‘5
(2*
0

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PERFORMANCE STRATEGIES OF JAPANESE RUGBY
PLAYERS

presented by

Shogo Tanaka

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Kinesiology

 

 

ow Jamar

 

Major Professor’s Signature
5/ ’7// a

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

- ~... ..,_.-.-—-—.-o-.-o-I-I-o-n—n—.n.-.-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 KIProi/Achres/ClRC/Dateoueindd

 

PERFORMANCE STRATEGIES OF JAPANESE RUGBY PLAYERS
By

Shogo Tanaka

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
‘ Kinesiology

2010

ABSTRACT
PERFORMANCE STRATEGIES OF JPANESE RUGBY PLAYERS
By
Shogo Tanaka
Over the last two decades, there has been increased attention paid to
psychological skills usage among high level athletes. However, little is known about
these skills in Japanese rugby players. Considering the significant role of practice in
competition outcomes, a need exists to assess the usage of psychological skills in both
performance domains. The purpose of this study was to assess the usage of psychological
skills utilized by Japanese rugby players in both practice and competition. This study also
aimed to test the ability of the Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) to differentiate
competitive level, competitive experience, positions, and psychological strength. The
TOPS was administered to 352 players, including 95 Top League and 257 college
players. Discriminant function analyses demonstrated significant differences between
Top League and college players in both the competition and practice performance
strategies. Furthermore, significant competitive experience differences were identified in
both performance contexts. Contrary to the predictions, no significant differences were
obtained from positional and psychological strength comparisons. The 16 subscales of the
TOPS, with four exceptions, create an internally stable instrument with moderate
predictive ability relative to performance level and competitive experience in this sample

of Japanese rugby players.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Dan Gould for his consistent efforts and support.
Thanks you for understanding me, educating me, and showing me how the greatest sport
psychologist Should be. I would also like to thank my additional committee members, Dr.
Ewing and Dr. Eisenmann, for being prompt in the review of my material, and providing
me with feedback to augment the quality of my research.

Special thanks to Dr. Kaori Araki, Moe Machida, and Larry Lauer for your
support translating the TOPS into Japanese. I would also like to thank Takumi
Yamamoto, as well as all the coaches, and fellow graduate students who facilitated a
swift and organized data collection.

Thank you to all of the coaches and players who participated in this project. Your
involvement is truly appreciated.

Lastly, I thank my family in Japan. Thank you for being there and waiting for me
to come home. My father Shinmasa Tanaka, my mother Michiko, and my sister Yukiko,
they have all believed in me and supported me whatever I did and wherever I went. The
completion of my thesis would not have been possible without the love and support of

my family.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
Hypotheses ................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2
LITARATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 5
Psychological Skills and Athletic Performance ......................................... 5
Psychological skills Research in Rugby ................................................. 12
Psychological Skills and Performance Level ....................................... 15
Psychological Skills and Position .................................................... 17
Psychological Skills and Competitive experiences ................................. 19
Self Report Questionnaires of Psychological Skills Use .............................. 20
P818 ....................................................................................... 20
ASCI-28 ................................................................................. 21
TOPS ..................................................................................... 22
Purposes of the Present Study ............................................................ 24
CHAPER 3
METHOD ......................................................................................... 25
Participants ................................................................................... 25
Measuring Instrument ............................................ - .......................... 25
Demographic and Background Information ............................................. 27
Coaches’ Evaluation ........................................................................ 27
Procedures .................................................................................... 28
Statistical Analysis .......................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ........................................................................................ 31
Descriptive Statistics on the TOPS ....................................................... 31
Correlation Among Strategies ............................................................. 32
Comparison of Player Groupings ......................................................... 34
Top Leaguer Versus College Player Comparison .................................. 34
Competition analysis ............................................................... 34
Practice analysis .................................................................... 35
Competitive Experience Comparison ................................................ 35
Competition analysis ............................................................... 36
Practice analysis .................................................................... 37
Positional Comparison: Forwards Versus Backs ................................... 37
Competition analysis ................................................................. 37
Practice analysis .................................................................... 37

iv

Positional Comparison: More Versus Less Important Positions Comparison.. 38

Competition analysis ............................................................... 38
Practice analysis .................................................................... 38
Psychological Strength Comparison ................................................. 38
Competition analysis .............................................................. 38
Practice analysis .................................................................... 38
Correlation among strategies for psychologically strong players ............ 38
Correlation among strategies for psychologically weak players ............. 40
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 42
APPENDICES .................................................................................... 51
Appendix A. Test of Performance Strategies ............................................ 52
Appendix B. Demographic Questionnaire ............................................... 68
Appendix C. Coaches’ Evaluation ........................................................ 70
Appendix D. Consent Form ............................................................... 71
REFERENCE .................................................................................... 73

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1
Summary of Literature .............................................................................. 7

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and alpha coefficients
for the Test of Performance Strategies subscales .............................................. 31

Table 3
TOPS subscale correlations ....................................................................... 33

Table 4
Top League versus college players comparison of
performance strategies ............................................................................. 34

Table 5
More versus less experienced players comparison
of performance strategies .......................................................................... 36

Table 6
TOPS subscale correlations for psychologically
strong players ....................................................................................... 39

Table 7
TOPS subscale correlations for psychologically
weak players ......................................................................................... 41

vi

Chapter 1
Introduction

After the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the International Rugby Board replaced the
rules regarding amateurism and consequently rugby has become a professional sport
(Treasure, Carpenter, & Power, 2000). Following the professionalism of the sport,
observers have witnessed a significant increase in the speed and pace of the game and, as
a result, the time available for thinking and decision-making has decreased.
Consequently, the psychological challenges inherent in this interactive, continuous sport
have become even greater. Grant Fox, one of the most potent scorers of New Zealand’s
famed “All Blacks”, stated “The skill and the will - 30% of skill and 70% of will ...” is
what makes a player successful (Hodge & McKenzie, 1999). Although top rugby players
always have well developed physical and technical skills, many of them believe that what
set them apart from those who have not reached the same level of achievement are their
psychological skills (Hodge & McKenzie, 1999). Similarly, coaches often refer to mental
toughness when attempting to describe the elusive quality that distinguishes the great
players from the good ones at any level of rugby (Hodge & McKenzie, 1999). John
Kirwan, the head coach of Japan national rugby team, said, “I think it’s really important
that we establish a way of playing but also a spiritual way in which we act and play”(J
SPORTS, 2009). As rugby has been regarded by coaches as a ultimate thinking game
because it requires complex tactical decision making, it is clear that mentality is a crucial
part of rugby performance. Therefore, understanding the psychological demands of rugby
and psychological skills used by rugby players is of significant interest of researchers,

coaches, and athletes.

Many studies have shown that successful rugby players, as well as other top
athletes from different sports, have better and/or more frequent use of psychological
skills compared to their less successful counterparts. Researchers have examined the
relationship between different psychological skills and rugby performance by comparing
players of different performance levels, players from different playing positions, and
players with different competitive experiences (Maynard & Howe, 1989; Tsutagawa,
1989; Okamoto, Takatsu, &Terada, 1998; Wada, Murakarni, Yamamoto, Hashimoto, &
Tokunaga, 2001; Hodge & Mckenzie; 2002; Golby & Sheard, 2004; Kruger, 2005). It has
been found that players from higher performance levels have better commitment, self-
talk, imagery, attentional control, negative energy control, emotional control, motivation,
concentration, confidence, game strategies, fighting spirit, relaxation, decision making,
self-control, and cooperation. In regard to playing positions, significant differences are
found between halfbacks and others, backs and forwards, and more important positions
(hooker, number 8, serum half, fly half, fullback) and others (prop, lock, flanker, inside
centre, outside centre, winger). Lastly, players with more competitive experience have
been found to have better psychological skills. Considering these results, it is clear that
certain psychological skills are related to success in rugby. However, no previous
research examined whether mentally stronger players utilize more psychological skills, in
spite of coaches’ beliefs that those players significantly influence team performance.
Therefore, further research is still needed for several reasons.

First, only a few studies have examined the psychological skills used by rugby
players. Especially in Japan, no research has investigated mental skills used by Japanese

rugby players after the Japan Rugby Football Union established the Top League in 2003.

Therefore, the assessment of psychological skills that are utilized by Japanese rugby
players is of both theoretical and applied interest to sport psychologists. Also, it is not
unreasonable to think that influence of professionalism has caused an increase in
psychological demands on Japanese rugby players and as a result of this, differences in
psychological skills use between Top League players and college athletes are likely to
have become more significant. Because no previous literature compared the
psychological skills use of college athletes and Top League players, examining the
differences will contribute significantly to our knowledge base regarding. the differential
application of psychological strategies between top players and college players.

Second, none of the previously reviewed rugby literature utilized the Test of
Performance Strategies (TOPS; Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy, 1999), which has been
widely implemented in the sport science research. This instrument is a promising
measure for assessing the use of a number of important psychological skills in athletes,
both in competition and practice environments. Although the TOPS has been successfully
and extensively utilized in sport psychology research in general, the psychological skills
use of rugby players has not been studied using TOPS.

Finally, the assessment of psychological strategies used by rugby players in both
practice and competition is needed. Considering the significant role of practice in sport
outcomes, it is surprising to note that current research has focused on psychological skills
use only during competition. Because athletes spend enormous time and effort in
practice, investigation into the roles of both practice and competition psychological skills

strategies in performance outcome is warranted.

Although past researchers have demonstrated the positive effects of psychological
skills usage on sport performance, none of them have identified the usage or potential
benefit of psychological skills use in Japanese rugby players. Therefore, the purpose of
this study is to assess the use of psychological skills in Japanese rugby players both in
competition and practice environments. The present study also aims to investigate the
ability of TOPS to differentiate performance level, competitive experience, and playing
positions in the sample of Japanese rugby players. Finally, the ability of TOPS to
correspond with the coaches’ evaluation of players’ psychological strength is examined.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses are proposed.

H1. Top League players will utilize more psychological skills than college

players.

H2: More experienced players will utilize more psychological skills than less

experienced players.

H3: Backs players will utilize more psychological skills than forward players.

H4: Players on more important positions will utilize more psychological skills

than their counterparts.

H5: Psychologically strong players will utilize more psychological skills than

psychologically weak players.

Chapter 2
Literature Review

This study is designed to assess the use of psychological skills in Japanese rugby
players both in competition and practice environments. The research on psychological
skills and athletic performance will be reviewed. Special emphasis will be placed on
examining psychological skills use in rugby players, and players who play different
positions, and individuals of different competitive levels. Finally, questionnaires used to
assess psychological skill use will be reviewed.

Psychological Skills and Athletic Performance

Over the last two decades, researchers and practitioners have gained fundamental
knowledge and understanding about the psychological skills that have the potential to
enhance athletes’ performance (Mamassis & Doganis, 2004). Additional evidence of
development in this area is the number of practitioner oriented materials (books,
videotapes, workbooks, etc.) for coaches and athletes that have been developed. Today,
there are more than 190 books regarding mental skills use to enhance athletic
performance (Williams, 2001). Moreover, many researchers have tested the effectiveness
of sport psychology and psychological skills use by evaluating the implementation of
mental training programs (Mamassis & Doganis, 2004; Miller & Donahue, 2003;
Weinberg & Comar, 1994) and assessing the efficacy of sport psychology consultants
(Gould, Murphy, Tammen, & May, 1991). A number of studies have demonstrated a
direct relationship between improved performance and the use of psychological skills.

In order to gain sound knowledge of mental skills use in sports and the methods

used to measure psychological skills, the focus of research has progressed to an

examination of how and what types of psychological skills are being used by whom.
Investigators in the field have examined the effectiveness of individual psychological
skills on performance (Landin & Hebert, 1999; Li-Wei, Oi-Wei, Orlick & Zitzelsberger,
1992) and the effectiveness of a mental training program on performance (Mamassis &
Doganis, 2004; Patrick & Hrycaiko, 1998). It has been shown that use of psychological
skills is effective for both elite and non-elite athletes.

In the mid-19705, research comparing successful athletes to less-successful
athletes began with Mahoney and Avemer’s (1977) study of the psychological
characteristics of 1976 US. Olympic qualifiers and non-qualifiers in men’s gymnastics.
They found that the qualifiers more effectively managed their anxiety, handled adversity
better, had higher self-confidence, and utilized internal imagery more frequently.
Following the Mahoney and Avemer’s examination of this issue, many researchers have
conducted investigations and found that more successful athletes had higher self-
confidence, more effectively control and utilization of anxiety, greater frequency of
positive thoughts, better concentration, and had better control and more vivid internal
imagery (Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, & Liles, 1979; Highlen & Bennett, 1979; Gould,
Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981; Highlen & Benett, 1983; Mahoney, Gabriel, & Perkins, 1987;

Smith, Schutz, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1995). For summary of these literatures see Table l.

H88 u M5353? £58338

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>532 1:88 magma" 3888883 788 388%
0.25
3883. Ho 98580 G 18 > mgaflamsog 883888088 9.888%. mafiéoloafimaosm. 28 588— 58mg 8088
3. H. an 385288». Ban 0238 88mm Ramona—3. 8 Emma—.888 En com” @3588 $03 :88 28 8:8 8 828 «so
>88... @082 «<30: 33:83 85888». wqmfiommom 5 0.588 88.
2.. 235 888 8 £528 ”Siam Ba 8583an Hie was? 8928 85.88:" 883% 883 m8 &229:
838880 3828.: 588% cm 835 <19 88822.8 38%.
Emu—8. Ho 9888 we 28 «585% 0:82.888 58 28 8908 88" 8:36:35 8 90 93.8388 .838: mac—cm
v. w; an Smog—ommow— 5888 $518 umwnwm 885a <88 mofiégmagoa 88 8885: 8838—. in. 8.8503
manna? 8088 82 Q.» omnamoaom 8m 8838 ,Eamomnam 8m: 88. s58 :88 82.85383 8a 0884 8
w. w. 853888 38:88 uncoommEmv ”8815 So? 38:88 8838— 8»: 835.588.
:33 8883”:— 38 8a 3 08:38.8 998:8 .03. 8x8? 98 30 88:353.“ 28 .88..
880883. a=8 888:3 min 8 88m 88. 3828:.
3288. 2m
2888. Ho «8:88 8o 0 0:8 289an 88:85.88 wanna 8.8an 888 8 an :88 8:60:38? 8838 8%.
>. <<.. 388% o». 8—an A3883 Ea >583. ,wofiéocg :8 808 38:88»: "rocmrfi m: 22.83 £888?
088. O. 3883 BE Bop:o8& 33V «88:8 :88 858:» 5 858m Ba 88888:. SE 81.2.38
._.. 9&8. ><a=o~ 23d _ 188; :88 880885 5 38:08»: @823.
a; 8 «in. 83:38: romm £378 288% A8988 Emron ~5an? 88 «5:8 23an
EXP r. Emkoa. 9:8 83 0320:.
085. He axon—Bo mo wmm 383255: 38828 mofiéoammgoo. 88338 8838.. BE :8 cm 8828:»—
0; 23mm. 38520an 4.8 E gamma—Em moncmim «<88 9o 38" 5.832: 818.2. 8508:1835 :5
z: 8 8808188 om 8=om88 0:838:38 £58 £8 mcooamm?_ Ea seam—58$? £8383.
$85829 8803?. 28 £833.. 8 8858 888: om moi 852808 8 ~3an 88. en 5 085m 88958 8
W. Gems 838832 wmm 38.8:ch 88 >85on 8x8? £08 382.: 838: 28 @858.
Ho: $8303. 235 53238".

 

 

 

...020 H 803.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>030. 35.000 93.00. 3000:8303 2.0.: 3:38
@003
m.m:.0:. ...0 5035. we 0:8 023w 0:080:88 M0.m.00:::0:00 0:: 00:00:550: 30:50.80: 9.0.502 :63
v. m. :0 38:23.00. 280:0; 8:80.502 .: :05 0.0030.
W080? «008.0 0:: .3 C00 0». .3083. 92083.08: 2.000008. :83 W03 90...
w. w. :.mm0..0::0::m 0:8 85880.40.
:0wa 8000008. 0:: 9.83 20 3.4.0.0008 «88 8.5: 0: 50mg. 00.30:“. 38:38:. 0::
00:0:000003. 30.00 c0780: :83 0:: 500:0?
:20? 9.000008. :82. 0:: .000 8000003. $80.83 8:030: :58:
fi8838::0: 08:00.. 3.....0 80:8:QO .: 8:. 0.0030 0008:
EEK... 03:00. :E..:m 83:05.0?
7:08:03 ...0 000000 .N: 0:8 1088.880. mg... m:8 09.080 8::0: 8 8:0... 6080 03:2: 380M039...
7... H. 38.8.0900. 09.080. 38:83. 8.. M810 00:00:55.0? 003.003.8800. 30:8. 3.80.058? 0:: 30:88:
00:10.. 0.»...0 8.083 8 E. 30: 88:80
.... H. 8 0:08:80. 300:8
v2.53. 03.020 03.080.
.... w. 30.8.3800. 0:: t:
Goad :0:0:8
09.080
$9.8. m. ...0 0.8330 :8 .w. 30.0 38:23.00. 2:5 m... 35 0880.01038? 00:00:08.0... 00:m:0:00. 30:8.
>. :38 8.3.033: 0:: 38:80. «0.. mvoa 30:20:03 30:88:. 0:: 803 03180.00 8303508:
c0380: 30 35. 830.0 0008820 38.30. 8:02.50
9:010:00. 0:: 00:0m.08 $030.0 .1000: «8080 03:50.0 0: 80.: 90: 30.0.
“0.00:8 0.0.0:.
0033.00.02.

 

 

 

Haw—m H @0de

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>553 Q35 330mm magma 30850303 33: 935%

max? W. m; ..d ago—cu an Em: .38 2530 02.9.3803. H.933 3.358 93.2.9383 :5 5883.2 533 cm 90

worcfi. w. Scaawsoawmosm— 8:8— OouEm m5=m >029?

é; mac? m. mom—o 2:: 30858 9958 553.39» ‘55 o<anEn<aB .328 Egan 9w: gmoEoEgoa o: 88— .826 mm

r; mu gnaw. .85: 23mg om fa: mm 883%:va 8:09.558? Ba 83am 5:. 351?.

a. H. :33. vague—ommoa 83am .

wwEm.

4.3053. 1. Ho nag—ow 25 SM ”328 ..dmfl cm 583»: gamma—.28 cm 9» 2.33:8 Samoa 963 .3 8 .2.

W; 3:33. <EE~8 9n &me cm #0:. m 5% wonwondwaon OEQ, “51.2.30; smog «Bong»— oosqa madammom :53. 9: mammoQ

m. Z; R wowmoddwaoo 55.5. cm mqmflommom Ea m8<mmo= madamwom 3mm 9w: «2an “.9333; 935 “.338.

IE3: r. mammommom. muoa ‘35 38330:? 330:? FEE 3:05: 25 2:295: 8:8—

233 3:38 .833 8591.3 Egan Em: nEERo—dmnoaw. mam
8=omn>ommosa 8288 o: mam—$03.3.
,HEanaoaa 99.38 82.2. awning»? Ems? 9m: oEERoawaoam.
mar—08m Ea oo__nmo\3m_.o=m_ 3322 0: Emma? 25 amamngzw
Enron 9»: .755. 3103.. 09395: moroor Ea oo=omn>ommonfi
3228 o: 8.83:0?
Kan Enaawmoaa Ea 330:3 manna—ma 3:38 833 8 mooao Enron
:5: 9n oo=omo>dmmosa Ba nEESouomaosa 3228 o: 58»
wagon—om.

Doc—m. U; do 333:5 3 >538: 05535 €825: 0353.53 .898 Egg 0: mo& 835m. namxwaoz. mEoBmaan. 25

903530? Egg—£518.03 0:56? Quezon». 85:6— 3.. nos—gonzo? 85 m8— moasm Ba 3330:».

R; 85 Ba ..8 ago—830:" org—USE Ham" cm 833. men “.3028.

Eamon. >. B 075.30 woman—5:8 075,225 .833 852 o: smmwz<o 95.35 mg 8:60:30: BB

388 98:303. wagommom 5:.an men 838120?

 

 

 

H020 _ 803.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>039, 063 3.500% wagon" 30850305 :05 353mm
«.83 Z; ...0 38:50 oo=omo $0 ZO>> Ham” on 10303338 >232 :80 303 Sosa: mem E 8800230: :5: 5 0:52.00.
E655. 1. fiEQow. ESS— me Gammon _ mamaommom 39:»— QNEEM oxvaaoaoo rum :0 53:88 0: 90:, :8 0m 50:8.
r; «n So 5 0338 Bi 3.80»: C 5 E35.
”035. R. 8:63.30? :8? 0a 833: mafivqoouaoa 0».
$83 Baas: mem 50:15 Gav 1363.. 0:33 0».
3001058. 83 Emma 31.03358
0088203 0% 0:038:38
mcooomm.
H8121. Z. ._.0 E<om3mmno SN Cm flaw“ 0». 22.058 3030 Emron 0: 25030:»— ooanor Ea 05030303 0:
K; 00:5. 050338 5 075.30 $1,038.00 0080230: mom—o 86 858? BE 030:2.»— 0033. 0: 038.8 mom—n
U; Ea W30. 31.2.5880 09—28 GM mqmfiommom :5: 3358058.
0. $88 maaowmom 0w Cm Boas—aw wan moan—o .8080 35:2. 0: 00323 $55? 0: 00303.20: «8.? 90:
055653 5 5A 5&0.
030:8 gm nosing—mmflmv <0==mo~ 03.28 808 Emrna 0: 0:850:22 0:0 059. 09—28 .8080
8802503. Egg 0: 55mg.

 

 

 

10

An example study in this line of research, which used a unique and highly elite sample
was one conducted by Gould, Dieffenbach, and Moffett (2002). These investigators
indentified the psychological characteristics of 10 American Olympic champions using
both qualitative interviews and psychological questionnaires. They reported that the
Olympians scored the highest on goal setting, relaxation, and emotional control for
competition on the Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS; Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy,
1999), which examines the psychological skills and strategies used in competition and
practice. On the practice scales, the Olympians showed high scores on goal setting and
attentional control. The researchers described that goal setting, focus control, and arousal
control were important psychological factors for success for these top athletes. Gould and
colleagues also compared these results to the 65 international athletes who were involved
in the original scale development study of Thomas, Murphy, and Hardy (1999). On the
competition scale, the Olympians had significantly higher scores on emotional control,
automaticity, and relaxation, and lower on negative thinking, while the international
athletes scored higher on imagery. With regards to practice, the Olympians exhibited
higher score on goal setting and attentional control and lower score on imagery.

Taylor, Gould, and R010 (2008) further examined psychological skills use of
Olympic athletes comparing participants who differed in their medal status, gender, and
age. Participants were 176 US. athletes who competed at the Sydney Summer Olympics,
including 52 medalists and 124 nonmedalists. The researchers reported that medalists
scored higher on emotional control, and automaticity on competition scale and self-talk
and emotional control on practice scale, while nonmedalist scored higher on imagery on

competition scale. F urthermore, significant gender and age differences were found on the

11

competition strategies, as female athletes reported more positive self-talk than their male
counterparts, younger athletes scored greater automaticity than older athletes, with
imagery more often used by the older athletes than their younger counterparts. It was
suggested that medalists more frequently employ psychological skills and strategies in
both practice and competitive environments than nonmendalists.
Psychological Skills Research in Rugby

After the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the International Rugby Board replaced the
rules on amateurism and as a result of these rule changes rugby has become a
professional sport (Treasure, Carpenter, & Power, 2000). In Japan, rugby had been a
semiprofessional sport but as a result of international trend of professionalism, Japan
Rugby Football Union decided to establish the Top League and rugby has become a
partially professional sport. Cox and Y00 (1995) noted that success in professional sport
is not only dependent on the physical and tactical aspects of the events but psychological
skills as well. Rugby, of course, is not an exception and similar psychological skills
demands are placed on the rugby players’ as are placed on other professional athletes
(Garraway, Lee, Hutton, Russell, & Macleod, 2000).

Maynard and Howe (1989) recruited 144 rugby players from the Vancourver
Island Rugby Union League and examined the main effect of levels of playing standard,
age, and playing position and their relationship with attentional style. The Test of
Attetional and Interpersonal Styles (TAIS; Nideffer, 1976) was administered and no
significant main effect of interaction was noted for playing standard. However, it was
found that halfbacks showed better attentional style than their counterparts. The

researchers also reported that the attentional subscale of test (Narrowing) did discriminate

12

between players of different ages. While interesting the results must be viewed with some
caution as the TAIS has been shown to have some psychometric problems and is not a
comprehensive measure of psychological skills use (Landers, F urst, & Daniels, 1981).

Golby and Sheard (2004) investigated whether mental toughness, hardiness and
their respective subscales distinguish rugby league players operating at different levels of
performance. The Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI; Loehr, 1986) and the 18-
item Personal Views Survey III-R (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001) were administrated to 155
professional rugby league players from international level, super league, and Division
one. The researchers found that international players scored higher on commitment,
control, challenge, negative energy control, and attentional control. Again, some caution
must be taken when interpreting these results as the PPI is an unvalidated measure of
psychological skills.

Tustagawa (1989) examined the psychological aptitude of 75 Japanese adult
rugby players. The Taikyo Sport Motivation Inventory (Matsuda, 1981), a Japanese
specific measure, was administered and their scores were compared to the original Sport
Motivation Inventory study of scale development. The results showed that the
participants scored higher on emotional control, mental toughness, fighting spirit, sport
value, positive attribution, ego orientation, and lower on anxiety scale. The researcher
also reported that significant differences were found on emotional control, game
planning, and anxiety between players with higher performance levels and their
counterparts. It is concluded that the players with higher performance level have better

psychological aptitude and strong motivation. However, the measurement employed in

13

this study was designed to assess athlete’s motivation and it is not for assessing the use of
psychological skills.

Okamoto, Takatsu, Takada, and Terada (1996) conducted a similar line of
research with a larger sample. They investigated psychological ability of 144 male adult
rugby players who competed at the National Athletic Meeting. The results showed that
back players were superior to forward players in self-confidence and the ability to make
the game plans. The players of more important positions (hooker, number 8, scrum half,
fly half, fullback) scored higher on self-confidence, the ability to make game plans, and
cooperation than the other players (prop, lock, flanker, inside center, outside center,
winger). The difference regarding performance outcome was also found as the
semifinalists scored higher on the will to have a game than the players belong to the
seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth teams. This study did demonstrate the differences
regarding playing position and performance outcome. However, the findings should
carefully be interpreted because the athletes compete at the National Athletic Meeting are
selected as regional representatives and they do not always compete at top level in Japan.
Therefore, it is questionable whether these findings also apply to Top League rugby
players.

Okamoto, Takatsu, and Terada (1998) investigated psychological ability of 87
college rugby players in relation to their performance level, balance of psychological
skills, and athletic career. Significant differences between elite and normal level players
were found on motivation, concentration, confidence, game strategies, fighting spirit,
relaxation, and decision making. Regarding the balance of psychological skills,

participants exhibited higher scores on fighting spirit, motivation, self control,

14

concentration, while they scored lower on confidence and game strategies compared to
the ideal balance of psychological skills. It should be noted that no significant differences
were found in terms of age at which participants initiated their rugby career, indicating
that having a longer athletic career does not improve psychological skills. However, the
findings of this study should not be applied to the general population because participants
were from a minor subdivision of Japanese college rugby league.

Neil, Mellaieu, and Hanton (2006) examined the intensity and direction of
competitive anxiety symptoms and psychological skills usage in rugby union players of
different skill levels. Participants were 65 elite and 50 nonelite players and they
completed the TOPS, Modified Sport Anxiety Scale, and Competitive Trait Anxiety
Inventory-2. It was found that the elite group reported more facilitative interpretations of
competitive anxiety symptoms, higher levels of self-confidnece, lower relaxation usage,
and greater imagery and self-talk use than their nonelite counterparts. The researchers
suggested that nonelite performers primarily use relaxation strategies to reduce anxiety
intensity, while elite athletes appear to maintain intensity levels and adopt a combination
of skills to interpret symptoms as facilitative to performance.

Although research that examines psychological skills use in rugby is limited, it
has been demonstrated that performance levels, playing positions, and competitive
experience are related to psychological skills. However, additional research is needed,
especially studies employing validated measures of psychological skill use.
Psychological Skills and Performance Level

Researchers have demonstrated the positive relationships between psychological

skills use and performance level (Golby, & Sheard, 2003; Neil, Mellalieu, &Hanton,

15

2006; Okamoto, Takatsu, &Terada, 1998; Tsutagawa, 1989; Wada, Murakami,
Yamamoto, Hashimoto, & Tokunaga, 2001). Rugby players at higher performance levels
have been found to demonstrate better or frequent use of imagery, self-talk, commitment,
attentional control, negative energy control, emotional control, motivation, concentration,
confidence, game strategies, fighting spirit, relaxation, decision making, self-control, and
cooperation than players with normal or lower performance levels.

Golby and Sheard (2003) examined mental toughness and hardiness of 155
professional rugby league players and found that international players scored higher on
commitment, control, challenge, negative energy control, and attentional control than
super league and Division one players. Tsutagawa (1989) studied the psychological
aptitude of 75 Japanese rugby players who played at the highest national league at the
time. Participants were divided into three groups based on their performance level and
significant group differences were found on emotional control, planning, and anxiety.
The author concluded that the players at a higher performance level demonstrated better
psychological aptitude and strong motivation. Regarding Japanese college rugby players,
Okamoto, Takatsu, and Terada (1998) compared psychological ability of 39 top level and
48 normal level players. Top level college players scored significantly higher on
motivation, concentration, confidence, game strategies, fighting spirit, relaxation, and
decision making than normal players. In the high school setting, researchers reported that
elite players had better motivation, patience, self-control, relaxation, cooperation, mental
toughness, and anxiety control (Wada, Murakami, Yamamoto, Hashimoto, & Tokunaga,
2001; Takada, Shibata, Komeji, Suda, & Saijo, 1992). Finally, Neil, Mellalieu, and

Hanton (2006) examined and compared the use of psychological skills in 65 professional

16

and 50 semi-professional players. Professional players scored significantly greater on
self-talk and imagery than their counterparts, while semi—professional players indicated
more use of imagery. These findings provide evidence that rugby players at higher
performance levels possess better psychological skills than their counterparts who play at
less elite levels. However, it should be noted that no single study examined psychological
skills use across all levels of competitive categories (high school, college, Top League).
Although it has been found that elite college players have better psychological skills than
nonelites, and adult players with higher performance levels are different in the use of
psychological skills compared to their counterparts with lower performance level, the
differences in the use of psychological skills between college players and Top League
players have not been examined. Therefore, it is not clear whether players at different
competitive categories have different or better psychological skills. Additionally, most of
the studies conducted in Japan employed. relatively small samples and it should be
recognized that there is a lack of generalizability because of this issue.
Psychological Skills and Position

One of the main characteristics of rugby is the diversity of playing positions on a
team. Therefore, the relationship between players’ position on a team and their
psychological characteristics should be investigated. This seems to be an important area
of research because demands placed upon athletes are thought to differ as a function of
playing position. For example, in the sports of basketball, volleyball, and football, the
point guard, setter, and quarterback respectively play central and highly visible roles on
their teams (Cox, 1987; Cox & MacManama, 1988). However, there is limited research

that addresses the relationship between playing position and psychological characteristics

17

of the athlete. Nation and LeUnes (1983) reported that defensive backs (safeties &
comerbacks) in American football showed the most favorable profile of mood state on
the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971) compared to
other offensive and defensive positions. Schurr, Ruble, Nisbet, and Wallace (1984)
examined the relationship between playing position in American football and personality.
They found that successful lineman (first & second string) tended to be realistic, logical,
and analytical as a group. Successful lineman reported to be more organized, predictable,
and practical than successful backfield players. Also, successful defensive backs were
decidedly more introverted than other categories of successful players, whereas
successful defensive linemen were decidedly more extroverted. Regarding to
psychological skills use, Cox and Yoo (1995) conducted research utilizing TOPS and
reported that differences in psychological skills exist between linemen and backfield
players, regardless of team (offense/defense). Backfield players were superior on anxiety
control, concentration, and confidence. It was suggested that backfield players in
American football possess greater psychological skill than do their counterparts on the
line. The results of these studies provide support for the hypothesis that a relationship
exists between psychological characteristics of the athlete and player position. However,
only a few studies exist that investigate the positional differences in rugby from
psychological aspects. Moreover, some of this research used questionable measures of
psychological skills.

Maynard and Howe (1989) examined playing position and attentional style of 144
rugby players. They reported that halfbacks (scrum half/fly-halt) exhibited significantly

higher broad external focus of attention and lower reduced attentional focus than other

18

positional groups, suggesting that the halfbacks are more effective at integrating many
environmental stimuli at one time. Halfbacks were reported to be the highest on two of
the three effective attentionalcomponents and lowest on two of the three ineffective
attentional components. Okamoto, Takatsu, Takada, and Terada (1996) investigated and
compared psychological ability of 142 Japanese rugby players and their position played.
The researchers found that backs players were superior to forwards players in self-
confidence and the ability to make the game plan decisions, especially predicting the
game situation. It was also found that players of more important positions (hooker,
number 8, scrum half, fly half, fullback) are superior to other players (prop, lock, flanker,
inside centre, outside centre, winger) in self-confidence, the ability to make the game
plans, and cooperation. The authors concluded that the players of more important
positions had better psychological skills because of higher demand of responsible roles
on these positions. These findings suggest that positional differences exist in rugby in
terms of psychological skills. However, the strength and nature of the relationship
remains unclear. Factors that could influence this relationship, such as years of
experience, player age, and previous success have not been controlled in the existing
research.
Psychological Skills and Competitive Experience

One area of research in need of study is examining the relationship between
competitive experiences and psychological skills use, because only a few studies have
examined this relationship. In the study of attentional style in rugby players, Maynard
and Howe (1989) found that attentional subscale discriminated between players of

different ages. However, the lack of a control group made it impossible to assess whether

19

these findings were due to increasing years in the sport (experience), the increase in age,
or both. Wada, Murakami, Yamamoto, Hashimoto, and Tokunaga (2001) investigated the
psychological skills of Japanese high school rugby players and reported that players with
five or more years of athletic career experience had better motivation, confidence,
decision making than players with less than a five year career. Additionally, they reported
that players who had attended more competitions indicated greater patience, fighting
spirit, motivation, confidence, and decision making than players with less competitive
experiences. Contrary to these findings, no significant difference was found between
psychological skills of Japanese college rugby players and their years in rugby (Okamoto,
Takatsu, & Terada, 1998). The researchers concluded that having a longer athletic career
does not enhance psychological skills. Considering the limited research and their
contradicted results, investigation on the relationship between psychological skills and
competitive experience is highly in need.
Self Report Questionnaires of Psychological Skills Use

The self-report questionnaire is the method that has been most often used for
assessing psychological skills knowledge and use. O’Connor (2004) found that 66% of
sport psychology consultants in the survey reported using questionnaires in their applied
work. Consultants use both validated measures and self-created measures in order to
assess the skills and techniques an athlete uses.
PSIS

The initial tool for assessing psychological skills that was commonly used in the
early research is the Psychological Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS) developed by

Mahoney, Gabriel, and Perkins (1987). The PSIS was developed to determine the

20

differences in elite, pre-elite, and collegiate level athletes in their use of psychological
skills to improve their performance in sport. This measurement assesses six cognitive
abilities related to sport performance including anxiety control, concentration,
confidence, mental preparation, motivation, and team focus. Although the PSIS
successfully ascertain the differences between athletes of varying abilities and was a
widely used instrument for sport psychologists (Gould, Tammen, Murphy, & May 1989;
White, 1993), its validity and reliability have been unstable. In fact, Mahoney (1989)
found that non-elite weightlifters scored higher than elite weightlifters on five of the six
subscales. In addition, Chartrand, J owdy, and Danish (1992) found low internal reliability
for five of six subscales as well as unacceptable goodness-of-fit statistics in a
confirmatory factor structure. Therefore, there are considerable difficulties in using PSIS
because it contradicts the assertion that this measurement discriminates elite and non-elite
athletes. Hence, while it helped spur early research it is not used by contemporary
researchers.
ASCI-28

Another questionnaire designed to measure sport-specific psychological skills is
the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ASCI-28; Smith, Schutz, Smoll, & Ptacek,
1995). The ASCI-28 provides a total score of an athlete’s psychological skills by
evaluating seven subscales including coping with adversity, peaking under pressure, goal
setting and mental preparation, concentration, freedom from worry, confidence and
achievement motivation, and coachability. It has been shown to have good reliability and
validity. In the original study, 762 high school athletes from six different sports were

classified into underachievers and overachievers based on physical talent rating and

21

performance rating by their coaches. The overachievers scored higher on total score as
well as some subscale scores (coachability, concentration, coping with adversity). In the
second study, Smith and Christensen (1995) found that ACSI scores for 104 minor-
league baseball players predicted performance measures (batting average for hitters,
earned run average for pitchers). Also, higher scores on the ACSI predicted player
survival or continued involvement in professional baseball. However, the ASCI-28 as
well as other measurements does not investigate psychological skills and strategies used
in practice. Considering the importance of preparation for competition, research focus
should be placed on psychological skills use during both practice and competition.
TOPS

Given the fact that many athletes spend an enormous amount of time and effort on
preparation for competitions, it is surprising to note that all the previously reviewed
inventories are not designed to assess psychological skills use in both practice and
competition. Hence, instruments that measure psychological skills use in both situations
are necessary because of the significant influence of practice on performance outcome.
The Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS; Thomas et al., 1999) was developed as a
psychometric instrument to assess mental skills used by athletes in both practice and
competition. This 64-item instrument evaluates athletes’ use of 16 psychological skills
including eight competition subscales and eight practice subscales. The competition
subscales include positive self-talk, emotional control, automaticity, goal setting, mental
imagery, activation, relaxation, and negative thinking, while the practice subscales
include attentional control instead of negative thinking. The TOPS has been successfully

utilized in the sport science literature, linking psychological skills in both practice and

22

competition to perceptions of success (Frey, Lagun, & Ravizza, 2003), self-efficacy
(Lowther, Lane, & Lane, 2002) and competitive anxiety responses (Fletcher and Hanton,
2001). Given the enormous time that athletes spend in practice, investigation into the
roles of both practice and competition strategies in performance outcomes is highly
needed.

In the original study, the TOPS was developed and validated using a diverse
sample of 472 Austrian athletes (Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy, 1999). Alpha coefficients
for the competition strategies subscale ranged from .74 to .80, and the practice strategies
subscales ranged from .66 to .78. Furthermore, correlational analysis indicated
moderately strong correlations among many of the strategies, suggesting that athletes
who tend to use one or more of the competition or practice strategies use many of the
other strategies. In addition, considerable overlap was found in the use of particular
psychological strategies across the two performance conditions. Finally, analysis of
variance demonstrated that older performers reported less use of mental imagery but
more automaticity than younger performers, and males reported less imagery but more
automaticity than females. Also, international level athletes used a wider range of
psychological strategies than college, regional, and recreational performers. Furthermore,
with the effects of age removed from the data, these differences were significant for goal
setting, imagery, and activation in males, and for self-talk, emotional control, goal
setting, imagery, activation, negative thinking, and relaxation in females. Therefore, the
TOPS is an appropriate instrument for assessing the use of several important

psychological skills in athletes both in practice and competition contexts.

23

Overall, this review of literature highlights past researchers that has shown the
positive effects of psychological skills use on many aspects of athletes’ performance.
However, past research has not identified use or potential benefits of psychological skills
in Japanese rugby players in both practice and competitive environment. Therefore, the
purpose of this study is to assess the use of psychological skill in Japanese rugby players
both in competition and practice environment. Also, the present study aims to investigate
the ability of TOPS to differentiate performance level, playing positions, and competitive
experience in the sample of Japanese rugby players. Additionally, the ability of TOPS to

correspond with coaches’ evaluation on players’ psychological strength is examined.

24

Chapter 3
Method
Participants

The sample consisted of 352 Japanese rugby players who played at a competitive
level. Of this group, 95 (27.0%) were Top League players and 257 (73.0%) were college
players. The mean age (and standard deviation, SD) of the players was 22.01 (SD = 3.62)
and ranged from 18 to 38 years. The players were all male and they indicated a mean of
8.81 years (SD = 5.71) of competitive experience in rugby. Regarding mental training
experience, 85 players (24.1%) reported that they had mental training experiences in the
past. Within the 95 Top League players, 7 players (7.4%) were identified as professional,
while remaining 88 players (92.6%) were semiprofessional players. Furthermore, of the
players reporting their previous experience on the national team, 9 players (2.6%) had
previously played for Japan national team.

Measuring Instrument

The measuring instrument used in this study was the Test of Performance
Strategies (TOPS), which is a self-report measure designed to assess psychological skills
used in both competition and practice (Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy, 1999). The TOPS is
composed of eight subscales for competition (activation, automaticity, emotional control,
goal setting, imagery, negative thinking, relaxation and self-talk) and seven of those eight
scales are included in the practice subscales with negative thinking being found only in
the competition context and attentional control being found only in the practice context.
Lane et a1. (1999) described “the substitution of attentional control by negative thinking

in competition is not unreasonable given that negative thinking may well be the

25

metacognitive manifestation of a lack of attentional control” (p. 707). The TOPS has 64-
items which represent the subscales with four-items each and is rated on a 5-point Likert
style scale, anchored by 1 (never) to 5 (always) (See Appendix A). Examples of items
from the competition subscale include: “I set personal performance goals for a
competition” for ‘Goal Setting’, and “I rehearse my performance in my mind at
competitions” for ‘Imagery’. An example from the ‘Practice’ subscale is: “I talk
positively to myself to get the most out of practice” for ‘Self-Talk’.

In the preliminary study of the development of TOPS, Thomas, Murphy, and
Hardy (1999), recruited participants with various skill levels from a wide-range of sports.
The exploratory factor analysis from the initial validation “yielded very clear factor
structures for both the competition and the practice items” (p. 707). In a follow-up study
Lane et al. (2004) stated, “The heterogeneity of the initial validation sample is a strength
of the process to validate the measure, in terms of its applicability across a wide age
range and spectrum of ability” (p. 804). Good internal consistency has been demonstrated
with the individual items. Chronbach alpha levels ranged from .66 to .81 (;=.75).

In the current study, TOPS was translated into Japanese by a bilingual sport
psychologist and back-translated into English by a bilingual Ph. D. student in sport
psychology. The back-translated version was compared with the original English version
by the researcher and two senior sport psychologists. Finally the researcher, the sport
psychologist, and the Ph. D. student worked co-operatively to make corrections to the

Japanese items with discrepancies in the back-translation.

26

Demographic and Background Information
In addition to the TOPS, all participants completed a demographic and
background assessment. This assessment included age, playing position, years of
competitive experience, professional status, number of games played on the national
team, and past mental training experience (See Appendix B).
Coaches ’ Evaluation
In order to determine the psychologically strongest and weakest players in each
team, coaches were asked to complete a coaches’ evaluation of the psychological strength
of the player (See Appendix C). In this study, a psychologically strong player is defined
as a player who has the ability to consistently perform toward the upper range of ones
talent and skill, regardless of competitive or practice circumstances and overall level of
physical ability (Loehr, 1995). Therefore, a psychologically weak player is considered, in
this study, as a player does not have the ability to perform consistently toward the upper
range of ones talent and skill. Whereas, the performance of a psychologically weak
player is influenced by competitive or practice circumstances. Head coaches on each
team were asked to rank 15 psychologically strong and 15 psychologically weak players.
Of the seven teams that participated in this study, five head coaches completed the
coaches’ evaluation while the other two did not volunteer to participate. After coaches
identified 15 psychologically strong and weak players, players on each team who did not
volunteer to participate in the study were eliminated from the list. Then all the players
remaining on the list were selected as psychologically strong and weak players for

comparison persons. This resulted in identifying 47 psychologically strong players and 49

27

weak players. Coaches’ evaluation was conducted confidentially and results were not
shared with anyone.
Procedures

Permission to use human participants in the present study was obtained from the
Institutional Review Board for human subjects at Michigan State University. After the
approval from the IRB, the primary investigator initially contacted the head coaches of
seven different teams by email. These teams included four Top League teams and three
college teams. Each college team belongs to Division I, II, or III; therefore, college
players in this study represented well the entire population of Japanese college rugby
players. All seven teams provided consent to participate in the study except two teams
did not agree to complete the coaches’ evaluation. For four of the seven teams, the
researcher scheduled an appointment to visit the team and administered the questionnaire
and coaches’ evaluation. The meetings "with the teams took approximately 45-60 minutes.
All four teams completed the questionnaires at the meeting room at their practice
location. All administration sessions were relatively similar and free of coach influence.
The primary investigator distributed the questionnaire to each participant individually,
providing them with a writing utensil to complete the survey. Prior to beginning the
questionnaire the participants were asked to read the consent form (See Appendix D) that
was attached to the front page of the questionnaires, while the researcher verbally
explained it. Once the consent form was read, participants then signed and returned the
consent form to the investigator who placed it in a separate envelope. It was emphasized
that all information collected was fully confidential, and at any point the participant could

withdraw from the study without consequences. After the purpose and procedure of the

28

study were explained, the participants filled out the questionnaire individually. The
questionnaire took approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. Once the participants
completed the questionnaires they were rettu'ned directly to the researcher who
immediately placed them in a second sealed envelope.

For other three teams, the primary investigator sent an email to each player on the
team and asked them to complete the questionnaire online while having the coach
complete the coaches’ evaluation via email. Consent was included in the first page of the
online survey, therefore the participants were informed about the nature of the study and
explained that beginning the survey indicated they voluntary agreed to participate in the
research.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed by quantitative methods. Once the data were collected the
information was entered into an SPSS file. The questionnaires were labeled by the
number in which they were entered into the SPSS spread sheet. Descriptive statistics,
Pearson product-moment correlations, and discriminant function analyses were
conducted. First, descriptive statistics was computed to characterize the entire sample of
Japanese rugby players on each of the practice and competitive performance TOPS
subscales. To further describe the subscales and elucidate the relationship between them,
Pearson correlations were conducted between each of the competition and practice
subscales, respectively. Finally, a series of discriminant function analyses were used to
indentify overall differences on the competition and practice subscales, relative to
competitive level, years of competitive experience, position, and coaches’ evaluation

respectively. To explore the differences of competitive experience in psychological skills

29

and strategies, the participants were separated into two groups, splitting above and below
the mean years of experience. Regarding position, two different approaches were
employed. First, differences between backs and forward players were investigated. Then,
players of more important positions and their counterpart positions were compared.
Additionally, Pearson correlations among subscales for psychologically strong and weak

players were conducted as follow up analyses.

30

Chapter 4
Results
Descriptive Statistics on the TOPS

Means and standard deviations on all subscales of the TOPS for the total sample
are shown in Table 2. Inspection of this table results reveals that, relative to competition
strategies, Japanese rugby players scored highest on goal setting (M = 3.57) and lowest
on negative thinking (M = 2.42). Furthermore, relative to practice strategies, these players
scored highest on goal setting (M = 3.17) and imagery (M = 3.16), and lowest on
relaxation (M = 2.25).
Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and alpha coefficients for the Test of Performance
Strategies subscales

 

 

M SD 0
Competition subscales
Self-talk 2.88 .92 .79
Emotional control 3. 18 .72 .66
Automaticity 2.90 .74 .69
Goal setting 3.57 .83 .80
Imagery 3.37 .94 .50
Activation 3.40 .77 .74
Relaxation 2.90 .75 .67
Negative thinking 2.42 .75 .70
Practice subscales
Self-talk 2.87 .82 .78
Emotional control 2.88 .39 .78
Automaticity 2.60 .66 .16
Goal setting 3.17 .71 .70
Imagery 3.16 .72 .62
Activation 2.85 .56 .35
Relaxation 2.25 .68 .67
Attentional control 2.91 .56 .43

 

31

Table 2 also contains the alpha coefficients, a measure of internal consistency, for
each of the subscales. An inspection of these coefficients shows that most of the scales
achieved or closely approached the .7 cut off for judging scales as internally consistent.
Subscales that failed to reach this level were competition imagery (.5 0), and practice
automaticity (.16), activation (.35) and attentional control (.43). These subscales were
eliminated from subsequent analyses.

Correlations Among Strategies

Correlations among each of the competition and practice subscales are shown in
Table 3. Among the competition subscales, several patterns of relationships were
identified, the most notable of which occurred between emotional control and negative
thinking (r = -.52, p < .01), activation and relaxation (r = .52, p < .01), relaxation and
negative thinking (r = -.49, p < .01), goal setting and imagery (r = .48, p < .01), and goal
setting and activation (r = .48, p < .01). Among the practice subscales, the most strongest
correlations emerged between self-talk and imagery (r = .43, p < .01), goal setting and
imagery (r = .41, p < .01), and imagery and relaxation (r = .40, p < .01). Finally,
considerable overlap was found in the use of some psychological skills across the
competition and practice domains. Specially, the use of self-talk in competition and
practice are closely related (r = .77, p < .01), and notable link across the competition and

practice context was demonstrated in the use of goal setting (r = .50, p < .01).

32

H35 3

SONG E388 8:63:65

 

 

_ N w A u a .N m o 5 Z .N
0033320: 95838
_. warm? - - - .3. be .Nm -. _ a .3 - .No .3 .3—
N. manages». 833. - - - - .No .3 -.mm - .3 - - -
w. >5on29€ - - - -.3 - - - - .3 -.3 L _ -
A. 08— maxim n: - ...3 - .3 3m -.Nm .3 - .3 .3 .8
m. >923? .30 .No - .3 - .96. ..3m .3 - be .3 .NA
9 xi??? .3 .3 - .wm .uN - -.3 .mm - .Na .NN .3—
.N.Zamw:<o "En—Esm -. a -.mN - -.Nm -.ww -.Ac - -.3 - -.NN JG LN
1338 wagon—om
«. warm? .3 - - .3 .3 .3 -.3 - ._ _ .30 .3 .30
o. mBoaoza 8:22 - .3 .E - - - - .2 - - - -
.o. 08— maasm .No - .. _ a .mo .8 .mm -.NN we - - .3 .No
_ _. Samoa, .3 - -._ _ .3 .3 .NN -. _ m .3 - .fi - .3
_~. wanmao: 3— - - .Nc .NA 3— -. _ N .3 - .No .3 -

 

229 >= Sam—macaw mco<o ._ ER mmmamnma AU A .omV.

33

Comparison of Player Groupings

Top Leaguer Versus College Player Comparison

To examine differences in reported psychological skills and strategies, top league
players (n = 95) and college players (n = 257) were compared in two different
discriminant analyses, one for competition subscales and one for practice subscales with
low internally consistent items removed.

Competition analysis. Table 4 contains the means, standard deviations, and the
standardized discriminant function coefficients for each of the competition and practice
Table 4

T op league versus college players comparison of performance strategies

 

Top leaguers College players

 

 

N=95 N=257
Subascale M SD M SD F Sig SDFC
Competition
Self-talk 3.01 .89 2.82 .93 2.94 NS -.03
Emotional control 3.45 .70 3.08 .70 19.47 .00 .32
Automaticity 2.86 .77 2.91 .73 .30 NS .04
Goal setting 3.91 .7 "l 3.44 .84 23.78 .00 .49
Activation 3.68 .74 3.30 .75 17.35 .00 .08
Relaxation 3 .24 .75 2.78 .71 28.08 .00 .28
Negative thinking 2.09 .65 2.56 .75 25.77 .00 -.31
Practice
Self-talk 3.00 .88 2.83 .80 3.22 NS -.23
Emotional control 2.91 .35 2.86 .40 .87 NS .1 8
Goal setting 3.47 .69 3.06 .68 24.19 .00 .77
Imagery 3.38 .75 3.08 .69 12.53 .00 .35
Relaxation 2.42 .61 2.18 .70 8.25 .00 .27

 

Note: SDF C, Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficient.

34

subscales. The results of the discriminant analysis on the seven competition subscales
was significant (Wilks’ it = .87, {(7) = 47.23, p < .01), with group centroids being .63 for
top league players and -.23 for college players. Inspection of the standard discrimimant
function coefficients revealed that goal setting, emotional control, relaxation, negative
thinking, and activation contributed most to the discriminant function. Top league players
demonstrated greater goal setting (M = 3.91, SD = .71), activation (M = 3.68, SD = .74),
emotional control (M = 3.45, SD = .70), and relaxation (M = 3.24, SD = .75) than college
players (M = 3.44, SD = .84; M = 3.30, SD = .75; M = 3.08, SD = .70; M = 2.78, SD =
.71, respectively), while college players scored higher on negative thinking (M = 2.56,
SD = .75) than top league players (M = 2.09, SD = .65).

Practice analysis. The result of the discriminant analysis on the five practice
subscales was also significant (Wilks’ it = .92, 76(5) = 29.14, p < .01), with group
centroids being -.49 for top league players and -.18 for college players. Standardized
discriminant function coefficients revealed that goal setting, imagery, and relaxation
contributed most to the separation between groups. Top league players reported greater
use of goal setting (M = 3.45, SD = .69), imagery (M = 3.38, SD = .75), and relaxation
(M = 2.42, SD = .61) than college players (M = 3.06, SD = .68; M = 3.08, SD = .69; M =
2.18, SD = .70, respectively).

Competitive Experience Comparison

To explore the differences in psychological skills regarding competitive
experience, the participants were separated into two groups, splitting above and below the
mean years (M = 8.81) of competitive experience. Group 1 (n = 189, 53.8%) consisted of

all the Japanese rugby players with 1 to 8 years of competitive experience, and Group 2

35

(n = 162, 46.2%) consisted of all the players with 9 to 28 years of experience.
Comparisons were made in two different discriminant analyses, one for competition
subscales and one for practice subscales.

Competition analysis. Table 5 contains the means, standard deviations, and the
standardized discriminant function coefficients for each of the competition and practice
subscales. The result of the discriminant analysis of the seven competition subscales was
significant (Wilks’ 3. = .93, 752(7) = 25.59, p < .01), with group centroids being -.26 for
Group 1 and .30 for Group 2. Inspection of the standardized discriminant function
coefficients revealed that goal setting, negative thinking, activation, and relaxation
contributed most to the separation between groups. Specifically, more experienced
Table 5

More versus less experienced players comparison of performance strategies

 

 

 

More Less
m N= 1 89
Subascale M SD M SD F Sig SDFC
Competition
Self-talk 2.97 .94 2.80 .90 3.07 NS -.01
Emotional control 3.26 .72 3.1 1 .71 3.49 NS .00
Automaticity 2.87 .71 2.92 .77 .42 NS .03
Goal setting 3.76 .76 3.40 .85 17.23 .00 .57
Activation 3.56 .70 3.27 .80 13.26 .00 .26
Relaxation 3.03 .75 2.89 .74 9.57 .00 .04
Negative thinking 2.26 .68 2.55 .78 13.66 .00 -.48
Practice
Self-talk 2.95 .81 2.81 .83 2.50 NS -.06
Emotional control 2.83 .42 2.91 .35 3.85 NS -.54
Goal setting 3.30 .68 3.06 .72 10.37 .00 .70
Imagery 3.23 .70 3.09 .73 3.53 NS .04
Relaxation 2.32 .68 2.18 .68 3.75 NS .28

 

36

players indicated greater goal setting (M = 3.76, SD = .76), activation (M = 3.56, SD =
.70), and relaxation (M = 3.03, SD = .75) than less experienced players (M = 3.40, SD =
.85; M = 3.27, SD = .80; M = 2.89, SD = .74, respectively), while less experienced
players scored higher on negative thinking (M = 2.5 5, SD = .78) than more experienced
players (M = 2.26, SD = 68).

Practice analysis. The result of the discriminant analysis of the five practice
subscales was significant (Wilks’ it = .96, 78(5) = 15.79, p < .01), with group centroids
being -.20 for Group 1 and .23 for Group 2. Inspection of the standardized discrminant
fimction coefficients revealed that goal setting contributed most to the differences
between two groups. Particularly, more experienced players reported greater goal setting
(M = 3.30, SD = .68) than less experienced players (M = 3.06, SD = .72).

Positional Comparison: Forwards Versus Backs

To examine positional differences in psychological strategies, forwards (n = 182)
and backs (n = 169) were compared in two different discriminant analyses, one for
competition subscale and one for practice subscales.

Competition analysis. The result of the discriminant analysis on the seven
competition subscales was not significant (Wilks’ it = .99, 752(7) = 3.45).

Practice analysis. The result of the discriminant analysis on the five practice

subscales was not significant (Wilks’ it = .99, 752(5) = 4.64).

37

Positional Comparison: More Versus Less Important Positions Comparison

To further explore the positional differences in psychological skills, players on
more (n = 122) and less (n = 229) importance positions were compared in two different
discriminant analyses, one for competition subscales and one for practice subscales.

Competition analysis. The result of the discrminant analysis on the seven
competition subscales was not significant (Wilks’ )L = .98, 78(7) = 7.15).

Practice analysis. The result of the discrminant analysis on the five practice
subscales was not significant (Wilks’ it = .99, 752(5) = 2.52).

Psychological Strength Comparison

To examine the differences in psychological strategies, psychologically strong
players (n = 47) and weak players (n = 49) were compared in two different discriminant
analyses, one for competition subscales and one for practice subscales.

Competition analysis. The result of the discriminant analysis on the seven
competition subscales was not significant (Wilks’ it. = .91, 38(7) = 8.64).

Practice analysis. The result of the discrminant analysis on the five practice
subscales was not significant (Wilks’ it = .90, {(5) = 9.58).

Correlation among strategies for psychologically strong players. Correlations
among each of the competition and practice subscales for the psychologically strong
players are shown in Table 6. Among the competition subscales, several patterns of
relationships were identified, the most notable of which occurred between relaxation and
negative thinking (r = -.66, p < .01), activation and goal setting (r = .65, p < .01), goal
setting and negative thinking (r = -.59, p < .01), and emotional control and relaxation (r =

.57, p < .01). Among the practice subscales, the most strongest correlations emerged

38

4.3.0 3

SQNW .338? no§m§2¢§®x Emknriommni? Egan Ream}

 

 

_ N 3 3 m 3 u m .o _ _ 3.

0033330: 2.38.8

_. warm—w - - -.3 .3 .mm .3 -.3 .3 .3 .3 .3

N. magmas». 823— - - -.3 .30 - .3 -.3 - .3 - -

w. >=8333Q -.3 -.3 .. -.3 -.3 -.3 .3o -.3 ...3 - 33¢

3. Com: 825m .3 .30 -.3 - .3 .3. -.mo .3 .3 .3 .3

m. 3,9230: .mw - -.3 .mm - .mm ..3 .3 .30 .mo .3

3. Wan—$38: .3 .3 -.3 .3 .mm - -.3 .3 .3 - .3

SZamfiZo 3553 -.3 -.3 .3 ..30 ..3 -.3 - -.3 -.3 -..3 -.3
38:8 wccmoflom

m. warm—r .3 - -.3 .3 .3 .3 -.3 - .3 .MN .3

@. maomosa 8:22 - - - - - - - - - - -

5. Dow. 835m .3 .3 -.wo .3 .3 .3 3— .3 - .3 .3

:. 530d. .3 - - .3 do - ..3 .3 .mm - :3

.N. ”18836: .3 - -.wo .3 .3 .3 -.S .3 .3 :3 -

 

208“ >= 83.1325 33¢ .36 3a 33583 g A .omV.

39

between self-talk and imagery (r = .52, p < .01), goal setting and relaxation (r = .48, p <
.01), and self talk and relaxation (r = .48, p < .01). Finally, considerable overlap was
found in the use of some psychological skills across the competition and practice
domains. Specially, the use of self-talk in competition and practice are closely related (r
=.87, p < .01), and notable link across the competition and practice context was
demonstrated in the use of goal setting (r = .74, p < .01).

practice context was demonstrated in the use of goal setting (r = .50, p < .01).

Correlation among strategies for psychologically weak players. Correlations
among each of the competition and practice subscales for the psychologically weak
players are shown in Table 7. Among the competition subscales, several patterns of
relationships were identified, the most notable of which occurred between relaxation and
negative thinking (r = -.50, p < .01), emotional control and relaxation (r = .49, p < .01),
emotional control and activation (r = .47, p < .01), and activation and relaxation (r = .45,
p < .01). Among the practice subscales, the most strongest correlations emerged between
goal setting and imagery (r = .53, p < .01), goal setting and self talk (r = .53, p < .01), self
talk and emotional control (r = .50, p < .01), and self talk and relaxation (r = .50, p < .01).
Finally, considerable overlap was found in the use of some psychological skills across the
competition and practice domains. Specially, the use of self-talk in competition and
practice are closely related (r = .82, p < .01), and notable link across the competition and

practice context was demonstrated in the use of goal setting (r = .52, p < .01 ).

4O

.320 3

3.65% .3388 newmezSaxsc‘. hmwnwiommgzv $3» 19322

 

 

_ N 3 A m a 3 m o 5 Z 5
02.6932. 238.3
_. warm—w - - - - .3 - - .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
N. wagons. 8:32 - - - - - .3 Judo .3 - .3 - -
w. >=83mzo§ - - - - - - .3 - - - - -
A. no». mongm - - - - .3 .3 - .3 - .3 .3 .3
m. 3.3520: .3 - - .3 - .3 -.wa .3 - .3 .3 -
a. ӣ330: - .3 - .3 .3 - -.3 .3 - .3 .3 -
3.2335 9553 - ..3o .3 - -..fi -.3 - - - -.3 - -
130:8 2.38.8
3. warm? .3 .3 - :3 .3 :3 - - .3 .3 .3 .mo
3. wages». 838— .3 - - - - - - .3 - .3 - -
3. 08. 895m .3 :3 - .3. .3 .mo -33 .3 .3 - .3 -
Z. 5.32% .3 - - .3 .3 .3 - :3 - .3 - .3
_N. ”18820: .3 - - :3 - - - .mo .. - .3 -

 

208“ >= Sad—macaw 305 .3 98 $3582 6 A b3

41

Chapter 5
Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the usage of psychological skills
and strategies utilized by Japanese rugby players both in competition and practice. Also,
this study aimed to test the ability of TOPS to differentiate competitive level, competitive
experience, positions, and psychological strength.

The initial step of assessing the use of psychological skills was to analyze the
descriptive statistics and the alpha coefficients for each of the subscales. This analysis
indicated that four of the subscales (competition imagery, practice automaticity,
activation, attentional control) failed to reach .7 cut off point. In past research
investigating the internal consistency of TOPS subscales, alpha coefficients for
competition subscales ranged from .74 to .80, and the practice subscales ranged from .66
to .78 (Thomas et al., 1999). However, in the Taylor et al. (2008) study, alpha
coefficients for practice automaticity (.57) and practice activation (.50) were found to be
unacceptable. Although some of the subscales in the present study indicated lower alpha
coefficients compared to the previous research, overall findings overlapped with past
literature. Furthermore, correlational analysis revealed that moderately strong correlations
among many of the subscales, suggesting that rugby players who tend to use one or more
of the competition or practice strategies also tend to use other psychological skills. For
example, competition relaxation positively correlated with activation (r = .52, p < .001),
emotional control (r = .43, p < .001), and goal setting (p = .38, p < .001). In addition,
considerable overlap was demonstrated in the use of particular psychological skills, such

as self-talk (r = .77, p < .001) and goal setting (r = .50, p < .001), across the two

42

performance environments. These findings clearly corresponded with Taylor et al. (1999)
study reporting correlation among two contexts for self—talk (r = .72, p < .05) and goal
setting (r = .60, p < .05). However, emotional control (r = .17, p < .05) and relaxation (r =
.31, p < .05) indicated relatively weak correlation across two performance domains,
suggesting that some of the psychological skills usage may not transfer in practice to
competition or vice versa. Given that significant overlap with previous literature was
demonstrated in the present study, the TOPS appears to be a promising instrument for
assessing the use of several important psychological skills in this sample of Japanese
rugby players. The lack of internal consistency on some TOPS items might also be the
result of having the scale validated with English speaking participants while in the
present study scale was translated into Japanese.

Hypothesis I predicted that Top League players will utilize more psychological
skills than college players. This hypothesis was verified in that the discriminant fimction
analyses demonstrated significant differences between Top League and college players,
and players with more and less competitive experience. With respect to competitive level,
goal setting, emotional control, negative thinking, relaxation, and activation contributed
most to the discriminant function for competitive subscales, while goal setting, imagery,
and relaxation made the most significant contributions to the separation between the two
groups for practice subscales. Furthermore, significant differences were found between
more and less experienced players. Regarding competition strategies, players with more
competitive experience reported greater goal setting, activation, and relaxation, and lower
negative thinking than their counterparts, while they indicated higher goal setting for

practice. The 16 subscales of the TOPS, with four exceptions, created an internally stable

43

instrument with moderate predictive ability relative to competitive level and competitive
experience in this sample of Japanese rugby players.

As predicted, the discriminant analyses successfully distinguished between Top
League players and college players in both competition and practice, suggesting that Top
League players more frequently employ psychological skills and strategies than college
players. This finding reflects earlier literature indentifying fundamental psychological
differences between more and less successful performers (Mahoney et al., 1987; Gould et
al., 1999; Thomas et al., 1999; Greenleaf et a1, 2001; Neil et al., 2006; Taylor et al.,
2008). For example, Neil, Millalieu, and Hanton (2006) reported that professional rugby
players scored higher on competition imagery and self-talk than players who competed at
a semi-professional club standard or below. Also, Thomas and colleagues successfully
discriminated between international athletes and college, regional, and recreational
performers (Thomas et al., 1999). Furthermore, the discriminatory capability of TOPS
was demonstrated in the study by Taylor and colleagues in which significant differences
were found in the use of psychological skills between Olympic medalists and
nonmedalists (Taylor et al., 2008). The Top League players may have a greater
understanding of the importance of these psychological skills with regard to their
performance and thus may use them on a more frequent basis during practice and
competition. The college players, on the other hand, simply may not know these
techniques or may not believe in the potential benefits of using the techniques frequently.
Another possibility for the difference is that the Top League players may use these skills
more frequently because they are often playing with more sense of purpose. That- is, with

the competitive nature of Top League rugby, Top League players may take rugby more

44

seriously and view it more as a way of life, while college players may not have as much
interest to improve their performance and they may view rugby as a hobby and just a part
of their college experience. However, it is still uncertain whether Top League players in
the present study are inherently more psychologically talented, if their more advanced
and frequent use of psychological skills developed as a result of more hours and efforts in
practice or formal instruction in psychological skills usage or because they are more
experienced as age and playing experience were highly correlated (r = .68, p < .01).
Given the fact that the majority of Top League players were composed of players from 22
to 38 years old while typical college players aged between 18 and 22, there might be age
differences between two groups. Because most of the Top League players were older than
college players, the results of this comparison might be influenced by increased age
effect. Although the current study is not designed to examine age differences, it has been
suggested that the more advanced or frequent use of psychological skills among more
successful athletes is a complex function of genetic prediction, deliberate training, and
formal instruction (Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). In fact, psychological skills
are thought to be modifiable and teachable.

Furthermore, the results also revealed that the TOPS successfully distinguished
between more and less experienced players in both competition and practice supporting
Hypothesis 2. Regarding competition strategies, players with more competitive
experience reported greater goal setting, activation, and relaxation, and lower negative
thinking than their counterparts, while they indicated higher goal setting for practice.
These findings significantly strengthen this area of research. Past studies examining the

use of psychological skills by rugby players reported that more experienced players had

45

better attentional style, motivation, confidence, decision making, patience, and fighting
sprit than their less experienced counterparts (Maynard & Howe, 1989; Wada, Murakami,
Yamamoto, Hashimoto & Tokunaga, 2001). However, one of these studies employed a
questionable measurement and it was uncertain whether the measurement could precisely
assess important psychological skills. Yet the TOPS has been utilized in a number of
studies and proved to be a reliable measurement, therefore, the results from the
competitive experience comparison contribute significantly to our knowledge. However,
future research is still needed. In this study, the comparison was made based on years of
rugby experience. Thus, the results do not uncover what types of experiences contributed
to the frequent use of psychological skills. The differences might be due to several
reasons such as hours spent for games and practices, mental training experiences, and the
number and quality of coaches that a player has worked with. Due to the many factors
that could influence the use of psychological skills, therefore, future research is needed to
determine what types of sport experiences are related to acquisition of the strategies and
how they influenced the frequent use of psychological skills. For example, it would be
extremely interesting to conduct psychological skills training interventions and determine
if pre and post training assessment differences emerged. Similarly, assessing athletes
psychological skills and then tracking their performance across a season would allow
researchers to see if psychologically stronger athletes cope better with adversity and
perform more consistently as compared to their psychologically less gifted counterparts.
Contrary to the predictions made in Hypotheses 3 and 4, no significant differences
were demonstrated on positional comparisons. Although previous researchers (Okamoto,

Takatsu, Takada, & Terada, 1996) indicated greater self-confidence and better game

46

decision in backs players than forwards players, and in players on the more important
positions than players on the less important positions, this study did not support their
findings. One potential reason for a lack of difference here is that perhaps a position is
often assigned to a player by coaches based on athlete’s physical character. Although
different positions may require different psychological skills, each player has to develop
unique physical strengths and skills in order to play a specific position. Normally,
coaches make decisions on the player’s position with a main focus on the physical
aspects of the position. Therefore, athletes not being able to pick their positions and
coaches relying only on player’s physical ability might prevent the players from
obtaining different sets of psychological skills. Additional research is necessary to
investigate how and when each psychological skill is being used by a player in his
position.

Finally, no significant difference was found on the comparison between
psychologically strong and weak players, suggesting that use of psychological skills does
not affect psychological strength. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was refuted. However, the finding
must be interpreted with some cautions. First, no objective measure was employed in this
study to select players for comparison and there might be coaches’ biases when
determining psychologically strong and weak players. Advancement in appropriate
psychometric measurement instruments was needed in this area of research (Crust, 2008).
Although the definition of a psychologically strong player was given, each coach might
have operationally different beliefs on psychological strength and their selections might
be inconsistent among coaches. Considering the fact that typical Japanese coaches,

regardless of types of sports, tend to consider a psychologically strong player as an

47

athlete who could tolerate severe training and pain, establishing clear criteria of
psychologically strong rugby players is needed to enable cross cultural studies. Also, the
comparison was made with a small sample, thus questioning the ability to generalize this
finding to the lager population. Although TOPS did not successfully differentiate
psychologically strong and weak players, inspection of correlational analyses revealed
that the usage of psychological skills among psychologically strong players was more
correlated than that of weak players. Therefore, these players might not be consistent in
the use of psychological skills in practice and competition. Additional research is needed
to further investigate the relationship between psychological strength and use of
psychological skills.

Limitations of this study should be recognized. First, a more sophisticated
translation process and statistical analyses with a large sample size is needed to establish
the factor structure of the TOPS with greater confidence. The present study demonstrated
that 4 of the 16 subscales possessed inadequate internal consistency. This might be due to
the difficulty in translating the questionnaire or cultural differences in the meaning of
psychological constructs. The researchers faced some discrepancies between original and
translated items. For example, “During practice, I don’t think about performing much. — I
just let it happen,” back translated as “I don’t think about performance during practice. —
I let it go.” Similarly, “During practice session I just seem to be in flow.” was “I feel that
everything is going well during practice” in back translation. Because the majority of
Japanese athletes do not know the definition of flow as it pertains to sport performance,
perhaps this item could not be comprehended exactly the same as the original sentence.

Although the researchers made significant efforts on translating the original words into

48

Japanese TOPS, there might be awkward phrasings that are difficult for the athletes who
are not familiar with sport psychology terms to understand the intended meaning.
Furthermore, the sample of this study was 352 Japanese male athletes who specialized
only in rugby. Future research with a larger sample including both genders, different age
groups, and more athletes from a variety of sports and competitive levels is needed to
establish validity and reliability of Japanese TOPS. Examining female athletes would be
particularly useful.

It should be also recognized that the quality of psychological skills usage was not
assessed in this study. The TOPS was designed to measure frequency of psychological
skill employment. One potential reason for a lack of difference in positional and
psychological strength comparisons is that perhaps frequency of psychological skills
usage may not be a viable measure of group separation. Additional research is needed to
understand the psychological processes between groups, such as quality of psychological
skill. For example, psychologically strong players may set goals at the same reported
frequency but they are developing more specific goals for competition and practice,
utilizing both outcome and performance goals and developing a stronger connection
between their long term and short term goals. Therefore, they are employing more of the
characteristics needed for effective goal setting (Weinberg & Butt, 2005).

Despite its limitations, the present study contributes significantly to our
knowledge base regarding the differential application of psychological skills between
Top League and college rugby players. This study provided preliminary evidence of the
usefulness of Japanese TOPS, which will facilitate studies of the relationship of

performance strategies in both practice and competition to performance level. Future

49

research should continue to improve the psychometric properties of the TOPS, especially
its stability across items. Hardy, Roberts, Thomas, and Murphy (2010) recently
developed the TOPS-2, which is purported to fiirther improve the reliability of the scale.
Additional research utilizing TOPS is needed to further support its validity and reliability
of the scale as well as to characterize the fundamental attributes of elite performance, and
to distinguish between more and less successful athletes.

In conclusion, Top League players in this study indicated more frequent use of
psychological skills during competition and practice than college players. However, it is
still unclear whether or not the use of psychological skills is a viable method in
differentiating positions and psychologically strong and weak players. This should not
lead to the conclusion that there is no difference in psychological skills usage between
these groups. Rather the findings should be used alongside future research designed to
examine the efficacy or quality of the psychological skills employed by rugby players
with different playing positions and different psychological strength. Finally, replicating,
extending, and challenging past research is necessary in order to produce a more coherent

and clear understanding of psychological skills usage by rugby players.

50

APPENDICES

51

APPENDIX A
TEST OF PERFORMANCE STRATEGIES

Each of the following items describes a specific situation that you may encounter
in your training and competition. Please rate how frequently these specific situations

apply to you on the following scale:
1 = Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Always

Please put a circle around answers.

1. I set realistic but challenging goals for practice. 1 2 3 4
2. I say things to myself to help my practice performance. 1 2 3 4 5
3. During practice I visualize successful past performance. 1 2 3 4
4. My attention wanders while I am training. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I practice using relaxation technique at workouts. l 2 3 4
6. I practice a way to relax. I 2 3 4
7. During competition I set specific result goals for myself. 1 2 3 4

52

8. When the pressure is on at competitions, I know how to
relax.

9. My self-talk during competition is negative.

10. During practice, I don’t think about performing much — I
just let it happen.

11. I perform at competitions without consciously thinking
about it.

12. I rehearse my performance in my mind before practice.
13. I can raise my energy level at competitions when
necessary.

14. During competition I have thoughts of failure.

15. I use practice time to work on my relaxation technique.
16. I manage my self-talk effectively during practice.

17. I am able to relax if I get too nervous at a competition.
18. I visualize my competition going exactly the way I want
it to go.

19. I am able to control distracting thoughts when I am

53

training.

20. I get frustrated and emotionally upset when practice does

not go well.

21. I have specific cue words or phrases that I say to myself to

help my performance during competition.

22. I evaluate whether I achieve my competition goals.

23. During practice, my movements and skills just seem to

flow naturally from one to another.

24. When I make a mistake in competition, I have trouble

getting my concentration back on track.

25. When I need to, I can relax myself at competition to get

ready to perform.

26. I set very specific goals for competition.

27. I relax myself at practice to get ready.

28. I psych myself up at competitions to get ready to perform.

29. At practice, I can allow the whole skills or movement to

happen naturally without concentrating on each part of the skill.

54

30. During competition I perform on ‘automatic pilot’.

31. When something upsets me during a competition, my
performance suffers.

32. I keep my thoughts positive during competition.

33. I say things to myself to help my competitive performance.
34. At competitions, I rehearse the feel of my performance in
my imagination.

35. I practice a way to energize myself.

36. I manage my self-talk effectively during competition.

37. I set goals to help me use practice time effectively.

38. I have trouble energizing myself if I feel sluggish during
practice.

39. When things are going poorly in practice, I stay in control
of myself emotionally.

40. I do what (needs to be done to get psyched up for
competitions.

41. During competitions, I don’t think about performing

55

much - I just let it happen.

42. At practice. When I visualize my performance, I imagine

what it will feel like.

43. I find it difficult to relax when I am too tense at

competitions.

44. I have difficulty increasing my energy level during

workouts.

45. During practice I focus my attention effectively.

46. I set personal performance goals for a competition.

47. I motivate myself to train through positive self-talk.

48. During practice session I just seem to be in a flow.

49. I practice energizing myself during training sessions.

50. I have trouble maintaining my concentration during long

practices.

5]. I talk positively to myself to get the most out of practice.

52. I can increase my energy to just the right level for

competition.

56

53. I have very specific goals for practice.

54. During competition, I play/perform instinctively with little
conscious effort.

55. I imagine my competitive routine before I do it at a
competition.

56. I imagine screwing up during a competition.

57. I talk positively to myself to get the most out of
competition.

58. I don’t set goals for practice, I just go out and do it.

59. I rehearse my performance in my mind at competitions.
60. I have trouble controlling my emotions when things are
not going well at practice.

61. When I perform poorly in practice I lose my focus.

62. My emotions keep me from performing my best at
competitions.

63. My emotions get out of control under pressure

of competition.

57

64. At practice, when I visualize my performance, I imagine

watching myself as if on a video replay.

58

TEwEnEnwEEE EEKEEE EEETE EEEEEEEEEE
ELKEWTTOE®<wafigflwi5&EfifiEEtKETEE6WE

JJTUDRE‘EIZ‘IG/rcE‘Wfifi LfC < 73%“:

1= iot< 7217‘

2==11tb8tw

3= Ehbé

4 = Ji<3bE>

5= waEEfiEEE

Eivtollflé LT< 7335!»,

1. fl. EEEB’JTEOEEEB’JEEF’EE 03722525113713"

T50 1 2 3 4 5

2.?L11EEEP Efi®/\7;r—7VX%EE®7‘:&>1:

EQEEICWUDE‘ 12345

3. fl‘iifig :J‘EP lgfilfifiyjbfg/fi7j—7yxgtsy

17347553760 1 2 3 4 5

fl

ltflwfififlEEEKflfléo

5. ELEV—77"? HC'CU 57’15—‘73 V7‘9f—‘y7

EEETEO

(iflMU3y7XT6fiEEEEE6O

‘lflflEéE.Eiwfifitfiféfifiéfiiféo

8. E é'CVV‘yV'V—fimflo’CK/‘éfiéf’. flJiEUDJI

5K95yaxbtgiwwflofwéo

SlEéEmflwtw7b—7EEfiE47EEéo

M1EEE.EMN7x—vyxTE:EKOwTE

E 0 EEEW—fléifiifi’é blfi’cféo

H.flmE%KBWT§fi%K%iéltt<N7i

~77XT60

ELEEEEwEKEE®N7x—vyxEEwtm

'FU/v—EVVTEO

uiflmEEKEwTEEEE.Efi®Efl®V&w

Eicf'é C é: Zfi’FE—S 55°

60

H

14.

é‘é‘CP‘ fuikfififi‘é I: é: E£iéo
15.

flm\figfifiéfioréfi®97yfiw/ay
f9:y?EfiET60

16. leifi‘fiqu'E/I/7 “—7 ’EfiJfiB‘JKiUfiiTéo

17. i) LW§§K€LCELW+~2<NCE V) fik‘fflirc

61‘ U5V7XTE>CCE7JVC€£6°

7

b

1&flmfiéfifiwfivufigfi%%6917§%x
#60

1 2
1 2 3
19flflfi€¢\%%flté%iéfiVFU—WT6
:&fifi%éo 1 2 3 4 5
zoflnfiaflfii<wmtwfi\7fibe—/3
V7b§fzim4§xf§<féo 1 2 3 4 5
2Lflflfi駢\Efi®N7i—7VZ%%®K®K
afiuéwfimfié%E®%—U—F%7V—Xfi
$360

zzflm\afiaawfiéuowfwafiééfiLtm

61

Efiflééfiflifféo
2&fi%¢\flwflétx#wm&mbfimtfin1w
<i§ufibfléo

24%1‘61‘ §K€¢€ZSXELT:B#\ EKEPJ‘JEHE‘OET:
&K%%¢éo
zaflm%¥6%nd\N7x~vyx®$fi®twK\
Efi&97y7xéfié:&flfééo
zaflm\fiéwtwu&f$fiwwfiafiéfiiiéo
zlflmfigubwf\fififétwK97yaxéf
Z30
2&flmfiéufiwffl7r—7VXETéEfikLT\
afiaawfifiégggfié:kfivééo
zaflflfigufiwf\f&10x#w%fléé\2%
W®Eh®%fiui¢fé:&a<xéfiufifié:
&fiVGéém

3Qaé¢flwFEE&W%—FJ6N7x~7yxé

62

$60

BlfiA¢ HEEE§LK£E fl®A71~7/X
EE<kéo

3Zfié¢flfifi9?47&%ié%5fi

33.flmfiE¢ Eh wh7t—V/Xfifiwtwu
EAEE’L 11022

m

34. 1111:1133» \“C 1111A°771~v yxcfiifiéL/wa
E "UD’EEUD 727531“ D A—bL/Vsi‘é
%.

1
flmEfiE31lfifiE5zéfifiéfiE MTé

12
36.Eé$ flmEfi mtw71— aéwfim :flEf
{>0

3551’

1 2
37 filifimflfiffi’tfigfl: <$IJH§T6 &Efififi'féfl.
_\E%

1
38. 11111) L11 CPL: Ebéffliio’cb &E‘Zutfg

E

$

EEK%EEEK6: &K

%%T6

1 2
9.113% CF W$7§35i<bv§1fixwfi$ fléiEéy EEO)

w

gfifiE294WbmWLfifiéo

4Qflflfié®tbn flfiéfiggfiétbu%gk

éflé:k&?‘5o

4L%%¢\flmfl7x—7VXT6:&Kowai

Dfiztw—flmfibfiéufifiéo

5

42figflkw1\flflfifi§§®N7¢~7VXEE

V1754f¢6&%‘gwibufiuémé4fi—

VTéo

43. flcfi‘l‘x‘éclisw'CEfiEL/fi‘EVTI/‘é J: in U 5 “/7

Z'é'élckfii‘é’EL/Wkfifiuéo

447—777%mfi\fidfifié%®%hv&W%%

5755: cE7§§§ELWkl§§DZDo

45fi§$\flm\EfiEQ®E§K%%WK$¢TéO

46flm‘aéwtwufiA%tfi7x—vyxwafi

& Effie

%

64

4Tflflfiyf4jttw7h—9EELT\bv—;

V7‘WCSGTTéfifiké’EVDéO

4&fi%$\flmf&ffl5i<mnrwéibmflu

6°

4aflu%V—:V7¢\Efiéfiu%fi%ofiéfig

T60

saflME<fi<fiETm\afiwfiwhéfio:au

%%T50

SLflm‘fi%®%%E%fiKT6tw\Efifififlfi

~77- 4 71:33 LN? 60

52flmfiéwtwmfifitv&wmafiafiw%hé

%w5:&flfiééo

saflm\fifiwtwwtf$fiwwtafi&fiorw

{)0

54%é¢\flm§fi%&%humthEk<\Eflw

K7w%fifi7t—VVX¢6O

65

55. in .ztEAc: io‘wf E5: 59mm: :ED‘ZW— 7

4— ‘/ M??5 aim 3%04f—‘VE'3‘5

56.?L513KE‘EPC56T:X.Z>Z 9:53 {fi—VTZ);

57.1211 Hair—EUDEE’E’ETESY‘: 51‘ 513532327

7!:DEL7) (1'60

58.EEEE wEEmEE: it? tt‘} n::Em

LEEETéO

saflEEG: :E\T EEEE®A7E—v/XEE

JNFTU/v—EVVTEO

60.1L41EEcu5w1 5 E < L\fp7’£b\<\: 25‘ fifiéj y

bD—wEé:&KEET60

6LE’KEmTN7E—7yxflfii<wmth\

flflEEflEEETEE<E60

7771 ETE) I. &AODUJ'H'J: 726°

63E307Vny—Kib\EEEEwEEén/

66

Ix)

k)

D)

DJ

DJ

I‘ uw/V'C“?Wi£< 73:60

64EEKEVT\EEEE®N7E—7V2&HVJ

75%XE6kE\EEEEE®ETEEEEEE

6st 5 fat/f 7““‘7‘3—50

67

APPENDIX B

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Demographic Information

Today’ Date:

 

Name : Age:

 

Team:

 

Years Playing Rugby:

Playing Position:

 

Professional Status: Pro Non-pro

Number of Games Played on National Team :

Mental Training Experience

Do you have any mental training experience? Yes No
If Yes,

Currently, do you individually work with mental consultant?
Have you ever individually worked with mental consultant?
Currently, does your team work with mental consultant?

Has your team ever worked with mental consultant?

68

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

EEEE
Eamawz

EE: film:

 

 

EHAE:

 

EEEEI

 

7143/73 ‘/1

 

EEEEI 7U 77%;?

REEEVTEI

 

LEwammETmA7¢~vyquwrEmEEEEEEm?

fi< EEK
EETKw EETEE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m

43%} E1Mi§fiéf°®l<7 7r“? yx (Chi/‘1 EUDEEEE'C’TZ)‘ ‘?

fi< EEK
EETEV EETEé
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m

xyawkv—zyVE

xy5»FV—:y7mEEEEDE¢m? Ev wwz
EL:%6EE
EH:EAWK}yfiw%v~:VV®EEEEHTwEE#? Ev wwi

EEEK,Xyawhv—:V7®EEEEAEKEHt:kEEDif»?
Ev wwi

Eff: E‘HA'C‘XI/E/l/I‘lx—zf/Vwfiiggfififwij-m? m” l/W‘i

EETK,XVENFV—SVV®EEEE—ATEHtZEEEDETW?
til» b‘b‘i

69

APPENDIX C

COACHES’ EVALUATION

Please rank 15 psychologically strong and 15 psychologically weak players on your team
and write down their names. No one but the researcher have access to the result of this
evaluation.

For this evaluation, a psychologically strong player refers to a player who has the ability
to consistently perform toward the upper range of ones talent and skill, regardless of
competitive or practice circumstances and overall level of physical ability.

 

Psychologically strong players

Psychologically weak players

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

11

 

12

 

13

 

14

 

 

15

 

 

 

7O

 

APPENDIX D
CONSENT FORM

Dear Participant:

My name is Shogo Tanaka and I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. I am
studying Sport Psychology, which is a field that has grown over recent years due to the fact that athletes
and coaches are putting a stronger emphasis on the mental aspect of sport to compliment the physical
aspect. You are being asked to participate in a research study of psychological strategies in Japanese rugby
players. The purpose of this form is to request your permission regarding participation in this research
project for my master’s thesis.

The purpose of the study is to assess performance and preparation strategies that Japanese rugby
players are using. In this study you will be asked to complete a questionnaire that asks you to think about
mental skills you may use in practice and competition settings. You will not receive money or any other
form of compensation for participating in this study.

Completion of the questionnaire will last approximately 15 — 30 minutes and there is minimal risk
for emotional or psychological harm should you choose to participate. You will not directly benefit from
your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may contribute to the
understanding of psychological aspects of rugby performance. All of your information and scores in this
study are anonymous, and your coaches or teammates will not have access to your responses. The access to
your data will be limited to only the researcher and the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program and your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. At
no time will your name be associated with any scores or statements made during the study. All of your
information will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the locked room of the researcher for three years,
whereupon it will be destroyed.

If you have any concerns or questions about this research study, such as scientific issues, how to
do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact my graduate advisor, Dr. Dan Gould (Tel: 517-432-
0175, e-mail: drgould@msu.edu or regular mail: 210 IM Circle MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824) or the
researcher, Shogo Tanaka (Tel: 517-420-5156, e-mail: tanakas4@msu.edu or regular mail: l [M Circle
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824). If you have questions or concerns about your role and
rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a
complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's
Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432—4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or
regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below assures that you have been informed about the nature of this study and why
it is being conducted. Your participation is voluntary and that you may discontinue participation at any
time, refuse to answer any questions, and that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you would otherwise receive.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

Participant’s Signature Date

 

 

71

i
a

E

EE’EEEEEU‘E}

Efiurmh<fiééfim

EESVfiyMfikEkEEmeEEtELEE.XE—VEEEEEEtL.E<®xE—
VEE.n—EEEEEKEH6N7x—VVXA®EEEEEE¢6ETEEwaéxfi—
ybEEmeELTEDETO

EWEI: BEA? y‘t“—EE7§§EEE. Eé‘Etlfiiwéabflix EILEEETZ) : 2: ’5: El (1’9 3: L,
(vii.EEEEmuiéfiwm.EEEEEEUEEEEDEEAE.EEwfiflE—wfi
7x—vnyEHEEEEEWEEKEfiotEzanifo

EEA®EEKE15w309EEmmuifoEEEwaE.EEEA®EMEEkt0E
Enxé$wvhorb.EMEE.EEmwfiEEEKIEEEEEETE:&m<.we?
BEEEMEEETE:&ETEEEOEt.:meEhEEEE<ETbE®EiEiEE
TEEFBEA?76—EE®LE%E»EEJ“@EWEEEVE6$®TEOT.%nKE
5EEEEEEEw:&EE6#DESTETéwo
EEEtzEEEEEzi. EEEE Dan Gou1d(517-432—0175, drgould@msu.edu, 210 IM Circle
MSU, East Lansing, MI 48823), BEE’E‘IE (517-420-5156,tanakas4@msu.edu, 1 IM Circle MSU,
East Lansing, MI 48824)l:i’5%‘?'li‘_l:$b\o it, ZEWESICBD‘67°54N17—03ifigfillflfiT5
:“glanfil. :E‘Eli i ‘I/fly'll‘ll‘lfii" Human Research Protection Program $13333 (517-432-
4503), )‘-/I/(irb@msu.edu). EtuEE—(zoz Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824)l:'€
BFnfilL‘é‘bfl'T-él/‘o
uTwEEE.EatfiEEEwam.EEEnwEmEEEtmEETEé:k.EEEME
wofitEEvébzk.EEA®EEEEET%b:k.EMEfiuinawxfiafiEBE
gave:kéEELtjkyfivmfimemuaELt:téEELEE}

EWEODE‘DDICEIE LEE}

EDD—EEE B H

 

72

REFERENCES

73

References

Chartrand, J. M., Jowdy, D. P., & Danish, S. J. (1992). The Psychological Skills
Inventory for Sports: Psychometric characteristics and applied implications. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 405-413.

Cox. R. H. (1987). Relationship between psychological variables and player position in
women’s volleyball. Unpublished Manuscript, Kansas State University.

Cox, R. H., & McManama, J. L. (1998). The psychological side of women’s volleyball.
Coaching Volleyball, 22-24.

Cox, R. H., & Yoo, H. S. (1995). Playing position and psychological skills in American
football. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18, 183—195.

Crust, L. (2008). A review and conceptual re-examination of mental toughness:
Implications for future researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 576-
583.

Fletcher, D., & Hanton, S. (2001). The relationship between psychological skills usage
and competitive anxiety responses. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 2(2), 89-101.

Frey, M., Laguna, P. L., & Ravizza, K. (2003). Collegiate athletes’ use of mental skill
and perceptions of success: An exploration of the practice and competition settings.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(2), 1 15-128.

Garraway, W. M., Lee, A. J., Hutton, S. J., Russell, E. B. A. W., & Macleod, D. A. D.
(2000). Impact of professionalism on injuries on rugby union. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 34, 348-351.

Golby, J ., & Sheard, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of
rugby league. Personality and Individual Differences, 3 7, 933-942.

Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their
development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172-
204.

Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Medbery, R., & Peterson, K. (1999). Facots
affecting Olympic performance: Perceptions of athletes and coaches from more and
less successful teams. Sport Psychologist, 13, 371-395.

Gould, D., Murphy, S., Tammen, V., & May, J. (1991). An evaluation of US. Olympic
sport psychology consultant effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 111-127.

74

Gould, D., Tammen, V., Murphy, 8., & May, J. (1989). An examination of US Olympic
sport psychology consultants and the services they provide. Sport Psychologist, 3,
300-312.

Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. (1981). Psychological characteristics of successful
and nonsuccessful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3(1), 69-81.

Greenleaf, C. A., Gould, D., & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Factors influencing Olympic
performance: Interview with Atlanta and Nagano US Olympians. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 179-209.

Hardy, L., Roberts, R., Thomas, P. R., & Murphy, S. M. (2010). Test of Performance
Strategies (TOPS): Instrument refinement using confirmatory factor analysis.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 27-35.

Highlen, P. S., & Bennett, B. B. (1979). Psychological characteristics of successful and
nonsuccessful elite wrestlers: An exploratory study. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1,
123-137.

Highlen, P. S., & Bennett, B. B. (1983). Elite divers and wrestlers: A comparison
between open- and closed-skill athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 390-409.

Hodge, K. & Mckenzie, A. (2002). Motivation and confidence. In B. Hale & D. Collins
(Eds), Rugby tough (35-60). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

J SPORTS. (2009). J SPORTS RUGBY: 7 a ‘7 77 r— ‘7 ‘/ 3'3“} [trans]: words of John
Kirwan] Retrieved July 20, 2009 from
http://www.jsports.co.jp/tv/rugby/japan/jk/goroku02.html

Kruger, P. (2005). Psychological skills, state anxiety and coping of South African rugby
players: A cognitive perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Potchefstroom:
North-West University.

Landers, D., Furst, D., & Daniels, F. (1981). Anxiety/attention and shooting ability:
testing the predictive validity of the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style
(TSAI). Paper presented to the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport
and Physical Activity, College Park.

Landin, D., & Hebert, E. (1999). The influence of self-talk on the performance of skilled
female tennis players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 263-282.

Lane, A. M., Harwood, C., Terry, P. C., & Karageorghis, C. I. (2004). Confirmatory

factor analysis of the test of performance strategies (TOPS) among adolescent
athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 803-812.

75

Li-Wei, Z., Qi-Wei, M., Orlick, T., & Zitzelberger, L. (1992). The effect of mental-
imagery training on performance enhancement with 7-10-year-old children. The
Sport Psychologist, 6(3), 230-241.

Loehr, J. E. (1995). The new mental toughness training for sports. New York: Plume.

Lowther, J ., Lane, A., & Lane, H. (2002). Self-efficacy and psychological skills use
during the Amputee Soccer World Cup. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of
Sport Psychology, 4(2). Retrieved July 13, 2009,from
http://www.athleticinsight.comNol4IssZ/SoccerSelf Efficacyhtm

Mahoney, M. J ., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory
study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, I, 135-142.

Mahoney, M. J ., Gabriel, T. J ., & Perkins, T. S. (1987). Psychological skills and
exceptional athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, I, 181-199.

Mamassis, G., & Doganis, G. (2004). The effects of a mental training program on juniors
pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and tennis performance. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 1 18-137.

Matsuda, I. (1981). X 11‘3— “/ EEUDJL‘EB’JE'EIC 35H— .73 117F933. [transl. Psychological
aptitude for athletes] Japan Sports Association Sport Science Research Report.

Maynard, I. W., & Howe, B. L. (1989). Attentional styles in rugby players. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 69, 283-289.

McNair, D., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. (1971) Profile of Mood States Manual. San
Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Meyers, A. W., Cooke, C. J ., Cullen, J ., & Liles, L. (1979). Psychological aspects of
athletic competitors: A replication across sports. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
3, 361-366.

Miller, A., & Donahue, B. (2003). The development and controlled evaluation of athletic
mental preparation strategies in high school distance runners. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 15, 321-334.

Morgan, W. P. (1979). Prediction of performance in athletics. In P. Klavora, & J. V.
Daniels (Eds.), Coach, athlete, and the sport psychologist (pp. 173-186).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Nation, J. R., & LeUnes, A. D. (1983). Personality characteristics of intercollegiate

football players as determined by position, classification, and redshirt status.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 6, 92-102.

76

Neil, R., Mellalieu, S. D., & Hanton, S. (2006). Psychological skills usage and the
competitive anxiety response as a function of skill level in rugby union. Journal of
Sports Science and Medicine, 5, 415-423.

Nideffer, R. (1976). Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 3 4, 394-404.

O’Connor. E. A. (2004). Which questionnaire? Assessment practices of sport psychology
consultants. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 464-468.

Okamoto, M., Takatsu, H., Takada, M., & Terada, Y. (1996). iii/EA ‘3 7“ BHEEODIL‘)
EWEEEEE lit/Db \T-fififi‘fiiififi ° 71’5‘7‘7 a ‘71: J: E) £13133? A Research oftrait
Psychological Ability for Senior Rugby Players Its effect on the performance and

comparison of the two positions. Bulletin of A ichi Institute of Technology. Part A
31, 23-24.

Okamoto, M., Takatsu, H., & Terada, Y. (1998). 72$? 7 t“*‘i§$®lbfll§8’g’lfi§€fi
I EEKEEEE. A 5 ‘71 , EEIEBEEIIC’DD \TUDIEE‘VL [transl. A research oftrait
psychological-competitive ability for college rugby players: About experience,

balance and beginning time.] Bulletin of Aichi Institute of Technology. Part A 33,
85-88.

Patrick, T., & Hrycaiko, D. (1998). Effects of a mental training package on an endurance
performance. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 283-299.

Renger, R. (1993). A review of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) in the prediction of
athletic success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 78-84.

Rowley, A. J ., Landers, D. M., Kyollo, L. B., & Etnier, J. L. (1995). Does the iceberg
profile discriminate between successful and less successful athletes? A meta-
analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 1 7, 185-199.

Schurr, K. T., Ruble, V. E., Nisbet, J ., & Wallance, D. (1984). Myers-Briggs type

inventory characteristics of more and less successful players on an American
football team. Journal of Sport Behavior, 7, 47-57.

Smith, R. E., & Christensen, D. S. (1995). Psychological skills as predictors of
performance and survival in professional baseball. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 1 7(4), 399-415.

Smith, R. E., Schutz, R. W., Smoll, F. L., & Ptacek, J. T. (1995). Development and
validation of a multidimensional measure of sport specific psychological skills: The

Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28. Journal of sport & Exercise Psychology,
17, 379-3 98.

77

Takada, M., Shidata, S., Komeji, T., Suda, K., & Saijo, T. (1992). FEEZE'? 7 lib—E?
ODIIDEBQEE-EEVDEZE l: EEEJEO) Elia D 1:01, \ 'C—. [transl.
Psychological aptitude of high school rugby players: Its relation to previous

achievement and motivation.] Proceedings of the Congress of the Japanese Society
of Physical Education, 438, 668.

Taylor, M. K., Gould, D., & Rolo, C. (2008). Performance strategies of US Olympians in
practice and competition. High Ability Studies, 19, 19-36.

Terry, P. (1995). The efficacy of mood state profiling with elite performers: A review and
synthesis. Sport Psychologist, 9, 309-324.

Thomas, P. R., Murphy, S. M., & Hardy, L. (1999). Test of Performance Strategies:
Development and preliminary validation of a comprehensive measure of athletes’
psychological skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 697—71 1.

Treasure, D. C., Carpenter, P. J ., & Power, K. T. D. (2000). Relationship between
achievement goal orientations ad the perceived purposes of playing rugby union for
professional and amateur players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 571-577.

Tsutagawa, Y. (1989). iiE/K’i 7‘ B—EEODIDEB’JEEIZOD "C : EEAE 7‘ 1:“
“—iEEUD TSMI ”DEWEIIC’DL “C. [transl. Psychological Aptitude of Shakaijin
(Company) Rugby Players: Characteristics of TSMI.] Bulletin-Kobe City College of
Nursing, 13, 183-192.

Wada, K., Murakami, T., Yamamoto, S., Hashimoto, K., & Tokunaga, M. (2001). EH"
$3 7 t“~i§$0)lbfii3’flfififi§€fi cl: :7 4 7 X Ell/ICEITEIJIWE. [transl.

Psychological skills and life skill of high school rugby players.] Proceedings of the
Congress of the Japanese Society of Physical Education, 52, 281.

Weinberg, R. S., & Comar, W. (1994). The effectiveness of psychological interventions
incompetitive sport. Sports Medicine, 18(6), 406-418.

White, S. A. (l 993) The relationship between psychological skills, experience, and
practice commitment among collegiate male and female skiers. Sport Psychologist,
7, 49-57.

Williams, J. M. (2001). Applied sport psychology (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Company.

Weinberg, R. S., & Butt, J. (2005). Goal Setting in Sport and Exercise Domains: The
Theory and Practice of Effective Goal Setting. In D. Hackfort, J. Duda, & R. Lidor
(Eds.), Handbook of Research in Applied Sport Psychology. (pp. 129-146).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

78