The main objective of this study is to examine the structure of the Role Ambiguity Framework and a validation into Spanish of the Role Ambiguity Scale with professional players. We employed a sample of 604 male and female professional athletes, aged between 15 and 38 years. To find the best solution of the questionnaire’s factor structure, a set of different models was tested. Data analysis showed that bifactor-ESEM (exploratory structural equation modeling) solution provided the best degree of fit to the data. Furthermore, reliability and invariance across gender were also demonstrated, and the scale showed good concurrent validity. Results suggest that the structure of the Role Ambiguity is composed with one second-order factor and three first-order factors: scope-behavior, evaluation, and consequences. In addition, the adaptation of this scale to Spanish is a valid and reliable instrument to measure role ambiguity in male and female players.
BeauchampM. R.BrayS. R. (2001). Role ambiguity and role conflict within interdependent teams. Small Group Research, 32, 133-157. doi:10.1177/104649640103200202
3.
BeauchampM. R.BrayS. R.EysM. A.CarronA. V. (2002). Role ambiguity, role efficacy, and role performance: Multidimensional and mediational relationships within interdependent sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 229-242. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.6.3.229
4.
BeauchampM. R.BrayS. R.EysM. A.CarronA. V. (2003). The effect of role ambiguity on competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 77-92. doi:10.1123/jsep.25.1.77
5.
BeauchampM. R.BrayS. R.EysM. A.CarronA. V. (2005). Leadership behaviors and multidimensional role ambiguity perceptions in team sports. Small Group Research, 36, 5-20. doi:10.1177/1046496404266684
6.
BeauchampM. R.BrayS. R.FieldingA.EysM. A. (2005). A multilevel investigation of the relationship between role ambiguity and role efficacy in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 289-302. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.03.002
7.
BosselutG.HeuzéJ. P.EysM. A.FontayneP.SarrazinP. (2012). Athletes’ perceptions of role ambiguity and coaching competency in sport teams: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 354-364. doi:10.1123/jsep.34.3.345
8.
BosselutG.HeuzéJ. P.SarrazinP. (2010). Structure of the role ambiguity framework and validity in the French culture. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 471-478. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.001
9.
BosselutG.McLarenC. D.EysM. A.HeuzéJ. P. (2012). Reciprocity of the relationship between role ambiguity and group cohesion in youth interdependent sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 341-348. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.002
10.
ButonF.FontayneP.HeuzéJ. P.BosselutG.RaimbaultN. (2007). The QAG-a: An analog version of the Questionnaire sur l’Ambiance du Groupe for measuring the dynamic nature of group cohesion. Small Group Research, 38, 235-264. doi:10.1177/1046496407300476
11.
ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1, 55-86. doi:10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4
12.
CarronA. V.WidmeyerW. N.BrawleyL. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266. doi:10.1123/jsp.7.3.244
13.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
14.
ChenF. F.BollenK. A.PaxtonP.CurranP. J.KirbyJ. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29, 468-508. doi:10.1177/0049124101029004003
15.
ChenF. F.WestS. G.SousaK. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189-255. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
16.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indices for testing measurement equivalence. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
17.
CunninghamI. J.EysM. A. (2007). Role ambiguity and intra-team communication in interdependent sport teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2220-2237. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00256.x
18.
EysM. A.CarronA. V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small Group Research, 32, 356-373. doi:10.1177/104649640103200305
19.
EysM. A.CarronA. V.BrayS. R.BeauchampM. R. (2003). Role ambiguity and athlete satisfaction. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 391-401. doi:10.1080/0264041031000071137
20.
EysM. A.CarronA. V.BrayS. R.BeauchampM. R. (2005). The relationship between role ambiguity and intention to return the following season. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 255-261. doi:10.1080/10413200591010148
21.
EysM. A.CarronA. V.BrayS. R.BrawleyL. R. (2007). Item wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 395-402. doi:10.1123/jsep.29.3.395
22.
HewittA.GreenhamG.NortonK. (2016). Game style in soccer: What is it and can we quantify it?International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 16, 355-372.
23.
HøigaardR.FuglestadS.PetersD. M.CuyperB. D.BackerM. D.BoenF. (2010). Role satisfaction mediates the relation between role ambiguity and social loafing among elite women handball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 408-419. doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.495326
24.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
25.
JacksonS. E.SchulerR. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2
26.
KahnR. L.WolfeD. M.QuinnR.SnoekJ. D.RosenthalR. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New York, NY: John Wiley.
27.
LeoF. M.González-PonceI.Sánchez-MiguelP. A.IvarssonA.García-CalvoT. (2015). Role ambiguity, role conflict, team conflict, cohesion and collective efficacy in sport teams: A multilevel analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 20, 60-66. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.04.009
28.
LeoF. M.González-PonceI.Sánchez-OlivaD.PulidoJ. J.García-CalvoT. (2015). Adaptation and validation in Spanish of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) with professional football players. Psicothema, 27, 261-268. doi:10.7334/psicothema2014.247
29.
LynnM. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382-386. doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
30.
MarshH. W.MorinA. J. S.ParkerP. D.KaurG. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
31.
MellalieuS. D.JuniperS. W. (2006). A qualitative investigation into experiences of the role episode in soccer. Sport Psychologist, 20, 399-418. doi:10.1123/tsp.20.4.399
32.
MorinA. J.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 116-139. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
33.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
34.
MyersN. D.MartinJ. J.NtoumanisN.CelimliS.BartholomewK. J. (2014). Exploratory bifactor analysis in sport, exercise, and performance psychology: A substantive-methodological synergy. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3, 258-272. doi:10.1037/spy0000015
35.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. In NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (Eds.), Psychometric theory (pp. 248-292). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
