Evaluating the Factor Structure of the Psychological Performance Inventory

Abstract

This study assesses the construct validity of a measure of mental toughness, Loehr's Psychological Performance Inventory. Performers (N = 408, 303 men, 105 women, M age = 24.0 yr., SD = 6.7) drawn from eight sports (artistic rollerskating, basketball, canoeing, golf, rugby league, rugby union, soccer, swimming), and competing at either international, national, county and provincial, or club and regional standards. They completed the 42-item Psychological Performance Inventory during training camps. Principal components analysis provided minimal support for the factor structure. Instead, the exploratory analysis yielded a 4-factor 14-item model (PPI-A). A single factor underlying mental toughness (G(MT)) was identified with higher-order exploratory factor analysis using the Schmid-Leiman procedure. Psychometric analysis of the model, using confirmatory analysis techniques, fitted the data well. Collectively satisfying absolute and incremental fit index benchmarks, the inventory possesses satisfactory psychometric properties, with adequate reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. The results lend preliminary support to the factorial validity and reliability of the model; however, further investigation of its stability is required before recommending practitioners use changes in scores as an index for evaluating effects of training in psychological skills.

The Development and Validation of a Mental Toughness Scale for Adolescents

“…Of particular note are the Psychological Performance Inventory-A (PPI-A: Golby et al, 2007), previously the PPI (Loehr, 1986) which examines mental toughness within a sports context. Golby et al, (2007) noted adequate psychometric properties of data collected using their instrument, although a more recent psychometric evaluation by Gucciardi (2012), noted that while the model fit data MENTAL TOUGHNESS SCALE FOR ADOLESCENTS 5 for the PPI-A was encouraging, and convergent validity sufficient, internal consistency was poor. In addition, the Mental Toughness Questionnaire -MTQ48 (Clough et al, 2002) is of particular relevance, as the MTS-A developed in the present study draws on the same conceptual framework as that assessed by the MTQ-48: challenge, commitment, control (life, emotions) and confidence (abilities, interpersonal).…”

“…While there have been a number of models used to study mental toughness (e.g. Clough, Earle & Sewell, 2002;Fourie & Potgieter, 2001;Golby, Sheard & Van Wersch, 2007;Jones, Hanton & Connaughton, 2002;, the model which has been most commonly used in an education context identifies six attributes: commitment, challenge, control (life and emotion), and confidence (abilities and interpersonal) (Clough et al, 2002). In the context of education, mental toughness attributes have been shown to correlate positively with academic achievement, school attendance, classroom behaviour, and peer relationships in secondary school students (St.Clair-Thompson, Bugler, Robinson, McGeown, Perry & Clough, 2014) and with achievement and progression among undergraduates (Crust, Earle, Perry, Earle, Clough & Clough, 2014).…”

A survey of “mental hardiness” and “mental toughness” in professional male football players

“…The concepts of mental hardiness [1,2] and mental toughness [3,4] are closely linked to the construct of what has been termed “positive psychology” by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi [5]. A central tenet of the positive psychology paradigm is that stressors and other inordinate demands are inherent to the human condition.…”

“…Sheard and colleagues [4] identified mental toughness as a crucial attribute for success in sport. There are seven components to mental toughness, such as confidence, constancy, control, determination, self-belief, positive cognition and visualisation.…”

“…More specifically, the SMTQ measures confidence, constancy and control, whereas he PPI-A measures determination, self-belief, positive cognition and visualisation. Both questionnaires have been tried on larger sample sizes of athletes [4,14]. In answer to the question, “does a screening test accurately detect a hardiness score?” previous research has established that these tests are reliable and consistent instruments for self-assessment [14,15].…”