Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purpose of this article was to provide a substantive-methodological synergy of potential importance to future research in sport and exercise psychology. The substantive focus was to improve the measurement of coaching efficacy by developing a revised version of the coaching efficacy scale (CES) for head coaches (N = 557) of youth sport teams (CES II-YST). The methodological focus was exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), a methodology that integrates the advantages of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within the general structural equation model (SEM). The synergy was a demonstration of how ESEM (as compared with CFA) may be used, guided by content knowledge, to develop (or confirm) a measurement model for the CES II-YST. A single-group ESEM provided evidence for close model-data fit, while a single-group CFA fit significantly worse than the single-group ESEM and provided evidence for only approximate model-data fit. A multiple-group ESEM provided evidence for partial factorial invariance by coach's gender.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Myers et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: