DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS SCALE FOR ATHLETES 12 ABSTRACT SPDORCULAR İÇİN ÖRGÜTSEL STRES DÜZEYİ BELİRLEME ÖLÇEĞİ ÖZET. - PDF

Description
Hanifi ÜZÜM 1 Nevzat MİRZEOĞLU 1 Ercan POLAT 1 Selcuk AKPINAR 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS SCALE FOR ATHLETES 12 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to develop an instrument to assess the level

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Graphics & Design

Publish on:

Views: 19 | Pages: 14

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Hanifi ÜZÜM 1 Nevzat MİRZEOĞLU 1 Ercan POLAT 1 Selcuk AKPINAR 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS SCALE FOR ATHLETES 12 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to develop an instrument to assess the level of athletes organizational stress. For this purpose, two samples were taken from athletes playing soccer, basketball, volleyball, and handball. The number of athletes was N=479 for the first sample and was N=430 for the second sample. The draft version of the scale consisted of 139 items and was distributed to the first sample. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the first data set. There were 43 items which had eigenvalues above 1 and these items were loaded under five factors. These factors were subscaled as trainer behaviors α=0.95, management and finance α=0.86, health and nutrition α=0.82, spectator behaviors α=0.86 and participating decision making α=0.70. This obtained 43-item scale was administered to the second sample to apply confirmatory factor analysis. Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio was found as ( /df =2.42). The other parameters were determined as RMSEA=0.057, NFI=0.96, NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98, GFI=0. 87 and AGFI=0.85, and 13 items were excluded from the scale. Total Cronbach alpha for the final version of scale was found to be α=0.94, for the subscales as followed; trainer behaviors α=0.91, management and finance α=0.87, health and nutrition α=0.82, spectator behaviors α=0.82, and participating decision making α=0.70. In conclusion, this developed instrument is valid and reliable to assess the level of athletes organizational stress. Key Words: Exploratory factor analysis, Confirmatory factor analysis, Athletes, Organizational stress SPDORCULAR İÇİN ÖRGÜTSEL STRES DÜZEYİ BELİRLEME ÖLÇEĞİ ÖZET Bu çalışmanın amacı, sporcuların örgütsel stres düzeyini tespit etmek için kullanılacak bir ölçüm aracı geliştirmektir. Bu amaçla Futbol, Basketbol, Voleybol ve Hentbol culardan oluşan evrenden iki ayrı örneklem alınmıştır. Birinci örneklem (N=479), ikinci örneklem (N=430) sporcudan oluşmuştur. Birinci örneklem için, araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan 139 maddeden oluşan ölçeğe, Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi yapılmış ve 43 maddenin öz değeri 1 den büyük 5 faktör altında toplandığı saptanmıştır. Bu faktörler; antrenör davranışı α=0.95, yönetim ve finansman α=0.86, sağlık ve beslenme α=0.82, seyirci davranışları α=0.86 ve kararlara katılma α=0.70 alt boyutları olarak adlandırılmıştır. Toplam ölçeğin alfa değeri ise α=0.96 bulunmuştur. Elde edilen 43 maddelik bu ölçek Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi için ikinci örnekleme uygulanmış ve analiz sonucunda Ki-karenin serbestlik derecesine oranı ( /sd=2,42) bulunmuştur. Diğer uyum iyiliği değerleri ise RMSEA=0.057, NFI=0.96, NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98, GFI=0,87 ve AGFI=0.85 olarak belirlenmiş ve ölçekteki soru sayısı 30 a düşmüştür. Toplam ölçeğin alfa değerinin α=0.94 olduğu, alt boyutlardan ise antrenör davranışı α=0.91, yönetim ve finansman α=0.87, sağlık ve beslenme α=0.82, seyirci davranışı α=0.82 ve kararlara katılma alt boyutunun ise α=0.70 olduğu saptanmıştır. Sonuçlar, geliştirilen ölçüm aracının sporcuların örgütsel stres düzeylerini ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Anahtar Kelimeler: Sporcu, Örgütsel Stres, Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi 1 Abant İzzet Baysal University, School of Physical Education and Sport, Bolu, TURKEY 2 Nevşehir University, Faculty of Education, Department of Physical Education and Sport Nevşehir, TURKEY 137 INTRODUCTION Stress is a common term used by people of all ages in different areas of their daily life. It is defined as a psychologically or physiologically ambiguous response to the situations in which people feel threatened or have warning signs for their well-being and comforts, thereby hindering their ability to adequately function (Şimşek, 1999). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined psychological stress as a specific relation between the individual and his or her environment, which produces a situation for the individual to perceive a health threat or to consume the resources. In another definition, Morgan (1993) stated that stress is the condition that results when the individual perceives his or her environment as threatening. When the definitions of stress are reviewed, some common characteristics can be observed, such as; harmful stimulus, response to harmful stimulus, and an interaction between organism and harmful stimulus (Morgan, 1993). Everyone is naturally faced with stress in their lives. When people experience stress, they learn how to cope with it and how to evaluate their situation. Learning how to solve everyday problems can give individuals a sense of control. Selye (1974) stated that Zero stress is the death. In this case, the individual s lacks energy and ability to be able to respond to the stimulus inherent in the environment becomes fatal. However, over stress may be fatal, too. In this case, the individual spends excessive amount of energy and becomes exhausted. Optimally, therefore, every person should experience a certain amount of stress which will be useful for them to live better. As it is stated above, everyone experiences stress at work or in their daily life. This can also be seen in sport fields. Specifically, elite athletes are under immense physical and emotional pressure to be successful. In order to perform at their desired level, they have to adhere to a long training schedule and strict regimes, while living a disciplined lifestyle. Every competition is important for athletes both socially and financially. In this kind of situation, no matter how well an athlete is trained or how well his or her physical conditions are, achieving success depends on their ability to coping with stress. Stress is impossible to avoid, and athletes should learn how to manage it. The negative effect of stress may damage athletes physical energies, achievements and victories, enjoyments and entertainments (Nicholls, Polman, Levy, & Hulleman, 2012). Moreover, stress may also cause athletes to think poorly about themselves which can damage their self-confidence. Psychological stress may impair athletes performance levels, which had been gained over the years and cause injuries, and therefore resulting in an early retirement (Altungül, 2006). The researches on organizational stress sources in sport generally focus on athletes stress levels on the competition environment (Anderson & Williams, 1999; Anshel & Wells, 2000; Dugdale, Eklund, & Gordon, 2002; Geisler & Kerr, 2007; Hanton & Fletcher, 2005). Besides competition; however, other stress factors may influence performance such as social, organizational, political, professional, and cultural. Researchers supporting this idea have provided some evidence about the effect of social and organizational factors influencing athlete s performance with qualitative data (Anshel & Delany, 2001; Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & Bloomfield, 2006; O Neil & Steyn, 2007). In the literature, there are some studies focused on athletes and organizational stress factors. In their study, Woodman and Hardy (2001), found many problems exist between trainers and athletes. In another study, Krotee and Bucher (2007) stated that trainers might have an influence on athletes behaviors. Therefore, authors support the idea that trainers may have opportunities to improve 138 athletes physical, cognitive, and social/emotional developments. Holt and Hogg (1999) found the communication between trainers and players to be a stress-created factor in elite level women soccer players. Anshel and Wells (2000) also pointed out that female athletes exhibited more stress in terms of trainer and spectator behaviors than male athletes. Moreover, Nicholls et al. (2006), in their study with professional rugby players, stated that the perceived stress situations among players possibly were caused by the negative spectator behaviors as well as the media. Anshel and Wells (2000) identified the perceived sources of stress experienced by basketball players as interpersonal conflicts, referee decisions, personal performance problems, opposition influences, and team behaviors. Furthermore, O Neil and Steyn (2007) found factors such as trainer behaviors, injuries, nutrition, and spectator behaviors as perceived sources of stress among elite players. It is well established that there are many studies on the topic of sources of stress, using qualitative research methods (Anshel & Wells, 2000; Champbell & Jones, 2002; Holt & Hogg, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2006; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Researchers also looked for the different aspects of this topic using a variety of scales specifically measuring sources of stress during competition (Brewer, 1994; Fletcher & Hanton, 2003; Krotee & Bucher, 2007; Steers, 1988; Trail & James, 2001; Walter & John, 1985; Wan & Wiggins, 1999). However, there is a need to directly and extensively assess the level of athletes organizational stress. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop an instrument which can be useful to in quantitatively measuring the levels of athletes organizational stress. METHODOLOGY The development of the scale was completed in two stages. For this reason, two samples were taken from the population of team athletes (Soccer, Basketball, Volleyball, and Handball). The data from the first sample was used to apply exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to the first draft version of scale. The draft version of scale has been changed with consideration to the result of EFA and distributed to the second sample. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to finalize the scale. This study was approved by the ethical committee of Abant Izzet Baysal University. The first Stage In the first stage of the study, the first sample consisted of 479 female (144) and male (335) athletes from soccer (379), basketball (54), volleyball (28), and handball (48) teams, age ranging between from the Turkish first, second, and third division leagues. The total number of scale filled out by participants was 520 but only 479 of them filled out properly and were used for the analysis. Data collection instrument The item pool to assess athletes organizational stress was prepared to determine the sources of organizational stress among athletes by the researchers and consisted of 139 items. The item pool was prepared with consideration to the study about the determination of the source of stress in elite athletes conducted by Woodman and Hardy (2001). The qualitative study by Woodman and Hardy suggested four main sources of organizational stress for elite athletes; environmental factors, personal factors, leadership factors, and team factors. Besides the model by Woodman and Hardy, expert opinions were also gathered for the construct validity of the scale. The experts to whom opinions about athletes perceived organizational stress were gathered were eight female and male academicians from the field of sports science and they all had success in the international sports area. The item pool was consisted of 139 statements with the light of obtained data. Statements in the item pool were related 139 to trainer behaviors, health, nutrition, management, media, referee decisions, and participation in decision making. The responses to the items were evaluated with a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored with (1) almost no, (2) little, (3) moderate, (4) much, to (5) too much. Data Analysis EFA was conducted for the statistical analysis. Varimax rotation method and Principle Component Analysis were used to simplify and clarify the data structure. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test of sphericity were used to assess the appropriateness of using EFA on the data. Eigenvalue and Scree Plot methods were checked to determine the number of factors. Cronbach s alpha was used for internal consistency or reliability. Pearson correlation analysis was lastly conducted to find out the relationship between subscales. Results for Exploratory Factor Analysis Initially, assumption tests were conducted before running EFA to the data gathered from 479 elite athletes. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy test was used to find if the dataset is appropriate for factor analysis. KMO measure of sampling adequacy for the scale was found to be.96. Moreover, Barlett s test of sphericity was found to be significant (p .01). The explanation of the eigen values and total variance explained are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Eigen Values and Total Variance Explained Component Total Eigen Values % Total Variance % Principal Component Analysis In Table 1, the total of 43 items out of 139 have the eigenvalues over 1 (Kaiser Criterion) and these items were scaled under 5 factors. The total proportion of variance that the analysis accounts for in these 5 factors was 56.48%. In order to determine the appropriate number of factors, we have also checked scree plot. The number of factors is taken as the factor number that appears just before the elbow in the plot. Similar to Kaiser Criterion, 5 factors were determined as the optimal number to retain. The other factors did not increase the total variance and very close to each other. The result of the varimax rotation provided 5 factors. The first factor was composed of 20 items, the second factor was composed of 7 items, the third and fourth factors were both composed of 6 items, and the fifth factor was composed of 4 items. Finally, each factor (subscale) was subjected to the Cronbach s alpha internal consistency test. Moreover, internal consistency for the total items was also calculated. As the result of the varimax rotation test displayed 5 subscales with 43 items, the initial total number of 139 items was reorganized again and numerated from 1 to 43. After this rearrangement, items for the first factor were determined as; 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 36, 37, 38, and 39, items for the second factor were determined as; 3, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 33, items for the third factor were determined as; 22, 23, 25, 31, 40, and 42, items for the forth factor were determined as; 27, 28, 30, 34, 41, and 43, and finally items for the fifth factor were determined as ; 1, 24, 32, and 35. Table 2 displays the written forms of the items and the Cronbach s alpha internal consistency for the subscales and the total items. 140 Table 2. Description of the subscales, Internal Consistency (IC) for the Subscales and the Total Items Number of Items IC for the Subscales Trainer s Behaviors Item 2. The trainer not being in a good coalition with you. Item 4. The trainer s constant change of mind. Item 5. The trainer using the physical exercise as a punishment tool. Item 7. The trainer not complementing your achievements, Item 8. The trainer s irresponsible behaviors. Item 9. Not being able to meet the trainer s expectations. Item 11. The trainer not having a plan. Item 12. The trainer putting your health at risk. Item 14. The trainer showing lack of respect towards your beliefs. Item 17. The trainer causing tension with you. Item 18. The trainer not motivating the team. 20 α=.95 Item 19. The trainer not keeping track of new trends. Item 20. The trainer having too many expectations. Item 21. Not receiving support from your trainer. Item 26. The trainer lack of incompetence in his/her field. Item 29. The trainer being overly anxious. Item 36. The trainer verbal abuse towards you. Item 37. The trainer not being understanding. Item 38. The trainer constantly commanding. Item 39. The trainer lacking discipline. Management and Financing Item 3. Having a low incentive payment towards victory. Item 6. The managers not keeping their promises. Item 10. The managers asking for incapable doings. Item 13. The managers not caring about the problems of the team. Item 15. Your club experiencing financial problems. 7 α=.86 Item 16. The managers not showing the expected interest towards the athletes. Item 33. Not being able to receive transfer fees on time. Health and Nutrition Item 22. Irregular eating. Item 23. Constant recurring injury. Item 25. Your food lacking flavor. Item 31. Your food not fulfilling your burnt calories 6 α=.82 Item 40. Lacking freshness in your nutrients. Item 42. Not receiving enough medical support. Spectator Behaviors Item 27. Spectators chants containing profanity. Item 28. Administration tension conflict with spectator. Item 30. Spectators disrespectful chants to the visiting team. Item 30. Spectators disrespectful chants to our team. 6 α=.86 Item 41. Spectators aggressive behavior. Item 43. Spectator throwing objects on the field/court. Participation in Decision Making Item 1. Your inputs not being in consideration during the preparation of training. Item 24. Your opinion not being counted for an oncoming transfer. Item 32. Your view not being in consideration during the purchase of 4 α=.70 equipment. Item 35. Your view not being considered for the location of camp. IC for the Total Items 43 α= The Cronbach s alpha internal consistency (Table 2) for the first subscale (trainer s behaviors) it was α =.95, for the second subscale (management and financing) it was α =.86, for the third subscale (health and nutrition) it was α =.82, for the forth subscale (spectator behaviors) it was α =.86, and for the fifth subscale (participation in decision making) was α =.70. The Cronbach s alpha for the total scale was obtained to be α =.96. In order to evaluate the construct validity of subscales obtained with the factor analysis, an intercorrelation matrix was also calculated (Table 3). Table 3. Intercorrelation Matrix for the Subscales Trainer s Bahaviors -.669**.692**.570**.273** 2. Management and Financing -.575**.529**.169** 3. Health and Nutrition -.526**.256** 4. Spectator Behaviors.387** 5. Participation in Decision Making - **.01significance level. Table 3 shows that there were low and moderate levels of significant relationships (p .01) among subscales. The highest relationship (r =.69) among subscales was found between trainer s behaviors and health and nutrition subscales. The Second Stage After the statistical analyses applied to the first sample group, the scale was rearranged and administered to 430 female (185) and male (245) athletes from soccer (152), basketball (148), volleyball (61), and handball (69) teams, age ranging between from the Turkish first, second, and third division leagues. The total number of scale filled out by participants was 475 but only 430 of them filled out properly and were used for the further analysis. Data Collection Instrument After conducting EFA on the data of the first sample group, the scale was determined to have 43 items under 5 different subscales. These subscales were named as trainer behaviors, management and finance, health and nutrition, spectator behaviors, and participation in decision making. Considering this result, the second version of the scale was prepared to be ready to distribute to the second sample group. The responses to the items were again evaluated with a 5- point Likert-type scale anchored with (1) Almost no, (2) little, (3) moderate, (4) much, to (5) too much. Data Analysis After examination of exploratory analyses, a model with five factors and 43 items was specified. In order to test the appropriateness of this obtained model structure, first level CFA was conducted. LISREL software packet program was used to conduct this analysis (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001). After making some corrections on the scale with consideration to the result of CFA, internal consistency for each subscale and for scale, as a whole, was assessed. Lastly, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to find out the relationships between subscales. Results for Confirmatory F
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks