| Summary: | The measurement of mental toughness, which has gained increased popularity among scholars in the past decade, is an area of research that has typically lacked a synergy between theory and method. In a psychometric examination of the Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48 (MTQ48; Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002), Gucciardi, Hanton, and Mallett (2012) proposed several issues that can arise when theory is disconnected from method commensurate with current best practice. Clough, Earle, Perry, and Crust (2012) offered a critical commentary of the authors’ work, citing both substantive (e.g., inadequate literature review) and methodological (e.g., inappropriate samples) issues that they argued limited its contribution to progressing mental toughness measurement. In this article, we respond to these claims by drawing from theory and research. Although these discussions center on the MTQ48, we believe many of the issues have relevance to scholars and practitioners interested in the measurement of psychological variables as they pertain to sport, exercise, and other performance or achievement contexts.
|
|---|