Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Sep 1;36(3):e70258. doi: 10.1111/jora.70258

Development and validation of the Behavioral FAmily Sport SupporT (BFaSST) Scale

Alejandra Hernandez 1,✉, Maria F Torres 2, Alisia G T T Tran 1, Vera Lopez 2
PMCID: PMC13531249  PMID: 42676273

Abstract

The present study spotlights the positive sport support behaviors enacted by Latinx families to facilitate the sports participation of Latina adolescent athletes through the development and validation of the Behavioral FAmily Sport SupporT (BFaSST) Scale. We adopted a modified exploratory sequential design to develop a scale that provided contextually relevant insight of family sport support dynamics with Latina athletes. Grounded in the voices of Latina athletes and guided by House's support typologies as a guiding framework, we generated 20 initial sport‐specific items for the BFaSST. Using a split‐sample approach, exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 152) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 152) supported a two‐factor model, which included a Booster support subscale (nine items) and Team Manager support subscale (seven items) in a sample of 304 ninth and 10th‐grade Latina student‐athletes recruited through CloudResearch, a research panel platform. In providing evidence for the culturally‐bound validation of the BFaSST, we affirm a narrative where Latinx family sport support is culturally and sport compatible, contrasting discourses that portray Latinx families as disengaged or unsupportive of Latina adolescent athletes. With the BFaSST, we provide an assessment tool that offers coaches and stakeholders an opportunity to expand on how family sport support can be conceptualized broadly and use it as an entry to inform ways to integrate family sport support.

Keywords: adolescent girls, behavioral scale, family, Latina, sport support

Over half of adolescents in the United States are estimated to play sports in a formal context (Aspen Institute, 2025). This high sports participation rate has been accompanied by a historical trend over the last 60 years of increased family involvement in youth sports, including increased familial attendance at youth sports events, direct involvement (e.g., coaching, transportation), and financial investment in children's sport participation (Knoester & Bjork, 2025). The heightened involvement of families in youth sports experiences in recent decades draws attention to how families support their adolescent athletes, or family sport support.

Current assessments of sport support with youth emphasize the parent or primary caregiver as the support source rather than the family–a framework that poorly accounts for racially−/ethnically‐diverse extended family experiences characterized by reliance on extended family networks for support (Kim et al., 2016). The stalled representation of racially/ethnically‐ diverse perspectives of family sport support is occurring while Latinx youth, who are the largest racial/ethnic adolescent group after White adolescents, are experiencing record increases in their sport participation (Aspen Institute, 2024; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.). A broadened perspective on family sport support is especially needed to spotlight sport‐promotive Latinx family dynamics for Latina adolescent athletes, who also notably report the lowest rate of sport participation in inter‐racial and between‐gender comparisons in U.S.‐based national surveys (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2021).

The present study addresses this need by providing an initial assessment tool, the Behavioral FAmily Sport SupporT (BFaSST) Scale, to measure a multi‐faceted positive dimension of family sport support behaviors with a sample of ninth and 10th‐grade Latina adolescent athletes.

UNPACKING AND POSITIONING LATINA ATHLETES' FAMILY SPORT SUPPORT EXPERIENCES

Not only do girls generally enter sports later, but they also discontinue their sports participation sooner; and this is especially the case for Latina girls in comparison to Latino boys and White girls (Aspen Institute, 2020; Sabo & Veliz, 2008). Despite documented barriers such as gender‐based teasing (Lopez, 2019), gender norms (Mann & Hacker, 2024), and socio‐economic status (McGovern, 2021), Latinas' low sport participation rates are often attributed to disengagement from Latinx families (LA84 Foundation, 2012). Indeed, Lopez (2023a) reported that, in interviews, high school coaches emphasized a disconnect between Latinx parents/families and sport when listing barriers for Latina adolescent sport participation. Coaches disclosed that Latinx parents did not value sports as they dismiss “sports as a pathway to college,” (Lopez, 2023a, p. 76) and believe that the “family always comes first” (Lopez, 2023b, p. 318), which disrupts Latina adolescents' sport participation (i.e., family obligations interfered with practice times). Such deficit‐based discourses ultimately contribute to Latinas' reduced access to sport as they can influence recruitment efforts and coaching strategies (i.e., less challenging expectations in the sport; Lopez, 2023a).

These deficit‐based perspectives, including perceived incompatibility between Latinx families and sport, may stem from current conceptualizations of sport support informed by class and values. Specifically, a conceptualization of sport support rooted in neoliberal perspectives reflective of U.S. middle‐class values of individualism and autonomy appears to dominate current sport support formulations (Coakley, 2011; Hextrum et al., 2024). Middle‐class families often engage in concerted cultivation childrearing practices where youth are enrolled in numerous organized activities, including sport, to foster their life skills (Lareau, 2002). The family's focus then becomes the youth's performance in contrast to an “accomplishment of natural growth” (Lareau, 2002, p. 748) mindset commonly held by working class families, in which youth will thrive if basic needs are met. Families may amplify their concerted cultivation approach to target a sport domain through sport specialization, in which families heavily allocate resources (e.g., time and money) to develop youth's skills in one sport often with an intention to secure athletic college scholarships and/or athletic careers. From this middle‐class perspective, efforts that do not devote comparable involvement and resources stand in contrast to perceived norms for family sport support.

A highly individualistic conceptualization of sports participation and family sport support diverges from traditional Latinx family values that often emphasize commitment toward the cohesiveness of the unit and appropriateness of behavior within the family and community (Cauce & Domenech Rodríguez, 2002; Lopez et al., 2022). Economic constraints may also play an influential role, as many Latinx families are disproportionately represented in lower socioeconomic classes and may not have the economic resources to support athlete specialization (McGovern, 2018; Scherer & Mayol‐Garcia, 2022). Such divergence from a middle‐class perspective of family sport support may position Latinx family sport support as incompatible with Latina adolescent athletes' sports participation, leading to the erroneous assumption that Latinx families are disengaged or even discouraging of Latina adolescent athletes' sports participation.

We offer a counternarrative to these deficit perspectives by measuring positive family sport support of Latina adolescent athletes and through our validation of the BFaSST scale. In attempting to culturally ground the development of the BFaSST in the experiences of Latina adolescent athletes within the United States, we consider synergistic family support, or the conception that support within Latinx families may operate bidirectionally, underscored by cultural values that promote both adults' and youths' active contributions to the family. Values such as familismo (familism) and becoming “bien educado” (well‐educated) encompass family cohesiveness, orientation, and commitment to the unit rather than the individual; emphasize appropriateness of behavior within the family and community; and position youth as active contributors to the family system (Lopez et al., 2022). While youths' developmental needs are met, they also contribute to the balanced functioning of the family by cooperating with meeting their role obligations, such as completing chores (Lopez et al., 2022). More generally, this synergy can be witnessed when Latina adolescents meet family obligations and indicate that if they expressed interest in sports participation, their parents would support them (Lopez, 2023b). Thus, both parties contribute to the family's well‐being, be it by helping financially (fundraising), domestically (chores), or emotionally (supporting sport participation).

While traditional family support models tend to emphasize a uni‐directional framework of family dynamics and processes in which the family directs support to the recipient youth (Bean et al., 2014; Reynolds et al., 2022), Latinx family support may reflect a general climate of family supportiveness that manifests in a Latina adolescent athlete recognizing her supportive role in the family. Yet, it is important to acknowledge that external factors, such as socioeconomic status, may contribute to the expression of these values, making managing multiple commitments difficult for some Latina adolescent athletes to pursue sports (LA84 Foundation, 2012). We argue that Latinx cultural values are generally compatible with Latina adolescents' sports participation and are thus not a liability for all Latina adolescent athletes.

Informed by the concerted cultivation framework, we gained further clarity about the context in which family sport support conceptualization may develop and the subsequent need for a measure that advances previous assessment tools by measuring positive Latinx family sport support behaviors in non‐elite or high school sports. Indeed, existing scales measuring sport support for adolescents have informed the myriad ways in which parents facilitate sports participation but typically assess forms of support based on an elite sport/sport specialization or concerted cultivation context. For example, the Parental Involvement Sport Questionnaire (PISQ; Lee & MacLean, 1997) was developed with elite athletes and measured directive involvement behaviors such as parents communicating to their athlete what to do during training. Similarly, the development of the Youth in Sports Questionnaire (YSPS‐Q; Burke et al., 2023) drew from data with athletes specializing in golf and included emotional support behaviors that could be interpreted as negative parental affective responses (e.g., showing disappointment, shouting, getting angry, and making negative comments when the athlete plays poorly; Burke et al., 2024). While athlete competition level was not disclosed in the development of the Parental Involvement in Activities Scale (PIAS; Anderson et al., 2003), items measured a dimension of parental pressure in line with a concerted cultivation parenting approach. Within the context of elite sport and concerted cultivation, these scales generally reflected a heightened level of parental support that suggests overinvolvement and pressure or control. This study contributes an assessment tool of positive family sport support behaviors that do not overemphasize involvement and sport performance‐based achievement in a non‐elite sports context, as validated with a Latina sample whose values are not necessarily reflected in White middle‐class families.

Dimensions of social support

Family support falls under the broader conceptualization of social support, or assistance received and often exchanged in interpersonal relationships or networks (House, 1981). Numerous models of social support exist, with variations related to the function of the types of support. House's (1981) seminal work on social support typologies offers a perspective on different dimensions of support behaviors that may be particularly related to sport behavioral support. From this perspective, emotional support encompasses the supplying of empathy, love, trust, and care; instrumental support focuses on providing tangible aid/services; informational support involves advice/information; and appraisal support consists of information that serves for self‐evaluation (e.g., constructive feedback). House's typologies (House, 1981) thus served as an item development guide for the BFaSST as it grouped support by type and function.

However, the potential for departure from the original conceptualization of House's (1981) typologies is highly plausible as other research suggests the possibility of fewer than the four identified support dimensions (Cacciatore et al., 2021; Gist‐Mackey et al., 2018). For example, social support using House's framework varied by stages of socialization for first‐generation college students, with only informational and instrumental support being present in the anticipatory phase, where students are invested in exposure to and learning about the university (Gist‐Mackey et al., 2018). Given the plausibility of a different social support factor structure, our approach was exploratory, testing different factor models through exploratory factor analyses without specifying deviations from the guiding framework.

Present study

Our aim with the development of the BFaSST was to broaden our understanding of racially/ethnically diverse family experiences in sport by spotlighting positive family sport support behaviors in Latina adolescent sport participation. As such, the BFaSST accounts for sport support broadly by factoring in behaviors that may not be readily observable to coaches and stakeholders and that may be provided by extended family such as siblings, aunts/uncles, and grandparents. Our item generation process was emic‐guided as we applied a modified exploratory sequential design (Wang et al., 2025) to develop a scale that provided contextually relevant insight of family sport support dynamics. Using House's (1981) support typologies as a guiding framework, we first explored instances of family sport support through unstructured, informal discussions with four Mexican‐American Latinas (1 adolescent and 3 young adults) who currently play or played high school sports. House's typologies did not function as a fixed representation of family support but rather served as a framework that could be deepened and extended through discussion responses, in line with our relativist approach. Grounded in the voices of Latina athletes and guided by House's (1981) support typologies, we then developed 20 sport‐specific items for the BFaSST. Item generation also included discussion with third and fourth authors, a language review of items by an adolescent participant, and literature review. While we adopted an exploratory approach, under House's (1981) framework, BFaSST items may be classified as 1–5 (emotional support); 6–10 (instrumental support); 11–15 (informational support); and 16–20 (appraisal support). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to explore the structure of the BFaSST, and we expected emerging factors to be related given the shared construct of support.

As a metric of positive family dynamics, we anticipated that BFaSST scores would be reflected in greater adolescent‐perceived parental/caregiver importance and investment in sports, as well as behavioral indicators of family involvement (e.g., practicing with the athlete). Even though the scale items broadly captured family sport support, the validation efforts are culturally‐bound as we expected that the BFaSST would be positively associated with validity constructs that reflect a culturally‐based synergistic family support relationship, a collectivist orientation noted within Latinx family dynamics (Cauce & Domenech Rodríguez, 2002). More specifically, we hypothesized that BFaSST scores would be positively linked to the family pillar subscale from the Marianismo Beliefs Scale‐Adolescent (MBSA; Piña‐Watson et al., 2014), which approximates synergistic family support through the endorsement of beliefs that emphasize a commitment to the family wherein the adolescent may be an active contributor.

We also predicted that the BFaSST would explain additional variance in outcomes such as sport commitment, self‐esteem, and adolescent well‐being beyond indicators of SES and thereby establish discriminant validity. We argue that family sport support as measured by the BFaSST is not a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES), meaning that family sport support does not only happen in higher‐income, resourced families. For example, Latinx athletes and families may initiate community fundraisers by selling culture‐specific food, such as tamales, to pay sport‐related fees (Hernandez et al., 2023), signaling that family sport support is a distinct construct from SES. Consistent with previous research (Jaf et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2025), we expected that if the BFaSST scale validly measured positive family sport support, then adolescents would also report greater self‐esteem, well‐being, and a commitment to sports.

METHOD

Procedure

This study represents the second manuscript based on an Arizona State University IRB‐approved investigation, Latina Girls and Sports, and is the first project to use family sport support data. Latinx parents of ninth and 10th‐grade daughters were recruited through research panels connected to Managed Research, a CloudResearch Prime Panels recruitment tool. Managed Research ensures the integrity of the data through Sentry, a pre‐survey screener with a fraud detection system that uses translation detection, AI, and real‐time behavioral analysis to prevent bots and false identities from influencing data collection. Parents completed a consent form via Qualtrics and passed the computer to their adolescent daughters who then completed an assent form. Eligibility criteria for adolescents included: self‐identifying as Latina, being English‐speaking, residing in the United States, being older than 13 years of age, and in ninth or 10th grade, as well as having played one full season on a high school sports team. Adolescent participants who assented and passed an eligibility screener then completed the 20‐min survey. Participant identity was further verified through an age validation check and a verification of whether their reported current grade matched with the season they reported playing on a sports team with a coach at school. For example, a response in which a participant reported currently being in 9th grade and playing in the spring season of 10th grade was discounted as valid. Parents of adolescents who completed the survey were compensated the agreed‐upon amount via CloudResearch.

Sample

A total of 481 adolescent participants met the eligibility criteria from the screener. Exclusion criteria for this study included unfinished survey responses, not passing all validation checks (e.g., age confirmation), data quality review (e.g., failed attention checks), and/or general data quality concerns (e.g., completing the survey under 9 minutes and straightlining on measures that included reverse‐coded items). The final sample size was 304 participants.

A majority of participants (201 or 66.1%) identified as exclusively Latina, and 103 or 33.8% identified as multiracial/multiethnic. Additional races reported by multiracial/multiethnic participants included White (n = 73), American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 8), Asian (n = 3), Black or African American (n = 27), Middle Eastern or North African (n = 1) and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (n = 1). Ethnically, most participants identified as Mexican or Mexican American (61.2%), followed by Puerto Rican (13.8%) and Cuban (6.9%). Less than 3% of participants identified as first‐generation (i.e., born outside of the United States), while 43.8% were second‐generation (i.e., had at least one foreign‐born parent), and 53.3% were third‐ or higher‐generation (i.e., had two U.S native parents). Over two‐thirds (66.1%) of participants shared that at least one caregiver had a technical diploma/certificate or higher education. A total of 30.9% of participants reported living in a single‐parent household, 67.4% lived in a two‐parent home, and 1.6% reported not living with a parent. About 18% of participants reported living with extended family members, or any family members beyond parents and siblings. The sample predominantly reported being born in the United States (97.4%), and 38.5% currently lived in the West, 35.7% in the South, 15.3% in the Northeast, and 10.9% in the Midwest.

Measures

BFaSST item development

In the item development phase, four Mexican‐American Latinas were recruited through social connections held by the first author with the aim of eliciting contextually relevant examples that deepened our understanding of how family sport support is expressed for Latina adolescent athletes. From a relativist stance, our approach emphasized conceptual depth rather than reaching data saturation (Maher, 2025). Informal discussions were exploratory and followed the participants' language and interpretation of what behaviors were supportive to them and the meaning they attributed to them. Discussion questions were open‐ended, such as “How did your parents support your sport participation in high school?” The first author listened intently to these young women's stories and followed up with tailored questions about specific behaviors noted by each of the four young women, such as “What was different about your parents' support when you played tennis versus when you played soccer?” The first author then coded the responses under their theorized corresponding support type using House (1981) support typologies.

Item refinement and selection was informed by the contributions of the third and fourth authors who have substantial expertise conducting research with athlete populations. The third author has a strong background researching racial‐ethnic minority student‐athlete mental health and attitudes toward student‐athletes, whereas the fourth author has conducted one of the largest qualitative studies with Latina adolescent focus groups involving school‐based sports and physical activity participation. Furthermore, the adolescent Latina participant also reviewed the language from the items to support accessibility to other adolescent athlete participants. Overall, we triangulated expertise from the third and fourth authors, language review by a Latina adolescent athlete, and literature review of existing scales to support item development.

Demographic variables

Demographic characteristics of Latina adolescent respondents included race/ethnicity, generational status, parental/caregiver education level, family composition, state of residence, and age.

Adolescent‐perceived parental/caregiver importance and investment in sports

Adolescents' perceptions of parental/caregiver importance and investment in sports was measured using mean scores of three items (i.e.,"Select how important each item of your life is to your PARENT(S)/CAREGIVER(S): your winning in your sport, your sports (e.g., playing, being part of a team), and your playing sports in the future.”) rated on a scale from 1 = Least Important to 10 = Most Important. Higher mean scores reflected greater perceived importance and investment in sports, and internal reliability was good (α = .89).

Direct family behavioral involvement

One item (i.e., “My family supports my sports participation by: Practicing skills and moves with me”) measured direct family behavioral involvement. Response options ranged from 0 = Never to 4 = Always , with higher scores indicating more involvement.

Synergistic family support beliefs

The five‐item Family Pillar subscale from the 23‐item Marianismo Beliefs Scale—Adolescents (MBSA; Piña‐Watson et al., 2014) served as an indicator of synergistic family support beliefs, given that the pillar reflects the socialization of Latina adolescents to care for and be committed to the family, resulting in their recognition of their role contributing to the family. Participants responded to statements such as, “A Latina… should do things to make her family happy,” using a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree. Higher mean scores corresponded to more endorsement of beliefs aligning with synergistic family support present, and internal reliability was acceptable (α = .72).

Socioeconomic status indicators

The four item Financial Pressure subscale from the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire – Shortened version (ASQ‐S; Byrne et al., 2007) in addition to parental education were used as proxies for SES. In the ASQ‐S, participants rated the level of stress experiences such as “Pressure to make more money” caused them within the past year using a scale ranging from 0 = Not at all stressful to 4 = Very stressful. A higher mean score represented more financial pressure stress. Internal reliability in this sample was excellent (α = .90).

Parental education was determined as the highest level of either parent's education reported by the participant. For example, if the participant indicated that parent one completed high school while parent two held a master's degree, the master's degree was used as the parental education level. Education level options were rank‐ordered as follows: 8th grade or lower; between 9th and 12th grade (but no high school degree); high school degree; some college (but no college degree); technical diploma or certificate (for a trade); associate's degree (junior/community college); bachelor's degree (undergraduate/4‐year degree); and graduate degree (e.g., medical degree, law degree, master's degree, doctorate).

Self‐esteem

The Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a widely used 10‐item measurement of global or overall self‐esteem. Participants responded to items such as, “I feel that I have a number of good qualities” using a Likert scale ranging from 0 = Strongly Agree to 3 = Strongly Disagree. Scores range from 0 to 30, with higher summed scores indicating greater levels of self‐esteem. Internal reliability in this sample was good (α = .87).

Adolescent well‐being

The Cohen et al. (1983) shortened, 4‐item Perceived Stress Scale was used to capture adolescents' well‐being by measuring participants' perceived control or ability to handle difficult situations in the last month. Participants rated the items (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?”) by using a 5‐point Likert scale (0 = Never to 4 = Very Often). Higher summed scores indicated higher perceived stress, and in this sample, internal reliability was acceptable (α = .70).

Sport commitment

Using a 5‐point Likert scale (0 = Not dedicated/determined/difficult to 4 = Very dedicated/determined/difficult), participants answered three adapted items from Casper and Andrew (2008), with higher mean scores indicating greater sport commitment. Items included: “How dedicated are you to playing your sport(s)?” “How determined are you to keep playing your sport(s)?” and “How hard would it be for you to quit your sport(s)?” Cronbach's alpha was .83, indicating good internal reliability.

RESULTS

Item quality analysis

Most item responses (minimum/Never = 0 to maximum/Always = 4) clustered around the higher end of the Likert scales. Item distributions were negatively skewed, with mean scores of 2.53–3.36, standard deviations of .85–1.33, and skewness values ranging from −.52 to −1.61, suggesting potential ceiling effects. To counter ceiling effects, the Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator was applied in factor analyses (Muthén, 2006). Overall, .3% missingness was found within three items, and Not applicable (n = 5) responses for item 20 were treated as missing data, resulting in 6.9% of missingness in this item.

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was computed using a WLSMV estimator and Geomin (oblique) rotation to determine the factor structure of the BFaSST scale in Mplus Version 8.11. A Minimum Average Partial (MAP) test and parallel analysis supported the retention of a two‐factor structure, as the smallest average squared partial correlation was identified at two components, and only two eigenvalues from the dataset were above the 95th percentile of randomly generated eigenvalues (O'Connor, 2000). While higher factor solutions were considered due to their acceptable fit indices (see Table S1), a two‐factor model was retained as the additional factors did not result in an interpretable factor structure. Additional factors had items with weak loadings and were represented by a small number of items. In the significant 2‐factor model, fit indices in line with conventional cutoff scores suggested an acceptable fit (Brown & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999), despite the model's chi‐square results, χ 2(151) = 263.21, p < .001. Specifically, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA (90% confidence interval)) = .07 (.06, .08); comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97; and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.06.

The retained two‐factor model included Booster support, which consisted of a total of 10 primarily emotional and instrumental items that represented conventional sport support. The second factor, Team Manager support, consisted of seven items that illustrated educational support involving knowledge sharing and evaluation. Items 3, 8, and 18 were removed based on not having a primary factor loading of .45 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and a difference of at least .2 between cross‐loadings (Howard, 2016). Refer to Table 1 for item factor loadings, communalities, and residual variances.

TABLE 1.

Exploratory factor analysis factor loadings, communalities, and residual variance.

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 h 2 u 2
Factor 1: Booster support
1. Learning the terms used in my sport (e.g., deuce in tennis) .49* .26* .43 .57
2. Going to see me play at tournaments/matches/games .80* −.00 .64 .36
3. Using social media to show their support/pride in my sport participation .41* .28* .35 .65
4. Talking about my sport achievements in front of family and friends .78* .04 .63 .37
5. Asking how practice/games went .80* −.02 .63 .37
6. Paying fees to play the sport (e.g., paying for uniforms, equipment, registration fees) .87* −.31* .60 .40
7. Buying additional gear beyond what is required .72* .05 .55 .45
8. Practicing skills and moves with me .44* .37* .49 .51
9. Volunteering or bringing items needed (e.g., water) to practice or tournaments/matches/games .61* .20* .52 .48
10. Driving me to practice and/or games/matches/tournaments .85* −.27* .57 .43
11. Providing life advice when things do not go well in the sport (e.g., disagreements with coach/team members) .71* .17* .65 .35
12. Sharing information gathered from meetings held by my coach .56* .29* .56 .44
Factor 2: Team Manager support
13. Reading books and/or watching videos to understand my sport better and give me general advice .21* .61* .54 .46
14. Viewing recorded games/matches when they can't go to games/matches to point out things I should work on .24* .64* .61 .39
15. Sharing information and/or tips learned from talking to other players' parents (e.g., gossip, healthy habits) .24* .64* .61 .39
16. Asking what I will change next time when I lose a game −.01 .80* .63 .37
17. Reviewing my progress to help me evaluate my standing in the team .14* .78* .73 .27
18. Reminding me of my accomplishments before a big game/match/tournament .51* .44* .66 .34
19. Discussing my values and how they relate to problems with team members −.01 .76* .56 .44
20. Reminding me of scouts to earn a scholarship for college −.20* .67* .37 .63
Open in a new tab

Note: Geomin‐rotated loadings with an asterisk denote loadings that are significantly different from zero (p < .05) or, put differently, are associated with the corresponding factor. u 2 stands for estimated residual variances; h 2 stands for communalities. Communalities were hand‐calculated by following h 2 = 1 − u 2. Factor 1 and 2 were moderately correlated (r = .48).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

With a split sample (n = 152), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was estimated using a WLSMV estimator and yielded a poor model fit, (χ 2(118) = 309.45, p < .001); CFI = .94; Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI)= .94; SRMR = .07; and RMSEA (90% CI) = .10 (.09, .12), suggesting model misspecification. Model respecification was then informed by reviewing modification indices (MIs) and item wording for conceptual overlap across Booster and Team Manager support. MIs signaled that item 12 may also meaningfully load onto Team Manager support (MI = 61.71). Upon further review of item 12 wording, participants may have interpreted the item as conventional support (i.e., related to attending sport‐related meetings held by the coach) and educational support through the emphasis in sharing the information discussed during those meetings. Thus, a cross‐loading was freely estimated for item 12 onto Team Manager support. Respecification efforts resulted in a somewhat improved model fit in comparison to the initial CFA (χ 2(117) = 253.76, p < .001; CFI = .96; TLI = .95; SRMR = .06; and RMSEA (90% CI) = .09 (.07, .10)). However, the confirmatory analysis suggested that even though item 12 may reflect overlapping content, it has a stronger association with factor 2 (factor 2 standardized loading = .58 compared to factor 1 standardized loading = .29). Therefore, it was decided for this item to be primarily interpreted through Team Manager support.

Residual correlations and communalities were examined to identify potential localized misfit as RMSEA remained high in the respecified model. Item 20 had elevated residual correlations with item six (r = −.25) and with item 10 (r = −.22) in addition to a relatively low communality (h 2 = .37), suggesting that item 20 may be a weak indicator of family sport support. Subsequent CFA with item 12 only loading onto Team Manager support and the removal of item 20 yielded acceptable model fit indices ((χ 2(103) = 213.97, p < .001); CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.05; and RMSEA (90% CI) = .08 (.07, .10)). While an RMSEA of about .08 has been considered reasonable (Brown & Cudeck, 1993), it is possible that the RMSEA is elevated as previous findings of this absolute fit index point to its instability when using a WLSMV estimator. It is suggested to refer to other absolute fit indices that may be more robust to the estimator used such as the SRMR (Shi & Maydeu‐Olivares, 2020; Xia & Yang, 2019). The finalized model including the standardized factor loadings is presented in Figure 1. In this sample, internal reliability was excellent for Booster support (α = .91) and good for Team Manager support (α = .89).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Finalized BFaSST CFA model note. Ovals represent the latent factors, or types of support, of the BFaSST scale, and rectangles represent the observable variables or items. Booster support and Team Manager support were scaled to 1, and their covariance was .79. Standardized item factor loadings ranged from .66 to .87, and residual variances ranged from .25 to .56.

Validity testing

Validity testing was performed using Pearson correlations and regressions in IBM SPSS Version 31. Consistent with the direction of our hypothesis, adolescent‐perceived parental/caregiver importance and investment in sports (M = 7.49, SD = 2.07) held a small, positive association with Booster support (r = .29, p < .001) and a moderate, positive relationship to Team Manager support (r = .48, p < .001). Direct family behavioral involvement (M = 2.90, SD = 1.01) was strongly and positively linked to Booster support (r = .59, p < .001) and Team Manager support (r = .61, p < .001). As expected, Booster and beliefs aligning with synergistic family support (M = 3.38, SD = 0.46) exhibited a small, positive correlation (r = .25, p < .001), and Team Manager and synergistic family support beliefs showed a moderate, positive link (r = .37, p < .001). Overall, findings supported the convergent validity of the BFaSST.

Indicative of the BFaSST's concurrent criterion validity, Booster and Team Manager support held moderate, positive correlations to sport commitment (M = 3.12, SD = 0.86; r Booster = .43, p < .001; r Team Manager = .39, p < .001) and self‐esteem (M = 31.90, SD = 5.64; r Booster = .46, p < .001; r Team Manager = .32, p < .001). As hypothesized, Booster and Team Manager support held small‐to‐moderate inverse associations to adolescent well‐being (M = 9.32, SD = 3.30; r Booster = −.41, p < .001; r Team Manager = −.27, p < .001). Discriminant validity was established as Booster support significantly explained moderate‐to‐large variance in sport commitment (ΔR 2 = .18, F(1, 297) = 66.56, p < .001); self‐esteem (ΔR 2 = .12, F(1, 297) = 52.21, p < .001); and adolescent well‐being (ΔR 2 = .09, F(1, 297) = 37.33, p < .001) above and beyond indicators of SES (i.e., financial pressure stress (M = 2.10, SD = 1.09) and parental education (mode = Bachelor's degree; 27.6% of responses)). Team Manager support accounted for small‐to‐moderate variance in sport commitment (ΔR 2 = .15, F(1, 297) = 50.59, p < .001); self‐esteem (ΔR 2 = .07, F(1, 297) = 25.67, p < .001); and adolescent well‐being (ΔR 2 = .04, F(1, 297) = 14.55, p < .001) after controlling for SES measures.

DISCUSSION

The present study demonstrated that positive Latinx family sport support behaviors could be best described as Booster and Team Manager support in the development of the BFaSST scale. Booster support refers to conventional support that involves emotional and instrumental support resembling the support of a booster club in an athletic team. In contrast, Team Manager support is centered on educational support that involves knowledge sharing and providing evaluative feedback to improve interpersonal and sport performance. It is important to acknowledge that while the Team Manager plays a significant role within the team, they are not actively in the field playing with the athletes.

Following House's (1981) typologies, it is notable that items categorized as emotional and instrumental support, with the exception of item 11 (i.e., Providing life advice when things do not go well in the sport (e.g., disagreements with coach/team members)) which was initially categorized as informational support under House (1981), converged under one factor, Booster support. Collectivist family support orientation from Latinx families may explain how these seemingly different types of support under House (1981) converged in our study. From this orientation, Latina adolescent athletes may approach Booster items through a relational lens where the embodiment of authentic care and relationality (Valenzuela, 1999) are foregrounded and foster interconnectedness and social responsibility beyond the self. Consistent with this lens, emotionally supportive behaviors under Booster support are understood as being characterized by a sincere interest and connection based on respect and trust presented to the athlete through praise or by showing up for the athlete. Qualitatively, BFaSST items such as learning terms in a sport (e.g., tennis) where Latinxs are underrepresented in the United States demonstrated to Latina athletes that families sought an understanding of sport motivated by care for them and their interests. With this understanding, wording in item 11 may have been interpreted by participants as more relational with the emphasis being on direction to address disagreement rather than strictly informational or sport performance based.

Instrumental behaviors under Booster support may be similarly interpreted, where items such as paying sport‐related fees are viewed as relational service acts done in the interest of the athlete (Cronin & Armour, 2018), in which the care behind the service provided is foregrounded relative to the tangible aid itself. For example, Latina adolescent athletes qualitatively recognized the meaning behind payment for sport‐related fees, valuing the sacrifices made to cover the costs. Ultimately, it is reasonable that emotional and instrumental support converge as Booster support when the behaviors are understood as primarily relational and as fostering a collectivist family support orientation.

Other items designated as informational and appraisal support (House, 1981) similarly converged as Team Manager support. Informational and appraisal support may be united by their educational purpose in sharing information and leading to an evaluation of the adolescent's performance. Established scales, such as YSPS‐Q (Burke et al., 2024), use general language where parents “give” sporting, technical, and strategic advice, which may be usual or assumed support behaviors in elite sport, or contexts in which sport specialization is pursued. In contrast, items under Team Manager support list specific behaviors that parents are enacting, such as reading books, watching videos, viewing recorded matches, and learning from other players' parents in order to learn and share the advice. Additionally, the items provide context for the alternative ways that Latinx families are engaging in positive sport support behaviors beyond conventional ways to express support. Team Manager items, such as “viewing recorded games/matches when family could not attend to point out things the Latina adolescent athlete should work on,” added context to alternative ways of supporting beyond physical presence. In this case, this behavior speaks to how time and the ability to attend games are a privilege not afforded to all families, yet families from athletes such as those in our sample are finding alternative ways to connect and support.

Correlational analyses supported the validity of the BFaSST. Subscales were positively associated with other measures of family sport support (i.e., adolescent‐perceived parental/caregiver importance and investment in sports and direct family behavioral involvement), indicating that the BFaSST indeed measured the same construct as these other measures. In agreement with our expectations, BFaSST subscales were positively linked to the MBSA family pillar subscale, reflecting the socialization of Latina adolescents to endorse beliefs to commit to the family and engage synergistically. Family support, as measured by the BFaSST, is thus representative of a synergistic family support relationship, supporting the narrative that Latinx familial values are compatible with adolescent sport engagement and family support.

As predicted, higher Booster and Team Manager support were associated with higher levels of self‐esteem, lower perceived stress, and higher commitment to sport, demonstrating that Latinx sport support behaviors are aligned with positive psychological and sport‐related outcomes. Furthermore, Booster and Team Manager support explained significant variance in sport commitment, self‐esteem, and adolescent well‐being (as measured by lower perceived stress) when controlling for SES, providing support for two separate constructs being measured. Family sport support as measured by the BFaSST is not a proxy of SES, meaning that families from distinct socioeconomic backgrounds are likely to support their youth's sport participation. In providing evidence for the validation of the BFaSST, we affirm a narrative where Latinx family sport support is culturally‐ and sport‐compatible, contrasting discourses that portray Latinx families as disengaged or unsupportive of Latina adolescent athletes.

Implications for practice

The BFaSST offers an opportunity for coaches and stakeholders (i.e., school administration), who may be prone to a deficit perspective fallacy, to benefit from an approach that celebrates the positive features of Latinx family sport support behaviors. It is an opportunity to expand on how family sport support can be conceptualized and use it as an entry to inform ways to integrate family sport support. For example, Booster and Team Manager subscales offer a conceptualization that allows space for families who cannot provide Team Manager support but can provide Booster support and vice versa. Coaches and stakeholders can affirm this support, thereby strengthening the narrative that all Latina adolescent athletes and their families belong in sports. In cases where families may hold lower levels of Booster and Team Manager support, coaches and stakeholders are offered language and examples of support to begin conversations to engage families. Collectively, the BFaSST empowers coaches and stakeholders to embrace positive Latinx family sport support by expanding the conceptualization of who can provide the sport support and how sport support can be understood.

From an Erikson (1963) developmental perspective, affirming a strengths‐based narrative about Latinx family sport support is especially important. Adolescence is a critical period of identity formation, during which support and affirmation from both family and broader social systems are critical. During what Erikson describes as the stage of identity versus role confusion, familial support becomes essential for sport participation due to the influential role that familial validation may have on an adolescent's athletic identity formation (Para, 2008). Recognition that supports this congruence through the use of the BFaSST scale may be beneficial in strengthening Latina adolescents' athletic identity and bolstering their opportunities to benefit from the positive socio‐emotional outcomes linked to sport participation.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the study's valuable insights into Latinx family sport support behaviors, the data collected have limitations. From the outset, items were collected from the perception of the Latina adolescent athletes, not the family members themselves, so supportive behaviors may have been misinterpreted or overlooked. The BFaSST is positioned as an important, initial measure in an iterative validation process. For example, to further establish and strengthen content validity, future studies may benefit from utilizing cognitive interviewing, expert panel review, and additional qualitative item refinement strategies. Wording in items 11 and 12 (i.e., Sharing information gathered from meetings held by my coach) may be revisited in cognitive interviews or pilot studies to ensure item clarity and no conceptual overlap among factors. Additionally, item 8 (i.e., Practicing skills and moves with me) did not meet retention criterion but may be revisited in future work due to its relevance in family sport involvement while not being directly tied to financial resources (Straub & Plessner, 2024; Wuerth et al., 2004). While the high levels of family sport support reported from the sample is enheartening, the clustering of responses may have limited the BFaSST's ability to distinguish between participants reporting moderate versus high levels of family support. Future psychometric studies may consider the use of item response theory to assess item functioning across the range of family support.

Data gathered were cross‐sectional, and while we found support for the validation of the BFaSST scale, these are associations rather than causal directional pathways. While our validation measures (e.g., direct family behavioral involvement; adolescent‐perceived parental/caregiver importance and investment in sports) extend to broader systems of the family, future validation studies may use measures that explicitly assess support from siblings, grandparents, and extended family members to better capture the intended construct of family support. Other validation studies may also consider examining measurement invariance and validation across racial/ethnic groups and genders in larger samples of adolescent participants.

Given the current study's contribution to understanding House's (1981) support typologies as two categories rather than four categories, future studies are encouraged to explore the replication of these results, especially in more nuanced households, where there might be multiple adolescent and/or younger athletes and gender differences in how support is expressed. For example, 73% of the present sample indicated living with sibling(s) who may provide support to the Latina adolescent athletes but may also require support themselves, which may impact the support available for the athletes. Further expanding this behavioral scale to include a cognitive component about how families support cognitive processes, such as strategic thinking or attention/focus in sports, may provide significant contributions as well.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Alisia G. T. T. Tran: Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; supervision; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Alejandra Hernandez: Conceptualization; investigation; writing – original draft; methodology; visualization; formal analysis; project administration; data curation; writing – review and editing. Vera Lopez: Funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; conceptualization. Maria F. Torres: Writing – original draft; data curation; writing – review and editing.

FUNDING INFORMATION

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Study procedures were approved by the Arizona State University Institutional Review Board (STUDY00019139).

CONSENT

Parent/guardian consent and adolescent assent were obtained.

Supporting information

Table S1: Goodness‐of‐fit for models.

JORA-36-0-s001.docx (1.6MB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank all the families and Latina adolescents who participated in the study. We also want to express our specific gratitude to the four Latinas who participated in the item development phase of the BFaSST.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available in aggregate form and as is consistent with participant consent by request to the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, J. C. , Funk, J. B. , Elliott, R. , & Smith, P. H. (2003). Parental support and pressure and children's extracurricular activities: Relationships with amount of involvement and affective experience of participation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 241–257. 10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00046-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aspen Institute . (2020). State of play 2020: Pre‐pandemic trends, ages 6–12. Project Play. https://www.aspenprojectplay.org/state‐of‐play‐2020/ages‐6‐12 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aspen Institute . (2024). Participation trends—State of play 2024. Project Play. https://projectplay.org/state‐of‐play‐2024‐participation‐trends [Google Scholar]
  4. Aspen Institute . (2025). Youth sports facts: Participation rates. Project Play. https://projectplay.org/youth‐sports/facts/participation‐rates [Google Scholar]
  5. Bean, C. , Fortier, M. , Post, C. , & Chima, K. (2014). Understanding how organized youth sport may Be harming individual players within the family unit: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(10), 10226–10268. 10.3390/ijerph111010226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, M. W. , & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  7. Burke, S. , Sharp, L. A. , Woods, D. , & Paradis, K. F. (2023). Advancing a grounded theory of parental support in competitive girls' golf. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 66, 102400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke, S. , Sharp, L. A. , Woods, D. , & Paradis, K. F. (2024). The development and validation of the youth sport parental support‐questionnaire (YSPS‐Q). International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22(8), 2085–2110. 10.1080/1612197X.2023.2255605 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Byrne, D. G. , Davenport, S. C. , & Mazanov, J. (2007). Profiles of adolescent stress: The development of the adolescent stress questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 393–416. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cacciatore, J. , Thieleman, K. , Fretts, R. , & Jackson, L. B. (2021). What is good grief support? Exploring the actors and actions in social support after traumatic grief. PLoS One, 16(5), e0252324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Casper, J. M. , & Andrew, D. P. (2008). Sport commitment differences among tennis players on the basis of participation outlet and skill level. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31(3), 201–219. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cauce, A. M. , & Domenech Rodríguez, M. M. (2002). Latino families: Myths and realities. In Contreras J. M., Kerns K. A., & Neal‐Barnett A. M. (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions (pp. 3–25). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. [Google Scholar]
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2021). Youth risk behavior survey. [Data visualization tool]. https://nccd.cdc.gov/Youthonline/App/Results.aspx
  14. Coakley, J. (2011). Youth sports: What counts as “positive development?”. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 35(3), 306–324. 10.1177/0193723511417311 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohen, S. , Kamarck, T. , & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396. 10.2307/2136404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cronin, C. , & Armour, K. (Eds.). (2018). Care in sport coaching: Pedagogical cases. Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
  17. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. Norton. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gist‐Mackey, A. N. , Wiley, M. L. , & Erba, J. (2018). “You're doing great. Keep doing what you're doing”: Socially supportive communication during first‐generation college students' socialization. Communication Education, 67(1), 52–72. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2017.1390590 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hernandez, M. I. , Miller, E. C. , Prieto, L. A. , Sehmer, M. N. , Schaefer, D. A. , Biese, K. M. , Columna, L. A. , Andreae, S. , McGuine, T. A. , Snedden, T. R. , Eberman, L. E. , & Bell, D. R. (2023). Youth sport participation experiences from the perspective of Hispanic/Latinx parents and their children. Family & Community Health, 46(3), 165–175. 10.1097/FCH.0000000000000366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hextrum, K. , Knoester, C. , & Tompsett, J. (2024). Inequalities in girls' high school sports participation: How social class, race/ethnicity, and gender route opportunities to play and persist in athletics. Sociological Focus, 57(2), 63–93. 10.1080/00380237.2024.2317480 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. AddisonWesley. [Google Scholar]
  22. Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62. 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jaf, D. , Wagnsson, S. , Skoog, T. , Glatz, T. , & Özdemir, M. (2023). The interplay between parental behaviors and adolescents' sports‐related values in understanding adolescents' dropout of organized sports activities. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 68, 102448. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, J. , Spangler, T. L. , & Gutter, M. S. (2016). Extended families: Support, socialization, and stress. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45(1), 104–118. 10.1111/fcsr.12187 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Knoester, C. , & Bjork, C. (2025). Parental involvement in youth sports: Historical trends and links to generational, socioeconomic status, sport culture, and youth sport commitment contexts. Leisure/Loisir, 1–37. 10.1080/14927713.2025.2503183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. LA84 Foundation . (2012). Increasing young Latina participation in sports. https://digital.la84.org/digital/api/collection/p17103coll2/id/10082/download
  28. Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747–776. 10.1177/000312240206700507 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, M. , & MacLean, S. (1997). Sources of parental pressure among age group swimmers. European Journal of Physical Education, 2(2), 167–177. 10.1080/1740898970020204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lopez, C. , Vazquez, M. , & McCormick, A. S. (2022). Familismo, respeto, and bien educado: Traditional/cultural models and values in Latinos. In Family literacy practices in Asian and Latinx families: Educational and cultural considerations (pp. 87–102). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lopez, V. (2019). No Latina girls allowed: Gender‐based teasing within school sports and physical activity contexts. Youth & Society, 51(3), 377–393. 10.1177/0044118X18767772 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lopez, V. (2023a). Latina teens and sports participation: Moving beyond gendered cultural explanations. In Family and sport: Notable contributions to sociology (pp. 73–86). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lopez, V. (2023b). The “othering” of Latina girls in school sport contexts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 38(2), 303–331. 10.1177/07435584211014879 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Luo, J. , Du, R. , Wang, X. , & Luo, L. (2025). The relationship between social support and mental health in athletes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1642886. 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1642886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Maher, A. J. (2025). Rigour in interpretive qualitative research in education: Ideas to think with. British Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 2099–2115. 10.1002/berj.4156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mann, M. E. , & Hacker, C. M. (2024). Triple jeopardy: The impact of race, class, and gender on girls and women in sport and physical activity. Psychological Services, 21(1), 148–154. 10.1037/ser0000676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. McGovern, J. (2018). “You have to have money to be good”: How capital accumulation shapes Latinas' pathways to college sports. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 11(2), 149–171. 10.1123/jis.2018-0038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. McGovern, J. (2021). Are Latinx youth getting in the game? The effects of gender, class, ethnicity, and language on Latinx youth sport participation. Latino Studies, 19(1), 92–113. 10.1057/s41276-021-00307-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Muthén, L. K. (2006). Mplus discussion. https://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/9/1551.html?1510667691
  40. O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402. 10.3758/BF03200807 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Para, E. A. (2008). The role of social support in identity formation: A literature review. Graduate Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1(1), 9. [Google Scholar]
  42. Piña‐Watson, B. , Castillo, L. G. , Jung, E. , Ojeda, L. , & Castillo‐Reyes, R. (2014). The Marianismo beliefs scale: Validation with Mexican American adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2, 113–130. 10.1037/lat0000017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Reynolds, J. , Bates, S. , & Moore, M. (2022). Youth sport spectating among parents during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Amateur Sport, 8(1), 72–100. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self‐image. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sabo, D. , & Veliz, P. (2008). Go out and play: Youth sports in America. Women's Sports Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  46. Scherer, Z. , & Mayol‐Garcia, Y. (2022). Half of people of Dominican and Salvadoran origin experienced material hardships in 2020. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/09/hardships‐wealth‐disparities‐across‐hispanic‐groups.html [Google Scholar]
  47. Shi, D. , & Maydeu‐Olivares, A. (2020). The effect of estimation methods on fit indices in structural equation modeling with categorical data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(3), 383–397. 10.1080/10705511.2019.1609270 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Straub, G. , & Plessner, H. (2024). Frequency and performance relevance of parent‐coaches in competition‐oriented sports. Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 54(3), 366–373. 10.1007/s12662-024-00952-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Tabachnick, B. G. , & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, Vol. 5, No. 7. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  50. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services . (n.d.). America's diverse adolescents. https://opa.hhs.gov/adolescent‐health/adolescent‐healthdata/americas‐diverse‐adolescents
  51. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.‐Mexican youth and the politics of caring (1st ed.). State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang, Y. , Berry, T. , Bronk, K. C. , Li, Y. , & Lin, D. (2025). Promoting positive development among left‐behind youth in rural China: A mixed‐methods approach to scale development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 35(3), e70049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wuerth, S. , Lee, M. J. , & Alfermann, D. (2004). Parental involvement and athletes' career in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(1), 21–33. 10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00047-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Xia, Y. , & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. 10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: Goodness‐of‐fit for models.

JORA-36-0-s001.docx (1.6MB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available in aggregate form and as is consistent with participant consent by request to the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Journal of Research on Adolescence are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES