Psychological tests can play a crucial role in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of athletes and performing artists, and evaluating the effectiveness of psychological skills training programs. However, the use of psychological tests within the sport psychology field has been a controversial issue which created marked divisions among sport psychologists in the 1970s in relation to the value of personality assessment in sport (see Anshel & Lidor, 2012; Marchant, 2010; Morgan, 1980). Twenty years ago during the 27th Annual APS Conference in Armidale NSW, a spirited discussion was held between members of the newly formed APS College of Sport Psychologists and a representative of an Australian Sports Commission talent identification program. Physical and physiological characteristics had been selected for the talent search program, and members of the Sport Psychologists College were asked to nominate psychological characteristics to be included in screening procedures.
Sport psychologists present at the Conference meeting were generally sceptical about using psychological tests to identify talented athletes. Some questioned the assumptions underlying talent – particularly the notion of an innate gift possessed by some and not others. That view tends to understate the roles of the coach and psychologist in developing athletes’ skills, and does not sit comfortably with the view that, like other skills, psychological or mental skills must be practised in order to be used effectively. Those using psychological tests to recruit and select new staff for organisations usually do not set out to identify just those who are innately gifted or talented.
The nature of the tests available at that time also contributed to the reluctance to suggest psychological markers that would determine selection for talented athlete programs. Extensive research on personality trait differences between athletes and non-athletes, or highly successful and less successful athletes, had revealed limited relationships between personality characteristics and sport performance. Some of the tests, like Cattell’s 16PF Questionnaire and the MMPI, were developed with other populations and did not consider the situations that might influence athletes’ behaviour. Sport psychologists have increasingly adopted an interactional approach, viewing athletes’ behaviour as the product of personal characteristics and situational factors.
Methodological issues with the tests also contributed to the concern that athletes’ responses would determine whether they were recruited or selected for programs or teams. Response distortion has long been acknowledged as a major problem with testing in this field (Morgan, 1980). Although the instructions for completing tests usually encourage honest responses, most inventories do not include a lie scale or checks for social desirability responding, and the transparent nature of items makes ‘faking good’ easy. Not surprisingly, personality inventory scores often had only limited predictive value in differentiating successful from unsuccessful athletes.
Advances in psychological assessment
There have been significant advances in psychological assessment in sport and exercise since 1992, with strong interest in how such measures can also be used in the performing arts. Ostrow (1996) compiled information on the 314 self-report instruments used in sport, exercise and physical activity studies published in 45 journals during the previous 30 years. Some instruments were quite specific in their focus, and Ostrow acknowledged that in many cases the lack of psychometric follow-up studies posed a serious limitation for the test user. Tenenbaum and colleagues (2012) provide a comprehensive analysis of measurement principles, methods and issues, before reviewing specific tests and procedures currently used in sport and exercise psychology. A number of these psychological tests are Australian initiatives, developed by psychologists working in Australian universities and institutes of sport, together with international colleagues.
Self-assessment instruments
Test of Performance Strategies
The Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) developed by Thomas and colleagues (1999, 2010) measures athletes’ use of psychological skills in competition and at practice
(www.TOPSfirst.com). Ongoing development of the TOPS to confirm and improve its psychometric properties has resulted in a 68-item inventory that measures self talk, emotional control, automaticity, goal setting, imagery, activation, relaxation and attentional control in both competition and practice settings, and negative thinking in competition. The TOPS is one of the instruments used most widely by sport psychology consultants (Weinberg & Gould, 2011); is the only instrument that specifically focuses on psychological skills in practice settings (Weinberg & Forlenza, 2012); and has often been adopted to assess the effectiveness of psychological skills training interventions (Woodcock et al., 2012). Gould and colleagues (2002) included the TOPS in a battery of inventories that identified the psychological characteristics of Olympic champions and how they were developed. Taylor and colleagues (2008) reported that the TOPS subscales for both competition and practice significantly discriminated medallists from non-medallists among US athletes in the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
Measures of mental toughness
Mental toughness is one of the characteristics of Olympic champions. Gucciardi and colleagues (2009, 2011) have developed sport-specific measures of mental toughness to provide a contextual understanding of this multidimensional construct. The values, attitudes, cognitions and emotions that define mental toughness comprise some components that are common across sports (e.g., self belief/confidence, personal values, attentional control, self motivation, positive and tough attitudes, enjoyment and thriving through pressure, resilience and sport intelligence), as well as characteristics that are context-specific (e.g., team unity, quick reactions). Instruments have been developed to measure mental toughness in Australian football and cricket, and there is evidence that psychological skills training programs are effective in enhancing mental toughness (Gucciardi et al., 2009).
Other self-report measures
Other Australian initiatives include instruments developed by Jackson and colleagues to measure dispositional and state 'flow' or optimally balanced challenges and skills (Jackson & Eklund, 2012; see article on page 14). Marsh and colleagues developed the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire to measure adolescents’ and older participants’ physical self concept, and the Elite Athlete Self-Description Questionnaire (EASDQ) to measure elite athletes’ skill level, body suitability, aerobic and anaerobic fitness, mental competence and performance (Marsh & Cheng, 2012). Athletes’ responses to the EASDQ, TOPS and flow scales indicate that a positive self concept for skilled performance, an appropriate level of activation/relaxation, and control of thoughts and emotions are predictive of both dispositional and state flow (Jackson et al., 2001). Terry and colleagues (2003) have also extensively researched moods in sport and exercise using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) and shortened versions of this instrument. All of these measures can be used to increase self awareness, which is the first essential step in self regulation, relates to skill development and is needed to gain the edge of peak performance (Ravizza, 2010).
Many of the issues involved in using psychological tests are common to both sport and the performing arts. However, there are likely to be issues unique to each domain, so we should not assume the underlying psychological dimensions are the same, or that the item wording can be readily applied in the different context. Similarly, Hays (2000) recognised that, “performing artists may approach psychological interventions in ways both similar to and different from athletes” (p. 261). More needs to be done in developing self-report inventories for the performing arts, but there are other approaches to psychological assessment in this area.
Performance profiling
Performance profiling is an alternative approach to psychological assessment that reveals athletes’ and performing artists’ perceived strengths and weaknesses (Butler & Hardy, 1992). In this approach clients can be asked to identify the crucial skills, characteristics or strategies needed for peak performance. They rate their current proficiency on each of those skills, and provide target ratings they can realistically achieve by a particular date – it may be the grand final, world championships, opening night, or return to competition after injury rehabilitation. Coaches or instructors can also provide ratings on the targeted skills to confirm or challenge the clients’ perceptions. Performance profiling empowers clients, enabling them to contribute significantly to the training agenda and thereby maximising their commitment to skill development.
Assessment of perceptual and cognitive skills
There has been extensive research on perceptual-cognitive skills (e.g., attention, anticipation and decision making) that differentiate experts from others. Abernethy and colleagues (2007, 2012) have contributed significantly to the measurement of these skills and understanding their relationships to sport performance. Verbal reports help identify athletes’ information processing strategies, but behavioural measures, eye movement recording and brain imaging provide powerful insights into the differences between novices and experts. Farrow and colleagues (2008) have used video-based simulations and virtual reality technology to measure and develop athletes’ decision making and other cognitive skills. As a result of these initiatives, a better understanding of the science behind skill acquisition now guides the development of sport expertise.
Talent identification and development
Twenty years have passed since the APS Armidale Conference, and it is useful reflecting on the outcomes of the Sport College meeting in light of subsequent developments. There is renewed interest in relationships between sport performance and personality characteristics such as narcissism (Woodman et al., 2010, 2011), perfectionism (Cumming & Duda, 2012; Stoeber, 2011), and resilience (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012). However, Weinberg and Gould (2011) cite American Psychological Association guidelines in arguing that “using personality inventories alone to select athletes for a team or to cut them from a team is an abuse of testing that should not be tolerated” (p. 38).
New perspectives on expertise development have had an impact on talent identification programs (Côté et al., 2007; Gagné, 2003). Abbott and Collins (2004) emphasised the importance of psycho-behavioural factors in an integrated talent identification and development (TID) approach. Gulbin (2008) acknowledged that a quality talent development environment needs to be in place before undertaking an evidence-based identification and recruitment phase. There is support for using psychological skills tests in TID programs, including the TOPS (Abbott & Collins, 2004; Taylor et al., 2008) and measures of mental toughness (Weissensteiner et al., 2012).
Conclusion
Despite a history of some controversy, psychological tests now contribute significantly to the development of talented athletes and performing artists, and enable others to optimise their performance. This is particularly so when tests are used in conjunction with input from coaches, parents and peers, interviews, observations and other behavioural measures. The ongoing development of such instruments will strengthen psychology’s contribution to sport and the performing arts.
The author can be contacted at [email protected]