{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02832244008714597, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004357298474945534, 'mean_word_length': 6.411290322580645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of the Self-Efficacy-Performance Relationship Between Continuous and Noncontinuous Sport Conditions

Although studies have shown that the self-efficacy–performance relationship can be studied within performances (LaForge & Sullivan, 2010), no studies have directly compared noncontinuous (i.e., between performances) and continuous (i.e., within performances) conditions. The present study examined the efficacy–performance relationship within a continuous task and between a noncontinuous sport conditions. Path analyses revealed reciprocal efficacy–performance relationships in both the continuous and noncontinuous conditions, with higher goodness of fit indicators in the noncontinuous condition and a higher number of significant pathways in the continuous condition. These results imply potential differences in the cognitive processing of efficacy information between and within sport performances.