Validações de conteúdo e de constructo da versão portuguesa do Perfil de Autopercepção Física – PSPPp – ao contexto do tênis de campo: estudo preliminar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-4690.2026e40231423Palabras clave:
Motivação, Engajamento, Autoeficácia, Autoestima, Educação FísicaResumen
Dada a importância e complexidade do fenômeno – percepção de competência -, ao longo das últimas décadas diferentes instrumentos têm sido propostos para acessar e avaliar a percepção de competência. O objetivo deste trabalho foi realizar as validações de conteúdo e de constructo da versão portuguesa do Perfil de Autopercepção Física (PSPPp) ao contexto do tênis de campo. A validação de conteúdo envolveu a participação de 41 profissionais de educação física (µ = 45,4 anos, o = 13,9 anos de idade), os quais responderam a um questionário de 30 questões, com 5 níveis de concordância em escala Likert, envolvendo a redação no formato original e a respectiva adaptação ao tênis de campo. Os resultados mostraram que as quantidades de concordância foram significativamente superiores àquelas de respostas neutras e discordantes. A validação de constructo compreendeu 12 voluntários ( µ= 33 anos, o = 6,3 anos) e com diferentes níveis de experiência no tênis de campo: 4 atletas profissionais que figuram no top 50 do ranking da Confederação Brasileira de Tênis, 4 praticantes amadores e 4 sem nenhuma experiência com tênis de campo. Ela verificou a aplicabilidade do questionário em termos da avaliação do nível de percepção de competência. As respostas foram divididas de acordo com tercil, cujas médias, superiores, moderadas e baixas foram, respectivamente: 86,0, 68,3 e 38,6 pontos. Os resultados mostraram que essas pontuações diferiram significantemente entre si, o que permite concluir que o PSPPp adaptado ao tênis de campo foi capaz de acessar os diferentes níveis de percepção de competência relativos ao tênis de campo indicando-o, portanto, como um instrumento válido àquilo que se propôs.
Descargas
Referencias
1. Harter S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Hum Dev. 1978;21:34-64.
2. Hu L, Jiang N, Huang H, et al. Perceived competence overrides gender bias: gender roles, affective trust and leader effectiveness. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2022;43(5):719-33.
3. Pawlak M, Zarrinabadi N, Kruk M. Positive and negative emotions, L2 grit and perceived competence as predictors of L2 motivated behaviour. J Multiling Multicult Dev. 2022;45(8):1-17.
4. Wang M, Wang L, Lu C. Nurses' sense of organizational support, self-esteem and perceived professional benefits: a mediating model. Nurs Open. 2023;10(4):2098-106.
5. Yu R, Wang M, Hu J. The relationship between ICT perceived competence and adolescents’ digital reading performance: a multilevel mediation study. J Educ Comput Res. 2023;61(4):817-46.
6. Estevan I, Barnett LM. Considerations related to the definition, measurement and analysis of perceived motor competence. Sports Med. 2018;48(12):2685-94.
7. Gil-Arias A, Claver F, Práxedes A, et al. Autonomy support, motivational climate, enjoyment and perceived competence in physical education: impact of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2020;26(1):36-53.
8. Ottero B, Carvalho RGV, Penido L, et al. Motor competence and difficulty of self-set goals on motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2024.
9. Nobre GC, Valentini NC. Self-perception of competence: concept, changes in childhood, and gender and age-group differences. J Phys Educ. 2019;30:e3008.
10. Harter S, Pike R. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Dev. 1984;55(6):1969-82.
11. Harter S. The construction of the self: a developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press; 1999.
12. Harter S. The perceived competence scale for children. Child Dev. 1982;53(1):87-97.
13. Harter S. Self-perception profile for adolescents: manual and questionnaires. Denver (CO): University of Denver, Department of Psychology; 2012.
14. Barnett LM, Ridgers ND, Salmon J. Associations between young children's perceived and actual ball skill competence and physical activity. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(2):167-71.
15. Cauce AM. School and peer competence in early adolescence: a test of domain-specific self-perceived competence. Dev Psychol. 1987;23(2):287.
16. Forsman H, Gråstén A, Blomqvist M, et al. Development and validation of the perceived game-specific soccer competence scale. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(14):1319-27.
17. Fox KR, Corbin CB. The physical self-perception profile: development and preliminary validation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1989;11(4):408-30.
18. Ryckman RM, Robbins MA, Thornton B, et al. Development and validation of a physical self-efficacy scale. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982;42(5):891-900.
19. Scrabis-Fletcher K, Silverman S. Perception of competence in middle school physical education: instrument development and validation. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(1):52-61.
20. Bernardo RPS, Matos MG, Bernardo M, et al. Adaptação portuguesa do PYSPP. An Psicol. 2003;21(2):127-44.
21. Ferreira JP, Rocha DN, Furtado GE, Benevides VM. Brazilian adaptation of the Physical Self-Perception Profile (PSPP): adult version [in Portuguese]. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra; 2008.
22. Ferreira JPL, Fox KR. An investigation into the structure, reliability, and validity of the physical self-perception profile in non-English speaking settings. Int J Appl Sports Sci. 2007;19(1).
23. De Meester A, Barnett LM, Brian A, et al. The relationship between actual and perceived motor competence in children, adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020;50(11):2001-49.
24. Arias-Estero JL, Alonso JI, Yuste JL. Psychometric properties and results of enjoyment and perceived competence scale in youth basketball. Univ Psychol. 2013;12(3):945-56.
25. Duncan MJ, Eyre ELJ, Noon MR, et al. Actual and perceived motor competence mediate the relationship between physical fitness and technical skill performance in young soccer players. Eur J Sport Sci. 2022;22(8):1196-203.
26. Alves-Costa CL, Dutra LN, Nobre GC, et al. Goal difficulty level and perceived competence on volleyball serve learning. Eur J Hum Mov. 2023;50:81-91.
27. Santos M, Martin J, Mhico Sigua E, et al. Effects of online teaching on perceived physical competence and cultural appreciation of the Philippine martial arts “Arnis”. Ido Mov Cult J Martial Arts Anthropol. 2022;22(5):48-54.
28. Pelletier VH, Lemoyne J. Early sport specialization and relative age effect: prevalence and influence on perceived competence in ice hockey players. Sports. 2022;10(4):62.
29. Mesquita I, Borges M, Rosado A, et al. Self-efficacy, perceived training needs and coaching competences: the case of Portuguese handball. Eur J Sport Sci. 2012;12(2):168-78.
30. Carvalhais CKA, Silva SL, Tani G, et al. The effects of perceived competence and self-controlled goal setting on motor learning. Hum Mov. 2021;22:56-67.
31. Karr TM, Davidson D, Bryant FB, et al. Sport type and interpersonal and intrapersonal predictors of body dissatisfaction in high school female sport participants. Body Image. 2013;10(2):210-9.
32. Corrêa UC, Zimmermann AC, Correia WR. A Educação Física na adolescência: laboratório didático. São Paulo: Edusp; 2020.
33. Felker DW, Kay RS. Self-concept, sports interests, sports participation, and body type of seventh- and eighth-grade boys. J Psychol. 1971;78(2):223-8.
34. Kantanista A, Glapa A, Banio A, et al. Body image of highly trained female athletes engaged in different types of sport. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:6835751.
35. Marschin V, Herbert C. Yoga, dance, team sports, or individual sports: does the type of exercise matter? Front Psychol. 2021;12:621272.
36. Da Costa L. Atlas do esporte no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Shape; 2006.
37. Cortela CC, Fuentes JP, Aburachid LMC, Kist C, Cortela DNR. Iniciação esportiva ao tênis de campo: um retrato do programa Play and Stay à luz da pedagogia do esporte. Conexões. 2012;10(2):214-34.
38. Alexandre NMC, Coluci MZO. Validade de conteúdo nos processos de construção e adaptação de instrumentos de medidas. Cien Saude Colet. 2011;16:3061-8.
39. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29:489-97.
40. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6):382-5.
41. Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(3):269-74.
42. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194-7.
43. Gahlinger PM, Abramson JH. Computer programs for epidemiologic analysis: PEPI (version 2.05). Georgia: USD Inc.; 2005.
44. White R. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol Rev. 1959;66:297-323.
45. Valentini NC, Barnett LM, Bandeira PFR, et al. The pictorial scale of perceived movement skill competence: determining content and construct validity for Brazilian children. J Mot Learn Dev. 2018;6(Suppl):S189-204.
46. Goodway JD, Rudisill ME. Influence of a motor skill intervention program on perceived competence of at-risk African American preschoolers. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 1996;13:3.
47. Stodden D, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest. 2008;60:290-306.
48. Haywood K, Getchell N. Life span motor development. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 2024.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
Todo o conteúdo da revista, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons (CC-BY)
