V ....
t. .
$5.31... .53.}.
iii-it: :Wiafl.
331..
s

I ‘93:... .\:
H: (fiziiflvn
$3.. .
tribal...» _
.3131}. A. F.
, ‘AtaF-‘Auyl-‘lr 3‘ .(f,!il ,
N I. ‘. ‘ .13.,13: .9
.e 1.5.1 ....I .

.3
3th“...
it.

3:!
.2. 61$“?
5.: E...

fix. ~.
3.?!
5 a

53 9:1... 55::
“hunk“ ig‘E-ua‘<¢vg
than. 1 .231...
2......)

5..:~<.FIA
.v. 5.2:. 3.2 .5.

3 \r 74:)
‘ 9.5...

:3. :«alérvv
?.§Ll..l,x.\nvl..-E§K.§ 1.5...
i.{..LE::., .ia‘izfliitv X}
2%))? 5. L51... .
«tutu-(.12.: {5.9.5
i. (If)!

‘53:}:-
Lvlwlixg. l1:
1.5.31
fl I 3.2.: x :3.\
his. w garl?\
{.5

53!..{311}; 01
.l‘g..<a:t.:i\.vti.

1. .!,>14_KJ(.V.x-.x:5, (l c
a... )l.!3.{v.\t!. 3.1(Iptcriel
Lit-53.33.»...
9.1:)!!- :32.

1.1.»... i

v)
ilti.
. i 1!}; vmglx

.. .ul .2:-
:4
. .3

. . :v . 5.1:... 7.,
{3.11.2.3}. Six.

3.3.3}

 

 

 

«mm lllllllllllllllllllllll||lll|llll||lllIIHIIHIIIIIIHI

,fl, 31293 02079 9379
T I

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE PSYCHOBIOLOGICAL PROFILE
OF COMPETITIVE FEMALE FIGURE SKATERS

presented by

Eva A. Vadocz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph.D. degreein Kinesiology

 

W mmhp
Major professor

Date ”'1 L" Ich

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

AUG» 311332052“

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

THE PSYCHOBIOLOGICAL PROFILE

OF COMPETITIVE FEMALE FIGURE SKATERS

By

Eva A. Vadocz

A Dissertation

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiilfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of -

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Kinesiology

1 999.

ABSTRACT
THE PSYCHOBIOLOGICAL PORFILE OF
COMPETITIVE FEMALE FIGURE SKATERS
By
Eva A. Vadocz
The purpose of this interdisciplinary study was to assess the physical and
psychological characteristics of competitive female figure skaters across chronological age
groups, level of competency (test, pre-elite and elite), disciplinary involvement (free,
dance and pairs), and menarcheal status. The relationships between physical and
psychological characteristics, predictors of self-concept, and predictors of eating disorders
were also considered. One hundred and sixty-one female figure skaters 11 to 23 years of
age underwent a battery of anthropometric dimensions and psychological measurements.
The Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype was derived. The skaters were also asked
about their menarcheal status and recalled age at menarche. Parents reported their
educational backgrounds, heights and weights; age at menarche of the mothers was also
recalled. Overall, figure skaters are shorter, lighter and leaner, and are later maturing
compared to reference data. They have, on average, a balanced somatotype. Physical self-
perceptions decrease, while social physique anxiety and risk for eating disorders increase
with age. The physical self-perceptions of skaters are generally higher than non-athletes,
but are similar to the perceptions of other elite athletes. Figure skaters’ risk for eating
disorders are generally lower than scores for adolescent bulimic anorexics and adolescent
norms, but are somewhat higher than adult gymnasts. The social physique anxiety scores

of figure skaters are similar to elite athletes and adult norms, but lower than adolescent

 

gymnasts. Elite and specialized skaters are later maturing, shorter, lighter, leaner, less
endomorphic, and more mesomorphic than test or free skaters. Elite and specialized
skaters also have more favorable self-perceptions than either test or free skaters, but test
and elite skaters have higher social physique anxiety than pre-elite skaters. Dancers report
lower self-perceptions and are at greater risk for developing eating disorders than free
skaters. Endomorphy, chronological age and Self—Esteem correctly classify the majority of
skaters by level of competency and/or discipline. Pre-menarcheal skaters, particularly
those who are younger, are smaller, more ectomorphic and more mesomorphic than post-
menarcheal skaters. They also have more favorable physical self-perceptions, and lower
social physique anxiety and eating disorder risk. Among post-menarcheal skaters 21 6
years, later maturing skaters have longer relative leg length, have thinner skinfold
thicknesses, and are less endomorphic than average maturers. The correlation for age at
menarche for a small sample (n = 28) of skaters and their mothers is significant (0.60),
suggesting both familial and environmental influences in menarcheal timing. Correlations
between select physical and psychological variables indicate that shorter and leaner skaters
have more favorable psychological characteristics. Multivariate-multiple regression
analyses indicate that a set of biological and psychological variables, labeled ‘bio-
perceptual’ predict self-concept. Similarly, biological and psychological variables predict
several subscales of the Eating Disorder Inventory, accounting for 14% to 65% of the

variances.

 

Copyright by
Eva Ann Vadocz

l 999

 

 

 

To my family.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this academic milestone would not have been possible without
the support of my family, friends and mentors.

Drs. Thomas Hermann, Dan Yarmey and Craig Hall provided me with the initial
opportunities of beginning my educational pursuits in the area of sports psychology, an
aspiration I have followed since the age of 13. I am grateful to Dr. Lynnette Young
Overby who recruited me to MSU and provided countless opportunities of academic and
personal growth throughout my doctoral endeavor. Dr. Deborah Feltz has been a
consistent mentor, providing financial, writing, and professional support. This dissertation
is my contribution back to the skating community, one that would not be possible without
the encouragement of Dr. Robert M. Malina, my committee chair. He is also responsible
for heightening my awareness of ‘biophobia’, converting my research interests to include
human biology and countless hours of editing. Gratitude is also extended to my program
and dissertation committee members Martha Ewing, Lonnie Rosen, John Hobbenstricker,
and Susan Frank who shared their knowledge and expertise. The Canadian Figure Skating
Association is credited with funding this project.

I am grateful for my family. My parents, Steve and Eva Vadocz promoted
independence and discipline while providing countless opportunities to follow my hopes
and dreams. I am also thankful for the Kanelos family who adopted me as their own and
helped me maintain my perspective. A special thanks is also extended to the Monsma

family who fed and encouraged me throughout the last phase of my dissertation.

vi

 

Several of my fiiends also provided support and encouragement throughout this
long journey. To Shannon Seigel I owe a million centimeters of thanks for sharing her
anthropometric expertise and answering countless questions about human biology. I am
thankful for friends such as Victoria Orrego who listened and supported unconditionally.
Joe Carlson, Karin Allor, Barb Mozen, Andrea Beach, and Sandra Moritz were also there
when I needed them. My long time and dear fiiends Angela McDonald, Laura Stevenson
and Alex Stevens remained consistent supporters throughout many years of academic
pursuits and transitions. My new fiiends Susan Schramm, JoAnn Coe, Anita Atwood and
Susan Johnson kept me fiom getting discouraged during the last leg of this process. I am
also thankfiil for the motivation provided by my colleagues at the University of South
Carolina.

To Rick Albrecht I cannot express enough gratitude for his unconditional
encouragement and understanding throughout my last two academic stepping stones. His
wisdom and passion for sport psychology continue to be my most powerful motivating
influences.

Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank Chris Monsma, who gave me
encouragement, laughter and a peace — may the end of this journey signify the beginning

of one that is new.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures .................................................................. vii
List of Tables ................................................................... viii
Glossary ......................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I Introduction .................................................... 1
Purpose of Study .......................................................... 8
Questions and Hypotheses ............................................... 9
Significance ................................................................. 12
Limitations .................................................................. 1 5
CHAPTER II Review of Literature ......................................... 17
Athlete Selection .......................................................... 18
Biological Variables in Figure Skating .................................. 23
Growth Indicators ......................................................... 24
Body Size ............................................................... 24

Body Composition ..................................................... 28
Physique ................................................................ 3O
Maturation ................................................................. 32
Psychological Variables .................................................. 35
Self-concept ........................................................... 37
Social Physique Anxiety ............................................. 40

Risk of Eating Disorders Among Athletes ......................... 46
Psychological Skills: Coping ......................................... 53
Summary ................................................................... 56
CHAPTER II Methodology .................................................. 58
Subjects ..................................................................... 58
Measurement and Instrumentation ...................................... 59
Demographic Background ........................................... 59
Anthropometry ......................................................... 59
Measurement Reliability and Variability ............................ 62
Derived Measurements and Indices ................................. 63
Maturation .............................................................. 64
Psychological Variables ................................................... 65
Coping ................................................................... 64
Self-Concept ........................................................... 65
Eating Disorder Risk .................................................. 66

viii

Social Physique Anxiety .............................................. 67

Procedure .................................................................. 67
Analysis .................................................................. 68
CHAPTER IV Results ......................................................... 73
Demographic Characteristics ............................................. 73
Skaters .................................................................. 73
Parents ................................................................... 75
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................... 76
Question 1 Age Related Trends ...................................... 76
Question 2 Level of Competency .................................... 80
Question 3 Discipline .................................................. 85
Question 4 Menarcheal Status and Timing ......................... 89
Question 5 Physical and Psychological Correlates ................ 93
Question 6 Level and Discipline Classification .................... 95
Question 7 Predictors of Self Concept .............................. 99
Question 8 Predictors of Eating Disorders ......................... 102
Summary of Results ................................................... 105
CHAPTER V Discussion .................................................... 108
Demographic Characteristics ............................................ 109
Physical Characteristics .................................................. 111
Level .................................................................... 112
Discipline ............................................................... 113
Somatotype ............................................................. 114
Menarche ............................................................... 1 16
Psychological Characteristics ............................................ 118
Psychological Correlates of Physical Characteristics ................. 128
Selection in Figure Skating .............................................. 131
Competency Level .................................................... 132
Discipline ............................................................... 133
Self Concept ............................................................... 135
Predictors of Eating Disorder Risk ..................................... 137
CHAPTER Summary ......................................................... 134
Future Research and Recommendations ................................ 144
Appendix A Consent Forms .................................................. 239
Appendix B Demographic Forms ............................................ 246
Appendix C Anthropometry Sheet .......................................... 251
Appendix D Psychological Instrumentation ................................ 253
ix

Appendix E University Committee for Research Involving Human

Subjects (U CRIHS) Form ................................................... 265

Appendix F Age Group Statistics for Anthropometric and

Psychological Variables ....................................................... 267

References ...................................................................... 280
X

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

LIST OF FIGURES

Stage model of talent identification in Canadian figure
skating. Adapted from Comper (1991) ....................... 147

Statures of individual figure skaters and mean statures of
figure skaters by whole year age groups plotted relative to
US. references values .......................................... 148

Weights of individual figure skaters and mean weights of
figure skaters by whole year age groups plotted relative to
US references values .......................................... 149

The body mass index for individual figure skaters and
means of figure skaters by whole year age groups plotted
relative to US. reference values .............................. 150

Sitting heights of individual figure skaters and mean
sitting heights of figure skaters by whole year age groups
plotted relative U.S. references values ....................... . 151

Estimated leg lengths of individual figure skaters and
mean estimated leg lengths of figure skaters by whole year
age groups plotted relative US. to reference values ....... 152

Sitting height/ stature ratios of individual figure skaters

and mean sitting height/ stature ratios of figure skaters by

whole year age groups plotted relative to US. reference

values ............................................................. 153

Biepicondylar breadths of individual figure skaters and
mean biepicondylar breadths of figure skaters by whole
year age groups plotted relative to US. reference values . 154

Bicondylar breadths of individual figure skaters and mean
bicondylar breadths of figure skaters by whole year age
groups plotted relative to US. reference values ............ 155

Relaxed arm circumferences of individual figure skaters

and mean relaxed arm circumferences of figure skaters by

whole year age groups plotted relative to US. reference

values ............................................................. 156

xi

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17

Figure 18

Calf circumferences of individual figure skaters and mean
calf circumferences for figure skaters by whole year age
groups plotted relative to US. reference values ..........

Triceps skinfold thicknesses of individual figure skaters
and mean triceps skinfold thicknesses of figure skaters by
whole year age groups plotted relative to US. reference
values .............................................................

Subscapular skinfold thicknesses of individual figure
skaters and mean subscapular skinfold thicknesses of
figure skaters by whole year age groups plotted relative to
US. reference values ...........................................
Somatotypes of individual figure skaters ..................
Mean somatotypes of figure skaters by age group ..........
Mean somatotypes of figure skaters by level ................
Mean somatotypes of figure skaters by discipline ..........
Correlations between the psychological variables
comprising the self-concept canonical set and the physical

and psychological variables comprising the bio-
percpetual canonical set ........................................

xii

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

LIST OF TABLES

Age, height, weight and BMI of several samples of female figure skaters

Somatotypes of several samples of female figure skaters ....................

Recalled ages at menarche in figure skaters and athletes in several other
sports ...............................................................................

Results of two studies using the PSDQ with athletes in several sports
and non-athletes ...................................................................

Results of four studies of Social Physique Anxiety (SPA) in female
athletes and non-athletes .........................................................

Results of studies using the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) in samples
of female athletes and non-athletes .............................................

Sample size, ethnicity, and mean ages for the total sample and by level
within discipline ...................................................................

Intra- and inter-observer technical errors of measurement for the present
sample and previous research ...................................................

Psychological instrumentation subscale reliabilities and correlations with
chronological age ................................................................

Completeness of data for the sample of figure skaters .......................
Years of experience in organized figure skating by age group ..............

Sport and figure skating background for the total sample of figure
skaters and partial correlations with level, controlling for age ..............

Results of the AN OVA comparing sport and figure skating background
information for the total sample of figure skaters by level ...................

Results of the AN OVA comparing sport and figure skating background
information of the total sample of figure skaters by discipline ..............

Proportion (%) of skaters by level and discipline reporting those
who influenced their skating participation .....................................

xiii

1.65 .

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

Table 26

Table 27

Table 28

Birth order of figure skaters by family size and educational background
of the parents of figure skaters .................................................. 180

Descriptive statistics for reported parental height and weight, and
recalled age at menarche of mothers ......................................... 181

Anthropometric characteristics and correlations with age for the total
sample of figure skaters .......................................................... 182

Descriptive statistics for somatotype by age group ........................... 183

Menarcheal status of the total sample of skaters by age group and
estimated median age at menarche via probit analysis, and distribution of
recalled ages at menarche of post-menarcheal skaters 3 16.0 years ...... 184

Distribution, means, and standard deviations, and the mother-daughter
correlation for recalled ages at menarche in post-menarcheal figure
skaters 216.0 years and their mothers ........................................ 185

Means, standard deviations and correlations with age for the subscales of

the Physical Self Description Questionnaire (PSDQ), Eating Disorder
Inventory (EDI), and Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS) for the total
sample of figure skaters ....................................................... 186

Mean PSDQ subscale scores in the present study and in previous
research on athletes and non-athletes .......................................... 187

Means and standard deviations for SPA scores in the present study and
previous research ................................................................. 188

Summary of descriptive statistics for EDI subscale scores in the present
study and previous research ..................................................... 189

Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of figure skaters by age
group and level .................................................................... 190

Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype in the total
sample of figure skaters by level ................................................ 194

Results of the AN COVA, with age as the covariate, and age-adjusted

means and standard errors for anthropometric characteristics and
somatotype of figure skaters by level .......................................... 195

xiv

Table 29

Table 30

Table 31

Table 32

Table 33

Table 34

Table 35

Table 36

Table 37

Table 38

Table 39

Table 40

Table 41

Table 42

Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the SPAS of figure
skaters by age group and level ................................................

Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales, and the SPAS of figure skaters
by level ............................................................................

Results of the MANCOVA, with age as a covariate for the PSDQ, EDI
and the ANCOVA, with age as the covariate for SPA by level .............

Distribution of recalled ages at menarche, mean ages at menarche, and
results of AN OVA for figure skaters _>_ 16.0 years by level ..................

Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters by age group and
discipline ...........................................................................

Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of figure skaters by
discipline .........................................................................

Results of the AN COVA, with age as the covariate, and age-adjusted
means and standard errors for anthropometric characteristics and
somatotype of figure skaters by discipline .....................................

Scores on the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for SPA of figure skaters
by age group and discipline ......................................................

Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for SPA by discipline .......

Results of the MANCOVA, with age the covariate, for the PSDQ and
EDI subscale scores and of the AN COVA, with age as the covariate,
for SPA scores of figure skaters by discipline ................................

Distribution of recalled ages at menarche, mean ages at menarche, and
results of AN OVA for figure skaters 2 16.0 years by discipline ............

Anthr0pometric characteristics and somatotype of pre- and post-
menarcheal figure skaters .......................................................

Results of the AN COVA, with age as the covariate, for anthropometric
characteristics and somatotype of pre- and post-menarcheal figure
skaters ............................................................................

Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and the SPA of pre- and post-
menarcheal figure skaters ........................................................

XV

196

200

201

202

203

207

208

209

213

214

215

216

217

218

 

Table 43

Table 44

Table 45

Table 46

Table 47

Table 48

Table 49

Table 50

Table 51

Table 52

Table 53

Table 54

Results of the MANCOVA, with age as the covariate, for the PSDQ and
EDI subscales scores, and the AN COVA for the SPA scores, with age as
the covariate, of figure skaters by menarcheal status ........................ 219
Results of the AN COVA of anthropometric characteristics and
somatotype of pre-menarcheal skaters by age group ........................ 220
Results of the ANCOVA for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the
SPAS in pre-menarcheal skaters by age group ................................ 222
Results of the AN OVA of anthropometric characteristics and
somatotype in post-menarcheal skaters 2 16.0 years by maturational
timing ............................................................................... 223
Results of the AN OVA for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the
SPAS in post-menarcheal skaters 2 16.0 years classified as average and
late maturing ...................................................................... 224
Partial correlations holding chronological age constant among physical,
physique-related, and select psychological variables in the total sample of
figure skaters ...................................................................... 225
Second-order partial correlations between height, weight, the sum of 6
skinfolds and psychological variables controlling for age and the other
anthropometric variables, respectively ......................................... 226
Results of the discriminant function analyses for level of competency and
discipline in the total sample of figure skaters and results of the
discriminant function analysis for discipline in pre-elite and elite skaters.

227

The results of the discriminant fimction analyses for level of competency
and discipline in post-menarcheal skaters 2 15.0 years and results of the
discriminant function analysis for discipline in pre-elite and elite skaters

2 15.0 years .......................................................................

228

Correlations between self-concept and psychobiological variables among
figure skaters ...................................................................... 229
Canonical correlations, canonical loadings, standardized canonical
coefficients, percentages of variance, and redundancies between self-
concept and psychobiological variables and their corresponding canonical
variates ............................................................................. 230
Results of the regression analyses of variables predicting selected EDI

subscales in the total sample of figure skaters ................................ 231

xvi

 

Table 55 Summary of the results of the hypotheses ..................................... 232

Table 56 Means and standard deviations for age, height, weight, and BMI of

several samples of female figure skaters ....................................... 235
Table 57 Mean somatotypes of two cross-sectional samples of Canadian and

Flemish girls and of figure skaters by age group ............................. 236
Table 58 Mean somatotypes of several samples of female figure skaters ............ 237

Table 59 Status quo and retrospective ages at menarche in figure skaters and
athletes in other aesthetic sports ................................................ 238

xvii

GLOSSARY
Artistic Impression - a criterion in figure skating defined by aesthetics, physical and
emotional interpretation of music, and movement flow
Dance skaters - competitive female figure skaters participating in the dance discipline
with a male partner
Discipline - categories of figure skating distinguished by elements, artistic requirements,
music style and length
EDI Subscales
. Boafv Dissatisfaction - dissatisfaction with the shape of body parts such as hips,
buttocks, and the belief that these parts are too big or too fat.
Bulimia - tendency to engage in bingeing that may be followed by the impulse to
induce vomiting
Drive for Thinness - excessive concern with dieting, preoccupation with weight,
and extreme pursuit of thinness
Ineflectiveness - feelings of general inadequacy, insecurity, and worthlessness, and
not being in control of one’s life
Interpersonal Distrust - sense of alienation and general reluctance to form close
relationships
Introceptive Awareness - lack of confidence in recognizing and accurately
identifying emotions or visceral sensations of hunger or satiety
Maturity Fears - wish to retreat to the security of pre-adolescence because of

being overwhelmed by the demands of adulthood

xviii

Perfectionism - excessive personal expectations of superior achievement
Elite - USF SA or CFSA Junior and Senior participants who have competed in at least one
prior national qualifying competition.
Free skater - competitive female figure skaters participating in the singles freestyle
discipline
Goodness of Fit - matching of individual characteristics with the demands of the social
environment.
Novice - USF SA or CF SA novice competitors who have competed in at least one
previous national qualifying competition (e. g., sectionals, divisional)
Pair skaters - competitive female skaters participating in the pair discipline with a male
partner
Pre-elite - skaters who compete at the pre-novice and novice competitive stream level
which lead to national or sub-national qualifying competitions.
PSDQ subscales
Appearance - satisfaction of general appearance (e. g., physique, face, hair)
Body Fat - satisfaction with body fat on various parts of the body
Coordination - perceptions of coordination and agility
Endurance - perceptions of aerobic fitness
Flexibility - perceptions of flexibility of various body parts
Global Physical Self-concept - satisfaction with the overall physical self
Health - perceptions of overall health

Physical Activity - perceptions of involvement in overall physical activity

xix

 

Self-Esteem - An overall sense of confidence and self-worth

Sport Competence - perceptions of level of proficiency in sport

Strength - self perceptions of muscular strength

Social Physique Anxiety - anxiety that individuals experience in response to others'
evaluations of their physique

Test skaters - skaters participating in advanced recreational programs who do not

compete at the national or sub—national level

CHAPTER I
Introduction

Sport specialization, especially in subjectively evaluated sports such as gymnastics,
diving, and figure skating, begins at relatively young ages. Physical and psychological
characteristics related to successfiil performance are often considered in the process of
selective issues related to identifying and selecting potentially talented athletes. However,
becoming an elite athlete involves a complex process of selective issues related to self,
parents, coaches and sport oflicials, in addition to exceptional physical and psychological
skills. Physical self-perceptions, regardless of physique and body size, is other factors that
can aflect performance.

For the developing figure skater, critical periods of selection often overlap with
adolescence, which is variable in timing and which is associated with a variety of
behavioral, physical and physiological changes. Changes in size, proportions, physique and
body fat associated with the adolescent growth spurt and sexual maturation occur at
important points in the careers of young athletes. They may add to the stresses inherent in
figure skating. For example, females increase from an average height of 144 cm and
average weight of 37 kg to 158 cm and 48 kg, respectively, from 11 to approximately 16
years (Hamill et al., 1977). In addition to broadening skeletal breadths and increases in
muscle mass and limb circumferences, females also progress fiom an estimated 8% body
fat at the beginning of puberty to about 22% at the end of puberty (Killen et al., 1992).
These changes reflect modifications in physique and body composition.

For girls, adolescence is often marked by distortions of body image and a desire to

be thinner (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989). In addition, changes associated with the

 

adolescent growth spurt and sexual maturation may make it difficult for many skaters to
maintain a biomechanically efficient physique necessary to perform technical elements such
as jumps, lifts and spins.

In figure skating, as in other subjectively evaluated movement forms such as dance
and gymnastics, subjective impressions of body form are often added to the artistic merit
of the performance (Ryan, 1995; Ross et al., 1977; Swoap and Murphy, 1995). Propelling
the body into the air while exuding artistic expression is a demand common to all
competitive skating disciplines, including singles, dance and pairs. Physique is an
important feature of a successfiil figure skater whether for aesthetic purposes or
movement efficiency. For example, female pair skaters appear to be generally petite and
short compared to female dancers who are taller and more linear. Short stature and a
slender physique are important for female pair skaters since many technical maneuvers
involve over-head lifts and projection into the air by the male partner. Many female single
skaters appear to be either overtly prepubertal and late maturing characterized by
relatively longer legs and a linear physique.

Biocultural and contextual views echo the notion that individual characteristics
match contextual demands. According to the biocultural view, since athletic performance
includes both biological and behavioral domains, one cannot rely on a set of isolated
biological or cultural characteristics for describing performance and selection. Growth,
maturation and development interact to mold the individual, including self-perceptions, or
self-concept. Self-concept is often affected by the child's level of biological growth and
maturation (Malina and Bouchard, 1991). Successfiil athletic performance can also have a

positive influence on self-concept (Weiss, 1991).

 

 

Being early or extremely advanced in biological maturation can affect performance
and the development of self-concept. Early maturing female athletes, who are overall
larger in body size than average and later maturing peers of the same age, may not have
adequate psychological skills necessary for coping with both the stressors involved in the
selection process of a sport and those inherent in pubertal maturation (Brooks-Gum et al.,
1985; Silbereisen et al., 1989). Increases in body size can ultimately affect performance in
skating, specifically the ability to perform aerial skills such as jumps, lifts and certain spins.
Being a later maturing skater may have an advantage in maintaining a smaller, more linear
physique for a longer period of time during which skills are refined. Such skaters have
more time to develop expertise in such skills before the body changes in size and
proportions that accompany puberty occur.

Lerner‘s (1985) contextual view offers a firrther explanation of behavioral
tendencies related to variation in maturational timing. Here, the 'goodness of fit' among
specific physical and psychological characteristics and the demands of the context
influence the valence of afi‘ect and behavior. For example, if individual characteristics and
contextual demands match, positive behavior and affect will occur. In contrast, if there is a
mismatch between individual characteristics, negative affect and behaviors will manifest.

Although not systematically documented, specific characteristics are favored for
selection within the context of a figure skating discipline (free skating, dance and pairs).
Selection is contingent on skating ability, specific bodily dimensions, characteristics'of
other skaters, judging criteria, and demands of coaches, parents and sport oficials. For
example, within the context of the pair or dance disciplines, the ideal female partner for a

male skater is one who possesses similar technical abilities and body proportions. Similar

 

proportions between male and female partners are necessary in these disciplines to create
aesthetically pleasing lines which are favored by judges. Selection in both dance and pair
skating is especially competitive for female skaters because they greatly outnumber
available male skaters. Thus, female skaters may resort to unhealthy training and dieting
behaviors to achieve or maintain a preferred physique.

Unhealthy dieting behaviors are often related to self-perceptions about physical
appearance. Early adolescent girls participating in aesthetic sports, which involve
subjective evaluation by others may also be at risk for developing social physique anxiety
(SPA) -- anxiety that individuals experience in response to the evaluation of their
physiques by others (Hart et al., 1989). It seems logical to assume that SPA would be
inherent in figure skating because of the very nature of the evaluation process.
Competitors who are generally equal in physical ability are subjectively compared with
each other based on artistic impression, which involves physical appearance. If skaters are
concerned about how others perceive their physique, they may lack confidence during
performance. SPA research suggests that highly anxious individuals tend to be physically
larger and use protective strategies, such as assuming shielding or unobtrusive postures
(Ecklund and Crawford, 1994). Ifskaters have a tendency towards SPA, this behavior
may inhibit the development of artistic impression and impede the likelihood of selection.
The manifestation of SPA is of particular concern because it is a predictor of anorexia
nervosa and bulimia nervosa (Johnson et al., 1995). Compulsive exercise and food
restriction may be other strategies for meeting the demands of skating. The effects of
SPA on athletes participating in subjectively evaluated movement forms needs further

study because elite coaches and judges often favor linear physiques in selecting the top

performers.

Girls begin to worry about their weight as early as 9 years of age (Koff and
Rierdan, 1991), and early maturing adolescent girls are at higher risk for developing eating
disorders (Attic and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Graber et al., 1994). Thus, the onset of puberty
and variation in pubertal timing per se may be risk factors for disordered eating (Killen et
al., 1992). Such issues have prompted the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)
to recognize that some pubertal female athletes may be at special risk for a triad of related
health issues: eating disorders, amenorrhea, and osteoporosis (Yeager et al., 1993).
However, the number of adolescent athletes at risk for the triad is not known. The risk for
early maturers in subjectively evaluated movement forms sports may be greater, but data
are presently not available. Early maturers are heavier, taller, and more stocky, on
average, than chronological age peers. These factors may affect the biomechanical
efliciency of skills involving rotation when they are being learned and refined, and are
often aesthetically devalued in Western culture.

For many young athletes, the prerequisite physique favored by a sport and its
judges is unattainable, placing them at a disadvantage in the selection process. Thus, early
maturing girls may be socialized away from a sport whereas late maturing girls may be
socialized into a sport, in part related to their biological lateness. In late adolescence, late
maturers tend to be, on average, lighter, taller and more linear in shape than early and
average maturers, and these characteristics tend to enhance performance in aesthetic
Sports (Malina and Bouchard, 1991). Late maturing girls may also have an opportunity to
develop a level of expertise in athletic skills prior to the growth spurt and puberty (Malina,

1983). Since late maturers are older chronologically and are more linear than early

maturers when they attain menarche, they may be less likely to experience SPA and related
stresses. In addition, late maturers may have more time to develop the psychological skills
necessary for coping with stresses inherent in some sports. Thus, if late maturing females
are achieving elite status compared to early maturing age peers, they may also be
distinguishable psychologically based on their psychological skills. It is possible that
psychological characteristics of athletes enable them to cope better with stresses
associated with physical growth and maturation, and those inherent in sport, thereby
providing the means for participation at physically and psychologically appropriate levels.

Disparity between characteristics of the individual and the sport environment can
affect self-concept, which may direct levels of participation, figure skating discipline
involvement, and perhaps attrition. Although some research has suggested that sport
participation enhances self-concept (Weiss, 1991), the subjectively evaluating context of
figure skating may also have negative effects. Therefore, examining the psychobiological
profiles of adolescent figure skaters may help to identify potentially successful skaters, and
in particular those best suited for specific disciplines and those who may be at risk for
health-related problems.

It can also be asked if the physical and psychological characteristics of successful
skaters are similar across skating disciplines. If common physical and psychological
characteristics can be identified in successfirl skaters, are they useful for selection?
Physical dimensions can be reliably measured. It is also important to examine the external
validity of psychological instruments by considering the correlations between subjective
and objective measures. Are skater’s perceptions of their physical characteristics

consistent with objective physical measures? Although research has often alluded to

 

relationships between physical variables and self-perceptions (Brooks-Gum, 1988;
Crocker and Snyder, 1996; Eklund and Crawford, 1994; Marsh, et al., 1996; Martin et al.,
1997), few investigations have considered the relationships between such variables in the
selection of athletes. Perhaps more critical to the health and well-being of figure skaters
are the physical and psychological correlates of maladaptive eating attitudes. Are certain
risk factors, such as social physique anxiety, more prevalent in particular skating
disciplines or competitive contexts?

Research on figure skaters is sparse and methodologically limited. Samples are
typically small and skaters are grouped across broad chronological age categories with no
control for age variation in the analyses. Skaters are generally not grouped by skating
disciplines and the research has not considered sub-elite and non-elite skaters. Without
such considerations, information about how skaters are selected, or why they chose to
participate in specific skating disciplines and competitive levels remains unclear. Although
there are studies of the stresses associated with sport and the psychological characteristics
of elite athletes, research has not ordinarily considered the interaction between biological
maturation and psychological development (Gould et al., 1993a, 1993b; Scanlan et al.,
1989a, 1989b; Smith et al., 1995).

Research on athlete selection is typically monodisciplinary. An interdisciplinary
focus may provide most robust information. Educating those involved in sport, and
restructuring rules and regulations within a sport (if deemed a necessity) requires an
interdisciplinary focus emphasizing the integration of information from more than one
subdiscipline of sport science. This is in contrast to a multidisciplinary focus, where

experts from different subdisciplines work in parallel to one another rather than in

 

symbiosis (Burwitz et al., 1994).

Research examining potential relationships among such variables is essential
because athletic development occurs during pivotal points in growth, maturation, and
development. Athletic development is contextually sensitive. Thus, adopting an integrated
sport science approach should aid in explaining the variance in sport participation
behaviors, assist in talent identification, and help educate sport officials involved in the
selection process. This research may provide practitioners with information that they can
use to solve sport specific problems, such as attrition, effects of rule modifications, and
readiness for sport competition. In contrast, ignoring multilevel relationships may have
particularly important ramifications, especially for the well-being of adolescent athletes in

subjectively judged sports.

Purpose of Study

The aim of this investigation is to examine the physical and psychological
characteristics of adolescent female competitive figure skaters. There are six purposes: (1)
to describe the demographic, anthropometric and psychological characteristics of
adolescent female competitive figure skaters as a group, and by competency level and
discipline; (2) to examine the anthrOpometric and psychological characteristics of skaters
based on menarcheal status and in relation to menarcheal timing; (3) to determine if figure
skaters’ perceptions of their physical characteristics are consistent with more objective
anthropometric dimensions; (4) to determine if skating level and disciplinary involvement
can be discriminated from a multidisciplinary composite of variables; (5) to determine if

physical self-perceptions characterized by Social Physique Anxiety, Global Physical Self-

 

 

Concept, and Self-Esteem can be predicted by a unique set of physical and psychological
variables; and (6) to determine if risk of eating disorder can be predicted by physical and

psychological variables.

Questions and Hypotheses
Question 1
What are the anthropometric, physique, menarcheal, and psychological
characteristics of female competitive figure skaters ages 11 years and older?
H1: Figure skaters are smaller in height, weight, limb circumferences and skeletal
breadths, and leaner compared to reference data for non-athletes.
H2: Figure skaters are later maturing compared to reference data for non-athletes.
H3: Physical self-perceptions decrease with age, while social physique anxiety and
eating disorder risk increase with age.
H4: Figure skaters will have higher PSDQ scores, and lower SPAS and EDI scores

than non—athletes.

Question 2
Do the physical and psychological characteristics of competitive skaters differ
across competency levels (test, pre-elite and elite)?
H5: Elite figure skaters have a unique set of physical and psychological
characteristics compared to test and pre-elite skaters.
H6: There is a greater proportion of late maturing pre-elite and elite skaters than

test skaters.

 

Question 3

Do the physical and psychological characteristics of competitive skaters differ
across discipline (free skate, dance and pairs)?

H7: Dancers are older, taller and leaner and have relatively longer legs than free

skater and pair skaters.

H8: Dancers and pair skaters have more favorable self-concept scores, but are at

greater risk for eating disorders than free skaters.

H9: There is a greater proportion of late maturing dance and pair skaters than free

skaters.

Question 4

Do the physical and psychological characteristics of figure skaters difi‘er relative to
menarcheal status and timing?

H10: Pre- and post-menarcheal skaters differ in physical and psychological

characteristics.

H11: Pre-menarcheal skaters differ in physical and psychological characteristics by

age group.

H12: Later maturing post-menarcheal skaters are shorter, lighter and leaner than

earlier maturing post-menarcheal skaters.

H13: Earlier maturing post-menarcheal skaters report less favorable psychological

characteristics than later maturing post-menarcheal skaters.

10

Question 5
Are the physical characteristics of figure skaters correlated with self- perceptions
of physical dimensions?
H14: Anthropometric dimensions related to size, proportions and fatness are
negatively correlated with selected psychological variables related to perceptions
of physical characteristics, including PSDQ subscales (Body Fat, Global Physical
Self-Concept, Appearance, and Self-Esteem), and positively correlated with EDI
subscales (Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, Body Dissatisfaction, and Maturity Fears),
and Social Physique Anxiety.
H15: Controlling for height, weight, and/or subcutaneous fatness, variables that
are positively correlated during adolescence, reduces the correlations between the

physical and psychological variables.

91mm.

Can a selection of physical and psychological characteristics thought to be
important for the elite level of figure skating discriminate level of competency and
disciplinary involvement?

H16: Physical and psychological variables can discriminate level of competency

among figure skaters.

H17: Physical and psychological variables can discriminate the disciplinary

involvement of figure skaters.

H18: Level of competency and disciplinary involvement are discriminated by

different sets of variables in post-menarcheal figure skaters 315 years.
ngstlcnll

Can self-concept characterized by Social Physique Anxiety, Global Physical Self-
Concept, and Self-Esteem be predicted by a unique set of physical and psychological
variables?

H19: Self-concept is predicted by a combination of physical and psychological

variables.

Mica}

Can the susceptibility to eating disorders identified by Bulimia, Drive for Thinness,
Body Dissatisfaction, Perfectionism and Maturity Fears be predicted by anthropometric
characteristics, somatotype and psychological variables related to physique, appearance
and self-concept?

H20: A combination of anthropometric characteristics, somatotype and
psychological variables related to physique, appearance and self—concept predicts the five

eating disorder subscales.

Significance
Physical evaluation is an inherent part of figure skating because up to 40% of the
final score in competition is awarded for artistic impression, which involves creating
aesthetically pleasing lines with the body (Canadian Figure Skating Association, 1997).

Although no marks are explicitly awarded for physique, skaters having a lean and linear

12

~___—__———_——"

physique may be more aesthetically pleasing to watch than more mature skaters, and may
score higher marks than more mature skaters despite having equal technical abilities. For
the mature skater, these idiosyncratic evaluation criteria may reduce the probability of
success. Additionally, it is assumed that a petite physique enhances the biomechanical
emciency of jumping and spinning, and thereby the talent of skaters. In an effort to
maintain a favorable body composition, skaters may be inclined to train harder and
decrease nutritional intakes. Such behaviors, in turn, may have health implications, in the
development of eating disorders, secondary amenorrhea, and potentially osteoporosis.
However, the root of eating-related problems may lie in a mismatch between the demands
of the sport, which are communicated by coaches, parents, and sport officials, and the
characteristics of the athlete, both physical and psychological.

A complex set of physical and psychological characteristics encompass the specific
demands of a sport. Physical features include size, ishape (physique and proportions), and
composition, which are influenced by the timing and tempo of the adolescent growth spurt
and puberty. Psychological variables include readiness for elite training and superior
coping skills. A mismatch between the demands of a sport and the individual
characteristics of athletes may lead to adverse consequences. For example, early
maturation and inferior psychological skills can lead to concerns about weight and possibly
manifestation of eating problems in an attempt to control weight. Concerns about
physique may also contribute to competition anxiety and potentially influence performance
(Martin and Mack, 1996). Another example is to have the appropriate size, physique and

skills, but to lack the psychological skills to handle the evaluative environment.

13

 

To ensure safe participation in subjectively evaluated sports, it is important to
identify the physical and psychological characteristics of competitive figure skaters who
may be at risk for developing eating disorders and other health-related concerns such as
osteoporosis. If skaters are at risk, programs can be designed to increase the sensitivity of
coaches, parents and judges, and the sport system.

Although figure skaters have been used as subjects in sport psychology research,
there is a lack of data on their growth and maturation. Research within the domains of
sport psychology and biological growth and maturation rarely, if ever, consider the
interaction of biological and psychological variables. Identifying relationships among these
variables seems firndarnental for training programs and may aid in athlete development
programs. Perhaps more important to the welfare of athletes in all levels of figure skating
is evaluating those who do not make it to elite status for physical and psychological
variables associated with negative self-perceptions and eating disorder risk. Early maturing
skaters, for example, may be predisposed to SPA, which is associated with eating disorder
risk (Deihl et al., 1998).

By convention, many training programs for young athletes are based on successful
programs developed for the elite, physically mature individual. It may be more appropriate
to design programs that are directed at the specific needs of the younger individual and
then to systematically alter the regimes as the athlete grows and matures (Klika, 1995). It
has been suggested that for female figure skaters, if double jumps are not “mastered” by
12 years of age, success as an elite skater is unlikely (Gledhill and J amnick, 1992; Ross et
al., 1980b). The identification of a critical period for acquiring these skills, if such a period

exists, is a challenge which has implications for scientific and practical inquiry.

 

 

Relationships between physical and psychological variables need to be conveyed to those

involved in development of programs. This includes parents, coaches, judges, officials of

organizations, as well as the athletes themselves. Understanding the physical and

psychological development of youth and their performance can contribute to more realistic

achievement expectations and more appropriate training and competitive opportunities.

Limitations

The following issues are acknowledged as limitations to the internal and external

validity of this study:

1) The sample is limited to 161 volunteers 11 to 23 years of age who were

2

3

4

v

V

v

recruited from 11 competitive figure skating clubs in Mid-Michigan and South
Central Ontario. Generalizations to other samples of figure skaters are limited.
Accessibility to dancers and pair skaters was limited for two reasons. First,
there are significantly fewer male skaters compared to female skaters, which
restricts the number of skaters participating in the two specialized disciplines.
Due to specialization, dancers and pair skaters do not participate at the test
level. Second, two training centers specializing in dance and pair skating did
not consent to the study

The nature of this study did not permit random sampling. Purposive sampling
was used, which limits the generalizability of results to the current age range,
competitive level, and skating disciplines.

Self-report questionnaire response distortion may be inherent in the context of

figure skating. Skaters were informed about the nature of the study and may

 

5

6

v

V

have been reluctant to indicate negative eating attitudes and negative self-
perceptions.

Pubertal status was self-reported and may not be concordant with clinical
evaluation. Although clinical assessments are preferred, they are invasive to the
adolescent's privacy. Self-reported pubertal status is reasonably reliable method
and is often used in current studies on adolescents.

Coping skills were limited to the Ways of Coping Checklist. The checklist did
not provide adequate subscale reliabilities for use in multivariate analyses.
Therefore, presentation of coping skills results are limited to descriptive

statistics.

 

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature

Interdisciplinary research on figure skating is limited. To understand the selection
process in this subjectively evaluated sport, relationships among biological, psychological
and sociological variables must be considered. A psychobiological profile of elite figure
skaters may be usefirl for talent identification and for directing safe participation. To
evaluate the likelihood of becoming an elite skater in the future, developing skaters
participating at lower levels can be compared to the elite prototype. More importantly,
identifying skaters with unhealthy physical and psychological characteristics, such as those
associated with eating disorders, could help develop educational and/or intervention
programs for athletes, parents, coaches, and sport ofiicials.

The review considers several of the physical and psychological variables involved
in athlete selection and development. First, talent identification and selection are described
with emphasis on age-graded stages in the sport of figure skating. Second, the interaction
between biological and psychological variables are outlined in the context of the
biocultural and contextual perspectives. Third, biological variables including those related
to growth, physique, body composition, and biological maturation are reviewed. Fourth,
psychological variables thought to be important in the athlete selection process are
examined. The concept of readiness for competitive figure skating is then discussed.
Finally, relationships among biological and psychological variables are proposed to explain
both the potentially beneficial and adverse effects of the figure skating selection process.
Psychological risk factors, including negative perceptions of physical characteristics, social

physique anxiety, and problem eating are suggested as being related to the morphological

 

changes associated with sexual maturation.
Athlete Selection
Researchers have long questioned whether athletes excel in sports because of their
individual characteristics, or if individual characteristics develop through participating in a
specific sport (Carter and Heath, 1990). Does genetic predisposition to particular traits
determine performance? Or, does training alter individual characteristics to conform to the
demands of the sport? Evidence suggests athletic performance is influenced by both

factors.

The process of identifying talented individuals for a given sport begins in childhood
(Bompa, 1985; Ericsson et al., 1993; Malina, 1994; Scanlan et al., 1989a). The
progression from initial youth sport experiences to more elite levels involves complex
identification and selection criteria encompassing skill, physical and behavioral
prerequisites. As some programs become more competitive and specialized, criteria tend
to be sport-specific. Talent identification and selection occur both formally and informally.
For example, identification occurs informally during practice or competitions where skilled
participants are invited to tryout for elite teams. In contrast, formal identification occurs
during organized tryouts which involve more specific evaluation of physical and behavioral
characteristics.

The trend in selecting figure skaters seems to parallel recent trends in gymnastics
and ballet. Intensive training in these sports characteristically begins at an early age and is
contextually sensitive. Athletes competing at elite levels are younger in chronological age
than athletes competing in other sports and appear to be biologically immature (Malina,

1994). However, at all levels of age-based competitive categories, young athletes are

expected to perform more difficult skills than past competitors.

In both figure skating and gymnastics, it is common to take a potentially talented
athlete to a talent identification center to seek the advice of sport officials (Malina, 1997;
Starkes et al., 1996). Although national and junior national skaters undergo fitness testing
(Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992; Starkes et al., 1996), it is not known with certainty if talent
identification ofiicials base their criteria on contemporary scientific research. Bompa
(1985) recommends the following criteria for systematic selection: (a) assessment of
overall biological health, (b) ongoing assessment of biometric or anthropometric qualities
of physical growth, (0) assessment of hereditary factors to determine the probability that
the individual has overall physiological capacity, (d) assessment of environmental factors
such as the availability of training facilities, and (e) availability of specialists for proper
coaching. According to Bloom (1985), commitment and dedication to an activity increases
over the progression of three involvement periods labeled the early, middle and later years.
In a study of former elite figure skaters, the average amount of time spent in each of these
phases was 2.9 i 1.5, 4.0 i 1.7, and 6.0 i 2.4 years, respectively (Scanlan et al., 1998a)

Starkes et a1. (1996) plotted the age and number of years of deliberate practice
required to attain each successive competitive level of skating. The years of practice for 20
members of the Canadian national figure skating team (12 males and 8 females) from
preliminary to gold (elite) test levels, were plotted. With age as the predictor, the
regression equation was y = 0.51x - 2.428, r = 0.88 and r2 = 0.77. Age at attainment ofthe
gold test level was 18.3 i 0.9 years. With years of experience as the predictor, the
equation was y = 0.44lx + 1.087, r = 0.81 and r2 = 0.66. Age at attainment ofthe gold

test level for this group required 11.2 years of practice and experience.

19

 

 

Elite and expert performances are treated synonyrnously in the talent identification
literature. Ericsson et a1. (1993, see also Ericsson and Charness, 1994; Ericsson, 1996)
suggest that it is not individual trait differences that determine successfirl performance.
Instead, a deliberate decision to invest a considerable amount of time, often a minimum of
10 years, is what discriminates more successful athletes fi'om other participants. Ericsson
and Charness (1994) suggest that expert performances are mediated by acquired complex
skills and physiological adaptations due to high levels of deliberate practice sustained over
a decade or more. This view appears to exclude the minimum necessary physical
prerequisites for a given sport. For example, it is hard to imagine a successfirl female
gymnast who is 185 cm tall. Ericsson et a1. (1993) agree with Bloom (1985), who found
that successful performers are willing to invest great amounts of time and effort to
accomplish their goals. Ericsson et a1. (1993, p. 400) firrther suggest that "the commitment
to deliberate practice distinguishes the expert performer from the vast majority of
children".

Although there is no minimum age requirement to begin skating lessons, initial
exposure to skating lessons usually begins between 3 and 7 years of age (Canadian Figure
Skating Association, 1997). At this stage, practice consists of learning basic skating skills
in group lessons, usually once per week, while other activities and sports may also be
practiced (Scanlan et al., 1989a). Individual testing of skills comprising specific
developmental levels is also done in a group format and occurs approximately every four
weeks during a season.

Comper (1991) proposed a hypothetical, three-stage model of talent identification

for Canadian figure skaters depicted by consecutive, overlapping circles (Figure 1). The

 

first stage of the model is 'the pre-selection or detection stage' between 7 and 11 years.
Important characteristics at this stage include: (a) ability to learn technical skills faster than
peers, (b) willingness to work for longer periods of time than peers, (c) a high degree of
physical flexibility, ((1) excellent balance and coordination, (e) a marked sense of control
over the environment, and (f) a high level of self-confidence.

The secondary stage of the selection process occurs sometime between 11 and 15
years of age when firrther specialization takes place. In the intermediate stage, children
begin private lessons, are tested on an individual basis, and experience an increase in
skating and skating-related activities (Scanlan et al., 1989a). Elite figure skaters practice
an average of 22.2 hours per week (Starkes et al., 1996). Comper (1991, p. 178) refers to
this stage as 'the first phase of selection‘ and advocates that coaches assess biological
characteristics, psychological skills, and technical physical skills. However, for those
skaters participating at the club level, access to coaches who are knowledgeable in
assessment procedures and criteria is questionable. Several characteristics were advocated
by Comper: (a) specific physical characteristics including a muscular build with narrow
hips, and small body size (height and weight), (b) strength, explosive power and speed of
movement, (c) balance and gross and fine motor coordination, (d) rotational preference
and lateralized behaviors, (e) strong motivation to achieve success and avoid failure, (f)
high level of perceived self-competence, (g) high self-esteem, and (h) low levels of pre-
competition anxiety.

Technical testing at this level entails movements performed to music, ofien while
the child is the lone skater on the ice. Competitive events are sanctioned in age-based

categories. Skaters perform in skating costumes which do not conceal their physiques. For

 

 

both test and competition, merit is given for artistic impression, which is partially
comprised of subjective evaluation of body form.

The third stage of selection is the novice Competitive and above. Skating becomes
more exclusionary as competition becomes more specialized and rigorous. Skating takes
up almost all of the skater's time and usually requires a substantial financial commitment
(Scanlan et al., 1989a). Skaters with superior jumping ability excel in singles events, and
female skaters possessing physical characteristics (height, weight and skating abilities)
which match those of a limited number of male skaters may be selected for pair skating.
Dancer pairs must also possess matching physical characteristics to some extent.

Provincial competitions in Canada begin at the pre-novice level. Age eligibility for
competing at this level for singles skaters is 514 years for females and 515 years for
males, while male and female pairs and dance skaters must be 517 years. There are no age
restrictions for national competitions at the junior and senior levels (Canadian Figure
Skating Association, 1997). Selection for elite competition, defined as junior and senior
Competitive levels, occurs in the context of a variety of criteria, including economic
status, physical characteristics, biological maturation, and psychological readiness
(Comper, 1991; Gould et al., 1993a, 1993b; Scanlan et al., 1989a, 1989b).

The third stage in Comper’s (1991) model is the advanced level which is limited to
skaters 15 to 18 years. Skaters at this stage are to as pre-elite. For skaters to become 'truly
elite', additional characteristics include: (a) high aerobic and anaerobic capacities, (b) low
percentage of body fat, (0) high power to weight ratio, and ((1) memory of complex
movement patterns. The progression of stages, depicted by the overlapping sections in

Figure 1, becomes notably smaller as the selection phase continues. As the criteria become

22

 

more stringent, fewer skaters move towards elite status.

A fundamental limitation of the model shown in Figure 1 is lack of specificity.
Although a variety of talent indicators are mentioned, no specific parameters for biological
or psychological variables are stated. The model is thus of limited utility for coaches who
are often unfamiliar with specific features of grth and maturation of young athletes,
which can vary extensively at each stage of the model. Biological characteristics vary not
only by sex, but by maturational status and pubertal timing. The model also provides
limited information on how to measure the indicated psychological characteristics and
whether the available instruments are age appropriate. Nevertheless, talent identification
clearly relies on the interaction of biological and psychological characteristics; one cannot
exist without the other. Yet, the majority of research, particularly in the domain of
psychology, has followed monodisciplinary methodological designs (Burwitz et al., 1994).
The value of such unidirnensional research is thus limited for athlete identification and

selection.

Biological Variables in Figure Skating
Many researchers have focused attention on the characteristics of elite athletes.
This information is often used for developing a prototype to which characteristics of
future athletes can be compared (Comper, 1991; Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992; Woodman,
1985). Many of these studies consider young adult athletes in a sport, while relatively few
consider elite athletes in terms of growth, maturation, and physique. Growth refers to
increases in size of the body or its parts, including changes in body composition, physique

and specific body systems (Malina and Bouchard, 1991). Biological maturation refers to

23

 

 

the tempo and timing of progress towards the mature state. Maturational indicators most
often include skeletal age and secondary sex characteristics (Malina and Bouchard, 1991).

Anthropometry is central to quantifying growth status. It serves to describe the
morphological status of an individual or a sample, or as a basis for comparison of a sample
to the population or to other samples. Anthropometry involves the use of carefirlly defined
body landmarks for dimensions, specific subject positioning for the measurements, and the
use of appropriate instruments. Measurements are generally divided into mass (weight),
lengths and heights, breadths or widths, circumferences or girths, and skinfolds (Malina,
1995).

Growth Indicators
Body Size

The most common anthropometric dimensions considered in athletes are stature
and weight. Stature increases in both sexes from infancy through childhood with marked
acceleration during adolescence. It reaches a plateau, on average, at approximately 16-17
years in girls and 18-19 years in boys. Weight follows a similar pattem, but continues to
increase into adulthood (Malina and Bouchard, 1991).

Data for stature and weight of figure skaters are somewhat limited and rarely
include athletes across a broad age range. To date, cross—sectional data suggest that figure
skaters are generally shorter and lighter than US. reference medians (Malina, 1994). A
summary of anthropometric research on figure skaters is presented in Table 1. Weight,
stature and sitting heights of 11 year old elite figure skaters (n = 18) were significantly
lower than those of 1 1 year old female non-skaters (Ross et al., 1980b). In a study of 25

elite figure skaters 14-18 years of age, mean height and weight were 160.0 : 6.0 cm and

24

48.2 i 5.6 kg, respectively (Brooks-Gum et al., 1988). More recently, 28 female novice,
national competitors with a mean age of 14.0 j: 1.7 years, had a mean height of 157.6 i
7.4 cm and a mean weight of 48.1 i 7.6 kg (Comper, 1991). These skaters were slightly
older, taller and heavier compared to an earlier study of skaters with a mean age of 13.2 i
1.4 years (height: 153.5 i 8.4 cm; weight: 42.1 i 5.4 kg; Ross et al., 1977). Finally,
Ziegler et al., (1998) reported an average height of 158.7 : 7.5 cm and average weight of
50.3 i 8.4 kg for competitive female adolescent figure skaters, with a mean age of 13.7 i
1.4 years.

The predictive utility of stature and weight for performance is inconclusive, but
both dimensions may be used in screening young skaters. In a sample of nine elite skaters,
shorter, leaner skaters had better performance records (N iinimaa, 1982). In another study
of 44 novice figure skaters (28 females, 16 males), the individual predictive contribution of
stature and weight to performance was negligible (Comper, 1991). However, a composite
of variables including stature, weight and other dimensions (calf, thigh and leg lengths,
waist and buttocks circumferences; and sitting height) accounted for 56% of the variance
in performance of females (number of points obtained for competition placement during
the 1986-1987 season). These variables accounted for 93% of the variance in males
(Comper, 1991). Unfortunately, these results have limited utility given the small number of
participants (n = 28 females, n = 16) relative to the number of variables (2 ratios and 10
dimensions) in the analyses. Furthermore, age, which most likely reflects experience, was
not included in the analyses. It is interesting to note, however, that all of the athropometric
variables correlated negatively with performance perhaps suggesting that smaller skaters

did better.

25

 

Gyrnnasts and figure skaters of both sexes are the only young athletes who present
a profile of short height for age compared to non-athletic children (Malina, 1996). As in
gymnastics, the size of figure skaters must be considered in the context of the extremely
selective criteria applied at early ages. Selection in figure skating, and perhaps exclusion, is
based on small body size and a slender, yet muscular build. Although there are no available
data specifically on figure skaters, selection in gymnastics and swimming appear to be
based on familial, presumably genetic factors. There are moderate to high correlations
between the height of prepubertal Dutch gymnasts and the height of their mothers:
recreational gymnasts (r = 0.72), young talented gymnasts (r = 0.63) and older talented
gymnasts (0.92). In contrast, the height of swimmers is more correlated with height of
their fathers (r = 0.87) (Peltenburg et al., 1984).

It is suggested that small and muscular female single skaters havela biomechanical
advantage in figure skating (Ross et al., 1977) because they possess a greater moment of
inertia required in rotation (Harris, 1986; Niinirnaa, 1982). The size advantage for
individuals with smaller stature is explained by a high strength-to-weight ratio (N ummaa,
1982). A lower center of gravity is another suggested advantage for balance and aerial
rotation involved in figure skating. This is conventionally expressed by absolute estimated
leg length (stature minus sitting height) and relative leg length (sitting height/ stature ratio).
To date, only Comper (1991) has considered sitting height and leg length, albeit
unconventionally. Comper’s (1991) method of measuring these dimensions is not
sufficiently clear. Sitting height was described as “trunk height: Measured from the top of
the head to the pelvic bone” (p. 104), and leg length was labeled “stem height: Measured

as the length from the hipbone to the floor, with subject standing” (p. 104). The specific

26

 

landmarks not indicated. Although Comper (1991) did not use conventional
anthropometric methods to measure sitting height or absolute leg length, the latter could
be derived by subtracting “trunk height” (71.3 i 4.7cm) fi'om stature (157.6 3; 7.4 cm).
Following this method, the average estimated leg length of female novice skaters was 86.3
cm, which is higher than the reported stem height value (74.6 i- 4.7 cm). Relative leg
length, derived by dividing trunk height by the derived estimated leg length, was 45.2%,
which would suggest relatively longer legs (Comper, 1991). Given the methodology, it is
impossible to compare these data with other data since sitting height is measured
differently and leg length is conventionally estimated by subtracting sitting height from
standing height (Malina, 1995).

Another expression of body size encompassing weight and height is the Body Mass
Index (BMI: wt(kg)/stature (m2). Only one study of figure skates has specifically
referenced the BMI. Female novice singles, pairs and dance skaters, 12-17 years, had a
mean BMI of 19.2 i 2.1 kg/m2 (Comper, 1991). There are two limitations of using the
BMI with adolescent figure skaters. First, the relationship between stature and weight is
temporarily altered during puberty, when the growth spurt occurs (Malina, 1995).
Providing data for single year age groups would have been more meaningful. Second,
cross-disciplinary composition of groups is inappropriate since it may conceal differences
among disciplines. The BMI must also be interpreted with caution with athletes. It does
not separate fat mass from fat-fi'ee mass. Accordingly, athletes who are generally more

muscular may appear to have higher BMI values.

27

 

Body Composition

Body composition refers to the primary tissue components of body mass. Body
weight is a composite of different tissues including bone, muscle, fat, and the viscera. It is
often described in the context of a two-compartment model which partitions body mass
into its lean and fat components: fat-free mass (FF M), and fat mass (FM). The focus with
many female athletes is usually FM because dietary and exercise habits can influence this
component and because of the emphasis on fatness in Western culture. The FFM does not
distinguish between specific tissues such as bone, muscle and the viscera. Another
limitation of this model is the lack of information concerning regional distribution of
tissues. Such information may be important for studying compositional variation between
the trunk and extremities, and sex dilferences associated with growth and maturation.
Differential distribution of fat, muscle and bone is not reflected in the two-component
model (Malina and Bouchard, 1991).

Between the ages of 8 and 18 years, children increase in both FFM and FM.
However, female athletes do not increase in PM as much as representative samples of non-
athletes (Malina and Bouchard, 1991). Girls show a lesser gain in FFM than boys during
adolescence. Estimated FFM of late adolescent girls is approximately two-thirds of the
estimate for boys (Malina and Bouchard, 1991).

A common method of representing subcutaneous fatness is the sum of several
skinfolds. In a study of 28 novice female figure skaters, with a mean age of 14.0 :1: 1.7
years, the sum of 6 skinfolds was 53.0 mm (Comper, 1991), which is lower than results
(58.0-75.4 mm) gathered at the Canadian fitness testing center for the 1991 World and

national team (Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992). Contrary to the majority of research on figure

28

skaters, Gledhill and Jamnick (1992) provided a cross-disciplinary comparison of fitness
test results. For both World and national discipline-specific team samples, single skaters
(75.4 mm, 76.6 mm, respectively) had a greater sum of 6 skinfolds than dancers (70.8 mm,
73.9 mm, respectively), who had a larger sum than pair skaters (63.8 mm, 58.0 mm,
respectively). Additionally, all World and national discipline-specific groups had greater
sums than the values ‘recommended’ by the fitness testing center (_<_ 60.0 mm for females),
with the exception of national level pair skaters (58.0 mm). Measurement variability for
the skinfolds was apparently not considered in this study.

According to Gledhill (1976), 9-11% body fat is desirable for female skaters, and
7-8% is desirable for male skaters which was slightly lower than what was recommend for
non-skaters in the same age group (13 - 18 years). “The purpose of the body fat
assessment was to determine whether the skater was overweight. Not overweight by
normal standards, but in consideration of the fact that appearance is extremely important
in the judging of aesthetic sports” (Gledhill, 1976, p. 10). Comper (1991) reported 8.8%
as the mean estimated percentage body fat predicted from six skinfolds (subscapular,
triceps, iliac crest, abdominal, front thigh, and rear thigh) using the ‘Yuhasz (1980)
method’ in novice female skaters. Using the same method, Gledhill (1992) reported
11.1%, 10.8%, and 9.3% for national level singles, dance, and pair skaters, respectively.
However, the equation is based on college students, and may not be applicable to
adolescent skaters. Mean ages were not provided for the groups.

One recent study on figure skaters report considerably higher percentage body fat
than recommended by Gledhill (1976). Ziegler et a1. (1998), reported a mean of 19.9%

(range 13.1% - 27.8%) which was within the range for female athletes 13 years of age

29

(17% - 25%, Steinbaugh, 1984). A limitation of this study is the cross-disciplinary
combination of subjects and failure to consider maturational variation. The sample
included elite adolescent skaters without controlling for maturity status.

A related issue is the reporting of fatness data to the athletes, specifically females.
For example, . .following each session, scores were provided to each skater, their coach
and the CF SA. In addition, skaters received a summary of average scores fi’om all national
team members” (p. 6, Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992). Recommending lower than “normal”
are percentage fat and sum of skinfold values may be stressfirl for adolescent athletes and
should be accompanied by educational information explaining normal variation during
adolescence and the limitation of skinfolds.

Compared to other athletes, figure skaters appear to be most similar to gymnasts
(Claessens et al., 1992; Bernink et al., 1983; Peltenburg et al., 1984; Theintz, et al., 1994)
and ballet dancers (Brooks-Gum and Warren, 1988) in height, weight, BMI, and
estimated body composition. However, age specific comparisons are difficult since
athletes in these sports are not consistently grouped by age.

Brim

Physique refers to an individual’s body form, or the configuration of the entire
body rather than of specific features (Malina, 1995). The method of assessing physique
most commonly used with athletes at present is the Heath-Carter anthropometric protocol.
The Heath-Carter method defines somatotype as "a quantitative description of the present
shape and composition of the human body" (Carter and Heath, 1990, p. 15). It involves a
3-number rating system derived from several anthropometric dimensions. The components

of a somatotype are endomorphy (relative fatness), mesomorphy (relative muscularity),

30

 

 

k

 

and ectomorphy (relative leanness). The three components are regarded as a single unit
which describes an individual’s somatotype. For example, when estimating the relationship
between ectomorphy and endurance performance, the other two components should be
statistically controlled.

There are limited somatotype data for figure skaters, and cross-disciplinary
comparisons are not ordinarily made. A summary of somatotype data for figure skaters is
presented in Table 2. 'Carter and Heath (1990) include data from four studies conducted
nearly three decades ago. At that time, mean somatotypes varied between 2-4-4 and 3-4-3.
Evidence suggests that the distribution of somatotypes of young athletes parallels that of
older athletes in the same sport (Carter and Heath, 1990). However, somatotype changes
somewhat with growth and maturation as evident from the change in pre— to post-puberty
among elite female skaters. The data suggest an increase in endomorphy and mesomorphy
and a decrease in ectomorphy. The mean somatotype for prepubertal female figure skaters
was 1.8-2.3-3.3 compared to 2.4-3.4-28 in postpubertal skaters. Prepubertal skaters
appear to be somewhat meso-ectomorphic, whereas postpubertal, skaters appear to be
slightly more mesomorphic (Weaver and Thompson, 1981). Ross et al. (1980b) reported a
somewhat similar mean somatotype of 2.6-3.8-30 in 18 postpubertal figure skaters.

Compared to skaters, elite gymnasts show little variation in somatotype with age
and are especially low in endomorphy and higher in mesomorphy (Claessens et al., 1992;
Salmela et al., 1979; Yuhasz et al., 1980). Mean somatotypes for young gymnasts are near
2-4-3, and older samples have a more balanced somatotype near 3-4-3 (Carter and Heath,
1990). In contrast, adolescent ballet dancers are somewhat higher in ectomorphy

(Claessens et al., 1987), with means near the 3-3-4 range. Junior Olympic divers are

31

A

mesomorphic, and mesomorphy increases with age, especially in late adolescence. Like
gymnasts and skaters, divers are in the 3-4-2 range, more mesomorphic and less
endomorphic than non-athletes (Geithner and Malina, 1993). In general, skaters most
resemble gymnasts and divers, but the somatotype data available for figure skaters is
restricted to novice athletes. Data for elite and sub-elite samples are apparently not

available.

Maturation

Maturation refers to progress towards a mature state; progress that can be
characterized in terms of timing (when things occur) and tempo (rate at which they occur).
Very often adolescents are arbitrarily grouped as early, average, and late maturers on the
basis of the age at peak height velocity, the timing of appearance of secondary sex
characteristics, or age at menarche in girls. In the United States, menarche occurs on
average at 12.8 i 1.0 years (Eveleth and Tanner, 1990), but can occur as early 9 years and
as late as 17 years (Brooks-Gunn, 1988). The timing of menarche is often used to classify
girls as early, average and late maturers. Girls attaining menarche prior to 12.0 years of
age are generally considered as early maturing, those attaining menarche between 12.0 and
14.0 years are considered average or ‘on time’, and those attaining menarche older than
14.0 years are considered late maturing.

Menarcheal data on figure skaters has been considered in several studies (Table
3). Most recently, Ziegler et a1. (1998) reported 12.4 as the average age of menarche in a
sample of 17 competitive figure skaters with a mean age of 13.7 years. This age contrasts

the evidence fiom skeletal and sexual maturation, which suggests later maturation in

32

 

female figure skaters (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1988; Malina, 1994). Mean retrospective ages
at menarche in earlier studies of figure skaters ranges fiom 13.6 - 15.4 years, suggesting
later maturation (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1988; Ross et al., 1980a; Wells and Plowman,
1988). Ross et al. (1980a) reported 14.0 years as the mean recalled age at menarche in
sample of 18 figure skaters. However, three skaters in this sample, 13.1, 14.7, and 15.9
years, had not yet experienced menarche so that the mean may be later. In another study,
the mean age at menarche was 13 .6 :15 years in a sample of 25 skaters (Brooks-Gum et
al., 1988). These estimated ages at menarche are based on the retrospective method and
thus may have variation associated with memory in recalling the exact age. Further, some
estimates are probably low due to the number of pre-menarcheal skaters in the sample.

Like skaters, gymnasts, divers and dancers also attain menarche later than non-
athletes. The estimated median ages at menarche in elite female gymnasts was 15.6 years
(Claessens et al., 1992), and in Junior Olympic divers was 13.6 years (Malina and
Geithner, 1993). These two studies are based on the status quo method, which is an
estimate for the samples based on probit analysis. Ballet dancers are fi'equently cited as
examples of girls with late menarche. In one study of 15 ballet dancers, the mean age at
menarche was 15.4 years and two dancers in this sample did not attain menarche until 18
years (Warren, 1980).

A combination of genetic and environmental factors is thought to regulate the age
at menarche. Evidence suggests that menarcheal timing is genetically programmed
(Brooks-Gum, 1988; Brooks-Gum et al., 1988; Claessens et al., 1992; Malina, 1983,
Malina et al., 1994). Genetic regulation of menarcheal timing is inferred from correlations

between mother-daughter and sister-sister pairs, but earliness and lateness can also be

33

inherited from the father. Correlations for ages at menarche range from 0.15 to 0.40 for
mother-daughter pairs, and 0.25—0.61 for sister-sister pairs (Malina et al., 1994).
However, since mothers and daughters share only one-half of their genes these
correlations are expected. Familial resemblance in age at menarche in athletes, their sisters,
and mothers, is consistent with that of the general population indicating that later
menarche commonly reported in athletes is largely familial and presumably genetic. Yet, in
a mother-daughter comparison of dancers and non-athletes, dancers had later age at
menarche compared to non—athletes, but there were no differences between ages at
menarche in the mothers of the two groups. These authors interpret this observation as
suggesting that later menarche in athletes may not be entirely genetic (Brooks-Gum et al.,
1988)

Data on mother-daughter similarities in age at menarche among figure skaters are
apparently not available. The most commonly cited environmental factor in the sport
science literature that is associated with later menarche in athletes is training (Wells and
Plowman, 1988), and there appears to be an association between later age at menarche
and more advanced competitive levels within some sports (Malina, 1983). The data are
correlational and do not imply cause and effect. Although menarche occurs later in
athletes than in non-athletes, evidence suggesting that exercise delays menarche is
inconclusive because there are too many confounding variables that are not controlled
(Clapp and Little, 1995; Loucks et al., 1992). In addition to quantifying an controlling the
type, intensity, and duration of exercise, Loucks et al. (1992) recommend considering the

gynecological age of the participants.

34

 

In sum, weight gain occurs in both sexes during puberty, but increase in muscle
tissue accounts for most of the male weight spurt, while accumulation of adipose tissues
accounts for a significant portion of the gain in females. Girls experiencing early
maturation may not be psychologically prepared to deal with the associate physical
changes which separate them fiom their peers (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1985). Ifnegative self-
perceptions are associated with maturation, they may subsequently affect the level of self-
confidence that is essential for the artistic impression required in figure skating. Since
smallness, leanness and linearity are related to later maturation, later maturation may be a

physical and psychological advantage for adolescent figure skaters.

Psychological Variables

The talent detection literature suggests that certain psychological traits are
determinants of future success in sport. In summarizing studies of athletes in difi‘erent
sports, as well as different age groups, self-motivation, goal orientation, intelligence,
anxiety, neuroticism, and particularly, self—confidence, stubbornness, emotional stability
and ambition can discriminate between successfirl and less-successful athletes (Gould et
al., 1981; Mahoney, 1989; Mahoney, et al., 1987; Missourn and Laforestrie, 1985). Of the
above traits, the following are the most fi'equently cited in the literature: high self-
confidence, low anxiety, high number of anxiety coping strategies (emotional stability),
and increased concentration on tasks (Vanden et al., 1993). The variety of psychological
predictors indicates the need for several psychometric instruments since no currently

available tool can assess all of the above.

35

Qualitative analyses have identified several psychological factors thought for be
important to success in competitive figure skating. Scanlan et al. (1989b) interviewed
national level skaters concerning sources of enjoyment and stress. Among former elite
figure skaters there were four major sources of enjoyment: (a) social and life
opportunities; (b) perceived competence; (c) social recognition of competence; and (d) the
act of skating. Sources of stress for elite figure skaters included: (a) negative aspects of
competition (e.g., worries about failure); (b) negative significant-other relationships (e. g.,
skating politics); (c) demands and costs of skating (e. g., financial and time demands); (d)
personal struggles (e. g., weight problems, self-doubt about talent), and (e) traumatic

experience (e.g., death of a loved one).

Gould et al. (1993a, 1993b) also interviewed national champion figure skaters
about experiences in two phases of their careers: when they first began skating at a senior
level until they won a national championship, and the time from first winning the national
championship until either the present time or the of retirement as an amateur skater.
General sources of stress were similar across both phases. The positive experiences of
US. national champions included: (a) positive emotional experience at national
championships; (b) positive effects of winning/defending on self-esteem; (c) national
champion perquisites; and (d) positive affect and growth in self-awareness fi'om losing a
title (Gould et al., 1993b). In contrast, negative experiences were: (a) high performance
standards based on expected potential; (b) environmental demands on skater resources; (c)
Competitive anxiety and doubt; (d) stresses related to significant others; and (e) demands

on financial resources (Gould et al., 1993b).

36

These studies provide reasonably robust information about the elite figure skating
experience. Rather than identifying symptoms of stress, emphasis is on identifying sources
of stress. While the studies are valuable in preparing skaters for sources of stress at the
elite level, they are retrospective and thus provide limited information about stresses
involved in the process of becoming elite. Young figure skaters encounter a variety of
stresses throughout the developmental process, and many sources of stress entail social
evaluation. Social evaluation is integral to competitive figure skating; it is the basis of
ranking performances. Social evaluation comes fiom a variety of sources. It is obviously a
part of competition. It also occurs indirectly at training centers, in the dressing room, and
even at home. Negative evaluations come from judges and coaches, who serve as the gate
keepers of talent identification. Skaters also receive information about their skating
abilities fiom parents, other skaters, and even parents of skating peers. Without superior
psychological skills, such an environment can negatively impact the way young skaters

perceived themselves.

Self-concept

Self—concept is a person's perceptions of self, formed through experiences and with
interpretations of one's environments. It may pertain to physical, intellectual, or social
characteristics. It is especially influenced by evaluations of significant others and
reinforcements and attributions for one's own behavior and accomplishments.
Self-concept was once regarded as a global construct that did not differentiate between
perceptions of physical, social, academic and other dimensions of self. Currently, self—
concept is viewed as a multidimensional hierarchical construct (Shavelson et al., 1976).

Each level of hierarchy is divided into domain-specific components of self-concept.

37

The Physical Self-Description Questionnaire (PSDQ) distinguishes specific aspects
within the physical domain (Marsh et al., 1994). It measures nine specific components of
Physical Self-Concept: Strength, Body Fat, Activity, Endurance/Fitness, Sports
Competence, Coordination, Health, Appearance, Flexibility, and two global components:
Self-Esteem and Global Physical Self-Concept. Among the multiple domains of self-
concept, the physical appearance component of physical self-concept is most highly
correlated with Self-Esteem (Marsh and Roche, 1996).

A positive self-concept is widely recognized as an important outcome of sport and
as a means to facilitate other desirable outcomes including success in sport (Marsh et al.,
1997). Psychologists have employed the PDSQ with athletes in several sports - basketball,
tennis, volleyball, gymnastics, diving, swimming, synchronized swimming, soccer and
softball (Crocker and Snyder, 1997) and in water polo, track and field, basketball, soccer,
cycling, swimming, baseball, rugby, netball, cricket and aerobics (Marsh et al., 1997).
Descriptive statistics for athletes and non-athletes are presented in Table 4. Athletes
generally report higher PSDQ subscale scores than non-athletes, and elite athletes report
higher scores than non-elite athletes.

Vealey (1986) suggests that positive self-evaluations may provide a competitive
edge among elite athletes. However, self-concept formation depends upon the frame of
reference. Two models have been postulated for explaining self-concept formation.
Although these frames of reference are derived in acaderrric settings, it is reasonable to
assume that a similar process occurs in athletic settings. Athletic scenarios are provided

subsequently to illustrate the two models of self-concept formation.

38

 

According to the intemal/extemal frame of reference (Marsh, 1993), the formation
of specific self-concepts involves comparing one's skills with the skills of others (an
external social comparison process), and one's competence in a specific area with
competence in other areas (an internal social comparison process). Sub-elite athletes
(water polo, basketball, soccer, cycling, swimming and baseball) attending an athletically
selective school had lower Physical Self-Concepts than athletically equivalent students
attending an athletically non—selective school (rugby, soccer, netball, track and field,
cricket aerobics netball, swimming, rugby, volleyball) (Marsh et al., 1997).

Similar to the external comparison process, Marsh (1991) described another frame
of reference called the “big-fish-little-pond effect” where students matched in terms of
academic ability have lower academic self-concepts when they attend academically
selective schools (where other students are also bright) in contrast to academically non-
selective schools. Although this effect has yet to be tested in the athletic context, Marsh et
al. (1997) predict that non-elite athletes attending an athletically selective high school
would have lower Physical Self-Concepts than athletically equivalent students attending an
athletically non-selective school. Even sub-elite athletes may have average, or above—
average, self-concepts about their best athletic skill not because they are exceptionally
proficient in that skill, but because they are better in that skill than in other skills. Similarly,
elite athletes, who practice with elite competitors having similar sport skills, may have only
average self-concepts in their weakest sport skill even though their skills are better than
those of most other athletes (Marsh et al., 1997).

Adolescence requires individual adjustments to physical and psychological

changes. The biological changes associated with maturation apparently place a heavier

burden on female than male adolescents in Western culture, because thinness is a cultural
standard of feminine beauty (Casper and Simon, 1997). Despite this common assertion,
little is known about the body satisfaction of female adolescent athletes. Equations to
predict self-concept, particularly Marsh’s (1996) Global Physical Self-Concept and Self-
Esteem, have typically focused on psychological predictors dealing with perceptions of
physical characteristics such as body fat and appearance (Crocker and Snyder, 1997), and
have not considered more objective measures of physical characteristics such as physique.
More research is needed to test the concordance between actual and perceived physical
characteristics. Further, objective measures of physical appearance such as weight, body
composition, and somatotype may help to explain variance in physical self-perceptions.
Social Physique Anxiegz

Requirements for thinness may go beyond what is necessary for athletic
performance, becoming an aesthetic preference (Brooks-Gum et al., 1988; Gledhill,
1976; Swoap and Murphy, 1995). In this context, a series of studies have considered
social physique anxiety (SPA) - anxiety that individuals experience in response to others'
evaluations of their physique. Although physique refers to overall body form and structure
of the body among human biologists, the concept of social physique anxiety was
developed based on Schilder’s (1935) definition of body image - the picture of the body
which individuals form in their mind (cited in Schlenker, 1980). SPA was derived for the
exercise context and was based on earlier research on self-presentation, the process of
controlling and monitoring how one is perceived by others.

Hart et al. (1989) developed the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS), a 12-item

self- report instrument. To establish criterion-related validity, hierarchical multiple

40

 

 

regression analysis was conducted to determine if SPA predicted reactions to being
evaluated beyond more subjective measures which included indices of “physique” and
fitness. The physique measure was percentage body fat, but the method of estimating body
fat was not stated. Weight, percentage body fat, and body self-rating accounted for 10%
of the variance in self-reported stress during the evaluation and SPA accounted for an
additional 23% of the variance.

The psychometric properties of the SPAS have been questioned, specifically
whether it is multidimensional or unidirnensional. In a double cross-validation study,
Eklund et al. (1996) confirmed a two-factor structure representing physique presentation
comfort (PPC) and expectations of negative physique evaluation comfort (NPEC), both of
which are subordinate to a second order factor, SPA. However, this factor structure was
dismissed due to a number of conceptual and empirical weaknesses (Martin et al., 1997).
Nine of the original 12 items presently comprise the SPAS. The remaining three items (2,
5, and 11) were deleted making this version of the SPAS more parsimonious than the two-
factor model (Martin et al., 1997).

Several investigations have examined SPA in adults in exercise settings (Hart et al.,

1989; Johnson et al., 1995), in adolescent athletes (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; McAuley
and Burman, 1993; Reel and Gill, 1996), and in adult athletes (Martin and Mack, 1996).
Descriptive statistics for four studies are presented in Table 5. Item means range from 2.4
to 3.4 on the 5-point scale. Adolescent female athletes in several sports (basketball, tennis,
gymnastics, volleyball, swimming, soccer, softball) report lower values (Crocker and
Snyder, 1997) than elite gymnasts (McAuley and Burman, 1994) and non-athlete young

adult females (Eklund and Crawford, 1994; Hart et al., 1989).

41

 

 

SPA is associated with exercise behavior. Self-presentational reasons such as body
tone, weight control, and physical attractiveness are positively associated with SPA
(Eklund and Crawford, 1994). Adult females with high SPA are uncomfortable in and
avoid situations involving physical self-presentation (Hart et al., 1989). There is also a
negative relationship between SPA and exercise experience in adult females (Hart and Gill,
1993). A study of female college exercisers showed that SPA is positively associated with
estimated percentage body fat (Eklund and Crawford, 1994). Percentage body fat was
estimated from body density which was predicted using three separate equations
appropriate for the population (Sloan et al., 1962; Pollock et al., 1980). The equation of
Brozek et al. ( 1963) was used to estimate percentage body fat from body density.
Percentage body fat and weight control reasons for exercise accounted for 39% of the
variance in SPA in this sample.

SPA might be expected in athletes participating in aesthetic sports given the
important role of subjective evaluation (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; Martin and Mack,
1996; Martin, et al., 1997; McAuley and Burman, 1993). In such sports, physical self-
presentation may be of greatest concern because evaluation of physique may influence
sport outcome (Martin and Mack, 1996). Further, SPA is predictive of competitive trait
anxiety in adult female athletes participating in hockey, soccer, volleyball, track and field,
gymnastics and figure skating, suggesting that SPA may be an influence in competitive
performance (Martin and Mack, 1996). Similar to many sport psychological research,
sport-specific scores were not reported.

Low self—esteem, unfavorable perceptions of body weight, and heightened

awareness of public aspects of the body predicted SPA in female soccer players, gymnasts,

42

 

and figure skaters (Martin et al., 1997). Interestingly, both figure skaters and gymnasts
reported lower SPA scores than soccer players. This was somewhat surprising because
performance outcome in both figure skating and gymnastics involves subjective
evaluation. The low SPA among gymnasts and figure skaters was attributed to low
estimated percentage fat (13.0 % and 15.1%, respectively), calculated fi'om body density
using standard age-specific equations (Lohrnan, 1989). Individuals with low relative body
fat (Eklund and Crawford, 1994; Hart et al., 1989; Petrie, 1996), or those with favorable
perceptions of their body fat, as reported for some adolescent athletes participating in
basketball, tennis, gymnastics, volleyball, synchronized swimming, speed swimming soccer
and softball (Crocker and Snyder, 1997), generally do not report high SPA.

Adolescence is considered a socially anxious period of life of many girls. It is
accompanied by intense preoccupation with physical appearance that is influenced by
sociocultural pressures to attain the thin ideal body (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989;
Brooks-Gunn et al., 1989; Hamilton et al., 1985). For adolescents, an increase in body fat
may be interpreted as a bodily “flaw” and social liability that may result in potential
humiliation and rejection. Adolescent athletes may be particularly prone to SPA because
of the changes associated with puberty. For those participating in sports such as
gymnastics and figure skating, subjective evaluation may contribute to the manifestation of
SPA during adolescence.

Few investigations have considered the relationship between SPA and constructs
related to self-concept among adolescent athletes, and no studies have apparently
considered SPA relative to the timing of menarche. However, female adolescent female

gymnasts (14.4 i 1.8 years), who are low in self-presentation confidence and physical self-

43

 

 

efficacy, report SPA (McAuley and Burman, 1993). In a recent investigation of high
performance adolescent female athletes (16.4 i 2.4 years) in basketball, tennis, volleyball,
gyrrmastics, diving, synchronized swimming, speed swimming, soccer and softball, SPA
was lower than the norms for adult females, and negatively related to two PSDQ
constructs, Self-Esteem (r = -0.74) and Physical Self-Concept (r = -0.56). About 52% of
the variance in SPA was accounted for by three PDSQ subscales: Body Fat, Coordination,
and Sport Competence (Crocker and Snyder, 1997). Although this study did not report
variation by sport, it is interesting that the correlation valences between SPA and each of
the 11 PSDQ subscales were negative.

SPA research on young adult women exercisers (18-23 years) suggests that highly
anxious women tend to avoid situations where desired impressions are unlikely, and that
they use protective strategies such as assuming shielding or unobtrusive postures and
wearing oversized clothing (Eklund and Crawford, 1994). Although skaters do not wear
oversized clothing during competition, such protective strategies during practice would
restrict the ability to execute jumps and spins, and to skate in close proximity to their
partners.

Food restriction may be another such strategy. Reel and Gill (1996) investigated
psychosocial predictors of eating problems in high school and college cheerleaders 14-23
years of age. Revealing uniforms, periodic weigh-ins, the coach, and stunt partners were
among the pressures reported b the cheerleaders. High school cheerleaders exhibited
greater body dissatisfaction and disordered eating patterns compared to college
cheerleaders. Developmental differences were suggested to account for the differences,

but were not assessed. Female high school students may be more predisposed to SPA

44

 

 

because of rapid changes associated with the growth spurt and sexual maturation, body
dissatisfaction, and/or low self-esteem. However, this study did not include any physical
variables related to growth and maturation.

Research examining the contribution of objective physical measures to variability in
SPA is equivocal. Eklund and Crawford (1994) and Hart et al. (1989) found that SPA and
estimated body composition were positively related in non-athlete adult women. However,
body composition and SPA were unrelated in young (13.3 i 2.2 years) elite female
athletes in soccer players, gymnasts, and figure skaters (Martin et al., 1997). The authors
argued that high level of fitness and successfirl sport experiences may have influenced the
favorable self-referent cognitions in the athletes. Martin et al. (1997) assumed later
maturation among gymnasts and figure skaters based on previous research (mean ages
15.3 and 15.2, respectively, Wells and Plowman, 1988), and suggested that sociocultural
influences would not affect these athletes who were estimated as being in ‘early puberty’.
Later maturation was suggested to preclude the role of troublesome identity issues
associated with changing body image during puberty. Although variation in maturity status
may help to explain variability in SPA, an alternative for assessing the relative contribution
of objective physical characteristics would be to actually assess physique since it is the
basis of the SPA construct. To date, the relationship between SPA and quantitative
estimates of physique and maturational status or timing has not been systematically
examined.

SPA research also suggests that individuals with high SPA may be particularly at
risk for eating problems. SPA is strongly related to bulimic syrnptomology and moderately

related to anorexic syrnptomology in adult athletes (Johnson et al., 1995). In addition,

45

SPA appears to be a better predictor of eating disorders than other psychological and
physical correlates. SPA was the most strongly related predictor of drive for thinness and
bulimic syrnptomology among female college students (Deihl et al., 1998).

Risk of Eating Disorders Among Athletes

Athletes frequently strive to lose weight and some go beyond what is considered
healthy. Rosen at al. (1986) reported that 32% of 182 female collegiate athletes from 9
sports (basketball, field hockey, golf, gymnastics, softball, swimming, tennis, track and
field, and volleyball) practiced at least one weight-control behavior (e. g., self-induced
vomiting, use of laxatives, diuretics, diet pills). Among college gymnasts, 74% engaged in
at least one of these behaviors, which was verified in a subsequent study in which 75% of
gymnasts reported weight-control behaviors (Rosen and Hough, 1988). Such behaviors
can result in under-nutrition, specific nutritional deficiencies, dehydration, loss of
electrolytes, hypoglycemia, and excessive adrengeric stimulation. These problems can
eventually contribute to decreased performance, an increased risk of injury, and even death
(Rosen and Hough, 1988).

There is a general consensus among counseling psychologists that there is link
between psychological distress and weight preoccupation among college women. The
development of eating disorders in this population stems from achieving autonomy from
parents and using self-restraint to establish an internal sense of freedom during
adolescence and young adulthood. Self-restraint expressed in terms of weight control and
exercise may become destructive, and self-esteem may become solely based on extreme
self-denial. In contrast, many “normal” adolescents distinguish themselves from parents

and peers through athletics or dance where training requires self—restraint and strenuous

46

 

 

 

exertion. Vigorous self-discipline accompanying the pursuit of excellence in athletics or
dance is occasionally mis-identified as psychopathology (Mogul, 1980; Skowron and
Friedlander, 1994).

Diagnosing eating disorders requires in—depth clinical assessment by a medical
professional. One or two instruments are commonly used to screen for eating disorders:
the Eating Attitude Test (EAT: Garner and Garfinkel, 1979, Garner et al., 1982), or the
Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI: Garner et al., 1983). Although these instruments were
not designed for screening purposes, they provide valuable information about
psychological characteristics that typically precede the onset of these eating disorders. The
BAT and the EDI are most often employed in empirical investigations for assessing
behavioral and psychological characteristics in various population, including adolescents,
(Brooks-Gunn et al., 1988; Graber et al., 1994; Mallick et al., 1987; Rosen et al., 1988),
weight restricters (Gamer et al., 1983; O’Mahoney and Hollwey, 1995; Rosen et al.,
1988), and athletes (Klock and DeSouza, 1995; O’Connor et al., 1995; Pasman and
Thompson, 1988; Skowron and Friedlander, 1994; Stoutjesdyk and Jevne, 1993; Sundgot-
Borgen, 1994; Taube and Blinde, 1992; Taylor and Ste. Marie, 1998; Warren et al.,
1990)

The original EAT was a 40-item forced choice Likert scale. Subsequent
investigations established three subscales — dieting, bulimia, and oral control (Garner et al.,
1983; Williams et al., 1986). A shortened, 26-item version was also developed (Garner et
al., 1982). The EAT has been used as a screening device to determine whether individuals
whose profession focuses attention on slim body shape are at risk for developing anorexia

nervosa. Control subjects had significantly lower mean EAT scores than ballet and fashion

47

 

 

model students, and 7% of the latter two groups were subsequently diagnosed by clinical
interview as having anorexia nervosa (O'Mahoney and Hollwey, 1995).

The EDI is a 64 item 6-point Likert scale comprised of 8 subscales (a) Drive for
Thinness, (b) Body Dissatisfaction, (c) Bulimia, (d) Ineffectiveness, (e) Perfectionism, (f)
Interpersonal Distrust, (g) Introceptive Awareness, and (h) Maturity Fears. The EDI
subscales provide more robust information about self-perceptions than the EAT. A
summary of EDI scores for several populations is presented in Table 6. Female gymnasts
and swimmers, and non-athlete female adolescents meet the cutoff criteria for eating
disorder risk on the Body Dissatisfaction subscale, but not on the Drive for Thinness
subscale. In addition, female athletes in sports emphasizing leanness (divers, cross-country
runners, and gymnasts) report higher means for Drive for Thinness than athletes in other
sports (golf, rifle shooting, track and field, field hockey).

Despite a widespread belief that athletes are at risk for developing eating disorders,
empirical evidence employing the EDI is equivocal, making the diagnostic accuracy of
eating disorders among athletes questionable (Schoemaker et al., 1994; Skowron and
Friedlander, 1994; Welch et al., 1988). Some studies have shown no differences between
athletes and control groups, e.g., clinically diagnosed anorexic patients, and college
students (Klock and DeSouza, 1995; Mallick et al., 1987; Pasman and Thompson, 1988;
Taub and Blinde, 1992; Warren et al., 1990), while others have found that female athletes
in sports such as gymnastics, track, rowing and skating are at risk for developing eating
disorders (Davis, 1994; Sykora et al., 1993; Taylor and Ste. Marie, 1998). It has been
suggested that these inconsistencies are a fimction of the transformation of scores from a

6-point scale to a 4-point scale (Schoemaker et al., 1994; Welch et al., 1988). This

48

 

 

restriction of range, or lower score variability, decreases the validity of the EDI with non-
clinical populations.

Failure to consider maturity status, particularly among adolescent athletes, is
another possible factor for inconsistencies in EDI results. Evidence shows that some girls
begin to worry about their weight as early as 9 years of age (Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Brooks-
Gunn et al., 1985; Koff and Rierdan, 1991; Mallick et al., 1987), suggesting that the
transition into puberty may be a risk factor for developing eating disorders. Early maturing
girls experiencing increases in body fat have a higher risk of developing eating disorders
than later maturers (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Graber et al., 1994).

“Because puberty is associated with an increase in adiposity in a culture that values
thinness, girls who mature early may be particularly susceptible to unhealthy weight-
control behaviors” (Killen et al., 1992, p. 323). As puberty progresses in females,
dissatisfaction with their bodies and the desire to be thinner increases (Rosenblum and
Lewis, 1999; Brooks—Gunn et al., 1989; Gross and Duke, 1983). Early onset of puberty
may be particularly problematic because it is associated with larger body compared to
average and later maturing youth at this time. The physical changes, actual or perceived,
that accompany adolescence are incorporated into an individual’s evolving body image.
Body image is a subjective perception of body changes which are personally evaluated in
social settings, and this evaluation is involved in psychological adjustment (Kolb, 1959).
Early maturation is correlated with negative perceptions of physical characteristics and
high prevalence of negative body image (Duncan, 1985; Johnson et al., 1995, van der
Velde, 1985), and negative body image is predictive of eating disorders in early- and mid-

adolescence (Brooks-Gum, et al., 1989; Graber et al., 1994). Eating disorders may

49

 

develop, in part, in an attempt to suppress normal weight gain associated with pubertal
growth. Therefore, considering maturational timing may assist investigators interested in
identifying groups at risk for developing eating disorders.

EAT and EDI research typically consider age as an important variable in the
development of eating disorders, but rarely considers maturational timing which may be a
confounding variable. Rosen et al. (1988) provided norms for 747 adolescent females 14-
18 years. Girls have significantly more negative eating attitudes than boys on all but three
scales of the EDI - Perfectionism, Interpersonal Distrust, and Maturity Fears. Since
changes in body form associated with maturation and variation in timing may affect self—
perceptions of adolescent females, this investigations should have considered maturity
status in developing BAT and EDI norms.

Another possible explanation for the lack of consistency of eating disorder risk
among athletes is the practice of grouping athletes together, rather than by specific sports
or events within a sport (Hausenblaus and Carton, 1998). Stoutjesdyk and Jevne (1993)
examined whether college athletes in sports which emphasize leanness (gymnastics, diving,
lightweight rowing, and judo) display a higher tendency towards eating disorders than
athletes in other sports (volleyball and heavyweight rowing). Female athletes in sports
emphasizing leanness reported higher EAT scores than the non-weight restricted sports.

However, no significant differences were found among males in a similar comparison by
sport. Overall, 10.6% of the female athletes and 4.6% of the male athletes scored > 30 in
the BAT, placing them in the anorexic range.

Sundgot-Borgen (1994) examined risk factors and triggers for eating disorders in

603 elite Norwegian, elite, female athletes, 12 - 35 years of age. Sports were classified as

 

follows: technical sports (alpine skiing, sailing), endurance sports (speed skating, long
distance running), aesthetic sports (figure skating, diving), weight dependent sports
(karate, wrestling), ball games (handball, table tennis), and power sports (shot put,
sprinting). Athletes involved in aesthetic sports (40%) and weight dependent sports (37%)
were high in the EDI eating disorder criteria. Subsequently, 103 subjects of the total
sample (n = 603) were interviewed and 92 met the clinical criteria for anorexia nervosa
and bulimia nervosa.

Other investigations have also highlighted a higher prevalence of eating disorders
in sports which emphasize leanness or a specific weight (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1988; Petrie,
1996). Research has focused on divers, cross country runners, rowers, dancers, gymnasts,
and figure skaters. Brooks-Gunn et al. (1988) surveyed competitive adolescent female
figure skaters, ballet dancers, and swimmers 14 to 18 years of age. Dancers and skaters
had more negative eating attitude scores than swimmers, and dancers exhibited more
restrained eating than skaters. The authors suggested that low weights may be difiicult to
maintain for dancers given the fairly low energy demands required for dance. However,
the energy demands required for dance were not assessed and may be higher than assumed
by the authors. In a survey of 215 female collegiate gymnasts (Petrie, 1993), over 60% of
the participants met the criteria for disordered eating and only 22% reported eating
behaviors that could be classified as normal or non-disordered. Higher levels of disordered
eating disturbance were associated with a desire to weigh less, lower self-esteem, and
greater endorsement of sociocultural values regarding women's attractiveness (Petrie,

1993)

 

In a comparison of figure skaters, ballet dancers and swimmers, the dancers and
skaters had more negative eating attitude scores, were lighter and leaner, and were more
likely to have later menarche than the swimmers (Brooks-Gum et al., 1988). The results
were consistent with previous research comparing adolescent ballet dancers to non-
dancers (Brooks-Gum, and Warren, 1985). Age at menarche was used to classify the
subjects as early (5 11.8 years), average or “on time” (11.8-14.2 years), and late (3 14.2
years) maturers. These categories were based on a population mean of 12.8 i 1.5. More
dancers than non-dancers were late maturers. Dancers weighed less and were leaner, had
higher eating disorder scores, impulse control scores and reported more negative family
relationship experiences than the non-dancers. Across groups, late maturers weighed less,
were leaner, and had lower diet and higher oral control scores than “on time” maturers.
The differences were more pronounced in the dancers than non-dancers. “On time”
dancers had higher psychopathology, perfectionism, and bulimia scores, and lower body
image scores than late maturing dancers.

More recently, research has focused on determining the prevalence of eating
disorders among figure skaters. Ziegler et al. (1998) reported EAT scores > 30 in only 2
of 21(10%) skaters 11-16 years of age. However, higher EAT scores were associated with
lower micronutrient, but not with lower energy intakes. Taylor and Ste. Marie (1998)
surveyed 41 pair skaters and dancers 18 to 23 years of age. Three EDI subscales were
within the range of eating disorder classification. In this sample, 43% reported high values
for Drive for Thinness, 75.6% reported high values for Maturity Fears, and 65.9%
reported high values for Perfectionism, Pressures associated with these disciplines, such as

weight concerns from male partners and lack of dietary knowledge, were identified as

52

 

 

potential contributors to the prevalence of high EDI subscale scores. The identification of
specific skating disciplines as being at risk for developing eating disorders is a positive
attribute of this investigation. Leanness was emphasized more in pair and dance disciplines
than in free skating because of the lifis and/or throws involved in routines. Matching
physique characteristics between male and female partners is fundamental in creating
aesthetic body lines and in selecting couples for these disciplines. Taylor and Ste. Marie
(1998) did not examine difierences between pair skaters and dancers.

Brownell (1992) listed several reasons why athletes are particularly at risk for
developing eating disorders: (a) performance pressure, (b) coach-athlete relationship, (0)
value incongruence, (d) time demands and social isolation, (e) fatigue—related stress, (f)
academic pressure, and (g) stereotyping and discrimination by race and gender. Prolonged
periods of dieting (37%), hiring a new coach (30%), injury (23%), casual comments form
sport oificials and peers (19%), and leaving home (10%) were the top five reasons for
developing eating disorders indicated by elite eating disordered Swedish athletes
(Sundgot-Borgen, 1994). Such sources of stress can be especially taxing on adolescent
athletes who are experiencing physical and social changes.

Psychological Skills: Coping

A major tenet in sport psychology is that coping skills are essential for successful
sport performance. Coping skills are among the characteristics thought to be important for
predicting performance in baseball (Smith and Christiansen, 1995), skiing (Rotella et al.,
1980), and water skiing (Black et al., 1997). Coping is defined as “constantly changing
cognitive and behavioral efl°orts to manage specific external and/or internal demands

appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person “(Lazarus and Folkman,

53

 

1984, p. 141). Coping is not a stable style or trait, and therefore, action can be taken to
alter coping strategies.

Coping research in sport psychology is grounded in the conceptual fiamework of
Lazarus and Folkman (1984), which posits that stress relationships occur as a result of a
transaction between the environment and personal factors. In this transactional model,
cognitive appraisals are involved in determining the meaning of an event. There are three
primary stressful appraisals: harm/loss, challenge, and threat. Harm/loss refers to physical
or psychological harm already done, such as an injury or loss of self-confidence. Threat
refers to the potential of harm or loss. In contrast, challenge refers to a potential for
benefit or the opportunity for growth or mastery. Three stressful appraisals transpire when
the perceived internal or external demands exceed, or strain, the individual’s perceived
resources. In this sense, Lazarus and F olkman's (1984) transactional model is analogous to
Lerner's (1985) goodness of fit hypothesis.

The transactional model highlights the complex process between environmental
demands, perceptions of the demands, and the ability to handle or manage the demands.
However, the sources of stress reactions are not solely based on the characteristics of the
environment. Coping is a process and should not be confused with outcome. “The athlete
may be attempting to cope with a demanding situation, but the selected coping strategies
may be ineffective, inefficient, or inappropriate for that specific situation” (Crocker, 1992,
p.163). For example, an athlete whose weight is criticized by her coach, may engage in
poor eating behaviors as a means of dealing with the criticism.

Coping strategies can be categorized into two functional forms: problem—focused

and emotion-focused coping (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Problem-

54

 

focused coping refers to cognitive and behavioral efforts used to change the problem
causing the distress. These strategies include problem solving, planning, information
seeking, learning, new skills, and increasing effort. Emotion-focused coping, on the other
hand, involves strategies used to regulate emotional arousal and distress. Strategies
include mental and behavioral withdrawal, denial, relaxation, and venting of emotions
(Crocker, 1992).

The relationship between coping and performance is often assessed through the
use of self-report measures comparing specific coping skills of athletes who difi‘er in
competitive level. Several studies have shown that elite and better performing athletes
have superior coping skills (Mahoney, 1989; Rotella et al., 1980; Smith and Christensen,
1995). Athletes use both cognitive and behavioral strategies for coping with sport-related
stresses. Specific strategies have been identified by Lazarus and F olkrnan (1985) in their
66-item Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC). Participants must think of a stressfirl situation
recently experienced and complete the items on the WCC based upon this situation.

Madden et al. (1990) derived a shorter version (54 items) of the WCC for college
basketball players, the Ways of Coping with Sport Checklist (W CSC). Like the original
instrument, the WC SC has eight subscales: (a) general problem-focused, (b) seeking
social support, (c) emotionality, ((1) increased effort and resolve, (e) detachment, (f)
denial, (g) wishful thinking, and (h) focusing on the positive. In the construction of the
WCSC, the basketball players completed a questionnaire regarding their most stressful
experience in the sport. The most frequently cited response was used to standardize a
situation to which the players responded. Limited information regarding the psychometric

Properties of the WCSC was provided by Madden et al. (1990).

55

 

 

More recently, Crocker (1992) modified the original WCC and examined its
psychometric properties through exploratory factor analysis. In this version athletes
(basketball, volleyball, soccer, hockey, ski jumping, cross country, swimming, field
hockey, wrestling, gymnastics, track and field, and cycling) competing at league regional,
provincial, national, or international levels described in a written format their most
stressfiil experience in their respective sport within the previous three weeks.
Subsequently, they responded to the WCC based on their descriptions. Although the two
sport versions of the WCC have yet to undergo extensive psychometric testing, the
consensus is that more successfirl athletes use more positive methods of coping such as
seeking social support, increasing effort and resolve, and focusing on the positive, than

less successfiil athletes.

Summary

Gaining a performance advantage in a specific sport depends upon the numbers
and characteristics of athletes involved in the sport. Probability suggests that a certain
number of athletes will rise to the top and a variety of physical and psychological
characteristics may identify elite athletes. Isolating such characteristics may be beneficial
for talent identification and safe participation in a given sport. One method of identifying
predictive variables is to examine the characteristics of elite athletes and then search for
gified, young athletes using these characteristics as a standard of comparison (Comper,
1991). Alternatively, cross-sectional comparisons of elite and non-elite participants can
identify both positive and negative characteristics associated with a sport. However, little,

if anything, is reported about the characteristics of individuals who are identified as

56

 

talented but who do not make it through the selection process (Malina, 1997).

Physique is an important variable in figure skating where shortness and leanness
are the norm for the elite female skater. Coping with the stresses involved in skating,
including maintaining a low body weight, requires appropriate strategies. Skaters engaging
in inappropriate strategies may have a tendency to experience anxiety that can interfere
with performance, perhaps leading to attrition. The type of anxiety experienced by skaters
may be a fimction of the subjective evaluation inherent in figure skating and of physical
characteristics associated with variation in rate of maturation. Specifically, self-
presentational anxiety such as SPA, together with inappropriate coping skills, may result
in poor Physical Self-Concept, affecting overall self-concept. Consistent with Lemer's
(1992) goodness-of fit hypothesis, a mismatch between an individual's characteristics and
those required for the sport of figure skating may lead to problem behaviors. Figure
skaters striving to maintain the ideal physique may also be at risk for developing eating

disorders.

57

 

CHAPTER 1]]
Methodology
Subjects
Subjects were 161 female figure skaters participating at four United States Figure
Skating Association (USFSA) clubs (n = 37), and seven Canadian Figure Skating
Association (CF SA) clubs (11 = 124). Three additional skating clubs (1 US. and 2
Canadian) declined requests for participation (Appendix A) and two Canadian clubs
selected the skaters who could participate. One of these clubs was a leading pair skating
training facility and did not permit the investigator to have access to testing pair skaters.
The ethnic composition of the sample was 94% Caucasian (n = 150), 5% Asian (n = 9),
and 1% Black (n = 2), and the age range was 11.5 to 22.3 years. Purposive sampling was
used to recruit skaters across three levels of competency (test-stream, pre—elite and elite)
and three disciplines (free skating, dance and pair skating). Test—stream participants are
skaters participating in advanced recreational programs, but who do not compete at the
national or sub-national level. Pre—elite participants are USF SA or CFSA novice
competitors who have competed in at least one previous national qualifying competition
(e.g., sectionals, divisional). Elite participants are USFSA or CFSA junior and senior
participants who have competed in at least one prior national qualifying competition.
Two outliers, one Caucasian test skater who was obese (BMI = 30.6 kg/mz), and

one Asian pre-elite free skater who was 3 3 standard deviations below the age-specific
reference for height, were deleted from the sample. The distribution of the remaining 159

subjects by age, ethnicity, level and discipline is summarized in Table 7. There are more

 

 

pre-elite skaters (42%) than test level (29%) and elite skaters (29%) [38(4) = 38.0, p 5
.001] and more free skaters (68%) than dancers (18%) and pairs skaters (14%) [98(4) =

37.7, p_<_ .001].

Measures and Instrumentation
Demographic Background
The following background information was collected: date of birth, age of first

organized youth sport experience (skating or other), age at figure skating specialization,
reason(s) for specializing in figure skating, significant others who influenced figure skating
participation, skating club membership(s), training location, current competitive level,
skating discipline, competition history, number of competitions in the current competitive
year, number of competitions in the previous competitive year, and number of hours of
training per week. Parental background information included reported stature and weight,
education, occupation, current sport participation, age when first child was born, mother's
age at menarche, number of children in the family, and birth order of skater. The
demographic forms are presented in Appendix B.

Anthropometg;

The protocol for anthropometric data collection and reliabilities were established
during a pilot testing session. Here, three volunteers were measured by two investigators.
Measurement reliability (Technical Error of Measurement [TEM], Malina, 1995) between
the same two technicians was also calculated with additional volunteers after completion
of the study. All reliability observations are within-day replicates with one hour between

r ePlicates. The primary technician collected the majority of the data with the exception of

59

k, ,___——_-4

 

data collected on 10 participants (excluding skinfolds) at the first site. The technicians
were both trained in anthropometry and in interviewing for age at menarche. Intra—rater
reliability was calculated for the primary investigator. At least one participant from each

testing site was measured twice by the primary investigator.

Anthropometry was done during the Winter/Spring skating season of 1998 to
ensure that all skaters had been training. Skaters were measured in a private room free
from distraction. Anthropometric data were collected first, followed by a short interview
regarding age at menarche (Appendix C). The primary investigator asked each skater if
she had attained menarche, and if so, to recall when. This was done in private and the

skaters were assured, again, that all of their answers were confidential.

The following anthropometric dimensions were taken using the anthropometric
procedures described in Lohman et al. (1988): body weight, stature, sitting height,
skinfolds, skeletal breadths, and limb circumferences. Several of the dimensions were used
to estimate somatotype (physique) using the Heath-Carter anthropometric protocol
(Carter and Heath, 1990).

Weight was measured using a Metro scale with both kilograms and pounds
displayed as units of measure. Stature, sitting height, and skeletal breadths were measured
with a GPM field anthropometer. A small sliding GPM caliper was used to measure
biepicondylar breadth. Three measures of each skinfold were taken to the nearest 0.1 mm
on the right side of the body using a Holtain caliper. The average of the readings was
used. Girth measurements were taken on the right side of the body with a fiberglass tape.
Weight (kg) was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg with the subject barefoot and in T-shirt

and shorts.

60

 

 

 

Stature (cm) was measured to the nearest mm with the subject standing on the floor
without shoes, heels together and weight evenly distributed. The measurement was taken
fiom the rear with the subject's head in the Frankfort horizontal plane.

Sitting height (cm) was measured with the subject seated on a table with legs hanging
freely. The subject was positioned erect with the head in the Frankfort horizontal plane.
The measurement was the distance fi'om the top of the table to the vertex of the head.
Circumferences were measured to the nearest mm on the right side of the body at the
following sites:

Upper arm (relaxed), at the marked level midway between the acromial and olecranon
processes with the arm hanging freely at the side.

Upper arm (flexed), at the maximum circumference of the arm with the subject maximally
flexing the biceps with the elbow at 90° angle. ‘

mgr; immediately below the gluteal fold with the subject standing, feet shoulder width
apart, and body weight evenly distributed on both feet.

Lalf as the maximum measurement with the subject standing with the body weight equally
distributed over both feet.

Skeletal Breadths were measured to the nearest mm at the following sites:
Biepicondylar, as the distance between the epicondyles of the right humerus with the
Subject flexing the elbow 90°.

Bicondylar, as the distance between the condyles of the right femur. The subject was
seated on a chair with the knee flexed at a 90° .
Skinfolds were taken on the right side of the body to the nearest 0.1 mm at the following

sites ;

61

 

B_i9§p_s_, at the midpoint of the right upper arm over the belly of the biceps muscle with the
arm relaxed at the side.

m a vertical fold in the midline of the posterior aspect of the arm over the triceps
muscle at the same level as relaxed arm circumference.

Subscapular, 1 cm below the inferior angle of the scapula, following the natural cleavage
of line of the skin.

Supraspinale, 5 cm superior to the anterior spine of the iliac crest along a 45° angle to the
horizontal in the natural cleavage line of the skin.

Abdominal a horizontal skinfold at a site about 3 cm lateral to the midpoint of the

 

umbilicus and 1 cm below it.

Medial calf a vertical fold at the level of the maximum calf circumference on the medial

 

aspect of the calf with the foot placed on a platform to create on 90° angle at the knee.

Measurement Reliability and Variability
Within day replicates of anthropometry were done on 13 subjects by the primary
investigator to estimate intra—observer measurement variability. Fifieen subjects were
measured by the primary investigator and an assistant to estimate inter—observed
measurement variability. Intra-observer variability for anthropometry was calculated from
the absolute differences between the first and second measurements of the same subject.
The technical error of measurement (TEM, Malina, 1995) was used as the indicator of

measurement variability:

TEM = (Zd2)/2n

62

 

 

where TEM the square root of the sum of the squared differences of replicate
measurements (Zd2) divided by twice the number of pairs (2n).

Intra- and inter-observer technical errors of measurements are presented in Table
8. Inter—observer technical errors for skinfolds are generally larger than in other studies
summarized in Table 8. However, intra-observer technical errors for skinfolds are
comparable to those of other studies. Inter- and intra-observer errors for other
anthropometric dimensions are, with few exceptions, comparable (Table 8) and are within

acceptable ranges for field studies (Malina 1995).

Derived Measurements and Indies

Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kg)/stature2 (m).
Estimated leg (subischial) length (cm) was calculated as stature minus sitting height.
Sitting Height/ Stature Ratio was calculated as sitting height (cm)/height (cm) x 100.
Estimated mid—arm muscle circumference (EAMC, Malina, 1995):

EAMC - Ca - (IT/2) * (triceps + biceps skinfolds)

where Ca = relaxed arm circumference
Estimated calf muscle circumference (ECMC, Malina, 1995)

ECMC = Ca — (TI/2) * (medial calf skinfold)

where Ca = calf circumference
Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype was computed as follows:

Endomorphy = -0.7182 + 01451 (X) - 0.00068 (X2) = 0.000014 (x3)

where X = (triceps + subscapular + supraspinale skinfolds) * (170.18/stature cm)

63

 

Mesomorphy = ((0.858 biepicondylar + 0.601 bicondylar + 0.188 corrected arm
circumference + 0.161 corrected calf circumference) - (height * 0.131)) + 4.50, where
corrected arm = arm circumference flexed (cm) - triceps skinfold (cm), and corrected calf
= calf circumference (cm) - medial calf skinfold (cm).

Ectomorphy = HWR * 0.732 - 28.58 where HWR = height (cm)/ weight (kg) 1/3
or height divided by the cube root of weight. IfHWR 5 40.75 3 38.25, ectomorphy =

HWR * 0.463 - 17.63; ifHWR 5 38.25, Ectomorphy = 0.01 (Carter and Heath, 1990).

Maturation

Menarcheal Status

Each skater was asked whether or not she attained menarche (yes/no). Post—
menarcheal females were interviewed as to when menarche occurred. They were asked to
recall the age at menarche to the nearest month (Appendix C). “Time of year”, “season”
and specific competitions were used as prompts to ascertain specific answers. Probit
analysis was used with the status quo data to estimate the median age at menarche and
95% confidence intervals for the sample. Mothers were also asked to recall their age at
menarche. Unfortunately, mothers reported their ages only as whole years. Thus, 0.5 was

added to each age (Livson and McNeil, 1962).

64

 

 

Psychological Variables
mm
Ways of Coping Checklist (WC C, Crocker, 1992)

The WCC is a 68-item questionnaire comprised of eight subscales: Active Coping,
Problem Focused Coping, Social Support, Reappraisal, Wishfirl Thinking, Self-Control,
Detachment, and Self-Blame (Appendix D). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale
where 1 = not used, 2 = used somewhat, 3 = used much, and 4 = used a great deal. Alpha
coefficients above 0.70 have been reported for participants 12 years of age and older
(Crocker and Snyder, 1997). Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficients for the present sample (n
= 138) range from 0.09 to 0.76. Participants were requested to think of their most
stressful skating experience and complete each WCC item based on this situation. Since
only three subscales had acceptable reliabilities, the WCC was excluded from subsequent
analyses (Table 9).

Self-concept
Physical Self-Description Questionnaire (PSDQ, Marsh, 1996).

The PSDQ is a 70-item self-report test measuring nine components of Physical
Self-Concept: Appearance, Coordination, Endurance, Flexibility, Strength, Health,
Physical Activity, Body Fat, Sport, and two global components: Global Physical Self-
Concept and Self—Esteem. Each item is a declarative statement and participants respond on
a 6-point true-false response scale (Appendix D). The PSDQ shows no sex differences. It
has been used with youth 12 to] 8 years of age, and has been recommended as appropriate

for older subjects (Marsh et al., 1994). Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficients for the 11

 

 

 

subscales in the present sample (n = 128) range between 0.81 and 0.94 (Table 9). The
criteria for external validity include estimates of body composition (BMI, girth and
skinfold measurements), silhouette ratings, physical activity participation and adherence,
physical activity levels, endurance(12-Minute Run), explosive/dynamic strength (vertical
jump), static strength (hand grip dynarnometer), and flexibility (sit and reach). Each of
these variables was correlated (0.25 to 0.64) with at least one of the PSDQ subscales
(Marsh, 1996).

Eating Disorder Risk

Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI, Garner et al., 1983)

The EDI consists of cognitive and behavioral dimensions to help difi‘erentiate
individuals with severe psychopathology from extreme dieting. The 64-item self- report
inventory consists of eight subscales: Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, Body Dissatisfaction,
Ineffectiveness, Perfectionism, Interpersonal Distrust, Introceptive Awareness, and
Maturity Fears (Appendix D). The subscales were derived from a large pool of items
generated by clinicians involved with the research and treatment of patients with anorexia
nervosa. To be included in a subscale, an item had to be answered significantly differently
by control patients compared to those with anorexia nervosa.

Scores range from lowest to highest where I = ‘never’, 2 = ‘rarely’, 3 =
‘sometimes’, 4 = ‘ofien’, 5 = ‘usually’, and 6 = ‘always’. Scoring the EDI involves
summing the responses after condensing the 6-point Likert scale to a 4-point scale where a
scores of 1 through 3 are recoded as 0, 4 is recoded as 1, 5 is recoded as 2, and 6 is
recoded as 3. Individuals scoring 315 and 310 on the Drive for Thinness and Body

Dissatisfaction scales, respectively, are considered at risk for developing eating disorders

66

 

(Garner and Olmstead, 1984). Alpha coefficients for samples 14 t018 years are 0.78 and
higher (Rosen et al., 1988). For the present sample (n = 126), Cronbach (1951) alpha
coefficients range from 0.70 to 0.94 (Table 9).

Social Physique Anxing

Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS, Hart et al., 1989)

The SPAS is a 12-item self-report questionnaire. Each item is scored on a 5-point
scale where 1 = 'not at all', = 'slightly', 3 = 'moderately', 4 = 'very' (4), 5 = 'extremely‘.
Items 1,5,8, and 11 are reverse scored (Appendix D). Alpha coefficients range from 0.77
to 0.92 for males and 0.74 to 0.93 for females 13 years of age and older (Crocker and

Snyder, 1998; Petrie et al., 1996). The Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficient for the present

sample (n = 135) is 0.91 (Table 9) and there is a positive correlation between SPA and

chronological age (r = 0.30, p 5 0.001).

Procedures
Upon obtaining the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects

(UCRIHS) from Michigan State University (Appendix E), initial consent for conducting

the research was requested by the primary investigator from the figure skating clubs.

Oflicials from 13 figure skating clubs in southern Ontario and mid-Michigan were
COntacted by phone or in person. The study was described and questions regarding the
study were answered at this time. Eleven club oflicials agreed to participate, providing a
meeting time and a room for a general meeting. Participation and consent was solicited
fiom parents and athletes at the information meeting, or personally by the primary

1n"’estigator. Participants and their legal guardians formally indicated consent by signing a

I;

67

 

 

consent form (Appendix A).

At the initial meeting, skaters expressing interest in participating in the study were
given a questionnaire package. In addition, a time for anthropometry was tentatively set.
Skaters were instructed to complete the questionnaire and return it to the primary
investigator at the time the measurements were taken. Anthropometric dimensions were

take within one month of the initial request for participation.

The number of participants varies across analyses because of incomplete data
(Table 10). Participation in anthropometry and completing the questionnaire package
required a substantial amount of time. Some skaters took the questionnaires home and did
not return them to the investigator. Other skaters mailed the questionnaire package to the
primary investigator, whereas others submitted their questionnaires in sealed envelopes to
skating club officials, who sent them to the primary investigator. Anthropometric data
were collected before, during, after, or in between practices which made it difficult for
some skaters to complete the questionnaires by the time anthropometric dimensions were
taken. Many parents did not complete the questionnaire, perhaps because some of the
Skaters lived away from home to train and did not see their parents regularly. Many of the
mothers omitted questions about weight and menarche perhaps because of the personal

nature of the questions and/or unfamiliarity with the term menarche.

Analyses

W

What are the anthropometric, physique, menarcheal, and psychological

68

k

 

 

characteristics of female competitive figure skaters ages 11 years and older?

Means and standard deviations for each measured or derived variable were
calculated. Medians were calculated for fat-related variables. Where available,
anthropometric data were plotted relative to US. reference values. Probit analysis was
used with the status quo data to estimate the median age at menarche of the sample. Due
to the broad age range of the sample, correlations were calculated between chronological
age and all dependent variables. Low (5 0.39), moderate (0.40 - 0.69) and high

correlations (2 0.70) are based on the magnitudes defined by Cohen (1988). Since most

correlations were significant, age was controlled in subsequent analyses.

Questions 2 and 3

Do the physical and psychological characteristics of competitive skaters differ by
age across competency levels? Do the physical and psychological characteristics of
competitive skaters differ across discipline?

To determine if there were difl’erences among test, pre—elite and elite skaters,
several Analyses of Covariance (AN COVA) with age as the covariate were done for each
anthropometric variable, menarche, and SPA by level. Separate MANCOVA were
Conducted for endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy with age and the two remaining

Somatotype indicators as covariates. Post hoc comparisons were made using Hotelling’s
T2 With a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.005 (Cressie et al., 1986). For all other
anaJyses, alpha was set at .05.
Subscales of the PSDQ and EDI were grouped together and a Multiple Analysis of
COVaIiance (MANCOVA) was calculated do detemrine group differences for each of the

psychological instrument subscales by level. Two MAN COVA were also calculated by

k

69

 

discipline to determine if there were differences among free skaters, dancers and pair
skaters. Chi square analysis was used to examine the proportion of skaters meeting the
eating disorder criteria across level and discipline. Chi square analysis was also used for
age at menarche to examine the proportion of average and late maturing skaters across

level and discipline. Due to the large standard deviations for the EDI subscale scores,

medians are provided.

Question 4

Do the physical and psychological characteristics of figure skaters differ relative to
menarcheal status and timing?

AN COVA was used to compare the anthropometric, somatotype, and
psychological characteristics of pre- and post-menarcheal skaters, and of average and late
maturing post-menarcheal skaters 2 16 years of age (maturational timing). The Cressie et

al. (1986) analytical protocol was used for somatotype. For all other analyses alpha was

set at .05

Question 5

Are the physical characteristics of figure skaters correlated with self - perceptions

0f physical dimensions?

To examine the relationship between physical variables and physical self-
Perceptions, partial correlations controlling for chronological age were conducted.
Selected anthropometric dimensions related to body size, proportions and fatness were
COTTelated with selected psychological variables that were related to perceptions of

p hySical characteristics: PSDQ subscales (Body Fat, Global Physical Self-Concept,

Appearance, and Self-Esteem), EDI subscales (Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, Body

k

70

 

Dissatisfaction, and Maturity Fears), and SPA. For somatotype, correlations between each
component and the psychological variables were calculated as partial correlations
controlling for age and the other two somatotype components. Second—order partial
correlations were also calculated for height, weight, and the sum of 6 skinfold thicknesses
and each psychological variable controlling for age and one of the physical variables.
M
Can a selection of physical and psychological characteristics thought to be
important for elite and specialized figure skating discriminate level of competency and
disciplinary involvement?
Discriminant fimction analyses were conducted to determine if a combination of
physical and psychological characteristic could correctly classify the figure skaters (total

sample and skaters 3 15 years) by level and disciplinary involvement.

mm
Can self-perceptions characterized by Social Physique Anxiety, Global Physical

Self-Concept, and Self-Esteem be predicted by a unique set of physical and psychological
Variables?

A multivariate-multiple regression analysis was performed to determine if
Psychological variables reflecting self-perceptions, which include SPA, Global Physical
Self-Concept and Self-Esteem, could be predicted by a combination of physical and
Psychological variables. SPA, Global Physical Self—Concept and Self-Esteem were chosen
beCaUSe these variables are thought to be important for athletic success (Crocker and

SnYder, 1997), particularly for those participating in aesthetic sports. Due to the sample

size (n = 114), the set of physical and psychological predictor variables included age,

k

71

 

height, weight, somatotype (endomorphy, mesomorphy, ectomorphy), Appearance, Body
Fat, Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for Thinness, and Perfectionism.
matron;
Can the susceptibility to eating disorders identified by Bulimia, Drive for Thinness,
Body Dissatisfaction, Perfectionism and Maturity Fears be predicted by anthropometric
characteristics, somatotype and psychological variables related to physique, appearance
and self-concept?
Stepwise regression analysis, controlling for age, was performed for each of the
EDI subscales on the total sample. Five subscales of the EDI were chosen as relevant
factors representing risk for eating disorders in adolescent figure skaters. Bulimia was
chosen because it is the only behavioral indicator of disturbed eating patterns represented
in EDI. Drive for Thinness and Body Dissatisfaction involve physical self-perceptions. The
perception of maturity (Maturity Fears) is also of interest because most of the skaters
were adolescent and pubertal maturation influences body composition and physique.
Since, expectations of perfection are inherent in skating, Perfectionism is also considered.
The three remaining constructs (lneffectiveness, Introceptive Awareness, and
Interpersonal Distrust) are concerned with social adjustment and are not relevant to this

athletic context; therefore they are excluded from the analysis.

72

 

Chapter IV
Results

Demographic characteristics of skaters and their parents are first described, and
then each of the research questions outlined in Chapters 1 and 1H is addressed. The
growth, maturational, and psychological characteristics of the young female skaters are
described. Selected grth and maturational variables are presented relative to US.
reference values. When available, psychological characteristics are compared to normative
data. Physical and psychological variables are then compared by competency level and by
discipline. Comparisons between pre- and post-menarcheal skaters are examined followed
by a comparison of post-menarcheal skaters _>_16 years of age characterized as average and
late maturing (two early maturers were excluded). Next, the relationship between physical
and psychological variables, and predictors of level and disciplinary participation are
examined. The self-concept of the skaters is then considered. Finally, predictors of risk for

eating disorder are considered.

Demographic Characteristics
Skaters
Experience in organized figure skating ranges from 3.5 to 17.1 years, and mean
years of experience increases with age to about 17 years (Table 11). The first organized
Spol‘t experiences reported by skaters are variable and include roller skating (1%), running

(1 0/0), hockey (1%), skiing (2%), t-ball (3%), soccer (7%), swimming (12.4%), gymnastics

| .3

 

(15.4%), ballet (19%), and skating (40.2%). However, only 11% of the skaters report
participating in other organized sports at the same time they train in figure skating.
Descriptive statistics for the background characteristics for total sample of the
skaters and correlation with skating level are presented in Table 12. Correlations are low
(-0.28 to 0.39) between level and years of experience, age at first competition, number of
competitions in 1997, and training hours on and 03 of the ice. Results of the ANOVA
comparing background information for the skaters by level and discipline are presented in
Tables 13 and 14, respectively. Age at first competition, years of skating experience, years
of disciplinary experience, number of competitions in 1997 and 1998, and hours of
training on and off of the ice difier significantly by level. Post hoc analyses using Tukey’s
HSD indicate that test skaters are older at first competition than both pre-elite and elite
skaters. Elite skaters have more years of experience than pre-elite and test skaters, and
more disciplinary experience compared to test skaters. Pre-elite and elite skaters
participated in more competitions in 1997 compared to test skaters, while pre—elite skaters
had more competitions in 1998 than test skaters.

Years of skating experience, years of experience in a particular discipline, number
of competitions in 1998, and weekly on—ice training hours differ significantly across
discipline. Post hoc analyses indicate that free skaters have less overall skating experience
Compared to pair skaters, and that dancers have less disciplinary skating experience than
either free or pair skaters. Pair skaters participated in more competitions in 1998 than

either free skaters or dancers, and spend more time training on-ice than free skaters.

Dancers also spend more time training on-ice than free skaters (Table 14).

74

k

 

The proportion of skaters reporting parental influence (i.e., mothers and fathers)
on their skating participation is higher than the proportion of skaters reporting influence
from a coach, friend, or others (Table 15). Skaters report their mothers as most influential.
Other factors influencing skating participation include grandparents, the 1988 Olympic
athletes, and self-motivation. The figure skaters tend to be first (54 of 111, 48.6%) or
second (44 of 111, 39.6%) born. This reflects family size, 2.2 i 0.8 children. Four of the
skaters (4%) were adopted so that birth order and family size information were not
available. Within 2-child families, the figure skaters are evenly divided between first and

second born (Table 16). In larger families, the skaters are distributed across birth order

positions. Six percent (n= 7) of the 110 skaters receive funding and 14.5% live away from

home to train.

Parents

Most mothers and fathers have college degrees, both undergraduate or graduate,
but more fathers than mothers specify graduate degrees (Table 16). In addition, 44% of
fathers (n = 98) and 39% of mothers (n = 106) report participating in organized sport at
present. Descriptive statistics for reported height and weights, of mothers and fathers, and
age at menarche of the mothers are shown in Table 17. There are no differences by level

01' discipline. But, there is a trend for mean ages at menarche of mothers to increase from

test to pre-elite to elite skaters [F(2) = 0.8, p > .05] and fiom fiee skaters to dancers to

pair skaters [F(2) = 1.1, p > .05].

75

 

 

Research Questions and Hypotheses
Question 1
What are the anthropometric, physique, menarcheal, and psychological

characteristics of female competitive figure skaters ages 11 years and older?

Anthropometric Characteristics
H1: Figure skaters are smaller in height, weight, limb circumferences and skeletal
breadths, and leaner compared to reference data for non-athletes.

Descriptive statistics for all body dimensions for the total sample is presented in
Table 18 and corresponding statistics by single year chronological age groups are
presented in Appendix F. Age is significantly correlated with most variables; it is thus used
as a covariate in subsequent analyses. Data for stature, weight, the BMI, sitting height,
estimated leg length, the sitting height/stature ratio, bicondylar and biepicondylar breadths,
relaxed arm and calf circumferences, and the subscapular and triceps skinfolds are shown
in Figures 2 through 13 relative to US. reference values. The 10th (P10), median (PSO),
and 90th (P90) percentiles are used for height and weight, while the 15Lb (PIS), 501h (P50),
and 85th (P85) are used for the BMI. Medians are used for the other variables. Data for
individual skaters are shown in the upper part and age—specific means are shown in the
lower part of each figure.

Individual statures and weights are distributed between P10 and P90. Two skaters

are above P90 for stature and proportionally more are below P10 for stature than for body

Weight (Figures 2 and 3). Mean statures and weights of figure skaters are generally below

76

_¥—

 

the reference medians at most ages (lower part, Figures 2 and 3). The majority of
individual values for the BMI are between P15 and P85, but two are at or above P85 and
17 are at or below P15, suggesting low weight for stature, particularly among skaters 516
years. Among skaters 216 years of age, many have BMls that are equal to or above the
reference medians (Figure 4). Mean BMIs are near or above the reference medians at all
ages except 11 years.

Mean sitting heights and estimated leg lengths parallel the trends for stature, i.e.,
they are generally below the reference medians at most ages (Figures 5 and 6,
respectively). Mean sitting height/ stature ratios are at or below the reference medians from
11-14 years. Subsequently, mean ratios are at or above the reference means, indicating a
trend for proportionately shorter legs among the older skaters (Figure 7). Mean
biepicondylar breadths are consistently below the reference medians (Figure 8), and mean
bicondylar breadths are at or below the reference medians (Figure 9).

Mean relaxed arm and calf circumferences are both below the reference medians,
and the trend is more apparent for arm circumference (Figures 10 and 11, respectively).
Median triceps and subscapular skinfolds are consistently below the reference medians
(Figures 12 and 13, respectively).

Physique

Somatotypes of the majority of skaters are distributed between the endomorphy-
mesomorphy and mesomorphy-ectomorphy axes of the somatochart (Figure 14). Mean
Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotypes are presented by age group in Table19 and

Figure 15. Endomorphy increases with age to 17 years, mesomorphy is rather stable

77

 

 

across age, and ectomorphy decreases with age especially in skaters 16 years and older.

Overall, the mean somatotype is balanced.

H2: Figure skaters are later maturing compared to reference data for non-athletes.

In this sample of figure skaters, 111 attained menarche whereas 48 did not attain
menarche at the time of survey. The median age at menarche based on probits is 14.2 :05
years, with a 95% confidence interval of 13.2 to 15.2 years. The mean age at menarche
based on recalled ages for skaters 2 16 years is 13.6 :12 years. The median and mean
ages at menarche of the skaters are later than the reference value for American White girls,
12.8 i 1.0 years (Eveleth and Tanner, 1990), thus supporting the hypothesis. The
distributions in Tables 20 also indicate that early maturing girls (menarche 5 12.0 years)
are under represented in the sample of figure skaters; only two skaters attained menarche
< 12.0.

Post—menarcheal skaters Z 16 years with recalled age at menarche between 12.0
and 13.99 are classified as average maturers (n = 46), and those skaters with recalled ages
at menarche 2 14.0 years (n = 19) are classified as late maturers. Two skaters are early
maturers (menarche 5 12.0 years).

The distribution of recalled ages at menarche for all post-menarcheal skaters 216
years and their mothers is presented in Table 21. Mean ages at menarche of mothers and
their figure skating daughters are reasonably similar, allowing for error of the recall in the
retrospective method. The correlation between recalled ages at menarche of skaters and

their mothers (n = 28 pairs) is 0.60 (p = .001).

78

H3: Physical self-perceptions decrease with age, while social physique anxiety and eating
disorder risk increase with age.

Descriptive statistics for the psychological inventory subscales for the total sample
is given in Table 22. Descriptive statistics by chronological age groups are shown in
Appendix F (Tables 10 — 12). Supporting hypothesis 3, age is significantly correlated with
SPA and most subscales of the PSDQ and EDI. For the PSDQ, these include Body Fat,
Physical Activity, Global Physical Self-Concept, Health and Sport Competence. For the
EDI subscales, Body Dissatisfaction, Bulimia, Drive for Thinness, Inetfectiveness,
Maturity Fears, and Introceptive Awareness are significantly related to age. “With the
exception of age and Sport Competence, correlations between age and physical self-
perceptions are low and negative, ranging from -0.23 to -0.31, while correlations between
age and the EDI subscales are low to moderate and positive, ranging fi'om 0.23 to 0.42
and the correlation between age and SPA is 0.33 (p 5 .05). In sum, physical self-
perceptions decrease with age while eating disorder risk and social physique anxiety
increase with age.

None of the 11 and 12 year old skaters meet the Body Dissatisfaction and Drive
for Thinness criteria for eating disorder risk classification (scores :10 and Z 15,
respectively). Risk classification is more common in skaters 15 years and older. The
proportion of skaters in each age group meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria ranges
from 10% (14 and 15 years) to 47% (17 years), while those meeting the Drive for
Thinness criteria from range from 5% (13 and 14) to 24% (17 years). Of the total sample

(1'1 =126), 29% (n = 37) meet the criteria for Body Dissatisfaction and 12% (n = 15) meet

the criteria for Drive for Thinness (Appendix F, Table 11).

79

 

 

 

 

 

H4: Figure skaters will have higher PSDQ scores, and lower SPAS and EDI scores than
non-athletes.

Since there are no reference values for a representative sample of North American
adolescent girls, the mean values for samples of non-athletes are used for comparison. It is
not certain if the non-athletes are representative of the adolescent population of North
American girls. The PSDQ scores of figure skaters are higher than a sample of younger
female non-athletes with the exception of Health (Table 23). The mean for the total
sample is lower than the reference values for young adult college students, but SPAS
means for skaters 16 years and older are closer (Table 24). EDI means for the total sample
of skaters are lower than the means for adult bulimic anorexics and the norms for
adolescent females with the exception of Maturity Fears (Table 25). The means of skaters
older than 16 years are higher than the norms for college women for each of the EDI

subscales except Body Dissatisfaction and Perfectionism.

Question 2
Do the physical and psychological characteristics of competitive skaters differ

across competency levels (test, pre-elite and elite)?

H5: Elite figure skaters have a unique set of physical and psychological characteristics
Compared to test and pre-elite skaters.
Physical Characteristics

To examine age—related trends in anthropometric characteristics, skaters were

classified by level into four age groups: group 1: 11.0-12.9, group 2: 13.0-14.9, group 3:

80

 

15.0—16.9, and group 4: 170+ years. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 26. Age-
related trends across level indicate that pre-elite and elite skaters are lighter than test
skaters until about 14.0 years, but pre-elite and elite skaters are shorter than test skaters
afier 14 years of age. In general, pre-elite skaters are smaller than both test and elite
skaters until about 17 years, whereas test skaters are larger than both pre-elite and elite
skaters across the age span studied.

Differences in skeletal breadths are small. Pre-elite skaters generally have smaller
limb circumferences than test and elite skaters with little variation between test and elite
skaters to 15 years. Older elite skaters are smaller than test skaters after 15 years. The
trend for individual skinfold thicknesses is variable, but test skaters tend to have a greater
sum of 6 skinfolds than older skaters. Older test skaters also have proportionately more
subcutaneous fat on the trunk, i.e., higher T/E ratio (Table 26).

Test skaters tend to be more endomorphic than pre-elite and elite skaters, whereas
elite skaters 315 years are more mesomorphic than test and pre—elite skaters (Table 26).
Pre-elite skaters tend to be somewhat more ectomorphic across age groups.

To determine group differences across competitive levels, analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) with age as the covariate was conducted for each anthropometric variable.
Descriptive statistics by level are shown in Table 27 and the results of the AN COVAs and
adjusted means are summarized in Table 28. Elite skaters tend to show less variability than
test and pre-elite skaters as evident in the smaller standard deviations in many dimensions
(Table 27). Only stature, estimated leg length, bicondylar breadth, and biepicondylar
breadth do not differ among the skaters by level (Table 28). All other variables differ

significantly. Post hoc analysis indicate that test skaters are larger and/or heavier than pre-

81

_¥————

 

elite skaters in weight, the BMI, sitting height, and the sitting height/standing height ratio,
and taller than elite skaters in sitting height. Test skaters are also larger than pre-elite and
elite skaters in limb circumferences and greater than elite skaters for relaxed arm, calf and
corrected calf circumferences. Test skaters have thicker skinfolds than both pre-elite and
elite skaters. Elite skaters have a larger BMI and a higher sitting height/ stature ratio than
pre-elite skaters. Although the trunk/extremity ratio does not differ by level, elite skaters
tend to have proportionally less subcutaneous fat on the trunk. Comparisons of pre-elite
and elite skaters indicate that pre—elite skaters are smaller than elite skaters in the BMI,
arm, thigh and corrected arm circumferences and the triceps skinfold thickness. Pre-elite
skaters also have a lower sitting height/stature ratio indicating proportionately larger legs.
Mean somatotypes of figure skaters by level are presented in Figure 16.
MANCOVAs were conducted for each somatotype component by level with age and the
two other somatotype components held constant. Although the individual somatotypes of
figure skaters seem to cluster within a relatively narrow range of the somatochart, post
hoc comparisons using Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.005
(Cressie et al., 1986) indicate that test skaters are more endomorphic than either pre—elite
or elite skaters, and that test and pre—elite skaters are more ectomorphic than elite skaters
(Table 28). Overall, the results support the hypothesis that elite and pre-elite skaters can

be differentiated from test skaters on the basis of their physical characteristics.

Psychological Characteristics
Mean scores for each psychological inventory subscale by level and age group are

presented in Table 29. Among the youngest skaters, pre-elite skaters report higher mean

82

 

 

scores than test skaters for all of the PSDQ subscales except Health and Appearance,
while pre—elite and elite skaters report higher scores than test skaters in the oldest group
(217 years) for Health, Coordination, Physical Activity, Body Fat, Sport Competence,
Global Physical Self-Concept, Appearance, Endurance, Self-Esteem and Flexibility.
Interestingly, among the oldest skaters, those who are pre-elite report lowest mean Sport
Competence scores, whereas elite skaters report the highest mean scores on most other
subscales.

For the EDI, younger (g 15.0 years) test and/or elite skaters report higher mean
scores than pre-elite skaters for the majority of the subscales. Among the older skaters,
particularly _>_17.0 years, pre—elite and/or elite skaters report higher values than test skaters
for all of the EDI subscales. It is also important to note that elite skaters 13-15 years and
317 years, and test skaters 15-17 years of age report high mean (210) Body
Dissatisfaction scores, which is an indicator of eating disorder risk (Garner and Olmstead,
1984). Test skaters report higher mean SPA scores than both pre-elite and elite skaters
until 17 years, when elite skaters report higher mean scores. Test skaters have higher SPA
than pre-elite skaters until about 17 years, whereas elite skaters have higher SPA scores
than test and pre-elite skaters.

Descriptive statistics for the PSDQ, EDI and SPA by level are presented in Table
30. Two MANCOVAs with age as the covariate were conducted for the PSDQ and EDI
subscale scores. Results of the MANCOVAs are presented in Table 31. Age covariates are
significant for both the EDI and the PSDQ, but only the PSDQ has a significant main
effect. After controlling for age, univariate effects are significant for Physical Activity,

Appearance, Endurance and Self-Esteem. Post hoc analyses using Tukey’s HSD indicate

83

 

that elite and pre-elite skaters have higher scores than test skaters for Appearance,
Endurance and Self-Esteem, while elite skaters have higher scores for Physical Activity
than either test skaters or pre-elite skaters. The main effect for the EDI is not significant,
but the AN COVA for SPA is significant. Both test and elite skaters have higher SPA
scores than pre—elite skaters.

Of the 37 skaters meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria for eating disorder risk
classification (scores 2 10) by level, 30% are test skaters (n = l 1), 27% are pre—elite
skaters (n = 10) and 43% are elite skaters (n = 16) [x2 (2) = 7.0, p < .05). Although there
is a significant chi square, the residuals do not meet the cut off of 2.0, which is meaningful
for significant cell contribution if the data were randomly distributed (Hinkel et al., 1988).
The cells by level range from -1.1 to 1.7. Of the 15 skaters meeting the Drive for Thinness
criteria (scores 2 15), 33% are test skaters (n = 5), 20% are pre—elite (n = 3) and 47% are

elite (n = 7) [x2 (2) = 4.1, p >05].

H6: There is a greater proportion of late maturing pre-elite and elite skaters than test
skaters.

This analysis is limited to 67 figure skaters Z 16 years of age. Recalled ages at
menarche and means and standard deviations are summarized in Table 32. The mean age
at menarche, is significantly later for elite skaters (14.0 :1.4) compared to test skaters
(12.9 : 0.8) [F(2) = 6.0, p 5 .01]. Pre-elite skaters do not differ from elite or test skaters.
Contrary to the hypothesis, a significant chi square analysis for age at menarche by level [x
2 (2) = 7.3, p g .05] indicates that there are more average maturing (menarche about 11.8

tol4.0 years) skaters across all three competency levels (test: 92.9%, pre-elite skaters:

84

 

 

81.3% and elite: 70.8%). However, examining the residuals of each cell in the analysis to

determine, if any are 2 2.0, reveals none that are significant (range: -0.3 - 1.3).

Question 3
Do the physical and psychological characteristics of competitive skaters differ

across discipline (free skate, dance and pairs)?

H7: Dancers are older, taller and leaner, and have relatively longer legs than free skater
and pair skaters.
Physical Characteristics

Age-related trends in anthropometric characteristics across discipline were initially
examined age groups (Table 33). Among the younger skaters (11-14 years), dancers and
pair skaters are generally lighter, have lower a BMI, and have a shorter sitting height and
lower sitting height/stature ratios than free skaters. Free skaters are shorter in stature and
have shorter relative leg length than dancers and pair skaters. Compared to free skaters,
older dancers and pair skaters are lighter, shorter in stature, sitting height and leg length,
and have shorter relative leg lengths than dancers. Younger (5 15.0 years) pair and free
skaters are slightly broader in skeletal breadths than dancers, while dancers and free
skaters are broader than pair skaters among the older skaters (3 15.0 years). Except
among 11-12 year old skaters, dance and pair skaters are generally smaller than free
skaters in limb circumferences and skinfolds across age, which partially supports the

hypothesis.

85

 

 

Older dancers (3 15.0 years) tend to be more ectomorphic and pair skaters are
more mesomorphic to about 17 years. Among the oldest skaters (317 years), pair and free
skaters are identical in mesomorphy, dancers are more ectomorphic, and free skaters are
more endomorphic (Table 33).

A significant ANOVA [F(2) = 4.8, p < .01] indicates that dancers (16.8 : 2.5) are
older than free skaters (15.3 : 2.3), but not pair skaters (16.1 : 2.6). After controlling for
age, ANCOVAs were significant for all variables except estimated leg length, bicondylar
breadth, the biceps skinfold, and the T/E ratio. Post hoc analyses reveal that free skaters
are heavier and taller than dancers and pair skaters. They also have a larger BMI and
sitting height, and a higher the sitting height/stature ratio than pair skaters. Dancers are
larger than pair skaters in stature, sitting height, and have a higher sitting height/ stature
ratio. Free skaters are broader than pair skaters and dancers in biepicondylar breadth. For
all circumferences, free skaters are larger than either dancers or pair skaters, with free
skaters larger than dancers in corrected arm circumference. For skinfold thicknesses, free
skaters have more subcutaneous fat than either dancers or pair skaters at the triceps,
supraspinale, abdominal and calf sites and the sum of 6 skinfolds, and have more fat than
pair skaters at the subscapular site. Pair skaters have a thicker medial calf skinfold than
dancers (Table 34 and 35).

Mean somatotypes by discipline are presented in Figure 17. MAN COVAs were
conducted for each somatotype component by discipline With age and the two other
somatotype components as covariates. Post hoc comparisons were conducted using
Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.005 (Cressie et al., 1986).

Results indicate that free skaters are more endomorphic than both dancers and pair

86

 

skaters, and pair skaters are more mesomorphic than fiee skaters and dancers.

Ectomorphy does not differ by discipline (Table 34 and 35).

H8: Dancers and pair skaters have more favorable self-concept scores, but are at greater
risk for eating disorders than free skaters.
Psychological Characteristics

Means for each psychological inventory subscale by discipline and age group are
presented in Table 36. Partially supporting the hypothesis, free and pair skaters generally
report greater PSDQ subscale scores than dancers until about 17 years, and dancers report
highest mean scores for the subscales of Body Fat, Global Physical Self-Concept and
Appearance. Contrary to what was expected, pair skaters report lowest scores for these
subscales and for Self-Esteem.

Age-related trends indicate, in general, that free skaters and dancers report higher
mean EDI scores than pair skaters to about 17 years of age. Among the oldest skaters
(3 17 years), dancers and pair skaters generally report the highest mean scores. Dancers
15.0-16.9 years and pair skaters _>_ 17 years report high (210) Body Dissatisfaction scores.
Free skaters report the highest scores until 17 years after which fi'ee skaters report highest
mean SPA scores.

Descriptive statistics for the PSDQ, EDI, and SPA in the total sample of figure
skaters by discipline are presented in Table 37. Two MANCOVAs controlling for age
were conducted to determine if skaters differed in the PSDQ and EDI across discipline.
The age covariates and main effects are significant for both analyses (Table 38). After

controlling for age, univariate analyses for discipline are significant for Health,

87

 

 

 

 

 

Coordination, Sport Competence, and Strength. Post hoc analyses indicate that free
skaters report higher Health scores than dancers or pair skaters, whereas free and pair
skaters report higher scores than dancers for Coordination, Sport Competence and
Strength. The results partially support the hypothesis that more specialized skaters have
more favorable self-perceptions.

After controlling for age, there are significant univariate effects for the Bulimia and
Interpersonal Distrust scores of the EDI. Dancers report higher values on both subscales
than both free and pair skaters, which provides partial support for the hypothesis. Pair
skaters do not report values higher than free skaters. Results of the ANCOVA indicate
that SPA does not differ by discipline (F(2, 134) = 0.3, p 2 .05).

Of the 37 skaters meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria for eating disorder risk
classification (scores 2 10), 62% are free skaters (n = 23), 24% are dancers (n = 9), and
14% are pair skaters (n = 5) [x2 (2) = 1.4, p > .05]. Of the 15 skaters meeting the Drive
for Thinness criteria (scores 2 15), 47% are free skaters (n = 7), 27% are dancers (n = 4),

and 27% are pair skaters (n = 4) [x2 (2) = 3.8, p > .05].

H9: There is a greater proportion of late maturing dance and pair skaters than free skaters.
The analysis is limited to 67 figure skaters 2 16 years of age because all but one
Skater are post-menarcheal. The distribution of recalled ages at menarche, and means and
standard deviations are summarized in Table 39. Mean recalled age at menarche is
Significantly later in pair skaters (14.5 : 1.3 years) compared to free skaters (13.4 : 1.0
years) and dancers (13.4 : 1.4) (F(2) = 4.7, p 5 .01). A significant chi square analysis [x2

(2) = 6.1, p 5 .05] and a residual of 1.9 for late maturing pair skaters, although not

88

 

significant, suggests a trend for a greater proportion of late maturing pair skaters (58%)
than would be expected if the data were randomly distributed. In contrast, 21% of free
skaters and 25% of dancers are late maturing, and the residuals for the average and late

maturing skaters by discipline range from -1 .2 to 0.6.

Question 4

Do the physical and psychological characteristics of figure skaters differ relative to

menarcheal status and timing?

H10: Pre- and post-menarcheal skaters differ in physical and psychological characteristics.
Physical Characteristics

Descriptive statistics for pre- and post-menarcheal skaters are shown in Table 40.
AN COVAs controlling for age (Table 41) were conducted for the anthropometric
characteristics of pre- and post-menarcheal skaters. After controlling for age, the
univariate analyses are significant for all variables except biepicondylar breadth, relaxed
arm, corrected arm and calf circumferences, and the T/E ratio. Pre-menarcheal skaters are
smaller than post-menarcheal skaters in all anthropometric variables. They have, however,
proportionately longer legs.

MANCOVAs were used to compare somatotype by menarcheal status holding age
and the two other somatotype components constant. Post hoc comparisons conducted
using Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.005 (Cressie et al., 1986)
indicate that pre-menarcheal skaters are less endomorphic and more ectomorphic than

post-menarcheal skaters. Mesomorphy did not differ.

89

 

 

 

 

Psychological Characteristics

Descriptive statistics for the psychological inventories in skaters by menarcheal
status are presented in Table 42. Two MANCOVAs controlling for age were conducted to
detemiine if skaters differed in PSDQ and EDI subscales by menarcheal status. Age is a
significant covariate for the PSDQ, but not for the EDI. The main effects for both analyses
are significant (Table 43). Univariate statistics for the Body Fat, Sport Competence,
Global Physical Self-Concept, Endurance and Self-Esteem subscales of the PSDQ are
significant. Pre-menarcheal skaters have higher scores for each. After controlling for age,
univariate analyses for the subscales of the EDI are significant for Body Dissatisfaction,
Drive for Thinness, and Introceptive Awareness, and post-menarcheal skaters have higher
scores than pre-menarcheal skaters for each of these subscales. Post-menarcheal skaters
also have significantly higher SPA scores than pre—menarcheal skaters.

Of the 37 skaters meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria for eating disorder risk
(scores 2 10), 97% are post-menarcheal (n = 36) and only one skater is pre—menarcheal
skater (3%) (n = 1) [x2 (1) = 16.2, p < .001]. A residual of -2.9 for pre-menarcheal skaters
indicates that a smaller proportion of pre-menarcheal skaters meet the Body
Dissatisfaction criteria than would be expected if the data were randomly distributed.

Of the 15 skaters meeting the Drive for Thinness criteria for eating disorder risk
classification (scores 2 15, respectively), 93% are post-menarcheal (n = 14), and only one
skater is pre-menarcheal (7%) [x2(1) = 3.7, p = .05]. Despite the significant chi square,
none of the residuals (-1.5 to 1.0) meet the 2.0, cut—off which is considered a significant

contribution to the chi square analysis (Hinkel et al., 1988).

90

H11: Pre-menarcheal skaters differ in physical and psychological characteristics by age
group.
Physical Characteristics

Pre—menarcheal skaters were grouped into three age categories: 11:00—1 l .99;
12.00-13.99, 14.00-15.99 years. ANCOVAs, controlling for age, were conducted to test
for age group differences in anthropometric characteristics. F-ratios are significant only for
sitting height and sitting height/stature ratio (Table 44). Skaters 11.00 -12.99 years are
shorter than skaters 14.00 - 15.99 years in sitting height, and have a lower sitting
height/stature ratio than skaters 12.00 - 13.99 years. The MANCOVAs for somatotype
are not significant.
Psychological Characteristics

Results of the ANCOVAs, controlling for age, and descriptive statistics of the

PSDQ and EDI subscales and SPA are shown in Table 45. There are no significant

differences in any of the psychological variables.

H12: Later maturing post—menarcheal skaters are shorter, lighter and leaner than earlier
maturing post-menarcheal skaters.
Physical Characteristics
Skaters 216 years classified as average or “on-time” (recalled age at menarche
S 14.0 years) were compared to skaters 216 years classified as late (recalled age at
menarche 2 14.0 years). Descriptive statistics for the two groups are presented in Table
46. Results of the ANOVAs indicate significance differences between average and late

maturers for sitting height, the sitting height/stature ratio, calf circumference, biceps,

91

 

subscapular and abdominal skinfolds and the sum of 6 skinfolds. Although younger, on
average, by one year, average maturing skaters are taller in sitting height, have
proportionately shorter legs, larger calf circumferences, and greater skinfold thicknesses,
than late maturing skaters. The MANCOVA for somatotype is significant only for
endomorphy. Average maturing skaters are more endomorphic than late maturing skaters

(Table 46).

H13: Earlier maturing post-menarcheal skaters report less favorable psychological
characteristics than later maturing post-menarcheal skaters.
Psychological Characteristics
Results of the AN OVAs and descriptive statistics for the psychological variables
are shown in Table 47. The results indicate significant differences between average and
late maturers for the Coordination, Endurance and Self-Esteem subscales of the PSDQ.
Late maturers have higher scores for the three subscales. Contrary to what was expected,
there are no differences between average and late maturers in the EDI subscales, or SPA.
Of the 24 skaters meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria for eating disorder risk
(scores 2 10), 75% are average maturing skaters (n = 18) and 25% are late maturing (n =
6) [x2(1) = 0.0, p < .05]. The residuals = 0.0 for each cell. Of the 10 skaters meeting the
Drive for Thinness criteria (scores 2 15), 70% are average maturing (n = 7) and 30% are

late maturing (n = 3) [x2 (1) = .1, p < .05]. The residuals range from -0.2 to 0.3.

92

 

Question 5

Are the physical characteristics of figure skaters correlated with self— perceptions
of physical dimensions?

H14: Anthropometric dimensions related to size, proportions and fatness are negatively
correlated with selected psychological variables related to perceptions of physical
characteristics, including PSDQ subscales (Body Fat, Global Physical Self-

Concept Appearance, and Self-Esteem), and positively correlated with EDI subscales
(Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, Body Dissatisfaction, and Maturity Fears), and Social
Physique Anxiety.

Partial correlations, controlling for age, were done among the following selected
physical variables: weight, stature, sitting height, the sitting height/stature ratio, estimated
leg length, sum of 6 skinfolds, and somatotype, and psychological variables: PSDQ
subscales - Body Fat, Appearance, Self—Esteem and Global Physical Self-Concept; EDI
subscales - Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, Body Dissatisfaction, and Maturity Fears; and
Social Physique Anxiety (Table 48). Each of the psychological variables was selected
because psychological risk factors, including negative perceptions of physical
characteristics, social physique anxiety, and factors related to problem eating are
suggested as related to the morphological changes associated with puberty (Brooks-Gunn,
1988; Crocker and Snyder, 1996; Eklund and Crawford, 1994; Marsh, et al., 1995; Martin
et al., 1997).

Anthropometric variables are significantly correlated with the psychological
Variables. Significant correlations range from -0.17 to 0.54, and the valences are in the

CXpected directions. With the exception of Appearance, Maturity Fears and Perfectionism,

93

g

 

 

correlations are low to moderate (-0.17 to 0.69) between weight and stature and all
psychological variables. Weight and stature are positively correlated with Body Fat, Body
Dissatisfaction, Drive for Thinness, Bulimia and SPA, and negatively correlated with
Global Physical Self-Concept and Self-Esteem. Correlations between the sum of 6
skinfolds and Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness are also positive and low to
moderate, while correlations between the sum of 6 skinfolds and Body Fat and Global
Esteem are negative and low to moderate (-O.11 and -0.49). The correlations for
somatotype components are fourth order partial correlations controlling for age and the
two other components. The only significant correlations are a low positive correlation
between ectomorphy and Global Physical Self-Concept (0.22) and a moderate negative

correlation between endomorphy and Body Fat (-0.32).

H15: Controlling for height, weight, and/or subcutaneous fatness, variables that are
positively correlated during adolescence, reduces the correlations between the physical
and psychological variables.

When age and weight are statistically controlled, the correlations between height
and Body Fat is low but significant (0.20). However, the correlations between height and
Global Physical Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for Thinness,
Bulimia and SPA diminish and are not significant when age and weight are statistically
controlled (Table 49). Similarly, when age and height are controlled, the only significant
correlation for the sum of 6 skinfolds is a low, negative correlation (-0.20) with Body F at;
the correlations with Global Physical Self-Concept, Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for

Thinness and SPA are reduced and not significant.

94

On the other hand, when age and height are statistically controlled, the correlation
between weight and Body Fat, Global Physical Self-Concept and Self-Esteem are
significant, negative, and low to moderate (-O.20 to -0.44). The correlations suggest that
that heavier skaters are less satisfied with their Body Fat and have low Global Physical
Self-Concept and Self-Esteem. The correlations between weight and Body Dissatisfaction
(0.34) and SPA (0.25) are significant and positive, suggesting that heavier skaters are at
greater risk for eating disorders and have higher anxiety about their physique. The
relationships between weight and Drive for Thinness and Bulimia are no longer significant.

Overall, the results support the hypothesis.

Question 6

Can a selection of physical and psychological characteristics thought to be
important for the elite level of figure skating discriminate level of competency and
disciplinary involvement?

The following variables were considered as representative of the physical and
psychological characteristics of elite figure skaters: height, weight, the sitting
height/stature ratio, somatotype (endomorphy, mesomorphy, ectomorphy), Self-Esteem,
Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for Thinness, Perfectionism, and SPA. Age at menarche and
Maturity Fears were also included in the discriminant function analyses for post—
menarcheal skaters 215 years. Due to missing data, the sample size was reduced
significantly (11 5 114), and the dancers and pair skaters were combined to represent

‘specialized’ skaters for the analysis by discipline.

95

 

 

H16: Physical and psychological variables can discriminate level of competency among
figure skaters.

Of the 114 skaters, 33 are test level, 47 are pre-elite and 34 are elite skaters. The
Wilks’ Lambda procedure was employed to identify a reduced set of predictors of group
membership. The discriminant firnction analysis significantly differentiates test, pre-elite
and elite skaters (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.84, 98(2) = 19.2, p g .001). The group centroids are
0.67, -0.31, and -0.22 for test, pre-elite and elite skaters, respectively. Age and
endomorphy are the two discriminating variables (Table 50). No psychological variables
are represented. Elite skaters (17.5 : 2.2 years) are older than either test (15.4 : 1.8
years) or pre-elite skaters (15.1 : 2.2 years), and test skaters are more endomorphic (3.9
: 1.0) than either pre-elite (2.8 : 0.9) or elite (3.4 : 1.0) skaters.

The effectiveness of the discriminant analysis was assessed using equal
probabilities. This method allows subjects to be categorized by level based on knowing the
responses on the discriminating variables (age and endomorphy). Using this method, only

58% of the skaters are correctly classified (Table 50).

H17: Physical and psychological variables can discriminate the disciplinary involvement of
figure skaters.

By discipline, 72 of the skaters specialize in free skating, and 42 specialize in dance
or pair skating. The discriminant function analysis significantly discriminates the two
groups (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.83, {(2) = 21.3 p _<_ .001). The group centroids are 0.34 and —

0.62 for free skaters and specialized skaters, respectively. Endomorphy and age

96

discriminate skaters by discipline, classifying 66% of the skaters correctly (Table 50).
None of the psychological variables are significant discriminators. Dance and pair skaters
are older (16.5 : 2.4 years) and less endomorphic (2.9 : 0.8) than free skaters (15.6 : 2.2
years, and 3.6 : 1.1, respectively).

To determine if age and endomorphy discriminate among the more elite skaters,
test skaters were removed and another discriminant firnction analyses was performed.
Mesomorphy and ectomorphy were also included since the three somatotype components
must be considered together. The total sample was reduced to 90 with 49 skaters
specializing in free skating and 41 skaters specializing in dance or pair skating. Results are
presented in Table 50. Endomorphy and age correctly classified about 62% of the skaters
by discipline (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.88, x2 = 16.73, p < .05). The group centroids are 0.33
and - 0.39. Among the pre-elite and elite skaters, dance and pair skaters are older (16.5 :
2.3) and less endomorphic (2.9 : 0.8) than free skaters (15.5 : 2.5, 3.3 : 1.1,

respectively).

H18: Level of competency and disciplinary involvement are discriminated by different sets
of variables in post-menarcheal figure skaters 215 years.

Since the median age at menarche is 14.2 : 0.5 years, and the majority of skaters
215 years are post—menarcheal, the analysis was limited to post-menarcheal skaters 215
years. Three15 year old skaters and one 16 year old skater had not yet attained menarche,
reducing the sample size to 69 post-menarcheal skaters 2 15 years. Age at menarche and

Maturity Fears were also included in the analysis.

97

 

Twenty skaters are test level, 19 are pre-elite, and 30 are elite skaters.
Endomorphy, age and Self-Esteem discriminate test (n = 19), pre—elite (n = 20) and elite (n
= 30) post-menarcheal skaters (W ilks’ Lambda = 0.56, 78(6) = 37.6, p E .001), thus
partially supporting the hypothesis. The group centroids are -1.2, 0.48, and 0.48,
respectively (Table 51). This combination of variables correctly classifies 68% of the
skaters correctly which is a greater percentage than in the total sample (5 8%). Elite
skaters are older (18.1 : 1.7 years) and have higher Self-Esteem (6.1 : 0.7) than pre-elite
skaters (17.1 : 1.4 years and 5.9 : 0.8, respectively) and test skaters (16.7 :1 .1 years and
5.4 : 0.9, respectively), while pre-elite skaters are less endomorphic (3.1 : 1.0) than test
(4.3 : 0.7) and elite (3.5 : 0.9) skaters (Table 51).

By discipline, 42 of skaters specialize in free skating and 27 specialize in dance and
pair skating. Endomorphy and age discriminate free skaters from the specialized skaters
(Wilks’ Lambda = 0.78, x2(2) = 20.2, p g .001). The group centroids are 0.38 and -.71,
respectively, classifying 69% of the skaters correctly (Table 51). This analysis correctly
classifies an additional 3% of the skaters compared to the analysis in the total sample. No
psychological variables entered the discrimination significantly. Specialized skaters are
older (17.5 : 1.8 years) and less endomorphic (3.1 : 0.8) than free skaters (16.3 : 2.0
years and 4.0 : 0.9, respectively).

After removing test skaters from the sample of post-menarcheal skaters 2 15 years
of age, the sample was reduced to 50 with 28 skaters specializing in free skating and 22
skaters specializing in dance or pair skating. The discriminant function analysis
significantly discriminates the two groups (W ilks’ Lambda = 0.90, x2 (2) = 5.3, p g .05).

The group centroids are 0.36 for free skaters and -0.29 for dance and pair skaters.

98

 

Endomorphy discriminates the more elite skaters by discipline correctly classifying 64.0%
of the skaters correctly. Dance and pair (3.1 : 0.7) skaters are less endomorphic than free

skaters (3.6 : 1.1) (Table 51).

Shawn—7

Can self-perceptions characterized by Social Physique Anxiety, Global Physical
Self—Concept, and Self-Esteem be predicted by a unique set of physical and psychological

variables?

H19: Self-concept is predicted by a combination of physical and psychological variables.
The relationships among variables reflecting self-concept and its psychobiological
sources was examined. A multivariate-multiple regression analysis was performed to
determine if psychological variables reflecting self—concept, which include SPA, Global
Physical Self—Concept and Self-Esteem, could he could be predicted by a combination of
physical and psychological characteristics. Due to the sample size (n = 114), the set of
predictor variables, was limited to age, height, weight, somatotype (endomorphy,
mesomorphy, ectomorphy), Appearance, Body Fat, Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for
Thinness, and Perfectionism. The three constructs representing self-concept were chosen
because these variables are considered essential for athletic success, especially for those
participating in aesthetic sports (Crocker and Snyder, 1997). Having low SPA and high
Global Physical Self-Concept and Self-Esteem are presumably important for presenting
oneself in front of coaches, judges, spectators and others who are important in the

selection of elite, specialized skaters.

99

 

To determine the relationship between self-concept and the hypothesized
psychobiological sources, Pearson-product moment correlations were calculated. The
significant correlations are low to moderately high, ranging from -O.27 to 0.73. Thus,
assumptions regarding within set multicolinearity (r < 0.80), are met. Each variable
correlates significantly with at least one self-concept subscale, with the exception of
mesomorphy and endomorphy, which do not correlate with any of the self-concept
subscales (Table 52). However, the three components collectively define an individual’s
somatotype, and were thus retained in the analysis. Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for
Thinness, Body Fat, Appearance, ectomorphy, height and weight correlate significantly
with each of the self-concept subscales; age significantly correlates with SPA and Global
Physical Self-Concept; and Perfectionism correlates significantly with SPA. The
correlations are also in the expected direction, i.e., skaters who are heavier and taller,
skaters and those who have higher Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness scores
have less favorable self-concept scores compared to skaters who are leaner and smaller,
and who report more favorable self-concept scores.

The variables that showed a significant relationship with any of the self-concept
Subscales were entered into a multivariate-multiple regression analysis to assess the
relative strength of their predictiveness to the self-concept subscales. As noted above, the
three somatotype components were also entered into the regression because somatotype
must be treated as a unit. Results of the overall multivariate regression analysis is
Significant (\Vilks’ Lambda = 0.15, F(33) = 8.2, Eta = 0.85, p < .001), and the univariate
regression analyses indicate that each of the three equations are significant: SPA

(F ( 1 1,102) = 12.3, R2: -52), Global Physical Self-Concept (F(11,102) = 26.2, R2: 0.71),

100

and Self-Esteem (F(11,102) = 9.6, R2: 051)

In addition to the regression procedures, the relationship between the self-concept
subscales and the set of psychobiological variables was evaluated with canonical
correlation analyses. When canonical correlates are squared, there is more than 10%
overlap, which is a meaningful proportion of variance (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). Two
canonical relationships are significant (rcl = 0.89, rc2 = 0.48) and the overlapping
variances are 79% and 23%, respectively.

A summary of the standardized canonical coefficients and canonical loadings is
presented in Table 53. The first canonical variate pair extracts 70% of the variance from
the self-concept variate and 24% of the psychobiological variate. The second canonical
variate pair accounts for 18% of the variance from the self-concept variate and only 2% of
the psychobiological variate. Together, the two canonical variates account for 88% of the
variance in the self—concept variate and 26% of the variance in the psychobiological
variate. Considering the redundancies, the first psychobiological variate accounts for 55%
of the variance in self—concept, while the second variate accounts for only 4%, together
accounting for 59% of the variance in self-concept. However, since the redundancy of the
Second variate does not meet the 10% cut-off, which is considered a meaningful
proportion of variance (Pedhuzur, 1982), it is not interpreted firrther. The first self-
concept variate accounts for 31% and the second 8% of the variance in the
psychobiological variate. Together the two self-concept variates overlap the variance in
the psychobiological variate by 39%.

Canonical loadings were examined to determine which specific variables in each

psychobiological variate contributed to the self-concept multivariate relationship.

101

-—_

 

Inspection of the canonical loadings for the canonical variates in Table 53 indicate that
nine of the psychobiological variables are important contributors to the variables
characterizing self-concept (cut-off 2 0.30) (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). For the
significant variate, age, height, weight, ectomorphy, Body Fat and Body Dissatisfaction
contribute to self-concept. Drive for Thinness (0.37 and 0.51, respectively) and
Appearance (-0.77 and 0.34, respectively) cross load on both variates and are thus
excluded. Since this set of variables involves biological variables and psychological
variables related to physical perceptions, it is labeled as ‘bio-perceptual’.

The loadings for the dependent variables indicate that SPA, Global Physical Self-
Concept and Self-Esteem are important contributors to the first canonical variate. Thus,
based on the valences of the correlations (Table 53), older skaters who are taller, heavier,
less ectomorphic, less satisfied with their Appearance and Body Fat, and who have higher

Body Dissatisfaction, have higher SPA and lower Global Physical Self—Concept and Self-

Esteem (Figure 18).

MM

Can the susceptibility to eating disorders identified by Bulimia, Drive for Thinness,
Body Dissatisfaction, Perfectionism and Maturity Fears be predicted by anthropometric
Characteristics, somatotype and psychological variables related to physique, appearance

and self-concept?

H20: A combination of anthropometric characteristics, somatotype and psychological

variables related to physique, appearance and self-concept predicts the five eating disorder

102

 

subscales.

Five subscales of the EDI were chosen as representing risk for eating disorders in
adolescent figure skaters. Bulimia was chosen because it is the only behavioral indicator of
disturbed eating patterns represented in EDI. Drive for Thinness and Body Dissatisfaction
involve physical self-perceptions. The perception of maturity (Maturity Fears) is also of
interest. Since expectations of perfection are inherent in skating, Perfectionism was also
considered. The three remaining constructs (Ineffectiveness, Introceptive Awareness, and
Interpersonal Distrust) are concerned with social adjustment and are not relevant to this
athletic context; therefore, they were excluded from the analysis.

Five separate stepwise regression analyses were conducted to determine if physical
and psychological variables predict the five EDI subscales. Age was forced into each
analyses at step 1 and the remaining variables were entered at random. Physical predictor
variables included height, weight, the sitting height/stature ratio, endomorphy,
mesomorphy and ectomorphy, while the psychological variables included SPA and the
PSDQ subscales: Appearance, Body Fat, Health, Global Physical Self-Concept, and Self-
Esteem_

Results of the regression analyses are summarized in Table 54. Consistent with the
hYpothreses, each EDI subscale is predicted by at least one physical variable and at least
one PSYChological variable with the exception of Bulimia. The correlations between the

EDI SI‘IbSCaJes and the predictor variables are low to moderate, with the exception of
BOdy D iSSatisfaction and SPA (r = 0.80), excluding mutlicolinearity among variables. The
magnitude Of the Beta weights range from 0.02 to 0.57, and are in the expected directions.

Fo
r exarnple’ weights for perceptions of Bulimia and Health, Body Dissatisfaction and

103

 

Global Physical Self-Concept, and Drive for Thinness and endomorphy are negative, while
weights for SPA and all EDI indicators are all positive. The proportion of variance
accounted for by age ranges from 0 to 9%, by physical characteristics from 3% to 15%,

and by psychological characteristics range from 2% to 47%. The total variance accounted

for by all indicators ranges fi'om 14% to 65%.

104

 

Summary of the Results

A summary of the results of each hypothesis is presented in Table 55. Most of the
hypotheses are either supported or partially supported. Eight of the 20 hypotheses were
supported, eight were partially supported, and four were not supported.

Figure skaters are generally below U. S. reference values for anthropometric
variables. Early maturation is underrepresented in this sample, and skaters are generally
later maturing than North American girls. With the exception of the Physical Activity
subscale score, PSDQ scores decrease with age, while SPA and EDI scores increase with
age. PSDQ scores of figure skaters are higher, while SPA and EDI scores are lower
compared to samples of non—athletes.

Comparisons across test, pre-elite and elite levels of competency indicate that
more elite skaters are generally shorter, lighter and, leaner, and smaller in circumferences
and skeletal breadths than test skaters. Elite and pre—elite skaters are less endomorphic
than test skaters, and elite skaters are less ectomorphic than both test and pre-elite skaters.
Contrary to expectations, there are more average maturing than late maturing skaters
across all three levels of competency, but elite skaters are significantly later maturing than
test skaters. The PSDQ scores of more elite skaters are higher than those for test skaters;
test and elite skaters had higher SPA scores than pre-elite skaters. There are no differences
in EDI scores by level of competency.

Comparisons across free, dance and pair skating disciplines indicate that dancers
are older, taller and leaner, and have relatively longer legs than free and pair skaters.

Contrary to the hypothesis, there is not a greater proportion of late maturing dance and

105

 

_——

 

pair skaters than free skaters. However, there is a trend for more later maturing than
average maturing skaters among pair skaters. Pair skaters are significantly older at
menarche than both dancers and free skaters. Free and pair skaters have higher PSDQ
scores than dancers, and dancers have higher EDI scores than both free and pair skaters.
SPA scores do not difi‘er across discipline.

Pre-menarcheal skaters are taller, smaller, less endomorphic, and more
ectomorphic than post-menarcheal skaters. They also have higher PSDQ scores, and lower
SPA and EDI scores. There are no significant age-group differences for anthropometric
variables in pre-menarcheal skaters, but younger skaters have higher PSDQ scores, and
lower SPA and EDI scores.

Late maturing post-menarcheal skaters 2 16 years of age are thinner, have
relatively longer leg length, and have smaller limb circumferences than average maturing
skaters. Average maturing skaters report higher PSDQ scores, but EDI or SPA scores do
not differ by maturity group.

Selected anthropometric dimensions related to size, proportions and fatness are
negatively correlated with selected psychological variables related to perceptions of
physical characteristics when age is statistically controlled. Most of the significant
correlations between height and psychological variables are reduced when age and weight
are statistically controlled; results are similar for correlations between weight and
psychological variables when age and sum of 6 skinfolds are controlled. When age and
height are statistically controlled, correlations between weight and psychological variables
remain significant.

Age and endomorphy correctly classify 58% of the skaters by level and 66% of the

106

 

 

skaters by discipline. Contrary to expectation, no psychological variables classified the
total sample of skaters by level or discipline. However, analysis of data for skaters 2 15
years of age, endomorphy, age and Self-Esteem correctly classified 68% of the skaters by
level. In contrast, age and endomorphy correctly classified 69% of the skaters 2 15 years
of age by discipline. When test skaters were removed from the analysis, age and
endomorphy correctly classified 62% of the total sample of skater by discipline and only
endomorphy classified 64% of the skaters 2 15 years of age; the more specialized dance
and pair skaters were older and/or less endomorphic than free skaters.

A combination of physical (age, height, weight and ectomorphy) and psychological
variables related to physical perceptions (Body Fat, Body Dissatisfaction) predicted self-
concept accounting for 55% of the variance in self-concept. This combination of variables
was labeled ‘bio-perceptual’. A combination of physical and psychological variables also
predicted selected EDI subscale scores. Total variances accounted for ranged from 14%

to 65%.

107

 

CHAPTER V
Discussion

As the number of skaters in North America increases, skaters pursuing elite status
are becoming younger. For example, Ekaterina Gordieva, Michelle Quan and Tara
Lapinski each stood on the podium at the end of their respective 1988, 1994 and 1998
Olympic competitions. Each skater was under the age of 16. In addition to the pressures
associated with adolescent grth and maturation, young skaters must endure the I
pressures associated with the subjective evaluation inherent in this sport. Integral to
scoring well in skating is the skater’s ability to present herselfin a manner that
demonstrates grace, amplitude, power, speed, and strength to those judging the sport. As
such, maintenance of a petite, attractive physique, in combination with strength and power
are critical components of the sport.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the physical and psychological
characteristics of a heterogeneous sample of figure skaters. Central issues were the
characteristics of successful skaters compared to those who are less successful, and of
those who compete in free, dance and pair skating. Differences associated with variation in
maturational timing, the concordance between objectively measured physical
characteristics and subjective self-perceptions, and predictors of eating disorder risk were
also considered.

The results of this study may be used to identify characteristics unique to each
skating discipline and to those who are more successfirl. However, it cannot be assumed

or implied that successfirl young skaters with such profiles will eventually develop into

108

elite skaters. Because the developmental pool in figure skating is small compared to many

other sports, coaches should not discourage any figure skater to continue (Klika, 1995).

Demographic Characteristics

This sample of competitive figure skaters entered organized sport (4.9 : 1.9 years)
and organized skating (5.4 : 2.1 years) at slightly younger ages than Junior Olympic
divers (5.6 : 1.8 and 6.0 : 1.7 years, respectively) (Malina and Geithner, 1993). They
were also younger than the general population of American children. It is not until about
seven years of age that American children have their first organized sport experience
(Malina, 1997; Seefeldt, 1978). Figure skaters in this study had already begun specializing
in skating by a mean age of 8.7 : 2.4 years, and had an average of 10 years of experience
at the time of data collection. As expected, years of experience in organized figure skating,
and within a specific skating discipline, increased with age. Consistent with Scanlan et al.
(1989a), skating specialization is exclusionary; only 11% of the skaters reported
participation in other sports.

Parents played a firndamental role in influencing skating participation, followed by
coaches, fiiends and events such as the Olympics. Skaters came from relatively small
families, and few reported living away fiom home. The financial commitment involved in
figure skating is extensive, particularly at more specialized and elite levels. Ice time,
coaching, music, choreography, dance training and clothing bills accumulate and can cost
as much as $50, 000.00 a year (G. McClelland, 1999, personal communication). Only 6%
of this sample of skaters received funding, and 14.5% lived away from home. However,

the socioeconomic status of the families of the skaters appeared to be middle to upper

109

class based on the education levels of mothers and fathers. Most mothers and fathers
attended university and had undergraduate or graduate degrees.

The majority of skaters in this study were pre-elite, which was not surprising. Pre-
elite skaters compete at the pre-novice and novice levels, which are described by Comper
(1991) as the initial stage of figure skating selection. Skaters participating at the pre-elite
level represent the pool from which several will be eventually selected for more elite levels
of training and competition. Others will move down to the test level and/or leave the
sport.

Elite skaters in the present study had significantly more years of experience (12.5 :
2.7 years) compared to both pre-elite (9.4 : 2.6 years) and test skaters (9.4 : 2.8 years)
(Table 13). These estimates are consistent with Ericsson et al. (1993), who assert that a
minimum of 10 years of deliberate practice discriminates more successful athletes from
other participants. However, it is important to note that not all of the skaters are
successfirl and some of the elite skaters have less than 10 years of experience. The results
are also consistent with Starkes et al. (1996), who reported that the average number of
years to attain the Gold (most advanced) test level among Canadian skaters was 11.2 :
2.5 years. Differences in training and competition schedules also discriminated elite skaters
from those who were less successfirl; both practice and competition time increased with
competency level.

As figure skating becomes more specialized, there are fewer participating skaters.
This trend was apparent in the present study (Table 7). There were significantly more free
skaters than either dancers or pair skaters. This may reflect the limited availability of male

partners, specialized coaching, and/or training facilities across North America. Pair skaters

110

had more disciplinary and overall experience than free skaters in the present sample.
Skaters in the more specialized dance and pair skating disciplines generally practiced more
both on- and off-ice, and attended more competitions. The positive relationship between
level of competency and practice time is consistent with previous figure skating research

(Brooks-Gum, 1988; Scanlan et al., 1989a; Starkes et al., 1996).

Physical Characteristics

While the growth and physique characteristics of young athletes have received
much of attention in the sport sciences, the information available on figure skaters is
limited (Malina, 1994). The available data on figure skaters often fail to consider age
variability within samples and often treat free, dance and pair skaters as single samples. As
hypothesized, competitive figure skaters in this study were, on average, close to, or below
the reference medians in several of the anthropometric variables including stature (Figure
2) and weight (Figure 3). This is generally consistent with previous studies (Comper,
1991; Ross et al., 1977; Weaver and Thompson, 1981) (Table 56). One study of 25 elite
figure skaters reported mean statures of skaters close to the reference medians (Brooks-
Gunn, 1988), but the sample combined skaters 14 to 18 years of age which limits the
comparison.

The BMIs of the majority of skaters were between the 15th and 85th percentiles of
U. S. reference data, with older skaters having means at, or above the reference medians
(Figure 4). EMS were not reported in the majority of studies and it is not appropriate to
estimate a BMI fiom mean heights and weights. However, the mean BMI in the present

sample was similar to data for two samples of skaters (Table 56).

111

 

For skaters 12 years of age and older, the mean sitting heights were generally at,
or below the reference medians (Figure 5). Absolute leg length in the present study was
also less than the reference data (Figure 6), reflecting the short stature of the sample and
suggesting that a lower center of gravity may be advantageous for balance and aerial
rotation involved in skating (Niinimaa, 1982; Harris, 1986; Ross et al., 1977). The sitting
height/ stature ratio was higher than the reference medians for older skaters (Figure 7 ),
indicating proportionately shorter leg length.

Mean skeletal breadths (Figures 8 and 9), limb circumferences (Figures 10 and 11)
and skinfolds (Figures 12 and 13) were also at, or below the reference medians. The sum
of 6 skinfolds of the figure skaters ranged from 29.5 to 124.1mm. Comparison with
previous research is not possible because of differences in measurement sites (Comper,

1991; Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992).

Level

It is was anticipated that physical characteristics of skaters could be discriminated
by age across competency level (Table 26). Test skaters were heavier than pre-elite
skaters and this trend was consistent across age groups. Pre-elite skaters had a lower BMI
than either test, or elite skaters across age groups. However, the BMI results should be
interpreted with caution since the BMI does not partition fat-free mass from fat mass, and
has limited use with young athletes (Malina and Bouchard, 1991).

Test skaters had larger limb circumferences than pre-elite skaters, while elite
skaters were larger than pre-elite skater in relaxed arm and thigh circumferences. Pre-elite

skaters were also shorter in sitting height and had less subcutaneous fat than elite skaters

112

 

who were shorter and leaner than test skaters which was also consistent across age.

However, only difi’erences between pre-elite and test skaters were significant for skinfold
thicknesses. In contrast, the trunk/extremity ratio did not differ across level. In general,
the more elite skaters were significantly shorter, lighter, and leaner and had shorter relative
leg lengths than test skaters (Table 27). These results suggest that a short stature and
leanness are important physical characteristics for attaining elite status (Gledhill and

Jamnick, 1992).

Discipline

Free skaters and dancers were larger than pair skaters, and these trends were
generally consistent across age groups with the exception of skaters 15 to 17 years for
weight and stature. Free skaters had larger BMIs than dancers and pair skaters, but the
trend was not consistent across age groups. There was limited variability in the BMI
across discipline for skaters 2 17 year (Table 33).

Free skaters had greater biepicondylar breadths than either dancers or pair skaters,
but the trends are not consistent across age groups. Free skaters also had thicker skinfolds
than dancers, except for the subscapular skinfold. With the exception of the biceps
skinfold, free skaters were also larger than pair skaters in all skinfold thicknesses.
Additionally, there were no differences in the trunk/extremity ratio across disciplines. The
data suggest that more elite and specialized skaters have less subcutaneous fat than free
skaters. Based on the trunk/ extremity ratio, skaters seem to carry more subcutaneous fat

on their extremities than on their trunk.

113

 

Pair skaters were significantly smaller than free skaters in sitting height and had a
lower sitting height/stature ratio (Table 34). Free skaters had significantly more
subcutaneous fat than pair skaters and dancers which was expected since they rely on their
male partners to for lifis and throw-jump technical elements. Although dancers had longer
relative leg lengths than test skaters, estimated leg lengths did not differ significantly
across level and their proportion of leg length was not longer. This was somewhat
surprising since longer legs would presumably accentuate aesthetic lines. However,
aesthetic lines may be contingent on the relative proportionality of male skaters.
Unfortunately, data on male partners was beyond the scope of this study. In general, these
results suggest that more specialized skaters may be selected for their short, light and lean
physical characteristics. However, training intensity may also be related to the differences
in subcutaneous fatness across discipline; pair skaters and dancers practiced significantly

more on the ice than free skaters (Table 14).

Somatotype

Figure skaters tend to be, on average, more mesomorphic than non—athletes;
endomorphy and ectomorphy do not consistently differ (Table 57). The overall mean
somatotype for figure skaters in this sample was 3.3-3.6—2.8, which is generally consistent
with earlier studies of figure (Table 58). The present sample was slightly more
endomorphic than other samples of skaters, but it included a broader age range and non-
elite skaters. The individual somatotypes of figure skaters were distributed across a broad
range of the somatochart, which was not surprising given the heterogeneity of this sample

(Figure 26).

114

Carter and Heath (1990) suggest that the relationship between somatotype
variability and level of competition is negative, i.e., the higher the level of competence the
more homogenous the sample. Before controlling for age, somatotype variability
decreased slightly with increasing levels of competency (Table 27), but this trend was not
apparent when age was controlled (Table 28).

After controlling for age, somatotype distinguished between competency level and
disciplinary involvement in this sample of skaters. Test skaters were more endomorphic
than either pre—elite skaters or elite skaters (Table 28); however, pre-elite and test skaters
were more ectomorphic than elite skaters. Compared to two previous studies on elite
figure skaters (Ross et al., 197 7; Weaver and Thompson, 1981), elite skaters in the
present study were more endomorphic and less mesomorphic. Elite skaters were also more
ectomorphic than data for elite skaters reported by Weaver and Thompson (1982).

To date, no known study has considered differences in somatotype across
discipline. Dancers were less endomorphic than free skaters, which was not surprising,
since endomorphy is an aesthetic liability for dancers (Table 35). They are primarily judged
on their ability to form aesthetically pleasing lines with their partners during technical lifts
and intricate step sequences involving long edges and hold positions. Pair skaters were
more mesomorphic than both dancers and free skaters, which may be related to the
technical requirements of over-head lifts. Superior upper body strength is essential for
female skaters to support their body weight while they are lifted, twisted and thrown by
their partners. Surprisingly, pair skaters did not have greater corrected arm circumference

compared to the other two disciplines (Table 35).

 

 

Menarche
Although the numbers within each age group were relatively small, the distribution

of skaters who had attained menarche suggests that female figure skaters are later
maturers. Both the probit (14.2 :0.5 years, 95% CI: 13.2 to 15.2) and retrospective (13.6
:1 .3 years) estimates were later than those of a reference sample of American and
European girls, which is about 13.0 : 1.0 years (Malina, 1994). Recalled ages at menarche
are based only on girls who attained menarche, which limits the generalizability of this
type of data (Livson and McNiel, 1962). In this sample of skaters 2 16 years of age, one
girl (16.5 years) had not yet attained menarche and only two were early maturers (age at
menarche < 12.0) (Table 20). Since early maturing girls were underrepresented in this
sample, it appears that early maturers may have been socialized away from figure skating,
while later maturers may have been socialized towards participation in figure skating.
Although parents, coaches and fiiends played fundamental roles in influencing skating
participation, it is not clear, which of socializing agents are involved in figure skating
attrition.

Comparisons of the present status quo and retrospective data for age at menarche
with other samples of athletes in aesthetic sports are presented in Table 59. The status quo
results of the present study indicated a slightly later median age at menarche than the
retrospective estimate in the present study and previous samples of skaters (Brooks-Gunn
et al., 1988; Ross et al., 1980; Ziegler et al., 1998) and ballet dancers (Gavrilovic, 1983;

GaVI‘ilovic and Tokin, 1983; Warren, 1980). It is important to note that previous studies
on Skaters included pre-menarcheal girls in their samples, which underestimates mean

menarcheal age. Junior Olympic divers have earlier mean ages at menarche than

116

retrospective estimates for figure skaters in this study.

More specialized and elite skaters were later maturing than free skaters and test
skaters, respectively (Tables 22 and 39), and this is consistent with Ross et al. (1980) who
found the mean age at menarche of elite skaters to be 14.0 :13. Elite skaters in the
present sample attained menarche significantly later than test skaters (Table 32), and there
were proportionately more late maturing elite skaters.

These results are consistent with the available data suggesting successful female
athletes tend to be late maturing individuals (Malina, 1983; Ross et al., 1980; Weaver and
Thompson, 1981). With some exceptions, smallness, leanness and linearity of build are
characteristics associated with later maturation. These characteristics are suggested as
beneficial for figure skating which requires balance and force to support or move the
whole body mass (Harris, 1986; Niinimaa, 1982; Ross et al., 1980). Accordingly, later
maturation may be particularly beneficial for dance and pair skating since these skaters rely
on male partners to be lifted and/or thrown. Cross-disciplinary comparisons indicated that
pair skaters were later maturing than both free skaters and dancers, and that there were
proportionately more later maturing pair skaters than free skaters and dancers (Table 39).

Pre-menarcheal skaters were smaller and leaner than post-menarcheal skaters
(Table 41). However, the pre-menarcheal skaters were shorter and lighter, and the post-
menarcheal skaters were taller and heavier than the respective skaters in the sample of
Weaver and Thompson (1981) (Tables 40 and 56). Later maturing skaters were lighter
and leaner, and had relatively longer legs compared to early and/or average maturing
skaters (Table 46) which is consistent with data for non-athletes (Malina and Bouchard,

1991). It is interesting to note that pair skaters, who were later maturing, had

117

proportionately longer legs and were more ectomorphic than test skaters (Table 35). Pre-
menarcheal skaters were more ectomorphic, and less endomorphic and mesomorphic than
post—menarcheal skaters. Among pre-menarcheal skaters there was little variation in
anthropometric variables by age. Pre-menarcheal skaters were less endomorphic and
mesomorphic, and more ectomorphic than post-menarcheal skaters. In addition, average
maturing post-menarcheal skaters were more endomorphic than late maturing skaters.
The accumulation of biological data of athletes in aesthetic sports supports the
view of Malina (1998) on the selective success in sport of later maturing girls and/or
selective drop-out of early maturing girls. The overall anthropometric, physique and
maturity characteristics of figure skaters in the present study were generally similar to
those of skaters in previous investigations (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1988; Comper 199;
Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992; Ross et al., 1980; Weaver and Thompson, 1081; Ziegler et
al., 1998), and to athletes in other aesthetic sports such as gymnastics (Casper et al., 1997;
Claessens et al., 1992), ballet (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1988; Casper et al., 1997; Warren,
1980), and synchronized swimming (Brooks-Gum et al., 1988; Casper et al., 1997).
Mother-daughter correlations for age at menarche ranged from 0.15 to 0.40
(Malina et al., 1994). The correlation in the present study (0.60) was higher, which

suggests environmental covariation in the small sample of 28 mother-daughter pairs.

Psychological Characteristics
Psychological coping, physical self-perceptions, social physique anxiety, and eating
disorder risk comprised the components of the figure skater’s psychological profile in this

study. This composite of variables reflects the overall psychological well-being of

118

adolescent female athletes competing in a socially evaluative context. Since a petite
physique presumably facilitates jumping and artistic impression, positive self-perceptions
such as satisfaction with Appearance, Global Physical Self-Concept, and Self—Esteem; and
low SPA, Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness were desirable psychological
characteristics. Unfortunately, inadequate reliability coefficients for the Ways of Coping
Checklist (WCC) did not permit use of this instrument in the multivariate analyses.

Mean scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscale items and mean SPA for the present
sample of figure skaters and those from previous investigations are presented in Tables 23
to 25. The physical self-perceptions of skaters were generally higher than non-athletes.
Mean scores for PSDQ subscale items were higher than those reported by athletes in
water polo, track and field, basketball, soccer, cycling, swimming, baseball, rugby, netball,
cricket, and aerobics (Marsh et al., 1997), and by 13 and 14 year old adolescent non-
athletes (Marsh et al., 1994). The trends suggest that figure skaters have more positive
physical self-perceptions. The mean PSDQ subscale scores for the present sample were
generally similar to elite adolescent gymnasts (Crocker and Snyder, 1997), with the
exception of Health, Self-Esteem and Sport Competence which were slightly lower in the
figure skaters. Compared to elite Australian adolescent athletes in track and field,
basketball, soccer, cycling, swimming, baseball, rugby, netball (Marsh et al., 1997), the
figure skaters in the present study had similar mean scores for all PSDQ subscales except
Coordination and Appearance, which were lower in the present sample, and Global
Physical Self—Concept, which is higher (Table 23). Unfortunately, Marsh et al.(1997) did

not report sport-specific subscale scores which limit the utility of the above comparisons.

119

Reporting means for collapsed sport groups is a limitation of many sport
psychological instruments, including the SPAS (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; Martin and
Mack, 1996; Martin et al., 1997; McAuley and Burman, 1993) and the PSDQ (Crocker
and Snyder, 1997). This limits sport-specific comparisons. It is reasonable to assume that
female athletes in team sports would have different physical self-perceptions and SPA
compared to athletes in individual or aesthetic sports. Further, many investigations using
sport psychological instrumentation did not control for age in adolescent samples which
may bias the data.

SPA increased with age among figure skaters, which is consistent with previous
research on cheerleaders (Reed and Gill, 1996). Means for the total sample of figure
skaters were similar to a sample of adolescent female athletes in several sports including
basketball, tennis, volleyball, gymnastics, diving, swimming, synchronized swimming,
soccer and sofiball (Crocker and Snyder, 1997), and a sample of elite female soccer
players and figure skaters (Martin et al., 1997). SPA in the present sample of figure
skaters was higher than young elite gymnasts (Martin et al., 1997), but lower than a
sample of older adolescent gymnasts (McAuley and Burman, 1993). A closer examination
of means when skaters were grouped by ages that were similar to previous studies (Table
24) indicated that skaters’ SPA scores were similar to each sample, with the exception of
adolescent gymnasts who have higher means (McAuley and Burman, 1993).

Although a high SPA score (> 4.0) has been typically expected for athletes in
aesthetic sports (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; Martin and Mack, 1996; Martin et al., 1997;
McAuley and Burman, 1993), figure skaters generally did not report being concerned

about presenting themselves in front of others as apparent in the samples of Martin et al.

120

(1997). However, an examination across figure skating disciplines indicated that there
were differences by competency level. Test and elite skaters reported significantly higher
SPA than pre—elite skaters (Tale 24).

Mean EDI subscale scores of figure skaters were generally lower than normative
data for college women (Garner et al., 1982), weight restricters (Garner and Olmstead,
1984), and suggested adolescent norms (Rosen et al., 1988). With few exception, the
figure skaters had scores that were similar to adult gymnasts and higher scores than adult
runners (Warren et al., 1990) (Table 25). In the present study, skaters were also higher
than adult gymnasts, swimmers and runners in Maturity Fears, which may be expected
since many of the skaters were adolescents anticipating sexual maturation. For the total
sample, the low Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness scores were encouraging
because these scores suggest a lack of eating disorder risk in this sample of skaters. This is
not consistent with previous research (Davis, 1994; Sykora et al., 1993; Taylor and Ste.
Marie, 1998) reporting a high prevalence of eating disorder risk among female athletes in
sports including gymnastics, track, rowing and figure skating. However, age—related trends
suggest that skaters 217 years may be at risk based on their mean Body Dissatisfaction
scores (Table 28), which were above the cut-off (210) for being classified as at risk for
eating disorders (Garner and Olmstead, 1982).

As hypothesized, physical self-perceptions generally decreased with age, while
SPA and eating disorder risk increased with age (Tables 29 and 36), suggesting physical
changes typically associated with growth and maturation (increases in weight and
subcutaneous fat) may negatively influence self-perceptions and social physique anxiety

(Brooks-Gum, 1988; Brooks-Gunn et al., 1985). Adolescence is accompanied by a

121

heightened sense of physical awareness, which is incorporated into overall physical self-
perceptions and self~esteem (Fox and Corbin, 1989; Marsh et al., 1997). Despite age-
related trends, the psychological profile of the skaters suggests positive self-referent affect
and cognitions. In addition to low SPA, the skaters reported favorable self-esteem and
physical self-perceptions, and did not appear to be at risk for developing eating disorders.
However, since the EDI is typically only a screening device for a tendency for eating
disorders, it cannot be not assumed that the skaters were free of disordered eating
behaviors.

The results of the present study were somewhat consistent with Martin et al.
(1997), who suggested that the favorable psychological profile of elite figure skaters may
be related to high levels of fitness, successful sport experiences, and later maturation
among skaters which would limit the negative influences of weight gain associated with
puberty. While Martin et al. (1997) found a positive relationship between estimated
percentage body fat and SPA in elite skaters, maturity status and timing were not
considered in the analysis. Variation in maturity status and timing, and level of competency
as in the present study, provide some evidence for the assertions of Martin et al. (1997).
Post-menarcheal skaters reported higher SPA than pre-menarcheal skaters, but there was
no difference between average and late maturers in SPA. The influence of successful
experience was also equivocal since there was no SPA difference between test and elite
skaters. Although pre-elite skaters reported lower SPA than test and elite skaters, this may
be a function of the pre-menarcheal status of the pre-elite skaters; 32 (67%) of the pre-
elite skaters were pre-menarcheal, and pre—menarcheal skaters reported lower SPA than

post-menarcheal skaters when controlling for age (Table 43).

122

Elite skaters had higher mean PSDQ subscale scores for Physical Activity and
Endurance than both test and pre-elite skaters, whereas the pre-elite and elite skaters had a
higher mean than test skaters in Appearance and Self-Esteem than test skaters (Table 31).
However, post-menarcheal skaters reported lower Self-Esteem than pre-menarcheal
(Table 43), and more specialized skaters (dancers) reported significantly lower mean
PSDQ scores for Health, Coordination, Sport Competence and Strength than free skaters
(Table 38).

Positive physical—self-perceptions appeared to characterize elite, specialized
skaters, but what remains unclear is when these physical self-perceptions emerge.
Although positive physical self-perceptions are a component of confidence in sport
(Vealey, 1986) and may improve the likelihood of attaining success in skating, it may be
that successful skating experiences enhance physical self-perceptions.

Like test skaters, elite skaters also reported higher levels of SPA than pre-elite
skaters. Although there were no differences in mean EDI scores by level of competency,
test and elite skaters 213 years were above the cut off (210) in the EDI Body
Dissatisfaction scores (Appendix F, Table 11). More elite skaters met the classification for
both eating disorder risk criteria (Body Dissatisfaction, 43%; Drive for Thinness scores,
47%) compared to test (30% and 33%, respectively) and pre-elite skaters (27% and 20%,
respectively), but the differences were not significant. This observation among elite skaters
is somewhat unexpected since elite skaters were leaner, as indicated by significantly lower
sum of 6 skinfolds and lower endomorphy. Female adult non-athletes (Hart et al., 1989)
and female adolescent athletes (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; McAuley and Burman, 1993 ),

Who have a low estimated percentage body fat and/or perceptions of low body fat, do not

123

report high SPA. However, whether such athletes are selected because they are lean, or
whether leanness is an effect of training remains unclear.

One possible explanation for higher SPA and Body Dissatisfaction scores in elite
and test skaters is the increasing stakes that are attached to higher levels of competition,
which pre—elite skaters are just beginning to experience. Self-presentation becomes
increasingly important as a distinguishing feature among elite skaters at higher levels of
competition, who may be similar in physical ability. The similarity of test skaters and elite
skaters might be related to the experiences of the former. Test skaters may represent
former elite competitive skaters, who moved down to the test level, where average and
perhaps early maturation are prevalent. Thus, some test skaters may have had similar high
stakes attached to self-presentation in their competitive experiences as those who are
currently elite competitors.

The perceptions of Coordination, Sport Competence and Strength of fiee and pair
skaters were, on average, greater than dancers (Table 38). Free skaters also reported, on
average, higher mean scores on perceptions of Health than dancers and pair skaters. It is
not surprising that free and pair skaters had more favorable self-perceptions in these
PSDQ subscales, since both disciplines require exceptional coordination and strength for
executing jumps and spins. Although dancers, who were higher in the mean Bulimia
scores, reported higher Interpersonal Distrust scores compared to free skaters and pair
skaters, the values were well below these reported by female weight restricters (Table 28).
Although the mean Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness scores for dancers and
pair skaters in the present sample did not suggest that dancers and pair skaters were at

greater risk for developing eating disorders, the proportion of dancers and pair skaters

124

(combined) who met the eating disorder risk criteria (Body Dissatisfaction 210, Drive for
Thinness 215) were 38% and 54%, respectively. These percentages are similar to the
those of Taylor and Ste. Marie (1998), who found that 43% of a sample of dancers and
pair skaters met the criteria for Drive for Thinness. In contrast, 60% of a sample of elite
female gymnasts met both criteria (Petrie, 1993).

A closer examination of differences across age by discipline indicate that older
(215) dancers and pair skaters reported mean Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness
scores (dancers only) close to, or above the cut-off for eating disorder risk classification.
Similarly, 15-16 year old free skaters were also close (10.5 : 7.3) to the cut-off for Drive
for Thinness scores. The majority of skaters in this age group were post-menarcheal and
probably experienced increases in weight and subcutaneous fat associated with sexual
maturation. It is reasonable to assume that elevated Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for
Thinness scores emerging in this group of skaters might be related to physical changes
associated with normal growth and maturation. In a longitudinal study of body
dissatisfaction in adolescent boys and girls at 13, 15 and 18 years of age, girls’ body
dissatisfaction increased while boys’ decreased (Rosenblum and Lewis, 1999).

Age-related trends were generally consistent across level and discipline, suggesting
that physical self-perceptions decrease, and SPA and EDI scores increase with age. It was
hypothesized that that menarche would be related to these psychological characteristics
since the changes in body form, distortions of body image and a desire to become thinner
accompany sexual maturation (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Rosen et al., 1988).

Means for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and SPA for pre— and post-menarcheal

skaters suggest a healthy psychological profile in the total sample. For both pre— and post—

125

menarcheal skaters, means for the PSDQ subscales were above available normative values,
SPA is low, and means for the EDI subscales were generally below data for weight
restricters and even below normative data. However, when the proportions of pre- and
post-menarcheal skaters meeting the risk classification criteria were considered, it is clear
that eating disorder risk was more common among post-menarcheal skaters. Of the
skaters meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria, 97% were post-menarcheal and of those
meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria, 93% were post-menarcheal.

Smaller pre-menarcheal skaters had more positive self-perceptions as indicated by
mean Health, Body Fat, Sport Competence, Global Physical Self-Concept, Endurance and
Self-Esteem scores (Table 43). Post-menarcheal skaters, who were heavier, taller, and had
thicker skinfolds, were less satisfied with their body; post-menarcheal skaters reported, on
average higher SPA, Drive for Thinness, and Introceptive Awareness. Since pre-
menarcheal skaters 11.00 - 15.99 years did not show any age-related differences in any of
the psychological scores (Table 45), these results suggest that menarche, and its
associated weight gain, may be a critical factor in lowering physical self-perceptions and
increasing SPA and eating disorder risk.

In a closer look at the timing of menarche among post-menarcheal skaters
classified as average (age at menarche 5 14.00 years) and late (age at menarche 214 years)
maturing, the only difference for the PSDQ subscales was for Physical Activity; average
maturing skaters reported lower scores than late maturing skaters. Although there were no
mean differences between average and late maturing skaters in EDI subscale scores (Table
47), 75% of the skaters meeting the Body Dissatisfaction criteria for eating disorder were

average maturing skaters and 70% of those meeting the Drive for Thinness criteria were

126

average maturing. This supports previous assertions that the timing of sexual maturation
may affect the risk for developing eating disorders. Longitudinal studies have shown that
early maturing girls report higher EAT scores (Brooks-Gum et al., 1989; Graber et al.,
1994). Gross and Duke (1983) recommend counseling youth and her parents about the
physical changes that will take place and her possible reactions to them.

In contrast with the widespread belief that athletes in aesthetic sports are at greater
risk for developing eating disorders, results of the present study did not support this
notion when the total sample of skaters was considered. However, when the skaters were
grouped by level of competence, skating discipline, maturational status and timing, it was
possible to identify groups who may be at greater risk for developing eating disorders. The
prevalence of eating disorder risk was greatest among average maturing post-menarcheal
skaters participating in dance, or among skaters of elite status, suggesting that biological
and environmental factors may be involved in the development of eating disorders. These
results should be interpreted with caution since dieting behavior was not assessed.

Although late maturing skaters did not appear to be at risk for eating disorders in
the present study, late maturers may be most susceptible once they become young adults
(> 18 years) with the eventual increases in weight and subcutaneous fat (LW Rosen, 1999,
personal communication). If late maturers realize the social and/or athletic advantage of
their leanness and linearity, they may strive to restrict their diet to maintain their leanness,
but as weight and fat gain become inevitable later in life, late maturers may then resort to
more drastic measures such as bingeing and purging in an attempt to control these

changes.

127

While some authors have pointed to methodological limitations of scoring the EDI
(Schoemaker et al., 1994; Welch et al., 1988), another methodological limitation may
involve the interpretation of the questions by elite, specialized athletes participating in an
aesthetic sport. As noted by Ziegler et a1. (1996, p. 585): “comparisons to standard
reference populations are not appropriate for adolescent athletes”. Those who perceive
their sport participation as their priority in life may be inclined to respond to EDI
questions in a similar manner to those who are at risk for eating disorder, or, perhaps
underreport their responses. Thus, it may be inappropriate to impose eating disorder risk
classifications developed for non-athletes, such as those for Body Dissatisfaction and

Drive for Thinness, on elite athletes participating in aesthetic sports.

Psychological Correlates of Physical Characteristics

It is suggested that positive self-evaluations provide a competitive edge for elite
athletes (Vealey, 1986). For females competing in subjectively evaluated sports, self—
evaluations are affected by sociocultural ideals of feminine beauty, which tend to favor a
lean petite physique (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Casper and Simon, 1997; Hamilton et
al., 1985; Nemeroff et al., 1994). Weight control and self-doubts about talent have been
identified as sources of stress by elite figure skaters (Scanlan et al., 1989b; Gould et al.,
1993b), suggesting that dissatisfaction with physical characteristics is a potential liability
for achieving success in skating, among other factors. These negative self-evaluations and
dissatisfaction with the physical self may interact to impact more global measures of self-
concept (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; Marsh et al., 1997), and ofientimes these evaluations

may involve distorted body images (Duncan, 1985; Johnson et al., 1995; Kolb, 1959; Van

128

Despite numerous assertions about relationships among physical characteristics
and perceptions of these characteristics, few studies have considered relationships among
measured physical variables and psychological constructs measuring perceptions of the
physical self. The SPA literature claims construct validation through correlating the SPAS
with the BMI and estimated percentage body fat, calculated from body density using
standard age-specific equations (Hart et al., 1989; Martin et al., 1997). However, the
relationship between social physique anxiety and a quantitative estimate of physique
(somatotype), has not been previously considered in the SPA literature. One of the
purposes of the present study was to examine the relationships among physical
characteristics, including somatotype, and the perceptions of physical characteristics such
as Appearance, Body Fat and Body Dissatisfaction.

The variables included in the correlational analyses were weight, stature, sitting
height, the sitting height/ stature ratio, estimated leg length, the sum of 6 skinfolds, and the
three somatotype components. The psychological variables included Body Fat,
Appearance, Global Physical Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for

Thinness, Maturity Fears, Perfectionism, Bulimia, and SPA. Chronological age was

controlled and fourth-order partial correlations were used for the somatotype components.

The correlations among measured physical characteristics and the psychological
subscales were in the expected direction, but were low to moderate (Table 48). There
were significant negative, low to moderate correlations (-0.17 to -0.48) between height,
weight, sum of 6 skinfolds, endomorphy, and psychological indicators including Body Fat,

Global Physical Self-Concept, and Self-Esteem. The correlations between height, weight,

129

the sum of skinfolds and the endomorphic component of somatotype, and SPA and
Bulimia were positive and low to moderate (0.18 to 0.54). In contrast, the positive
correlation between ectomorphy and Body Fat and Global Physical Self-Concept, and the
negative relationships between ectomorphy and Body Dissatisfaction, Drive for Thinness,
and SPA suggested that leaner skaters were more satisfied with their physical self.

When controlling for height and weight, variables that are positively correlated
during adolescence (Malina and Bouchard, 1991), many of the correlations decreased with
the exception of correlations with body weight when age and height were statistically
controlled (Table 49). The significant low to moderate negative correlations (—0.20 to
-0.44) between body weight and Body Fat, Global Physical Self—Concept and Self-Esteem
suggested that heavier skaters reported negative self-perceptions. The low to moderate
positive correlations between body weight and Body Dissatisfaction and SPA suggested
that heavier skaters were less satisfied with their bodies and reported higher SPA. It is
interesting to note that perceptions of Body Fat correlated significantly with each of the
physical variables (height, weight, sum of 6 skinfolds) when height and weight were
statistically controlled. Further, the correlation between height, with age and body weight
held constant, was positive, suggesting that taller skaters had more favorable self-
perceptions of Body Fat.

Body Dissatisfaction and Drive for Thinness affect the ability of the individual to
differentiate between what is normal and underweight (Garner et al., 1982). Since the
majority of skaters were below reference medians for body weight (Figure 4) and skinfold
thicknesses (Figures 22 and 24), Body Dissatisfaction may be related to distorted body

image (Duncan, 1985; Johnson et al., 1995; Nemeroff, et al., 1998; Van der Velde, 1985).

130

Further, the role of evaluating one’s body in the social context inherent to figure skating
probably intensifies this distortion leading to a heightened need to become thinner (Kolb,

1959)

Selection in Figure Skating

Competency Level

The general consensus in the talent identification literature is that an
interdisciplinary focus is essential for the complex process of predicting athletic success
(Bloom, 1985; Burwitz et al., 1994; Comper, 1991; Ericsson, et al., 1993). To date,
researchers have not specifically compared recreational competitive skaters to their more
elite peers. Research has been limited to identifying the physical and psychomotor
characteristics of the elite prototypical skater (Comper, 1991; Faulkner, 1976; Gledhill and
Jamnick, 1992). A primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the combined
effect of physical and psychological variables thought to be important for the selection of
successfirl figure skaters specializing in free, dance and pair skating. To this end, test or
recreational competitive skaters were compared to more elite skaters identified as pre-elite
and elite, who were pre-national and national level competitors.

Both biocultural (Malina and Bouchard, 1991) and contextual (Lerner, 1985,
1992) views emphasize the interaction between biological and psychological variables for
healthy development through puberty. It appears that these interactions are also important
in the identification and selection of specialized, elite athletes. Evidence suggests that

certain physical characteristics related to body size and physique are important for success

in figure skating (Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992; Ross et al., 1980; Weaver and Thompson,

131

1981). Although psychological variables discriminating successful athletes have been
identified in wrestlers (Gould et al., 1981) and weightlifiers (Mahoney, 1989), assessment
of psychological variables important in figure skating selection and the interaction with
physical characteristics has received little attention.

For the total sample of figure skaters, age and endomorphy correctly classified
58% of the skaters by competency level. Older skaters who were less endomorphic were
more successfirl (Table 50). Among post-menarcheal skaters 215 years of age, age at
menarche and Maturity Fears were included in the analysis in an attempt to tease out
differences attributed to maturational timing. However, among the older skaters, only
endomorphy, age, and Self-Esteem correctly classified 68% of the skaters by level of
competency (Table 51). Older, less endomorphic skaters who had higher Self-Esteem
were more successful. These results are consistent with Claessens et al. (in press) research
on elite female gymnasts. Age and endomorphy were significant predictors of performance
scores for the horse vault, uneven bars, beam, and floor; older, less endomorphic skaters
were more successfirl. In the study of elite gymnasts, the contribution of age to the
variance in performance scores ranged from 2.5 to 3.8%, while the contribution of
endomorphy ranged from 26.9 to 35.7%. Other variables that contributed to the variance
in gymnasts’ performance scores were calf girth, sitting height, forearm girth, skeletal age,
femur width, mesomorphy, and calf skinfold thickness.

The small set of discriminating variables in the present study might be explained by
the reduced number of subjects considered in the analysis due to missing data. This also
limited the number of variables in the analysis. However, as suggested in previous

investigations, a low percentage of body fat (Comper, 1991; Faulkner, 1976; Gledhill and

132

 

Jamnick, 1992) and low endomorphy (Carter and Heath, 1990) are characteristic for elite
levels of competition. If success is defined in the context of performance and followed
over a season or at a competition, specific predictions may result. Including other
psychological variables, such as sport confidence and competition anxiety, may also

enhance the discrimination.

Discipline

The disproportionate ratio of male to female skaters is an additional concern for
dance and pair skaters. Success in dance and pair skating depends in large part on both the
physical and social compatibility of the couple. Lerner (1985) emphasizes the goodness of
fit between individual characteristics and the demands of the context. Although the general
context of figure skating involves strength, endurance, and aesthetic presentation,
disciplinary specialization has additional physical and social demands. In pair skating, for
example, a low center of gravity is necessary for landing throw-jumps, and upper body
strength is necessary for supporting the body in overhead lifts. In contrast, dancers require
relatively longer legs and a linear physique not only for intricate steps performed in close
proximity to partners, but to accentuate body lines for aesthetic purposes and to match
that of the partner. The social and psychological requirements of working with one’s
partner can superimpose on these physical requisites. It is reasonable to assume that
positive physical self-perceptions are also important for disciplines involving presentations
along side male partners.

In the present analysis, however, only age and endomorphy discriminated among

free skaters, dancers and pair skaters, classifying about 66% of the skaters by disciplinary

133

that discriminated discipline pre-elite and elite skaters also indicated that dance and pair
skaters were older and less endomorphic than free skaters, correctly classifying 62% of the
skaters. Endomorphy also classified 64% of post-menarcheal skaters 2 15 years; dance
and pair skaters were less endomorphic than fi'ee skaters.

As a group, skaters who were less endomorphic were more specialized and
successfirl, which likely reflects the selective nature of the sport. Apparently there is a
preference in figure skating, especially in dance and pair skating disciplines, for lean, thin,
non-fat skaters. It is not clear, however, who specifically is making the preferential
decisions, coaches, judges, and /or figure skating organizations. Low endomorphy among
the dance and pair skaters probably involves a variety of factors. Dance and pair skaters
reported significantly more hours of practice than free skaters (Table 14) and thus, energy
expenditure may, influence, in part, subcutaneous fatness and in turn, endomorphy
estimates. However, diet, which also influences subcutaneous fatness and thus,
endomorphy, is probably more important. This may be especially true for dance and pair
skaters given the additional pressures to maintain a light, lean physique which facilitates
lifiing and throw jumping. Although assessment of dietary intake was not included in this
study, Rucinski (1989) reported that elite skaters 17.6 years of age, consumed only 55%
of the RDAs for energy. In contrast, a subsequent study showed that figure skaters (13 .7
: 1.7 years) consumed approximately 82% of the RDA for energy after adjusting for age
and sex. However, it is important to note that RDA for energy intake may not reflect the
energy needs for this select group of highly active adolescent athletes. It is also important
to note that estimates of endomorphy ratings are influenced by quality of in the

measurements of skinfold thicknesses, i.e., measurement variability.

134

 

Additionally, some evidence of eating disorder risk among figure skaters suggests
that dance and pair skaters may be restricting their diet. Taylor and Ste. Marie (1998)
showed that 43% of dance and pair skaters reported high EDI Drive for Thinness subscale
scores. In the present study, older dance and pair skaters reported Body Dissatisfaction
scores 2 10 (Table 36), suggesting that this group of skaters may be restricting their diet

and may be at risk for disordered eating.

Self-Concept

It is generally assumed that a positive self-concept is essential for maintaining
confidence in athletes (Vealey, 1986). This may be especially true for figure skating where
success is contingent upon the skater’s ability to artistically present herself in front of
judges (Martin and Mack, 1996). Physical changes associated with growth and maturation
during adolescence may be related to a negative self-concept, which can be a liability for
aesthetic presentation and perhaps biomechanical efliciency in performing technical
elements. Moreover, the wellness of young female athletes striving to maintain a petite,
linear physique, which is apparently favored by judges, may be jeopardized as these youth
may resort to restrictive eating and weight loss behaviors.

To investigate the well-being of adolescent competitive figure skaters, physical and
psychological factors contributing to self-concept were considered. Self-concept is
multifaceted and hierarchically organized (Shavelson, et al., 1976), and consistent
relationships among self-esteem and body-esteem, and self-presentational concerns have
been demonstrated (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; Martin et al., 1997). Social Physique

Anxiety, Global Physical Self—Concept and Self-Esteem were used to characterize self-

135

concept, which was predicted by a combination of physical and psychological variables in
the present study (Table 53). Self-perceptions of skaters, as indicated in a bio-perceptual
set of predictor variables, are linked to physical characteristics. More specifically,
Appearance, Body Fat and Body Dissatisfaction entail perceptions of characteristics
associated with physical appearance. With respect to this set of bio-perceptual variables,
older skaters who were taller, heavier, less ectomorphic and less satisfied with their
Appearance and Body Fat, and who had higher Body Dissatisfaction scores, had higher
SPA and lower Global Physical Self-Concept and Self-Esteem (Figure 18). The data
suggest that the physical characteristics identified as being integral to figure skating, such
as low body weight and a linear physique (Gledhill and Jamnick, 1992), and skaters’
perceptions of these characteristics contribute to their self-concept (Crocker and Snyder,
1997; Eklund and Crawford, 1994; Martin et al., 1997; Marsh et al., 1997).

Although some investigations have considered the relationship of objective
physical variables with SPA scores (Eklund and Crawford, 1994; Hart et al., 1989; Martin
et al., 1997), and the PSDQ (Marsh, 1993; 1996; Marsh and Roche, 1996), the present
study is apparently the first to examine the relationship among somatotype, SPA and the
PSDQ. Despite low SPA scores among skaters in the present study, the findings are
consistent with previous research that found a relationship between SPA and body fat
estimated fi'om skinfolds (Eklund and Crawford, 1994), but contrast the findings of Martin
et al. (1997), who observed no relationship between body composition estimated with
densitometry and SPA in a combination of elite adolescent female soccer players,
gymnasts, and skaters (13.3 : 2.2 years). A fundamental limitation of presently available

SPA data is the lack of sport-specific analyses.

136

Predictors of Eating Disorder Risk

Perceptions of the body predicted eating disorder risk, particularly in early (1 1-13
years) and mid- adolescence (14-16 years) (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1989; Graber et al.,
1994). The gradual onset of puberty accompanied by many physical and physiological
changes are unique to the individual in timing and tempo. But, when the onset of puberty
occurs during critical periods of athletic selection, the likelihood of achieving success can
diminish because of changes in size and body composition associated with puberty. For
example, the growth spurt characterized by an increase in height and fat mass, may impede
the coordination necessary for the timing of jumps and other technical elements involving
aerial rotation, but there are also noticeable physical changes separating the maturing
female from peers who may, or may not have experienced similar physical changes. Social
comparisons associated with growth and maturation may increase the probability of
developing unhealthy self-concepts and behavior problems during puberty (Brooks—Gunn
et al., 1985; Silbereisen et al., 1989), particularly in subjectively evaluated sports.

Although the skaters in the present study did not report being at risk for
developing eating disorders as indicated by EDI subscales scores, physical and
psychological variables thought to predict eating disorder risk were considered in the
analysis. After controlling for age, both physical and psychological variables predicted
each EDI subscale, with the exception of Bulimia. All of the valences were in the expected
directions. In general, taller and fatter skaters, who had negative self-perceptions of
Health, Body Fat, and Appearance, and who had higher SPA, had higher EDI subscale

scores (Table 54).

137

The primary physical predictors of the EDI subscales were height and/0r
endomorphy, but it is interesting to note that mesomorphy emerged as a predictor of
Perfectionism. Given the vigorous self-discipline accompanying the pursuit of excellence
in athletics or dance, it is not surprising that skaters who were perfectionists were more
muscular (Mogul, 1980; Skowron and F riedlander, 1994). These skaters may have been
more inclined to engage in weight lifiing exercises in pursuit of a more ‘perfect physique’.

The psychological variables that predicted EDI subscale scores included Health,
Body Fat, Appearance, and Global Physical Self-Concept. The SPA score significantly and
positively predicted each of the EDI subscales, accounting for 2 to 12% of the variance.
SPA was the strongest predictor of Bulimia (12% of the variance). This is consistent with
data for with female college students (Deihl, et al., 1998; Johnson et al., 1995). The
observed relationships between SPA and EDI subscale scores suggested that anxiety about
presenting oneself in front of others may negatively influence physical perceptions, eating
behavior and social adjustment. It was also interesting that Body Fat was the strongest,
negative predictor of both Drive for Thinness and Body Dissatisfaction, accounting for
34% and 47% of the variance, respectively (Table 54). The more endomorphic skaters
reported higher Drive for Thinness and Maturity Fears, suggesting that fatter skaters
perceived themselves as fatter than their peers. However, the results should be interpreted
with caution since the skaters as a group were not generally endomorphic compared to
somatotype data for non-athlete females (Table 58).

Overall, the results are consistent with previous studies of adolescents. Those who
had low self-perceptions were more concerned with presenting themselves in front of

others (Crocker and Snyder, 1997; McAuley and Burman, 1993) and reported higher

138

 

 

eating disorder risk indicators (Duncan, 1985; Johnson et al., 1995; van der Velde, 1985).

139

 

CHAPTER VI

Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine physical and psychological
characteristics, and their interrelationships, in a cross-sectional sample of 159 competitive
female figure skaters] 1-22 years of age. Skaters from seven southern Ontario and four
southern Michigan figure skating clubs representing test, pre-elite and elite ability levels
and free, dance and pair skating disciplines participated in this study. The majority of the

skaters were Caucasian, had an average of about 10 years of experience, practiced about

 

17 hours per week on, and off the ice and competed in approximately 10 competitions in
the year prior to data collection.

Anthropometric variables included: height, weight, sitting height, limb
circumferences, skeletal breadths, and skinfold thicknesses. The following variables were
derived: the BMI, estimated leg length, sitting height/stature ratio, estimated mid-arm and
calf muscle circumferences, sum of 6 skinfolds, trunk/ extremity ratio and the Heath-Carter
anthropometric somatotype. Menarcheal status was assessed with the status quo method
(yes/no) and recall.

Psychological characteristics included self-concept, social physique anxiety, and
eating disorder risk. Self-concept was assessed using the Physical Self-Description
Questionnaire (PSDQ, Marsh, 1996), the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS, Hart et al.,
1989) was used to assess anxiety felt when presenting oneself in fi'ont of others, and the
Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI, Garner et al., 1983) was used to assess eating disorder
risk. The Ways of Coping Checklist (W CC, Crocker, 1992) was administered to assess the

coping skills of the skaters, but the data were discarded due to low reliability.

140

Figure skaters were, on average, below reference medians in most anthropometric
variables. They were shorter, lighter, and leaner compared to United States reference data,
and similar to athletes in other aesthetic movement forms. With respect to maturation,
figure skaters were later maturing, on average, compared to non-athletes. The mean
recalled age at menarche for skaters 2 16.0 was 13.6 : 1.2 years and the median (probit)
was 14.2 : 0.5 years. Based on self-reported psychological characteristics, the skaters had
positive self-perceptions, including high Self-Esteem and low Social Physique Anxiety,
and did not appear to be at risk for developing eating disorders. However, a closer look at
level, discipline, maturity status, and timing (average and late) indicated that a some
skaters may be at higher risk than others.

Elite skaters were, on average, lighter, and had a lower BMI, shorter legs and
sitting height than test skaters. They also had smaller limb circumferences and less
subcutaneous fat, were less endomorphic and more ectomorphic, and were older at
menarche than test skaters. Elite skaters also had more positive self-perceptions, but
higher SPA than test skaters.

Physical and psychological characteristics also distinguished skaters across
discipline. Free skaters were heavier and taller; had relatively shorter legs, larger limb
circumferences, broader skeletal breadths, and thicker skinfolds; and were more
endomorphic than more specialized skaters in dance and/or pairs. Free skaters also had
positive perceptions of Coordination, Sport Competence, and Strength, and reported
lower Bulimia and higher Interpersonal Distrust. Compared to pair skaters, dancers were
taller, with relatively shorter leg length. Dancers also reported lower mean self-perception

scores and SPA than test skaters. Pair skaters were lighter and shorter, had relatively long

141

 

legs, narrow skeletal breadths, and the less subcutaneous fat than free skaters. Pair skaters
were also less endomorphic and more mesomorphic than both free skaters and dancers,
and had the latest mean age at menarche (14.5 :1.3 years) compared to the other two
disciplines (free skaters, 13.4 :1.0 years; dancers, 13.4 : 1.4 years). With respect to
psychological characteristics, free and pair skaters reported, on average, more positive
self-perceptions including the PSDQ subscales for Health, Coordination, Sport
Competence and Strength, and lower EDI subscale scores including Bulimia and
Interpersonal Distrust compared to dancers.

Pre-menarcheal skaters were smaller, leaner, less endomorphic and more
ectomorphic than post-menarcheal skaters. They also had more positive psychological
characteristics such as measured by the PSDQ subscales of Body Fat, Sport Competence,
Global Physical Self-Concept, Self-Esteem and Strength than post-menarcheal skaters. In
contrast, post-menarcheal skaters had higher EDI subscale scores for Body
Dissatisfaction, Drive for Thinness and Introceptive Awareness, and a higher SPA score
than pre-menarcheal skaters.

Late maturing (mean age at menarche 15.2 : 0.7) post-menarcheal skaters 216
years of age were leaner and had narrower skeletal breadths, smaller limb circumferences
and relatively longer legs than average maturing (mean age at menarche 13.1 : 0.6) post-
menarcheal skaters 216 years of age. Late maturing post-menarcheal skaters had more
positive self-perceptions, including PSDQ subscales of Coordination, Endurance and Self-
Esteem than average maturers. SPA and EDI subscale scores did not differ between

average and late maturing skaters.

142

 

 

Correlation analyses indicated that all significant correlations between physical and
psychological variables were low to moderate, and in the expected directions. This
suggested that figure skaters’ perceptions of physical characteristics were consistent with
their physical dimensions. There were significant negative, low to moderate correlations
(-0.17 to -0.48) between height, weight, sum of skinfolds, endomorphy, and psychological
indicators including Body Fat, Global Physical Self-Concept, and Self-Esteem. The
correlations between height, weight, the sum of skinfolds and the endomorphic component
of somatotype, and SPA and Bulimia were positive and low to moderate (0.18 to 0.54).
Heavier, fatter and more endomorphic skaters were more concerned with their physical
appearance and about presenting themselves in front of others compared to those who
were lighter, leaner and more ectomorphic. Lighter and leaner skaters also had higher
Self-Esteem scores. The relationships between height and physique-related psychological
characteristics were reduced when age and weight were statistically controlled, with the
exception of Body Fat. Similarly, the relationships between the sum of skinfolds and
physique-related variables were also reduced when age and weight were statistically
controlled, with the exception of correlations with Body Fat. However, when controlling
for age and height, most of the relationships between weight and physique-related
characteristics remained significant.

Although physical and psychological characteristics identified elite and specialized
skaters, only three variables correctly classified these skaters. Age and endomorphy
discriminated across both level of competency and discipline in the total sample of skaters

and in pre—elite and elite skaters. In contrast, among post-menarcheal skaters 215 years,

age, endomorphy and Self-Esteem discriminated across level of competency, and age and

143

 

endomorphy discriminated across discipline. More elite and specialized skaters (dancers
and pair skaters) were generally older, less endomorphic and had higher Self-Esteem
scores. When test skaters were removed from the analysis, endomorphy still discriminated
free skaters and the more specialized dance and pair skaters; dance and pair skaters were
more endomorphic than the free skaters.

A multivariate-multiple regression analysis was performed to predict self-concept
from a combination of physical and psychological variables. A set of variables arbitrarily
labeled “bio-perceptual” predicted the set of dependent variables characterizing self-
concept. The combination of physical characteristics identified as being integral to figure
skating included low body weight and a linear physique, and skaters’ perceptions of Body
Fat and Appearance, and their Drive for Thinness and Body Dissatisfaction scores
contributed to their self-concept. A closer look at the correlations between the variables in
the predictor set and those in the dependent set suggested that smaller and leaner skaters,
who describe their specific physical attributes positively (i.e., are satisfied with
Appearance and Body Fat), had positive self-concepts (i.e., high Global Physical Self-
Concept and Self-Esteem, and low SPA scores).

Regression analyses were performed to determine if the susceptibility to eating
disorders could be predicted by select physical an psychological characteristics. A
combined efi’ect of physical and psychological variables in the prediction of eating disorder
risk accounted for 20% to 65% of the variance in selected EDI subscales (Bulimia, Drive
for Thinness, Body Dissatisfaction, Maturity Fears, Perfectionism). When age was
controlled, both physical and psychological variables predicted each EDI subscale, with

the exception of Bulimia. Taller and fatter skaters, who had negative self-perceptions of

144

Health, Body Fat, and Appearance, and who had higher SPA, had higher EDI subscale

scores.

Future Research and Recommendations

Progress towards elite status in figure skating requires a significant amount of time
and financial commitment. While this investigation revealed distinguishing physical and
psychological characteristics of more successfirl figure skaters in free skating, dance and
pair skating, more research is necessary on this population of athletes before definite
conclusions can be made. Once normal variation in grth and maturation across
disciplines are identified, those involved in talent identification programs can attempt to
select those skaters who may be best suited for each discipline.

While this investigation attempted to consider figure skating from an
interdisciplinary perspective, inclusion of other variables that influence success in skating
was beyond the scope of this study. The limited number of available skaters in dance and
pair disciplines is a limiting factor. Examining psychomotor characteristics (i.e., jumping
ability and aesthetic maneuvers) of skaters relative to body proportions, and body
composition of male and female dance and pair skaters would be a valuable endeavor for
firture research because these may be additional variables of importance in refining talent.

Future investigations should also attempt to cross-validate the results of this study.
More specifically, examining physical and psychological predictors of the EDI in a sample
who report values indicative of eating problems would be valuable. Alternatively, the risk
classification criteria of the EDI for athletes in aesthetic sports should be reconsidered.

The present study would have benefited from examining the eating behaviors of the figure

145

skaters to detemrine if the skaters, or those specializing in certain disciplines, have a
tendency to restrict the diet.

Given the apparent relationships between physical and psychological variables
among figure skaters across level of competency, discipline, maturational status and
timing, four recommendations are offered. Sport governing bodies such as the CFSA and
USFSA should (1) follow age-specific recommendations for training, (2) ensure that
evaluation centers follow a conventional measurement protocol which enable comparisons
with reference data for athletes and non-athletes, (3) caution parents, coaches, judges and
officials about commenting on body weight—related characteristics, and (4) provide
educational information to skaters, coaches, judges and parents regarding growth and
maturation, psychological characteristics of athletes in aesthetic sports, and the
implications of these interacting characteristics on the training, nutrition and wellbeing of

female adolescent athletes.

146

 

.23: “3500 Sow coaxed wfifixm 08mm 5%«50 5 2883352 E25 no 388 owfim A 2:me

 

m .33 82m
33 acumen

 

 

 

 

 

_ m _23 65mg

 

A823 cocoa—63

68:9 cameo—8v = owfim

E «mew .8.“ £883

com 228% mo Son 03353 we _ooa Baa—$3.4

 

 

_ _964 035
83 $2on

 

 

 

38% 83808
H 88w 8e
388% mo _ooa 053mm><

 

147

 

Stature. cm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stature. cm

1 P10

 

 

.—-'—v-|

Hr—I—d

 

 

12o '
10

l m l

12

1 l 3 T 1'

Age, yrs

16 18

24

 

Figure 2. Statures of individual figure skaters (above) and mean
statures (: standard deviations) of figure skaters by whole year age
groups (below) plotted relative to reference values for 11-18 years of age
(Hamill et al., 1977; Najjar and Rowland, 1987).

148

 

 

§irro

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"” I““"‘1""1T"l‘""l'“"
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age,yrs
so 4 :xrso
=1
70-3
a...“
an 2
x .4
a" i i
£9iflrijr90
0 '4
B
“—
":P50
30:
:ruo
20 I I I] 1 l I l 1 l I I 1 “l ‘1 I 'l 71 7 i l W W I ‘l ‘1 -1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age,yrs

Figure 3. Weights of individual figure skaters (above) and mean weights
(: standard deviations) of figu re skaters by whole year age group (below)
plotted relative to U.S. reference values for 11-18 years of age (Hamill et al.,

1977). XP50 is the median for young adults 18-24 years of age (Naj jar and
Rowland, 1987).

149

 

 

 

 

 

10 4 ‘ ' I ‘ " 1 il 1 1 l 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age, yrs

 

28%
26%
24-3

s 224E

16‘: P15

 

 

 

16 l ‘ ‘ ‘ I? 1 ‘ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ l 1 1 1 11 1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age, yrs

Figure 4. The body mass index (BMI) for individual figure skaters (above)
and means (: standard deviations) of figure skaters by whole year age groups
(below) plotted relative to U.S. reference values (Must et al., 1991).

150

 

 

 

 

 

Sitting Height, cm
8
l

 

 

 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

 

Sitting Height, cm
3
l
W

 

 

 

Age, yrs

Figure 5. Sitting heights of individual figure skaters (above) and
mean sitting heights Q standard deviations) of figure skaters by whole
year age groups (below) plotted relative to U.S. reference values
11-18 years (Malina and Roche, 1983; Roche and Malina, 1983).

151

 

85_

Estimated Leg Legth, cm
a 5'
1

ON
6

illiJLLllilll

L 1

 

 

 

 

0!
UI

I—l
G
y—s
N
H
A

l6 18 20 22
Age, yrs

24

 

W M
6 UI
.l,,,,

\l
UI
l I 1 l l

Estimated Leg Length, cm
ON \I
U! 6
, 1 , , , L 1

O\
G
I I l | l

I—I——l
l—I——-l
I——I-——l
l——I-——-l

P50

 

 

55‘

 

Figure 6. Estimated leg lengths of individual figure skaters (above) and
mean estimated leg lengths Q standard deviations) of figure skaters by
whole year age groups (below) plotted relative to U.S. reference values

Age, yrs

24

(Malina and Roche, 1983; Roche and Malina, 1983; Najjar and Rowland,

1987)

152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59 _
o
o\° 57': e
.9 7 . o ' '
‘5 55“ Q . .. . .
(I — . 0 .0
- . Q C . . ‘C.
g _ f o 0.. ." . o
E ’ '
a) e
g o
.9) ‘
a) -
I . 00
0349‘s .
.E -
E 1
U) 47:
.1
.1
45 1 1 l 1 I I - l 1 1 I 1 1 1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age,yrs
59 A
.\° 57-5:
.2‘ :
iii _
c: 55 a
2 I
23:51 .. f
g :
@511
g i
0149'.
.E
(04711
45 T T I 1 T l 7 T I 1I i 1 I 1 I 1 l T 1 4 T 7 w
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age,yrs

Figure 7. Sitting height/stature ratios of individual figure skaters

(above) and mean sitting height/stature ratios (3; standard deviations)

of figu re skaters by whole year age groups (below) plotted relative to

U.S. reference values (Malina and Roche, 1983; Roche and Malina, 1983).

153

 

 

6.5 ~_

 

Biepicondlyar Breadth, cm

 

 

 

 

9
U!
.I,,,

G'\
lllll|

P50

fill
(II
, |

Biepicondlyar Breadth, cm
UI
. I

:5
u:
,l.v.

 

 

 

Age, yrs

Figure 8. Biepicondylar breadths of individual figure skaters (above)
and mean biepicondylar breadths (i standard deviations) of figure
skaters by whole year age groups (below) plotted relative to U.S.
reference values (Malina and Roche, 1983; Roche and Malina, 1983).

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11
10.55
E 10;
‘1 , o o o o o
.=
H
u
G
3 o
a:
L:
.5
>.
1:
=
O
.2
r:
O
7 I I I I I I
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age,yrs
11 ‘
105—1
E 10—_
5° 7
'6 9.5-1
as ;
0
h-
:1: 9—
1- :
E _
a? 8.5:
g 1 P50
'5 8f
7.5—f
7 I I I I I I
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age,yrs

Figure 9. Bicondylar breadths of individual figure skaters (above) and
mean bicondylar breadths (: standard deviations) of figure skaters by
whole year age groups (below) plotted relative to U.S. reference values
(Malina and Roche, 1983; Roche and Malina, 1983).

l55

 

30

N
\I
. l . I .

Relaxed Arm Circumference, cm
N
&
I

 

 

 

 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

 

30

N
00
,I.

N
.A
l

N
ex
1
F—I—l
I—l—I

N
N
l

P50

N
e

I
i—l—I

Relaxed Arm Circumference, cm

 

 

 

p—n
co

1 I I 1 I I 1
16 18 20 22 24
Age, yrs

H
3
put
N
y—
A

Figure 10. Relaxed arm circumferences of individual figure skaters
(above) and mean relaxed arm circumferences (: standard deviations)
of figure skaters by whole year age groups (below) plotted relative U.S.
reference values for 11-18 years of age (Malina and Roche, 1983; Roche
and Malina, 1983). XP50 is the median for adults 18-24 years (Naj jar
and Rowland, 1987).

156

 

P50

Calf Circumference, cm
OJ
N
I

 

 

 

 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

 

0) DJ
O\ W
I III,

a»
a
I

M
G
l I l ‘ 1

P50

Calf Circumference, cm
OJ
N
I

N
W
1|.I

N
ax
I I l 1

 

 

 

N
8
_.

I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1
16 18 20 22 24

Age, yrs

p—i
C
H
N
1—1
A

Figure 11. Calf circumferences of individual figure skaters (above) and
mean calf circumference (i standard deviations) for figure skaters by
whole year age groups (below) plotted relative to U.S. reference values
(Malina and Roche, 1983; Roche and Malina, 1983).

157

 

H H N N N
N Q Q 8 00
I 111I1IILIIIJI_JL111

Tricep Skinfold Thickness, mm
°I°

 

l l l l

 

 

 

A
i—I
a
bid
N—
y—i
Ji—
pa
“—4
1—1
”A
Nd
C
N
N—d

24

 

20 __ 1- XP50.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tricep Skinfold Thickness, mm
°.° 31‘:

 

 

 

4 I 1 I 1 I - I - I 1 1 I - - 1 I 1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age, yrs

Figure 12. Triceps skinfold thicknesses of individual figure skaters (above)
and mean triceps skinfold thicknesses (i standard deviations) of figure
skaters by whole year age groups (below) plotted relative to U.S. reference
values for 11-18 years of age (Johnston et al., 1974). XP50 is the mean for
young adults 18-24 years (Naj jar and Rowland, 1987).

158

N
W

 

N
A
.ILH,

N
c
I

1—1
N
I

Subscapular Skinfold Thickness, mm
00 '5"
I I
11:
g

 

 

 

24

 

 

X P50

Subscapular Skinfold Thicknesses, mm
3
I

 

 

 

4 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age, yrs

Figure 13. Subscapular skinfold thicknesses of individual figure
skaters (above) and mean subscapular skinfold thicknesses (: standard
deviations) of figure skaters by whole year age groups (below) plotted
relative to U.S. reference values for 11-18 years (Johnston et al., 1974).
XP50 is the mean for young adults 18-24 years (Najjar and Rowland,
1987).

159

MESOII IORPH'Y

 

 

Figure 14. Somatotypes of individual figure skaters.

160

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 15. Mean somatotypes of figure skaters by age groups. 1 = 11.00-11.99;
2 = 12.00-12.99; 3 = 13.00-13.99; 4 = 14.00-14.99; 5 = 15.00-15.99; 6 = 16.00-16.99; 7
= 17.00—17.99; 8 = 18.00-18.99; 9 = 19+.

 

 

 

mesomoapuy

 

 

162

 

MESOII- IOFiPHY

 

 

<6
¢
00

‘6
1%
/‘&

Figure 17. Mean somatotypes of figure skaters by discipline. F = free skaters; D = dancers;
P = pair skaters.

163 .

 

 

P
O\
IlliIlllIlll

 

0.4

0.2

l

P

N
I...I...I...I...I...I...

 

 

age
height
weight
endomorphy
mesomorphy
ectomorphy
Appearance
Body Fat
Body Dissatisfaction
Drive for Thinness
Perfectionism
SPA
Self-Esteem

Global Physical Self-concept

Figure 18. Correlations between the psychological variables comprising the self-
concept canonical set and the physical and psychological variables comprising the

bio-perceptual canonical set.

164

 

 

 

 

9m ”we 0.0 508 M211 mm 85
sea: a s 25385
_o Owe Nm ”of o; 5.2 M: SEPEoEomaeacmo
aka: a a sex
on NE 3 £2 a; «.2 w Eoomonaéom
:3: 20889:. was 8233
Tm m9 cs :3 vs 3.2 01 mm 83oz
:3: $980
Gm my? Wm Sufi : 0.3 LN SAfiwfiEU
GS: SEES
Va 0.2 KW mom ms 5me a; 5.2 8. 02:69:50
3%: a s Emofi
Em fimv ow Wmfl v; N? 0 8386350
Eta: .3 3 sex
ms 0.3 0.0 as: a; :2 0 68895905
£me 5882a. 98 $283
Qm 2 Om E Om 2 Qm 2 c 858%: .oEEem
NEEV— azm we. .Ewmoa :8 Emma: 28% dw<

 

 

.2383 8:3 oEE£ no 338% 33% mo 30:88 :23: :zm was EmEB .Ewmo: .om< .H oEuH

 

 

3 3 go we be ON 3 E M: assesses €28
SEQ: a a sex

we 3 go a; to E 3 4.2 w aeowgaeom
2?: 20889:. was $233

0.0 3 no I, 2 nm S 0.: a S A 2% $28
88 3 sign

3 3 be 2 to 2 3 NE a 838 .2328
_ 3:0: .3 a son

3 on 3 ME 3 3 S a: 0 20883-3

A33: .5859: Es 8283

166

 

Om 2 Qm 2 Om 2 Om E :
FSoanom 3908822 Eaeofiowcm om<

 

0930388

2883 23mm 032$ mo 8388 35>»; mo moaboEEom .N 2an

 

 

Table 3. Recalled ages at menarche in figure skaters and athletes in several other sports.

 

 

 

 

Mean Recalled
Chronological Age at
Menarche

Sample, reference :1 M SD M SD
Ziegler et al. (1998)

skaters, competitive 21 13.7 1.4 12.4 1.2
Warren (1980)

ballet dancers 15 13-19 15.4
Brooks-Goon at al. (1988)

skaters 25 15.7 1.2 13.6 1.5

ballet dancers 64 15.6 1.3 13 .3 1.3

swimmers 72 15.6 1.2 12.9 1.3

non-athletes 424 15.7 1 .4 12.7 1. 1
Ross et a1. (1980)

skaters, junior and senior 18 14.0 1.3

skiers, elite 9 12.9 0.9

secondary school 95 12.1 1.2

university women 31 12.1 1.1
Malina and Geithner (1993)

Jr Olympicg‘jvers 28 17-19 14.1 1.3

 

167

 

 

Table 4. Results of two studies using the PSDQ with athletes in several sports
and non-athletes.

 

 

 

 

Crocker and Marsh et al. (1997)
Snyder (1997) A B C
Subscale
n . 114 757 349 720
Age, years 16.4 13.4 13.3 13.5
Health 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.8
Coordination 4.6 4.2 5.0 4.3
Physical Activity 5.5 4.1 5.1 4.2
Body Fat 4.8 4.6 5.2 4.0
Sport Competence 5.1 4.1 5.1 3.9
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.9 4.5 5.1 3.9
Appearance 4.4 3.7 4.0 3.4
Strength 4.9 4.1 4.7 3.9
Endurance 4.6 3.5 4.6 4.3
Self-Esteem 5.3 4.7 4.7 3.5
Flexibility 4.5 4.1 5.7 4.4

 

Crocker and Snyder (1997), elite athletes (basketball, tennis, volleyball,

gymnastics, diving, swimming, synchronized swimming, soccer and softball).

A— non-elite athletes (water polo, track and field, basketball,

soccer, cycling, swimming baseball, rugby, netball, cricket and aerobics).
B- elite athletes (track and field, basketball, soccer, cycling, swimming, baseball,

rugby, netball).
C- high school students, non-athletes.

168

 

 

Table 5. Results of four studies of Social Physique Anxiety (SPA) in female
athletes and non-athletes.

 

 

 

Age SPA

Study 11 M SD M SD
Martin et al. (1998) 13.3 2.2

elite soccer players 24 2.7 O. 7

elite gymnasts 9 1.8 0.5

elite skaters 35 2.5 0.7
McAuley and Burman (1993)“ 236 14.4 1.8 3.4 0.5
Crocker and Snyder (1997)b 114 16.4 2.4 2.6 0.8
Hart et al. (1989)° 114 18.4 5.6 3.1 0.8

 

aGymnasts.
l’Basketball, tennis, gymnastics, volleyball, synchronized swimming,

speed swimming, soccer, softball.
cAdult female non-athletes.

169

 

 

Table 6. Results of studies using the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) in
samples of female athletes and non-athletes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garner and
Rosen et al. Garner et a1. Olmstead
Subscale (1990) (1982) (1984)
Female
Adolescent College Bulimic
Norms Women Anorexics
M SD M SD M SD
n 747 137 38
Age, years 14.6 3.5 20.3 20.2
Body Dissatisfaction 11.3 7.7 9.7 8.1 15 .5 7.8
Bulimia 2.1 3.3 1.7 3.1 8.1 6.3
Drive for Thinness 5.6 5.9 5:1 5.5 13.8 6.1
Inefi‘ectiveness 4.2 5.1 .3 3.8 12.1 8.6
Interpersonal Distrust 3.6 3.8 2.4 3.0 6.4 4.9
Intro. Awareness 4.5 5.3 2.3 3.6 11.4 7.0
Maturity Fears 4.2 3.6 2.2 2.5 5.6 5.8
Perfectionism 5.2 4.3 6.4 4.3 8.6 5.3
Skowron and
Frielander
Subscale Warren et a1. (1990) (1994)

 

Runners Gymnasts Gymnasts
M SD M SD M SD

 

n 12 15 55

Age, years 19.3 1.6 19.3 1.6 19.4 1.1
Body Dissatisfaction 5.6 7.0 12.1 5.9 9.8 7.9
Bulimia 0.8 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.5 2.2
Drive for Thinness 2.9 3.1 8.4 5.9 5.4 5.7
Inefi‘ectiveness 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.1 1.5 2.2
Interpersonal Distrust 1.4 2.1 5.3 2.2 2.2 2.7
Intro. Awareness 0.4 1.0 3.2 4.4 2.6 3.3
Maturity Fears 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.2
Perfectionism 4.9 3.0 7.3 5.3 6.8 3.8

 

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omm 0: ed 5.2 m N 9: am. .38.
flaw. v.3 N.N 5.: m o is S 22m
mom m. I 0N mi _ N me on Bzoém
QC 0: mm #2 v c me 3 7.8. :38.
WE Gm— o.m “.2 o 0 mm mm .88.
DE 58 m; 3: o o 2 2 65m n
0.2 mdd wd 0.9 o o A: o. 2:965 l
i- I- I- I- o o o o “wok. WEE
WNN Wm. Wm WE o 0 am am :38.
Wmm 0.2 Wm 52 o o w w 8:m
mom WE mm 2.2 o o a a 8:965 .
:- -: o o o o 58. 855
v.9 m.: m.m 02 m N no R: 230%
0.9 v.3 NN _.E m 0 mm cm 6:5
5.: m. 2 w; v.3 _ m mm mm 2:66an
6.: 9: _.N o6 L w c we we “mom. can
.582 .52 Om 2 523, 0.85 56830 :38. 65.985
memo» .ow< bBEEm

 

.oEEBmB 55:3 63. .3 can 29:8 :39 65 8.. meme :35 95 5.5258 .86 295% N 635.

 

 

Table 8. Intra- and inter-observer technical errors of measurement for the present
sample and previous research.

 

 

 

Intra-observer TE Inter-observer TE

Study 1 2 3 4 1 3 4
n 15 13 22 77 13 9 224
Weight, kg 0.45 0.78

Stature, cm 0.64 0.55 0.19 0.49 0.11 0.12 0.68
SittingHeight, cm 0.75 0.20 0.53 0.12 0.24 0.70
Breadths, cm

Biepicondylar 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.24

Bicondylar 0.18 0.07 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.15
Circumferences, cm

Arm,Relaxed 0.07 0.33 0.13 0.35 0.37 0.20 0.42

Arm,Flexed 0.16 0.17 0.08 0.24

Thigh 0.35 0.36 0.12

Calf 0.24 0.33 0.26 0.87 1.40 0.19 0.34
Skinfolds,mm

Triceps 0.19 0.69 0.15 0.80 1.14 0.27 1.89
Biceps 0. 13 0.24 2.03

Subscapular 0.49 0.36 0.17 1.83 0.95 0.31 1.53

Supraspinale 0.46 4.69

Abdominal 0.97 3.16

Medial Calf 0.66 0.98 0.21 1.44 3.02 0.27 2.44
Endomorphy 0.01 0.28
Mesomorphy 0.41 0.75
Ectomorphy 0.07 0.28

 

lPresent study, North American competitive female figure skaters, 11.5- 22.3 years,
within-day replicates.

2Meleski (1980) White age-group swimmers, both sexes, 8-18 years, replicates taken
1-4 weeks after initial measurements.

3Wellens (1989) White university students, 17-21 years, within-day replicates.
4Johnston et al. (1972) and Malina et al. (1973) U.S. Health Examination Survey, Cycle
III, youth, 12-17 years, replicates taken within 2 ‘/2 weeks after initial measurements.

172

 

 

 

Table 9. Psychological instrumentation subscale reliabilities and
correlations with chronological age.

 

 

Variable Chronbach or r
WCC (n = 138)
Active 0.68
Problem Focused 0.74
Social Support 0.63
Reappraisal 0.76
Wishful Thinking 0.55
Self Contemplation 0.09
Detachment 0.51
Self Blame 0.73
PSDQ (n = 128)
Health 0.91 026”
Coordination 0.84 -0. 14
Physical Activity 0.88 0.20“
Body Fat 0.81 -0.31°
Sport Competence 0.92 -0.23°
Global Physical Self-Concept 0.90 -0.29°
Appearance 0.94 -0.06
Strength 0.83 -0.1 1
Endurance 0.90 0.02
Self-Esteem 0. 83 -0. l6
Flexibility 0.83 —0.06
EDI (n = 126)
Body Dissatisfaction 0.94 042°
Bulimia 0.85 023"
Drive for Thinness 0.91 037°
Ineffectiveness 0.83 0.30°
Interpersonal Distrust 0.77 0.08
Introceptive Awareness 0.83 029°
Maturity Fears 0.70 -0.05
Perfectionism 0.73 0.1 1
SPAS (n = 135)
SPA 0.91 030°

 

‘ p< .05;"p < .01; ° p < .001.

173

 

 

Table 10. Completeness of data for the sample of figure skaters.

 

 

Variable n 1 Frequency %
Anthropometric 159 100.0
Menarcheal Status 159 100.0
WCC 135 84.9
Demographic Information 133 83.6
SPAS 135 84.9
PSDQ 128 80.5
EDI 126 79.2
Parent Information 106 66.7
All data 93 58.5

 

174

m—

Table 11. Years of experience in organized figure skating by age
group.

 

Age Group 11 M SD Md Min Max
11 + 5 6.4 2.1 6.8 3.5 9.5
12 + 10 8.4 1.9 8.8 3.8 9.9
13 + 23 7.8 2.1 7.1 3.7 11.9
14 + 16 9.4 1.1 9.4 7.0 12.8
15 + 19 10.5 2.2 11.0 6.0 15.7
16 + 16 10.7 2.7 11.9 4.9 14.8
17 + 18 12.6 1.9 12.3 9.0 15.6
18 + 10 10.9 2.1 11.8 8.5 15.8
19 + 12 14.9 2.2 15.1 10.5 17.1
Total 129 10.2 3.0 9.8 3.5 17.1

175

 

Table 12. Sport and figure skating background for the total sample of figure
skaters and partial correlations with level, controlling for age.

 

 

 

Variable Total Level
n M SD r
Skating experience, yrs 129 10.3 3.0 0.39*
Disciplinary experience, yrs 85 5.3 3.1 0.17
Age at first organized sport, yrs 117 4.9 1.9 -0. 15
Age at first organized skating participation, yrs 129 5.4 2.1 -0. 15
Age at skating specialization, yrs 130 8.7 2.4 -0.07
Age at first competition, yrs 127 8.7 2.4 -0.28*
Competitions in 1997, n 121 10.1 3.1 024*
Competitions in 1998, n 113 5.4 2.9 0.17
On-ice training hours/week 131 5.7 3 .0 035*
Ofilice training hours/week 132 11.7 6.0 038*

 

*p<.05.

176

 

.m see 3% N . a see note _ ._ MN ace 20% a .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8. v a...
E 3: 2 3 mi 3 S, a: .w mm .3: m: .N #8328; mass: 8E0
mm «.0 hm m.m To mm w.m ave em .3: 12 .m 0.022330: mag“: 835
3 an am am 3 3 Z .2. cm *3 w: .m a .82 a 825828
Wm 2. VM o.m ad me 2.. swd mm 1.00 N: .m a .32 5 82:89:00
3 2 mm 3 2w S 3 ems mm tum 42 .m a .coczoqeoo mace: Em a om<
am 3 mm E SW em am 3 mm .3: mi .N a; 5258:2892 weave. a om<
3 3. em 3 am 3 mm 0.6 on Rm 2: .N a; news; consume Em a om<
3 3, 2 ed 3 cm a: 3 3 No 02 .m a; flog... Became Eu a a?
Wm m6 om ON :4 9 gm 3m 3 mg wag .m 3» 625598 bus—£85
hm 02 cm ON .48 3 3 sea on 2 8 .m a; 88:86 warez
Om 2 c Gm 2 : Om 2 c m to
8a .m 2:35 .N ash ._ use;
3.64
._o>o_ .3 3883

83mm mo 29:3 .88 2: 6m cosactofim 958323 wage—m 23mm 98 roam @2888 <>OZ< 2: mo 838m .2 2an

177

.m see 6% N . a as... some _ .. MN so: 8% _ .

 

 

 

 

 

.mo. V a ._.
6.... me on EN 5m em 0. m sad mm 9m mm; .N 0185330: mafia: combo
0w 6.: 8 as 02 an S. a? g .82 02 .N 0.8328; macs: 8E0
Em ms 2 vd m.m 3 ad :6 ow 06 #2 .N c .33 E 30:53:80
2 we 2 3 3 2 3 .30 em 3 N: .N .132 s 88858
Wm m.m 3 mm was om ad eme av .32 v2 .N 2% £25388 mafia—m 55 S ow<
3 b: 2 am a: E Wm 3 8 *3, ms .N a» dofinasoam weave a em».
on E 2 2 3 mm 3 3 mm No 62 .N a.» .9583 consume E: a om<
am S cm 3 E am an ow 8 0.0 6.2 .m a; £8” Bugmco new s %<
3 3. 2 3 3 an em .3 em 3 wfi .N a; 68286 E5385
2. 3. mm 3 .3. em 2 .2 .m 8 mo 8 .N a; 88:86 maesa
mm 2 : Gm 2 : Om 2 c m we
when .m 855 .m 02m ._ 633:3
8:985
85.8%

.3 3883 82mm mo 0383. :38 of .8 cofieaomfi ecsoawxoan wage; 83mm 23 team mataquo <>OZ< 2: mo 3.3; .3 038.

178

Table 15. Proportion (%) of skaters by level and discipline reporting those

who influenced their skating participation.

 

 

 

Level Discipline
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite Free Dance Pairs Total
n 37 59 37 89 24 20 132
Mother 70 79 86 77 79 85 78
Father 43 41 56 46 34 6O 46
Coach 24 20 21 23 20 15 21
Friend 27 22 21 24 20 20 23
Other 3 2 3 7 3 7 3 2 47 4O 3 6

 

179

Table 16. Birth order of figure skaters by family size (top)
and educational background of the parents of figure
skaters (bottom).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family Size
Birth Order 1 2 3 4 5 Total
1 15 3 1 5 2 1 54
2 O 32 10 2 O 44
3 0 O 10 1 O 11
4 O O O 2 O 2
Total 15 63 25 7 1 111
Education N %
Mother (11 = 105)
High school 27 26
Special skills training 17 16
Undergraduate degree 42 40
Graduate degree 19 18
Father (n = 99)
High school 13 13
Special skills training 18 18
Undergraduate degree 3 7 3 7

Graduate degree 31 31

 

180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m2 3: 2 52 0.2 cm 2 m2 ac 2» 6:85:02
2: Know 3 9m mom 2 v.2 v. 3 8 mo. .2an03
m6 :2 2 50 ~22 cm 00 @482 me :8 .838m
uosuoz
2: ads 2 SW 5.: 2 ed vow E wx .EwEB
3 m6: 2 :4 c6: 2 No 2.2 no :5 .EBSm
How—3m
mm 2 : mm 2 : Gm 2 : oEmE>
when 8st 08m mam—E85
N2 v.2 m: 2 5.2 2 m2 m2 em «2 2.2 mm midnemcowz
3 So a 2: 5.8 2 3 gm am 3 «.8 2 3.283
3 32 2: 3 22 :H No 32 m4 3 22 S 80.83%
huh—~02
Q: 93 mm 2: mdw cm 4.2 SK cm 3: flow um 93:90?
No Q62 3 .2 cs: mm “mm 0.02 mm 2. as: am Eo.2:§m
86.92
mm 2 a ma 2 s cm 2 s cm 2 a 2.35,
Econ. Sam 8:905 “mob 6Z5

 

.EofioE mo 0:03:08 3 own 3:82 98 .2395 28 “ammo: 28:28 @8892 How 859% guacamom .2 2an

181

Table 18. Anthropometric characteristics and correlations with age for the total

sample of figure skaters (n = 159).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max r
Age, yrs 15.7 2.4 11.5 22.3
Weight, kg 50.0 8.6 66.3 26.8 72.1 054°
Stature, cm 157.8 7.0 135.8 174.2 045“
BMI, kg/mz 20.0 2.5 21.7 14.5 24.3 0.45c
Sitting Height, cm 83.4 4.7 72.5 96.3 054°
SH/ST ratio, % 52.8 1.4 49.0 58.0 0.54c
Est. leg length, cm 74.4 3.7 63.3 82.7 0.208
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.7 0.5 7.5 9.9 0.27b
Biepicondylar 6.0 0.4 4.9 6.8 0.15
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 24.1 2.4 18.9 28.8 0.50c
Arm, flexed 25.4 2.4 20.8 30.0 051°
Calf 32.5 2.8 25.4 45.2 0.36b
Thigh 50.9 4.9 39.8 60.6 056°
EAMC, cm 21.4 1.6 15.9 26.8 0.33b
ECMC, cm 30.5 2.5 22.3 44.1 0.22b
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 12.5 4.2 11.6 6.0 26.5 0.24b
Biceps 5 .4 1.9 5.1 2.3 11.3 0.01
Subscapular 9.0 3.1 8.3 4.2 18.5 0.29
Supraspinale 9.1 4.1 8.3 3.3 24.5 0.11c
Abdominal 10.7 4.9 9.2 3.9 30.1 0.12
Medial Calf 12.5 4.4 11.7 5.2 34.1 0.15
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 59.2 19.9 56.2 29.5 124.1 0.19‘11
T/E Ratio, mem 0.95 0.22 0.91 0.51 1.76 0.07

 

ap<.05; bp <.01; °p <05.

182

Table 19. Descriptive statistics for somatotype by age group.

 

 

 

Somatotype
Age Group 11 Endomorphy SD Mesomorphy SD Ectomorphy SD
11+ 8 2.5 0.6 3.6 0.6 3.9 0.8
12+ 12 2.9 0.8 3.4 0.7 3.5 1.1
13+ 23 3.1 1.0 3.7 0.8 3.3 1.0
14+ 22 3.4 1.0 3.7 0.9 2.9 1.2
15+ 25 3.2 0.1 3.3 1.0 3.2 0.1
16+ 21 3.7 1.2 3.9 1.0 2.2 0.9
17+ 20 3.9 1.0 3.7 0.8 2.4 0.7
18+ 10 2.7 0.6 3.7 0.8 2.7 0.9
_>_l9 15 3.5 1.0 3.8 0.7 2.3 0.5
Total 159 3.3 1.0 3.7 0.8 2.9 1.0

 

183

 

Table 20. Menarcheal status of the total sample of skaters (n =
159) by age group and estimated median age at menarche via
probit analysis (top), and distribution of recalled ages at menarche
of post-menarcheal skaters 3 16.0 years (n = 67, 18.1 i 1.5 years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(bottom).
Agez years Menarcheal Status
_A_g§ Group n Mean SD No Yes % Yes
11 + 8 11.8 0.2 8 0 0.00
12 + 12 12.6 0.2 11 1 8.33
13 + 26 13.4 0.3 16 10 38.46
14 + 22 14.5 0.3 8 14 63.64
15 + 23 15.4 0.3 4 19 82.61
16 + 20 16.5 0.3 1 19 94.74
17 + 20 17.5 0.3 0 20 100.00
18 + 11 18.5 0.2 0 11
19 + 17 20.2 1.0 0 17
Median SE 95% CI
14.2 0.5 13.2 - 15.2
FTCQEEQQL.
Age Range
10.00-10.99 1
11.00—11.99 1
12.00—12.99 17
13.00-13.99 26
14.00-14.99 11
15.00-15.99 7
16.00—16.99 4

M+SD2years 13.6+ 1.2

184

Table 21. Distribution, means, and standard deviations,
and the mother-daughter correlation for recalled ages at
menarche in post-menarcheal figure skaters 216 and their
mothers (n = 28 pairs).

 

 

Skaters Mothers
Age Range
11.00-11.99 1 2
12.00-12.99 8 3
13.00-13.99 11 12
14.00-14.99 5 7
15.00-15.99 1 3
16.00-16.99 2 1
M : SD, years 13.5 +1.2 13.8 :1; 1.2
r 0.60 (p < .05)

 

185

$05.3... 8m QED n w .cotoflmcwmma boom 0 n
£36m £5qu 0 95::me 1888925 u v £33m n m .EmEotootom H N $853344 03380.55 0 H ”Em

52?:on n : .Eooumm tom .1. 3 628595 N a .fiwcobm u w 6038334 N n .Eoocoofiom 332.3
366 n e 6828660 teem u m 5 68 n 4 53:34 samba n m 682268 n N .53va u a ”come

 

 

8.? on :4 :

8.? ed 3 2

3o 3 0.6 6

$3 3 6.4 w :.? we 3 w

and E 6.6 s 8.? 3 3 s

ado 34 S e .63 I 3 6

mod 3 mm m .28.? 3 S. m

:.o 3.“ 9m 4 .8? 2 S. 4

63 nm S m .86 3 ex m

8.? 3 3 N 2.0 we 2. N

.25 3 Z .85 mm 3 2 new? 6.0 S. a
2 mm 2 2 am 2 283% H mm 2 283%

$5 Em comm

 

.muofixm 82% no 038mm :88 2: km Am<mmv
28m 3352. 266er 38m 98 A55 b95>£ $285 mfifim AOQmmV 05253830 couatomom
bum _mommEm 2: e8 8:833 2: 8m own .53 mcouflotoo was 228330 Ragga .882 .mm 2an

186

0000.50-20: .35an 30:00 cw:— 0_0E0.« -U
.2380: Some £3003 .wEEEEm .wczoxo £0008 £08303 .20c 28 0.005 050 -m
$05800 use “00.2.8 £080: .Ewa £3008 wEEEMBm $5.93
.0008 £808.03 .20: 95 0.00: .23 0000.3 050-com -<~
.EBtOm ES .0008 .wEEE_>>m 00520508? .wEEEEm

.wEZn 00:00:63 .:B>0=o> £263 480008.008 0000—50 0:0 .39 _

 

 

 

S. 3. E :4 2. 35:20
3 Wm S. S. 3 566300.60
2 2. 0.4 mm 3. 8:23am
3. mm 3. :4 6.4 50:25
2. 4.m 3. 2 E. 85.3%....
3. mm 3 2. 34 68:69:00 .3: .820
S. on 2 I. E 856658 :80
S. S. we 3. me new 660
oh 2. 3 I. 3 2:6... _Sii
5. me ow S. 3 8:26:68
:4 we 3 S. ow 5.605
0.2 we mm. 4.2 4.2 603.
ms om» 24m 5. E H e
u m <

330 use: .2. he as: _Ee: 625 0.83:0

E0005 new 08380

 

beam

.mvugsdflncoc Us.» ago—£2»

:0 50.5000.— m:o_>0E E new 3030 E0005 05 E 00.500 0.000030 OQmm 2002 .mm 0305

187

 

Table 24. Means and standard deviations for SPA scores in the present

study and previous research.

 

 

 

 

Age SPA
Study . n M SD M SD
Martin et al. (1997) 13.3 2.2
elite soccer players 24 2.7 0.7
elite gymnasts 9 1.8 0.5
elite skaters 35 2.5 0.7
McAuley and Burman (1993)1 236 14.4 1.8 3.4 0.5
Crocker and Snyder (1997)2 114 16.4 2.4 2.6 0.8
Hart et al. (1989)3 114 18.4 5.6 3.1 0.8
Present study 135 16.6 3.1 2.7 0.7
11.0-15.9 68 13.5 0.3 2.5 0.4
160+ 67 18.2 0.5 3.0 0.7
lGymnasts.

2 Basketball, tennis, gymnastics, volleyball, synchronized swimming,

speed swimming, soccer, softball.
3 Adult female non-athletes.

188

 

 

 

 

m0 m0 0.2 0% Wm mo m2 Nd ed 0.2 m.m ms m.m 9w m2 v.0 Em_20:00t0m
0.2 wé 0.2 Gm Nd 9m 9m N2 mm 24 M: 24 w.m 9m Wm Nd 020$ 3:302
we mm QM EN m.m 9N m.m We o; 2.0 2.2 Gm cs 2.2 9m Wm 00020293. 032000035
2...” 04m o.m QM Nam Nd mgm 9m fim 2.2 Na mum 0.2 2.0 o.m 2N 7.2:me 3200208025
ed in Wm Wm Nd m4 fin N? 0.0 m2 _.N 0; 9w _Nd mgm md 000203200265
2.0 m0 0.0 0.2 5m Vm 0% 9m _.m o.m ow Yw _0 mad Wm fin 00022:; 20% 0329
We 9N Wm 04 Nd m4 m.m mm a: wd A: 24 m0 2.x mm 2.2 flEzzm
m8 0.0 2.2 0.0 as wd 2.2 0: 0.2 9m 06 #2 we 02 mm 2.0 2020232085 300m
2 Qw— m.m 2.2 2 2.2 Wm 0.3 o._ NB 0.2 ~22 New mdm 0w<
Om E Om E Om 2 Qm 2 Om E Om E Om E Gm 2
cm 02 mm 23. N2 2 mm 22 2
200» +3 020285 30222290 02:02 20220m EmmcExO 808.524.. 20:53
02023.0 0.5wE _ 22000203. :03. :32 £2.55 0w0=00
0.53m 0:220".
.805 02000.5 $00: 8003 800: .E 20 20:55 Sumo: Ammo: .B
200230cm .E 20 208m 02020.25 .0 20230
02: 20.25005 02... 202.50

 

20200002 m:0_>02m 020 >030 02000.20 05 E 002000 03033 RE .28 0020580 032920000 b.0 .CmcESm .mm 052,—.

189

Table 26. Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of figure skaters by age
group and level.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
11.0-12.99
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
11 = 20 8 11 1
M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 12.3 0.5 12.3 0.5 11.5
Weight, kg 40.2 8.0 38.1 39.4 5.3 40.4 40.4
Stature, cm 149.2 6.2 150.5 6.8 147.2
BMI, kg/m2 17.9 2.1 17.5 17.3 1.7 17.3 18.6
Sitting Height,'cm 77.9 3.1 77.0 3.1 78.0
SH/ST ratio, % 52.2 1.3 51.2 1.2 52.9
Est. Leg Length, cm 71.3 4.0 73.5 4.8 . 69.4
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.2 0.5 8.2 0.4 8.8

Biepicondylar 5.8 0.2 5.8 0.3 5.8
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 22.0 2.3 21.2 1.0 21.3

Arm, fleXed 23.2 2.3 22.5 0.8 23.1

Calf 29.9 1.9 29.7 2.0 31.0

Thigh 46.1 3.6 45.2 2.5 46.4
EAMC, cm 19.6 1.8 19.6 1.1 21.6
ECMC, cm 28.4 1.5 28.9 1.5 33.0
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 10.1 2.6 9.7 9.4 1.7 8.8 11.0

Biceps 5.4 1.2 5.4 4.5 1.4 4.1 4.8

Subscapular 8.1 3.4 7.3 6.5 1.3 6.7 4.2

Supraspinale 8.7 3.6 7.3 6.7 2.0 6.1 5.4

Abdominal 8.9 4.1 7.9 8.2 3.7 7.3 7.4

Medial Calf 10.1 2.6 9.7 9.9 2.7 10.0 10.2
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 51.4 17.0 48.5 45.0 9.2 45.0 43.0
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.97 0.17 0.95 0.90 0.20 0.84 0.65
Somatotype

Endomorphy 3 .1 0.9 2.5 0.5 2.4

Mesomorphy 3.6 0.5 3.3 0.7 4.4

Ectomorphy 3 .4 0.9 3 .9 1.0 2.8

 

I90

Table 26 (cont’d). Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of figure skaters by age
group and level.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
13.0-14.9
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
11 = 48 16 28 4
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 13.9 0.6 13.9 0.7 14.5 0.4
Weight, kg 49.4 7.4 48.1 45.0 7.6 44.7 47.8 8.5 48.0
Stature, cm 157.9 4.1 154.3 5.9 157.3 5.9
BMI, kg/mz 19.7 2.5 18.6 18.9 2.1 18.6 19.9 2.1 19.7
Sitting Height, cm 83.1 3.7 80.5 3.7 83.7 3.0
SH/ST ratio, % 52.6 1.5 52.2 1.3 53.2 0.4
Est. Leg Length, cm 74.9 2.8 73.9 4.0 73.6 4.9
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.7 0.6 8.5 0.6 8.3 0.4

Biepicondylar 6.0 0.2 5.9 0.4 5 .9 0.2
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 24.0 2.2 22.9 2.4 24.8 2.0

Arm, flexed 25.2 1.9 24.3 2.2 26.2 2.3

Calf 33.4 4.1 31.2 2.3 32.1 3.3

Thigh 50.3 4.9 47.8 4.3 50.7 3.9
EAMC, cm 20.9 1.7 21.7 1.9 19.5 2.5
ECMC, cm 31.1 4.3 30.3 2.0 28.0 3.9
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 13.4 4.4 13.6 10.7 3.7 9.6 14.0 4.4 14.0

Biceps 5.7 2.0 5.5 5.1 1.5 5.3 6.2 2.7 5.7

Subscapular 8.8 2.7 8.2 8.0 2.8 6.9 9.1 2.2 9.2

Supraspinale 9.7 4.2 9.6 9.0 4.1 8.7 10.4 5.4 9.0

Abdominal 12.5 6.0 10.4 9.4 3.7 8.8 12.2 5.4 12.1

Medial Calf 15.1 6.6 15.3 10.9 3.4 10.2 12.7 5.0 12.1
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 65.2 21.7 62.3 53.0 6.8 46.6 64.7 22.4 59.8
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.91 0.18 0.91 0.98 0.18 0.94 0.98 0.11 1.00
Somatotype

Endomorphy 3.4 1.0 3 .0 1.0 3 .7 1.0

Mesomorphy 3 .8 0.8 3 .6 0.8 3 .6 1.2

Ectomorphy 3 .1 1.2 3 .3 0.9 2.2 1.8

 

191

 

 

Table 26 (cont’d). Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of figure skaters
by age group and level.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
15.0-16.9
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
n = 43 14 16 13
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 16.0 0.6 15.9 0.7 16.0 0.6
Weight, kg 55.5 8.9 56.2 49.5 7.9 50.4 52.6 5.4 49.9
Stature, cm 161.5 7.4 159.6 6.3 158.6 6.5
BMI, kg/m2 21.1 1.9 21.3 19.4 2.4 19.6 21.0 1.6 20.4
Sitting Height, cm 85.5 3.7 84.3 4.3 85.0 3.7
SH/ST ratio, % 53.0 0.7 52.8 1.3 53.6 1.9
Est. Leg Length, cm 75.9 4.0 75.3 3.2 73.6 4.9
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.7 0.5 8.6 0.5 8.8 0.5

Biepicondylar 6.0 0.5 6.0 0.5 6.0 0.3
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 25.3 2.2 23.8 2.3 25.2 1.5

Arm, flexed 26.6 2.0 25.2 2.2 26.6 1.5

Calf 33.9 3.0 32.2 2.5 32.9 1.0

Thigh 53.6 4.8 50.4 4.6 53.6 3.0
EAMC, cm 21.3 1.9 22.0 1.5 21.7 1.5
ECMC, cm 31.2 2.8 30.9 1.8 30.6 1.7
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 16.0 4.5 16.0 10.3 2.9 10.5 13.0 3.5 12.9

Biceps 6.1 1.6 5.9 4.9 1.5 4.8 6.0 3.6 5.4

Subscapular 11.4 3.5 11.4 8.1 2.8 8.3 9.3 2.9 8.3

Supraspinale 11.3 5.0 10.9 7.7 2.7 7.3 8.8 3.2 8.1

Abdominal 15.0 7.1 13.6 8.8 3.8 7.6 11.5 4.7 12.0

Medial Calf 14.3 4.1 14.7 11.1 3.1 10.8 13.0 4.3 12.3
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 74.0 18.3 77.7 51.0 14.5 49.2 61.5 15.7 58.1
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 1.06 0.37 0.96 0.93 0.18 0.90 0.94 0.21 0.91
Somatotype

Endomorphy 4.1 0.9 2.8 0.8 3.4 0.9

Mesomorphy 3 .6 0.8 3 .4 1.2 4.0 0.9

Ectomorphy 2.5 0.7 3.4 1.2 . 2.4 1.0

 

192

Table 26 (cont’d.). Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of figure skaters by age group

 

 

 

 

 

and level.
Age Group
17+
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
n = 49 8 11 29
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 18.2 1.3 18.1 0.8 19.0 1.4
Weight, kg 59.8 5.9 56.9 54.0 6.3 54.4 54.6 4.3 54.0
Stature, cm 163.6 6.4 162.3 4.9 160.3 4.6
BMI, 1(ng 22.3 1.3 22.2 20.5 1.9 20.7 21.2 1.0 21.0
Sitting Height, cm 88.6 3.9 86.4 3.1 85.6 1.0
SH/ST ratio, % 54.2 1.9 53.2 0.8 53.4 1.1
Est. Leg Length, cm 75.0 4.8 74.7 2.6 74.7 2.9
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.7 0.4 8.9 0.2 8.8 0.5

Biepicondylar 6.1 0.2 6.0 0.5 6.0 0.3
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 26.3 1.5 25.0 2.2 25.3 1.3

Arm, flexed 27.5 1.5 26.1 2.0 26.7 1.4

Calf 34.9 1.7 33.2 2.9 33.3 1.6

Thigh 56.1 2.9 52.6 4.1 54.1 2.6
EAMC, cm 21.6 1.7 22.1 2.2 21.8 1.7
ECMC, cm 31.2 1.5 31.4 3.1 30.6 2.1
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 17.6 4.2 15.7 12.3 4.7 11.8 13.2 3.7 13.0

Biceps 6.7 2.8 5.8 4.7 1.8 4.1 5.2 2.1 4.3

Subscapular 13.3 2.2 13.7 8.6 2.8 8.3 9.6 2.8 8.7

Supraspinale 12.8 5.3 10.5 8.2 3.4 6.7 9.2 4.3 7.9

Abdominal 15.1 3.3 15.5 11.1 4.9 7.7 9.7 3.6 9.2

Medial Calf 17.4 7.0 16.1 12.8 2.6 11.7 12.6 2.6 12.1
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 82.9 19.2 76.5 57.6 9.3 52.3 59.5 15.6 8.8
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 1.03 0.22 1.01 0.94 0.15 0.98 0.93 0.24 0.91
Somatotype

Endomorphy 4.5 0.8 3 .0 1.1 3 .4 0.9

Mesomorphy 3.7 0.9 3.5 . 3.9 0.6

Ectomorphy 2.1 0.6 2.9 1.0 2.4 0.6

193

 

Table 27. Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype in the total sample of figure

skaters by level (n = 159).

 

 

 

Level
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
n 46 66 47
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 15.0 2.1 14.8 2.0 17.7 2.2
Weight, kg 51.7 10.0 54.0 46.4 8.6 46.3 53.9 5.4 52.6
Stature, cm 158.3 7.5 155.9 8.1 159.3 5.5
BMI, kg/m2 20.5 2.7 20.9 19.0 2.2 18.6 21.2 1.9 20.8
Sitting Height, cm 83.8 4.8 81.6 5.0 85.1 3.4
SH/ST ratio, % 52.9 1.5 52.3 1.3 53.4 1.3
Est. Leg Length, cm 74.5 3.9 74.3 4.2 74.2 3.4
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.6 0.7 8.5 0.7 8.8 0.5

Biepicondylar 6.0 0.3 5.9 0.5 6.0 0.3
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 24.6 2.8 23.1 2.5 25.2 1.5

Arm, flexed 25.8 2.6 24.4 2.3 26.5 1.6

Calf 33.3 3.5 31.4 2.8 33.1 1.7

Thigh 51.9 5.6 48.6 4.9 - 53.5 3.1
EAMC, cm 20.9 1.9 21.5 2.0 21.6 1.8
ECMC, cm 30.6 3.2 30.3 2.2 30.5 2.3
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 14.6 5.0 14.4 10.6 3.5 9.9 13.1 3.6 12.9

Biceps 6.1 2.2 5.8 4.9 1.5 4.8 5.5 2.6 4.7

Subscapular 10.6 4.2 9.9 7.8 2.6 7.0 9.4 2.8 8.5

Supraspinale 10.8 5.0 9.7 8.1 3.4 7.7 9.1 4.1 7.9

Abdominal 13.2 6.0 11.5 9.3 4.0 7.8 10.4 4.1 9.2

Medial Calf 14.8 6.2 14.0 11.0 3.5 10.3 12.7 3.4 12.1
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 70.1 23.8 67.9 51.7 15.9 47.1 60.1 16.0 55.9
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 1.00 0.31 0.94 1.01 0.24 0.91 0.92 0.21 0.91
Somatotype

Endomorphy 3 .8 1.1 2.9 0.9 2.4 0.9

Mesomorphy 3.7 0.8 3.5 0.9 3.9 0.8

Ectomorphy 2.7 1.1 3 .3 1.1 2.3 0.9

 

194

 

   

Table 28. Results of the AN COVA, with age as the covariate, and age-adjusted
means and standard errors for anthropometric characteristics and somatotypel of
figure skaters by level (n = 159).

 

 

 

 

 

Level
1.Test 2. Pre-elite 3. Elite
(11 = 46) (n = 66) (n = 47)

Variable F(Z) AdjM SE AdjM SE AdjM SE
Weight, kg 62* 530' 1.1 48.1 0.9 50.1 1.2
Stature, cm 2.5 159.4 1.0 157.2 0.8 156.3 1.1
BMI, ltg/m2 65* 207° 0.3 19.3° 0.3 20.5 0.3
Sitting Height, cm 37* 846°" 0.6 82.6 0.5 83.0 0.6
SH/ST ratio, % 34* 531° 0.0 525° 0.0 53.1 0.0
Est. leg length, cm 1.7 74.8 0.6 74.7 0.5 73.3 0.6
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 0.5 8.6 0.9 8.5 0.8 8.7 0.1

Biepicondylar 0.7 6.0 0.1 5.9 0.5 5.9 0.6
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 6.2* 25.0“b 0.3 235° 0.3 24.2 0.3

Arm, flexed 59* 26.12' 0.3 248° 0.3 25.6 0.3

Calf 73* 33.6ab 0.4 31.8 0.3 32.1 0.4

Thigh 76* 526° 0.6 496° 0.5 51.3 0.7
EAMC, cm 42* 21.13 0.3 217° 0.3 21.2 0.3
ECMC, cm 55* 30.8ab 0.4 30.5 0.4 29.9 0.5
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 140* 14.93') 0.6 109° 05 12.3 0.6

Biceps 49* 61°b 0.3 4.9 0.3 5.4 0.3

Subscapular 11.6* 10.9ab 0.5 8.3 0.4 8.4 0.5

Supraspinale 6.3* 11.0ab 0.6 8.3 - 0.5 8.6 0.7

Abdominal 11.1* 13.5b 0.7 9.6 0.6 9.7 0.8

Medial Calf 104* 15.0ab 0.7 11.3 0.6 12.0 07
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 145* 71.4“ 2.7 53.4 2.3 56.5 3.0
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 1.8 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.03 0.90 0.03
Somatotype

Endomorphyl 128* 3.6ab 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.1 0.1

Mesomorphyl 1.3 3.7 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.7 0.1

Ectomorphy1 29* 3.0b 0.1 30° 0.1 2.7 0.2
*p<05

lUnivariate post hoc comparisons adjusted for the univariate post hoc comparison using
Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.005 for MANCOVA (Cressie et

al., 1986).

a 1 differs from 2; b 1 differs from 3; ° 2 differs from 3.

195

Table 29. Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the SPAS of figure
skaters by age group and level.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
1 1.0-12.9
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md
n = 12 2 9 1
Age 12.1 0.5 12.3 0.3 11.5
Health 5.0 1.1 5.0 0.8 4.9
Coordination 4.6 0.8 5.3 0.4 5.7
Physical Activity 3.6 0.4 5.2 0.7 5.2
Body Fat 5.1 1.2 5.5 0.5 6.0
Sport Competence 4.3 1.8 5.3 0.7 4.7
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.9 1.3 5.3 1.0 5.2
Appearance 4.7 0.7 4.6 1.1 5.0
Strength 4.3 0.8 5.2 0.6 5.5
Endurance 9.3 1.5 9.7 0.6 9.8
Self-Esteem 4.9 1.0 5.8 0.1 5.8
Flex1bi1ity 4.7 1.9 5.3 0.3 5.7
EDI
n = 11 3 7 1
Age 12.1 0.7 12.4 0.1 11.5
Body Dissatisfaction 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0
Bulimia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0
Drive for Thinness 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.8 2.7 0.0 3.0
Inefiectiveness 1.7 0.6 2.0 3.8 1.2 3.0 4.0
Interpersonal Distrust 2.7 2.7 1.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 0.0
Introceptive Awareness 1.3 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.6 1.0 0.0
Maturity Fears 4.7 1.2 4.0 7.5 3.9 7.5 5.0
Perfectionism 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.9 3.9 6.5 7.0
SPA _
n = 16 5 10 1
Age 12.2 0.3 12.3 0.3 1 1.5
SPA 2.5 0.3 2.3 0.5 1.9

 

196

Table 29 (cont’d). Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the SPAS of figure
skaters by age group and level.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
13.0-14.9
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md
n = 26 12 21 4
Age 13.9 0.8 13.9 0.7 14.1 0.4
Health 4.9 0.7 4.9 0.7 4.9 0.5
Coordination 4.8 0.8 4.7 1.0 4.7 1.2
Physical Activity 4.9 0.9 4.8 1 .1 5.4 1 .1
Body Fat 5.5 0.8 5.2 1.1 3.9 0.1
Sport Competence 5.0 0.9 4.9 0.9 4.9 0.6
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.8 0.8 5.2 0.8 4.6 1.4
Appearance 4.6 0.7 4.7 0.9 4.4 1.4
Strength 4.7 0.6 4.6 0.8 4.2 1.5
Endurance 8.7 1.1 9.2 0.8 9.4 0.9
Self-Esteem 5.4 0.4 5.4 0.5 4.9 0.5
Flexibility 4.6 0.9 4.7 1.1 4.9 0.7
EDI
Age 14.0 0.5 13.9 0.6 14.3 0.8
n = 39 12 23 4
Body Dissatisfaction 3.5 4.5 1.5 3.6 4.7 1.5 13.0 1.4 12.0
Bulimia 1.9 2.7 1.0 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.5
Drive for Thinness 2.3 4.2 0.5 2.5 3.0 0.5 8.8 6.6 9.0
Ineffectiveness 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.3 4.0 3.0
Interpersonal Distrust 4.3 3.9 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.2 3.5
Introceptive Awareness 2.3 3.4 1.0 1.4 2.1 1.0 4.0 2.7 5.0
Maturity Fears 6.3 5.7 4.5 4.7 3.6 4.5 5.5 2.5 5.0
Perfectionism 6.6 3.4 6.0 4.8 3.5 6.0 4.3 3.3 3.0
SPA
N = 38 12 22 4
Age 14.0 0.4 13.4 0.7 14.0 0.7
SPA 2.7 0.7 2.3 0.6 3.2 0.8

 

197

Table 29 (cont’d). Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the SPAS of figure
skaters by age group and level.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
15.0-16.9
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md
N = 31 14 13 4
Age 16.0 0.6 15.9 0.7 16.0 0.6
Health 4.6 0.7 4.7 1.0 4.7 0.6
Coordination 4.8 0.9 4.6 0.7 4.7 1.0
Physical Activity 4.8 1.0 4.7 1.1 5.7 0.3
Body Fat 3.6 1.5 4.8 1.5 5.0 1.3
Sport Competence 4.4 0.9 4.9 0.9 4.6 0.5
Global Phys. Self-Concept 3.9 1.1 4.5 1.1 5.0 0.8
Appearance 3.8 1.1 4.2 1.0 4.8 0.7
Strength 4.1 0.8 4.7 0.9 4.9 0.4
Endurance 8.5 1.1 9.1 1.0 9.3 1.1
Self-Esteem 4.8 0.9 5.2 0.7 5.2 0.7
Flexibility 5.1 0.8 4.7 1.1 4.6 1.0
EDI
n = 37 15 14 8
Age 16.1 0.4 16.0 0.7 16.1 0.6
Body Dissatisfaction 13.5 8.6 11.0 7.6 8.2 1.0 6.2 8.2 2.5
Bulimia 3.2 5.3 1.0 3.1 4.7 2.5 1.1 1.6 0.0
Drive for Thinness 8.0 7.6 5.5 5.6 6.6 5.5 3.9 6.4 0.0
Ineffectiveness 4.8 3.9 3.0 3.8 2.5 3.0 3.0 0.9 3.0
Interpersonal Distrust 2.9 2.8 2.5 4.1 4.2 3.5 2.4 2.0 2.0
Introceptive Awareness 4.1 4.7 3.0 3.5 4.1 2.5 1.3 0.7 1.0
Maturity Fears 7.0 4.6 6.0 5.2 4.0 5.0 3.6 1.5 4.0
Perfectionism 7.1 4.5 5.5 5.4 3.3 5.0 5.0 3.1 5.0
SPA
11 = 38 13 13 12
Age 16.4 0.3 15.9 0.3 16.2 0.9
SPA 3.1 0.8 2.5 1.0 2.9 0.6

 

198

 

 

 

Table 29 (cont’d). Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the SPAS of figure

skaters by age group and level.

 

 

 

 

 

Age Group
17+
Variable Test Pro-elite Elite
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md
n = 43 8 11 24
Age 18.2 1.3 18.1 0.8 19.0 1.4
Health 4.5 0.6 4.5 1.2 4.4 1.1
Coordination 4.1 0.5 4.2 1.2 4.9 0.4
Physical Activity 4.8 0.7 5 .2 0.6 5 .5 0.5
Body Fat 4.0 1.0 5.0 1.1 4.3 1.4
Sport Competence 4.3 0.9 3.8 1.1 4.8 0.7
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.3 0.9 4.5 1.1 4.3 1.2
Appearance 4.4 0.6 4.8 0.5 4.5 0.7
Strength 4.5 0.7 3.9 1.1 4.8 0.8
Endurance 8.5 0.5 8.5 1.0 9.1 1.0
Self-Esteem 4.7 0.6 5.2 0.5 5.3 0.6
Flexibility 4.1 0.5 5.1 0.8 4.7 1.1
EDI
n = 39 7 9 23
Age 18.0 1.1 18.1 0.8 19.2 1.4
Body Dissatisfaction 5.8 5.1 5.5 8.1 5.6 9.0 10.1 7.6 10.0
Bulimia 0.6 1.4 0.0 5.0 7.2 1.0 1.4 2.3 0.0
Drive for Thinness 4.3 4.8 2.0 6.8 5.6 4.0 7.0 7.2 6.0
Inefl‘ectiveness 3.3 2.7 2.0 2.7 1.6 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.0
Interpersonal Distrust 2.5 2.1 3.0 5.6 5.7 3.0 1.9 2.2 1.0
Introceptive Awareness 1.6 3.8 0.0 4.4 7 .2 1.0 3.4 4.3 2.0
Maturity Fears 4.3 3.6 3.0 5.7 6.2 2.0 4.0 3.1 3.0
Perfectionism 6.0 4.1 5.0 7.7 6.3 5.0 5.7 4.2 5.0
SPA
11 = 41 8 10 23
Age 18.5 1.5 18.0 0.8 19.3 1.2
SPA 2.8 0.6 2.8 0.5 3.1 0.7

 

199

 

Table 30. Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales, and the SPAS of figure skaters
by level.

 

 

 

Level
Variable Test Pre-elite Elite
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md
n = 128 36 56 36
Age 15.5 1.8 15.0 2.0 17.6 2.1
Health 4.8 0.8 4.8 0.8 4.5 1.0
Coordination 4.7 0.8 4.7 1.0 4.8 0.5
Physical Activity 4.7 0.8 4.9 1.0 5.5 0.5
Body Fat 4.4 1.9 5.1 1.1 4.4 1.4
Sport Competence 4.6 0.9 4.7 1.0 4.8 0.6
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.3 1.1 4.9 1.0 4.5 1.1
Appearance 4.1 0.9 4.5 0.9 4.6 0.7
Strength 4.4 0.7 4.6 0.9 4.7 0.8
Endurance 8.6 1.0 9.1 0.9 9.1 1.0
Self-Esteem 5.0 1.0 5.4 0.6 5.3 0.6
Flexibility 4.7 0.9 4.9 1.0 4.7 1.0
EDI
n = 126 37 53 36
Age 15.2 1.8 15.0 2.5 17.4 2.0
Body Dissatisfaction 2.0 3.8 5.0 1.9 4,1 3.0 1.2 2.0 7.5
Bulimia 3.7 3.0 1.0 3.2 2.0 0.0 3.4 2.5 0.0
Drive for Thinness 3.2 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 5.0
Ineffectiveness 2.8 3.9 3.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 2.9 3.7 3.0
Interpersonal Distrust 6.0 4.6 3.0 5.4 4.2 3.0 4.1 2.7 2.0
Introceptive Awareness 6.2 4.0 1.0 5.9 4.1 1.0 5.4 3.8 2.0
Maturity Fears 4,7 6.2 5.0 3.9 4.9 4.0 6.4 6.9 4.0
Perfectionism 7.6 7.9 5.0 4.9 6.1 5.0 9.3 8.3 5.0
SPA
= 135 38 55 42
Age 15.6 1.8 14.9 2.1 17.4 2.2
SPA 2.8 0.7 2.4 0.7 3.0 0.7

 

200

Table 31. Results of the MANCOVA, with age as a covariate for the PSDQ, EDI
and the ANCOVA, with age as the covariate for SPA by level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Pillai’s df F
Age Covariate
PSDQ 0.21 11 2.8*
EDI 0.18 8 32*
Level
PSDQ 0.29 22 1.8*
EDI 0.21 16 1.5
Level
1. Test 2. Pre-elite 3. Elite
Variable F(l) AdjM SE AdjM SE *de SE
PSDQ (n = 128) (n = 36) (n = 56) (n = 36)
Health 0.1 4.7 0.1 4.7 0.1 4.6 0.2
Coordination 2.3 4.7 0.1 4.6 0.1 5.0 0.1
Physical Activity 59* 4.8b 0.1 49° 0.1 5.5 0.2
Body Fat 2.9 4.4 0.2 4.9 0.2 4.7 0.2
Sport Competence 2.8 4.6 0.1 4.6 0.1 5.1 0.2
Global Phys. Self-Concept 3.0 4.3 0.2 4.8 0.1 4.8 0.2
Appearance 32* 4.2ab 0.2 4.5 0.1 4.7 0.2
Strength 2.7 4.4 0.1 4.5 0.1 4.9 0.2
Endurance 59* 86°b 02 90° 0.1 9.4 0.2
Self-Esteem 43* 5.0°‘° 0.1 5.3 0.1 5.4 0.1
Flexibility 0.3 4.7 0.2 4.8 0.1 4.7 0.2
EDI (n = 126) (n = 37) (n = 53) (n = 36)
Body Dissatisfaction 4.0 7.6 1.1 4.9 1.0 9.3 1.2
Bulimia 0.5 2.0 0.6 1.9 0.5 1.2 0.6
Drive for Thinness 1.9 4.7 1.0 3.9 0.8 6.4 1.0
Inefl‘ectiveness 0.4 3.7 0.4 3.3 0.3 3.4 0.4
Interpersonal Distrust 2.4 3.2 0.5 3.5 0.4 2.1 0.5
Introceptive Awareness 0.1 2.8 0.6 2.5 0.5 2.9 0.7
Maturity Fears 2.1 6.0 0.7 5.4 0.5 4.1 0.7
Perfectionism 0.4 6.3 0.7 5.9 0.5 5.4 0.7
SPAS (n = 135) (n = 38) (n = 55) (n = 42)
SPA 51* 2.9a 0.1 25° 0.1 2.9 0.1
* p < .05.

3'1 differs from 2; b 1 differs from 3; ° 2 differs from 3.

201

 

Table 32. Distribution of recalled ages at menarche, mean
ages at menarche, and results of AN OVA for figure skaters
_>_16.0 years by level (n = 67).

 

Level

1. Test 2. Pre-elite 3. Elite
(n= 15) (n=16) (n=36)

 

Age Range
10.00-10.99 0 0 1
11.00-11.99 1 0 0
12.00-12.99 7 4 6
1300-1399 6 8 12
14.00-14.99 l 3 7
15.00-15.99 O O 7
1600-1699 0 1 3

M 12.9” 13.5 14.0

SD 0.8 0.9 1.4

F(2) =48, p <01

 

a 1 differs from 3.

202

Table 33. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters by age group and discipline.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
11.0-12.99
Variable Free Dance Pairs
n = 20 16 1 3
M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 12.2 0.5 12.8 12.7 0.3
Weight, kg 39.4 6.6 38.8 47.6 38.7 2.1 39.5
Stature, cm 149.0 6.2 153.1 153.0 7.2
BMI, kg/m2 17.7 1.8 17.6 20.3 16.5 0.7 16.3
Sitting Height, cm 77.5 2.7 78.4 76.3 2.1
SH/ST ratio, % 52.0 1.1 51.2 49.9 1.1
Est. Leg Length, cm 71.5 4.1 74.7 76.7 5.2
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.2 0.4 8.0 8.1 0.2

Biepicondylar 5.8 0.3 5.5 5.7 0.1
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 21.4 1.7 22.2 22.1 1.0

Arm, flexed 22.8 1.7 23.3 22.6 0.7

Calf 29.7 2.1 30.6 29.9 0.5

Thigh 45.5 3.2 46.4 45.8 1.1
EAMC, cm 19.7 1.6 20.3 19.5 0.9
ECMC, cm 29.0 1.9 28.6 28.5 0.7
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 9.8 2.2 9.0 8.2 10.2 2.1 11.1

Biceps 4.7 1.3 4.7 3.7 6.2 1.4 5.5

Subscapular 7.1 2.8 6.6 7.9 6.5 0.6 6.7

Supraspinale 7.4 3.0 6.6 5.3 7.9 2.3 9.1

Abdominal 7.7 3.3 7.1 7.4 12.9 3.4 14.6

Medial Calf 9.9 2.6 10.1 12.5 9.4 2.0 8.5
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 46.6 13.9 44.8 45.1 53.1 5.0 55.9
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.89 0.18 0.87 0.85 1.07 0.29 1.19
Somatotype

Endomorphy 2.8 0.8 2.4 2.7 0.5

Mesomorphy 3.6 0.5 2.9 2.9 0.9

Ectomorphy 3.6 0.9 2.3 4.5 1.0

 

203

Table 33 (cont’d). Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters by age group and

 

 

 

 

discipline.
Age Group
13.0-14.9
Variable . Free Dance Pairs
11 = 48 36 6 6
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 14.0 0.7 13.9 0.7 13.8 0.6
Weight, kg 48.6 7.2 47.4 41.4 8.9 38.8 40.7 4.2 42.2
Stature, cm 157.1 5.0 152.0 9.8 151.5 4.2
BM], 1(ng 19.7 2.2 19.4 18.1 2.2 17.4 17.7 1.4 18.0
Sitting Height, cm 82.5 3.5 79.7 5.0 78.1 0.9
SH/ST ratio, % 52.5 1.4 52.4 3.3 51.6 1.5
Est. Leg Length, cm 74.6 3.2 72.3 4.8 73.4 4.2
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.6 0.7 8.4 0.4 8.6 0.4

Biepicondylar 6.0 0.3 5 .6 0.3 6.0 0.4
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 23.8 2.3 22.3 2.8 22.5 2.0

Arm, flexed 25.1 2.1 23.6 2.1 23.9 1.9

Calf 32.7 3.2 30.0 2.7 29.8 1.3

Thigh 49.8 4.4 45.8 5.1 46.0 1.7
EAMC, cm 21.1 2.0 22.1 1.2 21.6 2.3
ECMC, cm 30.5 3.5 30.4 1.3 29.8 2.4
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 12.8 4.1 12.3 10.4 3.9 10.1 8.1 0.5 7.9

Biceps 5.6 1.9 5.4 4.9 1.5 4.5 4.6 0.9 5.0

Subscapular 8.7 2.5 8.4 8.1 4.4 6.8 6.4 0.1 6.4

Supraspinale 9.8 4.2 9.1 8.4 5.5 7.0 7.3 1.5 7.9

Abdominal 11.3 5.0 9.9 9.3 5.4 8.5 8.2 1.3 8.6

Medial Calf 13.6 5.3 13.2 10.3 3.1 9.4 7.9 1.3 7.1
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 61.8 19.3 59.3 51.5 23.0 46.1 42.5 3.2 44.4
T/E Ratio, min/mm 0.94 0.17 0.94 0.96 0.24 0.87 1.06 0.16 1.07
Somatotype

Endomorphy 3 .4 1.0 2.9 0.7 2.4 0.3

Mesomorphy 3.7 0.9 3.3 0.6 4.0 0.6

Ectomorphy 2.9 1.2 3.7 0.5 3 .7 0.8

 

204

 

Table 33 (cont’d). Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters by age group and
discipline.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
15.0-16.9
Variable Free Dance Pairs
11 = 43 28 9 6
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 15.9 0.6 16.1 0.6 16.2 0.7
Weight, kg 53.1 8.0 54.0 52.8 9.9 56.7 49.1 0.9 49.0
Stature, cm 160.2 6.7 162.0 6.7 155.2 2.7
BMI, ltg/m2 20.6 2.1 21.1 20.0 3.0 20.1 20.4 0.9 20.4
Sitting Height, cm 85.1 3.5 85.2 5.5 83.6 2.6
SH/ST ratio, % 53.1 1.2 52.6 1.6 53.8 1.5
Est. Leg Length, cm 75.1 4.1 76.8 3.8 71.6 2.7
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.7 0.5 9.0 0.5 8.5 0.4

Biepicondylar 6.1 0.4 6.0 0.4 5.8 0.3
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 24.8 24.4 2.9 24.9 1.1

Arm, flexed 26.1 2.0 25.8 2.7 26.3 0.7

Calf 33.2 2.6 32.4 2.5 32.9 1.1

Thigh 52.7 4.3 51.7 6.1 51.9 1.4
EAMC, cm 21.4 1.7 22.3 1.6 22.0 1.4
ECMC, cm 30.9 2.3 30.6 2.1 31.3 1.6
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 14.0 4.8 13.3 10.8 2.4 11.4 11.2 2.5 11.1

Biceps 5.5 1.6 5.8 5.5 1.5 5.8 5.2 2.7 4.7

Subscapular 9.7 3.2 8.6 9.7 4.0 9.0 8.6 3.1 7.5

Supraspinale 9.8 4.2 8.4 8.7 3.2 9.4 7.2 1.5 7.1

Abdominal 12.7 6.3 11.8 9.9 4.1 12.0 9.2 4.7 7.5

Medial Calf 13.4 4.4 13.3 12.1 2.4 12.1 10.5 3.0 11.1
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 65.1 19.1 64.1 56.7 15.8 64.2 51.9 14.6 51.4
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.99 0.30 0.95 0.97 0.23 0.90 0.90 0.14 0.91
Somatotype

Endomorphy 3.6 1.0 3.1 0.9 3.0 0.7

Mesomorphy 3.6 1.0 3.5 1.1 4.1 0.3

Ectomorphy 2.7 1.0 3 .2 1.6 2.4 0.6

 

205

Table 33 (cont’d). Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters by age group and

 

 

 

 

discipline.
Discipline
17+
Variable Free Dance Pairs
11 = 48 27 13 8
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 18.4 1.2 19.0 1.7 19.1 0.9
Weight, kg 58.2 4.3 57.6 52.2 5.4 52.6 50.8 1.5 49.8
Stature, cm 162.5 4.8 161.4 5.2 157.3 3.7
BMI, 1(ng 22.0 1.2 22.0 20.0 1.2 20.6 20.6 0.6 20.8
Sitting Height, cm 87.4 3.0 86.1 3.3 82.7 2.5
SH/ST ratio, % 53.8 1.3 53.4 1.0 52.6 1.0
Est. Leg Length, cm 75.0 3.3 75.3 2.8 74.5 2.4
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.9 0.4 8.9 0.6 8.7 0.2

Biepicondylar 6. 1 0.2 5 .9 0.4 5 .8 0.3
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 26.1 1.3 24.4 1.8 24.5 0.5

Arm, flexed 27.3 1.4 25.7 1.8 26.1 0.7

Calf 34.3 1.5 32.5 2.8 32.7 1.1

Thigh 55.3 2.7 52.4 4.0 52.8 0.8
EAMC, cm 21.6 2.0 22.4 1.6 21.8 0.8
ECMC, cm 30.8 2.4 30.9 2.5 31.4 1.3
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 15.5 4.1 15.0 11.9 4.2 9.8 10.6 1.6 9.8

Biceps 6.2 2.5 5.7 4.3 1.2 4.1 4.1 0.6 4.2

Subscapular 11.0 3.2 10.5 8.7 2.6 8.5 8.6 1.8 8.3

Supraspinale 11.4 5.0 10.3 7.4 2.7 6.8 7.1 1.5 7.5

Abdominal 12.4 4.7 12.9 9.1 3.7 7.0 8.9 0.9 9.2

Medial Calf 14.3 4.9 13.7 12.8 3.8 12.3 11.4 2.2 10.9
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 70.8 19.6 70.9 54.3 16.0 52.3 50.5 4.0 49.8
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.97 0.25 0.97 0.89 0.19 0.91 0.95 0.15 0.99
Somatotype

Endomorphy 4.0 1.0 3 .0 0.9 2.9 0.4

Mesomorphy 3.9 0.7 3.4 0.8 3.9 0.6

Ectomorphy 2.1 0.6 3.1 0.6 2.5 0.5

 

206

 

Table 34. Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of figure skaters by discipline (n
= 15 9).

 

 

 

Discipline
Variable Free Dance Pairs
11 107 29 23
M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

Age, yrs 15.3 2.3 16.8 2.5 16.1 2.6
Weight, kg 51.0 9.2 53.5 50.0 8.7 51.3 46.1 5.6 48.5
Stature, cm 157.7 7.6 159.3 7.9 154.7 4.5
BMI, kg/rn2 20.4 2.6 20.7 19.6 2.1 20.2 19.3 1.8 19.6
Sitting Height, cm 83.5 4.8 84.2 5.0 80.9 3.5
SH/ST ratio, % 53.0 1.0 52.9 1.2 52.2 2.1
Est. Leg Length, cm 74.2 4.0 75.1 3.8 73.8 3.4
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 8.6 0.7 8.8 0.6 8.5 0.3

Biepicondylar 6.0 0.4 5.8 0.4 5.9 0.3
Circumferences, cm .

Arm, relaxed 24.3 2.7 23.9 2.4 23.8 1.7

Arm, flexed 25.6 2.5 25.2 2.3 25.1 1.8

Calf 32.8 3.1 31.9 2.7 31.6 1.8

Thigh 51.3 5.3 50.6 5.4 49.9 3.4
EAMC, cm 24.3 2.3 24.1 2.1 24.1 1.7
ECMC, cm 31.4 2.9 30.7 2.5 30.6 1.7
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 13.4 4.6 12.7 11.1 3.5 10.4 10.0 2.0 9.7

Biceps 5.6 2.1 5.5 4.8 1.4 4.3 5.1 2.9 4.5

Subscapular 9.4 3.6 8.5 8.9 3.4 7.9 7.7 2.1 6.7

Supraspinale 9.9 4.6 9.0 8.0 3.5 7.7 7 .2 1.6 7.5

Abdominal 11.4 5.3 9.9 9.3 4.0 7.4 9.3 3.0 8.9

Medial Calf 13.3 5.1 12.2 12.1 3.2 12.1 10.0 2.5 10.1
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 63.1 21.4 55.3 54.2 16.8 51.0 49.4 9.8 48.6
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.96 0.22 0.94 0.95 0.21 0.93 1.0 0.10 0.92
Somatotype

Endomorphy 3.5 1.1 3.0 1.0 2.8 0.5

Mesomorphy 3.7 0.9 3.4 0.8 3.8 0.7

Ectomorphy 2.8 1.1 3.2 1.0 3.1 1.0

 

207

Table 35. Results of the ANCOVA, with age as the covariate, and age-adjusted
means and standard errors for anthropometric characteristics and somatotypel of
figure skaters by discipline (n = 159).

 

 

 

 

 

Discipline
1. Free 2. Dance 3. Pairs
(n = 107) (n = 29) (n = 23)
11(2) AdjM SE AdjM SE AdjM s13

Weight, kg 101* 518°" 0.7 47.6 1.3 45.2 1.5
Stature, cm 40* 158.3" 0.6 157.8° 1.2 154.1 1.4
BMI, kg/m2 88* 206°" 0.2 19.0 0.4 19.0 0.4
Sitting Height, cm 80* 84.0" 0.4 830° 0.7 80.4 0.8
SH/ST ratio, % 43* 530°" 0.0 526° 0.0 52.2 0.0
Est. leg length, cm 0.56 74.3 0.4 74.8 0.7 73.6 0.8
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 0.8 8.6 0.1 8.7 0.1 8.5 0.2

Biepicondylar 46* 60°" 0.0 5.8 0.1 5.8 0.1
Circumferences, cm

Arm, relaxed 4.7* 245°" 02 23.3 0.4 23.5 0.4

Arm, flexed 49* 258°" 0.2 24.6 0.4 24.9 0.4

Calf 6.2* 330°" 0.3 31.3 0.5 31.4 0.5

Thigh 64* 518°" 04 49.2 0.8 49.3 0.9
EAMC, cm 33* 211° 0.2 21.7 0.4 21.4 0.4
ECMC, cm 4.9 30.4 0.3 30.0 0.6 30.4 0.5
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 129* 136°" 0.4 10.4 0.7 9.7 0.8

Biceps 2.3 5.7 0.2 4.7 0.4 5.1 0.4

Subscapular 48* 9.6" 0.3 8.3 0.6 7.5 0.7

Supraspinale 72* 101°" 0.4 7.6 0.8 7.1 0.9

Abdominal 4.7* 116°" 0.5 8.9 0.9 9.1 1.0

Medial Calf 66* 134°" 0.4 116° 0.9 9.8 0.9
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 90* 639°" 1.8 51.8 3.6 48.5 3.9
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.6 0.96 0.02 0.92 0.04 0.98 0.05
Somatotype

Endomorphyl 89* 34°" 01 3.1 0.1 3.0 0.2

Mesomorphyl 26* 3.7" 0.1 36° 0.1 3.9 .01

Ectomorphyl 1.1 2.9 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.0 0.1
* p < .05.

1 Univariate post hoc comparisons adjusted for the univariate post hoc comparison using
Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.005 for MANCOVA (Cressie et
al., 1986).

° 1 differs from 2; ° 1 differs from 3; ° 2 differs from 3.

208

Table 36. Scores on the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for SPA of figure skaters
by age group and discipline.

 

 

 

 

Age Group
11.0-12.9
Variable Free Dance Pairs
PSDQ M SD Md M M SD
n = 128 8 1 3
Age 12.2 0.5 12.8 12.7 0.3
Health 4.8 0.9 5.6 5.3 0.6
Coordination 5.1 0.6 5.7 5.3 0.5
Physical Activity 4.9 1.0 5.3 4.9 1.0
Body Fat 5.5 0.7 6.0 5.2 0.7
Sport Competence 5.1 1.0 4.2 4.8 1.1
Global Phys. Self-Concept 5.5 0.7 6.0 4.3 1.2
Appearance . 4.6 1.0 5.8 4.4 0.5
Strength 5.0 0.7 6.0 4.9 1.0
Endurance 9.7 0.7 10.3 9.1 0.1
Self-Esteem 5.6 0.6 5.9 5.8 0.1
Flexibility 5.2 0.8 3.3 5.8 0.4
EDI
n = 126 10 1 2
Age 12.0 0.3 12.8 12.7 0.6
Body Dissatisfaction 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0
Bulimia 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Drive for Thinness 1.8 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ineflectiveness 3 .0 1 .2 3 .0 3 .0 6.0 0.4
Interpersonal Distrust 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.0 7.0 2.3
Introceptive Awareness 1.2 1.9 0.0 2.0 6.0 0.7
Maturity Fears 5.9 3.4 5.5 10.0 10.0 0.9
Perfectionism 6.2 4.3 5.0 10.0 4.0 1.2
SPA
11 = 135 12 1 3
Age 12.7 0.8 12.8 12.6 0.6
SPA 2.4 0.4 2.0 2.3 0.7

 

209

Table 36 (cont’d). Scores on the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for SPA of

figure skaters by age group and discipline.

 

 

 

 

Discipline
13.0-14.9
Variable Free Dance Pairs
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md
n = 37 25 5 7
Age 14.0 0.7 13.9 0.7 13.8 0.6
Health 5.0 0.7 4.7 0.4 4.7 0.9
Coordination 4.8 0.8 3.8 0.8 5.0 1.2
Physical Activity 5.0 1.0 4.0 0.9 5.3 1.3
Body Fat 5.1 1.0 5.4 0.8 5.0 1.4
Sport Competence 5.0 0.8 4.3 1.0 5 .0 1.1
Global Phys. Self-Concept 5.0 0.9 4.8 0.7 5.3 0.9
Appearance 4.6 0.8 4.4 1.1 5.1 0.8
Strength 4.7 0.4 3.9 0.8 4.4 1.3
Endurance 9.0 0.9 8.7 0.6 9.5 0.9
Self-Esteem 5.4 0.1 5.0 0.4 5.5 0.6
Flexibility 4.8 0.8 4.2 0.7 3.3 1.1
EDI
n = 39 29 5 5
Age 14.0 0.7 13.9 0.7 13.8 0.6
Body Dissatisfaction 5.2 6.8 2.0 3.4 4.2 1.0 2.0 1.4 0.0
Bulimia 1.0 1.9 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0
Drive for Thinness 3.6 4.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 0.5 2.0
lneffectiveness 3.6 2.4 3.0 1.8 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.2 3.0
Interpersonal Distrust 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.8 3.3 3.0 1.2 1.1 1.0
Introceptive Awareness 2.4 2.9 1.0 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0
Maturity Fears 4.9 4.2 4.0 6.6 5.4 5.0 5.6 1.1 5.0
Perfectionism 5.6 3.9 5.0 6.0 1.4 7.0 3.0 0.7 3.0
SPA
n = 135 28 5 5
Age 14.6 0.1 14.3 0.9 13.7 0.4
SPA 2.6 0.7 2.4 0.6 1.9 0.6

 

210

Table 36 (cont’d). Scores on the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for SPA of
figure skaters by age group and discipline.

 

 

 

 

Discipline
15.0-16.9
Variable Free Dance Pairs
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md
n = 38 25 8 5
Age 15.9 0.6 16.1 0.6 16.2 0.7
Health 4.8 0.8 4.6 0.4 4.0 0.8
Coordination 4.9 0.7 4.3 0.7 4.1 0.9
Physical Activity 5.1 0.9 4.4 1.3 5.3 0.7
Body Fat 4.3 1.5 4.0 1.7 5.4 1.0
Sport Competence 4.7 0.9 3.6 0.5 4.8 0.8
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.4 1.1 4.0 1 .2 5.2 0.8
Appearance 4.1 1.0 4.0 1.2 4.8 0.7
Strength 4.5 0.9 4.1 0.9 5.0 1.2
Endurance 8.8 1.2 8.9 0.9 9.4 0.9
Self-Esteem 5.1 0.8 5.0 0.7 5.3 0.9
Flexibility 5.0 0.9 5.1 0.9 4.2 1.3
EDI
n = 37 25 8 4
Age 16.2 0.8 16.4 0.9 16.2 0.7
Body Dissatisfaction 9.5 8.5 7.0 13.0 9.8 11.5 3.0 3.6 2.0
Bulimia 2.2 4.3 1.0 5.5 5.1 4.0 0.5 1.0 0.0
Drive for Thinness 10.1 7.3 2.5 2.0 4.0 13.0 5.2 5.2 0.0
Ineffectiveness 4.1 3.3 3.0 4.5 2.5 4.0 2.3 0.5 2.0
Interpersonal Distrust 3.4 3.4 2.5 4.3 3.1 4.0 0.5 1.0 0.0
Introceptive Awareness 3.5 4.4 2.0 3.9 3.0 3.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
Maturity Fears 6.3 4.1 5.5 4.5 3.9 3.5 3.0 2.6 3.0
Perfectionism 6.3 4.3 5.0 6.1 1.4 6.5 4.0 4.1 2.5
SPA
n = 38 ' 25 7 6
Age 15.8 0.8 16.4 0.9 16.6 0.5

SPA 2.8 0.8 2.7 1.0 2.8 0.7

211

Table 36 (cont’d). Scores on the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for SPA of
figure skaters by age group and discipline.

 

 

 

 

 

Discipline
17+
Variable Free Dance Pairs
PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md
n = 41 21 11 9
Age 18.4 1.2 19.0 1.7 19.1 0.9
Health 5.1 0.8 3.9 1.0 3.5 0.7
Coordination 4.5 0.6 4.1 1.1 5.1 0.3
Physical Activity 5.1 0.7 5.5 0.6 5.6 0.4
Body Fat 4.2 1.3 5.2 0.9 3.9 1.6
Sport Competence 4.9 0.8 4.8 1.1 4.5 0.5
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.4 0.9 4.9 0.9 3.6 1.6
Appearance 4.6 0.5 4.9 0.5 4.0 0.9
Strength 4.8 0.9 3.9 0.6 4.4 1.0
Endurance 8.8 0.8 8.8 1.1 9.0 0.9
Self-Esteem 5.3 0.6 5.2 0.6 5.0 0.8
Flexibility 4.5 0.9 4.5 0.8 5.1 1.2
EDI
n = 37 22 7 8
Age 18.4 1.2 19.0 1.7 19.1 0.9
Body Dissatisfaction 8.0 6.0 7.0 7.3 5.1 6.0 12.9 9.5 l 1.0
Bulimia 1.0 1.7 0.0 4.7 7.4 0.0 2.3 2.7 1.0
Drive for Thinness 5.1 5.8 4.0 11.5 8.4 2.0 6.4 6.4 12.5
Ineffectiveness 2.7 1.8 2.0 3.2 1.5 3.0 4.8 4.2 2.0
Interpersonal Distrust 1.8 2.0 1.0 5.9 5.4 4.0 2.4 2.6 2.0
Introceptive Awareness 1.7 2.9 1.0 5.0 6.9 2.0 6.0 6.0 4.0
Maturity Fears 3.8 3.6 3.0 5.0 5.8 2.0 5.8 2.7 6.0
Perfectionism 5.2 3.8 5.0 8.7 5.5 7.0 6.5 5.4 4.5
SPA
11 = 43 23 12 8
Age 18.7 1.1 18.9 1.7 19.5 0.6
SPA 2.8 0.6 2.9 0.5 3.5 1.0

 

212

Table 37 . Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for SPA by discipline.

 

 

 

Discipline

Variable Test Pre-elite Elite

PSDQ M SD Md M SD Md M SD Md

n = 128 84 24 20

Age 15.4 2.2 16.4 2.2 16.6 2.5
Health 4.9 0.8 4.4 0.8 4.2 1.0
Coordination 4.8 0.7 4.2 0.9 4.9 0.8
Physical Activity 5.0 0.8 4.8 1.1 5.3 0.8
Body Fat 4.6 1.3 4.9 1.3 4.7 1.4
Sport Competence 4.9 0.8 4.1 1.0 4.7 0.8
Global Phys. Self-Concept 4.7 1.0 4.6 1.0 4.5 1.4
Appearance 4.4 0.8 4.5 1.0 4.5 0.9
Strength 4.7 0.8 4.1 1.0 4.6 0.6
Endurance 9.0 1.0 8.9 1.0 9.2 0.8
Self-Esteem 5.3 0.6 5.1 0.6 5.3 0.8
Flexibility 4.8 0.9 4.4 1.1 5.0 1.1

EDI

n = 126 85 23 18

Age 15.5 2.3 16.4 2.2 16.6 2.5
Body Dissatisfaction 1.3 2.7 4.0 3.8 5.8 8.0 1.2 2.1 3.0
Bulimia 3.4 2.5 0.0 3.3 2.1 0.0 3.8 3.1 0.0
Drive for Thinness 2.8 2.9 2.0 4.7 4.2 3.0 1.9 2.3 2.0
lneffectiveness 2.4 3.4 3.0 3.6 4.8 3.0 3.2 4.8 2.0
Interpersonal Distrust 5.1 4.0 2.0 5.3 4.9 3.0 5.3 3.0 1.0
Introceptive Awareness 5.7 4.0 1.0 7.3 3.7 2.0 4.8 4.2 1.0
Maturity Fears 6.6 7.2 4.0 8.2 7.7 3.0 6.9 8.4 5.5
Perfectionism 4.3 5.4 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 6.0 7.6 3.0

SPA

11 = 135 88 25 22

Age 15.3 2.1 16.8 2.4 16.4 2.2
SPA 2.7 0.7 2.7 0.7 2.8 1.0

 

213

Table 38. Results of the MANCOVA, with age the covariate, for the PSDQ
and EDI subscale scores and of the AN COVA, with age as the covariate,
for SPA scores of figure skaters by discipline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Pillai’s df F
Age Covariate
PSDQ 0.3 11 32*
EDI 0.2 8 39*
Discipline
PSDQ 0.5 22 32*
EDI 0.3 16 22*
Discipline
1. Free 2. Dance 3. Pairs
Variable 13(2) AdjM SE AdjM SE AdjM SE
PSDQ (n = 128) (n = 84) (n = 24) (n = 20)
Health 81* 49°" 0.1 4.4 0.2 4.2 0.2
Coordination 60* 4.8a 0.1 42° 0.2 4.9 0.2
Physical Activity 2.5 5.1 0.1 4.7 0.2 5.3 0.2
Body Fat 1.1 4.6 0.1 5.1 0.3 4.7 0.3
Sport Competence 84* 4.9al 0.1 4.1° 0.2 4.8 0.2
Global Phys. Self-Concept 0.2 4.6 0.1 4.7 0.2 4.5 0.2
Appearance 0.2 4.4 0.1 4.6 0.2 4.5 0.2
Strength 54* 4.7“ 0.1 4.1° 0.2 4.6 0.2
Endurance 0.8 9.0 0.1 8.9 0.2 9.2 0.2
Self-Esteem 0.4 5.3 0.1 5.2 0.1 5.3 0.1
Flexibility 1.9 4.8 0.1 4.4 0.2 5.0 0.2
EDI (n = 126) (n = 85) (n = 23) (n = 18)
Body Dissatisfaction 0.4 6.6 0.8 8.2 1.6 6.9 1.8
Bulimia 56* 1.3a 0.4 3.9 0.7 1.2 0.8
Drive for Thinness 1.1 4.3 0.6 6.0 1.2 6.0 1.4
Ineffectiveness 0.2 3.4 0.3 3.3 0.5 3.8 0.6
Interpersonal Distrust 4.5* 2.8“ 0.3 4.7° 0.7 1.9 0.7
Introceptive Awareness 1.1 2.3 0.4 3.6 0.8 3.2 0.9
Maturity Fears 0.1 5.1 0.4 5.4 0.8 5.3 1.0
Perfectionism 3.1 5.7 0.4 7.3 0.8 4.8 1.0
SPA (11 = 135) (n = 88) (n = 25) (n = 22)
SPA 0.3 2.7 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.7 0.1

 

* p < .05; a 1 difi‘ers fiom 2; b 1 differs from 3; ° 2 differs from 3.

214

 

 

Table 39. Distribution of recalled ages at menarche, mean
ages at menarche, and results of AN OVA for figure skaters
216.0 years by discipline (n = 67).

 

Discipline
1.Free 2.Dance 3. Pairs
(n=38) (n= 17) (n= 12)

Age Range
1000-1099 0 1 0
11001199 1 0 0
1200-1299 12 4 1
13.00.1399 15 7 4
1400-1499 8 3 0
1500-1599 1 0 6
1600-1699 1 2 1

M 134° 13.4" 14.5

SD 1.0 1.4 1.3

F02) = 4.6, p < .01
a1 difiers fiom 3; b 2 difi‘ers fi'om 3.

215

 

Table 40. Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of pre- and post-

menarcheal figure skaters (n = 159).

 

Maturity Status

 

Variable Pre-menarcheal Post-menarcheal
n 48 111
M SD Md M SD Md
Age 13.7 1.3 16.4 2.1
Weight, kg 42.0 7.0 40.4 54.0 6.8 54.4
Stature, cm 152.4 7.6 160.1 5.8
BMI, ltg/rn2 18.0 1.6 17.7 21.1 2.1 21.1
Sitting Height, cm 78.8 3.4 85.4 3.4
SH/ST ratio, % 51.7 1.2 53.3 1.2
Estimated leg length, cm 73.6 4.5 74.6 3.5
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.3 0.6 8.8 0.5
Biepicondylar 5.8 0.4 6.0 0.3
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 21.9 2.0 25.2 2.0
Arm, flexed 23.4 1.9 26.4 1.9
Calf 30.6 3.2 33.3 2.2
Thigh 46.3 3.9 53.2 4.0
EAMC, cm 20.5 1.9 21.7 1.8
ECMC, cm 29.7 3.0 30.8 2.2
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 9.5 2.4 8.4 14.0 4.3 13.3
Biceps 4.7 1.3 4.3 5.8 2.4 5.5
Subscapular 6.8 1.7 6.6 10.2 3.5 9.2
Supraspinale 7.6 3.2 6.2 10.0 4.4 9.3
Abdominal 8.1 3.3 7.4 12.0 5.1 11.0
Medial Calf 10.2 3.2 9.2 13.7 4.8 13.4
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 46.9 13.0 43.7 65.6 20.0 63.2
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.93 0.19 0.90 0.97 0.23 0.94
Somatotype
Endomorphy 2. 5 0. 5 3 .6 1 .0
Mesomorphy 3.5 0.8 3.7 0.8
Ectomorphy 3.8 0.7 2.5 0.9

 

216

Table 41. Results of the ANCOVA; with age as the covariate, for
anthropometric characteristics and somatotypel of pre- and post-menarcheal

figure skaters (n = 159).

 

Maturity Status

 

 

Variable Pre-menarcheal Post-menarcheal
n 48 111
F(l) AdjM SE Ade SE

Weight, kg 163* 43.8 1.1 53.2 0.7
Stature, cm 432* 153.9 1.1 159.3 0.6
BMI, kg/rn2 518* 18.3 0.3 20.9 0.2
Sitting Height, cm 765* 79.7 0.6 85.0 0.4
SH/ST ratio, % 389* 51.7 0.2 53.4 0.1
Estimated leg length, cm 380* 74.3 0.6 74.3 0.4
Breadths, cm

Bicondylar 107* 8.3 0.1 8.7 0.1

Biepicondylar 1 .7 5.9 O. 1 6.0 0.0
Circumferences, cm

Ann, relaxed 402* 22.3 0.3 25.0 0.2

Arm, flexed 319* 23.9 0.3 26.2 0.2

Calf 152* 31.0 0.4 33.1 0.3

Thigh 390* 47.5 0.6 52.6 0.4
EAMC, cm 2.3 20.9 0.3 21.5 0.2
ECMC, cm 0.9 30.1 0.4 30.6 0.3
Skinfolds, mm

Triceps 364* 9.2 0.6 14.1 0.4

Biceps 17.7* 4.3 0.3 6.0 0.2

Subscapular 249* 6.9 0. 5 10.1 0.3

Supraspinale 11.0* 7.1 0.7 10.1 0.4

Abdominal 26.8* 7.3 0.8 12.4 0.5

Medial Calf 206* 9.7 0.7 13.9 0.5
Sum Skinfolds, mm 332* 44.6 3.0 66.7 1.9
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.7 0.93 0.03 0.97 0.02
Somatotype

Endomorphyl 199* 2.7 0.1 3.5 0.1

Mesomorphy1 4.4 3.9 0.1 3.6 0.1

Ectomorphyl 68* 3.2 0.1 2.8 0.1
* p < .05.

lUnivariate post hoc comparisons adjusted for the univariate post
hoc comparison using Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level

of 0.005 for MANCOVA (Cressie et al., 1986).

217

Table 42. Scores for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and the SPA of pre-
and post-menarcheal figure skaters.

 

 

 

 

 

Maturity Status
Variable Pre-menarcheal Post-menarcheal
M SD Md M SD Md

PSDQ

n = 128 38 90

Age 13.6 1.2 16.7 2.0
Health 4.9 0.7 4.6 09
Coordination 4. 8 1 .0 4. 7 0. 7
Physical Activity 4.8 0.9 5.1 0.9
Body Fat 5.4 1.0 4.4 1.3
Sport Competence 5.0 0.9 4.6 0.9
Global Phys. Self-Concept 5.1 0.9 4.4 1.1
Appearance 4.6 0.9 4.4 0.9
Strength 4.7 0.8 4.5 0.8
Endurance 9.3 0.8 8.9 1.0
Self-Esteem 5.4 0.6 5.2 0.7
Flexibility 4.8 1.1 4.7 0.9

EDI

n = 126 38 88

Age 13.5 1.2 16.7 2.0
Bulimia 2.2 4.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0
Ineffectiveness 3.6 2.8 3.0 3.1 1.3 0.0
Interpersonal Distrust 3.0 3.4 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.0
Introceptive Awareness 3.2 4.3 0.0 1.2 1.8 2.0
Maturity Fears 5.1 4.1 5.0 5.6 3.7 4.0
Perfectionism 6.1 4.1 5.0 5.4 3.7 5.0
Body Dissatisfaction 9.0 7 .6 1.0 1.4 3.2 8.0
Drive for Thinness 6.1 6.3 0.0 1.6 3.0 4.0

SPA

11 = 135 40 95

Age 13.4 1.2 16.7 2.0
SPA 2.4 0.6 2.9 0.7

 

218

 

 

 

 

Table 43. Results of the MAN COVA, with age as the covariate, for the PSDQ
and EDI subscales scores, and the AN COVA for the SPA scores, with age as the
covariate, of figure skaters by menarcheal status.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Pillai’s df F
Age Covariate '
PSDQ 0.17 1 1 2.1*
EDI 0.09 8 1.4
Main Efl‘ect
PSDQ 0.15 1 1 19*
EDI 0.15 8 2.6*
Maturity Status
Variable Pre-menarcheal Post-menarcheal
F(l) “‘1 M SE Adi M SE
PSDQ (n = 128) (n = 38) (n = 90)
Health 4.6 4.7 0.2 4.7 0.1
Coordination 1.7 4.7 0.2 4. 8 0.1
Physical Activity 2.4 4.9 0.2 5.1 0.1
Body Fat 12.3* 5.2 0.2 4.5 0.1
Sport Competence 4.4* 4.9 0.2 4.7 0.1
Global Phys. Self-Concept 7.8* 4.9 0.2 4.5 0.1
Appearance 0.2 4.5 0.2 4.5 0.1
Strength 2.8 4.7 0.2 4.5 0.1
Endurance 2.9* 9.3 0.2 8.9 0.1
Self-Esteem 4.4* 5 .4 0.1 5.2 0.1
Flexibility 0.4 4.8 0.2 4.7 0.1
EDI (n = 126) (n = 38) (n = 88)
Body Dissatisfaction 16.6* 1.6 1.4 8.9 0.8
Bulimia 2.4 0.8 0.7 2.1 0.4
Drive for Thinness 7.9* 2.0 1.1 5.9 0.6
Ineffectiveness 2.2 2.7 0.5 3.7 0.3
Interpersonal Distrust 0.2 2.8 0.7 3.1 0.4
Introceptive Awareness 42* 1.2 0.8 3.3 0.5
Maturity Fears 1.9 4.7 0.8 5.4 0.4
Perfectionism 0.2 5.5 0.8 6.0 0.5
SPAS (n = 135) (n = 40) (n = 95)
SPA 47* 2.5 0.1 2.8 0.1
*p<05

219

.m Eob fiohmc N 6 mm Eob maize fl 6 mm 88% £0,226 _ a

 

 

 

 

.mo. v a x
Z 9% 2 4.2 3 new we so .0202
3 2m 2 28 e2 22 2 as .0322
3 34 S was. 3.. 24 ed 222:.
am a? pm a? 2 New 3 .28
a2 a8 2 2.8 3 2mm 3 862 .25..
2m 2m .2 as we 98 3 88.8 .82..
2.8 .moocouomfisohu
4.2 3 no we .8 M3 4.0 8.589292
2 3 to a; 4.2 3 2 85892
:8 £26me
3 was 3. 2.? 3. SK 2 so .582 29 88:62am
2 cam 42 2.: 2o .mmm *2 .x. .628 Hmfim
4.4 9% am 2: 2 8.3 .28 so .2262 82%
2: Z a: 2: 2 9: 9: 4.2 22 we mead. .222
do $2 3 32 me as; 2 so .838
4.9. 3 mg 4.2. Na m2. is 3. 3.8. ch 2 .2863
ed a: so 2.: m2 2.: a?
S R w a
a: 2m 2 22 mm 2 a: 2m 2 $2 63983
8.2 - 8.: 8.2 - 8.2 8.: - 8.:
Q2026 om<

 

A; .1. 2V 228w own 3 233.8.
302822022022 65.258288 622 8528022220 0502828522 mo <>OUZ< of mo 338m .34 033.

220

Gm: ..__w a 2:200 <>ooz<2 80 8980 5,2 2% 083.65 620080 a
53> L. Ema—ESE mama: 28:09:00 00: 300 05830: 0.: 000 0063.60 28:09:00 00: Boa 03:02.5:

 

 

 

 

we 5 be S” we 3 no _Eeoeeom

2 2.. so 3 0.0 3 no _Eeoeosz

ho nm to 3 0.0 3. mo _Eeoeoncm

8.0 to 8.0 3o 2 .0 mod 3.0 :.o «no no ages .25: m;
2:. o: as. 0.3. S. v.9. 0.; 3 a? we 6: 3.8%; :5
3 3 2: a.» E 3 3 on to no 0:8 382
E 3 3 3 3. 3 0.0 ON 3 3 35589...
No i 2 3 a: MS :0 m: we to 2202206
0.0 2 No S I no .3 0.: 3 2 3.383%
2 m: 2. 3 2 we 2. Z S. N: 385
2w 3 3w 3 0.0 no 3 0.: Ma No 385.

ea 02.05%

02 am 2 22 mm 2 :02 am 2 a: 2.35»

3.2 - 8.: 3.: - 8.: 8.: - 8.:
0:80 03..

 

A: u 5 anew 0mm .3 80:00.0 30:80:08
-05 090052088 can 8320000820 0308008550 00 <>OUZ< 05 mo £30m 3.0.83 3 030,—.

221

Table 45. Results of the ANCOVA for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the SPAS

in pre-menarcheal skaters by age group.

 

 

 

 

 

AgeGroup
11.00-11.99 12.00-13.99 14.00-15.99

Variable F(Z) M SD Md M SD Md SD Md

PSDQ

N=37 5 20 12

Age 11.9 0.6 13.2 0.6 15.5 1.3
Health 0.2 4.7 1.0 5.1 0.6 5.0 0.7
Coordination 0.2 5.4 0.4 5.0 0.9 4.5 1.0
PhysicaJActivity 0.1 5.4 0.6 5.0 1.0 4.7 1.1
BodyFat 0.3 5.6 0.5 5.6 0.7 5.3 1.0
Sport Competence 0.5 5.5 0.5 5.0 0.9 5.0 0.8
Global Phys. Self-Concept 0.1 5.7 0.3 5.2 0.9 4.9 0.7
Appearance 0.1 4.4 1.3 4.7 0.9 4.3 0.7
Strength 1.1 5.5 0.4 4.7 0.9 4.8 0.6
Endurance 1.0 9.8 0.5 9.3 0.9 9.3 0.9
Self-Esteem 0.1 5.4 0.6 5.0 1.0 4.7 1.1
Flexibility 1.4 5.4 0.3 4.9 1.1 4.7 1.1

EDI

N=39 8 18 13

Age 12.6 1.5 13.0 0.4 ' 14.8 0.6
BodyDissatisfaction 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 3.2 5.0 1.5
Bulimia 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.0
DriveforThinness 0.8 2.6 2.9 3.0 1.1 1.4 0.0 2.8 5.0 0.0
Inefl‘ectiveness 0.4 3.6 0.9 3.0 3.1 1.3 3.0 2.6 1.6 3.0
InterpersonalDistrust 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 3.8 3.2 3.0 2.3 1.7 2.5
IntroceptiveAwareness 0.1 1.6 2.6 0.0 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.8 0.0
MaturityFears 0.8 6.2 4.8 5.0 6.5 3.7 5.0 4.9 3.1 4.0
Perfectionism 2.0 9.2 3.9 8.0 4.9 3.7 4.0 5.4 3.3 5.0

SPA

n=35 7 20 8

Age 11.9 0.5 13.1 0.4 14.8 0.6
SPA 0.7 2.2 0.3 2.2 0.5 2.3 0.5
*p<.05.

222

Table 46. Results of the ANOVA of anthropometric characteristics and somatotype1 in
post—menarcheal skaters 216 by maturational timing (n = 67).

 

Maturational Timing

 

 

 

 

Variable Average Late
11 45 22
F(l) M SD Md M SD Md
Age 84* 17.7 1.5 18.7 1.5
Mean age at menarche 596* 13.1 0.6 15.2 0.7
Weight, kg 1.6 55.3 5.8 54.7 54.6 4.7 53.5
Stature, cm 1.9 161.1 5.4 160.2 4.5
BMLkg/m2 0.5 21.3 1.5 21.1 21.2 1.3 21.0
Sitting Height, cm 4.8* 86.1 3.1 84.8 3.3
SH/ST ratio, % 3.8* 53.4 1.3 52.9 1.1
Est. Leg Length, cm 0.0 75.0 3.6 75.4 2.5
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 2.1 8.8 0.4 8.9 0.4
Biepicondylar 0.3 6.9 0.4 6.0 0.3
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 2.7 25.5 1.6 25.1 1.4
Arm, flexed 1.2 26.7 1.5 26.6 1.6
Calf 4.0* 33.9 2.2 33.0 1.6
Thigh 2.7 54.3 3.2 53.3 2.7
EAMC, cm 0.6 21.9 1.8 22.2 1.4
ECMC, cm 0.1 31.0 2.3 31.0 2.1
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 2.3 13.8 3.9 13.5 12.4 3.7 11.8
Biceps 28* 5.6 2.2 5.6 4.5 1.1 4.6
Subscapular 3.0* 10.4 3.4 10.1 9.2 2.3 8.7
Supraspinale 2.3 9.8 4.4 9.6 8.6 2.9 8.3
Abdominal 3.6* 12.7 5.5 11.7 10.1 4.1 9.2
Medial Calf 1.1 13.4 3.5 12.5 12.4 3.0 11.0
Sum of Skinfolds, mm 3.8”“ 65.8 18.0 65.1 57.3 13.0 53.4
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.7 1.00 0.26 0.98 0.96 0.23 0.91
Somatotype
Endomorphy‘ 3.4* 3.7 0.1 3.3 0.2
MesomorphyI 0.3 3.8 0.1 3.9 0.1
Ectomorphyl 0.9 2.4 0.1 2.4 0.1
* p < .05;

1 post hoc comparisons adjusted for the univariate post hoc comparison
using Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .05 for MANCOVA
(Cressie et al., 1986).
a 1 differs from 2; b 1 difiers from 3; ° 2 differs from 3.

223

Table 47. Results of the ANOVA for the PSDQ and EDI subscales and for the

SPAS in post-menarcheal skaters _>_16 years classified as average and late

 

 

 

 

 

maturing.
Maturational Timing
Average Late
Variable F(l) M SD Md M SD Md
PSDQ
n = 54 37 17
Age 17.6 1.0 18.8 1.4
Health 1.3 4.6 1.0 4.2 1.0
Coordination 2.5* 4.6 0.9 4.9 0.4
Physical Activity 0.8 5.0 0.9 5.4 0.6
Body Fat 0.5 4.3 1.4 4.3 1.5
Sport Competence 0.7 4.4 1.0 4.7 0.7
Global Phys. Self—Concept 1.1 4.2 1.2 4.3 1.2
Appearance 1.5 4.4 1.0 4.4 0.8
Strength 1.5 4.3 0.9 4.6 0.8
Endurance 2.9"“ 5.6 1.3 9.3 0.7
Self-Esteem 2.5* 5.0 0.8 5.3 0.6
Flexibility 0.2 4.8 1.0 4.6 1.0
EDI
n = 52 38 14
Age 17.7 1.2 18.9 1.3
Body Dissatisfaction 1.2 10.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 6.6 9.0
Bulimia 1.0 2.1 3.8 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0
Drive for Thinness 0.2 6.5 6.7 4.0 5.4 6.9 7.0
Ineffectiveness 0.6 3.6 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.5
Interpersonal Distrust 0.8 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.3 3.4 3.0
Introceptive Awareness 0.1 2.6 3.8 1.0 2.5 3.8 2.0
Maturity Fears 1.7 5.0 4.3 3.0 3.4 2.3 2.5
Perfectionism 0.1 5.8 3.6 5.0 4.4 4.0 5.0
SPA
11 = 60 42 18
Age 16.4 2.1 17.6 2.0
SPA 1.7 2.8 0.7 3.1 0.8
* p < .05.

224

 

._oo.in.m_o.VaH. ”monH.
admua

”28:45 n M: ”Em_:o:00.t0m u E 0:00”: 3:302 u 0: 000025. 8.2 025 u 2 “000000200005
boom u E ӣ0005 20m u 2 480008-20m _02055 .0020 u N: 2000000003.. .1. 2 30m boom n 2

0:000:00 3:008:50 09590800 0.5 00:8 05 0:0 0w0 mama—o: 00030—0008 .020 £80m _

 

 

000- :00- 000 000 20- 20 :0 .-0 :00 :0 28080.00 .0
20 :00 £0 :00 :00 20- 20 20 00.0 :00 300.088.: .0
000- 80 S0- 000- 00.0 20 :00- .00- 000- .-0- 300.08.02.00 0
.80 00.0 000- 000- .-0 .000 :0- .0~0- 80- .20- .200000000 :50 0
20 :0 ~00 20 .-0 ._~0 20- 20- .00- :0- 500303.00 0
.00 ~00- ~00- ~00- :0 .-0 000- .00- 000- :0- 00.00.25 0
.-0 30 00.0 20 .80 .30 .20- .20- 000- .80. :0 .m
.-0 .20 _00 20 .000 .000 .20- .20- ~00- ...~0- 2330 .~
.30 .20 000- 000 .000 .000 .-0- .000- 20- .000- 20:03 .2
2 2 2 0: 2 E 2 2 : 0: 83......» 02.2.:

 

0030t0> _0omw2ocoxmm

 

0000020 00%: .20 03800 .002 05 E 0030:? Rama—0:003

8200 0:0 000200032030. 402230 @580 0:00:00 0w0 _002m2ocofio mezzo: 00030—0080 _0E0m .wv 030,—-

225

Table 49. Second-order partial correlations between height, weight, the
sum of 6 skinfolds, and psychological variables controlling for age and
the other anthropometric variables, respectively.

 

 

Variable 1. 2. 3.
Body Fat 0.20a -0.440 -0.20“
Appearance -0.03 -0.04 -0.06
Global Physical Self-Concept 0.08 -O.26b 0.13
Self-Esteem 0.06 -O.20"‘ 0.03
Body Dissatisfaction -0.07 0.34c -0.04
Drive for Thinness 0.02 0.17 -0. 10
Maturity Fears 0.07 -0.05 -0.07
Perfectionism 0. 12 —0. 14 -0.02
Bulimia 0.08 -0.01 -0.15
SPA -0.08 0.25b 0.01

 

1. Correlation between psychological variables and height, controlling

for chronological age and weight.

2. Correlations between psychological variables and weight controlling

for age and height.

3. Correlations between psychological variables and the sum of 6 skinfolds
controlling for age and weight.

226

 

 

0.~ m0. ~.~ 0.2 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .0...~

0.0 0.~ 2 0.0 2: 00.0- :0- 00.0 0.0.0.0000. ._
020m 00E 00:90me

was 90ch

02 0.0 0.0 0.~ 0.. 0.0 0.0. 00.0 000. R0 0.0..0.0000...~

~.~ 0.: ~.~ 2.2 02 0.2 0.2 R0 00.0 00.0 00:
32m cum—0-00m «mo-H . _o>ox~
0m 2 00 2 00 2 ,0 . 000800 00083 20.2.8.

0.00.0.0 90;.»

Aw: .I. 5 30000—0 05% 00 03800 #0000
06 E 053620 000 0800000800 .00 _0>0_ 000 2.0.2000 00:00:.“ 0005:0820 05 .00 0.300% .3 030-0

227

 

 

0.0 _.m 0.0 0.m m.m 00.0 00.0 00.0 .3088250 .0
80 .1. :0 00.5 000 0.20.0...

 

0.. 0.2 0.. .0. 0.... :0 00.0 00.0 000.~

0.0 .0 0.. 0... 0.2 00.0- 00.0- ~00 0.0.8.0000.

@0000 can 000ch 000m 80 H CV 2953 0.30-H.
0000.000

0.. ..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0... 00.0 00.0- .00 800000-0000
0.. .0. 0.. .0. 2 0.0. 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000.~
0.0 0.0 0.. .0 .0 0... 0... 0.0- 000 000 30.00.0000.
0.00. 00.0-0... .0.- .00 u 5 .0000
00 s. 00 s. 00 s. 0. . 000000.. 000.00.. 0.00..0>

0.00005 00:03

0.00.0 0.2 N 0.0.00.0 0.20 000
00:00.0 0. 00.3.0000 .00 0.0.0.000 000.0000 00.000.00.006 0... 00 0.300. 000 0.00.0 0.0 .N 0.0.00.0 00.00.0008
0000 0. 05.00.0000 .000 0000000800 00 .05. .00 000.0000 0.00.0000 00000058000 0:. 00 0:000. 0000- ..m 030-0

228

Table 52. Correlations between self-concept and psychobiological variables among figure

skaters (n = 114).

 

Dependent Variables

 

 

 

Psychobiological Global Physical

Variables Self-Concept Self-Esteem
A B A B A B

Age 0.33a -O.32° 0.16

Height 032° 032° -023"

Weight 041° -0.43° -0.29°

Endomorphy 030° 0.05 -O.20a -0.06 -O. 16 -0.01

Mesomorphy 0.08 -O.15 -0.05 -0. 17 0.02 O. 14

Ectomorphy -034° 027° 032° 032° 0.20a 020°

Appearance -O.45° 067° 065°

Body Fat -O.66° 073° 054°

Body Dissatisfaction 062° -0. 70° -0.49°

Drive for Thinness 064° 053° -O.3 7°

Perfectionism 0.21“ 0.01 -0.0l

 

A = zero order correlations; B = fourth order correlations, holding age and the other two

somatotype components constant.

°p<.05,°p<.01,°p<.001.

229

Table 53. Canonical correlations, canonical loadings, standardized
canonical coefficients, percentages of variance, and redundancies between
self-concept and psychobiological variables and their corresponding
canonical variates.

 

First canonical variate Second canonical variate

 

 

 

Variables r Coefficient r Coeflicient
Psychobiological Set
Age 039* 0.07 0.22 O. 16
Height 037* 0.21 0.13 3.08
Weight 051* -0. 19 0.19 -4.55
Endomorphy 0.29 -023 0.3 1 * 0 70
Mesomorphy 0.09 -0 13 0.09 0 15
Ectomorphy -0.42* -041 -0.23 -2.22
Appearance -0.77 -045 034* 0.35
Body Fat -087* -0.40 -0. 19 0.01
Body Dissatisfaction 084* 0.15 0.1 1 -0.46
Drive for Thinness 0.37 0.15 051* 0.88
Perfectionism 0.06 -006 044* 0.34
Percentage of Variance 0.24 0.02
Redundancy 0.3 1* 0.08
Self-concept Set
SPA 078* 0.32 061* 1.18
Global Physical Self-Concept -096* -069 0.23 0.69
Self-Esteem -0.76* -012 031* 0.34
Percentage of Variance 070* 0.18
Redundancy 055* 0.04
Canonical Correlation 089* 0.48
* 2 0.30

230

Table 54. Results of the regression analyses of variables predicting selected

EDI subscales in the total sample of figure skaters (n = 114).

 

 

Variables r R2 Increment F Beta t
Bulimia
1. age 0.17 0.03 0.03 46° 0.02 0.03
2. SPA 0.38 0.15 0.12 133° 0.34 44°
3. Health 0.45 0.20 0.05 12.7c —0.37 -3.2°
Drive for Thinness
1. age 0.25 0.06 0.06 105° -0.05 0.89
2. Body Fat 0.63 0.40 0.34 577° -0.57 -7. 1°
3. SPA 0.70 0.49 0.09 499° 0.39 56°
4. endomorphy 0.72 0.52 0.03 421° .031 47°
5. height 0.74 0.55 0.03 379° 0.21 33°
6. Appearance 0.76 0.57 0.02 341° 0.18 27°
Body Dissatisfaction
1. age. 0.30 0.09 0.09 154° -0.03 -0.55
2. Body Fat 0.75 0.56 0.47 100.0c -0.55 54°
3. Global Physical 0.78 0.60 0.04 785° -025 35°
4. height 0.79 0.63 0.03 65.0° 0.17 31°
5. SPA 0.80 0.65 0.02 556° 0.17 27°
Maturity Fears
1. age 0.17 0.03 0.03 47° -0.26 32
2. SPA 0.36 0.13 0.10 11.9° 0.38 4.7c
3. endomorphy 0.39 0.15 0.02 95° -0.16 -21°
Perfectionism
1. age 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.4 -002 -0.2
2. Health 0.23 0.05 0.05 41° -0.21 -26°
3. SPA 0.29 0.08 0.03 47° 0.31 34°
4. Global Physical 0.34 0.12 0.04 50° 0.22 24°
5. mesomorphy 0.37 0.14 0.02 4.9° -016 -2.0°

 

. p<.05, bp<.01, cp<.001

231

 

 

300% 03: 0::0 0:: 88.: 002:0 :0: 0:0 880:0 8:000:
.8800 :08 :0:: 0:80:08 :0 0w0 :08: 0:0: 0 00: 880% 0::0 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:809:00 880:0 :08 :0:: 00:00.0 8:0 0:0
.00 0:00: 000:: :0 0000 880:0 @0804: 0w00>0 000:: 003 00:: .. :0 Z 8:000: $080.: 0:0: :0 8:00:80 08.00% 0 m: 00E. .0
880:0
8:08: :0:: $5 0:8: 00: 8800—0 8:0 0:0 :08 .8800 :08
:0:: 08000 00033 09mm 0:8: 00: 00:00:: 0::0 0:0 8:08: -
880:0
8:08: 0:0 :08 :0:: 8:88:88 000: 003 880:0 8:0 0:0
880% :08 :0:: 02008000 000. 003 880:0 8:08: 0:0 0::0 -
8800—0 :00: :0:: 0:00_ 0:0 0:008: .8800 :08 0: 00:09:00 8000000 00:30:00:
0:0 00:00:63.0: 0:0:0 .0::m: “80:0 003 880:0 0::0 - 30:00.: 0:0 00003: :0 :00 003:: 0 0>0: 80:00 80%.: 0::m .m
0:00.: @0302
0:0 000:0:03< 08000085 .0205 0:00.088:— a00:04::00005
:0 :0000000 0:: :::3 0:0—50:0: :0:: 08000 Em 0030: 08020.8: :0:: 08000 RE 0:0 m<mm
0:0 08000 m<mm 030— “0.8000 Oman 0:3: 08:00: 88005 - 3:090: 030: 0:0 £8000 00mm 0:8: 00: E3 880% 8:3,: .0
.0w0
02:00: 003 0:800:00 <mm 0:0 Em 0::3 03:0»0: :03 00000:: :0: 000000 w:::00 0:0 308:0 0:008:
003 0:20—0:00 09mm E08530 53:00: 00003:: 0.: :00000 - £050: _008 0:23 0w0 ::3 000000 8860000000 0002: .m
080083003: 003 00:80:: 5:00 .800» 9000:: 0230.2 0:0 .m0:0_::0-:0: :0 0:00
A000 030:0: no H NE 003 0:80:08 :0 m0w0 :08: 0:0 0:08: - 00:00:96 00:00.0: 0: 00:09:00 @0805 0:0: 0:0 880% 8:8": .m
8300 0:00 00:00.0: 0: 00:09:00
m:=0% 0:0 80002000 .m.D :0: 08:04» 00:00.0: 30:0: 3:00:0m 0:00: 0:0 0::008: 0:0—0:0 00000080000 :8: :_
0003 880:0 000mm “000: 80:88:30: mats 0:: 0.: :00000 - 3:080: 0:050 .0::w: .0805 90.: 0:08» 0:0 80:00 0:08": .—
808800 teamsm 00:09::1:

 

 

 

 

000500»: 0:: :0 80:00: 0:: :0 @0885 .mm 030:.

232

 

 

::00:0U..:.0m .0008: .0:0.0 ::3 080.8:00
0.0800: 003 8808800 00.00080 09m: ::3 080.800
0.0808: :0: .m<:m 00:0 00.000800 5m ::3 080.800

<00 0:0 .000:

8:802 0:0 8800000005 80:: 00:800. .0088...
:0: 08:9 00.00080 Em :83 080.800 0.0800: 0:0
.8080: 0:0 .00:0:00::< .8088: .0008: .805 :0:
80m: 00.00080 OQm: ”::0:0:. 080080800 .0808:
:0 0:8::000: 0: 00:0.0: 0038:? 0080.000: 00:00.00
:83 080.800 0.08:0:0: 0:0 0080: 0:0 0:0.::0:0::

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0800: 0:03 00.9800 0 :0 8:0 0:0 ::803 0:0 :0: m::..0:::00 .. 08:0::=m .000 0: 00:0.0: 0:000:80 8::080:0::::0 00:00.0m .3
08:00:80 m<:m :0 5m 0: 0:03 00:: 00:30:: 080080800 08:80:00: 03808: 000.
0:0. :0:: 08000 0.00080 09m: 0:8: 00: 00:00.0 ::0:0:: 0:0. - 800:0: ::0:0: ...3 00:00.0 .00:0:0:0::.:00: 8030:: 0:0: .2
00:80:: 0:00:00 :0:: 8:80:000 00:00.0
000. 0:03 0:0 .00.0.::.0.0 0:8:: A0800:8080 :8: 0:080 .00:0:0:0E-:00: ::0:0:: :0::00 :0:: 0:00. 0:0 8:8.
.::w:0. :0. 080.8 :0w:0. .880: w:.::0 80:0 00: 00:80:: 80. - 080::sm .0800 0:0 00:00.0 .00:0:0:0::-:00: ::0:0:: 80.: .2
00:00.0 00.0 :0:: 00:000
m<:m 0:0 am :030. 0:0 08000 09m: 0:8: 00: 0:00 0:58: 8.0:: 0:0 8 08:0.:0:00:0:0 08:80:00:
080080800 .0008: :: 08:00:80 ::00:.:.:80 0: 0:03 80:: - 800:0: 0:0 .0008: :: 0::.0 00:00.0 00:80:08-8: .2
00:00.0 .00:0:0:0::-:00: :0::
0.0.: 00:00.0 m:::00 :0: 00080 0:: :0:: 030.: 08000 m<:m 0:0 5.:
030. .08000 0.00080 09m: 0:8: 08:0:0: 0:0 8:80:88 80:: 080080880 08:80:00: 0:0
8:88:000 000. .:0..0E0 .0800: 0:03 00:00.0 00:80:08-8: - 08:0:96 .0008: :: 0::.0 00:00.0 .00:0:0:0::-:00: 0:0 -8: .2
0:00:00 :0: ::0030 :0: 003 0:8:
0::: :0: .8: M .00000: 60me ::00.>0 003 00:00.0 :0: w8:::08 00:00.0 00:: :0:: 00:00.0 :0:
0:008 :0:: 0:0. 0:8: :0: 0:8: 0:: 00:00.0 00:: 0: 00:08:00 - :0 2 0:0 00:00 ::0:0:: 0:0. :0 :0::0:0:: 0:08: 0 0. 00::. .0
00:00.0 00:: 0:0 :0: :0:: 08:05 .0:00080::: 0:0 0.::::m 0:8: 00:00.0 00:: :0:: 000000 m:.:00 :0:
08:0:0: 0:00:00 0:00:00 :0:: 00:000 ::m:0::m 0:0 8:808:00 0.0.: 0:08: :0 0:0 :0: .08000 ::00:00.:.00 0.:0:0>0.: 0:8:
::0:m .:8:0::0:000 0:8: 08:08: 00:00.0 00:: 0:0 ::0: - 80:0: 08: 00:00.0 :0: 0:0 88:00 008.0008 80:: 0::. .w
00:00.0 :0: :0 .08: 0:80 :0:: 00:00.0 :0: :0 00:00.0 00:: 0:80 :0:: 0:0. :0w:0.
0:0. :0::0. 3080.0: 00: 0:0 0:00. 0:0 0:0: a00.0 0:03 0:00:00 - 0080::sm 0.0.80.0: 08: 0:0 0:00. 0:0 0:0: .:00.0 0:0 0:00:0Q :1

 

 

 

 

233

 

003 0: 0. 80::
00:0: :0: 0880000 000:000> .00: 0:: 0:0 00.:0.:0> 00.0.0000:

00.00000 00:00.0 8:000 03: 0:: 0.00:: 00.:000>

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:0 .0008: :0 0:08:88 0 8 0:008: 003 0.00080 .9: 000 - 080::0m 080.800.008: 0:0 0.::080:0::::0 :0 0000:5800 < .3
2:0 0:0 00:00:00 0:880:00 .88.: .220:
::00:00..:.00 00:0.08: :0.:00:0.:000.Q 80m 0:0 0:0.::.:0000 003000.: 0000.00.00: 0:0 .0008:
:.00 .0008: 8808800 00 ::803 .::80: :0 0:08:88 0:: - 080::=m :0 :0.:0:.:800 0 8 080.08: 80 0:0.::00:0:.:.0m .0.
00:00.0 0:: 0000000 00.:000> 080.000: 0: 80:00.0
0:..0 0:0 8.0-8: 0:: :0 0000 0000000 80800 8808000 8:80
00.8.00 8 00:00.0 0:: 0000000 3:08:00 880800000 080 - .00: 0:: :. :0:: 800: SM 00:00.0 808: 00:80:08
.00. 8 -00: :. 00.:000> :0 :00 ::0:0.::.0 0 8 080880000
00:00.0 0:: 0000000 80800 8000m.:.0m 0:0 080 .8808000 - 80.00: 0:0 8080308. 808.8000 0:0 00:80:88 :0 .00». .0.
00:00.0
0:: 0000000 00.:0.:0> 0080.000: 0: 00:00.0 0:..0 0:0 0:..0
-8: 0:: :0 :03 0000000 80800 080 0:0 8808000 .0:..:.00.0 00:00.0 8:8: w:080 08.8000
8 00:00.0 0:: :0 0000 0000000 80800 8808000 0:0 00 .. :02 80880000 :00 00.:000> 0080.000: 0:0 .0008: . 0.
00:00.0 0:: 0000000 00.:000> 0080.000: 0: 00. 00:00.0 8%: 8080 8000800 :0 .00.
8 00:00.0 0:: :0 0000 0000000 8:00:00 8808000 0:0 08: - :02 800.8000 :00 00.:000> 0000.000: 0:0 .0008: .0.
0:08:00 0:03 ::80: 0:0 .00 0:3 00.:000> 0000.008: 0:: 00.000.» 00.0.0000: 0:0
0:0 ::803 0030: 8000880 00:.080: 0000.800 0:: :0 008 - .0008: 0:: 0030: 0000.800 0:: 000000: 000000.000
020800 0:03 000005.03: 00:80 0 :0 8:0 0:0 080 8:80 080.800 0.08.00: 80 :0:: 00.000.» 00.0800
0:0 .::803 0:0 00 0:3 000008 0:03 0:80.800 0:: :0 008 - 080:::m 0 :0 80 00:0 ::803 .::80: 0:0 0:0 :0: 8:08:00 .0.

 

 

 

 

234

 

 

Om m3.» 0.0 562 $4: mm 82m
$3: .3 “o ::sGéonm

 

3 0.8 cm 0.0m os 32 Z 62 a: 5% 2305
S 3:. am 32 f 62 M: Seafoea .888
3:0: .3 a gem
cm a: 3 32 3 v.2 w 38393-58
23$ 5382:. ES 5233
3 m2 E :3 3 3.2 0: mm 8:52
:3: 39:8
S w? 2 32 S 0.: a S A .388
GR: Egan
E o2 3w new 3 22 E w: a 05288
$8: .3 s Ewofi
3 a? 3 3.2 3 NE a 832. .3288
SE: .3 a :3
S 0.3 cm as: S a: 0 3088335
2M3: coman:,_. 28 8283
am .2 am 2 am 2 mm 2 = 8552 536%

 

NERx 42m wx Emma? So .Ewmom 38> dw<

 

.3886 83mm 038$ Mo
33:23 52,8 90 Acetone 5&5 Em new .EmEB “£90: .0? Sm mcocmfiow 235% 98 2:32 .3 2an

235

62:22 .E.m o. :oznomcsfiEoO

_mcofiom @5335 .43 2:0 :flEoE ho 33m 5380 5264 of :5: 8m «:6 5&me 23A
.Awocmznsmcs fiacosom 98 «53>: 33m Egan 890:0 of Eot 2a 3% 88:0 05. _
.EEoEouom u 80m "389:0on u 082 ”3808025 U ovum

 

 

 

Gm w.m m.m +3
~.~ 5m 5m wd fim 3” w.m Wm Wm +w—
Tm Nam QM ad fim 04V fim m6. 9m +5
Wm Qm 5m 9N fim oé Gm Vm 5m +2
~.m m.m Nd fin Qm QM m.m fim 9m +2
QN 5m Wm m.m 04o. w.m Nd Nd 9m +3
Om 5m Tm v.m fim m.m QM fim 0m +9
m.m Vm 9N 9m mgm Wm w.m v.m ~.~ +§
QM 9m WN m.m Wm o.m 5m 9m Wm +3
08m 082 oncm 80m 962 ovum 08m 822 22.5
33m E805 25:33:33 553039 Gucmznsmcz .Emzozomv @380
~22:me .8820 ow<

 

95% own 3 953%
2%: E USN me cfiEoE 95 56556 go moEEam 3553-398 95 go $99an8 :32 .nm 2an

236

 

 

 

 

2 2 no 3. as E 3 h: 3 05m
2 on 3 on ad 2 3 a: 8 355
2 Z We 3 2 mm 3 Q: 8 see
3 3 no 2 3 3 E 62 a: 38‘
:30? 53% 280$
0.0 3 0.0 mm 3 ON 3 52 M: 863.828 6356
3:0: .3 5 3oz
9o 3 co 3 to E 3 v.2 w 5883-58
:3: :OmQEosH van 5283
do 3 no 3 S 3. S 0.: a 2 A050 388
GS: BEBE
Z 3. S E to Z 3 a: a 8:6: 588
3:0: .3 a 30¢
3 on 3 am no 3 S a: 0 38893-5
A _ mo: comanFw was B>ao>>
am 2 am 2 am 2 am 2
228888 39080on 380885 ow< a 8:0me 638mm
omboEEom

 

.3883 23mm 038$ go 838% 2238 mo 8830388 :82 .mm 033:

237

6:035”: 3583 whoocmu 2 2: mo 2 m
.3832: 3593 $883 M: of we 2 v
.2881 30:03:08-05 vofisucg 29:8 2? M
.05358 62:83 was £88? a 2: mo 5 N

38% 93 N 3886 _

 

 

 

3 n: 2 92 g 93: .3 5 £50.93on
«.2 2 5.2 2 8%: 5:35 oéoamose
2; $3: 5on Es 22:38
9: $3: @830 So mag
635
2 Z: 2-: mm oéoamose
2 0.2 2: 9%: 538 E“ was: 80 3.3m
323
fi . fl m. 2 o>tooamobom
~.~ v.2 wE Q33 .3 8 88830 03¢ 259m
33550
S 0.: M: veg: .3 a ”mom
2 0.2 S 5.2 mm Mama; 5 £8.86on
N; VS v; 5m fl 5 "$33 .6 8 EwomN
~.~ 0.2 m; :2 no 183m 8803 0383852
md m4: of 356 :6on 05¢ £58m
£83m
mmam 3352 Gm E
ow< : $3.5m 8:0me 638%
_moEo—ocofio

 

.mtomm 0:058“

850 E mayo—Em was 2886 ohzwm E 238:2: Hm moms 03809838 can 03 £33m .% Bank

238

APPENDIX A

1. Figure Skating School Consent Form

2. Participant Consent Form

Assent Form

239

\?\ ‘I——

‘

Figure Skating
School Consent Form

Profile of Female Figgre Skaters

Dear Figure Skating School,

My name is Eva Vadocz and I am a Doctoral student in the Department of
Kinesiology at Michigan State University. As a former figure skater and coach, I am
interested in the physical and psychological characteristics of female figure skaters ages
12 and older. I would like to invite figure skaters belonging to your club, to participate in
my study. This study is being conducted under the supervision of my advisor, Robert M.
Malina Ph.D., and is part of my Ph.D. degree requirements. Additionally, this study has
been approved by Michigan State University and is funded by the CFSA.

There is limited information about how junior and senior competitors differ from
novice and test—stream competitors, and there is no information comparing the
characteristics of singles, dance and pair skaters. Information gathered in this project will
provide knowledge about the growth and maturation of skaters, stresses associated with
figure skating, and skaters’ psychological skills. This information will be beneficial to
skaters, parents, coaches and judges at all levels of participation.

All of the measurements will be collected by myself, or two other trained female
research assistants. Measurements will include age, height, weight, limb circumferences,
diameters, and skinfolds at different sites on the body (back, side, 2-arm, calf, thigh and
stomach) to estimate skaters’ body composition of muscle and fat. Skinfold thickness is
measured by ‘pinching’ the skin between the fingers and measuring it with calipers. It is
not painful, and each measurement will take only a couple of seconds. Measurements
will also be taken of the width of skaters’ shoulders, hips, knees and elbows.

Skaters will also be asked if they have attained menarche, the first menstruation
period. Skaters who have attained menarche, will be asked to try to remember when it
began. This information helps pinpoint your physiological maturity status. I understand
this is a very personal matter, and precautions will be taken to insure skaters’ privacy.

In addition, skaters will be requested to fill out some questionnaires concerning their
skating history including when, and why they began skating, in what discipline, and at
what level they compete. There will also be some questions about skaters’ feelings about
presenting themselves to others, and some concerning psychological skills.

Participation in this study will take a total of 45 minutes and measurement time

240 ,

will be scheduled at the convenience of your school. I am committed to ensuring the
privacy of each skater. In order to collect the necessary measurements, I would like to
request a private room (e. g., a dressing room), where measurement equipment can be set
up. I would also like to request a time and room for a general information session for
parents, coaches and skaters to request their participation.

The information collected in this study will be used on a group basis and treated
as confidential. Names will not be associated with the information collected because data
sheets will be numerically coded for identification purposes; these codes will be known

only to me.

FIGURE SKATING CLUB OFFICIAL:

By signing below, you are agreeing to support our study by allowing us to a) request
participation from your skaters, and b) obtain measurements at your facility.

 

 

Signature Date

Thank you for your participation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact

me:
Eva Vadocz, (517) 349 - 9962, Email: vadoczev@pilot.msu.edu, Department of

Kinesiology, Michigan State University.
You may also contact my supervisor, Dr. Robert M. Malina at (517) 355 — 7620,
Email: rmalina@pilot.msu.edu.

241

Participant Consent Form

Profile of Female Figgre Skaters

Dear skaters and parents,

My name is Eva Vadocz and I am a Doctoral student in the Department of Kinesiology at
Michigan State University. As a former figure skater and coach, I am interested in learning about
the physical and psychological characteristics of competitive female skaters, ages 12 and older
by conducting a study. This study is being conducted under the supervision of my advisor,
Robert M. Malina Ph.D., and‘is part of my degree requirements. Additionally, this study has been
approved by Michigan State University, your club official, and is funded by the Canadian Figure
Skating Association (CFSA).

I would like to invite you and your parents to participate in this study because you are a
healthy figure skater competing in CFSA or USFSA sanctioned competitions.

There is limited information about how junior and senior competitors differ from novice
and test-stream competitors, and there is no information comparing singles, dance and pair
skaters. Information gathered about you and your parents will provide knowledge about the
growth and maturation of skaters, stresses associated with competitive figure skating, and
skaters’ psychological skills. This information will be beneficial to skaters, parents, coaches and
judges at all levels of skating participation.

All of the measurements will be collected by myself. or two other trained female
research assistants. Measurements will include age, height, weight, limb circumferences,
diameters, and skinfolds at 7 different sites on the body (back, side, 2-arm, calf, thigh and
stomach) to estimate your body composition of muscle and fat. Skinfold thickness is measured by
‘pinching’ the skin between the fingers and measuring it with calipers. It is not painful, and each
measurement will take only a couple of seconds. Measurements will also be taken of the width of
your shoulders, your hips, your knee and your elbow. This part of the study will take
approximately 15 minutes and will be scheduled at your convenience. Additionally, as payment
for your time, your physical measurements will be available to you upon request at no cost.

You will also be asked if you have attained menarche, your first menstruation period. If
you have attained menarche, you will be asked to try to remember when it began. This
information helps pinpoint your physiological maturity status. I understand this is a very personal
matter, and precautions will be taken to insure your privacy.

In addition, you will be requested to fill out some questionnaires concerning your skating

history including when, and why you began skating, in what discipline, and at what level you

242

 

compete. There will also be some questions concerning your feelings about presenting yourself
to others, your eating attitudes, your physical self-description, and some concerning your
psychological skills. These questionnaires can be picked up from a central location if you choose
to participate by returning the permission forms. Completing the questionnaires will take
approximately 40 minutes and can be done on your own time. Please bring the questionnaire
pack to the physical testing session.

Your parents will also be requested to answer some questions concerning their height,
weight, level of education, occupation and the number of children in your family. If you live
away from home, your legal guardian (e.g., coach) can complete this form and your parents may
be interviewed by phone at a later date.

All of the information collected in this study will be used on a group basis and treated as
confidential. Your name will not be associated with the information because it will be
numerically coded for identification purposes; these codes will be known only to me.

If you wish to withdraw from the study at any time, you are free to do so. If you do choose to
withdraw, this decision will have no detrimental effect on your relationship with the
CFSA/USFSA, your club, the researchers, or Michigan State University.

Your signature, and that of your parent. or legal guardian if your are under the age of 18,
indicates that you have decided to participate in this study, and you have read, and understand the
information in this consent form.

Thank you for your participation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me:

Eva Vadocz, (517) 349 — 9962, Email: vadoczev@pilot.msu.edu, Department of Kinesiology

Science, Michigan State University.
You may also contact my supervisor, Dr. Robert M. Malina at (517) 355 - 7620, Email:
rmalina@pilot.msu.edu.

Please detach, return to and pick up a questionnaire pack. Please fill
out these questionnaires and bring them with you on the day of physical measurements.
Physical measurements will be collected on before, or after your
skating session.

 

PARTICIPANT:
You are making a decision regarding participation. By signing here, you indicate that you

have read the above information, and you want to participate in the study.

 

 

Signature of Skater Date

243

Participant Assent Form

Profile of Female Figgre Skaters

I agree to participate in a study that will measure my body dimensions, my
maturational status and psychological characteristics. I understand that this study has been
explained to my mother/father/guardian and that he or she has given permission for me to
participate. I understand that I may decide at any time that I do not wish to continue this
study and that it will be stOpped if I say so.

I understand that measures will be taken of my height, my weight, my bone widths
and my limb circumferences, and my body fat will be estimated using calipers to measure
skinfolds. I will also be asked some questions about my involvement in figure skating. I
understand that this study will take no longer than 30 minutes. In addition, I understand
that I will be asked whether or not I have gotten my period yet, and ifI have at what age it
began. Lastly, I understand that nothing bad will happen to me if I decide to stop my
participation in this study at any time.

When I sign my name to this page, I am indicating that this page was read to (or
by) me and that I am agreeing to participate in the study. I am indicating that I understand

what will be required of me and that I may stop this study at any time.

 

 

Child’s Signature Date

 

 

Signature of Principal Investigator Date

244

 

LEGAL GA URDIAN:

Your signature here indicates that, having read the above information, you have
decided to allow your child to participate. You and your child will be offered a copy of
this form to keep. If you have allowed your child to participate we ask that you complete

the questionnaire for parents attached to this form.

 

 

Signature of Parent/Legal Guardian Date

 

 

Signature of Investigator Date

If you would like a personal report of the measures taken, please provide your address

below.

245

 

APPENDIX B

1. Demographic Forms

246

Background Information

Numerical Code Name V Date

1) Date of birth
day/month/year

2) Age of first organized youth sport (skating or other):

Sport Age
Sport Age
Sport Age

3) Are you participating in any other organized sports this year?

 

 

A) Yes B) No
If yes, which sport(s)
Sport
Sport
Sport

 

4) Age at specializing in figure skating?

5) Age at specializing in specific skating disciplines?
Discipline Age
Discipline Age

6) Please circle those who were important people who influenced your decision to

participate in figure skating.
A) Mother
B) Father
C) Coach
D) Friends
E) Other

 

7) Skating Club Membership(s)
1)
2)
Which club is your home club?

 

 

247

 

8) Please circle the discipline(s) in which you currently compete:
Singles Dance Pairs

At what level do you compete in the above (e.g., novice, junior etc.)?

 

9) Please list your best-ever placing at a competition.

 

 

 

 

Discipline A Level Year
Discipline Level Year
Discipline Level ‘ Year

 

 

10.) Age at first competition?

Discipline Year Age
Discipline Year Age

 

 

 

 

11) Number of years competing?

Discipline Level Year
Discipline Level Year

 

 

12) Total number of competitions in the current competitive year (1997 - 1998) (include
those you have already competed in as well as upcoming competitions)?

Discipline # of Competitions
Discipline # of Competitions

 

 

13) Total number of competitions in the 1996 - 1997 season ?

 

 

 

 

Discipline # of Competitions
Discipline # of Competitions
14) Total number of hours training per week?

On Ice Off-ice

 

 

248

15) Number of hours training per week for each discipline?

 

 

 

 

Discipline - On-Ice hours
Discipline On-Ice hours
Discipline On-Ice hours

 

 

l6) Indicate on the line provided: A if you have attempted, and M if you have mastered

the following jumps:

 

Jump Single Double Triple

 

Axle

 

Salchow

 

Toe Loop

 

Loop

 

Flip

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lutz

 

249

Parental Background Information

- 1) Is your child’s figure skating expenses funded by an external source

(i.e., other than your personal income)?
Yes No

 

 

2) Does your child live away from home when training?
Yes No

 

 

3) How many children do you have?

4) What is the birth order of your child participating in this study?

 

 

Mother Father

 

1. Height

 

2. Weight

 

3. Highest level of education.

 

High school 1-2 years

 

high school 3-4 years

 

special skills training

 

university undergraduate 1-2 years

 

university undergraduate 34 years

 

post graduate 1-2 years

 

post graduate 3—4 years

 

4. Occupation

 

5. Do you currently participate in smut?

 

 

If yes, which sport(s)

 

6. Age at first menstrual period

 

7. Time of year of first menstrual period (e. g.,
summer)

 

 

 

 

8. Age when first child was born.

 

250

 

APPENDIX C

1. Anthropometric data form

 

251

Anthropometric Measures

Name

 

Date of birth

 

Height

 

Sitting Height

 

Arm Span

 

Breadths:
Bicondylar

 

Biepicondylar

 

Circumferences:
Relaxed arm

 

Flexed arm

 

Corrected arm

 

Corrected calf

 

Skinfolds:
Abdominal

 

Triceps

 

Supraspanale

 

Menarche:
No Yes

252

 

Date

 

Dance Type

 

Weight

 

Leg Length

 

Biceps

 

Subscapular

 

Calf

 

When?

 

APPENDIX D

. Ways of C0ping Checklist
. Physical Self Description Questionnaire
. Eating Disorder Inventory

. Social Physique Anxiety Scale

253

Hanan >323“; Ocammoaufig

 

SE.“ a. 0 9.00% :33» 58%:me a <8.me 0\03.B&§. \mmmzmw. 200‘ $133.05. M030 03km HES.»
EH08 «0300. 0:02 «02.3%. 9H5; 01300: «$03 Coaxxwmmzmu 000$ 202$me Himfim mam 20
EQHHH. Gk :SQHZQ 529.53% MO Saw VNkHs wizb H6 Em 0.inthth EON/SE. H2
“\ka \HZMHVmwM. meQhfim. \Sm QQKENMHHNNK QQZHQDMZHSAP x802 monk 3530: 0:02

20.0% $0 0095: SEO» 300:3 033?. 20:. 3258 05:03 «00% 0285.0: .0060 SENS? H50?»
0:.

 

 

 

        

        

     

H,_. H 2.: 3.6me was. new—eegnnfiom $53.: Hoe—Em 53.25
.N. H 95: an: 5% £053... a 80 En. .
m. H in: :5” H 8:5 32:: 8 :5 «85.5. 0». arm—green.
A. H a»: .58: H 95 :38.
m. H 3.: Evan—H. 33 moon.
.9. H «1%;er H 8:5 co was—fie...
.H. H ”Eur 950.: Eon—0m.
_ m. H We» Han—:33 ire: Bu. Han—mane 25 8e madam.
w. H SEW an: 5% Emma 8.... 8e .3“?
, HPH H8— 303an am » Hen—.30.. _ , _
HH. H H2; 833:8; 9:5. 3.5. 363925.
. .5. H. HEB—a. 2:: 5%. £03.96er Lime :5 1%: an?
Hm. 05v. gage—Ewan cold—.538 mm mean 26cm: H: Ev. 355..
Hm. HHS .3638» :08 H: :3 we. <33: «5: who a 053.
Hm. H E: 0H5: use: 5% Hoe—Em?
.3. H 2: 33.5% e». «£30m Sims».
3. H ~25" 0:82.
Hm. H H.8— m_e=o m: :8 $510.
Ho. H H.8— mnammaa 3.5. :8 area... 0H. 5% H003:

   

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMI

C\O\O\G\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\-
AAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAHAAA-

 

 

 

 

 

wwwmwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

         

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

HHp—A—IHy—AHHp—lh—IHPAHH—IHHPKHN

 

   

      

 

254

I I 0
. .

«..,

NH... H 00H 0000500 .0000H. €0.0H 20.0.HH00 H 0.0 0,000.00.
NN..H 3.00.0 0032. 00 00 000: H000 0 00.00.

Nu. H 000 0000003008 :.00 302.0 0000..

N0. H $000 ,H 3.2.0 00000000 200.

Nm HH 000002.08 0.... 5.0003. 00000010000 0.01.0000.
N0. H 000 000010. H0000? :.00: 00.80.00 H. 00.. H.0000m
NH ..H H.00H 000000003. _ .

“/8!

00H, «.30..

N0 >0 0 .0000 H H.000. 0,0J. 000.0 8 0.4.20 0500020000 .00.
000.000.. 000 8000.03. .

00.. H 00<0 2000 0200000500..

00 .H. .000 H00 00000 .0. _00. 0000000 _ . _ .,

”N. H 00. 0000000030 $.HHO H00 0000.0 H0 0.0 H0500...
mm H. 000; 0.00:. $.00H a 000.0 00 .0200 E0. . .
as. H 00<0 H0000H0 000000000 000. 200.0000 H0 092.0.
mm .000 0200000 3.. 00000000, 0.0 H00 0.0.”:

0,0. H 008 .0200 H000 H000 00% 0H, H0500.

00 H H.00H 00000.0 000E. 50.00:. ..... ,

mm. H H500 0005 300200 3000000005

00 H 002 0.0000. HO0H H 00.... 03 0 0000 00502.0. . .
00.. H 02 00000000 00 H0 $0202. 0.. 0.3. H 0.5. 000mJ.
0H ...H._00<0 .0. H05. 0000.00 3. 000.000. .. .

AN. H H.00H HO0H H 000 00505 SH. 2000030,. ._

.00... 000.. 000.008 00<0 0000200 000000000 3. .00. ,

.3. H SSJ. H00H .00. H.00HH000 $0: 00H 0.: 3. 0000.00
0m. ,

 

N0. H 00<0 «000 00 0.0.0.00 30000 502.0 H 00<0 H.0HH .H,,0.0..H H. 0.050 ,

 

0.050 .M

Oxoxowmooxcxoxoxf'

OX

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

 

3003.

LII

mmmmmmmmmmmMm-mm

 

{.3

0000000040}

.000

iXV

A

 

0050.50

wwwwwwwww

L»)

wwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

H... 002%

NNNNNNNNN

N

NNNNNNNNN‘NNNNNN

 

y—lp—AHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

255

   

 

Ac. 2 5:28 9 2.8.58 8 .5822. 2.... 22.5% 5.222 2.... 522.88. :8: 2:...
m2. 2 8:... :: :22. a 8:22.. :2. 82:28.5 8 28 2.82.28.

m2. 2 .882.» 2. 5.8 82.5m 8:5 28 2......

mm. 2 A...~ 8 2.82. 52. 2.825% ..8... 58.2.85.“ :22. 82.2. 2.5% 8: 5:2.
mm. 2 32m: 2 8:5 25:2." :2...» 25.2 5.2.2.88 2. 2...... 2 2.2.

MA. 2 23.2.6.5. A... 25:22.28 m 2828.. 25.: A... 2.58 2...: $2.... 2.5 5

mm. 2 52m: 2:: 25 £252.... «8:5 no 3:... 2. 8582...: 2. 2... 36..

ma. 2 2.56 2.3.2.528 8.. £258 928:. 25:. 22.52% 5...~ 5:. 8:.

ma. 2 2......~

mm. 2 2.82.»... 5.822. 2.8.. 22.... $83..

mo. 2 m: 36.. 5 :..~ 552 $2.... 2 $.55 m3. 2. 2o

52. 2 22.5.2. :85 2.9... a 2.2.8: 2 2252.... 35:5 2.252.. 2.5 £535: ::2 :ma 2....
am .5 9.5.2.2..

a2. 2 2.... 8 m8 2.52% 2.8:. 28 82.2. 2.88:5 252.: :2. <53.

3. 2 .8552 528:. 25:. .::n2. $5.8 2.52% 8:5 2...

am. 2 58:522.. 2.22:8 52.822. 2...:225m 2.: £25.25: 2.38..

5A. 2 85.5.2.2. 8 2E. 25 :88 an 2.: 8.5. 25......» ..J~ :3: 58%

am. 2 .35 8.. 2.3228 2552.

am. 2 :8 22.2.2.2.5 8225.22. 8 2.55 :2. 8:25.58

3. 2 2.... 8 2.282. 8:. 822.925 28:22.8

am. 2 S28 22 ::2 c: :28... 8 2a :8. 5.5—<22 S22. 2... .8ng

 

 

2:. :28. $22 Sam A E8. .282
858%....
o 2 N w A
o 2 N u A
o 2 N m A
o 2 N u A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N m A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N w A
c 2 N u A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N m A
c 2 N w A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N m A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N u A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N w A
o 2 N w A

 

 

 

 

 

 

256

 

 

Aim w=<m20>r mfiffiéfimfifi—fid—OZ OCEmH2OZZ>=~2w 2.9.0.

2.5.: wwmazm 02:2.

 

 

3...... .... a 25.8: ..o 50.. a. 22:8? .. .. 202.: .9... .....2: 2.: .8 .....w... 2.2:... ...... 2.2.2.: .2... :2: ...§:..:... ......x.:3.. w: 2...: ...... .2... 2.2.2.... .18... .6...
2.2. ...:2 22.2.. .5589 32...: ...: .6. ...... 22.2.. ...: ......ES... .5... 25.2.: 2...... $.: .5... .82. 2.2... ......ES... 2........:.

3.: 25.9.: 2......» 3...... .... ... ...:: .8... :82: 282...: 32:85:... 2.2.2.8.... ... ...: 2.0.5:...5 3.2:... 2.2. :2... 2.: 3.8.. 8 ......» 2.2.. 2.2......:.\...C..:.:..2.2.. m2.
88.22:. .63. woo... 209......2 v2. 2:. .5... .325 2.2. 2:. .8... meet .2. ...: ... 28...... 32.2.2. .2. 2.2.2.: 322.322.. 32.22:: .5... ...: 2.2.282... ::2..........:...
32.22:... 2.2. m2 2:... 5:3. 2.8.. 2... 82.2.... >522. :8: ...:...:..:: flan»... .... .2. \::. .8... 28:: A: .6. .85: ...... 82.28: 2.2....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1.. . ...... ......a... 32...? .....§..§ ._ ......A. ......»
222......2.”..222..2..H”:.._.W.2..2.W ... .... .. ... .... .....2... _xu . . ... ...... J. ... ...: .... ......._.. .. ..,“...\.§.NhQ....m ..«Nuhz N‘fiQ . .. NN~§-.\§NMQ ”UrnfitQu... .. . .
.... .. ... 3.. ....21 ... .. ...... .... . ,... ......1 m. . .... . .. _. . . . H. ...... N ...: ....N 2.... : .. ..,...“ _ .. 3.2... k , ... M Q

2. <52. 2 mo. :22. 2 2.82 8 .25 2.... 2 82.... 9.2. m2 8:. 2. 2.22 2 N u A m a
N. 2 2.82 8.252.. 3.2.2. .22..“ 8:225:32 ...c<2..2..v. 2 N u A m o
u. $32.... 258 .— 5.82. 2 2.2.28 2. 2.23. 2.2.2 ::::m_. ... 2.2.2.: 2.2.2 2 w u A m o
A... 25.... ::2 253

A. 2 2: .2. 5. 2 N w A m o
m. O52. 2.82.2: 2.52. 2 2.. «8.2 ... 2.2.: 2 N w A m o
a. 2.2. 2.2322 $.22. 2.: 2.5.2 2. 2.2.8.. 2 2.. 2.35282; 2 N u A u o
... 2 2.. 9.2.8.7.: ..2. 2.. an: 2 m w A m o
m. 2 2.. : 2.2528222. 2.2% 2.2.8: 2 N u A u o
e. 2 .5. .22.: «2.2 a . 2.255“ . 2.2252 25 .:....5m :.2. 2.22.. 2 N u A m o
2? 28: ..2. a 22.“ 5.5. 2.2.8:. 22.2.52 2 m u A u o
22. 088:. .....m. 2.5”... 2 2.. .2... 8:. $.22 2 N w A m o
5. 2 2.2222. 8.2. 3.2.22.2. 2258: 225:. 85 292 2: «2.... 2825 2 N w A m 0
5. 02:82.25 52.8.2.3 2. :5. 2.22.. 828 2.8. ... ...: 2 N w A m a
2A. 2 2.8.. 2.. 2.2.2:: 2. 32.22:: 2.... 2:28: ...: 22.82.: 2.2.: 2 N u A m a
2m. 22.. £22 2: .2. 23m: 2 w w A m o

 

 

 

257

 

2a. 2 E: moan a. .58. £52:
.2. 2.382322. 2 .5. 252.2... 3.222. 5.222.
m. 2 2.3.: m :28 282.25 3::
e. 2 .23.: w 282 cm 2.92:: 2: 3.. 2.22..
c. 7.2.. 2.22.. 2: 22:12.2:
N2 2 soc—.2 .2: ...:22 2: a 8m. o2. 2.2—2:282 22:25.28:
N. 2 @2125: 5:2. 8 2.: 2.3—=2 :2.
u. 2 ...: :22. 8 3.8: :52 2 8.53 .2: m: 22.: .2225: 2 <3... 8 no
A. 2 .52 «8.2 m. 83.22.5222 33:52::
m. 2 n:. 88.62:: :2. 3222.222. 2...: 2. 3:2. 225:: a $.82: .25. 5:28: ...:
22:2... 2:2 2.5.2. 22.2 2.58 a. 2:32 me 52:58
Na. 2 2.3.: 8.. 3.5.. ...: o: 5.. 2.22..
N2. 728. mac—.2: 5.: :93. 2.2. B:
N... 2 282 «can :23... 222: $5.. 2 22.2» 2:. $2.... 2 8: .2: 2.2—.5232...
No. 2.5 2.22:: 285:... :5: :52 2... a... 2.12:2:
u? 2 E: ago—£2. .25: 382 282.2: 5.. an:
2.2. 22.. 2.2... 2: :22... 2:2 2:222:72:
uN. 2 82.2.2 2:” m 2.2—c5822.: £2.25... £2.12...“
mm. 2 2.82 2252 52.. 222.: 2: .5. <2... 5:3:
“A. 2 25222.. :26: m2 :22. S. 222
mm. 2 Q:— 2.:..2.o:: 33:52:». 2:82.... 2: :.cm2 2.2—.6222. 2:27.222?
ma. 2 no 2.2.5235. .822: 22.2—i: A2222: 2cmm2=w. 35:25. 38:22.5
m:..c2.2:m._m..=2 S. wig-52.2w. .2. 2:3. 222—...: .258 m :82.
u... 2 ...: 3:32.922...
mm. 2 2.3.: «8.2 :25... m522m
um. 2.2—«£322.. 2 2.82 mean .225... 55:22.
A... 2 .5. 252..
A2. 2 a... $6.22. 2:2 223.: .8 55:28
AN. 3.. 2.22.. 2.2.8 2.25 2:2 .33.: 2: Bow. 6223:2295 :6:

 

2.52::

h—p—gp—np—p—hp—p—p—b—

_—.—.—.p—.—~p—.g__.._y—

 

38....
......n:

NNNNNNNNNN

NNNNNNNNNIQN

NNNNNN

 

.33.: .s.::
....S .....:

wwwwwwwwww

umwwwwwwww

LA)

wwwwwu

 

.33.: .2:
...E. 3...:

AA-k-PAAAAA-b

AAAA-b-k-Lk-kA-bvh

AAA-AAA

 

238....
2...:

(JILIIL/‘ILIILIIKJILIILI‘ILIILII

LhLflMLhMLIILhL/ILIILII

LII

LAMU‘IQI‘IMKJI

 

2.2.:

0000000000

00000000000

000000

 

258

 

 

aw. — 95w _ 8:5 3.: a .220i :3 £92: «2:5 9.2.

3. O<2.m=. 5: .5 mag

am. _ man an: a .3

a? _ 3.:— Sw ~53. 52:8 Scam—58a 53252.3 5:. 2.8
A 3. _ me 88 on. 2.2.8. 958. 5.5 2. 3:2. @522.— ~23:me
am. 2:. 2232”: mm :5 Em

3. _ 2: 3:2. a. 2.2.8 :5: 5cm. 2. .5. 325m

m? —. #2 m2:— waocn £8 _ 2: SE SE: _ 25 ac c3221.!
m? _ m5 m2:— .855

mu. _ $2.5 ac :5: m: a 8m" 2. 285:.

mu. ~ 95.» ~ 2: =55? gocmr 3.. =52 mac—.8

ma. — 8: ca 63285. 9278 3.. a San 52.ch 2. 23.5 55.2: «222—m
22.3

mm. 38” 95% u me. — me :2—

ma. <55: — «2 an: x 8.2% :5 a 85“ 3:5 8 «2 3:2.

mu. _ a5 «:82...— mzn 253E32— Ssg _ ac £82m 2:. ”27:28

mm. — me «62.3. 22.2%. 3:8 2. 2:2. 2422.. 2.27.53 v.58» $68.
95..

me. 02.2. 52%? 2:5: 2:: — 3: m:

ac. _ 23. 2.2.8 :6:

3. ~ 2.2". «can £35 £5 _ 2: 13.22:;

a». 2353. Ems—om =2: 5: «can racism

a. _ 2: mcca m: :35 52.5. 2288

as. _ 25:» u $2.5 332.5 in: c: a 82 52.2.1.5 22223—5.

am. _ 2: «can a. 235.28." ”25:8. ES Ema—=8 253.5. “.2638.
336:5“. wig—55m. 2. ancmméccscé arm—é

a. 983:. m :36 m _3 8 ca 3.2:— S.

3. ~ Him 8 ma 8 :5 9322. 308:3 3. 5.8% :88 :5: :82 .8ch
.3‘ 9%

am. O<2.. ~.~: a mam—:3

 

32.3

p—Ap—uh—np—sb—p—Hhh—h

h

 

NNNNNNNNNNNN

NNNNNNN NNNN

N

 

:26 \RR
:5: 53

wwuwumwwwwwm

wwwwwww LAD->030)

Mb)

 

32d 3R
:3: 252.8

AAAAAAAAAAA-k

AAhAA-b-A h-D-A-b

AA

 

:83.
33

MMLIILIILI’ILAMLI’ILJ‘ILALALJI

MMLIILIILJIUTM MMMM

LAM

 

3.5m

GOGGGOOOOOO.G

GGOGOOO GGOG

00

 

259

 

ac. ,— =m=s=v. 23. 5255. 9.2. $52. w. 322% «2 an.»
ac. 2352...“ n ma 9.2. 823 8 2:... 2: 1E:

 

3.5.

 

38.3.
32.8

NN

 

:26 \Raa
:8: 5:...

u
m

 

32d 53
3:: Raw

A
A

 

33.5.
3:.

 

~58

GO

 

 

260

 

Mumsm 22.2.58 02.82.2528

 

2222.2. 2.2 A 28.2 3.22.2.2 22229222262 22 2.25.222 2.2.2.3522. 22222.22? 2.22 3.55.9.2. .2228 0.3.22 2.22.2.2
2.22.2.2 8 .5002. 222222 «222.22%. 022.222 22.2.. 2.2.2 228222 «02.2.5223? «28222 292.22%. flfimwm A»... 20
.QQEN. Ox $5035 AZMSSFW .wQ ~23. 5.5.x «gab Nd Em QQAAEBMHMEK EQZWMH NZ
~.qu .AZMAwaM. wMMQhfiw bum. OQAAEBMHMNK OQZEDmZNSAP 2222A 2222.2 2.2222226: 22.52

2.822.. :26. 8.2.22... $222.22 $212.92 .2922?‘ .522. 222.22 22:... :8... Q2222 «2228.22.22: <3. 32.2.2.2... 32.2.2.2
2..

 

 

 

      

 

 

. .: . 22...... ......N... .... 3% . ...M. _ .2 ...”..__................m:,......__._._._.._ .. ._ ......a .
... .22.... . .... H .2 .. 2 .. 2. . ...... .... 2... . ::E:: .2... ...“... 5...... ...... ......A .2. 2 ... ._ 32.2 .
N. . 2.. 2.2.2.2 ...... emu—22.3.2322 22.2—5:. 32...... 52.5.2.2 a N A N N .
N. . 2.2.1.2533. 282.52... .2 8c ...... a m A N N .
N. m 22.2.. ...». . 8:... 222...... 8 2..» 262...... on. 2.1.2.38... o m A N N .
A. H 2.. $.32. . 2.. ....22. m N A N N .
m. u 22...... .3222... 22.... 32.. a m A N N .
a. . 22.2.. :52 u 8:... .6 «2:52.. a m A N N .
q. . 2......2 2:5... 232.2%. a m A N N .
m. . m2 3.2.32.2. 22...... .3. $2.52 ....a 22. 22.65. a m A N N .
e. . 2......2 2.52 .3. 3.5.... 2... :5 .....m... a m A N N .
3. . 22.. $52227... mm a 52.22.... a m A N N .
E. m 2.8. 2.2.2.53. «...—3. “.22. 2.2.2.825“. a N A N N .
N. u 2......2 2....» .3. 28.2.92. .2 .2222 2.... ...”..2 2...? a m A N N .
AN. 0.3. 9.88.5...m 533.22.22.28. .2 m2... ozcsm... ... .3. $55.. a m A N N .
HA. .5... .5328. 2.2.5. ... 5.12 i=2. «.2. v.6 a 2...... a u. A N N .
Hm. — a... 3.2. .82.. .3. 32...“... a m A N N .
3. . 2.... 222.52. 2... «......sm $65.... a u A N N .
3. . .....22 2.2.2.2. a N A N N .
am. a ..8. v.2... ... 2.... $2.5. o N A N N .
5. — ..8. 2.2.232. 2...... :5 2.5.3 2... .3. .53.. a m A N N .

 

 

 

 

 

 

261

 

 

 

.NP—mao—mgonm—G 2: 8:28— 3. 2.2—fin 2: 23.222?

NN. — m3 8222.2222— wcoE 2152 22523: n 2:: 2.8—Em.
NN. _ $5.25 3:52. co m: 2222:: :2»: 22 2:5.

NN. ~ 8: 85:25:88 222:. 22:22.2 2222223..

NA. — 22222—2 :58 22258:... 18.

Nm. Haxmmmanfia 2. Sam—25. =8 225—2222.32.22 c2. sin—22.
Na. — as: £8.23. 52225. 21222222522222: _ 2:: H8:—2m.
Nu. H 2.28— 22:53:93.

NN. _ :35 «28 c: 835 Esmam 2:22.22 2 :35 2.22: :52 2 8:5
282 2822.

Ne. >2 a 2.25. m 22.22. <23. :22:— 8 2:83 22222232225225 .3.
232.228 2522 Sun—2222.2.

N? _ :35 222% 2.2—22222222522.

NH. u ES :5 2:38 o». 23. 9:82.22.

NN. _ 2:: 222.8826me 21:. :5 2282.6 8 ca 92:252..
NN. _ 2225.2 .2255. 222—22: 22 2.222232 22.. 2.222% Sc.

NA. u :35 23:3? axcwamasm 23. 2:322:22 8 222—2222.2.
Nm. .28 2292225222 2. 2222:552— Eé :5 22.62:.

Na. 2 .58 ”ism _82 :5: .282 2: 2322mm.

Nu. m 2.8. 28:26 282: 23.2%..

NN. _ 2.5—2 aces. 32522225 825322255.

Ne. — 2.22— 52233. :52 _ 2:: :3 2. 2:5 2235326.

Ac. m «a» 8:?me mm 8 222—592. 2. 282 m 2:: 32.—£23..
AH. — =36 m _32. 322:3: on. 23.22:.

AN. — 2.92. :22: 2 8: 28.2295 23. 282522222.

AN. 23. 22223228 .525 86882— 8285228 on. Ba.

AA. 2 $.23. :22: 23. mam—222mm :22: m3 2:: a». 8:23..

 

E22322

OQOOCAONOQOX

G

OOGGGGOGGOGGOOO

 

$222223.

LAMLIIMMLIILJIM‘J‘I

(I!

MMMMMM

MMMLJILIIMLAMLJ‘I

 

c222...

AAAAAAAAA'

A

«PAA-hAA-PA-hA-BA-h-PA

 

322.232.222.22

0.) wwwwwmwwwfl

wmwwww

wwwwwwwww

 

522.223.

NNNNNNNNN

[\J

NNNNNNNNNIQNNNNIQ

 

22222222.

h—nh—tp—y—‘p—np—sh—sp—h—u—‘h—np—u—‘p—bt—

 

262

 

 

am. _ SE: 5% EB 26 :5 Sn.

3. — 3: 32.2.98; 5 3.2: an. 3326 v.5 m5: Emma—m $45:
382.6 mg?

3. ~ 81 Eemnaa 3.8.. 2.5—m a was: 38:.

am. — m8. 2;: 582a a8 _EcEama saw: 93 m8 arm—95:.
3. an m was a .555. m $2.3 an: _ i: .82. mama—E.

ma. — mom. 2.»: u 9:. a Sc~9.€==a €2.25.

mu. «SS: — E: 5.2:. m $53.! :5. — i: may... was—E.

mm. m m8. :5” _ Scan .3 21:5 2183 S. :3 9c :85 a» m:.
mu. — :35 :5 28.55 2. 2.33m 8 <23: m: 2&2. 8 .8." Sim—z.
ma. ~ :8.— 8 .32. .38.? a u 8..sz .5358 c.8—
==833~82m =. 838.8 38 8 ma. 8a 238.

mm. _ 93w 2:: 5% Emu—5 v.6 hem” =5 awn—1am?

ma. u moi @513. Ear—a 2:33.55.

mu. _ 8: 8? are: 62.85. 25.5.: S. mam—5mm.

mm. .55 G8” «5me 3. ~55. =3 36 35: we: 38:8 a: mac?
mm. _ 2:...» 3 35828 26 :5 58¢.

ac. _ :36 323% _ 8:; :53 52:5:

3. _ a: S. 9.2% $863

an. — «Es—n =5. 3% 53 2.» $5" :8 in! as?

3. — =36 938:5; Em: mam—m.

as. <55: _ m5 :umaif— $5.3~ 2g: _ i: an»: $25.

 

Exswa.

GUN

OGGGQO‘OO

GOGOOOGOGO

 

Gaga».

U'ILII

(JIMMMLIILALJILII

LIILJ’IMMLIILIILIIMLJILA

 

Q88:

AA

A-P-b-b-BA-DA

bA-b-A-B-PAJL-b-b

 

2.53.53

(.000

wwwumwmu

WWWUJUJUJUJ

WOOL»)

 

~33.

N

NNNNNNNN

NNNNNNNNNN

 

2min.

h

p—n__h—np—sp—_fi—n

 

 

263

 

 

 

 

Self-Presentation Questionnaire (SPAS)

 

 

are no right or wrong answers.

Below are some questions about how you feel about your physique (figure). Please
check the options as they apply to you. It is important to be as honest as you can. There

 

 

not at
all

slightly

3
moderately

very

5
extremely

 

1. I am comfortable with the
appearance of my physique.

 

2. I never worry about wearing
clothes that might make me look too
thin or overweight.

 

3. I wish I wasn't so uptight about
my physique/figure.

 

4. Sometimes I worry that other
people think negatively about my
weight or my muscular
development.

 

5. When I look in the mirror I feel
good about my ghysigie.

 

6. My physique makes me nervous
in certain social settings.

 

7. In the presence of others, I worry
about my physique.

 

8. I am comfortable with how my
body appears to others.

 

9. It would make me uncomfortable
to know others are evaluating my
hysique.

 

10. When it comes to displaying my
physique to others, I am a shy
erson.

 

 

l 1. I usually feel relaxed when
_chers are looking at my physique.

 

12. When I am in a bathing suit, I
feel nervous about the shape of my

liody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

264

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIXE

1. University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) Form

 

265

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE
u N l v E R s i T Y

January 20, 1998‘

To: Robert M. Malina
213 IM Sports Circle

RE : IRE?»I : 9 8 - O 02
attenuating arm 0? macaw
1: TERS :
APPROACH A CONTEXTUAL
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
CATEGORY: -B
APPROVAL DATE: 01/19/98

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Sub'ects' (UCRIHS)
review of this progect is complete“ I am pleased to adVise that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequatel
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate_
gherefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any reVisions listed

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar ear be i ' ‘
the approval date shown above. Investigatgrs plangigglgg With
continue a progect be ond one year must use t e green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a

CfItlflCdgiOn. There is a
. . _ . renewa s poss1 e. Inve ‘
wishin to continue a project beyond that time need to SSbfiigoi:
ew.

again or complete reVi

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involv'
subjects, prior to initiation of tge change. If thiggiguggfie at
. renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
reVise an approved protocol at any other time during the year
e he CRIESIESafir, geguefting revised
- ”an 1 .
in your request a description of the change and anytrgvingCIude
instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable

PROBLEMS/ _ . .
CHANGES: shouldheither of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: (l) roblems

_ e f aints, etc.) involvin human

subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new

 

information indicating greater risk to the hum '
HESS-Egg existed when the protocol was previously reviesgdsaugdeacggrgegg
AND

If we can be of any future hel , please do not hesitate t
GRADUATE at (517)355—2180 or FAX (517)453-1171. ° ”ma" “5

STUDIES

University Committee
vid E. Wright, Ph.D.
r

 

Sincerely,

 
   

  

(UCRIHS)

Michigan State University
246 Administration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046

517B55-2180 cc: Eva Vadocz
FAX 517/432-1171

  

Research lnvolvin'§~\\
Human Suwects l
a
UCRIHS Chai
DEW:bed

The Mic/11w Sate Universily
IDEA is Instim'anal Divers/Ti
Era/lance in Acton.

MSU is an Mirna/inaction
eqwl-oppammir/ inst/Mien

266

 

 

APPENDIX F

Table l. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 11.00-11.99 years of age
(n = 8).

Table 2. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 12.00-12.99 years of age
(it = 12).

Table 3. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 13.00-1399 years of age
(n = 26).

Table 4. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters. 14.00-14.99 years of age
(n = 22).

Table 5. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 15.00~15.99 years of age
(11 = 24).

Table 6. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 1600-1699 years of age
(n = 19),

Table 7. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 17.00-17.99 years of age
(n = 20).

Table 8. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skater518.00-l8.99 years of age
(n = 11).

Table 9. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters >19 years of age (n = 17).

Tale 10. Means and standard deviations for subscales of the Physical Self Description
questionnaire (PSDQ) for the total sample of figure skaters by age group.

Table 11. Means, standard deviations and number of skaters meeting the criteria for eating
disorder risk classification for the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) subscale scores for the total

sample of figure skaters by age.

Table 12. Means and standard deviations for the Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS) for the

total sample of figure skaters by age.

267

 

 

Appendix F - Table 1. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 11-00-11.99
years of age (n = 8).

 

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs. 11.8 0.2 11.5 11.9
Weight, kg 36-6 4.9 38.1 26.8 41-7
Stature, cm 147.0 6.5 135.8 156.8
BMI, kg/mz 16.9 1.4 17.0 14.5 18.6
Sitting Height, cm 76.8 2.5 72.5 80.3
SI-I/ST ratio, % 52.3 0.7 51.0 53.0
Est. leg length, cm 70.2 4.0 63.8 76.5
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.2 0.4 7.6 8.8
Biepicondylar 5.8 0.2 5 . 5 6. l
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 20.6 0.8 19.6 22.2
Arm, flexed 22.0 1.0 21.0 23-8
Calf 29.2 2.4 25.4 32.5
Thigh 44.2 3.0 39.8 48.0
EAMC, cm 19.7 1.4 17.1 21.6
ECMC, cm 29.5 2.2 25.9 33.0
Skinfolds,.mm
Triceps 9.3 1.8 8.3 7.7 12.5
Biceps 4.2 1.1 4.3 2.5 5.7
Subscapular 5.9 1.6 5.2 4.2 8.5
Supraspinale 6.4 , 1.8 6.1 4.4 9.2
Abdominal 6.5 2.0 6.6 3.9 9.3
Medial Calf 9.4 3.0 9.7 5.2 15.2
Sum of6 Skinfolds 41.8 9.5 40.0 29.5 56.9
TIE Ratio, min/mm 0.83 0.11 0.82 0.65 1.27

 

268

 

Appendix F — Table 2. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 12.00-1299
years of age (n = 12).

 

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 12.6 0.2 12.3 12.9
Weight, kg 41.8 6.3 40.4 35.8 58.5
Stature, cm 151.7 5.6 162.1 165.0
BMI, kg/m2 18.1 1.9 17.7 16.0 22.3
Sitting Height, cm 77.7 2.6 74.0 84.9
SH/ST ratio, % 51.3 1.4 49.0 55.0
Est. leg length, cm 74.0 4.3 64.1 79.9
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.2 0.4 7.5 8.9
Biepicondylar 5.7 0.3 5.4 6.4
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 22.1 1.7 20.8 26.9
Arm, flexed 23.2 1.7 21.4 27.8
Calf 30.0 1.4 27.5 33.4
Thigh 46.5 3.0 43.8 54.1
EAMC, cm 19.7 1.4 18.3 23.2
ECMC, cm 28.5 1.2 26.2 31.0
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 10.1 2.3 10.0 7.8 16.3
Biceps 5.3 1.4 4.9 3.5 7.8
Subscapular 7.7 2.8 7.2 4.5 15.5
Supraspinale 8.1 3.2 7.6 4.7 16.7
Abdominal 9.7 4.1 7.4 5.0 17.7
Medial Calf 10.4 2.2 10.1 7.9 15.3
Sum of6 Skinfolds 51.3 13.5 46.3 38.0 89.1
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.98 0.22 0.94 0.65 1.27

 

269

 

 

Appendix F - Table 3. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 1300-1399
years of age (11 = 26).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 13.4 0.3 13.0 13.9
Weight, kg 46.2 7.9 45.8 32.7 60.3
Stature, cm 155.8 6.1 143.2 165.0
BMI, kg/m2 18.9 2.2 18.5 15.7 24.0
Sitting Height, cm 81.5 3-6 75.5 90.0
SH/ST ratio, % 52.3 1.4 50.0 56.0
, Est. leg length, cm 74.3 3.9 66.4 80.9
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.7 0. 5 5 .3 9. 8
Biepicondylar 5.9 0.3 5.4 6.5
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 22.9 2.5 19.1 28.2
Arm, flexed 24.2 2.2 21.3 28.6
Calf 32.1 3.8 27.4 45.2
Thigh 48.5 4.7 41.0 58.4
EAMC, cm 21.2 1.7 17.7 24.2
ECMC, cm 30.7 3.6 24.6 44.1
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 11.6 4.0 10.4 6.5 21.3
Biceps 5.3 1.7 5.0 3.1 9.8
Subscapular 8.2 2.7 6.9 5.4 14.9
Supraspinale 8.6 3.7 7.8 3.3 17.9
Abdominal 10.2 4.6 8.3 4.7 24.7
Medial Calf 11.3 4.2 10.4 7.0 21.8
Sum of6 Skinfolds 55.4 18.5 54.1 32.3 101.4
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.94 0.17 0.91 0.51 1.31

 

270

 

   

Appendix F - Table 4. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 14.00-14.99
years of age (it = 22).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 14.5 0.3 14.0 14.9
Weight, kg 48.4 8.4 48.0 30.6 67.2
Stature, cm 155.2 6.0 145.0 168.1
BMI, rcg/m2 19.6 2.1 19.5 14.9 23.2
Sitting Height, cm 81.6 4.2 75.5 88.5
SH/ST ratio, % 52.5 1.3 50.0 55.0
Est. leg length, cm 73.8 3.1 67.6 79.6
Breadths, cm .
Bicondylar 8.4 0.5 7.5 9.8
Biepicondylar 5 .9 0.3 5. 1 6. 5
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 24.0 2.0 18.9 29.6
Arm, flexed 25.4 1.9 20.8 29.3
Calf 31.9 2.4 27.3 36.2
Thigh 49.3 4.5 41.5 56.4
EAMC, cm 21.4 2.3 15.9 26.8
ECMC, cm 29.9 2.6 22.3 33.6
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 12.4 4.3 11.0 7.0 22.2
Biceps 5.5 1.9 5.4 2.4 9.8
Subscapular 8.6 2.7 8.5 4.2 17.0
Supraspinale 10.1 4.5 8.9 5.0 21.5
Abdominal 11.6 5.0 9.3 4.6 24.7
Medial Calf 13.7 6.0 12.0 7.0 34.0
Sum of6 Skinfolds 61.4 20.6 57.6 33.7 104.9
T/E Ratio, mm/mrn 0.98 0.18 0.91 0.70 1.45

 

271

 

 

 

Appendix F - Table 5. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 1500-1599
years of age (n = 24).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 15.4 0.3 15.1 16.9
Weight, kg 51.1 7.7 52.6 33.1 65.8
Stature, cm 161.7 6.7 143.2 169.9
BMI, kg/m2 19.7 2.1 20.4 15.5 23.4
Sitting Height, cm 87.5 3.9 75.5 93.7
SH/ST ratio, °/o 54.5 1.3 51.0 58.0
Est. leg length, cm 74.2 4.0 63.9 81.6
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.5 0.8 6.0 9.5
Biepicondylar 6.0 0.3 4.9 6.5
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 24.2 2.2 19.1 27.8
Arm, flexed 25.7 2.0 21.4 33.5
Calf 32.5 2.1 27.4 35.5
Thigh 51-1 4.3 41.0 58.9
EAMC, cm 21.1 1.6 18.2 23.3
ECMC, cm 30.6 2.1 26.0 34.3
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 12.8 4.5 11.6 6.0 22.5
Biceps 5.2 1.6 5.5 2.3 10.5
Subscapular 8.8 3.0 8.3 4.6 16.5
Supraspinale 8.8 3.5 8.1 4.4 17.9
Abdominal 9.4 3.9 7.9 4.7 17.8
Medial Calf 12.2 4.1 11.0 5.4 19.5
Sum of6 Skinfolds 58.0 18.3 56.4 32.3 88.5
TIE Ratio, mm/mm 0.91 0.21 0.89 0.57 1.33

 

272

Appendix F - Table 6. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 1600-1699
years of age (n = 19).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 16.5 0.3 16.1 16.9
Weight, kg 54.4 7.6 51.7 34.9 72.1
Stature, cm 158.8 6.4 143.0 172.2
BMI, kg/mz 21.5 2.2 21.5 16.8 24.3
Sitting Height, cm 84.0 3.5 73.5 89.5
SH/ST ratio, % 52.9 1.2 51.0 56.0
Est. leg length, cm 74.8 3.9 67.5 82.7
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.7 0.5 7.9 9.8
Biepicondylar 5.9 0.4 5. l 6.8
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 25.7 2.5 20.2 33.2
Arm, flexed 26.8 2.3 21.4 33.5
Calf 32.7 5.0 14.4 39.7
Thigh 54.2 4.5 41.6 64.0
EAMC, cm 22.3 1.6 18.7 24.7
ECMC, cm 31.1 2.2 27.2 36.7
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 13.7 4.9 12.9 6.3 27.0
Biceps 6.3 3.3 5.9 3.4 17.5
Subscapular 11.0 5.0 8.9 5.4 27.2
Supraspinale 10.2 5.2 9.4 4.2 23.9
Abdominal 14.1 6.6 14.2 4.4 30.1
Medial Calf 13.9 5.4 12.3 7.3 31.7
Sum of6 Skinfolds 69.5 24.5 69.0 31.6 142.9
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 1.04 0.30 0.98 0.67 1.72

 

273

 

Appendix F - Table 7. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 17.00-17.99
years of age (n = 20).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 17.5 0.3 17.0 17.9
Weight, kg 57.3 7.1 57.2 46.2 70.3
Stature, cm 162.9 4.9 151.7 174.2
BMI, kg/m2 21.5 1.6 21.3 17.9 24.2
Sitting Height, cm 87.7 3.4 82.3 96.3
SH/ST ratio, % 53.8 1.4 51.0 58.0
Est. leg length, cm 75.2 3.2 63.7 79.7
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.8 0.3 8.1 9.4
Biepicondylar 6.0 0.3 5.3 6.5
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 25.9 2.0 21.8 28.6
Arm, flexed 27.0 1.9 22.8 29.8
Calf 34.0 2.4 27.8 38.8
Thigh 54.4 3.3 46.4 60.5
EAMC, cm 21.6 2.1 17.4 24.4
ECMC, cm 30.8 2.9 25.9 35.5
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 15.3 4.7 14.8 8.5 26.4
Biceps 6.5 2.4 6.3 3.6 11.3
Subscapular 10.7 3.3 11.9 4.7 18.5
Supraspinale 11.3 4.8 10.3 4.9 24.5
Abdominal 13.3 4.5 14.7 6.2 19.5
Medial Calf 15.6 5.1 14.8 9.7 32.0
Sum of6 Skinfolds 73.0 21.0 70.9 40.8 124.1
T/E Ratio, min/mm 0.95 0.19 0.98 0.71 1.30

 

274

 

Appendix F - Table 8. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skater518.00-18.99
years ofage (n = 11).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 18.5 0.2 18.2 18.8
Weight, kg 53.1 4.5 52.6 45.8 59.8
Stature, cm 160.7 4.7 152.7 170.1
BMI, lcg/m2 20.5 1.5 20.7 18.2 22.5
Sitting Height, cm 85.6 2.3 82.8 89.5
SH/ST ratio, % 52.3 0.7 51.7 52.2
Est. leg length, cm 75.1 3.0 69.9 80.6
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.8 0.3 8.1 9.8
Biepicondylar 6.0 0.3 5.6 6.5
Circumferences, cm
Arm, relaxed 24.6 1.2 22.9 26.5
Arm, flexed 25.8 1.2 24.1 28.6
Calf 33.3 1.9 31.0 36.5
Thigh 53.3 4.0 48.1 58.8
EAMC, cm 22.2 1.9 17.5 24.5
ECMC, cm 30.3 2.3 26.2 33.2
, Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 10.8 3.2 10.0 7.2 18.0
Biceps 4.0 2.1 3.3 2.4 10.0
Subscapular 8.1 1.4 7.9 5.6 11.2
Supraspinale 6.6 2.2 6.3 4.4 11.2
Abdominal 7.8 1.2 7.4 6.8 10.7
Medial Calf 12.1 3.6 11.3 8.0 17.2
Sum of6 Skinfolds 50.0 10.8 50.8 37.6 72.7
T/E Ratio, mm/mm 0.85 0.18 1.01 0.56 1.08

 

275

Appendix F - Table 9. Anthropometric characteristics of figure skaters 219 years of age
(n = 17).

 

 

Variable M SD Median Min Max
Age, yrs 20.2 1.0 19.1 22.3
Weight, kg 54.8 4.5 54.4 46.2 61.6
Stature, cm 160.3 4.9 151.8 168.8
BMI, kg/m2 21.3 0.9 21.0 19.9 23.0
Sitting Height, cm 85.1 3.4 80.0 91.5
SH/ST ratio, % 53.1 1.1 51.0 55.0
Est. leg length, cm 75.0 2.7 70.4 79.8
Breadths, cm
Bicondylar 8.8 0.5 7.7 9.8
Biepicondylar 5.9 0.4 5.3 6.6
Circumferences, cm
Ann, relaxed 25.3 1.2 23.9 27.7
Arm, flexed 26.8 1.4 24.4 30.0
Calf 33.2 1.6 28.6 35.2
Thigh 54.4 2.6 50.8 59.7
EAMC, cm 21.9 1.4 18.4 23.5
ECMC, cm 31.5 1.2 29.4 33.5
Skinfolds, mm
Triceps 13.1 3.6 13.1 9.4 20.3
Biceps 4.6 1.1 4.3 3.1 6.8
Subscapular 10.6 3.2 9.8 5.6 17.2
Supraspinale 9.6 4.5 7.9 4.7 19.9
Abdominal 10.6 3.7 9.6 5.4 17.5
Medial Calf 11.7 2.2 10.7 9.1 17.8
Sum of6 Skinfolds 59.6 14.7 56.8 41.1 91.3
T/E Ratio, rum/mm 1.00 0.26 0.92 0.64 1.76

 

276

Appendix F - Tale 10. Means and standard deviations for subscales of the Physical Self
Description Questionnaire (PSDQ) for the total sample of figure skaters by age group.

 

 

 

 

PSDQ Subscales
Age Group n 1 2 3 4 5 6

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
11+ 4 4.8 1.1 5.3 0.4 5.3 0.6 5.5 0.5 5.4 0.5 M SD
12+ 8 5.1 0.6 5.1 0.6 4.8 1.0 5.5 0.7 4.9 1.1 5.7 0.4
13+ 22 4.9 0.7 4.8 0.9 4.8 1.0 5.5 0.8 5.1 0.9 5.0 1.1
14+ 17 4.9 0.5 4.6 0.9 5.0 1.1 4.7 1.1 4.8 0.9 5.1 0.8
15+ 19 4.7 0.8 4.6 0.8 5.1 0.7 4.7 1.4 4.8 0.7 4.8 0.9
16+ 17 4.6 0.7 4.9 0.8 4.7 1.2 4.0 1.7 4.4 0.9 4.7 0.6
17+ 18 4.7 0.9 4.5 0.6 5.0 0.6 4.2 1.2 4.4 0.7 3.9 1.4
18+ 10 4.3 1.2 4.1 1.2 5.7 0.6 4.9 1.1 4.6 1.6 4.2 1.2
19+ 13 4.1 1.1 4.9 0.4 5.4 0.5 4.2 1.6 4.6 0.6 4.9 0.5

 

 

 

 

 

A eGrou n 7 8 9 10 11

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
11+ 4 4.2 1.4 5.4 0.4 10.0 0.2 5.9 0.1 5.3 0.3
12+ 8 4.8 0.6 4.9 0.7 9.4 0.8 5.6 0.5 5.2 0.8
13+ 22 4.8 0.9 4.6 0.9 9.1 0.9 5.4 0.4 4.6 1.1
14+ 17 4.4 0.8 4.5 0.7 9.1 0.9 5.2 0.6 4.8 0.8
15+ 19 4.3 0.7 4.7 0.7 9.2 1.0 5.3 0.6 4.8 0.9
16+ 17 4.0 1.3 4.3 0.8 8.6 1,2 5.0 1.0 4.7 1.0
17+ 18 4.6 0.7 4.3 0.8 8.8 0.8 5.1 0.7 4.3 0.9
18+ 10 4.7 0.4 4.2 1.3 8.6 1.3 5.3 0.5 5.4 0.7
19+ 13 4.4 0.8 4.9 0.5 9.1 0.7 5.3 0.7 4.5 1.0

 

1 = Health, 2 = Coordination, 3 = Physical Activity, 4 = Body Fat, 5 = Sport Competence, 6 =
Global Physical Self-concept, 7 = Appearance, 8 = Strength, 9 = Endurance, 10 = Selesteem, 11
= Flexibility.

Appendix F - Table 11. Means, standard deviations and number of skaters meeting the
criteria for eating disorder risk classification for the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) subscale
scores for the total sample of figure skaters by age.

 

EDI Subscales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Group n 1 2 3 4 5

M SD M SD SD M SD M SD M
11+ 4 2.0 2.8 10.3 3.6 0.5 1.0 2.3 1.7 3.6 1.0
12+ 7 1.5 2.1 4.4 2.9 0.3 0.7 2.6 2.9 3.0 1.5
13+ 21 2.0 3.1 5.9 3.1 1.1 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.2 2.0
14+ 18 1.9 2.2 4.6 2.6 0.6 0.8 2.7 2.5 3.3 2.5
15+ 20 3,7 4.6 5.7 4.2 1.9 3.6 3.2 3.4 4.2 3.1
16+ 17 2.8 3.0 6.4 3.4 3.8 5.3 3.3 3.2 3.8 2.8
17+ 17 2.6 2.3 5.9 3.6 1.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 3.2 2.3
18+ 9 5.2 7.0 6.8 6.7 4.6 7.2 4.9 6.1 2.4 1.6
19+ 13 2.9 4.8 6.3 4.6 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 3.8 3.2

EDI Subscales
Age Group n 6 7 8

M SD M SD 210‘, n M SD 315°, n
11+ 4 7.0 5.1 0.5 0.6 0 3.3 2.8 0
12+ 7 6.4 2.7 0.5 0.5 0 0.6 1 4 0
13+ 21 6.4 5.2 2.3 3.7 6 2.3 3.6 1
14+ 18 8.3 1.7 7.1 7.4 3 41 4.8 1
15+ 20 5.6 4.2 9.6 9.1 7 5 7 6 6 3
16+ 17 5.6 3.9 9.6 8.5 6 6 8 7.4 4
17+ 17 3.5 2.9 10.5 6.1 8 1.4 2.4 3
18+ 9 8.0 5.3 6.9 5.5 3 7.6 5 3 1
19+ 13 3.3 3.1 7.9 8.3 4 4.9 7 5 2

 

1 = Introceptive Awareness, 2 = Perfectionism, 3 = Bulimia, 4 = Interpersonal Distrust, 6 =
Maturity Fears, 7 = Body Dissatisfaction, 8 = Drive for Thinness, ‘ number of skaters reporting
Body Dissatisfaction scores >10, b number of skaters reporting Drive for Thinness scores >15.

278

Appendix F - Table 12. Means and standard
deviations for the Social Physique Anxiety
Scale (SPAS) for the total sample of figure

 

 

 

skaters by age.

Age Group 11 M SD
11+ 6 2.5 0.4
12+ 13 2.3 0.4
13+ 13 2.4 0.7
14+ 17 2.7 0.6
15+ 19 2.7 0.8
16+ 21 2.9 0.8
17+ 19 3.0 0.6
18+ 10 3.0 0.4
19+ 17 3.1 0.9

 

279

REFERENCES

Attic 1, Brooks-Gum J (1989) Development of eating problems in adolescent girls: A longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology 25:70-79.

Bernink MJE, Erich WBM, Peltenburg AL, Zonderland ML (1983) Height, body composition, biological
maturafi'on, and training in relation to socioeconomic status in girl gymnasts, swimmers, and
controls. Growth 47: 1—12.

Black T, Bourgeois T, LeUnes A (1997) Psychological profiles of water skiers using the ACSI-28, CSAI-
2, and the POMS. Presented at the annual Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport

Psychology (AAASP) conference SanDiego, CA.

Bloom BS (1985) Generalizations about talent development. In BS Bloom (ed): Developing Talent In
Young People New York: Ballantine Books, pp. 507-549.

Bompa T (1985) Talent identification. Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport, 1. Ottawa
ON: Coaching Association of Canada, pp. 1-1 1.

Brooks-Gum J (1988) Antecedents and consequences of variations in girls' maturational timing. Journal of
Adolescent Health Care 9:365-373.

Brooks-Gum J, Attic 1, Burrow C, Rosso JT (1989) The impact of puberty on body and eating concerns in
athletic and non-athletic contexts. Journal of Early Adolescence 9:269-290.

Brooks-Gum J, Burrow C, Warren MP (1988) Attitudes toward eating and body weight in diEermt groups
of female adolescent athletes. International Journal of Eating Disorders 71749-757.

Brooks-Gum J, Petersen A C, Eichom D (1985) The study of maturational timing effects in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence 14: 149-161.

280

Brooks-Grmn J, Warren MP (1988) Mother-daughter difl‘erences in menarcheal age in adolescent girls
attending national dance company schools and non-dancers. Annals of Human Biology 15:35-44.

Brownell KD (1992) Eating, body weight and performance in athletics. In KD Brownell, Jrodin, JH
Wilmore (eds) Eating, Body Weight, and Performance in Athletes: Disorders of Modern Society.
Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, pp. 2-14.

Brozek J, Grande F, Anderson T, Keys A (1963) Densitomeuic analysis of body composition: Revision of
some quantitative assumptions. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 110:113-140.

Burwitz L, Moore PM, Wilkinson DM (1994) Future directions for performance-related sports science
research: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Sport Sciences 12:93-109.

Canadian Figure Skating Association (1997) CFSA Rules Book. Ottawa: CFSA.

Carter JEL, Hath BH (1990) Somatotyping: Development and Applications. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Casper RC, Michmls J, Simon K (1997) Body perception and emotional health in athletes: A study of
female adolescents involved in aesthetic sports. In AP Simopoulos, KN Pavlou (eds): Nutrition and
Fitness: Metabolic and Behavioral Aspects in Health and Disease. Basel: Karger, pp. 134-147.

Claessens AL, Beunen GP, Nuyts MM, Lefevre JA, Wellens RI (1987) Body structure, somatotype,
maturation and motor performance of girls in ballet. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
Fitness 27:310-317.

C laessens AL, Lefevre J, Beunen G, Malina RM (in press). The contribution of anthropometric

characteristics to performance scores in elite female gymnasts. Journal of Sports Medicine and

Physical Fitness.

281

Claessens AL, Malina RM, Lefcvrc J, Beunen G, Stinjnen V, Macs H, Veer FM (1992) Growth and
menarcheal status of elite female gymnasts. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 24:755-
763.

Clapp JF, Little KD (1995) The interaction between regular exercise and selected aspects of women’s
health. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 7322-9.

Compcr P (1991) Predicting athletic success: Talent identification among Canadian amateur figure
skaters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Crawford S, Eklund RC (1994) Social physique anxiety, reasons for exercise, and attitudes towards
exercise settings. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 16:70-82.

Cressie NAC, \Vrthers RT, Graig NP (1986) The statistical analysis of somatotype data. Yearka of
Physical Anthropology 29:197-208.

Cronbach LJ (1951) Coeflicicnt alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297-334.

Crocker PRE (1992) Managing stresses by competitive athletes: Ways of coping. International Journal of
Sport Psychology 23: 161-175.

Crockcr PRE, Snyder J (1997) Physical self—concept and social physique anxiety in high performance
adolescent female athletes. Presented at the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport

Psychology, Niagara Falls, Ontario.

Davis C (1994) The role of physical activity in the development and maintenance of eating disorders.

Psychological Medicine 24:957-967.

Diehl NS, Johnson CE, Rogers RL, Petrie TA (1998) Social physique anxiety and disordered eating:
What’s the connection? Addictive Behaviors 2321-6.

282

Dochcrty D, Gaul CA (1991) Relationships of body size, physique, and composition to physical
performance in young boys and girls. International Journal of Sports Medicine 12:525-532.

Duncan PD (1985) The cfl‘ccts of pubertal timing on body image, school behavior, and deviance. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence 14:227-235.

Eklund RC, Crawford S (1994) Active women, social physique anxiety and exercise. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology 16:431-448.

Eklund RC, Kelly B, Wilson P (1997) The Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Men, women and the effects of
modifying item 2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19:188-196.

Eklund RC, Mack D, Hart E (1996) Factorial validity of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale for females.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 18:281-295.

Ericsson KA (1996) The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance In the Arts and
Sciences, Sports, and Games. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Ericsson KA, Charness N (1994) Expert performance: It's structure and acquisition. American
Psychologist 49:725-747 .

Ericsson K A, Krampe RT, Tesch-Romer C (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of
expert performance. Psychological Reviews 100:363-406.

Evelcth PB, Tanner JN (1990) Worldwide Variation In Human Growth, 2nd Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

F ox KR, Corbin, CB (1989) The physical self-perception profile: Development and preliminary validation.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11:408-430.

Garner DM, Garfinkcl PE (1979) The Eating Attitudes Test: An index of the symptoms of anorexia
nervosa. Psychological Medicine 91273-279.

Garner DM, Olmstead MP, Bahr Y, Garfinkel PE (1982) The Eating Attitudes Test: Psychometric features
and clinical correlates. Psychological Medicine 12:871-878.

Garner DM, Olmstead MP, Polivy J (1983) Development and validation of a multidimensional eating
disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders
2: 15-34.

Garner DM, Olmstead MP (1984). Manual for Eating Disorder Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

 

Gavrilovic Z (1983) Uticaj telesne aktivnosti na vreme pojave menarhc. In M Milojevic, B Beric (eds) Zena
i sport. Novi Sad, Yugoslavia: Fakultet Kulturc, OOUR Institut, Fizickc Kulture Univerzitcta, pp.
53-59, as cited in Malina RM (1998) Growth and maturation of young athletes- Is training for
sport a factor? In K Chang, L] Michcli (eds): Sports and Children. Hong Kong: Williams and
Wilkins Asia-Pacific, pp. 133-161.

Gavrilovic Z, Tokin S (1983) Neke antropomctrijske mere i menarha ucenica baletskc skole u Novom Sad.
In Zena u F izicko Kulturi. Zbornik Radova. Novi Sad, Yugoslavia: Fakultet Kulture, OOUR
Institut, Fizickc Kulture Univerziteta, pp. 199-206, as cited in Malina RM (1998) Growth and
maturation of young athletes- Is training for sport a factor? In K Chang, L] Micheli (eds): Sports
and Children. Hong Kong: Williams and Wilkins Asia-Pacific, pp. 133-161.

Geithner CA, Malina RM (1993) Somatotypes of junior Olympic divers. In RM Malina, JL Gabriel (eds):
US Diving Sport Science Seminar Proceedings, Los Angeles. Indianapolis: US Diving
Publications, pp. 26-35.

Gledhill N ( 1976) Fitness testing and training prescription of figure skaters. Professional Circle 10(3): 10-

12.

Gledhill N, Jarnnick V (1992) Fitness test result comparisons: World versus national team members and
1975 versus 1992 national team members. Coach to Coach 9(2):6-9.

284

Gould D, Jackson SA, Finch LM (1993a) Sources of stress in national champion figure skaters. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology 15:135-159.

Gould D, Jackson SA, Finch LM (1993b) Life at the top: The experiences of U.S. national champion figure
skaters. The Sport Psychologist 7:354-374.

Gould D, Weiss M, Weinberg RS (1981) Psychologieal characteristics of successful and non-successful
Big Ten Wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology 3269-81.

Graber JA, Brooks-Gum J, Paikoff RL, Warren MP (1994) Prediction of eating problems: An 8-year
study of adolescent girls. Developmental Psychology 30:823-934.

Gross RT, Duke PM (1980) The efl‘ect of early versus late physical maturation on adolescent behavior. In

MD Lcrirc, WB Carey, AC Crockcr and RT Gross (eds): Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics,
Philadelphia, PA: Sanders.

Hamill PW, Drizd TA, Johnson CL, Reed RB, Roche AF (1977) NCHS growth curves for children, birth
to 18 years, United States. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 165.

Hamilton LI-l, Brooks-Gum J, Warren MP (1985) Sociocultural influences on eating disorders in female
professional dancers. International Journal of Eating Disorders 4:465-477.

Harris R (1986) On aspects of jumping. Skating 63 (June) 10-13.

Hart EA, Leary MR, Rejeski WJ (1989) The measurement of social physique anxiety. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology 11294-104.

Hauscnblaus HA, Carron AV (1998) Bulimia Nervosa syrnptomology and athletes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Sup. 20:S78 (abstract).

285

Hinklc DE, Wiersma W, J urs SD (1988) Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Hought-
1 [' EI'

Johnson C, Diehl BS, Petrie T, Rodgers R (1995) Social physique anxiety and eating disorders: What's the
connection? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 7:876 (abstract).

Johnston FE, Hamill PW, Lemeshow S (1972) Skinfold thicknesses of youths 12-17 years, United States.
Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 120.

Killen JD, Haywar C. Litt 1, Hammer LD, Wilson DM, Taylor CB, Varaday A, Shisslack C (1992) Is
puberty a risk factor for eating disorders? American Journal of Diseases in Children 1462323-325.

Klika RJ (1995) Growth, maturity, and motor characteristics of competitive skiers aged 8-18 years.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Klock SC, DeSouza, MJ (1995) Eating disorder characteristics and psychiatric syrnptomatology of
cumcnorrheic and amenorrheic runners. International Journal of Eating Disorders 17: 161-166.

Koff E, Rierdan J (1991) Perceptions of weight and attitudes towards eating in adolescent girls. Journal of
Adolescent Health Care 12:307-312.

Kcib LC (1959) Disturbances of body image. In S Aricti (ed): American Handbook of Psychiatry. Vol. 1.
New York: Basic Books, pp. 749-769.

Lararus RS (1991) Progress on a cognitivc-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American
Psychologist 46:819-834.

Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, Appraisal and C0ping. New York: Springer.

Lerner RM (1985) Adolescent maturational changes and psycho-social development: A dynamic
interactional perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 14:355-372.

286

 

Lerner RM (1992) Dialectics, developmental contextualism and the fiirther enhancement of theory about
puberty and social development. Journal of Early Adolescence 12:366-388.

Livson N, McNeil] D (1962) The accuracy of recalled age of menarche. Human Biology 35 :2 1 8—221.

Lohman TG, Roche, AF, Martonell, R (eds) (198 8) Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Loucks AB, Vaitukaitis J, Cameron JL, Rogol AD, Skrinar G, Warren MP, Lirnachcr MC (1992) The

reproductive system and exercise in women. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise 24:8288-
5293.

Madden CC, Summers J], Brown DF (1990) The influence of perceived stress on coping with competitive
basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology 21:21-35.

Mahoncy MJ (1989) Psychological predictors of elite and non-elite performance in Olympic weightlifting.
International Journal of Sport Psychology 20: 1-12.

Malina RM (1983) Menarche in athletes: A synthesis and hypothesis. Annals of Human Biology 1011-24.

Malina RM (1994) Youth Sports: Readiness, selection and trainability. In W Duquct, JAP Day (eds):
Kinanthmpomctry IV. London: E and EN Spon, pp. 285-301.

Malina RM (1995) Anthropometry. In P] Maud and C Foster (eds): Physiological Assessment of Human
Fitness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 205-219.

Malina, RM (1996) The young athlete: biological growth and maturation in a biocultural context. In FL
Smell, RE Smith (eds): Children and Youth in Sport: A Biopsychosocial Perspective. Dubuquc,

IA: Brown and Benchmark, pp. 647-672.

Malina RM (1997) Talent identification and selection in sport. Spotlight 20(3): 1-3.

287

 

 

 

Malina RM (1998) Growth and maturation of young athletes- Is training for sport a factor? In K Chang,
LJ Micheli (eds): Sports and Children. Hong Kong: Williams and Wilkins Asia-Pacific, pp. 133-
16 1 .

Malina RM, Bouchard C (1991) Growth, Maturation and Physical Activity. Charnpaign IL: Human
Kinetics.

Malina RM, Hamill, PW, Lemeshow S ( 1973) Selected body measurements of children 6-11 years. Vital
and Health Statistics, Series 11, No 123.

Malina RM, Geithncr CA (1993) Background in sport, growth status, and growth rate of junior Olympic
divers. In RM Malina, JL Gabriel (eds): US Diving Sport Science Seminar Proceedings, Los
Angelcs. Indianapolis: US Diving Publications, 26-35.

Malina RM, Roche AF (1983) Manual of Physical Status and Performance in Childhood: Vol 2. Physical

Performance. New York: Plenum.

Malina RM, Ryan RC, Bonci CM (1994) Age at menarche in athletes and their mothers and sisters. Annals
of Human Biology 21:417-422.

Mallick MJ, Whipple TW, Huerta E (1987) Behavioral and psychological traits of weight-conscious
teenagers: A comparison of eating disordered patients and high- and low-risk groups. Adolescence
22:157-168.

Marsh HW (1991) The failure of high ability high schools to deliver academic benefits: The importance of
academic self-concept and educational aspirations American Educational Research Journal

28:445-480.

Marsh HW (1993) Physical fitness self-concept: Relations to field and technical indicators of physical
fitness for boys and. girls aged 9-15. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 15: 184-206.

288

 

 

 

Marsh HW (1993) Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement and research In J Suls (ed):
Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Vol.4). Hillsdalc, NJ: Erlbaurrr, pp. 59-98.

Marsh HW (1996) Construct validity of Physical Self Description Questionnaire responses:

Relations to external criteria. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 18:111-131.

Marsh HW, Hey J, Roche LA, Perry C (1997) Structure of physical self-concept: Elite athletes and
physical education students. Journal of Educational Psychology 89:369-3 80.

Marsh HW, Roche LA (1996) Predicting self-esteem fi'om perceptions of actual and ideal ratings

 

of body fatness: Is there only one ideal "supermodel"? Research Quarterly for Sport and
Exercise 7:13-23.

Marsh HW, Perry C, Horsely C, Roche LA (1995) Multidimensional self-concepts of elite athletes:
How do they differ from the general population? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
17:70-83.

Marsh HW, Sonstroem RJ (1995) Importance ratings and specific components of physical self-
concept: Relevance to predicting global components of self-concept and exercise. Journal

of Sport and Exercise Psychology 17:84-104.
Marsh HW, Richards G, Johnson S, Roche LA, Tremayne P (1994) Physical Self-Description
Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and multitrait-multirncthod analysis of relations to

existing instruments. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 16:270-305.

Martin J, Hermann JE, Wirth JC, Smith KL (1997) Predictors of social physique anxiety in elite
female youth athletes. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 6:29-48.

Martin KA, Mack D (1996) Relationships between physical self-presentation and sport
competition trait anxiety: A preliminary study. Journal of Sport Psychology 18:75-82.

289

 

McAuley E, Burman G (1993) The social physique anxiety scale: construct validation in
adolescent females. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 25:1049-105 3.

McClelland G (1999) Personal communication with EA Vadocz, March 18, 1999.

Mogul S L (1980) Asccticism in adolescence and anorexia nervosa. Psycholanalytic Study of the
Child, 35:155-175.

Must A, Dallal GE, Dictz WH (1991) Reference data for obesity: 85‘” and 95‘h percentiles of body
mass index (tht2) and triceps skinfold thicknesses. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 53:839-846.

Must A, Dallal GE, Dictz WH (1991) Reference data for obesity: 85th and 95'’1 percentiles of body

mass index (wt/htz) - a correction American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 54:773.

Najjar MF, Rowland M (1987) Anthropometric reference data and prevalence of overweight
individuals in the United States, 1978-1980. Vital Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 238.

Nemeroff, CJ, Stein, RI, Diehl, NS, Smilack, KM (1994). From the Cleavcrs to the Clintons: Role
choices and body orientation as reflected in magazine article content. International Journal

of Eating Disorders 16:167-176.

Niinimaa V (1982) Figure skating: What do we know about it? Physician and Sports Medicine
10(4):51-56.

O'Mahoney JF, Hollwcy S (1995) Eating problems and interpersonal functioning among several
groups of women. Journal of Clinical Psychology 51:345-351.

Pasman L, Thompson JK (1988) Body image and eating disturbance in obligatory runners,
obligatory weightlifters, and sedentary individuals. International Journal of Eating

Disorders 72759-769.

290

Pedhazur EJ (1982) Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction, 2"d
edition. Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Peltenburg AL, Erich WBE, Zonderland ML, Bernick MJE, VanDenBrande JL, Huisvcld IA,

(1984) A retrospective growth study female gymnasts and girl swimmers. International
Journal of Sports Medicine 5:262-267.

Petrie TA (1993) Disordered eating in female collegiate gymnasts: Prevalence and
personality/attitudinal correlates. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 15:424-436.

Petrie TA, Diel N, Rogers RL, Johnson CL (1996) The Social Physique Anxiety Scale: Reliability
and construct validity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 18:420-425.

Pollock ML, Schmidt DH, Jackson AS (1980) Measurement of cardiorespritory fitness and body
composition in the clinical setting. Comprehensive Therapy 6:12-27.

Reel JJ, Gill DL (1996) Psychosocial factor related to eating disorders among high school and
college female cheerleaders. The Sport Psychologist 10:180-206.

Roche AF, Malina RM (1983) Manual of Physical Status and Performance in Childhood: Vol 1
Physical Status. New York: Plenum.

Rosen LW (1999) Personal communication with EA. Vadocz, July 27, 1999.
Rosen J C, Silberg NT, Gross J (1988) Eating Attitudes Test and Eating Disorder Inventory:
Norms for adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

56:305-308.

Rosen LW, Hough DO (1988) Pathogenic weight-control behaviors of female college gymnasts.
Physician and SportsMcdicine 16(1):]41-143.

291

Rosen LW, McKeag DB, Hough DO, Curlcy V (1986) Pathogenic weight-control behavior in
female athletes. Physician and SportsMcdicine 14(9):79-86.

Ross W, Brown S, Yu J, Faulkner R. (1977) Somatotype of Canadian figure skaters. Journal of
Sports Medicine 17:195-205.

Ross WD, Brown RA, Faulkner MV (1980) Age of menarche of elite Canadian skaters and skiers.
In K Berg, and BO Erikson (eds): Children an Exercise IX. Baltimore, MD: University
Park Press, pp. 3-12.

Roscnblum GD, Lewis M (1999). The relations among body image, physical attractiveness and
body mass in adolescence. Child Development 70:50-64.

Rotella RJ, Gansender B, Ojala D, Billing J. (1980) Cognitions and coping strategies of elite
skiers: An exploratory study of young developing athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology

2:350-354.

Rucinski A (1989) Relationship of body image and dietary intake of competitive ice skaters.
Journal of American Dietary Association 89:98-100.

Ryan J (1995) Little Girls in Pretty Boxes. New York, NY: Warner Books.

Salmela J H (1979) Growth patterns of elite French-Canadian female gymnasts. Canadian Journal
of Applied Sports Science 4:219-222.

Scanlan TK, Ravizza K, Stein GL (1989a) An in-dcpth study of former elite figure skaters: I.
Introduction to the project. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11:54-64.

Scanlan TK, Stein GL, Ravizza K (1989b) An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: 11.
Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11:65-83.

292

 

 

Schlenkcr BR, (1980) Impressions management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and
Interpersonal Relations. Montery, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Schoemakcr C, van Stricn T, van der Staak C (1994) Validation of the EDI in nonclinical
populations: Transformed and untransformed scores. International Journal of Eating
Disorders 15:387-393.

Scefeldt V (1978) Joint legislative study on youth sports: Phase In (1978) East Lansing: Michigan
State University, Youth Sports Institute.

Shavelson RJ, Hubner JJ, Stanton GC (1976) Validation of construct interpretation. Review of
Educational Research 46 :407-44 1 .

Silbereisen RK, Petersen AC, Albrecht HT, Kracke B (1989) Maturational timing and the
development of problem behavior: Longitudinal studies in adolescence. Journal of Early

Adolescence 92247-268.

Skowron A, Friedlander ML (1994) Psychological separation, self-control and weight
preoccupation among elite women athletes. Journal of Counseling and Development
72:310-315.

Sloan AW, Burt JJ, Blyth CS (1962) Estimation of body fat in young women. Journal of Applied
Physiology 17:967-970.

Smith RE, Christensen DS (1995) Psychological skills as predictors of performance and survival
in professional baseball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 17:399-415.

Smith RE, Schutz RW, Smoll FL, Ptacek JT (1995) Development and validation of a

multidimensional measure of Sport-specific psychological skills: The athletic coping skills

inventory-28. Journal of Sport Psychology 17:379-398.

293

 

 

Stoutjesdyk D, Jevne R ( 1993) Eating disorders among high performance athletes. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence 22 :27 l -282.

Starkes, JL, Deakin, JM, Allard F, Hodges NJ, Hayes (1996) Deliberate practice in sports: What is
it anyway? In KA Ericsson (ed): The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert
Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports and Games. Mahwah NJ: Earlbaum, pp. 81-
106.

Steinbaugh M (1984) Nutritional needs of female athletes. Clinical Sports Medicine 32649-670.

Sundgot-Borgcn J (1994) Risk and trigger factors for the development of eating disorders in female
athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 26:414-419.

Swoap RA, Murphy SM (1995) Eating disorders an weight management in athletes. In SM
Murphy (ed): Sport Psychology Interventions. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 307-
329.

Sykora C, Grilo CM, Wilfley DE, Brownell KD (1993) Eating, weight, and dieting disturbances in
male and female lightweight and heavyweight rowers. International Journal of Eating
Disorders 14:203-211.

Tabachnick B, Fidell L (1996) Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd edition. New York: Harper

Collins.

Taub DE, Blinde EM (1992) Eating disorders among adolescent female athletes: Influence of
athletic participation and sport team membership. Adolescence 27:833-848.

Taylor G, St.Marie D (1998) Disordered eating tendencies among female pair and dance figure

skater: Are they more at risk than non-athletes? Journal of Sport and Exercise Science

20:S79 (abstract).

294

 

 

 

 

Theintz GE, Ladamc F, Kchrer E, Plichta C, Howald H, Sizonenko PC (1994) Prospective study
of psychological development of adolescent female athletes: Initial assessment. Journal of
Adolescent Health 15:258-262.

Vandcn AY, Dc Cuyper B, Van Mcle V, Rzewnicki R (1993) Elite performance and personality:
From description and prediction to diagnosis and intervention. In RN Singer, M Murphy,
LK Tennant (eds): Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology, New York: Macmillan,
pp. 257-289.

van dcr Velde CD (1985) Body images of oneself and of others: Development of clinical
significance. The American Journal of Psychiatry 142:526-531.

Vealey RS (1986) Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary
investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology 82221-246.

Warren E], Stanton AL, Blessing DL (1990) Disordered eating patterns in competitive female
athletes. lntcmational Journal of Eating Disorders 9:565-569.

Warren MP (1980). The effects of exercise on pubertal progression and reproductive function in
girls. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 51:1150-1157.

Weaver WG, Thompson JM (1981) Changes in somatotypic and cardiOpulmonary factors over
puberty in elite age-group figure skaters. In FJ Nagle, HJ Montoye (eds): Exercise in

Health and Disease. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 43-59.

Weiss MR (1991) Psychological skill development in children and adolescents. The Sport
Psychologist 5:335-354.

Welch G, Hall A, Walkey E (1988) The factor structure of the EDI. Journal of Clinical
Psychology 44:51-56.

295

Wells CL, Ploughman SA (1988) Relationships between training, menarche, and amenorrhea. In
EW Brown and CF Branta (eds): Competitive Sports for Children and Youth. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 195-219.

Williams RL, Chaefer CA, Shisslak CM, Gronwaldt MA, Comcrci GD (1986) Eating attitudes
and behaviors in adolescent women: Discrimination of normals, dieters, and suspected

bulimics using the Eating Attitudes Test and the Eating Disorder Inventory. lntcmational
Journal of Eating Disorders 5:879-894.

Woodman L (1985)Ta1cnt identification. Is competition enough? Sports Coach 9(3):49-57.
Yeager KK, Agostini R, Nattiv A, Drinkwater B (1993) The female athlete triad: Disordered

eating, amenorrhea, and osteoporosis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
25:775-777.

Yuhasz MS, Eyon RB, MacDonald SB (1980) The body composition, fat pattern and somatotype
of young female gymnasts and swimmers. Anthropologiai Kozlemcnyek 24:283-289.

Ziegler P, Hensley S, Rocpke JB, Witaker SH, Craig BW, Drcwnowski A (1998) Eating attitudes

and energy intakes of female skaters. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 3:583-
587.

296

‘ HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV

1 11
312

31 131331 1311131111311111111113111