Journal Article Critique Assignment Of Deed

Chris K.
Research Critique 1

       Jamber, E. A., & Zhang, J .J. (1997).  Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 313-322.
 

       The purpose of the study was to determine possible differences in leadership behaviors,

using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale (RLSS), between male and female coaches 

and among different coaching levels.  The researchers submitted two hypotheses.  The first 

hypothesis was that male and female coaches would respond differently to the RLSS in 

overall leadership behaviors.  The second hypothesis was that differences on the RLSS 

would occur among coaching levels: junior high, high school, and college.

     The sample was nonrandom, including 162 coaches that were chosen on a volunteer 

basis.  Within the sample, 118 (0.73) of the coaches were male, while 44 (0.27) were 

female.  With regard to coaching level, 25 (0.15) were junior high coaches, 99 (0.61) high 

school, and 38 (0.24) at the college level.   While this is a good sample size, the problem lies 

with the distribution of the sample.  The sample number for junior high coaches, in particular, 

is rather low.  A larger sample with regard to all categories would have aided in the data 

analysis, particularly when looking for possible interactions between gender and coaching 

level. 



     The instrument utilized was the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale (RLSS) developed 

by Zhang, Jensen, and Mann in 1996.  This scale is used to measure six leadership 

behaviors:  training and instruction, democratic, autocratic, social support, positive feedback, 

and situational consideration.  The scale uses 60 statements, which were preceded by “In 

coaching, I:” A Likert scale was then given for each statement: 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = 

occasionally; 4 = often; and 5 = always.  This produced an ordinal level data set.  Scales 

were administered in a number of environmental settings: classrooms, gymnasiums, practice 

fields, and offices.  The internal consistency for each section was calculated: 0.84 for training 

and instruction; 0.66 for democratic; 0.70 for autocratic; 0.52 for social support; 0.78 for 

positive feedback; and 0.69 for situational consideration.  There was no information, 

however, regarding the validity of the RLSS. 

     A MANOVA was used to analyze the data for differences between male and female 

coaches with regard to leadership behaviors.  This is not consistent with the type of data 

collected.  The RLSS used a Likert scale (ordinal), yet a MANOVA would be most 

applicable for normally distributed, quantitative data.  The analysis showed there were no 

significant differences between male and female coaches in overall leadership behaviors. 

When the six leadership styles were examined separately, there was a significant difference 

in social support between males and females.  In general, females scored much higher than 

did the male coaches.



       A MANOVA was also used to examine the data for differences between the three 

levels of coaching (junior high, high school, and college) with regard to leadership behavior 

in general.  There were significant differences between the three levels.  When breaking 

down the six behaviors and examining them individually, an ANOVA was used to analyze 

the data.  Again, because the data for the RLSS is ordinal, an ANOVA is not the best 

analysis tool.   The three coaching levels scored differently on three of the six behaviors: 

democratic behaviors, training and instruction, and social support. High school coaches 

scored much higher than college level coaches in democratic behavior.  Junior high coaches 

were significantly lower in training and instruction than either high school or college coaches. 

Junior high coaches also demonstrated a lesser degree of social support than either the high 

school or college coaches.

     A MANOVA was again used to analyze the data for any interaction between gender and 

coaching level with regard to overall leadership behavior.  Once again, a better analysis 

method could have been chosen based on the nature of the data collected. The results 

indicated no significant interactions. 

      The ecological generaliziability for the study is fairly high.  The surveys were mailed out, 

and returned on a volunteer basis.  However,  due to the nonrandom nature of the sample, 

the results would not generalizable beyond the 162 participants in the study. There was no 

effect size is listed for the study. 

      In order to reduce threats to internal validity, the participants were asked to respond 

honestly and confidentiality was stressed so that the “coaches might feel more at ease in 

responding.”   No other efforts were indicated. 



      The researchers mention that the scales were given in a variety of settings.  This could 

present a threat to the internal validity in that participants might not have been entirely 

focused on completing the scale, but instead on coordinating practice, completing 

paperwork, etc.  There are a number of other factors that could effect the internal validity of 

the study, yet were not addressed by the researchers. Coaching experience would greatly 

effect the responses of the participants, yet this was not considered in the study.  The gender 

of the athletes may be a contributing factor to the coaches’ responses.  It is not unreasonable 

to suppose that coaches of female athletes, particularly at the junior high and high school 

levels, will demonstrate more social support than those of male athletes. The nature of the 

sport could also be critical.  Certain coaching styles are more applicable for individual sports 

(wrestling, track, and tennis) than for team sports (football, soccer, and basketball).  The 

socioeconomics and population of the school itself could play a factor.  Certain schools have 

better athletes and programs in a particular sport, while others may not be able to field a 

winning team.  In addition, at the high school level, coaches are occasionally asked/forced to 

work with a program they have no knowledge of or desire to coach due to staffing 

shortages.  This could dramatically influence a coach’s response to the scale questions. The 

history of the program as well as the individual coach’s personal coaching history could 

greatly influence responses.  If the program has had several losing seasons in a row, perhaps 

the attitude of the coach could be different than that of a coach who has recently won a state 

title. 



     An additional set of questions regarding the personal history of the coach in question 

could have helped reduce many of these threats.  With additional information, the 

researchers may have been able to use a modified matching system when analyzing the 

results.  By increasing the number of independent variables to include things such as 

coaching experience and gender of the athletes, the researchers could have reduced some of 

the potential threats to internal validity.  In addition, bringing coaches together to a common 

setting could have reduced location threat.  Coaches meet seasonally for clinics.  Perhaps 

obtaining permission to administer the survey during these meetings would have been 

possible. It would have also been possible to actually go to individual schools and meet with 

the coaches as a group to administer surveys.  This method would have given a good 

cross-section of gender and coaching experience for a variety of sports. 

     While the study has merit, the methods need to be re-evaluated.  The power of the study 

needs to be increased by obtaining a larger sample size.  The numerous potential threats to 

internal validity need to be addressed and minimized where possible.  It would also be 

helpful to be given data regarding the validity of the RLSS.  Without these, it is impossible to 

evaluate the potential meaningfulness of this study. 
 

 

1. Blank R, Haskins R, eds. The New World of Welfare. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2001.

2. Raphael J. Keeping battered women safe during welfare reform: new challenges. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2002;57(1):32–35. [PubMed]

3. US General Accounting Office. Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients. Washington, DC: The United States General Accounting Office; 1998.

4. Allard MA, Albelda R, Colten ME, Cosenza C. In Harm’s Way? Domestic Violence, AFDC Receipt, and Welfare Reform in Massachusetts. Boston, Mass: John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs; 1997.

5. Friedmann PD, Alexander JA, DiAunno TA. Organizational correlates of access to primary care and mental health services in drug abuse treatment units. Subst Abus. 1998;19:141. [PubMed]

6. Tolman R, Danziger S, Rosen D. Domestic Violence and Economic Well-Being of Current and Former Welfare Recipients. Ann Arbor, Mich: Michigan Program on Poverty and Social Welfare Policy; 2001.

7. Tolman R, Raphael J. A review of research on welfare and domestic violence. J Soc Issues. 2000;56: 655–682.

8. Sorenson SB, Upchurch D, Shen H. Violence and injury in marital arguments: risk patterns and gender differences. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:35–40. [PMC free article][PubMed]

9. Straus M, Gelles R. How violent are American families? Estimates from the National Family Violence Resurvey and Other Studies. In: Straus M, Gelles R, eds. Physical Violence in American Families, Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1990:95–112.

10. Sorenson SB, Telles CA. Self-reports of spousal violence in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic White population. Violence Vict. 1991;6(1):3–15. [PubMed]

11. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; 2000. NCJ183781.

12. Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Hughes M, Nelson CB. Posttraumatic stress disorder in the national comorbidity survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52: 1048–1060. [PubMed]

13. Bassuk EL, Browne A, Buckner JC. Single mothers and welfare. Sci Am. 1996;275:60–67. [PubMed]

14. Salomon A, Bassuk SS, Huntington N. the relationship between intimate partner violence and the use of addictive substances in poor and homeless single mothers. Violence Against Women. 2002;8:785–815.

15. Sobell L, Sdao-Jarvie K, Frecker RC, Brown KC, Cleland PA. Long-term impact of addictions training for medical residents. Subst Abus. 1997;18:51–56.

16. Browne A, Salomon A, Bassuk SS. The impact of recent partner violence on poor women’s capacity to maintain work. Violence Against Women. 1999;5:393–426.

17. Rodriguez E, Lasch K, Chandra P, Lee J. The Relation of Family Violence, Employment Status, Welfare Benefits, and Alcohol Drinking in the United States. West J Med. 2001;174:317–323. [PMC free article][PubMed]

18. Burnam A, Stein J, Golding J, et al. Sexual assault and mental disorders in a community population. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56:843–850. [PubMed]

19. Kilpatrick DG, Acierno R, Resnick HS, Saunders BE, Best CL. Two-year longitudinal analysis of the relations between violent assault and substance use in women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65:834–847. [PubMed]

20. Winfield I, George LK, Swartz M, Blazer DG. Sexual assault and psychiatric disorders among a community sample of women. Am J Psychiatry. 1990;147: 335–341. [PubMed]

21. Golding JM. Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: a meta-analysis. J Fam Violence. 1999;14:99–132.

22. Brooks MG, Buckner JC. Work and welfare: job histories, barriers to employment, and predictors of work among low-income single mothers. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1996;66:526–538. [PubMed]

23. East JF. Hidden barriers to success for women in welfare reform. Families in society. Fam Soc. 1999;80: 295–304.

24. Moore T, Selkowe V. Domestic Violence Victims in Transition from Welfare to Work: Barriers to Self-Sufficiency and the W-2 Response, Summary Version. Milwaukee, Wis: The Institute for Wisconsin’s Future; 1999.

25. Danziger S, Kalil A, Anderson NJ. Human capital, health and mental health of welfare recipients: co-occurrence and correlates. J Soc Issues. 2000;56:635.

26. Byrne CA, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL, Saunders BE. The socioeconomic impact of interpersonal violence on women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999; 67:362–366. [PubMed]

27. Leserman J, Drossman DA, Li Z, Toomey TC, Nachman G, Glogau L. Sexual and physical abuse history in gastroenterology practice: how types of abuse impact health status. Psychosom Med. 1996;58:4–15. [PubMed]

28. Drossman DA, Leserman J, Nachman G, et al. Sexual and physical abuse in women with functional or organic gastrointestinal disorders. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:828–833. [PubMed]

29. Walling MA, Reiter RC, O’Hara MW, Milburn AK, Lilly G, Vincent SD. Abuse history and chronic pain in women: I. Prevalences of sexual abuse and physical abuse. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1994;84:193–199. [PubMed]

30. Koss M. Somatic consequences of violence against women. Arch Fam Med. 1992;1:53–59. [PubMed]

31. Moncrieff J, Farmer R. Sexual abuse and the subsequent development of alcohol probelms. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 1998;33:592–601. [PubMed]

32. Golding J. Sexual assault history and limitations in physical functioning in two general population samples. Res Nurs Health. 1996;19:33–44. [PubMed]

33. Koss MP, Koss PG, Woodruff J. Deleterious effects of criminal victimization on women’s health and medical utilization. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:342–347. [PubMed]

34. Golding JM. Sexual assault history and physical health in randomly selected Los Angeles women. Health Psychol. 1994;13:130–138. [PubMed]

35. Golding J, Cooper M, George L. Sexual assault history and health perceptions: seven general population studies. Health Psychol. 1997;16:1–10. [PubMed]

36. Tolman R, Rosen D. Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving welfare. Violence Against Women. 2001;7:141–158.

37. Nichols M, Porter K. General Assistance Programs: Gaps in the Safety Net. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; 1995.

38. Rupp K, Stapleton D. Determinants of the growth in the social security adminsitration’s disability programs–An overview. Soc Secur Bull. 1995;58:43–70. [PubMed]

39. Henly JR, Danziger SK. Confronting welfare stereotypes: characteristics of general assistance recipients and post assistance employment. Soc Work Res. 1996;20:193–288.

40. Weisner CM, Schmidt LA. Alcohol and drug problems among diverse health and social service populations. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:824–829. [PMC free article][PubMed]

41. Schmidt LA, Weisner CM, Wiley JA. Substance abuse and the course of welfare dependency. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1616–1622. [PMC free article][PubMed]

42. Danziger SK, Carlson MJ, Henly JR. Post-welfare employment and psychological well-being. Women Health. 2001;32:47–78. [PubMed]

43. Kuno E, Rothbard AB, Averyt J, Culhane D. Homelessness among persons with serious mental illness in an enhanced community-based mental health system. Psychiatr Serv (Chic). 2000;51:1012–1016. [PubMed]

44. Schmidt LA, Dohan D, Wiley J, Zabkiewicz D. Addiction and welfare dependency: interpreting the connection. Soc Probl. 2002;49:221–241.

45. Straus M. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the Conflict Tactics (CT) Scale. In: Straus M, Gelles R, eds., Physical Violence in American Families, Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1990:29–47.

46. Greenfield TK, Weisner CM. Drinking problems and self-reported criminal behavior, arrests and convictions: 1990 US Alcohol and 1989 County Surveys. Addiction. 1995;90:361–373. [PubMed]

47. Scott KD, Schafer JC, Greenfield TK. The role of alcohol in physical assault perpetration and victimization. J Stud Alcohol. 1999;60:528–536. [PubMed]

48. Weisner CM, Schmidt LA. A Framework for Health Services Research on Access and Utilization of Drug Abuse Services. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1995.

49. Clark W, Hilton M, eds. Alcohol in America: Drinking Practices and Problems in a National Survey. New York, NY: State University of New York Press; 1991.

50. Wilsnack SC, Klassen AD, Schur BE, Wilsnack RW. Predicting Onset and Chronicity of Women’s Problem Drinking: A Five-Year Longitudinal Analysis. Am J Public Health. 1991;81:305–318. [PMC free article][PubMed]

51. Weisner CM. Toward an alcohol treatment entry model: a comparison of problem drinkers in the general population and in treatment. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1993;17:746–752. [PubMed]

52. Weisner CM, Schmidt LA. Expanding the frame of health services research in the drug abuse field. Health Services Research. 1995;30:707–726. [PMC free article][PubMed]

53. Weisner CM, Schmidt LA. Gender disparities in treatment for alcohol problems. JAMA. 1992;268: 1872–1876. [PubMed]

54. Goldberg WG, Tomlanovich MC. Domestic violence victims in the emergency department. JAMA. 1984;251:3259–3264. [PubMed]

55. Hamberger L, Saunders D, Hovey M. Prevalence of domestic violence in community practice and rate of physician inquiry. Fam Med. 1992;24:283–287. [PubMed]

56. Weinsheimer RL, Schermer CR, Malcoe LH, Balduf LM, Bloomfield LA. Severe intimate partner violence and alcohol use among female trauma patients. J Trauma. 2005;58:22–29. [PubMed]

57. Abbott J, Johnson R, Koziol-McLain J, Lowenstein S. Domestic violence against women, incidence and prevalence in an emergency department population. JAMA. 1995;273:1763–1767. [PubMed]

58. Dearwater SR, Coben JH, Campbell JC, et al. Prevalence of intimate partner abuse in women treated at community hospital emergency departments. JAMA. 1998;280:433–438. [PubMed]

59. El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Witte S, et al. Intimate partner violence and substance abuse among minority women receiving care from an inner-city emergency department. Women’s Health Issues. 2003;13:16–22. [PubMed]

60. Kramer A, Lorenzon D, Mueller G. Prevalence of intimate partner violence and health implications for women using emergency departments and primary care clinics. Women’s Health Issues. 2004;14:19–29. [PubMed]

61. Mulia N, Schmidt L. Conflicts and trade-offs due to alcohol and drugs: clients’ accounts of leaving welfare. Soc Serv Rev. 2003;77:499–522.

62. Gordon L. Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890–1935. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1994.

0 Thoughts to “Journal Article Critique Assignment Of Deed

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *