 |
Chapter 2 - Test Design and Underlying Rationale
The initial sample of athletes was composed of 2400 men and women, from several Division 1, University programs, who were competing in a wide variety of individual and team sports. Respondents completed the inventories in exchange for the sports psychology services they would receive. They were informed that they were voluntarily taking part in an experiment to better understand the various components of athletic performance and learning. The athletes first completed the LSP and then the CSP. A standard answer sheet was utilized, asking each participant to furnish demographic information including age, sex, level, race and sport. The athletes were then presented with different learning and performance scenarios and responded to statements on a Likert scale, from 1 (untrue for me) to 5 (very true). The administration time for both inventories varied from 25 to 45 minutes. The subjects in this and the two subsequent studies also completed a consent form, voluntarily giving their permission to have their data processed and included as part of the reporting of group scores. As a promise for their taking valuable time out of the team's training and practice schedule, we made the following statement to all the athletes and coaches who participated in our studies: "We will return within three days and distribute the individual profiles to each and every athlete. At this team meeting, we will review and define every attribute included in the scored profiles. You'll be given a clear definition of all the variables and their possible meaning. We will attempt to describe how each of them may affect optimal performance and learning. We will be honored to meet individually with interested coaches and athletes to review any of our findings or their suggested implications. We will be available afterwards by phone, should either coach or athlete value such an opportunity". The data for this
first study was collected during the fall semester of 1994. As a result
of the statistical analysis for internal consistency of scales, a number
of categories were revised and others (Situational Anxiety, Physical
Expressiveness) were dropped. After the second study of 1280 high school,
college and recreational athletes, one category (Attribution) was dropped
due to limited utility and other categories were revised. Rationale
Underlying the Development of the CSP and LSP In the development of the CSP and of the LSP, we were confronted with a number of issues and concerns, such as documenting the worth of the instruments that were still in their initial stages. As has been true for all the investigations we have conducted, every person we contacted wanted to know about the value they would derive from participating in our studies. Each wanted some guarantee that for time taken from their program, they would receive measurable benefits. In order to achieve this goal, the first two authors made themselves available to coaches and athletes for follow-up. Every team, coach or individual athlete was apprised of the fact that assessment feedback would be based upon limited sampling. We stated that we felt great confidence in both instruments based upon over 200 consensual validation sessions with athletes from a number of sports, but asked them to consider all interpretations as tentative in nature. We have integrated into every aspect of our services a consideration for the implications and consequences of the role we have chosen to play in the lives of both athletes and coaches. In this manual we will pay particular attention to establishing an empirical framework as a means for testing hypotheses conveyed by score interactions. In summary, we have chosen to accept the significance of Messick's Unified Validity Theory. Accepting extensions to traditional concepts of instrument validity will always guide our research and practice. Statistical evidence for content, construct and criterion validity will be reported for our third study. We wish particularly to convey that we have remained sensitive to values implications inherent in our social responsibilities. This can only be demonstrated by the extent to which we have remained protective with regard to the social consequence of actions taken on the basis score interpretations. The challenge will always be the extent to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationale support the adequacy and appropriateness of interpretation and consequent actions. We have taken care to meet the statistical requirements incumbent upon those seeking to validate and standardize original psychometric instruments. The important question as to the suitability of our subject population must be addressed. We currently have an over-representation of select Division I university men and women, since one of our original goals was that of examining the performance and learning attributes of more experienced athletes. University men and women athletes recruited at Division I institutions certainly represent a highly select subject population. At the risk of redundancy, we wish once again to state our underlying philosophy with regard to the utilization of both the CSP and the LSP. Each has been designed towards identifying the most important questions that can be posed for self examination with direct relevance for athletic performance and learning. Every subject received direct personal feedback during consensual validation sessions. We feel we can testify to these athletes' full cooperation and sincere interest. Their feedback and that of their coaches has been incredibly valuable in the development of these profiles. CONTENTS
| INTRODUCTION |
CHAPTERS:
|
 |
|
he
CSP and LSP were initially designed on the basis of the experience of
the first two authors, sharing over 50 years of practice with elite athletes,
coaches and teachers. The preliminary categories and their items were
brainstormed as being the most potentially relevant and valuable for competitive
athletes and their coaches. After being subjected to several pilot studies,
they were further revised several times before being subjected to formal
study.
