Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Construction and validation of a volleyball proficiency test : cognitive and psychomotor domains Baydock, Donna Anne 1985

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A7_5 B39.pdf [ 4.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077233.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077233-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077233-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077233-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077233-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077233-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077233-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077233-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077233.ris

Full Text

CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDATION OF A VOLLEYBALL PROFICIENCY TEST: COGNITIVE AND PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAINS By DONNA ANNE BAYDOCK B.P.E., The U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba,  1977  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION  In THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL  OF  PHYSICAL  EDUCATION  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to -the reqtisLred/s'taadard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October ®  1985  Donna Anne Baydock, 1985  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this or  thesis for by  his  or  scholarly purposes may be her  permission.  Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6(3/81)  fefew  /s ,  that the  representatives.  for  an advanced  Library shall make  it  agree that permission for extensive  It  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not  D a t e  requirements  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  is  granted  by the  understood  that  be allowed without  head of copying  my or  my written  ABSTRACT The purpose o f t h i s study was t o c o n s t r u c t and v a l i d a t e assessment  an  t o o l t h a t c o u l d be used t o determine the l e v e l o f c o g n i t i v e  and psychomotor  proficiency  possessed a t t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l of  volleyball. The proposed t e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 24 males and 24 females evenly s t r a t i f i e d  into three s k i l l  levels: elite,  instructed  and  novice. A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was used t o determine c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y w h i l e the Pearson P r o d u c t Moment C o r r e l a t i o n , Generalizability  c o e f f i c i e n t were a l l used t o determine r e l i a b i l i t y of  v a r i o u s components o f the t e s t . was i n v e s t i g a t e d  Correlation  as was the r e l a t i o n s h i p  mastery and s k i l l Data a n a l y s i s valid  kappa c o e f f i c i e n t and  between t e s t  between achievement o f  l e v e l as demonstrated by t h e C h i Square  statistic.  l e d t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a l l t e s t components were  and r e l i a b l e measures of i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l  with some c a u t i o n being a d v i s e d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n coefficient. of  components  T e s t components were r e l a t e d  o f the kappa  but not redundant and nine  the 11 t e s t components showed a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p  achievement o f mastery and s k i l l  level.  ii  skill  between  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i  LIST OF TABLES  i  v  LIST OF FIGURES  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  viii  Chapter I.  INTRODUCTION  1  Statement o f the Problem R a t i o n a l e f o r the Study Delimitation Assumptions II. III.  REVIEW OF LITERATURE  6  PROCEDURE  22  Source o f Data Test Construction 1) C o g n i t i v e T e s t 2) Performance A n a l y s i s 3) O b j e c t i v e Performance E v a l u a t i o n Product Score a) overhead p a s s i n g b) forearm p a s s i n g c ) overhand s e r v i n g d) s p i k i n g 4) S u b j e c t i v e Performance E v a l u a t i o n P r o c e s s Score Data A n a l y s i s IV.  2 2 4 4  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Construct V a l i d i t y R e l i a b i l i t y o f the C o g n i t i v e T e s t R e l i a b i l i t y of the Performance A n a l y s i s R e l i a b i l i t y and O b j e c t i v i t y of the S k i l l T e s t s 1) Overhead Pass 2) Forearm Pass 3) Overhand Serve 4) S p i k e G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of R e s u l t s iii  23 24 26 27 28 30 30 31 32 33 35 35 50 53 . . . 54 57 59 61 -'. 63 64  C o r r e l a t i o n Between T e s t Components Comparison of Number of S u b j e c t s A c h i e v i n g Mastery i n Each S k i l l L e v e l V.  68 71  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Major F i n d i n g s Conclusions Recommendations  73 74 76 76  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A. B. C. D. E.  77  C o g n i t i v e Knowledge Q u e s t i o n s . Performance A n a l y s i s Q u e s t i o n s . . . . . Subjective Rating Scale R a t i n g S c a l e T a l l y Sheet C h i Square T a b l e s  iv  . . .  81 89 93 102 103  LIST OF TABLES I  Content Balance Table  25  II  ANOVA Table for the Cognitive Test  36  III  ANOVA Table for the Performance Analysis  37  IV  ANOVA Table for the Overhead Pass - Product Score . . . 39  V  ANOVA Table for the Forearm Pass - Product Score . . . . AO  VI  ANOVA Table for the Overhand Serve - Product Score . . . 41  VII  ANOVA Table for the Spike - Product Score  VIII  ANOVA Table for the Overhead Pass - Process Score . . . 43  IX  ANOVA Table for the Forearm Pass - Process Score . . . . 44  X  ANOVA Table for the Overhand Serve - Process Score . . . 45  XI  ANOVA Table for the Spike - Process Score  46  XII  ANOVA Table for the Total Score  48  XIII  Proportion of Agreement Between Odd and Even Questions with an 80% Mastery Criterion  XIV  42  51  Mean Values for the Overhead Pass, Forearm Pass, Overhand Serve and Spike - Process Score  54  XV  ANOVA and Variance Estimates: Overhead Pass  57  XVI  ANOVA and Variance Estimates: Forearm Pass  59  XVII  ANOVA and Variance Estimates: Overhand Serve  61  XVIII  ANOVA and Variance Estimates: Spike  63  XIX  Generalizability Coefficients for Each S k i l l of  XX  the Volleyball Proficiency Test  65  Correlations Between Process Scores  68  v  XXI  Correlations for  XXII  All  Between P r o d u c t and P r o c e s s S c o r e s  Skills  69  C h i S q u a r e V a l u e s and L e v e l s o f T e s t Components  Significance  of 71  vi  LIST OF  FIGURES  1.  Schematic  R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Overhead P a s s i n g T e s t . . .  2.  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Cognitive Test  3.  36  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Performance A n a l y s i s  4.  37  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Overhead Pass - Product  5.  Score  - Product  39  Score  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of Spike - Product  8.  38  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Overhand Serve  7.  Score  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Forearm Pass - Product  6.  41 the  Score  42  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Overhead Pass - P r o c e s s Score  9.  - P r o c e s s Score  45  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Spike - P r o c e s s Score  12.  44  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Overhand Serve  11.  43  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the Forearm Pass - P r o c e s s Score  10.  29  46  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the T o t a l Score  47  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would l i k e t o take t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o thank the people who have helped i n the r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s .  S p e c i a l thanks a r e due  Dr. Gary S i n c l a i r , my a d v i s o r and mentor, f o r c o n s t a n t encouragement, enthusiasm and a v a i l a b i l i t y . Dr. Robert Schutz and Mr. J i m B j e r r i n g , members o f my f o r t h e i r time and i n t e r e s t i n my paper.  committee,  P a t t y S c h l a f e n and S a r i Fleming, my two o b s e r v e r s and c l o s e f r i e n d s , who gave t h e i r time and encouragement f r e e l y . C a r l Schwartz, my s t a t i s t i c a l a d v i s o r , who h e l p e d me to see the l i g h t a t the end o f t h e t u n n e l and took t h e time t o make s u r e I got t h e r e . Dr. Wendy Dahlgren f o r her support and a d v i c e . Mrs. Joyce Fromson, my employer and f r i e n d , who made s u r e I had the o p p o r t u n i t y to f i n i s h t h i s t h e s i s . My c l o s e f r i e n d s and c o l l e a g u e s who b e l i e v e d i n my a b i l i t y and d e t e r m i n a t i o n and g e n t l y pushed me t o a c h i e v e my g o a l . S h e r y l e Bergmann, my t y p i s t , who worked beyond the c a l l o f duty w i t h almost t h e same f e r v o r I d i d .  viii  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION P r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n , an h i s t o r i c a l c o n c e r n , has taken on new s i g n i f i c a n c e as e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s move to performance-based or competency-based programs. A c c o u n t a b i l i t y demanded by c o l l e g e s , u n i v e r s i t i e s and secondary s c h o o l s has c r e a t e d the need f o r a reassessment of m a t e r i a l s on p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g and a framework f o r u t i l i z a t i o n of m a t e r i a l s a p p r o p r i a t e to our d i s c i p l i n e . (McGee and Drews, 1974) It received  i s often  the  case t h a t p h y s i c a l  e d u c a t i o n majors have  specialized i n s t r u c t i o n in several  reach u n i v e r s i t y  and  involvement i n the universities insist regardless  a c t i v i t y a r e a s b e f o r e they  i t i s t h i s e a r l y exposure t h a t  field  of p h y s i c a l  that  education.  of p r e v i o u s l y  attained  competencies and  Drews, 1974).  i n t h i s manner increasing  construction  true  for sport  and  limited  t e s t s (McGee  proficiency  skill  activity  and  tests.  psychomotor s k i l l  e v a l u a t i o n s have c o n s i s t e d  t e s t s f o r academic s u b j e c t s  are  a d m i n i s t e r o b j e c t i v e l y , the  same i s  introductory  expected to demonstrate both  i n a given sport.  of a f i n a l w r i t t e n  1  been  evaluation.  Students c o m p l e t i n g an  c o u r s e are  and  of  s t u d e n t ' s r e q u e s t , a drawback has  t o o l s of  s i m p l e to c o n s t r u c t  level physical cognitive  at the  of v a l i d  Whereas c o g n i t i v e relatively  development of p r o f i c i e n c y  emphasis  Although most e d u c a t o r s agree w i t h the concept  testing for proficiency  not  courses  q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n combined w i t h crowded f a c i l i t i e s and  budgets have prompted the  the  The  further  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , many  students p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c t i v i t y  a c t u a l l y l i m i t a s t u d e n t ' s formal e d u c a t i o n . on  prompts  Traditionally,  exam and  subjective  J r a t i n g s by an i n s t r u c t o r who has seen t h e s t u d e n t s i n c l a s s over a period one  o f months.  A p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t , however, would c o n s i s t o f o n l y  t e s t i n g session  thus a purely  s u b j e c t i v e r a t i n g would l e n d  t o t e s t e r b i a s and be a v e r y u n r e l i a b l e method o f e v a l u a t i o n .  itself The  s p o r t o f v o l l e y b a l l i s o f f e r e d e x t e n s i v e l y as a c r e d i t c o u r s e i n P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n degree programs throughout N o r t h A m e r i c a . Consequently, i t i s appropriate  t o s e l e c t v o l l e y b a l l f o r the  development o f a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The  purpose o f t h e study i s t o c o n s t r u c t  and v a l i d a t e a  measurement t o o l t h a t can be a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a s s e s s t h e l e v e l o f c o g n i t i v e and psychomotor p r o f i c i e n c y possessed a t the i n t r o d u c t o r y level ofv o l l e y b a l l . RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY To be c o n s i d e r e d p r o f i c i e n t a t a s p o r t o r p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y one must demonstrate competence i n both t h e c o g n i t i v e and motor domains o f behavior as r e l a t e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y .  The c o g n i t i v e  assessment s h o u l d c o v e r such sub-domains a s s k i l l strategy,  domain  techniques,  p r i n c i p l e s o f movement and t o a l e s s e r degree, r u l e s ,  equipment and s a f e t y .  To e f f e c t i v e l y t e s t t h e motor domain i t i s  n e c e s s a r y t o use both o b j e c t i v e s k i l l performance and s u b j e c t i v e of performance.  t e s t s t o evaluate the product of  performance r a t i n g s t o e v a l u a t e t h e p r o c e s s  I n i t i a l attempts at e v a l u a t i n g v o l l e y b a l l playing i n c l u d e d r e p e a t e d w a l l v o l l e y t e s t s and  s e r v i c e accuracy  G e n e r a l l y , r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were h i g h but c o e f f i c i e n t s were q u e s t i o n a b l e . v a l i d i t y was  a subjective  ability tests.  validity  In most c a s e s the c r i t e r i o n used f o r  r a t i n g of performance i n a game s i t u a t i o n .  L o g i c a l l y , i t seems d i f f i c u l t t o i n f e r v o l l e y b a l l p l a y i n g the  limited information available  not  suprising  t h a t v a l i d i t y was  ability  i n an i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l t e s t so i t i s  marginal.  There have been more r e c e n t a t t e m p t s a t making i n d i v i d u a l t e s t s more g a m e - l i k e (Chun, 1969)  and  t e s t s (AAHPER, 1967;  F a w c e t t , 1975)  predict  W i l l i a m s and  v o l l e y b a l l playing  from  ability.  skill  a t combining a number of i n order to  skill better  A l t h o u g h some advancements have  been made i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of s k i l l  performance t e s t s t h e r e  has  been no attempt t o combine t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h v o l l e y b a l l knowledge tests. The  AAHPER v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l t e s t (1967) i s one  i n c l u s i v e and set-ups.  c o n s i d e r s f o u r measures: v o l l e y i n g , s e r v i n g ,  However, t h e r e are  still  i n s t r u m e n t as a t e s t of p r o f i c i e n c y 1) the  v o l l e y i n g and  overhead p a s s i n g . its  of the  passing  and  severe l i m i t a t i o n s to t h i s for v o l l e y b a l l playing  s e t - u p t e s t both measure the The  most  ability;  skill  of  s e t - u p t e s t i s more r e l e v a n t because of  g a m e - l i k e s i t u a t i o n t h u s r e n d e r i n g the w a l l  volleying  t e s t redundant. 2) the s k i l l of s p i k i n g  i s m i s s i n g from the e v a l u a t i o n and  it is  an essential component of the game of modern volleyball. 3) there i s no evaluation of technique accompanying the accuracy tests so players may adopt any movement that achieves the goal without penalty for poor technique. 4) there is no cognitive component to the test to measure knowledge and performance analysis a b i l i t y . Difficulties in objectively and validly testing sport s k i l l s have left a void in the literature with respect to proficiency testing in physical education and especially volleyball.  The lack of a relevant  test to measure volleyball proficiency has prompted the development of the proposed test to selectively assess both cognitive and psychomotor s k i l l at the introductory proficiency level. DELIMITATION The proficiency test is designed to discriminate between non-instructed players and those instructed at the introductory level. Since only introductory level s k i l l s are being evaluated there may be a ceiling effect that does not allow for differentiation between varying levels of elite players, i . e . ,  varsity players and national  team members. ASSUMPTIONS 1) An introductory level volleyball course is concerned with teaching proper technique and comprehension of s k i l l s along with the strategies and rules of the sport  teaching  methodology may be incidentally learned but not evaluated.  As a p r e p a r a t i o n  f o r c o a c h i n g and/or t e a c h i n g , the emphasis i n  an i n t r o d u c t o r y c o u r s e i s e q u a l l y weighted between the and  the p r o d u c t of s k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n  and  w i l l be  process  evaluated  accordingly. The  personnel u t i l i z i n g  t h i s assessment t o o l w i l l have a  thorough knowledge of modern v o l l e y b a l l .  I t i s expected  the e v a l u a t o r s would p o s s e s s , a t l e a s t , L e v e l I N a t i o n a l C o a c h i n g C e r t i f i c a t i o n Program V o l l e y b a l l c e r t i f i c a t i o n or i t s e q u i v a l e n t .  Conductor  that  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF The  need f o r p r o f i c i e n c y  identified.  LITERATURE  t e s t i n g i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n has  The e x t e n s i v e p o p u l a r i t y of v o l l e y b a l l makes the  development of a v o l l e y b a l l p r o f i c i e n c y u s e f u l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the f i e l d . measure i t i s necessary  t e s t a p r a c t i c a l and h i g h l y  In order t o c o n s t r u c t an  t o review  the theory behind  e x i s t i n g t e s t s of v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l  and  review  knowledge.  the p h i l o s o p h y of mastery l e a r n i n g .  most s t u d e n t s can and  will  T h i s p h i l o s o p h y has  thousand  I t simply s t a t e s t h a t  the a p p r o p r i a t e time i s  been the premise  behind  tutoring for a  y e a r s but group-based mastery l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s  r e l a t i v e l y new  to the f i e l d  1960's (Bloom, 1968).  One  tests  l e a r n what they are taught i f a p p r o p r i a t e  i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are u t i l i z e d , and  few  and  t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of p r o f i c i e n c y  stems from  allowed.  effective  proficiency  t e s t i n g , examine c u r r e n t t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n procedures  The  been  are  of e d u c a t i o n , being i n t r o d u c e d i n the of the major reasons  mastery l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s was  f o r the l a c k of use of  the a d o p t i o n of the  v a l i d normal curve as a seemingly  necessary  late  statistically  t o o l i n grading  performance by a s s i g n i n g v a l u e s over a range from A t o F  student  (90%-40%).  A d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e o f t e n c r i t i c a l o f t e a c h e r s f o r being e i t h e r  too  l e n i e n t or too demanding i f s t u d e n t s ' marks do not span the range of the normal, c u r v e .  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s a t t i t u d e i n the s c h o o l system  i s o f t e n c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e to e d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s .  6  Teachers  may  begin  t o teach w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n  t h a t o n l y very few s t u d e n t s w i l l master  the m a t e r i a l w h i l e s t u d e n t s w i l l come t o b e l i e v e t h a t they are c a p a b l e of a c h i e v i n g a c e r t a i n l e v e l of m a s t e r y , e.g., w i l l not be m o t i v a t e d t o work any In 1963, for  C a r r o l l introduced  only  60%-70%, and  harder. the i d e a t h a t a s t u d e n t ' s a p t i t u d e  a p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y p r e d i c t the l e v e l of  achievement i n t h a t s u b j e c t , but r a t h e r i n f l u e n c e d the r a t e of learning.  A s t u d e n t w i t h a h i g h a p t i t u d e f o r a s u b j e c t would l e a r n i t  q u i c k l y w h i l e a s t u d e n t w i t h a low a p t i t u d e would l e a r n i t more slowly.  The  degree of l e a r n i n g would depend on the time the  spent on l e a r n i n g r e l a t i v e t o the time r e q u i r e d .  student  Carroll identified a  s t u d e n t ' s p e r s e v e r a n c e i n s t u d y i n g and h i s a c t u a l o p p o r t u n i t y ( c l a s s t i m e ) as key  f a c t o r s i n the t i m e spent on l e a r n i n g .  o t h e r hand, the t i m e needed was the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n and  to l e a r n  On  the  determined by a s t u d e n t ' s a p t i t u d e , h i s a b i l i t y t o understand  the  instruction. I t f o l l o w s t h a t i f a p t i t u d e c o r r e s p o n d s t o the r a t e of l e a r n i n g r a t h e r than the a c t u a l l e v e l of achievement, i t s h o u l d  be p o s s i b l e t o  s e t performance l e v e l s t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s can master a t t h e i r speed.  Bloom (1968) e x e m p l i f i e d  s t u d e n t s were n o r m a l l y  own  t h i s l o g i c by s t a t i n g t h a t i f  d i s t r i b u t e d on a p t i t u d e f o r some s u b j e c t  they were g i v e n e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y  t o l e a r n and  and  e q u a l q u a l i t y of  i n s t r u c t i o n then achievement l e v e l s would be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d t o a p t i t u d e and  show normal d i s t r i b u t i o n .  However, i f d i f f e r e n t i a l  o p p o r t u n i t y t o l e a r n and d i f f e r e n t i a l q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n were a v a i l a b l e f o r t h o s e who  needed i t most, t h e m a j o r i t y of s t u d e n t s c o u l d  be expected  t o a t t a i n mastery  for  was a p p r o p r i a t e l y s e t .  mastery Mastery  p r o v i d i n g , o f c o u r s e , t h a t the c r i t e r i o n  l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s have been t r i e d i n many p a r t s of the  w o r l d f o r a wide v a r i e t y of s u b j e c t a r e a s a c r o s s a l l l e v e l s of e d u c a t i o n ( B l o c k , 1979).  They have been used i n c l a s s r o o m s w i t h a  s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r r a t i o o f 20 t o 1, 30 t o 1 and even 70 t o 1 (Kim, 1971).  I n o r d e r t o e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s  s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g must be examined and t h i s i s most commonly done by measuring  achievement.  O f t e n a mastery  on a f i n a l e x a m i n a t i o n and performances and non-mastery s t u d e n t s who  s t a n d a r d of 80% c o r r e c t i s s e t a r e compared between  s t u d i e d the same s u b j e c t .  mastery  Available  r e s e a r c h g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t two t o t h r e e t i m e s as many  mastery  l e a r n i n g s t u d e n t s have a c h i e v e d the s t a n d a r d as have s t u d e n t s l e a r n i n g by the u s u a l l e c t u r e - r e c i t a t i o n approach  ( B l o c k , 1974).  Kim  (1971)  used thousands of seventh grade Korean s t u d e n t s t o study the p o s s i b l e impact o f mastery found t h a t 75% of  l e a r n i n g a c r o s s a v a r i e t y of s u b j e c t a r e a s .  of the mastery  He  l e a r n i n g s t u d e n t s compared t o o n l y  40%  the non-mastery s t u d e n t s a c h i e v e d the 80% c o r r e c t c r i t i e r i o n on the  f i n a l exam.  There i s a l s o a g r e a t r e d u c t i o n i n t h e number of s t u d e n t s  r e c e i v i n g marks of C, D, and F.  A c c o r d i n g t o these f i n d i n g s t h e  c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t s of s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g are p o s i t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d by master l e a r n i n g t e c h n i q u e s .  Evidence has also shown positive affective outcomes for mastery learning students.  It seems that students show more interest and more  positive attitudes toward the subject matter being learned.  They also  demonstrate an increased confidence in their ability to learn (Block and Anderson, 1975).  The student's performance is compared to a  predetermined standard or criterion and the student can clearly see i f mastery of the criterion has been attained.  This method of  interpreting test results is called criterion-referencing and i t differs from the commonly used standardized achievement tests which report test performance in terms of an individual's relative position in the class or in a sample population.  This type of standardized  test is called a norm-referenced test and in order to reliably differentiate between students' performances, a good spread of scores is essential so that statistical measures can be computed.  In mastery  learning no comparisons are made with the rest of the class and since there are no limitations as to how many students can achieve mastery, there seems to be a more cooperative atmosphere among students.  As  Gronlund (1973) points out, a normal distribution of scores is neither expected nor desired. If the test items adequately evaluate the i n i t i a l objectives and specific learning outcomes and a l l of the students know their material, then a l l of them can and will achieve mastery.  This probably indicates a teaching job well done rather than  a test which is too easy.  The result is positive reinforcement for  10  the l e a r n e r s which i s a s t r o n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t o r  for  continued  effort. In o r d e r  t o t e s t f o r mastery i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o  criterion-referenced tests. t e s t s should can  The  use  f o r m u l a t i o n of c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d  be d i r e c t e d toward o b t a i n i n g measures of achievement t h a t  be w i t n e s s e d i n terms of s t u d e n t performance on c l e a r l y  educational  tasks.  defined  A t t a i n m e n t of t h i s g o a l r e q u i r e s a s p e c i f i c  and  d e l i m i t e d domain of l e a r n i n g t a s k s t h a t are p r e s e n t e d as i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and  can c l e a r l y be d e f i n e d  i n b e h a v i o r a l terms and  listed  as l e a r n i n g outcomes. Gronlund (1973) s u g g e s t s two discusses learning.  d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of l e a r n i n g  and  the use of c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s w i t h each l e v e l of Most s u b j e c t a r e a s can be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d  and  stated  b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s when b a s i c s k i l l s are being t a u g h t . i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l i t i s very r e a l i s t i c and as the performance s t a n d a r d  At  the  Gronlund c a l l s t h i s l e a r n i n g  of m i n i m a l e s s e n t i a l s the mastery l e v e l of l e a r n i n g and  explains  c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s are e a s i e s t t o d e s i g n , c o n s t r u c t , i n t e r p r e t at t h i s l e v e l .  the  n e c e s s a r y t o s e t mastery  so t h a t t h i s knowledge can a c t as  b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r l e a r n i n g i n the f i e l d .  as  that  and  Once s t u d e n t s have mastered the minimum  e s s e n t i a l s i n a f i e l d of study they e n t e r a d e v e l o p m e n t a l l e v e l of l e a r n i n g where each s t u d e n t i s encouraged t o s t r i v e f o r the maximum l e v e l o f achievement and  e x c e l l e n c e of which they are c a p a b l e r a t h e r  than the mastery of some p r e - d e t e r m i n e d c r i t e r i o n .  Obviously  the  use  11  of c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s i s l i m i t e d . complex, t h e  The l e a r n i n g outcomes a r e  domain o f l e a r n i n g t a s k s i s v i r t u a l l y u n l i m i t e d , and  l e a r n i n g i s seldom s e q u e n t i a l  so i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s a r e used  more as g o a l s t o work toward r a t h e r than g o a l s t o be mastered. Norm-referenced t e s t s must be used t o e v a l u a t e s t u d e n t s ' p r o g r e s s a t this  level. From t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n  criterion-referenced  i t can be seen t h a t  t e s t s a r e best u t i l i z e d i n mastery  learning  s i t u a t i o n s where i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and l e a r n i n g outcomes can be very c l e a r l y d e f i n e d . appropriate  Once t h e s e l e a r n i n g outcomes a r e s t a t e d , an  s t a n d a r d of s t u d e n t performance must be e s t a b l i s h e d .  This  i s where a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t can be r e n d e r e d e i t h e r e f f e c t i v e or i n e f f e c t i v e . Shepard (1980) examined the c o n t r o v e r s y e x i s t i n g i n t h e standard-setting She d e l i n e a t e d various  l i t e r a t u r e and p r e s e n t e d a number of a l t e r n a t i v e s . t h e uses o f c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s and suggested  standard-setting  methods f o r each.  The proposed v o l l e y b a l l  p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t r e s e m b l e s her d e s c r i p t i o n of " p u p i l c e r t i f i c a t i o n " . Shepard s t a t e s t h a t when c o n s t r u c t i n g  a criterion-referenced test for  p u p i l c e r t i f i c a t i o n i t i s important t o consider  both a b s o l u t e  judgements about performance and p a s s i n g r a t e s o f p r e v i o u s s t u d e n t s . A b s o l u t e judgements a r e based on e x p e r t s ' qualified individual.  Following  opinions  of a minimally  t h e A n g o f f (1971) method t h e judges  r e v i e w a l l t h e t e s t i t e m s and a s s i g n a p r o b a b i l i t y or s u b j e c t i v e  12  e s t i m a t e o f how l i k e l y i t i s t h a t a j u s t - b a r e l y - q u a l i f i e d person answer c o r r e c t l y .  will  The mastery o r c u t - o f f s c o r e i s s e t a s t h e sum o f  the p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r a l l the items i n the t e s t .  Of c o u r s e ,  this  s t a n d a r d i s based on s u b j e c t i v e r a t i n g s so as Shepard (1980) p o i n t s out i t i s c r i t c i a l t o r e f e r t o p r e v i o u s p a s s i n g r a t e s t o a s s u r e t h e mastery l e v e l i s n o t a r t i f i c i a l l y  too high or t o o low.  When t e s t i t e m s a r e being s e l e c t e d f o r c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e  tests,  i t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t e d u c a t o r s c o n s i d e r t h e s t a g e s o f l e a r n i n g and t h e appropriate prerequisite a b i l i t i e s . a b i l i t i e s i t i s necessary  To i d e n t i f y p r e r e q u i s i t e  t o have a method o f c l a s s i f y i n g  behavior  t h a t e n a b l e s b e h a v i o r a l s k i l l s t o be p l a c e d i n some o r d e r , p r e f e r a b l y h i e r a r c h i c a l l y from l o w e s t t o h i g h e s t o r s i m p l e s t t o most complex. S i n c e t h e g o a l s o f e d u c a t i o n a r e f o c u s e d upon t h e growth and development o f t h e t o t a l c h i l d , e d u c a t o r s must be concerned  with a l l  t h r e e domains o f b e h a v i o r : c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and psychomotor. Harrow (1972) p o i n t s o u t , i t i s d i f f i c u l t  As  t o i d e n t i f y behaviors that  belong e x c l u s i v e l y t o one domain b u t i n o r d e r t o s e t  meaningful  l e a r n i n g outcomes t h e p r i m a r y purpose f o r s t u d y i n g a b e h a v i o r must be i d e n t i f i e d and c l a s s i f i e d i n t o one o f these domains.  Each o f t h e  domains has been o r g a n i z e d i n t o a h i e r a r c h i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme of e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s c a l l e d a taxonomy. Taxonomies f o r t h e c o g n i t i v e (Bloom e t a l , 1956; Gagne, 1965) and a f f e c t i v e ( K r a t h w o h l e t a l , 1964) domains were e s t a b l i s h e d e a r l i e r , and p r o v i d e d a common f o u n d a t i o n upon which t e a c h e r s and c u r r i c u l u m  13  developers  could organize l e a r n i n g experiences  Taxonomies have a l s o p r o v i d e d  for children.  for clarification  of terminology  i na  f i e l d , s y s t e m a t i c development o f a l e a r n i n g t h e o r y and t h e exchange o f e v a l u a t i v e t o o l s and p r o c e d u r e s among t e a c h e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s . The  t r e n d toward movement e f f i c i e n c y a s an e s s e n t i a l f a c t o r f o r  optimum development i n a l l l e a r n i n g domains sparked of a taxonomy f o r t h e psychomotor domain. h i e r a r c h i c a l l y constructed, educators p r e r e q u i s i t e s t h a t a r e necessary movement t a s k s .  the c o n s t r u c t i o n  S i n c e a taxonomy i s  b e n e f i t by becoming aware o f  f o r t h e development o f v a r i o u s  Teachers c a n a l s o i n s u r e t h a t they s e t b e h a v i o r a l  o b j e c t i v e s a t a l l r e l e v a n t l e v e l s o f t h e taxonomy r a t h e r than predominantly  a t t h e lower  levels.  T h i s was a common problem  encountered when s c h o o l c u r r i c u l a were examined i n l i e u o f t h e c o g n i t i v e taxonomy o f e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . Many o f t h e i n i t i a l a t t e m p t s o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems i n t h e psychomotor a r e a were concerned w i t h c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f b e h a v i o r according t o task v a r i a b l e s ( F i t t s ,  1962, 1964).  F l e i s h m a n (1964)  even went so f a r a s t o d e v e l o p an e x t e n s i v e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s t o i d e n t i f y e l e v e n a b i l i t y and n i n e p r o f i c i e n c y f a c t o r s t h a t were independent o f each o t h e r but common t o a v a r i e t y o f psychomotor skills.  These e x p e r i m e n t e r s  were e x t r e m e l y  concerned w i h c a t e g o r i z i n g  psychomotor t a s k s but p a i d l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o t h e l e a r n e r and t h e l e a r n i n g processes behavior.  necessary  t o achieve  the d i f f e r e n t categories of  I n 1970, Gagne i n t r o d u c e d a h i e r a r c h i c a l system o f e i g h t  14  l e v e l s of l e a r n e d b e h a v i o r o b s e r v i n g and  promoting each c a t e g o r y " .  psychomotorically to  based on "the c o n d i t i o n s n e c e s s a r y  o r i e n t e d and  the c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r  Two  he c o n s i d e r e d  for  of h i s c a t e g o r i e s were them t o be p r e r e q u i s i t i e s  l e v e l s f u r t h e r up the h i e r a r c h y .  He  called  the psychomoter c a t e g o r i e s s t i m u l u s r e s p o n s e l e a r n i n g , which r e q u i r e d a s p e c i f i c motor r e s p o n s e , and c h a i n i n g which s t a r t e d w i t h a s i n g l e s t i m u l u s cue t h a t t r i g g e r e d a s e r i e s of motor r e s p o n s e s . (1971  a,b)  added a t h i r d c a t e g o r y  Merrill  c a l l e d complex s k i l l which r e q u i r e d  the e x e c u t i o n of a number of d i f f e r e n t c h a i n s t h a t a r e each t r i g g e r e d by s e p a r a t e cues p r e s e n t e d experimenter considered  i n varying orders.  environmental  they p l a y i n response s e l e c t i o n .  s t i m u l i and  An i m p o r t a n t  G a g n e / M e r r i l l taxonomy d i d assume was processes  f o r l e a r n i n g a new  Unfortunately, neither the i m p o r t a n t  d i s c o v e r y t h a t the  t h a t the c o n d i t i o n s and  s i n g l e response a c t a r e very  r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e response i s the m a n i p u l a t i o n or a g r o s s body movement.  Initially  role  t h i s i d e a was  similar  of two f i n g e r s  very s p e c u l a t i v e ,  but as more r e s e a r c h e r s became i n v o l v e d w i t h d e v e l o p i n g  a taxonomy f o r  the psychomotor domain they a l l adopted t h i s a p p r o a c h .  They became  i n c r e a s i n g l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the s i m i l a r i t i e s of the l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s a c r o s s the domain of psychomotor s k i l l s r a t h e r than the t h a t e x i s t between p a r t i c u l a r t a s k s or  diversities  behaviors.  Simpson (1966) made one o f the f i r s t a t t e m p t s a t d e v i s i n g a taxonomy s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t i n g t o the psychomotor domain. h i e r a r c h i c a l l y organized  She  l e a r n i n g sequences a c c o r d i n g t o r e s p o n s e  complexity.  The  initial  l e v e l was  perception dealing with  s t i m u l a t i o n , the s e l e c t i o n of cues and t r a n s l a t i o n of information.  The  second l e v e l c o n s i d e r e d  a c c o r d i n g t o m e n t a l , e m o t i o n a l , and c a l l e d guided learning. was  Level three  r e s p o n s e and d e a l t w i t h i m i t a t i o n s and  t i t l e d mechanism.  The  r e s p o n s e , a d a p t a t i o n and  this  the r e a d i n e s s of the l e a r n e r  physical set.  H a b i t u a t i o n o f movement was  sensory  trial  was  and  error  the c o n c e r n of l e v e l f o u r which  next t h r e e l e v e l s were complex o v e r t  o r i g i n a t i o n of movement.  Simpson's model  p r o v i d e s a good d e s c r i p t i v e h i e r a r c h y of the s t a g e s a l e a r n e r passes through e n r o u t e t o mastery of a s k i l l .  However, as Harrow (1972)  e x p l a i n s i t has l i m i t e d use as a g u i d e l i n e f o r w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r a l objectives. and  The  f i r s t two l e v e l s a r e u n o b s e r v a b l e and  four are inherent i n s k i l l  levels  three  l e a r n i n g but do not p r o v i d e a good  p o i n t a t which t o e v a l u a t e s t u d e n t s because they have not yet l e a r n e d the s k i l l .  The  f i n a l three l e v e l s are observable  w i t h c r e a t i v i t y which i s d i f f i c u l t h e r s e l f presented  but a r e concerned  t o measure o b j e c t i v e l y . Harrow  a very i n t r i c a t e psychomotor taxonomy t h a t  c l a s s i f i e d only observable  movement b e h a v i o r .  The  main c a t e g o r i e s  were r e f l e x movements, b a s i c fundamental movements, p e r c e p t u a l abilities,  physical a b i l i t i e s ,  s k i l l e d movements and  communication w i t h a l a r g e number of s u b - c a t e g o r i e s classification.  Although  o r d e r e d , mastery of one  these o b s e r v a b l e  l e v e l was  non-discursive under each  b e h a v i o r s were s e q u e n t i a l l y  not n e c e s s a r i l y a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r  the e v i d e n c e o f b e h a v i o r s a t a h i g h e r l e v e l .  For example, i t i s " q u i t e  feasible  t h a t p e r c e p t u a l and p h y s i c a l a b i l i t i e s a r e d e v e l o p i n g a t t h e  same t i m e , w i t h o u t one b e i n g a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e o t h e r .  A l s o , many  of t h e b e h a v i o r s u b - c a t e g o r i e s were e i t h e r i n n a t e or m a t u r a t i o n a l l y developed  r a t h e r than l e a r n e d so e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s would have  l i m i t e d use. A more r e c e n t taxonomy f o r t h e motor domain was developed Jewett e t a l . (1971). affective  I t more c l o s e l y  by  p a r a l l e l s t h e c o g n i t i v e and  taxonomies because i t d e a l s w i t h t h e p r o c e s s o f l e a r n i n g  r a t h e r than t h e p r o d u c t which was emphasized i n t h e p r e c e d i n g two models by Simpson and Harrow.  I n a monograph (1977) Jewett and M u l l a n  e l a b o r a t e t h e Purpose P r o c e s s C u r r i c u l u m Framework (PPCF) which was developed  as a c u l m i n a t i o n of the e f f o r t s o f many p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n  professionals.  The two major dimensions  were purpose o f human  movement (why we move) and p r o c e s s o f human movement (how t o move). Purposes o f movement i n a c h i e v i n g t h e g o a l s o f man have been o r g a n i z e d i n t o t h r e e s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s : i n d i v i d u a l development, c o p i n g and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . the p r o c e s s of movement.  The second dimension  environmental  o f t h e PPCF i s  Here t h e concern was on u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e  l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s and d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between l e a r n i n g o p e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r v a r i o u s t y p e s o f movement. The  taxonomy began w i t h g e n e r i c movements which i n c l u d e d  p e r c e i v i n g and p a t t e r n i n g .  These were c o n s i d e r e d movement p r o c e s s e s  which f a c i l i t a t e t h e development o f human movement p a t t e r n s .  The next  stage was o r d i n a t i v e movement which i n c l u d e s a d a p t i n g and r e f i n i - n g  motor s k i l l  a c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i f i c t a s k demands.  The h i g h e s t l e v e l of  l e a r n i n g and performance was d e s i g n a t e d as c r e a t i v e movement. the a b i l i t y t o v a r y , i m p r o v i s e and compose s k i l l These h i e r a r c h i c a l s t a g e s o f motor s k i l l  became  Here  evident.  l e a r n i n g can be r e f e r r e d t o  when i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r a c e r t a i n s k i l l a r e d e s i r e d .  It  would be d i f f i c u l t t o o u t l i n e s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s a t t h e h i g h e r l e v e l s of s k i l l , i . e . , c r e a t i v e movement, but i t s h o u l d be p o s s i b l e t o c l e a r l y define objectives of p e r c e i v i n g , p a t t e r n i n g , The  f o r s p o r t s k i l l s a t t h e psychomotor l e v e l s a d a p t i n g and r e f i n i n g .  t h e o r e t i c a l background f o r p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g has been  examined and c u r r e n t considered.  test construction  With t h i s information  p r o c e d u r e s have been  i t i s important to review e x i s t i n g  volleyball tests. Initial volleyball skill 40's  t e s t s were developed i n t h e 1930's and  and they p r o f e s s e d t o e v a l u a t e v o l l e y b a l l p l a y i n g a b i l i t y .  The  most commonly used s k i l l t e s t f o r v o l l e y b a l l p l a y i n g a b i l i t y has been the r e p e a t e d w a l l v o l l e y t e s t w i t h a wide range o f v a r i a t i o n s i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f t e s t p r o c e d u r e ( B a s s e t t , Glassow and L o c k e , 1937; Crogen, 1943; Brady, 1945; West, 1957; C l i f t o n , 1963).  One o f t h e  e a r l i e s t t e s t s proposed by French and Cooper i n 1937 r e q u i r e d  subjects  t o stand t h r e e f e e t away from a w a l l and count t h e number of t i m e s they c o u l d v o l l e y a b a l l t o a t a r g e t a r e a above 7.5 f e e t on t h e w a l l w i t h i n a 15 second t i m e l i m i t .  Mohr and H a v e r s t i c k  the v a l i d i t y of t h e t e s t i n c r e a s e d  (1955) found  as they moved t h e s u b j e c t s  that  away  18  from t h e w a l l from t h r e e t o seven f e e t . now r e q u i r e d  A greater  degree o f s k i l l was  t o c o n t r o l t h e b a l l so t h e t e s t was found t o be more  d i s c r i m i n a t i n g , however c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y t o game p l a y i n g a b i l i t y i s disputable.  A c c o r d i n g t o J e w e t t and M u l l a n ' s psychomotor taxonomy,  r e p e a t e d w a l l v o l l e y t e s t s would be a t t h e s k i l l l e v e l o f p a t t e r n i n g while  p l a y i n g i n a game s i t u a t i o n would be c o n s i d e r e d a much more  d i f f i c u l t s k i l l , probably a t the l e v e l of varying  or improvising.  A l t h o u g h h i g h l y s k i l l e d p e r f o r m e r s i n a game s i t u a t i o n have mastered prerequisite patterning  movements and would s c o r e w e l l on t h e w a l l  v o l l e y , the converse i s not t r u e .  Players  s c o r i n g w e l l on t h e w a l l  v o l l e y would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s c o r e w e l l i n a game s i t u a t i o n because they may be i n a s i t u a t i o n w e l l above t h e i r s k i l l  level.  Johnson (1967) c r i t i c i z e d t h e r e p e a t e d w a l l v o l l e y t e s t s t h a t p l a y e r s were never r e q u i r e d in  a game s i t u a t i o n .  administer  t o judge a b a l l r e b o u n d i n g o f f a w a l l  She a l s o s a i d t h a t i t was a d i f f i c u l t t e s t t o  t o an e n t i r e c l a s s because o f l i m i t e d w a l l space.  devised a high v o l l e y - t o - s e l f t e s t .  P l a y e r s were r e q u i r e d  around i n .  A v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t o f .74 was c a l c u l a t e d when t e s t  t e s t may have been s i m p l e r  still  a 10 f o o t  They were a l l o w e d a 10 f o o t by 15 f o o t a r e a t o move  r e s u l t s were c o r r e l a t e d t o j u d g e s ' r a n k i n g s o f game p l a y i n g The  She  to volley  t o themselves f o r 30 seconds e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e b a l l c l e a r e d rope each t i m e .  saying  questionable.  to administer  Volleying to oneself  ability.  but c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y was  i n a 10 f o o t by 15 f o o t a r e a  would a g a i n be c o n s i d e r e d end of J e w e t t and M u l l a n ' s  a p a t t e r n i n g movement a t the  lesser-skilled  taxonomy.  Chun (1969) d e v i s e d a r e l i a b l e and  v a l i d a l t e r n a t i v e to t e s t  the  overhead v o l l e y - p a s s w i t h the use of a b a l l machine t o r e l e a s e b a l l s c o n s i s t e n t l y and a t a r g e t a r e a on the c o u r t much l i k e t h a t a p l a y e r would a c t u a l l y aim f o r i n a game s i t u a t i o n .  Chun was  c a r e f u l not  to  g e n e r a l i z e her r e s u l t s t o v o l l e y b a l l p l a y i n g a b i l i t y .  A validity  of  .81 was  c a l c u l a t e d by comparing t e s t r e s u l t s t o judges r a t i n g s of  s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t y t o v o l l e y i n a game s i t u a t i o n . was  The  Chun t e s t  a l s o c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the C l i f t o n w a l l v o l l e y t e s t and an  c o r r e l a t i o n of .77 was  achieved.  the  score  intertest  Because Chun's t e s t r e q u i r e d  s u b j e c t s t o judge an oncoming b a l l and move i n t o p o s i t i o n t o v o l l e y it,  the s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o f u n c t i o n a t the psychomotor l e v e l of  a d a p t i n g or r e f i n i n g which i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e g o a l f o r h i g h s c h o o l and  college level players.  Chun c r i t i c i z e s the use of t e s t e r s t o t o s s  b a l l s because the human f a c t o r negates o b j e c t i v i t y and reliability.  T h i s may  lowers  be t r u e t o an e x t e n t but the a b i l i t y  a n t i c i p a t e a t o s s by w a t c h i n g a t o s s e r ' s p r e p a r a t i o n and  to  r e l e a s e of  the b a l l g i v e s the s u b j e c t a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of i n f o r m a t i o n i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the m o t o r i c r e s p o n s e .  The  r e l e a s e of a b a l l from a  b a l l machine can be v e r y d e c e p t i v e i f a s u b j e c t i s u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h i s apparatus.  There i s a l s o a problem w i t h the l a c k o f a v a i l a b i l i t y  of v o l l e y b a l l t o s s i n g machines so the s l i g h t l o s s o f o b j e c t i v i t y i s probably  overshadowed by the p r a c t i c a l i t y o f u s i n g a s k i l l e d tos-ser.  20  It  s h o u l d a l s o be noted t h a t Chun (1969) a n a l y z e d h e r t e s t  i n c l u d i n g a l l overhead passes t h a t s u c c e s s f u l l y reached  results  t h e t a r g e t and  then r e p e a t e d t h e a n a l y s i s d i s a l l o w i n g any passes t h a t were n o t l e g a l l y contacted.  The r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r when o n l y l e g a l c o n t a c t s were c o n s i d e r e d .  This  i s an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t e c h n i q u e o r t h e p r o c e s s o f movement s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a l o n g w i t h t h e product o f movement ( o b j e c t i v e s c o r e ) . Another commonly used s k i l l t e s t f o r v o l l e y b a l l i s s e r v i n g (Lopez, 1957; Brumbach, 1969).  I t i s n o t c l e a r whether t h e underhand  or overhand s e r v e was e v a l u a t e d .  R u s s e l l and Lange (1940) combined  the w a l l v o l l e y and s e r v i n g t e s t but both measurements o n l y r e q u i r e d s k i l l a t t h e p a t t e r n i n g l e v e l so a g a i n v o l l e y b a l l p l a y i n g a b i l i t y was not l o g i c a l l y In  evaluated.  1974, Sandra Fawcett reviewed  volleyball tests.  She was concerned  t e s t s r e l a t e d t o game performance.  the v a l i d i t y of e x i s t i n g w i t h how w e l l v o l l e y b a l l  F i f t e e n female  university  skill students  of v a r y i n g v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l background were a s s e s s e d on f i v e v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l t e s t s ; t h e Brady V o l l e y b a l l T e s t , t h e Cunningham and G a r r i s o n High W a l l V o l l e y T e s t , t h e French and Cooper S e r v i c e T e s t , t h e S i n g e r D i g T e s t and t h e S i n g e r S p i k e T e s t . low but Fawcett  concluded  t h a t even t h e b e t t e r t e s t s ( d i g and h i g h  w a l l v o l l e y ) were o n l y moderately game s i t u a t i o n . used weighted  S u b j e c t numbers were  related to v o l l e y b a l l a b i l i t y i n a  She d i d however p o s t u l a t e a s u b j e c t i v e e q u a t i o n . w h i c h  values o f the t e s t scores according t o the d i f f i c u l t y of  the v a r i o u s s k i l l s and  t h e i r occurrence  i n a game.  I n a subsequent  s t u d y , W i l l i a m s and Fawcett (1975) d e v i s e d a s t e p w i s e m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s to p r e d i c t o v e r a l l v o l l e y b a l l playing a b i l i t y . They found t h a t the h i g h w a l l v o l l e y t e s t i n c o m b i n a t i o n  w i t h the d i g  t e s t accounted f o r 74% o f the t o t a l v a r i a n c e i n v o l l e y b a l l w i t h a m u l t i p l e R of  .863.  C a u t i o n i s encouraged when i n t e r p r e t i n g  these r e s u l t s because o f t h e low number of s u b j e c t s and number of t r i a l s per t e s t .  ability  The  s e r v e and  the v e r y  low  s p i k e t e s t s were never  c o n s i d e r e d i n the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s because v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were too low.  The concept of d e v i s i n g a m u l t i p l e  r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i s a good one  but not a t the expense of  c o n s t r u c t i n g v a l i d and r e l i a b l e s k i l l necessary  f o r a worthwhile  tests.  More r e s e a r c h i s  e q u a t i o n t o be c o n s t r u c t e d .  A r e v i e w of p r e v i o u s l y c o n s t r u c t e d v o l l e y b a l l t e s t s shows a t r e n d from individual s k i l l  t e s t s i n an a r t i f i c i a l environment ( i . e . ,  wall volley t e s t s ) to i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g movement and Chun, 1969) Fawcett,  t o combined s k i l l  1975).  repeated  t e s t s i n a more game-like  judgement s k i l l s (Johnson,  t e s t s (AAHPER, 1967;  1967;  W i l l i a m s and  To d a t e , very l i t t l e emphasis has been g i v e n t o the  p r o c e s s of s k i l l performance and t h e r e f o r e s u b j e c t s a r e not p e n a l i z e d for  poor t e c h n i q u e .  proper  At the i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l of s k i l l  t e c h n i q u e i s as e s s e n t i a l as the product  elements of performance w i l l be e v a l u a t e d i n the proficiency  test.  acquisition  of movement. volleyball  Both  CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURE Overview The proposed  v o l l e y b a l l p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a  s t r a t i f i e d random sample of 48 i n d i v i d u a l s who  were e i t h e r s t u d e n t s or  Alumni o f the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba or t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  T e s t i n g o c c u r r e d i n the s p r i n g of 1985 a t both  institutions.  An e q u a l number of males and females ( e i g h t ) were  s e l e c t e d f o r each of the t h r e e l e v e l s of s k i l l ; n o v i c e or non-instructed, varsity players.  i n s t r u c t e d a t the i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l and e l i t e or The p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t e v a l u a t e d f o u r components of  v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l and knowledge a t the i n t r o d u c t o r y  level:  1. c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t s about s k i l l s , s t r a t e g y and 2. performance  a n a l y s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l and team s k i l l s  3. o b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of the overhead overhand  rules  pass, forearm  pass,  s e r v e and s p i k e ( p r o d u c t s c o r e )  4. s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of the t e c h n i q u e i n v o l v e d i n the overhand  p a s s , forearm p a s s , overhand  s e r v e and s p i k e ( p r o c e s s  score) . The c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y or domain-referenced  validity (Safrit,  1977)  of the c o g n i t i v e t e s t was e s t a b l i s h e d by c h e c k i n g t h a t t e s t q u e s t i o n s matched the t a b l e of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s d e s i g n e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e domain of i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l knowledge. a n a l y s i s was  The v i d e o tape  skill  designed t o a s s e s s the a b i l i t y t o diagnose and  22  correct  23  common e r r o r s i n the b a s i c s k i l l s of v o l l e y b a l l . claimed  due  t o the agreement of a p a n e l of e x p e r t s  s k i l l e r r o r s were r e p r e s e n t e d .  t h a t a h i g h s c o r e on a s k i l l t e s t s h o u l d  the b a s i s f o r  the  S a f r i t (1981) e x p l a i n e d  c l o s e l y a p p r o x i m a t e the  d e f i n i t i o n of good performance of t h a t s k i l l .  each of the  was  that important  L o g i c a l v a l i d i t y was  c o n s t r u c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l t e s t s .  were c o n s u l t e d  Content v a l i d i t y  Experts  i n the  field  t o ensure the t e s t s d i d p a r a l l e l good performance of  skills.  Source of Data The  s t r a t i f i c a t i o n s of each s k i l l l e v e l were d e f i n e d and  e i g h t male and classification.  e i g h t female s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d i n each The  c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s who  non-instructed had  group c o n s i s t e d of u n i v e r s i t y or  never t a k e n an i n s t r u c t i o n a l v o l l e y b a l l  c o u r s e or p a r t i c i p a t e d on an e l i t e team. highschool  then  team was  acceptable.  P a r t i c i p a t i o n on a  Volunteers  were s o l i c i t e d from a  f i r s t year P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n c o u r s e a t the U n i v e r s i t y of M a n i t o b a . The  remaining eight non-instructed  s u b j e c t s were randomly s e l e c t e d  from i n t r a m u r a l p l a y e r s e i t h e r a t the U n i v e r s i t y of M a n i t o b a or  the  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The  i n s t r u c t e d s u b j e c t s were e i g h t males and  e i g h t females  who  were randomly s e l e c t e d from a p o s s i b l e 47 s t u d e n t s i n the s i x week i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l , c o u r s e a t the U n i v e r s i t y of M a n i t o b a . The  p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t was  i n c l u d e d as p a r t of t h e i r c o u r s e e v a l u a t i o n .  The e l i t e p l a y e r s were r e q u i r e d  t o have p l a y e d a t l e a s t one year  of i n t e r - c o l l e g i a t e o r e l i t e p r o v i n c i a l team v o l l e y b a l l . S i x o f t h e women were f i r s t o r second year v a r s i t y a t h l e t e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba.  The r e m a i n i n g two women and a l l e i g h t men were Alumni of  Canadian I n t e r - c o l l e g i a t e v o l l e y b a l l teams. Test  Construction T h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e procedure w i l l d e a l w i t h t h e method o f  construction later  u t i l i z e d f o r each t e s t . Data a n a l y s i s w i l l f o l l o w i n a  section. 1) C o g n i t i v e  Test  The c o g n i t i v e t e s t was d e s i g n e d as a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d I n i t i a l l y , e x p e r t s i n t h e f i e l d were c o n s u l t e d domain o f i n t r o d u c t o r y  results.  t o help define the  l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l knowledge. A p i l o t study was  conducted by t e s t i n g 59 i n s t r u c t e d s u b j e c t s questions.  on 35 m u l t i p l e  An i t e m a n a l y s i s was conducted on t h e s e i n i t i a l Generally  test.  choice test  when m u l t i p l e c h o i c e i t e m s a r e c o n s t u c t e d f o r a  n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t , a b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n o f .30 o r above i s d e s i r e d a s t h e i n d e x o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( S a f r i t , 1981).  In general,  t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t s t u d e n t s who s c o r e w e l l on a q u e s t i o n a l s o w e l l on t h e t o t a l t e s t .  score  However, t h i s s t r i n g e n t b i s e r i a l c o e f f i c i e n t  i s n o t r e a l i s t i c f o r a c r i t i e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t where t h e m a j o r i t y of i n s t r u c t e d s t u d e n t s a r e expected t o pass t h e t e s t i t e m s (Brown, 1981).  Because d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and i t e m d i f f i c u l t y were n o t t h e g o a l s  of t h e p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t , r a t h e r t h a n u s i n g  a c u t - o f f point f o r the  25  selection of items, the information from the item analysis was used to improve ambiguous questions or replace distractors that were never used or used too often. Seven of the original questions were deleted, eight were kept and twenty were revised. The 20 revisions plus 12 new questions were tested on 73 non-instructed students from a f i r s t year Physical Education class at the University of British Columbia.  Again an item  analysis was conducted and the questions were scrutinized. In order to select the most relevant questions a content balance table was constructed.  (See Table I.)  Table I Content Balance Table Cognitive Levels Content Areas  Knowledge  Comprehension  Application  Skill Techniques  9, 23, 24, 26  1, 4, 6, 18, 19, 22, 25, 30  2, 13, 14, 29  16~  Strategy and Tactics  5  3, 7, 16, 17  8, 15, 27, 31  9  Procedures and Conduct  37, 38  11, 12  Rules  10, 34  32, 35, 36, 39  Terminology  Total  4 40  21, 28  7 2  History  20  1  Equipment  33  1  "Tl  20  9  40"  26  The  domain of i n t r o d u c t o r y v o l l e y b a l l knowledge was  i t s c o n t e n t a r e a s and  divided into  40 o f the p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d q u e s t i o n s were  s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o Bloom's f i r s t t h r e e l e v e l s on the c o g n i t i v e taxonomy; knowledge, comprehension and a p p l i c a t i o n . q u e s t i o n s can be found i n Appendix  A copy of  the  A.  2) Performance A n a l y s i s The  i n v e s t i g a t o r p o s t u l a t e d t h a t i t was  important  for teachers  and coaches t o a n a l y z e s k i l l s and be a b l e t o d e t e c t r e l e v a n t e r r o r s i n s k i l l execution. v i d e o tape was  I n o r d e r t o e v a l u a t e t h i s a b i l i t y , an a p p r o p r i a t e  c o n s t r u c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s purposes.  Representative  e p i s o d e s were s e l e c t e d from two i n t r o d u c t o r y v o l l e y b a l l c l a s s e s , performing  the b a s i c s k i l l s o f overhead p a s s i n g , f o r e a r m  overhand s e r v i n g and  spiking.  passing,  Tnese s t u d e n t s were p e r f o r m i n g  the  s k i l l t e s t s as p a r t of t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n f o r the c o u r s e t h u s a l l e r r o r s p o r t r a y e d were a u t h e n t i c . The  i n v e s t i g a t o r , w i t h the a i d of two e x p e r t s , chose 15  of i n d i v i d u a l e r r o r s and  episodes  f i v e e p i s o d e s o f team e r r o r s t o be  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the performance a n a l y s i s expected  at t h i s  level.  P i l o t work w i t h v i d e o a n a l y s i s had r e v e a l e d t h a t open-ended q u e s t i o n s s o l i c i t e d a very wide range of r e s p o n s e s t h a t made o b j e c t i v e evaluation d i f f i c u l t .  Consequently,  a m u l t i p l e c h o i c e format  adopted f o r the r e f i n e d v i d e o a n a l y s i s p o r t i o n of the t e s t . t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e i n t r o d u c e d each e p i s o d e  was The  by f i r s t p r e s e n t i n g the  q u e s t i o n on the v i d e o s c r e e n thus f o c u s i n g the s u b j e c t s on  the  27  p e r t i n e n t a s p e c t s of the performance t o f o l l o w . phrased as i f the p l a y e r on the v i d e o tape was a s s i s t a n c e , i . e . , "Why  A l l q u e s t i o n s were a s k i n g the v i e w e r f o r  c a n ' t I get the b a l l t o go f a r t h e r f o r w a r d ? " .  Three r e p e t i t i o n s of the e r r o r were p r e s e n t e d f o l l o w e d choice  by the  r e s p o n s e s t o the p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d q u e s t i o n .  The  multiple three  r e p e t i t i o n s of the e r r o r were r e p e a t e d w i t h a 15 second response time allotted.  A f t e r 10 seconds, a tone sounded t o t e l l  l o o k up and The  prepare to attend  tape c o n s i s t e d  pass e r r o r s , two greater  the s u b j e c t s  to  t o the next e p i s o d e .  of t h r e e overhead pass e r r o r s , f i v e  overhand s e r v i n g e r r o r s and  number of f o r e a r m p a s s i n g  and  forearm  five spiking errors.  s p i k i n g e r r o r s were s e l e c t e d  the p i l o t t e s t r e v e a l e d  t h o s e t o be most p r o b l e m a t i c t o  introductory students.  A copy of the q u e s t i o n s can be l o c a t e d i n  Appendix  as  the  B.  3) O b j e c t i v e The  A  Performance E v a l u a t i o n  - P r o d u c t Score  f o u r s k i l l t e s t s were c o n s t r u c t e d  a p p r o x i m a t i o n of a good performance. psychomotor taxonomies i t was  to require  closest  A f t e r c o n s u l t i n g the a v a i l a b l e  decided that a player p r o f i c i e n t at  i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l of v o l l e y b a l l s h o u l d be a b l e t o p e r f o r m the  the  four  b a s i c s k i l l s a t J e w e t t ' s f o u r t h l e v e l of motor performance ( J e w e t t Mullan,  1977).  T h i s l e v e l i s c a l l e d the r e f i n i n g stage and  d i r e c t e d toward t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of smooth and  i t is  e f f i c i e n t c o n t r o l of  e s t a b l i s h e d motor p a t t e r n s , toward the acheivement of p r e c i s i o n toward the h a b i t u a t i o n of performance.  and  and  28  A l t h o u g h a number o f d i f f e r e n t t e s t i n g d a t e s were used f o r d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was s t a n d a r d i z e d . were a l l o w e d  Subjects  10 t o 15 minutes t o p r o p e r l y s t r e t c h and warm up.  A  p r a c t i c e n e t was a l w a y s a v a i l a b l e so s u b j e c t s c o u l d keep warm w h i l e waiting their turn.  An a s s i s t a n t a d m i n i s t r a t o r was g i v e n  instruction  i n t o s s i n g t h e b a l l p r o p e r l y w i t h a two-handed underhand motion and s u f f i c i e n t a r c so i t was p o s s i b l e f o r s u b j e c t s t o move i n t o t h e expected p o s i t i o n . up.  The a s s i s t a n t p r a c t i c e d w h i l e t h e s u b j e c t s warmed  I f a t any time t h e a s s i s t a n t f e l t t h a t a t o s s was e r r a t i c ,  another t r i a l  was g i v e n .  A l l t r i a l s o f a l l f o u r s k i l l s were v i d e o  taped so t h e two judges d o i n g t h e r a t i n g s d i d n o t a l w a y s have t o be present.  The v i d e o t a p i n g o f a l l s k i l l s was done from a l a t e r a l view  so forward-backward movement c o u l d be h i g h l i g h t e d . B e f o r e b e i n g t e s t e d on each s k i l l , s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d one p r a c t i c e trial  t o p r e p a r e them f o r what t h e t o s s would l o o k l i k e .  t r i a l s were g i v e n . order.  The s k i l l  t e s t was always a d m i n i s t e r e d  Then t h e 10 i n t h e same  Each s u b j e c t performed t h e overhead pass f o l l o w e d d i r e c t l y by  the f o r e a r m pass s i n c e t h e t e s t s were so s i m i l a r . s u b j e c t s were s e p a r a t e d  Male and female  f o r t h e overhand s e r v i n g and t h e s p i k i n g t e s t  so t h e n e t h e i g h t c o u l d be a d j u s t e d p r o p e r l y . I n t e r n a t i o n a l v o l l e y b a l l net h e i g h t s were used; 2.24 metres f o r t h e women and 2.43 f o r t h e men. a) Overhead p a s s i n g .  On one s i d e o f t h e n e t t h e v o l l e y b a l l  was d i v i d e d i n h a l f from t h e n e t t o t h e back l i n e , i . e . , n i n e l o n g by 4.5 metres wide.  court  metres  A one metre by one metre box was taped t o  29  the f l o o r a s a t a r g e t a r e a .  T h i s box was 10 c e n t i m e t r e s  from t h e  c e n t r e c o u r t l i n e and 1.75 metres from e i t h e r o f t h e b o r d e r i n g sidelines.  The t o s s e r was l o c a t e d i n t h i s t a r g e t a r e a .  were i n s t r u c t e d t o s t a r t on an X taped  t o t h e f l o o r two metres from  the back l i n e and 2.25 metres from e i t h e r s i d e l i n e . trial  The s u b j e c t s  t h e s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o r e t u r n t o t h e X.  Between each  Refer t o F i g u r e 1.  Figure 1 1x1 meter target tosser  9 meters i  * student 4.5 meters  The  s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t t h e a s s i s t a n t would be t o s s i n g b a l l s  f o r them t o r e c e i v e i n v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e d e s i g n a t e d boundaries.  They were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r moving i n t o p o s i t i o n and  l e g a l l y overhead p a s s i n g t h e b a l l back t o t h e t o s s e r . considered  The t r i a l was  s u c c e s s f u l and s c o r e d a p o i n t i f t h e t o s s e r c o u l d c a t c h t h e  b a l l above w a i s t l e v e l w i t h two hands w h i l e s t a n d i n g on b o t h f e e t w i t h i n t h e one by one metre t a r g e t a r e a .  I f t h e t o s s e r had t o jump t o  c a t c h a b a l l t h a t was going over t h e n e t , i t s c o r e d z e r o .  At some  p o i n t i n i t ' s f l i g h t p a t h t h e b a l l had t o r e a c h a h e i g h t above n e t level.  T h i s was judged by t h e t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r who was d o i n g t h e  v i d e o t a p i n g and had a s i d e view o f t h e s u b j e c t , t h e t o s s e r and t h e  30  flight path of the b a l l .  If the pass was not above net level, the  administrator informed the tosser and the t r i a l scored zero.  At the  end of the 10 t r i a l s the subject received a product score out of 10 which represented a l l successful t r i a l s . b) Forearm passing.  The test was carried out in the same format  as the overhead passing test with a l l the same court markings and rules for successful passes.  The only change in instructions was that  the ball had to be legally forearm passed.  Again the subject received  a product score out of 10. c) Overhand serving.  On one side of the net the volleyball court  was divided in half from the net to the back line, i . e . , wide by nine metres long.  4.5 metres  The subjects positioned themselves in the  serving area on the opposite side of the court. responsible for serving 10 balls in a row.  Each subject was  The first five were to be  served diagonally to land anywhere in the cross-court area.  The last  five were to be served straight ahead in a down-the-line position. Serves landing in the proper court or on the boundary lines were considered good and scored a point.  Serves that cleared the net but  landed in the wrong half of the court scored zero. Previous serving tests allotted higher points for accuracy in different court areas.  The subject had to be so concerned with  accuracy that technique probably suffered.  Since no subjective  evaluation was undertaken, a player could use a very simple underhand serve and receive a high score.  In modern volleyball the serve is  31  used as a weapon and even more i m p o r t a n t  than p i n p o i n t a c c u r a c y  v e l o c i t y and f l a t t r a j e c t o r y of the b a l l . t e s t s , the overhand s e r v e t e s t was  designed  As w i t h the o t h e r to correspond  i s the  skill  t o the  c r i t e r i o n of good performance a t the r e f i n i n g l e v e l of performance. d) S p i k i n g . approximately  The  t o s s e r was  p o s i t i o n e d near the net a t  c e n t e r c o u r t and used a two-handed underhand t o s s t o  s i m u l a t e a s e t about two t o t h r e e metres above the h e i g h t of the and about .5 t o 1.5 metres away from the n e t . more d i f f i c u l t than the one  trial.  This tossing s k i l l  f o r the overhead or forearm  i f the t o s s e r f e l t a s e t was  net  e r r a t i c the s u b j e c t was  was  pass so a g a i n  given  another  B a l l s were t o s s e d t o the s u b j e c t s on t h e i r power o r on-hand  s i d e , i . e . , right-handed  h i t t e r s a t t a c k e d the b a l l from t h e l e f t  front  p o s i t i o n and l e f t - h a n d e d h i t t e r s a t t a c k e d the b a l l from the r i g h t front position.  T h i s s k i l l was  not as advanced as h i t t i n g a b a l l t h a t  c r o s s e d the s p i k e r s body b e f o r e b e i n g c o n t a c t e d , i . e . , o f f - h a n d . The  s u b j e c t was  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r approaching  i n a row over the net and i n t o the c o u r t . designated  i n the c o u r t because i t was  and  s p i k i n g 10 b a l l s  No t a r g e t a r e a s were  f e l t t h a t the s k i l l of p r o p e r l y  t i m i n g a v o l l e y b a l l s p i k e t o a c c u r a t e l y p l a c e i t i n the c o u r t 10 was  i t s e l f a t the l e v e l of r e f i n i n g a c c o r d i n g t o J e w e t t and  taxonomy.  I f the b a l l  f l i g h t path was  ' k n i c k e d ' the net on i t ' s way  times  Mullan's  over but  the  not r e a l l y a l t e r e d i t was c o n s i d e r e d a p o i n t .  However, i f the b a l l was  h i t i n t o t h e tape a t the t o p of the net  happened t o r o l l o v e r , i t was  not c o n s i d e r e d a p o i n t .  and  I f the s u b j e c t  32  committed a net fault or a center line fault upon landing, the t r i a l also scored a zero.  The subjects were given sufficient time between  t r i a l s to back-off the net and prepare for the next spike so fatigue did not become a factor in their performance. 4) Subjective Performance Evaluation - Process Score One of the goals of an introductory level volleyball course is to teach proper technique of the basic s k i l l s .  Therefore, the process of  performance was deemed as important as the product of performance in the proficiency test and both components were evaluated.  Subjective  rating scales have been devised for a number of sport s k i l l s . Suttinger (1957) presented a four point rating scale for volleyball playing ability in general (the Suttinger Volleyball Rating Scale). This was not specific enough for the present study so the investigator with the help of other volleyball experts, developed a four point rating scale for each of the four s k i l l s tested.  Detailed  descriptions of the overhead pass, forearm pass, serve and spike were devised at each of the four levels of performance.  The judges were  presented with these descriptions prior to rating the subjects and were given time to scrutinize the information and ask questions of the investigator.  Both judges had five years coaching experience as  university coaches or elite provincial team coaches in the province of British Columbia.  A copy of the s k i l l descriptions and the judges  tally sheets can be found in Appendix C and D.  33  As p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , a l l t r i a l s o f a l l s u b j e c t s were v i d e o taped.  The tapes were made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e two judges so they c o u l d  r e v i e w them a t t h e i r own speed and go back and r e p e a t e p i s o d e s i f they f e l t i t was n e c e s s a r y .  T h i s reduced  t h e chance o f e x t e r n a l  d i s t r a c t i o n s t h a t might have a f f e c t e d t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e r a t i n g s . The  judges were r e q u i r e d t o g i v e each s k i l l t r i a l a r a t i n g o f one t o  four.  The s u b j e c t ' s p r o c e s s s c o r e on each s k i l l took i n t o  account  both judges' s c o r e s o f t h e 10 t r i a l s , i . e . , t o t a l s c o r e judge one p l u s t o t a l s c o r e judge two d i v i d e d by 20 equaled  t o t a l s c o r e out o f f o u r .  E q u a l i z a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e s s s c o r e w i t h t h e product s c o r e ( p o s s i b l e out of 10) was a c c o m p l i s h e d  by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e p r o c e s s s c o r e by 2.5.  Data A n a l y s i s C o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y o f t h e p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t as a t e s t o f i n t r o d u c t o r y s k i l l and knowledge was i n v e s t i g a t e d by a s e r i e s o f two by t h r e e f a c t o r i a l ANOVA's f o r randomized groups.  Each o f t h e f o u r  components o f t h e t e s t were a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y and then a s a t o t a l score.  I n a d d i t i o n , c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were o b t a i n e d f o r t h e  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s k i l l l e v e l s and each o f t h e f o u r t e s t components t o see i f the same s u b j e c t s d i d w e l l i n a l l aspects of the t e s t .  A C h i square a n a l y s i s was conducted  the t e s t components and on the t o t a l s c o r e t o determine o f i n d i v i d u a l s a c h i e v i n g mastery d i f f e r e d among  on each o f  i f t h e number  groups.  S i n c e the c o g n i t i v e knowledge p o r t i o n o f t h e t e s t was c o n s t r u c t e d as a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t i t was n o t a p p r o p r i a t e t o t e s t f o r  34  reliability  w i t h the P e a r s o n Product-Moment t e c h n i q u e which assumed a  normal d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s . s t a t i s t i c was questions. multiple  I n s t e a d a p r o p o r t i o n of agreement  u t i l i z e d to test r e l i a b i l i t y  o f the m u l t i p l e  Problems w i t h t e s t - r e t e s t methods of r e l i a b i l i t y  on  c h o i c e t e s t s l e d the r e s e a r c h e r t o s e p a r a t e odd and even t e s t  items and  a n a l y z e the s c o r e s a c c o r d i n g t o the method proposed by  Swaminathan, Hambleton and A l g i n a  (1974); the kappa c o e f f i c i e n t .  R e l i a b i l i t y of the v i d e o tape a n a l y s i s was  determined by the P e a r s o n  Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n on a co-ed group of 12 i n s t r u c t e d who  choice  subjects  took the t e s t t w i c e w i t h f i v e days between t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s .  reliability  and o b j e c t i v i t y of the f o u r i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l t e s t s  established  by u s i n g the G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t h e o r y and c a l c u l a t i n g G  coefficients.  was  The  CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The analysis of data will be presented in the following manner: 1)  Construct validity - ANOVA on each test component; a) cognitive test, b) performance analysis, c) product score of the overhead pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and spike, d) process score of the overhead pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and spike and e) a total test score.  2)  Reliability of the cognitive test - proportion of agreement and kappa coefficient on odd/even t r i a l s .  3)  Reliability of the performance analysis - Pearson Product Moment of Correlation on test-retest results of 12 instructed subjects.  4)  Reliability and objectivity of the s k i l l tests - product and process - generalizability coefficients for inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y , i n t e r - t r i a l r e l i a b i l i t y and performer reliability.  5)  Correlation between test components - Pearson Product Moment Correlation between the 10 test components.  6)  Comparison of number of subjects achieving mastery in each s k i l l level - Chi Square s t a t i s t i c .  Construct Validity The i n i t i a l concern of the volleyball proficiency test was to investigate construct validity since this had been a common problem with previously constructed volleyball tests.  One method of  establishing construct validity is to test for theoretical group differences.  In order to accomplish this, analysis of variance was  used to determine i f significant differences existed between the scores of the three s k i l l levels; novice, instructed and e l i t e .  For  each component of the proficiency test the results will be presented  35  36  g r a p h i c a l l y w i t h a t a b l e o f s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e s and e n s u i n g interpretations. C o g n i t i v e Test Figure 2 Graphic Representation of the R e s u l t s o f the C o g n i t i v e Test  35  ,  , Male  X  x  Eemale  30  25  20  15  Elite  Instructed  Novice  Table I I A n a l y s i s o f Variance Table f o r the C o g n i t i v e Test SUM OF SQUARES  SOURCE  14 14 50 49 7 14  *G *H GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l  level  29167 02083 29167 87500  DEGREES OF FREEDOM  2 1 2 42  MEAN SQUARE  707 50 24 17  14583 02083 64583 02083  F  4 1 55 2 94 1 45  *H = Gender  There was a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t s k i l l l e v e l e f f e c t f o r t h e c o g n i t i v e t e s t w i t h t h e e l i t e s u b j e c t s a v e r a g i n g s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than t h e i n s t r u c t e d (31.2 compared t o 30) and both these groups much h i g h e r than t h e n o v i c e s ( 1 9 . 2 ) .  A g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e was n o t e x p e c t e d between  TAIL PROB .  0 OOOO 0 0938 0 2465  37  the elite and the instructed since the test was a criterion-referenced test constructed to evaluate introductory level knowledge.  The  significant levels effect supported construct validity of the test. Performance Analysis Figure 3 Graphic Representation of the Results of the Performance Analysis Male X-  20 -• 15  a  Female  •-  10 •• 5  ..  Elite  Instructed  Novice  Table III ANOVA Table for the Performance Analysis SOURCE  *G *H GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l level  SUM OF SQUARES G3.87500 0.33333 23.04167 204.OOOOO  DEGREES OF FREEOOM 2 1 2 42  MEAN  SQUARE 31 . 9 3 7 5 0 0 33333 1 1. 52083 4 . 8 5 7 14  F  TAIL PROB .  6.58 0.07 2.37  0.0033 0.7946 0.1057  *H = Gender  A significant s k i l l level effect was found for the performance analysis with elite subjects averaging 13 out of a possible 20, instructed averaging 11 and novice averaging 10.2. This significant  38  skill  level  e f f e c t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c u r r e n t body of knowledge  .concerned w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n that developing  ability  ( B a r r e t t , 1979).  R e s e a r c h e r s agree  the a b i l i t y t o o b s e r v e r e q u i r e s comprehensive  knowledge of the s k i l l being o b s e r v e d . experienced p l a y e r s scored  Thus h i g h l y s k i l l e d  b e t t e r than l e s s e r s k i l l e d  S c o r e s were r e l a t i v e l y  players.  low f o r a l l s u b j e c t s which may  t h a t the v i d e o tape a n a l y s i s was  a more d i f f i c u l t t e s t or  s u b j e c t s were not as competent a t the  and  indicate that  skill.  Overhead Pass - P r o d u c t Score Figure  4  Graphic Representation  of the R e s u l t s of the Overhead Pass - P r o d u c t  Score  10  » » Male X — -X Female  9 8 7 6 5 4  Elite  Instructed  Novice  39  T a b l e IV ANOVA T a b l e f o r t h e Overhead Pass - Product SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  * G GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l The  product  level  to a t a r g e t .  reached  2 1 2 42  MEAN SQUARE  TAIL PROB .  22.33333 0.52083 0.08333 1 .2 1726  18.35 0.43 0.07  *H = G e n d e r  s c o r e r e f e r s t o the a b i l i t y  pass the b a l l the b a l l  DEGREES OF FREEDOM  44.66667 0.52083 0.16667 51.12500  * H  Score  of t h e s u b j e c t  The t r i a l s were s c o r e d o b j e c t i v e l y ; e i t h e r  the t a r g e t or i t d i d n o t .  There was a h i g h l y  s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s e f f e c t with e l i t e s c o r i n g 9.4 and n o v i c e s c o r i n g  7.6.  Forearm Pass - Product  Score  t o overhead  9.9, i n s t r u c t e d  scoring  There was no s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t .  Figure 5 Graphic R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the R e s u l t s o f the Forearm Pass - Product Score  10 --  Male X—•*  9  -•  8  ..  7  -•  6  --  5  -•  4  --  Elite  Instructed  Novice  Female  O.OOOO 0.5166 0.9339  40  Table V ANOVA T a b l e f o r t h e Forearm Pass - P r o d u c t Score SOURCE  *G * H GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l l e v e l The r e s u l t s  DEGREES OF FREEDOM  MEAN SQUARE  120.79167 O.52083 14.291G7 85.87500  2  60.39583 0.52083 7. 14583 2.04464  2 42  29.54 0. 25 3 .49  *H = Gender  o f t h e Forearm Pass t e s t  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t  between gender and s k i l l a t t h e .05 l e v e l . decreased as s k i l l  F  SUM OF SQUARES  interaction  S c o r e s f o r both  genders  l e v e l d e c r e a s e d , however females s c o r e d lower than  males a t t h e e l i t e and i n s t r u c t e d l e v e l but s c o r e d h i g h e r (6.3) t h a n the males (4.5) a t t h e n o v i c e l e v e l .  A common problem w i t h t h e  forearm pass i s t o h i t t h e b a l l t o o h a r d ; perhaps males' s t r e n g t h was a d i s a d v a n t a g e a t t h e n o v i c e l e v e l .  greater  TAIL PROB .  O.OOOO  0.6164 0.0394  41  Overhand Serve - P r o d u c t Score Figure 6 G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e Overhand Serve - P r o d u c t Score 10  ..  *  Male  0  X-— * 9  -•  8  --  7  -•  6  --  5  --  Female  4 Elite  Instructed  Novice  T a b l e VI ANOVA T a b l e f o r t h e Overhand Serve - P r o d u c t Score SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  *G *H GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l l e v e l  34.62500 102.08333 10.04167 174.50000  DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 1 2 42  MEAN SQUARE 17.31250 102.08333 5.02083 4 . 15476  TAIL PROB . 4.17 24.57 1.2 1  *H = Gender  T a b l e VI shows a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t and a s i g n i f i c a n t s k i l l e f f e c t a t t h e .05 l e v e l .  F i g u r e 6 d i s p l a y s males p e r f o r m i n g 1.6  p o i n t s b e t t e r than females a t t h e e l i t e l e v e l , 3.6 p o i n t s b e t t e r a t the i n s t r u c t e d l e v e l and 3.5 p o i n t s b e t t e r a t t h e n o v i c e l e v e l . M a l e s ' s c o r e s were p r o b a b l y much h i g h e r because o f t h e i r i n c r e a s e d  0.0223 0.0000 0.3088  42  upper body s t r e n g t h which i s a d e f i n i t e a s s e t i n t h e overhand s e r v e . As w i t h a l l t h e t e s t s thus f a r t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t s k i l l which s u p p o r t s t h e c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y o f t h e p r o f i c i e n c y Spike - Product  effect  test.  Score  Figure 7 Graphic Representation of the R e s u l t s o f the Spike - Product  Male x Female  10  X 9  -•  8  --  Score  7 6 5  4  Table  VII  -Elite  Instructed Novice  ANOVA T a b l e f o r t h e S p i k e - P r o d u c t SOURCE  * G * H GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l l e v e l The  SUM OF SQUARES  67.04167 1 .68750 3.37500 153.87500  Score DEGREES OF FREEDOM  2 1 2 42  MEAN SQUARE  F  TAIL PROB .  33.52083 1.68750 1.68750 3.66369  9.15 0.46 0.46  0.0005 0.5011 0.6341  *H = Gender  product s c o r e o f t h e S p i k e t e s t i n d i c a t e d  a significant  l e v e l e f f e c t w i t h t h e e l i t e s c o r i n g 8.8, t h e i n s t r u c t e d  skill  a t 6.8 and t h e  n o v i c e a t 6.0. Because t e c h n i q u e was n o t p a r t o f t h i s s c o r e , a s l o n g  43  as the subjects accomplished the goal of getting the ball over the net and within the court boundaries, a point was scored.  The trajectory  and power of some of the spikes were questionable but because technique was evaluated in the process score, the product score was kept very objective. Overhead Pass - Process Score Figure 8 Graphic Representation of the Results of the Overhead Pass - Process Score 4  Male £ Female  3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5  Elite  Instructed  Novice  Table VIII ANOVA Table for the Overhead Pass - Process. Score SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  *G *H GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l  15.86531 0.07521 0.01260 9.16000  level  *H = Gender  DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 1 2 42  TAIL PROB .  MEAN SQUARE 7.93266 0.0752 1 0.OO630 0 . 2 18 1 0  36.37 0.34 0.03  O.OOOO 0.5602 0.9715  44  The process score refers to the average score of both judges' ratings across a l l 10 t r i a l s . main effect.  Table VIII shows a highly significant levels  Elite subjects scored 3.5 while instructed scored 2.6  and novice scored 2.1.  Differences between sexes were negligible.  Forearm Pass - Process Score  Elite  Instructed  Novice  Table IX ANOVA Table for the Results of the Forearm Pass - Process Score SOURCE  * G * H GH ERROR  *G - S k i l l l e v e l  SUM OF SQUARES 19.67197 0.03797 0.29344 9.54531  *H = Gender  DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 1 •2 42  MEAN SQUARE 9.83599 0.03797 0. 14672 0.22727  TAIL PROB . 43.28 O.17 0.65  O.OOOO  0.6848 0.5295  45  Again construct validity i s supported by the significant main effect of s k i l l level for the forearm pass.  No significant gender effects or  interaction were identified in the study. Overhand Serve - Process Score Figure 10 Graphic Representation of the Results of the Overhand Serve - Process  4 x  3.5  Male if Female  3 2.5 2 1.5 •Elite  Instructed Novice  Table X ANOVA Table for the Results of the Overhand Serve - Process Score SOURCE  *G GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l level  SUM OF SQUARES 13.3076 1 1 .40083 0. 27635 13.43500  DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 1 2 42  MEAN SQUARE 6.65380 1.40083 O. 138 18 0.31988  TAIL PROB .  20.80 4.38 0.43  *H = Gender  Table X displays a significant s k i l l level main effect and a significant (.04) gender main effect with males scoring higher than  O.OOOO 0.0425 0.6521  46  females.  The arm motion required in the overhand serve closely  resembles the overhand throw.  Most males have greater experience with  this action regardless of whether or not they have played volleyball. Prior experience plus upper body strength may be the explanation for novice males scoring only .1 lower than instructed males.  Novice  females scored .3 lower than instructed females. Spike - Proces Score Figure 11 Graphic Representation of the Results of the Spike - Process Score 4  Male X- — * Female  3.5  3 2.5  2 1.5  Elite  Instructed  Novice  Table XI ANOVA Table for the Results of the Spike - Process Score  *  SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  G  19.35948 1.9602 1 0.89135 10.13562  * H GH ERROR  *G = S k i l l  level  *H = Gender  DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 1 2 42  TAIL PROB .  MEAN SQUARE 9.67974 1.9602 1 0.445G8 0.24132  40. 1 1 8.12 1.85  O.OOOO 0.0067 0.1703  47  P r o c e s s s c o r e s f o r the s p i k e i n d i c a t e a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t effect  w i t h s c o r e s d e c r e a s i n g as s k i l l l e v e l d e c r e a s e s .  s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t  skill  There i s a l s o  w i t h males s c o r i n g h i g h e r except a t the  n o v i c e l e v e l where both sexes s c o r e d 1.7.  I n c r e a s e d s t r e n g t h and  jumping a b i l i t y p r o b a b l y e x p l a i n the males s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r scores.  A l s o the r e l a t i v e i n e x p e r i e n c e of the e l i t e females compared  t o the e l i t e males may  s u r f a c e as a f a c t o r here because s p i k i n g i s  such a complex s k i l l .  E l i t e males s c o r e d 3.6  scored Total Figure  while e l i t e  3.0. Score 12  G r a p h i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s of the T o t a l Score  females  48  Table X I I ANOVA T a b l e f o r t h e T o t a l Score SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  *G *H GH ERROR  1268 1 .67383 588 .87533 40.66471 4936.50195  *G = S k i l l l e v e l  DEGREES OF FREEOOM 2 2 42  MEAN SQUARE  F  6340.83691 588.87533 20.33236 117.53576  53 . 95 5.01 O. 17  *H = Gender  The s c o r e o f a l l t e s t components was t o t a l l e d t o e q u a l 140. I t was i n i t i a l l y determined weighted  t h a t t h e product s c o r e and p r o c e s s s c o r e were  e q u a l l y , c o n s e q u e n t l y , each p r o c e s s s c o r e o u t o f f o u r was  m u l t i p l i e d by 2.5 t o g i v e i t t h e same v a l u e a s t h e product s c o r e o u t of  10. The f i n a l e q u a t i o n was: C o g n i t i v e ( 4 0 ) + Performance A n a l y s i s (20) + P r o d u c t S c o r e s (4x10) + P r o c e s s S c o r e s [ ( 4 x 4 ) x 2.5)] = T o t a l Score ( 1 4 0 ) T a b l e X I I shows a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r s k i l l  level  w i t h e l i t e s u b j e c t s a v e r a g i n g 115, i n s t r u c t e d s u b j e c t s a v e r a g i n g 96 and n o v i c e a v e r a g i n g 75. T h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i s a v a l i d t e s t f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t o f i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l s and knowledge. The  s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t (.03) was n o t e x p e c t e d .  In  g e n e r a l , males s c o r e d h i g h e r than f e m a l e s a t a l l t h r e e s k i l l I n d i v i d u a l components o f t h e t e s t t h a t demonstrated  levels.  gender  s i g n i f i c a n c e were t h e product s c o r e o f t h e overhand s e r v e and t h e t e c h n i q u e o r p r o c e s s s c o r e o f t h e overhand s e r v e and s p i k e . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, t h e h i g h e r male s c o r e s c a n p r o b a b l y be  TAIL PROB .  O.OOOO  0.0306 0.84 17  49  a t t r i b u t e d t o enhanced are  upper body s t r e n g t h and jumping a b i l i t y  advantageous i n t h e s k i l l o f s e r v i n g and s p i k i n g .  which  Another n o t a b l e  f a c t o r may be t h e r e l a t i v e i n e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e e l i t e females i n comparison t o t h e e l i t e males.  A l t h o u g h t h r e e o f t h e 10 t e s t s  conducted showed males peforming s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than f e m a l e s , by l o o k i n g a t t h e graphs i t can be seen t h a t f o r t h e s e 48 s u b j e c t s , t h r e e of  t h e o t h e r t e s t s (performance a n a l y s i s , p r o d u c t s c o r e o f t h e  overhead pass and p r o c e s s s c o r e o f t h e f o r e a r m p a s s ) showed some e v i d e n c e o f females s c o r i n g h i g h e r than males. remember t h a t i n i t i a l  development  I t i s important t o  o f t h e t e s t s was based on t h e  d e f i n i t o n o f a good performance o f each s k i l l .  A l t h o u g h males may  have s c o r e d h i g h e r than f e m a l e s on some t e s t s , t h i s does n o t reduce the  construct v a l i d i t y of the t e s t .  The s k i l l  l e v e l main e f f e c t was  e v i d e n t f o r both genders, t h e r e f o r e , no m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n are suggested.  50  The  R e l i a b i l i t y of the C o g n i t i v e The  Test  c o g n i t i v e t e s t c o n s i s t e d of 40 m u l t i p l e c h o i c e  concerned w i t h i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l knowledge. c o n s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the c o n t e n t  questions  Q u e s t i o n s were  balance  table that described  domain of i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l , ( r e f e r t o T a b l e I , p. The  t e s t was  25).  c o n s t r u c t e d as a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t , t h e r e f o r e , i t  would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o a n a l y z e r e l i a b i l i t y techniques.  the  using norm-referenced  R e l i a b i l i t y of a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t can be  defined  as "a measure of agreement over and above t h a t which can be e x p e c t e d by chance between the d e c i s i o n s made about examinee mastery s t a t e s " (Swaminathan, Hambleton, & A l g i n a , 1974). R e l i a b i l i t y i s u s u a l l y analyzed test-retest situation.  from i n f o r m a t i o n gained  in a  However, t h e r e a r e problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  r e t e s t i n g s u b j e c t s on w r i t t e n t e s t s because l e a r n i n g becomes a f a c t o r . For the p r e s e n t m u l t i p l e c h o i c e t e s t , r e s u l t s from the odd q u e s t i o n s of a l l 48 s u b j e c t s were s e p a r a t e d different  and a n a l y z e d  as  and  even  two  tests.  F o l l o w i n g the example of Swaminathan et a l . (1974) and  Safrit  (1977), the p r o p o r t i o n of agreement of mastery c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s between the odd and  even q u e s t i o n s was  the main d i a g o n a l .  determined by adding the p r o p o r t i o n s i n  (Refer to Table X I I I ) .  51  Table X I I I Proportion  of Agreement Between Odd and Even Q u e s t i o n s w i t h an 80%  Mastery C r i t e r i o n Even  Mastery  Mastery N P 9 ITS  Non-mastery N P 9 719"  Non-mastery  5  .10  25  .52  30  .62  14  T29  34  771  48  77T*~  N IB"  P TW  Odd  •"•Proportion o f Agreement N = Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s P = P r o p o r t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l s The v a l u e o f .71 was i n t e r p r e t e d as meaning 71% of the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s made on the two d i f f e r e n t t e s t s (odd and even) were i n agreement.  In  o r d e r t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e c o r r e c t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s t h a t were made p u r e l y by chance a f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d and t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of A  agreement (K) was c a l c u l a t e d .  For i n f o r m a t i o n  on c a l c u l a t i n g the  A  kappa (K) c o e f f i c i e n t , t h e r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o Appendix I I i n S a f r i t (1977). The kappa c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the c o g n i t i v e t e s t w i t h an 80% mastery c r i t e r i o n equalled the p r o p o r t i o n  .36.  When t h e mastery c r i t e r i o n was lowered t o 75% A  of agreement was a g a i n .71 but K i n c r e a s e d  t o .44.  A  S a f r i t (1977) warns t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of K i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r . A  When m a r g i n a l v a l u e s a r e e q u a l , K i s e q u a l t o t h e p h i c o e f f i c i e n t and would t h u s be i n t e r p r e t e d much l i k e a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t .  The  problem i s t h a t a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s seems  52  to  yield  a low kappa c o e f f i c i e n t .  level only  14 o f  48 s u b j e c t s  At both the  75% and 80%  (30%) w e r e m i s c l a s s i f i e d a n d  criterion the  A  resulting will  yield  71% o f  K s were a better  .44 and  .36 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  interpretation  of  kappa.  P e r h a p s new r e s e a r c h For the present  study,  t h e s u b j e c t s were c a t e g o r i z e d c o n s i s t e n t l y w h i c h a c t u a l l y  accounts for the c o g n i t i v e  21% c l a s s i f i c a t i o n b e t t e r test  is  questionable.  t h a n c h a n c e , so r e l i a b i l i t y  only of  53  Reliability The  o f Performance  Analysis  performance a n a l y s i s was composed o f 20 v i d e o - t a p e d e p i s o d e s  of s k i l l e r r o r s w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e  m u l t i p l e choice  questions.  Episodes  were chosen t o r e p r e s e n t t h e f o u r i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l s o f t h e overhead pass, f o r e a r m pass, overhand s e r v e and t h e s p i k e . e r r o r s were a l s o i n c l u d e d .  F i v e game s i t u a t i o n  I t was very d i f f i u c l t t o d e f i n e t h e domain  of performance a n a l y s i s f o r i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l s i n c e knowledge has been p u b l i s h e d  i n t h i s area.  little  Lacking s p e c i f i c  performance o b j e c t i v e s , t h e d e c s i o n was made t o c o n s t r u c t t h e performance a n a l y s i s a s a n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t . The  appropriate  method o f a n a l y s i s f o r r e l i a b i l i t y i s t h e P e a r s o n  Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n .  A co-ed group o f 12 i n s t r u c t e d  subjects  were t e s t e d on two d a t e s w i t h f i v e days between t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s .  The  Pearson Product-Moment produced an r o f .81. A c c o r d i n g t o Johnson and N e l s o n (1979) a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t o f a t l e a s t .80 i s d e s i r a b l e for  test r e l a i b l i t y .  Reliability  a c c e p t a b l e but w i t h t h e s u b j e c t  o f t h e pefromance a n a l y s i s i s  sample b e i n g so s m a l l and homogeneous,  a d i f f e r e n c e o f one mark would d r a s t i c a l l y a f f e c t t h e c o e f f i c i e n t . I t would be u s e f u l t o c o l l e c t t e s t - r e t e s t d a t a on a l a r g e r and more heterogeneous sample.  54  R e l i a b i l i t y and O b j e c t i v i t y of t h e S k i l l T e s t s The mean s c o r e s , averaged  a c r o s s s u b j e c t s and o b s e r v e r s , a r e  p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e XIV f o r each o f t h e s k i l l  tests.  T a b l e XIV Mean V a l u e s f o r t h e Overhead Pass (OP), Forearm Pass ( F P ) , Overhand Serve (OS) and S p i k e (SP) - P r o c e s s S c o r e s SKILL LEVEL  OP  FP  OS  SP  M  3.52  3.52  3.86  3.55  F  3.39  3.66  3.63  2.96  M  2.63  2.56  2.86  2.55  F  2.58  2.40  2.62  1.95  M  2.09  1.98  2.83  1.73  F .  2.03  2.17  2.27  1.71  Elite  Instructed  Novice  The h i g h e s t p o s s i b l e s c o r e was f o u r .  Generally, subjects at a l l s k i l l  l e v e l s s c o r e d h i g h e s t on t h e overhand s e r v e t e s t w h i l e t h e s p i k e t e s t produced  t h e l o w e s t s c o r e s f o r a l l except t h e e l i t e males.  s p e a k i n g , the v o l l e y b a l l s p i k e which i n c l u d e s an approach, of  the b a l l ,  judgement  jumping and body motion w h i l e i n t h e a i r , i s a much more  complex motor s k i l l  than t h e overhand s e r v e ; thus t h e lower s c o r e s .  In o r d e r f o r t h e v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l measuring  Relatively  t e s t s t o be c o n s i d e r e d u s e f u l  t o o l s , r e l i a b i l i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y had t o be e s t a b l i s h e d .  55  T r a d i t i o n a l l y s u b j e c t s would have t o p e r f o r m the t e s t s on occasions  and  the r e l i a b i l i t y  two  would be determined by a n a l y z i n g  the  r e s u l t s w i t h a P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n . O b j e c t i v i t y or inter-observer  reliability  i n t e r - o b s e r v e r agreement. complex d e s i g n  would be i n d i c a t e d by the p e r c e n t a g e of In a study such as the p r e s e n t one,  the  d i s t i n g u i s h e d 19 p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e s of v a r i a t i o n .  Rather than a l l o w i n g f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between t h e s e s o u r c e s of v a r i a t i o n , the P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n a v e r a g e s over a l l s o u r c e s .  I t i s c l e a r t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of such a  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t would be very d i f f i c u l t . theory  i s a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t a t i s t i c a l  developed by Cronbach, G l e s e r , Nanda and t h i s problem. variance  according  Generalizability  procedure t h a t  was  R a j a r t n a m , i n 1972  B a s i c a l l y , g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y theory  to  solve  uses a n a l y s i s of  t o d e t e r m i n e the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of each s o u r c e of  unreliability. values.  variances  V a r i a n c e components a r e e s t i m a t e d  from the mean square  These v a r i a n c e components are a r r a n g e d i n t o an t o f a c e t s of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and  ( C a r d i n e t , Tourneur and  A l l a l , 1976).  f a c e t s of  equation  differentiation,  A f a c e t of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s a  source of v a r i a t i o n which a f f e c t s the measures taken of the under s t u d y .  A f a c e t of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s an o b j e c t  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w h i c h i s t o be compared i n a s t u d y . d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n are held constant  i n order  objects  or  F a c e t s of  t o determine the amount of  v a r i a t i o n t h a t o c c u r s i n the s e l e c t e d f a c e t of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .  56  The degree t o which a s e t o f s c o r e s can be g e n e r a l i z e d a c r o s s t h e facets of generalization results i n a generalizability which c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d much l i k e a r e l i a b i l i t y and S c h u t z , 1983).  coefficient  c o e f f i c i e n t (Mosher  The r e s e a r c h e r must d e c i d e which s o u r c e s o f  v a r i a t i o n i t i s important t o g e n e r a l i z e over. The d e s i g n f o r t h e study was a two by t h r e e by two by two factorial  (Gender by L e v e l s by O b s e r v e r s  measures on t r i a l s and o b s e r v e r s .  by T r i a l s ) w i t h r e p e a t e d  I n order t o determine  reliability,  t r i a l s were d i v i d e d i n t o one t o f i v e and s i x t o t e n f o r t h e a n a l y s i s . The random e f f e c t s were O b s e r v e r s , T r i a l s and S u b j e c t s w h i l e Gender and L e v e l s were f i x e d .  Mosher and Schutz (1983) conducted  a similarly  designed study f o r t h e Overarm Throw and i n d i c a t e d t h a t because both random and f i x e d e f f e c t s were p r e s e n t , t h e d e s i g n was c o n s i d e r e d t o be a mixed model. of  As such, F r a t i o s were not c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l s o u r c e s  v a r i a n c e because a p p r o p r i a t e e r r o r terms were n o t a v a i l a b l e  the BMD P8:V program.  The same i s t r u e i n t h e p r e s e n t study  from  thus  Quasi F r a t i o s were c o n s t r u c t e d a s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s o u r c e s o f v a r i a t i o n ( K i r k , 1968).  Each o f t h e f o u r v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l s  (overhead  pass, forearm p a s s , overhand s e r v e and s p i k e ) were a n a l y z e d separately. skill.  An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t a b l e i s p r e s e n t e d f o r each  I t i n c l u d e s s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s , v a r i a n c e e s t i m a t e s and t h e  p e r c e n t o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e accounted  f o r by each source of v a r i a t i o n .  G c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r a l l s k i l l t e s t s are discussed i n a l a t e r  section.  Overhead Pass Table XV Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimate s: Overhead Pass Source  DF  Level (L) Gender (G) Observers Trials (T) LG LO GO LT GT OT S(LG) LGO LGT LOT GOT OS(LG) TS LGOT OTS(LG)  2 31.73100 1 0.30083 1 1.02080 1 1.203300 2 0.025208 2 0.587710 1 0.520830 0.033958 2 1 0.053333 1 0.120000 42 0.872380 2 0.406460 2 0.012708 2 0.004375 1 0.013330 0.142140 42 42 0.070238 2 0.008958 42 0.047143  * = quasi  F test  F  MS  P  2.550  .1181  *3.908 *0.397 0.090 0.280 3.020 1.490 0.190  <.0500a >.0500 .9116 .5977 .0003a .1003 .8276  Variance Estimate .47510 .00000 .00839 .01104 .00000 .01526 .00859 .00020 .00035 .00152 .17679 .01891 .00000 .00000 .00000 .04750 .01155 .00000 .04714  a = significant effects  Percent of Total Variance 57.00 0.00 1.00 1.50 0.00 1.90 1.00 0.02 0.04 0.20 21.60 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.80 1.54 0.00 5.80 100%  Table XV presents the ANOVA information for the overhead pass. Quasi F ratios were calculated for the third level interactions of Level by Gender by Observers and Level by Gender by T r i a l s . A significant interaction was found for the LGO term which means that observers were not consistent in scoring genders over s k i l l levels. Although the interaction was significiant i t i s only responsible.for 2.42% of the total variance.  The significant second level interaction  for  o b s e r v e r s by s u b j e c t s cannot r e a l l y be i n t e r p r e t e d because of the  previous higher order i n t e r a c t i o n .  For the same reason F's were not  c a l c u l a t e d f o r the main e f f e c t s of L e v e l s , Gender, O b s e r v e r s and Trials.  However, i m p o r t a n t  i n f o r m a t i o n about 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 the overhead pass t e s t can be gained from the percentages  of t o t a l v a r i a n c e f o r each e f f e c t .  s k i l l l e v e l accounts  The  variability in  f o r 57% of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e of the overhead  pass.  T h i s i s p o s i t i v e support  f o r the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the  test.  S u b j e c t s w i t h i n L e v e l s and Genders c o n t r i b u t e d 21.6%  v a r i a n c e which s i m p l y demonstrates i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l O b s e r v e r s by s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e s 5.8% o t h e r s o u r c e s of v a r i a n c e a r e  of  the  variablity.  of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e w h i l e a l l  negligible.  59  Forearm Pass Table XVI Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimates: Forearm Pass Source  DF  Level (1) Gender (G) Observers Trials (T) LG LO GO LT GT OT S(LG) LGO LGT LOT GOT OS(LG) TS(LG) LGOT OTS  2 39.344000 1 0.151880 1 1.960200 1 0.226880 2 0.586880 2 0.101460 1 0.046875 2 0.114380 1 0.001875 1 0.091875 42 0.909080 2 0.056870 2 0.105620 2 0.001875 1 0.060208 0.144480 42 42 0.065740 2 0.013958 42 0.024910  * = quasi F test  MS  F  P  Variance Estimate  Percent o: Total Variai  .60010 .00000 .01822 .00098 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00224 .00000 .00140 .18095 .00000 .00318 .00000 .00147 .05976 .02042 .00000 .02491  65.00 0.00 2.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.15 19.80 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.18 6.50 2.40 0.00 2.80  3.690  .0616  *4.260 *1.928 0.080 2.420 5.800 2.640 0.560  <.0500a >.0500 .9276 .1275 .0000a .0011a .5752  a = si gnificant effects  100%  Table XVI also shows a significant interaction for Levels by Genders by Observers but this source of variability did not account for any of the percentage of total variance in the forearm pass. The second level interactions of Observers by Subjects and Trials by subjects are significant and contribute 6.5% and 2.4% of the total variance.  This means observers did not score subjects consistently  and subjects did not perform consistently over t r i a l s .  Variability in  s k i l l l e v e l a g a i n c o n t r i b u t e s the h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e of v a r i a n c e a t 65%; S u b j e c t s w i t h i n L e v e l s and Genders a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 19.8%  o  the v a r i a n c e w h i l e v a r i a b i l i t y  o  the t o t a l  variance.  of the o b s e r v e r s a c c o u n t s f o r 2.2%  Overhand Serve Table XVII Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimates: Overhand Serve Source  DF  Level (L) Gender (G) Observers Trials LG LO GO LT GT OT S(LG) LGO LGT LOT GOT OS(LG) TS(LG) LGOT OTS(LG)  2 26.615000 5.603300 1 1 0.187500 1 1.080000 2 0.552710 0.208130 2 1 0.083330 0.035625 2 1 0.020833 0.030000 1 42 1.279500 0.046458 2 2 0.018958 0.001875 2 1 0.000830 0.081905 42 42 0.080238 2 0.012708 42 0.024762  * = quasi F test  MS  F  1.2100  P  Variance Estimate  .2773  *0.6651 > .0500 *0.2780 > .0500 0.0800 .9272 0.0300 .8553 3.3100 .0001a 3.2400 .0001a 0.5100 .6023  Percent of Total Variance  .39424 .04539 .00105 .01036 .00000 .00466 .00053 .00000 .00000 .00011 .28554 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .02857 .02774 .00000 .02476  a = significant effect  48.0 5.5 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.4 0.0 3.0 100%  Results in Table XVII show that significant interaction was found for Observers by Subjects and Trials by Subjects with the former contributing 3.5% of the variance and the latter responsible for 3.4%. It i s interesting to note that variability due to gender contributed 5.5% of the total where previously in the overhead and forearm pass gender differences were too small to be considered (0%).  Variability  in s k i l l level accounted for only 48% of the total variance in the  s e r v e compared t o 57% f o r t h e overhead pass and 65% f o r t h e forearm pass.  Examination  o f t h e c e l l means shows t h a t males s c o r e d  c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r than females i n a l l t h r e e s k i l l l e v e l s and a l s o t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s c o r e o f n o v i c e (2.83) and i n s t r u c t e d (2.86) males.  T h i s would e x p l a i n t h e somewhat lower  p e r c e n t o f v a r i a n c e due t o s k i l l l e v e l .  These f i n d i n g s c o r r e s p o n d t o  the g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s made e a r l i e r t h a t a l l s u b j e c t s s c o r e d h i g h e r on the overhand s e r v e t e s t .  S u b j e c t s w i t h i n L e v e l s and Genders  c o n t r i b u t e d a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h 34.7% o f the t o t a l v a r i a n c e which means i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y was h i g h .  These f i n d i n g s a r e c o n s i s t e n t  w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e conducted validity.  for construct  63  Spike fable XVIII Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimates: Spike Source  DF  Levels (L) Gender (G) Observers Trials (T) LG LO GO LT GT OT S(LG) LGO LGT LOT GOT OS(LG) TS(LG) LGOT OTS(LG)  2 38.719000 7.840800 1 1 0.030000 1 0.067500 2 1.782700 0.015625 2 1 0.040833 2 0.016875 1 0.000000 1 0.000830 42 0.965300 2 0.057709 2 0.150620 0.015208 2 1 0.030000 0.061480 42 42 0.096131 2 0.045625 42 0.021131  * = quasi F test  MS  F  0.0400  P  Variance Estimate  .8435  *0.6712 >.0500 *1.2490 >.0500 0.7200 .4928 1.4200 .2401 2.9100 .0004a 4.5500 .0000a 2.1600 .1281  .59176 .07293 .00000 .00000 .02472 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .20720 .00000 .00187 .00000 .00037 .02018 .03750 .00306 .02113  Percent of Total Variance 60.3 7.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.8 0.3 2.2 100%  a = s i gnificant effect  Table XVIII again indicates significant interactions for Observers by Subjects and Trials by Subjects. variance i s 2% for OS(LG) and 3.8% for TS(LG).  Contribution to total Variability due to  s k i l l level accounts for 60% of the total variance of the scores on the spiking test.  Gender differences contribute 7.4% of the total  variance and cell means show that males score consistently higher than females at a l l skill, levels although differences at the novice level  a r e n e g l i g i b l e ; males - 1.73, females - 1.71.  I t seems t h a t s u p e r i o r  s t r e n g t h and jumping a b i l i t y a f f o r d male s u b j e c t s an advantage over females a t t h e same s k i l l  level.  However a l a c k o f s k i l l a t t h e  n o v i c e l e v e l cannot be compensated f o r by s t r e n g t h as seemed t o be the case f o r n o v i c e males i n t h e overhand s e r v e .  V a r i a b i l i t y of Subjects  i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 21.1% o f t h e t o t a l v a r i a n c e i n comparison t o a c c o u n t i n g f o r 34.7% of the v a r i a n c e f o r t h e s e r v e . v a r i a b i l i t y due t o Observers  Note t h a t  o r T r i a l s i s t o o s m a l l t o be c o n s i d e r e d  i n the t o t a l v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h e t e s t f o r s p i k i n g has h i g h reliability  and o b j e c t i v i t y .  G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of Results The  48 g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s i n T a b l e XIX were t a b u l a t e d  by f o l l o w i n g t h e " R u l e s o f thumb f o r e s t i m a t i n g  reliability  c o e f f i c i e n t s u s i n g g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t h e o r y " , ( R e n t z , 1980). were developed  Equations  f o r t h e t h r e e t y p e s o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t were  c o n s i d e r e d t o be i m p o r t a n t i n t h i s s t u d y .  Inter-rater  reliability  ( o b j e c t i v i t y ) i s t h e degree t o which any o t h e r s e t o f o b s e r v e r s would o b t a i n t h e same r e s u l t s i f they saw t h e same s u b j e c t s p e r f o r m i n g t h e e x a c t same t r i a l s .  Inter-trial reliability  which t h e same s u b j e c t s , observed  r e f e r s t o t h e degree t o  by t h e same j u d g e s , would r e c e i v e  the same s c o r e on a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f t r i a l s .  Performer  reliability  c o n s i d e r s the degree t o which t h e same s u b j e c t s would r e c e i v e t h e same s c o r e i f they performed a n o t h e r s e t o f t r i a l s f o r d i f f e r e n t  judges.  The v a r i a n c e due t o L e v e l s was n o t i n c l u d e d i n any of t h e G c o e f f i c i e n t equations.  L i k e Mosher and S c h u t z ' s Overarm Throwing T e s t  ("1983) , f u t u r e use of t h e V o l l e y b a l l P r o f i c i e n c y fairly  T e s t w i l l be f o r a  homogeneous group so i n c l u s i o n o f t h e L e v e l s e f f e c t  unrealistically  will  inflate G coefficients.  Table XIX Generalizability Coefficients P r o f i c i e n c y Test  f o r Each S k i l l o f t h e V o l l e y b a l l  Type o f Reliability  Overhead Pass  1) I n t e r - r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y G : 2 o b s e r v e r s , 10 t r i a l s G^: 2 o b s e r v e r s , 5 t r i a l s G^: 1 o b s e r v e r , 10 t r i a l s G : 1 observer, 5 t r i a l s 4 2) I n t e r - t r i a l R e l i a b i l i t y G G G G 4 3) P e r f o r m e r R e l i a b i l i t y G G G G 4 3  1  2  3  1  2  3  Forearm Pass  Overhand Serve  Spike  .86 .85 .75 .74  .85 .85 .75 .74  .96 .95 .91 .91  .96 .96 .93 .92  .98 .97 .98 .95  .98 .97 .98 .96  .99 .98 .99 .98  .99 .99 .99.99  .85 .83 .74 .72  .85 .83 .74 .72  .95 .94 .91 .90  .95 .93 .92 .90  In T a b l e XIX t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r i n t e r - r a t e r reliability good.  demonstrate t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v i t y of t h e s k i l l t e s t s i s  The h i g h e s t c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e seen f o r t h e overhand s e r v e and  the s p i k e .  I n f a c t , r e d u c i n g t e s t p r o t o c o l from two o b s e r v e r s , 10  t r i a l s t o one o b s e r v e r , f i v e t r i a l s o n l y reduces t h e G c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the s e r v e from to  .92.  .96 t o .91 and the G c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h e s p i k e from  Judges'  agreement was not q u i t e as h i g h on the overhead  .96  pass  and t h e forearm pass where G c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r two o b s e r v e r s and 10 t r i a l s were .86 and .85, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  When o n l y one o b s e r v e r  used, t h e c o e f f i c i e n t dropped t o .75 f o r both s k i l l s .  was  For a l l f o u r  s k i l l s t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n u s i n g 10 t r i a l s v e r s u s f i v e t r i a l s was v e r y negligible.  The g r e a t e s t r e d u c t i o n i n r e l i a b i l i t y  number o f o b s e r v e r s was reduced  from two t o one.  o c c u r r e d when t h e However, even the  l o w e s t G c o e f f i c e n t o f .74 i s s t i l l a c c e p t a b l e i n terms o f o b s e r v e r reliability.  These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t one t r a i n e d o b s e r v e r c o u l d  r e l i a b l y evaluate a c l a s s of v o l l e y b a l l students using the four t e s t s and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g r a t i n g As w i t n e s s e d i n t h e second reliability  skill  scale.  s e t of G c o e f f i c i e n t s ,  inter-trial  f o r a l l s k i l l s was so h i g h t h a t very l i t t l e i f any e x t r a  i n f o r m a t i o n was gained by i n c r e a s i n g t h e number o f t r i a l s from f i v e t o 10.  From a p r a c t i c a l p o i n t o f view t h i s i s v e r y p o s i t i v e f o r t h e  u n i v e r s i t y i n s t r u c t o r who must t e s t 20-30 s t u d e n t s i n a one or two hour t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . seems t o make l i t t l e used.  With G c o e f f i c i e n t s r a n g i n g form  .95 t o .99 i t  d i f f e r e n c e whether one or two o b s e r v e r s a r e b e i n g  A g a i n the overhand s e r v e and s p i k e s k i l l t e s t s show t h e h i g h e s t  inter-trial  reliability  (.99) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the same s u b j e c t s  p e r f o r m i n g a n o t h e r s e t of t r i a l s w i t h t h e same o b s e r v e r s would s c o r e t h e same.  The performer r e l i a b i l i t i e s are also very high.  The G  coefficients refer to the degree to which performers would achieve the same scores i f they participated in another set of t r i a l s with different observers.  Again the overhand serve and spike seem to be  the most reliable with values ranging from .95 for two observers and 10 t r i a l s to .90 for one observer and five t r i a l s .  Performer  r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the overhead pass and forearm pass are not quite as high.  Both coefficients are .85 when two observers and 10 t r i a l s are  used and .72 when only one observer and five t r i a l s are used.  This  may be because errors in these two s k i l l s are not as easy to differentiate as they are in the spike and overhand serve. In general, i t can be concluded that the four volleyball s k i l l tests are reliable and objective instruments.  Generalizability  coefficients for the four s k i l l tests conducted under the protocol of two observers and 10 t r i a l s were a l l .85 and higher.  The reduction of  the number of t r i a l s from 10 to five only slightly reduced the G coefficient  (.02 or less).  When only one observer is used the  coefficients show a greater decrease with values for five t r i a l s ranging from .72 to .99.  68  Correlation  Between T e s t Components  A c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x was computed by u s i n g the Pearson  Product-  Moment on the s c o r e s of a l l 48 s u b j e c t s on the 10 t e s t components. Table  XX  Correlation  OP FP OS SP  Between P r o c e s s S c o r e s  Overhead Pass 1.00 .85 .74 .78  Forearm Pass 1.00 .78 .80  Overhand Serve 1.00 .75  1.00  T a b l e XX d i s p l a y s the f i n d i n g t h a t s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g w e l l on f o r one s k i l l  technique  s c o r e d r e l a t i v e l y w e l l on t e c h n i q u e f o r a l l s k i l l s w i t h  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e overhead h i g h e s t a t .85. significant s k i l l test.  Spike  pass and the f o r e a r m pass b e i n g  T h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s the p r e v i o u s l y  observed  l e v e l e f f e c t and thus the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the  The r e l a t i o n s h i p s  between p r o c e s s s c o r e s r e p r e s e n t t h e h i g h e s t  c o r r e l a t i o n s between any t e s t components, but they are not h i g h enough t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t e s t i n g o n l y one s k i l l would p r o v i d e adequate information to generalize to a l l s k i l l s . Another  i n t e r e s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p o c c u r r e d between the p r o d u c t  p r o c e s s s c o r e s of each s k i l l .  (Refer to Table XXI).  and  Table  XXI  C o r r e l a t i o n Between P r o d u c t and P r o c e s s Scores f o r A l l S k i l l s Product Process  Scores  Scores Overhead Pass Forearm Pass Overhand Serve Spike .60a .68 .48 .61 .52 .75a .38 .68 .41 .56 .62a .56 .58 .67 .50 .74a a = h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r each s k i l l  OP FP OS SP  The h i g h e s t r e l a t i o n s h i p i n each case was  found between the  product  and p r o c e s s s c o r e of the same s k i l l , i . e . , the OP product  score  c o r r e l a t e d h i g h e r w i t h the OP p r o c e s s s c o r e than w i t h a"y  other  process score.  T h i s was an e n c o u r a g i n g  s u b j e c t s w i t h the b e s t t e c h n i q u e accuracy  score ( p r o d u c t ) .  f i n d i n g because i t meant t h a t  ( p r o c e s s ) were a l s o g e t t i n g the b e s t  I f these c o r r e l a t i o n s were too h i g h then  both t e s t s would be e v a l u a t i n g the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and one of them would t h e r e f o r e be redundant.  T h i s , however, was  c o r r e l a t i o n s f e l l between .60 and  .75.  the v a r i a n c e i n one s c o r e was accounted  not the case as the  T h e r e f o r e , o n l y 35% t o 45% of f o r by the v a r i a n c e i n the  other score. R e s u l t s f o r t h e performance a n a l y s i s t e s t r e v e a l e d r e l a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t i o n s from .15 w i t h the FP p r o d u c t s c o r e t o .46 w i t h the process score.  OS  I t seems t h a t the performance a n a l y s i s e v a l u a t e d a  s k i l l a b i l i t y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the o t h e r components i n the proficiency test.  This f i n d i n g i n combination  s i g n i f i c a n t s k i l l l e v e l e f f e c t was  w i t h the f a c t t h a t a  d i s c o v e r e d i n the a n a l y s i s o f  low  v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t performance a n a l y s i s i s a d i s t i n c t component of i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l .  B a r r e t t (1979) reviewed c u r r e n t  H t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o performance a n a l y s i s and s t r e s s e d t h a t b o t h the a b i l i t y t o observe and the a b i l i t y to a n a l y z e movement a r e  important  f o r t e a c h e r s and coaches engaged i n performance a n a l y s i s .  She  c o n c l u d e s t h a t "the need f o r t e a c h i n g o b s e r v a t i o n as a s p e c i f i c  skill  f o r e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g was c o n s i d e r e d e s s e n t i a l . " , ( B a r r e t t , 1979, 67).  The  v i d e o - t a p e developed  invaluable tool for this  f o r the p r e s e n t study s h o u l d be an  purpose.  p.  71  Comparison of Number of Subjects Achieving Mastery in Each S k i l l Level ~"  One of the purposes of the proficiency test was to exempt  students from an introductory level volleyball course i f the material was already mastered.  To investigate the association between s k i l l  level and achievement of conducted.  mastery, a Chi Square analysis was  The mastery criterion was set at 80 %. Genders were  collapsed because non-significant gender effects were found for most of the test components.  Table XXII presents the Chi Square scores and  levels of significance for each test component. Table XXII Chi Square Values and Levels of Significance of Test Components Test Component  Chi Square  Cognitive Performance Analysis Product Score - OP FP OS SP Process Score - OP FP OS SP Total Score  Degrees of Freedom  7.312 2.043 10.666 25.210 2.032 13.500 26.063 39.999 20.202 13.137 28.541  2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  Significance  .03a .36 <.01a <.01a .36 <.01a <.01a <.01a <.01a <.01a <.01a a = significant effect  A significant Chi Square provides fairly conclusive evidence that achievement of mastery differentiates between individuals on the basis of their s k i l l level, (Ferguson, 1976).  Readers are cautioned that  some expected c e l l frequencies were less than five.  When this occurs  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s become i n f l a t e d as may of the s i g n i f i c a n t -  be the case w i t h some  effects.  R e s u l t s o f the performance a n a l y s i s t e s t d i d not show an  a s s o c i a t i o n between s k i l l l e v e l and m a s t e r y .  E x a m i n a t i o n of the Chi  Square t a b l e shows t h a t o n l y one e l i t e s u b j e c t a c h i e v e d a l l o t h e r s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d as non-masters. t o the i n i t i a l  results  mastery w h i l e  This corresponds  of the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e where s c o r e s were  low f o r a l l s u b j e c t s . The  product  s c o r e of the overhand s e r v e a l s o demonstrated  a s s o c i a t i o n between mastery and  skill  level.  no  R e s u l t s showed n i n e  e l i t e , seven i n s t r u c t e d and f i v e n o v i c e s u b j e c t s a c h i e v i n g mastery. These d i f f e r e n c e s were o b v i o u s l y not g r e a t enough t o be significant.  T h i s r e s u l t was  probably  due  t o the very l a r g e gender  d i f f e r e n c e found i n the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e .  Males scored w e l l at  a l l l e v e l s w h i l e female s c o r e d p o o r l y a t a l l l e v e l s . combined i n the C h i Square a n a l y s i s and was  evident.  considered  The  sexes were  t h u s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  A l l C h i Square t a b l e s can be l o c a t e d i n Appendix E.  CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose o f t h i s study was t o c o n s t r u c t a r e l i a b l e and v a l i d assessment t o o l t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o g n i t i v e and psychomotor  l e v e l of  p r o f i c i e n c y p o s s e s s e d by an i n d i v i d u a l . The t e s t e v a l u a t e d f o u r components o f i n t r o d u c t o r y volleyball s k i l l :  1) knowledge  level  of s k i l l s , s t r a t e g i e s and r u l e s , 2)  performance a n a l y s i s a b i l i t y , 3) o b j e c t i v e s k i l l a b i l i t y ( p r o d u c t s c o r e ) and 4) s u b j e c t i v e s k i l l a b i l i t y ( p r o c e s s s c o r e ) .  The f o u r  v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l s u t i l i z e d t o determine p r o d u c t and p r o c e s s s c o r e s were t h e overhead p a s s , t h e f o r e a r m p a s s , t h e overhand s e r v e and t h e spike.  S u b j e c t s performed 10 t r i a l s o f each s k i l l and were  s u b j e c t i v e l y r a t e d by two judges on t e c h n i q u e demonstrated d u r i n g t h e trials. The s u b j e c t p o o l c o n s i s t e d o f 24 f e m a l e s and 24 males  divided  evenly i n t o t h r e e l e v e l s of s k i l l a b i l i t y : e l i t e , i n s t r u c t e d , novice or  non-instructed. C o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y f o r t h e t e s t s was e s t a b l i s h e d by a s e r i e s o f  two by t h r e e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e c o m p u t a t i o n s f o r each t e s t i n d i v i d u a l l y and then as a t o t a l s c o r e . Reliability  o f t h e c o g n i t i v e c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t was  computed by a p r o p o r t i o n o f agreement t e s t and t h e kappa Reliability  coefficient.  o f t h e n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d performance a n a l y s i s was computed  by t h e P e a r s o n Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n .  73  R e l i a b i l i t y and  o b j e c t i v i t y o f t h e s k i l l t e s t s were determined  by g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y  coefficients. -  The c o r r e l a t i o n  between t e s t components was i n v e s t i g a t e d  the Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n was employed t o determine  by u s i n g  and t h e C h i Square s t a t i s t i c  i f t h e r e was a r e l a t i o n s h i p  l e v e l and a s t u d e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e  between  skill  mastery.  Major F i n d i n g s The  following  were major f i n d i n g s  of the study:  1)  A n a l y s i s of variance revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t s k i l l l e v e l e f f e c t f o r each t e s t component: c o g n i t i v e , performance a n a l y s i s , product s c o r e f o r overhead pass, forearm p a s s , overhand s e r v e and s p i k e , p r o c e s s s c o r e f o r overhead p a s s , f o r e a r m p a s s , overhand s e r v e and s p i k e . The overhand s e r v e product s c o r e was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 2 l e v e l o f p r o b a b i l i t y and a l l o t h e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t a t . 0 1 .  2)  A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e showed a s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t f o r overhand s e r v e product s c o r e s ( < . 0 1 ) , overhand s e r v e p r o c e s s s c o r e s ( . 0 4 ) , s p i k e p r o c e s s s c o r e s ( < . 0 1 ) and t o t a l t e s t scores ( . 0 3 ) .  3)  A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e d i s p l a y e d one p o s i t i v e s k i l l and gender i n t e r a c t i o n f o r t h e forearm pass product s c o r e ( . 0 3 ) .  4)  R e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e c o g n i t i v e t e s t showed 71% o f t h e mastery c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s made between odd and even q u e s t i o n s were i n agreement when e i t h e r a 75% o r 80% c r i t e r i o n was used. To account f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s made p u r e l y by chance t h e kappa ( K ) c o e f f i c i e n t was determined. With t h e c r i t e r i o n s e t a t 80%, k = . 3 6 ; w i t h a c r i t e r i o n o f 75%, K = . 4 4 .  5)  C o r r e l a t i o n between a t e s t - r e t e s t o f t h e performance r e s u l t e d i n a r e l i a b i l i t y of . 8 1 .  6)  The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f two o b s e r v e r s and 10 t r i a l s were: . 8 6 f o r overhead p a s s , . 8 5 f o r forearm p a s s , . 9 6 f o r overhand s e r v e and . 9 6 f o r t h e s p i k e .  7)  The  generalizability coefficients  for inter-trial  analysis  75  r e l i a b i l i t i e s of two observers and 10 t r i a l s were .98 for overhead pass, .98 for forearm pass, .99 for overhand serve and .99 for the spike. 8)  The generalizability coefficients for performer r e l i a b i l i t i e s of two observers and 10 t r i a l s were .85 for overhead pass, .85 for forearm pass, .95 for overhand serve and .95 for the spike.  9)  G coefficients were also determined for two observers - five t r i a l s , one observer - 10 t r i a l s and one observer - five t r i a l s . Generally, the coefficients showed a decrease when one observer was dropped from the data but reducing the number of t r i a l s from 10 to five had very l i t t l e effect on the G coefficients. (Refer to Table XIX, p. 66).  10) Correlation between test components showed subjects scoring well on technique for one s k i l l (process score) scored well on technique for a l l s k i l l s . Correlations ranged between .74 and .85. 11) Correlations between the product and process score of each s k i l l were higher than any correlations between s k i l l s , i . e . , .60 to .75. 12) The highest correlation between the performance analysis and any other test component was .46 with the overhand serve process score. 13) Chi Square values were significant for nine of the 11 test components: cognitive, product score of the overhead pass, forearm pass and spike, process score of the overhead pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and spike and total score. These significant effects show that achievement of mastery differentiates between individuals on the basis of s k i l l level. 14) Chi Square results for the performance analysis and overhand serve product score were not significant therefore providing no evidence of a relationship between mastery and s k i l l level.  Conclusions From the r e s u l t s a t t a i n e d i n t h i s study the f o l l o w i n g  conclusions  appear w a r r a n t e d : 1)  A l l components of the V o l l e y b a l l P r o f i c i e n c y T e s t a r e v a l i d measures o f i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l .  2)  R e l i a b i l i t y of the c o g n i t i v e t e s t under the p r e s e n t method of a n a l y s i s i s q u e s t i o n a b l e .  3)  The performance a n a l y s i s i s a r e l i a b l e measure.  4)  The psychomotor s k i l l t e s t s a r e r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e measures of i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l performance.  5)  T e s t components a r e r e l a t e d but not redundant.  6)  Nine of the 11 t e s t components i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between achievement of mastery and s k i l l l e v e l .  Recommendations 1)  I t i s recommended t h a t f u r t h e r r e l i a b i l i t y s t u d i e s o f the c o g n i t i v e t e s t and t h e performance a n a l y s i s be conducted on a l a r g e r and more heterogeneous sample p o p u l a t i o n .  2)  I t may be n e c e s s a r y t o modify t h e performance a n a l y s i s t o make i t l e s s d i f f i c u l t . A l t h o u g h c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y was e v i d e n t , o n l y one s u b j e c t was a b l e t o a c h i e v e a mastery s c o r e when the c r i t e r i o n was s e t a t 80%.  3)  I t i s suggested t h a t the proposed e v a l u a t i o n t o o l be used as a p r a c t i c a l measure o f p r o f i c i e n c y f o r i n t r o d u c t o r y v o l l e y b a l l c o u r s e s a t the c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l .  4)  I t i s hoped t h a t the t h e o r e t i c a l l y based v o l l e y b a l l p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t w i l l s e r v e as an example and a s t i m u l u s f o r experts i n other s p o r t i n g areas to construct s u i t a b l e t e s t s for t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s .  Bibliography  A n g o f f , W.H. (1971). S c a l e s , norms, and e q u i v a l e n t s c o r e s . I n R. L. T h o r n d i k e ( E d . ) , E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement. Washington, DC: American C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n . B a r r e t t , K a t e R. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . O b s e r v a t i o n o f movement f o r t e a c h e r s - a s y n t h e s i s and i m p l i c a t i o n s . Motor S k i l l s : Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e , 3 ( 2 ) , 67-76. B l o c k , J.H. ( E d . ) . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . S c h o o l s , s o c i e t y and mastery l e a r n i n g . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n . B l o c k , J.H. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Mastery l e a r n i n g ; t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f t h e c r a f t . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 114-117. Bloom, B. S. ( E d . ) . ( 1 9 5 6 ) . Taxonomy o f e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . Handbook I : C o g n i t i v e domain. New York: David McKay Company. Bloom, B. S. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . L e a r n i n g f o r mastery. E v a l u a t i o n Comment, 1_(2), 1-8. Brown, F. G. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . M e a s u r i n g c l a s s r o o m H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n .  achievement. New York:  C a r d i n e t , J . , T o u r n e u r , Y., & A l l a l , L. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The symmetry o f g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t h e o r y : a p p l i c a t i o n t o e d u c a t i o n a l measurement. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 13, 119-135. C a r r o l l , J . B. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Problems o f measurement r e l a t e d t o t h e concept of l e a r n i n g f o r mastery. Chapter 3 i n J . H. B l o c k ( E d . ) , Mastery l e a r n i n g : Theory and p r a c t i c e . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston. Cronbach, L. J . , G l e s e r , G. C , Nanda, H., & Rajartnam, N. (1972). The d e p e n d a b i l i t y o f b e h a v i o r a l measurements: Theory o f g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y f o r s c o r e s and p r o f i l e s . New York: W i l e y . F a w c e t t , Sandra A. (1974). V a l i d i t y o f v o l l e y b a l l t e s t s . New Zealand J o u r n a l o f H e a l t h , P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n and R e c r e a t i o n , 7 ( 3 ) . F e r g u s o n , George A. (1976). S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n p s y c h o l o g y and e d u c a t i o n ( 4 t h e d . ) . New York: McGraw H i l l Book Company. F i t t s , P. M. ( 1 9 6 2 ) . F a c t o r s i n complex s k i l l t r a i n i n g . I n R. G l a s s e r ( E d . ) , T r a i n i n g r e s e a r c h and e d u c a t i o n . P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y o f Pittsburgh Press.  7b  E i t t s , P. M. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . P e r c e p t u a l motor s k i l l l e a r n i n g . I n A . W . M e l t o n ( E d . ) , C a t e g o r i e s o f Human L e a r n i n g . New York: Academic P r e s s . F i t t s , P. M. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Human performance. C o l e P u b l i s h i n g Company.  Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a :  Brooks/  F l e i s h m a n , E. A. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . The s t r u c t u r e and measurement o f p h y s i c a l f i t n e s s . Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l . Gagne, R. M. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . The c o n d i t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g . New York: R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n .  Holt,  Gagne, R. M. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . The c o n d i t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g (2nd e d . ) . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and Winston. G l a s e r , R. ( 1 9 6 3 ) . I n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n o l o g y and t h e measurement o f l e a r n i n g outcomes. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 18, 510-522. Godbout, P. & S c h u t z , R. W. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of r a t i n g s of motor performances w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o v a r i o u s o b s e r v a t i o n a l d e s i g n s . Research Q u a r t e r l y f o r E x e r c i s e and S p o r t , 5 4 ( 1 ) , 20-27. G r o n l u n d , N. E. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . P r e p a r i n g c r i t e r i o n - Referenced c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n . New York: M a c m i l l a n .  tests for  Harrow, A. J . ( 1 9 7 2 ) . A taxonomy o f t h e psychomotor domain. New York: David McKay Company. J e w e t t , Ann E. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . P h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s o u t o f c u r r i c u l a r chaos. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e AAHPER R e g i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e . Pennsylvania. J e w e t t , A. E., J o n e s , L. S., Luneke, S.M., & Robinson, S. M. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . E d u c a t i o n a l change t h r o u g h a taxonomy f o r w r i t i n g p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s . Quest, 16, 32-38. J e w e t t , A. E., & M u l l a n , M. R. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . C u r r i c u l u m d e s i g n : Purposes and p r o c e s s e s i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g . Washington, DC: AAHPER p u b l i c a t i o n s . Johnson, B.L., & N e l s o n , Jack K. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . P r a c t i c a l measurements f o r e v a l u a t i o n i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n ( 3 r d e d . ) . M i n n e a p o l i s : Burgess P u b l i s h i n g Company. Johnson, J u d i t h A. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . The development o f a v o l l e y b a l l t e s t f o r h i g h s c h o o l g i r l s . U n p u b l i s h e d master's t h e s i s , State University.  skill Illinois  K a u t z , E l i z a b e t h M a r i e . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The c o n s t r u c t i o n of a v o l l e y b a l l - s k i l l t e s t f o r t h e f o r e a r m p a s s . U n p u b l i s h e d master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of N o r t h C a r o l i n a , Greensboro. Kim, Hogwon. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Mastery l e a r n i n g i n t h e Korean m i d d l e s c h o o l s . UNESCO R e g i o n a l O f f i c e f o r E d u c a t i o n i n A s i a , 6 ( 1 ) , 55-66. K i r k , Roger, E. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n : P r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : B r o o k s / C o l e P u b l i s h i n g Company. K r a t h w o h l , D. R. e t . a l . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . Taxonomy of e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . Handbook I I : The a f f e c t i v e domain. New York: David McKay and Company. McGee, R., & Drews, F. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . P r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g f o r p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n . Washington: AAHPER p u b l i c a t i o n s . M e r r i l l , M. D. ( E d . ) . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . I n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n : Readings. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l . M e r r i l l , D. M. (1972) Psychomotor taxonomies, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , and i n s t r u c t i o n a l t h e o r y . Chapter 14 i n R. S i n g e r ( E d . ) , The psychomotor domain: Movement b e h v i o r . P h i l a d e l p h i a : Lea and Febiger. Mosher, R. E. & S c h u t z , R. W. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The development of a t e s t of overarm t h r o w i n g : An a p p l i c a t i o n o f g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t h e o r y . Canadian J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d S p o r t S c i e n c e s , _8( 1), 1 -8. Popham, W. J . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . E d u c a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n . Englewood C l i f f , Jersey: Prentice H a l l . Popham, W. J . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . E v a l u a t i n g I n s t r u c t i o n . Englewood C l i f f s , Jersey: Prentice H a l l .  New New  R e n t z , R. R. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . R u l e s of thumb f o r e s t i m a t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s u s i n g g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t h e o r y . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 40, 575-592. S a f r i t , M. J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . C r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d measurement: A p p l i c a t i o n s i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n . Motor S k i l l s : Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e , 2(1), 21-35. S a f r i t , M. J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . E v a l u a t i o n i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n (2nd e d . ) . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l .  Sbepard, Lorrie. (1980). Standard setting issues and methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4(A), 447-467. Si mpson, E. J . (1966). The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain. (Vocational and Technical Education Grant, Contract No. 0E 5-85-104). Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Subkoviak, M. J . (1976). Estimating r e l i a b i l i t y from a single administration of a critierion-referenced test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13, 265-276. Suttinger, J . (1957). A proposed predictive index of volleyball playing ability for college women. Unpublished study, University of California. Swaminathan, H . , Hambleton, R. K . , & Algina, J . Reliability of criterion-referenced tests: A decision-theoretic formulation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11, 263-268. Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.). (1971). Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Will iams, L. R. T . , & Fawcett, S. A. (1975). A multiple regression analysis of volleyball s k i l l tests. The Australian Journal for Health, Physical Education and Recreation.  81  -  Appendix A VOLLEYBALL PROFICIENCY TEST PART I - Cognitive Knowledge  Multiple Choice - Pick the best answer for each question and f i l l it in the appropriate space on the answer sheet. Do not write on the question sheets. 1.  Which serve i s used most frequently by highly skilled players? a) b) c) d)  2.  From the following group of errors, which will prevent your serve from floating? a) b) c) d) e)  3.  the the the the  centre front area of the court sideline centre back area of the court corners of the court  Which technique is usually the most effective when passing the ball to a spiker? a) b) c) d)  5.  wrist too s t i f f on contact wrist too loose on contact contact is off-centre b and c a and c  Where is the major weakness of the W serve-receive formation? a) b) c) d)  A.  spike serve overhand spin serve underhand float overhand float serve  a jump set an overhead set a bump a back bump  Which pattern represents the most basic offense in volleyball? a) b) c) d)  set-spike-block pass-set-attack set-spike-cover pass-set-tip  82  6_r  Which s k i l l does a player have the most control over? a ) setting b) serving c) bumping d) blocking  7.  Which diagram indicates the best strategy when the centre back makes the first contact in a U-2 centre specialized system?  t  31  3  f 4  2  6  4  6 —  2  2  4  .2  4  6 5  1  5  1  5  6 1  5  ^  1  d) c) b) a) Which darkened area shows the best region for serve placement?  • • 9.  1  d) b) c) a) Which part of the players body gives the best surface for contact and control of the bump pass? a) b) c) d)  10.  •  the fleshy part of the inner arms the wrists the forearms b and c  Which situation illustrates an illegal play? a) b) c) d)  a player reaches under the net to play a ball falling from the net on her side a player reaches over the net to block a ball that has been attacked by the opponents a player steps over the centre line during play but does not interfere with the opponent's play a player grabs the shirt of a teammate and pulls her back to prevent her from falling into the net  1  83  LJ.  Which s c o r e i n d i c a t e s a completed game? a) b) c) d)  12.  How many p o i n t s has Team A s c o r e d i f they have r o t a t e d through the f o l l o w i n g s e r v i n g o r d e r w i t h J a c k i e b e i n g t h e f i r s t s e r v e r o f t h e game: J a c k i e served 3 t i m e s , B l a i n e served 4 t i m e s , Mike s e r v e d 1 t i m e , Roy served 2 t i m e s , Gerry i s ready t o s e r v e f o r t h e f o u r t h time? a) b) c) d)  13.  d)  t a k e a one-step approach and reach w i t h one hand keep t r y i n g u n t i l her jump improves n o t b l o c k ; s t a y a t t h e n e t and t u r n t o f a c e her teammates t o be ready t o make t h e second c o n t a c t s o f t b l o c k so t h a t t h e b a l l w i l l d e f l e c t up i n t o her back court  What i s t h e key t o l a n d i n g s a f e l y a f t e r making an emergency dig? a) b) c) d)  15.  9 8 13 14  I f a b l o c k i n g p l a y e r can o n l y reach so t h a t h a l f o f her hands extend above t h e h e i g h t o f the n e t , she s h o u l d : a) b) c)  14.  15-14 22-20 11-10 11-9  u s i n g your knee pads rolling r e l a x i n g when you c o n t a c t t h e f l o o r diving  A 6-up d e f e n s e works b e s t : a) b) c) d)  a g a i n s t a team t h a t t i p s o r h i t s h a l f - s p e e d s h o t s a g a i n s t a team t h a t h i t s deep over the b l o c k f o r a team w i t h an i n c o n s i s t e n t 2 man b l o c k f o r a team w i t h poor t i p d i g g e r s  «4  1£.  In a 6-up defense, whose responsibility is i t to tip dig in centre front when the other team is attacking from their position #4. a) b) c) d)  17.  What is #5's responsibility when her teammate #4 is attacking the ball? a) b) c) d)  18.  #3 #4 #6 #4 and #6  covering at mid-court in case the ball is blocked switching to her defensive position covering just inside the 3 meter line in case the ball is blocked watching to see where the holes in the opponents' defenses are  What is the best angle of approach for a right handed spiker from their power side?  \ a) 19.  b)  c)  What is the fastest way to move across the width of the court? a) b) c) d)  20.  K A  sidestep forward sprint stutter step cross-over step  The sport of volleyball was initiated in: a) b) c) d)  Japan Czechoslovakia Cuba U.S.A.  d)  85  21.  Which h i t t e r i s e x e c u t i n g an o f f - h a n d a) b) c) d)  22.  pass?  f r o n t - b a c k s t r i d e , knees bent s i d e s t r i d e , knees bent front-back s t r i d e , legs f a i r l y s t r a i g h t side s t r i d e , legs f a i r l y s t r a i g h t  Which of t h e f o l l o w i n g i n c r e a s e s t h e power o f a s p i k e ? a) b) c) d)  26.  at chin level d i r e c t l y overhead r i g h t o f f t h e nose near t h e forehead  How a r e t h e l e g s p o s i t i o n e d when e x e c u t i n g a forearm a) b) c) d)  25.  o v e r h a n d - h i t w i t h h e e l o f hand - no f o l l o w through s i d e a r m - h i t w i t h open hand spike serve o v e r h a n d - h i t w i t h h e e l o f hand - f o l l o w through  Where i s t h e c o n t a c t p o i n t f o r t h e overhand pass? a) b) c) d)  24.  r i g h t - h a n d e d h i t t e r s p i k i n g from LF l e f t - h a n d e d h i t t e r s p i k i n g from RF r i g h t - h a n d e d h i t t e r s p i k i n g from CF l e f t - h a n d e d h i t t e r s p i k i n g from LF  Which s e r v e has no s p i n and moves i n an e r r a t i c path as i t approaches t h e r e c e i v e r ? a) b) c) d)  23.  a a a a  spike?  c o n t a c t i n g t h e b a l l i n f r o n t of t h e body f o l l o w through w i t h t h e hand speeding up t h e arm a c t i o n r o t a t i n g the hips l a t e r a l l y a f t e r take-off  Which t e c h n i q u e a) b) c) d)  one two two two  foot foot foot foot  i s recommended f o r s u c c e s s f u l s p i k i n g ?  take-off, take-off, hop, open take-off,  cupped hand cupped hand hand open hand  86  27.  28.  P l a y e r s A and B a r e s e t t e r s . P l a y e r s C and D a r e the h i t t e r s . Which l i n e - u p i s most advantageous? D  A  F  E  A  F  E  B  D  A  E  C  E  B  C  C  B  D  C  F  A  B  D  F  a) b) What a r e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of system? a) b) c) d)  29.  31  hitting digging hitting setting  c) the '2' i n a 6-2  d) offensive  and d e f e n s e and s e t t i n g and b l o c k i n g and h i t t i n g  A p l a y e r c o n s i s t e n t l y s p i k e s the b a l l i n t o the n e t . T a k i n g f o r granted t h a t t h e s e t s are adequate, which c o r r e c t i o n should be offered? a) b) c) d)  30.  best  h i t the b a l l a l i t t l e l a t e r take a l o n g e r approach h i t the b a l l sooner d e c r e a s e the f o l l o w through of the  arm  Which of the s k i l l s l i s t e d below u t i l i z e s p r i m a r i l y the l e g s t o i n c r e a s e the d i s t a n c e t h a t the b a l l t r a v e l s ? a) b) c) d)  serve dive set dig  Who  c o n t r o l s the  a) b) c) d)  captain setter hitters coach  offense?  87  32.  The a t t a c k a r e a a) b) c) d)  e) 33.  shall  be 3 metres from and p a r a l l e l t o t h e c e n t r e l i n e end a t t h e s i d e l i n e s o f t h e c o u r t extend i n d e f i n i t e l y p a r a l l e l t o t h e c e n t e r l i n e a and b a and c  The h e i g h t s o f t h e n e t s f o r men and women r e s p e c t i v e l y a t t h e c e n t r e o f t h e n e t s h a l l be a) b) c) d)  2.24 2.43 2.43 2.49  m; m; m; m;  2.49 2.00 2.24 2.24  m m m m  34. A team i s p e r m i t t e d a) b) c) d) 35.  Any p l a y e r b e g i n n i n g a game i n a match may be r e p l a c e d a) b) c) d)  36.  f o u r s u b s t i t u t i o n s per game s i x s u b s t i t u t i o n s per game s i x s u b s t i t u t i o n s per match 12 s u b s t i t u t i o n s per match  once by any s u b s t i t u t e and may n o t r e - e n t e r t h e same game once and may r e - e n t e r t h e same game once t w i c e d u r i n g t h e game p r o v i d e d t h e same p l a y e r exchanges w i t h him a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e next game but not b e f o r e  A f t e r a b a l l i s served a) b) c) d)  each p l a y e r may move t o any s e c t i o n o f h i s team's c o u r t t h e b a c k l i n e p l a y e r s o n l y may s w i t c h p o s i t i o n s i n t h e backline t h e f r o n t l i n e p l a y e r s o n l y may s w i t c h p o s i t i o n s i n t h e f r o n t row both b and c  88  37.  The linesmen are responsible for a) b) c) d) e)  38.  A third time out for rest is requested; what happens? a) b) c) d)  39.  time out is granted but the captain or coach making the request shall be warned time out is granted but the opponents receive a point it shall be refused and the opponents receive a point i t shall be refused, and the captain or coach making the request shall be warned  A simultaneous hit by opponents allows the team on whose side the ball enters the court a) b) c) d)  40.  signalling balls 'in or out' of court checking the height of the net before the match begins indicating i f a ball has been contacted by a player before landing outside the court both a and b both a and c  three more hits two more hits one more hit a replay  Pick out the serve receive pattern that constiutes an overlap. 4  4  3  5  3  5  6 2 6  1  a) e)  none of the above  b)  c)  1  d)  Appendix B VOLLEYBALL PROFICIENCY TEST PART II - Performance Analysis Pick the best answer for each question and f i l l i t in the appropriate space on the answer sheet. 1.  Why can't I get the ball to go farther forward? a) b) c) d) e)  2.  I can't seem to control how far forward I bump the ball - why? a) b) c) d) e)  3.  arms bent on contact transferring your weight backwards on contact contacting the ball with your fists a and b b and c  Why do I always have to jump when I forearm pass the ball? a) b) c) d) e)  A.  you are not using your legs you are not extending your arms on contact you are not contacting the ball above your forehead a and b b and c  you are too close to the ball one leg is too far in front of the other you are not using enough arm swing on contact a and b a and c  Why does the ball f a l l short of my target? a) b) c) d) e)  because you are off balance prior to contact because you have no forward lean in your trunk because your arms are parallel to the floor b and c a and b  How can I spike the ball cross-court? a) b) c) d)  jump sooner and reach for the ball approach the ball at a 45 degree angle to the net point your left arm and shoulder to the ball on takeoff a and b  e)  b and c  I'm having trouble with my timing - what's wrong? a) b) c) d) e) Why  you are approaching from too far away you are not using enough arm swing you are taking too many steps a and b b and c do I always seem to hit the ball behind my head?  a) b) c) d) e)  you are drifting under the ball after your two-foot takeoff your arm swing is too late you are taking off too close to the net a and c a and b  Why does my serve go so high over the net? a) b) c) d) e)  toss is too low toss is too close to your body hitting the bottom of the ball a and b b and c  My serve seems to keep hitting the top of the net, why? a) b) c) d) e)  toss is too low elbow is bent on contact toss is too far in front of you b and c a l l of the above  How can I jump higher on my spike jump? a) b) c) d) e)  use a forceful upward armswing use a heel-toe rocking action to plant on takeoff feet should be perpendicular to the net on takeoff a and b a l l of the above  91  11.  Why are a l l of my spikes going out of the court?  ~  a) b) c) d) e)  12.  Why can't I get the ball to go farther? a) b) c)  because you are jumping too late because your elbow is bent on contact because you are taking off too close to the net a and b a and c  d)  not using your legs not contacting ball above forehead not following through in the direction you want the ball to go a and b  e)  a l l of the above  13.  Why can't I control where the ball goes?  14.  a) contacting i t with your fists b) one leg is too far in front of the other c) arms are too parallel to the floor d) a and b e) a and c Why do I have a hard time controlling where the ball will go? a) b) c) d) e)  15.  Why does the ball go straight up instead of forward? a) b) c) d) e)  16.  your steps to the ball are too long you are contacting the ball at chin level your fingers and hands are too relaxed on contact b and c a l l of the above  you are backing away from the ball on contact the ball is hitting your fists your follow through is up and over your head b and c a l l of the above  In a 6-up defensive system such as the players are using who has the responsibility to dig this ball? a) b) c) d)  #2 after landing from block #6 #1 #1 or #6  92  17.  Why was this player unable to spike the ball? a) b) c) d)  18.  The player in position #1 has the second contact on the ball who would be the best player for him to set? a) b) c) d)  19.  #4 #2 #3 #2 or #4  How could the setter in center front have made a better set that was closer to the net? a) b) c) d)  20.  set was too high set was too far outside the antenna attacker did not back out of the court in preparation for the set b and c  by using a jump set by using more leg extension by turning her body parallel to the net while setting the ball by turning her body parallel to the net before setting the ball  In a W serve receive pattern who has the responsibility to receive this ball in deep center back? a) b) c) d)  either the left or right back depending on who can get there faster the player in the center position - she should back up i f the ball is going deep the player in left back because both the left front and center player turned to show him i t was his ball any of the 3 backrow players depending on who called the ball first  Appendix C SUBJECTIVE RATING SCALE  A) OVERHEAD PASSING 4 - Excel lent - demonstrates ease of movement with control and accuracy. - the player positions his or herself properly in relation to the oncoming ball; feet, hips, and shoulders face the target and the player neither has to reach nor feel constricted as * they play the b a l l . - body should be balanced on ball contact with one foot slightly in front of the other. - there is a smooth transfer of weight and momentum from the legs to the arms and forward into the b a l l . - ball is contacted above forehead and arms follow through upward in direction of pass. - fingers are firm and contact is legal. 3 - Average to Good - generally has control over the ball but one component of the pass is performed incorrectly so the fluidity of movement is missing. - player may have judged incorrectly and finds his or herself too close or too far away from the ball but is s t i l l able to  94  adapt and perform an overhead  pass  successfully.  body may not be square t o t h e t a r g e t but o t h e r w i s e t h e overhead pass i s performed  smoothly.  f e e t may be p a r a l l e l r a t h e r than one i n f r o n t of t h e o t h e r t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d i n g a very s m a l l base of s u p p o r t and l o s s of balance w h i l e performing the pass. t r a n s f e r o f momentum from l e g s t o arms may n o t be s e q u e n t i a l , body movement p r i o r t o c o n t a c t i s c o r r e c t but on c o n t a c t body weight i s t r a n s f e r r e d  backwards.  body p o s i t i o n i s c o r r e c t but hands a r e dropped  below f o r e h e a d  l e v e l o r a r e t o o f a r back above head. footwork and body movement a r e smooth but hands a r e not kept f i r m enough f o r l e g a l c o n t a c t  Poor t o Average - performance  i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due t o a  c o m b i n a t i o n o f two e r r o r s , movement t o t h e b a l l i s i n a d e q u a t e and t h e r e f o r e t h e p l a y e r c o n t a c t s t h e b a l l i n an unbalanced p o s i t i o n - f o r w a r d f o l l o w through i s s t i l l e v i d e n t . p l a y e r i s unbalanced  p r i o r t o c o n t a c t and f o l l o w s through i n  a backward m o t i o n . p l a y e r c o n t a c t s b a l l a t c h i n l e v e l and f o l l o w s through backwards w i t h body. t r a n s f e r o f momentum from l e g s t o arms i s not s e q u e n t i a l and f o l l o w through o f arms i s d i r e c t l y upward i n s t e a d o f f o r w a r d .  95  1 - Poor - demonstrates erratic body control and thus consistency and accuracy are not evident. - a combination of three or more of the previous errors mentioned would result in poor performance. B) FOREARM PASSING  4 - Excel lent - demonstrates ease of movement with control and accuracy. - the player positions his or herself properly in relation to the oncoming ball; feet, hips, and shoulders face the target and the player neither has to reach nor feel constricted when they play the b a l l . - body should be balanced on ball contact with one foot slightly in front of the other. - there is a smooth transfer of weight and momentum from the legs to the arms and forward into the b a l l . - arms are straight on contact and almost parallel to the floor. - very l i t t l e upward follow through occurs after contact. - the ball should be contacted on the forearm area two to four inches above the wrist. - the ball is contacted simultaneously with both arms. 3 - Average to Good - generally has control over the ball but one component of the pass i s performed  96  i n c o r r e c t l y so t h e f l u i d i t y o f movement is missing. p l a y e r may have judged i n c o r r e c t l y and f i n d s h i s o r h e r s e l f too  c l o s e o r t o o f a r away from the b a l l but i s s t i l l a b l e t o  adapt and perform a forearm pass  successfully,  body may n o t be square t o t h e t a r g e t but o t h e r w i s e t h e forearm pass i s performed f e e t may be p a r a l l e l  smoothly.  r a t h e r than one i n f r o n t o f t h e o t h e r  t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d i n g a very s m a l l base o f s u p p o r t and l o s s o f balance w h i l e performing the pass. t r a n s f e r o f momentum from l e g s t o arms may not be s e q u e n t i a l , body movement p r i o r t o c o n t a c t i s c o r r e c t but on c o n t a c t body weight i s t r a n s f e r r e d  backwards.  body p o s i t i o n i s c o r r e c t but b a l l c o n t a c t s arms c l o s e r t o elbows t h a n t o w r i s t s . footwork and body movement a r e smooth but t h e r e i s an e x a g g e r a t e d upward armswing on f o l l o w t h r o u g h . Poor t o Average - performance  i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due t o a  c o m b i n a t i o n of two e r r o r s , judgement and movement t o t h e b a l l a r e inadequate and t h e r e f o r e t h e p l a y e r c o n t a c t s t h e b a l l t o o h i g h on t h e f o r e a r m - f o r w a r d f o l l o w through i s s t i l l e v i d e n t , p l a y e r i s unbalanced p r i o r t o c o n t a c t and f o l l o w s through i n a backward m o t i o n .  - player contacts the ball too high on the forearm and follows through backwards with the body. - transfer of momentum from legs to arms is not sequential and player uses exaggerated armswing to get the power to l i f t the ball. 1 - Poor - demonstrates erratic body control and thus consistency and accuracy are not evident. - a combination of three or more of the previous errors mentioned would result in poor performance. C) OVERHAND SERVING 4 - Excellent - demonstrates ease of movement with control and accuracy. - ball is tossed with a controlled l i f t i n g action of the arm. - the height of the toss is just slightly higher than the extended hitting arm. - a smooth forward transfer of weight occurs just prior to ball contact - this can be from back foot to front foot or from heels to toes. - ball is contacted in front of or directly above hitting shoulder. - arm i s extended and wrist is s t i f f on contact for an overhand floater serve.  If a topspin serve is attempted the wrist is  snapped over the ball on contact.  t h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e e x t r a n e o u s movment i n e i t h e r backswing or forward swing of arm the arm  action.  comes f o r w a r d q u i c k l y but  Average t o Good - g e n e r a l l y one  f o l l o w through i s l i m i t e d .  has c o n t r o l over the b a l l  but  component of the s e r v e i s performed  i n c o r r e c t l y so the f l u i d i t y of movement is t o s s may  be t o o low  a d a p t s and  missing. or h i g h or t o o c l o s e t o body but  performs a s u c c e s s f u l  a c t i o n of the t o s s i n g arm  may  server  serve.  l a c k c o n t r o l but  the remainder  of the s e r v i n g a c t i o n i s smooth. arm  a c t i o n may  be very smooth but not accompanied by  any  f o r w a r d weight t r a n s f e r . a l t h o u g h t o s s i s a c c u r a t e , arm  a c t i o n may  be slow c a u s i n g  c o n t a c t w i t h a bent elbow. body c o n t r o l may  be smooth but w r i s t i s l o o s e on  contact.  Poor t o Average - performance i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due c o m b i n a t i o n of two t o s s i s too c l o s e t o body so s e r v e r and  w r i s t to contact  t o s s i n g arm  errors, adapts by bending elbow  ball.  a c t i o n l a c k s c o n t r o l so f o r w a r d t r a n s f e r  weight i s not t o s s i n g arm  to a  of  evident.  a c t i o n l a c k s c o n t r o l so b a l l i s not  contacted  directly in front of hitting shoulder. 1 - Poor - demonstrates erratic body control and thus consistency and accuracy are not evident. - a combination of three or more of the previous errors mentioned would result in poor performance. D) SPIKING ^ ~ Excellent - demonstrates ease of movement with control and accuracy. - player positions his or herself outside the court at a 45 degree angle to the net in preparation for the toss. - player takes a short step to help in timing the approach. - from this i n i t i a l step a long, low, forceful step is taken landing in a two-foot takeoff position with toes facing 45 degrees to the net. - the arms are brought back behind the attacker as the step is taken. - as the heel-toe rocking action of the takeoff occurs, the arms are forcefully swung forward and upward to aid in vertical  lift.  - the hitting elbow is pulled back high in preparation for the attack. - strong trunk rotation and flexion precede the forward arm action of the hitting arm.  100  the b a l l s h o u l d be c o n t a c t e d i n f r o n t of t h e h i t t i n g w i t h the arm  shoulder  extended.  judgement of the s e t i s c r i t i c a l so t h a t b a l l i s a t t a c k e d at h i g h e s t p o i n t of the jump. arm s h o u l d f o l l o w through a c r o s s the body. balance s h o u l d be r e g a i n e d on l a n d i n g w i t h knees f l e x e d  and  feet shoulder width a p a r t . Average t o Good - g e n e r a l l y d e m o n s t r a t e s good body c o n t r o l and  b a l l c o n t a c t but an e r r o r i n one  component of the s p i k e makes the a t t a c k l e s s e f f e c t i v e than i t c o u l d  be.  proper t e c h n i q u e i s demonstrated but the t i m i n g of the jump i s too e a r l y or t o o proper  late.  form i s demonstrated a f t e r t a k e o f f but he a n g l e of  approach t o the net i s i n c o r r e c t 0 £ t h e r e i s not  evidence  of a l o n g , low s t e p p r i o r t o t a k e o f f . the approach i s performed c o r r e c t l y but elbow i s bent on c o n t a c t or_ b a l l i s c o n t a c t e d behind t h e h i t t i n g footwork  shoulder,  i s c o r r e c t but no f o r c e f u l upward armswing i s  e v i d e n t on t a k e o f f . footwork  and c o n t a c t p o i n t a r e c o r r e c t but t h e r e i s l i t t l e or  no t r u n k r o t a t i o n or f l e x i o n p r e c e d i n g b a l l c o n t a c t .  Poor t o Average - performance i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due t o a  c o m b i n a t i o n of two e r r o r s , no l o n g , low s t e p i s e v i d e n c e d p r i o r t o t a k e o f f and no upwar armswing i s used. a n g l e o f approach  i s i n c o r r e c t and b a l l i s not c o n t a c t e d  d i r e c t l y i n front of h i t t i n g shoulder. f e e t do not t a k e o f f s i m u l t a n e o u s l y and jump i s e i t h e r t o o early or too l a t e .  Poor - demonstrates  e r r a t i c body c o n t r o l and thus  c o n s i s t e n c y and a c c u r a c y a r e not e v i d e n t , a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h r e e or more o f t h e p r e v i o u s e r r o r s mentioned  would r e s u l t i n poor  performance.  Appendix D JUDGE -  SUBJECT NAME VOLLEYBALL LEVEL VOLLEYBALL RATING SCALE TRIALS 1  A) OVERHEAD PASSING 4 3 2 1  -  Excellent Average t o Good Poor t o Average Poor  B) FOREARM PASSING 4 3 2 1  -  Excellent Average t o Good Poor t o Average Poor  C) OVERHAND SERVING 4 3 2 1  -  Excellent Average t o Good Poor t o Average Poor  D) SPIKING 4 3 2 1  -  Excellent Average t o Good Poor t o Average Poor  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  TOT;  103  Appendix E CHI SQUARE TABLES  Cognitive Scores  1 ;1 1 N 1  SKILL  M 5  e i  6  2  3  COLUMN TOTAL  I I I  D.F.  7.31204  2  2| 11 10 16  I I I  16 33.3 16 33.3 16 33.3  37 77 . 1  11 22 .9  CHI-SQUARE  TOTAL  NM  1|  48 100.0 MIN E.F  SIGNIFICANCE  3 .667  0.0258  NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS  =  CELLS WITH E .F .< 5 3 OF  6 ( 50.0%)  0  Performance Analysis Scores M  1| +  SKILL 1  E  I  ROW TOTAL  MM m  I  | +  2  2| + 15 I 16 | 33.3 +. 16 I 16 | 33 . 3  N —  COLUMN TOTAL CHI-SQUARE 2.04255  +  —  1 2.1  D.F. 2  +  47 97.9  48 100.0  SIGNIFICANCE  MIN E.F.  0.3601  NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS  -  0.333 0  CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 3 OF  6 ( 50.0%)  104  Overhead Pass Product Score  SKILL  • £  M  11 16  + 1  21 •  I  I  +  4-  " 1 1  2  +  N  NM  •  I  1  ROW TOTAL  2  9  3  +-  16 33.3  1|  33.3  |  33 . 3  16  7  COLUMN  39  9  48  TOTAL  81.3  18.8  100.0  CHI-SQUARE  D.F.  10.66667  2  SIGNIFICANCE  MIN E . F .  0.0048  NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS  3.000  «  C E L L S WITH E . F . < 5 3 OF  6  (  50.0%)  0  Forearm Pass Product Score ROW TOTAL  M  SKILL  11 NM  21  16  16 33 . 3 16 33.3 14  16 33.3  23 47.9  48 100.0  N COLUMN TOTAL  25 52. 1  CHI-SQUARE  D.F.  25.21043  2  MIN E . F .  SIGNIFICANCE  7 .667  0.0000  NUMBER OF M I S S I N G OBSERVATIONS  «  0  C E L L S WITH E . F . < 5  NONE  105  Overhand Serve Product Score  M  SKILL  ROW TOTAL  11 NM  21 16 33.3  I  2  N  3  16 33.3  I  5  COLUMN TOTAL  21 43.8  CHI-SQUARE  D.F.  2.03175  2  11  16 33.3  27 56.3  48 100.0  SIGNIFICANCE  MIN E . F .  0.3621  NUMBER OF M I S S I N G OBSERVATIONS  7.0O0  C E L L S WITH E . F . < 5  NONE  0  *  Spike Product Score  M  SKILL  E I N  " I I I I  1  5  2  5  3  |  CHI-SQUARE  D.F.  13.500OO  2  2  16 33.3  1 1  16 33.3  1 1  16 33.3 48 1O0.0  24 50.0  24 50.0  COLUMN TOTAL  21  im  i|  SIGNIFICANCE  MIN E . F .  0.0012  NUMBER OF M I S S I N G OBSERVATIONS  •=  ROW TOTAL  8.000 0  C E L L S WITH E . F . < 5  NONE  106  Overhead Pass P r o c e s s  Score  M  SKILL  1| +  NM 3  16 33 . 3  13  16 33.3  16  16 33.3  32 66.7  48 100.0  3  COLUMN TOTAL  16 33 . 3  CHI-SQUARE  D.F.  26.06249  2  2| +  I  13  N  ROW TOTAL  MIN E.F.  SIGNIFICANCE 0.0000  NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS  Forearm Pass P r o c e s s  -  O  1|  ROW TOTAL  NM  2|  16  1  N  1  2  |  COLUMN TOTAL CHI-SQUARE 39.99999  16 33.3  ' 1' 1 ' 1 1 5  3  18 37.5  D.F, 2  NONE  Score  M  SKILL  5.333  CELLS WITH E.F.< 5  15  16 33.3  30 62.5  48 100.0 MIN E.F.  SIGNIFICANCE  6.000  O.OOOO  NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS  16 33 . 3  «  0  CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 NONE  107  Overhand Serve Process Score ROW  11 N M  M + --  SKILL "  '  |  "  +  J  33'?  ' ]  j * : s  12  +  +  COLUMN TOTAL  CHI-SOUARE  21  +  D.F.  20.20174  25 52.1  48 100.0  SIGNIFICANCE  2  NUMBER OF MISSING  +  23 47.9  MIN E . F .  0.00O0  OBSERVATIONS  7.667  =  C E L L S WITH E.F.< 5  NONE  0  Spike Process Score  M SKILL  i | +  + E  I  | +  1  | I  2  |  8  2  +  N  CHI-SOUARE  13.13684 NII1MRFD  DF  MT ^^ T KCX  2  |  8  I|  14  33 3 16  + | I  16  + 16  + 10 20.8  D.F.  2| +  +  |  + COLUMN TOTAL  NM  +  j  3  ROW TOTAL  | +  38 79.2  48 100.0  SIGNIFICANCE  MIN E . F .  0.0014  DRSFRVAT I ONS «  3.333  O  C E L L S WITH E.F.< 5  3 OF  6 ( 50.0%)  108  Total  Score  M  1|  SKILL  NM  ROW TOTAL 2| 16 33 . 3  11  I  2  N COLUMN TOTAL  11 22.9  CHI-SQUARE  D.F.  28.54054  2  NUMBER  OF  16  16 33 . 3  16  16 33.3  37 77.1  48 100.0  SIGNIFICANCE  MIN  O.OOOO  MISSING OBSERVATIONS  <=  E.F.  3.667 O  CELLS  3  OF  WITH  6  E.F.<  (  5  50.0%)  

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077233/manifest

Comment

Related Items