, 2002). Thus, task cohesion (i.e., ��Our team is united in trying to reach its performance goals in training sessions and games��) and social cohesion (i.e., ��Our team would like to spend time together in the offseason��) selleck products were measured. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This study examined internal consistency through Cronbach��s alpha, indicating values of .76 for task cohesion and .73 for social cohesion. Efficacy To assess collective efficacy, peers�� perception of efficacy and coaches�� perception of efficacy, a questionnaire developed by Leo et al. (2010b) was used. We distinguished (a) collective efficacy, in which the athletes measured their team��s capacity; (b) peers�� perceptions of efficacy, in which the players assessed each other; and (c) coaches�� perceptions of efficacy, in which the coaches assessed their players.

Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The dimensions assessed included offensive and defensive technical skills, tactical strategies, psychological aspects, and a final item of general assessment of the player (i.e., ��How favourably do you evaluate this player��s defensive skills?��). All items were combined into one main factor that represented overall beliefs about the player��s efficacy in all phases of the game. This factorial structure was tested in previous works (Leo et al., 2012; Leo et al., 2010b). The scale showed alpha values of .73 for collective efficacy, .85 for self-efficacy, .

80 for perceived efficacy by teammates, and .86 for perceived efficacy by coaches. Success expectations Two items were created to assess players�� beliefs in the final position that they expected to occupy and the position they thought they should occupy at the end of the season. In both cases, players chose a classification number ranging from 1 to 16. The scores were reversed so that the top rankings in the classification table (i.e., 1, 2, ��) corresponded to higher scores (16, 15, ��). Playing time To measure playing time, we asked how much time the athletes played in the matches. Answers were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (just a little) to 5 (too much). Performance To measure each team��s final performance, the final position in the classification table at the end of the regular season was used.

This method of measuring performance had been employed in prior studies (Carron et al., 2002; Leo et al., 2010a; Ramzaninezhad et al., 2009). As with success expectations, we reversed the data so that better classification values (1, 2, 3, ��) corresponded to higher scores (16, 15, 14, ��). Design and Procedure In this work, a correlation methodology with a transversal design was used. We conducted one assessment at the beginning of the Drug_discovery season. The study received ethical approval from the University of Extremadura.