New version page

Affective, but hardly effective

Upgrade to remove ads

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5-6 out of 18 pages.

Save
View Full Document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

Affective, but hardly effective: a reply to Gauvin and Rejeski (2001)On debate and ‘‘acrimony’’On doing away with psychometric scrutinyOn the elusive definition of ‘‘exercise-induced feeling states’’: the search continuesOn the representativeness of the content domainOn inductive and deductive scale developmentOn methodological issuesOn the reciprocal relationship between parsimony and goodness of fitOn convergent and discriminant validityOn error of measurement and correlation coefficientsOn principal components and factor analysesOn the circumplex as a ‘‘simplistic’’ modelOn the compatibility of categorical and dimensional modelsConclusionReferencesPsychology of Sport & Exercise 5 (2004) 135–152www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsportAffective, but hardly effective: a reply to Gauvin andRejeski (2001)5Panteleimon Ekkekakisa,, Steven J. PetruzzellobaDepartment of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, 253 Barbara E. Forker Building,Ames IA 50011, USAbDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USAReceived 4 October 2002; received in revised form 25 April 2003; accepted 19 May 2003AbstractBackground and purpose: This paper is a reply to Gauvin and Rejeski’s rebuttal (Psychol. Sport Exerc.2 (2001) 73) of a previously published conceptual and methodological critique (Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2(2001) 1) of the Exercise-induced Feeling Inventory (EFI; J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 15 (1993) 403).Methods: Our responses focus on (a) issues regarding scientific debates, (b) the necessity of psycho-metric scrutiny, (c) the ongoing search for a definition of ‘‘exercise-induced feeling states,’’ (d) concernsregarding the underrepresentation of the intended domain of content of the EFI and its appropriate uses,(e) the implications of inductive and deductive scale development, (f) several methodological issues, (g)the value of a circumplex model for exercise psychology research, and (h) the compatibility of categoricaland dimensional models of affect.Results and conclusions: We maintain that the most important issues raised in the original critique of theEFI, such as the definition, the demarcation, and the structure of its intended domain of content, werenot addressed in Gauvin and Rejeski’s rejoinder and remain unclear. Researchers are urged to contem-plate the theoretical bases and to scrutinize the psychometric data of the available measures before mak-ing their selection.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords: Affect; Feeling states; Scale development; Inductive and deductive; Circumplex5PII of original article S1469-0292(01)00008-5Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-515-294-8766; fax: +1-515-294-8740.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Ekkekakis).1469-0292/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(03)00037-2Any criticism or challenge to consider changing our methods strikes of course at all our egodefenses (Platt, 1964, p. 349).In 2001, as part of a four-paper series on the measurement of affect in the context of exercise,we published a conceptual and methodological critique (Ekkekakis & Petruzzello, 2001) of theExercise-induced Feeling Inventory (EFI; Gauvin & Rejeski, 1993). Gauvin and Rejeski (2001)then published a rebuttal. It had been the hope of the editor-in-chief of Psychology of Sport andExercise that the anticipated ‘‘constructive and healthy debate’’ could ‘‘only be good for ourfield’’ (Biddle, 2000, p. 69). Herein, we respond to Gauvin and Rejeski’s rebuttal.We recognize that critiques of scientific works are bound to elicit what Chamberlin (1897)called the ‘‘partiality of paternalism’’ (p. 841). Thus, a certain dose of emotionality in Gauvinand Rejeski’s (2001) response and the conclusion that they ‘‘entertain optimism regarding thecontinued utility (of the EFI) and are confident about its psychometric properties’’ (p. 86) werenot particularly surprising. The response was surprising, however, in that it provided no clar-ifications to the many confusing aspects of the original publication of the EFI. In this paper, weaddress (a) issues regarding scientific debates, (b) the necessity of psychometric scrutiny, (c) thedefinition of ‘‘exercise-induced feeling states,’’ (d) the extent to which the EFI is representativeof its intended content domain, (e) the implications of inductive and deductive scale develop-ment strategies, (f) several methodological issues, (g) the value of the circumplex model forstudying affective responses to exercise, and (h) the compatibility of categorical and dimensionalmodels of affect within integrative hierarchical structures.On debate and ‘‘acrimony’’In one of the most incisive parts of his brief autobiography, written for his children in 1876under the title ‘‘Recollections of the development of my mind and character,’’ Darwin (1899/1959) wrote: ‘‘I cannot remember a single first-formed hypothesis which had not after a time tobe given up or greatly modified’’ (p. 83). Such is the nature of scientific ideas, particularly novelones, that their review and revision is essentially inevitable. Accordingly, the Standards for Edu-cational and Psychological Testing of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement inEducation (NCME, 1999; hereafter referred to as the Standards) state that it is the responsibilityof test developers to monitor the research literature, to review, and, when appropriate, to revisetheir measures. Several authors have published specific guidelines for such test revisions (e.g.,Nelson, 2000; Smith & McCarthy, 1995). It could be argued that it is also the responsibility ofother researchers to raise issues of theoretical or methodological concern regarding publishedmeasures. As Schutz (1993) emphasized, ‘‘It is my view that no test is sacred—just because aninstrument ... has been around for years and used in dozens of published studies does notnecessarily mean it is a valid and reliable instrument. In other fields, even the most venerable oftests are constantly being reevaluated and questioned’’ (p. 128).Publishing a critique of a published work, however, is not a simple decision and numerousfactors must be considered, which go beyond the theoretical and technical aspects of the cri-P. Ekkekakis, S.J.


Download Affective, but hardly effective
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Affective, but hardly effective and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Affective, but hardly effective 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?