M.

Sheard
European Journalof et al.: Assessment
Psychological Construct Validation
© 2009 Hogrefe
2009; Vol. of the
& Huber SMTQ
25(3):186–193
Publishers

Progress Toward Construct Validation

of the Sports Mental Toughness
Questionnaire (SMTQ)
Michael Sheard1, Jim Golby2, and Anna van Wersch2
1
York St John University, York, UK, 2University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK

Abstract. This study examines the construct validity of an original self-report instrument for the assessment of mental toughness: the
Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ). Two independent studies supported a three-factor (Confidence, Constancy, and Control)
14-item model for the SMTQ. With a sample of 633 athletes (427 males, 206 females; M age = 21.5 years; SD = 5.48), drawn from 25
sport classifications, and competing at international, national, county and provincial, or club and regional standards, the first study utilized
item development and exploratory factor analytic techniques to establish the psychometric properties of the SMTQ. Study 2 employed
confirmatory factor analytic techniques with an independent sample of 509 sports performers (351 males, 158 females; M age = 20.2
years; SD = 3.35), competing at the aforementioned standards, and representative of 26 sports. Confirmatory analysis using structural
equation modeling confirmed the overall structure. A single factor underlying mental toughness (Gmt) was identified with higher-order
exploratory factor analysis using the Schmid-Leiman procedure. Collectively, satisfying absolute and incremental fit-index benchmarks,
the inventory was shown to possess satisfactory psychometric properties, with adequate reliability, divergent validity, and discriminative
power. The results revealed promising features of the SMTQ, lending preliminary support to the instrument’s factorial validity and
reliability. Further construct validation of the SMTQ is recommended, including its use as an index for evaluating the effect of intervention
programs.

Keywords: mental toughness, Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ), principal axis factoring analysis, confirmatory factor
analysis, Schmid-Leiman

Introduction firmatory techniques. Further, the scale’s authors offered

Research has identified “mental toughness” as a crucial at-
tribute for success in competitive sport and the develop-
ment of champion sport performers (e.g., Durand-Bush &
Salmela, 2002; Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002). Yet,
despite a general definitional consensus reflecting the cog-
nitive-behavioral multivariate nature of the construct (see
Crust, 2007, for a review), insufficient effort has been de-
voted to the development of a reliable and valid measure
of mental toughness in sport. Though attention has been
given to the construction of scales measuring the construct,
little supporting psychometric evidence is available for
them.
The Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48 (MTQ48;
Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002) contains 48 items that are
scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree, with an average completion
time of between 10 and 15 min. The scale yields scores for
overall mental toughness and for each of its subscales:
commitment, emotional control, life control, challenge, in-
terpersonal confidence, and confidence in abilities. How-
ever, there is little published evidence of the scale’s psy-
chometric properties. Its factor structure, in particular, has
not been rigorously scrutinized using exploratory and con-
little rationale for the association with hardiness, which,
ultimately, is the basis for the instrument’s subscales.
The Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI; Middleton,
Marsh, Martin, Richards, & Perry, 2004) is a 65-item in-
strument that measures 12 components of mental toughness
along with global mental toughness. The MTI appears to
have been developed from a sound theoretical base and has
been evaluated via a construct validation framework. How-
ever, few other details of the scale are available. Moreover,
it can be considered a limitation that the scale has been
validated using only elite sports high school athletes with
a mean age of 14 years (range 12 to 19 years). Further
testing of the MTI is needed to determine its psychometric
properties.
The 42-item Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI;
Loehr, 1986) was one of the first measures to include cog-
nitive-behavioral and self-evaluation dimensions. Al-
though Loehr offered a persuasive discussion of the scale,
the conceptual and theoretical basis for the instrument was
not strong and, in particular, he presented no psychometric
support for its use. Indeed, psychometric analysis of the PPI
(Golby, Sheard, & van Wersch, 2007) found little support
for the instrument’s proposed seven-factor structure.
Golby et al. (2007) extended their psychometric work
on the PPI by successfully developing an alternative instru-

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193 © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
DOI 10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.186
 M. Sheard et al.: Construct Validation of the SMTQ
ment (PPI-A). They ultimately noted four factors of mental
toughness; these were labeled Determination, Self-belief,
Positive cognition, and Visualization. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) showed good support for the four-factor
PPI-A. However, a potential limitation of the scale is that
it does not include a measure of control, a characteristic
repeatedly identified in the mental toughness literature (see
Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002). Consequently, the
present research reports two studies that sought to examine
the development of an original multidimensional measure
of mental toughness in sport.
Study 1 focused on the initial construction of the Sports
Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ), the preliminary
determination of the factor structure, and the psychometric
properties of the instrument. Study 2 employed confirma-
tory factor analytic techniques to provide further support
for the generated model and the psychometric properties of
the instrument.
Materials and Methods
Participants and Procedure
A total of 1,142 male and female athletes ranging from 16
to 63 years of age participated in the SMTQ scale develop-
ment and evaluation phases. Two independent samples
were employed. Sample 1 consisted of 633 performers, 16
to 63 years old (427 males, 206 females; M age = 21.5
years; SD = 5.48), drawn from 25 sport classifications. This
sample was employed in Study 1. Sample 2 was an inde-
pendent sample of 509 athletes, 18 to 48 years old (351
males, 158 females; M age = 20.2 years; SD = 3.35), drawn
from 26 sport classifications. These athletes were used in
Study 2. Both samples consisted of performers competing
at international, national, county and provincial, or club
and regional standards.
Institutional ethics approval was obtained. Volunteers
were recruited via personal communication, letter, and e-
mail invitations to a broad sample of clubs and governing
bodies in the United Kingdom (contact first author for a
sample report). Ethical procedures conforming to standards
set by the British Psychological Society (2006) were ad-
hered to throughout the research process. All participants
provided informed consent and were assured confidential-
ity. Participants were naïve to the research hypotheses and
completed the questionnaires in their respective training
camps. There were six stages to the data collection:
Study 1
Stage 1: Item Development
Using raw data themes and quotes from qualitative studies
(see Crust, 2007), a corpus of sport-relevant items was de-
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
187
veloped. Guidelines for item wording (Clark & Watson,
1995) were followed. An initial pool of 53 items was ad-
ministered to five female and five male athletes, and to 10
coaches working in a variety of sports (contact first author
for the set of 53 items). Using a dichotomous scale (appli-
cable vs. inapplicable), coaches were instructed to assess
the applicability of each item to their respective sport. Us-
ing the ratings provided by athletes and coaches, and their
numerous comments, several items were rewritten in order
to improve their clarity and to broaden their applicability
across sports. Experts involved in previous mental tough-
ness investigations reviewed the resulting bank of items.
They retained 18 items.
Stage 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis
Responses to the SMTQ items were made on a four-point
Likert scale anchored by not at all true and very true. To
examine the common variance within the factor structure
of the SMTQ, and to eliminate error variance associated
with it (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), principal axis factor-
ing analysis (PAF) was performed on the retained 18 items
with SPSS v14.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) using oblique
rotation (Promax with Kaiser normalization), which allows
for correlation among subscales (Costello & Osbourne,
2005; Russell, 2002). To ensure minimal ambiguity be-
tween factors, criteria for an acceptable factor solution
were (a) that factors have a minimum eigenvalue of 1, (b)
the exclusion of pattern coefficients below .40, (c) the ex-
clusion of items loading .40 or more if there was cross-
loading greater than .30 on any other factors, and (d) that
there should be a minimum of three items on each factor
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Results
PAF yielded a four-factor structure that explained 38.9%
of the variance. Two items had pattern coefficients of less
than .40, and were removed from subsequent analysis. Be-
cause this resulted in a factor with fewer than three items,
two further items were removed from the model. PAF was
applied to the retained 14 items. The scree test suggested
that three factors should be extracted from the data set. Ve-
licer’s MAP and parallel analysis tests were not conducted
because of their tendency to underfactor and overfactor,
respectively (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004; Leshem &
Glicksohn, 2007). In total, the three factors accounted for
40.7% of the variance (23.8, 12.0, and 4.9%, respectively)
in the data set (Table 1). In the unrotated solution, all items
loaded on a single factor providing evidence for a general
factor of mental toughness. The SMTQ factors were la-
beled Confidence, Constancy, and Control. The 14-item in-
ventory is presented in Table 2.
Pearson correlations among the three factors were all
positive and statistically significant (p < .01): Confidence
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193
188 M. Sheard et al.: Construct Validation of the SMTQ

Table 1. SMTQ item-total correlations, and pattern and structure coefficients

Item no. Item M and SD Promax pattern coefficients Promax structure coefficients
Factors Factors
M SD I II III I II III
13 2.37 0.88 .76 .06 –.03 .77 .26 .21
5 3.01 0.76 .67 .05 –.06 .67 .22 .16
11 2.48 0.78 .61 –.09 –.03 .57 .07 .09
6 2.75 0.82 .59 .04 –.00 .60 .21 .19
14 2.95 0.79 .59 .00 .00 .59 .17 .17
1 2.92 0.69 .54 –.07 .17 .56 .18 .28
3 3.18 0.75 .12 .74 –.17 .28 .68 .27
12 3.09 0.78 –.12 .72 .10 .11 .74 .45
8 3.02 0.82 .00 .58 –.01 .17 .58 .31
10 3.55 0.74 –.02 .52 .15 .17 .59 .42
2 2.85 0.77 .02 .01 .66 .21 .38 .67
4 2.35 0.84 .05 –.14 .66 .19 .23 .60
9 2.45 0.78 –.10 .18 .52 .30 .49 .65
7 3.15 0.86 –.13 .09 .45 .02 .30 .46
% Variance 23.80 12.00 4.90
Note. Data from first sample (N = 633). The highest pattern and structure coefficient in each factor is bold italics. Salient pattern and structure
coefficients (≥ .40) are presented in bold. Pattern and structure coefficients of .30 or more are in italics.

Table 2. SMTQ item wording Study 2

No. Content for mental toughness items by subscale
Confidence
13 I interpret potential threats as positive opportunities
5 I have an unshakeable confidence in my ability
11 I have qualities that set me apart from other competitors
6 I have what it takes to perform well while under pressure
14 Under pressure, I am able to make decisions with confidence
and commitment
1 I can regain my composure if I have momentarily lost it
Constancy
3 I am committed to completing the tasks I have to do
12 I take responsibility for setting myself challenging targets
8 I give up in difficult situations
10 I get distracted easily and lose my concentration
Control
2 I worry about performing poorly
4 I am overcome by self-doubt
9 I get anxious by events I did not expect or cannot control
7 I get angry and frustrated when things do not go my way
· Constancy = .22; Confidence · Control = .24; Constancy
· Control = .44. Computation of Cronbach’s αs showed ac-
ceptable internal consistency for each of the three factors
(α ≥ .70; Kline, 2005): Confidence = .80, Constancy = .74,
and Control = .71. Item means and standard deviations are
shown in Table 1.
A Theory-Based Model of Mental Toughness
The approach to mental toughness and the corresponding
inventory introduced in the present research offers a dis-
positional perspective of the construct. Moreover, the con-
struct validation of mental toughness undertaken in this
research is in the spirit of what Seligman and Csikszent-
mihalyi (2000) have baptized “positive psychology”. A
central tenet of the positive psychology paradigm is that
stressors, adversity, and other inordinate demands are in-
herent to the human condition. However, the paradigm as-
sumes that there are also sources of strength, by which this
condition can be endured and even transcended. Physical,
emotional, and social stressors can stimulate growth and
strengthening in many individuals. Such people are often
able to tap into previously unknown capacities, perspec-
tives, and virtues. Thus, positive psychology is an obvi-
ously desirable frame of reference within which to exam-
ine the construct validation of mental toughness.
Mentally tough performers have the ability to bounce
back from stressful experiences, such as competitive sport,
quickly and effectively. Such an outcome is likely to be
facilitated by athletes’ possession of relatively enduring
characteristics; for example, optimism, hardiness, and pos-
itive affectivity are highly desirable dispositional tenden-
cies that can predispose a situation-specific response.
When confronting a challenge, individuals high in opti-
mism, hardiness, and positive affectivity tend to approach
it with confidence and persistence (Golby & Sheard, 2004;

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193 © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 M. Sheard et al.: Construct Validation of the SMTQ 189

Figure 1. The SMTQ model tested in this investigation, which includes the higher-order estimates displayed within the
figure, as well as the corresponding calculations required for performing the Schmid-Leiman transformation of the high-
er-order model. Note. GMT = General Mental Toughness; CF = Confidence; CS = Constancy; CT = Control.

Sheard & Golby, 2006b). Such persons feel engaged in, and
feel they have influence over, whatever they are doing, de-
riving positive emotions from their involvement (see For-
gas, 2006; Maddi, 2006). This perspective facilitates adap-
tive solution-focused behaviors, resulting in people con-
cluding that the challenges facing them can be overcome.
Studies have revealed relationships, but conceptual distinc-
tions, between mental toughness and hardiness (e.g., Gol-
by, Sheard, & Lavallee, 2003), optimism (e.g., Nicholls,
Polman, Levy, & Backhouse, 2008), and positive affectiv-
ity (Sheard & Golby, 2006a).
ance accounted for by the general factor (Thompson,
2004). The residualized domain-specific factor loading of
each variable can be specified by partialing out the vari-
able’s “g” loading and uniqueness. This transformation is
achieved by the Schmid-Leiman procedure (Schmid & Lei-
man, 1957). It has been strongly recommended that high-
er-order model solutions should be subjected to a Schmid-
Leiman transformation, prior to model solution interpreta-
tions (Gignac, 2007).
Stage 5: Divergent Validity

Materials and Methods
Stage 3: CFA
Sample 2 completed the 14-item SMTQ. CFA was con-
ducted using LISREL 8.14 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993),
incorporating the maximum likelihood method (Chou &
Bentler, 1995).
Stage 4: Construction of a Higher-Order Factor
Model
Higher-order factor analysis takes into account the reality
of correlated factors by allowing for the extraction of vari-
Participants also completed the Personal Views Survey III-
R (PVS III-R; Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001), the revised Life
Orientation Test (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges,
1994), and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). These instru-
ments were chosen as the divergent validity criterion on the
basis of their acceptable psychometric properties, and their
conceptual relatedness to, but hypothesized independence
and distinction from, mental toughness, mentioned previ-
ously. Cronbach’s αs showed acceptable internal consis-
tency for each of the scales: .72, .74, .71, .72, .81, and .81,
for Commitment, Control, Challenge (the three hardiness
subscales), optimism, positive affect, and negative affect,
respectively.

© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193
190 M. Sheard et al.: Construct Validation of the SMTQ

Stage 6: Competitive Standard, Gender, and Age unique regression paths associated with the unique first-or-
Differences der latent variable (see Figure 1 for calculations).

The two samples were combined to derive normative data

for the SMTQ. Separate MANOVAs were used with fol-
low-up ANOVAs to clarify the source of significant differ-
ences. When necessary, post hoc comparisons were made
using the Dunn-Sidak method, which accounted for the in-
flated Type I error rate (Kirk, 1995). For the MANOVAs,
competitive standard, gender, and age group served as the
independent variables, while SMTQ subscale scores served
as the dependent variables. α was set at .05.
Results
Schmid-Leiman Analyses
The higher-order General Mental Toughness (Gmt) factor
accounted for 12% to 38% of the item variance. Most items
loaded primarily on the higher-order Gmt factor. The high-
er-order factor-structure coefficients associated with the
Gmt factor were .69, .71, and .75, for Confidence, Constan-
cy, and Control, respectively, indicating that the general
factor was strong. The unique latent variable regression
paths associated with the first-order latent variables were
.72, .71, and .66, for Confidence, Constancy, and Control,
respectively. The unique latent variable variances associat-
ed with the first-order latent variables were .52, .50, and
.44, for Confidence, Constancy, and Control, respectively.
Thus, evidence suggests the plausibility of both a Gmt fac-
tor, and three unique first-order factors, corresponding to
Confidence, Constancy, and Control. The Schmid-Leiman
transformed pattern coefficients were calculated by multi-
plying the first-order pattern coefficients by their respec-
tive higher-order pattern coefficients, and their respective
CFA
Descriptive analyses determined that the items tended to be
associated with relatively nonkurtotic distributions (i.e., <
|1.0|) and no particularly conspicuous outliers were identi-
fied. Thus, the data were considered appropriately distrib-
uted for the purposes of maximum likelihood estimation.
The intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for
the 14 SMTQ items completed by Sample 2 are available
from the first author. The oblique three-factor model yield-
ed absolute fit indices that indicated a good model fit: χ²
(74, N = 509) = 182.56, p < .01, χ²/df = 2.47, goodness-of-
fit index (GFI) = .95, adjusted goodness-of-fit index
(AGFI) = .93, root-mean-square error of approximation
RMSEA = .05, root-mean-square residual (RMR) = .05.
Similarly, the incremental fit indices indicated good sup-
port for the model: TLI = .91, CFI = .92, IFI = .93. The
equivalent higher-order model, with three first-order fac-
tors and one second-order general factor yielded the same
degree of model fit as the preceding oblique three-factor
model (as expected). The three factors’ intercorrelations
were all positive and statistically significant (p < .01): Con-
fidence · Constancy = .31; Confidence · Control = .28; and
Constancy · Control = .32. Each also demonstrated accept-
able internal consistency: Confidence = .79, Constancy =
.76, and Control = .72.
Divergent Validity
Divergent validity was demonstrated by the observed pat-
tern of weak to moderate correlations between the SMTQ

Table 3. SMTQ means and standard deviations

Confidence Constancy Control Total mental
toughness
Factor M SD M SD M SD M SD
Competitive standard
International (n = 79) 18.22 2.82 13.97 1.95 11.34 2.60 43.53 5.57
National (n = 150) 17.49 3.70 13.79 1.95 10.77 2.62 42.06 6.08
County/provincial (n = 479) 16.48 3.17 12.73 2.15 10.77 2.24 39.99 5.45
Club/regional (n = 434) 15.27 3.00 12.69 2.18 10.80 2.20 38.76 5.35
Gender
Male (n = 778) 17.03 3.12 12.92 2.27 10.92 2.32 40.88 5.67
Female (n = 364) 14.65 3.05 12.99 1.95 10.61 2.25 38.25 5.29
Age group
16–18 years (n = 272) 15.81 3.56 12.90 2.23 10.71 2.29 39.43 5.88
19–20 years (n = 505) 16.06 3.16 12.85 2.06 10.86 2.28 39.77 5.32
21–24 years (n = 231) 16.59 3.00 12.87 2.20 10.51 2.29 39.98 5.85
25 + years (n = 134) 17.50 3.36 13.49 2.35 11.44 2.36 42.43 5.77
Note. Data from combined samples (N = 1142).

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193 © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 M. Sheard et al.: Construct Validation of the SMTQ
and PVS III-R (r range = .14–.33), LOT-R (r range =
.23–.38), and PANAS (r range = .12–.49) subscales.
Competitive Standard, Gender, and Age
Differences
Means and standard deviations of all variables are present-
ed in Table 3. Significant MANOVA main effects were ob-
served for competitive standard, Wilks’ λ = .88, F(9, 2765)
= 15.92, p < .001, partial η2 = .04; gender, Wilks’ λ = .88,
F(3, 1138) = 53.99, p < .001, partial η2 = .13; and age group,
Wilks’ λ = .96, F(9, 2765) = 4.75, p < .001, partial η2 =
.012. Follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences
in Confidence and Constancy relative to standard. Coun-
ty/provincial performers scored significantly higher in
Confidence than their club/regional counterparts. Howev-
er, these groups scored significantly lower than either in-
ternational or national athletes in both Confidence and
Constancy (all p < .001). Male athletes scored significantly
higher than their female counterparts in both Confidence
(p < .001) and Control (p = .03). Performers in the oldest
age group (i.e., ≥ 25 years) scored significantly higher in
all SMTQ factors compared to their younger counterparts
(all p < .05).
Because total SMTQ scores are a composite of the
scale’s three factors, separate univariate ANOVA were con-
ducted for total mental toughness. The independent vari-
ables were the same as those used in the MANOVA. Inter-
national and national performers scored significantly high-
er than their subelite counterparts. Male athletes scored
significantly higher than female performers, and athletes in
the oldest age group were characterized by significantly
higher levels of total mental toughness than younger per-
formers (all p < .05).
Discussion
In this study we undertook a comprehensive analysis of the
construct validity of the SMTQ. A first aim of this research
was to develop a questionnaire for the assessment of ath-
letes’ mental toughness, while providing preliminary evi-
dence for its factorial validity. Eighteen items were retained
from the 53 initially created. PAF identified three factors,
using criteria mentioned previously; these were labeled
Confidence, Constancy, and Control. The final SMTQ con-
sisted of 14 items. Model fit was assessed using CFA, and
both absolute and incremental fit indices showed good sup-
port for the correlated three-factor SMTQ model. Higher-
order factor analysis suggested evidence of both a Gmt fac-
tor and the three previously mentioned first-order factors.
Divergent validity was established by a pattern of correla-
tions between the SMTQ and positive psychological mea-
sures. Finally, the scale’s discriminative power was estab-
lished. Collectively, the results offer preliminary support
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
191
for the validity and reliability of the SMTQ as a measure
of mental toughness.
The SMTQ has good content validity. A panel of experts
assessed an initial item pool for comprehensibility by ath-
letes. The factors that emerged subsequently from the ex-
ploratory analysis correspond meaningfully with the defi-
nitions of mental toughness within the extant literature:
Confidence (vs. self-doubt), Constancy (vs. irresolute), and
Control (vs. agitation) are themes encountered frequently
in the recent qualitative studies undertaken in the sport do-
main (see Crust, 2007). Moreover, the SMTQ is the only
psychometrically acceptable mental toughness instrument
that includes a measure of emotional and negative energy
control, a characteristic routinely identified in the mental
toughness literature (see Clough et al., 2002; Jones et al.,
2002; Loehr, 1986). This omission was a limitation of the
PPI-A identified by Golby et al. (2007). Further, the three
factors extracted in the exploratory analysis exhibited good
internal consistency with each independent sample used in
this study.
First-order and higher-order CFA suggested adequate
model fit. The correlated three-factor model identified the
unique factorial validity associated with the scores derived
from the items within each of the factors. The Schmid-Lei-
man procedure allowed for the removal of the variance ac-
counted for by the higher-order factor. Once the variance
accounted for by Gmt was partialled out, the items that re-
mained were assigned to theoretically consistent factors for
the three-factor solution. There is something common to all
the measures of mental toughness, irrespective of the factor
they are intended to tap. It is important to note that the
Schmid-Leiman transformation does not alter the explana-
tory power of the original CFA solution; for example, the
proportion of unexplained variance in each item is identical
before and after the transformation (Brown, 2006). Rather,
the Schmid-Leiman procedure is a method of calculating
the contribution of lower- and higher-order factors to the
prediction of observed measures, and explanatory prefer-
ence is afforded to the higher-order factors.
As emphasized by, for example, Seligman and Csiks-
zentmihalyi (2000), the study of optimal functioning, hu-
man strengths, and positive psychological outcomes is
growing rapidly. Consistent with this emphasis, mental
toughness focuses considerable attention on what it takes
to be an outstanding athlete and how to facilitate perfor-
mance. Correlational findings from this research indicate
that although mental toughness and other positive psycho-
logical constructs may share the same conceptual space,
they also show sufficient and distinct independence.
Finally, subgroup differences relative to competitive
standard, gender, and age indicated some variation in men-
tal toughness levels, revealing that the SMTQ possesses
good discriminative power. The implication of these find-
ings is that, first, and subject to further validation, different
sets of norms may need to be developed. Second, in addi-
tion to the many attributes that are requisite to outstanding
sport performance, a psychological profile that includes
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193
192 M. Sheard et al.: Construct Validation of the SMTQ
high levels of mental toughness appeared to distinguish
older, male, performers operating at the highest competi-
tive standard (i.e., international).
Strengths of the present research were its recruitment of
athletes from a variety of sports, and that studies of multi-
dimensional questionnaires used in the sport domain (see
Durand-Bush, Salmela, & Green-Demers, 2001; Gaudreau
& Blondin, 2002) have reported psychometric data based
on the responses of participants with a comparable age
range. This research offers support for the SMTQ as a valid
measure of mental toughness. The instrument possesses en-
couraging psychometric integrity. As construct validation
is an ongoing process (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997), meaning-
ful comparisons should now be made on SMTQ data col-
lected over time, with the recommendation that practitio-
ners use changes in SMTQ scores as an index for evaluating
the impact of psychological skills training. This would ful-
fill the ultimate construct validation criterion of application
in research and practice (Marsh, 2002).
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to Dr. Catherine Palmer
and Dr. Ineke Vergeer, Durham University, who facilitated
collection of some of the data. Parts of this study were pre-
sented during a poster session at the 2007 10th European
Congress of Psychology in Prague, Czech Republic. The
authors also offer sincere thanks to the anonymous review-
ers who provided very helpful comments on an earlier draft
of this article.
References
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.).
New York: Prentice-Hall.
British Psychological Society. (2006). Code of ethics and con-
duct. Leicester, England: Author.
Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied re-
search. New York: Guilford.
Chou, C., & Bentler, P. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural
equation modeling. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–175).
London: Sage.
Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic
issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assess-
ment, 7, 309–319.
Clough, P., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The
concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions
in sport psychology (pp. 32–45). London: Thomson.
Costello, A.B., & Osbourne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in explor-
atory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the
most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and
Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
Crust, L. (2007). Mental toughness in sport: A review. Interna-
tional Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 270–290.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193
Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J.H. (2002). The development and
maintenance of expert athletic performance: Perceptions of
World and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psy-
chology, 14, 154–171.
Durand-Bush, N., Salmela, J.H., & Green-Demers, I. (2001). The
Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3*). The
Sport Psychologist, 15, 1–19.
Forgas, J.P. (Ed.). (2006). Affect in social thinking and behavior.
New York: Psychology Press.
Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J.-P. (2002). Development of a ques-
tionnaire for the assessment of coping strategies employed by
athletes in competitive sport settings. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 3, 1–34.
Gignac, G.E. (2007). Multifactor modeling in individual differ-
ences research: Some recommendations and suggestions. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 42, 37–48.
Golby, J., & Sheard, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness
at different levels of rugby league. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37, 933–942.
Golby, J., Sheard, M., & Lavallee, D. (2003). A cognitive-behav-
ioral analysis of mental toughness in national rugby league
football teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 455–462.
Golby, J., Sheard, M., & van Wersch, A. (2007). Evaluating the
factor structure of the Psychological Performance Inventory
(PPI). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 309–325.
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological
characteristics and their development in Olympic champions.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204.
Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention
decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel
analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing
called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport perform-
ers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205–218.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural
equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kirk, R.C. (1995). Experimental design (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Leshem, R., & Glicksohn, J. (2007). The construct of impulsivity
revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 681–691.
Loehr, J.E. (1986). Mental toughness training for sports: Achiev-
ing athletic excellence. Lexington, MA: Stephen Greene Press.
Maddi, S.R. (2006). Building an integrated positive psychology.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 226–229.
Maddi, S.R., & Khoshaba, D.M. (2001). Personal views survey
(3rd ed., rev.). Newport Beach, CA: The Hardiness Institute.
Marsh, H.W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept:
A construct validity approach to theory, measurement, and
research. The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 9,
459–493.
Middleton, S.C., Marsh, H.W., Martin, A.J., Richards, G.E., &
Perry, C. (2004, July). Developing the Mental Toughness In-
ventory (MTI). Poster session presented at the meeting of the
International Conference on Self-Concept, Motivation, and
Identity: Where to Go From Here? Berlin, Germany.
Nicholls, A.R., Polman, R.C.J., Levy, A.R., & Backhouse, S.H.
(2008). Mental toughness, optimism, pessimism, and coping
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 M. Sheard et al.: Construct Validation of the SMTQ
among athletes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
1182–1192.
Russell, D.W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The
use (and abuse) of factor analysis. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguish-
ing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery,
and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J.M. (1957). The development of hierar-
chical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychol-
ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Sheard, M., & Golby, J. (2006a). Effect of a psychological skills
training program on swimming performance and positive psy-
chological development. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 4, 149–169.
Sheard, M., & Golby, J. (2006b). The efficacy of an outdoor adven-
ture education curriculum on selected aspects of psychological
development. Journal of Experiential Education, 29, 187–209.
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
193
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate sta-
tistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor anal-
ysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:
The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 54, 1063–1070.
Michael Sheard
Faculty of Health & Life Sciences
York St John University
York YO31 7EX
UK
E-mail m.sheard@yorksj.ac.uk
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(3):186–193