Analysis of Psychological Factors of Excellent and Non-excellent Athletes in Tennis Player’s by Age
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objectives This study analyzed the compare the psychological factors excellent and non-excellent junior and senior athletes in tennis player’s(40 junior and 40 senior). Methods This analysis executed test of sport competition anxiety (CSAI-2), test of athlete self management activity, examination of Korean mental power and test of performing strategy (TOPS) to compare and analyze the total mental factors of outstanding/ less outstanding junior and senior players. The material examination used t-test for each part independently considering the matter of outstanding/ less outstanding players, and indicated the mental profiles of outstanding/ less outstanding players showing radial graph. Results The study, in psychological factors, there was no significant difference in psychological factors between male junior excellent/non-excellent athletes and female senior excellent/non-excellent athletes in all items. Conclusions Excellent players scored higher in condition control than non-excellent players, and excellent players, including sense of challenge and goal setting factors, scored higher than non-excellent players. However, in the case of senior male players, non-excellent players scored higher in the self-management area than excellent players in the self-management area, which is believed to be the result of the difference between each player.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Analysis of Psychological Factors of Excellent and Non-excellent Athletes in Tennis Player’s by Age
- Date Crossref
- 30/06/2022
- Éditeur
- The Korean Society for Sport and Dance Science
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.