Final Exam

Overview

The take home final will be worth 15% of the final course grade. This exam requires you have a basic understanding of SPSS, APA, the appropriate statistical analysis to use to answer a particular research question, and know what to look for in the output provided by SPSS.

In addition to a data set you should have received, I have included a portion of the method section of the paper with which this particular data set is associated. This information, in addition to the SPSS data (where all the variables have been labeled) should provide you with enough information to answer the questions that follow.

Method

Participants

The study was conducted at the end of the collegiate tennis season at the NCAA Division I and II national championship sites. One hundred and forty-eight athletes (77 females) participated including 74 athletes from the top 5 ranked male and female Division I tennis teams (based on pre tournament rankings) and 74 athletes from the top 5 ranked male and female Division II teams. Coaches of the selected teams were contacted to obtain permission to meet with the athletes, inform them of the nature of the study, and invite them to participate. If permission was granted, appointments were scheduled by the second author to meet with the athletes (one of the female Division I teams chose not to participate). All data was collected during the 48 hours prior to the start of actual competition. This procedure eliminated the possibility of tournament performance contaminating the results.

Measures

Leadership Behaviour. Preferred and actual leadership behaviour was operationalized using the preferred and perceived versions of Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) Leadership Scale of Sports (LSS). While Chelladurai and Riemer (1998) have noted that perceptions may be influenced by preferences and affective reactions and may not reflect reality, from another perspective it might be argued that a subordinate's perception of leader behaviour is more important than what may actually be occurring. That is, an athlete's perception of actual behaviour represents their reality. Moreover, the use of perceptions to operationalize actual behaviour follows the research tradition in industry and business (Chelladurai, 1990) and research concerning the Multidimensional Model of Leadership.

These 40-item scales measure five dimensions of leader behaviour: training and instruction behaviour (13 items), democratic behaviour (9 items), autocratic behaviour (5 items), social support behaviour (8 items), and positive feedback behaviour (5 items). The preference version prefaces all items with "I prefer my coach...", while the perception version employs the precursor "My coach...". The items are assigned a score between 1 and 5 (1 = never, 5 = always).

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the LSS for the current sample ranged from .67 ( autocratic behaviour ) to .86 ( training and instruction behaviour ) for the preference version ( M = .79), and .59 ( autocratic behaviour ) to .88 ( training and instruction behaviour ) for the perception version ( M = .80). These estimates are considered adequate, with the possible exception of the perception version of autocratic behaviour . Although the alpha values associated with the autocratic behaviour sub-scale are lower than those advocated by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), the values are consistent with those reported in the literature (e.g., Chelladurai, 1993; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998).

Recently, Zhang, Jensen, & Mann (1997) noted some problems associated with the LSS and published a revised version of the LSS. The scale includes 23 items from the original scale, and 37 new items representing 6 dimensions (the original 5 and a new one: Situation Consideration Behaviours). While the initial evidence (i.e., Jambor & Zhang, 1997; Zhang et al., 1997) suggests the scale demonstrates reliability and internal validity, it was published after this research was initiated and was therefore unavailable for use in the present study.

Satisfaction. Satisfaction was evaluated using four of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire’s (ASQ; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) fifteen sub-scales: training and instruction satisfaction (3 items), personal treatment satisfaction (5 items), team performance satisfaction (3 items), and individual performance satisfaction (3 items). The first two sub-scales focus on satisfaction with the processes of coaching behaviour, while the latter two evaluate satisfaction with outcomes associated with the processes of leadership (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998).

Instructions:

Read these carefully. I have also included the manner in which I will evaluate (assign marks) for these responses.

It goes without saying that you are to do this exam on your own. If I suspect cheating has taken place, I will certainly investigate this thoroughly – if evidence supports this, a grade of zero will be assigned and I will ask the Dean to launch a formal investigation.

I have provided you with four potential research questions that could be tested using this particular data set. Each research question will be worth 25 marks. The potential raw score total for the exam would be 100.

For each research question,

1. write the null hypothesis that you would be testing ( 2 marks – this will be either right or wrong)
2. choose the best analysis for answering the question ( 2 marks) and provide the rationale for this ( 4 marks) ( please note, if you choose the wrong analysis, then no further marks can be assigned – the rest will be wrong i.e., zero ) – what made you determine this was the best analysis?
3. run that analysis using SPSS (submit the output you have generated) ( 2 marks),
4. list all the relevant types of information from the SPSS output that you would need to include in your results section for this type of analysis if the results were significant. ( 3 marks – I will deduct .5 for each bit of relevant information not included or bit of non-relevant information included). You are not reporting actual information, just listing the type of information (e.g., mean, sd, etc).
5. present the relevant actual information (e.g., actual means & sd. etc.) as you would in the results section of a manuscript or paper (e.g., Table and/or summary statement). Depending on the results (significant or not significant; how many variables, etc.), this may include a table and information in text, or only information in text form, or possibly only in table form (but not likely). The table, if any, should conform to APA guidelines regarding formatting, and the information in text should also be reported in a manner that conforms to APA guidelines ( 12 marks). Information provided should not be redundant – if you write too much, marks will be deducted. Say what you need to as concisely as possible.
   Questions:
   1. Are female athletes, with a female coach, more satisfied with personal treatment than female athletes with a male coach and/or male athletes with a male coach?
   2. Are there any significant relationships between the variables of leadership perceptions (there are five of these), global satisfaction, and satisfaction with team performance?
   3. Which of the five leadership behaviour preferences (not perceptions) has the greatest influence on an athlete’s satisfaction with individual performance?
   4. Does the year of study the student is in (variable: studyyr) make any difference in their preferred level of social support leadership behaviour?

Price: $29.71

Solution: The downloadable solution consists of 8 pages, 2171 words.
Deliverable: Word Document