Spanish version of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire for sport: Cultural adaptation and initial validation

Abstract

This study aimed to translate the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire into Spanish and provide an initial validation. A recommended methodology for translation and cultural adaptation of questionnaires was applied. Once this had been completed, three hundred and thirty-two young athletes completed the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire. The results revealed that the five factor solution Talent Development Environment Questionnaire was confirmed. With the exclusion of one item due to low factor loading, the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire-5 had robust statistical support for its factor structure (χ2 (df = 305) = 499.64, p<0.01, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.045, SRMR = 0.055). It also demonstrated adequate convergent and discriminant validity. While the internal reliability was lower than in previous studies, it revealed acceptable levels. Specifically the overall 27 item Talent Development Environment Questionnaire-5 had a Cronbach α score of .877, and the reliability scores for individual factors 1–5 were .622; .761; .658; .605; .602 respectively. As such, it is recommended that the Spanish Talent Development Environment Questionnaire-5 can be used with confidence in Spain in both applied and research settings.

Construct validity and reliability of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire in Caribbean youth track and field athletes

“…Adequate convergent and discriminant validity was found within three of the of the TDEQ-5 subscales (i.e., COM, HQP and SN), but not for the LTF and AOE subscales. Findings were partially consistent with previously published research that have confirmed the validity of the scale in young talented athletes [14,16,17]. In fact, acceptable construct validity has been reported within both the English and Chinese versions of the TDEQ-5 [14,16].…”

“…In fact, acceptable construct validity has been reported within both the English and Chinese versions of the TDEQ-5 [14,16]. Similar findings of acceptable convergent and discriminant validity were found in the Spanish version of the TDEQ-5 within 322 regional level athletes [17]. One possible reason for the low construct validity within the two reported subscales in this study is that the individual items may not have accurately measured the underlying construct as suggested [34], specifically within this athlete population.…”

“…A sample size of 200 or above, with a subject to item ratio of at least ten to one is typically deemed adequate for confirmatory factor analysis [25]. The five-factor model with items loading on the following subscales were computed and subsequently intercorrelated: LTF-five items (questions 1-5); AOE-five items (questions 6-10); COM-four items (questions 11-14); HQP-seven items (questions (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21) and SN-four items (questions [22][23][24][25]. Factor loading estimates provide an indication of the item level of convergent validity, which should be higher than 0.5 and ideally greater than 0.7 [25,26].…”

“…However, further examination of the psychometric properties of TDEQ-5 in different contexts to generalize findings was recommended [14]. Consequently, great interest has been shown by researchers in the refinement and/or translation of the instrument to adapt to specific athlete populations e.g., China [16], Spain [17] and Poland [18]. Excluding some internal reliability issues within some subscales (e.g., moderate scores for LTF and AOE factors), the construct validity of the refined/adapted versions were deemed acceptable.…”

“…As such, increased knowledge and understanding of the key processes, in conjunction with a method by which these processes can be evaluated will enable the broader and coherent application of evidencebased practice for key stakeholders (e.g., formulation and revision of sport development polices as well as the assessment of coach interventions and impact) [12,13]. The refined TDEQ-5 has been deemed a plausible measure to assess and monitor the development environments of young talented athletes [14], however, to date the scale has only been validated within a limited number of contexts and only within athlete populations of more developed sporting nations [14,16,17]. As such, the relevancy and applicability of the instrument may not be transferable to the Caribbean context due to reasons relating to potential cultural idiosyncrasies and/or underdeveloped sport development systems within the region.…”