Assessing reasons for sports career termination: Development

of the Athletes’ Retirement Decision Inventory (ARDI)

Anne Fernandez *, Yannick Stephan, Evelyne Fouquereau

Universite Francois Rabelais, EA 2114 “Vieillissement et Developpement Adulte”, Departement de Psychologie, 3 rue des

Tanneurs, BP4103, 37041 Tours, France

Received 25 April 2005; received in revised form 18 October 2005; accepted 1 November 2005

Available online 20 December 2005

Abstract

Objective: To develop an original self-report questionnaire to assess the retirement decision process among

competitive athletes using the push pull anti-push anti-pull view.

Method: A two-step procedure was used to develop the scale. The first step involved creating a list of items leading to a

preliminary version of the Athletes’ Retirement Decision Inventory (ARDI), which assessed perceptions of the reasons

for career termination. In the second study, 236 French competitive athletes (73.7% male; mean age Z24.93 years)

completed the ARDI. This second step aimed to test the factor structure of the ARDI, and to select the final items.

Results: The final 39-item version of the ARDI has a good psychometric basis. It comprises four factors: (a) anti-

pull, (b) pull, (c) anti-push and (d) push, with adequate internal consistency and which explain a sufficient part of

the total variance.

Conclusion: Firstly, this study confirms that the retirement decision process is complex and multifaceted, and

secondly, it provides a new instrument to assess the process, although further research is needed to validate this

tool. Finally, it suggests some avenues for refining career termination counseling.

q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Athletes’ Retirement Decision Inventory (ARDI); Push pull anti-push anti-pull; Athletes’ sports career termination;

Retirement decision process

This study comes into the broader field of career decision-making. Its main task was to reach a better

understanding of the process by which competitive athletes decide to end their careers.

A top-level career in sport has at least two specific features: (a) to reach the highest levels requires total

physical and emotional commitment, relegating other interests in life to a secondary position (e.g. Crook

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421

www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

1469-0292/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.11.001

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C33 2 47 36 65 54; fax: C33 2 47 36 64 84.

E-mail address: anne.fernandez@univ-tours.fr (A. Fernandez).

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421408

& Robertson, 1991; Werthner & Orlick, 1986), and (b) there is no mandatory retirement age. These

specificities make the transitional process from elite sport unique. Indeed, as in retirement in general,

relationships with colleagues and the pattern of daily life will be modified, but in contrast to other retirees,

athletes leave their careers earlier, and career termination does not necessarily mean a definitive end to

occupational activities. However, as with the conventional transition to retirement, the transition from

elite sport has potentially complex effects, which have led to considerable research over the last decade

(for a review, see Lavallee, Wylleman, & Sinclair, 2000). The literature has described the psychological

repercussions of this transition as a whole, and certain authors have reported that, due to changes in social

and professional points of reference, this passage could initially have negative repercussions, such as an

identity crisis (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993; Ogilvie & Howe, 1982), emotional difficulties

(Allison & Meyer, 1988) and/or decreased self-confidence and life satisfaction (Werthner & Orlick,

1986). Conversely, other researchers have found no evidence of distress during this period (Blinde &

Greendorfer, 1985; Curtis & Ennis, 1988; Greendorfer & Blinde, 1985), suggesting even that retirement

from high-level competition may lead to positive life changes (Sinclair & Orlick, 1993).

Many researchers have tried to identify factors relating to the diversity of effects of the transition from

elite sport, and more generally to the adjustment to this life transition (e.g. Alfermann, Stambulova, &

Zemaityte, 2004; Baillie & Danish, 1992; Crook & Robertson, 1991). In this research area, there has

been growing interest in the reasons why athletes leave sport. Reasons for and adjustment to retirement

are in fact closely connected (Alfermann, 2000; Taylor & Ogilvie, 1994). According to the nature of the

causal factors that initiate retirement, the quality of adaptation differs. Reasons for retirement even

“seem to play a crucial role for adjustment to post-career life” (Alfermann et al., 2004, p. 62). This

observation has led some researchers to list these reasons. For instance, in Koukouris’ study (1991)

investigating the disengagement process among elite Greek male athletes, 38 causes were identified,

including inadequate financial support from the club or the federation, lack of success, excessive time

commitment required for top performance, lack of adequate athletic facilities, injury, etc. Lavallee,

Grove, and Gordon (1997) provided perhaps the most comprehensive picture of causes for sports

retirement. They found that work/study commitments, loss of motivation, the politics of sport, decrease

in performance, finance and decreased enjoyment were the main causes for retirement. The difficulty lies

in the fact that the reasons for deciding to end a sporting career resemble the chaos theory model:

numerous, varied and cumulative. However, some researchers have tried to make this research area

clearer by classifying the reasons for retirement according to several factors, for example (a) voluntary

versus involuntary (Alfermann, 2000; Crook & Robertson, 1991; Webb, Nasco, Riley, & Headrick,

1998; Werthner & Orlick, 1986), (b) planned versus unplanned (Alfermann et al., 2004), (c) athletic

versus non-athletic (Erpic, Wylleman, & Zupancic, 2004).

However, these classifications have recently been called into question. For example, Kerr and Dacyshyn

(2000) demonstrated that the distinction between freely chosen (voluntary) and forced (involuntary)

retirement is not always clear because of the diversity and the nature of the potential factors, which determine

why athletes retire. Similarly, certain factors identified as distinct in these classifications seem to refer to a

common dimension. For instance, consequences of injury and deselection which are generally considered as

two independent factors (Taylor & Ogilvie, 1994) could be part of a single ‘negative causes’ factor.

The process-oriented analysis of reasons for career termination obviously needs further differentiation

and clarification, and the numerous reasons playing a role in the retirement decision reported in previous

studies require more precise organization. However, no theoretical framework has been developed to

organize, structure, and understand the retirement decision process of competitive athletes, although

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421 409

such models exist for the general population and could be used successfully to study how athletes end

their careers. In such models, investigation of the key variables that influence the decision to retire has

highlighted the need to consider both the push and the pull factors (e.g. Feldman, 1994; Hanisch, 1994;

Reitzes, Mutran, & Fernandez, 1998). Push factors have been defined as negative considerations, such as

poor health or dislike of one’s job, which induce older workers to retire (Shultz, Morton, & Weckerle,

1998). By contrast, pull factors are typically positive considerations, such as the desire to pursue leisure

interests or voluntary activities that attract older workers toward retirement (Shultz et al., 1998). Several

other decision-process studies have also been based on this framework, for example, those dealing with

community relocation (Carter, 1988; Speare & Meyer, 1988) or with the issue of cross-cultural

migration (Mullet, Dej, Lemaire, Raıff, & Barthorpe, 2000).

Mullet et al.’s study (2000) seems of particular interest in understanding the decision process:

assessing the specific decision process of young French people to go and study or work in another EU

country, the researchers added two other dimensions to those cited above, namely anti-push and anti-

pull factors. The anti-push factor has been conceptualised as attachment to the present situation, for

example to one’s social context, and anti-pull factors have been defined as costs and risks perceived in

the future situation, such as the absence of a network in the host country. In summary, the authors

emphasized that for most people the decision process is complex and can be considered as an interaction

and balance between push, pull, anti-push and anti-pull factors.

This push pull anti-push anti-pull framework seemed to be appropriate for studying the process of

deciding to retire from elite sport. If we summarise the potential reasons why athletes end their careers,

we indeed see that some athletes are pushed toward retirement (e.g. injury), whereas others are pulled to

retirement (e.g. to spend more time with their family). Similarly, when applied to the transition from

elite sport, anti-push factors could be conceptualized as the desire to pursue the sports career because of

still feeling able to perform, or the competitive athlete’s attachment to social status, and anti-pull factors

could refer to the uncertainty of the post-sports life or to the anxiety induced by feeling unable to succeed

in a new socio-professional setting.

The objective of the study was to better capture the structure of the reasons, which lead athletes to end

their career by developing a tool based on the push pull anti-push anti-pull view. Such a

multidimensional tool could help account for the overall complex process of deciding to retire from

sport by showing how an athlete can for example be both pulled to retirement by the desire to discover

new opportunities, and at the same time be afraid of feeling useless without sport (anti-pull factor).

Conversely, athletes could be pushed toward retirement because of deselection, and at the same time feel

convinced that they could still perform (anti-push factor). Identification of these new dimensions could

be very useful for professional counselors who advise top-level athletes in their preparation for

retirement. They could accurately diagnose the importance of each factor in the retirement decision-

making and consequently design more targeted counseling strategies.

Method

Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to develop items from a review of the relevant literature and from face-to-

face interviews. Firstly, a broad review of the psychology of sports career termination was conducted in

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421410

order to cover the relevant field of this career transition process and to delineate the conceptual boundaries of

the measure. Secondly, we chose a complementary qualitative approach to heighten understanding of the

individual process and how participants viewed their career termination. This involved semi-structured

interviews, which included four open questions related to the four dimensions of the push pull anti-push anti-

pull framework. Items were then selected using content analysis techniques (Weber, 1990).

Participants

To ensure that the questionnaire was sensitive to the experiences of people undergoing the transition

from elite sport, we only recruited individuals who estimated they were close (less than 3 years) to the

end of their career, with the cooperation of the staff of two competitive clubs. Data were collected from

25 athletes (14 males, 11 females).

Procedure

The interviewers were psychology students, well trained in interviewing techniques. We developed

interview questions based on the push pull anti-push anti-pull framework. The participants were asked the

four following open questions: (a) “What reasons would lead you to end your sports career?”, (b) “What

important aspects of life would make you want to take up a post-sports career?”, (c) “Which important

aspects of life would be reduced in a post-sports career?”, and (d) “What particular anxieties do you have

about ending your sports career?”. These four quite broad general questions were followed up by

additional more specific questions, closely linked to the participants’ answers, such as: “What specific

kind of problems do you have in your club that make you want to stop your sports career?”, or “Can you

explain in more detail the type of psychological barriers you feel relating to your career termination?” The

interviews lasted approximately 1 h during which the participants were encouraged to speak freely about

their transition from elite sport. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed to ensure accuracy and

to provide extensive data. Content analysis techniques were applied to classify the textual information

compressing it into a smaller number of relevant content units (Weber, 1990). Categories were based on

both the purpose of the interview questions and the content of the transcripts. Each transcript was reviewed

and significant statements or ideas extracted. We thus attempted to identify significant themes and patterns

that recurred across the data relating to possible reasons for staying in or terminating the sports career.

Item analysis

First, a set of 130 potential items was generated from the interviews and the literature. We followed

the guidelines for item wording (Clark & Watson, 1995) to make them as precise, clear and short as

possible. Expressions pertaining to a specific sport were avoided to broaden the applicability of the items

across sports. Next, this set of items was pilot tested with 10 additional athletes to identify any, which

were confusing, difficult to read or offensive. Each participant was also asked whether any other items

should be included to assess their feelings about ending their career. Using the ratings and the comments

provided by athletes, several items were rewritten. Finally, 110 items were retained and constituted an

initial version of the questionnaire, entitled Athletes’ Retirement Decision Inventory (ARDI).

Study 2

The aim of Study 2 was to conduct an initial psychometric evaluation of our questionnaire based on

item reliability and factor analysis. Furthermore, we performed additional analyses to explore

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421 411

the relationships between the different factors and the following individual characteristics: two

demographic variables (gender and marital status) and three variables relating to the sport involved

(individual vs. team sport) and the sports career (assistance vs. non-assistance in preparing for the end of

the career; informed vs. not informed about retirement). Since this research was of an exploratory nature,

we did not formulate any specific hypotheses about the effects of grouping variables on the measured

factors. These effects were therefore investigated to reach some tentative, non-confirmatory conclusions.

Nevertheless, in addition to the demographic variables and the two variables relating directly to the end

of the career, we chose to consider the type of sport (i.e. individual vs. team sport) because the available

literature outlines the effect of this variable on other sports behavior. For example, San Jose (2003)

showed that psychological disturbances following an injury varied significantly according to the type of

sport (San Jose, 2003). Moreover, in their research focusing on how retirement is seen by athletes,

Torregrosa, Boixados and Cruz (2004) showed that “team sports allow a more gradual and planned

transition, especially the best paid athletes” (p. 40).

Participants

A total of 236 competitive athletes from a number of French sports clubs participated in this study.1

The total sample consisted of 73.7% male and 25.43% female participants. The mean age of the sample

was 24.93 years (SDZ5.63; skewnessZ7.37, kurtosisZ3.67). They intended to end their career within

an average of 8.42 years (SDZ4.8; skewnessZ2.86, kurtosisZK1.33). Ninety-seven of these

participants competed in a range of individual sports (e.g. swimming, track and field events, tennis,

cycling, combat sports, etc.) and 139 in team sports (e.g. football, handball, basketball, volleyball, etc.).

They had been competing for an average of 8 years (SDZ5.18; skewnessZ4.71, kurtosisZ1.41).

Measures

Each participant completed a questionnaire consisting of the following three parts: (a) demographic

information (gender, age and marital status); (b) the preliminary 110-item version of the ARDI using a

global 10-point rating scale ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 10 (very important), the 110 items

structured to avoid classic biases inherent in questionnaires such as the halo bias; and (c) three variables

relating to the sport involved (individual vs. team sport) and the sports career (assistance vs. non-

assistance in preparing for the end of the career; informed vs. not informed about retirement). The two

sports career questions were “I have received assistance in preparing for the end of my career” and “I

have already been informed about my career termination conditions”, each of both rated on a 10-point

scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 10 (completely agree).

Procedure

Most questionnaires were distributed by coaches: about thirty sports federations and coaches were

contacted in all and given an outline of the study to obtain permission to administer the survey to their

athletes. Athletes were free to participate or not in the study. The other participants were contacted by

mail via address lists of sports federations or by personal contact. They were provided with a description

of the aims and procedures of the research. No specific criteria were required regarding the athletes

selected for this study, as we essentially wanted to explore what reasons seemed important for an athlete

1 Due to missing data on some items, the number of athletes may be smaller in some statistical analyses.

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421412

in the decision to retire however long his/her sports career. Each volunteer athlete completed the

questionnaire individually at his/her convenience and was asked not to put his/her name on it to ensure

anonymity and confidentiality of the responses. There was no time limit.

Six hundred questionnaires were distributed during this research, 250 were returned (return rate about

41%) with 236 that could be used.

Results

Principal component analyses

To categorize individual items into factors, a series of principal component analyses was

conducted on the ARDI items. This statistical procedure was chosen to explain as much of the

variance as possible using the fewest components. The variance of component scores was

maximized, and the error and unique variance for each observed item was distributed to components

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Using Tinsley and Tinsley’s (1987) criteria for determining the number of components, a four-

component solution was identified as the best in terms of the meaningfulness of the factor structure.

This principal-component analysis was followed by varimax rotation of factors with eigenvalues

greater than one. The item loadings for inclusion in a component were set at .50 (Scarpello, Huber,

& Vandenberg, 1988). When items had high loadings (O.30) on two or more factors, they were

deleted to maximize the independence of the factors (Blau, Paul, & St John, 1993). Sixty-one of the

original 110 items were eliminated. The remaining 49 items were subjected to a second principal-

component analysis with varimax rotation for a four-factor solution. An additional 10 items were

eliminated using the same procedure. A four-factor solution was obtained in which each item’s

primary loading was .53 or greater on one factor, and .35 or less on the other three factors. This

four-factor solution accounted for 48.73% of the variance of the final 39-item version of the

Athletes’ Retirement Decision Inventory. Moreover, the inter-correlations between the factors were

not significant.

Based on the content of the remaining items, the four factors were named as given below. Anti-pull

(15 items) loaded by items expressing concern about life after the termination of the sports career such as

“To be afraid of not being able to adapt to another job”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .90.

Pull (12 items) loaded by items expressing positive thinking about life after the end of the sports career

such as “Can fulfil other projects”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .88. Anti-push (6 items)

loaded by items expressing positive assessments of the athlete’s present life such as “To still enjoy

participating in his/her sport”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .76. Push (6 items) loaded by

items expressing the negative aspects of the athlete’s present situation that would induce them to end

their sports career, such as “To be in conflict with one’s manager or coach”. The Cronbach’s alpha for

this factor was .87.

Table 1 displays the factor loadings and the composition of the subscales. It also lists the eigenvalue

for each factor, the percentage of variance accounted for, and the alpha coefficient for each scale.

Finally, it indicates the mean scores for each factor and the item-total correlations of each item.

Table 1

Athletes’ Retirement Decision Inventory (ARDI) factors with factor loadings, eigenvalues, percentage of variance, cronbach’s alphas, and mean scores by

factor2

Items Factors Item-total

correlations

Anti-pull Pull Anti-push Push

Is afraid of changes generated by ending a sports

career.

.73 K.01 .17 .01 .50

Is afraid of not being able to adapt to another job. .72 .19 .02 .06 .58

Considers that his/her sports experience is not

transferable to other job environments.

.69 .18 K.14 .09 .52

Is afraid of no being supported by the entourage

after retiring.

.68 .17 .14 .11 .59

Feels it will be very difficult to start from scratch

again.

.67 .12 .09 .08 .53

Is afraid of being depressed after retiring. .66 K.04 .12 K.05 .39

Is afraid of losing some friends once the sports

career ends.

.65 K.05 .01 .06 .39

Is afraid of no longer having contact with the

world of sport after retiring.

.64 .11 K.01 .12 .50

Is afraid of not having the required skills to begin

a new professional life.

.62 .29 K.04 .12 .57

Is afraid of having to relearn how to deal with

every day life after leaving a sports career.

.61 .14 .03 .04 .47

Is worried at no longer benefiting from the sports

environment after retiring.

.60 .06 .05 .16 .48

Is afraid of feeling useless without sport. .58 .10 .27 .05 .50

Is afraid of not being able to be financially

self-sufficient after retiring.

.58 .07 K.01 .25 .49

After a sports career, is afraid of ending up in a

routine job.

.57 .03 .21 K.01 .41

Is afraid of letting oneself go after ending a sports

career.

.57 .05 .10 .05 .42

Can develop new vocational skills. .11 .78 .15 .02 .51

Sets new professional targets. K.05 .73 .05 K.06 .32

Can fulfil other projects. .01 .71 K.04 .17 .42

Can have a more regular routine. .19 .67 K.10 .17 .51

Can have a more creative job. .09 .64 .17 .25 .52

Can follow vocational retraining. .06 .63 .14 .15 .44

(continued on next page)

A.Fern

andez

etal./Psych

ologyofSportandExercise

7(2006)407–421

41

3

Table 1 (continued)

Items Factors Item-total

correlations

Anti-pull Pull Anti-push Push

Can prove that one is able to do other things. .16 .63 .07 .20 .51

Can spend time on other interests. K.03 .62 .15 .08 .36

Can change lifestyle. .16 .60 K.11 K.03 .37

Can manage one’s private life better. .26 .58 K.14 .10 .47

Can have a more serene life. .29 .59 K.12 .11 .50

Has more time for oneself. .03 .53 K.05 .08 .30

Still likes making an effort. .06 K.02 .73 .08 .22

Feels that one can still progress. .17 .01 .72 .01 .26

Still enjoys participating in his/her sport. K.05 K.02 .69 .10 .14

Still has a competitive spirit. .12 .11 .64 K.04 .26

Feels too young to retire from competitive sport. .07 K.01 .57 .08 .19

Thanks to past experience, feels increasingly

successful.

.35 .04 .53 .03 .39

Is in conflict with the governing bodies. .05 .19 .05 .82 .43

Dislikes the club/team’s environment. .12 .13 .06 .80 .45

Is in conflict with one’s manager or coach. .10 .09 K.03 .79 .38

Is not satisfied with the running of one’s sports

club.

.14 .19 K.02 .73 .45

Is dissatisfied with how the sports structures

work.

.13 .35 .06 .65 .52

Is no longer on the same wavelength as the other

sportsmen/women.

.19 .06 .26 .62 .44

Eigenvalues 9.17 4.41 2.88 2.52

Percentage of variance 23.53 11.32 7.39 6.49

Cronbach’s alpha .90 .88 .76 .87

Mean scores 4.45 5.69 7.41 5.45

2 The items displayed are a translation of the original French version of the ARDI, which is available upon request from the first author.

A.Fern

andez

etal./Psych

ologyofSportandExercise

7(2006)407–421

41

4

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421 415

Association with individual characteristics

To examine the association of individual characteristics with the retirement process, separate

multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted. The four ARDI subscales served as the

dependent variables in each analysis, as two demographic variables (gender and marital status) and three

variables relating to the sport involved and the sports career (individual vs. team sport; assistance vs.

non-assistance in preparing for the end of the career; informed vs. not informed about retirement)

comprised the independent variables. To provide protection against Type 1 error, the Bonferroni

correction was applied and a level of significance of .01 was adopted.

Concerning gender, results from the MANOVA were statistically non-significant according to Wilk’s

lambda (.97), F(4, 221)Z1.84, pZ.12. Univariate means and standard deviations are reported in

Table 2. Despite the heterogeneousness of the sample regarding the gender, it should be note the

similarity in the standard deviations. Next, the effect of marital status (single vs. not single) was

examined. Results from the MANOVA were statistically significant, Wilk’s lambda (.95), F(4, 221)Z3.12, pZ.01. Univariate means and standard deviations are reported in Table 3. To describe omnibus

effects, a descriptive discriminant analysis was conducted (Huberty & Hussein, 2003), and the

unstandardized discriminant function coefficients for the multivariate combination are given in Table 3.

As can be seen, these coefficients indicate that the participants who lived alone and those who lived with

a partner differed as a function of relatively high Anti pull (.49) compared to lower reported levels of Pull

(K.52), Anti push (K0.03) and Push (.04). Using these regression weights, which represent how the

dependent variables are combined to maximally discriminate among the groups, the linear combination

was computed, and we conducted an ANOVA with this composite as the dependent variable. Results

were significant, F(1, 224)Z12.64, p!0.001, effect size h2Z.05. Finally, following the MANOVA

analysis strategy recommended by Harris (1985), a simplified multivariate composite was created from

the dependent variables with extreme discriminant function coefficients. For the current data the

simplified composite was equal to: (1)(Anti-pull)C(K1)(Pull), or Anti-pull–Pull. The multivariate

function that discriminated between the two groups was higher Anti-pull relative to lower Pull, that is,

athletes who are single feel more insecure about their post retirement future and see less positive aspects

in the post-career life.

Interaction effect between the demographic variables was not significant.

Regarding the three variables relating to the particular sport (individual vs. team) and the sports career

(assistance vs. non-assistance in preparing for the end of the career; informed vs. not informed about

retirement), a series of MANOVAs was conducted.

Concerning the type of sport, the MANOVA did not show a significant effect, Wilk’s lambda (.98),

F(4, 221)Z1.18, pZ.32. Similarly, no effect of the perceived assistance in preparation for the end of the

career was revealed, Wilk’s lambda (.96), F(4, 219)Z2.37, pZ.06. Univariate means and standard

deviations are reported in Table 2. Finally, the one-way MANOVA with information about retirement as

the independent variable demonstrated a significant effect, Wilk’s lambda (.91), F(4, 221)Z5.36, p!0.001. Univariate means and standard deviations and the unstandardized discriminant function

coefficients for the multivariate combination are reported in Table 4. The coefficients indicated that the

factors contributing most to the separation between participants who were not informed about career

termination and those who had been informed were Anti-pull (.53) and Pull (K.48). The linear

combination based on the coefficients was computed, and we conducted an ANOVA with this composite

as the dependent variable. Results were significant, F(1, 224)Z21.73, p!0.001, effect size h2Z.09.

Table 2

Means and standard deviations for female versus male, type of sport (individual vs. team sport), and assistance versus non-

assistance in preparing for the end of the career groups on the ARDI factors

ARDI factors Groups M SD

Anti-pull Female 4.60 1.77

Male 4.40 1.71

Individual sport 4.40 1.81

Team sport 4.48 1.67

Assistance in preparing for the end of the career 4.15 1.83

Non-assistance in preparing the end of the career 4.48 1.71

Pull Female 5.49 1.78

Male 5.76 1.72

Individual sport 5.54 1.74

Team Sport 5.80 1.74

Assistance in preparing for the end of the career 5.73 1.86

Non-assistance in preparing the end of the career 5.66 1.72

Anti-push Female 7.11 1.69

Male 7.51 1.43

Individual sport 7.36 1.53

Team sport 7.44 1.49

Assistance in preparing for the end of the career 7.24 1.39

Non-assistance in preparing the end of the career 7.43 1.53

Push Female 5.14 2.38

Male 5.55 2.14

Individual sport 5.11 2.39

Team sport 5.69 2.05

Assistance in preparing for the end of the career 4.46 2.24

Non-assistance in preparing the end of the career 5.59 2.18

Table 3

Means, standard deviations, and discriminant function coefficients for single versus not single groups on the ARDI factors

ARDI Factors Group M SD us

AntiKpull .490

Single 4.61 1.84

Not single 4.09 1.37

Pull K.523

Single 5.54 1.76

Not single 6.01 1.65

AntiKpush K.036

Single 7.41 1.44

Not single 7.40 1.66

Push .044

Single 5.46 2.23

Not single 5.41 2.17

Note: usZcoefficients from the unstandardized discriminant function.

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421416

Table 4

Means, standard deviations, and discriminant function coefficients for being informed about retirement versus not being

informed about retirement on the ARDI factors

ARDI Factors Group M SD us

Anti-pull .526

Informed 4.09 1.81

Not Informed 4.67 1.64

Pull K.482

Informed 6.03 1.67

Not Informed 5.49 1.75

Anti-push K.296

Informed 7.50 1.47

Not Informed 7.35 1.53

Push .069

Informed 5.40 2.18

Not Informed 5.47 2.23

Note: usZcoefficients from the unstandardized discriminant function.

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421 417

Finally, the simplified multivariate composite created from the dependent variables with extreme

discriminant function coefficients was equal to: (1)(Anti-pull)C(K1)(Pull). Thus, the pattern that

discriminated between the two groups was a higher Anti-pull compared to lower Pull, that is, athletes

who were not informed felt more insecure about their post retirement future and saw less positive aspects

in the post-career life.

The test for the variables relating to sports career interaction effects was not significant.

Discussion

This study investigated the transition from elite sport. More specifically, it focused on one main aspect

of the retirement decision process: the reasons that lead athletes to decide to end their career.

Our aim was to develop a self-report instrument based on the push pull anti-push anti-pull theoretical

framework, which we believed could provide a better explanation of the retirement decision process.

The first step of the research consisted in developing a suitable questionnaire, and the second was to

explore the psychometric qualities of this new tool (ARDI). Overall, the results suggest that this

instrument has a good psychometric basis, with good internal consistency, accounting for a sufficient

proportion of the overall variance, and showing a clearly interpretable four-factor solution

corresponding to the four theoretically relevant categories.

In terms of the specific factors, the first factor (Anti-pull) included the overall risk and cost aspects

relating to the post-career life. It expressed the perceived difficulties and feelings of insecurity associated

with the prospect of a new life.

The second factor (Pull) corresponded to what are typically seen as the positive aspects of the post-

career life.

The third factor (Anti-push) corresponded to attachment to the sports career. There was general

consensus among athletes that attachment to their sport was particularly important in explaining the

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421418

difficulty of deciding to end their career. More specifically, the highest mean score was observed on this

factor, indicating that this dimension was perceived as crucial in the retirement-decision process.

The last factor (Push) expressed negative considerations about the athlete’s present life.

The linear combination of the four ARDI dimensions that best differentiates, between single and not

single athletes on the one hand, and between participants not informed about retirement and those

informed on the other, is a higher Anti-pull compared to a lower Pull dimension. Conceptually, these

emerging variables represent something akin to a retirement decision process that focuses on the future

situation.

As emphasized at the beginning of this paper, there has been no relevant research theoretically based

on the push pull anti-push anti-pull framework, and it is therefore difficult to interpret these results

further. However, since the Anti-pull and Pull factors maximally discriminate between the groups cited

above, our study highlights the importance of the representation of the future situation in the retirement

decision process. This point should encourage career counselors not to limit their interview to the

exploration of the present situation, but to systematically enlarge it to the analysis of how the future is

perceived. Moreover, this result supports a differentiated approach for retirement counseling.

Furthermore, the four subscales of the ARDI enable the complexity and variety of the cognitive

processes to be identified. The questionnaire provides a comprehensive view of how each athlete

oscillates between Push, Pull, Anti-push and Anti-pull factors. This study confirms that the retirement

decision process is multifaceted, complex and individual. Thus, this tool could be used in counseling

situations as a relatively rapid screening device to clarify the diagnosis, help determine appropriate

intervention strategies and offer athletes psychological support with individual counseling. For example,

athletes with an ARDI profile characterized by many fears about the future could benefit from a

cognitive approach targeted at reducing anxiety. Similarly, athletes whose end of career is imminent, but

who are still totally entrenched in it, would benefit from counseling focused on developing other

activities and interests. The ARDI would therefore seem relevant for counselors to help athletes have an

overall view of the reasons for ending their career and be better informed about the emotions associated

with the different ways of leaving, in order to prepare them better for this important transition.

In other respects, using this new questionnaire for athletes at the end of their career could provide

interesting information as to why athletes decide to end their sports career and clarify whether the

retirement decision depends primarily on the attachment to the sports career or on fears about the future.

The conclusions of previous research using a retrospective approach highlighted that the main reasons

explaining the retirement decision are related to the push dimension (e.g. injury, increasing age, lack of

financial support) (Koukouris, 1994; Ogilvie & Taylor, 1993). Using the ARDI would be innovative,

allowing these conclusions to be tested from a prospective view and thus determining the relative weight

of the four factors in athletes’ intentions to end their careers.

Finally, it has been broadly demonstrated in the literature that athletes who are pushed to retire are

those who have the most difficulty adapting to the post-sports career (e.g. Alfermann et al., 2004; Crook

& Robertson, 1991; Sinclair & Orlick, 1993). Since the ARDI enables the Push dimension to be

measured accurately, using this new tool with a longitudinal design would be an interesting way to test

these results.

Certain limitations to this study need to be considered. Firstly, although the initial estimates of ARDI

are promising, further investigation of its psychometric properties is required. To complete the

validation work, confirmatory factor analytic methodology needs to be applied in future research to

determine if the number of factors and the loadings of indicators on them conform to the four-factor

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421 419

solution identified in our study. Moreover, in addition to testing the internal structure of the ARDI,

external validity needs to be established. The relationships between the ARDI and other measures should

therefore be explored in order to investigate whether the ARDI factors are significantly related to close

constructs (e.g. Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, Competitive Orientation Inventory) and so support

convergent validity evidence. The administration of the ARDI should also be associated with a social

desirability scale in order to control this indicator. The second limitation is that we conducted this

research with a heterogeneous sample with regard to age, years of experience, and particularly gender

(75% of the participants were male). Even if our objective was not to test the role of these variables,

future research should provide further evidence to validate the factorial structure of the ARDI among

samples that vary across these characteristics. Thirdly, the results regarding the information about

retirement variable seem promising despite the broad formulation of the item (e.g. “I have already been

informed about my career termination conditions”). Our design was not specifically built to test the role

of this variable, but it merits closer examination in future research, particularly in specifying the kind of

information, and the way it is obtained. Moreover it would be fruitful to test how this variable is related

to the assistance in preparation for the end of the career variable. Finally, since the sample only

included French athletes, conclusions about the ARDI must be restricted to this group, and further

research is needed to investigate the stability of this inventory in other cultural environments. Since

career transition programmes developed by governing bodies and sports institutes differ around the

world (Anderson & Morris, 2000), athletes do not receive the same support in their preparation for

retirement. The retirement decision process may thus differ between athletes in different support

conditions. The existence of a validated tool such as the ARDI in a number of different countries would

allow a cross-cultural investigation of athletes’ retirement decision processes. This line of research

seems particularly interesting since the role of culture has already been observed in athletic retirement

and post-career adaptation (Alfermann et al., 2004).

In summary, the ARDI appears to provide a promising tool to assess the pattern of reasons, which lead

athletes to decide to terminate their career. Indeed, although there has been considerable discussion

about retirement decision processes among professionals in the field, there has been relatively little

systematic theoretical exploration of this area. Consequently, it can be hoped that the present study will

provide the impetus for future inquiry.

Acknowledgements

We express our sincere gratitude to the EA 2114 for supporting this project.

References

Alfermann, D. (2000). Causes and consequences of sport career termination. In D. Lavallee, & P. Wylleman (Eds.), Career

transitions in sport: International perspectives (pp. 45–58). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Alfermann, D., Stambulova, N., & Zemaityte, A. (2004). Reactions to sport career termination: A cross-national comparison of

German, Lithuanian, and Russian athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(1), 61–75.

Allison, M. T., & Meyer, C. (1988). Career problems and retirement among elite athletes: The female tennis professional.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 212–222.

Anderson, D., & Morris, T. (2000). Athletes lifestyle program. In D. Lavallee, & P. Wylleman (Eds.), Career transitions in

sport: International perspectives (pp. 59–80). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Baillie, P. H. F., & Danish, S. J. (1992). Understanding the career transition of athletes. The Sports Psychologist, 6, 77–98.

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421420

Blau, G., Paul, A., & St. John, N. (1993). On developing a general index of work commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

42(3), 298–314.

Blinde, E. M., & Greendorfer, S. L. (1985). A reconceptualization of the process of leaving the role of elite athlete.

International Review for Sociology of Sport, 20, 87–93.

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’ muscles or Achilles heel? International

Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 237–254.

Carter, J. (1988). Elderly local mobility: An examination of determinants derived from the literature. Research on Aging, 10,

399–419.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological

Assessment, 7, 309–319.

Crook, J. M., & Robertson, S. E. (1991). Transitions out of elite sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 115–127.

Curtis, J., & Ennis, R. (1988). Negative consequences of leaving competitive sport? Comparison findings for former elite-level

hockey players. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 87–106.

Erpic, S. C., Wylleman, P., & Zupancic, M. (2004). The effect of athletic and non-athletic factors on the sports career

termination process. Psychology of Sport and Exercice, 5, 45–59.

Feldman, D. C. (1994). The decision to retire early: A review and conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 19(2),

285–311.

Greendorfer, S. L., & Blinde, E. M. (1985). Retirement from intercollegiate sport: Theoretical and empirical considerations.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 101–110.

Hanisch, K. A. (1994). Reasons people retire and their relation to attitudinal and behavioral correlates in retirement. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 45, 1–16.

Harris, R. J. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Huberty, C. J., & Hussein, M. H. (2003). Some problems in reporting use of discriminant analyses. The Journal of Experimental

Education, 71(2), 177–191.

Kerr, G., & Dacyshyn, A. (2000). The retirement experiences of female elite gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

12, 115–133.

Koukouris, K. (1991). Quantitative aspects of the disengagement process of advanced and elite Greek male athletes from

organized competitive sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14(4), 227–246.

Koukouris, K. (1994). Constructed cases studies: Athletes perspectives of disengaging from organized competitive sport.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 114–139.

Lavallee, D., Grove, J. R., & Gordon, S. (1997). The causes of career termination from sport and their relationship to post-

retirement adjustment among elite-amateur athletes in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 32, 131–135.

Lavallee, D., Wylleman, P., & Sinclair, D. (2000). Career transitions in sport: An annotated bibliography. In D. Lavallee, & P.

Wylleman (Eds.), Career transitions in sport. International perspectives (pp. 207–258). Morgantown, WV: Fitness

Information Technology.

Mullet, E., Dej, V., Lemaire, I., Raıff, P., & Barthorpe, J. (2000). Studying, working, and living in another EU country: French

youth’s point of view. European Psychologist, 5(3), 216–227.

Ogilvie, B., & Taylor, J. (1993). Career termination issues among elite athletes. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant

(Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 761–775). New York: MacMillan.

Ogilvie, B. C., & Howe, M. (1982). Career crisis in sport. In T. Orlick, J. Partington, & J. Salmela (Eds.), Mental training for

coaches and athletes (pp. 176–189). Ottawa, Canada: Fitness and Amateur Sport.

Reitzes, D. C., Mutran, E. J., & Fernandez, M. E. (1998). The decision to retire: A career perspective. Social Science Quarterly,

79(3), 607–619.

San Jose, A. (2003). Injury of elite athletes: Sport- and gender-related representations. International Journal of Sport and

Exercise, 1(4), 434–459.

Scarpello, V., Huber, V., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1988). Compensation satisfaction: Its measurement and dimensionality. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 163–171.

Shultz, K. S., Morton, K. R., & Weckerle, J. R. (1998). The influence of push and pull factors on involuntary early retirees’

retirement decision and adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 45–57.

Sinclair, D. A., & Orlick, T. (1993). Positive transitions from high-performance sport. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 138–150.

A. Fernandez et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 407–421 421

Speare, A., & Meyer, J. W. (1988). Types of elderly residential mobility and their determinants. Journal of Gerontology, 43,

S74–S81.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor, J., & Ogilvie, B. C. (1994). A conceptual model of adaptation to retirement among athletes. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 6, 1–20.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counselling psychology research. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 34, 414–424.

Torregrosa, M., Boixados, M., & Cruz, J. (2004). Elite athletes’ image of retirement: The way to relocation in sport. Psychology

of Sport and Exercise, 5(1), 35–43.

Webb, W. M., Nasaco, S. A., Riley, S., & Headrick, B. (1998). Athlete identity and reactions to retirement from sports. Journal

of Sport Behavior, 21, 338–362.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Werthner, P., & Orlick, T. (1986). Retirement experiences of successful Olympic athletes. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 17, 337–363.