Chapter 3



Chapter 3MethodologyThe purpose of this observational study is to examine sport officials preseason and post game perception of spectator influence on judgment calls, and to assess the hostility of their work environment in a collegiate intramural basketball program.ParticipantsThirty college age intramural officials of varying experience levels at a Northwest university volunteered for this study. Twenty four of the officials were male and six were female and they officiated both male and female games during the spring 2003 intramural basketball season. As common practice in the university intramural program, all of the referees spent a few hours prior to the season learning the rules that were specific to intramural basketball. During this meeting, referees were informed of the study and those who chose to participate filled out a preseason survey.Human SubjectsHuman Subjects Review was completed and submitted to the Human Assurance Committee of the University of Idaho. The Human Assurance Committee gave a one year approval for the completion of the study (See Appendix A). Human Subject Informed Consent forms were distributed to all subjects prior to data collection. Subjects were informed that they could withdraw at any time from the project. All materials gathered on Human Subjects were housed in a secure locked environment.InstrumentTwo separate instruments were used in the collection of data for this project. The preseason instrument began with two questions used to collect demographic data (see appendix B). The demographic section was followed by two hypothetical scenarios in which the referees were asked to rate the acceptability of the situation described on a 1 to 5 Likert scale with 1 meaning the situation presented is unacceptable and 5 meaning the situation was acceptable. Situation I involved derogatory spectator behavior from team A’s fans directed toward the referee. The referee responds by calling a foul that they would normally let go on a team A player The referee completing the survey then was asked to rate the acceptability of this response in the given situation. Situation II consisted of specific example of derogatory comments directed at the referee. The referee responded by not calling fouls on the team whose fans heckled him, and decided to let his refereeing partner make most of the calls. Once again the referee completing the survey was asked to rate the acceptability of the referee’s behavior. The preseason survey was used to determine a baseline for the official’s feelings about the influence that spectators can have on in game decisions. The scores from situation I and situation II were combined to give a total score ranging from 2 to 10 for the preseason instrument.The post game survey consisted of four Likert scale statements designed to rate the hostility of the crowd towards the officials, the incidence of negative physical or verbal spectator behavior directed towards officials, and to assess whether the officials felt that their in game calls were influenced by the spectators (see appendix C). The responses to statements ranged from strongly disagree which was a 1 to strongly agree which was a five. The responses to statements one, two, and four were added together to assess the referee perception of spectator hostility. Statement 3 specifically reads “spectator behavior influenced me on specific calls during the game”, and was used to asses the perceived influence of the spectators. The post game survey was administered immediately after the completion of a game. Face and content validity for the instruments was established prior to their administration by consulting referees and sport ethics experts.ProcedureThe researcher attended the preseason officiating workshop to document what the officials were taught and to administer the preseason survey. All referees were asked to participate in the study, and those that accepted filled out informed consent forms. Participants were asked to answer the surveys as truthfully as possible, and were informed that their answers would be securely held and would not be used in any way to evaluate their on the job performance. The intramural season consisted of six weeks of league play followed by one week of playoffs for teams that have a .500 record or better. Due to the large number of games that had zero spectators, only officials whose games had ten or more spectators were surveyed. Officials whose games did not have the minimum of ten spectators were not surveyed. The researcher attended all of the games and counted the number of spectators for each game to assure that the proper games were surveyed. To maintain an even sample size and to negate the increase in experience a referee would gain over a season only surveys from each official’s first three games were used in this study.Design and AnalysisThe study is a random observational design that used descriptive statistics to evaluate participant responses on the preseason and post game instruments. The effects of gender of the official, and years of officiating experience were examined using an independent t test.The preseason instrument consisted of two situations in which participants rated the acceptability of each situation on a 1 – 5 Likert scale. The combination of these two scores assessed preseason perception of spectator influence.The post game instrument consisted of four questions that are rated on a Likert scale of 1 – 5. Questions one, two and four examine the referee’s perception of the hostility of the spectators and negative incidences of spectator verbal and physical behavior. The sum of these three questions will be totaled and evaluated with descriptive statistics. Question three on the post game instrument specifically asked if the referee felt that their calls were influenced by the spectator’s behavior. The responses were given on a 1 – 5 Likert scale, and was evaluated using descriptive statistics.Data AnalysisSub problem 1:On the pre game questionnaire, the scores from situation I and situation II were combined for a total instrument score of 2 to 10. Means, standard deviations, and frequencies were run. Sub problem 2:In examining the preseason difference by gender, an independent t-test was run.Sub problem 3:In examining the preseason difference by experience level, an independent t-test was run.Sub problem 4:On the post game instrument, the scores from statement three from the three games surveyed were totaled for a possible score of 3 to 15. Means, standard deviations, and frequencies were run.Sub problem 5:In examining the post game difference by gender, an independent t-test was run.Sub problem 6:In examining the post game difference by experience, an independent t-test was run.Sub problem 7:On the post game instrument, the scores from statements one, two, and four from the three games surveyed were totaled for a possible score of 9 to 45. Means, standard deviations, and frequencies were run.Sub problem 8:In examining the post game difference by gender, an independent t-test was run.Sub problem 9:In examining the post game difference by experience level, an independent t-test was run. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download