Areas of Worklife and the Athlete Burnout

This article was downloaded by: [Purdue University] On: 05 May 2013, At: 15:55 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasp20

Areas of Worklife and the Athlete Burnout-Engagement Relationship a

J. D. DeFreese & Alan L. Smith

a

a

Purdue University Accepted author version posted online: 03 Jul 2012.Published online: 19 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: J. D. DeFreese & Alan L. Smith (2013): Areas of Worklife and the Athlete BurnoutEngagement Relationship, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25:2, 180-196 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.705414

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 25: 180–196, 2013 C Association for Applied Sport Psychology Copyright ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2012.705414

Areas of Worklife and the Athlete Burnout-Engagement Relationship J. D. DEFREESE AND ALAN L. SMITH

Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 15:55 05 May 2013

Purdue University The global athlete burnout–engagement relationship was investigated using the areas of worklife and relevant conceptual antecedents. Participants were 227 collegiate football players who completed an online survey assessing study variables. Athlete scores on the areas of worklife measure fit the data as expected. Two contrasting mediational models that incorporated the areas of worklife as antecedent to burnout and engagement, respectively, exhibited similar fit. However, Akaike information criterion (AIC) values and other model estimates indicated that these models were not equivalent. The findings suggest that athlete burnout and engagement are strongly and inversely correlated, but may not exist on a conceptual continuum. Further research using the areas of worklife is warranted.

Competitive sport participation requires rigorous physical training and exposes athletes to various psychological demands associated with training and performance (Gustafsson, Kenttä, Hassmén, & Lundqvist, 2007). These demands have implications for athlete motivation and ultimately well-being. Through successful adaptation to the physical and mental demands of sport, athletes may experience positive outcomes characteristic of intensive engagement in the sport setting. Alternatively, athletes unable to successfully adapt to the demands of sport may experience maladaptive outcomes such as burnout. Exploring the interface of personal capacities and sport organizational demands, expressed as the areas of worklife in organizational research (Maslach & Leiter, 1999; 2008), could offer deeper understanding of athlete engagement and burnout. Furthermore, such exploration could improve understanding of how athlete engagement and burnout relate to one another, a topic of recent empirical interest in sport psychology (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007). The present research addresses these matters to extend knowledge about the psychological implications of intensive sport involvement. Burnout is a psychological syndrome characterized by exhaustion, reduced accomplishment, and depersonalization (Maslach, 1993), and has been predominantly studied in work contexts. In early discussions of burnout, however, Freudenberger (1975) posited that the syndrome exists beyond the work context. R. E. Smith (1986) described athlete burnout as a maladaptive

Received 25 July 2011; accepted 20 June 2012. The authors thank the participating athletes, coaches, and administrators for making this research possible. This research was completed while both authors were at Purdue University. J. D. DeFreese is now with the Department of Exercise and Sport Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Alan L. Smith is now with the Department of Kinesiology at Michigan State University. Address correspondence to J. D. DeFreese, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Exercise and Sport Science, 209 Fetzer Hall, CB#8700, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. E-mail: defreese@email. unc.edu 180


ATHLETE BURNOUT AND ENGAGEMENT

181

response to the stress associated with training and competing, similar to that of a worker’s response to job-related stressors. Raedeke (1997) further described burnout as resulting from the athlete-sport relationship as opposed to the worker-client relationship associated with professional burnout. To reflect this difference, the professional burnout dimension of depersonalization was adapted to devaluation of sport. Indeed, though the sport context differs from work in important ways, many stressors are similar across work and sport and a common burnout experience may transcend contexts (Eklund & Cresswell, 2007). Athlete reports of exhaustion and amotivation have been interpreted accordingly as the manifestation of burnout in athletes (Eklund & Cresswell, 2007). Moreover, for some athletes sport is their profession, making evidence for athlete burnout in professional athletes unsurprising (e.g., Cresswell & Eklund, 2006). The construct of athlete engagement has also been adapted from the work context with some success (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007). Thus, variables and models used to investigate burnout and engagement in professional settings may offer value in understanding athlete populations. The areas of worklife are components of the job-person fit model of burnout and engagement (see Maslach & Leiter, 1997; 1999), which focuses on the perceived congruence of personally desired and organizationally provided resources relative to six worklife areas. With less congruence there is greater likelihood of experiencing burnout, whereas with greater congruence there is greater likelihood of experiencing engagement. The six areas of worklife are workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values (Leiter & Maslach, 2004). Workload is defined as the perception of job demands relative to one’s limits. Control is the perception of ability to influence decisions that affect work, professional autonomy, and access to the necessary resources to perform one’s job. Reward is the perception of work incentives (monetary, social, intrinsic) being consistent with one’s expectations. Community is the overall perception of social interaction at work including conflict, closeness, and teamwork. Fairness is the perception of fair decisions and respectful treatment at work. Finally, the term values refers to the perceived correspondence between personal and organizational goals and expectations for job behavior. The areas of worklife should be useful to the investigation of burnout and engagement in sport because the athletic environment mirrors the work context in many respects (Rigauer, 1969/1981). An athlete contributes a substantial amount of time and effort to sport and sportrelated activities as a worker does to a job. Both environments also require surrendering some aspects of control to be a member of the organizational structure. The coach or organization exhibits control over an athlete within a hierarchical structure much like management within a work setting. Rewards exist in both contexts as well. Though amateur athletes are not paid, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards such as pride, satisfaction, praise, and recognition exist that are also salient in work settings. In some cases athletes are paid or receive tangible rewards (e.g., scholarship, playing time) for their efforts. Thus, both sport and work settings possess a host of similarities that suggest the areas of worklife are salient in sport. Following conceptually appropriate adaptation, the areas of worklife variables could shed light on the burnout–engagement relationship in sport. Burnout in athletes has garnered considerable attention from sport psychology researchers and practitioners (see Eklund & Cresswell, 2007; Goodger, Gorely, Lavallee, & Harwood, 2007). Athlete burnout is a multidimensional psychological syndrome characterized by emotional and physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, and devaluation of the sporting context (Raedeke, 1997; Raedeke & Smith, 2001, 2009). Early sport psychology research on athlete burnout was largely influenced by R. E. Smith’s (1986) cognitive-affective stress model and employed broad-based assessments of burnout correlates. This work established burnout-related perceptions to be positively associated with constructs such as perceived


182

J. D. DEFREESE AND A. L. SMITH

stress, amotivation, perfectionism, and maladaptive sport commitment and negatively associated with coping and perceptions of social support (e.g., Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996; Raedeke, 1997; Raedeke & Smith, 2004). More recent efforts have elaborated on this foundational research, exploring burnout within perfectionism, self-determination, and achievement goal frameworks (e.g., Appleton, Hall, & Hill, 2009; Hill, Hall, Appleton, & Kozub, 2008; Lemyre, Treasure, & Roberts, 2006; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose, 2009; Perreault, Gaudreau, Lapointe, & Lacroix, 2007; Smith, Gustafsson, & Hassmén, 2010). In general, this work shows greater burnout perceptions to associate with relatively higher scores on markers of maladaptive individual dispositions and motivation-related constructs. This intensified research activity, moreover, has fostered interest in how to help athletes successfully meet sport-related demands and prevent burnout. This interest is consistent with a positive psychology vantage (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), which involves the investigation of positive human experiences to complement research on negative psychosocial outcomes and has been a long-time concern of sport psychologists (see Gould, 2002). Researchers have investigated positive psychology constructs such as optimism, passion, and hope in relation to athlete burnout (Chen, Kee, & Tsai, 2008; Curran, Appleton, Hill, & Hall, 2011; Gustafsson, Hassmén, & Podlog, 2010). The positive psychology vantage has also stimulated research on engagement. Professional engagement is described as a positive and fulfilling job-related experience (González-Romá, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006). Similarly, foundational research on athlete engagement has shown this cognitive-affective construct to exhibit dimensions of confidence, dedication, vigor, and enthusiasm in the sporting context (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007). Global athlete engagement has been positively associated with perceived competence, perceived autonomy, and dispositional flow (Hodge, Lonsdale, & Jackson, 2009). Also, athlete engagement and its dimensions have exhibited theoretically expected negative associations with global athlete burnout and its dimensions (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007). Lonsdale, Hodge, and Jackson (2007) interpreted these associations to mean that the dimensions of the engagement and burnout constructs are antipodes on a conceptual continuum. Because the negative correlations in their work are moderate to high and do not approach −1.0, however, the authors acknowledged a lack of definitive evidence of bipolarity. They asserted that more research is needed on the nature of the burnout–engagement relationship and recommended several techniques well-suited for this work. One recommended technique was to use a latent variable approach to assess the relationship of these constructs free of measurement error. The global burnout–engagement relationship merits attention for theoretical and practical reasons. The existence of burnout and engagement as two ends of a continuum means that the absence of burnout equates to the existence of engagement and vice versa. From a theoretical standpoint, this suggests that athlete burnout conceptualizations (e.g., Coakley, 1992; Smith, 1986) are as germane to the understanding of athlete engagement as to athlete burnout itself. This is in line with prominent organizational models (e.g., Maslach & Leiter, 1999). Alternatively, if athlete burnout and engagement are not antipodes then distinct theoretical pathways would explain respective burnout and engagement processes. From a practical standpoint, if athlete burnout and engagement reside on a continuum then experiential outcomes of athletes could be gleaned from a restricted set of psychosocial markers that offer relatively direct interpretation. Athletes experiencing elevated perceptions of either syndrome would be expected to exhibit reduced levels of the other. However, if athlete burnout and engagement are distinct constructs then interpretations are more complex and, consistent with a positive psychology vantage, concerted efforts are necessary to address these respective negative and positive athlete experiences. It is possible that athletes expressing some degree of engagement



183

concurrently perceive some degree of burnout. Indeed, developmental views on burnout do not specify an abrupt shift from engaged sport involvement to burnout (Gustafsson, Kenttä, Hassmén, Lundqvist, & Durand-Bush, 2007; Lemyre, Roberts, & Stray-Gunderson, 2007). This suggests that athletes can endorse perceptions of both experiences during phases of such a transition. Ultimately, to effectively monitor and address burnout and engagement of athletes, the manner in which these constructs are related must be better understood. Organizational researchers have most often conceived of burnout and engagement as residing on a continuum (Maslach & Leiter, 1999, 2008; Leiter & Maslach, 2004). Consequently, high engagement is inferred by low burnout scores and vice versa (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). This conception is inconsistent with tenets of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), however, that suggest the absence of a maladaptive cognitiveaffective experience like burnout does not necessarily indicate the presence of a related adaptive experience such as engagement. Additionally, aligned with the perspective that experiencing burnout is unlikely in the absence of engaged involvement (Pines, 1993; Raedeke & Smith, 2009), others forward that a more accurate representation of worker experiences requires burnout and engagement to be independently measured (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). A host of multi-sample studies of workers have been conducted, finding burnout and engagement to exhibit theoretically expected negative relationships with each other as well as opposing relationships with antecedent and consequent variables germane to the work environment (e.g., Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002). These findings have been interpreted to support the continuum conceptualization, yet are inconclusive and further work addressing this continuum debate is warranted. The investigation of a potential burnout–engagement continuum is a complex issue which necessitates taking two important considerations into account. These include whether to assess this issue at the dimensional or global level and what methodological approach is bestsuited to assess this potential continuum. Decisions regarding these considerations afford what continuum-based research questions may be answered. González-Romá et al. (2006) specifically addressed the burnout–engagement continuum debate at the dimensional level in their study of three large samples of workers. They found strong evidence that the cynicism and dedication subcomponents of professional burnout and engagement, respectively, were antipodes. They found weak to moderate support for exhaustion and vigor as antipodes. This approach was well-suited to their dimension-specific research questions, however they did not conduct analyses at the higher-order global burnout and engagement construct levels nor did they include theoretical antecedents in their research design to support the validity of their findings. The justification for exploring the burnout–engagement relationship at the global construct level is manifold. Because burnout is a syndrome, it is the global burnout experience driving symptoms or dimensions that represents the condition of epidemiological significance (Brenninkmeijer & VanYperen, 2003; Eklund & Cresswell, 2007). A similar argument can be made for the global experience of engagement and, therefore, a deeper understanding of the burnout–engagement relationship at the higher-order global construct level is warranted. Moreover, because the number and description of burnout and engagement dimensions differ across sport and work contexts, a sport-based examination of burnout and engagement at the global level may yield information that is more readily compared to the knowledge base generated from the work context. Finally, research using a latent variable approach to assess a possible global burnout–engagement continuum could clarify mixed findings from dimensionfocused efforts (Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010; González-Romá et al., 2006). In sum, examining latent areas of worklife, burnout, and engagement global constructs offers much


184


potential to improve our understanding of the burnout–engagement relationship, our primary interest in the current research. To assess the existence of a global athlete burnout–engagement continuum, we adopted a combined latent variable and theoretical antecedent approach. Examining theoretical antecedents of burnout and engagement has been used with success in the work context to address the burnout-engagement relationship (Demerouti et al., 2010). We compared two mediational models that incorporated a latent areas of worklife variable, the focal theoretical antecedent. In one model areas of worklife was constrained to exhibit a direct relationship with burnout and an indirect relationship with engagement by way of burnout. In the other model areas of worklife was specified to directly relate with engagement and to indirectly relate with burnout by way of engagement. If an athlete burnout–engagement continuum were to exist, these comparative models should exhibit similar structural outcomes. Conversely, if the models were to exhibit notable differences in structural outcomes then this would suggest that athlete burnout and engagement are distinct constructs (Demerouti et al., 2010). In light of the importance of understanding whether burnout and engagement reside on a conceptual continuum in sport as well as the areas of worklife offering an appropriate theoretical antecedent to contribute to this understanding, the primary purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of the burnout–engagement relationship in sport using comparative models incorporating the areas of worklife. Because this question has not been previously investigated in sport, no hypothesis was forwarded concerning the athlete burnout–engagement relationship as antipodal or not. A secondary purpose was to examine the factor structure of a sport-adapted Areas of Worklife Survey (AWLS; Leiter & Maslach, 2000), as the areas of worklife have not been examined in the sport context.

METHOD Participants Complete data were collected from a convenience sample of 227 male collegiate American football players from 12 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II and III teams in the Midwestern United States. An additional 17 individuals began but did not complete the study questionnaire and are excluded from analyses. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 years (M = 19.7, SD = 1.4). Most participants were Caucasian (93%), while the remaining participants described themselves as African American (4%), Hispanic/Latino (0.4%), multiracial (2.2%), and other (0.4%). Participants reported having played football for 9.9 years (SD = 3.0), on average 2.1 years (SD = 1.2) for their current team. Participants indicated current starting status by responding with yes (31%), sometimes (18%), or no (51%). College football teams were chosen for this study because the areas of worklife were considered face valid and theoretically salient within the football setting. The football setting shares similarities with work environments, including a hierarchical management structure as well as tangible and other rewards. Moreover, college athletics is highly competitive and considered an important environment for the study of athlete burnout and engagement (Gould & Whitley, 2009). Design and Measures This descriptive cross-sectional study entailed administration of an online questionnaire battery to measure the variables of interest. Data were collected at least three weeks into the fall competitive season to allow time for perceptions of study variables to develop relative to


185

the current football season. Data were collected no later than the final week of the competitive season. Measures of the following variables comprised the battery:


Demographics Demographic information was collected via a short self-report questionnaire. This questionnaire asked for participant age and ethnicity, as well as the number of years playing football, number of years playing on the current team, and starting status. Areas of Worklife Perceptions of the six areas of worklife were assessed using the Areas of Worklife Survey (AWLS; Leiter & Maslach, 2000). In collaboration with a former American collegiate football player and graduate student in sport psychology, items were adapted to refer to the football setting. Specifically, verbiage representing the work context was changed to reflect the sport of football. In the current adaptation of the survey, for example, workload corresponds to the degree of congruence between athlete and team on the demands associated with participation while fairness corresponds to perceptions of equity and justice related to football participation. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each of 29 items. Response options fell on a 5-point scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Confirmatory factor analysis (reported in results section) indicated a well-performing measurement model. In light of this outcome as well as our interest in global latent variables and this being the first adaptation of the AWLS to sport, it was deemed most appropriate to retain any items (including control items) in the final measure that resonated with participants. Internal consistency reliability values for the workload, reward, community, fairness and values scores were acceptable (α = .78-.90), whereas the value for control scores was marginal (α = .56) based on a .70 criterion (Nunnally, 1978). Supporting the validity of the original AWLS, scores provided by working professionals have been shown to correspond with qualitative accounts of the worklife areas (Leiter & Maslach, 2004). Athlete Burnout Perceived emotional and physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, and devaluation of sport were assessed using the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ; Raedeke & Smith, 2001, 2009). Participants rated how often they experienced each of 15 items. Response options fell on a 5-point scale of 1 (almost never) to 5 (most of the time). Confirmatory factor analysis of scores in the present study showed a first-order, three-factor model to have relatively good fit to the data based on recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999), χ 2(87) = 196.6, p < .01, GFI = .89, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .08 (.06–.09).1 Internal consistency reliability values (α = .82–.90) for scores on the ABQ burnout dimensions in the present study were in line with values found in previous research with the ABQ (see Raedeke & Smith, 2009). Support for validity of ABQ scores is found in extant work showing expected associations of scores with constructs theoretically linked to burnout (e.g., Cresswell & Eklund, 2006; Raedeke & Smith, 2001). Athlete Engagement Perceived confidence, vigor, dedication, and enthusiasm were assessed using the Athlete Engagement Questionnaire (AEQ; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007). Participants rated how often they experienced each of 16 items. Response options fell on a 5-point scale of 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Confirmatory factor analysis of scores in the present study showed a first-order, four-factor model to have relatively good fit to the data, χ 2(98) = 294.6, p < .01, GFI = .85, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .10 (.09–.11). Internal consistency reliability

186


values (α = .85–.92) for scores on the AEQ dimensions in the present study were in line with values found by Lonsdale and colleagues. Support for validity of AEQ scores is found in research showing expected associations of scores with constructs theoretically linked to engagement (Hodge et al., 2009; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007).


Procedure Procedures were reviewed and approved by an internal review board and adhered to American Psychological Association ethical standards. An online survey methodology was deemed appropriate for the present work in light of evidence showing that this method can increase response rate, reduce missing data, and preserve quality of measurement relative to administration of paper and pencil surveys (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose, 2006). Procedures approximated Dillman’s (2007) tailored design method, with the amount of time between survey distribution and reminders shortened as well as the number of reminders (two) modified to fit the sport season and institutional review board constraints. Following athletic administrator and coach permission, the researcher forwarded an e-mail invitation to all team members to participate in an online survey of football experiences. A link to the online survey was embedded in the e-mail. Reminder e-mails were sent 10 and 20 days later, after which no more e-mail correspondence occurred. Consent was inferred through continuation to the survey following the online presentation of standard consent form information (e.g., risks, benefits, confidentiality). Participants were informed that no correct or incorrect answers existed for survey questions and were asked to respond based on general experiences on the team in the current season (not a particular practice or game). The order of measures was counter-balanced via the computer interface to control for order effects. Approximately 1200 athletes were contacted. Based on recorded response times, survey completion took 15 min or less for 97% of the respondents. The response rate for the present study was approximately 20%. This response rate is lower than comparable online studies assessing athlete burnout (e.g., about 30%; Lonsdale et al., 2009) and may be the result of the current online survey being administered directly by the researchers rather than under the auspices of a sport-affiliated administrative body. Data Analysis Data were analyzed for missing values, outliers, and violations of multivariate assumptions. Confirmatory factor analysis was then employed to address the secondary study purpose of assessing the factor structure of sport-adapted AWLS scores (and was used to assess factor structure of ABQ and AEQ scores). A six-factor model was tested based on the AWLS structure observed with working professionals (Leiter & Maslach, 2004). Descriptive statistics and scale reliabilities were then calculated for all study variables. Finally, the burnout–engagement relationship was assessed by comparing two structural models. A global areas of worklife latent variable was specified as antecedent to global burnout and engagement latent variables. Model 1 specified the areas of worklife–engagement relationship to be mediated by burnout; Model 2 specified the areas of worklife–burnout relationship to be mediated by engagement. Structural equation modeling was conducted with LISREL 8.7 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004) using maximum likelihood estimation and fixing one loading value to 1.0 for each latent variable. In accord with best practice (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), multiple fit indices, path coefficients, and modification indices were compared across models. We examined the following fit indices: chi-squared goodness-of-fit, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The GFI index is analogous to R2 and larger values represent better fit. Based on the recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999), NNFI and CFI values greater than .95 were considered


187

relatively good fit and values greater than .90 were considered adequate fit; RMSEA values less than .06 were also desired. We also examined Akaike information criterion (AIC) values, often used to compare nonhierarchical models of the same data. Differences in AIC values have been used to decide among competing models, though no specific guidelines for significant differences in AIC values have been agreed upon (Kline, 2005). Comparison of parameter estimates and modification indices across models was used as a complementary method to assess potential model differences. Similarity of fit, parameter estimates, and modification indices across models would suggest athlete burnout and athlete engagement to be antipodes. Conversely, differences in fit, parameter estimates, and/or modification indices would suggest athlete burnout and athlete engagement to be distinct constructs. RESULTS


Preliminary Data Screening Based on the skewness and kurtosis values as well as pairwise scatterplots, no variables exhibited obvious violations of multivariate analysis assumptions. The proportion of missing data from completed surveys was less than .2% for the core study measures. Missing scores for these few data points were sample mean imputed. Examination of Mahalanobis distance values revealed three potential multivariate outlier cases. All measurement and structural models were assessed with and without these outlier cases and exhibited no notable differences. Therefore, results for all valid cases (N = 227) are reported below. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Sport-Adapted AWLS A first-order, six-factor model was specified and exhibited a relatively good fit to the data, χ 2(362) = 628.0, p < .001, GFI = .83, NNFI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06 (.05–.07). Items 2 “I am involved with football intensely for prolonged periods of time” (workload; R2 = .01), 6 “I leave football behind when I go home at the end of the day” (workload; R2 = .07), 20 “Football playing time is decided solely on merit” (fairness; R2 = .03), and 29 “Playing football here forces me to compromise my values” (values; R2 = .04) exhibited low squared multiple correlation values relative to the other items (R2 = .16–.77), suggesting that these items may not have resonated well with the current sample of collegiate football players. Therefore, the model was run again with the deletion of these four items. This 25-item model also exhibited relatively good fit to the data, with slight improvement in some fit indices, χ 2(260) = 454.0, p < .01, GFI = .85, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06 (.05–.07). All parameter estimates were significant (p < .05; see Table 1). The 25-item version was used in subsequent analyses to ensure areas of worklife perceptions were incorporated that are meaningful to the current football sample. Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics appear in Table 2. Participants reported moderate levels of the areas of worklife variables with the exception of community, which was high on average relative to the response set options. Scores on the athlete burnout dimensions of emotional and physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, and sport devaluation were low relative to the response set options. Conversely, participants reported relatively high levels of the athlete engagement dimensions of confidence, vigor, dedication, and enthusiasm. Bivariate correlations among variables were in theoretically expected directions and of moderate to high magnitude (Cohen, 1988). Higher workload scores on the AWLS represent greater manageability

188


Table 1 Completely Standardized Factor Loadings and Uniquenesses for Final Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model of Sport-Adapted AWLS Scores (N = 227)


Factor Observed Indicator Workload 1 3 4 5 Control 7 8 9 Reward 10 11 12 13 Community 14 15 16 17 18 Fairness 19 21 22 23 24 Values 25 26 27 28

Loading

Uniqueness

0.64 0.74 0.79 0.47

0.59 0.45 0.38 0.78

0.40 0.46 0.72

0.84 0.79 0.48

0.83 0.86 0.87 0.74

0.31 0.26 0.25 0.45

0.72 0.83 0.87 0.74 0.60

0.49 0.31 0.23 0.46 0.64

0.45 0.47 0.83 0.81 0.74

0.80 0.78 0.32 0.35 0.45

0.75 0.70 0.75 0.76

0.43 0.51 0.44 0.42

Note. All values significant at p < .05.

of workload. Therefore, the negative correlations of workload with burnout dimensions and positive correlations of workload with engagement dimensions are in line with expectations. Comparison of Conceptual Models Subscale scores (generated by averaging item scores) on the six respective areas of worklife variables were used as observed indicators of the global latent areas of worklife variable in the two conceptual models that were compared. Athlete burnout and engagement dimension subscale scores were used as observed indicators of these respective global latent variables. For both models that were tested, all correlations among the latent variables (see Table 3) and loadings of observed indicators of latent variables (see Table 4) were significant (p < .05). Model 1, in which the areas of worklife–engagement relationship was specified to be mediated by burnout, exhibited an adequate fit to the data with the exception of an elevated (marginal)


189

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Areas of Worklife, Athlete Burnout, and Athlete Engagement Dimensions (N = 227)


Variable

1

10

11

12

13

1. Workload 0.78 2. Control 0.30 0.56 3. Reward 0.30 0.44 0.90 4. Community 0.28 0.25 0.40 0.85 5. Fairness 0.26 0.42 0.49 0.52 0.79 6. Values 0.26 0.25 0.41 0.65 0.51 0.83 7. Exhaustion −0.64 −0.34 −0.32 −0.32 −0.32 −0.27 0.90 8. RSA −0.39 −0.48 −0.53 −0.43 −0.51 −0.46 0.51 0.82 9. Devaluation −0.39 −0.41 −0.55 −0.50 −0.50 −0.49 0.50 0.71 0.89 10. Confidence 0.25 0.35 0.41 0.24 0.27 0.30 −0.31 −0.56 −0.55 11. Vigor 0.31 0.35 0.41 0.34 0.33 0.40 −0.44 −0.60 −0.64 12. Dedication 0.27 0.39 0.48 0.39 0.38 0.49 −0.35 −0.65 −0.75 13. Enthusiasm 0.36 0.44 0.50 0.43 0.41 0.44 −0.46 −0.65 −0.81

0.85 0.68 0.71 0.63

0.88 0.78 0.80

0.91 0.85

0.92

M SD

4.32 0.64

4.12 0.71

4.35 0.71

4.30 0.75

3.21 0.53

2

3.47 0.71

3

3.39 0.91

4

5

4.10 0.64

3.31 0.67

6

3.79 0.61

7

2.59 0.77

8

9

2.25 0.72

2.08 0.88

Notes. Alpha values on matrix diagonal. Correlation values below matrix diagonal, with all values significant at p < .001; RSA = reduced sense of accomplishment.

RMSEA value, χ 2(63) = 259.4, p < .001, GFI = .85, NNFI = .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .12 (.10–.13). This fit was comparable to Model 2, in which the areas of worklife–burnout relationship was specified to be mediated by engagement, χ 2(63) = 299.4, p < .001, GFI = .83, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .13 (.11–.14). However, AIC values differed between the two models (Model 1 = 315.4; Model 2 = 355.4). Models with differing AIC values are considered dissimilar, with lower AIC values generally representing better fit based on the number of parameters and likelihood of replication (Kline, 2005). Though no golden rule exists for interpretation of the magnitude of differences between AIC values, the values suggest that these comparative models may not represent the data equally well. Additionally, parameter estimates, variance explained in the latent variables of burnout and engagement, and modification indices differed between Model 1 and Model 2 (see Figure 1). The modification indices were notably distinct. In Model 1 the potential non-recursive path from engagement to

Table 3 Correlations Among Areas of Worklife, Athlete Burnout, and Athlete Engagement Latent Variables in Structural Models 1 and 2 (N = 227) Variable 1. Areas of Worklife 2. Burnout 3. Engagement

1

2

3

– −0.66 0.73

−0.83 – −0.91

0.74 −0.88 –

Notes. Model 1 correlation values are above the matrix diagonal; Model 2 correlation values are below the matrix diagonal, with all values significant at p < .05.

190


Table 4 Completely Standardized Factor Loadings and Uniquenesses for Structural Models 1 and 2 (N = 227) Model 1


Factor Observed Indicator Areas of Worklife Workload Control Reward Community Fairness Values Burnout Exhaustion RSA Devaluation Engagement Confidence Vigor Dedication Enthusiasm

Model 2

Loading

Uniqueness

Loading

Uniqueness

0.45 0.53 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.69

0.79 0.72 0.54 0.53 0.50 0.52

0.43 0.52 0.66 0.70 0.70 0.72

0.82 0.73 0.56 0.50 0.51 0.49

0.56 0.81 0.91

0.68 0.35 0.18

0.55 0.79 0.91

0.70 0.37 0.18

0.73 0.86 0.92 0.93

0.47 0.27 0.16 0.13

0.73 0.85 0.91 0.93

0.48 0.28 0.17 0.13

Note. All values significant at p < .05; RSA = reduced sense of accomplishment.

burnout had a modification index value of 5.5. This is in contrast to the similar non-recursive path in Model 2 from burnout to engagement which had a modification index value of 43.7. Likewise, these values are mirrored in the suggested direct path from the areas of worklife variable to the distal consequent variable in the respective models. In sum, within the context of similar model fit, evidence emerged that differentiates the models and slightly favors Model 1.

Figure 1. Parameter Estimates (solid lines), Variance Explained, and Modification Indices (dotted lines) for Latent Models. All parameter estimates significant at p < .05.


191


DISCUSSION The results of the current study address the athlete burnout–engagement continuum debate as well as assess the adaptation of the AWLS to sport. Concerning the primary purpose, comparison of two structural models provided preliminary evidence that athlete burnout and athlete engagement may not reside on a global continuum. Regarding the secondary purpose, study results confirmed that the factor structure of scores on the sport-adapted AWLS in the present study was consistent with the factor structure of the original AWLS. Below we offer interpretations of these findings that inform both theory and practice. The current study provides preliminary empirical evidence that athlete burnout and athlete engagement may not be conceptual antipodes as some organizational researchers have suggested (Leiter & Maslach, 2004). Goodness-of-fit indices were similar across comparative models, yet AIC values suggested that Model 1 was a better representation of the data and the parameter estimates and modification indices also pointed to model differences. Though some researchers have interpreted the extant organizational literature in favor of a conceptual continuum of professional burnout and engagement dimensions (González-Romá et al., 2006), a similar interpretation is not altogether in line with findings from the current athlete sample when examining the global constructs. The inverse correlation of the athlete burnout and athlete engagement latent variables was strong, yet results of the comparative model testing appear to speak against a strict continuum conceptualization. Methodological differences across studies and contexts may contribute to differences in interpretation; however, at minimum the present work indicates that it would be prudent in the near future to afford these phenomena individual attention in sport psychology research and practice. In the present study the possible existence of a burnout–engagement continuum in sport was examined at the global level, a useful strategy for advancing knowledge relative to overarching syndromes (Brenninkmeijer & VanYperen, 2003). This choice was appropriate in light of athlete burnout and engagement consisting of an unequal number of dimensions in sport, preventing a one-to-one matching of facets in model testing. Moreover, the present study addressed burnout and engagement at one time point. A dimensional approach can be especially valuable within a longitudinal research framework. For example, Gould (1996; Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996) describes separate strains of burnout, one driven by physical demands and another driven by social and psychological demands. Different burnout dimensions would be expected to drive these distinct strains. Perceptions of exhaustion may initiate the burnout experience for some athletes, whereas perceptions of reduced accomplishment or devaluation may initiate the syndrome for other athletes. For research on the development of burnout and engagement over time, a dimensional approach is recommended along with attention to the overarching global constructs. This will complement previous longitudinal work that exclusively targets the dimensional-level constructs (see Leiter & Maslach, 2004). The methodological approach employed in this study also merits discussion. The current study used a latent variable approach that modeled a theoretical antecedent, specifically the areas of worklife, to the burnout and engagement constructs. Such an approach has been successfully used to address the continuum debate (Demerouti et al., 2010) and overcomes some challenges associated with non-parametric alternatives that have been advocated by others (González-Romá et al., 2006). This noted, González-Romá and colleagues point out that burnout and engagement are measured using Likert-type response sets that range from the absence of the perception through various levels of endorsement. The meaning of never being burned out, for example, is not easily inferred relative to a potential burnout–engagement continuum. It may or may not translate to a neutral point on a burnout–engagement continuum. This issue at the item level makes it unlikely that the burnout and engagement constructs as


192


typically measured will show the very high negative correlation that is expected if these constructs fall on a continuum. In future work that addresses the athlete burnout-engagement continuum, careful attention to this measurement issue will be necessary to enhance the knowledge base. The present findings support the continued examination of the areas of worklife in sport. The factor structure of the sport-adapted AWLS paralleled that of the original AWLS. Moreover, the global areas of worklife variable employed in the structural models strongly predicted both burnout and engagement. Together, these findings suggest that the areas of worklife are salient in sport much as they are in work settings. The control subscale of the sportadapted AWLS does require further scrutiny, however, as scores exhibited marginal internal consistency reliability. Sport research shows a negative association between burnout and the related construct of autonomy (Amorose, Anderson-Butcher, & Cooper, 2009; Hodge, Lonsdale, & Ng, 2008; Perreault et al., 2007), making it particularly important to effectively assess the control component of the areas of worklife framework. Being that this study was, to our knowledge, the first attempt to investigate the areas of worklife in the sport setting, future measurement, conceptual, and practical work on this topic is needed and has great potential to advance understanding of athlete experiences. From a theoretical perspective, the study findings suggest that the job-person fit model of burnout and engagement (Maslach & Leiter, 1999) is relevant to the athletic environment. The present study shows that higher scores on the areas of worklife are associated with higher athlete engagement perceptions. Conversely, lower scores on these areas are associated with higher athlete burnout perceptions. Therefore, the correspondence of perceived organizational provisions with personal expectations appears highly relevant to athlete well-being. On the other hand, an assumption of the job-person fit model is that burnout and engagement are conceptual antipodes, a position that may not generalize to sport according to the results of the current preliminary study. The results suggest that researchers may wish to be cautious about conceptualizing athlete burnout and engagement as opposites, instead viewing these constructs as negatively and strongly correlated but conceptually distinct. Lack of support for an athlete burnout–engagement continuum has practical implications as well. Individuals working with athletes should be aware that outward signs of burnout and engagement may not afford simple interpretations. An athlete experiencing behavioral or affective signs consistent with engagement may also be susceptible to or experience some degree of burnout perceptions. Alternatively, an athlete who does not appear to be engaged is not necessarily at risk for burnout. Despite the chronic nature of burnout and engagement (Raedeke, 1997; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007), athletes may concomitantly endorse burnout- and engagement-related perceptions throughout a competitive season. Indeed, examining global scale scores in our current sample, over 13% of the participants scored 3.0 or higher (5-point scale) on both burnout and engagement. Practitioners need to be aware of acute and chronic manifestations of both psychological experiences in order to formulate appropriate interpretations about athlete well-being. Attention to other related psychosocial constructs may also further understanding of athlete burnout and engagement. For example, harmonious passion and obsessive passion have shown distinct relationships with burnout perceptions (Curran et al., 2011; Gustaffson, Hassmén, & Hassmén, 2011). Extending this work to address the interplay of athlete burnout and engagement could be a fruitful line of inquiry with practical benefits. A second practical implication concerns the possible work-like nature of sport and how this ties to athlete experiences. It is possible that the similarity of sport to the workplace in terms of hierarchical structure and associated demands results in common variables being germane to burnout and engagement across the two settings. This has implications for athlete well-being,



193

especially considering Coakley’s (1992) view that a sport structure promoting unidimensional identity and usurping athlete control, which are akin to the most negative aspects of the work context, may result in burnout. If athletes perceive some aspects of sport similarly to aspects of work that are often considered negative, perhaps they will experience identity and control perceptions that Coakley considers troublesome. Conversely, a sport environment that is perceived as work-like could also result in adaptive outcomes for athletes when an acceptable balance of sport demands and practices with athlete values is achieved. Though extant sport psychology research has only partially supported Coakley’s theory (Black & Smith, 2007), the present study suggests that considering athlete perceptions of the similarities between work and sport could contribute to the delineation of positive and negative sport experiences. Advancing knowledge about athlete burnout and engagement can also be achieved by addressing limitations of the present work. Future research using the areas of worklife to investigate athlete burnout and engagement should sample both male and female athletes from a variety of team and individual sports and competitive levels, as the current study only included male participants from collegiate American football. Such work could discern whether the current findings generalize to broader athletic populations or vary as a function of organizational structure, gender, or developmental or competitive level. Additionally, according to race and ethnicity data available from the NCAA (2010), the current sample was disproportionately Caucasian. Future research on samples of greater racial and ethnic diversity will increase confidence in the generalization of findings. The relatively low response rate for this study also merits discussion. Despite receiving two reminders, a relatively large number of contacted athletes chose not to respond. This could have influenced study results, as those with higher levels of burnout and/or lower levels of engagement may have been less likely to respond. Collectively, our study participants reported relatively low burnout scores and high engagement scores. Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998) have described this problem as the healthy-worker effect. To address this limitation, further research is necessary which targets high burnout and low engagement individuals to assess whether the burnout–engagement relationship is invariant across athletes endorsing a broad range of cognitive-affective experiences. These efforts may be aided by targeting athletes during particularly demanding portions of their season or training cycle. A relatively broad response window was employed in the present study. The cross-sectional design of the current study enabled examination of the primary research question; however, the knowledge base will also benefit from assessing the relationship between athlete burnout and engagement longitudinally. Burnout and engagement are, by definition, chronic, motivational states (Maslach et al., 2001; Shirom, 2005) that presumably develop over time. Longitudinal research on burnout and engagement will build upon the current study and help delineate the developmental course of the interrelationship of these constructs. Also, future research could determine whether the areas of worklife offers a helpful framework for designing sport-based interventions to deter burnout and promote engagement. Intervention programs based on the areas of worklife have been developed in organizational settings (Maslach & Leiter, 1997), offering potential templates for sport-based intervention design. However, further evaluation of the areas of worklife framework as translated to sport is required to ensure the development of interventions that are appropriately tailored and efficacious. Finally, the knowledge base may also benefit from investigation of athlete burnout and engagement perceptions as mediators of the relationship between the areas of worklife and behavioral outcomes such as dropout. Sport psychology has a long history of integrating the positive psychology approach into research and practice (see Gould, 2002). Interest in the relationship between athlete burnout and engagement is a recent example of adopting this orientation to understand the athletic

194


experience. The promotion of more positive experiences for athletes is benefited by being able to measure and understand the interrelationship of athletes’ maladaptive and adaptive accommodation to sport-related demands. Despite the conceptual and methodological complexities associated with assessing the burnout–engagement relationship, the current study meaningfully contributes to the continuum discussion in the organizational and sport psychology literatures. Moreover, the present work shows the areas of worklife to have potential to further our understanding of athlete burnout and engagement as well as inform practical strategies for promoting athlete well-being. FOOTNOTE


1. Parameter estimates from the ABQ and AEQ confirmatory factor analyses are available from the corresponding author. REFERENCES Amorose, A. J., Anderson-Butcher, D., & Cooper, J. (2009). Predicting changes in athletes’ well-being from changes in need satisfaction over the course of a competitive season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 386–392. Appleton, P. R., Hall, H. K., & Hill, A. P. (2009). Relations between multidimensional perfectionism and burnout in junior-elite male athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 457–465. Brenninkmeijer, V., & VanYperen, N. (2003). How to conduct research on burnout: Advantages and disadvantages of a unidimensional approach in burnout research. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60 (Suppl. 1), 16–21. Black, J. M., & Smith, A. L. (2007). An examination of Coakley’s perspective on identity, control, and burnout among adolescent athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 417–436. Chen, L. H., Kee, Y. H., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2008). Relation of dispositional optimism with burnout among athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 693–698. Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271–285. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2006). The convergent and discriminant validity of burnout measures in sport: A multi-trait/multi-method analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 209–220. Curran, T., Appleton, P. R., Hill, A. P., & Hall, H. K. (2011). Passion and burnout in elite junior soccer players: The mediating role of self-determined motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 655–661. Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 209–222. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Eklund, R. C., & Cresswell, S. L. (2007). Athlete burnout. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 621–641). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Freudenberger, H. J. (1975). The staff burn-out syndrome in alternative institutions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 12, 73–82. González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 165–174. Goodger, K., Gorely, T., Lavallee, D., & Harwood, C. (2007). Burnout in sport: A systematic review. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 127–151. Gould, D. (1996). Personal motivation gone awry: Burnout in competitive athletes. Quest, 48, 275–289.



195

Gould, D. (2002). Sport psychology in the new millennium: The psychology of athletic excellence and beyond. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 137–139. Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341–366. Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322–340. Gould, D., & Whitley, M. A. (2009). Sources and consequences of athletic burnout among college athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Athletics, 2, 16–30. Gustafsson, H., Hassmén, P., & Hassmén, N. (2011). Are athletes burning out with passion? European Journal of Sport Science, 11, 387–395. Gustafsson, H., Hassmén, P., & Podlog, L. (2010). Exploring the relationship between hope and burnout in competitive sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1495–1504. Gustafsson, H., Kenttä, G., Hassmén, P., & Lundqvist, C. (2007). Prevalence of burnout in competitive adolescent athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 21–37. Gustafsson, H., Kenttä, G., Hassmén, P., Lundqvist, C., & Durand-Bush, N. (2007). The process of burnout: A multiple case study of three elite endurance athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 388–416. Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., Appleton, P. R., & Kozub, S. A. (2008). Perfectionism and burnout in junior elite soccer players: The mediating influence of unconditional self-acceptance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 630–644. Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C., & Jackson, S. A. (2009). Athlete engagement in elite sport: An exploratory investigation of antecedents and consequences. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 186–202. Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C., & Ng, J. Y. Y. (2008). Burnout in elite rugby: Relationships with basic psychological needs fulfillment. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 835–844. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 11–55. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL (Version 8.7) [Computer Software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2000). Areas of Worklife Survey. Wolfville, NS, Canada: Centre for Organizational Research & Development. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2004). Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational predictors of job burnout. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and wellbeing. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Lemyre, P.-N., Roberts, G. C., & Stray-Gunderson, J. (2007). Motivation, overtraining, and burnout: Can self-determined motivation predict overtraining and burnout in elite athletes? European Journal of Sport Science, 7, 115–126. Lemyre, P.-N., Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (2006). Influence of variability in motivation and affect on elite athlete burnout susceptibility. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 32–48. Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Jackson, S. A. (2007). Athlete engagement: II. Development and initial validation of the Athlete Engagement Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 471–492. Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Raedeke, T. D. (2007). Athlete engagement: I. A qualitative investigation of relevance and dimensions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 451–470. Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. A. (2006). Pixels vs. paper: Comparing online and traditional survey methods in sport psychology. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 100–108. Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. (2009). Athlete burnout in elite sport: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 785–795. Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 19–32). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.


196


Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1999). Burnout and engagement in the workplace: A contextual analysis. Advances in motivation and achievement, 11, 275–302. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498–512. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, W. B. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Pyschology, 52, 397–422. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2010). 2009-2010 NCAA student-athlete race and ethnicity report. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/ SAEREP11.pdf. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Perreault, S., Gaudreau, P., Lapointe, M-C., & Lacroix, C. (2007). Does it take three to tango? Psychological need satisfaction and athlete burnout. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 437–450. Pines, A.M. (1993). Burnout: An existential perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 33–51). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Raedeke, T. D. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 396–417. Raedeke, T. D., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281–306. Raedeke, T. D., & Smith, A. L. (2004). Coping resources and athlete burnout: An examination of stress mediated and moderation hypotheses. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 525–541. Raedeke, T. D. & Smith, A. L. (2009). The Athlete Burnout Questionnaire manual. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. Rigauer, B. (1981). Sport and work. (A. Guttmann, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1969). Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multisample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Shirom, A. (2005). Reflections on the study of burnout. Work and Stress, 19, 263–270. Smith, A. L., Gustafsson, H., & Hassmén, P. (2010). Peer motivational climate and burnout perceptions of adolescent athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 453–460. Smith, R. E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 36–50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.