Validación al español de la Escala de Comunicación Efectiva en el Fútbol

Spanish validation of the Effective Communication Scale in Soccer

Miguel A. López-Gajardo , Inmaculada González-Ponce , José C. Ponce-Bordón , Jesús Díaz-García , Francisco M. Leo
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, (2020), 52, pp. 184-192.
Recibido el 3 de mayo de 2020
Aceptado el 14 de septiembre de 2020



El objetivo de la presente investigación era traducir al español y validar la Escala de Comunicación Efectiva en Deportes de Equipo (SECTS-2S). Para ello, se realizaron dos estudios. El Estudio 1 contó con 276 jugadores de fútbol de género masculino (88.40 %) y femenino (11.60 %) con un rango de edad de 16-42 años (M = 18.42; DT = 2.71). Los resultados mostraron una estructura factorial con tres factores de primer orden (aceptación, conflicto negativo y distinción) y con adecuada consistencia interna (α y ω = .70-.79). En el Estudio 2, participaron 453 jugadores de fútbol de ambos géneros (89.40 % masculino y 10.60 % femenino) con edades en el rango de 16-39 años (M  =  20.86; DT = 3.56). Nuevamente, se obtuvieron índices de ajuste aceptables con una estructura compuesta por tres factores de primer orden y con valores adecuados de consistencia interna para cada factor (α y ω = .75-.83). Además, se comprobó que la SECTS-2S mostraba una adecuada validez discriminante y nomológica con la variable de cohesión de grupo (p < .05). Por último, se encontró que la escala SECTS-2S es invariante con respecto al nivel competitivo de los jugadores. Se concluye que la SECTS-2S es una herramienta válida y fiable para medir la comunicación intra-equipo en el fútbol.

Palabras clave:
Comunicación intra-equipo, cuestionario, deporte, propiedades psicométricas, validez


The aim of this investigation was to translate and validate the Effective Communication Scale in Team Sports into Spanish (SECTS-2S). In Study 1 participated 276 male (88.40 %) and female (11.60 %) soccer players, with aged between 16-42 (M = 18.42; SD = 2.71). Results show a three first-order factors structure (acceptance, negative conflict, and distinctiveness) and adequate internal consistency were found. Study 2 involved 453 soccer players of both genders (89.40 % male and 10.60 % female) and aged between 16-39 years (M = 20.86; SD = 3.56). Likewise, adequate values in the factorial structure with a three-factor structure and internal consistency were obtained (α and ω = .75-.83). In addition, the SECTS-2S showed adequate discriminatory and nomological validity with the group cohesion variable (p < .05). Finally, it was shown that the instrument was invariant with respect to the competitive level of players. Thus, the SECTS-2S is a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure intra-team communication in team sports.

Intra-team communication, questionnaire, sport, psychometric properties, validity

Artículo Completo

American Psychological Association (2010). apaPublication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6a ed.). Washington: autor.

Asl, M. E., & Bayat, M. (2011). Relationship between emotional intelligence and achievement motive with locus of control among female nurses in North Part of Khuzestan in 2009. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 9, 184-188.

Baker, J., Yardley, J., & Côté, J. (2003). Coach behaviors and athlete satisfaction in team and individual sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 226-239.

Boyd, E., & Web, K. L. (2008). Interorganizational ethical conflict within alliances: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 15, 1-24.

Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233-255.

Choi, H., Park, J. A., & Kim, Y. (2019). Decreasing aggression through team communication in collegiate athletes. Sustainability, 11(20), 1-14.

Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (1985). Multitrait-multimethod comparisons across populations: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 389-417.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Cunningham, I. J., & Eys, M. A. (2007). Role Ambiguity and intra-team communication in interdependent sport teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2220-2237.

Davis, P. J. (2004). Effective communication strategies in a franchise organization. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9, 276-282.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 177-193.

Eccles, D. W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2004). Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A social-cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 542-560.

Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Galli, N. (2016). Team resilience. En R. J. Schinke, K. R. McGannon, & B. Smith (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of sport psychology (pp. 378-386). Nueva York, NY: Routledge.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Hussainy, S. Y., Styles, K., & Duncan, G. (2012). A virtual practice environment to develop communication skills in pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 202.

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187-200.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-35.

Kent, A., & Sullivan, P. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of university coaches’ commitment. International Sports Journal, 7, 78-87.

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Nueva York, NY: Guilford publications.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. En I. B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2a ed, pp. 378-386). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Leenders, R. T., Van Engelen, J. M., & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20, 69-92.

Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Pulido, J. J., & García-Calvo, T. (2015). Adaptation and validation in Spanish of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) with professional football players. Psicothema, 27, 261-268.

Mabry, E. A., & Barnes, R. E. (1980). The dynamics of small group communication. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice Hall.

McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McLaren, C. D., & Spink, K. S. (2018a). Examining communication as information exchange as a predictor of task cohesion in sport teams. International Journal of Sport Communication, 11, 149-162.

McLaren, C. D., & Spink, K. S. (2018b). Team member communication and perceived cohesion in youth soccer. Communication and Sport, 6, 111-125.

McLaren, C. D., & Spink, K. S. (2020). Examining the prospective relationship between communication network structure and task cohesion and team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24, 74-87.

Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición. Psicothema, 25, 151-157.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2019). Mplus user’s guide (8a ed.). Los Ángeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Ntoumanis, N., & Aggelonidis, Y. (2004). A psychometric evaluation of the Group Environment Questionnaire in a sample of elite and regional level greek volleyball. European Physical Education Review, 10, 261-278.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Validity. Psychometric theory. Nueva York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Pedersen, P. M., Miloch, K. S., & Laucella, P. C. (2007). Strategic sport communication. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Smith, M. J., Arthur, C., Hardy, J., Callow, N., & Williams, D. (2013). Transformational leadership and task cohesion in sport: The mediating role of intrateam communication. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 249-257.

Sullivan, P. J., & Callow, N. (2005). A cross-cultural examination of the factor structure of the scale for effective communication in team sports. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 87-92.

Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The preliminary development of the Scale for Effective Communication in Team Sports (sects). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1693-1715.

Sullivan, P. J., & Gee, C. J. (2007). The relationship between athletic satisfaction and intrateam communication. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 107-116.

Sullivan, P. J., & Short, S. (2011). Further operationalization of intra-team communication in sports: An updated version of the Scale of Effective Communication in Team Sports (sects-2). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 471-487.

Yukelson, D. P. (2001). Communicating effectively. En J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4a ed., pp. 135-149). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Zoogah, D. B., Noe, R. A., & Shenkar, O. (2015). Shared mental model, team communication and collective self-efficacy: An investigation of strategic alliance team effectiveness.International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 4, 244-270.

Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Muñoz-Morales, R., & Llorent, V. J. (2018) Dimensions and psychometric properties of the Social and Emotional Competencies Questionnaire (SECQ). Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 50(2), 98-106.

0 comentarios

Dejar un comentario

¿Quieres unirte a la conversación?
Siéntete libre de contribuir

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *