Next Article in Journal
The Obligation of EIA in the International Jurisprudence and Its Impact on the BBNJ Negotiations
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Technology in Physical Education Teaching in the Wake of the Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Effects of Digital Technology Development on Carbon Emissions: Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Gender and Age Influence in Pre-Competitive and Post-Competitive Anxiety in Young Tennis Players
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010486
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Personality Trait Changes in Athletic Training Students during Their University Career: Effects of Academic Stress or COVID-19 Pandemic?

by
Keb Hernández-Peña
1,†,
Gemma María Gea-García
2,*,†,
Juan Pedro García-Fuentes
3,
Luis Manuel Martínez-Aranda
2 and
Ruperto Menayo Antúnez
4
1
National School of Sports Trainers, Mexico City 08500, Mexico
2
Faculty of Sport, Catholic University of Murcia, Guadalupe Maciascoque, 30107 Murcia, Spain
3
Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
4
Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors have contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 486; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010486
Submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 14 December 2022 / Accepted: 20 December 2022 / Published: 28 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Health: Fitness and Sports after COVID Pandemic)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Studies about personality traits have shown a link between emotional stability and coaches’ success. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of university education period on the big five personality traits in sports training students according to gender and the type of sports practice chosen for their vocational training process as sport coaches. Method: A total of 146 Sports Training students completed the adapted NEO-FFI reduced version assessment twice: first semester in August 2018 and at the beginning of the eighth semester in February 2022 (COVID-19 pandemic appeared during this period). Results: Comparing the scores obtained for the different personality traits, it was observed that the level of neuroticism increased in the last semester (Mpost = 8.12 vs. Mpre = 5.77), while the level of extroversion (Mpost = 14.40 vs. Mpre = 15.97) and consciousness (Mpost = 18.14 vs. Mpre = 19.18) decreased. On the other hand, female students showed higher scores in kindness (15.90 ± 0.87) than men (13.58 ± 0.56) (p = 0.029) at the end of their academic semester. Finally, analysing sport discipline chosen by students, team sports showed a higher score in trait neuroticism (post = 10.47 ± 1.43 vs. pre = 7.73 ± 1.11, p = 0.047) and lower scores in extroversion (post = 13.33 ± 1.01 vs. pre = 16.27 ± 1.17, p = 0.009) than individual sports at the end of the academic semester. Conclusions: Academic stress during the last semester of their bachelor’s degree, as well as the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic could be factors that influenced students’ personality traits concerning neuroticism, extroversion, and consciousness or responsibility.

1. Introduction

The study of personality characteristics in sport has become a very popular research topic in recent decades [1,2]. According to Castro-López et al. [3], personality is the characteristic behavioural manifestation of an individual that emerges as a consequence of environmental stimuli and is configured during growth and maturation. In this line, Eysenck [4] (p. 9) stated that personality is “a more or less stable and enduring organisation of a person’s character, temperament, intellect and physique that determines the unique adaptation to the surrounding environment. In this context, the study of the coaches and their personality is of great importance, since, within the sporting practice and the relational binomial established between coach and athlete, there are certain social factors of the environment that condition the performance, motivation, well-being, and participation of the athlete [5,6,7]. When developing this type of research on the coach role, the current scientific literature focuses on the two major motivational theories, such as achievement goal theory (AGT) and self-determination theory (SDT) [5,6,8,9,10]. In line with the above, Torregrosa et al. [8] suggest that a large part of the motivational climate perceived by the athlete falls on the role of the coach. Within the field of psychology, these two theories state that the coach’s behaviour strongly influences the motivational climate experienced by the athlete, thereby negatively or positively affecting their performance [5,6,9,10,11]. Depending on the coach’s approach, the athletes may perceive more or less control over their actions and results, which, in turn, influences the athlete’s motivation and the attitude towards the sport [12,13]. AGT explains how athletes perceive achievements in their sporting context and, from this perspective, there are two ways of perceiving performance: the so-called task-oriented goal, which implies that the athlete orients the progress towards self-improvement, and, on the other hand, the ego-oriented goal, where the athlete sets success on the athlete’s ability to beat others [14,15]. Hence, the problem lies in the motivational climate influencing whether the athletes focus the goal towards the task or the ego; in other words, since the coaches are strongly responsible for the motivational climate, their work will have an impact on the athlete’s perception of the goal to be achieved, as well as in their behaviour and cognition [13,16]. In this line, a negative social cohesion, elevated levels of anxiety, worry, and mismatched coping strategies of the athletes have been found to occur when coaches focus success towards the ego [17,18,19]. On the other hand, SDT offers a well-established theoretical framework to explain the different psychological processes that mediate the relationships that arise between the coach and the athlete, as well as the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional consequences derived from it [10,11,20]. SDT postulates that individuals have multiple motives for performing an activity and these motives can be differentiated according to their degree of internalisation or self-determination [10,11]. In other words, a higher level of internalisation is associated with intrinsic motivation (IM), where playing the coaching role, in this case, would be associated with factors such as the personal enjoyment obtained from it, while, in the second case, the existence of extrinsic motivation (EM) is a clear reflection of the commitment to perform the activity as a consequence of the external results expected to be achieved [7,10,11,20]. SDT provides a theoretical model capable of explaining the coach’s influence on athletes, since it proposes that an environment that satisfies the individual’s innate needs for autonomy, competence, and affiliation will lead to high and self-determined motivation towards physical activity and sport, with positive cognitive, emotional, and behavioural consequences. Finally, SDT is considered a macro-theory consisting of six mini-theories. Among them, specific reference should be made to the third one, called causality orientations theory (COT) [10,20], representing how people view themselves as self-determined and how they orient themselves towards their environment [10,20,21]. According to Ryan and Deci [21], there are three different orientations that guide the process of a person’s interaction with the environment: autonomy, impersonal, and control. More precisely, an autonomy orientation is related to a person who has a high degree of initiative, as well as an ability to regulate their own behaviour independently. Secondly, the impersonal orientation is related to people who see their behaviour and actions as out of control, so that they often feel incompetent, or, in other words, the subject does not know the origin of their behaviour and, consequently, the results are not a consequence of their actions. Finally, a control orientation represents decision making depending on the controls experienced within the environment, i.e., reinforcement by means of rewards or punishments. Thus, an individual will act based on the actions that should be performed according to protocols or events in the surrounding environment [10,20,21]. Likewise, the behaviours mentioned in the causality orientations theory may be influenced by interpersonal conditions and social environments. Hence, the research literature has postulated that the coach can build empowering climates, characterised by task-oriented achievement, autonomy, and social support. But, similarly, the coach can also produce discouraging climates for the athletes, understood as ego- and control-oriented achievement [5,20]. As a consequence, it would be necessary to study the coach’s personality and its relationship with the athlete’s performance [9].
For authors such as Pérez [22] or Moreno-Arrebola et al. [23], the coach’s personality can influence the behaviour and way of acting of their athletes. For these reasons, the coach’s work requires not only theoretical knowledge related to methodological aspects of physical activity and sport, biomedicine, biomechanics, pedagogy, and psychology; it also requires a psychological profile of leadership and mastery of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence [22].
In discussing coach personality, the literature has identified certain common traits in successful coaches [22,24,25]. The traits highlighted by these studies are those related to high emotional stability, sociability and social skills, kindness, tenacity, discipline, openness to experience, responsibility, critical professionalism, and creativity. It should be noted that the coach’s personality will be influenced by factors such as age, the level at which they are coaching, their sporting experience, and the coach–athlete relationship [22,24,25,26].
In addition, another aspect to be considered is gender and its relationship with the traits that determine a coach’s personality. More specifically, scientific evidence suggests that women tend to have higher scores in personality traits identified with kindness than men, with the sectors of professional development chosen by women being those more oriented towards education or the humanities [27,28]. Based on this, it would be interesting to know whether gender is a factor to be considered in the sectors related to sports management and training, since, although biological theories establish that the differences in personality traits by gender are pre-set, psychosocial theories postulate that the gender roles established by a society influence personality traits [29].
Likewise, when referring to personality, it is important to highlight that it is influenced by self-image and this, additionally, is influenced by the environment [30]. In this respect, the appearance of the COVID-19 virus at the end of 2019 caused significant changes in the lifestyles of the population worldwide, completely changing the scenario or environment of personal development [31], including the educational sector, where the functioning was severely affected and deterioration in mental and physical health was reported in various sectors of the population [31,32]. In the specific case of Mexico, in mid-March, when the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, the closure of nonessential activities was imposed, including the immediate cancellation of on-site teaching in all educational levels [33]. Thus, a potential question remains as how the atypical circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the students’ personality.
Regarding the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, several hypotheses suggest that the confinement of citizens may cause mental health problems. Aspects such as the sudden change in academic routine, distance from loved ones, uncertainty in obtaining economic resources, as well as fear of contagion are factors that could generate stress, anxiety, or depression [34]. Some studies have reported that the brief confinements in 2003 and 2012 due to SARS and MERS viruses, respectively, generated episodes of severe distress in citizens. Regarding COVID-19, a study in 59 countries found that pandemic conditions produced moderate to severe effects on anxiety and depression in 9083 individuals [35]. Furthermore, prolonged periods of isolation have been found to cause more negative effects on mental health, such as worsening post-stress disorders, boredom, loneliness, and depression [36]. It has also been reported that young people who overthink about the problems associated with the COVID-19 virus and the pandemic are at high risk of psychological problems [37].
As described above, the unexpected events produced by COVID-19 could influence people’s psychological stability, as reflected in the analysis of personality traits [38]. However, it should not be forgotten that other stress factors can impact on the population’s behaviour and, therefore, the study of personality is multifactorial [39].
Thus, academic stress, defined as the student’s relationship with all the stressors in the school environment, as well as the student’s approach and response to such circumstances [40], can lead to changes in behaviour [41]. Some authors have related academic stress to the individual’s physical and mental deterioration, and this may be caused by the pressures and demands that students experience in their academic life [42,43]. Under these circumstances, if the subject perceives low achievement, then emotions such as stress, anxiety, anger, or frustration may be experienced. This can be revealed by analysing the subject’s personality traits [44,45].
Psychology has relied on various models to study personality, and one of the most widely used nowadays is the Big Five personality model by McCrae and Costa [46], known as the Big Five [22,24]. This theory states that personality traits are grouped into five factors: neuroticism, extroversion, openness to new experiences, kindness, and responsibility. Based on these elements, the characteristics of thoughts, emotions, and behaviour are structured [47]. Thus, through the analysis of these variables, differences in the individuals’ psychological states in different sectors of the population can be predicted [48]. These traits have been assessed using various instruments, such as Goldber’s Big Five Markers [46], Hogan’s Personality Inventory [46], or McCrae and Costa’s NEO Personality Inventory-Revised [40].
Using these instruments could help to identify the most predominant personality traits in various sectors of the population. Consequently, knowing the personality traits of undergraduate students in sports training may help to identify how university education period influences the personality of future coaches [49]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the effect of university education period on the Big Five personality traits in sports training students, according to gender and the sport discipline developed during their vocational training as sport coaches.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

The present study consisted in a descriptive and longitudinal design, where the sample was selected through non-probabilistic (by convenience) sampling [50,51].

2.2. Participants

A total of 142 university students in the process of obtaining a bachelor’s degree in Sports Training participated in this study. The mean age of the participants was 25.73 years old (SD = 3.68). Further details on the specific characteristics of the sample can be found in Table 1 below.
Sample size calculations were performed using G*Power 3.1.9.4 software. The significance level was set at =0.05. Consequently, the sample size (power analysis) revealed that 76 participants would obtain a power of 95% [52]. To avoid possible deletion of the recorded data due to the detection of an abnormal response or dropout, we decided to recruit a larger number of participants, so that the initial study sample consisted of a total of 142 subjects.

2.3. Materials

Personality traits were measured by using the reduced version of the Neo-Five Factor Inventory NEO-FFI) questionnaire, adapted by Meda, Moreno-Jiménez, García, Palomera, and Mariscal de Santiago [53]. This instrument was composed of a total of 30 items to assess each of the five personality factors identified as: neuroticism (N), extroversion (E), openness to experience (OE), kindness (K), and responsibility (R). All items were rated on a Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 is defined as “strongly disagree” and 5 as “strongly agree”. This instrument has been used before, and the validation adjustment scores were optimal, with reliability values for Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) for personality traits of: 0.74 for neuroticism, 0.66 for extroversion, 0.76 for openness to experience, 0.66 for kindness, and 0.76 for responsibility.

2.4. Procedures

The NEO-FFI questionnaire was administered twice to the same student group. The first time was at the beginning of the first semester in August 2018 (vocational training), while the second time was set at the beginning of the 8th (last) semester of the bachelor’s degree training in February 2022 (COVID-19 pandemic appeared during this period, specifically by the end of 2019) [54]. The online questionnaires were administered through different electronic devices. The average time spent filling in the questionnaires was 30 min approximately. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki [55,56,57], also taking into consideration the latest literature reviews on these types of research procedures, concerning ethics in sport and exercise science research [58]. In addition, it was approved by the university’s ethics committee (Code: NO. DI-F1-RP-12). All students were informed about the study characteristics, as well as the possible benefits and potential risks. Subsequently, a consent form to voluntarily participate in the study was fulfilled and signed.

2.5. Data Analysis

The descriptive data for the different variables are presented as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Levene test were used to check the data normality and homogeneity of variance, respectively. Subsequently, a 2-factor repeated measures factor analysis (between-subjects, type of Sports Practice Chosen for Their Training (SPCTT); within-subjects, time of measurement (pre–post)) was performed in order to analyse the scores obtained on each NEO-FFI questionnaire dimension. In addition, to explore significant differences between each of these conditions, the Bonferroni post hoc test was applied. Where necessary, the Chi-squared test (ꭓ2) was also applied, depending on the normality assumption. A post hoc comparison for the 2xn tables was applied (statistic contingency coefficient), including statistic value and p-value. Finally, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the cut-off point for the different dimensions of the NEO-FFI questionnaire, as well as the classification of the students according to their clustering by gender and SPCTT. Classification accuracy for each set of cut-off points was assessed by calculating weighted statistics, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC). An area of value 1 represents perfect classification, while an area of 0.50 represents an absence of classification accuracy. ROC-AUC values of >0.90 are considered excellent, 0.80-0.89 good, 0.70–0.79 moderate, and <0.70 poor [59]. Data analysis was performed by using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) for Windows, version 24.0, as well as MedCalc 14.12.0 (Mariakerke, Belgium). The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05 for all statistical comparisons.

3. Results

The data recorded according to age, as well as the sport discipline chosen for coaching are shown in Table 1, both at a general level and subdivided according to gender.
Moreover, Table 2 presents the data obtained for each dimension of the NEO-FFI questionnaire, both at the general level (F1 = 6.975; p = 0.000; ŋP2 = 0.096) and according to the gender of the Sports Training students (F4 = 0.969; p = 0.014; ŋP2 = 0.089).
The results show that the neuroticism, extroversion, and responsibility dimensions revealed significant differences when comparing the scores at the first and eighth semester (p < 0.05). More specifically, neuroticism reported higher values in Sports Training students in the eighth semester (Mpost = 8.12 vs. Mpre = 5.77), while the dimensions of extroversion (Mpost = 14.40 vs. Mpre = 15.97) and responsibility (Mpost = 18.14 vs. Mpre = 19.18) had a decrease in their mean value in the eighth semester. On the other hand, when comparing the scores in each NEO-FFI questionnaire dimension according to gender, significant differences were observed in the mean values obtained (p < 0.05). Specifically, neuroticism was found to be significantly higher for men in their last semester of training (Mpost = 7.77 vs. Mpre = 5.90; p = 0.014), while extroversion was significantly lower (Mpost = 14.58 vs. Mpre = 15.68; p = 0.042). In addition, women had significant differences in extroversion as well (Mpost = 14.15 vs. Mpre = 17.00; p = 0.001).
The following Table 3 shows the mean values obtained by dimensions for the NEO-FFI questionnaire according to the sport discipline selected by the students (F36 = 7.49; p = 0.071; ŋP2 = 0.119).
The results showed significant differences in the mean scores for the extroversion and kindness dimensions for basketball coaches in vocational training, being lower in both dimensions in the eighth semester compared to the first (Mpost_extroversion = 13.33 ± 1.51 vs. Mpre_extroversion = 17.67 ± 1.76, p = 0.005; Mpost_kindness = 13.17 ± 1.61 vs. Mpre_kindness = 16.83 ± 1.40, p = 0.03). On the other hand, when comparing the means obtained for the volleyball coaches in vocational training, significant differences were found for neuroticism and kindness (p < 0.05). On this occasion, students recorded higher mean values in the eighth semester for neuroticism (Mpost = 10.00 ± 2.71, p = 0.032), whereas, for kindness, these mean scores decreased in this same semester (Mpost = 11.00, p = 0.012). Finally, the swimming coaches in vocational training, only registered significant differences in the mean values for extroversion in the eighth semester, being lower than those in the first semester (Mpost_extroversion = 14.17 ± 1.07 vs. Mpre_extroversion = 17.33 ± 1.25, p = 0.003). Similarly, when grouping the sports practices according to their classification as TS or IS, the dimensions of neuroticism and extroversion showed significant differences in TS students, so that the mean neuroticism values were higher in the eighth semester compared to the first semester (Mpost_neuroticism = 10.47 ± 1.43 vs. Mpre_neuroticism = 7.73 ± 1.11, p = 0.047). Likewise, the mean extroversion values were higher in the eighth semester as well (Mpost_extroversion = 13.33 ± 1.01 vs. Mpre_extroversion = 16.27 ± 1.17, p = 0.009) (Table 3).
Figure 1 below shows the results according to whether they are considered as TS or IS.
As shown in Figure 1, when comparing according to the discipline chosen as individual or team, significant differences were found in the eighth semester for the neuroticism and responsibility dimensions (p < 0.05). Specifically, the neuroticism scores were higher in students who chose TS (Mpost_individual = 6.59 ± 1.07 vs. Mpost_team = 10.47 ± 1.43, p = 0.036). Meanwhile, for the mean responsibility values had a different behaviour, with higher mean scores in students who chose IS (Mpost_individual = 19.44 ± 0.57 vs. Mpost_team = 17.40 ± 0.76, p = 0.036).
Finally, through the ROC curves analysis, the cut-off point for the different NEO-FII questionnaire dimensions was determined according to the sport discipline chosen by the students and their classification according to gender. The AUC cut-offs, as well as the scores obtained, are shown in Table 4.
These values range from 10 to 17, depending on the dimension and type of sport discipline chosen by the students. Generally speaking, the cut-off point for kindness in the eighth semester is 16 in order to discriminate according to the gender of the student. In relation to TS and IS, the values are 17 and 16, respectively. For the openness, neuroticism, kindness, and extroversion dimensions, the values for various sport disciplines were established in the range 10–16.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the effect of the university education period on the students’ personality traits according to gender and the type of sports discipline chosen during the vocational training. When comparing these personality traits, significant differences were observed in the dimension scores obtained according to the time frame (first and last semester). These changes were most notably recorded in the neuroticism dimensions (increased level in the last semester), and the extroversion and responsibility dimensions (decreasing their level when comparing first and eighth semester). These variations could be due to the academic background itself, which can be identified as a possible factor modifying personality traits, as external influences (such as cultural norms, life events, or situations) interact with an individual’s adaptive capacity [60]. Hence, the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in the time interval between the two measurements of our study, causing an atypical situation in the regular academic cycle. Therefore, this caused the results to be analysed from two perspectives: the effects of academic stress and, secondly, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These results open up a long-standing debate. Vedel et al. [27], after reviewing the connection between personality and university academic performance, formulated the question: “Are personality traits the product of socialisation in a particular faculty, or are they pre-established before entry to higher education?” However, the same author [27], based on the study by Lievens et al. [61], stated only a few years later that the traits are not the product of socialisation at university but are already pre-established.
Furthermore, when talking about the sports students’ personality profiles, it must be considered that this type of training and subsequent professional development is oriented towards interaction with people. According to the literature, there seems to be a preference to select subjects that are more related to an orientation towards interacting with people when higher levels of neuroticism are observed in students [62,63]. The findings of this research seem to be in line with these previous studies, as Sport Science students tend, in their professional careers, to hold jobs that require continuous contact with people, whether from the perspective of education, coaching, or sport management. In fact, these results agree with the study developed by De Fruyt and Mervielde [63], who also showed high levels of neuroticism in Education Science students, while responsibility was reduced, as observed in our study. These low levels of responsibility may be related to sport education and coaching students who are more focused on aspects such as communication or leadership in their field of work. Thus, as mentioned above, personality traits vary in relation to the university career and, therefore, the prevalence of responsibility or another trait may not be fundamental for performance in an academic discipline and may be compensated by other individuals’ actions or strategies [24,50].
However, Clariana [28] found certain differences compared to our results. Specifically, the author found higher scores for neuroticism and responsibility. The differences between these findings and those presented in this research are related to the student profile, since, in the research by Clariana [28], the participants were students of pedagogy and education. Although both student profiles are similar, since their professional activities are oriented to interacting with people, the pedagogue is geared towards a mentoring role, both at an educational and professional level, and directly related to families. So, their apparent motivations are characterised by an altruistic profile with a socio-community and participatory-citizen emphasis [64]. However, regarding our results, it could be stated that the coaches should have a leadership profile, and, therefore, motivating and developing the athletes’ skills to achieve competitive success would be one of their priorities [24]. Based on the above, the motivational climate produced by the coach influences the athletes’ perception of their achievements, with the youth having more positive experiences and well-being when the climate is task-oriented, whereas when the coach focuses the climate on the ego, the athletes report more feelings of tension, anxiety, and antisocial behaviour [6,18,65].
Regarding the high levels of neuroticism found in this research, some studies indicate that this may be associated with emotional exhaustion [66]. In this regard, the last semester of the university career among sports students could generate fatigue in the students’ mood and, therefore, explain the neuroticism levels found. In this context, university students with academic stress and suicide thoughts have been found to have high levels of neuroticism, as well as low levels of engagement and extroversion [41]. It should not be forgotten that stress in academic life can lead to anxiety, depression, as well as behavioural problems [40]. Thus, it is not uncommon for 25% of the university population worldwide to have problems with depression [66], with higher levels of neuroticism being reported in students with more academic stress [67]. This implies that neuroticism, the last variable mentioned and experienced by our study subjects, is linked to negative emotions [68].
Another factor that could increase the neuroticism levels is the expertise time. In this line, García-Neveira and Ruíz-Barquín [24] found a direct relationship between neuroticism levels and the number of years dedicated to vocational training, so that the greater the number of years, the higher the neuroticism levels. These findings coincide with the results found in our research, where the greater the experience acquired by the students as coaches, the greater their neuroticism.
Likewise, the increased neuroticism can also be caused by the constant stressful situations experienced by the coach. In fact, scientific evidence suggests the existence of a positive correlation between stress and the neuroticism trait [69]. Consequently, the increase in this trait in sports students could be due not only to the inherent demands of the final years of university studies, but also to the beginning of their work experience as assistant coaches. Similarly, it has been shown that stress can negatively influence the individual’s commitment level. Specifically, several studies reported low engagement and high neuroticism levels when subjects are stressed [70]. This is consistent with our results.
On the other hand, the emergence of COVID-19 led to significant changes in lifestyles around the world [31,71]. This may have influenced the results of the second data collection in our study. Therefore, it remains an open question whether the results would have been the same or different under non-pandemic conditions.
However, when reviewing personality traits with high levels of neuroticism and low levels of extroversion and engagement, as found in our study, such a picture has been associated with depressive symptoms [72].
Actually, current research shows that circumstances such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to a deterioration in people’s mental health, resulting in depression and anxiety symptoms and conditions [73,74]. Circumstances such as confinement and sudden disruption of daily activities can lead to feelings such as emotional distress, boredom, anxiety, or loneliness [75]. Among other data, studies in China showed that the COVID-19 pandemic produced moderate to severe symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress in their population. Likewise, students and teachers in Venezuela showed similar symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic [76].
This information coincides with more clinical reports finding increasing depression and anxiety rates associated to the COVID-19 pandemic [77]. However, this can be approached from different perspectives, since, while some may have felt helpless and had negative feelings during social isolation, others found opportunities for personal development, although the latter were the least reported cases [36]. In relation to prolonged quarantine times, it has been shown that such stressful circumstances can produce prolonged negative effects on psychological health [78]. This could explain why the subjects in our study had a detriment in their psychological state, as already demonstrated in a study with a Mexican population, who reported suffering from psychological disorders, depression, and anxiety only one week after the implementation of the confinement measures [79]. Other consequences of confinement were acute and chronic insomnia, as well as the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder [80,81].
Given the high prevalence of people psychologically affected by quarantine, several studies have recommended post-COVID-19 mental health care programmes and resilience strategies [82,83]. However, although there is evidence to suggest that the personality profile of our students could be influenced by the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be necessary to support these results with other psychological tests to corroborate the stress and depression states in the students.
Based on that, the stress of the last academic cycle suffered by the students, together with the atypical circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, could be the factors that caused the scores shown in the personality traits of neuroticism, extroversion, and commitment or responsibility in the students. Indeed, as some studies have shown using the Big Five to diagnose stress and anxiety for the COVID-19 pandemic, traits such as extroversion and responsibility have been negatively correlated with anxiety, while neuroticism has shown positive correlations with anxiety and depressive symptoms [84,85]. The high susceptibility of people with high levels of neuroticism to suffer episodes of anxiety and depression [86] is due to the fact that this personality trait represents the tendency to feel frustrated and have negative affectivity [46]. On the other hand, extroversion is the opposite of neuroticism, being associated with sociability, assertiveness, and positive emotionality [47,87]. Thus, low scores are related to depressed subjects, although these data are not as conclusive as with neuroticism [88]. Finally, commitment is another trait negatively correlated with neuroticism, since one of its main characteristics is planning, goal setting, and discipline [48,89]. Therefore, low levels of this trait imply lower levels of self-care, which, in turn, may increase symptoms of depression [90].
When examining the relationship between personality, gender, and academic career, our study showed a significant increase in the neuroticism levels and a decrease in extroversion for males, whereas these extroversion levels dropped even more for females when comparing first and eighth semester scores. The overall results showed a higher kindness level in women compared to men, maintaining those level across the complete vocational training period. From biological theories, the female gender, due to evolutionary adaptability, tends to show greater traits of kindness for reasons such as pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and childcare [29]. Consequently, the conclusion could be clear: the academic trajectory seems to cause a greater deterioration of mood in male students, possibly due to their tendency to handle situations in an avoidant way and, therefore, to perceive greater stress [91]. These results are inconsistent with other research, such as Silva and Astorga [92], where men were more resilient in adverse situations. However, Peña and Naomi [93] found a greater capacity for coping with difficult situations in women. These same authors affirm that a possible explanation could be based on some cultures where women are more willing to express their problems and, therefore, find more potential sources of solutions. Also, communication styles vary according to gender and these differences are often influenced by social stereotypes [94]. Given these variations in the data, it seems necessary to further investigate the socio-cultural context where the study is taking place.
On the other hand, Clariana [28] studied personality traits according to different university degrees. The conclusions concerning the differences by gender were evident, since different profiles in the choice of the professional career were found, as well as observing variations in the scores obtained for the different personality traits. Moreover, in this same study, the results for female gender showed that the predominant degrees were those related to education and the humanities, obtaining higher scores in the personality traits identified with kindness and responsibility. These data are consistent with the higher levels of kindness found in our study when comparing students by gender in the eighth semester. One possible explanation for these differences may be that women are generally more friendly than men [95] and, consequently, may be less affected in this trait by external factors, such as the pandemic or the demands of the last year of their studies.
Finally, when considering the academic trajectory variable or SPCTT, differentiating between IS and TS, it was observed that there was an increase in the neuroticism levels and a decrease in the extroversion scores in the students who chose the TS practice. Along the same lines, when comparing TS vs. IS students in the eighth semester, higher responsibility levels were found in students identified with IS, while, for those who chose TS, the highest levels were those related to neuroticism. A possible explanation for these higher neuroticism levels and lower extroversion scores in TS students could be the constant exposure to stressful moments or situations experienced by TS coaches [96]. In this respect, a coach may experience a high stress level as a consequence of interacting with other people. Based on this statement, stress can provoke pressure states in the individual, affecting negatively their performance [97]. Although the subjects of our study are still students, their practices are oriented towards their professional field, which increases the exposure to stress.
In accordance to the literature, high kindness and openness to experience trait scores could be determinant in the coach’s performance [24]. The ease of having positive feedback with the athletes and a motivating environment will strongly depend on the actions established by the coach [12], so the coach’s personality traits should be in line with the demands of the environment. If we take into consideration that the ROC curve analysis showed a cut-off point for kindness trait in the last period (eighth semester, both in general and in IS according to gender), the evidence found would be in apparent agreement with this statement. More specifically, for kindness, the discipline of athletics showed a discriminant value both before (cut-off point <15) and after (cut-off point <16) the vocational training process of the students depending on their gender, allowing us to discriminate before and during the process on the basis of this personality trait identified as a determinant in the performance of a sports coach [24]. Additionally, for the sports disciplines of football and taekwondo, this analysis revealed differences in the scores obtained according to the students’ gender for openness to experience trait, thus allowing us to establish and discriminate previous access profiles according to these cut-off points in view of the apparent importance of this trait for the coach’s performance [24]. Furthermore, if these analyses are observed, it could be noted that, after completing the process in both cases, a differentiation can be made between male and female students, providing valuable information regarding what happens in the vocational training processes of these professionals.
Along the same lines, in the first and eighth semesters, individual sport practice identified with athletics showed cut-off points that would allow us to differentiate profiles for the extroversion personality trait previously and subsequently according to the student’s gender. Indeed, that point for discriminating on the basis of gender decreased in the eighth semester, dropping from <12 to <10, representing a clear decrease in the levels shown for this personality trait. Considering that the coach’s behaviour is one of the main factors in the vocational training of youth [98], reported changes in extroversion should not be neglected, as this trait is strongly related to ease of social contact and optimism [24].
However, when studying the sporting practice identified with volleyball, the analyses revealed gender differences in the eighth semester for neuroticism. This should be studied further, since it is related to stress and depression, as mentioned above [73,74].
To our knowledge, this is the first study to define such cut-off points for personality traits before starting and after finishing this process to become sports coaches. For the general group and IS, the AUC value is close to or above 0.70, and this may invalidate the results of the diagnostic test at the clinical level given the potential repercussions of misclassification in relation to the pre-existence or absence of disease. Nevertheless, both tests showed acceptable levels of specificity for such discrimination and classification [58,99]. In addition, the NEO-FFI instrument for recording personality traits is not a clinical diagnostic test; thus, the results obtained would be considered adequate for the differentiation of personality trait levels based on this classification by gender according to the type of SPCTT.
Hence, analysing the predictive values of the coach’s personality traits can help to identify behavioural patterns outside or within the coach’s profile, and thereby provide psychological intervention to improve the student’s health [100].
The aim of the study was to identify changes in personality traits in sports coaching students during their academic career. Unfortunately, between the first and the second measurement of the personality traits, COVID-19 was declared a worldwide pandemic on 11 March 2020. As a result, several changes in the population’s lifestyles were implemented in Mexico and other countries [33]. Consequently, preliminary results of some studies showed mental health impairments due to COVID-19, such as fear of disruptive life changes, fear of illness, economic instability, and increases in stress, depression, and anxiety due to quarantine. However, further long-term studies are needed to establish more conclusive consequences [101,102]. On the other hand, university academic life itself represents changes in habits and aspects, such as fear of failure, leading to stress, anxiety, or depression in students [103]. This makes it quite complicated to identify whether the personality traits of neuroticism, extroversion, and engagement were affected by academic stress, the COVID-19 pandemic, or both.
Finally, although the NEO-FFI questionnaire has proven to have sufficient validity and reliability to be used in different populations and contexts, as was the case in our study [45,53,104], the present research is not without limitations. Therefore, the use of a larger number of questionnaires to assess psychological aspects and the assessment with this type of university population in various contexts and countries could have further enriched the results of the study, increasing the existing scientific evidence on the subject.

5. Conclusions

This study is the first one to consider the scores obtained in the different personality traits for the sport discipline chosen to be sports coaches according to their gender. These cut-off points could be very useful to establish previous profiles of personality traits. This would allow the adaptation and design of vocational training plans according to these findings, clearly oriented to enhance those personality traits pre-established as determinants for the successful professional performance of sports coaches. Furthermore, they could be used to make these same adjustments after the end of the vocational training periods, since the results found in this research indicate that personality traits undergo significant alterations or modifications after the education period. However, this information must be interpreted carefully, considering that it is based on the characteristics and/or responses of a specific population or culture, and must be adapted to the characteristics of the educational system of the target population if similar work is to be developed.
Moreover, our findings seem to evidence that the academic stress and the circumstances generated by the COVID-19 pandemic could be factors that influenced the changes in the students’ neuroticism, extroversion, and responsibility trait scores. The above reinforces the hypothesis of the need to predict or identify these scores and profiles in order to adapt the vocational training process with greater possibilities and guarantees of success for future sports coaches. In fact, beyond the particular circumstances that occurred during the students’ university cycle, this study highlights the need to monitor the psychological health of coaches during their training period.
The personality trait values mentioned suggest tendencies towards depression in eighth semester students; however, it would be essential to use more psychological instruments to ratify these patterns. In addition, it should be highlighted that the vocational training of these students was undertaken in atypical conditions, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting the need for further research along these lines in order to establish with more clarity the external factors that could influence this university education and the associated personality traits that have been found.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, K.H.-P., G.M.G.-G. and R.M.A.; methodology, K.H.-P. and G.M.G.-G.; formal analysis, G.M.G.-G.; investigation, K.H.-P. and G.M.G.-G.; resources, K.H.-P. and R.M.A.; data curation, G.M.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, K.H.-P. and G.M.G.-G.; writing—review and editing, G.M.G.-G., L.M.M.-A., J.P.G.-F. and R.M.A.; visualisation, G.M.G.-G., L.M.M.-A., J.P.G.-F. and R.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of National School of Sport Trainers (protocol code: NO. DI-F1-RP-12).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organisation regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

References

  1. Barquín, R.R. Análisis de las diferencias de personalidad en el deporte del judo a nivel competitivo en función de la variable sexo y categoría de edad deportiva. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2005, 5, 29–48. [Google Scholar]
  2. Marín, A.A.; Piñar, M.; Camacho, P.; Brox, V.; Miranda-León, M.; Suárez-Cadenas, E.; Cárdenas, D. Características de la personalidad de jóvenes jugadores de baloncesto (15-under). Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2012, 12, 135–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Castro-López, R.; Molero, D.; Cachón-Zagalaz, J.; Zagalaz-Sánchez, M.L. Factores de la personalidad y fisicoculturismo: Indicadores asociados a la vigorexia. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2014, 23, 295–300. [Google Scholar]
  4. Eysenck, H.J.; Sybill, B.G. Manual de Personalidad, 3rd ed.; Ediciones TEA: Madrid, España, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  5. Appleton, P.R.; Ntoumanis, N.; Quested, E.; Viladrich, C.; Duda, J. Initial validation of the coach-created Empowering and Disempowering Motivational Climate Questionnaire (EDMCQ-C). Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2016, 22, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Ruiz, C.; Robazza, C.; Tolvanen, A.; Haapanen, S.; Duda, J.L. Coach-Created Motivational Climate and Athletes’ Adaptation to Psychological Stress: Temporal Motivation-Emotion Interplay. Front. Psychol. 2019, 22, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Balaguer, I.; Castillo, I.; Duda, J.L.; García-Merita, M. Asociaciones entre la percepción del clima motivacional creado por el entrenador, orientaciones disposicionales de meta, regulaciones motivacionales y vitalidad subjetiva en jóvenes jugadoras de tenis. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2011, 20, 133–148. [Google Scholar]
  8. Torregrosa, M.; Sousa, C.; Viladrich, C.; Villamarín, F.; Cruz, J. El clima motivacional y el estilo de comunicación del entrenador como predictores del compromiso en futbolistas jóvenes. Psicothema 2008, 20, 254–259. [Google Scholar]
  9. Morgan, K. Reconceptualizing motivational climate in physical education and sport coaching: An interdisciplinary perspective. Quest 2017, 69, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 61, 101860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moreno, J.A.; Martínez, A. Importancia de la Teoría de la Autodeterminación en la práctica físico-deportiva: Fundamentos e implicaciones prácticas. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2006, 6, 39–54. [Google Scholar]
  12. Curran, T.; Hill, A.P.; Hall, H.K.; Jowett, G.E. Relationships between the coach-created motivational climate and athlete engagement in youth sport. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2015, 37, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Duda, J.L.; Ntoumanis, N. After-school sport for children: Implications of a taskinvolving motivational climate. In Organized Activities as Contexts of Development: Extracurricular Activities, After-School and Community Programs; Mahoney, J.L., Larson, R., Eccles, J., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 311–330. [Google Scholar]
  14. Harwood, C.G.; Keegan, R.J.; Smith, J.M.; Raine, A.S. A systematic review of the intrapersonal correlates of motivational climate perceptions in sport and physical activity. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2015, 18, 9–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Newton, M.; Duda, J.L.; Yin, Z.N. Examination of the psychometric properties of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. J. Sports Sci. 2000, 18, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pensgaard, A.M.; Roberts, G.C. Elite athletes’ experiences of the motivational climate: The coach matters. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2002, 12, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Eys, M.A.; Jewitt, E.; Evans, M.B.; Wolf, S.; Bruner, M.W.; Loughead, T.M. Coach-initiated motivational climate and cohesion in youth sport. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2013, 84, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Duda, J.L.; Balaguer, I. Coach-created motivational climate. In Social Psychology in Sport; Jowett, S., Lavallee, D., Eds.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2007; pp. 117–130. [Google Scholar]
  19. Stein, J.; Bloom, G.A.; Sabiston, C.M. Influence of perceived and preferred coach feedback on youth athletes’ perceptions of team motivational climate. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2012, 13, 484–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hagger, M.S.; Hamilton, K. General causality orientations in self-determination theory: Meta-analysis and test of a process model. Eur. J. Personal. 2020, 35, 710–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Chapter four. Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. Adv. Motiv. Sci. 2019, 6, 111–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pérez, M. Caracterización del entrenador de alto rendimiento deportivo. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2002, 2, 15–37. [Google Scholar]
  23. Moreno-Arrebola, R.; Martínez, A.; Zurita, F.; San Romá, S. La influencia del liderazgo del entrenador en los deportistas. Eur. J. Child Dev. Educ. Psychopathol. 2017, 5, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. García-Neveira, A.; Ruíz-Barquín, R. Diferencias de personalidad en entrenadores desde el modelo de Costa y McCrae. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2013, 13, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Dimec, T.; Kajtna, T. Physcological characteristics of younger and older coaches. Kinesiology 2009, 41, 172–180. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mageau, G.A.; Vallerand, R.J. The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. J. Sports Sci. 2003, 21, 883–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vedel, A.; Thomsen, D.K.; Larsen, L. Personality, academic majors and performance: Revealing complex patterns. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015, 85, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Clariana, M. Personality, procrastination and cheating in students from different University Degree Programs. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 11, 451–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Costa, P.; Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R. Gender Differences in Personality Traits across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 81, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fernandes, D.C.; Bartholomeu, D.; Rueda, F.J.M.; Suehiro, A.C.B.; Sisto, F.F. Auto concept y rasgos de personalidad: Un estudio correlacional. Psicol. Esc. Educ. 2005, 9, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tarkar, P. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on education system. IJAST 2020, 29, 3812–3814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hernández-Díaz, Y.; Genis-Mendoza, A.D.; Ramos-Méndez, M.Á.; Juárez-Rojop, I.E.; Tovilla-Zárate, C.A.; González-Castro, T.B.; Nicolini, H. Mental Health Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mexican Population: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Velázquez, L.G. Estrés académico en estudiantes universitarios asociado a la pandemia por COVID-19. Espac. I D Innov. Desarro. 2020, 9, 158–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhai, Y.; Du, X. Addressing collegiate mental health amid COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 288, 113003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Alzueta, E.; Perrin, P.; Baker, F.C.; Caffarra, S.; Ramos-Usuga, D.; Yuksel, D.; Arango-Lasprilla, J.C. How the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives: A study of psychological correlates across 59 countries. J. Clin. Psychol. 2021, 77, 556–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bozdağ, F. The psychological effects of staying home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Gen. Psychol. 2021, 148, 226–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Stamu-O’Brien, C.; Carniciu, S.; Halvorsen, E.; Jafferany, M. Psychological aspects of COVID-19. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2020, 19, 2169–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lozano, B.E.; Johnson, S.L. Can personality traits predict increases in manic and depressive symptoms? J. Affect. Disord. 2001, 63, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Matthews, G.; Lin, J.; Wohleber, R. Personality, stress and resilience: A multifactorial cognitive science perspective. Psychol. Top. 2017, 26, 139–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reddy, K.J.; Menon, K.R.; Thattil, A. Academic stress and its sources among university students. Biomed. Pharmacol. J. 2018, 11, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Misra, R.; McKean, M.; West, S.; Russo, T. Academic stress of college students: Comparison of student and faculty perceptions. Coll. Stud. J. 2000, 34, 236–245. [Google Scholar]
  42. Oginyi, R.C.; Mbam, O.S.; Nwonyi, S.K.; Ekwo, J.C.; Nwoba, M.O. Personality factors, academic stress and socio-economic status as factors in suicide ideation among undergraduates of Ebonyi State University. Asian Soc. Sci. 2018, 14, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hystad, S.W.; Eid, J.; Laberg, J.C.; Johnsen, B.H.; Bartone, P.T. Academic stress and health: Exploring the moderating role of personality hardiness. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2009, 53, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Struthers, C.W.; Perry, R.P.; Menec, V.H. An examination of the relationship among academic stress, coping, motivation, and performance in college. Res. High. Educ. 2000, 41, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lee, S.J.; Choi, Y.J.; Chae, H. The effects of personality traits on academic burnout in Korean medical students. Integr. Med. Res. 2017, 6, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Widiger, T.A.; Trull, T.J. Assessment of the five-factor model of personality. J. Personal. Assess. 1997, 68, 228–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Novikova, I.A. Big Five (the five-factor model and the five-factor theory). Encycl. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2013, 1, 136–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Roccas, S.; Sagiv, L.; Schwartz, S.H.; Knafo, A. The big five personality factors and personal values. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2002, 28, 789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vedel, A. Big Five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic review. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 92, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Cubo-Delgado, S.; Domínguez, E.; Luengo, R.; Martín, B.; Ramos, J.L. Métodos de Investigación y Análisis de Datos en Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud; Pirámide: Madrid, España, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hernández-Sampieri, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, P. Metodología de la Investigación; Mc Graw-Hill: Mexico City, México, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Meda, R.M.; Moreno-Jiménez, B.; García, L.F.; Palomera, A.; Mariscal de Santiago, M.V. Validez factorial del NEO-FFI en una muestra mexicana: Propuesta de versión reducida. Rev. Mex. Psicol. 2015, 32, 57–67. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. A longitudinal study of the relationships between the Big Five personality traits and body size perception. Body Image 2015, 14, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tyebkhan, G. Declaration of Helsinki: The ethical cornerstone of human clinical research. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 2003, 69, 245–247. [Google Scholar]
  56. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Bošnjak, S. The Declaration of Helsinki—The cornerstone of research ethics. Arch. Oncol. 2001, 9, 179–184. [Google Scholar]
  58. Harriss, D.J.; MacSween, A.; Atkinson, G. Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research: 2020 Update. Int. J. Sport. Med. 2019, 40, 813–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Metz, C.E. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1978, 8, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Simkin, H.; Azzollini, S. Personalidad, autoestima, espiritualidad y religiosidad desde el modelo y la teoría de los cinco factores. PSIENCIA Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Psicol. 2015, 7, 339–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lievens, F.; Coetsier, P.; De Fruyt, F.; De Maeseneer, J. Medical students’ personality characteristics and academic performance: A five-factor model perspective. Med. Educ. 2002, 36, 1050–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wankowski, J. Personality Dimensions of Students and Some Educational Implications of Eysenck’s Theory of Extraversion and Neuroticism; University of Birmingham Educational Monography: Birmingham, UK, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  63. De Fruyt, F.; Mervielde, I. Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. Eur. J. Personal. 1996, 10, 405–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dufraix, I.; Fernández, E.; Anguita, R. Perfil del estudiante de pedagogía en lengua castellana y comunicación y motivaciones asociadas a su elección profesional: Un estudio de casos. Perspect. Educ. 2020, 59, 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ntoumanis, N.; Taylor, I.M.; Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. A longitudinal examination of coach and peer motivational climates in youth sport: Implications for moral attitudes, well-being, and behavioral investment. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 48, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. García-Izquierdo, A.L.; Ramos-Villagrasa, P.J.; García-Izquierdo, M. Los Big Five y el Efecto Moderador de la Resistencia en el Agotamiento Emocional. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2009, 25, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kumaraswamy, N. Academic stress, anxiety and depression among college students: A brief review. Int. Rev. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2013, 5, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sharma, S.; Sharma, M. Study the Role of Personality Traits on Academic Stress: A Comparative Study of Male and Female University Students. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2021, 285–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. García-Martínez, I.; Augusto-Landa, J.M.; León, S.P.; Quijano-López, R. Pathways between self-concept and academic stress: The role of emotional intelligence and personality among university students. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pereira-Morales, A.J.; Adam, A.; Forero, D.A. Perceived Stress as a mediator of the Relationship between neuroticism and depression and anxiety symptoms. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 38, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chen, Y.; Peng, Y.; Ma, X.; Dong, X. Conscientious-ness moderates the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms among U.S. Chinese older adults. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2017, 72, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Ciotti, M.; Ciccozzi, M.; Terrinoni, A.; Jiang, W.C.; Wang, C.B.; Bernardini, S. The COVID-19 pandemic. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2020, 57, 365–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, Y.; He, L.; Zhuang, K.; Wu, X.; Sun, J.; Wei, D.; Qiu, J. Linking personality types to depressive symptoms: A prospective typology based on neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness. Neuropsychologia 2020, 136, 107289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Prieto-Molinaria, D.E.; Aguirre Bravo, G.L.; De Pierola, I.; Luna Victoria-de Bona, G.; Merea Silva, L.A.; Lazarte Nuñez, C.S.; Uribe-Bravo, K.A.; Zegarra, Á.C. Depresión y ansiedad durante el aislamiento obligatorio por el COVID-19 en Lima Metropolitana. Liberabit 2020, 26, e425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Aguilar-Sigüeñas, L.E.; Cruz-Vásquez, Y.K.; Villarreal-Zegarra, D. Secuelas post-COVID en salud mental: Una revisión narrativa. Rev. Med. Val. 2021, 10, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mukhtar, S. Psychological health during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic outbreak. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatr. 2020, 66, 512–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Herrera-Chávez, R.; Yahuarshungo, C.N.; Ricaurte-Ortiz, P.; Cabezas-Heredia, E. Depresión, Ansiedad, estrés en estudiantes y docentes: Análisis a partir del COVID-19. Rev. Venez. Gerenc. 2021, 26, 603–622. [Google Scholar]
  78. López, C.Q.; Vera, V.D.G. Depresión en estudiantes universitarios derivada del Covid-19: Un modelo de clasificación. Cuad. Hispanoam. Psicol. 2021, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hossain, M.M.; Sultana, A.; Purohit, N. Mental health outcomes of quarantine and isolation for infection prevention: A systematic umbrella review of the global evidence. Epidemiol. Health 2020, 42, e2020038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Cortés-Álvarez, N.; Piñeiro-Lamas, R.; Vuelvas-Olmos, C. Psychological Effects and Associated Factors of COVID-19 in a Mexican Sample. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2020, 14, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Morin, C.M.; Carrier, J. The acute effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on insomnia and psychological symptoms. Sleep Med. 2021, 77, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Odriozola-González, P.; Planchuelo-Gómez, Á.; Irurtia, M.J.; de Luis-García, R. Psychological symptoms of the outbreak of the COVID-19 confinement in Spain. J. Health Psychol. 2022, 27, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Volken, T.; Zysset, A.; Amendola, S.; Klein Swormink, A.; Huber, M.; von Wyl, A.; Dratva, J. Depressive Symptoms in Swiss University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Their Correlates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Makhbul, Z.K.M.; Rawshdeh, Z.A. Mental stress post-COVID-19. Int. J. Public Health Sci. 2021, 10, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nikčević, A.V.; Marino, C.; Kolubinski, D.C.; Leach, D.; Spada, M.M. Modelling the contribution of the Big Five personality traits, health anxiety, and COVID-19 psychological distress to generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 279, 578–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Delgado-Alonso, C.; Valles-Salgado, M.; Delgado-Álvarez, A.; Gómez-Ruiz, N.; Yus, M.; Polidura, C.; Matias-Guiu, J.A. Examining Association of Personality Characteristics and Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Post-COVID Syndrome. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jorm, A.F.; Christensen, H.; Henderson, A.S.; Jacomb, P.A.; Korten, A.E.; Rodgers, B. Predicting anxiety and depression from personality: Is there a synergistic effect of neuroticism and extraversion? J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2000, 109, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Witt, L.A. The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on performance. J. Manag. 2002, 28, 835–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Uliaszek, A.A.; Zinbarg, R.E.; Mineka, S.; Craske, M.G.; Sutton, J.M.; Griffith, J.W.; Hammen, C. The role of neuroticism and extraversion in the stress–anxiety and stress–depression relationships. Anxiety Stress Coping 2010, 23, 363–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Stoeber, J.; Otto, K.; Dalbert, C. Perfectionism and the Big Five: Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2009, 47, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Kummer, S.; Dalkner, N.; Schwerdtfeger, A.; Hamm, C.; Schwalsberger, K.; Reininghaus, B.; Reininghaus, E. The conscientiousness-health link in depression: Results from a path analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 295, 1220–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Goñi, X.A.S.; Viñals, A.C.; Pérez-González, F.; Sánchez-Labrador, L.; Dominguez-Gordillo, A.; Sánchez-Sánchez, T.; Jiménez-Ortega, L. Estilos de afrontamiento al estrés, ansiedad y neuroticismo en estudiantes universitarios con mialgia temporomandibular: Un estudio de casos y controles. Rev. Lex Mercatoria Doctrina Prax. Jurisprud. Legis. 2021, 9, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Silva, M.J.F.; Astorga, M.C.M. La resiliencia y su relación con salud y ansiedad en estudiantes españoles. Int. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 1, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Peña, F.; Naomi, E. Fuentes de resiliencia en estudiantes de Lima y Arequipa. Liberabit 2009, 15, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
  95. Encabo, F.E.; López, V.A. Diferencias de género y comunicación: Aspectos no verbales y propuestas didácticas. Didáctica 2004, 16, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
  96. Domínguez-Lara, S.; Prada-Chapoñan, R.; Moreta-Herrera, R. Gender differences in the influence of personality on academic procrastination in Peruvian college students. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 2019, 22, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hudson, J.; Davison, G.; Robinson, P. Psychophysiological and stress responses to competition in team sport coaches: An exploratory study. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 2013, 23, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Fletcher, D.; Scott, M. Psychological stress in sports coaches: A review of concepts, research, and practice. J. Sport. Sci. 2010, 28, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Maestre, M.; Garcés de los Fayos, E.J.; Ortín, F.J.; Hidalgo, M.D. El Perfil del entrenador excelente en fútbol base. Un Estudio mediante Grupos Focales. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2018, 18, 112–128. [Google Scholar]
  100. Gea-García, G.M.; González-Gálvez, N.; Espeso-García, A.; Marcos-Pardo, P.J.; González-Fernández, F.T.; Martínez-Aranda, L.M. Relationship between the practice of physical activity and physical fitness in physical education students: The integrated regulation as a mediating variable. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Cerda, J.; Cifuentes, L. Uso de curvas ROC en investigación clínica: Aspectos teórico-prácticos. Rev. Chil. Infectol. 2012, 29, 138–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Moreno, C.; Wykes, T.; Galderisi, S.; Nordentoft, M.; Crossley, N.; Jones, N.; Arango, C. How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 813–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lakhan, R.; Agrawal, A.; Sharma, M. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Neurosci. Rural Pract. 2020, 11, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bhujade, V.M. Depression, anxiety and academic stress among college students: A brief review. Indian J. Health Wellbeing 2017, 8, 748–751. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 00486 g001 550
Figure 1. Comparison of the mean values obtained by dimensions for the NEO-FFI questionnaire according to the grouped sport practice chosen for the students’ training. Note: * = differences by dimensions within the same gender; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; # = differences by dimension when comparing scores by sport discipline; # = p < 0.05. Data presented as mean ± SD.
Figure 1. Comparison of the mean values obtained by dimensions for the NEO-FFI questionnaire according to the grouped sport practice chosen for the students’ training. Note: * = differences by dimensions within the same gender; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; # = differences by dimension when comparing scores by sport discipline; # = p < 0.05. Data presented as mean ± SD.
Sustainability 15 00486 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive data of the sample according to gender.
Table 1. Descriptive data of the sample according to gender.
TotalMaleFemalep
M ± SDM ± SDM ± SD
(n = 142)(n = 95)(n = 47)
Age25.73 ± 3.6825.91 ± 3.4025.39 ± 4.160.26
Sports practice
   Football (n, %)15 (16.5%)9 (9.9%)6 (6.6%)0.882
   Basketball (n, %)10 (11%)6 (6.6%)4 (4.4%)
   Volleyball (n, %)7 (7.7%)5 (5.5%)2 (2.2%)
   Athletics (n, %)9 (9.9%)5 (5.5%)4 (4.4%)
   Swimming (n, %)16 (17.6%)9 (9.9%)7 (7.7%)
   Wrestling (n, %)5 (5.5%)4 (4.4%)1 (1.1%)
   Taekwondo (n, %)12 (13.2%)7 (7.7%)5 (5.5%)
   Karate (n, %)6 (6.6%)5 (5.5%)1 (1.1%)
   Gymnastics (n, %)8 (8.8%)5 (5.5%)3 (3.3%)
   Cycling (n, %)3 (3.3%)3 (3.3%)0 (0%)
Sport practice by modality
   Individual (n, %)59 (64.8%)38 (41.8%)21 (13.2%)0.516
   Team (n, %)32 (35.2%)20 (13.2%)12 (13.2%)
Note: n = number of subjects; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; % = percentage; p = significance level.
Table
Table 2. Mean values obtained by dimensions for the NEO-FFI questionnaire according to gender.
Table 2. Mean values obtained by dimensions for the NEO-FFI questionnaire according to gender.
GeneralMaleFemale
M ± SDpM ± SDpM ± SDp
NeuroticismPre5.77 ± 0.530.002 **5.90 ± 0.570.014 *6.40 ± 0.880.072
Post8.12 ± 0.767.77 ± 0.788.50 ± 1.21
ExtroversionPre15.97 ± 0.590.002 **15.67 ± 0.600.042 *17.00 ± 0.930.001 **
Post14.40 ± 0.5114.58 ± 0.5314.15 ± 0.84
Openness_experiencePre14.74 ± 0.420.91714.56 ± 0.451.00014.30 ± 0.690.798
Post14.68 ± 0.5214.56 ± 0.5514.50 ± 0.85
KindnessPre14.61 ± 0.470.12014.65 ± 0.500.08315.90 ± 0.781.000
Post13.73 ± 0.5413.58 ± 0.5615.90 ± 0.87
ResponsibilityPre19.18 ± 0.450.028 *18.77 ± 0.480.44819.05 ± 0.740.153
Post18.14 ± 0.4218.40 ± 0.4317.95 ± 0.67
Note: Pre = average values for the 1st semester; Post = average values for the 8th semester; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; p = significance level; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Mean values obtained by dimensions for the NEO-FFI questionnaire according to the discipline chosen to become a trainer.
Table 3. Mean values obtained by dimensions for the NEO-FFI questionnaire according to the discipline chosen to become a trainer.
NeuroticismExtroversionOpenness_ExperienceKindnessResponsibility
M ± SDpM ± SDpM ± SDpM ± SDpM ± SDp
FPre6.15 ± 1.050.67415.15 ± 1.200.70113.62 ± 0.860.63816.00 ± 0.950.68217.46 ± 0.910.326
Post6.77 ± 1.5415.54 ± 1.0314.08 ± 1.0616.46 ± 1.0918.39 ± 0.86
BPre3.17 ± 1.540.09217.67 ± 1.760.005 **16.67 ± 1.260.49016.83 ± 1.400.03 *20.33 ± 1.340.335
Post6.84 ± 2.2713.33 ± 1.5115.67 ± 1.5613.17 ± 1.6119.00 ± 1.26
VPre4.25 ± 1.890.032 *14.00 ± 2.160.89015.00 ± 1.540.48116.25 ± 1.220.012 *19.75 ± 1.160.058
Post10.00 ± 2.7113.75 ± 1.863.75 ± 1.9111.00 ± 1.3916.50 ± 1.09
APre7.63 ± 1.330.38514.50 ± 1.530.05415.00 ± 1.090.32015.63 ± 1.220.79418.38 ± 1.160.530
Post9.25 ± 1.9712.00 ± 1.3113.75 ± 1.3515.25 ± 1.3917.63 ± 1.09
SPre5.25 ± 1.090.36217.33 ± 1.250.003 **14.670.890.19515.08 ± 0.990.13819.17 ± 0.950.797
Post6.75 ± 1.6114.17 ± 1.0716.00 ± 1.1013.33 ± 1.1418.92 ± 0.89
WPre5.67 ± 2.181.00016.33 ± 2.490.20416.00 ± 1.780.41613.00 ± 1.980.56921.67 ± 1.900.091
Post5.67 ± 3.2113.67 ± 2.1414.33 ± 2.2014.33 ± 2.2718.33 ± 1.79
TPre6.50 ± 1.330.28516.25 ± 1.530.49413.75 ± 1.090.61813.75 ± 1.220.72718.38 ± 1.160.601
Post8.50 ± 1.9715.375 ± 1.3113.13 ± 1.3514.25 ± 1.3919.00 ± 1.09
KPre5.75 ± 1.890.25816.00 ± 2.160.40715.75 ± 1.540.88814.50 ± 1.720.32620.75 ± 1.640.186
Post8.75 ± 2.7814.50 ± 1.8616.00 ± 1.9112.50 ± 1.9718.50 ± 1.55
GPre9.71 ± 1.420.61617.14 ± 1.630.29812.57 ± 1.170.66914.71 ± 1.300.51518.57 ± 1.240.265
Post10.71 ± 2.1015.71 ± 1.4013.14 ± 1.4415.71 ± 1.4917.14 ± 1.17
CPre3.67 ± 2.180.15815.33 ± 2.500.74914.33 ± 1.780.19510.33 ± 1.980.66917.33 ± 1.900.732
Post8.00 ± 3.2116 ± 2.1417.00 ± 2.2011.33 ± 2.2718.00 ± 1.79
Clustering of the different sports disciplines
TSPre7.73 ± 1.110.047 *16.27 ± 1.170.009 **14.27 ± 0.780.09213.93 ± 0.960.5017.93 ± 0.870.538
Post10.47 ± 1.4313.33 ± 1.0115.60 ± 1.0013.13 ± 0.7217.40 ± 0.76
ISPre5.52 ± 0.830.28515.89 ± 0.870.33314.22 ± 0.580.37315.70 ± 1.070.29719.56 ± 0.650.863
Post6.59 ± 1.0715.11 ± 0.7613.70 ± 0.7414.78 ± 0.8019.44 ± 0.57
Note: Pre = mean values in 1st semester; Post = mean values in 8th semester; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; F = football; B = basketball; V = volleyball; A = athletics; S = swimming; W = associated wrestling; T = taekwondo; K = karate; G = gymnastics; C = cycling; TS = team sports; IS = individual sports; p = significance level; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. ROC analysis according to gender for the different NEO-FFI questionnaire dimensions by the type of SPCTT.
Table 4. ROC analysis according to gender for the different NEO-FFI questionnaire dimensions by the type of SPCTT.
Type of SPCTT
KindnessOpenessNeurot.KindnessExtroversion
GNRTSISFTVA
PostPostPostPrePostPostPostPrePostPrePost
MsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMs
AUC0.660.550.710.890.830.830.901.001.000.830.85
SE0.060.110.080.110.100.130.100.000.000.160.14
95% CI0.55 to 0.760.37 to 0.730.57 to 0.820.61 to 0.990.56 to 0.970.51 to 0.980.47 to 0.990.63 to 1.000.66 to 1.000.43 to 0.990.47 to 0.99
p0.009 **0.600.001 **<0.000 **0.001 **0.01 **<0.000 **<0.000 **<0.000 **0.033 *0.011 *
YI0.350.220.480.890.560.510.801.001.000.600.60
C_P ≤16 ≤17≤16≤14≤12≤13≤12≤15 ≤16 ≤12≤10
Note: only significant results are presented. N = number; Pre = scores in the 1st semester; post = scores in the 8th semester; * = significance level p < 0.05; ** = significance level p < 0.01; CI = confidence index; YI = Youden index; SE = standard error; AUC = area under the curve; F = football; B = basketball; V = volleyball; A = athletics; S = swimming; W = associated wrestling; T = taekwondo; K = karate; G = gymnastics; C = cycling; TS = team sports; IS = individual sports; GNR: general; Ms = male; C_P= cut-off point.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hernández-Peña, K.; Gea-García, G.M.; García-Fuentes, J.P.; Martínez-Aranda, L.M.; Menayo Antúnez, R. Personality Trait Changes in Athletic Training Students during Their University Career: Effects of Academic Stress or COVID-19 Pandemic? Sustainability 2023, 15, 486. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010486

AMA Style

Hernández-Peña K, Gea-García GM, García-Fuentes JP, Martínez-Aranda LM, Menayo Antúnez R. Personality Trait Changes in Athletic Training Students during Their University Career: Effects of Academic Stress or COVID-19 Pandemic? Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):486. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010486

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hernández-Peña, Keb, Gemma María Gea-García, Juan Pedro García-Fuentes, Luis Manuel Martínez-Aranda, and Ruperto Menayo Antúnez. 2023. "Personality Trait Changes in Athletic Training Students during Their University Career: Effects of Academic Stress or COVID-19 Pandemic?" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 486. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010486

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop