UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Team-based attitude : theory development, inventory construction, and psychometric analysis 1991

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1992_spring_twist_pete.pdf [ 5.68MB ]
ubc_1992_spring_twist_pete.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077375.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077375+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077375.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077375+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077375+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077375+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0077375.ris

Full Text

Team-Based Attitude: Theory Development, Inventory Construction, and Psychometric Analysis Pete W. Twist B.P.E., McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ©  December, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. (Signature)  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  <J Cv7 d(^2 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT The purpose of this study concerns the development of a valid and reliable team-orientation instrument which measures tendencies towards multidimensional team-based attitudes within interactive, interdependent elite sport groups. The theoretical basis utilized to build a conceptual model includes team norms and team dynamics. Specifically, the components hypothesized to tap team-based attitude include team maintenance, team identity, team unity, cohesive norms, task-orientation, team motivation and aspirations, and locomotive norms. Team norms and team dynamics theory, existing inventory content, and interviews with expert coaches and elite athletes were all considered in developing the initial item pool. Based on operational definitions, expert judges performed an initial validation by fitting items within the appropriate construct. The empirical testing of the inventory was based on data from subjects (N=153) from the Canada West University Athletic Association. Lisrel VI confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and reliability (internal consistency) were applied to the data. Factor loadings, goodness of fit index, chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio, root mean square residual, and Cronbach's alpha all provided evidence for initial support of the hypothesized factor structure. A paired groups correlated t-test with a sub sample ii iii (N=52) of the initial subject population provided evidence of reliability (stability) over time. A multivariate Hotellings T2 with individual subjects (N=53) and team subjects (N=53) resulted in significant differencei between the two groups for all factors and a TBA total score. This known-groups difference test proved the inventory could differentiate between individual and team athletes, providing support for construct validity. Coaches rated players on their level of cohesion and locomotion. Correlation coefficients failed to produce relationships between the coaches rating and the athletes' TBA Inventory score. However, this may have been due to the low number of coach respondents (N=3), or the very source of external validation (the coaches' rating) being inaccurate. The psychometric analysis provided support of the factor structure, along with reasonable validity and strong reliabiltiy results. Given the potential of the inventory in team dynamics research, sport scientists are encouraged to further test the TBA model, to develop a more parsimonious fit of the data to the model, inventory refinement, and population generalizability. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ^ii LIST OF TABLES ^  vii LIST OF FIGURES  viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ^ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION  ^1 Need For a Team-Based Attitude Inventory  ^3For The Coach  ^3For The Researcher  ^5Statement of Purpose  ^8 II. LITERATURE REVIEW  ^9 Instrumentation  ^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 ^  23 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ^  27 Inventory 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) ^ 41 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ^  43 Questionnaire 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) ^  64 vi V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS^  66 REFERENCES ^  69 APPENDIX  76 A. Initial Item Pool Matched With Constructs ^ 76 B. Item Validation by Expert Opinion ^  84 C. Original 64 Item TBA Inventory  99 D. Consent Letter to Coaches   113 E. Intial Contact Letter to School Representatives ^ 118 F. Instructions to School Representatives ^ 120 G. Coach Rating Form (Cohesion and Locomotion)  122 H. Theoretical Justification for Correlated Errors ^ 125 I. Correlation Matrix for 35 Item Inventory ^ 127 J. CFA Lambda X Factor Loadings for 35 Item Inventory. .   129 K. Inter-Factor Correlations for 35 Item Inventory ^ 131 L. Modification Indices for 35 Item Inventory^ 133 M. T-values for 35 Item Inventory ^  135 N. Normalized Residual for 35 Item Inventoru  137 0. QPLOT of Normalized Residuals  139 P. Internal Consistency Analysis  141 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Inventory Distribution By School and By Sport ^ 33 3.2 Inventory Distribution To Individual Athletes By Sport . ^ 34 4.1 Distribution and Response Rate By Sport ^ 44 4.2 Distribution and Response Rate By School  44 4.3 Descriptive Statistics For All 64 Items ^ 45 4.4 Summary Of Initial Criteria For Item Deletionand Inventory Revision ^  48 4.5 Summary of Factor Loadings, Item Deletions, andInventory Revisions  52 4.6 Summary of Model Fit Indices ^  57 4.7 Internal Consistency Statistics  57 4.8 Inter-factor Correlations ^  59 4.9 Team Athlete Versus Individual Athlete ^ TBA Score Means    62 4.91 Coaches' Ratings: Pearson Correlation Coefficients . . . ^ 64 4.92 Test-Retest Statistics: Correlated T-Tests ^ 65 vi i viii LIST OF FIGURES Individual Characteristics: Antecedent ToCohesion, Locomotion, and Success ^ 4 Individual Difference Variable: A Moderator ofCohesion ^  6 Suspected Antecedents of Group Cohesion ^ 8 Team-Based Attitude Model ^  26 Figure A. Figure B. Figure C. Figure D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the individuals who helped develop an initial idea and a curiosity to complete fruition in the form of this thesis. Thanks to Dr. Susan Butt for her guidance with psychology theory, item development, and specifically cohesion and sport motives. I would like to thank Dr. Richard Mosher for his direction and feedback in several academic areas leading up to this thesis. His ability to relate theoretical knowledge to the sport situation proved invaluable. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Sharon Bleuler for the thoroughness of her instruction, analysis, and feedback throughout all phases of this thesis. Dr. Bleuler's direction with item development, inventory construction, and sport psychology theory was very beneficial to this study. The time she generously offered for detailed content examination and the resultant feedback she provided was greatly appreciated. Special thanks to Dr. Robert Schutz, my advisor, for his constant guidance and feedback in all aspects of this thesis.. His encouragement and direction ensured this study progressed to much greater depths with more sophisticated analysis than would have originally been undertaken. His leadership and guidance with statistical and psychometric analysis, and attitude inventory construction was very much valued and appreciated. ix I would also like to thank Dr. McGillicuddy for his moral support, as well as family and the many friends who helped me maintain a proper perspective and healthy balance while investing my energies towards this study. x 1Chapter I Introduction The assumption by coaches that their athletes must work both with and for the team has not gone unnoticed by sport researchers. It is the willingness to work hard and make sacrifices for the benefit of the team that has been generalized and summarized by these coaches under the term "good attitude". Coaches have commonly interpreted 'attitude' as one's characteristics or tendencies as assessed by the resultant behavior and actions. Coaches today generally agree that attitude is the most important attribute for an athlete, and it is a current coaching belief that a team-attitude is crucial to team success. Within a list of psychological attributes, coaches from NHL, Canadian University, and Major Jr. 'A' hockey teams consistently rated team attitudes a more important discriminator than individual attitudes for the athlete who desires to play within their league (Twist, 1987). It can be rationalized that a team-based attitude would be positively correlated to performance for interactive, interdependent sports, where a high degree of congruence and cooperation is required to achieve task demands. The "essence of team sports is the effective integration of the individual with the team in pursuit of a common goal" (Jones & Williamson, 1979, p. 158). Eitzen (1975) refers to 'group oriented motivation' and suggests that team spirit will lead to successful team performance, 2while Stogdill (1972) stated that group drive or group motivation is the variable most consistently related to productivity. Gruber and Gray rationalize that "coaches seek internal harmony among members so that efforts can be concentrated on effective team play and hopefully a winning season" (1981, p. 20). It is common practice within the sport environment to strive towards developing coalition while criticizing egocentrism. Coaches most often deSire an athlete who will direct his-her efforts towards maintaining group solidarity and achieving team goals. This reflects the assumption that, regardless of ability level, team-based attitude will increase the probability of success, and the more equal two teams are in terms of skill, the more important team-based attitude is in determining objective, quantified game outcome. Additionally, even highly skilled athletes, if acting as individuals, will be detrimental to team performance, as the individually-oriented athlete might participate for more personal reasons (Jones & Williamson, 1979). Although the existence and importance of personal goals is acknowledged, team goals must take priority for each athlete if the team is to be successful. Discrepancies in participation motives (individual versus team oriented) may have a negative effect on the team. Thus the coach encourages player behavior which is consistent with team goals and strategies (Botterill, 1978). Need For A Team-Based Attitude Inventory Interactive, interdependent sports definitely involve (and require) a cooperative, harmonious situation within the team, however an individual can be placed within this cooperative situation and not feel cooperative or be motivated by the necessary cooperation (Butt, 1987). The identification of team-based athletes and individualistic athletes, then, is important both for the coach who desires to optimize the probability of team success, and for the researcher who desires to examine individuals within a team and their effect on team processes and team success. Athletes bring certain characteristics to the sport situation, and make positive or negative evaluations on beliefs (cognitive) about the attitude object (in this case the team, the team's goals, team unity, etc.) which determine the direction and predisposition for certain behavior (team-based or individualistic behavior). Overt athlete behaviors, reflecting their attitudes, can be researched within the framework of team dynamics. For The Coach. The assessment of an athlete's 'attitude' is paramount during the selection process (as opposed to assessing it in midseason). "If someone's goals are completely incompatible with the group goals and strategies, the beginning of the year is the time to find out" (Botterill, 1978, p. 14). Unfortunately, in practice such evaluation has been dependent on a subjective process. 3 INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEAM MEMBERS: TEAM-BASED ATTITUDE ANTECEDENT TO /^\ / \ /^\ / \ / \TM^TO ^ TI TMA TU LN CN /^ \ i.^ 4 ^SOCIAL TASK COHESION COHESION (LOCOMOTION) \^ / \ / \ / \^/ 4 L 4^LFACILITATES TEAM SUCCESS 4 FIGURE A Individual Characteristics: Antecedent To Cohesion, Locomotion, and Success 5Training camps are not of a sufficient duration to enable coaches to come to know an athlete's psychological make-up to the extent that an accurate assessment of his-her attitude could be accomplished. There is no measurement tool which allows a coach or researcher to test whether a player is team-oriented or has more individualistic intentions. The team-based attitude inventory would not be used specifically for team selection purposes. However, it could have an important role in providing feedback to the coach, such that if a significant number of players are classified as "individualistic", the coach may arrange for a sport psychologist to speak to the team on the importance of cooperation and cohesion. In this way it serves as an educational process. For The Researcher. A team-based attitude inventory would contribute to the body of sport psychology research, furthering the knowledge and understanding of individuals within a team and how these individuals affect group structure and processes. Various studies have attempted to examine 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 attitude inventory would possess the ability to differentiate between individuals within a team, specifically evaluating one's degree of team-based attitude. The theoretical orientation %.0  >> LEVEL OF TEAM COHESION I I I Ivv>> LEVEL OF TEAM LOCOMOTION TEAM EVENTS A A / / / /INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE VARIABLE (LEVEL OF TEAM-BASED ATTITUDE) FIGURE B Individual Difference Variable: A Moderator of Cohesion 7within group dynamics is directed towards resolving what the basic variables are that determine what happens in groups. Individual characteristics influence group structures and patterns through interactive processes, affecting the behavioral properties of the group and ultimately the success of that group. Team-based attitude can be viewed as an individual difference variable which is a moderator on the level of group cohesion and locomotion within a team. An inherent weakness with existing cohesion instruments is exactly what the instrument was designed to measure, and the resultant studies and inferences possible with such questionnaires. Past cohesion instruments and studies examining team dynamics and the cause-effect relationship between cohesion and performance have failed to consider how each individual affects the group, assessing only the athlete's perception of how cohesive his-her particular team is at that time. To more fully study team dynamics and identify possible antecedents and mediators of cohesion and locomotion, an improved instrument is required which will enable individual characteristics to be researched. Brawley et al. (1988) stated that any leader hoping to foster group cohesion on his-her team could do so by selecting individual members with certain qualities, or by fostering certain conditions within the group. They also reported that the overwhelming majority of potentially disruptive factors were focussed on individual members rather than the team as awhole. It is the individual 8SUSPECTED ANTECEDENTS OF GROUP COHESION* CHARACTERISTICS^CHARACTERISTICS^SITUATIONSOF THE GROUP OF THE GROUP EXPERIENCEDMEMBERS^ BY THE GROUP Figure C Suspected Antecedents of Group Cohesion * Brawley et al. (1988) used the term 'cohesion' to encompass both 'social cohesion' and 'task cohesion', components this investigator and early theorists termed 'cohesion' (social cohesion) and 'locomotion' (task cohesion). deviating from the team's norms and goals which is disruptive to team preservation (Brawley et al., 1988; Festinger et al., 1950). Although individual characteristics have been identified as early as 1950 as an antecedent and consequence of group cohesion, no sport- specific measurement tool exists which identifies individual characteristics, differentiates between individual characteristics which facilitate cohesion and which detract from cohesion, and which examines how individual characteristics affect team dynamics and success. Statement of Purpose It has been acknowledged that the solution of team dynamics problems "requires both theoretical ingenuity and the 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 towards multidimensional team-based attitudes within interactive, interdependent elite sport groups. Chapter II Literature Review Instrumentation Review of Sport Cohesion Instruments To this date sport cohesion and sport specific team attitude instruments have been developed and utilized to examine the cohesion-performance relationship. Equivocal research results have suggested that either cohesion leads to better performance (Bird, 1977b; Hartung, 1983; Landers et al., 1982; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978), or successful performance leads to increased cohesion (Ruder & Gill, 1982; Williams & Hacker, 1982), as well as a possible circular relationship (Martens & Peterson, 1971). Simultaneously, negative relationships (Landers & Lueschen, 1974) and neutral relationships (Melnick & Chemers, 1974) have also been reported. Many of the inconsistencies in research results can be attributed to the main determinents of cohesiveness utilized in the early team dynamics research. The instruments used in such research efforts stressed 'friendship', 'interpersonal attraction', 'personal satisfaction', and 'enjoyment', while ignoring the importance of maintenance and unity around the team's goals, and the group processes towards achieving those goals. Thus early approaches to team cohesion were more likely appropriate for recreational levels of sport, but insufficient to reflect the task- oriented component in elite sport. This is evident in 9 1 0 research (Arnold & Straub, 1973; Gruber & Gray, 1981; Landers et al., 1982; Widmeyer & Gossett, 1978; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978) which examined intramural teams or teams composed of student volunteers. The most common measurement tool (in the 1970's) utilized to assess team cohesion has been the Sports Cohesiveness Questionnaire (Martens et al., 1972). This inventory was based on the early definitions of cohesion. As a result it's components are mainly representative of the social cohesion aspect. The Sports Cohesiveness Questionnaire assesses friendship or interpersonal attraction, the influence or power of each member, value of membership, sense of belonging, degree of closeness within the team, and level of teamwork. With the exception of the teamwork measure, the Sports Cohesiveness Questionnaire reflects only social cohesion. In addition, a thorough psychometric analysis has never been completed to support the widely accepted use of the Sports Cohesiveness Questionnaire. Recognizing the limitations of emphasizing predominately social cohesion components as the determinents of an aggregate, group property cohesion score, and realizing that it is the teamwork and closeness ('group as a unit') "measure which most consistently discriminate between successful and unsuccessful sport teams" (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981, p. 136), Carron defined cohesion as a "dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a 1 1 group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of it's goals and objectives" (1982a, p. 105). In support of this new definition, Grand & Carron (1982) developed a Team Climate Questionnaire, which tapped both social and task cohesion. The psychometric properties of this measurement tool have been well established. Yukelson, Weinburg, and Jackson also proposed that "operational measures based on attraction alone are conceptually inadequate to explain the multidimensional nature of cohesiveness in sport. Particularly critical in sport teams are the goals and objectives the group is striving to achieve as well as the functional interdependencies and normative constraints that impinge upon group members" (1982, p. 88). They then developed a valid and reliable four factor (Attraction to the Group, Quality of Teamwork, Unity of Purpose, and Valued Roles) sport cohesion instrument which reflects both task and social cohesion. The inventory is psychometrically sound, measures both the cohesion and locomotion components of team dynamics, and is theory based. However, it has yet only been applied specifically to intercollegiate basketball teams. The Group Environment Questionnaire (Widmeyer et al., 1985) represents the cummulation of team dynamic research and 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 build 12 a conceptual model for a theory driven research approach, which provides the impetus for the development of their questionnaire items. The Group Environment Questionnaire has been tested across a variety of sports, skill levels, ages, and sexes. As a result norm tables have been established and generalizability is afforded. This instrument has four components: Group Integration-Task; Group Intergration-Social; Individual Attractions to the Group-Task; and Individual Attractions to the Group-Social. Together, these four components assess the "member's perceptions of the group as a totality and the member's personal attractions to the group" (Widmeyer et al., 1985, p.^15). Causes, Effects, and Mediators Research indicating a wide range of suspected antecedents of cohesion can be "placed into one of three categories: characteristics of the group members, characteristics of the group, and situations experienced by the group" (Widmeyer et al., 1985). Similarly, suspected consequences of group cohesion may be classified under consequences for the group members, consequences for the group, or consequences for group products. Many variables may actually be listed as either causes or effects due to correlational analysis techniques which do not indicate causality. Moreover, it is difficult to ascertain antecedents and consequences because of the poor initial cohesion instruments and inconsistencies in research 13 design, methodology, and analysis. Additionally, cohesion instruments to date have examined how each player rates his or her team's current level of cohesion, and have attempted to interpret the cause-effect relationship between cohesion and performance with this measure. Individual Characteristics - A New Direction, A New Inventory The Group Environment Questionnaire, for example, attempts to measure the athlete's attraction to his-her current team only (that team during that season), and whether the athlete perceives his-her team to be cohesive and united at that time. There are several problems with this approach. Athletes are unable to isolate their current participation from past experiences that over time have contributed to developing attitudes and values. Such cohesion instruments are incapable of defining cause-effect relationships. A time-constrained assessment of the team's level of cohesion as a whole does not examine what causes and mediators helped create that level of cohesion. The common cause which has been continually examined, although it has not been clearly distinguished as such through improved instruments or statistical design, is game outcome (success). Past studies and instruments have completely overlooked that individuals bring certain personal characteristics or attitudes to the team and the environment, and that these individual characteristics and attitudes mediate group processes and 14 affect the level of cohesion within a team. This investigator aims to develop a Team-Based Attitude Inventory to assess individual characteristics through personalized behavioral questions and non-personalized general value judgement questions. This may allow an improved examination of team dynamics and promote identification of antecedents and mediators which directly affect cohesion, locomotion, and performance. Through the examination of relitionships among several independent and dependent variables, the first step in developing an improved instrument and improved direction of research is the definition of a hypothetical model. This is a time consuming task, but if the model is defined very carefully, the chances of achieving a model with a good fit to the data and with meaningful parameters are much greater. Investing more time at this initial stage may therefore benefit the outcome of the study very much. Moreover, because the investigative emphasis is being moved away from the team's current status to the individual characteristics each athlete may bring to the team, a new model to support such an approach is critical. A review of the literature relating to the defined constructs and hypothesized relationships is absolutely necessary in order to define a valid model. This study concerns the construction of a new team dynamics instrument. It is not an empirical study examining game outcome, therefore the literature review to follow is specific to each hypothesized construct within the Team-Based Attitude model. Theoretical Background A theoretical basis is required to build a conceptual model for a theory driven research approach. "The underlying theory concerning the construct provides the impetus for the development of the scales and their items" (Widmeyer et al., 1985, p. 13). Team-based attitude is a multidimensional construct consisting of several social- psychological subdomains; these are hypothesized to be team norms, team dynamics, and personality theory. Team norms consists of cohesive norms and locomotive norms. In the team-based attitude model, these constructs fit within team dynamics. Team dynamics is represented by two components: cohesion, as indicated by team maintenance, team identity, team unity, and cohesive norms; and locomotion, consisting of task-orientation, team motivation and aspirations, and locomotive norms. Personality theory encompasses team-based traits, team dynamics attitudes, and locus of control. The hypothesized model this thesis will examine includes only team dynamics (cohesion and locomotion) components. Personality theory is presently beyond the bounds of this investigation, however it may be drawn upon at some future point to further test the team-based attitude model. The proposed team-based attitude model is presented schematically in Diagram D, although all of the constructs may not necessarily be components of the derived measurement 15 16 tool. Team Dynamics Team dynamics is concerned with knowledge pertaining to the nature of groups, and refers to the processes and interrelations associated with team involvement. Two processes are predominant within team dynamics - cohesion and locomotion (Lewin, 1935). Cohesion represents group maintenance, while locomotion refers to the actions and processes of the group in striving toward achieving group goals. These two are interrelated and interdependent (Cattell, 1948), in that without group maintenance, working towards group objectives is not possible. Cohesion Festinger, Schachter, & Back defined cohesion as the "total field of forces which act on members to remain in a group" (1950, p. 164). Later, Gross and Martin (1952) identified cohesion as the resistance of the group to disruptive forces. Cartwright & Zander (1968) also perceived cohesion as the degree to which members desire to remain in a group (based on attractiveness of the group and attractiveness of alternative memberships). One antecedent to sport cohesiveness is the individual characteristics of team members. This in turn contributes to team factors (team norms, team stability, desire for group success) which is another antecedent to cohesion. 17 Brawley, Carron, and Widmeyer (1988) reported that the overwhelming majority of potentially disruptive factors were focussed on individual members rather than the group as a whole. It is the individual (leaving the team, deviating from the team's norms) or individuals together forming a clique (subgroups apart from the whole group) which is potentially disruptive to the team's preservation (Brawley et al., 1988; Festinger et al., 1950). As cohesion assists in holding the team together in pursuit of it's goals, and specifically contributes to coordination, researchers assume that cohesion can contribute to performance when completion of a task is dependent on the coordination and collaboration of members. Cohesion seems to be positively correlated to performance for 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 those processes conducive to team maintenance, team identity, team unity, and cohesive norms. Team Maintenance. One subcomponent of cohesion within the team-based attitude model is team maintenance. Gross & Martin (1952) referred to a strong cohesive group as one which has resistance to disruptive forces, where individuals act to maintain a stable environment. Moreover, members who have sacrificed something of value for the group become more attracted to the group, and will behave so to facilitate 18 group preservation (Zander, 1982). Team maintenance refers to group members supporting each other, and the willingness to stick together to maintain a stable environment. Team maintenance reflects beliefs and affective evaluations towards athlete loyalty, dependability, group preservation, and making sacrifices in lieu of the team to help preserve the team's structure. Team Identity. A further cohesion subdomain which may be a contributor to team-based attitude theory development and provide test item content is team identity. Festinger, Schachter, and Back defined cohesion as the "total field of forces which act on members to remain in a group" (1950, p. 164). A member's desire to belong to and remain in a group increases the more members are attracted to the group, the more they value their membership (Zander, 1982), and the greater their pride in membership. Pride in one's group increases the desire for group success (Zander, 1985). Team identity reflect's one's desire to belong and remain in the group because of pride in membership and valuing membership. Team Unity. Team-based athletes work within group solidarity, valuing the 'closeness' of the team. This is reflected in their belief of the importance of team harmony, morale, and team spirit. Team-based athletes believe that unity can improve when the team spends additional time together outside the sport environment. Indeed, group strength increases with homogeneity of members and harmony 19 between members. The more similar the members of a group, the more cohesive is that group (Zander, 1982). Homogeneity and cohesion are facilitated through proximity. A sense of group is fostered by events that produce additional interation: parties, social gatherings, and time spent together during daily activities (studying, travelling, et cetera). Familiarity breeds a cohesive group (Zander, 1982). Locomotion Locomotion is the second main process within team dynamics theory, and is defined by the actions and processes of the team in striving toward achieving team goals. By it's very definition locomotion is supportive of the need for question content examining team task attainment when assessing team-based attitude. It consists of task orientation, team motivation and aspirations, and locomotive norms. Locomotion has been examined within the realm of athletics as task cohesion (Carron, 1982; Grand & Carron, 1982; Hartung, 1983; Yukelson, Weinburg, & Jackson, 1984). Task cohesion reflects a perception of the team being united around it's goals and objectives, as well as a general orientation or motivation towards achieving the organization's goals and objectives (Widmeyer, et al., 1985). Task Orientation. Locomotion was examined by Stogdill (1959, 1963, 1972) as group drive, representing the 20 intensity with which members invest expectation and energy for the group. Bass (1961, 1962) differentiated between self, interaction, and task-orientation based on a theory of interpersonal behavior in organizations. A task-oriented member tends to work within the group to make it as productive as possible (Bass, 1962). Task orientation refers to an athlete's tendency to direct his efforts towards achieving team goals and objectives, and a positive evaluation of the importance of those goals and objectives. It is desirable to have homogeneity of attitudes within the team to focus .a heterogeneity of roles and skills to behavior which facilitates advancements to success for goals it was organized to achieve. "It. is imperative that instruments developed to assess group cohesion in sport reflect factors associated with the goals and objectives the group is striving to achieve, as well as factors associated with the development and maintenance of positive interpersonal relationships" (Yukelson, et al., 1984, p. 106). This task component has more recently been accounted for in team dynamics research with a task cohesion factor (ie: Widmeyer, et al., 1985). Team Motivation and Aspirations. Team motivation measures provide a further probable appropriate means for addressing team-based attitude. Achievement motivation is the inclination for direction towards competition with a standard of excellence to be controlled by it's connections to probable consequences. The desire for group success and 21 finding pride in this success is a group oriented motive (Carron, 1980, 1984). Group motivation and aspirations serve to direct behavior toward team accomplishments. Zander (1985) delineated group-oriented motive and desire for group success as the disposition to be concerned about group achievement. "A greater desire for group success among members increases the strength of that body" (Zander, 1982, p. 9). Further, individual and group motives were noted as separate variables. When the group goal is the main incentive property for the group, the greater desire for group success increases the strength of that body (Zander, 1982). A desire for group success facilitates normative behavior, while members perform better, have more favorable attitudes towards the group, and support one another in the belief that group success is important (Zander, 1982). Team Norms Team norms refers to a limited set of behaviors, beliefs, or rules which promote specific uniformity to help the team maintain itself as a group and to help the team accomplish it's goals. These approved behaviors are also referred to as team standards, and are derived from influences which the team is able to exert over it's members (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950). Norms within sport groups are most often overt and formalized by the coach, or well recognized and exemplified by veterans. 22 A person may behave in a manner similar to the rest of the group because others (coach, teammates) press him-her to act or think as they do, on the grounds that there are advantages for the team from uniformity in behavior (Cartwright & Zander, 1960). "The power of a group over it's members is directly proportional to the cohesiveness of that group. The relationship between cohesiveness and power holds regardless of whether attraction is based on personal attraction between members, on effective performance of the task, or on the prestige obtained from membership" (Back, 1951, cited in Cartwright & Zander, 1960). Members of a cohesive group more readily accept the group's goals, decisions, and assignment to tasks and roles. The unit's rules, policies, norms, or required practices, designated as group standards, represent proper behavior so that the body can be viable and effective. When a group's standards are well accepted by members, each person 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 attitude model, team norms consist of cohesive norms and locomotive norms, and are positioned within the cohesion and locomotion components of team dynamics. Cohesive Norms Cohesive norms include normative behaviors that are followed to ensure the team remains strong as a group. 23 "Some group standards may simply serve as a means for helping the group maintain itself" (Cartwright & Zander, 1960, p. 169). Cohesive norms are forces which serve to assure that the group will continue to exist as an entity. The power of a group is directly proportional to the cohesiveness of that group, regardless of whether cohesiveness is based on personal attraction between members, prestige obtained from membership, or group unity (Cartwright & Zander, 1960). A team must remain united in order to pursue it's achievement goals. The members of a team can build the efficiency, effectiveness, and vitality of their unit by following normative practices that foster group strength. "In a strong group, the members recognize that they form a unit; they want to belong to that unit; and they instinctively provide whatever services the unit needs from them, working hard on it's behalf and conforming to it's demands" (Zander, 1982, p. 1). Athletes conform to team demands in their desire to resist disruptive forces on the group. They recognize that failure to comply to cohesive norms is a disruptive force in itself. Locomotive Norms Locomotive norms is yet another element of locomotion which may assist in developing a conceptual model for team- based attitude. Locomotive norms reflect intra-team cooperation and the willingness to follow team standards that exist to promote advancement towards team goals. 24 Lefebvre (1975) alluded to the importance of cooperation when differentiating between the 'joint gain motive' (cooperator), 'relative gain motive' (competitor), and 'own gain motive' (individualist). Intra-team cooperation is applicable to team-based attitude in that it is associated with the team's purpose and operational methodologies. "It is important to have each individual on the team committed to the values, operating procedures, and organizational philosophy by which the group is goierned" (Yukelson et al., 1984, p 114). For interdependent sports, cooperative motivations between athletes within a team may lead to higher performance (Butt, 1987). The actual sport competition requires "cooperating with one's peers and raising one's performance through group support, team cohesion, and group identity" (Butt, 1987, p. 57). Intra-team cooperation is a part of locomotion in that it reflects interdependent efforts towards goals. Van Egeren (1979) and Baron & Byrne (1984) identified people as competitors, cooperators, or individualists based on how they behave when interacting with others. When people cooperate, they often reach goals none could reach alone. This is regulated through locomotive norms. Uniformity is considered desireable or necessary 1 order for the group to achieve it's goal. "Approved procedures for movement toward an agreed upon goal, then, often are the sources of pressures toward uniformity. 25 Members view these procedures as the proper way to behave since the methods are seen as assuring progress toward the goal" (Cartwright & Zander, 1960, p. 169). The more players value the condition the standard has been established to support, the more they believe that adherence to the standard will help achieve or maintain this condition (Zander, 1982), and the more they see the goals as attainable, the greater the power of a team over the behavior of a member (Cartwright & Zander, 1960). The resultant uniformity promotes optimal productivity. "When a group effectively uses it's available resources to meet task demands, it's actual productivity or performance approaches it's potential" (Gill, 1986, p. 211). Sports requiring considerable interaction and cooperation are most susceptable to coordination losses, placing an emphasis on the need for standards of behavior and the willingness to conform so to optimize productivity. 26 TEAM-BASED ATTITUDE team maintenance^ task orientation team identity team motivation team unity ^ and aspirations cohesive norms locomotive norms Figure D Team-Based Attitude Model CHAPTER III Methods and Procedures Inventory Construction Item Development Test Item Generation. Each main component (cohesion, locomotion, and group norms) has several sub-components which are highly inter-correlated, and measure their respective main component which contributes to assessing team-based attitude. An aggregate list of appropriate test items which are hypothesized to tap team-based attitude was developed from existing inventory content and original question content. Based on existing inventory content, appropriate items were identified and adapted to reflect the Team-Based Attitude theory. Existing inventories resourced included the Team Climate Questionnaire (Carron & Grand, 1982), Gruber and Gray's (1981) thirteen cohesion items, the Family Environment Scale (Moos, 1974), the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985), Survey of Athletic Experiences (Smith & Smoll, 1986), Yukelson's (et al., 1982) cohesion instrument for basketball teams, and the Sports Cohesiveness Questionnaire (Martens, et al., 1972). These inventories were selected because they were designed to measure important constructs within teams or groups, social cohesion, and task cohesion. Original test items were 27 28 constructed based on the theory behind Team-Based Attitude and the literature supporting the hypothesized components within Team-Based Attitude. Additionally, a systematic gathering of question content was achieved by obtaining input through structured interviews with five coaching experts (university or provincial level) and six elite athletes (university or national level). Throughout item construction and adaptation, efforts were made to keep questions brief, with simple wording (Converse & Presser, 1986). The vocabulary chosen was based on easy comprehension by the athletes who would be completing the inventory. This methodology resulted in a large (102 items) initial item pool (see appendix A). Operational Definitions. Based on the theory supporting each construct, succinct operational definitions were developed, along with key words or phrases. Fl - Team Maintenance : - Refers to team members supporting each other, and the willingness to stick together to maintain a stable environment. - Preserving the team's structure. - Loyalty, sacrifice, stability, preservation and support, dependability, sticking together. F2 - Team Identity : - Reflects one's desire to belong and remain in a group because of pride in membership and valuing membership. - Attraction to the group. 29 F3 - Team Unity : - Team harmony, morale, and team spirit. - "Social" cohesion. - Based on the hypothesis that unity increases the more time athletes spend together outside the sports environment. - Facilitated through proximity (familiarity breeds a cohesive group). F4 - Cohesive Norms : - Normative behaviors enforced and followed which ensure the team remains strong as a group. - The willingness and desire to comply to norms which facilitate cohesion. - Conforming to behavior requested tar facilitate team maintenance, team identity, and team unity. r5 - Task Orientation : - An athlete's tendancy to direct his-her efforts towards achieving team goals and objectives. - Positive evaluation of the importance of the team's goals and objectives. 16 - Team Motivation and Aspirations : - Team motivation and aspirations serve to direct behavior toward team accomplishments, through the desire for team success and finding pride in this success. - The team's goal is the main incentive property for participation. Locomotive Norms : - Normative behavior enforced and followed which ensures intra-team cooperation. - The willingness to follow team standards and procedures which promote advancement toward team goals. Matching Items and Constructs. Based on the operational definitions, the initial item pool was examined to match each item with the construct it best represents (see appendix A). This was done by the investigator based on question content, assessing the question 'meaning' and grouping items of similar content to the construct with the theoretical 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 to the question'"what is the meaning of this statement?". The investigator guided athletes (one athlete at a time) through the 102 items, to ensure each item was properly attended to, and to facilitate feedback on each item. Obtaining athletes perceptions of the meaning of each item resulted in the elimination of 29 poorly worded items, and refinement of each of the 73 remaining items to reduce ambiguity. Item Validation By Expert  Opinion. Items for each component were listed (see appendix B) for a panel of five experts from the fields of sport psychology and coaching. Operational definitions for each component were provided. 30 31 Each item was rated by these experts on a five-point Likert scale, indicating the degree they agreed each item fit within the appointed component. Items consistently rated (by the five expert judges) not appropriate for the appointed component were subjected to further analysis whereby judges sorted these items into the components (if any) they thought were appropriate. This helped improved the item to factor model based on a theoretical basis, and exposed items judges concluded did not fit within any of the defined components. These expert judges also provided feedback on items that were incorrectly worded, ambiguous, or did not represent the Team-Based Attitude theoretical basis. This resulted in the deletion of nine items. The examined and reduced items, under their appropriate construct, made up the original 64 item Team-Based Attitude Inventory (see appendix C). Item Ordering and Scaling. Items from each construct were alternated, such that two items from one construct were never positioned in succession. Eleven items were negatively worded to allow for an honesty test and a social desirability check against other positively worded items taping the same construct. • A seven point Likert scale was developed for scorir4 each item . Personalized, behavioral items (e.g., Q52, Appendix C, p. 110) were anchored by "Very Rarely" and "Very Frequently", while non-personalized, value judgement items (e.g., Q54, Appendix C, p. 110) were anchored by "Strongly Disagree" and "Strongly Agree". Data Collection: Phase A Inventory Development The target group was defined as male varsity athletes from basketball, hockey, volleyball, and rugby teams within the Canada West University Athletic Association. The selection of this population was based on the type.of sport (interactive, interdependent team sports) and timing of season. A subject pool of athletes similar in age, sex, performance level, and demographics was desired for initial validation purposes. Future analysis can examine female athletes, different sports, ages, and ability levels for further validation testing. The University of British Columbia Office of Research Service's ethics committee was provided with appropriate information and documentation for an ethical review of the proposed study. The "Behavioural Sciences Screening Committee for Research and Other Studies Involving Human Subjects" reviewed the protocol and issued a Certificate of Approval for commencement of the research. Nineteen coaches from six universities within the Canada West University Athletic Association were then contacted by letter to obtain their consent to include their team in the study. Letters stated the purpose of the study, the time involvement required from the athletes, sample questions from the TBA Inventory, and a consent form, (see appendix D) along with a pre-stamped envelope bearing the name and address of the investigator. A representative within each school's 32 33 Physical Education Department was then contacted to administer the inventory to the seventeen teams whose coach had consented to their participation in the study (see appendix E). TBA Inventories (N=355) were distributed to the representatives, with the request that they be administered, collected, and returned. Each representative was provided with instructions (each representative received the exact same instructions), inventories, and a prestamped box bearing the address of the investigator with which to return the completed inventories (see appendix F). Table 3.1 Inventory Distribution by School and Sport Sport School Hockey Volleyball Basketball Rugby University of B.C. 25 15 15 40 University of Calgary 25 15 University of Alberta 25 15 15 University of Victoria 15 15 40 University of Saskatchewan 25 15 15 Lethbridge University 25 15 Total 125 75 75 80 The cover letter which accompanied each inventory comprised a br'ef description of the study, the purpose of the study, and the proposed benefits derived from the athlete's assistance. It also listed instructions for completion of the inventory, and included an informed 34 consent form (for the athlete to sign), with assurance that all data would be kept strictly confidential. The inventory consisted of two sections. Section one pertained to demographic information and sport background. This was followed by the 64 Team-Based Attitude items (refer to Appendix C for the cover letter, section 1, and section 2 of the Team-Based Attitude Inventory). Data Collection: Phase B Validity & Reliability Studies Validity. Individual athletes (N=53) from the University of British Columbia were asked to complete the Team-Based Attitude Inventory to provide data for a known groups difference test. A convenience sample of individual ahletes were pre-screened by the investigator and 53 subjects were selected based on their minimum of 80 per cent individual sport background. A representative Table 3.2 Inventory Distribution to Individual Athletes by Sport Sport Swimming 16Track & Field 14Golf 6Cross Country 5Gymnastics 4Tennis 3Martial Arts 2Skiing 1Raquetball 1Badminton 1 Total 53 35 independent from their sporting team administered and collected the TBA Inventory. The athletes received identical instructions, cover , letter, consent form and the TBA Inventory. The individual athlete scores were collected to compare with the team athlete scores (University of British Columbia team athletes from Phase A (N=53)). Coaches at each university involved in the testing were sent 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 a scale of 1 to 10. (see appendix G). Coaches ratings would be compared to the athlete responses to provide a source of external validation. Reliability (Stability). University of of British Columbia team athletes (N=52) completed the TBA Inventory a second time three to four weeks following their initial testing. This provided data for a test-retest reliability analysis. Data Analysis Item Deletion and Inventory Revision The TBA model consists of several latent variables, which are abstract concepts that cannot be measured directly. Observed items, or manifest variables, are hypothesized, based on theoretical grounds, to measure abstract concepts, or latent variables. These latent variables in turn are hypothesized to measure TBA. The 36 hypothesized factor structure was tested in Phase A by applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). This test of the measurement model attempts to establish the validity of the factor pattern, indicating how well the manifest variables measure the latent variables. Lisrel VI CFA was run to assess the goodness of fit of the hypothesized factor pattern. A BMDP:2D descriptive analysis, SPSS:X reliability, and two Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) runs were also completed to help assess the TBA model. EFA entailed a principal components solution with varimax rotation. The maximum number of factors was set at ten. A second EFA entailed a maximum likelihood factor analysis with direct quartimin rotation. The maximum number of factors was also set at ten. The criteria for assessing overall fit is explained in this chapter, while table 4.4 lists the initial criteria examined in assessing the hypothesized factor structure. The steps followed for data preparation, item deletion, and inventory revision are outlined below. Data Coding and Rescorinq Negatively 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 missing more than one item), were entered by computing the subject mean score for each scale. This allowed for a correlation matrix based on complete data, thus avoiding deletion of subjects or the problems inherent in a pairwise deletion 37 procedure. A BMDP:2D descriptive analysis was run to examine the distributional characteristics of the data. The mean, standard deviation, and skewness were computed for each item. Reliability (Internal Consistency) SPSS:X Reliability was run to examine the item-scale correlation, internal consistency of each scale (Cronbach's alpha), and item-item correlations. The item-scale correlations provided information suggest which items should be retained or deleted under each component. Cronbach's alpha indicated the degree to which all items in a scale measured the same underlying construct. If the "alpha if item deleted" indicated that alpha would increase if an item was deleted (from that factor), other analysis were examined (le: CFA) to seek confirmation that the deletion did not belong. Factor Structure - Criteria For Assessment of Overall Fit , A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the validity of the allocation of items to constructs, and provide a test of the "goodness of fit" of the proposed seven factor model. The confirmatory factor analysis was conducted through the application of the program Lisrel VI (Joreskog & Sorbrom, 1984), and produced a goodness of fit index for the data-model fit as well as numerous statistics to aid in modifying the inventory or the model (factor loadings, chi-square, goodness of fit index, root mean square residual, modification indices, normalized residuals, 38 and t-values). Within CFA observed variables are allowed to load only on the factors they are hypothesized to measure. There is no limit to the number of measures per latent variable, but each additional manifest variable adds less and less variance therefore less information with respect to the unmeasured variable (Haig, 1989). At least five or six items are usually needed to reliably measure a factor. Five indicators per factor was set as a preferred limit for the TBA Inventory, partially taking into account the time required to complete the inventory. In assessing the overall fit, one may evaluate factor loadings, chi-square, goodness of fit index, root mean square residual, normalized residuals, modification indices (of all non estimated paramters), and t-values (of all estimated parameters). Factor Loadings. BMDP and SPSS replace loadings less than .250 with zero. An item with a loading of .500 explains .25 per cent of the variance. In assessing the TBA Inventory, the minimum loading for inclusion was set at .400, in an effort to set strict standards and increase the validity and reliabilty. Chi-square. Chi-square is represented by X2, degrees of freedom by df. The ratio of chi-square to df (Q) is often 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 to 39 as high as 5.0 In testing the TBA model, only values less than 2.0 would be accepted. A chi-square to df (Q) difference test assesses whether an improved fit to the data has has been achieved as a result of the addition or deletion of items or factors. If the reduction in chi- square is large (and statistically significant) relative to the associated difference in df, the new model may be accepted as a model that fits the data better. If the chi- square is small and nonsignificant the revised model is accepted 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 and covariances jointly accounted for by the model. GFI is not sensitive to sample size (unlike chi-square), and is robust against departures from multivariate normality. A value above .80 is generally accepted as a good fit, .90 is a very good fit. Root Mean Square Residua'. RMSR represents the average residual (the difference between the actual and estimated correlations) variance and covariance. A RMSR below 0.1 is usually considered to indicate an acceptable fit, below .05 is a very good fit. Modification Indices. A high modification index (relative to modification indices for other manifest variables) generally indicates a constrained parameter that should be relaxed. The modification indices indicates the 40 minimum amount chi-square would be reduced if that parameter was allowed to also load on that factor. If one variable has several high modification indices, inclusion in the model should be re-evaluated. Normalized Residuals. NR are raw residuals standardized by their estimated asymptotic variance. Joreskog & Sorbom (1984) suggests that NR that are larger than 2.0 in magnitude indicate a possible specification error. NR that are more than 2.0 indicate the need to examine that problem item closer. T-values. Lisrel provides a "T-value" for each estimated parameter, which is actually a standard normal statistic (z-value), representing the ratio of the parameter and it's standard error. Parameters, factor loadings in this study, should be significant (t > 2.0) for all retained items. Item Deletion Criteria Progressive item deletions based on distributional characteristics, item analysis, and CFA produced revised inventories which were subject to further examination. Exploratory factor analysis suggested which items may load on another factor. A reassignment of any item to another factor was done only if there was both strong empirical and theoretical support. The content of items with poor results was also re-examined to see if inclusion with another factor 41 was theoretically probable. Any decision with respect to deleting items or redefining the TBA model based on the above criteria has to also be profoundly based on theoretical considerations. If an item is deleted, its exclusion from the construct and the model has to be justifiable based on item content, the construct's operational definition, and model theory. If an item is to be moved to a new factor (construct), it has to be interpretable in terms of the new construct and the theoretical model. Validity and Reliabilty (Stability) Phase B of the data analysis examined construct validity and reliability. A known groups difference test was established to measure criterion related validity. University of British Columbia athletes were tested to differentiate between team and individual sport athletes. The BMDP:3D program was utilized to run an independent groups Hotelling's T2 test to test the hypothesis that team athletes would score higher than individual athletes on all seven TBA scales. Concurrent validity was examined by measuring the coach's observations against the athlete inventory results. Correlations were used to examjne the relationship between coach ratings and athlete scoring. A test-retest procedure examined reliability, to give an indication of stabilty. An SPSS:X paired (correlated) t- test was run for each factor, the second order factors of cohesion and locomotion, and a team-based attitude total score to test for any change in mean values. Test-retest correlations for each factor provided a measure of reliability over time. 42 CHAPTER IV Results and Discussion Questionnaire Return: Phase A Inventory Development Eleven of the nineteen coaches initially approached consented to their team's participation in the study and returned completed inventories. Of the 355 TBA Inventories distributed to six universities within the Canada West University Athletic Association, 153 complete and useable inventories were returned, representing a 43.1 per cent response rate. Completed inventories were received from five universities (University of British Columbia, University of Calgary, University of Alberta, University of Saskatchewan, and Lethbridge University), representing four sports, hockey (N=74), basketball (N=32), volleyball (N=38), and rugby (N=9). Tables 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 provide distribution information and response rate by school and by sport. The mean subject age was 21.1 years (s=2.0). With respect to their sport history, the 153 respondents had a mean of 80.5 per cent involvement in team sports. Subjects had a mean 2.2 years (s=1.3) involvement on their current team, and a mean of 11.8 years (s=4.6) participation in that sport. 43 44 Table 4.1 Distribution and Response Rate by Sport Inventories^Complete & Useable Response Sport Group Distributed Inventories Returned Rate Hockey 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 4.2 Distribution and Response Rate by School Inventories Returned Inventories Total Response School Distributed Hockey V-ball B-ball Rugby Returns Rate UBC 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 Skew 6.19 6.39 6.38 4.97 3.75 5.00 5.54 6.08 5.97 Factor Fl - TM 01 Q8 Q15 Q22 Q29 Q36 Q43 050 Q57 1.42 0.69 0.77 1.60 2.00 1.88 1.36 1.19 1.08 -2.52 -0.70 -1.03 -0.59 0.23 -0.60 -1.24 -1.67 -1.34 Q2 09 016 Q23 Q30 Q37 Q44 051 F2 - TI 5.71 6.13 6.28 5.92 6.26 5.26 5.41 6.03 1.15 0.88 0.80 0.90 0.79 1.54 1.41 1.07 -1.12 -1.16 -1.17 -0.48 -1.36 -0.75 -0.98 -1.53 03 010 017 Q24 031 Q38 Q45 Q52 Q58 061 Q63 F3 - TU 5.05 6.11 5.56 6.00 5.18 5.58 6.37 5.24 3.73 5.10 5.27 1.45 0.90 1.48 1.24 1.37 1.28 0.74 1.26 1.70 1.35 1.27 -0.28 -0.85 -1.00 -1.19 -0.73 -1.08 -0.90 -0.71 -0.09 -0.30 -0.90 Q4 011 018 Q25 Q32 Q39 Q46 Q53 Q59 F4 - CN -1.38 -1.06 -1.30 -1.03 -1.51 -0.59 -1.27 -0.01 -0.52 6.09 5.83 5.60 5.80 5.88 4.83 5.68 4.24 5.55 1.10 1.07 1.24 1.03 1.11 1.75 1.19 1.44 1.01 Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics For All 64 Items (N= 153) 45 Item Q5 Q12 Q19 Q26 Q33 Q40 Q47 Q54 )7 ^6.18^0.97 ^ 6.03 0.96 6.24^0.74 5.54 1.19 5.72^1.34 4.98 1.39 5.52^1.21 6.18 0.83 SFactor F5 - TO Skew -1.31 -1.78 -0.61 -0.78 -1.56 -0.28 -1.02 -0.77 4.20^1.87 5.26 1.34 4.65^1.53 5.35 1.28 4.37^1.43 4.34 1.59 4.92^1.55 4.76 1.71 -0.24 -0.85 -0.45 -0.83 -0.02 -0.07 -0.46 -0.53 Q6 013 Q20 Q27 Q34 Q41 048 Q55 F6- TMA 5.74 5.44 4.96 6.45 5.28 5.50 5.73 4.83 5.78 6.00 5.90 1.49^-1.31 1.38 -0.81 1.39^-0.75 0.88 -2.58 1.33^-0.98 1.27 -1.28 1.04^-1.16 1.60 -0.34 0.94^-0.54 0.88 -0.63 1.23^-1.55 07 014 021 Q28 Q35 Q42 Q49 Q56 Q60 Q62 064 F7 - LN Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics For All 64 Items (N= 153) 46 Descriptive Statistics Table 4.3 presents the descriptive statistics of the data collected for Phase A testing (N=153), including means, standard deviations, and skewness. The relatively large skew observed for many of the items was not unexpected. It was anticipated that on some items the mean response would approach the ceiling value on the 7-point scale, thus causing a negative skew. It is these tail-of-the- distribution values which are most likely to discriminate between individual and team-based athletes. Assessment of Overall Fit Item Deletion and Inventory Revision If loading of an item on a factor is NOT supported by Lambda X Maximum Likelihood Lisrel Estimates, CFA non- significant t values and internal consistency (item-scale r), AND no strong evidence exists of that loading elsewhere (CFA - modification indices; EFA - high loadings on another factor(s); item content theory), then that item may be deleted. Initially no more than three items per factor would be deleted or moved before analyzing a new revised inventory through further reliability, CFA, and EFA runs. 47 48 Table 4.4 Summary of Initial Criteria Examined For Item Deletion and Inventory Revision BMDP:2D SPSS:X Reliability Lisrel VI CFA^EFA Item Content skewness standard deviation mean item-total^non-significant correlation t-values alpha if item^modification deleted (internal indices consistency) factor loadings rotated^theory factor loadings Examples of the Item Deletion and Inventory Revision Process The original 64 item inventory was reduced to a 35-item inventory through a series of analyses, interpretations, item deletions, and further analyses. There are many different situations which led to item deletion. Following are brief descriptions of five specific situations. example 1 - Deletion of Item 29 From TM (F1). Item 29 had the lowest item-total correlation within factor 1, and its deletion improved alpha from .427 to .483. The t-value was non-significant (-0.690), and modification indices did not indicate chi-square would be substantially lowered by allowing item 29 to load on other factors. In both PCA and MLFA EFA, item 29 did not load on any of the seven factors. Re-examining the question content, item 29 was not 49 consistent with the factor's content of 'sticking together' and 'loyalty to the team'. The maximum likelihood lambda X loading was only -0.057. After considering the above analysis, item 29 was deleted. Example 2 - Deletion of Item 22 From TM (F1). Deletion of item 22 would improve alpha from .549 to .599. Within CFA, item 22 had a significant t-value, but it was low relative to the other items in that factor. It had the lowest factor loading (.263), while it did not load on any factors in MLFA EFA. Item 22 did load when PCA EFA was run, but there was no consistency in the item content for that factor grouping, therefore there was no theoretical justification to retain it and produce a new factor. After considering 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 if deleted from Factor 4, alpha would improve from .665 to .677. Modification Indices indicated, if item 4 was relaxed and allowed to load on any factor, that item 4 could also load on TI (Factor 2) and TU (Factor 3). Chi-square could be significantly reduced if item 4 was allowed to load on TI or TU. Item 4 also had a non-significant t-value. Both PCA and MLFA EFA produced a factor pattern with item 4 loading with the TU items. Upon examining the question content for item 4, it made greater theoretical sense to include item 4 50 with TU. The content of item 4 emphasizes 'socializing with teammates outside of the sports environment', which fits in with the operational definition for TU. Item 4 was therefore deleted from CN and moved to TU. Example 4 - Deletion of Item 17 From TU (F3).  Item 17 had five normalized residuals over 2.0, demanding a closer examination of this problem variable. X-KSI indicated strong loading on both TU and TI, and partial loading on three other factors. EFA (PCA) loaded item 17 on both TU and TI, while EFA (MLFA) loaded item 17 on TU and four other factors as well. Item 17 had high modification indices on TM, TI, CN, and LN. Based on the above, item 17 was deleted. Example 5 - Item 10 Deleted From TU (F3) and Moved to TM (F1). TU is a fairly strong factor, with no loadings below .400 and an alpha of .769. However, the investigator desires to lower the number of manifest variables measuring TU, and item 10 has the lowest CFA lambda X loading (.422). Within EFA (MLFA), item 10 does not load on any factor, and EFA (PCA) results in item 10 loding with various items, with no theoretical consistency in question content. Item 10 has the lowest item-total correlation (r=.342). If item 10 was deleted from TU, alpha would be slightly lowered (.769 to .764), but including item 10 within TM would raise alpha (for TM) from .599 to .619, and removal of item 10 from TU lowers alpha less than removal of any other item 51 from TU. The modification indices also suggest that item 10 can load on TM. Examination of the question content shows that item 10 is not only about 'socializing' (as is TU), but also about 'becoming stronger as a unit', which fits within TM. Maintaining the group strong as a unit is precisely the theoretical basis for TM. Therefore item 10 was deleted from TU and moved to TM. Summary of Item Deletions and Inventory Revisions Table 4.5 presents all factor loadings and deletions throughout 5 inventory revisions. Each successive revision was subjected to further CFA, reliability analysis, and EFA. These statistical analyses provided the criteria (listed in table 4.4) on which further inventory revisions were based. The original 64 item inventory, revision 1, and revision 2 were all analyzed based on the criteria in table 4.4 and with the methodology detailed in the preceding 5 examples of the deletion and revision process. Revision 3 and revision 4 also examined normalized residuals to aid in further inventory refinement. Revision 5 provides a 35-item TBA inventory, with 5 items per factor. Factor loadings were strong, with only 3 of 35 items loading under .470. The lowest loading (Q1) was .379. The loadings, along with significant t-values, provide good initial support for the hypothesized factor model. Table 4.5 52 SUMMARY OF ITEM DELETIONS AND INVENTORY REVISIONS 0RicIAAL 64 ITEM Tim ITEM ILOADING INVENTORY^Ii^REVISIONII DECISIONS^IIFAcT0R I ITEM 1 - 56 ITEMS LOADINGI DECISIONSFACTOR F]^- TM 01^1^377 Fl 01 .377 08^1^.619 TM 08 .614 015^I^.519 015 .528 022^1^.292 022 .290 Q29^-.062 Q36^I -.093 DELETE 036 -.085^DELETE 043^1^.342 043 .341 050^i^.491 050 492 057^1^.280 057 .277 F2 - TI 02^1^.575 F2 - 02 .608 09 .675 TI 09 .695 016 .671 016 .668 023 .671 023 .663 030 ,690 030 .668 037 .132 DELETE 044 .452 044 .443^DELETE 051 .507 051 .491 F3 - Ty 03 .381 F3 - 03 .454 __Q10 .505 TU 010 .470 017 .708 017 .637 024 .288 DELETE 031 .527 031 .581 038 .436 038 .535 045 .435 045 .390^DELETE 052 .519 052 .524 058 .269 DELETE 061 .401 061 .443 063 .228 063 .240^DELETE 04 .697 F4 - cm F5 - To 04 .229 MOVE TO TU F4 - 011 .718 CN 011 .717 018 .730 018 .734 025 .612 025 .611 032 .569 032 .575 039 .279 039 .281 046 .471 046 .479 053 .089 DELETE 059 .768 059 .770 05 .494 F5 - 05 .500 012 .610 TO 012 .617 019 .700 019 .705 026 .616 026 .623 033 .405 033 .401 040 .283 MOVE TO TM► 047 .643 047 .642 054 .592 054 .586 F6 - TmA 06 .509 F6 - 06 .525 013 .081 DELETE TmA 020 .726 020 .718 027 -.019 DELETE 034 .610 034 .584 041 .604 041 .644 048 .655 048 .646 055 .059 DELETE 040 .663 F7 - LN 07 .245 F7 - 07 .245 .450014 .458 LN 014 021 .310 021^.312 028 .488 028^.493 035 .393 035^.390 042 .427 042^.424 049 .618 049^.621 056 .470 056^.474 060 .238 060^.237^DELETE 062 .487 062^.489 064 .238 064^.234^DELETE Table 4.5 53 SUMMARY OF ITEM DELETIONS AND INVENTORY REVISIONS REVISION 2 - 50 ITENS REVISION 3^-^46 TEMS FACTOR ITEM LOADING DECISIONS FACTOR ITEM ILOADING DECISIONS F1^- TM 01 .373 Fl - 01 .386 08 607 TM 08 626 015 .543 015 .531 022 .301 DELETE 043 .351 043 .352 050 .471 050 .504 057 .272 057 .312 DELETE 010 .425 F2 - TI 02 .615^J F2 - 02 615 09 .696 TI 09 .697 016 ,668 016 .667 023 661 023 .661 030 .651 030 .653 051 481 051 .477 DELETE F3 - Tu 03 .483 F3 - 03 .518 010 .430 MOVE TO TM TU 017 .628 017 .611 DELETE 031 .598 031 626 038 .572 038 591 052 .519 052 .506 061 .442 061 .428 DELETE 04 .708 04 705 F4 - CN F4 - 011 .698 CN 011 .678 018 .724 018 .727 025 .671 025 .648 032 .564 032 .558 039 .284 DELETE 046 .474 046 447 DELETE 059 .756 059 .181 I^F5^- I^TO 05 .499^I F5 - 05 .514 012 .613 TO 012 .651 019 .702 019 .722026 .624 026 .589 033 .403 DRLRTE 047 .647 047 .612 054 .598 054 .598 F6 - TMA 06 .525 F6 - 06 .524^DFLFTF TMA 020 .719 020 .715 034 .583 034 .592 041 .645 041 .657 048 .645 048 .634 040 .664 040 .661 I^F7^- I^LN 07 DELETE.243 F7 - 014 .444 LN 014 .431^DELETE 021 .323 021 .385 028 .503 028 .470 Q35 .389 035 369^DELETE 042 .429 042 .419 049 .630 049 .686 056 .488 056 .447 062 .473 062 .479 54 Table 4.5 SUMMARY OF ITEM DELETIONS AND INVENTORY REVISIONS REVISION 5 - REVISION 4 - 38 ITEMS^35 ITEMS I FACTOR ITEM LOADINGI DECISIONS^FACTOR ITEM LOADING  Fl -^01^.380^ Fl -^01^.379 TM^_08^.621 TM 08^.623 015 .541 015^.545 F2 - TI 043 050 010 02 09 016 023 030 .336 I DELETE .485^1 .433 .647 .723 .650 .643 .606 F2 - TI 050^.475 010^450 02^645 09^.722 016^656 023^.641 030^.606 F3 -^03^.530^ F3 -^03^.529 TU TIJ F4 - CN F5 - TO 031^.636 038^.612 052^.476 04^.741 011^.675 018^.719 025^.645 032^.548 J 059^.790 05^.517 012^.649 019^.723 026^.586  F4 - CN F5 - TO 031^.636 038^.611 052^.478 04^.741 011^.678 018^.713 025^.628 032^.553 059^.802 05^.533 012^.650 019^.717 026^.590 047^.606 DELETE 054^.607 054^.610 F6 - TMA 020^.718 034^.592 041^.666 048^.634 040^,651 F7 - LN F6 - TMA 020^.716 034^.592 041^.656 048^.642 040^.654 F7 - LN 021^.402 ^DELETE 028^.487 028^.490 042^.408 042^.405 Q49^.679^ Q49^.691 056^.457 056^.449 062^.473 062^.493 55 Summary of Statistics Table 4.6 contains the model fit indices resulting from the Lisrel VI CFA performed on the original 64 item inventory, and each successive revision. The Lisrel program did not converge in analyzing the original inventory, and revision 1 and 2. This was due to the large number of variables and poor initial fit. Rather than prematurely deleting items on inadequate information, it was decided a better strategy was to split up the initial analysis into two sections. This produced indices for the cohesion factor structure and indices for the locomotion factor structure, as well as allowing a better examination of each individual item and factor. Revision 5, the 35-item inventory, showed significant improvement in fit over the 46-item, revision 3 inventory (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 a priori. The GFI improved from .70 to .76, representing a reasonable fit. However, .80 was needed to accept a good fit. RMSR improved from .081 to .074, an acceptable fit. The 35-item TBA Inventory was subjected to further analysis to. help produce a better fit of the data to the model. Measurement errors of items with high theta delta values were correlated. Correlating measurement errors of observed variables may make sense from a theoretical point of view. Through the theta delta matrix, high values indicate that two items are highly correlated based on their 56 unexplained variance. One may explain the relationship by the unexplained variance. Thus the item content is examined, and the measurement errors may be correlated if it is theoretically justifiable. This is accomplished by freeing the theta delta relationship, relaxing the off- diagonal element and estimate it as a free parameter in the test of the respecified model. This was done with 6 of the 10 pairs (of items that had high theta delta values) which were theoretically justifiable (see Appendix H). This improved Q from 1.69 to 1.57, increased GFI from .76 to .78, and lowered RMSR from .74 to .72, producing an improved fit of the overall model. A summary of the fit indices for all revised models is given in table 4.6. The-35 item inventory was subjected to a final item analysis, the results of which are given in table 4.7. The internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, is reasonably high for all 7 factors, with no value under .58, and 5 of the 7 factors above .73. From the results presented in tables 4.6 and 4.7, it was concluded that the revised, 35-item TBA Inventory was more reliable and possessed 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 a practical standpoint. 57 TABLE 4.6^Summary Of Model^Fit^Indices GOODNESS OF FIT INVENTORY ITEMS X'' df X /df GFI RMSR ORIGINAL 64 C=1142.69 C=623 C=1.83 C=.72 C=.095 L= 572.59 L=321 L=1.78 L=.79 L=.094 REVISION 1 56 C= 805.59 C=458 C=1.76 C=.76 C=.091 L= 394.46 L=249 L=1.58 L=.83 L=.078 REVISION 2 50 C=1068.17 C=619 C=1.73 C=.73 C=.084 L= 325.12 L=206 L=1.58 L=.85 L=.077 REVISION 3 46 1631.54 968 1.69 .70 .081 REVISION 4 38 1054.38 644 1.64 .74 .077 REVISION 5 35 909.23 539 1.69 .76 .074 REV. 5 +TD 35 835.24 533 1.57 .78 .072 Table 4.7 Internal^Consistency Statistics INTERNAL CONSISTENCY INVENTORY ITEMS TM TI TU CN TO TMA LN ORIGINAL 64 .43 .71 .71 .67 .74 .60 .65 REVISION 1 56 .48 .78 .76 .77 .76 .79 .65 REVISION 2 50 .55 .78 .77 .77 .76 .79 .65 REVISION 3 46 .62 .78 .76 .81 .77 .79 .67 REVISION 4 38 .58 .78 .73 .81 .77 .79 .64 REVISION 5 35 .58 .78 .73 .81 .75 .79 .62 58 Validity of Hypothesized Model Structure First-Order Factor Structure. Following the last statistical runs, the revised, 35 item model provided a reasonably good fit to the 7 factor structure. The CFA data provided empirical support for the 7 first-order factor structure, and EFA did not suggest any better fit. All of the items loaded reasonably well, while modification indices did not suggest a reordering (see appendix L, p. 134). However, some of the factors correlate very highly (e.g., TM and TI correlate .875, which suggests 5 items on one factor are a good measure of the other construct). The correlation between the factors is given in table 4.8, which is the Phi matrix from the CFA Lisrel output. These correlations are the correlations between the latent constructs, with measurement error having been accounted for (correcting for attentuation is not necessary in CFA, as the model already accounts for the theta delta error). TI seems to represent an overall cohesion factor, as it correlates highly with all 3 other cohesion measures. CN and LN are very highly correlated (.948). There is a large degree of communality between these factors. Although the factor structure supported this type of model, further work is required to determine if normative behavior has separate cohesion and locomotion components. Further research, for example, may combine CN and LN into one factor, and refine and restructure the remaining 3 cohesion constructs into 2 factors. Table 4.8 Inter-factor Correlations TM^TI^TU^CN^TO^TMA^LN TM^1.000 0.875 0.278 0.753 0.573 0.192 0.654 TI^0.875 1.000 0.646 0.698 0.503 0.096 0.484 TU^0.278 0.646 1.000 0.283 0.216 0.160 0.155 CN^0.753 0.698 0.283 1.000 0.725 0.138 0.948 TO^0.573 0.503 0.216 0.725 1.000 0.348 0.745 TMA 0.192 0.096 0.160 0.138 0.348 1.000 0.209 LN^0.654 0.484 0.155 0.948 0.745 0.209 1.000 Second-Order Factor Structure. The investigator did attempt to account for the relationship among the factors with a second-order CFA by fitting the first-order data to a 2 factor structure. However, due to high correlations between individual factors (e.g., CN and LN), the hypothesized second-order factor fit was not supported by the empirical data. Although the 2 factor second-order structure had not been empirically verified, the validity and reliability statistics for the cohesion and locomotion components were presented because they are theoretically justifiable. Hopefully further work will pro‘,.de empirical evidence to the existence of the second-order factors. 59 Ouestionnaire Return: Phase B Validity and Reliability Studies Validity Individual athletes from the University of British Columbia were administered the TBA Inventory (N=53) (refer to table 3.3 for a list of subjects by sport). All 53 inventories were completed and useable, representing a 100 per cent response rate. These subjects, with a mean age of 21.4 years (s=1.9), had been involved on their current team a mean of 2.0 years (s=1.4). The mean length of participation in that sport was 9.6 years (s=3.8). The individual athletes had a mean of 82.0 per cent individual sport background. The individual athlete TBA Inventory scores were collected to compare to team athlete scores for a known groups difference test. The team athletes were selected from the Phase A group (N=153). A sub sample of University of British Columbia team athletes (N=53) from the Phase A group were selected based on university attended and similar level of competition. Subjects were from hockey (N=16), volleyball (N=17), basketball (N=11), and rugby (N=9). They had a mean age of 21.2 years (s=2.2). The team athlete subjects 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 that sport. Coaches from 17 teams representing 5 sports (see table 3.2 for distribution by sport and school) were sent a 60 61 cohesion and locomotion scale to rate their veterans. Only 3 of the 17 coaches' scales were both returned and useable, representing a 17.6 per cent response rate. A further 6 coaches had returned completed scales, however their athletes' TBA Inventories were not returned to enable their inclusion in a correlation analysis. The 3 completed rating scales (N=30) were received from University of Alberta hockey, University of Lethbridge hockey, and University of Alberta basketball. Reliability (Stability) Team athletes from the University of British Columbia who had completed the TBA INventory in Phase A testing (N=53) completed the TBA Inventory a second time 3 to 4 weeks following their initial testing. Complete and useable inventories (N=52) represented a 98.1 per cent response rate. 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 duration on that team was 2.4 years (s=1.4). The mean years participation in that sport was 10.5 (s=4.7). Data Analysis: Validity and Reliability Construct Validity Criterion Related Validity. Table 4.9 presents the results of the Hotelling's T-squared independent multivariate analysis conducted to determine if the 7 factor scores would discriminate between individual and team 62 athletes. Additionally, a t-test was conducted on the total score (TBA). For the 7 factors and TBA total, the differences between the two groups were significant < .001). Follow-up univariate test statistics between individual and team athlete means were significant (p< .001) for all 7 factor scores. Factors 4, 5, and 6 appeared to be the most powerful discriminators. The results of this known groups difference test support the concept of construct validity. Table 4.9 Team Athlete Versus Individual Athlete TBA Inventory Score Means Independent Variables TeamAthletes IndividualAthletes Univariate * t p Fl - TM 30.2 23.4 10.34 <^.001 F2 - TI 29.9 26.8 4.23 <^.001 F3 - TU 27.2 19.3 10.15 <^.001 F4 - CN 28.3 17.3 13.48 <^.001 F5 - TO 29.1 19.0 12.77 <^.001 F6 - TMA 23.5 12.4 11.34 <^.001 F7 - LN 27.5 21.2 7.16 <^.001 TBA TOTAL 195.6 139.4 16.16 <^.001 * Hotellings T2 for the vector of 7 factors equalled 378.1(7,98), p< .001. 63 Concurrent Validity. Coaches' observations were compared to athlete TBA Inventory scores using correlations. Correlations were computed between the 7 factors, 2 second order factors, a TBA total score, and the coaches' cohesion and locomotion rating. Table 4.91 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients. For the coaches' cohesion rating, 9 of the correlations were under .40. The highest correlation, between TI (F2) and the coaches' cohesion rating, was only .53. Similarly, correlations were low between the athlete scores and the coaches' locomotion rating. With the exception of TI (r=.52), all correlations between the athlete TBA Inventory measures and the coaches' locomotion rating were below .45. Players coaches rated high on the locomotion component scored reasonably high on LN (F7). The results of the correlation coefficients do not provide support for concurrent validity for the TBA Inventory. This may be a result of the low response rate (only 3 coaches ratings were used), or due to a poor external validation source. If the coaches were inaccurate in their assessment of their players, these errors would be amplified with only 3 coach respondents (and only 30 athletes rated in total). Table 4.91 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Coaches' Rating AthleteScores^Cohesion Locomotion TM .123 .187 TI .528 .516 TU -.035 -.060 CN .313 .419 TO .324 .387 TMA -.043 .100 LN .332 .448 COB .279 .314 LOC .179 .321 TBA .266 .366 Test-Retest Reliability (Stability) A paired-samples test compared the initial Phase A test scores to the Phase B retest scores. Table 4.92 presents the results of the correlated t-test for the 7 factor scores, the 2 second order factors, and a TBA total score. The difference between the means for all 10 measures was non-significant. All test-retest correlations were very high, with no correlation below .70 and 8 correlations above .80, indicating stability over time. 64 Table 4.92 Test - Retest Statistics: Correlated T-Tests Factor^Time r t value 2 TailProb Test 1 30.56Fl - TM 0.79 1.05 0.298Retest 30.25 Test 1 30.04F2 - TI 0.72 -0.29 0.775Retest 30.13 Test 1 27.12F3 - TU 0.92 -1.02 0.314Retest 27.38 Test 1 28.44F4 - CN 0.90 0.00 1.000Retest 28.44 Test 1 29.17F5 - TO 0.88 1.60 0.115Retest 28.75 Test 1 23.71F6 - TMA 0.88 1.39 0.171Retest 23.19 Test 1 27.40F7 - LN 0.80 -0.63 0.531Retest 27.62 Test 1 116.15 COH 0.89 -0.08 0.938Retest 116.21 Test 1 80.29 LOC 0.89 1.14 0.261Retest 79.56 Test 1 196.44 TBA TOTAL 0.92 0.64 0.528Retest 195.77 65 CHAPTER IV Summary and Conclusions The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable team-orientation instrument which measures tendencies towards multidimensional team-based attitudes within interactive, interdependent elite sport groups. The inventory was constructed to differentiate between team oriented and individualistic athletes. A hypothesized Team- Based Attitude model was developed based strongly on theoretical evidence. Subjects from team sports (N=153) within the Canada West University Athletic Association completed the TBA Inventory to test the factor structure of the hypothesized model. Confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and reliabilty (internal consistency) statistics were used to test the goodness of fit of items to constructs. A revised, 35-item, 7-factor structure was supported by high factor loadings, significant t-values, low normalized residuals, and acceptable Q and RMSR values. Internal consistency held up reasonably well with high alpha values. Future analysis could work to further improve the overall fit of the model. Specifically, CFI needs to be above .80, relatively high inter-factor correlations exist, and several item-total correlations are below .50. Those concerns suggest a more parsimonious solution may be possible through further analysis. 66 67 A subsample of the initial respondents completed the TBA Inventory a second time. Test-retest results from paired correlated t-tests supported the stability of the inventory means, and high test-retest correlations indicate reliability over time. A known-group difference test provided evidence for construct validity, clearly differentiating between individual athletes and team athletes. Independent groups Hotellings T2 were significant for all factors and a TBA total score. Construct validity was also tested by comparing coaches' ratings to athletes' inventory scores. Construct validity was not supported by correlation coefficients, possibly due to too few coach respondents. This test was dependent on the coaches accurately providing the source of external criteria for validation. Inaccurate coach evaluations would be amplified with such a small subject base. The results suggest that some coaches may be unable to accurately assess their athletes' level of TBA, providing further support for the need for such an inventory. The TBA Inventory, once further validated, could help coaches assess athletes' attitudes. Descrepancies in inventory results could provide the coach with 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 psychologist speak to the players on the importance of cohesion, cooperation, and teamwork. The 35-item, 7-factor inventory is considered to have 68 psychometric properties supportive of internal consistency and structural reliabilty. But it is only after a long and rigorous validation period that the TBA Inventory may be used for research examining team dynamics. Past cohesion studies and instruments have focussed on athletes' perception of their present team's level of cohesion in that particular season. The TBA Inventory possesses the ability to differentiate between individuals within a team, and can be used to investigate how individuals influence group structure and dynamics. The inventory will allow researchers to measure individual characteristics that may be antecedents to or may mediate the level of cohesion and locomotion within a team. The TBA Inventory also presents the exciting possibility to analyze the cohesion-performance relationship from a new perspective. Further testing of the TBA factor structure is needed. Validity and reliabiltiy should be assessed using larger subject populations, testing female subjects, different sports, different ages, and different levels of competition level. Given the possible research applications of the TBA Inventory, it is highly recommended that sport scientists test the inventory with numerous pilot tests, to refine the inventory, provide strong goodness of fit measures to further support the TBA model, and develop generalizability to various groups and populations. 69 References Alderman,^R.^(1974).^Psychological Behavior In Sport. Toronto, Ontario: W. B. Saunders Company Allport, G.^(1935).^Attitudes.^In C.^Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology.^Worcestor,^MA:^Clark University Press, 798-844. American Psychological Association. (1979). Ethical Standards of Psychologists. Washington: American Psychological Association 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 cohesion and participation motivation upon performance success in intercollegiate ice hockey. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport 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 of self-oriented interaction-oriented and task-oriented members. Tech. 25Contract N79NR 35609, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Bass,^B.^(1962).^The Orientation Inventory.^Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. 70 Bentler,^P.^(1985).^Theory & Implementation of EOS: A Structural Equation Program.^Los Angelos: BMPD Statistical Software Inc. Botterill,^C.^(1978).^Psychology^of^coaching.^In Proceedings: 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.^New York: 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 and Teaching. London, Ontario: Sport Dynamics. Carron, A. (1980). Social Psychology of Sport.^Ithaca, New York: Mouvement Publications. Carron, A., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of group cohesion 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: Research and Theory. New York: Harper and Row. Cattell, R. (1948). Concepts and methods in the measurement of group syntality. Psychological Review, 1948, 55, 48-63. 71 Chaplin, W., John, 0., 4, Goldberg, L. (1988). Concepts of states and traits: dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5A(4), 541-557. Cofer, C., & Johnson, W.^(1960).^Personality dynamics in relation 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-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 11(3), 513-537. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.^Attitudes toward objects^as predictors 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 and Research. 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. 72 Haig, G.^(1989). Predictors and Consequences of Involvement in Physical Activity: A Causal Model of the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey. University of British Columbia: Unpublished Masters Thesis. Hammer, W. (1967). A comparison of differences in manifest anxiety in university athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 2, 31-34. Jones, J., & Williamson, S. (1979). Athletic profile inventroy (API): Assessment of athlete's attitudes and values. 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 Maximum Likelihood. Kane, J. (1967). Personality profiles of physical education students compared with others. In Proceedings: First International Congress of Sport Psychology,  Rome. Kumar, A., Pathak, N., & Thakur, G. (1985). Death anxiety and locus 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. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 73 Lefebve, L.^(1975).^Social motives in team sports: an experimental approach. In D. Landers (Ed.), Psychology of Sport and Motor Behavior II, Proceedings: North American Society 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: a multicriteria approach. Journal of Personality and Social 22ychology, 21, 791-795. NASPSPA.^(1981).^Standards for Psychological Testing Within Sport. Peterson, S., Ukler, J., & Trousdale, W. (1967).^Personality traits 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: William C. Brown Publishers. Rotter, J.^(1966).^Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1, 1-28. Sage, G.^(1972).^An assessment of personality profiles between and within intercollegiate athletes from eight different sports. Sportswissenchaft, 2, 409-418. Sampson, E. Psychology and the American ideal. (1977) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 767-782. 74 Schurr, K., Ashley, M., & Joy, K.^(1977).^A multivariate analysis of male athlete characteristics: sport type and success. Multivariate Clinical Research, 2, 53-68. Silva, J., & Weinberg, R.^(Eds.).^(1984).^Psychological Foundations of Sport.^Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. Smith, F. & Smoll, F. (1986). Survey of Athletic Experience. Unpublished manuscript. Stogdill, R.^(1972).^Group^productivity,^drive,^and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performanc, a, 26-43. Stodgill,^R.^(1959).^Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. New York: Oxford. Stogdill, R. (1963).^Team Achievement Under High Motivation. Columbia:^Bureau of Business Research,^Ohio State University. Twist, P. (1987). Multi-Attribute Theory.^Unpublished Math Models 551 project, University of British Columbia,. Van Ergeren, L. (1979). Social interactions, communications, and the coronary-prone behavior pattern: A psychophysiological study. Psychosomatic Medicine, A, 2-18. Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1971). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoay, la, 1-20. 75 Widmeyer,^N.,^Brawley, L., & Carron, A.^(1985).^The Measurement of Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire.^London,^Ontario:^Sports Dynamics. Widmeyer, N., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion predicts performance outcome in sport. Research Quarterly, 12, 372- 380. Yukelson,^D.,^Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A.^(1984).^A Multidimensional^group^cohesion^instrument^for intercollegiate^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 A Initial Item Pool Matched With Constructs 76 INITIAL 102 ITEM FOOL MATCHED WITH CONSTRUCTS TEAM MAINTENANCE 1. It is important for team members to be loyal to the team. 2. Teammates can really help and support one another. 3. If a team is unsuccessful, the athletes must stick together if they hope to start winning. 4. Athletes should attend the practice setting even when injured. 5. When things get too tough with the team Cie: a hard driving coach; consistently losing; etc.), I would quit and pursue something more enjoyable. 6. Teams should be structured to allow a player to miss practice if he needs to study or attend another event that is scheduled. 7. Athletes must organize other interests in their life (school, work, social, etc.) so that they never interfere with their committment and responsibilities with the team. S. Even if my team was losing all of its games, I would rather stick with it and try to work out of the slump than move to another team or activity. 9. I think that initiations which degrade the rookies have a negative effect on the team. 10. The status of veterans and rookies should be separated in the dressing room and on the road until the rookies go through their initiation event. 11. Veterans should make rookies feel^comfortable as possible 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 team through a successful training camp. 77 13. Everyone on the team should take responsibility for any poor performance or loss by the team. 14. On weak teams, coaches are unlikely to get rid of individualistic players who have a really negative attitude because the team is in need of their superior sport abilities. But I believe that if the coach cuts this player, the team as a whole will improve their attitude and sport performance in his absence. 15. Being accepted by my teammates is very important to 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 group whenever team members do anything. 4. It is important to me that the coach and fans acknowledge my contribution ti: the team. 5. I usually have a strong sense of belonging to my sport teams. 6.- It is important for athletes to value their membership on teams. 7. I think that teams should dress up Cie: wear a tie) on game days. B. I like to have team jackets and team clothing so I can publically be identified with the team. 9. I think that team jackets are important because they identify us as a group. 10. I am usually proud of my team association. 11. Team involvement is more satisfying when I have a strong sense of belonging on the team. TEAM UNITY 1. I think a team can become stronger as a unit if it spends time together outside the sports environment. 78 2. It is important for members of the team to stick together outside of practices and competitions. 3. For me a team is one of the most important social groups I belong to. 4. Following games and practices, I usually get changed and shower quickly, leaving the dressing room as soon as possible. 5. I do not enjoy being a part of social activities on teams. 6. A team with individuals who get along well will outperform a team with individuals who argue alot. 7. I like to take my time getting dressed before games and practices and getting changed afterward, to hang around the dressing room for a bit. 8. I try to include team members in my plans for social activities. 9. Team spirit is important to winning. 10. Team harmony and closeness can lead to outperforming another team with more individual stars. 11. I would like to spend time together with teammates in the off season. 12. I usually miss the members of my team when the season ends. 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 my teammates. 16. Spending extra time together outside of the sport environment 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 live together during the competitive season. 18. Whether a team wins or loses, the team's athletes should go out together after the game. 19. Team functions are important at the very start of the season, to make the athletes feel comfortable with each other. 79 20. After a loss, the team can pull together and lift their morale by going out together. 21. No amount of drills and practices will create a "team" - athletes need other activities, and need to 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 it get along as a unit. 2. Team rules are important to help maintain the team as a group. 3. If it is common behavior for the team to socialize together after competitions, I would willingly join in. 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 teammates and 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, but he should readily accept them. 7. Attendance at team breakfasts on the road, dress codes, and punctuality rules (etc.) are important to comply to because they help ensure the team remains strong as a group. 8. Teams should set rules for acceptable behaviors to help the team resist disruptive forces. 9. An athlete's failure to comply to team rules has a negative effect on team cohesion. 10. Athletes must conform to team demands and rules to remain united and strong as a group. 11. Willingly adhering to team rules helps to ensure the team remains strong as a group. 12. An athlete should resist social pressures to conform in a team to maintain his individuality. 13. I usually follow the team's rules for accepted 80 81 behavior because I realize there are advantages for the team from uniformity in behavior. 14. Coaches and veterans should set team rules which help maintain a cohesive group. TASK ORIENTATION 1. For the team to be successful , teammates must aspire the same team performance goals. 2. It is important for the athlete to work towards team accomplishments. 3. It is important to set team goals for each player to work towards if the team is to be successful. 4. A player should direct all of his efforts towards the team's goals. 5. It is important for athletes to have individual goals, but they should not interfere with the team's goals. 6. Sometimes it bothers me when working for team goals gets in the way of my individual accomplishments. 7. The team's goals is usually my main incentive for participation. 8. Athlete's goal setting must include team goals. 9. The each should set team goals for us to work towards. TEAM MOTIVATION AND ASPIRATIONS 1. When training during the cuff season, I think of a team championship. 2. I have less of a desire for success for myself than I do 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, and 82 very "down" after losses or team failures. 6. Even if my teammates didn't play well and my team lost, I would be satisfied if I performed really well. 7. I am more strongly motivated to reach a new personal best rather than simply achieving group success. 8. A team win is satisfying, but I would be much happier to be recognized individually for my efforts. 9. I like to participate for the opportunity to showcase my individual talents. 10. Winning in sport is the most important thing even when I play badly. LOCOMOTIVE NORMS 1. I wouldn't mind being moved to a position where I score less points and receive less recognition if it would help the team. 2. I don't like playing according ti: a team's system or style if it hinders my individual abilities and performance. 3. I try to change the way I play to satisfy the coach. 4. With a few top superstars, a team can win even without teamwork. 5. Teammwc'rk is very important to winning. 6. Everyone on the team has a role to play to help the team win. 7. If an athlete disagrees with the coach in practice, he should not question the coach until after the practice 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 advice from coaches. 10. Athletes must be willing to follow team standards which promote advancement toward team goals. 11. I accept team rules and follow them because they are set to facilitate team success. 12. The coach should set rules for normative behaviors which ensure intra-team cooperation during competitions. 13. When one of my teammates makes a mistake in the game, I offer support and encouragement. 14. If a coach criticizes or yells at me, I correct the mistake without getting upset about it. 15. When I'm hurt, I play through the pain and don't let it affect me or the team. 16. Athletes should follow the coaches instructions and practices without arquement. 17. When my team loses, I try to think of what else I could have done to help make us successful. 18. I am willing to compete while injured if I can still help the team. 19. Athletes should communicate in competitions to cooperate as a team, and also to offer support and encouragement. 20. I would be commited to the team and striving towards it's goals even if the coach relegates me to a role I am not satisfied with. 21. I take a strong stand in arquements with my coaches. 83 Appendix B Item Validation By Expert Opinion 84 TEAM-BASED ATTITUDE INVENTORY: ITEM VALIDATION BY EXPERT OPINION Five experts from the fields of sport psychology and coaching 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 for the appointed component will be subjected to furtheranalysis, whereby judges sort these items into the components (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 from the panel, items not initially retained for pilot testing will be returned to you at a later date for a type of Q-sort technique. 85 COMPONENT; TEAM MAINTENANCE DEFINITION: -Refers to team members supporting each other, and the willingness to stick together to maintain a stable environment. -Preserving the team's structure. -loyalty, sacrifice, stability, preservation and support, dependability, sticking together. ITEMS: 1. It is important for team members to be loyal to the team. YES NO [^1 2. Teammates can really_help and support one another. ... YES NO [^] 3. If a team is unsuccessful, the athletes must stick together if they hope to start winning. YES NO [^]^[^1 4. Athletes should attend the practice setting even when injured. YES NO f^I 5. Teams should be structured to allow a player to miss practice if he needs to study or attend another event that is scheduled. YES NO [^]^[^] 6. Athletes must organize other interests in their life (school, work, social, etc.) so that they never interfere with their committment and responsibilities with the team. YES NO fl^fl 86 87 7. I think that initiations which degrade the rookies have a negative effect on the team. ^YES^NO I^1^I^I 8. The status of veterans and rookies should be separatedin the dressing room and on the road until the rookiesgo through their initiation event. YES NO I^I^t^I 9. Everyone on the team should take responsibiltiy for anypoor performance or loss by the team. YES NO I^I^t 10. 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^1 11. 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 NO t^I^I COMPONENT: TEAM IDENTITY DEFINITION: -Reflects one's desire to belong and remain in a group because of pride in membership and valuing membership. -Attraction to the group. ITEMS: 1. I really value my membership on teams. YES NO f^1^f 2. I take pride in my involvement on a team. YES NO f^J^f 3. I value being considered a part of the group whenever team members do anything. YES^NO I^I I 4. It is important to me that the coach and fans acknowledge my contributions to the team. YES NO f^J^C^I 5. I usually have a strong sense of belonging to my sport teams. YES NO f^J^I 6. I am usually proud of my membership on teams. YES NO f^J^f 7. I think that teams should dress up (ie: wear a tie) on game days. YES^NO f^J^[^I 88 89 8. I like to have team Jackets and team clothing so I can be publically identified with the team. YES^NO f^J^f^] 9. Team involvement is more satisfying when I have a strong sense of belonging on the team. YES^NO 1^1^f^J COMPONENT: TEAM UNITY DEFINITION: -Team harmony, morale, and team spirit. -"social" cohesion. -Based on the hypothesis that unity increases the more time athletes spend together outside the sports environment. -Facilitated through proximity (familiaritybreeds a cohesive group). ITEMS: 1. I think a team can become stronger as a unit if it spends time together_autside the sports environment. YES NO [^[^] 2. For me a team is the most important social group I belong to. YES NO [^1 3. Following practices and games, I usually get changed and shower quickly, leaving the dressing room as soonas possible. YES NO ]^I^1 4. A team with individuals who get along well will out perform a team with individuals who argue alot. YES NO [^1^[^1 5. I Like to take my time dressing before practices andgames and getting changed afterward, to hang around thedressing room for a bit. YES NO fl^CI ;. I try to include team members in my plans for social activities. YES NO I^l^[ 7. Team spirit is important to winning. YES^NO fl^El 90 8. Team harmony and closeness can lead to out performing another team with more individual stars. YES NO f^I^I 9. I usually enjoy other parties more than team parties. YES NO f^1^f^I 10. I usually miss the members of my team when the season ends. YES NO [^l^f^1 11. I think it is a good idea to have "team houses", where groups of athletes from a team would live together during the competitive season. YES NO I^f^1 12. Whether a team wins or loses, the team's athletes should go out together after the game. YES NO I^I 13. No amount of drills and practices will create a "team" - athletes need other activities, and need to hang out together before they can become a "team". YES NO f 91 92 COMPONENT: COHESIVE NORMS DEFINITION: -Normative behaviors enforced and followed which ensure the team remains strong as a group. -The willingness and desire to comply to norms which facilitate cohesion. -Conforming to behavior requested of you to facilitate team maintenance, team identity, and team unity. ITEMS: 1. I try to conform to the rules of the team to help it get along as a unit. YES NO [^)^t^I 2. Team rules are important to help maintain the team as a group. YES NO (^)^[^I 3. If it is common behavior for the team to socialize together after competitions, I would willingly join in. YES NO ^ 1^[^) 4. A player does not have to agree with team rules, but he should readily accept them. YES NC I^f^1 5. Attendance at team breakfasts on the road, dress codes, and punctuality rules (etc.) are important to comply to because they help ensure the team remains strong as a group. YES^NO ]^( 6. If an athlete disagrees with the coach in practice, 11%_ should not question the coach until after the practice has ended. YES^NO I 93 7. Teams should set rules for acceptable behaviors to help the team resist disruptive forces. YES NO f^f^] 8. An athlete's failure to comply to team rules has a negative effect on team cohesion. YES NO f^1 9. An athlete should resist social pressures to conform in a team to maintain his individuality. YES NO f^f^1 10. Coaches and veterans should set team rules which help maintain a cohesive group. YES NO f^f^I 11. Athletes must conform to team demands and rules to remain united and strong as a group. YES NO f^f COMPONENT: TASK ORIENTATION DEFINITION: -An athlete's tendancy to direct his/her efforts towards achieving team goals and objectives. -Positive evaluation of the importance of the team's goals and objectives. ITEMS: 1. For the team to be successful, teammates must aspire the same team performance goals. YES NO ^I ^t 2. It is important for the athlete to work towards team accomplishments. YES NO f^1 3. It is important to set team goals for each player to work towards if the team is to be successful. ^ YES^NO f^1^f 4. A player should direct all of his efforts towards the team's goals. YES NO I^f^1 5. It is important for athletes to have individual goals, but they should not interfere with the team's goals. YES^NO C^I^C^1 6. Sometimes it bothers me when working for team goals gets in the way of my individual accomplishments. YES NO C^I^I^1 7. The team's gr31 is usually my main incentive for participatirA. YES NO f^1^f 8. An athlete's goal setting must include team goals. YES^NO C^f^1 94 95 COMPONENT: TEAM MOTIVATION AND ASPIRATIONS DEFINITION: - Team motivation and aspirations serve to direct behavior toward team accomplishments, through the desire for team success and finding pride in this success. -The team's goal is the main incentive property for participation. ITEMS: 1. When training during the off-season, I think of a team championship. YES NO 1'1^I 2. It is important to me that the team is successful, but it is more important that I do well. YES NO [^[ 3. I participate to have fun and for personal success - but team 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 NO I^I^l 5. 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^1 6. I am more strongly motivated to reach a new personal best rather than simply achieving group success. YES NO [^I^[^] 7. A team win is satisfying, but I would be much happier to be recognized individually for my efforts. YES^NO [] 96 8. I like to participate for the opportunity to showcase myindividual talents. YES^NO t^1^[^1 9. Winning in sport is the most important thing even when I play badly. YES NO [^]^[^] COMPONENT: LOCOMOTIVE NORMS DEFINITION: -Normative behavior enforced and followed which ensures antra-team cooperation. -The willingness to follow team standards and procedukes which promote advancement toward team goals. ITEMS: 1. I wouldn't mind being moved to a position where I scoreless points and receive less recognition if it would help the team. YES NO I^]^[^] 2. I try to change the way I play to satisfy the coach. YES NO ^ 1^I^1 3. With a few top superstars, a team can win even withoutteamwork. YES NO I^I^] 4. Everyone on the team has a role to play to help theteam win. YES NO 1^I 5. I don't have to be pushed to practice or play hard; Igive 100 %. YES NO f^1^I^] 6. I accept team rules and follow them because they are setto facilitate team success. YES NO I^I^I^1 7. I improve my skills by listening carefully to advice from coaches. ^YES^NO [^]^[ 97 8. Athletes should follow the coach's instructions and practices without argument. YES NO[^]^I^1 9. When one of my teammates make a mistake in the game, I offer support and encouragement. YES NO 10. If a coach criticizes or yells at me, I correct the mistake without gettin_g_uset_about it. YES NO []^[] 11. When my team loses, I try to think of what else I could have done to help make us successful. YES NO [^]^t 12. I am willing to compete when injured if I feel I can still help the team. YES NO f^[^] 98 Appendix C Original 64 Item MA Inventory 99 The University Of British ColumbiaSchool of Physical Education6081 University Blvd. Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 TEAM-BASED ATTITUDE: THEORY DEVELOPMENT, INVENTORYCONSTRUCTION, AND PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS Dear 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 you approaching 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. 100 101 Please 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 the next page, but NOT your name. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Pete Twist^/P 7t(604) 736-3930 SUBJECT 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)^ Date DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Age:^ 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. 102 103 1. If a team is unsuccessful, the athletes must stick together if they hope to start winning. StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 StronglyAgree6^7 2. I value being considered a part of the group whenever team membersdo anything. VeryRarely1 2 Sometimes3^4 5 VeryFrequently6^7 3. Following practices and games, I get changed and shower quickly,leaving the dressing room as soon as possible. Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^7 4. If it is common behavior for the team to socialize together aftercompetitions, I would willingly join in. Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^7 5. 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 5^6^7 6. I participate to have fun and for personal success - but team successis a nice bonus. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 7. With a few top superstars, a team can win even without team work. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 8. It is important for team members to be loyal to the team. 104 StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 StronglyAgree 6^7 9. I really value my membership on a team. VeryRarely1 2 Sometimes3^4 5 VeryFrequently7 10. 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 5^6^7 11. I try to conform to the rules of the team to help it get along asa unit. Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^ 4^5^6^7 12. For the team to be successful, teammates must aspire to the same teamperformance goals. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree 1^2^3^4 5^6^7 13. Thinking of a team championship helps to motivate me when I'm trainingduring the off-season. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 14. 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 5^6^7 15. Teammates can really help and support one another. 105 stronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 strongly Agree6^7 16. I take pride in my involvement on a team. VeryRarely1 2 Sometimes 3^4 5 VeryFrequently 6^7 17. For me a team is the most important social group I belong to. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 18. Team rules are important to help maintain the team as a group. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 19. It is important for the athlete to work towards team accomplishments. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 20. 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 5^6^7 21. I try to change the way I play to satisfy the coach. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 106 22. 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 2 Strongly Neutral^ Agree3^4 5^6^7 23. I have a strong sense of belonging to my sport teams. Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1 2^3^4^5^6^7 24. A team with individuals who get along well will outperform a team withindividuals who argue alot. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 25. 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 5^6^7 26. A player should direct all of his efforts towards the team's goals. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 27. I get very "high" after wins or team success, and very "down" afterlosses or team failures. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 28. Everyone on the team has a role to play to help the team win. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 107 29. I think that initiations which degrade the rookies have a negativeeffect on the team. StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 StronglyAgree6^7 30. I am proud of my membership on teams. Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1 2^3^4^5^6^7 31. 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^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^7 32. 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 5^6^7 33. 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 5^6^7 34. 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 5^6^7 35. I don't have to be pushed to practice or play hard; I give 100 %. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 108 36. The status of veterans and rookies should be separated in the dressingroom and on the road until the rookies go through their initiation event. StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 StronglyAgree6^7 37. I think that teams should dress up (le: wear a tie) on game days. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 38. I try to include team members in my plans for social activities. Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^7 39. 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 5^6^7 40. Sometimes it bothers me when working for the team's goals gets in theway of my individual accomplishments. Strongly^ Strongly Disagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 41. I am more strongly motivated to reach a new personal best rather thansimply achieving group success. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 42. I improve my skills by listening carefully to advice from coaches. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 43. Everyone on the team should take responsibility for any poorperformance or loss by the team. 109 StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 Strongly 6 Agre7e 44. I like to have team jackets and team clothing so I can be publicallyidentified with the team. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 45. Team spirit is important to winning. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 46. An athlete's failure to comply to team rules has a negative effect onteam cohesion. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 47. 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 5^6^7 48. A team win is satisfying, but I would be much happier to be recognizedindividually for my efforts. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 49. I accept team rules and follow them because they are set to facilitateteam success. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 110 50. When things get too tough with the team (le: a hard driving coach;consistently losing; etc.), I would quit and pursue something more enjoyable. StronglyDisagree1 2 Strongly Neutral^ Agree3^4 5^6^. 7 51. Team involvement is more satisfying when I have a strong sense ofbelonging on the team. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 52. I miss the members of my team when the season ends. Very^ VeryRarely Sometimes^ Frequently1^2^3^4^5^6^7 53. In order to maintain his individuality, an athlete should resist socialpressures to conform in a team. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 54. An athlete's goal setting must include team goals. Strongly^ Strongly Disagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 55. winning in sport is the most important thing even when I play badly. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 56. Athlete's should follow the coach's instructions and practices withoutargument. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 111 57. Even if my team was losing all of it's games, I would rather stick with it and try to work out of the slump than move to another team or activity. StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 StronglyAgree6^7 58. 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 5^6^7 59. Athletes must conform to team demands and rules to remain unitedand strong as a group. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 60. When one of my teammates makes a mistake in the game, I offer supportand encouragement. Strongly^ StronglyDiasagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 61. Whether a team wins or loses, the team's athletes should go outtogether after the game. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 62. 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 5^6^7 112 63. No amount of drills and practices will create a "team" - athletes needother activities, and need to hang out together before they can become a "team". StronglyDisagree1 2 Neutral3^4 5 StronglyAgree6^7 64. I am willing to compete when injured if I feel I can still help theteam. Strongly^ StronglyDisagree Neutral^ Agree1^2^3^4 5^6^7 Appendix D Consent Letter To Coaches 113 Mr. Bruce Enns Basketball Coach University of British Columbia 6081 University Blvd. Vancouver, B.C. Dear Mr. Enns: A sport-specific study is underway at the University of British Columbia, concerning the development of a valid and reliable team-orientation instrument which measures tendancies towards multidimensional team-based attitudes within interactive, interdependent elite sport groups. This study is undertaken as part of my Masters in Physical Education. I am working with Dr. Robert Schutz, Dr. Sharon Bleuler, and Dr. Richard Mosher (from the Department of Physical Education) and Dr. Susan Butt (from the Psychology Department). I am also a player with the UBC hockey team, which affords me a unique perception - at not only the academic background and theoretical implications, but also the practical application and importance. In a 1987 study, within a list of psychological attributes, coaches from the NHL, CIAU, and Canadian junior leagues consistently rated team-based attitudes a more important discriminator than individual attitudes for the athlete who desires to play within their league. Pilot testing is^being completed^with male^varsity basketball, hockey, rugby, and volleyball teams from the CWUAA. This is the first step in proving some initial validation so that in the future the Team-Based Attitude Inventory could be used to provide feedback to coaches to optimize the probability of team success, and used by researchers to further the knowledge and understanding of individuals within a team and how these individuals affect group structure and processes. 114 115 I am writing to ask for your cooperation in having the questionnaire administered to your team. It is a simple test (please see the sample questions included) which takes only 20 minutes to complete. If you are agreeable to this, a representative from the School of Physical Education and Recreation or the Department of Psychology at your university will be in contact. This person will handle all responsibilities of test administration and collection for you - we seek only your permission to have your athletes complete the questionnaire. Your athletes are not identifiable from the test - complete confidentiality is ensured to all participants. Can you please complete the reply form and mail it in the envelope provided. Thank you for your time, and thank you in advance for your assistance. The theoretical orientation within group dynamics is directed towards what the basic variables are that determine what happens in groups. Team-based attitude can^be viewed as an^individual difference variable^which affects the level of group cohesion within a team. The development of instruments like the Team-Based Attitude Inventory can provide valuable information about athletes and insight into the group dynamics within a team - not only immediate feedback for coaches, but also helping to build general information to help coaches through coaching certification programs, etc. Thanks again. Sincerely, Pete Twist Graduate Studies University of BC 116 The theoretical basis utilized to build a conceptual model includes team norms and team dynamics. Specifically, the components hypothesized to tap team-based attitude include cohesion (team maintenance, team identity, team unity, and cohesive norms) and locomotion (task-orientation, team motivation and aspirations, and locomotive norms). 1. For me, a team is one of the most important social groups I belong to 2. When my team loses, I try to think of what I could have done 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 he should readily accept them. 5. Winning in sport is the most important thing even when I play badly. 6. I don't like playing according to a team's system or style if it hinders my individual abilities and performance. ALL QUESTIONS ARE COMPLETED BY CIRCLING THE ATHLETE'S ANSWER ON A SCALE ANCHORED BY "STRONGLY DISAGREE" AND "STRONGLY AGREE". SD D NA A SA REPLY FORM PLEASE CHECK ONE AND FAX BACK TO THE UBC ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT. If you have any questions, you can write them onthe back of this page, or feel free to call me directly at 604-736-3930. You may also contact Dr. R. Schutz, at 604-228-2767. I I^YES^I agree to allow my athletes to completethe Team-Based Attitude Inventory. A representative will contact me, and this representative will handle all of the responsibilities for questionnaire administration, completion, & collection. __.I I^NO^I am unwilling to allow my athletes to complete the Team-Based Attitude Inventory. Coach's Name: ^ Sport: Number Of Athletes On Your Team: School: 117 Signature: Appendix E Initial Contact Letter to School Representatives 118 Ms. Jan Crook Ass. Athletic DirectorUniversity of Calgary Dear 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 to coaches 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-J10 Gra.)^-hA-d--2-11 LA C., Fh X '4;:o Y -2-24 -60 119 Appendix F Instructions to School Representatives 120 APPENDIX F ADMINISTRATION CONCERNS JIM: 1. Enclosed are questionnaires, to be allocated as follows: -rugby: 40 -volleyball: 15 -basketball: 15 -hockey: 25 2. Please ensure that coaches are not present and do not handle the questionnaires - please reaffirm to the athletes to answer honestly (there is no right or wrong answer - it is Just their opinion), and that none of the coaches or management will see the results. 3. Please reaffirm that their input is important because it will later be used to educate coaches and therefore better serve the needs of players. 4. It will take about 15 - 20 minutes to complete. 5. Please have them read the instructions (included with the questionnaire) and sign the consent form. Make sure they don't rip out the consent form after signing - it has to stay with the questionnaire until we get it back. You may want to read over the instructions for the players that is attached to each questionnaire. If you have any questions, please call me at 604-736-3930. Tbanks again for your help. You can return the completed questionnaires in the same box with the address label and postage included. Regards, Pdte Twist UBC 121 Appendix G Coach Rating Form (Cohesion and Locomotion) 122 123 Dear Mr. O'Malley: Your players have recently completed the Team-Based Attitude Inventory. This questionnaire is being developed to assess athlete's attitudes. The future use of the questionnaire includes team dynamics research, and educational use with coaching certifications. As an expert coach with an elite level team, you are being asked to take 5 minutes to complete the attached form. This will help validate the questionnaire, an important part of it's development. Please list your veteran players and rate them on a scale from 1 to 10 on two components - Cohesion and Locomotion. These are defined on the form. We would sincerely appreciate your cooperation as it is necessary to validate the questionnaire. We need to compare the questionnaire results to other independent and accurate information - and your own objective analysis of the players is certainly the most valid measure. Veteran players (athletes in their second year (or more) on your team) are suggested because you have had a long enough time, over varied situations, to evaluate and come to know these athletes very well. For your assurance, players are coded by number - when we receive your completed form, data will be entered into the computer (along with the athlete's questionnaire answers), and the form will be destroyed. This is very important. You can be certain that we are the only ones to have access to the data, it will be kept in the strictest confidence, and data 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 in the completion of the Team Based Attitude Inventory. Should you have any questions, please call Peter Twist at the number listed below. A self-addressed, stamped envelop is included for easy and prompt return of the form. Thanks again. Sincerely, Peter Twist^Dr. R. Schutz 604-736-3930^604-228-2767 124 CONCURRENT VALIDITY - COACH'S EXPERT OBSERVATIONS (vrs. athlete test results) TEAM BASED ATTITUDE COHESION^ LOCOMOTION DEFINITIONS: COHESION: Social cohesion; friendship, pride in membership; sticking together; helping the team remain strong as a group. LOCOMOTION: Task cohesion; motivated to direct behavior towards team accomplishments; desire to succeed as a team; puts team's goals above personal goals; teammwork. PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PORTION (for veteran players - in second year or more on your team). pLAYRR NAME ^ COHESION^LOCOMOTION (rate each player on a score from 1 - 10) t . e.^TolvN Seri i I LI ie•.^itilt ke So); 44, 5 Please use reverse if additional space required. Thank you - please return in the envelop provided. Appendix H Theoretical Justification For Correlating Errors 125 CORRELATING MEASUREMENT ERRORS PAIRS 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. 126 Appendix I Correlation Matrix for 35 Item Inventory 127 ^ 5 ^ . . .  : : ; : : ; : m e . T z I n g e z z l s ^ M  N ^ O N " N m m m O m ^ ^ N W N ^ ^ M ^ O N ^ N 0 0 0 0 0 ^ ^ ^ 0 0 , -:O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O • . ^ W • O , • 2 j • -  .Z O W N  . . . . .  " . 0 ” . N W O W V ^ V ^ W m O N O * V N O W V C W O O 0 0 ^ W ^ n w i n C O N W ^ ^ 1 . 0 , W ^ ^ ^  O W N ^ N N N N W ^ 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 ^ ^ N ^ N 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ^ 0 ^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 1  ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • W ^ G C 0 ▪ U ^ 0 " W O M O N O W 0 1 ^ 0 2 0 " " O w I N N W  O ^ r 1 0 0 " . ^ 0 0 . 0 m m N " . - ^ N O N N O N O " " 0 0 ^  ^ N ^ 0 N o N N W " W W W W 0 . . . .  W . M  W ^ O N O M M W . 0 0 0 . . .  m f t m . - w m 0 0 1 J § ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  , ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iW0 § 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 O w N  . . . . .  f t . . . . - . . . o w ” ^ R ^ 0 w ■ m e m 0 0 0 ..W .O M ^ v g .M 0 0 0 0 • 1 4 m .- m f t e m ,- N - 0 • , . . N .  0  ^ p m w . - 0 • 0 0 ^ y w . - - 0 0 - 0 . - 0 0 * - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  . - ^ 6 , , - - 4 0 . . . . - w a M m . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  . 1 ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • •^ ..1•- o N o w N w o f t o f t N o .m ■ n y m e m w o o .  g o m o N s w o o ^ m w m ...- J g g : g 47 -W2 g o o 0 - o ” m o . - -0000 . g = 7 . 4 - 8 7 4 , x 2 , 9 . 1 . 4 : t e - 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . .  - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,.§ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ^ v O N 0 0 M W M ^ m 0 ^ . . m M O N O . . N 0 8 = 7 0A ; g 7A R W I P : P l g g n ? N ^ m n / N ^ 0 0 7 . 7 4 = l e g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 O 0 m .n .la •  o ^ a )  r ..1 1 :3 0 ,• .“ 2 0 1 N 0 1  a /  10 • . 0 .  0 , • •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ • - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 O w m g e m e 0 0 0 . , 0 0 o w n o . 0 0 1 m w ^ N O . V N m o m o , O y w u l y . - ^ 0 0 N w N i n m m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 " w i n O w o " . . 0 ^ - N O m - 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 , . ^ 0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 ■ ^ N O N  W W W W W  0 0 1 . 0 1 0 o w w w w o N W M ^ m f W M 1 0 ^ . W i 0 " , I P W O M 0 W W 0  • •  " 0 r y "  " 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . 0 . ,v o m f . . ^ m ^ N O ^ N N 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 . 1 7 . ^ 0 1 0 0 0 , y 0 4 0 ^ ^ N N O . . 0 0 0 0 w w 0 I 0 0 0 0 P . W 0 0 ^ 0 • • • • - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ " , W W W . 0 1 1 1 W O O W m m w m , . N . M 0 W m N O O m o . m o w m m e N W O C W O N N O f t w O N W N n N t s . o v m m N y N N N y m c u m m ^ ^ N ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 ^ N O ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . .  m " m i n m O w N N O W . . 0 ^  e l m ^  " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^  ^  0 -o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 . W O O N N ^ v M ^ , ^ 1 ) 0  W W W W W W  N m . . , N ^ 1 0 O N .I N N ^ 0 0 0 0 " . 01. 0 0 1 ^ W ^ O ^ ,. ,." 0 ^ " 0 " " " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ W W ^ w m r y  , r y w  0  0  0  0 ^ m  01 . ^ W W ^ N O  0  0 0 ^  ^./..^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W O  . 0 1 , 0  " W W " W W W 0  N O M V 0 . 1 0 ^ 0 1 0 N O O N " . M N O ^ N 1 , 0 1 . . . 1 0 ^ ^ N M . 1 0 ^ ^ 0 / 1 0 N O I V V V N V V . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry i o N W , W r s e n w N w o n m m w N m " W f t / 0 0 0 0 ^ W W 1 s ^ m v 0 m N 0 4 0 , ^ 0 0 0 0 - W W v ^ m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 . 1 7 . 1 11, 0 m . 0 ^ N O  . . . . . 0 0 0 . 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 . 0 N ^ 0 ^ . 0 0 W W 0 0 N m ^ N N 1 .1 1 11 0 ^ 0 0 ^ • •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ •^ • ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , V 1 m 0 0 1 0 0 m o w i n o r l o O w N m e - ^ N w N 0 0 ^ ^ N ^ O N O O w w w ^ W W W N 0 ^ 0 0 m N o m r . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 " . 0 0 m ^ 0 ^ ^ " W 0 0 . 0 0 0 " . . . . 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 ^ 0 1 0 0.10 O.... 01.1/01.1 1 100.-0.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .  . . . . . .  e l " . 0 0 9 1 0 M Q 9 0 0 . . " O N O ^ N 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ o o ^ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 § W W W 1 , N . W . m ^ O m w ^ w ^  . . . . . O m m " W W W ^ O W m ^ i0 0 0 0 ^ W m ^ ^ , . . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 N ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ W W " W W W 0  N O w . 0 . 0 ^ 0 0 W 0 O W M y M M W " ^ N n w i n ^ ^ N O N m v . . N . 0 . 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . m y 0 ^ . ^ O m ^ ^ 0 0 0 . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0001^.11 , Ww. 0000 O ./01./ 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 § N N W O N 0 0 0 M m V 0 0 . ^ ^ .810"M"^.". ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 § N O N N O . ^ " . W I P O M 1 0 1 . 0 . 0 0 g r . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 • •^ •^ • 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... -0000000.0. m " ^ " 0 . - M m m y i n .00OOOOOOOOO 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 . . . . . w v a m . w y w y m in e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0JJ • a • O gm-o 1 0 0 / C O N w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix J CFA Lambda X Factor Loadings for 35 Item Inventory 129 130 CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model. LISREL ESTIMATES (MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD) LAMBDA X MAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORM 01 0.379 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q8 0.623 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 010 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 015 0.545 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q50 0.475 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 02 0.000 0.645 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 09 0.000 0.722 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 016 0.000 0.656 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q23 0.000 0.641 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q30 0.000 0.806 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q3 0.000 0.000 0.529 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 04 0.000 0.000 0.741 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 031 0.000 0.000 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q38 0.000 0.000 0.611 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 052 0.000 0.000 0.478 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.678 0.000 0.000 0.000 018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.713 0.000 0.000 0.000 025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.628 0.000 0.000 0.000 032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.553 0.000 0.000 0.000 059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.802 0.000 0.000 0.000 05 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.533 0.000 0.000 012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.650 0.000 0.000 019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.717 0.000 0.000 026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.590 0.000 0.000 054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.610 0.000 0.000 020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.716 0.000 034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.592 0.000 040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.654 0.000 041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.656 0.000 Q48 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.642 0.000 028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.490 042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.405 049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.691 Q56 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.449 062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.493 Appendix K Inter-Factor Correlations for 35 Item Inventory 131 132 PHI MAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORM MAINT.^1.000 IDENTITY^0.875 UNITY 0.278 COH.NORM^0.753 TASK.ORI 0.573 MOT.ASP^0.192 LOC.NORM 0.654 1.000 0.646 0.698 0.503 0.096 0.484 1.000 0.283 0.216 0.160 0.155 1.000 0.725 0.138 0.948 1.000 0.348 0.745 1.000 0.209 1.000 Appendix L Modification Indices for 35 Item Inventory 133 134 CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model. MODIFICATION INDICES LAMBDA X MAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORM 01 0.000 0.043 0.440 1.448 0.557 0.181 1. 282 08 0.000 0.040 0.427 0.166 0.917 1.309 0.217 010 0.000 8.323 7.099 0.002 0.021 1.431 0.471 015 0.000 2.807 2.625 3.261 0.014 2.427 3.162 050 0.000 0.805 0.959 2.528 0.403 3.166 1.205 02 8.050 0.000 4.417 6.594 2.771 0.709 5.814 09 0.335 0.000 0.006 9.788 8.412 0.461 7.317 Q16 7.076 0.000 6.298 3.910 1.910 0.060 3.315 023 0.014 0.000 1.079 3.113 4.130 1.479 2.821 030 0.526 0.000 0.506 6.778 2.931 2.319 4.642 Q3 0.003 0.174 0.000 0.355 0.023 5.531 0.124 04 0.212. 0.926 0.000 0.209 1.037 5.649 0.618 031 0.001 0.208 0.000 2.237 2.696 1.389 3.225 038 3.586 3.843 0.000 2.568 1.086 0.076 2.522 Q52 3.209 4.629 0.000 2.169 0.892 0.509 1.711 Q11 12.860 8.682 0.934 0.000 1.652 0.124 5.212 018 2.253 1.271 0.691 0.000 0.441 0.966 0.847 025 0.033 0.387 0.173 0.000 3.601 0.085 0.754 Q32 0.051 0.015 0.131 0.000 2.177 0.954 0.666 059 3.417 0.741 0.206 0.000 14.708 1.815 0.814 05 0.524 1.112 3.680 1.934 0.000 0.670 0.971 012 0.071 0.355 0.012 1.974 0.000 1.200 1.100 019 0.002 0.248 1.006 0.061 0.000 0.080 0.022 026 0.004 1.763 2.777 1.662 0.000 0.575 2.431 054 0.197 0.872 3.578 1.589 0.000 5.143 2.579 020 0.120 0.236 0.022 0.248 0.329 0.000 0.570 034 1.200 1.550 1.687 1.075 1.047 0.000 0.929 040 0.505 0.119 0.007 0.903 0.457 0.000 1.237 041 5.152 4.010 0.487 2.502 1.223 0.000 1.732 048 2.812 0.538 0.500 5.019 2.450 0.000 6.223 028 1.665 0.996 0.229 1.210 0.000 0.001 0.000 042 1.287 0.434 0.025 0.680 0.097 0.262 0.000 049 0.419 0.250 0.002 0.059 0.338 0.071 0.000 056 2.747 0.940 0.055 0.158 0.026 0.307 0.000 062 0.974 0.437 0.038 0.207 0.816 0.226 0.000 Appendix M T-values for 35 Item Inventory 135 CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model. T-VALUES LAMBDA X MAINT. IDENTITY UNITY COH.NORM TASK.ORI MOT.ASP LOC.NORM 01 4.469 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q8 7.752 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 010 5.385 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 015 6.657 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 050 5.710 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 02 0.000 8.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 09 0.000 9.772 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 016 0.000 8.624 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 023 0.000 8.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 030 0.000 7.803 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 03 0.000 0.000 6.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 04 0.000 0.000 9.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 031 .0.000 0.000 7.778 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 038 0.000 0.000 7.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q52 0.000 0.000 5.577 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 011 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 018 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.759 0.000 0.000 0.000 025 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.276 0.000 0.000 0.000 032 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 059 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.510 0.000 0.000 0.000 05 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.563 0.000 0.000 012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.354 0.000 0.000 019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.466 0.000 0.000 026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.407 0.000 0.000 054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.704 0.000 0.000 020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.070 0.000 034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.188 0.000 040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.110 0.000 Q41 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.139 0.000 048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.927 0.000 028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.014 042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.882 049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.925 056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.458 062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.047 136 Appendix N Normalized Residuals for 35 Item Inventory 137 0O 0100 O § . . . . 0 .  C  O N O 0 0 0 . - 0 ^ ,^ . O N ^ , O p . . . w m o c 0 - ^ - 0 N !!! ! ! !5i O N N . . 0 0 0 . o n f o . 0 0 ,.. o N O m  0 0 . 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 . " , 0  . . . . .  - 0 0 - C 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 ^ 0 . - 0 . - .- 0 0 0 ^ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  C v N r 1 0 0 . ^ ■ • • •  " 0 0  0 .0 O W N W M O W . N . W . C O N O . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 ^ ^ 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - O N O . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . 1 . -^ . - 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0 0 . 0 . 0 N . . 0 0 0 N . N . W , m 0 0 0 00 m ■ O N 0  0 ^ o r  O N . - 40^ .0.117”- O  0 m  m  n  N ^ .-  m  .1 r.v  O  N  0 O N ••■ 0 0 , 0 0 . .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ .^ . 0 ^ 0 0 0 ^ . -^ 0 ^ 0 ^ . -^ 0 0 0 0 ^ . -0 0 ^ 0 0 0 • •^ • O M O N ^ W W W . . . . O N O m M . , . - N w O w y M 0 y 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 . - ^ 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 ^ N ^ ^ 0 . - ^ 0 0 0 0 N . . . . .  w w w W w 0 O . N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 ^ 0 . 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 ^ . 0 0 ^ - 0 0 ^ ^ 0 0 ...N O N N V O M O N C N O ■ W M W .0 0 W y M O O M O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ .^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ . . . 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 . 0 0 ^ 0 . . . . . J o N o m - .,o m . ciOdOOOOOO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ .- ^ 0 0 0 0 ^ - 4 1 1 N - N N . N  . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 w - 0 0 0 . - 0 0 0 0 0 "  0 0 0 0 - 0 0 ...... ^ . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 M O N N O O N ,, W V O O M W . 0 0 0 0 . . - M M O O N 0 . 0 0 . 0 - M W M M N I M M . M O M V . M .  . . . . . . 000.- ^ * - n e a r , n  e a  e l o n  m  O  w ^ . . .  . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 000 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0. - 0 00 0^ •-• ^ ^ •- 0 0 0 J  § V O N 0 0 0 ^ . 0 0 . 0 ......000100.00^ ..... -^ .. . . . 0 0 ,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 . . . . ^ . I  § . . . , . . . . . . . 0 . - . 1 0 . 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0  . . . . .  0 . - C O 0 0 0 . . . . . N . . . . N . - 0 , . . . . -  . . . . . . . . . .  0 . . 0 . m y . . . N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 ^ ,-. 0 0 ^ 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 ^ . - 0 § .....- W w W ,- N m O o n .- 0 1 ...m c N c o m o r . ^ 00000 ...... 00. .  N O N . - 0 . 1 . N y N o m N 0 0 , . . 0 . . 0 0 0 r , . . .  0 ^ 0 0 y . - c y C v N 0 . - . 0 . 2 J  . . . . .  0 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . C O N ^ O C O M N N O W  . . . . . . ▪ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - 0 . - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 ^ 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • •^ •^ •^ . . . . . . ^ • 2  IlliMiErgEn.74 2312:::;42HE 2  § i & a i r i 2Z '788 E : • 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 - - N 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0  N  0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 ■ 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 • .^ •^ 6 0 0 ^ I^ 0^ 4^ •^ •^ . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N A M ■ O W 0 . - M O N O W N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c c o f t w m . . . . N O . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 1 0 1^ a 2 ^ 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . 0 0 ^ . . . . 0 ^ 0 ^ 0 0 . -. 0 . . . ^ 0 0 0 0 § 0 . 0 0 2 . V . W M 0 1 . 1 M O M M V . . . . 08 0O S C -  N  0  0  0  A  O  O  0  m  O  w  A  O  v  tl m  0  0 . ^  N  A - -  n  0  0 O O O N  O  C aC 0 0 CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ ^ . -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 • J ^ o m . . . - . . . . . w w - O c . . 0 . . - 0 0 0 . . . . N o m . . 0 m m - m y 0 1 7 0 0 . C . 0 0 . 0 0 ^ . - - 0 O 3 , c - N w 0 . 0 . 0 N 0 y - 0 . - ,,C.M. 0 ,,,,-.30.00......0^-.^- ,...^. ,, y 0 . 0 N O m m . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ ^ 0 N O 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 . - 0 0 0 0 ^ ^ . . . . . . .  N . C . N O N O . N c N 0 CI 1 • • • N b n O 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 ^ 0 . - 0 0 . - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O • O  §iM EiErIM EE:TraREH H EEEFiFarg.-4 0 0 0  1 1 5 1 , 0 N O W V 0 . 1 0 ^ W W N O W N •••^ 0 1 . e . e a r y  .1, in  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ^ . 0  . . . . . o ••• ^ 0 "Co, - ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ . ^ .^ . 0 0 S g t 0 0 0 O O N 0 O m N w c O m 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix 0 QPLOT of Normalized Residuals 139 CFA of TBA data -- Model is revised, 35 item 7 factor model. OPLOT OF NORMALIZED RESIDUALS 3.5^ 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 RESIDUALS 140 Appendix P Internal Consistency Analysis 141 142 RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(TM) 1.2.3.4.5. 01Q8015010050 MEAN 6.19616.39876.38566.11116.0850 STD 0EV 1.4238.6915.7705.90721.1973 CASES 153.0153.0153.0153.0153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALEMEAN IF ITEMDELETED Q1^24.980408 24.7778015 24.7908010^25.0654Q50 25.0915 SCALEVARIANCEIF ITEMDELETED 5.74307.76617.87707.48256.4521 CORRECTEDITEM- TOTALCORRELATION .3251.4526.3509.3390.3457 SQUAREDMULTIPLECORRELATION .1115.2131.1435.1357.1480 ALPHA IF ITEMDELETED .5606.4959.5273.5257.5228 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMS ALPHA =^.5798^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.6213 143 RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T I) MEAN STD DEV CASES 1. 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 153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALEMEANIF ITEMDELETED SCALEVARIANCEIF ITEMDELETED CORRECTEDITEM-TOTALCORRELATION SQUAREDMULTIPLECORRELATION ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED 02^24.6078 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 .7437 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 5 ITEMS ALPHA =^.7780 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .7893 144 RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T U) MEAN STD DEV CASES 1. 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 153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 03 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 .7245 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMS ALPHA =^.7286^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7340 145 RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(C N) MEAN STD DEV CASES 1. 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 153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 011 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 .7507 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMS ALPHA =^.8064^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.8076 146 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T 0) MEAN STD DEV CASES 1. 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 153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 05 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 .7060 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMS ALPHA =^.7482^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7619 147 RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(TMA) MEAN STD DEV CASES 1. 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 153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 020 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 .7482 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMS ALPHA =^.7861^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7865 148 RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(L N) MEAN STD DEV CASES 1. 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 153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED 028 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 .5767 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^5 ITEMS ALPHA =^.6151^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.6383 149 RELIABILITY^ANALYSIS^SCALE^(T B A) MEAN STD DEV CASES 1. TM 31.1765 3.1604 153.0 2. 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 153.0 ITEM-TOTAL STATISTICS SCALE SCALE CORRECTEDMEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHAIF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEMDELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED TM 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 .7049 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS^7 ITEMS ALPHA =^.7512^STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA =^.7890

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 8 0
Germany 4 0
France 4 0
China 2 16
South Africa 1 1
United Kingdom 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 9 1
Chicago 2 0
Ashburn 2 0
Washington 2 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Wilmington 1 0
Guangzhou 1 0
Canterbury 1 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items