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 University 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 S C H O O L OF P H Y S I C A L E D U C A T I O N We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to -the reqtisLred/s'taadard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1985 ® Donna Anne Baydock, 1985 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 D a t e fefew /s , DE-6(3/81) ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to construct and va l i d a t e an assessment t o o l that could be used to determine the l e v e l of cognitive and psychomotor p r o f i c i e n c y possessed at the introductory l e v e l of v o l l e y b a l l . The proposed te s t was administered to 24 males and 24 females evenly s t r a t i f i e d i n t o three s k i l l l e v e l s : e l i t e , i n s t r u c t e d and novice. Analysis of variance was used to determine construct v a l i d i t y while the Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n , kappa c o e f f i c i e n t and 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 were a l l used to determine r e l i a b i l i t y of various components of the t e s t . C o r r e l a t i o n between te s t components was investigated as was the 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 as demonstrated by the Chi Square s t a t i s t i c . Data analysis led to the conclusion that a l l te s t components were v a l i d and r e l i a b l e measures of introductory l e v e l v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l with some caution being advised i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the kappa c o e f f i c i e n t . Test components were re l a t e d but not redundant and nine of 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 between achievement of mastery and s k i l l l e v e l . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Rationale for the Study 2 Delimitation 4 Assumptions 4 I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6 I I I . PROCEDURE 22 Source of Data 23 Test Construction 1) Cognitive Test 24 2) Performance Analysis 26 3) Objective Performance Evaluation -Product Score 27 a) overhead passing 28 b) forearm passing 30 c) overhand serving 30 d) spiking 31 4) Subjective Performance Evaluation -Process Score 32 Data Analysis 33 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35 Construct V a l i d i t y 35 R e l i a b i l i t y of the Cognitive Test 50 R e l i a b i l i t y of the Performance Analysis 53 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 Tests . . . 54 1) Overhead Pass 57 2) Forearm Pass 59 3) Overhand Serve 61 4) Spike -'. 63 G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of Results 64 i i i C o r r e l a t i o n Between Test Components 68 Comparison of Number of Subjects Achieving Mastery i n Each S k i l l Level 71 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 73 Major Findings 74 Conclusions 76 Recommendations 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY 77 APPENDIX A. Cognitive Knowledge Questions . . . . 81 B. Performance Analysis Questions . . . . . 89 C. Subjective Rating Scale 93 D. Rating Scale T a l l y Sheet 102 E. Chi Square Tables 103 iv 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 42 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 51 XIV 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 Skill of the Volleyball Proficiency Test 65 XX Correlations Between Process Scores 68 v XXI C o r r e l a t i o n s Between P r o d u c t and P r o c e s s S c o r e s f o r A l l S k i l l s 69 X X I I C h i S q u a r e V a l u e s and L e v e l s o f S i g n i f i c a n c e o f T e s t Components 71 v i LIST OF FIGURES 1. Schematic Representation of Overhead Passing Test . . . 29 2. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Cognitive Test 36 3. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Performance Analysis 37 4. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Overhead Pass - Product Score 38 5. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Forearm Pass - Product Score 39 6. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Overhand Serve - Product Score 41 7. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Spike - Product Score 42 8. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Overhead Pass - Process Score 43 9. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Forearm Pass - Process Score 44 10. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Overhand Serve - Process Score 45 11. Graphic Representation of the Results of the Spike - Process Score 46 12. Graphic Representation of the Results of the To t a l Score 47 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to take t h i s opportunity to thank the people who have helped i n the r e a l i z a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . Special thanks are due Dr. Gary S i n c l a i r , my advisor and mentor, for constant encouragement, enthusiasm and a v a i l a b i l i t y . Dr. Robert Schutz and Mr. Jim B j e r r i n g , members of my committee, for t h e i r time and i n t e r e s t i n my paper. Patty Schlafen and S a r i Fleming, my two observers and close 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 advisor, who helped me to see the l i g h t at the end of the tunnel and took the time to make sure I got there. Dr. Wendy Dahlgren for her support and advice. Mrs. Joyce Fromson, my employer and f r i e n d , who made sure I had the opportunity to f i n i s h t h i s t h e s i s . My close f r i e n d s and colleagues who believed i n my a b i l i t y and determination and gently pushed me to achieve my goal. Sheryle Bergmann, my t y p i s t , who worked beyond the c a l l of duty with almost the same fervor I did. v i i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Prof i c i e n c y t e s t i n g i n physical education, an h i s t o r i c a l concern, has taken on new s i g n i f i c a n c e as educational i n s t i t u t i o n s move to performance-based or competency-based programs. Accountability demanded by colleges, u n i v e r s i t i e s and secondary schools has created the need for a reassessment of materials on p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g and a framework for u t i l i z a t i o n of materials appropriate to our d i s c i p l i n e . (McGee and Drews, 1974) It i s often the case that p h y s i c a l education majors have received s p e c i a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n several a c t i v i t y areas before they reach u n i v e r s i t y and i t i s t h i s early exposure that prompts further involvement i n the f i e l d of physical education. Unfortunately, many u n i v e r s i t i e s i n s i s t that students p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c t i v i t y courses regardless of previously attained competencies and i n t h i s manner a c t u a l l y l i m i t a student's formal education. The increasing emphasis on q u a l i t y of education combined with crowded f a c i l i t i e s and l i m i t e d budgets have prompted the development of p r o f i c i e n c y tests (McGee and Drews, 1974). Although most educators agree with the concept of t e s t i n g for p r o f i c i e n c y at the student's request, a drawback has been the construction of v a l i d t o o l s of evaluation. Whereas co g n i t i v e p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t s for academic subjects are r e l a t i v e l y simple to construct and administer o b j e c t i v e l y , the same i s not true for sport s k i l l t e s t s . Students completing an introductory l e v e l physical a c t i v i t y course are expected to demonstrate both cognitive and psychomotor s k i l l i n a given sport. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , evaluations have consisted of a f i n a l written exam and subjective 1 J r a t i n g s by an i n s t r u c t o r who has seen the students i n c l a s s over a period of 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 of only one 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 lend i t s e l f to t e s t e r b i a s and be a very u n r e l i a b l e method of e v a l u a t i o n . The sport of 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 course i n P h y s i c a l Education degree programs throughout North America. Consequently, i t i s appr o p r i a t e to s e l e c t v o l l e y b a l l f o r the development of 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 of the study i s t o co 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 administered to assess the l e v e l of c o g n i t i v e and psychomotor p r o f i c i e n c y possessed at the 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 . RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY To be considered p r o f i c i e n t at a sport or p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y one must demonstrate competence i n both the c o g n i t i v e and motor domains of behavior as r e l a t e d to 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 domain assessment should cover such sub-domains as s k i l l techniques, s t r a t e g y , p r i n c i p l e s of movement and to 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 the motor domain i t i s necessary to use both o b j e c t i v e s k i l l t e s t s to evaluate the product of performance and s u b j e c t i v e performance r a t i n g s to evaluate the process of performance. 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 p l a y i n g a b i l i t y i n c l u d e d repeated w a l l v o l l e y t e s t s and s e r v i c e accuracy t e s t s . 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 high but v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were questionable. In most cases the c r i t e r i o n used f o r v a l i d i t y was a s u b j e c t i v e 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 to i n f e 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 from the l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e 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 not s u p r i s i n g t h a t v a l i d i t y was marginal. There have been more recent attempts at making i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l t e s t s more game-like (Chun, 1969) and at combining a number of s k i l l t e s t s (AAHPER, 1967; W i l l i a m s and Fawcett, 1975) i n order to b e t t e r p r e d i c t v o l l e y b a l l p l a y i n g a b i l i t y . Although 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 there has been no attempt to 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 t e s t s . 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 of the most i n c l u s i v e and c o nsiders four measures: v o l l e y i n g , s e r v i n g , passing and set-ups. However, there are s t i l l severe l i m i t a t i o n s to t h i s instrument as a t e s t of p r o f i c i e n c y 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 ; 1) the v o l l e y i n g and set-up t e s t both measure the s k i l l of overhead passing. The set-up t e s t i s more r e l e v a n t because of i t s game-like s i t u a t i o n thus rendering the w a l l v o l l e y i n g t e s t redundant. 2) the s k i l l of s p i k i n g i s missing from the e v a l u a t i o n and i t i s an essential component of the game of modern volleyball. 3) there is 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 abil ity. Difficulties in objectively and validly testing sport skil ls 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 sk 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 skil ls 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 skil ls 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 coaching and/or teaching, the emphasis i n an i n t r o d u c t o r y course i s e q u a l l y weighted between the process and the product of s k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n and w i l l be evaluated a c c o r d i n g l y . 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 that the e v a l u a t o r s would possess, at l e a s t , Level I N a t i o n a l Coaching C e r t i f i c a t i o n Program V o l l e y b a l l Conductor 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 . CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The need for p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g i n physical education has been i d e n t i f i e d . The extensive popularity 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 t e s t a p r a c t i c a l and highly useful contribution to the f i e l d . In order to construct an e f f e c t i v e measure i t i s necessary to review the theory behind p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g , examine current t e s t construction procedures and review 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 knowledge. The t h e o r e t i c a l basis for the construction of p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t s stems from the philosophy of mastery learning. I t simply states that most students can and w i l l learn what they are taught i f appropriate i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are u t i l i z e d , and the appropriate time i s allowed. This philosophy has been the premise behind tutoring for a few thousand years but group-based mastery learning s t r a t e g i e s are r e l a t i v e l y new to the f i e l d of education, being introduced i n the l a t e 1960's (Bloom, 1968). One of the major reasons for the lack of use of mastery learning s t r a t e g i e s was the adoption of the s t a t i s t i c a l l y v a l i d normal curve as a seemingly necessary t o o l i n grading student performance by assigning values over a range from A to F (90%-40%). Administrators are often c r i t i c a l of teachers for being e i t h e r too l e n i e n t or too demanding i f students' marks do not span the range of the normal, curve. Unfortunately, t h i s a t t i t u d e i n the school system i s often counterproductive to educational goals. Teachers may begin 6 to teach w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n that only very few students w i l l master the m a t e r i a l while students w i l l come to b e l i e v e that they are only capable of a c h i e v i n g a c e r t a i n l e v e l of mastery, e.g., 60%-70%, and w i l l not be motivated to work any harder. In 1963, C a r r o l l introduced the idea t h a t a student's a p t i t u d e f o r 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 that 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 l e a r n i n g . A student with a high 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 student with a low a p t i t u d e would l e a r n i t more sl o w l y . The degree of l e a r n i n g would depend on the time the student spent on l e a r n i n g r e l a t i v e to the time r e q u i r e d . C a r r o l l i d e n t i f i e d a student's perseverance i n studying and h i s a c t u a l opportunity to l e a r n ( c l a s s time) as key f a c t o r s i n the time spent on l e a r n i n g . On the other hand, the time needed was determined by a student's a p t i t u d e , the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n and h i s a b i l i t y to understand the i n s t r u c t i o n . I t f o l l o w s that i f a p t i t u d e corresponds to 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 should be p o s s i b l e to set performance l e v e l s that a l l students can master at t h e i r own speed. Bloom (1968) e x e m p l i f i e d t h i s l o g i c by s t a t i n g that i f students were normally d i s t r i b u t e d on a p t i t u d e f o r some subject and they were given equal opportunity to l e a r n and equal 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 to 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 opportunity to 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 those who needed i t most, the m a j o r i t y of students could be expected to a t t a i n mastery p r o v i d i n g , of course, that the c r i t e r i o n f o r mastery was a p p r o p r i a t e l y s e t . Mastery 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 parts of the world f o r a wide v a r i e t y of s u b j e c t areas across a l l l e v e l s of education (Block, 1979). They have been used i n classrooms with a student-teacher r a t i o of 20 to 1, 30 to 1 and even 70 to 1 (Kim, 1971). In order to evaluate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these s t r a t e g i e s student l e a r n i n g must be examined and t h i s i s most commonly done by measuring achievement. Often a mastery standard of 80% c o r r e c t i s set on a f i n a l examination and performances are compared between mastery and non-mastery students who s t u d i e d the same sub j e c t . A v a i l a b l e research g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e s that two to three times as many mastery l e a r n i n g students have achieved the standard as have students l e a r n i n g by the usual l e c t u r e - r e c i t a t i o n approach (Block, 1974). Kim (1971) used thousands of seventh grade Korean students to study the p o s s i b l e impact of mastery l e a r n i n g across a v a r i e t y of subject areas. He found that 75% of the mastery l e a r n i n g students compared to only 40% of the non-mastery students achieved 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 great r e d u c t i o n i n the number of students r e c e i v i n g marks of C, D, and F. According to these f i n d i n g s the c o g n i t i v e aspects of student 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 techniques. 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 it 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 in i t ia 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 strong p s y c h o l o g i c a l motivator f o r continued e f f o r t . In order to t e s t f o r mastery i t i s e s s e n t i a l to use c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s . The 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 t e s t s should be d i r e c t e d toward o b t a i n i n g measures of achievement that can be witnessed i n terms of student performance on c l e a r l y defined e d u c a t i o n a l t a s k s . Attainment of t h i s goal 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 tasks t h a t are presented 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 defined i n b e h a v i o r a l terms and l i s t e d as l e a r n i n g outcomes. Gronlund (1973) suggests two 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 discusses 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 with each l e v e l of l e a r n i n g . Most subject areas can be c l e a r l y defined and stated as b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s when basic s k i l l s are being taught. At the 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 necessary to set mastery as the performance standard so that t h i s knowledge can act as the b a s i s for f u r t h e r l e a r n i n g i n the f i e l d . Gronlund c a l l s t h i s l e a r n i n g of minimal 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 e x p l a i n s that 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 to design, c o n s t r u c t , and i n t e r p r e t at t h i s l e v e l . Once students 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 enter a developmental l e v e l of l e a r n i n g where each student i s encouraged to s t r i v e f o r the maximum l e v e l of achievement and e x c e l l e n c e of which they are capable r a t h e r than the mastery of some pre-determined 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 . The l e a r n i n g outcomes are complex, the domain of 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 are used more as goals to work toward ra t h e r than goals to be mastered. Norm-referenced t e s t s must be used to evaluate students' progress at t h i s l e v e l . From the preceding d i s c u s s i o n i t can be seen that 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 best u t i l i z e d i n mastery l e a r n i n g 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 . Once these l e a r n i n g outcomes are s t a t e d , an appr o p r i a t e standard of student 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 rendered 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 controversy e x i s t i n g i n the s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g l i t e r a t u r e and presented a number of a l t e r n a t i v e s . She d e l i n e a t e d the uses 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 and suggested various s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g 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 resembles 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 that when c o n s t r u c t i n g a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t f o r p u p i l c e r t i f i c a t i o n i t i s important to consider both absolute judgements about performance and passing r a t e s of previous students. Absolute judgements are based on experts' opinions of a minimally q u a l i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l . F o l l o w i n g the Angoff (1971) method the judges review a l l the t e s t items 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 estimate of how l i k e l y i t i s that a j u s t - b a r e l y - q u a l i f i e d person w i l l answer c o r r e c t l y . The mastery or c u t - o f f score i s set as the sum of 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 course, t h i s standard 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 to r e f e r to previous passing r a t e s to assure the mastery l e v e l i s not a r t i f i c i a l l y too high or too low. When t e s t items are 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 t e s t s , i t i s important that educators consider the stages of l e a r n i n g and the appro p r i a t e p r e r e q u i s i t e a b i l i t i e s . To i d e n t i f y p r e r e q u i s i t e a b i l i t i e s i t i s necessary to have a method of c l a s s i f y i n g behavior that enables b e h a v i o r a l s k i l l s to be placed i n some order, 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 lowest to highest or simplest to most complex. Since the goals of education are focused upon the growth and development of the t o t a l c h i l d , educators must be concerned with a l l three domains of behavior: c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and psychomotor. As Harrow (1972) p o i n t s out, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y behaviors that belong e x c l u s i v e l y to one domain but i n order to set meaningful l e a r n i n g outcomes the primary purpose f o r studying a behavior 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 of these domains. Each of the domains has been organized 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 the 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 (Krathwohl et a l , 1964) domains were e s t a b l i s h e d e a r l i e r , and provided a common foundation upon which teachers and c u r r i c u l u m 13 developers could organize l e a r n i n g experiences f o r c h i l d r e n . Taxonomies have a l s o provided f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of terminology i n a f i e l d , systematic development of a l e a r n i n g theory and the exchange of e v a l u a t i v e t o o l s and procedures among teachers and resea r c h e r s . The trend toward movement e f f i c i e n c y as 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 the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a taxonomy f o r the psychomotor domain. Since a taxonomy i s h i e r a r c h i c a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d , educators b e n e f i t by becoming aware of p r e r e q u i s i t e s t h a t are necessary f o r the development of va r i o u s movement t a s k s . Teachers can a l s o i n s u r e that they s et 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 of the taxonomy r a t h e r than predominantly at the lower l e v e l s . This was a common problem encountered when school c u r r i c u l a were examined i n l i e u of the c o g n i t i v e taxonomy of edu c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . Many of the i n i t i a l attempts of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems i n the psychomotor area were concerned with c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of behavior according to task v a r i a b l e s ( F i t t s , 1962, 1964). Fleishman (1964) even went so f a r as to develop an extensive f a c t o r a n a l y s i s to i d e n t i f y eleven a b i l i t y and nine p r o f i c i e n c y f a c t o r s that were independent of each other but common to a v a r i e t y of psychomotor s k i l l s . These experimenters were extremely concerned wih c a t e g o r i z i n g psychomotor tasks but paid l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to the le a r n e r and the l e a r n i n g processes necessary to achieve the d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s of behavior. In 1970, Gagne introduced a h i e r a r c h i c a l system of eigh t 14 l e v e l s of learned behavior based on "the c o n d i t i o n s necessary f o r observing and promoting each category". Two of h i s c a t e g o r i e s were psychomotorically o r i e n t e d and he considered them to be p r e r e q u i s i t i e s to the c o g n i t i v e behavior 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 c a l l e d the psychomoter c a t e g o r i e s stimulus response 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 response, and c h a i n i n g which s t a r t e d with a s i n g l e stimulus cue that t r i g g e r e d a s e r i e s of motor responses. M e r r i l l (1971 a,b) added a t h i r d category c a l l e d complex s k i l l which r e q u i r e d the execution of a number of d i f f e r e n t chains that are each t r i g g e r e d by separate cues presented i n varying orders. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , n e i t h e r experimenter considered environmental s t i m u l i and the important r o l e they play i n response s e l e c t i o n . An important discovery that the G a g n e / M e r r i l l taxonomy d i d assume was that the c o n d i t i o n s and processes f o r l e a r n i n g a new s i n g l e response act are very s i m i l a r r e g a r d l e s s of whether the response i s the manipulation of two f i n g e r s or a gross body movement. I n i t i a l l y t h i s idea was very s p e c u l a t i v e , but as more researchers became i n v o l v e d with developing a taxonomy f o r the psychomotor domain they a l l adopted t h i s approach. 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 process across the domain of psychomotor s k i l l s r a t h e r than the d i v e r s i t i e s t hat e x i s t between p a r t i c u l a r t a s k s or behaviors. Simpson (1966) made one of the f i r s t attempts at 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 to the psychomotor domain. She h i e r a r c h i c a l l y organized l e a r n i n g sequences according to response complexity. The i n i t i a l l e v e l was perception d e a l i n g with sensory 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 t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . The second l e v e l considered the readiness of the l e a r n e r according to mental, emotional, and p h y s i c a l s e t . Level three was c a l l e d guided response and d e a l t w i t h i m i t a t i o n s and t r i a l and e r r o r l e a r n i n g . H a b i t u a t i o n of movement was the concern of l e v e l four which was t i t l e d mechanism. The next three l e v e l s were complex overt response, adaptation and o r i g i n a t i o n of movement. Simpson's model provides a good d e s c r i p t i v e h i e r a r c h y of the stages a l e a r n e r passes through enroute to 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 o b j e c t i v e s . The f i r s t two l e v e l s are unobservable and l e v e l s three and four are inherent i n s k i l l l e a r n i n g but do not provide a good point at which to evaluate students because they have not yet learned the s k i l l . The f i n a l three l e v e l s are observable but are concerned with c r e a t i v i t y which i s d i f f i c u l t to measure o b j e c t i v e l y . Harrow h e r s e l f presented a very i n t r i c a t e psychomotor taxonomy that c l a s s i f i e d only observable movement behavior. The main c a t e g o r i e s were r e f l e x movements, bas i c fundamental movements, perceptual a b i l i t i e s , p h y s i c a l a b i l i t i e s , s k i l l e d movements and non-discursive communication with a l a r g e number of sub-categories under each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Although these observable behaviors were s e q u e n t i a l l y ordered, mastery of one l e v e l was 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 evidence of behaviors at a higher l e v e l . For example, i t i s " q u i t e f e a s i b l e that perceptual and p h y s i c a l a b i l i t i e s are developing at the same time, without one being a p r e r e q u i s i t e to the other. A l s o , many of the behavior sub-categories were e i t h e r innate or m a t u r a t i o n a l l y developed rather than learned so ed 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 recent taxonomy f o r the motor domain was developed by Jewett et a l . (1971). I t more c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l s the c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e taxonomies because i t deals w i t h the process of l e a r n i n g r a t h e r than the product which was emphasized i n the preceding two models by Simpson and Harrow. In a monograph (1977) Jewett and Mullan elaborate the Purpose Process Curriculum 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 of many p h y s i c a l education p r o f e s s i o n a l s . The two major dimensions were purpose of human movement (why we move) and process of human movement (how to move). Purposes of movement i n a c h i e v i n g the goals of man have been organized i n t o three 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, environmental coping and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . The second dimension of the PPCF i s the process of movement. Here the concern was on understanding the l e a r n i n g process 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 operations required f o r various types of movement. The taxonomy began with generic movements which included p e r c e i v i n g and p a t t e r n i n g . These were considered movement processes which f a c i l i t a t e the development of 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 adapting and refini-ng motor s k i l l according to s p e c i f i c task demands. The highest l e v e l of l e a r n i n g and performance was designated as c r e a t i v e movement. Here the a b i l i t y to vary, improvise and compose s k i l l became evident. These h i e r a r c h i c a l stages of motor s k i l l l e a r n i n g can be r e f e r r e d to 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 are d e s i r e d . I t would be d i f f i c u l t to 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 the higher 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 should be p o s s i b l e to c l e a r l y d e f i n e o b j e c t i v e s f or sport s k i l l s at the psychomotor l e v e l s of p e r c e i v i n g , p a t t e r n i n g , adapting and r e f i n i n g . The 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 curr e n t t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n procedures have been considered. With t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i t i s important to review e x i s t i n g v o l l e y b a l l t e s t s . I n i t i a l v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l t e s t s were developed i n the 1930's and 40's and they professed to evaluate 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 repeated w a l l v o l l e y t e s t with a wide range of 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 of t e s t procedure ( B a s s e t t , Glassow and Locke, 1937; Crogen, 1943; Brady, 1945; West, 1957; C l i f t o n , 1963). One of the e a r l i e s t t e s t s proposed by French and Cooper i n 1937 required subjects to stand three f e e t away from a w a l l and count the number of times they could v o l l e y a b a l l t o a t a r g e t area above 7.5 f e e t on the w a l l w i t h i n a 15 second time l i m i t . Mohr and Haverstick (1955) found that the v a l i d i t y of the t e s t increased as they moved the s u b j e c t s away 18 from the w a l l from three to seven f e e t . A greater degree of s k i l l was now req u i r e d to c o n t r o l the b a l l so the t e s t was found to be more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g , however content v a l i d i t y to game p l a y i n g a b i l i t y i s d i s p u t a b l e . According to Jewett and Mullan's psychomotor taxonomy, repeated w a l l v o l l e y t e s t s would be at the s k i l l l e v e l of 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 considered a much more d i f f i c u l t s k i l l , probably at the l e v e l of varying or i m p r o v i s i n g . Although h i g h l y s k i l l e d performers i n a game s i t u a t i o n have mastered p r e r e q u i s i t e p a t t e r n i n g movements and would score w e l l on the w a l l v o l l e y , the converse i s not t r u e . P l a y e r s s c o r i n g w e l l on the w a l l v o l l e y would not n e c e s s a r i l y score 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 l e v e l . Johnson (1967) c r i t i c i z e d the repeated w a l l v o l l e y t e s t s saying that p l a y e r s were never re q u i r e d to judge a b a l l rebounding o f f a w a l l i n a game s i t u a t i o n . 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 to administer to an e n t i r e c l a s s because of l i m i t e d w a l l space. She 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 re q u i r e d to v o l l e y to themselves f o r 30 seconds ensuring that the b a l l c l e a r e d a 10 foot rope each time. They were allowed a 10 foot by 15 foot area to move around i n . A v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .74 was c a l c u l a t e d when t e s t r e s u l t s were c o r r e l a t e d to judges' rankings of game p l a y i n g a b i l i t y . The t e s t may have been simpler to administer but content v a l i d i t y was s t i l l q u e s t i o n a b l e . V o l l e y i n g to oneself i n a 10 foot by 15 foot area would again be considered a p a t t e r n i n g movement at the l e s s e r - s k i l l e d end of Jewett and Mullan's taxonomy. Chun (1969) devised 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 to 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 area on the court much l i k e that a player 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 to 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 v a l i d i t y 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 to judges r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t y to v o l l e y i n a game s i t u a t i o n . The Chun t e s t score was 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 i n t e r t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n of .77 was achieved. Because Chun's t e s t r e q u i r e d subjects to judge an oncoming b a l l and move i n t o p o s i t i o n to v o l l e y i t , the s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d to f u n c t i o n at the psychomotor l e v e l of adapting or r e f i n i n g which i s a more appropriate goal f o r highschool and c o l l e g e l e v e l p l a y e r s . Chun c r i t i c i z e s the use of t e s t e r s to toss 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 lowers r e l i a b i l i t y . T his may be true to an extent but the a b i l i t y to a n t i c i p a t e a t o s s by watching a t o s s e r ' s preparation and r e l e a s e of the b a l l gives the subject 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 preparation f o r the motoric response. The r e l e a s e of a b a l l from a b a l l machine can be very deceptive i f a subject i s u n f a m i l i a r with t h i s apparatus. There i s a l s o a problem with the l a c k of 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 of 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 of using a s k i l l e d tos-ser. 20 I t should a l s o be noted that Chun (1969) analyzed her t e s t r e s u l t s i n c l u d i n g a l l overhead passes that s u c c e s s f u l l y reached the t a r g e t and then repeated the a n a l y s i s d i s a l l o w i n g any passes that were not 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 only l e g a l c o ntacts were considered. This i s an i n d i c a t i o n that technique or the process of movement should be considered along w i t h the product of 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 not c l e a r whether the underhand or overhand serve was evaluated. 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 only r e q u i r e d s k i l l at the p a t t e r n i n g l e v e l so again 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 evaluated. In 1974, Sandra Fawcett reviewed the v a l i d i t y of e x i s t i n g v o l l e y b a l l t e s t s . She was concerned with how w e l l v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l t e s t s r e l a t e d to game performance. F i f t e e n female u n i v e r s i t y 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 assessed 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 ; the Brady V o l l e y b a l l Test, the Cunningham and Gar r i s o n High Wall V o l l e y Test, the French and Cooper S e r v i c e Test, the Singer Dig Test and the Singer Spike Test. Subject numbers were low but Fawcett concluded that even the b e t t e r t e s t s ( d i g and high w a l l v o l l e y ) were only moderately r e l a t e d to v o l l e y b a l l a b i l i t y i n a game s i t u a t i o n . 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 equation.which used weighted values of the t e s t scores according to the d i f f i c u l t y of the various s k i l l s and t h e i r occurrence i n a game. In a subsequent study, W i l l i a m s and Fawcett (1975) devised a stepwise 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 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 p l a y i n g a b i l i t y . They found that the high w a l l v o l l e y t e s t i n combination with the d i g t e s t accounted f o r 74% of the t o t a l v ariance i n v o l l e y b a l l a b i l i t y with a m u l t i p l e R of .863. Caution 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 of the low number of s u b j e c t s and the very low number of t r i a l s per t e s t . The serve and spike t e s t s were never considered 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 at 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 t e s t s . More research i s necessary f o r a worthwhile equation to be constructed. A review of p r e v i o u s l y constructed v o l l e y b a l l t e s t s shows a trend from i n d i v i d u a l 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 . , repeated w a l l v o l l e y t e s t s ) to i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l t e s t s i n a more game-like s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g movement and judgement s k i l l s (Johnson, 1967; Chun, 1969) to combined s k i l l t e s t s (AAHPER, 1967; W i l l i a m s and Fawcett, 1975). To date, very l i t t l e emphasis has been given to the process 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 are not penalized for poor technique. 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 a c q u i s i t i o n proper technique i s as e s s e n t i a l as the product of movement. Both elements of performance w i l l be evaluated i n 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 . 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 administered to 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 students or Alumni of the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba or the 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 occurred i n the s p r i n g of 1985 at both i n s t i t u t i o n s . An equal 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 three l e v e l s of s k i l l ; novice or n o n - i n s t r u c t e d , i n s t r u c t e d at 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 v a r s i t y p l a y e r s . The p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t evaluated four components of v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l and knowledge at the i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l : 1. c o g n i t i v e aspects about s k i l l s , s t r a t e g y and r u l e s 2. performance a n a l y s i s of 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 pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and spike (product score) 4. s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of the technique i n v o l v e d i n the overhand pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and spike (process score) . The content v a l i d i t y or domain-referenced v a l i d i t y ( S a f r i t , 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 checking that t e s t questions matched the t a b l e of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s designed to describe the 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. The video tape s k i l l a n a l y s i s was designed to assess the a b i l i t y to diagnose and c o r r e c t 22 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 . Content v a l i d i t y was claimed due to the agreement of a panel of experts that important s k i l l e r r o r s were represented. L o g i c a l v a l i d i t y was the b a s i s f o r the 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 . S a f r i t (1981) explained t h a t a high score on a s k i l l t e s t should c l o s e l y approximate the d e f i n i t i o n of good performance of that s k i l l . Experts i n the f i e l d were consulted to ensure the t e s t s did p a r a l l e l good performance of each of the s k i l l s . 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 defined and then e i g h t male and 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 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The non-instructed group c o n s i s t e d of u n i v e r s i t y or c o l l e g e students who had never taken an i n s t r u c t i o n a l v o l l e y b a l l course or p a r t i c i p a t e d on an e l i t e team. P a r t i c i p a t i o n on a highschool team was acceptable. 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 Education course at the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba. The remaining ei g h t non-instructed subjects 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 at the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba or the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 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 students 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 , course at the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba. The p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t was included as part of t h e i r course 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 to have played at l e a s t one year of i n t e r - c o l l e g i a t e or 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 of the women were f i r s t or second year v a r s i t y a t h l e t e s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba. The remaining 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 C o n s t r u c t i o n T his s e c t i o n of the procedure w i l l d eal with the method of c o n s t r u c t i o n 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 l a t e r s e c t i o n . 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 designed 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 n i t i a l l y , experts i n the f i e l d were consulted to help define the 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 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 on 35 m u l t i p l e choice questions. An item a n a l y s i s was conducted on these i n i t i a l t e s t r e s u l t s . Generally when m u l t i p l e choice items are constucted f o r a norm-referenced t e s t , a b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n of .30 or above i s desir e d as the index of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( S a f r i t , 1981). In gener a l , t h i s i n d i c a t e s that students who score w e l l on a question a l s o score w e l l on the t o t a l t e s t . 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 not 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 the ma j o r i t y of i n s t r u c t e d students are expected to pass the t e s t items (Brown, 1981). Because d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and item d i f f i c u l t y were not the goals of the p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t , r a t h e r than using 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 first 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 Total Ski l l 9, 23, 24, 1, 4, 6, 18, 2, 13, 14, 16~ Techniques 26 19, 22, 25, 29 30 Strategy and 5 3, 7, 16, 17 8, 15, 27, 9 Tactics 31 Procedures 37, 38 11, 12 4 and Conduct Rules 10, 34 32, 35, 36, 39 40 7 Terminology 21, 28 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 d i v i d e d i n t o i t s content areas and 40 of the p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d questions were se l e c t e d according to Bloom's f i r s t three 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 . A copy of the questions can be found i n Appendix 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 that i t was important f o r teachers and coaches to analyze s k i l l s and be able to detect r e l e v a n t e r r o r s i n s k i l l e x ecution. In order to evaluate t h i s a b i l i t y , an a p p r o p r i a t e video tape was constructed f o r a n a l y s i s purposes. Representative episodes 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 of overhead passing, forearm passing, overhand s e r v i n g and s p i k i n g . Tnese students were performing the s k i l l t e s t s as part of t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n f o r the course thus a l l e r r o r s portrayed were a u t h e n t i c . The i n v e s t i g a t o r , with the a i d of two experts, chose 15 episodes of i n d i v i d u a l e r r o r s and f i v e episodes of team e r r o r s to 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 l e v e l . P i l o t work with video a n a l y s i s had revealed t h a t open-ended questions s o l i c i t e d a very wide range of responses that made o b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n d i f f i c u l t . Consequently, a m u l t i p l e choice format was adopted f o r the r e f i n e d video a n a l y s i s p o r t i o n of the t e s t . The t e s t i n g procedure introduced each episode by f i r s t p resenting the question on the video screen thus focusing the subjects on the 27 p e r t i n e n t aspects of the performance to f o l l o w . A l l questions were phrased as i f the player on the video tape was asking the viewer f o r a s s i s t a n c e , i . e . , "Why can't I get the b a l l to go f a r t h e r forward?". Three r e p e t i t i o n s of the e r r o r were presented followed by the m u l t i p l e choice responses to the p r e v i o u s l y presented question. The three r e p e t i t i o n s of the e r r o r were repeated with a 15 second response time a l l o t t e d . A f t e r 10 seconds, a tone sounded to t e l l the s u b j e c t s to look up and prepare to attend to the next episode. The tape c o n s i s t e d of three overhead pass e r r o r s , f i v e forearm pass e r r o r s , two overhand s e r v i n g e r r o r s and f i v e s p i k i n g e r r o r s . A greater number of forearm passing and s p i k i n g e r r o r s were s e l e c t e d as the p i l o t t e s t revealed those to be most problematic t o the i n t r o d u c t o r y students. A copy of the questions can be l o c a t e d i n Appendix B. 3) O b j e c t i v e Performance E v a l u a t i o n - Product Score The four s k i l l t e s t s were constructed to r e q u i r e c l o s e s t approximation of a good performance. 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 psychomotor taxonomies i t was decided that a player p r o f i c i e n t at the 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 should be able to perform the four basic s k i l l s a t Jewett's f o u r t h l e v e l of motor performance (Jewett and Mullan, 1977). This l e v e l i s c a l l e d the r e f i n i n g stage and i t i s d i r e c t e d toward the a c q u i s i t i o n of smooth and 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 and toward the h a b i t u a t i o n of performance. 28 Although a number of d i f f e r e n t t e s t i n g dates 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 standardized. Subjects were allowed 10 to 15 minutes to properly s t r e t c h and warm up. A p r a c t i c e net was always a v a i l a b l e so sub j e c t s could keep warm while w a i t i n g t h e i r t u r n . An a s s i s t a n t a d m i n i s t r a t o r was given i n s t r u c t i o n i n t o s s i n g the 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 rc so i t was p o s s i b l e f o r s u b j e c t s to move i n t o the expected p o s i t i o n . The a s s i s t a n t p r a c t i c e d while the subjects warmed up. I f a t any time the a s s i s t a n t f e l t t h a t a tos s was e r r a t i c , another t r i a l was given. A l l t r i a l s of a l l four s k i l l s were video taped so the two judges doing the r a t i n g s d i d not always have to be present. The video t a p i n g of 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 could be h i g h l i g h t e d . Before being 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 t r i a l t o prepare them f o r what the toss would look l i k e . Then the 10 t r i a l s were given. The s k i l l t e s t was always administered i n the same order. Each subject performed the overhead pass followed d i r e c t l y by the forearm pass s i n c e the t e s t s were so s i m i l a r . Male and female subjects were separated f o r the overhand s e r v i n g and the s p i k i n g t e s t so the net height could be adjusted 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 heights were used; 2.24 metres f o r the women and 2.43 f o r the men. a) Overhead passing. On one si d e of the net the v o l l e y b a l l court was d i v i d e d i n h a l f from the net t o the back l i n e , i . e . , nine metres long by 4.5 metres wide. A one metre by one metre box was taped to 29 the f l o o r as a t a r g e t area. This box was 10 centimetres from the centre court l i n e and 1.75 metres from e i t h e r of the bordering s i d e l i n e s . The to s s e r was l o c a t e d i n t h i s t a r g e t area. The subjects were i n s t r u c t e d to s t a r t on an X taped to the 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 . Between each t r i a l the subjects were t o l d to r e t u r n to the X. Refer to Figure 1. Figure 1 1x1 meter target tosser student 4.5 meters The subjects were t o l d that the 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 various l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n the designated 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 passing the b a l l back to the t o s s e r . The t r i a l was considered s u c c e s s f u l and scored a poi n t i f the to s s e r could catch the b a l l above waist l e v e l with two hands while standing on both f e e t w i t h i n the one by one metre t a r g e t area. I f the tosser had to jump to catch a b a l l t h a t was going over the net, i t scored zero. At some poin t i n i t ' s f l i g h t path the b a l l had to reach a height above net l e v e l . T his was judged by the t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r who was doing the video t a p i n g and had a side view of the s u b j e c t , the tosser and the 9 meters i * 30 flight path of the ball . If the pass was not above net level, the administrator informed the tosser and the tr ia l scored zero. At the end of the 10 trials the subject received a product score out of 10 which represented a l l successful tr ia ls . 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 . , 4.5 metres wide by nine metres long. The subjects positioned themselves in the serving area on the opposite side of the court. Each subject was responsible for serving 10 balls in a row. 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 important than p i n p o i n t accuracy i s the 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 . As with the other s k i l l t e s t s , the overhand serve t e s t was designed to correspond to the c r i t e r i o n of good performance at the r e f i n i n g l e v e l of performance. d) S p i k i n g . The t o s s e r was p o s i t i o n e d near the net at approximately center court and used a two-handed underhand toss to simulate a set about two to three metres above the height of the net and about .5 to 1.5 metres away from the net. This t o s s i n g s k i l l was more d i f f i c u l t than the one f o r the overhead or forearm pass so again i f the t osser f e l t a set was e r r a t i c the subject was given another t r i a l . B a l l s were tossed to the s u b j e c t s on t h e i r power or on-hand s i d e , i . e . , right-handed h i t t e r s attacked the b a l l from the l e f t f r o n t p o s i t i o n and left-handed h i t t e r s attacked the b a l l from the r i g h t f r o n t p o s i t i o n . This s k i l l was not as advanced as h i t t i n g a b a l l that crossed the s p i k e r s body before being contacted, i . e . , off-hand. The subject was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r approaching and s p i k i n g 10 b a l l s i n a row over the net and i n t o the c o u r t . No t a r g e t areas were designated i n the court because i t was f e l t t hat the s k i l l of p r o p e r l y timing a v o l l e y b a l l spike t o a c c u r a t e l y place i t i n the court 10 times was i t s e l f at the l e v e l of r e f i n i n g according to Jewett and Mullan's taxonomy. I f the b a l l 'knicked' the net on i t ' s way over but the f l i g h t path was not r e a l l y a l t e r e d i t was considered a p o i n t . However, i f the b a l l was h i t i n t o the tape at the top of the net and happened to r o l l over, i t was not considered a p o i n t . I f the subject 32 committed a net fault or a center line fault upon landing, the t r ia l also scored a zero. The subjects were given sufficient time between trials 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 ski 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 ski 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 skil ls 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 sk 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 of a l l s u b j e c t s were video taped. The tapes were made a v a i l a b l e to the two judges so they could review them at t h e i r own speed and go back and repeat episodes i f they f e l t i t was necessary. This reduced the chance of 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 the accuracy of the r a t i n g s . The judges were r e q u i r e d to give each s k i l l t r i a l a r a t i n g of one to f o u r . The s u b j e c t ' s process score on each s k i l l took i n t o account both judges' scores of the 10 t r i a l s , i . e . , t o t a l score judge one plus t o t a l score judge two d i v i d e d by 20 equaled t o t a l score out of f o u r . E q u a l i z a t i o n of the process score with the product score ( p o s s i b l e out of 10) was accomplished by m u l t i p l y i n g the process score by 2.5. Data A n a l y s i s Construct v a l i d i t y of the p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t as a t e s t of 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 of two by three f a c t o r i a l ANOVA's for randomized groups. Each of the four components of the t e s t were analyzed separately and then as a t o t a l score. In 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 obtained f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the three d i f f e r e n t s k i l l l e v e l s and each of the four t e s t components to see i f the same sub 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 Chi square a n a l y s i s was conducted on each of the t e s t components and on the t o t a l score to determine i f the number of 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 groups. Since the c o g n i t i v e knowledge p o r t i o n of the t e s t was constructed 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 not ap p r o p r i a t e to t e s t f o r 34 r e l i a b i l i t y w i t h the Pearson Product-Moment technique which assumed a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores. Instead a p r o p o r t i o n of agreement s t a t i s t i c was u t i l i z e d to t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of the m u l t i p l e choice questions. Problems with t e s t - r e t e s t methods of r e l i a b i l i t y on m u l t i p l e choice t e s t s l e d the researcher t o separate odd and even t e s t items and analyze the scores according to 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 video tape a n a l y s i s was determined by the Pearson 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 s u bjects who took the t e s t twice 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 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 four i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l t e s t s was e s t a b l i s h e d by using the G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y theory and c a l c u l a t i n g G c o e f f i c i e n t s . 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 trials . 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 sk i l l tests - product  and process - generalizability coefficients for inter-rater rel iabil i ty, inter-trial rel iabil ity and performer rel iabi l i ty . 5) Correlation between test components - Pearson Product Moment Correlation between the 10 test components. 6) Comparison of number of subjects achieving mastery in each  sk i l l level - Chi Square statistic. Construct Validity The in i t ia 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 sk i l l levels; novice, instructed and elite. 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 of s i g n i f i c a n t values and ensuing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . C o g n i t i v e Test Figure 2 Graphic Representation of the Re s u l t s of the C o g n i t i v e Test 3 5 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 , , Male X x Eemale E l i t e I n s t r u c t e d Novice Table I I A n a l y s i s of Variance Table f o r the C o g n i t i v e Test SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE F TAIL PROB . 14 14 29167 2 707 14583 4 1 55 0 O O O O 50 02083 1 50 02083 2 94 0 0938 49 29167 2 24 64583 1 45 0 2465 7 14 87500 42 17 02083 * G * H GH ERROR *G = S k i l l l e v e l *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 the c o g n i t i v e t e s t with the e l i t e s u b j e c t s averaging s l i g h t l y higher than the i n s t r u c t e d (31.2 compared to 30) and both these groups much higher than the novices (19.2). A great d i f f e r e n c e was not expected between 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 20 -• 15 •-10 •• 5 .. Male X- a Female E l i t e Instructed N o v i c e Table III ANOVA Table for the Performance Analysis SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEOOM MEAN SQUARE F TAIL PROB . *G *H GH ERROR G 3 . 8 7 5 0 0 0 . 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 . 0 4 1 6 7 204.OOOOO 2 1 2 42 31 . 9 3 7 5 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 . 5 2 0 8 3 4.8 5 7 14 6 . 5 8 0 . 0 0 3 3 0 . 0 7 0 . 7 9 4 6 2 . 3 7 0 . 1 0 5 7 *G = Skill level *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 s k i l l l e v e l e f f e c t i s c o n s i s t e n t with the current body of knowledge .concerned with observation a b i l i t y ( B a r r e t t , 1979). Researchers agree that developing the a b i l i t y to observe r e q u i r e s comprehensive knowledge of the s k i l l being observed. Thus h i g h l y s k i l l e d and experienced p l a y e r s scored b e t t e r than l e s s e r s k i l l e d p l a y e r s . Scores were r e l a t i v e l y low f o r a l l s u b j e c t s which may i n d i c a t e that the video 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 that s u b j e c t s were not as competent at the s k i l l . Overhead Pass - Product Score Figure 4 Graphic Representation of the R e s u l t s of the Overhead Pass - Product Score 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 » » Male X — -X Female Elite Instructed Novice 3 9 Table IV ANOVA Table for the Overhead Pass - Product Score SOURCE * G * H GH ERROR SUM OF SQUARES 4 4 . 6 6 6 6 7 0 . 5 2 0 8 3 0 . 1 6 6 6 7 5 1 . 1 2 5 0 0 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 1 2 42 MEAN SQUARE 2 2 . 3 3 3 3 3 0 . 5 2 0 8 3 0 . 0 8 3 3 3 1 . 2 1726 TAIL PROB . 1 8 . 3 5 O . O O O O 0 . 4 3 0 . 5 1 6 6 0 . 0 7 0 . 9 3 3 9 *G = S k i l l l e v e l *H = Gender The product score r e f e r s to the a b i l i t y of the subject to overhead pass the b a l l to a target. The t r i a l s were scored o b j e c t i v e l y ; either the b a l l reached the target or i t did not. There was a highly 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 scoring 9.9, instruct e d scoring 9.4 and novice scoring 7.6. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t . Forearm Pass - Product Score Figure 5 Graphic Representation of the Results of the Forearm Pass - Product Score 10 --9 - • 8 . . 7 -• 6 --5 -• 4 --Male X — • * Female E l i t e I n s t r u c t e d Novice 40 Table V ANOVA Table f o r the Forearm Pass - Product Score SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE F TAIL PROB . * G * H 120.79167 O.52083 14.291G7 85.87500 2 60.39583 0.52083 7. 14583 2.04464 29.54 0. 25 3 .49 O.OOOO 0.6164 0.0394 GH ERROR 2 42 *G = S k i l l l e v e l *H = Gender The r e s u l t s of the Forearm Pass t e s t showed a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between gender and s k i l l a t the .05 l e v e l . Scores f o r both genders decreased as s k i l l l e v e l decreased, however females scored lower than males a t the e l i t e and i n s t r u c t e d l e v e l but scored higher (6.3) than the males (4.5) at the novice l e v e l . A common problem with the forearm pass i s to h i t the b a l l too hard; perhaps males' greater strength was a disadvantage at the novice l e v e l . 41 Overhand Serve - Product Score Figure 6 Graphic Representation of the Results of the Overhand Serve - Product Score 10 . . 9 -• 8 --7 -• 6 --5 --4 * 0 Male X - — * Female E l i t e I n s t r u c t e d N o v i c e Table VI ANOVA Table f o r the Overhand Serve - Product Score SOURCE *G *H GH ERROR SUM OF DEGREES OF SQUARES FREEDOM 34.62500 102.08333 10.04167 174.50000 2 1 2 42 MEAN SQUARE 17.31250 102.08333 5.02083 4 . 15476 TAIL PROB . 4.17 0.0223 24.57 0.0000 1.2 1 0.3088 *G = S k i l l level *H = Gender Table 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 the .05 l e v e l . Figure 6 d i s p l a y s males performing 1.6 poin t s b e t t e r than females at the e l i t e l e v e l , 3.6 p o i n t s b e t t e r at 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 at the novice l e v e l . Males' scores were probably much higher because of t h e i r increased 42 upper body strength which i s a d e f i n i t e asset i n the overhand serve. As with a l l the t e s t s thus f a r there was a s i g n i f i c a n t s k i l l e f f e c t which supports the co n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t . Spike - Product Score Figure 7 Graphic Representation of the Results of the Spike - Product Score 10 9 -• 8 --7 6 5 4 --Male X x Female Elite Instructed Novice Table VII ANOVA Table f o r the Spike - Product Score SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES OF SQUARES FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE F TAIL P R O B . * G * H GH ERROR 67.04167 1 .68750 3.37500 153.87500 2 1 2 42 33.52083 1.68750 1.68750 3.66369 9.15 0.0005 0.46 0.5011 0.46 0.6341 *G = S k i l l l e v e l *H = Gender The product score of the Spike t e s t i n d i c a t e d 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 with the e l i t e s c o r i n g 8.8, the i n s t r u c t e d at 6.8 and the novice at 6.0. Because technique was not part of t h i s score, as long 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 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Male £ Female Elite Instructed Novice Table VIII ANOVA Table for the Overhead Pass - Process. Score SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE TAIL PROB . *G *H GH ERROR 1 5 . 8 6 5 3 1 0 . 0 7 5 2 1 0 . 0 1 2 6 0 9 . 1 6 0 0 0 2 1 2 4 2 7 . 9 3 2 6 6 0 . 0 7 5 2 1 0 . O O 6 3 0 0 . 2 1 8 1 0 3 6 . 3 7 O . O O O O 0 . 3 4 0 . 5 6 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 9 7 1 5 *G = S k i l l l e v e l *H = Gender 44 The process score refers to the average score of both judges' ratings across a l l 10 tr ials . Table VIII shows a highly significant levels main effect. 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 SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE TAIL PROB . * G * H GH ERROR 19.67197 0.03797 0.29344 9.54531 2 1 • 2 42 9.83599 0.03797 0. 14672 0.22727 43.28 O.OOOO O.17 0.6848 0.65 0.5295 *G - S k i l l l e v e l *H = Gender 45 Again construct validity is 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 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 •-Male x if Female Elite Instructed Novice Table X ANOVA Table for the Results of the Overhand Serve - Process Score SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES OF SQUARES FREEDOM *G GH ERROR 13.3076 1 1 .40083 0. 27635 13.43500 2 1 2 42 MEAN SQUARE 6.65380 1.40083 O. 138 18 0.31988 *G = Skill level *H = Gender Table X displays a significant s k i l l level main effect and a TAIL PROB . 20.80 O.OOOO 4.38 0.0425 0.43 0.6521 significant (.04) gender main effect with males scoring higher than 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 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 M a l e X- — * Female E l i t e I n s t r u c t e d N o v i c e Table XI ANOVA Table for the Results of the Spike - Process Score SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE TAIL PROB . * G * H GH ERROR 19.35948 1.9602 1 0.89135 10.13562 2 1 2 42 9.67974 1.9602 1 0.445G8 0.24132 40. 1 1 O.OOOO 8.12 0.0067 1.85 0.1703 *G = S k i l l l e v e l *H = Gender 47 Process scores f o r the spike 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 s k i l l e f f e c t with scores decreasing as s k i l l l e v e l decreases. There i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t with males s c o r i n g higher except at the novice l e v e l where both sexes scored 1.7. Increased strength and jumping a b i l i t y probably e x p l a i n the males s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores. Also the r e l a t i v e inexperience of the e l i t e females compared to the e l i t e males may surface 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 scored 3.6 while e l i t e females scored 3.0. T o t a l Score Figure 12 Graphic Representation of the R e s u l t s of the T o t a l Score 48 Table X I I ANOVA Table f o r the T o t a l Score SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEOOM MEAN SQUARE F TAIL PROB . *G *H 1268 1 .67383 588 .87533 40.66471 4936.50195 2 6340.83691 588.87533 20.33236 117.53576 53 . 95 5.01 O. 17 O.OOOO 0.0306 0.84 17 GH ERROR 2 4 2 *G = S k i l l l e v e l *H = Gender The score of a l l t e s t components was t o t a l l e d to equal 140. I t was i n i t i a l l y determined t h a t the product score and process score were weighted e q u a l l y , consequently, each process score out of four was m u l t i p l i e d by 2.5 to give i t the same value as the product score out of 10. The f i n a l equation was: Co g n i t i v e (40) + Performance A n a l y s i s (20) + Product Scores (4x10) + Process Scores [(4x4) x 2.5)] = T o t a l Score (140) Table XII 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 l e v e l with e l i t e s u b j e c t s averaging 115, i n s t r u c t e d s u b j e c t s averaging 96 and novice averaging 75. Therefore, the 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 the co n s t r u c t 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 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 not expected. In general, males scored higher than females a t a l l three s k i l l l e v e l s . I n d i v i d u a l components of the t e s t that demonstrated gender s i g n i f i c a n c e were the product score of the overhand serve and the technique or process score of the overhand serve and s p i k e . As pr e v i o u s l y mentioned, the higher male scores can probably be 49 a t t r i b u t e d to enhanced upper body s t r e n g t h and jumping a b i l i t y which are advantageous i n the s k i l l of s e r v i n g and s p i k i n g . Another notable f a c t o r may be the r e l a t i v e inexperience of the e l i t e females i n comparison to the e l i t e males. Although three of the 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 females, by l o o k i n g at the graphs i t can be seen that f o r these 48 s u b j e c t s , three of the other t e s t s (performance a n a l y s i s , product score of the overhead pass and process score of the forearm pass) showed some evidence of females s c o r i n g higher than males. I t i s important to remember that i n i t i a l development of the t e s t s was based on the d e f i n i t o n of a good performance of each s k i l l . Although males may have scored higher than females on some t e s t s , t h i s does not reduce the c o n s t r u c t 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 evident 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 Test The 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 choice questions concerned with i n t r o d u c t o r y l e v e l knowledge. Questions were constructed according to the content balance t a b l e that described the 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 to Table I , p. 25). The t e s t was constructed 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 to analyze r e l i a b i l i t y using norm-referenced techniques. 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 that which can be expected 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 from i n f o r m a t i o n gained i n a t e s t - r e t e s t s i t u a t i o n . However, there are 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 present m u l t i p l e choice t e s t , r e s u l t s from the odd and even questions of a l l 48 subjects were separated and analyzed as two d i f f e r e n t t e s t s . F o llowing the example of Swaminathan et a l . (1974) and S a f r i t (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 questions was determined by adding the proportions i n the main d i a g o n a l . (Refer to Table X I I I ) . 51 Table X I I I P r o p o r t i o n of Agreement Between Odd and Even Questions with an 80% Mastery C r i t e r i o n Even Mastery Non-mastery N P N P N P Mastery 9 ITS 9 719" IB" TW Odd Non-mastery 5 .10 25 .52 30 .62 14 T29 34 771 48 77T*~ •"•Proportion of Agreement N = Number of 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 value of .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 order to account f o r the c o r r e c t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s that were made purely 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 the 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 , the reader i s r e f e r r e d to 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 with an 80% mastery c r i t e r i o n equalled .36. When the mastery c r i t e r i o n was lowered to 75% A the p r o p o r t i o n of agreement was again .71 but K increased to .44. A S a f r i t (1977) warns that 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 marginal values are equal, K i s equal to the phi c o e f f i c i e n t and would thus 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 that a r e l a t i v e l y small number of m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s seems 52 t o y i e l d a l ow k a p p a c o e f f i c i e n t . A t b o t h t h e 75% and 80% c r i t e r i o n l e v e l o n l y 14 o f 48 s u b j e c t s (30%) were m i s c l a s s i f i e d and t h e A r e s u l t i n g K s were . 44 and .36 r e s p e c t i v e l y . P e r h a p s new r e s e a r c h w i l l y i e l d a b e t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f k a p p a . F o r t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , 71% o f 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 o n l y a c c o u n t s f o r 21% c l a s s i f i c a t i o n b e t t e r t h a n c h a n c e , so 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 i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . 53 R e l i a b i l i t y of Performance A n a l y s i s The performance a n a l y s i s was composed of 20 video-taped episodes of s k i l l e r r o r s with appropriate m u l t i p l e choice questions. Episodes were chosen to represent the four i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l s of the overhead pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and the s p i k e . Five game s i t u a t i o n e r r o r s were a l s o i n c l u d e d . I t was very d i f f i u c l t to define the 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 l i t t l e knowledge has been published i n t h i s area. Lacking s p e c i f i c performance o b j e c t i v e s , the decsion was made to con s t r u c t the performance a n a l y s i s as a norm-referenced t e s t . The a p p r o p r i a t e method of a n a l y s i s f o r r e l i a b i l i t y i s the Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n . A co-ed group of 12 i n s t r u c t e d subjects were test e d on two dates with 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 of .81. According to Johnson and Nelson (1979) a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of at l e a s t .80 i s d e s i r a b l e for t e s t r e l a i b l i t y . R e l i a b i l i t y of the pefromance a n a l y s i s i s acceptable but with the subject sample being so small and homogeneous, a d i f f e r e n c e of one mark would d r a s t i c a l l y a f f e c t the 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 data 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 the S k i l l Tests The mean scores, averaged across subjects and observers, are presented i n Table XIV f o r each of the s k i l l t e s t s . Table XIV Mean Values f o r the Overhead Pass (OP), Forearm Pass ( F P ) , Overhand Serve (OS) and Spike (SP) - Process Scores SKILL LEVEL OP FP OS SP M 3.52 3.52 3.86 3.55 E l i t e F 3.39 3.66 3.63 2.96 M 2.63 2.56 2.86 2.55 I n s t r u c t e d F 2.58 2.40 2.62 1.95 M 2.09 1.98 2.83 1.73 Novice F . 2.03 2.17 2.27 1.71 The highest p o s s i b l e score was f o u r . G e n e r a l l y , s u b j e c t s a t a l l s k i l l l e v e l s scored highest on the overhand serve t e s t while the spike t e s t produced the lowest scores f o r a l l except the e l i t e males. R e l a t i v e l y speaking, the v o l l e y b a l l spike which i n c l u d e s an approach, judgement of the b a l l , jumping and body motion while i n the a i r , i s a much more complex motor s k i l l than the overhand serve; thus the lower scores. In order f o r the v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l t e s t s to be considered u s e f u l measuring 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 to 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 ubjects would have to perform the t e s t s on two occasions and the r e l i a b i l i t y would be determined by a n a l y z i n g the r e s u l t s with a Pearson 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 i n t e r - o b s e r v e r r e l i a b i l i t y would be i n d i c a t e d by the percentage of i n t e r - o b s e r v e r agreement. In a study such as the present one, the complex design d i s t i n g u i s h e d 19 p o t e n t i a l sources 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 these sources of v a r i a t i o n , the Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n averages variances over a l l sources. 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 . G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y 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 procedure that was developed by Cronbach, G l e s e r , Nanda and Rajartnam, i n 1972 to s o l v e t h i s problem. 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 uses a n a l y s i s of variance to determine the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of each source of u n r e l i a b i l i t y . Variance components are estimated from the mean square values. These variance components are arranged i n t o an equation according to f a c e t s of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and f a c e t s of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , ( C a r d i n e t , Tourneur and A l l a l , 1976). 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 o b j e c t s under study. 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 object or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which i s to be compared i n a study. Facets of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n are held constant i n order to determine the amount of v a r i a t i o n that occurs 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 to which a set of scores can be general i z e d across the f a c e t s of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n r e s u l t s i n a 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 which can 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 c o e f f i c i e n t (Mosher and Schutz, 1983). The researcher must decide which sources of v a r i a t i o n i t i s important to g e n e r a l i z e over. The design f o r the study was a two by three by two by two f a c t o r i a l (Gender by Le v e l s by Observers by T r i a l s ) with repeated measures on t r i a l s and observers. In order to determine r e l i a b i l i t y , t r i a l s were d i v i d e d i n t o one to f i v e and s i x to ten f o r the a n a l y s i s . The random e f f e c t s were Observers, T r i a l s and Subjects while Gender and L e v e l s were f i x e d . Mosher and Schutz (1983) conducted a s i m i l a r l y designed study f o r the Overarm Throw and i n d i c a t e d that because both random and f i x e d e f f e c t s were present, the design was considered to be a mixed model. 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 sources of variance because appropriate e r r o r terms were not a v a i l a b l e from the BMD P8:V program. The same i s true i n the present study thus Quasi F r a t i o s were constructed as re q u i r e d f o r the sources of v a r i a t i o n ( K i r k , 1968). Each of the four v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l s (overhead pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and spike) were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y . An a n a l y s i s of variance t a b l e i s presented f o r each s k i l l . 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 , variance estimates and the percent of t o t a l variance 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 s e c t i o n . Overhead Pass Table XV Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimate s: Overhead Pass Source DF MS F P Variance Percent of Estimate Total Variance Level (L) 2 31.73100 .47510 57.00 Gender (G) 1 0.30083 .00000 0.00 Observers 1 1.02080 .00839 1.00 Trials (T) 1 1.203300 .01104 1.50 LG 2 0.025208 .00000 0.00 LO 2 0.587710 .01526 1.90 GO 1 0.520830 .00859 1.00 LT 2 0.033958 .00020 0.02 GT 1 0.053333 .00035 0.04 OT 1 0.120000 2.550 .1181 .00152 0.20 S(LG) 42 0.872380 .17679 21.60 LGO 2 0.406460 *3.908 <.0500a .01891 2.42 LGT 2 0.012708 *0.397 >.0500 .00000 0.00 LOT 2 0.004375 0.090 .9116 .00000 0.00 GOT 1 0.013330 0.280 .5977 .00000 0.00 OS(LG) 42 0.142140 3.020 .0003a .04750 5.80 TS 42 0.070238 1.490 .1003 .01155 1.54 LGOT 2 0.008958 0.190 .8276 .00000 0.00 OTS(LG) 42 0.047143 .04714 5.80 * = quasi F test a = significant effects 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 Trials . A significant interaction was found for the LGO term which means that observers were not consistent in scoring genders over sk i l l levels. Although the interaction was significiant i t is only responsible.for 2.42% of the total variance. The significant second level interaction f o r observers 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, Observers and T r i a l s . However, important 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 variance f o r each e f f e c t . The v a r i a b i l i t y i n s k i l l l e v e l accounts f o r 57% of the t o t a l variance of the overhead pass. This 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 t e s t . Subjects 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% of the variance which simply demonstrates i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l i t y . Observers by subjects describes 5.8% of the t o t a l variance while a l l other sources of v a r i a n c e are n e g l i g i b l e . 59 Forearm Pass Table XVI Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimates: Forearm Pass Source DF MS F P Variance Estimate Percent o: Total Variai Level (1) 2 39.344000 .60010 65.00 Gender (G) 1 0.151880 .00000 0.00 Observers 1 1.960200 .01822 2.20 Trials (T) 1 0.226880 .00098 0.10 LG 2 0.586880 .00000 0.00 LO 2 0.101460 .00000 0.00 GO 1 0.046875 .00000 0.00 LT 2 0.114380 .00224 0.24 GT 1 0.001875 .00000 0.00 OT 1 0.091875 3.690 .0616 .00140 0.15 S(LG) 42 0.909080 .18095 19.80 LGO 2 0.056870 *4.260 <.0500a .00000 0.00 LGT 2 0.105620 *1.928 >.0500 .00318 0.30 LOT 2 0.001875 0.080 .9276 .00000 0.00 GOT 1 0.060208 2.420 .1275 .00147 0.18 OS(LG) 42 0.144480 5.800 .0000a .05976 6.50 TS(LG) 42 0.065740 2.640 .0011a .02042 2.40 LGOT 2 0.013958 0.560 .5752 .00000 0.00 OTS 42 0.024910 .02491 2.80 * = quasi F test 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 tr ials . Variability in s k i l l l e v e l again c o n t r i b u t e s the highest percentage of variance at 65%; Subjects w i t h i n L e v e l s and Genders are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 19.8% o the variance while v a r i a b i l i t y of the observers accounts f o r 2.2% o the t o t a l v a r i a n c e . Overhand Serve Table XVII Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimates: Overhand Serve Source DF MS F P Variance Percent of Estimate Total Variance Level (L) 2 26.615000 .39424 48.0 Gender (G) 1 5.603300 .04539 5.5 Observers 1 0.187500 .00105 0.1 Trials 1 1.080000 .01036 1.3 LG 2 0.552710 .00000 0.0 LO 2 0.208130 .00466 0.6 GO 1 0.083330 .00053 0.0 LT 2 0.035625 .00000 0.0 GT 1 0.020833 .00000 0.0 OT 1 0.030000 1.2100 .2773 .00011 0.0 S(LG) 42 1.279500 .28554 34.7 LGO 2 0.046458 *0.6651 > .0500 .00000 0.0 LGT 2 0.018958 *0.2780 > .0500 .00000 0.0 LOT 2 0.001875 0.0800 .9272 .00000 0.0 GOT 1 0.000830 0.0300 .8553 .00000 0.0 OS(LG) 42 0.081905 3.3100 .0001a .02857 3.5 TS(LG) 42 0.080238 3.2400 .0001a .02774 3.4 LGOT 2 0.012708 0.5100 .6023 .00000 0.0 OTS(LG) 42 0.024762 .02476 3.0 * = quasi F test a = significant effect 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 is 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 sk i l l level accounted for only 48% of the total variance in the serve compared to 57% f o r the overhead pass and 65% f o r the forearm pass. Examination of the c e l l means shows that males scored c o n s i s t e n t l y higher than females i n a l l three s k i l l l e v e l s and a l s o that there was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the score of novice (2.83) and i n s t r u c t e d (2.86) males. This would e x p l a i n the somewhat lower percent of variance due to s k i l l l e v e l . These f i n d i n g s correspond to the general statements made e a r l i e r that a l l s u b j e c t s scored higher on the overhand serve t e s t . Subjects w i t h i n Levels and Genders c o n t r i b u t e d a r e l a t i v e l y high 34.7% of the t o t a l variance 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 are c o n s i s t e n t with the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of variance conducted f o r co n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . 63 Spike fable XVIII Analysis of Variance and Variance Estimates: Spike Source DF MS F P Variance Percent of Estimate Total Variance Levels (L) 2 38.719000 .59176 60.3 Gender (G) 1 7.840800 .07293 7.4 Observers 1 0.030000 .00000 0.0 Trials (T) 1 0.067500 .00000 0.0 LG 2 1.782700 .02472 2.5 LO 2 0.015625 .00000 0.0 GO 1 0.040833 .00000 0.0 LT 2 0.016875 .00000 0.0 GT 1 0.000000 .00000 0.0 OT 1 0.000830 0.0400 .8435 .00000 0.0 S(LG) 42 0.965300 .20720 21.1 LGO 2 0.057709 *0.6712 >.0500 .00000 0.0 LGT 2 0.150620 *1.2490 >.0500 .00187 0.2 LOT 2 0.015208 0.7200 .4928 .00000 0.0 GOT 1 0.030000 1.4200 .2401 .00037 0.0 OS(LG) 42 0.061480 2.9100 .0004a .02018 2.0 TS(LG) 42 0.096131 4.5500 .0000a .03750 3.8 LGOT 2 0.045625 2.1600 .1281 .00306 0.3 OTS(LG) 42 0.021131 .02113 2.2 * = quasi F test a = si gnificant effect 100% Table XVIII again indicates significant interactions for Observers by Subjects and Trials by Subjects. Contribution to total variance is 2% for OS(LG) and 3.8% for TS(LG). Variability due to sk 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 are n e g l i g i b l e ; males - 1.73, females - 1.71. I t seems th a t s u p e r i o r st r e n g t h and jumping a b i l i t y a f f o r d male subjects an advantage over females at the same s k i l l l e v e l . However a l a c k of s k i l l a t the novice l e v e l cannot be compensated f o r by stre n g t h as seemed to be the case f o r novice males i n the overhand serve. 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% of the t o t a l variance i n comparison to accounting f o r 34.7% of the variance f o r the serve. Note that v a r i a b i l i t y due to Observers or T r i a l s i s too small to be considered 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 the t e s t f o r s p i k i n g has high r e l i a b i l i t y 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 Table XIX were tabulated by f o l l o w i n g the "Rules 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 using g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y theory", (Rentz, 1980). Equations were developed f o r the three types of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n that were considered to be important i n t h i s study. I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ( o b j e c t i v i t y ) i s the degree to which any other set of observers would obt a i n the same r e s u l t s i f they saw the same subjects performing the exact same t r i a l s . I n t e r - t r i a l r e l i a b i l i t y r e f e r s to the degree to which the same s u b j e c t s , observed by the same judges, would r e c e i v e the same score on a d i f f e r e n t s et of t r i a l s . Performer r e l i a b i l i t y c o n s iders the degree to which the same su b j e c t s would r e c e i v e the same score i f they performed another set of t r i a l s f o r d i f f e r e n t judges. The variance due to Levels was not i n c l u d e d i n any of the G c o e f f i c i e n t equations. L i k e Mosher and Schutz's Overarm Throwing Test ("1983) , f u t ure use of the V o l l e y b a l l P r o f i c i e n c y Test w i l l be for a f a i r l y homogeneous group so i n c l u s i o n of the Levels e f f e c t w i l l u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y i n f l a t e G c o e f f i c i e n t s . Table XIX 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 Each S k i l l of the V o l l e y b a l l P r o f i c i e n c y Test Type of Overhead Forearm Overhand Spike R e l i a b i l i t y Pass Pass Serve 1) I n t e r - r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y G : 2 observers, 10 t r i a l s .86 .85 .96 .96 G^: 2 observers, 5 t r i a l s .85 .85 .95 .96 G^: 1 observer, 10 t r i a l s .75 .75 .91 .93 G 3: 1 observer, 5 t r i a l s .74 .74 .91 .92 4 2) I n t e r - t r i a l R e l i a b i l i t y G .98 .98 .99 .99 G 1 .97 .97 .98 .99 G 2 .98 .98 .99 .99-G 3 .95 .96 .98 .99 4 3) Performer R e l i a b i l i t y G .85 .85 .95 .95 G 1 .83 .83 .94 .93 G 2 .74 .74 .91 .92 G 3 .72 .72 .90 .90 4 In Table XIX 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 y demonstrate that the o b j e c t i v i t y of the s k i l l t e s t s i s good. The highest c o e f f i c i e n t s are seen f o r the overhand serve and the s p i k e . In f a c t , reducing t e s t p r o t o c o l from two observers, 10 t r i a l s to one observer, f i v e t r i a l s only reduces the G c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the serve from .96 to .91 and the G c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the spike from .96 to .92. Judges' agreement was not q u i t e as high on the overhead pass and the forearm pass where G c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r two observers 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 only one observer was used, the c o e f f i c i e n t dropped to .75 f o r both s k i l l s . For a l l four s k i l l s the d i f f e r e n c e i n using 10 t r i a l s versus f i v e t r i a l s was very n e g l i g i b l e . The greatest r e d u c t i o n i n r e l i a b i l i t y occurred when the number of observers was reduced from two to one. However, even the lowest G c o e f f i c e n t of .74 i s s t i l l acceptable i n terms of observer r e l i a b i l i t y . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that one t r a i n e d observer could 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 s k i l l t e s t s and the corresponding r a t i n g s c a l e . As witnessed i n the second set of G c o e f f i c i e n t s , i n t e r - t r i a l r e l i a b i l i t y f o r a l l s k i l l s was so high that 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 the number of t r i a l s from f i v e to 10. From a p r a c t i c a l p o i n t of view t h i s i s very p o s i t i v e f o r the 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 students i n a one or two hour t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . With G c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging form .95 to .99 i t seems to make l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e whether one or two observers are being used. Again the overhand serve and spike s k i l l t e s t s show the highest i n t e r - t r i a l r e l i a b i l i t y (.99) i n d i c a t i n g that the same su b j e c t s performing another set of t r i a l s w i t h the same observers would score the same. The performer rel iabil i t ies 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 trials 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 trials to .90 for one observer and five tr ials . Performer reliabil it ies for the overhead pass and forearm pass are not quite as high. Both coefficients are .85 when two observers and 10 trials are used and .72 when only one observer and five trials are used. This may be because errors in these two skills 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 sk i l l tests are reliable and objective instruments. Generalizability coefficients for the four sk i l l tests conducted under the protocol of two observers and 10 trials were a l l .85 and higher. The reduction of the number of trials 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 trials ranging from .72 to .99. 68 C o r r e l a t i o n Between Test Components A c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was computed by using the Pearson Product-Moment on the scores of a l l 48 subjects on the 10 t e s t components. Table XX C o r r e l a t i o n Between Process Scores Overhead Pass Forearm Pass Overhand Serve Spike OP 1.00 FP .85 1.00 OS .74 .78 1.00 SP .78 .80 .75 1.00 Table XX d i s p l a y s the f i n d i n g that s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g w e l l on technique f o r one s k i l l scored r e l a t i v e l y w e l l on technique f o r a l l s k i l l s with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the overhead pass and the forearm pass being highest at .85. T h i s f i n d i n g supports the p r e v i o u s l y observed 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 and thus the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the t e s t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between process scores represent the highest c o r r e l a t i o n s between any t e s t components, but they are not high enough to i n d i c a t e that t e s t i n g only one s k i l l would provide adequate in f o r m a t i o n to g e n e r a l i z e 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 occurred between the product and process scores of each s k i l l . (Refer to Table XXI). Table XXI C o r r e l a t i o n Between Product and Process Scores f o r A l l S k i l l s Product Scores Process Scores Overhead Pass Forearm Pass Overhand Serve Spike OP .60a .68 .48 .61 FP .52 .75a .38 .68 OS .41 .56 .62a .56 SP .58 .67 .50 .74a a = highest c o r r e l a t i o n f o r each s k i l l The highest r e l a t i o n s h i p i n each case was found between the product and process score of the same s k i l l , i . e . , the OP product score c o r r e l a t e d higher with the OP process score than with a"y other process score. T h i s was an encouraging f i n d i n g because i t meant that s u b j e c t s with the best technique (process) were a l s o g e t t i n g the best accuracy score ( p r o d u c t ) . I f these c o r r e l a t i o n s were too high 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 not the case as the c o r r e l a t i o n s f e l l between .60 and .75. Therefore, only 35% to 45% of the variance i n one score was accounted f o r by the variance i n the other score. R e s u l t s f o r the performance a n a l y s i s t e s t revealed r e l a t i v e l y low c o r r e l a t i o n s from .15 with the FP product score to .46 with the OS process score. I t seems that the performance a n a l y s i s evaluated 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 other components i n the p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t . This f i n d i n g i n combination with the f a c t that 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 was discovered i n the a n a l y s i s of variance 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 current 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 that both the a b i l i t y to observe and the a b i l i t y to analyze movement are important f o r teachers and coaches engaged i n performance a n a l y s i s . She concludes that "the need f o r teaching observation as a s p e c i f i c s k i l l f o r e f f e c t i v e teaching was considered e s s e n t i a l . " , ( B a r r e t t , 1979, p. 67). The video-tape developed f o r the present study should be an i n v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r t h i s purpose. 71 Comparison of Number of Subjects Achieving Mastery in Each Ski 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 sk i l l level and achievement of mastery, a Chi Square analysis was conducted. 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 Degrees of Freedom Significance Cognitive 7.312 Performance Analysis 2.043 Product Score - OP 10.666 FP 25.210 OS 2.032 SP 13.500 Process Score - OP 26.063 FP 39.999 OS 20.202 SP 13.137 Total Score 28.541 2 .03a 2 .36 2 <.01a 2 <.01a 2 .36 2 <.01a 2 <.01a 2 <.01a 2 <.01a 2 <.01a 2 <.01a a = significant effect A significant Chi Square provides fairly conclusive evidence that achievement of mastery differentiates between individuals on the basis of their sk i l l level, (Ferguson, 1976). Readers are cautioned that some expected cell 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 be the case w i t h some of the s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . - R e s u l t s of the performance a n a l y s i s t e s t did 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 mastery. Examination of the Chi Square t a b l e shows that only one e l i t e subject achieved mastery while a l l other s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d as non-masters. T h i s corresponds to the i n i t i a l r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of variance where scores were low f o r a l l s u b j e c t s . The product score of the overhand serve a l s o demonstrated no a s s o c i a t i o n between mastery and s k i l l l e v e l . R e s u l t s showed nine e l i t e , seven i n s t r u c t e d and f i v e novice 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 obviously not great enough to be considered s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s r e s u l t was probably due to 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 while female scored poorly at a l l l e v e l s . The sexes were combined i n the Chi Square a n a l y s i s and thus no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was e v i d e n t . A l l Chi 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 of t h i s study was to 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 to determine the 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 possessed by an i n d i v i d u a l . The t e s t evaluated four components 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 s k i l l : 1) knowledge 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 (product score) and 4) s u b j e c t i v e s k i l l a b i l i t y (process s c o r e ) . The four v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l s u t i l i z e d to determine product and process scores were the overhead pass, the forearm pass, the overhand serve and the sp i k e . Subjects performed 10 t r i a l s of each s k i l l and were s u b j e c t i v e l y r a ted by two judges on technique demonstrated during the t r i a l s . The subject pool c o n s i s t e d of 24 females and 24 males d i v i d e d evenly i n t o three 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 n o n - i n s t r u c t e d . Construct v a l i d i t y f o r the 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 of two by three a n a l y s i s of variance computations 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 score. R e l i a b i l i t y of the 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 pro p o r t i o n of agreement t e s t and 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 norm-referenced performance a n a l y s i s was computed by the Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n . R e l i a b i l i t y and 73 o b j e c t i v i t y of the 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 c o e f f i c i e n t s . - 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 by using the Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n and the Chi Square s t a t i s t i c was employed to determine i f there was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s k i l l l e v e l and a student's a b i l i t y to achieve mastery. Major Findings The f o l l o w i n g 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 score f o r overhead pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and s p i k e , process score f o r overhead pass, forearm pass, overhand serve and s p i k e . The overhand serve product score was s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 2 l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y and a l l others were s i g n i f i c a n t at . 0 1 . 2) A n a l y s i s of variance showed a s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t f o r overhand serve product scores ( < . 0 1 ) , overhand serve process scores ( . 0 4 ) , spike process scores ( < . 0 1 ) and t o t a l t e s t scores ( . 0 3 ) . 3 ) A n a l y s i s of variance 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 the forearm pass product score ( . 0 3 ) . 4 ) 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 showed 71% of the mastery c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s made between odd and even questions were i n agreement when e i t h e r a 75% or 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 purely by chance the kappa ( K ) c o e f f i c i e n t was determined. With the c r i t e r i o n set at 80%, k = . 3 6 ; with a c r i t e r i o n of 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 of the performance a n a l y s i s 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 of two observers and 10 t r i a l s were: . 8 6 f o r overhead pass, . 8 5 f o r forearm pass, . 9 6 f o r overhand serve and . 9 6 f o r the s p i k e . 7) 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 - t r i a l 75 reliabil it ies of two observers and 10 trials were .98 for overhead pass, .98 for forearm pass, .99 for overhand serve and .99 for the spike. 8) The generalizability coefficients for performer reliabil it ies of two observers and 10 trials 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 tr ials , one observer - 10 trials and one observer - five tr ials . Generally, the coefficients showed a decrease when one observer was dropped from the data but reducing the number of trials 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 sk i l l (process score) scored well on technique for a l l ski l ls . Correlations ranged between .74 and .85. 11) Correlations between the product and process score of each sk i l l were higher than any correlations between ski l ls , 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 sk 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 sk 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 warranted: 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 Test are v a l i d 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 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 present method of a n a l y s i s i s questionable. 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 are 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) Test components are 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 that 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 of the c o g n i t i v e t e s t and the 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 necessary t o modify the performance a n a l y s i s to make i t l e s s d i f f i c u l t . Although co n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y was ev i d e n t , only one subject was able to achieve a mastery score when the c r i t e r i o n was set at 80%. 3) I t i s suggested that 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 of 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 courses at 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 that 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 serve as an example and a stimulus f o r experts i n other s p o r t i n g areas to c o n s t r u c t s u i t a b l e t e s t s f o r t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . B i b l i o g r a p h y Angoff, W.H. (1971). S c a l e s , norms, and equ i v a l e n t scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American C o u n c i l on Education. B a r r e t t , Kate R. (1979). Observation of movement f o r teachers - a sy 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. Block, J.H. (Ed.). (1974). Schools, s o c i e t y and mastery l e a r n i n g . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Block, J.H. (1979). Mastery l e a r n i n g ; the cur r e n t s t a t e of the c r a f t . E d u c ational Leadership, 114-117. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of ed 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. (1968). Learning f o r mastery. E v a l u a t i o n Comment, 1_(2), 1-8. Brown, F. G. (1981). Measuring classroom achievement. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Car d i n e t , J . , Tourneur, Y., & A l l a l , L. (1976). The symmetry of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y theory: a p p l i c a t i o n to edu c a t i o n a l measurement. Jo u r n a l of Edu c a t i o n a l Measurement, 13, 119-135. C a r r o l l , J . B. (1971). Problems of measurement r e l a t e d to the concept of l e a r n i n g f o r mastery. Chapter 3 i n J . H. Block (Ed.), 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 , Rinehart 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 of b e h a v i o r a l measurements: Theory of  g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y f o r scores and p r o f i l e s . New York: Wiley. Fawcett, Sandra A. (1974). V a l i d i t y of v o l l e y b a l l t e s t s . New Zealand  J o u r n a l of Health, P h y s i c a l Education and Recreation, 7(3). Ferguson, George A. (1976). S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n psychology and  education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw H i l l Book Company. F i t t s , P. M. (1962). Factors i n complex s k i l l t r a i n i n g . In R. Glasser (Ed.), T r a i n i n g research and education. P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h P r e s s . 7b E i t t s , P. M. (1964). Perceptual motor s k i l l l e a r n i n g . In A . W . Melton (Ed.), Categories of Human Learning. New York: Academic Press. F i t t s , P. M. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/ Cole P u b l i s h i n g Company. Fleishman, E. A. (1964). The s t r u c t u r e and measurement of p h y s i c a l  f i t n e s s . Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l . Gagne, R. M. (1965). The c o n d i t i o n s of l e a r n i n g . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Gagne, R. M. (1970). The c o n d i t i o n s of l e a r n i n g (2nd ed.). New York: H o l t , Rinehart, and Winston. G l a s e r , R. (1963). I n s t r u c t i o n a l technology and the measurement of 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. & Schutz, R. W. (1983). 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 with reference to va r i o u s o b s e r v a t i o n a l designs. Research Q u a r t e r l y f o r E x e r c i s e and Sport, 54(1), 20-27. Gronlund, N. E. (1973). Preparing c r i t e r i o n - Referenced t e s t s f o r  classroom i n s t r u c t i o n . New York: Macmillan. Harrow, A. J . (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. New York: David McKay Company. Jewett, Ann E. (1973). P h y s i c a l education o b j e c t i v e s out of c u r r i c u l a r chaos. Proceedings of the AAHPER Regional Conference. Pennsylvania. Jewett, A. E., Jones, L. S., Luneke, S.M., & Robinson, S. M. (1971). Educational change through a taxonomy f o r w r i t i n g p h y s i c a l education o b j e c t i v e s . Quest, 16, 32-38. Jewett, A. E., & Mullan, M. R. (1977). Curriculum design: Purposes  and processes i n p h y s i c a l education teaching - 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., & Nelson, Jack K. (1979). 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 education (3rd ed.). Minneapolis: Burgess P u b l i s h i n g Company. Johnson, J u d i t h A. (1967). The development of a v o l l e y b a l l s k i l l  t e s t f o r highschool g i r l s . Unpublished master's t h e s i s , I l l i n o i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Kautz, E l i z a b e t h Marie. (1976). 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 the forearm pass. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a , Greensboro. Kim, Hogwon. (1971). Mastery l e a r n i n g i n the Korean middle schools. UNESCO Regional O f f i c e f o r Education i n A s i a , 6 ( 1 ) , 55-66. K i r k , Roger, E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures f o r the behavioral s c i e n c e s . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole P u b l i s h i n g Company. Krathwohl, D. R. e t . a l . (1964). Taxonomy of educational 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. (1974). P r o f i c i e n c y t e s t i n g f or p h y s i c a l  education. Washington: AAHPER p u b l i c a t i o n s . M e r r i l l , M. D. (Ed.). (1971). I n s t r u c t i o n a l design: Readings. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: 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 theory. Chapter 14 i n R. Singer (Ed.), The  psychomotor domain: Movement behvior. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Lea and Febiger. Mosher, R. E. & Schutz, R. W. (1983). The development of a t e s t of overarm throwing: An a p p l i c a t i o n of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y theory. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, _8( 1), 1 -8. Popham, W. J . (1975). Educational e v a l u a t i o n . Englewood C l i f f , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l . Popham, W. J . (1973). 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 , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l . Rentz, R. R. (1980). Rules 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 using g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y theory. Educational 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 . (1977). 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 education. 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 . (1981). E v a l u a t i o n i n p h y s i c a l education (2nd ed.). New Jersey: 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 reliabil ity 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 sk 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 is used most frequently by highly skilled players? a) spike serve b) overhand spin serve c) underhand float d) overhand float serve 2. From the following group of errors, which will prevent your serve from floating? a) wrist too stiff on contact b) wrist too loose on contact c) contact is off-centre d) b and c e) a and c 3. Where is the major weakness of the W serve-receive formation? a) the centre front area of the court b) the sideline c) the centre back area of the court d) the corners of the court A. Which technique is usually the most effective when passing the ball to a spiker? a) a jump set b) an overhead set c) a bump d) a back bump 5. Which pattern represents the most basic offense in volleyball? a) set-spike-block b) pass-set-attack c) set-spike-cover d) pass-set-tip 82 6_r Which sk i l l does a player have the most control over? a) setting b) serving c) bumping d) blocking 7 . 9 . Which diagram indicates the best strategy when the centre back makes the first contact in a U-2 centre specialized system? t 3 f 3 1 4 6 2 4 6 — 2 4 6 2 4 . 2 6 ^ 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 a) b) c) d) Which darkened area shows the best region for serve placement? • • • 1 1 a) b) c) d) Which part of the players body gives the best surface for contact and control of the bump pass? a) the fleshy part of the inner arms b) the wrists c) the forearms d) b and c 10. Which situation illustrates an illegal play? a) a player reaches under the net to play a ball falling from the net on her side b) a player reaches over the net to block a ball that has been attacked by the opponents c) a player steps over the centre line during play but does not interfere with the opponent's play d) a player grabs the shirt of a teammate and pulls her back to prevent her from falling into the net 83 LJ. Which score i n d i c a t e s a completed game? a ) 15-14 b) 22-20 c) 11-10 d) 11-9 12. How many p o i n t s has Team A scored 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 order with J a c k i e being the f i r s t server of the game: J a c k i e served 3 times, B l a i n e served 4 times, Mike served 1 time, Roy served 2 times, Gerry i s ready to serve f o r the f o u r t h time? a) 9 b) 8 c) 13 d) 14 13. I f a b l o c k i n g player can only reach so that h a l f of her hands extend above the height of the net, she should: a) take a one-step approach and reach with one hand b) keep t r y i n g u n t i l her jump improves c) not block; stay at the net and turn to face her teammates to be ready to make the second contact d) s o f t block so that the b a l l w i l l d e f l e c t up i n t o her back court 14. What i s the key to l a n d i n g s a f e l y a f t e r making an emergency dig? a) using your knee pads b) r o l l i n g c) r e l a x i n g when you contact the f l o o r d) d i v i n g 15. A 6-up defense works best: a) against a team that t i p s or h i t s half-speed shots b) a g a i n s t a team that h i t s deep over the block c) f o r a team with an i n c o n s i s t e n t 2 man block d) f o r a team with poor t i p diggers «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) #3 b) #4 c) #6 d) #4 and #6 17. What is #5's responsibility when her teammate #4 is attacking the ball? a) covering at mid-court in case the ball is blocked b) switching to her defensive position c) covering just inside the 3 meter line in case the ball is blocked d) watching to see where the holes in the opponents' defenses are 18. What is the best angle of approach for a right handed spiker from their power side? \ K A a) b) c) d) 19. What is the fastest way to move across the width of the court? a) sidestep b) forward sprint c) stutter step d) cross-over step 20. The sport of volleyball was initiated in: a) Japan b) Czechoslovakia c) Cuba d) U.S.A. 85 21. Which h i t t e r i s executing an off-hand spike? a) a right-handed h i t t e r s p i k i n g from LF b) a left-handed h i t t e r s p i k i n g from RF c) a right-handed h i t t e r s p i k i n g from CF d) a left-handed h i t t e r s p i k i n g from LF 22. Which serve has no s p i n and moves i n an e r r a t i c path as i t approaches the r e c e i v e r ? a) overhand-hit with heel of hand - no f o l l o w through b) sidearm-hit with open hand c) spike serve d) overhand-hit with heel of hand - f o l l o w through 23. Where i s the contact point f o r the overhand pass? a) at c h i n l e v e l b) d i r e c t l y overhead c) r i g h t o f f the nose d) near the forehead 24. How are the legs p o s i t i o n e d when executing a forearm pass? a) front-back s t r i d e , knees bent b) side s t r i d e , knees bent c) front-back s t r i d e , l e g s f a i r l y s t r a i g h t d) s i d e s t r i d e , legs f a i r l y s t r a i g h t 25. Which of the f o l l o w i n g i n c r e a s e s the power of a spike? a) c o n t a c t i n g the b a l l i n f r o n t of the body b) f o l l o w through w i t h the hand c) speeding up the arm a c t i o n d) r o t a t i n g the h i p s l a t e r a l l y a f t e r t a k e - o f f 26. Which technique i s recommended f o r s u c c e s s f u l s p i k i n g ? a) one foot t a k e - o f f , cupped hand b) two foot t a k e - o f f , cupped hand c) two foot hop, open hand d) two foot t a k e - o f f , open hand 86 27. 28. 29. P l a y e r s A and B are s e t t e r s . P l a y e r s C and D are the best h i t t e r s . Which l i n e - u p i s most advantageous? D A F E B C a) E A F C B D b) E B D C F A c) '2' i n a 6-2 o f f e n s i v e A E C B D F d) What are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the system? a) h i t t i n g and defense b) digging and s e t t i n g c) h i t t i n g and b l o c k i n g d) s e t t i n g and h i t t i n g A player c o n s i s t e n t l y spikes the b a l l i n t o the net. Taking f o r granted that the s e t s are adequate, which c o r r e c t i o n should be offered? a) h i t the b a l l a l i t t l e l a t e r b) take a longer approach c) h i t the b a l l sooner d) decrease the f o l l o w through of the arm 30. 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 legs to increase the distance that the b a l l t r a v e l s ? a) b) c) d) serve dive set d i g 31 Who c o n t r o l s the offense? a) c a p t a i n b) s e t t e r c) h i t t e r s d) coach 87 32. The attack area s h a l l a) be 3 metres from and p a r a l l e l to the centre l i n e b) end at the s i d e l i n e s of the court c) extend i n d e f i n i t e l y p a r a l l e l to the center l i n e d ) a and b e) a and c 33. The heights of the nets f o r men and women r e s p e c t i v e l y at the centre of the net s h a l l be a) 2.24 m; 2.49 m b) 2.43 m; 2.00 m c) 2.43 m; 2.24 m d) 2.49 m; 2.24 m 34. A team i s permitted a) four s u b s t i t u t i o n s per game b) s i x s u b s t i t u t i o n s per game c) s i x s u b s t i t u t i o n s per match d) 12 s u b s t i t u t i o n s per match 35. Any player beginning a game i n a match may be replaced a) once by any s u b s t i t u t e and may not re-enter the same game b) once and may re-enter the same game once c) twice during the game provided the same player exchanges with him d) at the beginning of the next game but not before 36. A f t e r a b a l l i s served a) each player may move to any s e c t i o n of h i s team's court b) the b a c k l i n e p l a y e r s only may switch p o s i t i o n s i n the back l i n e c) the f r o n t l i n e p l a y e r s only may switch p o s i t i o n s i n the front row d) both b and c 88 37. The linesmen are responsible for a) signalling balls 'in or out' of court b) checking the height of the net before the match begins c) indicating i f a ball has been contacted by a player before landing outside the court d) both a and b e) both a and c 38. A third time out for rest is requested; what happens? a) time out is granted but the captain or coach making the request shall be warned b) time out is granted but the opponents receive a point c) it shall be refused and the opponents receive a point d) i t shall be refused, and the captain or coach making the request shall be warned 39. A simultaneous hit by opponents allows the team on whose side the ball enters the court a) three more hits b) two more hits c) one more hit d) a replay 40. Pick out the serve receive pattern that constiutes an overlap. a) b) e) none of the above 4 3 4 5 3 5 6 2 1 6 1 c) 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) you are not using your legs b) you are not extending your arms on contact c) you are not contacting the ball above your forehead d) a and b e) b and c 2. I can't seem to control how far forward I bump the ball - why? a) arms bent on contact b) transferring your weight backwards on contact c) contacting the ball with your fists d) a and b e) b and c 3. Why do I always have to jump when I forearm pass the ball? a) you are too close to the ball b) one leg is too far in front of the other c) you are not using enough arm swing on contact d) a and b e) a and c A . Why does the ball fa l l short of my target? a) because you are off balance prior to contact b) because you have no forward lean in your trunk c) because your arms are parallel to the floor d) b and c e) a and b How can I spike the ball cross-court? a) jump sooner and reach for the ball b) approach the ball at a 45 degree angle to the net c) point your left arm and shoulder to the ball on takeoff d) a and b e) b and c I'm having trouble with my timing - what's wrong? a) you are approaching from too far away b) you are not using enough arm swing c) you are taking too many steps d) a and b e) b and c Why do I always seem to hit the ball behind my head? a) you are drifting under the ball after your two-foot takeoff b) your arm swing is too late c) you are taking off too close to the net d) a and c e) a and b Why does my serve go so high over the net? a) toss is too low b) toss is too close to your body c) hitting the bottom of the ball d) a and b e) b and c My serve seems to keep hitting the top of the net, why? a) toss is too low b) elbow is bent on contact c) toss is too far in front of you d) b and c e) a l l of the above How can I jump higher on my spike jump? a) use a forceful upward armswing b) use a heel-toe rocking action to plant on takeoff c) feet should be perpendicular to the net on takeoff d) a and b e) a l l of the above 91 11. Why are a l l of my spikes going out of the court? ~ a) because you are jumping too late b) because your elbow is bent on contact c) because you are taking off too close to the net d) a and b e) a and c 12. Why can't I get the ball to go farther? a) not using your legs b) not contacting ball above forehead c) not following through in the direction you want the ball to go d) a and b e) al l of the above 13. Why can't I control where the ball goes? a) contacting it 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 14. Why do I have a hard time controlling where the ball will go? a) your steps to the ball are too long b) you are contacting the ball at chin level c) your fingers and hands are too relaxed on contact d) b and c e) al l of the above 15. Why does the ball go straight up instead of forward? a) you are backing away from the ball on contact b) the ball is hitting your fists c) your follow through is up and over your head d) b and c e) al l of the above 16. In a 6-up defensive system such as the players are using who has the responsibility to dig this ball? a) #2 after landing from block b) #6 c) #1 d) #1 or #6 92 17. Why was this player unable to spike the ball? a) set was too high b) set was too far outside the antenna c) attacker did not back out of the court in preparation for the set d) b and c 18. The player in position #1 has the second contact on the ball -who would be the best player for him to set? a) #4 b) #2 c) #3 d) #2 or #4 19. How could the setter in center front have made a better set that was closer to the net? a) by using a jump set b) by using more leg extension c) by turning her body parallel ball d) by turning her body parallel ball to the net while setting the to the net before setting the 20. In a W serve receive pattern who has the responsibility to receive this ball in deep center back? a) either the left or right back depending on who can get there faster b) the player in the center position - she should back up i f the ball is going deep c) the player in left back because both the left front and center player turned to show him i t was his ball d) any of the 3 backrow players depending on who called the ball f irst 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 ball . - 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 ball . - 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 s u c c e s s f u l l y . body may not be square to the ta r g e t but otherwise the overhead pass i s performed smoothly. feet may be p a r a l l e l rather than one i n f r o n t of the other t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d i n g a very small base of support and l o s s of balance while performing the pass. t r a n s f e r of momentum from legs to arms may not be s e q u e n t i a l , body movement p r i o r to contact i s c o r r e c t but on contact 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 are dropped below forehead l e v e l or are too f a r back above head. footwork and body movement are smooth but hands are not kept f i r m enough f o r l e g a l contact Poor to Average - performance i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due to a combination of two e r r o r s , movement to the b a l l i s inadequate and t h e r e f o r e the player contacts the b a l l i n an unbalanced p o s i t i o n - forward f o l l o w through i s s t i l l e v i dent. player i s unbalanced p r i o r to contact and f o l l o w s through i n a backward motion. player contacts b a l l at c h i n l e v e l and f o l l o w s through backwards with body. t r a n s f e r of momentum from l e g s to arms i s not s e q u e n t i a l and f o l l o w through of arms i s d i r e c t l y upward in s t e a d of forward. 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 ball . - 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 ball . - 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 is performed 9 6 i n c o r r e c t l y so the f l u i d i t y of movement i s m i s s i ng. player may have judged i n c o r r e c t l y and f i n d s h i s or h e r s e l f too c l o s e or too f a r away from the b a l l but i s s t i l l able to adapt and perform a forearm pass s u c c e s s f u l l y , body may not be square to the t a r g e t but otherwise the forearm 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 the other t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d i n g a very small base of support and l o s s of balance while performing the pass. t r a n s f e r of momentum from leg s to arms may not be s e q u e n t i a l , body movement p r i o r t o contact i s c o r r e c t but on contact 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 contacts arms c l o s e r to elbows than t o w r i s t s . footwork and body movement are smooth but there i s an exaggerated upward armswing on f o l l o w through. Poor to Average - performance i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due to a combination of two e r r o r s , judgement and movement to the b a l l are inadequate and th e r e f o r e the player contacts the b a l l too high on the forearm - forward f o l l o w through i s s t i l l e v i dent, player i s unbalanced p r i o r to contact and f o l l o w s through i n a backward motion. - 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 ift ing 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 is extended and wrist is stiff on contact for an overhand floater serve. If a topspin serve is attempted the wrist is snapped over the ball on contact. there i s very l i t t l e extraneous movment i n e i t h e r backswing or forward swing of arm a c t i o n . the arm comes forward q u i c k l y but f o l l o w through i s l i m i t e d . Average to Good - g e n e r a l l y has c o n t r o l over the b a l l but one component of the serve 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 i s missing. toss may be too low or high or too c l o s e to body but server adapts and performs a s u c c e s s f u l serve. a c t i o n of the t o s s i n g arm may lack 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 forward weight t r a n s f e r . although t o s s i s accurate, arm a c t i o n may be slow causing contact with a bent elbow. body c o n t r o l may be smooth but w r i s t i s loose on c o n t a c t . Poor to Average - performance i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due to a combination of two e r r o r s , toss i s too c l o s e to body so server adapts by bending elbow and w r i s t to contact b a l l . t o s s i n g arm a c t i o n l a c k s c o n t r o l so forward t r a n s f e r of weight i s not e v i d e n t . t o s s i n g arm 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 in i t ia 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 l i f t . - 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 should be contacted i n f r o n t of the h i t t i n g shoulder with the arm extended. judgement of the set i s c r i t i c a l so that b a l l i s attacked at highest point of the jump. arm should f o l l o w through across the body. balance should be regained on l a n d i n g with knees f l e x e d and fee t shoulder width a p a r t . Average to Good - g e n e r a l l y demonstrates good body c o n t r o l and b a l l contact but an e r r o r i n one component of the spike makes the attack l e s s e f f e c t i v e than i t could be. proper technique i s demonstrated but the t i m i n g of the jump i s too e a r l y or too l a t e . proper form i s demonstrated a f t e r t a k e o f f but he angle of approach to the net i s i n c o r r e c t 0 £ there i s not evidence of a long, low step p r i o r to 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 contact or_ b a l l i s contacted behind the h i t t i n g shoulder, footwork i s c o r r e c t but no f o r c e f u l upward armswing i s evident on t a k e o f f . footwork and contact p o i n t are c o r r e c t but there i s l i t t l e or no trunk r o t a t i o n or f l e x i o n preceding b a l l c o n t a c t . Poor to Average - performance i s i n c o n s i s t e n t due to a combination of two e r r o r s , no long, low step i s evidenced p r i o r to t a k e o f f and no upwar armswing i s used. angle of approach i s i n c o r r e c t and b a l l i s not contacted d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t of h i t t i n g shoulder. feet do not t a k e o f f simultaneously and jump i s e i t h e r too e a r l y 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 consistency and accuracy are not evi d e n t , a combination of three or more of the previous 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 A) B) C) D) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOT; OVERHEAD PASSING 4 - E x c e l l e n t 3 - Average to Good 2 - Poor to Average 1 - Poor FOREARM PASSING 4 - E x c e l l e n t 3 - Average to Good 2 - Poor to Average 1 - Poor OVERHAND SERVING 4 - E x c e l l e n t 3 - Average to Good 2 - Poor to Average 1 - Poor SPIKING 4 - E x c e l l e n t 3 - Average to Good 2 - Poor to Average 1 - Poor 103 Appendix E CHI SQUARE TABLES Cognitive Scores SKILL 1 M 1| NM 2| TOTAL e ; 1 5 I 11 I 16 33.3 i 2 1 6 I 10 I 16 33.3 N 3 1 I 16 I 16 33.3 COLUMN TOTAL 22 1 1 .9 37 77 . 1 48 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 7.31204 2 0.0258 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 0 MIN E.F 3 .667 CELLS WITH E .F .< 5 3 OF 6 ( 50.0%) Performance Analysis Scores SKILL E I 2 N ROW M MM TOTAL 1| m 2| + + 1 I 15 I 16 | | 33.3 + +. 16 I 16 | 33 . 3 — + — + COLUMN 1 47 48 TOTAL 2.1 97.9 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 2.04255 2 0.3601 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 0 0.333 3 OF 6 ( 50.0%) 104 Overhead Pass Product Score ROW TOTAL M 11 NM 21 S K I L L • • • £ 1 I 16 I I 16 3 3 . 3 + + 4-1 2 + 3 " 1 2 1 16 | 3 3 . 3 9 1 7 | 33 . 3 39 9 48 N + -COLUMN TOTAL 8 1 . 3 18.8 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D . F . SIGNIFICANCE MIN E . F . CELLS WITH E . F . < 5 10.66667 2 0 .0048 3 .000 3 OF 6 ( 50.0%) NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 0 Forearm Pass Product Score S K I L L M 11 NM 21 16 ROW TOTAL 16 33 . 3 16 3 3 . 3 N COLUMN TOTAL 14 25 52 . 1 23 4 7 . 9 16 33 .3 48 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D . F . SIGNIFICANCE MIN E . F . CELLS WITH E . F . < 5 25 .21043 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 0 7 .667 NONE 105 Overhand Serve Product Score SKILL M 11 NM 21 I 2 N 3 5 I 11 ROW TOTAL 16 3 3 . 3 16 3 3 . 3 16 3 3 . 3 COLUMN 21 27 48 TOTAL 4 3 . 8 5 6 . 3 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D . F . SIGNIFICANCE MIN E . F . CELLS WITH E . F . < 5 2 .03175 2 0 .3621 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS * 0 7.0O0 NONE Spike Product Score SKILL M i | im 21 1 E " I 2 2 I I 5 I 1 1 N 3 I 5 | 1 1 COLUMN 24 24 ROW TOTAL 16 3 3 . 3 16 3 3 . 3 16 3 3 . 3 48 TOTAL 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1O0.0 CHI-SQUARE D . F . SIGNIFICANCE MIN E . F . 13.500OO 2 0 .0012 8 .000 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS •= 0 CELLS WITH E . F . < 5 NONE 106 Overhead Pass Process Score SKILL M 1| NM 2| + + 13 I 3 13 N 3 COLUMN TOTAL 16 16 33 . 3 32 66.7 ROW TOTAL 16 33 . 3 16 33.3 16 33.3 48 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 26.06249 2 0.0000 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - O MIN E.F. 5.333 CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 NONE Forearm Pass Process Score SKILL M 1| NM 2| 16 ROW TOTAL 16 33.3 1 2 1 ' 1 '5 1 16 33 . 3 N 3 | ' 1 15 1 16 33.3 COLUMN 18 30 48 TOTAL 37.5 62.5 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F, SIGNIFICANCE 39.99999 2 O.OOOO NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS « 0 MIN E.F. 6.000 CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 NONE 107 Overhand Serve Process Score ROW M 11 NM 21 SKILL + -- + + " ' | " J ' ] 33'? 1 2 j * : s + + + COLUMN 23 25 48 TOTAL 47.9 52.1 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 20.20174 2 0.00O0 7.667 NONE NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 0 Spike Process Score ROW TOTAL M i | NM 2| SKILL + + + E 1 | 8 | 8 | 33 1 63 + + + I 2 I 2 I 14 I 16 | | |+ + + N 3 j | 16 | + + + COLUMN 10 38 48 TOTAL 20.8 79.2 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 13.13684 2 0.0014 3.333 3 OF 6 ( 50.0%) NII1MRFD DF MT ^^ T KCX DRSFRVAT I ONS « O 108 Total Score S K I L L M 1 | NM 2 | 11 I 2 N C O L U M N 1 1 T O T A L 2 2 . 9 1 6 1 6 ROW T O T A L 1 6 3 3 . 3 1 6 3 3 . 3 1 6 3 3 . 3 3 7 4 8 7 7 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 C H I - S Q U A R E D . F . S I G N I F I C A N C E M I N E . F . C E L L S W I T H E . F . < 5 2 8 . 5 4 0 5 4 2 O . O O O O N U M B E R O F M I S S I N G O B S E R V A T I O N S <= O 3 . 6 6 7 3 O F 6 ( 5 0 . 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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077233/manifest

Comment

Related Items