UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Team-based attitude : theory development, inventory construction, and psychometric analysis Twist, Pete W. 1991

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1992_spring_twist_pete.pdf [ 5.68MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0077375.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077375-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077375-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077375-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077375-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077375-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077375-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Team-Based Attitude: Theory Development,Inventory Construction, and Psychometric AnalysisPete W. TwistB.P.E., McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATIONTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSCHOOL OF PHYSICALEDUCATION AND RECREATIONWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA©  December, 1991In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate  <J Cv7 d(^2DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study concerns the development of avalid and reliable team-orientation instrument whichmeasures tendencies towards multidimensional team-basedattitudes within interactive, interdependent elite sportgroups. The theoretical basis utilized to build aconceptual model includes team norms and team dynamics.Specifically, the components hypothesized to tap team-basedattitude include team maintenance, team identity, teamunity, cohesive norms, task-orientation, team motivation andaspirations, and locomotive norms. Team norms and teamdynamics theory, existing inventory content, and interviewswith expert coaches and elite athletes were all consideredin developing the initial item pool. Based on operationaldefinitions, expert judges performed an initial validationby fitting items within the appropriate construct.The empirical testing of the inventory was based ondata from subjects (N=153) from the Canada West UniversityAthletic Association. Lisrel VI confirmatory factoranalysis, exploratory factor analysis, and reliability(internal consistency) were applied to the data. Factorloadings, goodness of fit index, chi-square to degrees offreedom ratio, root mean square residual, and Cronbach'salpha all provided evidence for initial support of thehypothesized factor structure.A paired groups correlated t-test with a sub sampleiiiii(N=52) of the initial subject population provided evidenceof reliability (stability) over time. A multivariateHotellings T2 with individual subjects (N=53) and teamsubjects (N=53) resulted in significant differencei betweenthe two groups for all factors and a TBA total score. Thisknown-groups difference test proved the inventory coulddifferentiate between individual and team athletes,providing support for construct validity. Coaches ratedplayers on their level of cohesion and locomotion.Correlation coefficients failed to produce relationshipsbetween the coaches rating and the athletes' TBA Inventoryscore. However, this may have been due to the low number ofcoach respondents (N=3), or the very source of externalvalidation (the coaches' rating) being inaccurate.The psychometric analysis provided support of thefactor structure, along with reasonable validity and strongreliabiltiy results. Given the potential of the inventoryin team dynamics research, sport scientists are encouragedto further test the TBA model, to develop a moreparsimonious fit of the data to the model, inventoryrefinement, and population generalizability.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT  ^iiLIST OF TABLES ^  viiLIST OF FIGURES  viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ^ixCHAPTERI. INTRODUCTION  ^1Need For a Team-Based Attitude Inventory  ^3For The Coach  ^3For The Researcher  ^5Statement of Purpose  ^8II. LITERATURE REVIEW  ^9Instrumentation  ^9Review of Sport Cohesion Instruments  ^9Causes, Effects, and Mediators ^  12Individual Characteristics - A New Direction,A New Inventory ^  13Theoretical Background  15Team Dynamics  16Cohesion ^  16Team Maintenance ^  17Team Identity  18Team Unity  18Locomotion ^  19Task Orientation ^  19Team Motivation and Aspirations ^ 20Team Norms  21Cohesive Norms  22Locomotive Norms ^  23III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ^  27Inventory Construction  27Item Development ^  27Test Item Generation ^  27Operational Definitions  28Matching Items and Constructs ^  30Item Examination By Athletes  30Item Validation By Expert Opinion  30Item Ordering and Scaling  31Data Collection: Phase A Inventory Development . .^32Data Collection: Phase B Validity andRelibility Studies ^  34Data Analysis ^  35Item Deletion and Inventory Revision ^ 35Data Coding and Rescoring ^  36Reliability (Internal Consistency)  37Factor Structure - Criteria For Assessmentof Overall Fit ^  37Item Deletion Criteria ^  40Validity and Reliability (Stability) ^ 41IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ^  43Questionnaire Return: Phase A Inventory Development . ^ 43Descriptive Statistics ^  47Assessment of Overall Fit  47Item deletion and Inventory Revision ^ 47Example of the Item Deletion and InventoryRevision Process ^  48Summary of Item Deletions and Inventory Revisions . ^ 51Summary of Statistics  55Validity of Hypothesized Factor Structure ^ 58First-Order Factor Structure ^  58Second-Order Factor Structure  59Questionnaire Return: Phase B Validity andReliability Studies ^  60Validity ^  60Reliability (Stability) ^  61Data Analysis: Validity and Reliability ^ 61Construct Validity  61Criterion Related Validity ^  61Concurrent Validity ^  63Test-Retest Reliability (Stability) ^  64viV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS^  66REFERENCES ^  69APPENDIX  76A. Initial Item Pool Matched With Constructs ^ 76B. Item Validation by Expert Opinion ^  84C. Original 64 Item TBA Inventory  99D. Consent Letter to Coaches   113E. Intial Contact Letter to School Representatives ^ 118F. Instructions to School Representatives ^ 120G. Coach Rating Form (Cohesion and Locomotion)  122H. Theoretical Justification for Correlated Errors ^ 125I. Correlation Matrix for 35 Item Inventory ^ 127J. CFA Lambda X Factor Loadings for 35 Item Inventory. .   129K. Inter-Factor Correlations for 35 Item Inventory ^ 131L. Modification Indices for 35 Item Inventory^ 133M. T-values for 35 Item Inventory ^  135N. Normalized Residual for 35 Item Inventoru  1370. QPLOT of Normalized Residuals  139P. Internal Consistency Analysis  141LIST OF TABLESTable3.1 Inventory Distribution By School and By Sport ^ 333.2 Inventory Distribution To Individual Athletes By Sport . ^ 344.1 Distribution and Response Rate By Sport ^ 444.2 Distribution and Response Rate By School  444.3 Descriptive Statistics For All 64 Items ^ 454.4 Summary Of Initial Criteria For Item Deletionand Inventory Revision ^  484.5 Summary of Factor Loadings, Item Deletions, andInventory Revisions  524.6 Summary of Model Fit Indices ^  574.7 Internal Consistency Statistics  574.8 Inter-factor Correlations ^  594.9 Team Athlete Versus Individual Athlete^TBA Score Means    624.91 Coaches' Ratings: Pearson Correlation Coefficients . . . ^ 644.92 Test-Retest Statistics: Correlated T-Tests ^ 65vi iviiiLIST OF FIGURESIndividual Characteristics: Antecedent ToCohesion, Locomotion, and Success ^ 4Individual Difference Variable: A Moderator ofCohesion ^  6Suspected Antecedents of Group Cohesion ^ 8Team-Based Attitude Model ^  26Figure A.Figure B.Figure C.Figure D.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to acknowledge the efforts of theindividuals who helped develop an initial idea and acuriosity to complete fruition in the form of this thesis.Thanks to Dr. Susan Butt for her guidance with psychologytheory, item development, and specifically cohesion andsport motives. I would like to thank Dr. Richard Mosherfor his direction and feedback in several academic areasleading up to this thesis. His ability to relatetheoretical knowledge to the sport situation provedinvaluable. I would like to express my sincere appreciationto Dr. Sharon Bleuler for the thoroughness of herinstruction, analysis, and feedback throughout all phases ofthis thesis. Dr. Bleuler's direction with itemdevelopment, inventory construction, and sport psychologytheory was very beneficial to this study. The time shegenerously offered for detailed content examination and theresultant feedback she provided was greatly appreciated.Special thanks to Dr. Robert Schutz, my advisor, forhis constant guidance and feedback in all aspects of thisthesis.. His encouragement and direction ensured this studyprogressed to much greater depths with more sophisticatedanalysis than would have originally been undertaken. Hisleadership and guidance with statistical and psychometricanalysis, and attitude inventory construction was very muchvalued and appreciated.ixI would also like to thank Dr. McGillicuddy for hismoral support, as well as family and the many friends whohelped me maintain a proper perspective and healthy balancewhile investing my energies towards this study.x1Chapter IIntroductionThe assumption by coaches that their athletes must workboth with and for the team has not gone unnoticed by sportresearchers. It is the willingness to work hard and makesacrifices for the benefit of the team that has beengeneralized and summarized by these coaches under the term"good attitude". Coaches have commonly interpreted'attitude' as one's characteristics or tendencies asassessed by the resultant behavior and actions.Coaches today generally agree that attitude is the mostimportant attribute for an athlete, and it is a currentcoaching belief that a team-attitude is crucial to teamsuccess. Within a list of psychological attributes, coachesfrom NHL, Canadian University, and Major Jr. 'A' hockeyteams consistently rated team attitudes a more importantdiscriminator than individual attitudes for the athlete whodesires to play within their league (Twist, 1987). It canbe rationalized that a team-based attitude would bepositively correlated to performance for interactive,interdependent sports, where a high degree of congruence andcooperation is required to achieve task demands.The "essence of team sports is the effectiveintegration of the individual with the team in pursuit of acommon goal" (Jones & Williamson, 1979, p. 158). Eitzen(1975) refers to 'group oriented motivation' and suggeststhat team spirit will lead to successful team performance,2while Stogdill (1972) stated that group drive or groupmotivation is the variable most consistently related toproductivity. Gruber and Gray rationalize that "coachesseek internal harmony among members so that efforts can beconcentrated on effective team play and hopefully a winningseason" (1981, p. 20).It is common practice within the sport environment tostrive towards developing coalition while criticizingegocentrism. Coaches most often deSire an athlete who willdirect his-her efforts towards maintaining group solidarityand achieving team goals. This reflects the assumptionthat, regardless of ability level, team-based attitude willincrease the probability of success, and the more equal twoteams are in terms of skill, the more important team-basedattitude is in determining objective, quantified gameoutcome. Additionally, even highly skilled athletes, ifacting as individuals, will be detrimental to teamperformance, as the individually-oriented athlete mightparticipate for more personal reasons (Jones & Williamson,1979). Although the existence and importance of personalgoals is acknowledged, team goals must take priority foreach athlete if the team is to be successful. Discrepanciesin participation motives (individual versus team oriented)may have a negative effect on the team. Thus the coachencourages player behavior which is consistent with teamgoals and strategies (Botterill, 1978).Need For A Team-Based Attitude InventoryInteractive, interdependent sports definitely involve(and require) a cooperative, harmonious situation within theteam, however an individual can be placed within thiscooperative situation and not feel cooperative or bemotivated by the necessary cooperation (Butt, 1987). Theidentification of team-based athletes and individualisticathletes, then, is important both for the coach who desiresto optimize the probability of team success, and for theresearcher who desires to examine individuals within a teamand their effect on team processes and team success.Athletes bring certain characteristics to the sportsituation, and make positive or negative evaluations onbeliefs (cognitive) about the attitude object (in this casethe team, the team's goals, team unity, etc.) whichdetermine the direction and predisposition for certainbehavior (team-based or individualistic behavior). Overtathlete behaviors, reflecting their attitudes, can beresearched within the framework of team dynamics.For The Coach. The assessment of an athlete's'attitude' is paramount during the selection process (asopposed to assessing it in midseason). "If someone's goalsare completely incompatible with the group goals andstrategies, the beginning of the year is the time to findout" (Botterill, 1978, p. 14). Unfortunately, in practicesuch evaluation has been dependent on a subjective process.3INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEAM MEMBERS:TEAM-BASED ATTITUDEANTECEDENT TO/^\/ \/^\/ \/ \TM^TO^TI TMATU LNCN/^ \i.^ 4^SOCIAL TASK COHESIONCOHESION (LOCOMOTION)\^ /\ /\ /\^/4 L4^LFACILITATES TEAM SUCCESS4FIGURE AIndividual Characteristics: Antecedent To Cohesion,Locomotion, and Success5Training camps are not of a sufficient duration to enablecoaches to come to know an athlete's psychological make-upto the extent that an accurate assessment of his-herattitude could be accomplished. There is no measurementtool which allows a coach or researcher to test whether aplayer is team-oriented or has more individualisticintentions. The team-based attitude inventory would not beused specifically for team selection purposes. However, itcould have an important role in providing feedback to thecoach, such that if a significant number of players areclassified as "individualistic", the coach may arrange for asport psychologist to speak to the team on the importance ofcooperation and cohesion. In this way it serves as aneducational process.For The Researcher. A team-based attitude inventorywould contribute to the body of sport psychology research,furthering the knowledge and understanding of individualswithin a team and how these individuals affect groupstructure and processes. Various studies have attempted toexamine differences between athletes and non-athletes(Hammer, 1967; Kane, 1967; Kumar, Pathak, & Thakur, 1985)and between athletes in a variety of sports (Cofer &Johnson, 1960; Peterson, Ukler, & Trousdale, 1967; Sage,1972; Schurr, Ashley, & Joy, 1977). The team-based attitudeinventory would possess the ability to differentiate betweenindividuals within a team, specifically evaluating one'sdegree of team-based attitude. The theoretical orientation%.0 >> LEVEL OF TEAMCOHESIONIIIIvv>> LEVEL OF TEAMLOCOMOTIONTEAM EVENTSAA////INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCEVARIABLE (LEVEL OFTEAM-BASED ATTITUDE)FIGURE B Individual Difference Variable: A Moderator of Cohesion7within group dynamics is directed towards resolving what thebasic variables are that determine what happens in groups.Individual characteristics influence group structures andpatterns through interactive processes, affecting thebehavioral properties of the group and ultimately thesuccess of that group. Team-based attitude can be viewed asan individual difference variable which is a moderator onthe level of group cohesion and locomotion within a team.An inherent weakness with existing cohesion instrumentsis exactly what the instrument was designed to measure, andthe resultant studies and inferences possible with suchquestionnaires. Past cohesion instruments and studiesexamining team dynamics and the cause-effect relationshipbetween cohesion and performance have failed to consider howeach individual affects the group, assessing only theathlete's perception of how cohesive his-her particular teamis at that time. To more fully study team dynamics andidentify possible antecedents and mediators of cohesion andlocomotion, an improved instrument is required which willenable individual characteristics to be researched.Brawley et al. (1988) stated that any leader hoping tofoster group cohesion on his-her team could do so byselecting individual members with certain qualities, or byfostering certain conditions within the group. They alsoreported that the overwhelming majority of potentiallydisruptive factors were focussed on individual membersrather than the team as awhole. It is the individual8SUSPECTED ANTECEDENTS OF GROUP COHESION*CHARACTERISTICS^CHARACTERISTICS^SITUATIONSOF THE GROUP OF THE GROUP EXPERIENCEDMEMBERS^ BY THE GROUPFigure CSuspected Antecedents of Group Cohesion* Brawley et al. (1988) used the term 'cohesion' to encompassboth 'social cohesion' and 'task cohesion', components thisinvestigator and early theorists termed 'cohesion' (socialcohesion) and 'locomotion' (task cohesion).deviating from the team's norms and goals which isdisruptive to team preservation (Brawley et al., 1988;Festinger et al., 1950). Although individualcharacteristics have been identified as early as 1950 as anantecedent and consequence of group cohesion, no sport-specific measurement tool exists which identifies individualcharacteristics, differentiates between individualcharacteristics which facilitate cohesion and which detractfrom cohesion, and which examines how individualcharacteristics affect team dynamics and success.Statement of Purpose It has been acknowledged that the solution of teamdynamics problems "requires both theoretical ingenuity andthe invention of better methods of measurement" (Cartright &Zander, 1968, p. 107). The purpose of this present study,then, concerns the development of a valid and reliable team-orientation instrument which measures tendencies towardsmultidimensional team-based attitudes within interactive,interdependent elite sport groups.Chapter IILiterature ReviewInstrumentationReview of Sport Cohesion Instruments To this date sport cohesion and sport specific teamattitude instruments have been developed and utilized toexamine the cohesion-performance relationship. Equivocalresearch results have suggested that either cohesion leadsto better performance (Bird, 1977b; Hartung, 1983; Landerset al., 1982; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978), or successfulperformance leads to increased cohesion (Ruder & Gill, 1982;Williams & Hacker, 1982), as well as a possible circularrelationship (Martens & Peterson, 1971). Simultaneously,negative relationships (Landers & Lueschen, 1974) andneutral relationships (Melnick & Chemers, 1974) have alsobeen reported.Many of the inconsistencies in research results can beattributed to the main determinents of cohesiveness utilizedin the early team dynamics research. The instruments usedin such research efforts stressed 'friendship','interpersonal attraction', 'personal satisfaction', and'enjoyment', while ignoring the importance of maintenanceand unity around the team's goals, and the group processestowards achieving those goals. Thus early approaches toteam cohesion were more likely appropriate for recreationallevels of sport, but insufficient to reflect the task-oriented component in elite sport. This is evident in91 0research (Arnold & Straub, 1973; Gruber & Gray, 1981;Landers et al., 1982; Widmeyer & Gossett, 1978; Widmeyer &Martens, 1978) which examined intramural teams or teamscomposed of student volunteers.The most common measurement tool (in the 1970's)utilized to assess team cohesion has been the SportsCohesiveness Questionnaire (Martens et al., 1972). Thisinventory was based on the early definitions of cohesion.As a result it's components are mainly representative of thesocial cohesion aspect. The Sports CohesivenessQuestionnaire assesses friendship or interpersonalattraction, the influence or power of each member, value ofmembership, sense of belonging, degree of closeness withinthe team, and level of teamwork. With the exception of theteamwork measure, the Sports Cohesiveness Questionnairereflects only social cohesion. In addition, a thoroughpsychometric analysis has never been completed to supportthe widely accepted use of the Sports CohesivenessQuestionnaire.Recognizing the limitations of emphasizingpredominately social cohesion components as the determinentsof an aggregate, group property cohesion score, andrealizing that it is the teamwork and closeness ('group as aunit') "measure which most consistently discriminate betweensuccessful and unsuccessful sport teams" (Carron &Chelladurai, 1981, p. 136), Carron defined cohesion as a"dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a1 1group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit ofit's goals and objectives" (1982a, p. 105). In support ofthis new definition, Grand & Carron (1982) developed a TeamClimate Questionnaire, which tapped both social and taskcohesion. The psychometric properties of this measurementtool have been well established.Yukelson, Weinburg, and Jackson also proposed that"operational measures based on attraction alone areconceptually inadequate to explain the multidimensionalnature of cohesiveness in sport. Particularly critical insport teams are the goals and objectives the group isstriving to achieve as well as the functionalinterdependencies and normative constraints that impingeupon group members" (1982, p. 88). They then developed avalid and reliable four factor (Attraction to the Group,Quality of Teamwork, Unity of Purpose, and Valued Roles)sport cohesion instrument which reflects both task andsocial cohesion. The inventory is psychometrically sound,measures both the cohesion and locomotion components of teamdynamics, and is theory based. However, it has yet onlybeen applied specifically to intercollegiate basketballteams.The Group Environment Questionnaire (Widmeyer et al.,1985) represents the cummulation of team dynamic researchand is an extension and refinement of Grand and Carron's(1982) Team Climate Questionnaire. Widmeyer et al. (1985)used operational defintions and a theoretical basis to build12a conceptual model for a theory driven research approach,which provides the impetus for the development of theirquestionnaire items. The Group Environment Questionnairehas been tested across a variety of sports, skill levels,ages, and sexes. As a result norm tables have beenestablished and generalizability is afforded. Thisinstrument has four components: Group Integration-Task;Group Intergration-Social; Individual Attractions to theGroup-Task; and Individual Attractions to the Group-Social.Together, these four components assess the "member'sperceptions of the group as a totality and the member'spersonal attractions to the group" (Widmeyer et al., 1985,p.^15).Causes, Effects, and Mediators Research indicating a wide range of suspectedantecedents of cohesion can be "placed into one of threecategories: characteristics of the group members,characteristics of the group, and situations experienced bythe group" (Widmeyer et al., 1985). Similarly, suspectedconsequences of group cohesion may be classified underconsequences for the group members, consequences for thegroup, or consequences for group products.Many variables may actually be listed as either causesor effects due to correlational analysis techniques which donot indicate causality. Moreover, it is difficult toascertain antecedents and consequences because of the poorinitial cohesion instruments and inconsistencies in research13design, methodology, and analysis. Additionally, cohesioninstruments to date have examined how each player rates hisor her team's current level of cohesion, and have attemptedto interpret the cause-effect relationship between cohesionand performance with this measure.Individual Characteristics - A New Direction, A NewInventoryThe Group Environment Questionnaire, for example,attempts to measure the athlete's attraction to his-hercurrent team only (that team during that season), andwhether the athlete perceives his-her team to be cohesiveand united at that time.There are several problems with this approach.Athletes are unable to isolate their current participationfrom past experiences that over time have contributed todeveloping attitudes and values. Such cohesion instrumentsare incapable of defining cause-effect relationships. Atime-constrained assessment of the team's level of cohesionas a whole does not examine what causes and mediators helpedcreate that level of cohesion. The common cause which hasbeen continually examined, although it has not been clearlydistinguished as such through improved instruments orstatistical design, is game outcome (success). Past studiesand instruments have completely overlooked that individualsbring certain personal characteristics or attitudes to theteam and the environment, and that these individualcharacteristics and attitudes mediate group processes and14affect the level of cohesion within a team. Thisinvestigator aims to develop a Team-Based Attitude Inventoryto assess individual characteristics through personalizedbehavioral questions and non-personalized general valuejudgement questions. This may allow an improved examinationof team dynamics and promote identification of antecedentsand mediators which directly affect cohesion, locomotion,and performance.Through the examination of relitionships among severalindependent and dependent variables, the first step indeveloping an improved instrument and improved direction ofresearch is the definition of a hypothetical model. This isa time consuming task, but if the model is defined verycarefully, the chances of achieving a model with a good fitto the data and with meaningful parameters are much greater.Investing more time at this initial stage may thereforebenefit the outcome of the study very much. Moreover,because the investigative emphasis is being moved away fromthe team's current status to the individual characteristicseach athlete may bring to the team, a new model to supportsuch an approach is critical. A review of the literaturerelating to the defined constructs and hypothesizedrelationships is absolutely necessary in order to define avalid model. This study concerns the construction of a newteam dynamics instrument. It is not an empirical studyexamining game outcome, therefore the literature review tofollow is specific to each hypothesized construct within theTeam-Based Attitude model.Theoretical BackgroundA theoretical basis is required to build a conceptualmodel for a theory driven research approach. "Theunderlying theory concerning the construct provides theimpetus for the development of the scales and their items"(Widmeyer et al., 1985, p. 13). Team-based attitude is amultidimensional construct consisting of several social-psychological subdomains; these are hypothesized to be teamnorms, team dynamics, and personality theory. Team normsconsists of cohesive norms and locomotive norms. In theteam-based attitude model, these constructs fit within teamdynamics. Team dynamics is represented by two components:cohesion, as indicated by team maintenance, team identity,team unity, and cohesive norms; and locomotion, consistingof task-orientation, team motivation and aspirations, andlocomotive norms. Personality theory encompasses team-basedtraits, team dynamics attitudes, and locus of control. Thehypothesized model this thesis will examine includes onlyteam dynamics (cohesion and locomotion) components.Personality theory is presently beyond the bounds of thisinvestigation, however it may be drawn upon at some futurepoint to further test the team-based attitude model. Theproposed team-based attitude model is presentedschematically in Diagram D, although all of the constructsmay not necessarily be components of the derived measurement1516tool.Team Dynamics Team dynamics is concerned with knowledge pertaining tothe nature of groups, and refers to the processes andinterrelations associated with team involvement. Twoprocesses are predominant within team dynamics - cohesionand locomotion (Lewin, 1935). Cohesion represents groupmaintenance, while locomotion refers to the actions andprocesses of the group in striving toward achieving groupgoals. These two are interrelated and interdependent(Cattell, 1948), in that without group maintenance, workingtowards group objectives is not possible.CohesionFestinger, Schachter, & Back defined cohesion as the"total field of forces which act on members to remain in agroup" (1950, p. 164). Later, Gross and Martin (1952)identified cohesion as the resistance of the group todisruptive forces. Cartwright & Zander (1968) alsoperceived cohesion as the degree to which members desire toremain in a group (based on attractiveness of the group andattractiveness of alternative memberships).One antecedent to sport cohesiveness is the individualcharacteristics of team members. This in turn contributesto team factors (team norms, team stability, desire forgroup success) which is another antecedent to cohesion.17Brawley, Carron, and Widmeyer (1988) reported that theoverwhelming majority of potentially disruptive factors werefocussed on individual members rather than the group as awhole. It is the individual (leaving the team, deviatingfrom the team's norms) or individuals together forming aclique (subgroups apart from the whole group) which ispotentially disruptive to the team's preservation (Brawleyet al., 1988; Festinger et al., 1950).As cohesion assists in holding the team together inpursuit of it's goals, and specifically contributes tocoordination, researchers assume that cohesion cancontribute to performance when completion of a task isdependent on the coordination and collaboration of members.Cohesion seems to be positively correlated to performancefor interactive, interdependent sports (Ball & Carron, 1977;Carron, 1982; Carron & Chelladurai, 1981; Landers,Wilkinson, Hatfield, & Barber, 1982; Widmeyer, et. al,1985; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978). Cohesion encompasses thoseprocesses conducive to team maintenance, team identity, teamunity, and cohesive norms.Team Maintenance. One subcomponent of cohesion withinthe team-based attitude model is team maintenance. Gross &Martin (1952) referred to a strong cohesive group as onewhich has resistance to disruptive forces, where individualsact to maintain a stable environment. Moreover, members whohave sacrificed something of value for the group become moreattracted to the group, and will behave so to facilitate18group preservation (Zander, 1982).Team maintenance refers to group members supportingeach other, and the willingness to stick together tomaintain a stable environment. Team maintenance reflectsbeliefs and affective evaluations towards athlete loyalty,dependability, group preservation, and making sacrifices inlieu of the team to help preserve the team's structure.Team Identity. A further cohesion subdomain which maybe a contributor to team-based attitude theory developmentand provide test item content is team identity. Festinger,Schachter, and Back defined cohesion as the "total field offorces which act on members to remain in a group" (1950, p.164). A member's desire to belong to and remain in a groupincreases the more members are attracted to the group, themore they value their membership (Zander, 1982), and thegreater their pride in membership. Pride in one's groupincreases the desire for group success (Zander, 1985). Teamidentity reflect's one's desire to belong and remain in thegroup because of pride in membership and valuing membership.Team Unity. Team-based athletes work within groupsolidarity, valuing the 'closeness' of the team. This isreflected in their belief of the importance of team harmony,morale, and team spirit. Team-based athletes believe thatunity can improve when the team spends additional timetogether outside the sport environment. Indeed, groupstrength increases with homogeneity of members and harmony19between members. The more similar the members of a group,the more cohesive is that group (Zander, 1982). Homogeneityand cohesion are facilitated through proximity. A sense ofgroup is fostered by events that produce additionalinteration: parties, social gatherings, and time spenttogether during daily activities (studying, travelling, etcetera). Familiarity breeds a cohesive group (Zander,1982).Locomotion Locomotion is the second main process within teamdynamics theory, and is defined by the actions and processesof the team in striving toward achieving team goals. Byit's very definition locomotion is supportive of the needfor question content examining team task attainment whenassessing team-based attitude. It consists of taskorientation, team motivation and aspirations, and locomotivenorms. Locomotion has been examined within the realm ofathletics as task cohesion (Carron, 1982; Grand & Carron,1982; Hartung, 1983; Yukelson, Weinburg, & Jackson, 1984).Task cohesion reflects a perception of the team being unitedaround it's goals and objectives, as well as a generalorientation or motivation towards achieving theorganization's goals and objectives (Widmeyer, et al.,1985).Task Orientation. Locomotion was examined by Stogdill(1959, 1963, 1972) as group drive, representing the20intensity with which members invest expectation and energyfor the group. Bass (1961, 1962) differentiated betweenself, interaction, and task-orientation based on a theory ofinterpersonal behavior in organizations. A task-orientedmember tends to work within the group to make it asproductive as possible (Bass, 1962). Task orientationrefers to an athlete's tendency to direct his effortstowards achieving team goals and objectives, and a positiveevaluation of the importance of those goals and objectives.It is desirable to have homogeneity of attitudes within theteam to focus .a heterogeneity of roles and skills tobehavior which facilitates advancements to success for goalsit was organized to achieve. "It. is imperative thatinstruments developed to assess group cohesion in sportreflect factors associated with the goals and objectives thegroup is striving to achieve, as well as factors associatedwith the development and maintenance of positiveinterpersonal relationships" (Yukelson, et al., 1984, p.106). This task component has more recently been accountedfor in team dynamics research with a task cohesion factor(ie: Widmeyer, et al., 1985).Team Motivation and Aspirations. Team motivationmeasures provide a further probable appropriate means foraddressing team-based attitude. Achievement motivation isthe inclination for direction towards competition with astandard of excellence to be controlled by it's connectionsto probable consequences. The desire for group success and21finding pride in this success is a group oriented motive(Carron, 1980, 1984). Group motivation and aspirationsserve to direct behavior toward team accomplishments.Zander (1985) delineated group-oriented motive anddesire for group success as the disposition to be concernedabout group achievement. "A greater desire for groupsuccess among members increases the strength of that body"(Zander, 1982, p. 9). Further, individual and groupmotives were noted as separate variables. When the groupgoal is the main incentive property for the group, thegreater desire for group success increases the strength ofthat body (Zander, 1982). A desire for group successfacilitates normative behavior, while members performbetter, have more favorable attitudes towards the group, andsupport one another in the belief that group success isimportant (Zander, 1982).Team Norms Team norms refers to a limited set of behaviors,beliefs, or rules which promote specific uniformity to helpthe team maintain itself as a group and to help the teamaccomplish it's goals. These approved behaviors are alsoreferred to as team standards, and are derived frominfluences which the team is able to exert over it's members(Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950). Norms within sportgroups are most often overt and formalized by the coach, orwell recognized and exemplified by veterans.22A person may behave in a manner similar to the rest ofthe group because others (coach, teammates) press him-her toact or think as they do, on the grounds that there areadvantages for the team from uniformity in behavior(Cartwright & Zander, 1960). "The power of a group overit's members is directly proportional to the cohesiveness ofthat group. The relationship between cohesiveness and powerholds regardless of whether attraction is based on personalattraction between members, on effective performance of thetask, or on the prestige obtained from membership" (Back,1951, cited in Cartwright & Zander, 1960). Members of acohesive group more readily accept the group's goals,decisions, and assignment to tasks and roles.The unit's rules, policies, norms, or requiredpractices, designated as group standards, represent properbehavior so that the body can be viable and effective. Whena group's standards are well accepted by members, eachperson knows how to act, what to anticipate from colleagues,and how he and his teammates can work together smoothly"(Zander, 1982, p. 8). Within the team-based attitudemodel, team norms consist of cohesive norms and locomotivenorms, and are positioned within the cohesion and locomotioncomponents of team dynamics.Cohesive Norms Cohesive norms include normative behaviors that arefollowed to ensure the team remains strong as a group.23"Some group standards may simply serve as a means forhelping the group maintain itself" (Cartwright & Zander,1960, p. 169). Cohesive norms are forces which serve toassure that the group will continue to exist as an entity.The power of a group is directly proportional to thecohesiveness of that group, regardless of whethercohesiveness is based on personal attraction betweenmembers, prestige obtained from membership, or group unity(Cartwright & Zander, 1960).A team must remain united in order to pursue it'sachievement goals. The members of a team can build theefficiency, effectiveness, and vitality of their unit byfollowing normative practices that foster group strength."In a strong group, the members recognize that they form aunit; they want to belong to that unit; and theyinstinctively provide whatever services the unit needs fromthem, working hard on it's behalf and conforming to it'sdemands" (Zander, 1982, p. 1). Athletes conform to teamdemands in their desire to resist disruptive forces on thegroup. They recognize that failure to comply to cohesivenorms is a disruptive force in itself.Locomotive Norms Locomotive norms is yet another element of locomotionwhich may assist in developing a conceptual model for team-based attitude. Locomotive norms reflect intra-teamcooperation and the willingness to follow team standardsthat exist to promote advancement towards team goals.24Lefebvre (1975) alluded to the importance of cooperationwhen differentiating between the 'joint gain motive'(cooperator), 'relative gain motive' (competitor), and 'owngain motive' (individualist). Intra-team cooperation isapplicable to team-based attitude in that it is associatedwith the team's purpose and operational methodologies. "Itis important to have each individual on the team committedto the values, operating procedures, and organizationalphilosophy by which the group is goierned" (Yukelson et al.,1984, p 114).For interdependent sports, cooperative motivationsbetween athletes within a team may lead to higherperformance (Butt, 1987). The actual sport competitionrequires "cooperating with one's peers and raising one'sperformance through group support, team cohesion, and groupidentity" (Butt, 1987, p. 57). Intra-team cooperation is apart of locomotion in that it reflects interdependentefforts towards goals. Van Egeren (1979) and Baron & Byrne(1984) identified people as competitors, cooperators, orindividualists based on how they behave when interactingwith others. When people cooperate, they often reach goalsnone could reach alone. This is regulated throughlocomotive norms.Uniformity is considered desireable or necessary 1order for the group to achieve it's goal. "Approvedprocedures for movement toward an agreed upon goal, then,often are the sources of pressures toward uniformity.25Members view these procedures as the proper way to behavesince the methods are seen as assuring progress toward thegoal" (Cartwright & Zander, 1960, p. 169). The moreplayers value the condition the standard has beenestablished to support, the more they believe that adherenceto the standard will help achieve or maintain this condition(Zander, 1982), and the more they see the goals asattainable, the greater the power of a team over thebehavior of a member (Cartwright & Zander, 1960).The resultant uniformity promotes optimal productivity."When a group effectively uses it's available resources tomeet task demands, it's actual productivity or performanceapproaches it's potential" (Gill, 1986, p. 211). Sportsrequiring considerable interaction and cooperation are mostsusceptable to coordination losses, placing an emphasis onthe need for standards of behavior and the willingness toconform so to optimize productivity.26TEAM-BASEDATTITUDEteam maintenance^ task orientationteam identityteam motivationteam unity^ and aspirationscohesive normslocomotive normsFigure DTeam-Based Attitude ModelCHAPTER IIIMethods and ProceduresInventory ConstructionItem DevelopmentTest Item Generation. Each main component (cohesion,locomotion, and group norms) has several sub-componentswhich are highly inter-correlated, and measure theirrespective main component which contributes to assessingteam-based attitude. An aggregate list of appropriate testitems which are hypothesized to tap team-based attitude wasdeveloped from existing inventory content and originalquestion content.Based on existing inventory content, appropriate itemswere identified and adapted to reflect the Team-BasedAttitude theory. Existing inventories resourced includedthe Team Climate Questionnaire (Carron & Grand, 1982),Gruber and Gray's (1981) thirteen cohesion items, the FamilyEnvironment Scale (Moos, 1974), the Group EnvironmentQuestionnaire (Carron et al., 1985), Survey of AthleticExperiences (Smith & Smoll, 1986), Yukelson's (et al., 1982)cohesion instrument for basketball teams, and the SportsCohesiveness Questionnaire (Martens, et al., 1972). Theseinventories were selected because they were designed tomeasure important constructs within teams or groups, socialcohesion, and task cohesion. Original test items were2728constructed based on the theory behind Team-Based Attitudeand the literature supporting the hypothesized componentswithin Team-Based Attitude. Additionally, a systematicgathering of question content was achieved by obtaininginput through structured interviews with five coachingexperts (university or provincial level) and six eliteathletes (university or national level). Throughout itemconstruction and adaptation, efforts were made to keepquestions brief, with simple wording (Converse & Presser,1986). The vocabulary chosen was based on easycomprehension by the athletes who would be completing theinventory. This methodology resulted in a large (102 items)initial item pool (see appendix A).Operational Definitions. Based on the theorysupporting each construct, succinct operational definitionswere developed, along with key words or phrases.Fl - Team Maintenance :- Refers to team members supporting each other, and thewillingness to stick together to maintain a stableenvironment.- Preserving the team's structure.- Loyalty, sacrifice, stability, preservation andsupport, dependability, sticking together.F2 - Team Identity :- Reflects one's desire to belong and remain in a groupbecause of pride in membership and valuing membership.- Attraction to the group.29F3 - Team Unity :- Team harmony, morale, and team spirit.- "Social" cohesion.- Based on the hypothesis that unity increases the moretime athletes spend together outside the sports environment.- Facilitated through proximity (familiarity breeds acohesive group).F4 - Cohesive Norms :- Normative behaviors enforced and followed whichensure the team remains strong as a group.- The willingness and desire to comply to norms whichfacilitate cohesion.- Conforming to behavior requested tar facilitate teammaintenance, team identity, and team unity.r5 - Task Orientation :- An athlete's tendancy to direct his-her effortstowards achieving team goals and objectives.- Positive evaluation of the importance of the team'sgoals and objectives.16 - Team Motivation and Aspirations :- Team motivation and aspirations serve to directbehavior toward team accomplishments, through the desire forteam success and finding pride in this success.- The team's goal is the main incentive property forparticipation.Locomotive Norms :- Normative behavior enforced and followed whichensures intra-team cooperation.- The willingness to follow team standards andprocedures which promote advancement toward team goals.Matching Items and Constructs. Based on theoperational definitions, the initial item pool was examinedto match each item with the construct it best represents(see appendix A). This was done by the investigator basedon question content, assessing the question 'meaning' andgrouping items of similar content to the construct with thetheoretical definition that matches the item content.Item Examination By Athletes. Ten elite athletes(university varsity level) examined each individual item.They were asked to read each individual item, and respond tothe question'"what is the meaning of this statement?". Theinvestigator guided athletes (one athlete at a time) throughthe 102 items, to ensure each item was properly attended to,and to facilitate feedback on each item. Obtaining athletesperceptions of the meaning of each item resulted in theelimination of 29 poorly worded items, and refinement ofeach of the 73 remaining items to reduce ambiguity.Item Validation By Expert  Opinion. Items for eachcomponent were listed (see appendix B) for a panel of fiveexperts from the fields of sport psychology and coaching.Operational definitions for each component were provided.3031Each item was rated by these experts on a five-point Likertscale, indicating the degree they agreed each item fitwithin the appointed component. Items consistently rated(by the five expert judges) not appropriate for theappointed component were subjected to further analysiswhereby judges sorted these items into the components (ifany) they thought were appropriate. This helped improvedthe item to factor model based on a theoretical basis, andexposed items judges concluded did not fit within any of thedefined components. These expert judges also providedfeedback on items that were incorrectly worded, ambiguous,or did not represent the Team-Based Attitude theoreticalbasis. This resulted in the deletion of nine items. Theexamined and reduced items, under their appropriateconstruct, made up the original 64 item Team-Based AttitudeInventory (see appendix C).Item Ordering and Scaling. Items from each constructwere alternated, such that two items from one construct werenever positioned in succession. Eleven items werenegatively worded to allow for an honesty test and a socialdesirability check against other positively worded itemstaping the same construct.• A seven point Likert scale was developed for scorir4each item . Personalized, behavioral items (e.g., Q52,Appendix C, p. 110) were anchored by "Very Rarely" and"Very Frequently", while non-personalized, value judgementitems (e.g., Q54, Appendix C, p. 110) were anchored by"Strongly Disagree" and "Strongly Agree".Data Collection: Phase A Inventory DevelopmentThe target group was defined as male varsity athletesfrom basketball, hockey, volleyball, and rugby teams withinthe Canada West University Athletic Association. Theselection of this population was based on the type.of sport(interactive, interdependent team sports) and timing ofseason. A subject pool of athletes similar in age, sex,performance level, and demographics was desired for initialvalidation purposes. Future analysis can examine femaleathletes, different sports, ages, and ability levels forfurther validation testing.The University of British Columbia Office of ResearchService's ethics committee was provided with appropriateinformation and documentation for an ethical review of theproposed study. The "Behavioural Sciences ScreeningCommittee for Research and Other Studies Involving HumanSubjects" reviewed the protocol and issued a Certificate ofApproval for commencement of the research. Nineteen coachesfrom six universities within the Canada West UniversityAthletic Association were then contacted by letter to obtaintheir consent to include their team in the study. Lettersstated the purpose of the study, the time involvementrequired from the athletes, sample questions from the TBAInventory, and a consent form, (see appendix D) along with apre-stamped envelope bearing the name and address of theinvestigator. A representative within each school's3233Physical Education Department was then contacted toadminister the inventory to the seventeen teams whose coachhad consented to their participation in the study (seeappendix E). TBA Inventories (N=355) were distributed tothe representatives, with the request that they beadministered, collected, and returned. Each representativewas provided with instructions (each representative receivedthe exact same instructions), inventories, and a prestampedbox bearing the address of the investigator with which toreturn the completed inventories (see appendix F).Table 3.1Inventory Distribution by School and SportSportSchool Hockey Volleyball Basketball RugbyUniversity of B.C. 25 15 15 40University of Calgary 25 15University of Alberta 25 15 15University of Victoria 15 15 40University of Saskatchewan 25 15 15Lethbridge University 25 15Total 125 75 75 80The cover letter which accompanied each inventorycomprised a br'ef description of the study, the purpose ofthe study, and the proposed benefits derived from theathlete's assistance. It also listed instructions forcompletion of the inventory, and included an informed34consent form (for the athlete to sign), with assurance thatall data would be kept strictly confidential. The inventoryconsisted of two sections. Section one pertained todemographic information and sport background. This wasfollowed by the 64 Team-Based Attitude items (refer toAppendix C for the cover letter, section 1, and section 2 ofthe Team-Based Attitude Inventory).Data Collection: Phase B Validity & Reliability Studies Validity. Individual athletes (N=53) from theUniversity of British Columbia were asked to complete theTeam-Based Attitude Inventory to provide data for a knowngroups difference test. A convenience sample of individualahletes were pre-screened by the investigator and 53subjects were selected based on their minimum of 80 per centindividual sport background. A representativeTable 3.2Inventory Distribution to IndividualAthletes by SportSportSwimming 16Track & Field 14Golf 6Cross Country 5Gymnastics 4Tennis 3Martial Arts 2Skiing 1Raquetball 1Badminton 1Total 5335independent from their sporting team administered andcollected the TBA Inventory. The athletes receivedidentical instructions, cover , letter, consent form and theTBA Inventory. The individual athlete scores were collectedto compare with the team athlete scores (University ofBritish Columbia team athletes from Phase A (N=53)).Coaches at each university involved in the testing weresent a cover letter asking them to rate each veteran(players in their second year or more with that coach)player's level of cohesion and level of locomotion on ascale of 1 to 10. (see appendix G). Coaches ratings wouldbe compared to the athlete responses to provide a source ofexternal validation.Reliability (Stability). University of of BritishColumbia team athletes (N=52) completed the TBA Inventory asecond time three to four weeks following their initialtesting. This provided data for a test-retest reliabilityanalysis.Data AnalysisItem Deletion and Inventory RevisionThe TBA model consists of several latent variables,which are abstract concepts that cannot be measureddirectly. Observed items, or manifest variables, arehypothesized, based on theoretical grounds, to measureabstract concepts, or latent variables. These latentvariables in turn are hypothesized to measure TBA. The36hypothesized factor structure was tested in Phase A byapplying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). This test ofthe measurement model attempts to establish the validity ofthe factor pattern, indicating how well the manifestvariables measure the latent variables. Lisrel VI CFA wasrun to assess the goodness of fit of the hypothesized factorpattern.A BMDP:2D descriptive analysis, SPSS:X reliability, andtwo Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) runs were alsocompleted to help assess the TBA model. EFA entailed aprincipal components solution with varimax rotation. Themaximum number of factors was set at ten. A second EFAentailed a maximum likelihood factor analysis with directquartimin rotation. The maximum number of factors was alsoset at ten. The criteria for assessing overall fit isexplained in this chapter, while table 4.4 lists the initialcriteria examined in assessing the hypothesized factorstructure. The steps followed for data preparation, itemdeletion, and inventory revision are outlined below.Data Coding and RescorinqNegatively worded items (Q3, Q6, Q7, Q20, Q34, Q36,Q40, Q41, Q48, Q50, Q53) were rescaled within the data file.Missing data, 14 items in total (no one subject was missingmore than one item), were entered by computing the subjectmean score for each scale. This allowed for a correlationmatrix based on complete data, thus avoiding deletion ofsubjects or the problems inherent in a pairwise deletion37procedure. A BMDP:2D descriptive analysis was run toexamine the distributional characteristics of the data. Themean, standard deviation, and skewness were computed foreach item.Reliability (Internal Consistency) SPSS:X Reliability was run to examine the item-scalecorrelation, internal consistency of each scale (Cronbach'salpha), and item-item correlations. The item-scalecorrelations provided information suggest which items shouldbe retained or deleted under each component. Cronbach'salpha indicated the degree to which all items in a scalemeasured the same underlying construct. If the "alpha ifitem deleted" indicated that alpha would increase if an itemwas deleted (from that factor), other analysis were examined(le: CFA) to seek confirmation that the deletion did notbelong.Factor Structure - Criteria For Assessment of Overall Fit ,A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to testthe validity of the allocation of items to constructs, andprovide a test of the "goodness of fit" of the proposedseven factor model. The confirmatory factor analysis wasconducted through the application of the program Lisrel VI(Joreskog & Sorbrom, 1984), and produced a goodness of fitindex for the data-model fit as well as numerous statisticsto aid in modifying the inventory or the model (factorloadings, chi-square, goodness of fit index, root meansquare residual, modification indices, normalized residuals,38and t-values). Within CFA observed variables are allowed toload only on the factors they are hypothesized to measure.There is no limit to the number of measures per latentvariable, but each additional manifest variable adds lessand less variance therefore less information with respect tothe unmeasured variable (Haig, 1989). At least five or sixitems are usually needed to reliably measure a factor. Fiveindicators per factor was set as a preferred limit for theTBA Inventory, partially taking into account the timerequired to complete the inventory. In assessing theoverall fit, one may evaluate factor loadings, chi-square,goodness of fit index, root mean square residual, normalizedresiduals, modification indices (of all non estimatedparamters), and t-values (of all estimated parameters).Factor Loadings. BMDP and SPSS replace loadings lessthan .250 with zero. An item with a loading of .500explains .25 per cent of the variance. In assessing the TBAInventory, the minimum loading for inclusion was set at.400, in an effort to set strict standards and increase thevalidity and reliabilty.Chi-square. Chi-square is represented by X2, degreesof freedom by df. The ratio of chi-square to df (Q) isoften used to assess a relative measure of fit. In general,a lower Q corresponds to a better fit of the model.Suggested standards for an acceptable fit range from 2.0 to39as high as 5.0 In testing the TBA model, only values lessthan 2.0 would be accepted. A chi-square to df (Q)difference test assesses whether an improved fit to the datahas has been achieved as a result of the addition ordeletion of items or factors. If the reduction in chi-square is large (and statistically significant) relative tothe associated difference in df, the new model may beaccepted as a model that fits the data better. If the chi-square is small and nonsignificant the revised model isaccepted as being equally valid to the original model.Goodness of Fit Index. GFI ranges from zero to 1.0,and represents the relative amount of variances andcovariances jointly accounted for by the model. GFI is notsensitive to sample size (unlike chi-square), and is robustagainst departures from multivariate normality. A valueabove .80 is generally accepted as a good fit, .90 is a verygood fit.Root Mean Square Residua'. RMSR represents the averageresidual (the difference between the actual and estimatedcorrelations) variance and covariance. A RMSR below 0.1 isusually considered to indicate an acceptable fit, below .05is a very good fit.Modification Indices. A high modification index(relative to modification indices for other manifestvariables) generally indicates a constrained parameter thatshould be relaxed. The modification indices indicates the40minimum amount chi-square would be reduced if that parameterwas allowed to also load on that factor. If one variablehas several high modification indices, inclusion in themodel should be re-evaluated.Normalized Residuals. NR are raw residualsstandardized by their estimated asymptotic variance.Joreskog & Sorbom (1984) suggests that NR that are largerthan 2.0 in magnitude indicate a possible specificationerror. NR that are more than 2.0 indicate the need toexamine that problem item closer.T-values. Lisrel provides a "T-value" for eachestimated parameter, which is actually a standard normalstatistic (z-value), representing the ratio of the parameterand it's standard error. Parameters, factor loadings inthis study, should be significant (t > 2.0) for all retaineditems.Item Deletion CriteriaProgressive item deletions based on distributionalcharacteristics, item analysis, and CFA produced revisedinventories which were subject to further examination.Exploratory factor analysis suggested which items may loadon another factor. A reassignment of any item to anotherfactor was done only if there was both strong empirical andtheoretical support. The content of items with poor resultswas also re-examined to see if inclusion with another factor41was theoretically probable.Any decision with respect to deleting items orredefining the TBA model based on the above criteria has toalso be profoundly based on theoretical considerations. Ifan item is deleted, its exclusion from the construct and themodel has to be justifiable based on item content, theconstruct's operational definition, and model theory. If anitem is to be moved to a new factor (construct), it has tobe interpretable in terms of the new construct and thetheoretical model.Validity and Reliabilty (Stability) Phase B of the data analysis examined constructvalidity and reliability. A known groups difference testwas established to measure criterion related validity.University of British Columbia athletes were tested todifferentiate between team and individual sport athletes.The BMDP:3D program was utilized to run an independentgroups Hotelling's T2 test to test the hypothesis that teamathletes would score higher than individual athletes on allseven TBA scales.Concurrent validity was examined by measuring thecoach's observations against the athlete inventory results.Correlations were used to examjne the relationship betweencoach ratings and athlete scoring.A test-retest procedure examined reliability, to givean indication of stabilty. An SPSS:X paired (correlated) t-test was run for each factor, the second order factors ofcohesion and locomotion, and a team-based attitude totalscore to test for any change in mean values. Test-retestcorrelations for each factor provided a measure ofreliability over time.42CHAPTER IVResults and DiscussionQuestionnaire Return: Phase A Inventory DevelopmentEleven of the nineteen coaches initially approachedconsented to their team's participation in the study andreturned completed inventories. Of the 355 TBA Inventoriesdistributed to six universities within the Canada WestUniversity Athletic Association, 153 complete and useableinventories were returned, representing a 43.1 per centresponse rate. Completed inventories were received fromfive universities (University of British Columbia,University of Calgary, University of Alberta, University ofSaskatchewan, and Lethbridge University), representing foursports, hockey (N=74), basketball (N=32), volleyball (N=38),and rugby (N=9). Tables 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 providedistribution information and response rate by school and bysport.The mean subject age was 21.1 years (s=2.0). Withrespect to their sport history, the 153 respondents had amean of 80.5 per cent involvement in team sports. Subjectshad a mean 2.2 years (s=1.3) involvement on their currentteam, and a mean of 11.8 years (s=4.6) participation in thatsport.4344Table 4.1Distribution and Response Rate by SportInventories^Complete & Useable ResponseSport Group Distributed Inventories Returned RateHockey 125 74 59.2 %Volleyball 75 38 50.7 %Basketball 75 32 42.7 %Rugby 80 09 11.3^%-- --Total 355 153 43.1^%Table 4.2Distribution and Response Rate by SchoolInventories ReturnedInventories Total ResponseSchool Distributed Hockey V-ball B-ball Rugby Returns RateUBC 95 16^17 11 09 53 55.8^%U of C 40 16^10 n/a n/a 26 60.0^%U of A 55 17^-- 09 n/a 26 47.3^%U of V 70 -- 0.0^%U of S^55 11 n/a 11 20.0^%Leth U 40 25^n/a 12 n/a 37 92.5 %-- --^-- -- --Total 355 74 38 32 09 153 43.1^%)7Item S Skew6.196.396.384.973.755.005.546.085.97FactorFl - TM 01Q8Q15Q22Q29Q36Q43050Q571.420.690.771.602.001.881.361.191.08-2.52-0.70-1.03-0.590.23-0.60-1.24-1.67-1.34Q209016Q23Q30Q37Q44051F2 - TI 5.716.136.285.926.265.265.416.031.150.880.800.900.791.541.411.07-1.12-1.16-1.17-0.48-1.36-0.75-0.98-1.5303010017Q24031Q38Q45Q52Q58061Q63F3 - TU - CN -1.38-1.06-1.30-1.03-1.51-0.59-1.27-0.01-0.526.095.835.605.805.884.835.684.245.551. 4.3Descriptive Statistics For All 64 Items (N= 153)45ItemQ5Q12Q19Q26Q33Q40Q47Q54)7^6.18^0.97^6.03 0.966.24^0.745.54 1.195.72^1.344.98 1.395.52^1.216.18 0.83SFactorF5 - TOSkew-1.31-1.78-0.61-0.78-1.56-0.28-1.02-0.774.20^1.875.26 1.344.65^1.535.35 1.284.37^1.434.34 1.594.92^1.554.76 1.71-0.24-0.85-0.45-0.83-0.02-0.07-0.46-0.53Q6013Q20Q27Q34Q41048Q55F6- TMA5.745.444.966.455.285.505.734.835.786.005.901.49^-1.311.38 -0.811.39^-0.750.88 -2.581.33^-0.981.27 -1.281.04^-1.161.60 -0.340.94^-0.540.88 -0.631.23^-1.5507014021Q28Q35Q42Q49Q56Q60Q62064F7 - LNTable 4.3Descriptive Statistics For All 64 Items (N= 153)46Descriptive StatisticsTable 4.3 presents the descriptive statistics of thedata collected for Phase A testing (N=153), including means,standard deviations, and skewness. The relatively largeskew observed for many of the items was not unexpected. Itwas anticipated that on some items the mean response wouldapproach the ceiling value on the 7-point scale, thuscausing a negative skew. It is these tail-of-the-distribution values which are most likely to discriminatebetween individual and team-based athletes.Assessment of Overall FitItem Deletion and Inventory RevisionIf loading of an item on a factor is NOT supported byLambda X Maximum Likelihood Lisrel Estimates, CFA non-significant t values and internal consistency (item-scaler), AND no strong evidence exists of that loading elsewhere(CFA - modification indices; EFA - high loadings on anotherfactor(s); item content theory), then that item may bedeleted. Initially no more than three items per factorwould be deleted or moved before analyzing a new revisedinventory through further reliability, CFA, and EFA runs.4748Table 4.4Summary of Initial Criteria Examined ForItem Deletion and Inventory RevisionBMDP:2D SPSS:X Reliability Lisrel VI CFA^EFA Item Contentskewnessstandarddeviationmeanitem-total^non-significantcorrelation t-valuesalpha if item^modificationdeleted (internal indicesconsistency)factor loadingsrotated^theoryfactorloadingsExamples of the Item Deletion and Inventory Revision Process The original 64 item inventory was reduced to a 35-iteminventory through a series of analyses, interpretations,item deletions, and further analyses. There are manydifferent situations which led to item deletion. Followingare brief descriptions of five specific situations.example 1 - Deletion of Item 29 From TM (F1). Item 29had the lowest item-total correlation within factor 1, andits deletion improved alpha from .427 to .483. The t-valuewas non-significant (-0.690), and modification indices didnot indicate chi-square would be substantially lowered byallowing item 29 to load on other factors. In both PCA andMLFA EFA, item 29 did not load on any of the seven factors.Re-examining the question content, item 29 was not49consistent with the factor's content of 'sticking together'and 'loyalty to the team'. The maximum likelihood lambda Xloading was only -0.057. After considering the aboveanalysis, item 29 was deleted.Example 2 - Deletion of Item 22 From TM (F1). Deletionof item 22 would improve alpha from .549 to .599. WithinCFA, item 22 had a significant t-value, but it was lowrelative to the other items in that factor. It had thelowest factor loading (.263), while it did not load on anyfactors in MLFA EFA. Item 22 did load when PCA EFA was run,but there was no consistency in the item content for thatfactor grouping, therefore there was no theoreticaljustification to retain it and produce a new factor. Afterconsidering the above, item 22 was deleted.Example 3 - Item 4 Deleted From CN (p4) and Moved To TU(F3). Item 4 had a low factor loading (.229) within CFA.It had a poor item-total correlation (r=.141), and ifdeleted from Factor 4, alpha would improve from .665 to.677. Modification Indices indicated, if item 4 was relaxedand allowed to load on any factor, that item 4 could alsoload on TI (Factor 2) and TU (Factor 3). Chi-square couldbe significantly reduced if item 4 was allowed to load on TIor TU. Item 4 also had a non-significant t-value. Both PCAand MLFA EFA produced a factor pattern with item 4 loadingwith the TU items. Upon examining the question content foritem 4, it made greater theoretical sense to include item 450with TU. The content of item 4 emphasizes 'socializing withteammates outside of the sports environment', which fits inwith the operational definition for TU. Item 4 wastherefore deleted from CN and moved to TU.Example 4 - Deletion of Item 17 From TU (F3).  Item 17had five normalized residuals over 2.0, demanding a closerexamination of this problem variable. X-KSI indicatedstrong loading on both TU and TI, and partial loading onthree other factors. EFA (PCA) loaded item 17 on both TUand TI, while EFA (MLFA) loaded item 17 on TU and four otherfactors as well. Item 17 had high modification indices onTM, TI, CN, and LN. Based on the above, item 17 wasdeleted.Example 5 - Item 10 Deleted From TU (F3) and Moved to TM (F1). TU is a fairly strong factor, with no loadingsbelow .400 and an alpha of .769. However, the investigatordesires to lower the number of manifest variables measuringTU, and item 10 has the lowest CFA lambda X loading (.422).Within EFA (MLFA), item 10 does not load on any factor, andEFA (PCA) results in item 10 loding with various items,with no theoretical consistency in question content. Item10 has the lowest item-total correlation (r=.342). If item10 was deleted from TU, alpha would be slightly lowered(.769 to .764), but including item 10 within TM would raisealpha (for TM) from .599 to .619, and removal of item 10from TU lowers alpha less than removal of any other item51from TU. The modification indices also suggest that item 10can load on TM. Examination of the question content showsthat item 10 is not only about 'socializing' (as is TU), butalso about 'becoming stronger as a unit', which fits withinTM. Maintaining the group strong as a unit is precisely thetheoretical basis for TM. Therefore item 10 was deletedfrom TU and moved to TM.Summary of Item Deletions and Inventory Revisions Table 4.5 presents all factor loadings and deletionsthroughout 5 inventory revisions. Each successive revisionwas subjected to further CFA, reliability analysis, and EFA.These statistical analyses provided the criteria (listed intable 4.4) on which further inventory revisions were based.The original 64 item inventory, revision 1, and revision 2were all analyzed based on the criteria in table 4.4 andwith the methodology detailed in the preceding 5 examples ofthe deletion and revision process. Revision 3 and revision4 also examined normalized residuals to aid in furtherinventory refinement. Revision 5 provides a 35-item TBAinventory, with 5 items per factor. Factor loadings werestrong, with only 3 of 35 items loading under .470. Thelowest loading (Q1) was .379. The loadings, along withsignificant t-values, provide good initial support for thehypothesized factor model.Table 4.552SUMMARY OF ITEM DELETIONS AND INVENTORY REVISIONS0RicIAAL 64 ITEM Tim ITEM ILOADINGINVENTORY^Ii^REVISIONIIDECISIONS^IIFAcT0RIITEM1 - 56 ITEMSLOADINGI DECISIONSFACTORF]^-TM01^1^377 Fl 01 .37708^1^.619 TM 08 .614015^I^.519 015 .528022^1^.292 022 .290Q29^-.062Q36^I -.093DELETE036 -.085^DELETE043^1^.342 043 .341050^i^.491 050 492057^1^.280 057 .277F2 -TI02^1^.575 F2 - 02 .60809 .675 TI 09 .695016 .671 016 .668023 .671 023 .663030 ,690 030 .668037 .132 DELETE044 .452 044 .443^DELETE051 .507 051 .491F3 -Ty03 .381 F3 - 03 .454__Q10 .505 TU 010 .470017 .708 017 .637024 .288 DELETE031 .527 031 .581038 .436 038 .535045 .435 045 .390^DELETE052 .519 052 .524058 .269 DELETE061 .401 061 .443063 .228 063 .240^DELETE04 .697F4 -cmF5 -To04 .229 MOVE TO TU F4 -011 .718 CN 011 .717018 .730 018 .734025 .612 025 .611032 .569 032 .575039 .279 039 .281046 .471 046 .479053 .089 DELETE059 .768 059 .77005 .494 F5 - 05 .500012 .610 TO 012 .617019 .700 019 .705026 .616 026 .623033 .405 033 .401040 .283 MOVE TO TM►047 .643 047 .642054 .592 054 .586F6 -TmA06 .509 F6 - 06 .525013 .081 DELETE TmA020 .726 020 .718027 -.019 DELETE034 .610 034 .584041 .604 041 .644048 .655 048 .646055 .059 DELETE040 .663F7 -LN07 .245 F7 - 07 .245.450014 .458 LN 014021 .310 021^.312028 .488 028^.493035 .393 035^.390042 .427 042^.424049 .618 049^.621056 .470 056^.474060 .238 060^.237^DELETE062 .487 062^.489064 .238 064^.234^DELETETable 4.553SUMMARY OF ITEM DELETIONS AND INVENTORY REVISIONSREVISION 2 - 50 ITENS REVISION 3^-^46 TEMSFACTOR ITEM LOADING DECISIONS FACTOR ITEM ILOADING DECISIONSF1^-TM01 .373 Fl - 01 .38608 607 TM 08 626015 .543 015 .531022 .301 DELETE043 .351 043 .352050 .471 050 .504057 .272 057 .312 DELETE010 .425F2 -TI02 .615^J F2 - 02 61509 .696 TI 09 .697016 ,668 016 .667023 661 023 .661030 .651 030 .653051 481 051 .477 DELETEF3 -Tu03 .483 F3 - 03 .518010 .430 MOVE TO TM TU017 .628 017 .611 DELETE031 .598 031 626038 .572 038 591052 .519 052 .506061 .442 061 .428 DELETE04 .708 04 705F4 -CNF4 -011 .698 CN 011 .678018 .724 018 .727025 .671 025 .648032 .564 032 .558039 .284 DELETE046 .474 046 447 DELETE059 .756 059 .181I^F5^-I^TO05 .499^I F5 - 05 .514012 .613 TO 012 .651019 .702 019 .722026 .624 026 .589033 .403 DRLRTE047 .647 047 .612054 .598 054 .598F6 -TMA06 .525 F6 - 06 .524^DFLFTFTMA020 .719 020 .715034 .583 034 .592041 .645 041 .657048 .645 048 .634040 .664 040 .661I^F7^-I^LN07 DELETE.243 F7 -014 .444 LN 014 .431^DELETE021 .323 021 .385028 .503 028 .470Q35 .389 035 369^DELETE042 .429 042 .419049 .630 049 .686056 .488 056 .447062 .473 062 .47954Table 4.5SUMMARY OF ITEM DELETIONS AND INVENTORY REVISIONSREVISION 5 -REVISION 4 - 38 ITEMS^35 ITEMSIFACTOR ITEM LOADINGI DECISIONS^FACTOR ITEM LOADING Fl -^01^.380^ Fl -^01^.379TM^_08^.621 TM 08^.623015 .541 015^.545F2 -TI0430500100209016023030.336 I DELETE.485^1.433.647.723.650.643.606F2 -TI050^.475010^45002^64509^.722016^656023^.641030^.606F3 -^03^.530^ F3 -^03^.529TU TIJ F4 -CNF5 -TO031^.636038^.612052^.47604^.741011^.675018^.719025^.645032^.548J059^.790 05^.517012^.649019^.723026^.586 F4 -CNF5 -TO031^.636038^.611052^.47804^.741011^.678018^.713025^.628032^.553059^.80205^.533012^.650019^.717026^.590047^.606 DELETE054^.607 054^.610F6 -TMA020^.718034^.592041^.666048^.634040^,651F7 -LNF6 -TMA 020^.716034^.592041^.656048^.642040^.654F7 -LN 021^.402^DELETE028^.487 028^.490042^.408 042^.405Q49^.679^ Q49^.691056^.457 056^.449062^.473 062^.49355Summary of StatisticsTable 4.6 contains the model fit indices resulting fromthe Lisrel VI CFA performed on the original 64 iteminventory, and each successive revision. The Lisrel programdid not converge in analyzing the original inventory, andrevision 1 and 2. This was due to the large number ofvariables and poor initial fit. Rather than prematurelydeleting items on inadequate information, it was decided abetter strategy was to split up the initial analysis intotwo sections. This produced indices for the cohesion factorstructure and indices for the locomotion factor structure,as well as allowing a better examination of each individualitem and factor. Revision 5, the 35-item inventory, showedsignificant improvement in fit over the 46-item, revision 3inventory (chi-square decrease = 722.31, df decrease = 429,p< .001). The Q of 1.57 indicated a good fit of the model,an acceptable value under the maximum standard of 2.0 set apriori. The GFI improved from .70 to .76, representing areasonable fit. However, .80 was needed to accept a goodfit. RMSR improved from .081 to .074, an acceptable fit.The 35-item TBA Inventory was subjected to furtheranalysis to. help produce a better fit of the data to themodel. Measurement errors of items with high theta deltavalues were correlated. Correlating measurement errors ofobserved variables may make sense from a theoretical pointof view. Through the theta delta matrix, high valuesindicate that two items are highly correlated based on their56unexplained variance. One may explain the relationship bythe unexplained variance. Thus the item content isexamined, and the measurement errors may be correlated if itis theoretically justifiable. This is accomplished byfreeing the theta delta relationship, relaxing the off-diagonal element and estimate it as a free parameter in thetest of the respecified model. This was done with 6 of the10 pairs (of items that had high theta delta values) whichwere theoretically justifiable (see Appendix H). Thisimproved Q from 1.69 to 1.57, increased GFI from .76 to .78,and lowered RMSR from .74 to .72, producing an improved fitof the overall model. A summary of the fit indices for allrevised models is given in table 4.6.The-35 item inventory was subjected to a final itemanalysis, the results of which are given in table 4.7. Theinternal consistency, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, isreasonably high for all 7 factors, with no value under .58,and 5 of the 7 factors above .73. From the resultspresented in tables 4.6 and 4.7, it was concluded that therevised, 35-item TBA Inventory was more reliable andpossessed a superior factor structure to the original 64-item inventory (and all revisions preceding revision 5).With 29 less items, it is also a preferred scale from apractical standpoint.57TABLE 4.6^Summary Of Model^Fit^IndicesGOODNESS OF FITINVENTORY ITEMS X'' df X /df GFI RMSRORIGINAL 64 C=1142.69 C=623 C=1.83 C=.72 C=.095L= 572.59 L=321 L=1.78 L=.79 L=.094REVISION 1 56 C= 805.59 C=458 C=1.76 C=.76 C=.091L= 394.46 L=249 L=1.58 L=.83 L=.078REVISION 2 50 C=1068.17 C=619 C=1.73 C=.73 C=.084L= 325.12 L=206 L=1.58 L=.85 L=.077REVISION 3 46 1631.54 968 1.69 .70 .081REVISION 4 38 1054.38 644 1.64 .74 .077REVISION 5 35 909.23 539 1.69 .76 .074REV. 5 +TD 35 835.24 533 1.57 .78 .072Table 4.7Internal^Consistency StatisticsINTERNAL CONSISTENCYINVENTORY ITEMS TM TI TU CN TO TMA LNORIGINAL 64 .43 .71 .71 .67 .74 .60 .65REVISION 1 56 .48 .78 .76 .77 .76 .79 .65REVISION 2 50 .55 .78 .77 .77 .76 .79 .65REVISION 3 46 .62 .78 .76 .81 .77 .79 .67REVISION 4 38 .58 .78 .73 .81 .77 .79 .64REVISION 5 35 .58 .78 .73 .81 .75 .79 .6258Validity of Hypothesized Model StructureFirst-Order Factor Structure. Following the laststatistical runs, the revised, 35 item model provided areasonably good fit to the 7 factor structure. The CFA dataprovided empirical support for the 7 first-order factorstructure, and EFA did not suggest any better fit. All ofthe items loaded reasonably well, while modification indicesdid not suggest a reordering (see appendix L, p. 134).However, some of the factors correlate very highly (e.g., TMand TI correlate .875, which suggests 5 items on one factorare a good measure of the other construct).The correlation between the factors is given in table4.8, which is the Phi matrix from the CFA Lisrel output.These correlations are the correlations between the latentconstructs, with measurement error having been accounted for(correcting for attentuation is not necessary in CFA, as themodel already accounts for the theta delta error). TI seemsto represent an overall cohesion factor, as it correlateshighly with all 3 other cohesion measures. CN and LN arevery highly correlated (.948). There is a large degree ofcommunality between these factors. Although the factorstructure supported this type of model, further work isrequired to determine if normative behavior has separatecohesion and locomotion components. Further research, forexample, may combine CN and LN into one factor, and refineand restructure the remaining 3 cohesion constructs into 2factors.Table 4.8Inter-factor CorrelationsTM^TI^TU^CN^TO^TMA^LNTM^1.000 0.875 0.278 0.753 0.573 0.192 0.654TI^0.875 1.000 0.646 0.698 0.503 0.096 0.484TU^0.278 0.646 1.000 0.283 0.216 0.160 0.155CN^0.753 0.698 0.283 1.000 0.725 0.138 0.948TO^0.573 0.503 0.216 0.725 1.000 0.348 0.745TMA 0.192 0.096 0.160 0.138 0.348 1.000 0.209LN^0.654 0.484 0.155 0.948 0.745 0.209 1.000Second-Order Factor Structure. The investigator didattempt to account for the relationship among the factorswith a second-order CFA by fitting the first-order data to a2 factor structure. However, due to high correlationsbetween individual factors (e.g., CN and LN), thehypothesized second-order factor fit was not supported bythe empirical data.Although the 2 factor second-order structure had notbeen empirically verified, the validity and reliabilitystatistics for the cohesion and locomotion components werepresented because they are theoretically justifiable.Hopefully further work will pro‘,.de empirical evidence tothe existence of the second-order factors.59Ouestionnaire Return: Phase B Validity and ReliabilityStudiesValidityIndividual athletes from the University of BritishColumbia were administered the TBA Inventory (N=53) (referto table 3.3 for a list of subjects by sport). All 53inventories were completed and useable, representing a 100per cent response rate. These subjects, with a mean age of21.4 years (s=1.9), had been involved on their current teama mean of 2.0 years (s=1.4). The mean length ofparticipation in that sport was 9.6 years (s=3.8). Theindividual athletes had a mean of 82.0 per cent individualsport background.The individual athlete TBA Inventory scores werecollected to compare to team athlete scores for a knowngroups difference test. The team athletes were selectedfrom the Phase A group (N=153). A sub sample of Universityof British Columbia team athletes (N=53) from the Phase Agroup were selected based on university attended and similarlevel of competition. Subjects were from hockey (N=16),volleyball (N=17), basketball (N=11), and rugby (N=9). Theyhad a mean age of 21.2 years (s=2.2). The team athletesubjects had been on that team for a mean 2.4 years (s=1.4)and had a mean of 10.4 years (s=4.7) experience in thatsport.Coaches from 17 teams representing 5 sports (see table3.2 for distribution by sport and school) were sent a6061cohesion and locomotion scale to rate their veterans. Only3 of the 17 coaches' scales were both returned and useable,representing a 17.6 per cent response rate. A further 6coaches had returned completed scales, however theirathletes' TBA Inventories were not returned to enable theirinclusion in a correlation analysis. The 3 completed ratingscales (N=30) were received from University of Albertahockey, University of Lethbridge hockey, and University ofAlberta basketball.Reliability (Stability) Team athletes from the University of British Columbiawho had completed the TBA INventory in Phase A testing(N=53) completed the TBA Inventory a second time 3 to 4weeks following their initial testing. Complete and useableinventories (N=52) represented a 98.1 per cent responserate. Subjects represented four sports: hockey (N=18);volleyball (N=16); basketball (N=11); and rugby (N=9).Subject mean age was 21.3 years (s=2.2). The mean durationon that team was 2.4 years (s=1.4). The mean yearsparticipation in that sport was 10.5 (s=4.7).Data Analysis: Validity and ReliabilityConstruct ValidityCriterion Related Validity. Table 4.9 presents theresults of the Hotelling's T-squared independentmultivariate analysis conducted to determine if the 7 factorscores would discriminate between individual and team62athletes. Additionally, a t-test was conducted on the totalscore (TBA). For the 7 factors and TBA total, thedifferences between the two groups were significant < .001).Follow-up univariate test statistics between individual andteam athlete means were significant (p< .001) for all 7factor scores. Factors 4, 5, and 6 appeared to be the mostpowerful discriminators. The results of this known groupsdifference test support the concept of construct validity.Table 4.9Team Athlete Versus Individual Athlete TBA Inventory Score MeansIndependentVariables TeamAthletes IndividualAthletesUnivariate*t pFl - TM 30.2 23.4 10.34 <^.001F2 - TI 29.9 26.8 4.23 <^.001F3 - TU 27.2 19.3 10.15 <^.001F4 - CN 28.3 17.3 13.48 <^.001F5 - TO 29.1 19.0 12.77 <^.001F6 - TMA 23.5 12.4 11.34 <^.001F7 - LN 27.5 21.2 7.16 <^.001TBA TOTAL 195.6 139.4 16.16 <^.001* Hotellings T2 for the vector of 7 factors equalled 378.1(7,98), p< .001.63Concurrent Validity. Coaches' observations werecompared to athlete TBA Inventory scores using correlations.Correlations were computed between the 7 factors, 2 secondorder factors, a TBA total score, and the coaches' cohesionand locomotion rating. Table 4.91 presents the Pearsoncorrelation coefficients. For the coaches' cohesion rating,9 of the correlations were under .40. The highestcorrelation, between TI (F2) and the coaches' cohesionrating, was only .53. Similarly, correlations were lowbetween the athlete scores and the coaches' locomotionrating. With the exception of TI (r=.52), all correlationsbetween the athlete TBA Inventory measures and the coaches'locomotion rating were below .45. Players coaches ratedhigh on the locomotion component scored reasonably high onLN (F7). The results of the correlation coefficients do notprovide support for concurrent validity for the TBAInventory. This may be a result of the low response rate(only 3 coaches ratings were used), or due to a poorexternal validation source. If the coaches were inaccuratein their assessment of their players, these errors would beamplified with only 3 coach respondents (and only 30athletes rated in total).Table 4.91Pearson Correlation CoefficientsCoaches' RatingAthleteScores^Cohesion LocomotionTM .123 .187TI .528 .516TU -.035 -.060CN .313 .419TO .324 .387TMA -.043 .100LN .332 .448COB .279 .314LOC .179 .321TBA .266 .366Test-Retest Reliability (Stability) A paired-samples test compared the initial Phase A testscores to the Phase B retest scores. Table 4.92 presentsthe results of the correlated t-test for the 7 factorscores, the 2 second order factors, and a TBA total score.The difference between the means for all 10 measures wasnon-significant. All test-retest correlations were veryhigh, with no correlation below .70 and 8 correlations above.80, indicating stability over time.64Table 4.92 Test - Retest Statistics: Correlated T-TestsFactor^Timer tvalue2 TailProbTest 1 30.56Fl - TM 0.79 1.05 0.298Retest 30.25Test 1 30.04F2 - TI 0.72 -0.29 0.775Retest 30.13Test 1 27.12F3 - TU 0.92 -1.02 0.314Retest 27.38Test 1 28.44F4 - CN 0.90 0.00 1.000Retest 28.44Test 1 29.17F5 - TO 0.88 1.60 0.115Retest 28.75Test 1 23.71F6 - TMA 0.88 1.39 0.171Retest 23.19Test 1 27.40F7 - LN 0.80 -0.63 0.531Retest 27.62Test 1 116.15COH 0.89 -0.08 0.938Retest 116.21Test 1 80.29LOC 0.89 1.14 0.261Retest 79.56Test 1 196.44TBA TOTAL 0.92 0.64 0.528Retest 195.7765CHAPTER IVSummary and ConclusionsThe purpose of this study was to develop a valid andreliable team-orientation instrument which measurestendencies towards multidimensional team-based attitudeswithin interactive, interdependent elite sport groups. Theinventory was constructed to differentiate between teamoriented and individualistic athletes. A hypothesized Team-Based Attitude model was developed based strongly ontheoretical evidence. Subjects from team sports (N=153)within the Canada West University Athletic Associationcompleted the TBA Inventory to test the factor structure ofthe hypothesized model. Confirmatory factor analysis,exploratory factor analysis, and reliabilty (internalconsistency) statistics were used to test the goodness offit of items to constructs.A revised, 35-item, 7-factor structure was supported byhigh factor loadings, significant t-values, low normalizedresiduals, and acceptable Q and RMSR values. Internalconsistency held up reasonably well with high alpha values.Future analysis could work to further improve the overallfit of the model. Specifically, CFI needs to be above .80,relatively high inter-factor correlations exist, and severalitem-total correlations are below .50. Those concernssuggest a more parsimonious solution may be possible throughfurther analysis.6667A subsample of the initial respondents completed theTBA Inventory a second time. Test-retest results frompaired correlated t-tests supported the stability of theinventory means, and high test-retest correlations indicatereliability over time. A known-group difference testprovided evidence for construct validity, clearlydifferentiating between individual athletes and teamathletes. Independent groups Hotellings T2 were significantfor all factors and a TBA total score. Construct validitywas also tested by comparing coaches' ratings to athletes'inventory scores. Construct validity was not supported bycorrelation coefficients, possibly due to too few coachrespondents. This test was dependent on the coachesaccurately providing the source of external criteria forvalidation. Inaccurate coach evaluations would be amplifiedwith such a small subject base. The results suggest thatsome coaches may be unable to accurately assess theirathletes' level of TBA, providing further support for theneed for such an inventory. The TBA Inventory, once furthervalidated, could help coaches assess athletes' attitudes.Descrepancies in inventory results could provide the coachwith the awareness to adapt his coaching style to better .suit his-her players. Information gained from the TB7%Inventory may be acted on by having a sport psychologistspeak to the players on the importance of cohesion,cooperation, and teamwork.The 35-item, 7-factor inventory is considered to have68psychometric properties supportive of internal consistencyand structural reliabilty. But it is only after a long andrigorous validation period that the TBA Inventory may beused for research examining team dynamics. Past cohesionstudies and instruments have focussed on athletes'perception of their present team's level of cohesion in thatparticular season. The TBA Inventory possesses the abilityto differentiate between individuals within a team, and canbe used to investigate how individuals influence groupstructure and dynamics. The inventory will allowresearchers to measure individual characteristics that maybe antecedents to or may mediate the level of cohesion andlocomotion within a team. The TBA Inventory also presentsthe exciting possibility to analyze the cohesion-performancerelationship from a new perspective.Further testing of the TBA factor structure is needed.Validity and reliabiltiy should be assessed using largersubject populations, testing female subjects, differentsports, different ages, and different levels of competitionlevel. Given the possible research applications of the TBAInventory, it is highly recommended that sport scientiststest the inventory with numerous pilot tests, to refine theinventory, provide strong goodness of fit measures tofurther support the TBA model, and develop generalizabilityto various groups and populations.69ReferencesAlderman,^R.^(1974).^Psychological Behavior In Sport.Toronto, Ontario: W. B. Saunders CompanyAllport, G.^(1935).^Attitudes.^In C.^Murchison (Ed.),Handbook of Social Psychology.^Worcestor,^MA:^ClarkUniversity Press, 798-844.American Psychological Association. (1979). Ethical Standardsof Psychologists. Washington: American PsychologicalAssociation Inc.Back, K.^(1951).^Influence through social communication.Journal Abnormal and Social Psycholoay, 4n, 9-23.Ball, J., & Carron, A. (1976). The influence of team cohesionand participation motivation upon performance success inintercollegiate ice hockey. Canadian Journal of AppliedSport Sciences, 1, 271-275.Baron, R., Byrne, D., & Kantowitz, B. (1980). Psycholoay: Understanding Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Baron,^R.,^&^Byrne,^D.^(1984).^Social Psycholoay: Understandina Human Interaction.^Boston, London, Sydney,Toronto: Allyn & Bacon Inc.Bass, B. (1961). Comparisons of the behavior in groups ofself-oriented interaction-oriented and task-orientedmembers. Tech.25Contract N79NR 35609, Louisiana State University, BatonRouge.Bass,^B.^(1962).^The Orientation Inventory.^Palo Alto,California: Consulting Psychologists Press.70Bentler,^P.^(1985).^Theory & Implementation of EOS: AStructural Equation Program.^Los Angelos: BMPD StatisticalSoftware Inc.Botterill,^C.^(1978).^Psychology^of^coaching.^InProceedings: 1978 National Coaches Certification Program, Level Five Seminar. Montreal: University of Montreal.Butt,^D.S.^(1987).^The Psychology of Sport: The Behavior, Motivation, Personality, and Performance of Athletes.^NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Carron,^A.^(1982).^Cohesiveness^in^sport^groups:Interpretations and considerations.^Journal of Sport Psychology, A, 123-138.Carron, A. (1984). Motivation: Implications for Coaching andTeaching. London, Ontario: Sport Dynamics.Carron, A. (1980). Social Psychology of Sport.^Ithaca, NewYork: Mouvement Publications.Carron, A., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of groupcohesion in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 123-139.Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group Dynamics: Researchand Theory. New York: Harper and Row.Cattell, R. (1948). Concepts and methods in the measurementof group syntality. Psychological Review, 1948, 55, 48-63.71Chaplin, W., John, 0., 4, Goldberg, L. (1988). Concepts ofstates and traits: dimensional attributes with ideals asprototypes. journal of Personality and Social Psychology,5A(4), 541-557.Cofer, C., & Johnson, W.^(1960).^Personality dynamics inrelation to exercise and sports.^In W. Johnson (Ed.),Science and Medicine of Exercise and Sport. Harper.Cox, R. (1985).^Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications.Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Publishers.Epstein, S., & O'Brien, E.^(1985).^The person-situationdebate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 11(3), 513-537.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.^Attitudes toward objects^aspredictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria.Psychological Review, 1974, 11, 59-74.Fishbein, M., &^Ajzen,^I.^(1975).^Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction To Theory andResearch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social Pressures In Informal Groups: A Study of a Housing Committe.New York: Harper.Gill, D. (1986). psychological Dynamics of Sport. Champaign,Illinois: Human Kinetic Publishers, Inc.Gross, N., & Martin, W.^(1952).^On group cohesiveness.American Journal of Sociology, 52, 533-546.72Haig, G.^(1989). Predictors and Consequences of Involvementin Physical Activity: A Causal Model of the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey. University of British Columbia: UnpublishedMasters Thesis.Hammer, W. (1967). A comparison of differences in manifestanxiety in university athletes and nonathletes. Journal ofSports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 2, 31-34.Jones, J., & Williamson, S. (1979). Athletic profileinventroy (API): Assessment of athlete's attitudes andvalues. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, Games, and Play: Social and Psychological Viewpoints. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum, 157-188.Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1984). Lisrel Vi: Analysis Of Linear Structural Relationships By The Method Of MaximumLikelihood.Kane, J. (1967). Personality profiles of physical educationstudents compared with others. In Proceedings: FirstInternational Congress of Sport Psychology,  Rome.Kumar, A., Pathak, N., & Thakur, G. (1985). Death anxiety andlocus of control in individual team and non-athletes.International of Sport Psychology, 15, 280-288.Landers, D., Wilkinson, M., Hatfield, B., & Barber, H. (1982).Causality and the cohesion-performance relationship.Journal Of Sport Psychology, A(2), 170-183.Lazarus, R., & Monat, A. (1979). Personality. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.73Lefebve, L.^(1975).^Social motives in team sports: anexperimental approach. In D. Landers (Ed.), Psychology ofSport and Motor Behavior II, Proceedings: North AmericanSociety for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity.Pennsyvania: The Pennsyvania State University, 271-280.Lewin, K.^(1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. McGraw-Hill.McGowan & Gormly. (1976). Validation of personality traits: amulticriteria approach. Journal of Personality and Social 22ychology, 21, 791-795.NASPSPA.^(1981).^Standards for Psychological Testing WithinSport.Peterson, S., Ukler, J., & Trousdale, W. (1967).^Personalitytraits of women in team and women in individual sports.Research Quarterly, 2$, 686-690.Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J.^(1981).^Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches.^Dubuque, IA: WilliamC. Brown Publishers.Rotter, J.^(1966).^Generalized expectancies for internalversus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1, 1-28.Sage, G.^(1972).^An assessment of personality profilesbetween and within intercollegiate athletes from eightdifferent sports. Sportswissenchaft, 2, 409-418.Sampson, E. Psychology and the American ideal. (1977) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 767-782.74Schurr, K., Ashley, M., & Joy, K.^(1977).^A multivariateanalysis of male athlete characteristics: sport type andsuccess. Multivariate Clinical Research, 2, 53-68.Silva, J., & Weinberg, R.^(Eds.).^(1984).^PsychologicalFoundations of Sport.^Champaign, Illinois: Human KineticsPublishers, Inc.Smith, F. & Smoll, F. (1986). Survey of Athletic Experience.Unpublished manuscript.Stogdill, R.^(1972).^Group^productivity,^drive,^andcohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performanc,a, 26-43.Stodgill,^R.^(1959).^Individual Behavior and GroupAchievement. New York: Oxford.Stogdill, R. (1963).^Team Achievement Under High Motivation.Columbia:^Bureau of Business Research,^Ohio StateUniversity.Twist, P. (1987). Multi-Attribute Theory.^Unpublished MathModels 551 project, University of British Columbia,.Van Ergeren, L. (1979). Social interactions, communications,and the coronary-prone behavior pattern: Apsychophysiological study. Psychosomatic Medicine, A, 2-18.Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1971). An attributional analysis ofachievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoay, la, 1-20.75Widmeyer,^N.,^Brawley, L., & Carron, A.^(1985).^TheMeasurement of Cohesion in Sport Teams: The GroupEnvironment Questionnaire.^London,^Ontario:^SportsDynamics.Widmeyer, N., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion predictsperformance outcome in sport. Research Quarterly, 12, 372-380.Yukelson,^D.,^Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A.^(1984).^AMultidimensional^group^cohesion^instrument^forintercollegiate^basketball^teams.^Journal of Sport Psycholoay, n, 103-117.Zander, A. (1982). Making Groups Effective.^San Francisco,California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Zander, A. (1985). The Purposes of Groups and Organizations.San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Appendix AInitial Item Pool Matched With Constructs76INITIAL 102 ITEM FOOL MATCHED WITH CONSTRUCTS TEAM MAINTENANCE 1. It is important for team members to be loyal to theteam.2. Teammates can really help and support one another.3. If a team is unsuccessful, the athletes must sticktogether if they hope to start winning.4. Athletes should attend the practice setting even wheninjured.5. When things get too tough with the team Cie: a harddriving coach; consistently losing; etc.), I wouldquit and pursue something more enjoyable.6. Teams should be structured to allow a player to misspractice if he needs to study or attend another eventthat is scheduled.7. Athletes must organize other interests in their life(school, work, social, etc.) so that they neverinterfere with their committment and responsibilitieswith the team.S. Even if my team was losing all of its games, I wouldrather stick with it and try to work out of theslump than move to another team or activity.9. I think that initiations which degrade the rookieshave a negative effect on the team.10. The status of veterans and rookies should beseparated in the dressing room and on the roaduntil the rookies go through their initiationevent.11. Veterans should make rookies feel^comfortable aspossible with the team, to help build a stable team.12. Rookie initiations really have no needed purpose,because each rookie has earned a spot with the teamthrough a successful training camp.7713. Everyone on the team should take responsibility forany poor performance or loss by the team.14. On weak teams, coaches are unlikely to get rid ofindividualistic players who have a really negativeattitude because the team is in need of theirsuperior sport abilities. But I believe that ifthe coach cuts this player, the team as a wholewill improve their attitude and sportperformance in his absence.15. Being accepted by my teammates is very importantto me.TEAM IDENTITY 1. I really value my membership on teams.2. I take pride in my involvement on a team.3. I value being considered a part of the groupwhenever team members do anything.4. It is important to me that the coach and fansacknowledge my contribution ti: the team.5. I usually have a strong sense of belongingto my sport teams.6.- It is important for athletes to value theirmembership on teams.7. I think that teams should dress up Cie: wear atie) on game days.B. I like to have team jackets and team clothing so Ican publically be identified with the team.9. I think that team jackets are important becausethey identify us as a group.10. I am usually proud of my team association.11. Team involvement is more satisfying when I have astrong sense of belonging on the team.TEAM UNITY1. I think a team can become stronger as a unit if itspends time together outside the sports environment.782. It is important for members of the team to sticktogether outside of practices and competitions.3. For me a team is one of the most importantsocial groups I belong to.4. Following games and practices, I usually get changedand shower quickly, leaving the dressing room as soonas possible.5. I do not enjoy being a part of social activities onteams.6. A team with individuals who get along well willoutperform a team with individuals who argue alot.7. I like to take my time getting dressed before gamesand practices and getting changed afterward, to hangaround the dressing room for a bit.8. I try to include team members in my plans for socialactivities.9. Team spirit is important to winning.10. Team harmony and closeness can lead to outperforminganother team with more individual stars.11. I would like to spend time together with teammates inthe off season.12. I usually miss the members of my team when the seasonends.13. Some of my best friends were met through teams.14. I usually enjoy other parties more than team parties.15. I usually don't form close friendships with myteammates.16. Spending extra time together outside of the sportenvironment can help strengthen the group as a whole.17. I think it is a good idea to have 'team houses',where groups of players from a team would livetogether during the competitive season.18. Whether a team wins or loses, the team's athletesshould go out together after the game.19. Team functions are important at the very start of theseason, to make the athletes feel comfortable witheach other.7920. After a loss, the team can pull together and lifttheir morale by going out together.21. No amount of drills and practices will create a"team" - athletes need other activities, and needto hang out together before they can become a "team".22. Off-ice cohesion promotes on-ice cohesion.COHESIVE NORMS 1. I try to conform to the rules of the team to help itget along as a unit.2. Team rules are important to help maintain the team asa group.3. If it is common behavior for the team to socializetogether after competitions, I would willingly joinin.4. Even though I may not agree with certain team rules,and may not want to comply to the coach's demands,I would follow the rules to be true to my teammatesand to do what is best for the team.5. Group norms and rules foster group strength.6. A player does not have to agree with team rules, buthe should readily accept them.7. Attendance at team breakfasts on the road, dresscodes, and punctuality rules (etc.) are importantto comply to because they help ensure the teamremains strong as a group.8. Teams should set rules for acceptable behaviors tohelp the team resist disruptive forces.9. An athlete's failure to comply to team rules has anegative effect on team cohesion.10. Athletes must conform to team demands and rules toremain united and strong as a group.11. Willingly adhering to team rules helps to ensure theteam remains strong as a group.12. An athlete should resist social pressures to conformin a team to maintain his individuality.13. I usually follow the team's rules for accepted8081behavior because I realize there are advantages forthe team from uniformity in behavior.14. Coaches and veterans should set team rules which helpmaintain a cohesive group.TASK ORIENTATION 1. For the team to be successful , teammates must aspirethe same team performance goals.2. It is important for the athlete to work towards teamaccomplishments.3. It is important to set team goals for each player towork towards if the team is to be successful.4. A player should direct all of his efforts towards theteam's goals.5. It is important for athletes to have individualgoals, but they should not interfere with the team'sgoals.6. Sometimes it bothers me when working for team goalsgets in the way of my individual accomplishments.7. The team's goals is usually my main incentive forparticipation.8. Athlete's goal setting must include team goals.9. The each should set team goals for us to worktowards.TEAM MOTIVATION AND ASPIRATIONS1. When training during the cuff season, I think of ateam championship.2. I have less of a desire for success for myself than Ido for the team.3. It is important to me that the team is successful,but it is more important that I do well.4. I participate to have fun and for personal success -but team success is a nice bonus.5. I get very "high" after wins or team success, and82very "down" after losses or team failures.6. Even if my teammates didn't play well and my teamlost, I would be satisfied if I performed reallywell.7. I am more strongly motivated to reach a new personalbest rather than simply achieving group success.8. A team win is satisfying, but I would be much happierto be recognized individually for my efforts.9. I like to participate for the opportunity to showcasemy individual talents.10. Winning in sport is the most important thing evenwhen I play badly.LOCOMOTIVE NORMS 1. I wouldn't mind being moved to a position where Iscore less points and receive less recognition ifit would help the team.2. I don't like playing according ti: a team's system orstyle if it hinders my individual abilities andperformance.3. I try to change the way I play to satisfy the coach.4. With a few top superstars, a team can win evenwithout teamwork.5. Teammwc'rk is very important to winning.6. Everyone on the team has a role to play to help theteam win.7. If an athlete disagrees with the coach in practice,he should not question the coach until after thepractice has ended.8. I don't have to be pushed to practice or play hard;I give 100 %.9. I improve my skills by listening carefully to advicefrom coaches.10. Athletes must be willing to follow team standardswhich promote advancement toward team goals.11. I accept team rules and follow them because they areset to facilitate team success.12. The coach should set rules for normative behaviorswhich ensure intra-team cooperation duringcompetitions.13. When one of my teammates makes a mistake in thegame, I offer support and encouragement.14. If a coach criticizes or yells at me, I correctthe mistake without getting upset about it.15. When I'm hurt, I play through the pain and don'tlet it affect me or the team.16. Athletes should follow the coaches instructionsand practices without arquement.17. When my team loses, I try to think of what else Icould have done to help make us successful.18. I am willing to compete while injured if I can stillhelp the team.19. Athletes should communicate in competitions tocooperate as a team, and also to offer support andencouragement.20. I would be commited to the team and striving towardsit's goals even if the coach relegates me to a role Iam not satisfied with.21. I take a strong stand in arquements with my coaches.83Appendix BItem Validation By Expert Opinion84TEAM-BASED ATTITUDE INVENTORY:ITEM VALIDATION BY EXPERT OPINIONFive experts from the fields of sport psychology andcoaching will provide an initial item validation byindicating whether or not they think each item fits underthe appointed component. Items consistently ratedappropriate for the appointed component will be retained forpilot testing. Items consistently rated not appropriate forthe appointed component will be subjected to furtheranalysis, whereby judges sort these items into thecomponents (if any) they think are appropriate.I am asking you to sit on this panel, to assist in theinitial item validation by expert opinion. Based on theoperational definition provided, please indicate if M211.think each item fits with the appoirttO. umponent by answering "yes" or "no". Thank you for your assistance. Based on the results fromthe panel, items not initially retained for pilot testingwill be returned to you at a later date for a type of Q-sorttechnique.85COMPONENT; TEAM MAINTENANCEDEFINITION: -Refers to team members supporting each other,and the willingness to stick together tomaintain a stable environment.-Preserving the team's structure.-loyalty, sacrifice, stability, preservation andsupport, dependability, sticking together.ITEMS:1. It is important for team members to be loyal to theteam.YES NO[^12. Teammates can really_help and support one another. ...YES NO[^]3. If a team is unsuccessful, the athletes must sticktogether if they hope to start winning.YES NO[^]^[^14. Athletes should attend the practice setting even wheninjured.YES NOf^I5. Teams should be structured to allow a player to misspractice if he needs to study or attend another eventthat is scheduled.YES NO[^]^[^]6. Athletes must organize other interests in their life(school, work, social, etc.) so that they neverinterfere with their committment and responsibilitieswith the team.YES NOfl^fl86877. I think that initiations which degrade the rookies havea negative effect on the team.^YES^NOI^1^I^I8. The status of veterans and rookies should be separatedin the dressing room and on the road until the rookiesgo through their initiation event.YES NOI^I^t^I9. Everyone on the team should take responsibiltiy for anypoor performance or loss by the team. YES NOI^I^t10. When things get too tough with the team (le: a harddriving coach; consistently losing; etc.), I wouldquit and pursue something more enjoyable.YES NO^I^t^111. Even if my team was losing all of it's games, I wouldrather stick with it and try to work out of the slumpthan move to another team or activity.YES NOt^I^ICOMPONENT: TEAM IDENTITYDEFINITION: -Reflects one's desire to belong and remain in agroup because of pride in membership and valuingmembership.-Attraction to the group.ITEMS:1. I really value my membership on teams.YES NOf^1^f2. I take pride in my involvement on a team.YES NOf^J^f3. I value being considered a part of the group wheneverteam members do anything.YES^NOI^I I4. It is important to me that the coach and fansacknowledge my contributions to the team.YES NOf^J^C^I5. I usually have a strong sense of belonging to my sportteams.YES NOf^J^I6. I am usually proud of my membership on teams.YES NOf^J^f7. I think that teams should dress up (ie: wear a tie) ongame days.YES^NOf^J^[^I88898. I like to have team Jackets and team clothing so I canbe publically identified with the team.YES^NOf^J^f^]9. Team involvement is more satisfying when I have a strongsense of belonging on the team.YES^NO1^1^f^JCOMPONENT: TEAM UNITYDEFINITION: -Team harmony, morale, and team spirit.-"social" cohesion.-Based on the hypothesis that unity increasesthe more time athletes spend together outsidethe sports environment.-Facilitated through proximity (familiaritybreeds a cohesive group).ITEMS:1. I think a team can become stronger as a unit if itspends time together_autside the sports environment.YES NO[^[^]2. For me a team is the most important social group Ibelong to.YES NO[^13. Following practices and games, I usually get changedand shower quickly, leaving the dressing room as soonas possible.YES NO]^I^14. A team with individuals who get along well willout perform a team with individuals who argue alot.YES NO[^1^[^15. I Like to take my time dressing before practices andgames and getting changed afterward, to hang around thedressing room for a bit.YES NOfl^CI;. I try to include team members in my plans for socialactivities.YES NOI^l^[7. Team spirit is important to winning.YES^NOfl^El908. Team harmony and closeness can lead to out performinganother team with more individual stars.YES NOf^I^I9. I usually enjoy other parties more than team parties.YES NOf^1^f^I10. I usually miss the members of my team when the seasonends.YES NO[^l^f^111. I think it is a good idea to have "team houses", wheregroups of athletes from a team would live togetherduring the competitive season.YES NOI^f^112. Whether a team wins or loses, the team's athletes shouldgo out together after the game.YES NOI^I13. No amount of drills and practices will create a"team" - athletes need other activities, and need tohang out together before they can become a "team".YES NOf9192COMPONENT: COHESIVE NORMSDEFINITION: -Normative behaviors enforced and followed whichensure the team remains strong as a group.-The willingness and desire to comply to normswhich facilitate cohesion.-Conforming to behavior requested of you tofacilitate team maintenance, team identity, andteam unity.ITEMS:1. I try to conform to the rules of the team to help it getalong as a unit.YES NO[^)^t^I2. Team rules are important to help maintain the team asa group.YES NO(^)^[^I3. If it is common behavior for the team to socializetogether after competitions, I would willingly join in.YES NO^1^[^)4. A player does not have to agree with team rules, but heshould readily accept them.YES NCI^f^15. Attendance at team breakfasts on the road, dress codes,and punctuality rules (etc.) are important to comply tobecause they help ensure the team remains strong as agroup.YES^NO]^(6. If an athlete disagrees with the coach in practice, 11%_should not question the coach until after the practicehas ended.YES^NOI937. Teams should set rules for acceptable behaviors to helpthe team resist disruptive forces.YES NOf^f^]8. An athlete's failure to comply to team rules has anegative effect on team cohesion.YES NOf^19. An athlete should resist social pressures to conformin a team to maintain his individuality.YES NOf^f^110. Coaches and veterans should set team rules which helpmaintain a cohesive group.YES NOf^f^I11. Athletes must conform to team demands and rules toremain united and strong as a group.YES NOf^fCOMPONENT: TASK ORIENTATIONDEFINITION: -An athlete's tendancy to direct his/her effortstowards achieving team goals and objectives.-Positive evaluation of the importance of theteam's goals and objectives.ITEMS:1. For the team to be successful, teammates must aspire thesame team performance goals.YES NO^I ^t2. It is important for the athlete to work towards teamaccomplishments.YES NOf^13. It is important to set team goals for each player towork towards if the team is to be successful.^YES^NOf^1^f4. A player should direct all of his efforts towards theteam's goals.YES NOI^f^15. It is important for athletes to have individual goals,but they should not interfere with the team's goals.YES^NOC^I^C^16. Sometimes it bothers me when working for team goalsgets in the way of my individual accomplishments.YES NOC^I^I^17. The team's gr31 is usually my main incentive forparticipatirA.YES NOf^1^f8. An athlete's goal setting must include team goals.YES^NOC^f^19495COMPONENT: TEAM MOTIVATION AND ASPIRATIONSDEFINITION: - Team motivation and aspirations serve to directbehavior toward team accomplishments, throughthe desire for team success and finding pride inthis success.-The team's goal is the main incentive propertyfor participation.ITEMS:1. When training during the off-season, I think of a teamchampionship.YES NO1'1^I2. It is important to me that the team is successful, butit is more important that I do well.YES NO[^[3. I participate to have fun and for personal success - butteam success is a nice bonus.YES NO[^]^[^]4. I get very "high" after wins or team success, and very"down" after loses or team failures.YES NOI^I^l5. Even if my teammates didn't play well and my team lost,I would be satisfied if I performed really well.YES^NO[^I^E^16. I am more strongly motivated to reach a new personalbest rather than simply achieving group success.YES NO[^I^[^]7. A team win is satisfying, but I would be much happierto be recognized individually for my efforts.YES^NO[]968. I like to participate for the opportunity to showcase myindividual talents.YES^NOt^1^[^19. Winning in sport is the most important thing even when Iplay badly.YES NO[^]^[^]COMPONENT: LOCOMOTIVE NORMSDEFINITION: -Normative behavior enforced and followed whichensures antra-team cooperation.-The willingness to follow team standards andprocedukes which promote advancement towardteam goals.ITEMS:1. I wouldn't mind being moved to a position where I scoreless points and receive less recognition if it wouldhelp the team.YES NOI^]^[^]2. I try to change the way I play to satisfy the coach.YES NO^1^I^13. With a few top superstars, a team can win even withoutteamwork.YES NOI^I^]4. Everyone on the team has a role to play to help theteam win.YES NO1^I5. I don't have to be pushed to practice or play hard; Igive 100 %.YES NOf^1^I^]6. I accept team rules and follow them because they are setto facilitate team success.YES NOI^I^I^17. I improve my skills by listening carefully to advicefrom coaches.^YES^NO[^]^[978. Athletes should follow the coach's instructions andpractices without argument.YES NO[^]^I^19. When one of my teammates make a mistake in the game, Ioffer support and encouragement.YES NO10. If a coach criticizes or yells at me, I correct themistake without gettin_g_uset_about it.YES NO[]^[]11. When my team loses, I try to think of what else I couldhave done to help make us successful.YES NO[^]^t12. I am willing to compete when injured if I feel I canstill help the team.YES NOf^[^]98Appendix COriginal 64 Item MA Inventory99The University Of British ColumbiaSchool of Physical Education6081 University Blvd.Vancouver, B.C.V6T 1W5TEAM-BASED ATTITUDE: THEORY DEVELOPMENT, INVENTORYCONSTRUCTION, AND PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSISDear Participant:PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to develop a team-orientationinstrument which measures attitudes of athletes within elitesport groups. Your responses on this preliminary questionnaire will help usdevelop the final Team-Based Attitude Inventory.BENEFITS: The inventory, once developed, will be used by sport researchersto further the knowledge and understanding of individuals withina team, and how these individuals affect group structure and processes.This information will lead to an educational process for coaches to helpthem better understand athletes' needs and attitudes. I appreciate youapproaching these questions seriously - it is your answers which will helpgather knowledge on athletes' attitudes.DIRECTIONS: Your participation in the study is completey voluntary. If youcan participate in the study, please sign and date the attachedconsent form below. In order to guarantee anonymity, the consent form willbe torn off from the rest of the questionnaire immediately upon its return.Someone from outside of your team has been asked to hand out thesequestionnaires to ensure none of your coaches or managers see any of yourresponses. The questionnaires are collected and returned directly tomyself - your responses will be kept in the strictest confidence. Iappreciate your honesty in answering questions - this will definitely helpeducate developing coaches in the future.The following questions are designed to assess your feelings about teams ingeneral. Do not limit yourself to the team you are presently involved in,but try to think of how you feel about team involvement in general, and ofyour overall experience with various teams. Do not spend too much time onany one statement. There is no right or wrong answer. Rather you just needto answer based on your own opinion and your feelings. The entirequestionnaire should take only about 20 minutes to complete.100101Please read each statement carefully and circle a number from 1 to 7 toindicate your level of agreement with each statement.You are also being asked to fill out the demographic information on thenext page, but NOT your name.Thank you in advance for your cooperation.Sincerely,Pete Twist^/P 7t(604) 736-3930SUBJECT CONSENT FORM(please PRINT) ^  agree to participate in theproject titled "Team-Based Attitude: Theory Development, InventoryConstruction, and Psychometric Analysis". I understand that my identitywill be protected and that I may withdraw at any time without any effectupon my present or future academic and sport involvement.(Signed)^DateDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATIONAge:^ Sex: Male ( )^Female ( )Name of Sport:^Level of Play: Varsity^( )Junior Varsity ( )Number of Years played on this team: ^Number of Years played this sport:OTHER ORGANIZED, COMPETITIVE SPORTS^TOTAL NUMBER OF YEARSPLAYED (OR HAVE PLAYED IN THE PAST):^PLAYED THIS SPORT:1.^2.3.^4.5.^6.7.^8.1021031. If a team is unsuccessful, the athletes must stick together if theyhope to start winning.StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5StronglyAgree6^72. I value being considered a part of the group whenever team membersdo anything.VeryRarely1 2Sometimes3^4 5VeryFrequently6^73. Following practices and games, I get changed and shower quickly,leaving the dressing room as soon as possible.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^74. If it is common behavior for the team to socialize together aftercompetitions, I would willingly join in.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^75. It is important to set team goals for each player to work towards ifthe team is to be successful.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^76. I participate to have fun and for personal success - but team successis a nice bonus.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^77. With a few top superstars, a team can win even without team work.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^78. It is important for team members to be loyal to the team.104StronglyDisagree1 2Neutral3^4 5StronglyAgree6^79. I really value my membership on a team.VeryRarely1 2 Sometimes3^4 5VeryFrequently710. I think a team can become stronger as a unit if it spends timetogether outside the sports environment.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^711. I try to conform to the rules of the team to help it get along asa unit.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^ 4^5^6^712. For the team to be successful, teammates must aspire to the same teamperformance goals.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^713. Thinking of a team championship helps to motivate me when I'm trainingduring the off-season.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^714. I wouldn't mind being moved to a position where I score less pointsand receive less recognition if it would help the team.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^715. Teammates can really help and support one another.105stronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5stronglyAgree6^716. I take pride in my involvement on a team.VeryRarely1 2Sometimes3^4 5VeryFrequently6^717. For me a team is the most important social group I belong to.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^718. Team rules are important to help maintain the team as a group.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^719. It is important for the athlete to work towards team accomplishments.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^720. It is important to me that the team is successful, but it is moreimportant that I do well.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^721. I try to change the way I play to satisfy the coach.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^710622. Athletes must organize other interests in their life (school, work,social, etc.) so that they never interfere with their committmentand responsibilities with the team.StronglyDisagree1 2StronglyNeutral^ Agree3^4 5^6^723. I have a strong sense of belonging to my sport teams.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1 2^3^4^5^6^724. A team with individuals who get along well will outperform a team withindividuals who argue alot.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^725. A player does not have to agree with team rules, but he shouldreadily accept and abide by them.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^726. A player should direct all of his efforts towards the team's goals.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^727. I get very "high" after wins or team success, and very "down" afterlosses or team failures.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^728. Everyone on the team has a role to play to help the team win.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^710729. I think that initiations which degrade the rookies have a negativeeffect on the team.StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5StronglyAgree6^730. I am proud of my membership on teams.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1 2^3^4^5^6^731. I like to take my time dressing before practices and games and gettingchanged afterward, to hang around the dressing room for a bit.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^732. Attendance at team breakfasts on the road, dress codes, and punctualityrules (etc.) are important to comply to because they help ensure theteam remains strong as a group.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^733. It is important for athletes to have individual goals, but they shouldnot interfere with the team's goals.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^734. Even if my teammates didn't play well and my team lost, I would besatisfied if I performed really well.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^735. I don't have to be pushed to practice or play hard; I give 100 %.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^710836. The status of veterans and rookies should be separated in the dressingroom and on the road until the rookies go through their initiationevent.StronglyDisagree1 2Neutral3^4 5StronglyAgree6^737. I think that teams should dress up (le: wear a tie) on game days.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^738. I try to include team members in my plans for social activities.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^739. If an athlete disagrees with the coach in practice, he should notquestion the coach until after the practice has ended.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^740. Sometimes it bothers me when working for the team's goals gets in theway of my individual accomplishments.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^741. I am more strongly motivated to reach a new personal best rather thansimply achieving group success.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^742. I improve my skills by listening carefully to advice from coaches.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^743. Everyone on the team should take responsibility for any poorperformance or loss by the team.109StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5Strongly6 Agre7e44. I like to have team jackets and team clothing so I can be publicallyidentified with the team.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^745. Team spirit is important to winning.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^746. An athlete's failure to comply to team rules has a negative effect onteam cohesion.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^747. Even if I realize my individual goals and excel at my position, theteam's goal is usually my main incentive for participating.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^748. A team win is satisfying, but I would be much happier to be recognizedindividually for my efforts.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^749. I accept team rules and follow them because they are set to facilitateteam success.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^711050. When things get too tough with the team (le: a hard driving coach;consistently losing; etc.), I would quit and pursue something moreenjoyable.StronglyDisagree1 2StronglyNeutral^ Agree3^4 5^6^. 751. Team involvement is more satisfying when I have a strong sense ofbelonging on the team.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^752. I miss the members of my team when the season ends.Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^753. In order to maintain his individuality, an athlete should resist socialpressures to conform in a team.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^754. An athlete's goal setting must include team goals.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^755. winning in sport is the most important thing even when I play badly.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^756. Athlete's should follow the coach's instructions and practices withoutargument.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^711157. Even if my team was losing all of it's games, I would rather stickwith it and try to work out of the slump than move to another teamor activity.StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5StronglyAgree6^758. I think it is a good idea to have "team houses", where groups ofathletes from a team would live together during the competitive season.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^759. Athletes must conform to team demands and rules to remain unitedand strong as a group.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^760. When one of my teammates makes a mistake in the game, I offer supportand encouragement.Strongly^ StronglyDiasagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^761. Whether a team wins or loses, the team's athletes should go outtogether after the game.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^762. When my team loses, I try to think of what else I could have done tohelp make us successful.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^711263. No amount of drills and practices will create a "team" - athletes needother activities, and need to hang out together before they canbecome a "team".StronglyDisagree1 2Neutral3^4 5StronglyAgree6^764. I am willing to compete when injured if I feel I can still help theteam.Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7Appendix DConsent Letter To Coaches113Mr. Bruce EnnsBasketball CoachUniversity of British Columbia6081 University Blvd.Vancouver, B.C.Dear Mr. Enns:A sport-specific study is underway at the University ofBritish Columbia, concerning the development of a valid andreliable team-orientation instrument which measurestendancies towards multidimensional team-based attitudeswithin interactive, interdependent elite sport groups. Thisstudy is undertaken as part of my Masters in PhysicalEducation. I am working with Dr. Robert Schutz, Dr. SharonBleuler, and Dr. Richard Mosher (from the Department ofPhysical Education) and Dr. Susan Butt (from the PsychologyDepartment). I am also a player with the UBC hockey team,which affords me a unique perception - at not only theacademic background and theoretical implications, but alsothe practical application and importance. In a 1987 study,within a list of psychological attributes, coaches from theNHL, CIAU, and Canadian junior leagues consistently ratedteam-based attitudes a more important discriminator thanindividual attitudes for the athlete who desires to playwithin their league.Pilot testing is^being completed^with male^varsitybasketball, hockey, rugby, and volleyball teams from theCWUAA. This is the first step in proving some initialvalidation so that in the future the Team-Based AttitudeInventory could be used to provide feedback to coaches tooptimize the probability of team success, and used byresearchers to further the knowledge and understanding ofindividuals within a team and how these individuals affectgroup structure and processes.114115I am writing to ask for your cooperation in having thequestionnaire administered to your team. It is a simple test(please see the sample questions included) which takes only20 minutes to complete. If you are agreeable to this, arepresentative from the School of Physical Education andRecreation or the Department of Psychology at youruniversity will be in contact. This person will handle allresponsibilities of test administration and collection foryou - we seek only your permission to have your athletescomplete the questionnaire. Your athletes are notidentifiable from the test - complete confidentiality isensured to all participants.Can you please complete the reply form and mail it in theenvelope provided. Thank you for your time, and thank you inadvance for your assistance. The theoretical orientationwithin group dynamics is directed towards what the basicvariables are that determine what happens in groups.Team-based attitude can^be viewed as an^individualdifference variable^which affects the level of groupcohesion within a team. The development of instruments likethe Team-Based Attitude Inventory can provide valuableinformation about athletes and insight into the groupdynamics within a team - not only immediate feedback forcoaches, but also helping to build general information tohelp coaches through coaching certification programs, etc.Thanks again.Sincerely,Pete TwistGraduate StudiesUniversity of BC116The theoretical basis utilized to build a conceptual modelincludes team norms and team dynamics. Specifically, thecomponents hypothesized to tap team-based attitude includecohesion (team maintenance, team identity, team unity, andcohesive norms) and locomotion (task-orientation, teammotivation and aspirations, and locomotive norms).1. For me, a team is one of the most important social groupsI belong to2. When my team loses, I try to think of what I could havedone differently which may have helped us more.3. When training I think of a team championship.4. A player does not have to agree with team rules, but heshould readily accept them.5. Winning in sport is the most important thing even when Iplay badly.6. I don't like playing according to a team's system orstyle if it hinders my individual abilities andperformance.ALL QUESTIONS ARE COMPLETED BY CIRCLING THE ATHLETE'S ANSWERON A SCALE ANCHORED BY "STRONGLY DISAGREE" AND "STRONGLYAGREE".SD D NA A SAREPLY FORMPLEASE CHECK ONE AND FAX BACK TO THE UBC ATHLETICDEPARTMENT. If you have any questions, you can write them onthe back of this page, or feel free to call me directly at604-736-3930. You may also contact Dr. R. Schutz, at604-228-2767.I I^YES^I agree to allow my athletes to completethe Team-Based Attitude Inventory. Arepresentative will contact me, and thisrepresentative will handle all of theresponsibilities for questionnaireadministration, completion, & collection.__.I I^NO^I am unwilling to allow my athletes tocomplete the Team-Based AttitudeInventory.Coach's Name: ^Sport:Number Of Athletes On Your Team:School:117Signature:Appendix EInitial Contact Letter to School Representatives118Ms. Jan CrookAss. Athletic DirectorUniversity of CalgaryDear Jan:My name is Peter Twist, a Physical Education graduate student at UBC. I aminvolved in a project which is directed towards developing a team-basedattitude inventory that measures group cohesion and task-orientation withinathletic teams. Pilot testing with this questionnaire is being completedwith male varsity basketball, hockey, rugby, and volleyball teams from theCWUAA. This is the first step in proving some initial validation so that inthe future the Team-Based Attitude Inventory could provide feedback tocoaches to optimize the probability of success, and used by researchers tofurther the knowledge and understanding of individuals within a team andhow these individuals affect group structure and processes. The building ofthis general team dynamics information can, for example, be used foreducation in coaching certification programs.We are presently involving teams from Alberta, Lethbridge, Saskatchewan,UBC, and Victoria universities, and would like to include University ofCalgary in the study. We have received consent from your hockey andvolleyball coaches to have their players fill out a questionnaire. We areasking for your assistance in the administration of this questionnaire. Asour contact, we would mail you the questionnaires, complete withinstructions. The administrative responsibilities include only handing outthe questionnaires to the players, and collecting them upon completion. Atthis point you would mail them back to UBC.Our major concern is to ensure the individual administering thequestionnaire is not directly associated with the team, so that the playersare not concerned that their coach will see their answers. Another concernis to ensure the players read and answer the questionnaire seriously. Thisinventory takes only about 20 minutes to complete, but shouldn't beattempted when the players are in a rush (ie: right after practise in thedressing room).If you have someone else in mind who could carry out this task, we areagreeable to this being delegated, based on your discretion. Can youplease fax a reply if yourself or a delegate can hand out thisquestionnaire. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. We look forwardto your reply so we can prepare a mail out to your university - we wouldlike to complete this during the team's pre-season so we do not interferewith their daily in-season schedule.Once again, thanks for your assistance.Regards,^ ee-Teg,^(41,6s,cA) er)LA CCA-J10Gra.)^-hA-d--2-11LA C.,Fh X '4;:o Y -2-24 -60119Appendix FInstructions to School Representatives120APPENDIX FADMINISTRATION CONCERNSJIM:1. Enclosed are questionnaires, to be allocated as follows:-rugby: 40-volleyball: 15-basketball: 15-hockey: 252. Please ensure that coaches are not present and do nothandle the questionnaires - please reaffirm to theathletes to answer honestly (there is no right or wronganswer - it is Just their opinion), and that none of thecoaches or management will see the results.3. Please reaffirm that their input is important because itwill later be used to educate coaches and thereforebetter serve the needs of players.4. It will take about 15 - 20 minutes to complete.5. Please have them read the instructions (included with thequestionnaire) and sign the consent form. Make sure theydon't rip out the consent form after signing - it has tostay with the questionnaire until we get it back.You may want to read over the instructions for the playersthat is attached to each questionnaire. If you have anyquestions, please call me at 604-736-3930.Tbanks again for your help. You can return the completedquestionnaires in the same box with the address label andpostage included.Regards,Pdte TwistUBC121Appendix GCoach Rating Form (Cohesion and Locomotion)122123Dear Mr. O'Malley:Your players have recently completed the Team-Based AttitudeInventory. This questionnaire is being developed to assessathlete's attitudes. The future use of the questionnaireincludes team dynamics research, and educational use withcoaching certifications.As an expert coach with an elite level team, you are beingasked to take 5 minutes to complete the attached form. Thiswill help validate the questionnaire, an important part ofit's development. Please list your veteran players and ratethem on a scale from 1 to 10 on two components - Cohesionand Locomotion. These are defined on the form. We wouldsincerely appreciate your cooperation as it is necessary tovalidate the questionnaire. We need to compare thequestionnaire results to other independent and accurateinformation - and your own objective analysis of the playersis certainly the most valid measure. Veteran players(athletes in their second year (or more) on your team) aresuggested because you have had a long enough time, overvaried situations, to evaluate and come to know theseathletes very well.For your assurance, players are coded by number - when wereceive your completed form, data will be entered into thecomputer (along with the athlete's questionnaire answers),and the form will be destroyed. This is very important. Youcan be certain that we are the only ones to have access tothe data, it will be kept in the strictest confidence, anddata analysis uses coded player references (ie: player# 412), so no player names are retained.Thank you for allowing your players to complete thequestionnaire, and thank you for providing your expertevaluation of veteran players - your input is invaluable inthe completion of the Team Based Attitude Inventory.Should you have any questions, please call Peter Twist atthe number listed below. A self-addressed, stamped envelopis included for easy and prompt return of the form.Thanks again.Sincerely,Peter Twist^Dr. R. Schutz604-736-3930^604-228-2767124CONCURRENT VALIDITY - COACH'S EXPERT OBSERVATIONS (vrs. athletetest results)TEAM BASED ATTITUDECOHESION^ LOCOMOTIONDEFINITIONS:COHESION: Social cohesion; friendship, pride in membership; stickingtogether; helping the team remain strong as a group.LOCOMOTION: Task cohesion; motivated to direct behavior towards teamaccomplishments; desire to succeed as a team; puts team'sgoals above personal goals; teammwork.PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PORTION (for veteran players - in secondyear or more on your team).pLAYRR NAME ^ COHESION^LOCOMOTION (rate each player on a score from 1 - 10)t . e.^TolvN Seri i I LIie•.^itilt ke So); 44, 5Please use reverse if additional space required.Thank you - please return in the envelop provided.Appendix HTheoretical Justification For Correlating Errors125CORRELATING MEASUREMENT ERRORSPAIRS OF ITEMS:^THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION:02^- joining in and being part of the group outside thesport environment.04^- join in and socialize with the group after competitions.016^- pride in involvement on a team.Q30^- proud of membership on teams.023^- strong sense of belonging to sport teams.038^- try to include teammates in plans.03^- hanging out in the dressing room after games/practices.031^- hanging out in the dressing room after games/practices.059^- no theoretical025 justification.018^- no theoretical05 justification.011^- no theoretical019 justification.011^- no theoretical042 justification.025^- following team rules without arguement.056^- following team rules without arguement.026^- player should direct all of his efforts towards theteam's goals.Q56^- following team rules without arguement.126Appendix ICorrelation Matrix for 35 Item Inventory127^5^... ::;::;:me.TzIngezzls^M N^ON"NmmmOm^^NWN^^M^ON^N00000^^^00,-:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO•.^W•O, •2 j• - .ZOWN ..... ".0”.NWOWV^V^WmONO*VNOWVCWOO00^W^nwinCONW^^1.0,W^^^ OWN^NNNNW^00000N0^^N^N00^000000.^0^••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.1 ^0000000000000000000000000000000000•W^GC0▪U^0"WOMONOW01^0 20""OwINNW O^r100".^00.0mmN".-^NONNONO""00^ ^N^0NoNNW"WWWW0.... W.M W^ONOMMW.000... mftm.-wm001J§^.............^^0000000000000000000000 ,^^000000000000iW0§0.00000OwN ..... ft....-...ow”^R^0w■mem000..W.OM^vg.M0000•14m.-mftem,-N-0•,..N. 0 ^pmw.-0•00^yw.--00-0.-00*-0000000000 .-^6,,--40....-waMm.-........................^..............^^00000000000000000000000 .1^^0000000000000•• • •^..1•-oNowNwoftoftNo.m■nymemwoo.  gomoNswoo^mwm...-Jgg:g47 -W2goo0-o”mo. - -0000 . g=7.4-874, x2,9.1.4:te-000.00.0000000.0000.0.0.. -00000000000000,.§000010000000W^vON00MWM^m0^..mMONO..N08=70A;g7ARWIP:Plggn?N^mn/N^007.74=leg..........................^0000000000000000000000000000000000"0000O0m.n.la• o^a) r..11:30,•.“201N01 a/ 10 • .0. 0,••^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•-0000000000000000000000000010Owmgeme000.,00owno.001mw^NO.VNmomo,Oywuly.-^00NwNinmm................^0000000000000000,0"winOwo"..0^-NOm-00000010,.^0010.001■^NON WWWWW 001.010owwwwoNWM^mfWM10^.Wi0",IPWOM0WW0 •• "0ry" " 1.1........................•..^000000000000000000000000000......0.,vomf..^m^NO^NN0001010.17.^01000,y040^^NNO..0000ww0I0000P.W00^0••••-0000000000000000000000000000^",WWW.0111WOOWmmwm,.N.M0WmNOOmo.mowmmeNWOCWONNOftwONWNnNts.ovmmNyNNNymcumm^^N^^^^0000^NO^...................... .......^0000000000000000000000000000......... m"minmOwNNOW..0^ elm^ "0000000^ ^ 0-oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000o00000000-0.WOONN^vM^,^1)0 WWWWWW Nm..,N^10ON.INN^0000".01.001^W^O^,.,."0^"0""".............................^000000000000000000000000000000^WW^wmry ,ryw 0 0 0 0^m 01 . ^WW^NO 0 00^ ^./..^..............................^0000000000000000000000000000000OWO .01,0 "WW"WWW0 NOMV0.10^010NOON".MNO^N1,01...10^^NM.10^^0/10NOIVVVNVV.000000000000000000000000000000000000ryioNW,WrsenwNwonmmwNm"Wft/0000^WW1 s^mv0mN040,^0000-WWv^m..............^000000000000000090.17.111,0m.0^NO .....000.0140000.0N^0^.00WW00Nm^NN1.11110^00^••^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^000000000000000000000,,V1m00100mowinorloOwNme-^NwN00^^N^ONOOwww^WWWN0^00mNomr..000000000000000000^00".00m^0^^"W00.000"....1001000^0100.10O.... 01.1/01.11 100.-0.-....................^00000000000000000000. ...... el".00910MQ900.."ONO^N01000000^oo^0.....................00000000000000000000§WWW1,N.W.m^Omw^w^ .....Omm"WWW^OWm^i0000^Wm^^, ..0000.0000N^000000000......................^000000000000000000000^WW"WWW0 NOw.0.0^00W0OWMyMMW"^Nnwin^^NONmv..N.0.10000000000000000000000000000.0..my0^.^Om^^000.......^0000000001^.11,Ww.0000 O ./01./0..00000........^0000000§NNWON000MmV00.^^.810"M"^.".^00000000§NONNO.^".WIPOM101.0.00gr....00000••^•^•1-000000000......-0000000.0.m"^"0.-Mmmyin.00OOOOOOOOO000.0.0^00000a0.....wvam.wywymine0000000000000000JJ•a•Ogm-o100/CONwww0000000Appendix JCFA Lambda X Factor Loadings for 35 Item Inventory129130CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model.LISREL ESTIMATES (MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD)LAMBDA XMAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORM01 0.379 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q8 0.623 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000010 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000015 0.545 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q50 0.475 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00002 0.000 0.645 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00009 0.000 0.722 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000016 0.000 0.656 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q23 0.000 0.641 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q30 0.000 0.806 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q3 0.000 0.000 0.529 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00004 0.000 0.000 0.741 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000031 0.000 0.000 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q38 0.000 0.000 0.611 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000052 0.000 0.000 0.478 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.678 0.000 0.000 0.000018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.713 0.000 0.000 0.000025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.628 0.000 0.000 0.000032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.553 0.000 0.000 0.000059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.802 0.000 0.000 0.00005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.533 0.000 0.000012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.650 0.000 0.000019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.717 0.000 0.000026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.590 0.000 0.000054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.610 0.000 0.000020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.716 0.000034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.592 0.000040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.654 0.000041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.656 0.000Q48 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.642 0.000028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.490042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.405049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.691Q56 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.449062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.493Appendix KInter-Factor Correlations for 35 Item Inventory131132PHIMAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORMMAINT.^1.000IDENTITY^0.875UNITY 0.278COH.NORM^0.753TASK.ORI 0.573MOT.ASP^0.192LOC.NORM 0.6541.0000.6460.6980.5030.0960.4841.0000.2830.2160.1600.1551.0000.7250.1380.9481.0000.3480.7451.0000.209 1.000Appendix LModification Indices for 35 Item Inventory133134CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model.MODIFICATION INDICESLAMBDA XMAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORM01 0.000 0.043 0.440 1.448 0.557 0.181 1. 28208 0.000 0.040 0.427 0.166 0.917 1.309 0.217010 0.000 8.323 7.099 0.002 0.021 1.431 0.471015 0.000 2.807 2.625 3.261 0.014 2.427 3.162050 0.000 0.805 0.959 2.528 0.403 3.166 1.20502 8.050 0.000 4.417 6.594 2.771 0.709 5.81409 0.335 0.000 0.006 9.788 8.412 0.461 7.317Q16 7.076 0.000 6.298 3.910 1.910 0.060 3.315023 0.014 0.000 1.079 3.113 4.130 1.479 2.821030 0.526 0.000 0.506 6.778 2.931 2.319 4.642Q3 0.003 0.174 0.000 0.355 0.023 5.531 0.12404 0.212. 0.926 0.000 0.209 1.037 5.649 0.618031 0.001 0.208 0.000 2.237 2.696 1.389 3.225038 3.586 3.843 0.000 2.568 1.086 0.076 2.522Q52 3.209 4.629 0.000 2.169 0.892 0.509 1.711Q11 12.860 8.682 0.934 0.000 1.652 0.124 5.212018 2.253 1.271 0.691 0.000 0.441 0.966 0.847025 0.033 0.387 0.173 0.000 3.601 0.085 0.754Q32 0.051 0.015 0.131 0.000 2.177 0.954 0.666059 3.417 0.741 0.206 0.000 14.708 1.815 0.81405 0.524 1.112 3.680 1.934 0.000 0.670 0.971012 0.071 0.355 0.012 1.974 0.000 1.200 1.100019 0.002 0.248 1.006 0.061 0.000 0.080 0.022026 0.004 1.763 2.777 1.662 0.000 0.575 2.431054 0.197 0.872 3.578 1.589 0.000 5.143 2.579020 0.120 0.236 0.022 0.248 0.329 0.000 0.570034 1.200 1.550 1.687 1.075 1.047 0.000 0.929040 0.505 0.119 0.007 0.903 0.457 0.000 1.237041 5.152 4.010 0.487 2.502 1.223 0.000 1.732048 2.812 0.538 0.500 5.019 2.450 0.000 6.223028 1.665 0.996 0.229 1.210 0.000 0.001 0.000042 1.287 0.434 0.025 0.680 0.097 0.262 0.000049 0.419 0.250 0.002 0.059 0.338 0.071 0.000056 2.747 0.940 0.055 0.158 0.026 0.307 0.000062 0.974 0.437 0.038 0.207 0.816 0.226 0.000Appendix MT-values for 35 Item Inventory135CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model.T-VALUESLAMBDA XMAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORM01 4.469 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q8 7.752 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000010 5.385 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000015 6.657 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000050 5.710 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00002 0.000 8.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00009 0.000 9.772 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000016 0.000 8.624 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000023 0.000 8.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000030 0.000 7.803 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00003 0.000 0.000 6.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00004 0.000 0.000 9.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000031 .0.000 0.000 7.778 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000038 0.000 0.000 7.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Q52 0.000 0.000 5.577 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000011 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.138 0.000 0.000 0.000018 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.759 0.000 0.000 0.000025 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.276 0.000 0.000 0.000032 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.083 0.000 0.000 0.000059 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.510 0.000 0.000 0.00005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.563 0.000 0.000012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.354 0.000 0.000019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.466 0.000 0.000026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.407 0.000 0.000054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.704 0.000 0.000020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.070 0.000034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.188 0.000040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.110 0.000Q41 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.139 0.000048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.927 0.000028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.014042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.882049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.925056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.458062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.047136Appendix NNormalized Residuals for 35 Item Inventory1370O0100O§....0. C ONO000.-0^,^ .ON^,Op...wmoc0-^-0N!!!!!!5iONN..000.onfo.00,..oNOm 00.00)0000000-0-0000.",0 ..... -00-C0000^0^0.-0.-.-000^0................00-0000000,-000000 0 CvNr100.^■••• "00 0.0OWNWMOW.N.W.CONO.0..............00^^0^00000000.-ONO......0000.1.-^.-0000 0 0 0 0 00.0.0N..000N.N.W,m00000m■ON0 0^or ON. - 40^.0.117”-O 0m m n N^.- m .1 r.v O N 0 O N••■00, 00..^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.^.0^000^.-^0^0^.-^0000^.-00^000••^•OMON^WWW....ONOmM.,.-NwOwyM0y0.........00000.-^000^0000^N^^0.-^0000N..... wwwWw0O.N..................................00^000^0.00^00000^.00^-00^^00...NONNVOMONCNO■WMW.00WyMOOMON.................^.^.............000000000^...00^000^00^000.00^0.....JoNom-.,om.ciOdOOOOOO....................00^0000^000000^.-^0000^-411N-NN.N .........-.........................0.00.00w-000.-00000" 0000-00......^........000MONNOON,,WVOOMW.0000..-MMOON0.00.0-MWMMNIMM.MOMV.M. ......000.-^*- near, n ea el on m O w^... .0............................0 000 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0.- 0 00 0^ •-•^^ •- 0 0 0J §VON000^.00.0......000100.00^.....-^.....00,.................000000000..000....^.I §...,.......0.-.10.00^000.0000 ..... 0.-CO000.....N....N.-0,....- .......... 0..0.my...N........................000...0000^,-.00^0•00000^.-0§.....-WwW,-NmOon.-01...mcNcomor. ^00000 ...... 00.. NON.-0.1.NyNomN00,..0..000r,... 0^00y.-cyCvN0.-.0.2J ..... 00y000000.0.0......CON^OCOMNNOW ......▪000000000000.-0.-000000000 4^000^0000000000••^•^•^......^•2 IlliMiErgEn.742312:::;42HE 2 §i&airi2Z'788E:•00-0-00-0.000--N000-00-0 N 0000^000■0000^0•.^•^600^I^0^4^•^•^.....000000000000000NAM■OW0.-MONOWN0000000000000000000000000Occoftwm....NO............00000000^00101^a2 ^2.....................00.00^....0^0^00.-.0...^0000§0.002.V.WM 01.1MOMMV....08 0OSC- N 0 0 0 A O O 0 m O w A O v tl m 0 0.^ N A-- n 0 0O O O N O  C aC 0 0 CI..............................000000000^^.-00000000-000^^0000100•J^om...-.....ww-Oc..0..-000....Nom..0mm-my01700.C.00.00^.--0O3,c-Nw0.0.0N0y-0.-,,C.M.0,,,,-.30.00......0^-.^-,...^.,,y0.0NOmm.O................................000000^^0NO0N000000,-000^00.-0000^^....... N.C.NONO.NcN0 CI 1•••NbnO00000^0^0.-00.-00000000000-^00000000O•O §iMEiErIMEE:TraREHHEEEFiFarg.-4000 1151,0NOWV0.10^WWNOWN•••^01.e.eary .1, in 0000000000000000000000000000000000000N^.0 .....o •••^0 "Co,- ^............^.^.^.00Sgt000OON0OmNwcOm00000Appendix 0QPLOT of Normalized Residuals139CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model.OPLOT OF NORMALIZED RESIDUALS3.5^X.XX.X XXXX•X•XXX•X•XXX"N XXXO XXXR^ XX'M *X'A XXL •XXX"O XU^ •X•A 'XN XX•T ••I^ "XL .XXE .X•S . X•. *X'. XX.^*X^.^X..^'X••. X .XXXXX.^.-3.5 -3.5 3 ^ 5NORMALIZED RESIDUALS140Appendix PInternal Consistency Analysis141142RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(TM) 0EV1.4238.6915.7705.90721.1973CASES153.0153.0153.0153.0153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALEMEANIF ITEMDELETEDQ1^24.980408 24.7778015 24.7908010^25.0654Q50 25.0915SCALEVARIANCEIF ITEMDELETED5.74307.76617.87707.48256.4521CORRECTEDITEM-TOTALCORRELATION.3251.4526.3509.3390.3457SQUAREDMULTIPLECORRELATION.1115.2131.1435.1357.1480ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED.5606.4959.5273.5257.5228RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMSALPHA =^.5798^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.6213143RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T I)MEAN STD DEV CASES1. 02 5.7190 1.1554 153.02. 09 6.1373 .8890 153.03. 016 6.2876 .8003 153.04. 023 5.9216 .9071 153.05. 030 6.2614 .7928 153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALEMEANIF ITEMDELETEDSCALEVARIANCEIF ITEMDELETEDCORRECTEDITEM-TOTALCORRELATIONSQUAREDMULTIPLECORRELATIONALPHAIF ITEMDELETED02^24.6078 6.8057 .5023 .3469 .768709 24.1895 7.3652 .6245 .4327 .7130016 24.0392 7.8406 .5997 .4239 .7251023^24.4052 7.5979 .5496 .3332 .7377030 24.0654 8.1141 .5371 .3594 .7437RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 5 ITEMSALPHA =^.7780 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .7893144RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T U)MEAN STD DEV CASES1. 03 5.0588 1.4565 153.02. 04 6.0980 1.1048 153.03. 031 5.1830 1.3786 153.04. 038 5.5817 1.2805 153.05. 052 5.2418 1.2671 153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED03 22.1046 13.4232 .4501 .2876 .701004 21.0654 14.2720 .5817 .3652 .6544^'031 21.9804 12.7299 .5812 .3746 .6434038 21.5817 14.0344 .4872 .2918 .6827052 21.9216 15.0728 .3730 .1873 .7245RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMSALPHA =^.7286^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7340145RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(C N)MEAN STD DEV CASES1. 011 5.8431 1.0706 153.02. 018 5.6013 1.2478 153.03. 025 5.8039 1.0327 153.04. 032 5.8824 1.1118 153.05. 059 5.5556 1.0188 153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED011 22.8431 11.4094 .6190 .4132 .7610018 23.0850 10.2230 .6582 .4829 .7481025 22.8824 12.0650 .5437 .3498 .7833032 22.8039 11.9876 .4947 .2583 .7986059 23.1307 11.4565 .6580 .4788 .7507RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMSALPHA =^.8064^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.8076146RELIABILITY ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T 0)MEAN STD DEV CASES1. 05 6.1895 .9716 153.02. 012 6.0392 .9657 153.03. 019 6.2418 .7436 153.04. 026 5.5425 1.1920 153.05. 054 6.1895 .8331 153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED05 24.0131 7.5261 .5346 .3007 .6954012 24.1634 7.6771 .5065 .2940 .7060019 23.9608 8.2616 .5862 .3553 .6891026 24.6601 6.8574 .4873 .2447 .7259054 24.0131 8.1840 .5124 .2853 .7060RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMSALPHA =^.7482^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7619147RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(TMA)MEAN STD DEV CASES1. 020 4.6536 1.5318 153.02. 034 4.3725 1.4367 153.03. 040 4.9804 1.3930 153.04. 041 4.3464 1.5949 153.05. 048 4.9281 1.5564 153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED020 18.6275 19.7221 .6192 .3857 .7269034 18.9085 21.6495 .5070 .2647 .7635040 18.3007 21.2248 .5709 .3462 .7443Q41 18.9346 19.9299 .5631 .3474 .7464048 18.3529 20.2693 .5566 .3265 .7482RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMSALPHA =^.7861^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7865148RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(L N)MEAN STD DEV CASES1. 028 6.4575 .8884 153.02. 042 5.5033 1.2780 153.03. 049 5.7386 1.0436 153.04. 056 4.8301 1.6091 153.05. 062 6.0000 .8811 153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED028 22.0719 10.5540 .3806 .1551 .5642042 23.0261 9.1967 .3497 .1242 .5730049 22.7908 9.5086 .4572 .2355 .5217056 23.6993 7.4880 .3932 .1723 .5698Q62 22.5294 10.7508 .3484 .1817 .5767RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMSALPHA =^.6151^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.6383149RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T B A)MEAN STD DEV CASES1. TM 31.1765 3.1604 153.02. TI 30.3268 3.3420 153.03. TU 27.1634 4.5109 153.04. CN 28.6863 4.1270 153.05. 00 30.2026 3.3646 153.06. TMA 23.2810 5.5220 153.07. LN 28.5294 3.6797 153.0ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICSSCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETEDTM 168.1895 256.0099 .5320 .4444 .7130TI 169.0392 241.9458 .6414 .6188 .6905TU 172.2026 254.7021 .3108 .3064 .7593CN 170.6797 222.1007 .6558 .6379 .676700 169.1634 241.6244 .6391 .4806 .6906TMA 176.0850 253.2756 .2050 .1219 .8049LN 170.8366 243.2297 .5492 .5082 .7049RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^7 ITEMSALPHA =^.7512^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7890


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items