Cited by 287Sport Psychology and PerformanceMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsSports and Physical Education Research

Comparing Self-Regulatory Processes Among Novice, Non-Expert, and Expert Volleyball Players: A Microanalytic Study

Kitsantas, Anastasia, Zimmerman, Barry J.·2002·Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

Abstract

Differences in self-regulatory processes of 30 college women who were volleyball Experts, Non-Experts, or Novices were studied regarding overhand serving skill during a practice episode. It was hypothesized that Experts would display better goals, planning, strategy use, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, attributions, and adaptation than either Non-Experts or Novices. It was also hypothesized that Experts would display higher self-efficacy beliefs, perceived instrumentality, intrinsic interest, and self-satisfaction in volleyball serving than either Non-Experts or Novices. All hypotheses were supported. The combined 12 measures of self-regulation predicted 90 percent of the variance in the women's volleyball serving skill. The findings are discussed according to a three-phase model of self-regulation, and recommendations are made for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10413200252907761

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002) compared college women that were experts and non-experts in volleyball, finding that the SRL skills predicted 90% variance in serving skills.

    “Second, in a similar study, Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002) compared college women that were experts and non-experts in volleyball, finding that the SRL skills predicted 90% variance in serving skills.”

    From A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research (2017) · cites this paper as Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002)

  • Cleary and Zimmerman (2001, 2012), Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002), and DiBenedetto and Zimmerman (2010) developed microanalytic measures to assess the validity of the Cyclical Phases model.

    “Third, Cleary and Zimmerman (2001, 2012), Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002), DiBenedetto and Zimmerman (2010) developed microanalytic measures to assess the validity of the Cyclical Phases model.”

    From A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research (2017) · cites this paper as Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
Published
2002-01
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
91-105
ISSN
  • 1041-3200 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-1571
OpenAlex
W2124946239
Cited by
287
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
self-regulation, volleyball, skill acquisition, expertise, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, self-assessment, attribution, adaptation, goal setting, planning, strategy use, intrinsic interest, self-satisfaction, female athletes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review