UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of repeated viewings on the accuracy of judging selected gymnastics events Michelitsch, Karoline Rose 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A7_5 M52.pdf [ 4.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077225.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077225-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077225-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077225-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077225-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077225-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077225-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077225-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077225.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF REPEATED VIEWINGS ON THE ACCURACY OF JUDGING SELECTED GYMNASTICS EVENTS by KAROLINE ROSE MICHELITSCH B.P.E., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Physical Education and Recreation) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1978 ©Karoline Rose Michelitsch, 1978 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u 1 f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thou t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5 Date i i ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of repeated viewings of gymnastics routines on the accuracy of judges* scores. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the purposes were threefold: f i r s t l y , to determine i f the accuracy of judges* scores improved with repeated viewings of the same routines; secondly, to determine the number of repeated viewings required to optimally improve the scorers* accuracy; and t h i r d l y , to determine the re l a t i o n s h i p between the number of viewings established and the p a r t i c i p a t i n g judges* l e v e l s of proficiency. C r i t e r i o n scores for four selected vault performances and four selected optional uneven p a r a l l e l bars routines were established by two women's gymnastics judges, one of national and one of international c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Four treatment conditions were established, each having a d i f f e r e n t routine shown one, two, three or four times. Eight regional judges and eight national judges were presented with the vault and bars test videotapes; a l l judges viewed the same treatments but the presentation order was determined by the Latin Square design. The judges recorded their deductions for each vault performance and t h e i r values for each of the component part scores for each bars perfor-mance. The experimenter tabulated the f i n a l scores for each event and calculated the absolute deviations of the i l l experimental scores from t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c r i t e r i o n s c o r e s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t scores f o r v a u l t become more accurate w i t h repeated viewings and that uneven bars s c o r i n g , though reasonably accurate a f t e r a s i n g l e viewing, improved i n terms of reduced v a r i a b i l i t y a f t e r more than one viewing. The i n c r e a s e d accuracy i n scores i m p l i e s that repeated viewings reduce the l i m i t i n g e f f e c t s of human inf o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g c a p a c i t i e s on judges' s c o r i n g accuracy. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between judges of r e g i o n a l and n a t i o n a l p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . iv TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i i i Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Problem 2 Definitions 3 Delimitations 5 Assumptions 5 Hypotheses 6 Significance 6 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8 Information Processing 8 Gymnastics Judging 17 3 . METHODS AND PROCEDURES 22 Test Materials 22 C r i t e r i o n Procedures 23 Subjects and Experimental Procedures 23 Design and Analysis 25 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27 Results 27 V Chapter Page Discussion 41 5 . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 53 Problem 5^ Test Materials 55 C r i t e r i o n Procedures 55 Subjects and Experimental Procedures 55 Design and Analysis 56 Results and Discussion 56 Conclusion 59 REFERENCES 6 l APPENDIX A - DEDUCTIONS FOR FAULTS 64 APPENDIX B - ELEMENTS OF ROUTINES 66 APPENDIX C - INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES 69 APPENDIX D - RAW SCORES 72 APPENDIX E - ANOVA TABLES 76 APPENDIX F - COMPUTATIONAL FORMULA FOR COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE 83 v i LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Categories for Cr i t e r i o n and Experimental Scores 27 II. Raw Score Means and C r i t e r i o n Scores 28 III. Means and Standard Deviations of Absolute Deviation Scores for Regional and National Judges 30 IV. Selected Analysis of Variance Results for Order, Proficiency, Treatment and Trend Analysis Factors 38 V. t-Test for Differences in Means of Raw Scores Over Four Treatments for Regional and National Judges ^0 VI. Coefficients of Concordance 4 l VII. Tests for Homogeneity of Variance 50 v i i LIST OP FIGURES Figure Page 1. Sensory-Motor System 9 2 . Signal Detection Theory: Overlapping Normal Curves 11 3 . 4 x 4 Balanced Latin Square 26 4 . Absolute Deviations from Vault C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 31 5. Absolute Deviations from Bars-Total C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 32 6. Absolute Deviations from B a r s - D i f f i c u l t y C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 33 7. Absolute Deviations from Ba r s - O r i g i n a l i t y , Values of Connection and Composition C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 34 8. Absolute Deviations from Bars-Execution and Amplitude C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 35 9. Absolute Deviations from Bars-General Impression C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 36 10. Absolute Deviations from Bars Component Cr i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges Combined 46 11. Absolute Deviations from Bars Component Cr i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 47 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would l i k e to thank the thesis committee for i t s assistance, the judges and gymnasts for p a r t i c i p a t i n g , her family, G. Cullen, and S. Regehr for t h e i r encouragement. The author would especially l i k e to thank Dr. G. S i n c l a i r for a l l the guidance and support he has given the author on thi s thesis and throughout her university career. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Within the space of a few moments, gymnastics judges are expected to pr e c i s e l y evaluate a routine that has taken a gymnast and her coach months to prepare. The judges must perceive, recognize and respond to the elements of a routine in terms of i t s o r i g i n a l i t y , d i f f i c u l t y and execution by assigning appropriate deductions or credits and then quantify her judgement with a f i n a l score. This s e r i a l presentation of information within a routine l a s t s less than two seconds for women's sidehorse vault executions and less than t h i r t y seconds for uneven p a r a l l e l bars performances. Assuming that man i s l i m i t e d in his capacity to take in and process information p r i o r to making a decision, one concludes that problems in processing may arise from such factors as speed of presentation, lack of rehearsal, i n t e r -ference from external events or Information overload. Should a judge work less c a r e f u l l y and l e t errors increase; f i l t e r or disregard some information according to present p r i o r i t i e s ; queue some information to deal with i t progressively; omit or approximate some information; or leave the work altogether ( F i t t s and Posner, 1967: 3 4 - 3 5 ) , the basis for the f i n a l score w i l l be l e s s than accurate. Such problems should be minimized by broadening the base of the observers' decisions 1 2 with repeated viewings of a performance in an audio-visual mode. Welford (22) reports that more accurate discrimination of stimuli i s possible i f the information i s presented for longer periods of time, and that d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y does not improve continuously but levels off a f t e r a limited time i n t e r v a l . Therefore, i t seems l o g i c a l to expect that with repeated viewings, memory traces may be strengthened or renewed, changes in selective attention may be made, or any doubts about information approximated on the f i r s t viewing may be resolved. From the documented l i m i t a t i o n s on man's information processing capacities ( B a r t l e t t , 1951; F i t t s and Posner, 19&7; Lindsay and Norman, 1972 and 1977; Marteniuk, 1976; M i l l e r , 1956; Welford, 1976) , i t i s reasonable to question i f judges are able to v a l i d l y complete th e i r scoring as required on the basis of one very b r i e f presentation of an event. In her study of the judging of the sidehorse vault, Nuzman ( I968) observed that the viewing time was 1.30 seconds and concluded that one cannot assume that judges see everything to be seen within that short period of time. Problem In the l i g h t of the known e f f e c t of rehearsal upon memory traces, t h i s study was designed to examine the ef f e c t s of repeated viewings of gymnastic routines on the accuracy of judges' scores. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the purposes were threefold: f i r s t l y , to determine i f the accuracy of judges scores improved with repeated viewings of the same routines; 3 secondly, to determine the number of repeated viewings required to optimally improve the scorers* accuracy; and t h i r d l y , to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of viewings established and the p a r t i c i p a t i n g judges' levels of proficiency. Definitions Information Processing: The detection, recognition, encoding, remembering and responding to stimuli within the human organism. These processes are either perceptual, cognitive, or motor in nature and the functional properties and the interactions of these processes are the substance of human performance theory. F.I.G.: The International Gymnastics Federation. This organization i s the world governing body for gymnastics and the Technical Committee thereof establishes the Code of Points ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Code of Points: The guideline for judging routines. This guide l i s t s : Deductions for Faults (see Appendix A), a Table of Horse Vaults, a Table of Main D i f f i c u l t i e s , and working regulations for judges. Component Parts of a Score: The f i n a l score for a routine i s made up of several parts and a judge must be able to account for her score within a specified breakdown of the parts. In sidehorse vault, the f i n a l score i s determined by subtracting the t o t a l amount of deductions assessed by the judge from the d i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g of the vault as assigned in the Code of Points; for example, a Yamashlta vault has a 4 d i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g valued at 9 . 4 points and i f a judge assesses faul t s in the performance of such a vault as 2.8 points, the f i n a l score i s 9 . 4 - 2.8 = 6 . 6 points. In uneven bars, the f i n a l score i s the sum of the following five components, l i s t e d with t h e i r values for a t o t a l of ten points: a) value of d i f f i c u l t y , 3 points; b) o r i g i n a l i t y and value of connection, 1 . 5 points; c) value of general composition, 0 . 5 points; d) execution and amplitude, 4 points; e) general impression, 1 point. For the purpose of th i s study, parts b) and c) were combined into one component part valued at 2 points. A f i n a l score of 8.5 points for a bars routine would resu l t from awarding 3 . 0 , 1 . 6 , 3 . 1 » and 0 . 7 points for d i f f i c u l t y , o r i g i n a l i t y and values of connection and composition, execution and amplitude, and general impression respectively. Judge: The evaluator of routines, o f f i c i a l l y recog-nized as being q u a l i f i e d to judge by the B r i t i s h Columbia Gymnastics Association or the Canadian Gymnastics Federation. Level of Proficiency: The c e r t i f i e d q u a l i f i c a t i o n of a judge, determined through examinations and years of p r a c t i c a l experience. In t h i s study, the judges were of either regional, national or international c a l i b r e . C r i t e r i o n : The score established for each of the selected routines by one international judge and one highly ranked national judge. There was a c r i t e r i o n set for each of the f i n a l scores for vault and uneven bars and for each of the component parts of the bars score; a l l experimental 5 scores obtained in the te s t i n g were compared with t h e i r respective c r i t e r i o n scores. Accuracy: The preciseness of an experimental score as compared to the c r i t e r i o n score. Delimitations The study was limited to two women's gymnastic events, the sidehorse vault and the uneven p a r a l l e l bars. In addition, the gymnastics routines used in the tes t i n g were performed by competitive novice gymnasts and the p a r t i c i p a t i n g judges were either of regional or national c a l i b r e , therefore the results were limited to these levels of proficiency and conclusions drawn were not necessarily applicable to judging of national or international competition. Assumptions The judges were assumed to be evaluating the routines according to the Code of Points. The established c r i t e r i o n scores were accepted as the best possible evaluations of the selected routines. They were determined by an F.I.G. Brevet judge ( i n t e r -national) and a Level 4 National judge. The judging of routines from videotape with sound was taken to be a v a l i d procedure, although some inherent d i f f i -c u l t i e s in generalizing from the two-dimensional tape to the three-dimensional actual meet s i t u a t i o n were expected. Wilson (1976) found that videotape recordings could be 6 v a l i d l y used in assessing uneven bars routines but they proved to be less than s a t i s f a c t o r y for the vault when the approach to the apparatus and the sounds of the gymnasts* runs, take-offs and landings were omitted. These aspects of the vault were included on the tapes used in this study to increase the r e a l i t y of the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n for the judges. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were formulated: 1) The absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i o n scores of the experimental scores w i l l decrease as the number of viewings increases. 2) The type of routine w i l l d i r e c t l y influence the number of viewings required to obtain the most accurate score, an event of shorter time duration (vault) w i l l require more viewings than uneven bars, an event of longer time duration. 3) The absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i a for the component parts of the score for uneven bars w i l l demonstrate d i f f e r e n t decreasing trends, with the d i f f i -c ulty component displaying s t a b i l i t y before the execution and amplitude component. 4) The scores of the regional judges and national judges w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Significance The accuracy of scores for gymnastics performances i s an absolute necessity as championships are often won or lost 7 by mere f r a c t i o n s of a p o i n t . C e r t a i n l y there are d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the power of human o b s e r v a t i o n and immediate repeated videotape viewings of the r o u t i n e s should serve to improve or uphold the f i r s t impressions formulated by the judges. The d i f f i c u l t and demanding procedures f o r gymnastics j u d g i n g might be improved i f they are m o d i f i e d to al l o w f o r the known l i m i t a t i o n s i n the human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g mechanism and m o d i f i c a t i o n s such as repeated viewings may le a d to i n c r e a s e d score accuracy. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This review begins with a general overview of the information processing approach to human performance and i d e n t i f i e s the sensory, perceptual and memory processes important to the accuracy of judging, then proceeds to a survey of the research l i t e r a t u r e dealing with the judging of gymnastics. Information Processing Man's a b i l i t y to sense, perceive, remember and respond to stimuli i s lim i t e d . Human performance theory places the functional relationships between behavior and environment into a network of interdependent processes, i l l u s t r a t e d by the model of the sensory motor system, in Figure 1, adapted from Poulton (1971) and Welford (1976). The system has capacities for receiving and encoding s t i m u l i , storing information for immediate or l a t e r use, making decisions, i n i t i a t i n g responses as well as monitoring auto-nomic physiological functions and processing internal and external feedback. Most components function within the organism and are either sensory, perceptual or motor in nature. The sensory element includes the detection of stimuli and t h e i r recognition through either comparative or . 8 9 I I I I I 1 ENVIRONMENT <-I I I I I Augmented Feedback Detection INPUT INTERNAL SENSORS Visual or Auditory -, Feedback » SENSORY INFOR. STORAGE / SELECTIVE ATTENTION DIFFUSE ACTIVA-TION SYSTEM Proprio-ceptive —j Feedback SHORT TERM MEMORY <r •Rehearsal INPUT SELECTOR LONG TERM MEMORY AUTONOMIC REACTORS PROCESSOR OUTPUT -* SELECTOR Perception Memory Response EFFECTORS Internal External EXTERNAL OBJECT Figure 1. Sensory Motor System 1 0 absolute judgement; the p e r c e p t u a l component i n c l u d e s f u r t h e r p r e c i s i o n i n r e c o g n i t i o n and the process of s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n ; the memory processes are i n v o l v e d with the sensory, s h o r t term and lo n g term storage of i n f o r m a t i o n . A multitude of s t i m u l i can bombard the organism but the d e t e c t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of s i g n a l s depend upon both the observer's s e n s i t i v i t y and the response c r i t e r i a . S i g n a l D e t e c t i o n Theory, proposed by Tanner and Swets ( 1 9 5 ^ ) , p l a c e s these processes i n a q u a n t i t a t i v e framework by c o n s i d e r i n g d e t e c t i o n as a s t a t i s t i c a l process of decision-making. Within t h i s c o n t e x t , each stimulus occurs a g a i n s t a back-ground of inhe r e n t n o i s e , t h e r e f o r e each s i g n a l d e t e c t i o n s i t u a t i o n must c o n s i d e r the degree of o v e r l a p i n the two h y p o t h e t i c a l normal curves r e p r e s e n t i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n of a c t i v i t y i n the system; one curve f o r the inhe r e n t noise alone and one curve f o r s i g n a l p l u s n o i s e . The g r e a t e r the d i s t a n c e between the means of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s , the b e t t e r the sensory c a p a c i t y (d') of the observer ( F i g u r e 2 ) . When d' i s smal l and the curves o v e r l a p a great d e a l , the observer adopts a c r i t e r i o n l e v e l /3 to enable him to decide whether or not a s i g n a l o c c u r r e d . The c r i t e r i o n p o s i t i o n i s i n f l u e n c e d by q u a l i t y and extent of previous e x p e r i e n c e , i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n , m o t i v a t i o n , c o s t s of i n c o r r e c t responses and pay - o f f v a l u e s of c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n s . Sensory a c t i v i t y g r e a t e r than fe r e s u l t s i n the r e p o r t of a s i g n a l while any a c t i v i t y l e s s than the c r i t e r i o n e l i c i t s a ' n o - s i g n a l * response. D i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i o n l e v e l s make the p r o b a b i l i t i e s 11 Frequency I n t e r n a l A c t i v i t y Figure 2. S i g n a l D e t e c t i o n Theory: Overlapping Normal Curves 12 of stimuli being detected highly variable and two v i r t u a l l y unavoidable error types occur, either a signal i s missed or a signal i s imagined. I n i t i a l recognition of a detected signal i s accom-plished through either comparative or absolute judgements ( F i t t s and Posner, I967). Comparative judgement establishes whether a signal is the same as or di f f e r e n t from a standard present in the environment. Absolute judgement further c l a s s i f i e s singular stimuli by comparing them with i m p l i c i t standards stored in memory. The number of possible d i s t i n c t i o n s among signals i s far greater with the compar-ative process, the absolute process being limited in part by one's memory capacity for accurately storing standards of performance. Further recognition of signals is completed through the perceptual processes of pattern recognition and selective attention (Lindsay and Norman, 1972) . Pattern recognition, a learned s k i l l , i s the a b i l i t y to extract basic d i s t i n c t i v e features of Incoming information and i d e n t i f y them by comparisons with features already stored in memory. The context in which information i s presented i s also considered for clues to plausible i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and interpretations of current signals and for forming expectations of upcoming events. Perception lags behind the information received by the sensory system, creating a gap between sensation and interpretation which allows for the gathering of contextual information (Lindsay and Norman, 1972 ) . By grouping signals into patterns, the number of stimuli to be further processed i s greatly reduced. Simultaneously presented signals compete for portions of the limited processing capacity ( F l t t s and Posner, 1 9 6 ? ; Lindsay and Norman, 1 9 7 2 ) . The signals to which p a r t i c u l a r attention was directed; for example, those emphasized in instructions, are dealt with f i r s t , the remainder are processed in s e r i a l order. Highly learned or habitual patterns place l i t t l e demand on attentive processes, hence other a c t i v i t i e s can be carried out at the same time. Regular tasks that occur without uncertainty present many signals to the system, but a l l can be processed because of their lack of interference with each other whereas less regular or unpredictable signals are more d i f f i c u l t to process at the same time, and attention to some may be delayed while others of higher p r i o r i t i e s are attended to. Important to the functioning of the perceptual processes, p a r t i c u l a r l y recognition, are the capacities of sensory, short term and long term memories. Detected signals are held in temporary sensory information storage where they are open to b r i e f inspection for up to one or two seconds (Crossman, 1964). Short term or working memory has a capacity of approximately seven or eight items that can be retrieved a f t e r a single presentation and unless items are rehearsed at t h i s stage, they are l o s t . Rehearsal, the re p e t i t i o n of information that i s to be r e c a l l e d , allows a limited amount of material to be retained for an i n d e f i n i t e Ik period of time and the transfer of information from short term to long term memory i s aided (Lindsay and Norman, 1 9 7 7 ) . The capacity of short term memory i s enlarged with the employment of a strategy c a l l e d chunking ( M i l l e r , 1956) which i s the process of grouping a number of items together so they are remembered as a single unit. Sustained attention of the in d i v i d u a l , necessary for the retention of items in short term memory, i s not essential to re t a i n i n g items in long term memory. While capacity of t h i s store i s v i r t u a l l y l i m i t l e s s , problems in item r e t r i e v a l a r i s e through interference from p r i o r or subsequent material s i m i l a r to signals just processed ( F i t t s and Posner, 1 9 6 7 ) . The rate of material loss i s much higher from short term than long term memory. In summary, sensory storage has a very limited capacity, short term storage deals with seven or eight items i n d e f i n i t e l y through rehearsal and attention, and long term storage has an immense capacity but one's r e t r i e v a l a b i l i t y i s l i m i t e d . Lindsay and Norman (1977) d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the complementary processes of data driven and conceptually driven information handling. In the data driven system the processing i s i n i t i a t e d by the a r r i v a l of new information and the output from one component process i s the input for the next. The conceptually driven process looks for confirming evidence of interpretations to help perceive s t i m u l i . When predictions f a i l or s i t u a t i o n a l context i s lacking, the system proceeds slowly and r e l i e s mostly on sensory data whereas when the incoming information i s f a m i l i a r or highly predictable, the system works e f f i c i e n t l y , sampling only enough information to confirm current expec-tations. At a l l times the system s t r i v e s to form l o g i c a l interpretations of newly arrived signals. Gymnastics judging i s a task requiring e f f i c i e n t functioning of both data driven and conceptually driven processing. Incoming signals from the gymnastics routines have to be detected and compared to preset standards retrieved from long term memory stores. When the judges know what i s to be performed and have preset c r i t e r i a which the elements of a routine must meet, as in compulsory routines and sidehorse vault, the conceptually driven processes w i l l predominate. The judging of optional routines, which are d i f f e r e n t for each performer, would depend primarily on data driven processes, as the judges do not know exactly what to expect and must evaluate each element of the routine as i t i s presented. What implications for judging accuracy can be drawn from the known l i m i t a t i o n s of the information processing system? F i r s t l y , the question of when i s a signal a s i g n a l , a r i s e s . To what degree, for example, must a gymnast's legs be bent before judges c l a s s i f y the bend as a f a u l t . The consistency and stringency of a judge's c r i t e r i o n l e v e l w i l l depend on experience and w i l l a f f e c t the number of errors detected and, subsequently, the score given. Secondly, while attention f a c i l i t a t e s the retention of pertinent information, 16 i t may also in t e r f e r e with the processing of other s t i m u l i . Should a judge t o t a l l y concentrate on the p r e - f l i g h t of a vault, the remainder of the performance may be perceived less precisely than i t would under more equitable d i s t r i b u t i o n s of attention. Thirdly, because a routine i s , in essence, a fast moving sequence of signals, i t i s apparent that each successive move would mask the b r i e f l y retained image of the previous instant and the judges would have to r e l y on processes other than sensory memory for information on which to base t h e i r scores. Aside from fading iconic images, when deciding on a score, judges may not be able to r e c a l l with complete correctness how the moves were performed because of the short term memory storage l i m i t of seven to nine items and the lack of opportunities to rehearse the nature of each element of the routine as i t occurred. The r e t r i e v a l of c r i t e r i a from long term memory stores may not always be exact or r e l i a b l e , and thi s further contributes to the possi-b i l i t i e s of score inaccuracy due to memory l i m i t a t i o n s . Fourthly, judges* decisions are made without the benefit of augmented feedback. With only a single viewing, they have no way of checking whether their i n i t i a l impressions and resultant deductions were correct. Repeated viewings of routines would give the judges additional opportunities to focus upon areas of indecision as well as minimize the d e t r i -mental effects of the li m i t a t i o n s of sign a l detection, recog-n i t i o n , attention and memory on scoring accuracy. 17 Gymnastics Judging Videotapes or films of routines have been used in investigations of the o b j e c t i v i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y and con-sistency of gymnastics judging by Landers (19&5 and 1970), Nuzman (1968) , Wilson (1976) and Burgess (1971). Landers (1970) summarized l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to gymnastics judging p r i o r to 1970 and related the follovjing f i v e suggestions for the improvement of the o b j e c t i v i t y of judging: a) that exercises be judged according to execution, beauty of execution, d i f f i c u l t y of parts, composition and combination; b) that gymnasts be paired off in dual meets so the judges decide on the superiority of one routine over only one other rather than over several others; c) that the d i f f i c u l t y , execution and composition aspects of routines be judged separately by one or more judges and the three scores be t a l l i e d for a f i n a l score (the Bauer system); d) that various weightings of d i f f i c u l t y be adopted for d i f f e r e n t performance le v e l s ; e) that a scoring system si m i l a r to diving be adopted, where the d i f f i c u l t y score i s m u l t i p l i e d by the execution/com-position t o t a l . Other approaches to studying the scoring of gymnastics, besides using recorded routines, that Landers noted were: examining the effect of averaging a l l the judges scores 18 r a t h e r than a v e r a g i n g the middle two scores only; l o o k i n g at the range of judges' s c o r e s ; and c a l c u l a t i n g the rank c o r r e -l a t i o n s and c o e f f i c i e n t s of concordance of the scores t o i n d i c a t e the degree of agreement among judges. A comparison of the Bauer method of judging, where d i f f i c u l t y , e x e c u t i o n , and composition aspects of r o u t i n e s are judged s e p a r a t e l y by one or more judges and the th r e e scores are t a l l i e d f o r the f i n a l t o t a l , and the r e g u l a r P.I.G. method of ju d g i n g r e v e a l e d that the scores obtained by the Bauer method d i s p l a y e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s v a r i a n c e from the ab s o l u t e c r i t e r i o n r a t i n g s , had l e s s i n t r a v a r i a n c e about t h e i r own mean and had hi g h e r r e l i a b i l i t y (Landers, 1965). No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the methods on the v a r i a n c e from the c r i t e r i o n r a t i n g s was found but Landers f e l t that the d i v i s i o n of the judges' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s showed g r e a t e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Among three of the f a c t o r s of women's side h o r s e v a u l t i n g examined by Nuzman (1968) was the c o n s i s t e n c y of the judges i n s c o r i n g under the present r e g u l a t i o n s . , She concluded that the judges' c o n s i s t e n c y was a f f e c t e d by the d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the standards f o r e v a l u a t i o n and by d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of experience. The point spread r e s t r i c t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by the Code of Points were questioned as she f e l t that these boundaries encourage the idea that a judge i s i n a c c u r a t e because her score was not c l o s e t o the scores of other judges. Wilson (1976) i n her study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s 1 9 between videotaped and l i v e performance scores f o r compulsory v a u l t i n g and uneven bars r o u t i n e s , r e p o r t e d the f o l l o w i n g Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s : a) Meet consensus r e l i a b i l i t y : the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the f i v e o r i g i n a l judges f o r the scores given at the comp e t i t i o n . Bars: . 9 3 to .98 average .95 Vaul t -.02 to .87 average .52 b) Meet-videotape v a l i d i t y : the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the competition scores and the videotape r e p l a y scores f o r the f i v e o r i g i n a l plus ten a d d i t i o n a l judges. Bars: .75 to .99 average .95 V a u l t : -.62 to .72 average . 0 9 c) Retest r e l i a b i l i t y : the c o r r e l a t i o n s from judges vi e w i n g each performance from the two d i f f e r e n t camera p o s i t i o n s . Bars: .68 to . 9 9 average . 9 6 V a u l t : - . 8 0 to .70 average -.03 d) No r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between the c u r r e n t rank of c e r t i f i c a t i o n h e l d by the judges and the gymnasts' sc o r e s or between the number of years experience and the s c o r e s . Wilson's r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a v e r y h i g h consensus r e l i a b i l i t y among the judges on uneven bars and a low consensus r e l i a -b i l i t y on the v a u l t f o r the o r i g i n a l competition s c o r e s . She concluded that judging from videotape was v a l i d as l o n g as f o u r weeks a f t e r the event occurred f o r uneven b a r s , i m p l y i n g that the judges were able to make much the same d e c i s i o n s from videotape as they d i d se e i n g the l i v e c o m p e t i t i o n . A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n d i d not a r i s e f o r the v a u l t , Wilson a t t r i b u t e d t h i s to an i n i t i a l l a c k of agreement among the judges on the scores at the l i v e c o m p e t i t i o n . The judges were h i g h l y c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r s c o r i n g of the bars r o u t i n e s when they saw the same performance from d i f f e r e n t camera p o s i t i o n s but t h e i r v a u l t scores i n d i c a t e d no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the vi e w i n g a n g l e s . Burgess (1971) attempted to determine the r e l i a b i l i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y of judging f i l m e d performances as compared t o judging l i v e r o u t i n e s i n order to t e s t the r e l a t i o n s h i p of l i v e and videotaped performance scores and t o examine the d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n s i s t e n c y of the scores of ine x p e r i e n c e d and experienced judges. Although the sample of judges was s m a l l , she found high c o r r e l a t i o n s between the scores given f o r videotaped r o u t i n e s , the product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from .53 to . 8 8 , with the two most experienced judges having r = .77 and r = . 8 8 . Experienced judges seemed to apply the same c r i t e r i a u n i f o r m l y but awarded lower p o i n t s values to the videotaped r o u t i n e s . Judges with more experience had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r c o r r e -l a t i o n s between l i v e and videotaped scores than judges with l e s s e xperience. The l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s a l o n g s t a n d i n g concern f o r the q u a l i t y of gymnastics j u d g i n g . The use of recorded r o u t i n e s i s a v a l i d procedure and i t appears that the s c o r i n g of uneven bars i s f a r more c o n s i s t e n t f o r l i v e and v i d e o -taped performances than the s c o r i n g of sidehorse v a u l t . Judges do not seem to reach the same d e c i s i o n s about a score f o r a v a u l t when viewing the same performance from a d i f f e r e n t angle or at a d i f f e r e n t time. The l a c k of h i g h l y c o n s i s t e n t v a u l t scores appears to demand e x p l o r a t i o n s f o r improved ways to judge the event, the use of repeated viewings i s one s u g g e s t i o n . Years of judging experience a f f e c t e d the scores i n one study (Burgess, 1971) but not i n another (Wilson, 1976) . Although one would expect j u d g i n g c o n s i s t e n c y and r e l i a b i l i t y to improve with i n c r e a s e d experience, i t appears that t h i s i s another problem area r e q u i r i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Chapter 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Test Materials Videotape recordings of four sidehorse vaults and four optional uneven p a r a l l e l bars routines as performed by-competitive novice gymnasts were prepared. Each vault per-formed was a handspring and the bar routines were of com-parable d i f f i c u l t y (see Appendix B). A single recorded performance consisted of the gymnast's arm raise to signal that she was ready to begin, her routine, and her landing from the apparatus at the conclusion of her routine. A camera and microphone were placed at a position normally assumed by a judge in r e l a t i o n to the equipment; that i s at the l e f t rear side of the vaulting horse and at the l e f t front of the uneven bars. Two test tapes, one f o r the vault and one f o r the uneven bars, were prepared according to the experimental treatment viewing order determined by a Latin Square Design (Figure 3 ) . Each treatment had a d i f f e r e n t routine repeated a set number of times. The treatments were: Treatment 1: Routine A, shown once Treatment 2 : Routine B, shown twice Treatment 3 : Routine C, shown three times Treatment 4 : Routine D, shown four times. 22 The repetitions of routines in Treatments 2-4 were immediate and were announced by the word "Replay". A blank one and a half minute i n t e r v a l a f t e r each treatment condition, announced by the words "Score, please" allowed the judges time to record t h e i r evaluation. A tone indicated to the judges that a treatment was about to begin. Cr i t e r i o n Procedures F i r s t l y , an international and a highly ranked national women's gymnastics judge independently scored each of the four vaults and each of the four uneven bars routines a f t e r one viewing. Secondly, they viewed the routines as often as they wished, at regular speed or in slow motion, and together, agreed upon the score that they f e l t most appro-priate for each routine. These scores were accepted as the c r i t e r i o n scores, against which the experimental scores were compared. These two judges were not involved in subsequent testing. Subjects and Experimental Procedures Eight re g i o n a l l y c e r t i f i e d women's gymnastics judges and eight nationally c e r t i f i e d women's gymnastics judges volunteered to parti c i p a t e in the study. Each subject completed a questionnaire designed to gather information about the amount of th e i r judging experience and to gain an insight into t h e i r individual judging strategies. The subjects, divided into four groups of two regional and two national judges each, were f i r s t shown the videotape of the 2k test vaults, then given a fiv e minute rest i n t e r v a l , then presented with the videotape of the test uneven bars routines. In t o t a l , the subjects viewed twenty routines, ten for each event. Prior to the presentation of the routines, the judges were briefed regarding the l e v e l of the gymnasts' a b i l i t i e s and on the type and value of the vault that was performed. They were not informed about the order of the treatments or about the number of times they would see a p a r t i c u l a r routine before they would be required to record a score. Scoring booklets were provided, the judges were instructed to mark the routines in t h e i r usual manner and to use a fresh page for each treatment condition. After each treatment condition, the judges recorded t h e i r deductions for the vault or t h e i r values for the component parts of the uneven bars score, but not the f i n a l score for any of the routines. This procedure was an attempt to reduce the influence on the current treatment score of the judges remembering the scores for previous routines. Consultation among the judges was not permitted. Upon the completion of the t e s t i n g session, the experimenter tabulated the f i n a l scores for the treatments, that i s , the deductions were subtracted from the d i f f i c u l t y r a t ing for the vault and the component parts of the uneven bars score were summed. The algebraic differences and the absolute value of the differences between the experimental scores and t h e i r respective c r i t e r i o n scores were also 25 calculated. Design and Analysis The experiment u t i l i z e d a k x 4 balanced Latin Square Design (Figure 3). The subjects were assigned to four groups of four judges each, randomly blocked with respect to levels of judging proficiency. Each group con-tained two regional judges and two national judges. T^ ... T^ represent the four treatment conditions as specified e a r l i e r ; 0^  ... 0^ represent the four orders in which the treatments were presented. The independent variables were the treatment conditions, the order of the treatments, and the proficiency l e v e l s of the judges. The six dependent variables were the absolute values of the deviations from the c r i t e r i o n scores of the experimental scores obtained for vault, b a r s - t o t a l , and the four component parts of the bars score. The data was analyzed with Analysis of Variance procedures for a repeated measures design. This tested for the significance of order, proficiency, and treatment e f f e c t s , as well as order by proficiency, treatment by order, treatment by proficiency, and treatment by order by proficiency i n t e r -actions. The treatment effect was further examined with trend analysis using preplanned orthogonal polynomial c o e f f i c i e n t s . A t-test was used to test for the difference in means of raw scores over four treatments for regional judges and for national judges. Coefficients of concordance 26 were c a l c u l a t e d and t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e ; i n d i c a t i n g the degree of agreement among judges on the r a n k i n g of the gymnasts. I 2 3 4 °1 T l T3 Tit T 2 °2 T2 T4 T3 T l °3 T3 T2 T X l T 4 % \ T l T l2 T 3 Figure 3 . 4 x 4 Balanced L a t i n Square Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results The r e s u l t s of the ef f e c t s of videotape replays on the accuracy of judging selected routines are examined in this chapter. The s i x scoring categories used in the evaluations are l i s t e d in the following table. TABLE I CATEGORIES FOR CRITERION AND EXPERIMENTAL SCORES Event Category Vault Final Score Bars Total Score Bars D i f f i c u l t y Score Bars O r i g i n a l i t y , Values of Connection and Composition Score Bars Execution and Amplitude Score Bars General Impression Score The raw experimental scores are reported in Appendix D and the raw score means and t h e i r respective c r i t e r i o n scores are given in Table II. With the exception of three treatments for vault and four treatments for bars-execution and amplitude, the means of the national judges' scores are larger than the means of the regional judges' scores. In 27 28 TABLE I I RAW SCORE MEANS AND CRITERION SCORES R e g i o n a l X N a t i o n a l X C r i t e r i o n V a u l t T l 8.05 7.83 8.30 T2 7.69 7.49 7.50 T3 7.71 7 .66 7.75 T4 7.84 7.88 7.95 B a r s - T o t a l T l 6.23 6.64 6.90 T2 7.03 7.24 7.80 T3 5.36 5.76 5.25 T4 6.48 6.79 6.70 B a r s - D i f f i c u l t y T l 2.40 2.85 2.40 T2 2.81 3.00 3.00 T3 2.10 2 . 3 3 2.40 T4 2.63 2.78 2.40 B a r s - O r i g i n a l i t y , V a l u e s of C o n n e c t i o n and Com p o s i t i o n T l 1.14 1.29 1.30 T2 1.28 1.53 1.50 T 3 0.84 1.28 0.70 T4 1.16 1.38 1.15 B a r s - E x e c u t i o n and Ampli t u d e T l 2.14 1.91 2.50 T2 2.28 1.99 2.65 T3 1.98 1.64 1.55 T4 2.21 2.00 2.50 B a r s - G e n e r a l I m p r e s s i o n T l 0.55 0.59 0.70 T2 0 . 6 6 0.73 0.65 T3 0.45 0.48 0.60 T4 0.48 0.64 0.65 sixty-three percent of the cases, the c r i t e r i o n scores are larger than the means l i s t e d . For each of the previously mentioned score cate-gories, the absolute deviations of experimental scores from t h e i r respective c r i t e r i o n scores were the dependent v a r i -ables used in testing the hypotheses. The means and standard deviations of absolute deviation scores are presented in Table III. The trends of the absolute deviations over four treatment conditions are graphically i l l u s t r a t e d in Figures 4 through 9 . The regional judges scoring of vault performances indicate that the means of the absolute deviations and their standard deviations are smallest a f t e r the four viewings of Treatment 4. With the exception of the standard deviations for bars-execution and amplitude, the means and standard deviations for the component parts of the bars scores are smallest with two, three or four viewings for the regional judges. The vault scoring by the national judges exhibited a decreasing trend over the four treatments. The means and deviations of the bars-total score are smallest a f t e r the single viewing of Treatment 1 for national judges, but i t i s interesting to note that the smallest component means devi-ations from the c r i t e r i a and t h e i r smallest deviations occur a f t e r two, three or four viewings. When considering the regional and national judges as one group, the trend for vault i s a decreasing one whereas the bars-total scores are accurate a f t e r a single viewing and the component parts of the bars score have the smallest means a f t e r more that one 30 TABLE III MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ABSOLUTE DEVIATION SCORES FOR REGIONAL AND NATIONAL JUDGES Regional National Reg + Nat X s X s X Vault Tl .475 .477 .475 .231 7^75 T2 .413 .368 .438 .250 .425 T3 .475 .306 .263 .203 .369 T4 .363 .290 .188 .141 .275 Bars-Total T l .675 .557 .463 .245 .569 T2 .925 I.098 .738 .342 .831 T3 .675 .471 1.025 .627 .850 T4 1.02 5 .748 .613 .331 .819 B a r s - D i f f i c u l t y T l .225 .266 .450 .278 .338 T2 .188 .356 .000 .000 .094 T3 .300 .321 .225 .311 .263 T4 .675 .139 .525 .212 .600 Bars-Originality, , Values of Connection and Composition Tl .288 .270 .188 .136 .238 T2 .275 .340 .125 .116 .200 T3 .188 .113 .575 .243 .381 T4 .263 .146 .275 .183 .269 Bars-Execution and Amplitude Tl .463 .245 .638 .334 .550 T2 .450 .428 .775 .328 .613 T3 .525 .311 .513 .393 .519 T4 .413 .458 .550 .278 .481 Bars-General Impression T l .175 .128 .113 .083 .144 T2 .125 .104 .088 .052 .106 T3 .150 .141 .175 .089 .163 T4 .22 5 .139 .063 .035 .144 31 Figure k. Absolute D e v i a t i o n s from V a u l t C r i t e r i o n Scores f o r Regional and N a t i o n a l Judges T l T2 T3 T4 Deviation Treatment > Score Figure 5 . Absolute Deviations from Bars-Total C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 7 Reg Reg + Nat Nat Tl T2 T3 T4 Deviation Treatment » Score Figure 6. Absolute Deviations from B a r s - D i f f i c u l t y C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 34 Tl T2 Deviation Score T3 T4 Treatment Figure 7. Absolute Deviations from Bars-Originality, Values of Connection and Composition C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 3 5 T Deviation Score Tl T2 T3 T4 Treatment Figure 8. Absolute Deviations from Bars-Execution and Amplitude C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges 36 Figure 9. Absolute Deviations from Bars-General Impression Cr i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges viewing. These approaches to the c r i t e r i a imply greater scoring accuracy. Data for each of the s i x categories was subjected to an analysis of variance with the r e s u l t s for the factors of interest being expressed in Table IV and the entire ANOVA tables being recorded in Appendix E. The Mean Squares of the Mean in each of the six score evaluation categories indicate that the magnitude of the error scores averaged across a l l treatments and subjects was disproportionate r e l a t i v e to the error scores of the other factors, and this i l l u s t r a t e s l i t t l e agreement between the experimental scores and the c r i t e r i o n scores. From Table IV i t can be seen that: a) The e f f e c t of treatment presentation order was found to be nonsignificant (p > . 0 5 ) for a l l categories except for bars-total (F^ g = 6 . 0 9 7 , p < . 0 5 ) and bars-execution and amplitude (F^ Q = 5.008, p < . 0 5 ) . b) The e f f e c t of judging proficiency was nonsignificant (p > . 0 5 ) for a l l categories except for bars-execution and amplitude where the difference approached significance ( F1,8 = 5 . 1 2 3 , P = . 0 5 3 ) . c) The e f f e c t of the various treatment conditions was s i g n i -f i c a n t for vault (F^ 2 ^ = 3 . 1 5 1 , P < . 0 5 ) , for bars-d i f f i c u l t y (F^ 2li = 1 1 . 2 2 2 , p < . 0 5 ) , and approached s i g n i -ficance for b a r s - o r i g i n a l i t y , values of connection and composition (F^ ^ = 2.84, p = 0 . 5 9 ) . The effect was nonsig-n i f i c a n t for the other categories (p > . 0 5 ) . TABLE IV 38 SELECTED ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE RESULTS FOR ORDER, PROFICIENCY, TREATMENT AND TREND ANALYSIS FACTORS Event Source F P V a u l t Order .496 .695 P r o f i c i e n c y .662 .440 Treatment 3.151 .043 T (1) 7.814 .023 B a r s - T o t a l Order 6.097 .018 P r o f i c i e n c y .814 .393 Treatment 1.024 .399 T (2) 10.180 .013 B a r s - D i f f i c u l t y Order .117 .948 P r o f i c i e n c y .325 .584 Treatment 11.222 .000 T (1) 14.695 .005 T (2) 56.529 .000 B a r s - O r i g i n a l i t y Order 2.406 .143 Connection and P r o f i c i e n c y .356 .567 Composition Treatment 2.842 .059 Treat x Prof 6.873 .002 Bars-Execution Order 5.008 .030 and Amplitude P r o f i c i e n c y 5.123 .053 Treatment .544 .657 Treat x Ord x Prof 2.386 .043 Bars-General Order 1.959 .199 Impression P r o f i c i e n c y 4.056 .079 Treatment .681 .572 Order F • 05;3,8="- 0 7 Treat x P r o f F.01;3,24= 4^ 2 P r o f i c i e n c y F • 05;l,8= 5' 3 2 T r e a t x ° x P P.05;9 , 2 4 = 2 ' 3 0 Treatment F • 0 5 ; 3 , 2 4 = 3 ' 0 1 T ( l ) , T(2) F • 05;1,8 = 5' 3 2 39 d) Orthogonal breakdowns of treatment effects revealed: a s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r trend for vault (F.^ g = 7.814, p < .05); a s i g n i f i c a n t quadratic trend for bars-total (F^ g = 10.180, p < .05); and s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r ( g = 14.695, p < .01) and quadratic ( g = 56.529. P < .01) trends for b a r s - d i f f i c u l t y . e) A s i g n i f i c a n t treatment by proficiency interaction (F^ 24 = u«873» P < .01) was shown for b a r s - o r i g i n a l i t y , values of connection and composition; and a s i g n i f i c a n t treatment by order by proficiency interaction (F^ 2 ^ = 2.386, p < .05) was found for bars-execution and amplitude. To further examine differences in the proficiency levels of the judges (regional versus national), t - t e s t s were applied to the raw score means over four t r i a l s for a l l categories and the r e s u l t s , l i s t e d in Table V, indicate non-s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p > .05) in proficiency for a l l categories except b a r s - d i f f i c u l t y (t = -1.991* P = .066) and b a r s - o r i g i n a l i t y , values of connection and composition (t = -2.073, p = .057) where the differences approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table VI l i s t s c o e f f i c i e n t s of concordance calculated for raw score rankings established by the whole experimental group, and by regional and national judges separately. These co-e f f i c i e n t s indicate the degree of agreement among the judges and the computational formulas are given in Appendix F. The c o e f f i c i e n t s are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r : the entire group on vault and bars (p < .01), the regional judges on both events (p < .05), the national judges on uneven bars (p "< .01); and nonsignificant for the national judges on vault (p > .05). 40 TABLE V t-TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN MEANS OF RAW SCORES OVER FOUR TREATMENTS FOR REGIONAL AND NATIONAL JUDGES Event Regional Mean National Mean t P Vault 7.822 7.713 .542 .596 Bars-Total 6.272 6.606 -0.938 .364 Bars-D i f f i c u l t y 2.484 2.738 -1.991 .066 Bars-Originality Connection and Composition 1.103 1.366 -2.073 .057 Bars-Execution and Amplitude 2.150 1.884 1.347 .199 Bars-General .534 .606 -1.572 .138 Impression 1 - .05/2*2,14 = 2* 41 TABLE VI COEFFICIENTS OF CONCORDANCE Event Proficiency- w P Vault Regional .398 < .05 National .242 > .05 Reg + Nat .283 < .01 Bars-Total Regional .400 < .05 National .706 < .01 Reg + Nat .539 < .01 N=4, m=l6 N=4, m= 8 W \ 0 1 = -239 w \ o i = ' k 2 k w , . 0 5 = .313 Discussion A questionnaire completed by the judges p r i o r to testi n g indicated that a form of shorthand i s used to pro-gressively record the elements and fa u l t s of a routine, for example, as a gymnast proceeds through her uneven bar routine, the judge could record: S for a superior move, M-medium, B-break, X - f a l l , KB-knees bent, H-handstand, and the value of the deductions for errors. This individual notation varies with each judge but the essence of the method i s common to a l l . This analysis revealed that most judges follow the procedure of subtracting the t o t a l deduction points from ten to give the f i n a l score (for bars) rather than p a r t i t i o n i n g t h e i r scores i n t o component p a r t s and summing them as recommended by the Code of P o i n t s . While the judges commented on the procedures f o r s c o r i n g the uneven b a r s , few mentioned t h e i r approach to judging the v a u l t . Some made rough diagrams of t h e i r impressions of pre- and p o s t - f l i g h t p a r t s of the v a u l t , others j o t t e d down po i n t deduction f o r f a u l t s they observed, but most d i d not e n t e r a r e c o r d i n g i n t h e i r b o o k l e t s . These judges are assumed to have mentally r e f l e c t e d back on the phases of the v a u l t and recorded only t h e i r f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n of deductions. A n a l y s i s of the treatment c o n d i t i o n s r e v e a l e d s i g n i -f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the v a u l t but not f o r the uneven b a r s -t o t a l score. Consequently, Hypothesis 1: "The a b s o l u t e d e v i a t i o n s from the c r i t e r i o n scores of the experimental scores w i l l decrease as the number of viewings i n c r e a s e s " i s supported i n the case of the v a u l t and t h e r e f o r e i s accepted f o r that event but i t i s not supported and t h e r e f o r e i s r e j e c t e d f o r the uneven bars. The d e c r e a s i n g l i n e a r trend observed f o r the v a u l t (Figure 4, page 31) i s s i g n i f i c a n t (F, o = 7.814, p = .023) as eleven of the s i x t e e n judges l»o were c l o s e r to the c r i t e r i o n scores f o r the v a u l t a f t e r three and, i n some cases, four repeated viewings of a per-formance. In the uneven bars event, however, twelve of the s i x t e e n judges' scores were c l o s e s t to the c r i t e r i o n scores a f t e r the f i r s t and second viewings; a c t u a l l y , f i f t y percent of the scores were most accurate a f t e r a s i n g l e viewing. The quadratic trend for the t o t a l bars score (Figure 5 , page 32) appears to have resulted from the average of random trends for regional judges and national judges over the treatment conditions and accounts for more than the chance amount of the variance. A single viewing (Treatment 1) produced the most accurate score from both levels of judging proficiency. However, the means of the absolute deviations from the c r i -terion scores for the regional judges* bars-total score are the same a f t e r one viewing as they are a f t e r three viewings (X = . 6 7 5 ) but the v a r i a b i l i t y ( S = i s less a f t e r three viewings. Analysis of the national judges bars-total score shows that the mean and i t s standard deviation a f t e r four viewings are second best to the values given a f t e r one viewing. The highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences in treatments for the d i f f i c u l t y component score (F^ ^  = 1 1 . 2 2 2 , p = . 0 0 0 ) and the s i g n i f i c a n t quadratic trend ( F 1 Q = 5 6 . 5 2 9 , p = . 0 0 0 ) shown in Figure 6 (page 33) were unexpected, considering the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the treatments for the t o t a l bars score. These re s u l t s could be due to the ease with which moves of medium and superior d i f f i c u l t i e s were recognized by judges; in the routine for Treatment 2 , four-teen of the sixteen judges did not deviate from the d i f f i -culty c r i t e r i o n score for that treatment. In contrast, a l l but one judge deviated from the c r i t e r i o n d i f f i c u l t y score for Treatment 4 . The differences in treatments l i k e l y r e s u l t , in part, from the type of d i f f i c u l t y moves in the 44 routines and how read i l y they are i d e n t i f i e d , rather than from the e f f e c t s of repeated viewings alone. Therefore, one would agree with the o r i g i n a l conclusion that repeated viewings have a s l i g h t but not s i g n i f i c a n t effect on the accuracy of scores for uneven bars (component parts) but not a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on sidehorse vault scores. The e f f e c t s of treatment presentation order were nonsignificant (p > .05) for vault, b a r s - d i f f i c u l t y , bars-o r i g i n a l i t y , values of connection and composition, and bars-general impression. This implies that the treatment orders made no difference to the above four score categories. Significance of order effects for bars-total (F^ g = 6 .097 , p = .018) and bars-execution and amplitude (F^ g = 5.008, p = .030) could p a r t i a l l y be due to the routine of Treatment 3 , though of comparable d i f f i c u l t y , being the most poorly executed. Because judges tend to compare performances, the routine could have made other routines seem far better and t h e i r scores may have been escalated or, i f i t seemed much worse, i t s score lowered more than necessary. Unfortunately, this comparison process, i s inherent in judging and influences the consistency and accuracy of scores. Repeated viewings may permit judges to concentrate on the elements of a routine and minimize the e f f e c t s of this comparison process. Hypothesis 2: "The type of routine w i l l d i r e c t l y influence the number of viewings required to obtain the most accurate score. An event of shorter time duration (vault) w i l l require more viewings than uneven bars, an event of 45 shorter time duration (vault) w i l l require more viewings than uneven bars, an event of longer time duration" i s supported by the evidence presented during the discussion of Hypothesis 1 and therefore must be accepted. For vault, the absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i a were smallest a f t e r four viewings; for bars, the deviations were smallest a f t e r only one viewing. From Table III (page 30) i t i s seen that the absolute deviation score means and t h e i r standard deviations are much higher for bars than for vault, indicating that the scores for bars were much more variable and not as accurate as the vault scores. The graphs of the absolute deviations from the c r i -terion scores presented in Figures 6-9 (pages 33-36) provide evidence for the reject i o n of Hypothesis 3' "The absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i a for the component parts of the score for uneven bars w i l l demonstrate d i f f e r e n t decreasing trends, with the d i f f i c u l t y component displaying s t a b i l i t y before the execution and amplitude component". Figure 10 shows the trends over treatments for the entire group of judges for each component score and Figure 11 i l l u s t r a t e s the regional and national judges' trends separately. The d i f f i -c ulty component, as already discussed, i s the only one having s i g n i f i c a n t differences in treatments or having a s i g n i f i c a n t trend. One would not have expected the d i f f i c u l t y component to have fluctuated in deviations from respective c r i t e r i a over treatments, as i t i s regarded as the least complex com-ponent to assess. A decreasing l i n e a r or quadratic trend was 46 Score Figure 10. Absolute Deviations from Bar Component C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges Combined 47 REGIONAL .7 . 5 .3 .1 T Deviation Score .7 • 5 r Deviation Score D i f f i c u l t y Execution & Amplitude O r i g i n a l i t y Values of Conn & Comp General Impression T l T2 NATIONAL T3 T4 Treatment Execution & Amplitude D i f f i c u l t y O r i g i n a l i t y Values of Conn & Comp General Impression T l T2 T3 T4 Treatment » Figure 11. Absolute Deviations from Bar Component C r i t e r i o n Scores for Regional and National Judges expected f o r the execution and amplitude component because one would tend to i d e n t i f y e r r o r s more p r e c i s e l y the more one was exposed to them. The curves of component p a r t s such as b a r s - e x e c u t i o n and amplitude or b a r s - o r i g i n a l i t y , v a l u e s of connection and composition, represent averages of random trends s e p a r a t e l y i n d i c a t e d by r e g i o n a l and n a t i o n a l judges. D i f f e r e n t d e c r e a s i n g trends were hypothesized but score accuracy does not seem to improve with repeated viewings and i n the l i g h t of the d i f f i c u l t y the judges d i s p l a y e d i n par-t i t i o n i n g t h e i r f i n a l score i n t o components, i t appears that the trends are the r e s u l t of random e f f e c t s . Years of judging experience ranged from two to twelve y e a r s , the r e g i o n a l judges averaged 3.25 years and the n a t i o n a l judges averaged 6.50 y e a r s . N o n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s (p > .05) of the t - t e s t s on the raw score means (Table V, page 40) and n o n s i g n i f i c a n t p r o f i c i e n c y e f f e c t s shown by a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e procedures (Table IV, page 38) l e a d to the r e j e c t i o n of Hypothesis 4: "The scores of the r e g i o n a l judges and the n a t i o n a l judges w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y " . The o v e r a l l l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the treatments f o r bars, the f a c t that most,judges have had from three to f i v e years experience (eleven out of s i x t e e n ) and that many r e g i o n a l judges, though e l i g i b l e , chose not to w r i t e pro-v i n c i a l or n a t i o n a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations are f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g to the l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . C o r r e l -a t i o n s between years of judging experience and a b s o l u t e d e v i a t i o n scores are small and n o n s i g n i f i c a n t and are not 49 recorded. In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as i n one r e p o r t e d by-Wilson (1976), the l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the scores on the v a u l t and uneven bars. The near s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o f i c i e n c y f o r the absolute d e v i a t i o n scores on b a r s - e x e c u t i o n and amplitude ( F 1 g = 5.123, P = .053) might imply t h a t , f o r e r r o r d e t e c t i o n , r e g i o n a l judges b e n e f i t more from repeated viewings than n a t i o n a l judges. In both the v a u l t and the uneven bars, the standard d e v i a t i o n s of the means of the absolute d e v i a t i o n s from the c r i t e r i a (Table I I I , page 30) are almost twice as l a r g e f o r the r e g i o n a l judges compared to the n a t i o n a l judges, implying t h a t the l a t t e r achieve g r e a t e r s c o r i n g c o n s i s t e n c y among themselves. T e s t i n g f o r the homo-g e n e i t y of the v a r i a n c e s of the means of the absolute d e v i -a t i o n s from the c r i t e r i a (Table VII) i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e g i o n a l and n a t i o n a l judges on three out of the e i g h t treatments c o n s i d e r e d . C o e f f i c i e n t s of concordance, w i t h W = 0 i n d i c a t i n g maximum disagreement and W = 1 i n d i c a t i n g p e r f e c t agreement, are l i s t e d i n Table VI (page 4 l ) . The value s are not par-t i c u l a r l y high but f i v e out of the s i x are s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .05 or p < .01). The n a t i o n a l judges d i d not have s i g -n i f i c a n t agreement (W = .242, p > .05) on the r a n k i n g of the v a u l t e r s . Regarding the judge as an i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s o r may a i d i n the e x p l a n a t i o n of the f o r e g o i n g r e s u l t s . As a gymnast begins her performance, s e r i e s of s t i m u l i bombard the 50 TABLE VII TESTS FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE Event Treat 2 Regional s National s 2 F = S l 2 / s 2 2 Vault 1 . 2 2 8 .053 4.30 2 .135 .063 2.14 3 .094 .041 2.29 4 .084 .021 4.20 Bars- 1 .310 .060 5.17 Total 2 1.205 .117 10.30 3 .222 .393 1.77 4 .560 .110 5.09 F . 0 5 ; ? 7 = 4.99 F . 0 1 ; 7 , 7 = 8.89 judge's senses, which in turn, are attuned to the display of movement happening before them. Working within her pro-cessing l i m i t a t i o n s , the judge detects many of the presented signals, discriminates between them, recognizes and further analyzes the pertinent ones, and once the routine is com-pleted, remembers as many of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i t s elements as possible to decide upon a score. In the side-horse vault, the judge has one opportunity l a s t i n g less than two seconds for the process of evaluating the height, f l i g h t , correctness of technique and form of the gymnast. It follows that because the accuracy of the scores improved with repeated viewings of the vault, i t appears d i f f i c u l t to com-plete a l l the necessary functions to cor r e c t l y judge a vault with a single viewing. The li m i t a t i o n s of attention, 51 recognition, memory or lack of feedback might be reduced with more viewings to allow scoring to become increasingly accurate and consistent. If the judge were to make the same evaluation for each of the twelve to f i f t e e n moves of an uneven bars routine as i s done for one vault, the processing system would be overloaded and many repeated viewings would be required to es t a b l i s h a reasonable score. As the data does not support the b e n e f i c i a l effect of repeated viewings on scoring accuracy for bars as i t does for vault, one concludes that the judges must adapt t h e i r approach to handle, within l i m i t s , the greater amount of information. Pa r t i c u l a r types of bar moves, such as kips or hip c i r c l e s , are repeated several times and judges may use this i n f o r -mation redundancy to get more general impressions of how the gymnast performs an element and to focus attention on di f f e r e n t aspects of the routine i f an element i s being re-peated. Thus, the essence of a performance i s better sensed over a series of moves rather than with a single move, as in the case of a vault. The v a r i a b i l i t y of the bar scores being higher than that of vault scores could well be a r e f l e c t i o n of the greater amount of information to be handled in judging bars and may also i n f e r , as did the data for the two judging proficiency l e v e l s , that there may be advantages to more than one viewing. The leve l s of judging proficiency were not s i g -n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t but i t appears the regional judges' scoring was more variable on both events, thus implying that the national judges were more consistent in t h e i r application 52 of c r i t e r i a to detected signals. Also, the detection and recognition of signals as well as the decisions based upon them may well be completed more quickly by a more experienced judge, thereby allowing more time for considering each set of signals as i t ar r i v e s . Further research w i l l be required to investigate the f e a s i b i l i t y of using replays in actual competition settings. The tentative suggestions from this study indicate that scores for vault become more accurate with repeated viewings and that uneven bars scoring, though accurate after a single viewing, might improve with more than one viewing. Component parts of the bars score have random trends over repeated viewings and the treatments do not lead to d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between levels of judging proficiency as defined in th i s study. Chapter 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The scoring of gymnastics routines i s affected by the sensory, perceptual and memory lim i t a t i o n s of human i n f o r -mation processing capacities. The p r o b a b i l i t i e s of signals being detected are highly variable and are dependent on the observer's s e n s i t i v i t y and c r i t e r i o n l e v e l placement. I n i t i a l recognition of detected signals through absolute judgement i s p a r t i a l l y limited by the accuracy xsrith which standards are stored in memory. Unpredictable or i r r e g u l a r signals are d i f f i c u l t to process and attention to some signals may be delayed while others are being dealt with. Judging e n t a i l s the comparison of detected signals with preset c r i t e r i a stored in memory and the soundness of scores depends upon the accurate r e t r i e v a l of these standards as well as upon the quality of the comparisons made. Should a judge err in the detection, recognition or perception of signals presented in a gymnastics routine, the basis of the f i n a l score w i l l be less than accurate. Because the vault and per-formances on the uneven bars are of such b r i e f duration, repeated viewings of routines in an audio-visual mode may serve to broaden the base of the observer's decisions and give them a source of feedback which w i l l allow them to con-firm or upgrade t h e i r decisions. 53 54 Problem This study was designed to investigate the effects of repeated videotape viewings on the accuracy of judges' scores for selected sidehorse vault performances and optional uneven bars routines. The hypotheses under investigation were: 1) The absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i o n scores of the experimental scores w i l l decrease as the number of viewings increases. 2) The type of routine w i l l d i r e c t l y influence the number of viewings required to obtain the most accurate score, an event of shorter time duration (vault) w i l l require more viewings than uneven bars, an event of longer time duration. 3) The absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i a for the com-ponent parts of the score for uneven bars w i l l demon-strate d i f f e r e n t decreasing trends, with the d i f f i c u l t y component displaying s t a b i l i t y before the execution and amplitude component. 4) The scores of the regional judges and national judges w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The l i m i t a t i o n s of the study were: 1) the two women's gymnastics events, the sidehorse vault and the uneven p a r a l l e l bars; 2) the levels of proficiency shown by the competitive novice gymnasts; 3) the levels of judging proficiency, regional or national. 55 The judging techniques were assumed to have con-formed to the Code of Points and the c r i t e r i o n scores estab-lished were accepted as the best possible evaluation of the selected routines. The judging of routines from a videotape recording with sound was taken to be a v a l i d procedure. Test Materials Videotape recordings of four handspring vaults and four optional uneven p a r a l l e l bars routines, as performed by-competitive novice gymnasts were prepared. One test tape for each event was assembled, each presenting the experimental treatment conditions (different routines repeated set numbers of times) in the order determined by the adopted Latin Square Design. Cr i t e r i o n Procedures A F.I.G. Brevet judge and a Level k National judge established the c r i t e r i o n scores for each of the selected routines. These two judges were not involved in the subse-quent te s t i n g . Subjects and Experimental Procedures Eight re g i o n a l l y c e r t i f i e d women's gymnastics judges and eight nationally c e r t i f i e d women's gymnastics judges volunteered to par t i c i p a t e in the study. Upon completion of a questionnaire designed to gather information about t h e i r judging experience and strategies, the subjects were presented with the vault test tape, given a f i v e minute rest i n t e r v a l , then shown the uneven bars test 56 tape. The subjects were not informed about the order of treatments or the number of times they would see a routine before they would be required to record t h e i r deductions for the vault or the values of the component parts of the bars score. The experimenter tabulated the f i n a l scores for each of the treatments and calculated the absolute differences between the experimental scores and t h e i r respective c r i t e r i a . Design and Analysis A repeated 4 x 4 balanced Latin Square Design was chosen for the experiment. Random blocking with respect to judging proficiency resulted in each of the four groups con-s i s t i n g of two regional judges and two national judges. The data was analyzed with an ANOVA for repeated measures, tes t i n g for the effects of the order, proficiency and treatment factors as well as the effects of the i n t e r -actions of these factors. The treatment effect was further examined with orthogonal breakdowns to test for trend. A t-test was used to examine the differences in means of regional judges over four treatments and national judges over four treatments. Coefficients of concordance, indicating the degree of agreement among judges on the ranking of gymnasts, were calculated and tested for si g n i f i c a n c e . Results and Discussion For vault, the means of the absolute deviations and 57 their standard deviations are the smallest for both regional and national judges a f t e r the four viewings of Treatment 4 . The trend over the treatments i s a decreasing one. For bars-t o t a l , the means and standard deviations were smallest a f t e r the f i r s t viewing but indications of decreasing trends for the component parts of the bars score are reason for further study on the ef f e c t s of repeated viewings. The effect of treatment presentation order was found to be nonsignificant for a l l categories except bars-total and bars-execution and amplitude. The ef f e c t of judging proficiency was not s i g n i f i c a n t and the results of the t-tests also indicate nonsignificant differences between the regional and national proficiency l e v e l s . The e f f e c t of treatment conditions was s i g n i f i c a n t for vault and b a r s - d i f f i c u l t y but nonsignificant for the remaining score categories. The following trends were s i g n i f i c a n t : a l i n e a r trend for vault, l i n e a r and quadratic trends for ba r s - t o t a l and a quadratic trend for b a r s - d i f f i c u l t y . A s i g n i f i c a n t treatment by proficiency interaction was found for b a r s - o r i g i n a l i t y , values of connection and composition and a s i g n i f i c a n t treatment by order by pro-fi c i e n c y interaction was evident for bars-execution and amplitude. S i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s of concordance were found in a l l instances with the exception of the national judges' ranking of competitors on vault. Hypothesis 1: "The absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i o n scores of the experimental scores w i l l decrease as the number of viewings increase" i s accepted for the side-horse vault but i s rejected for the uneven bars. The trend for vault i s a decreasing one over the treatments, that i s , • the scores approach the c r i t e r i a more cl o s e l y the more times a performance i s seen. Significant differences in treatments were not found for bars but a decreasing deviation pattern i s evident when the scores for regional and national judges are considered separately. The differences in treatments for b a r s - d i f f i c u l t y may have arisen in part from the types of d i f f i c u l t y moves in the routines and the ease with which they are recognized rather than from the effects of repeated viewings alone. The significance of treatment presentation order for bars-total and bars-execution and amplitude may be a r e f l e c t i o n of the influence of a more poorly performed routine on the scoring of performances following i t . Hypothesis 2: "The type of routine w i l l d i r e c t l y influence the number of viewings required to obtain the most accurate score. An event of shorter time duration (vault) w i l l require more viewings than uneven bars, an event of longer time duration" i s supported and therefore accepted. An indication that scoring accuracy might improve with re-peated viewings i s present for the component parts of the bars score and further investigation should be undertaken to determine, more s p e c i f i c a l l y , i f one viewing i s indeed the 59 optimum for bars scoring. Hypothesis 3' "The absolute deviations from the c r i t e r i a for the component parts of the score for uneven bars w i l l show di f f e r e n t decreasing trends, with the d i f f i c u l t y component displaying s t a b i l i t y before the execution and amp-litude component" i s rejected. The trends observed seem, for the most part, random and not indic a t i v e of what was expected as the number of viewings increased. Hypothesis 4 : "The scores of the regional judges and the national judges w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y " i s not sup-ported due to the nonsignificant r e s u l t s of the t-tests on the raw score means and the nonsignificant proficiency effects shown by the ANOVA procedures. The judges are very consistent in th e i r rankings of the gymnasts, as i s shown by the c o e f f i c i e n t s of concordance. The national judges average 3.25 years more experience than the regional judges. Conclusion The res u l t s of this experimentation indicate that the scoring accuracy for vault d e f i n i t e l y improved with re-peated viewings of a performance while scoring for uneven bars was accurate a f t e r just one viewing. Component parts of the bars score displayed random trends over repeated viewings and the levels of judging proficiency were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . In the l i g h t of the importance of accurate scoring to the gymnasts' rankings and team standings, the f e a s i b i l i t y of using videotape replays, compensating for some information 6o processing l i m i t a t i o n s , in actual competition settings i s an area requiring further investigations. This study adds c r e d i b i l i t y to the implementation of the use of videotaped replays in the vault and to further examination of the effects of repeated viewings in other events. The lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences in judging proficiency indicates that a reassessment of the judging c e r t i f i c a t i o n procedures con-ducted by gymnastics governing bodies i s in order. The l i t e r a t u r e on gymnastics judging i l l u s t r a t e ongoing concerns for attaining o b j e c t i v i t y , consistency, r e l i a b i l i t y and accuracy in scoring and, in fairness to the gymnasts them-selves, a l l avenues that w i l l a s s i s t the judges to more accurately assess the gymnast's performance should be explored. REFERENCES 6 1 62 REFERENCES Baddeley, A.D., and J.R. Ecob. "Reaction Time and Short Term Memory: Implications of Repetition E f f e c t s for the High-Speed Exhaustive Scan Hypothesis," Quarterly Journal  of Experimental Psychology. 1 9 7 3 , 2 5 _ , 2 2 9 - 2 4 0 . B a r t l e t t , F. The Mind at Work and Play. Boston: Beacon Press, 1951. Broadbent, D.E. "Flow of Information Within the Organism," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2 , 34-39 . Burgess, P.M. "The Objectivity and R e l i a b i l i t y of Judging Filmed Routines in Women's Gymnastics." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Montana, 1 9 7 1 . Crossman, E.R. "Information Processes in Human S k i l l , " B r i t i s h Medical B u l l e t i n . 1964, 2 0 : 1 , 32-37 . F i t t s , P.M., and M.I. Posner. Human Performance. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publishing Co. Inc., 1967. International Gymnastics Federation, Women's Technical Committee. Code of Points. Copyright by F.I.G., 1975. Knapp, B. S k i l l in Sport The Attainment of Proficiency. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1963. Landers, D.M. "A Comparison of Two Gymnastic Judging Methods." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of I l l i n o i s , 1 9 6 5 . . "A Review of Research on Gymnastics Judging," JOHPER, 1970, 41, 85-88. Lindsay, P.H., and D.A. Norman. Human Information Processing  An Introduction to Psychology. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1972. . Human Information Processing An Introduction to Psychology. 2nd E d i t i o n . New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1 9 7 7 . Marteniuk, R.G. Information Processing in Motor S k i l l s . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976". 63 M i l l e r , G.A. "The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information," Psychol. Review. 1956, 6_2, 81-97. Murdock, B.B. "The S e r i a l Position E f f e c t in Free R e c a l l , " Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1962, 64:5, 482-488. Norman, D.A. "Acquisition and Retention in Short Term Memory," Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1966, 72: 3 , 369-381. Nuzman, J.R. "A Study of the Judging of Women's Sidehorse Vaulting." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Kansas, 1968. Peterson, L.R., and Peterson, M.J. "Short Term Retention of Individual Verbal Items," Journal of Experimental  Psychology. 1959, 18:3, 193-198. Poulton, C. " S k i l l e d Performance and Stress," Psychology  At Work. P.B. Warr, ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1971. Tanner, W.P., and J.A. Swets. "A Decision-Making Theory of Visual Detection," Psychology Review. 1954, 6l:6, 401-409. Treisman, A.M. "Selective Attention in Man," B r i t i s h  Medical B u l l e t i n . 1964, 20:1, 12-16. Welford, A.T. S k i l l e d Performance: Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, and Co., 1976. Wilson, V.E. "Judging Gymnastics Judging," The Advanced Study of Gymnastics. J.H. Salmela, ed. Spr i n g f i e l d , 111. Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1976. . "Use of Videotape Recorders in Gymnastics Judging," C.G.F. B u l l e t i n . No. 10, D e c , 1973. APPENDIX A DEDUCTIONS FOR FAULTS 64 Deductions for Faults The Code of Points (7 ) l i s t s the point value deductions for errors, r e p e t i t i o n s , f a l l s , gerneral f a u l t s pertaining to incorrect body position and s p e c i f i c f a u l t s for each apparatus. To i l l u s t r a t e the nature of these s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , the deductions for general fau l t s distinguished as medium errors, given in A r t i c l e 12 of the Code of Points, are l i s t e d . Medium fa u l t s 0.30 to 0.40 points D i s t i n c t difference from ideal execution D i s t i n c t touching, leading to break in rhythm Dis t i n c t break in rhythm Pronounced addtl. movement of arms body or legs, in order to maintain balance D i s t i n c t correction by large profound steps or hops Lack of amplitude throughout Coach blocks view of judge 0.30 points Coach signals gymnast 0.30 points Coach touches apparatus during exercise 0.30 points Incorrect a t t i r e 0.30 points APPENDIX B ELEMENTS OF ROUTINES 66 6? Elements of Routines Vault: Handspring D i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g : 9 . 2 points Uneven P a r a l l e l Bars: Routine A-under HB facing LB. 2 superiors, 4 mediums straddle glide kip front body c i r c l e radalto drop straddle kip § turn catch HB \ turn drop straddle kip to LB 2 legs through, grip HB kip to HB cast up straddle on sole c i r c l e § turn shoot beat LB, stoop on jump to straddle sole c i r c l e on HB I turn wrap eagle straddle over LB kip 2 legs through to s i t on HB front seat c i r c l e straddle cut dismount Routine B-under HB facing LB. 3 superiors, 4 mediums straddle glide kip front body c i r c l e radalto drop straddle kip, 2 legs through kip to HB front body c i r c l e straddle on sole c i r c l e \ turn shoot beat LB, straddle over, long kip to HB front body c i r c l e free hip c i r c l e shoot, beat LB straddle on HB sole c i r c l e | turn shoot wrap eagle straddle over kip to HB cast wrap, hecht dismount from LB 68 Routine C-facing LB and HB. 2 superiors, 4 mediums straddle vault over LB, catch HB long kip to HB front body c i r c l e cast, beat LB straddle on HB | turn shoot wrap eagle straddle over LB kip to HB 2 legs through peach basket-straddle kip catch HB straddle over LB kip to HB cast wrap, hecht dismount from LB Routine D-facing LB and HB. 2 superiors, 4 mediums straddle vault over LB catch HB straddle back over LB kip 2 legs through, grip HB long kip to HB front body c i r c l e cast-beat LB straddle oh HB sole c i r c l e | turn shoot wrap, f u l l turn catch HB straddle drop kip to LB 2 legs through kip to HB straddle front sole c i r c l e back sommi dismount APPENDIX C INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES 69 70 Instructions to Judges Judges: You are about to be presented with a set of women's sidehorse vaults and a set of women's optional uneven p a r a l l e l bars routines. These routines are performed by pro-v i n c i a l competitive novice gymnasts. You are asked to judge these routines according to the F.I.G. Code of Points. Please do a l l your scoring calculations in the booklet provided. Some routines w i l l be shown more than once but you w i l l not be told how many times you w i l l be seeing a par-t i c u l a r performance. Therefore you must be prepared to give a score a f t e r every viewing. The sequence of events i s as follows: 1) A "beep" to indicate that a routine w i l l be shown immediately. 2) The routine, beginning with the gymnast r a i s i n g her arm and ending with her landing from the apparatus. 3) The word "replay" to indicate that the performance you just saw w i l l be repeated immediately. This "replay" s i t u -ation may occur several times or not at a l l . The words "Score, please" indicate that no further viewings of a par-t i c u l a r performance w i l l be given. You w i l l then have i f minutes to decide upon your score for the routine and to f i l l i n the appropriate blanks at the bottom of the page. You need not f i l l in the t o t a l or f i n a l score, I w i l l t a l l y the component parts l a t e r . The blanks you are required to f i l l i n are drawn on the board as well. 7 1 You may consult the rulebook but please do not confer with other judges-this i s as i f each routine shown was the f i r s t in a competition of p r o v i n c i a l c a l i b r e novices. The scores you give are your personal application of F.I.G. rules and deductions to these p a r t i c u l a r routines. Once you have completed your scoring, please turn to the next page in your booklet. Do not r e f e r back to previous pages. Upon the sound of a "beep", please give your immediate attention to the t e l e v i s i o n screen. Any questions? APPENDIX D RAW SCORES 72 73 Raw Scores V a u l t Order P r o f i c i e n c y Years A B 1 Reg 3 7.40 7.30 1 Reg 3 6.90 7.00 1 Nat 5 7.50 6.90 1 Nat 6 7.90 7.40 2 Reg 4 8.50 8.30 2 Reg 5 8.10 7.80 2 Nat 5 7.50 7.00 2 Nat 4 8.10 7.80 3 Reg 2 9.00 8.60 3 Reg • 3 8.10 7.70 3 Nat 9 8.00 7.40 3 Nat 12 8.00 7.00 4 Reg 4 8.20 7.30 4 Reg 2 8.20 7.50 4 Nat 5 7.70 8.10 4 Nat 6 7.90 8.30 7.30 7.00 7.70 7.60 8.30 7.90 7.40 8.10 8.80 7.40 7.70 8.10 7.40 7.60 7.60 7.10 D 7.60 7.40 7.90 7.50 8.00 7.50 7.60 7.90 8.90 7.80 7.80 8.10 7.70 7.80 8.10 8.10 Uneven P a r a l l e l B a r s Order P r o f i c i e n c y Years C a t e g o r y Reg Reg Nat Nat Reg C a t e g o r y A B c D D i f f 2.40 2.10 2.10 1.50 OVCC 0.50 0.30 0.70 o.6o E&A 2.00 1.70 1.90 1.70 GI 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.30 Tot 5.20 4.40 5.30 4.10 D i f f 2.40 3.00 1.80 3.oo OVCC 0.80 1.30 0.50 1.00 E&A 2.00 2.30 1.20 1.20 GI 0.60 0.60 0.20 0.40 Tot 5.80 7.20 3.70 5.60 D i f f 3.00 3.00 1.80 1.80 OVCC 1.50 1.60 1.10 1.40 E&A 1.20 1.40 0.30 2.10 GI 0.50 0.70 0.30 0.50 Tot 6.20 6.70 3.50 5.80 D i f f 2.40 3.00 2.40 3.00 OVCC 1.40 1.80 1.70 1.70 E&A 2.10 1.70 1.90 1.60 GI 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.70 Tot 6.60 7.30 6.80 7.00 D i f f 2.40 3.00 2.40 3.00 OVCC 1.40 1.50 1.00 1.50 E&A 2.10 1.40 2.20 2.50 GI 0.70 0.80 0.60 0.80 Tot 6.60 6.70 6.20 7.80 74 Order P r o f i c i e n c y Yea r s Ca t e go r y A B C D 2 Reg. 5 D i f f 1 .80 2 . 4 0 2 . 1 0 1 . 5 0 OVCC 1 . 3 0 1.20 0 . 8 0 1.00 E&A 2 . 9 0 2 . 3 0 2 . 5 0 2 . 5 0 GI 0 . 6 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 4 0 0 . 4 0 Tot 6 . 6 0 6 . 5 0 5 . 8 0 5 . 4 0 2 Nat 5 D i f f 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 OVCC 1 .20 1 . 5 0 1 . 4 0 1 .20 E&A 1 . 9 0 2 . 2 0 1 . 6 0 2 . 0 0 GI 0 . 6 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 6 0 Tot 6 . 7 0 7 . 4 0 6 . 5 0 6 . 2 0 2 Nat 4 D i f f 2 . 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 3 . 0 0 OVCC 1 . 5 0 1 . 5 0 1 .20 1 . 5 0 E&A 1 . 7 0 1 . 6 0 1 .80 2 . 0 0 GI 0 . 6 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 7 0 Tot 6 . 2 0 6 . 7 O 5 . 9 0 7 . 2 0 3 Reg 2 D i f f 2 . 7 0 3 . 0 0 1 . 5 0 3 . 0 0 OVCC 1 .20 1 . 5 0 1 .00 1 . 5 0 E&A 2 . 0 0 2 . 6 0 2 . 0 0 2 . 5 0 GI 0 . 5 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 7 0 Tot 6 . 4 0 7 . 8 0 5 . 0 0 7 . 7 0 3 Reg 3 D i f f 2 . 1 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 1 0 3 . 0 0 o v c c 1 .70 1 .70 0 . 9 0 1 .40 E&A 1 . 6 0 2 . 9 0 1 . 5 0 2 . 1 0 GI 0 . 4 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 4 0 Tot 5 . 8 0 8 . 4 0 4 . 8 0 6 . 9 0 3 Nat 9 D i f f 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 3 . 0 0 o v c c 1 .50 1 . 6 0 1 . 4 0 1 . 6 0 E&A 2 . 1 0 2 . 3 0 2 . 0 0 2 . 2 0 GI 0 . 6 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 4 0 0 . 7 0 Tot 7 . 2 0 7 . 6 O 6 . 6 0 7 . 5 0 3 Nat 12 D i f f 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 3 . 0 0 OVCC • 1 .20 1 . 6 0 1 .40 1 . 5 0 E&A 2 . 7 0 3 . 1 0 2 . 5 0 2 . 7 0 GI 0 . 5 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 7 0 Tot 7 . 4 0 8 . 5 0 6 . 6 0 7 . 9 0 4 Reg 4 D i f f 2 . 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 3 . 0 0 OVCC 1 .00 1.20 0 . 8 0 1.00 E&A 2 . 5 0 2 . 7 0 2 . 5 0 3 . 0 0 GI 0 . 8 0 0 .80 0 . 5 0 0 . 2 0 Tot 6 .7O 7 . 7 0 6 . 2 0 7 . 2 0 4 Reg 2 D i f f 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 3 . 0 0 OVCC 1.20 1 . 5 0 1 .00 1 . 3 0 E&A 2 . 0 0 2 . 3 0 2 . 0 0 2 . 2 0 GI 0 . 5 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 6 0 Tot 6 . 7 0 7 . 5 0 5.9-0 7 . 1 0 4 Nat 5 D i f f 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 1.80 3 . 0 0 OVCC 0 .80 1.20 1 .00 1.00 E&A 1 .80 1 . 9 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 9 0 GI 0 . 5 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 5 0 0 . 6 0 Tot 6 . 1 0 6 . 8 0 5 . 2 0 6 . 5 0 75 Order Proficiency Years Category A B C D 4 Nat 6 D i f f 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 2.40 3 . 0 0 OVCC 1 . 2 0 1.40 1 .00 1.10 E&A 1.80 1 .70 1 .10 1 .50 GI 0 . 7 0 0.80 0 . 5 0 0 . 6 0 Tot 6 . 7 0 6 . 9 0 5 . 0 0 6 . 2 0 APPENDIX E ANOVA TABLES 76 SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES OF MEAN _ E PR.QB. £ SQUARES FREEOOM SQUARE EXCEEDED MEAN 9.53264 1 9.53264 48.00081 0.000 0 0.29546 3 0.09849 0.49593 0.695 P 0. 13140 1 0.13140 0.66 167 0.440 OP 1.05 421 3 0.35140 1. 76 94 7 0 .2.31 ERROR 1 .58875 8 0 .19859 T ( l ) 0.34453 1 0.34453 7.81355 0 .023 TI I IO 0.24409 3 0.08136 1.84524 0.2 17 T( 1)P 0.11628 1 0 .1L628 2.63713 0 . 143 T (11 OP 0 . 14184 3 0.04728 1.0722 8 0.414 ERROR 0 .35275 8 0.04409 T(2) 0.00766 1 0.00766 0.12794 0.730 T I 2) 0 0.43 2 97 3 0 . L4432 2.41164 0.142 T(2)P 0.00016 1 0.00016 0.0026 1 0 .961 T(2>0P 0.1L797 3 0.03932 0*6.5 70.9 0 .601 ERROR 0 .47875 8 0.05984 T(3) 0.00078 1 0.00078 0.09652 0 .764 T(3) 0 0.06934 3 0.02311 2.85580 0.105 T(3)P 0.05778 1 0 .05778 7.13888 0.028 TI3JOP 0 . 18784 3 0.06261 7.71.598. 0.009 ERROR 0.06475 8 0.00809 T 0.35297 3 0.11766 3.15059 0.043 TO 0.74640 9 0.08293 2.22080 0.057 TP 0.17422 3 0.05807 1.55508 0.226 TOP 0.44765 9 0.04974 1.33191 _ 0,273 ERROR 0.89625 24 0 .03734 ANOVA Table: Absolute Deviations from Vault C r i t e r i o n Scores I S O U R C E ' S U M OF D E G R E E S OF MEAN F P R u B . F S Q U A R E S FREEDOM S Q U A R E E X C E E D E D MEAN 3 7 . 6 6 8 6 1 1 3 7 . 6 6 8 6 1 1 4 } . 4 1 3 7 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 8 0 4 1 6 3 1 . 6 0 1 3 9 6 . 0 9 6 8 8 0 . 0 1 8 P 0 . 2 1 3 9 0 1 0 . 2 1 3 9 0 0 . 8 1 4 3 8 0 . 3 9 3 OP 1 . 8 6 1 7 1 3 0 . 6 2 0 5 7 2 . 3 6 2 6 7 0 . 1 4 7 ERROR 2 . 1 0 1 2 5 8 0 . 2 6 2 6 6 T ( 1) 0 . 4 7 2 7 8 1 0 . 4 7 2 7 8 3 . 6 6 7 6 3 0 . 0 9 2 T ( 1 ) 0 0 . 1 8 1 3 4 3 0 . 0 6 0 4 5 0 . 4 6 8 9 2 0 . 7 1 2 T ( D P 0 . 0 0 0 7 8 1 0 . 0 0 0 7 8 0 . 0 0 6 0 6 0 . 9 4 0 T ( 1 ) 0 P 1 . 0 9 5 8 4 3 0 . 3 6 5 2 8 2 . 8 2 3 6 9 0 . 1 0 6 ' • " E R R O R " " 1 . 0 3 1 2 5 8 0 . 12891 T ( 2 ) 0 . 3 4 5 1 5 1 0 . 3 4 5 1 5 1 0 . 1 7 9 6 4 0 . 0 1 3 T ( 2 ) 0 0 . 3 3 7 9 7 " 3 0 . 1 1 2 6 6 3 . 3 2 2 5 5 0 . 0 7 7 T ( 2 ) P 0 . 6 2 0 1 5 1 0 . 6 2 0 1 5 1 8 . 2 9 0 2 2 0 . 0 0 3 T ( 2 ) 0 P 0 . 5 4 5 4 7 3 0 . 1 8 1 8 2 5 . 3 6 2 4 7 0 . 0 2 6 ERROR 0 . 2 7 1 2 5 0 . 01'3"9T ~~" T ( 3 ) 0 . 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 . 0 3 0 0 3 0 . 0 4 5 1 5 0 . 8 3 7 T( 3JL) 0 . 5 6 7 0 9 3 0 . 1 8 9 0 3 0 . 2 8 4 1 9 0 . 8 3 6 T ( 3 ) P 0 . 6 5 7 0 3 1 0 . 6 5 7 0 3 0 . 9 8 7 7 8 0 . 3 4 9 T 1 3 J 0 P 2 . 7 2 2 5 8 3 0 . 9 0 7 5 3 1 . 3 6 4 3 8 0 . 3 2 1 ERROR 5 . 3 2 1 2 4 8 0 . 6 6 5 1 6 T 0 . 8 4 7 9 6 3 0 . 2 8 2 6 5 1 . 0 2 4 1 5 0 . 3 9 9 TO 1 . 0 8 6 3 9 9 0 . 1 2 0 7 1 0 . 4 3 7 3 7 0 . 9 0 1 TP 1 . 2 7 7 9 6 3 0 . 4 2 5 9 9 1 . 5 4 3 4 9 0 . 2 2 9 T O P 4 . 3 6 3 8 9 9 0 . 4 8 4 8 8 1 . 7 5 6 8 7 0 . 1 3 0 ERROR •67'6'2374"" 24 6-. 2 7 5 9 9 ANOVA Table: Absolute D e v i a t i o n s from B a r s - T o t a l C r i t e r i o n Scores CO SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES OF MEAN PRQB.. E... SQUARES FREEDOM SQUARE EXCEEDED MEAN 6 .69514 1 6 .69514 61 .83138 0.000 Q 0 . 0 3 7 9 7 3 0 . 0 1 2 6 6 0 . 1 1688 0 .948 P 0 . 0 3 5 1 6 1 0 .03516 0 . 3 2 4 6 7 0.5 84 OP 0 . 2 1 7 9 7 3 0 . 0 7 2 6 6 0 .67099 ......... 0. .,.5 93.......; ERROR 0 . 8 6 6 2 5 8 0 . 1 0 8 2 8 T ( i ) 0 . 7 3 1 5 3 1 0 .73 153 14 .69484 0.005 T ( 1 J 0 0 .16059 3 0 .05353 1.07531 0.413 T (1 ) P 0 . 2 0 5 0 3 1 0 .20503 4 .11861 0 .077 T (I ) O P 0 .02109 3 0 .00703 0 , 1 4 1 2 4 0 ,932 ERROR 0 . 3 9 8 2 5 8 0 .04978 T (2) 1 .35140 I 1.35140 56.52 873 0 .000 T ( 2 ) 0 0 .27422 3 0.09141 3 .82350 0 .0 57 T ( 2 ) P 0 . 11391 1 0 .11391 4 . 7 6 4 6 6 0 .061 T(2)OP 0 . 2 5 1 7 2 3 0 .08391 3...5Q.9.7fe 0..,Q69 ERROR 0 . 1 9 1 2 5 8 0.02391 T ( 3 ) 0 .0475 3 1 0 .04753 0 .40920 0.540 T( 3 )0 0 . 0 8 4 0 9 3 0 . 0 2 8 0 3 0 .24132 0 .865 T ( 3 ) P 0 . 1 0 153 1 0 .10153 0 .87409 0 .377 T13 I0P 0 . 3 3 6 0 9 3 0 . 1 1 2 0 3 . 0 ,96448 .Q.,455. ERROR 0 . 9 2 9 2 5 8 0 .11616 T 2 .13 046 3 0.71015 11 .22219 0.000 TO 0 . 5 1 8 9 0 9 0 .05766 , 0 .91110 0 .532 TP 0 . 4 2 0 4 7 3 0 .14016 2 .21480 0 .112 TOP 0 . 6 0 8 9 0 9 0 .06766 1.06913 0 , 4 1 9 . ERROR 1.5.1875 •r, . 24 0 .06328 ANOVA Table: Absolute Deviations from B a r s - D i f f i c u l t y C r i t e r i o n Scores SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES OF S Q U A R E S F R E E D O M MEAN _ SQUARE F P R 0 6 . F MEAN 4.73062 1 4.73062 74.94037 .0.000 0 P OP 0.45562 0.02250 0.09125 3 1 3 0. 15187 0.02250 0.03042 2.40592 0.35644 0.48185 0 . 143 0.567 0.704 ERROR 5.'505ao- 8 0.06313 T( 1) 0.06050 1 0.06050 2. 19001 0. 177 T( 1 )0 T( D P TUIOP 0.19475 0.15312 0.28862 3 1 3 0. Ot.492 0.15312 0.09621 2.34988 5.54268 3,48258 0.149 0.046 0.070 E K K Q R  0.22100 b 0.027 63 1 T( 2) 0.02250 1 0.02250 1.38461 0.273 T(2)0 Tl 2JP T(2)OP 0. 008-7*> 0. 10562 0.03312 3 1 3 0.00292 0. 10562 0.01104 0.17948 6.49999 0.67948 0.907 0.034 0.589 E R R O R ; "•0.13000 8 " ' """" ' "0.0162 5 T<3) 0.21012 1 0.21012 3.54640 0.096 TI3J0 T( 3)P T(3)OP 0.15212 C.45000 0.16075 3 1 3 0.050/1 0.45000 0.05358 0.85583 7.59490 0.90435 0. 5 02 0.025 0.480 E R R O R ~ " "0;474'0'0" '8 0.05925 T 0.29312 3 0.09771 2.84240 0.059 TO TP TOP 0.3 5562 0.70875 0.48249 9 3 9 0.03951 0.23625 0.05361 1.14948 6.87266 1 .55957 Q. 369 0.002 0. 184 ERROR 0.8 25 00 24 0.0343S ANOVA Ta b l e : Absolute D e v i a t i o n s from B a r s - O r i g i n a l i t y , Values of Connection and Composition Scores MEAN n 18.70558 1 18. 70558 245.31923 O.000 u P OP 1.14561 0.39062 0.18312 3 1 3 0.38187 0.39062 0.06104 b.. 00815 5.12292 0.80054 0.030 0.053 0.528 fcKKUK 0.61000 8 0.0 7625 T( 1 1 ' T J" i l A 0.07200 1 0.07200 0.76090 0 .408 T ( 1 IU T(1)P T( DOP 0.33625 0.04050 0.39325 3 1 3 0.11208 0.04050 0.13108 1.18449 0.42801 1.38528 0.3 75 0.531 0.316 ERROR 0.75700 8 0.09462 T( 2 > 0.04000 A u A i r 1 0.04000 0.55173 0.4 79 r (2 I U T(2)P T(2)OP ""t!"n'"ri"r\H 0. 168 75 0.0 1.12624 3 1 3 0.0562b 0. 0 0.37541 o.ms7 0.0 5.17820 , 0.540 1.000 O. 028  KRCJR 0.57999 8 0.07250" "" ." T(3) 0.03612 1 0.03612 0.34282 0. 574 T I J JU T(3)P T(3)0P 0.42062 0.19012 0.43112 3 1 3 0.14021 0.19012 0.14371 1.330b6 1.80427 1.36378 0.331 0.216 0. 322 ERROR 0.84299 8 . . ••- o ; r o- 5 1 T  T T n 0.14812 3 0.04937 D .54357 0.657 T U TP TOP 0.92562 0.23062 1.95061 9 3 9 0.102 85 0.07687 0.21673 1.13226 0.84633 2.38609 0.379 0.482 0. 043 rRROR 2.17998 . 2 4 • 0.090 83 ANOVA T a b l e : A b s o l u t e C r i t e r i o n D e v i a t i o n s S c o r e s f r o m B a r s - E x e c u t i o n and A m p l i t u d e SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES OF MEAN F PROB. F SQUARES FREEDOM SQUARE EXCEEDED MEAN 1.23765 1 1.23765 88 .99988 0 .000 0 0 . 0 8 1 7 2 3 0 .02724 1.95879 0 . 199 P 0.05641 1 0.05641 4 .05618 0 . 0 7 9 OP ....._„.„..,.,-,,„ .„—- -.— 0 . 0 1 0 4 7 3 0 .00349 0 .25093 0 . 8 5 9 ERROR 0 .1112 5 8 0.01391 T( 1J 0 .00253 1 0 .00253 0 . 1 9 0 5 9 0 . 6 7 4 T ( 1 )0 0 . 0 1 5 3 4 3 0.00511 0 . 3 8 5 1 0 0 .767 T( 1J P 0 . 0 1 1 2 8 1 0 .01128 0 .84941 0 .384 T t n o p 0 . 0 1 4 0 9 3 0 . 0 0 4 7 0 0 . 35372 0 .788 ERROR 0 . 1 0 6 2 5 8 0 .01328 T(2> 0 .00141 1 0.00141 0. 18367 0.680 T( 2 )0 0 . 0 0 5 4 7 3 0 .00182 0 . 2 3 8 0 9 0 . 867 T ( 2) P 0 . 0 4 5 1 6 1 0 .04516 5 .89800 0.041 T(2)OP 0 . 0 0 9 2 2 3 0 .00307 0 . 4 0 1 3 6 0.756 ERROR 0 . 0 6 1 2 5 8 0 .00766 T (3 ) 0 . 0 2 2 7 8 1 0 .02278 1.24615 0 .297 1 ( J J u 0 .03059 5 0.U102U 0 . b b / 8 3 0.6S7 T( 3)P 0 . 0 1 6 5 3 1 0 .01653 0 .90427 0. 369 T(3)OP 0 . 0 0 4 3 4 3 0 .00145 0 .07920 0.969 ERROR 0 . 1 4 6 2 5 a "'D"."0I"828 T 0 . 0 2 6 7 2 3 0.00891 0 .68127 0 .572 TO 0 .05141 9 0.00571 0 .43692 0.901 TP 0 . 0 7 2 9 7 3 0 .02432 1.86056 0. 163 TOP 0 . 0 2 7 6 6 9 0 .00307 0 .23506 0.986 ERROR 0 . 3 1 3 7 5 0 0 I T O T ~ ANOVA Table: Absolute Deviations from Bars-General Impression Criterion Scores co ro APPENDIX F COMPUTATIONAL FORMULA FOR COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE 83 84 Computational Formula for Coefficient of Concordance W = S 1/12 m 2(N 3 - N) - m 2 T where S = £ (R - R./N)2 J J T = £ ( t 3 - t) 12 R = rank m = number of sets of ranks N = number of ranks t = number of ranks tied for each ra 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077225/manifest

Comment

Related Items