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
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 coachs response to the scale questions. The
history of the program as well as the individual coachs 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
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.