93 The importance of reflection and evaluation for progressing toward the elite level 5 not to age and sex. Therefore, weekly training hours were included as covariates in the analyses conducted for both studies. We included a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to examine differences in the application of SRL processes between (a) high-level and lower-level performers (part one) and (b) advanced and less-advanced progressors (part two). Pillai’s trace was used as a test statistic. The six SRL processes were the dependent variables, performance level group (part one) or performance progression group (part two) was the independent variable, and weekly training hours was the covariate. When appropriate, a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was separately performed on each of the dependent variables, with performance level group (part one) or performance progression group (part 2) as the independent variable. For the MANCOVA, p < 0.05 (two-tailed) was set as the significance level. For the ANCOVA, p < 0.05 (one-tailed) was set as the significance level. A sensitivity power analysis using G* Power (Faul et al., 2007, 2009) confirmed that our statistical tests were sufficiently sensitive to detect significant differences with an effect size of 0.45 (study purpose 1) and of 0.60 (study purpose 2) (alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80). Statistical tests for measuring invariance were not performed given the nature of our dataset (relatively few observations for many items). Results Table 1 shows the descriptive characteristics according to performance level and progression (92 high-level performers; 65 lower-level performers; 23 high progressors, 66 lower progressors). Tables 2 and 3 show the mean scores and standard deviations for the six SRL subprocesses for performance level and progression groups and the corresponding effect sizes. SRL subprocesses and performance level (part one) The MANCOVA analysis revealed significant differences for performance level groups (F(6,149)=2.659; p <0.05). The ANCOVA showed that high-level performers significantly outscored lower-level performers on reflection (F(1,154)=3.067; p <0.05, d=0.28). Moreover, the scores for effort of high-level and lower-level performers differed significantly, with the former having lower scores than the latter (F(1,154) = 3.354; p < 0.05, d = 0.29). No significant differences between the two performance level groups were observed for evaluation (F(1,154)=0.382), planning (F(1,154)=1.041), speaking up (F(1,154)=2.001), and selfefficacy (F(1,154)=0.583), (all p >0.05 with small effect sizes). Covariate weekly training hours were significant, indicating that swimmers who expended more weekly training hours reported higher scores for SRL subprocesses (F(6,149)=3.018; p <0.01).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw