Advertisement

Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Mental Toughness Index among American and Greek Athletes

  • Andreas StamatisEmail author
  • Grant B. Morgan
  • Zacharias Papadakis
  • Vassilis Mougios
  • Gregory Bogdanis
  • Alexandra Spinou
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

To date, there has been no effort to uncover the extent of the universality of mental toughness (MT) in sport between any European country and the US via the Mental Toughness Index (MTI). The authors attempted to examine the invariance of MT between American and Greek athletes and further validate MTI. The MTI was completed by 99 Greek and 173 US athletes. Invariance testing was conducted using multiple group confirmatory factor analysis with increasingly restrictive models. The model-data fit in both samples was very good (CFI Greek = .995, RMSEA Greek = .046; CFI US = .998, RMSEA US = .032). The scalar invariance model was selected as the best fitting (CFA scalar = .930, RMSEA scalar = .078), but with a slightly different item intercept for one item (Item 4; <.5). The results imply that the meaning of the construct is equal in both cultures. Therefore, their MT scores can be directly compared.

Keywords

Cross-cultural psychology Mental toughness Mentally tough Weighted least-square estimator with mean and variance adjustment Cultural sport psychology Etic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank (a) Ms. Marietta Papadatou-Pastou from the Hellenic Psychological Society (www.elpse.com), who helped us in our effort to discover if there is an official psychological term for mental toughness in Greek. In fact, following her suggestion, the authors added the English term in parenthesis next to the Greek in the equivalent measure of MTI and (b) Mr. Noah Padgett from Baylor University for his assistance with data analysis.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

“All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”

Supplementary material

12144_2019_532_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  2. Anantasagar, T., Abbott, K., Stamatis, A., & Papadakis, Z. (2018). Mental toughness in sport: Moving towards conceptual clarity and consensus. International Journal of Exercise Science, 2(10).Google Scholar
  3. Bandalos, D. L. (2008). Is parceling really necessary? A comparison of results from item parceling and categorical variable methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boomsma, A. (1987). The robustness of maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation models. In P.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. O. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clough, P., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32–43). Longon, England: Thompson.Google Scholar
  11. Cowden, R. G. (2017). Mental toughness and success in sport: A review and prospect. Open Sports Sciences Journal, 10.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1875399X01710010001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowden, R. G. (2018). Mental toughness inventory: Factorial validity and ethnic group measurement equivalence in competitive tennis. Current Psychology, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9798-6.
  13. Crust, L., Clough, P., Earle, K., Nabb, S., & Clough, A. (2012). From the sports field to the classroom: relationships between mental toughness, achievement, and progression in first-year university sports students. Paper presented at the Back to the future: Reflections and implications following the 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games: BPS north east and north west of England conference Manchester, England. Cuttance & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural modeling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research (pp. 160–188). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural equation modeling, 9(3), 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 21(3), 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eubank, M., Nesti, M., & Littlewood, M. (2017). A culturally informed approach to mental toughness development in high performance sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 48(3), 206–222 Retrieved from http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=126302697&site=ehost-live&scope=site.Google Scholar
  18. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological methods, 9(4), 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gucciardi, D. F. (2017). Mental toughness: progress and prospects. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gucciardi, D. F. (2018). Commentary: Mental toughness and individual differences in learning, educational and work performance, psychological well-being, and personality: A systematic review. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Towards an Understanding of Mental Toughness in Australian Football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20(3), 261–281 Retrieved from http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=33190065&site=ehost-live&scope=site.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gucciardi, D. F., Hanton, S., Gordon, S., Mallett, C. J., & Temby, P. (2015). The Concept of Mental Toughness: Tests of Dimensionality, Nomological Network, and Traitness. Journal of Personality, 83(1), 26–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12079.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gucciardi, D. F., Zhang, C.-Q., Ponnusamy, V., Si, G., & Stenling, A. (2016). Cross-cultural invariance of the mental toughness inventory among Australian, Chinese, and Malaysian athletes: a bayesian estimation approach. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(2), 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general psychology, 6(4), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 205–218.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200290103509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kagitcibasi, C., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Cross-cultural psychology: Current research and trends. Annual review of psychology, 40(1), 493–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford publications.Google Scholar
  29. Li, C.-H. (2016a). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li, C.-H. (2016b). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychological methods, 21(3), 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li, C., Zhang, C. Q., & Zhang, L. (2017). Further Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Mental Toughness Inventory: Evidence from Chinese Athletes and University Students. Current Psychology, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9692-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, Y., Mutz, J., Clough, P. J., & Papageorgiou, K. A. (2017). Mental toughness and individual differences in learning, educational and work performance, psychological well-being, and personality: A systematic review. Frontiers in psychology, 8(AUG).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01345
  33. Marchant, D. C., Polman, R. C., Clough, P., Jackson, J. G., Levy, A. R., & Nicholls, A. R. (2009). Mental toughness: Managerial and age differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(5), 428–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural equation modeling, 9(4), 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behaviour. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton & Co..Google Scholar
  37. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  39. Revelle, W. (2018). Using the psych package to generate and test structural models.Google Scholar
  40. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological methods, 17(3), 354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rom, S. A., Miller, L., & Peluso, J. (2009). Playing the game: Psychological factors in surviving cancer. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 11(1), 25–36 Retrieved from http://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&from=export&id=L354955434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stamatis, A., Robinson, E. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2018). Mental Toughness in Collegiate Strength and Conditioning: Widely Used, Widely Misunderstood. International Research in Higher Education, 3(2), 35–50.  https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v3n2p35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tanaka, J. S. (1987). “ How big is big enough?”: Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child development, 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational research methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker, T. B., Lennemann, L. M., McGregor, J. N., Mauzy, C., & Zupan, M. F. (2011). Physiological and psychological characteristics of successful combat controller trainees. Journal of Special Operations Medicine, 11(1), 39–47 Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21455909.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Weinberg, R., Freysinger, V., & Mellano, K. (2018). How can coaches build mental toughness? Views from sport psychologists. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 9(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research, 281–324.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sport and WellnessSUNY PlattsburghPlattsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Sport and Exercise SciencesBarry UniversityMiamiUSA
  4. 4.Laboratory of Evaluation of Human Biological PerformanceAristotelian University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  5. 5.School of P.E. and Sport ScienceNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  6. 6.School of P.E. and Sport ScienceDemocritus University of ThraceKomotiniGreece
  7. 7.Department of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations