In previous classes we spent more time talking about statistics than the literature review. The sample was nonrandom, including 162 coaches that were chosen on a volunteer basis.
That's why you'll see some fairly complex explanations in this paper on the data analysis but no information on the literature review. Within the sample, 118 (0.73) of the coaches were male, while 44 (0.27) were female.
Following the information on threats to internal validity, the student provided suggestions regarding how these threats could have been dealt with. Not only does the student know what the weakness of the study are, he provides ways the study could have been improved. Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale. The purpose of the study was to determine possible differences in leadership behaviors, using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale (RLSS), between male and female coaches and among different coaching levels. The first hypothesis was that male and female coaches would respond differently to the RLSS in overall leadership behaviors.
One thing that was not discussed in this paper is the literature review. The second hypothesis was that differences on the RLSS would occur among coaching levels: junior high, high school, and college.
In general, females scored much higher than did the male coaches.
A MANOVA was also used to examine the data for differences between the three levels of coaching (junior high, high school, and college) with regard to leadership behavior in general.However, due to the nonrandom nature of the sample, the results would not generalizable beyond the 162 participants in the study. In order to reduce threats to internal validity, the participants were asked to respond honestly and confidentiality was stressed so that the coaches might feel more at ease in responding. The researchers mention that the scales were given in a variety of settings.This could present a threat to the internal validity in that participants might not have been entirely focused on completing the scale, but instead on coordinating practice, completing paperwork, etc.There were significant differences between the three levels.When breaking down the six behaviors and examining them individually, an ANOVA was used to analyze the data.Again, because the data for the RLSS is ordinal, an ANOVA is not the best analysis tool.The three coaching levels scored differently on three of the six behaviors: democratic behaviors, training and instruction, and social support.The scale uses 60 statements, which were preceded by In coaching, I: A Likert scale was then given for each statement: 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; and 5 = always. Scales were administered in a number of environmental settings: classrooms, gymnasiums, practice fields, and offices.The internal consistency for each section was calculated: 0.84 for training and instruction; 0.66 for democratic; 0.70 for autocratic; 0.52 for social support; 0.78 for positive feedback; and 0.69 for situational consideration.Once again, a better analysis method could have been chosen based on the nature of the data collected. The ecological generaliziability for the study is fairly high.The surveys were mailed out, and returned on a volunteer basis.