IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i20p7603-d431136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Factorial Validity of the Norwegian Version of the Multicomponent Training Distress Scale (MTDS-N)

Author

Listed:
  • Cathrine Nyhus Hagum

    (Department of Education and Sports Science, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway)

  • Shaher A. I. Shalfawi

    (Department of Education and Sports Science, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway)

Abstract

Background: Athlete self-report measures (ASRM) are methods of athlete monitoring, which have gained considerable popularity in recent years. The Multicomponent Training Distress Scale (MTDS), consisting of 22 items, is a promising self-report measure to assess training distress among athletes. The present study aimed to investigate the factorial validity of the Norwegian version of MTDS (MTDS-N) among student-athletes ( n = 632) attending the optional program subject “Top-Level Sports” in upper secondary schools in Norway. Methods: A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the six-factor model proposed by Main and Grove (2009). McDonald’s omega (ω) along with confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate scale reliability. After examining the fit of the CFA model in the total sample, covariates were included to investigate group differences in latent variables of MTDS-N, resulting in the multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model. Further, direct paths between the covariates and the factor indicators were included in an extended MIMIC model to investigate whether responses to items differed between groups, resulting in differential item functioning (DIF). Results: When modification indices (MIs) were taken into consideration, the alternative CFA model revealed that MTDS-N is an acceptable psychometric tool with a good fit index. The factors in MTDS-N all constituted high scale reliability with McDonald’s ω ranging from 0.725–0.862. The results indicated statistically significant group differences in factor scores for gender, type of sport, hours of training per week, school program, and school level. Further, results showed that DIF occurred in 13 of the MTDS-N items. However, after assessing the MIMIC model and the extended MIMIC model, the factor structure remained unchanged, and the model fit remained within acceptable values. The student-athletes’ reports of training distress were moderate. Conclusion: The MTDS-N was found to be suitable for use in a Norwegian population to assess student-athletes’ training distress in a reliable manner. The indications of group effects suggest that caution should be used if one is interested in making group comparisons when the MTDS-N is used among student-athletes in Norway until further research is conducted.

Suggested Citation

  • Cathrine Nyhus Hagum & Shaher A. I. Shalfawi, 2020. "The Factorial Validity of the Norwegian Version of the Multicomponent Training Distress Scale (MTDS-N)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-25, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7603-:d:431136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7603/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7603/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexandra Rouquette & Jean-Benoit Hardouin & Alexis Vanhaesebrouck & Véronique Sébille & Joël Coste, 2019. "Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in composite health measurement scale: Recommendations for characterizing DIF with meaningful consequences within the Rasch model framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeanne A. Teresi & Chun Wang & Marjorie Kleinman & Richard N. Jones & David J. Weiss, 2021. "Differential Item Functioning Analyses of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Measures: Methods, Challenges, Advances, and Future Directions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(3), pages 674-711, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7603-:d:431136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.