Do Athlete and Coach Performance Perfectionism Predict Athlete Burnout?

Figures & data

Table 1. Perceived Coach Performance Perfectionism Goodness of Fit Statistics for CFA and ESEM.

									Model Comparison
	χ2	df	χ2 / df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	RMSEA 90% CI	SRMR	Comparison	Δχ2	Δdf
CFA	125.19***	51	2.45	.88	.85	.09	[.069, .108]	.07
ESEM	54.56**	33	1.65	.97	.93	.06	[.029, .086]	.04	ESEM vs. CFA	66.18***	18

Note: CFA = Confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM = Exploratory structural equation modelling; df = Degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = Standardised Root Mean Square Residual. Δχ2 difference test is Satorra-Bentler χ2 difference test.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table 2. Perceived Coach Performance Perfectionism Standardised Factor Loadings for CFA and ESEM solutions.

		CFA	ESEM
Dimension	Item	Factor Loading	Factor Loading 1	Factor Loading 2	Factor Loading 3
Perceived Coach SOPP	1	.57***	1.13**	−.33**	−.11*
	4	.69***	.62**	.19	.03
	10	.60***	.22	.52***	.08
	11	.79***	.37	.69***	.06
Perceived Coach SPPP	2	.60***	.28*	.07	.36***
	7	.47***	.04	.11	.44***
	9	.48***	.29**	.25	.08
	12	.73***	.41	.38	.15*
Perceived Coach OOPP	3	.83***	.02	.01	.80***
	5	.84***	−.01	−.09	.88***
	6	.59***	−.19*	.06	.66***
	8	.74***	.07	.03	.69***

Note: Bold typeface denotes loadings above .30 on target factors. Underlined typeface denotes meaningful cross-loadings (>.30). CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM = exploratory structural equation modelling; SOPP = self-oriented performance perfectionism; SPPP = socially prescribed performance perfectionism; OOPP = other-oriented performance perfectionism; factor loading 1 target dimension = perceived coach SOPP; factor loading 2 target dimension = perceived coach SPPP; factor loading 3 target dimension = perceived coach OOPP.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001; two-tailed.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Bivariate Correlations.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism
2. Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism	.39***
3. Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism	.18*	.38***
4. Perceived coach other-oriented performance perfectionism	.20**	.46***	.39***
5. Athlete total burnout	.16*	.20**	.05	.35***
6. Athlete emotional and physical exhaustion	.20**	.30***	.08	.34***	.78***
7. Athlete reduced sense of accomplishment	.21**	.11	.03	.15*	.62***	.22**
8. Athlete sport devaluation	−.01	.04	.01	.26***	.83***	.43***	.38***
M	5.07	3.25	2.12	2.94	2.44	2.53	2.61	2.19
SD	1.09	1.19	0.96	1.37	0.69	1.03	0.66	1.02
α	.75	.78	.76	.83	.87	.93	.71	.86

Note: N = 188.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001; two-tailed.

Table 4. Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses.

Model	R^2	β	B	BCa 95% CI
Model 1: DV = Athlete Total Burnout
Step1: F (3, 184) = 3.28*	.05
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		.10	.06	[−.02, .15]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		.18*	.10	[.01, .20]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		−.03	−.02	[−.14, .09]
Step 2: F (4, 183) = 7.52***; ΔF (1,183) = 19.26***	.14
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		.10	.06	[−.03, .14]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		.05	.03	[−.06, .13]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		−.12	−.09	[−.20, .03]
Perceived coach other-oriented performance perfectionism		.35***	.18	[.10, .26]
Model 2: DV = Athlete emotional and physical exhaustion
Step1: F (3, 184) = 6.93***	.10
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		.10	.10	[−.04, .23]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		.28***	.24	[.09, .39]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		−.05	−.05	[−.24, .12]
Step 2: F (4, 183) = 8.78***; ΔF (1,181) = 13.00***	.16
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		.10	.09	[−.05, .22]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		.18*	.15	[.01, .31]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		−.12	−.13	[−.32, .04]
Perceived coach other-oriented performance perfectionism		.29***	.22	[.10, .34]
Model 3: DV = Athlete reduced sense of accomplishment
Step1: F (3, 184) = 2.99*	.05
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		.20*	.12	[.04, .21]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		.04	.02	[−.07, .12]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		−.02	−.01	[−.12, .09]
Step 2: F (4, 181) = 2.97*; ΔF (1,181) = 2.80	.06
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		.20*	.12	[.04, .21]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		−.02	−.01	[−.10, .09]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		−.05	−.04	[−.15, .08]
Perceived coach other-oriented performance perfectionism		.14	.07	[−.01, .16]
Model 4: DV = Athlete sport devaluation
Step1: F (3, 184) = 0.15	.00
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		−.03	−.03	[−.18, .12]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		.05	.05	[−.11, .20]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		.00	.00	[−.17, .16]
Step 2: F (4, 181) = 4.13**; ΔF (1,181) = 16.04***	.08
Athlete self-oriented performance perfectionism		−.04	−.03	[−.17, .10]
Athlete socially prescribed performance perfectionism		−.07	−.06	[−.23, .11]
Athlete other-oriented performance perfectionism		−.09	−.09	[−.27, .07]
Perceived coach other-oriented performance perfectionism		.33***	.25	[.12, .37]

Note: N = 188. DV = dependent variable. β = standardised regression weight. B = unstandardized regression weight. BCa 95% CI = bias corrected accelerated 95% confidence intervals.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001; two-tailed.