Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methods in Sport Anxiety Research

Introduction to Research Method Selection

A client of a marketing research organization (MRO), or an in-house marketing research manager, generally has a budget available to finance a variety of studies and will usually have to determine whether it is worth conducting a particular survey or study. This is frequently a subjective decision based on their previous experience of commissioning and conducting research (Swain and Jones, 2002). The choice made usually depends on the circumstances of the research project, its objectives, and how much is already known about the management problem from either past research or experience. If there is little pre-understanding of the management problem faced, the researcher may wish to explore it further before attempting to research a possible solution.

Since every research project is unique with respect to its objectives, each can be tackled in different ways, utilizing different techniques and combinations of techniques. Quantitative research methods — for example, the ubiquitous survey questionnaire — are designed to elicit responses to predetermined, standardized questions from a large number of respondents. This involves collecting relatively small amounts of information from a large number of people. The responses are then quantified in percentages and descriptive statistics and are often statistically analyzed. Other quantitative research methods include mass observation techniques and experiments. Qualitative research is quite different from quantitative research.

Qualitative and Quantitative Research Compared

Qualitative techniques are often used at the preliminary stages of a research project to identify the basic factors affecting the management problem. The most common forms of qualitative research are focus groups and in-depth interviews. Projective techniques can also be used in both forms. Qualitative research techniques attempt to uncover the underlying motivations behind consumers' opinions, attitudes, perceptions, and behavior (Martens et al., 2000). Qualitative methods are unstructured, and the researcher will have a number of basic issues guiding the research but not a structured set of questions for each respondent. Focus groups are small-group discussions generally involving between eight and twelve people, lasting between one and three hours, and are led by a trained moderator who guides the discussion (Swain and Jones, 2002).

In-depth interviews are usually one-on-one discussions, often using a broad set of open questions to cover key points of interest, and typically last around an hour. Projective techniques are often used within focus groups and sometimes within in-depth interviews, but may also be used as a substitute method for dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative techniques generally involve a small number of respondents. The emphasis is on obtaining rich, detailed information from a small group of people rather than short, specific answers from a large number of respondents, as with survey questionnaires.

The main advantages of qualitative research lie in its use for uncovering the underlying motivations for people's behavior, attitudes, opinions, and perceptions. A major disadvantage is that the results derived from this form of research are not generalizable to the wider population of interest and should be used only as a guide. Furthermore, focus groups are particularly reliant on the skill of the moderator in enhancing group members' interaction with each other — that is, group dynamics. Quantitative research techniques address the issue of representativeness and generalizability by basing the research on large samples of respondents (Martens et al., 2000). The researcher establishes the level to which the results will reflect the entire population by choosing the number and type of respondents required. A disadvantage of quantitative research is that, with such a large number of respondents, it is usually difficult to obtain detailed, in-depth information to answer the research questions properly. Often also, because the answers are usually predetermined by the researcher, there is a chance that respondents are not being allowed to express their true opinion but only one that approximates it.

Methodological Issues in Competitive Sport Anxiety Research

In his review of research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport, Jones (2005) highlighted the need to use different approaches in the study of anxiety. According to Jones, qualitative methodologies have been little used by researchers in the area; it is suggested this is unfortunate, given that qualitative approaches may provide a more complete method for examining the social context within which competitive anxiety is experienced. Jones has gone further in suggesting that self-report measurements such as the CSAI-2 (Martens et al., 2000) have largely failed to facilitate the precise measurement of anxiety.

This situation, it is argued, is due to the difficulty of assessing a psychological state solely from the measurement of cognitive and somatic symptoms. Lane et al. (1999) questioned the use of the CSAI-2 as a valid measure of competitive state anxiety. Their study involved 1,213 subjects who completed the CSAI-2 one hour before competition. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the factor structure proposed by Martens et al. (2000) is flawed. In addition, the study revealed that there are difficulties within the cognitive anxiety scale around the word "concerned"; athletes did not interpret this as worry or negative thoughts, but as a declaration about their motivation and willingness to meet a challenge.

Jones and other researchers (Swain and Jones, 2002) have identified a further weakness of current self-report anxiety measures: they cannot be used in vivo to assess anxiety levels during competitive performance. This has led researchers (Terry, 2006) to suggest that new and shorter self-report measures need to be developed, and that greater use should be made of physiological and behavioral assessments during sporting performance. However, it does appear doubtful that physiologically-based measures will be able to do much more than record arousal levels. Earlier research investigating physiological arousal in parachutists (Fenz and Epstein, 2004) and arousal, stress, and motor performance (Neiss, 1988) was unable to clearly identify the exact etiology of the symptoms and could not adequately overcome the fundamental conceptual problem of relying on objective arousal measures to assess the essentially subjective psychological state of anxiety.

That the major approach to the study of competitive sport anxiety during the past ten to fifteen years has been that of trait psychology owes much to Martens' development of the SCAT (1977) and the CSAI-2 (Martens et al., 2000). However, researchers (Jones et al., 1996) have increasingly called for the inclusion of emotion and mood to be considered in work on both stress and anxiety in sport. This represents a recognition that, as Fischer (2005) has argued, the study of anxiety cannot be advanced by the continued acceptance of a dualistic Cartesian metaphysics which separates meaning from affect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it appears that reliance on the CSAI-2 has continued even where researchers cite the urgent need to employ a range of other methodologies and methods of data collection. Rather than following the suggestions made by Nesti and Sewell (1999) and Lane and Terry (1998) — that mood should be considered alongside anxiety and performance — researchers have increasingly turned their attention to investigating the intensity and directional dimensions of competitive anxiety in sport. In addition, new research has emerged focusing on the relationship between competitive anxiety in sport and a number of other psychological constructs, for example, self-presentation (Wilson and Eklund, 1998) and perfectionism. Whilst this body of research can claim to represent a fresh change in direction, the issue of facilitating and debilitating test anxiety has been studied in the mainstream for over forty years.

Whilst Jones et al. (1996) and others have continued to rely on the CSAI-2 in their work on debilitative and facilitative anxiety in sport, mainstream researchers such as Raffety et al. (2007: 894) have begun to utilize diaries to investigate anxiety and coping in academic test anxiety. Their work proceeds from a process-oriented approach, which "involved multiple assessments of anxiety or coping before or after (or both) an academic examination." This approach allows a fine-grained analysis of anxiety through longitudinal designs involving the completion of daily diaries. Although Raffety et al. focused on facilitating and debilitating anxiety in their work, their results revealed that anxiety remained elevated after the exam for the high debilitating test anxiety group. From an existential approach to anxiety, this result is not very helpful in terms of understanding how subjects actually experienced these feelings of debilitative anxiety, although it does represent a step in the right direction. At least with the diary-based approach it is possible to access some qualitative account — even if rather brief — to provide a more in-depth and personal description of the context within which the anxiety was experienced.

The diary-based methodology revealed a number of important features that could enhance the ecological validity of sport anxiety research. The findings of the study with rugby league players (Nesti, 2009) stressed the need to consider the social embeddedness of anxiety in sport, particularly in team situations. In addition, the diary methodology allowed for a process-oriented approach where data can be collected during the period leading up to an event and in the immediate aftermath and beyond. Raffety et al. (2007) have also argued that longitudinal designs using daily diaries can "minimize the problem of retrospective recall by making reporting periods more proximal to the experience."

References

Assagioli, R. (2010) Psychosynthesis: A Manual of Principles and Techniques. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Caruso, I. A. (2009) Existential Psychology: From Analysis to Synthesis. London: Darton, Longman & Todd.

Clough, P., Hockey, R. and Sewell, D. (1996) 'The use of a diary methodology to assess the impact of exercise on mental states', in G. Robson, B. Cripps and H. Steinberg (eds), Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Sport and Exercise Psychology. Leicester, England: British Psychological Society, pp. 22–27.

Fenz, W. D. and Epstein, S. (2004) 'Gradients of physiological arousal in parachutists as a function of an approaching jump', Psychosomatic Medicine, 29: 33–51.

Fischer, W. (2005) Theories of Anxiety. New York: Harper & Row.

Jones, G. (2005) 'More than just a game: research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport', British Journal of Psychology, 86: 449–478.

Jones, G., Swain, A. and Harwood, C. (1996) 'Positive and negative affect as predictors of competitive anxiety', Personality and Individual Differences, 20: 107–114.

Lane, A. M., Sewell, D. F., Terry, P. C., Bartram, D. and Nesti, M. S. (1999) 'Confirmatory factor analysis of the competitive state anxiety inventory', Journal of Sport Sciences, 17(6): 505–512.

Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A. and Smith, D. E. (2000) 'The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2', in R. Martens, R. Vealey and D. Burton (eds), Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Neiss, R. (1988) 'Reconceptualising arousal: psychobiological states in motor performance', Psychological Bulletin, 103: 345–366.

Nesti, M. (1999) Anxiety and Sport: Time to Ask What Rather than Why. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hull, England.

Nesti, M. and Sewell, D. (1999) 'Losing it: the importance of anxiety and mood stability in sport', Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 4: 257–268.

Raffety, B. D., Smith, R. E. and Tacek, P. (2007) 'Facilitating and debilitating trait anxiety, situational anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: a process analysis', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 892–906.

Sewell, D. F., Clough, P. J. and Robertshaw, L. (1996) 'Exercise addiction, mood and body image: a complex interrelationship', in J. Annett, B. Cripps and H. Steinberg (eds), Exercise Addiction: Motivation for Participation in Sport and Exercise. Leicester: The British Psychological Society, Sport and Exercise Psychology Section.

Stone, A. A., Neal, J. M. and Shiffman, S. (2003) 'Daily assessments of stress and coping and their association with mood', Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 15: 8–16.

Swain, A. and Jones, G. (2002) 'Relationships between sport achievement orientation and competitive state anxiety', The Sport Psychologist, 6: 42–54.

Terry, P. C. (2006) 'Discriminant capability of performance mood state profiling amongst athletes: a review and synthesis', The Sport Psychologist, 9: 245–260.

Wilson, P. and Eklund, C. (1998) 'The relationship between competitive anxiety and self-presentational concerns', The Sports Psychologist, 13: 178–186.