10 (item 20) and 0.28 (item 3). As a result, the finalized target scale included 39 items, with item-total score correlations ranging from 0.31 (item 16) to 0.66 (item 27) (Table 2).
Table 2
Results of Item Analysis for the Second Use of the Sports Competition Level Scale.
Items
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Item-Total Score Correlation
Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
item 1
83,40
515,89
0,35
0,93
item 2
82,77
498,69
0,57
0,92
item 4
82,88
513,09
0,35
0,93
item 5
83,01
507,86
0,45
0,93
item 6
83,15
515,44
0,33
0,93
item 7
81,20
497,98
0,47
0,93
item 8
82,51
495,48
0,58
0,92
item 9
82,72
497,95
0,54
0,92
item 10
81,27
500,43
0,41
0,93
item 11
83,24
511,47
0,39
0,93
item 12
82,82
502,00
0,49
0,93
item 13
82,17
493,60
0,48
0,93
item 14
82,01
495,47
0,51
0,93
item 16
83,26
516,50
0,31
0,93
item 17
82,32
497,51
0,52
0,93
item 18
81,90
496,90
0,47
0,93
item 19
82,57
495,99
0,51
0,93
item 21
82,64
490,68
0,65
0,92
item 23
83,16
503,28
0,57
0,92
item 24
83,27
509,36
0,50
0,93
item 25
81,72
491,63
0,54
0,92
item 26
83,18
507,71
0,53
0,93
item 27
82,32
490,31
0,66
0,92
item 28
82,65
497,94
0,45
0,93
item 29
83,00
510,21
0,36
0,93
item 30
82,38
497,50
0,54
0,92
item 31
81,67
497,51
0,43
0,93
item 32
82,45
503,10
0,40
0,93
item 33
83,14
506,70
0,49
0,93
item 34
83,01
502,93
0,45
0,93
item 36
82,55
495,08
0,60
0,92
item 37
82,50
498,48
0,44
0,93
item 38
82,87
498,76
0,60
0,92
item 39
83,09
505,33
0,54
0,93
item 40
82,90
503,37
0,56
0,92
item 41
83,08
505,69
0,50
0,93
item 42
83,11
511,66
0,34
0,93
item 43
81,85
491,51
0,49
0,93
item 44
82,09
493,56
0,48
0,93
This study examined the draft scale separately for the entire group and the female and male groups. Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency reliability and split-half reliability coefficients were determined. The results showed that the draft scale's Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient was 0.92 for the female group, 0.93 for the male group, and 0.93 for the entire group.
In the split-half reliability analysis of the draft scale, the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient for the first half was 0.86 for the female group, 0.88 for the male group, and 0.87 for the overall group; for the second half, it was 0.86 for the female group, 0.87 for the male group, and 0.87 for the overall group. The Spearman-Brown and Guttman split-half coefficients for the unequal halves were calculated as 0.87 for the female, male, and overall groups. Additionally, the Pearson correlation coefficient, which measures the level of similarity between the first and second halves of the draft scale, was found to be 0.77 for the female, male, and overall groups (Table 3).
Table 3
Reliability Analysis Results for the Second Application Data of the Competitive Level in Sports Determination Scale.
 
Woman
Man
Entire group
N
239
226
465
K
39
39
39
Cronbach Alfa
0,92
0,93
0,93
Alpha for the 1st half (k = 20)
0,86
0,88
0,87
Alpha for the 2nd half (k = 19)
0,86
0,87
0,87
Correlation Coefficient Between the Two Halves
0,77
0,77
0,77
Spearman-Brown Coefficient for Unequal Halves
0,87
0,87
0,87
Guttman Split-Half Test Coefficient
0,87
0,87
0,87
The descriptive statistics for the total score of the draft scale, consisting of 39 items, were determined for both female and male groups as well as for the entire group and are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for the Total Score of the Competitive Level in Sports Determination Scale for the Second Application Data.
Sporda Rekabet Düzeyi Belirleme Ölçeği Toplam Puanı
n
En Küçük Değer
En Büyük Değer
ort.
s
Kadın
237
39
173
89,52
21,94
Erkek
223
39
150
79,99
23,14
Tüm Grup
465
39
173
84,78
22,97
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for the Total Score of the Scale for Determining the Level of Competitiveness in Sports for the Second Application Data. In this application data, an extreme group comparison was conducted using the t-test for different groups in terms of the total scores of the developed scale. A statistically significant difference was found between the total score means of the group scoring one standard deviation below the mean (84.78) (17%; n = 70) and the group scoring one standard deviation above the mean (17%; n = 78) (t(120.79) = -39.78; p < 0.001). Based on this result, it was concluded that the extreme groups could be distinguished from each other in terms of the characteristics measured by the total scores of the developed scale.
3rd Application Results
In this study phase, some validity procedures for the Scale for Determining the Level of Competitiveness in Sports were conducted. The developed scale was administered along with the Individual Competitiveness Scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient was 0.89 for the Scale for Determining the Level of Competitiveness in Sports, 0.85 for the Enjoyment of Competition dimension of the Individual Competitiveness Scale, and 0.81 for the Avoidance of Competition dimension of the Individual Competitiveness Scale (Table 5).
As a criterion-related validity procedure, the Scale for Determining the Level of Competitiveness in Sports showed a correlation of r = 0.42 (p < 0.001) with the total score of the Enjoyment of Competition dimension of the Individual Competitiveness Scale, and r = -0.13 (p > 0.05) with the Avoidance of Competition dimension. Descriptive statistical values of the scales used were also calculated and are presented in Table 5.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Scale Internal Consistency Coefficients for the Total Scores of the Scales Used in the 3rd Application Data.
Scales Used
Cronbach Alfa
n
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
mean
s
Total Score of the Scale for Determining the Level of Competitiveness in Sports
0,89
101
41
129
82,22
18,82
Total Score of the Enjoyment of Competition Dimension of the Individual Competitiveness Scale
0,85
101
8
36
16,30
5,87
Total Score of the Avoidance of Competition Dimension of the Individual Competitiveness Scale
0,81
101
3
15
9,15
3,20
DISCUSSION
This study developed a scale to measure the level of competitiveness in sports and examined its psychometric properties. The scale was evaluated in terms of validity and reliability in a specific application, and the findings were compared with studies in the literature. The study's results align with the current sports psychology and performance sciences literature.
When examining the item analysis results, it was observed that five items (Items 3, 15, 20, 22, and 35) with low item-total score correlations were removed from the scale. In particular, Item 20 (r = 0.10) had the lowest correlation, indicating that this item did not exhibit a sufficiently strong relationship with the level of competitiveness. This result is an essential step in the item selection criteria during the scale development. Additionally, one of the items with the highest correlation, Item 27 (r = 0.66), can be considered one of the most decisive items in assessing competitive tendencies. Since the literature suggests that item-total score correlations should be above 0.30, the remaining 39 items support the scale’s psychometric adequacy (Vealey et al., 2017).
The high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency (0.89) indicates strong reliability for the sample to which the scale was applied. The scale's reliability was also examined using the split-half method, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was found to be r = 0.77. This value demonstrates a high level of internal consistency between the two halves of the scale. Moreover, the Spearman-Brown and Guttman split-half test coefficients, calculated as 0.87 for both groups, further support the scale's consistency in measurement. These results fall within the 0.70–0.90 range recommended in the literature for a scale to be considered reliable, confirming that the scale has high reliability (1).
Similar studies suggest that an internal consistency coefficient of 0.80 or above supports the reliability of the scale's structure (1). Furthermore, the significant correlation with the Individual Competitiveness Scale (r = 0.42, p < 0.001) in the validity analyses indicates that the scale is related to the competitive level variable it aims to measure.
Sports psychology has increasingly examined the relationship between competitiveness and individual differences in recent years. For example, recent studies investigating how competitive motivation interacts with personality traits have shown that individuals with higher levels of competitiveness tend to have a stronger sense of self-efficacy (13). The identification and evaluation of elite athletes remain a debated issue in sport psychology, especially regarding the definition of expert performance across different sports disciplines (16).
Relevant studies have also explored the psychological aspects of competitiveness and its cognitive and neuro-cognitive dimensions. For instance, a survey conducted by Swann et al. (2022) found that athletes with a high level of competitiveness exhibit greater mental flexibility and problem-solving skills. Additionally, neuroscience research has investigated the effects of competitiveness on stress management and motivation systems, demonstrating that these processes lead to measurable changes in brain activity (14).
Another significant finding supporting the scale's validity is the relationship between competitiveness and psychological stress. Hardy, Jones, and Gould (2018) stated that competitiveness could sometimes pressure athletes psychologically. The present study also observed that some athletes, despite having high levels of competitiveness, might experience disadvantages in stress management. However, the positive effects of competitiveness should not be overlooked. Indeed, Robazza et al. (2023) emphasized that competitiveness positively impacts athletes’ motivational processes and contributes to developing self-regulation skills.
Moreover, the social dimension of competitiveness has been increasingly researched. Recent studies examining the impact of competitiveness on interpersonal relationships have revealed that intra-team competitive dynamics directly influence athletes’ sense of social cohesion and solidarity (12). Specifically, constructive competition within teams has been found to enhance athletes’ performance, whereas destructive competition may negatively affect team cohesion (9).
The findings also revealed differences in competitiveness levels between individual and team sports. When examining the descriptive statistics in this study, it was observed that female athletes (𝑋̄ = 89.52, s = 21.94) had significantly higher competitiveness levels than male athletes (𝑋̄ = 79.99, s = 23.14). This result supports studies suggesting that female athletes may have higher competitive motivation than male athletes (Carron et al., 2002). Additionally, the overall mean score (𝑋̄ = 84.78, s = 22.97) indicates that most participants exhibited a moderate to high level of competitiveness. However, the wide distribution between the minimum (39) and maximum (173) scores suggests substantial variability in individual competitiveness levels.
The present study found that athletes participating in individual sports were more competitive than those in team sports. This may be attributed to the inherent nature of competitiveness as a motivational driver in certain types of sports. (19). Conversely, while team athletes demonstrated high levels of enjoyment of competition, they also tended to avoid it. The literature addresses this finding regarding how intra-team competition influences team cohesion (3).
Studies conducted particularly on young athletes indicate that competitiveness is critical in shaping an individual’s attitude toward sports and long-term motivation (4). In this context, approaches that view competitiveness not only as performance-oriented but also as a development-oriented process contribute to the long-term engagement of young athletes in sports (8).
While this study significantly contributes to the literature on competitiveness levels, it also has certain limitations. First, expanding the sample size and applying the scale to different sports disciplines would enhance its generalizability. Additionally, longitudinal studies examining competitiveness's long-term psychological and performance effects would strengthen the scale's validity. Future research should further investigate how competitiveness affects various age groups and athletes at different levels of expertise.
These findings suggest that the developed Sports Competitiveness Scale (SCS) is a valuable tool for psychological assessment and practical applications in sports training and athlete development. Coaches and sports scientists can utilize this scale to identify athletes with strong competitive tendencies and adjust their training programs accordingly. For instance, high-competitiveness athletes may thrive in pressure-based training environments, such as simulated match scenarios or high-stakes drills. In contrast, lower-competitiveness athletes may benefit from progressive exposure to competition through structured motivational techniques and gradual performance challenges. This application-oriented approach could significantly enhance training methodologies, making them more tailored to individual athlete needs and optimizing competitive readiness across different sports disciplines.
Recommendations for Future Research:
1.
1. Testing the scale on athletes from different age groups and skill levels to enhance its generalizability.
2.
2. Integrating the scale with digital sports technologies to support it with objective data.
3.
3. Conducting cross-cultural comparisons to examine the effects of competition perception in different cultural contexts.
4.
4. Applying the scale in field studies by coaches and sports psychologists for practical use.
Future research should focus on integrating the Sports Competitiveness Scale (SCS) into real-world training environments to assess its impact on athlete development. Furthermore, longitudinal studies could examine how shifts in competitiveness over time relate to improvements in physical performance, tactical decision-making, and team cohesion. Additionally, investigating the role of competitiveness in injury prevention, recovery, and physiological adaptation to high-intensity training would offer valuable insights for sports scientists and strength and conditioning coaches. Understanding these dynamics can help develop tailored interventions that optimize both psychological resilience and athletic performance longevity.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
A
Author Contribution
Aylin Zekioğlu: Conceptualized the study, designed the methodology, performed the data analysis, and wrote the manuscript.Hilal Tınaz : Collected the data and contributed to the literature review.F.Zisan Kazak: Designed the methodology, literatüre reviewAll authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
designed the study. F.Zişan Kazak and Aylin Zekioglu discussed the results and revised
the first draft. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
A
Funding
Not applicable
A
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
A
Ethics committee approval with decision number 2025/20.478.486/3001 was obtained from the Manisa Celal Bayar University Faculty of Medicine Health Sciences Ethics Committee for this study.
A
Prior to participation, the purpose of the study was explained to the participants, and written informed consent was obtained from athletes who voluntarily agreed to take part.
A
For participants under the age of 16, informed consent to participate was obtained from their parents or legal guardians.
A
The research was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
REFERENCES
1.
-Baker J, Cobley S, Schorer J. Talent identification and development in sport: International perspectives. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003049111.
2.
-Cao S, Liu X, Wu H. The neural mechanisms underlying effort process modulated by efficacy. Neuropsychologia. 2022;127:344–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108314.
3.
-Carron AV, Colman MM, Wheeler J, Stevens D. Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2002;24(2):168–88. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.168.
4.
-DiMenichi CB, Tricomi E. The power of competition: Effects of social motivation on attention, sustained physical effort, and learning. Front Psychol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01282.
5.
-Filik YSG, Baş AU. Sporda psikolojik becerilere yönelik uygulanan müdahale programlarının etkililiği: Sistematik bir derleme, Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, (2024). 15(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1379093
6.
-Gucciardi DF, Gordon S. Mental toughness in sport: Developments in theory and research (1st Edition), Routledge, (2011). ISBN: 9780415857819.
7.
-Hardy L, Jones G, Gould D. Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice, Wiley-Blackwell, (2018). ISBN: 978-0-471-95787-4.
8.
-Harwood C, Thrower S. Motivational climate in youth sport groups, In The power of groups in youth sport (Chap. 9), (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816336-8.00009-3
9.
-Isserte S, Cyrille G, Sebastien C. Methods for studying collective performance in sports: A systematic literature review, Performance Improvement Quarterly, (2023). 35(1–4). https://doi.org/10.56811/PIQ-20-0057
10.
-Kopp A, Jekauc D. Trait emptional intelligence in comppetitive sports: are there differences in dimensions of emotional intelligence when comparing different sports? (2025). BMC Psychology,13,253.
11.
-Moran AP. Sport and exercise psychology: A critical introduction, Routledge(2004)., https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203380246
12.
-Oh Y. Team cohesion in individual/team sports athletes: Transformational leadership and the role of social norms, Healthcare(2023)., 11(6), 792. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060792
13.
-Piepiora AP, Witkowski K. Personality traits of competitive athletes according to pressure exerted on opponents. South Afr J Res Sport Phys Recreation. 2018;40(1):97–109.
14.
-Robazza C, Bertollo M, Ruiz MC, Bortoli L. Athletes' basic psychological needs and emotions: The role of cognitive reappraisal. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1205102. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1205102.
15.
-Şimşek A, Devecioğlu S. Spor teknolojileri tutum ölçeği: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması, Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, (2024).18(2), 161–76. https://doi.org/10.61962/bsd.1412297
16.
-Swann C, Moran A, Piggott D. Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2022;16(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004.
17.
-Vealey RS, Chase MA, Cooley R. Developing self-confidence in young athletes. In: Knight CJ, Harwood CG, Gould G, editors. Sport psychology for young athletes. Routledge; 2017. pp. 93–104. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545202-9.
18.
-Weinberg RS, Gould D. Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (6th ed.). Human Kinetics, (2014). ISBN: 1450469817, 9781450469814.
19.
-Williams AM, Hodges NJ. Effective practice and instruction: A skill acquisition framework for excellence. J Sport Sci. 2023;41(9):833–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2240630.
20.
-Williams SM, Lacy AC. Measurement and Evaluation in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 8th ed. Routledge; 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315312736.
Yes
Abstract
Objective: Competitiveness is a crucial psychological factor influencing individual and team sports performance. However, there is a lack of comprehensive and valid measurement tools to assess competitiveness levels across different sports disciplines. This study aims to develop and validate the Sports Competitiveness Scale (SCS) to measure athletes' competitiveness levels. Methods: The scale development process involved three stages: (1) item pool generation based on a literature review, (2) pilot testing with 69 athletes, and (3) final validation with 470 athletes. Psychometric analyses, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, were conducted to ensure the scale's validity and reliability. Results: The final version of the scale includes 39 items, showing strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93) and acceptable construct validity. The findings suggest that the SCS can be a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating competitiveness in sports environments. Conclusion: This study contributes to sports psychology literature by providing a standardized tool to measure competitiveness and its impact on athletes’ performance. Future research should examine the scale’s applicability across cultural contexts and professional levels.
Total words in MS: 3818
Total words in Title: 9
Total words in Abstract: 167
Total Keyword count: 5
Total Images in MS: 0
Total Tables in MS: 5
Total Reference count: 20