Testing Leadership, Gender, and Coaching Standards by Use of the Spot Scale of Revised Leadership - Assignment Example

Test Critique Testing leadership, gender, and coaching standards by use of the Spot Scale of Revised Leadership. The main objective of this study was to come out with the existing differences in leadership behaviors, by the use of the Sport Scale for Revised Leadership. This was conducted in the coaching class, between the male and female students. The test was also done among different levels and standards of coaching. Test Coverage and Usage. The test was conducted in a coaching class. The class was composed of the two genders; male and female. Also, the class had different coaching levels. The test was mainly used to identify how the two genders were going to respond towards the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale. The test was also used to determine the different responses, from the different coaching levels, using the Revised Leadership for Sports Scale (RLSS). This test was recommended for this class since it was a coaching class and the students here were trained to be good coaches in the future. The test was very appropriate for the intended purpose since it could give the different reactions from the different categories, hence achieving the main objective of the test. On technical grounds, the test was justified by the developer. The test has always been applied to other fields and have given positive outcomes, hence it has empirical evidence. In this test I came up with two hypotheses. The first hypothesis were that the two genders would give different responses to the Sport Scale in the general leadership behaviors. The second hypothesis was that, among the different levels of coaching: pre-secondary school, secondary school, and college, there would emerge some differences on the RLSS. Appropriate Samples for Test Validation and Norming The sampling done was nonrandom. I collected 162 coaches whom I chose on a volunteer basis. In this sample, I had 118 male coaches, who constituted 73% of the total sample size. I had 44 female coaches and constituted 27% the total sample size. With regard to the coaching level, I had 25 who were training to be pre-secondary school coaches. They formed 15% of the total sample size. There were 99 who were training to be secondary coaches and they formed 61% of the total sample size in this category. Finally, I had 38 who were training to be college coaches and they constituted 24% of the total sample size. The sample was large enough that enabled me to gather a lot of information and ideas from its bigger size. The sample is also cut across different types of individuals in terms of age, experience and background. All the different types of students from the class were able to be accommodated in the sample. The participation rate among the different groups was monitored. I ensured that the participation rate was equal. The large sample also aided in the data analysis, especially when studying the possible interactions between gender and coaching. Reliability The Revised Leadership for Sport Scale was developed by Zhang, Jensen, and Mann in 1996. The scale has always been used and proved to be reliable in measuring leadership behaviors such as: training and instruction, democratic and autocratic. Others include social support, positive feedback and situational consideration. The scale was engineered in a way that it used 60 statements. This statement was preceded by “In coaching, I” Predictive Validity The test can be appropriately used in drawing inferences. The inferences regarding leadership across the two genders and the different levels can be made by use of this test. The test has always been used and therefore have empirical evidence. A number of tests have been conducted and reliable references have been made. When coming up with the inferences, am I considered a number of factors when coming up with predictive validity. I considered coaching experience which would greatly affect the response of the participants. I considered the gender of the athletes, which may be a contributing factor to the coaches’ responses. T5his was mainly because the different levels for the different coaches, of athletes, of the female gender would demonstrate more social support than those of male athletes. When predicting the inferences, I also kept I mind that the nature of the sports could be more critical. This is because certain coaching styles tend to be more applicable for individual sports than for team sports. Having this consideration, the test has been more valid in coming up with the inferences. Content Validity The test has measured the content of interest. Most of the questions applied in the in the test are representative of the skills in the specified domain. In the test, I have been able to address the different exposures that the different level of coaching is subjected to. At the content, I looked at the history of the particular programmers and the history of the individual students in the coaching history. This is because they could influence the student response to the scale questions. For example, if a student has been offering volunteering, coaching services in a school and lost severally in matches, his or her attitude could be different from that student who has recently won a title. Construct Validity The test was able to measure the right psychological construct. When comparing the responses from the different genders, I kept in mind that a female student could relatively welcome a defeat in the ground. The male students could try to protect their ego and respect as well. Due to this, I kept in mind that the male student could give responses that were more optimistic and having self assurance of victory in the match. Also the male students tend to be having more morale in the field as compared to their female counterparts. Having such psychological differences in mind, I could come up with the right construct validity. Test Administration I gave a Likert scale for each statement given by the students: 1 for never; 2 for seldom; 3for occasionally; 4 for often; and 5 for always. By use of this I was able to produce an ordinal level data set. I administered the scales in a number of surrounding settings: classroom, gymnasiums, training fields, and offices. I calculated the internal consistency of each section. 0.84 for practice and instructions; 0.66 for democratic, 0.69 for situational consideration, 0.78 for good response, 0.70 for autocratic and 0.52 for social morale. I used the Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) in analyzing the findings for the differences between the male and female students with regard to the leadership behaviors. I also used the ANOVA to examine the findings in the differences between the three levels of coaching (pre-secondary, secondary and collage) concerning the leadership behavior in general. I used the ANOVA in analyzing the data after breaking down the different behaviors and carrying out examinations on each and every behavior. I also make use of ANOVA in analyzing the data for the possible interaction between the two genders the different levels of coaching with regard to overall leadership behavior. I choose the analysis basing on the nature of the findings. Test Reporting In reporting the test I used graphs, tables and pie charts. I did this on the screen by use of a projector and my computer. Through the graphs, the analysis showed that there were no significant differences between male and female students in the general leadership behaviors. After examining the different leadership styles separately, some significant differences, in social support between males and females, were identified. According to the tabulated results, female student scored much higher than the male students did. The results also projected in pre-secondary levels, the students gave more positive responses than for secondary levels. They argued that in secondary level, coaches are at times asked to work with a program they have no knowledge. This could be mainly due to shortages in staff members. The graphs for responses, showed some declining patterns when moving from the pre-secondary to secondary. The pie charts gave some big percentages for the pre-secondary education comparable to secondary level. By use of the graphs, pie charts and tables, the reports were well administered and understood by the intended audience. The main objectives of the test were also clearly expressed and high understanding was made concerning testing leadership between the two genders and different academic levels. Test and Item Bias The test could have more positive responses from the students who trained schools with better athletes and well established programs in different sports. The others without well laid sporting activities would not field a winning team, hence low responses. This could actually influence the students’ responses to the scale questions. To avoid the business, I met with individual training grounds and met with students as a group to administer the surveys. I also tried to conduct a meeting with each gender and administered the survey to them differently. This was to get rid of the psychological bias with regard to the different levels of interest they have. The male genders seemed to be more egocentric and avoid defeat compared to the female. This helped me in coming up with data that is non-biased. Conclusion After going through my literature, I find that this particular test that I decided to critique is more reliable and more valid in its finding. The test is more accommodating in the different behaviors of the different aspects being examined. With this test, I would use it members of a class who are training to be good coaches in the future. I will also use it to different coaches of different athletes and sports clubs. Some of the biases that may appear when using this test is the different response in the different education levels. Some levels tend to give more positive responses than others. Anyway, having this in mind and knowing how to deal with it, the test can yield good results. According to what I intended to measure before, the test has proven to be the better one for that objective. The results drawn have been in line with my hypothesized statements. References Buros., Oscar Krisen (Ed)., (1953). The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Oxford, England: Gryphon Press. Geisinger, Robert A. Spies, Jane F. Carlson & Barbara S. Plake., (2007). The Seventh Mental Measurement Yearbook. Oxford, England: Gryphon Press. Kramer, J. (Ed)., Coloney., Jane Close (Ed)., Lincoln, NE., (1992)., The Eleventh Mental Measurement Yearbook. US: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Kramer, J. (Ed)., Coloney., Jane Close (Ed)., Lincoln, NE., (1989). The Tenth Mental Measurements yearbook. US: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Buros., Oscar Krisen (Ed)., Piscataway, NJ., (1992). The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook. US: Rutgers University Press. Read More