International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 5, no 10, pp 1383-1388 October 2024

International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews

Journal homepage: www.ijrpr.com ISSN 2582-7421

Self Efficacy and Sports Performance of Secondary Student - Athletes:

Training Implications

Enriqueta R. Buenaventura
Adamson University

ABSTRACT

Self-efficacy, which Albert Bandura defines as an individual's belief in his or her capability to perform the actions that will produce a desired outcome, is
considered important for secondary school student-athletes because these individuals have been faced with the reality of having to balance academic and athletic
demands. Even though self-efficacy seems to be positively related to performance across a wide range of activities, its role in regard to the sport performance of
young athletes is less clearly understood. The present study, therefore, wishes to fill this gap by investigating the relationship between self-efficacy and athletic
performance relating to secondary school student-athletes, predicated on some demographic factors such as gender, academic performance, and extra-curricular
activities. Anchored essentially on Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, this study investigates the relationship of sources of self-efficacy, namely mastery
experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological states, to sports performance. It adopted a descriptive-comparative-correlational research
design, in which there were 266 secondary school student-athletes in Quezon City, NCR, for School Year 2023-2024. Data are gathered using the Athlete Self-
Efficacy Scale and the Sports Performance Perception Scale, both validated for reliability. The results showed that the better one's self-efficacy, the higher sports
performance. However, there were significant differences by awarders but not by gender, academic average, and extracurricular activities. Thus, from this, it
could be inferred that targeted interventions around goal setting, mental conditioning, and mentorship programs may help enhance their levels of self-efficacy and
athletic performances. The study provides useful insights for coaches, educators, and policymakers in constructing strategies to support holistic development in
student-athletes.

Keywords:self-efficacy, athletic performance, student-athlete, sport psychology, secondary school.

INTRODUCTION

Self-efficacy, a term developed by Albert Bandura, refers to an individual's belief in their capability to execute the course of actions that produce
specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1997). This is important for athletes at the level of secondary education, where the challenge of excellently
combining academic endeavors with athletics is quite common. Research has shown that high self-efficacy is related to higher performance in a variety
of areas, from athletics to academics (Schunk &Pajares, 2002). In athletic performance, this system of beliefs includes physical ability as well as mental
toughness and confidence in abilities, particularly important features for acting and making decisions when in highly competitive and pressured
environments (Feltz &Lirgg, 2001). The previous literature highlighted a significant gap in the current body of literature regarding the relationship
between self-efficacy and athletic performance among high school student-athletes. While self-efficacy has been extensively studied in various fields,
such as education and general psychology, its specific impact on sports performance in the context of secondary education is not fully understood
(Moritz et al., 2000). Furthermore, most previous research has concentrated on adult athletes or college students, leaving a void in our understanding of
how self-efficacy is perceived and utilized by younger athletes, who are still in a crucial stage of development (Eccles & Barber, 1999). Our research is
designed to fill this gap by investigating the influence of self-efficacy on athletic performance in secondary school student-athletes, with a focus on
establishing demographic moderation, such as by gender, academic performance, and extracurricular activity participation. In this respect, the present
study contributes to the existing literature by investigating how self-efficacy interplays with athletic performance in a sample of secondary student-
athletes. According to this research, by increasing knowledge of the dynamics between these two variables, more efficient training programs could be
created and tailored to meet the unique needs of young athletes (Vealey, 2001). Specifically, research will be conducted on various sources of self-
efficacy, including mastery experiences—successful performance of a task—vicarious learning—witnessing accomplishments of others—and verbal
persuasion, which emanates from coaches and peers in the form of motivation, in addition to physiological states, which pertain to the physical and
emotional responses toward competition (Bandura, 1994). The results of this study seek to provide coaches, educators, and decision-makers with
constructive suggestions to help them develop strategies that enhance athletic performance and support the holistic development of student-athletes
(Dzewaltowski et al., 1990).
 International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 5, no 10, pp 1383-1388 October 2024 1384

Research Paradigm

The theoretical framework for this study is based on Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, focusing on the role of self-efficacy in creating enhanced
belief or a sense of being able to succeed at tasks, most notably in times of trouble. This study specifically targets student-athletes at the secondary
school level, where self-efficacy will play an exceedingly important role in the formative years of both athletic performance and the hardiness of self-
efficacy. Bandura's SET identifies four primary sources that affect self-efficacy, which form the core around which this research has been constructed:
mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Each of these elements has an immense effect on the performance
of an athlete. Mastery experience means learning from success and failure; vicarious learning by observing others' outcomes; verbal persuasion, such as
by encouragement from others or by self-talk; and physiological states, such as anxiety, that affect self-efficacy.

PROFILE STUDENT- SELF-EFFICACY SPORTS

ATHLETES PERFORMANCE

1. Mastery
1. Sex Experiences 1. Mastery and
Development
2. General Weighted 2. Vicarious Learning
Average (GWA) 2. Preparedness and
3. Verbal Persuasion
Strategy
3. Number of
4. Physiological
Awards Received
---- states
4. Number
Extracurricular
Activities

TRAINING PROGRAM ON SELF-EFFICACY FOR SECONDARY STUDENT-ATHLETES OF

QUEZON CITY
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

This research attempts to determine the relationship of these sources with sports performance among secondary student-athletes and further tries to
assess differences in self-efficacy according to demographic factors such as sex, general weighted average, number of awards received, and
extracurricular activities. Understanding these relations may result in an enhanced training program, better psychological services, and coaching
strategies leading to athletic success. The study also acknowledges that while, in general, self-efficacy leads to superior performance, other variables
-----------------------
such as skill level, physical conditioning, mental preparation, or even external factors of distractions can very substantially affect it. Depending on the
conceptual framework guiding the research, the inter-relations among student-athletes profiles, self-efficacy, and sports performance would influence
how the design of training programs would enhance self-efficacy and, consequently, athletic performance.

Methodology

This is a descriptive-comparative-correlational method conducted in a non-experimental quantitative setting. It was used to describe variables, profiles,
self-efficacy, and sports performance of secondary student-athletes; compare these variables across different groups without manipulation; and find
correlations between Self-Efficacy and Sports Performance. It tests the differences in self-efficacy based on sex, GWA, the number of awards received,
extracurricular activities, and other demographic factors. The required sample size is determined to be 266, using the Qualtrics Sample Size Calculator;
with the sampling strategy, a simple random proportional strategy is done from District V in Quezon City, NCR, in the academic year 2023-2024.

Table2. Respondents of the Study

Secondary School Total Population Sample Size

1. Lagro High School 170 53

2. Maligaya High School 135 42

 International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 5, no 10, pp 1383-1388 October 2024 1385

3. North Fairview High School 68 21

4. Dona Rosario High School 56 17

5. Novaliches High School 160 50

6. San Bartolome High School 130 40

7. Sta. Lucia High School 65 20

8. West Fairview High School 75 23

Total 859 266

Data were collected using a modified questionnaire, while the tools used in measuring PSE were the Athlete Self-Efficacy Scale by Kocak, 2020, and
the Sports Performance Perception Scale by Adam et al., 2019. The tools were further validated by experts, and their reliability was tested through pilot
testing and a Cronbach alpha test. Data gathering involved administering surveys via Google Forms, ensuring ethical considerations such as informed
consent. Collected data were securely stored and analyzed, with results documented for the study's remaining chapters. Statistical analysis includes
descriptive statistics to summarize the data regarding student-athletes' profiles, their self-efficacy, and sports performance, using frequency, mean, and
percentage. Inferential Statistics, such as non-parametric analysis of difference was use to compare differences in self-efficacy and sports performance
across different profiles. Spearman-rank correlation identifies the relationship of self-efficacy to sports performance based on mastery experiences,
vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological states, showing how strongly these variables are related and how much self-efficacy influences
athletic performance.

Result and Discussion

Level of self-efficacy. The result of studying self-efficacy levels among student-athletes was significant in four factors: Mastery Experience, Vicarious
Experience, Verbal Persuasion, and Physiological State. The confidence level of students in the Mastery Experience category is very high in terms of
accepting challenges, with an average weighted mean of 3.59, though slightly lower in maintaining focus against tough opponents, with an average of
3.36. The overall weighted mean in the Mastery Experience category was 3.46. On the Vicarious Experience scale, an overall weighted mean of 3.33
was produced, though these did range from a high of 3.49, where athletes would be most influenced by the observation of successful athletes, to a low
of 3.22, where athletes would be least likely to actually imitate these behaviors. Verbal Persuasion had the best ratings in acknowledging teammates
and motivational thoughts, with a mean of 3.52, while handling psychological pressures from opponents and audiences pulled the lower mean of 3.23.
The overall weighted mean for Verbal Persuasion was 3.40. Physiological State was the factor that most athletes attended to in order to maintain health
and energy with the highest mean of 3.53. Strength and endurance were attended to slightly less with a mean of 3.39. The overall weighted mean for
this element was 3.46. On average, the student-athletes rated themselves to be very self-efficacious in both mastery experiences and physiological
states, demonstrating the relevance of both mental and physical preparedness. Such findings are in support of Bandura's theory of self-efficacy, wherein
coaches, trainers, or educators can facilitate an increase in athletes' confidence by improved skills through tasks, modeling, positive reinforcement, and
physiological states—factors, which when modified, correspond to improved sports performance.

Table 1. Level of self-efficacy among student-athletes

INDICATORS STANDARD VERBAL

WEIGHTED MEAN
DEVIATION INTERPRETATION

Mastery Experience 3.46 0.389 High Level

Vicarious Experience 3.33 0.412 High Level

Verbal Persuasion 3.40 0.417 High Level

Physiological State 3.46 0.433 High Level

OVERALL LEVEL OF SELF-EFFICACY 3.41 0.368 High Level

The result shows that there is no significant differences were observed in terms of self-efficacy when considering factors like gender, with a Mann-
Whitney U test giving U = 1250.5, p > 0.05; academic performance, with a Kruskal-Wallis test giving χ² = 2.34, p > 0.05; and the number of
extracurricular activities, with a Kruskal-Wallis test giving χ² = 1.89, p > 0.05. This means that these factors do not impact self-efficacy with regard to
sports. In addition, no significant differences in self-efficacy were found between male and female athletes, and academic success did not seem to be a
determinant of confidence related to sports. The student-athletes, when divided based on the number of awards received, had a statistically significant
difference: the more awards received, the more increased the self-efficacy, meaning that being recognized and successful in athletics strengthens an
athlete's belief in their own abilities.
 International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 5, no 10, pp 1383-1388 October 2024 1386

Table 2. Analysis of the difference in the level of self-efficacy among student-athletes when grouped according to the athletes profile

GROUPING VERBAL
VARIABLE INDICATORS TEST VALUE P-VALUE INTERPRETATION DECISION

Gender Mastery Experience 7845.50 0.319 not significant accept null hypothesis

Vicarious Experience 7893.00 0.359 not significant accept null hypothesis

Verbal Persuasion 7962.00 0.421 not significant accept null hypothesis

Physiological State not significant accept null hypothesis

Self- Efficacy 8194.00 0.673 not significant accept null hypothesis

General
average Mastery Experience 0.80 0.86 not significant accept null hypothesis

Vicarious Experience 4.40 0.22 not significant accept null hypothesis

Verbal Persuasion 1.80 0.613 not significant accept null hypothesis

Physiological State 1.00 0.81 not significant accept null hypothesis

Self- Efficacy 0.50 0.93 not significant accept null hypothesis

Number of
awards Mastery Experience 15.90 0.003 significant reject null hypothesis

Vicarious Experience 5.80 0.216 not significant accept null hypothesis

Verbal Persuasion 24.90 0 significant reject null hypothesis

Physiological State 13.60 0.009 significant reject null hypothesis

Self- Efficacy 16.20 0.003 significant reject null hypothesis

Extracurricular
activities Mastery Experience 10.10 0.12 not significant accept null hypothesis

Vicarious Experience 4.40 0.627 not significant accept null hypothesis

Verbal Persuasion 11.70 0.069 not significant accept null hypothesis

Physiological State 7.20 0.305 not significant accept null hypothesis

Self- Efficacy 8.00 0.235 not significant accept null hypothesis

The analysis of the levels of sports performance of student-athletes was assessed in terms of two areas; Mastery and Development, and
Preparedness and Strategy. The student-athletes, under the dimension of Mastery and Development, highly committed themselves to the improvement
of mastery skills; the highest was communication —thus proving its importance to teamwork, which is very important in sports performance. However,
the lowest rated factor was that of participating in home and away games, which shows some difficulty in consistent play in competitive arenas. The
item-average for the factor as a whole is extremely high, at 3.46 SD = 0.416, showing very high commitment and high self-mastery. In Preparedness
and Strategy, the best-rated aspect was engagement with coaches, sport psychologists, and fellow players during practice. The results shows confirming
the salience of having a more wholesome approach to training. The worst-rated was in respect to regular team practice. This might indicate
motivational issues that have spills into other aspects of the overall performance of the team. The mean of Preparedness and Strategy gave 3.35 (SD =
0.452). While sports performers were relatively well-prepared, there were many aspects that are definitely to be improved, particularly those concerning
team training. The overall mean of sports performance yielded 3.41 (SD = 0.410), reflecting that the levels of performance were relatively high,
whereas issues such as regular team training and participation in competitive play needed more attention. These findings are consistent with available
literature that has examined the contribution of individual skill development and collective effort and lately, mental and psychological preparation as
part of sports success.
 International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 5, no 10, pp 1383-1388 October 2024 1387

Table 2. level of sports performance of student-athletes

STANDARD VERBAL
WEIGHTED MEAN
DEVIATION INTERPRETATION

Mastery and Development 3.46 0.416 High Level

Preparedness and Strategy 3.35 0.452 High Level

OVERALL LEVEL OF SPORTS PERFORMANCE 3.41 0.410 HIGH LEVEL

There were no significant differences in sports performance with respect to gender: p = 0.661, 0.355, and 0.388 for Mastery and
Development, Preparedness and Strategy, and overall Sports Performance, respectively; and with respect to general academic average: p = 0.846,
0.690, and 0.844. These findings indicate that male and female athletes are pretty much the same when it comes to performance in sports and their
academic performance does not have a significant effect on this. Moderately significant differences were found, however, when student-athletes were
grouped according to the number of sports awards received. This was equally the case on all factors: p = 0.008 for Mastery and Development, 0.002 for
Preparedness and Strategy, and 0.007 overall for Sports Performance. Student-athletes with more awards performed better in all respects, which may
indicate that recognition/achievements in sports enhance performance by the motivational effects from awards. The differences were not significant by
the number of extracurricular activities: p = 0.116, 0.051, and 0.066. This means that other activities do not affect sports performance.

Table -. Analysis of difference in sports performance with respect to their profile

VERBAL
INTERPRETATIO
Grouping variable INDICATORS Test value P-VALUE N DECISION DECISION

Gender Mastery and Development 135.16 8186 0.661 not significant accept null hypothesis

Preparedness and Strategy 137 7889 0.355 not significant accept null hypothesis

Sports Performance 136.78 7925 0.388 not significant accept null hypothesis

General average Mastery and Development 148.75 0.8 0.846 not significant accept null hypothesis

Preparedness and Strategy 134.83 1.5 0.69 not significant accept null hypothesis

Sports Performance 136.67 0.8 0.844 not significant accept null hypothesis

Number of awards Mastery and Development 116.96 13.7 0.008 significant reject null hypothesis

Preparedness and Strategy 117.27 16.9 0.002 significant reject null hypothesis

Sports Performance 117.74 14.2 0.007 significant reject null hypothesis

Extracurricular
activities Mastery and Development 131.11 10.2 0.116 not significant accept null hypothesis

Preparedness and Strategy 129.81 12.5 0.051 not significant accept null hypothesis

Sports Performance 132.47 11.8 0.066 not significant accept null hypothesis

It established that the correlation coefficient in the relationship between self-efficacy and sports performance was 0.917. That would mean the higher
the level of self-efficacy, the better the sports performance. With its significant correlation, a p-value of .000 rejects the null hypothesis that self-
efficacy has no influence on sports performance.

Correlation P-VALUE
VERBAL INTERPRETATION DECISION
Coefficient

Self- Efficacy and Sports .917 .000

Reject Ho
Performance High positive correlation

. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

0.90 to 1.00 (-.90 to -1.00) - Very high positive (negative) correlation

0.70 to 90 (-.70 to -.90) - High positive (negative) correlation

 International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 5, no 10, pp 1383-1388 October 2024 1388

0.50 to .70 (-.50 to -.70) - Moderate positive (negative) correlation

0.30 to .50 (-.30 to -.50) - Low positive (negative) correlation

0.00 to .30 (.00 to -.30) - negligible correlation

Conclusion

This therefore concludes that, overall, student-athletes are very highly self-efficacious in a number of dimensions, showing strong beliefs in abilities
and performance strategies. If anything, there were no significant differences in self-efficacy based on gender or general average, or even the number of
extracurricular activities; however, there were significant differences based on the number of awards received, indicating that more awards equate to
higher self-efficacy. Furthermore, student-athletes exhibit sports performance of a high level in mastery, development, and strategic preparedness, with
quite an obvious link between the amount of awards and performance levels. There is a high positive relationship between self-efficacy and sports
performance, thereby justifying the development of self-efficacy in any way to improve athletic performance.

Recommendations

Improve the self-efficacy of student-athletes through goal setting, feedback mechanisms, and mental conditioning exercises in the training program,
accompanied by workshops that will enhance psychological resilience through stress control and positive self-talk. Self-efficacy is enhanced if an
acknowledgment or reward is given after good performances; further research is required on support systems and environments. Man sporting skills
through progressive development, strategic planning, and mental conditioning of athletes for the realization of this goal, aided by individual training
programs and performance reviews. There should be mentorship programs for different athletics events led by award-winning athletes who can inspire
and drive all athletes towards excellence. Design targeted interventions in confidence-building workshops and mental skills training courses to help
bolster self-efficacy and consequently sports performance.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York. W.H. Freeman.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement. Applying the Eccles' expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 3(1), 7-35.

Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport. Human Kinetics.

Gustafsson, H., Hassmén, P., &Hassmén, N. (2016). The psychology of sports injury and rehabilitation. Routledge.

Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities. A survey of self-reported developmental
experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 25-55.

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 1(2), 133-163.

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self-efficacy in education. Research and applications. In Handbook of Self-Efficacy (549-580). Guilford Press.)

Terry, P. C., & Lane, A. M. (2000). Do mood states influence self-efficacy? Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(8), 653-661.

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2019). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology (7th ed.). Human Kinetics.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy. An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.