"Athletic Identity Measurement Scale": Translation, Adaptation and Validation for Brazil

Abstract

The aim of this study was to translate, adapt and validate the version of the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) for Brazilian Portuguese. The methodological procedures were conducted according to international recommendations: translation, back-translation, review by a board of experts, empirical fieldwork testing and inferential statistical analyses. The psychometric properties were evaluated by applying the translated scale to 127 university students. Reproducibility was assessed through stability and homogeneity assessment. Validity was assessed by comparing the scores obtained from the athletes and university students. The results showed good internal consistency (α = 0.78), when item 3 was removed and the Cronbach's alpha value increased to 0.82. Through factor analysis, we verified that the items had loadings in two domains. Intra-class correlation coefficient for test and retest was 0.91. Comparison between athletes and university students showed good discriminant validity. According the cultural adaptation process the adapted instrument has excellent psychometric properties and is reliable for the Brazilian culture.

Validity and reliability evaluation of the multidimensional Japanese athletic identity measurement scale

“…Thus, athletic identity is an important psychological or emotional aspect to better understand athletes. Brewer et al (1993) originally developed an athletic identity measurement scale (AIMS) to assess athletes' identity in Western countries, and several studies conducted a cross-cultural psychometric evaluation of the AIMS compared with other countries (Visek et al, 2008;Proios, 2012;Tunckol, 2015;Silva et al, 2016). In addition, Hagiwara and Isogai (2013) developed the Japanese version of the AIMS to assess Japanese athletes.…”

Factor Validity of the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale in a Mainland Chinese Sample

“…Cross-cultural adaptation was a necessary process when using instruments that were originally found in other contexts, especially when it came to psychological aspects and the cultural diversity of humans. 13 Therefore, to measure the identity of Chinese athletes, the reliability and validity of AIMS in the context of Chinese Mainland should be tested.…”

“…Considering the possible cultural differences in the process of self-identity, it is beneficial to explore the structure of athlete identity in non-English-speaking culture. These studies involved people of different languages and cultures such as Russian, 9 Portuguese, 10 Hong Kong, 11 Greek, 12 Brazilian, 13 Turkish, 14 Japanese, 15 and extended to special groups such as athletes with disabilities. 16 With the validation of AIMS in different cultures, some researchers have revealed the existence of other dimensions of AIMS.…”

Athlete's Role Identity: An Integrative Review of Measurement Instruments

“…Regarding the AI measurement instruments, of the twenty-one articles included in the study, we must emphasize that five AI assessment self-report questionnaires were identified: AIMS, AIMS-Plus, AIQ, AAIS and PPAIS. AIMS emerged as the oldest questionnaire involving the highest number of validation studies and psychometric characteristics 14 investigated in the context of sports, with these extending both to populations of different cultures and languages, 17,21,22,24,[39][40][41][42][43] and to special populations (individuals with special needs). 16,35 AIMS initially emerges as a one-dimensional measure of athletic identity with 10 items.…”

“…However, subsequent studies that verified AIMS dimensionality found three AI factors that were designated Social Identity (strength of identification with the role of athlete); negative affectivity (emotional responses to failure to fit the role of athlete); and exclusivity (lack of other social roles). [15][16][17] Continually faced with these affirmations, different researchers sought to confirm AI as a latent trait for different populations, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] yet they emphasized inconsistencies regarding the confirmation of AIMS dimensionality. Accordingly, new items and new factorial structures were proposed for AIMS, 25,26 while new measurement instruments were developed to measure AI.…”