Fig 1.
Univariate post-hoc comparisons of Need-Supportive, Need-Thwarting, Total Performance Progression, Autonomous Motivation, Controlled Motivation and Amotivation for athletes with and without II. T = T Value, P = P Value (* shows the mean differences are significant at the .05 level; ** shows the mean differences are significant at the .01 level; *** shows the mean differences are significant at the .001 level).
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of need-supportive, need-thwarting, performance progression, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and amotivation for athletes with and without II.
Table 2.
Spearman correlation matrix for need-supportive, need-thwarting, total performance progression, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and amotivation for -athletes with and without II.
Fig 2.
Partial effects plots with partial residuals and standard errors (95% confidence interval) and approximate significance of smooth terms for predictors of autonomous motivation and amotivation in athletes with and without II.
Edf = effective degrees of freedom, P = P Value (* shows the mean differences are significant at the .05 level; ** shows the mean differences are significant at the .01 level; *** shows the mean differences are significant at the .001 level).