Discussion our analyses involving the structural prop

Discussion
Our analyses involving the structural prop -
erties of the revised TOPS items provided par -
tial support for the original conceptualization
suggested by Thomas and colleagues (1999).
However, these initial findings suggest that
distinguishing more specific psychological
skills remains problematic, at least with this

20 / College Student Journal
Figure 3. Standardized TOPS-RCS Scores and GPA
Figure 2. GPA and TOPS-RCS Cluster Groups

Mental Fitness Skills, Psychological Resilience, and Academic Achievement / 21
sample of FGCS. This is especially true in
regard to the TOPS variables of self-talk,
imagery, and activation which all collapsed
into one factor (i.e., the psych-up subscale).
On a more positive note, it does appear that
the over-arching components suggested by
Thomas and colleagues (1999) can be reason -
ably assessed with an instrument somewhat
shorter than the original TOPS.
MFS Profile Groups
Results of the cluster analysis suggest
that the psychological skills of FGCS may be
roughly categorized into four profile groups
which highlights the notion that FGCS do not
come in a “one-size-fits-all” category when
it comes to MFS. The emergence of both the
weak and strong skills clusters in our anal -
ysis was not surprising given the empirical
evidence identifying these groups in the sport
and military literature (e.g., Hammermeister,
et al., 2010b). However, the emergence of
the “emotionally fragile” and the “go with
the flow” groups might provide insight into
FGCS psychological characteristics that may
also be related to academic success.
FGCS in the emotionally fragile cluster
displayed relaxation skills near the overall
sample mean, with psych-up and goal-setting
skills .35-.50 standard deviations higher than
the overall sample mean, but positive thinking
(-.35) and attention control (-.50) were below
the overall mean and emotion control (-1.07)
was well below the mean (see Figure 1). Al -
though the precise mechanisms driving this
profile cannot be determined from this study,
one plausible explanation is that members of
this group appear to be making conscientious
attempts to prepare for academic performanc -
es by setting goals and using other traditional
“psych-up” strategies like self-talk and posi -
tive imagery; however, these positive attempts
to self-regulate are offset by their weak ability
to control their emotions which in turn appears
to result in a less resilient mind-set.
The “go with the flow” group is defined by
their low scores on the TOPS-RCS goal-set -
ting (-.46) and psych-up subscales (-.52), by
their average scores on the relaxation (-.16)
and attention control subscales (-.04), and
by their relatively higher scores on positive
thinking (.30) and emotion control (.49).
FGCS in this group appear be somewhat un -
systematic in their approach to college life,
however, they display a relatively positive at -
titude and at least average ability to maintain
composure under pressure.