refined and administered to a combination of high school and institute-based athletes in Australia (school-aged athletes: N= 438, mean age= 14.34; institute-based athletes: N= 392, mean age= 18.55) (Middleton, 2007). These samples, though large, do not indicate a distinction between different populations of elite versus non-elite athletes, and future testing of the MTI is required in order to whether the inventory does successfully discriminate between such groups (Crust, 2007). Another issue with the MTI is that it uses the 5-item per factor design (12 total factors). This results in a 60 item instrument, which is recognized by Middleton as a potential limitation in its administration, as athletes and practitioners would prefer a smaller, less test (Middleton, 2007). Crust (2007) also recommends that the MTI undergo additional analysis to include performance data and observational analysis to further test the construct validity of the instrument, as its initial analysis was based only on the self-report measures and correlates. There have been several other attempts at indentifying and measuring the concept of mental toughness; however they are all less scientifically sound than the MTI and MTQ48. For example, Davis and Zaichkowsky (1998) conducted a study of the perceived mental toughness of 38 professional ice hockey players. They defined mentally tough athletes as those who displayed a resistance to negative affect during adverse conditions in hockey. They had staff members (general managers, coaches, and scouts) rate each player on the following criteria designed to reflect mental toughness: 1) Adversity response 2) Over-achievement 3) Effort 4) Enthusiasm and 5) Skill. Their findings indicated that players with the highest levels of mental toughness showed more pessimistic explanatory styles (view outcomes as uncontrollable and
refined and administered to a combination of high school and institute-based athletes in Australia (school-aged athletes: N= 438, mean age= 14.34; institute-based athletes: N= 392, mean age= 18.55) (Middleton, 2007). These samples, though large, do not indicate a distinction between different populations of elite versus non-elite athletes, and future testing of the MTI is required in order to whether the inventory does successfully discriminate between such groups (Crust, 2007). Another issue with the MTI is that it uses the 5-item per factor design (12 total factors). This results in a 60 item instrument, which is recognized by Middleton as a potential limitation in its administration, as athletes and practitioners would prefer a smaller, less test (Middleton, 2007). Crust (2007) also recommends that the MTI undergo additional analysis to include performance data and observational analysis to further test the construct validity of the instrument, as its initial analysis was based only on the self-report measures and correlates. There have been several other attempts at indentifying and measuring the concept of mental toughness; however they are all less scientifically sound than the MTI and MTQ48. For example, Davis and Zaichkowsky (1998) conducted a study of the perceived mental toughness of 38 professional ice hockey players. They defined mentally tough athletes as those who displayed a resistance to negative affect during adverse conditions in hockey. They had staff members (general managers, coaches, and scouts) rate each player on the following criteria designed to reflect mental toughness: 1) Adversity response 2) Over-achievement 3) Effort 4) Enthusiasm and 5) Skill. Their findings indicated that players with the highest levels of mental toughness showed more pessimistic explanatory styles (view outcomes as uncontrollable and