1
Athlete Satisfaction of Female College Playersof Varied Levels from Different Games and Track and Field in Kerala
*Jimmy Joseph#Dr.T.I.Manoj
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the athlete satisfaction level of collegiate female athletes participated in varied levels from different games and track and field in Kerala. The results of this study will provide athletic trainers/ coaches and administrators with an understanding of the athlete satisfaction of female athletes at the collegiate level have with them and the services they provide. The sample consists of 281 female athletes. The athletes belong to different colleges of four Universities and participated in varied levels namely state represented, university represented and inter collegiate participation among the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala University, Thiruvananthapuram, Calicut University, Thenjipalam and University of Kannur, Mangattuparambu.in the State of Kerala. The Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) is used to measure an athlete’s satisfaction with her athletic experience. The results of this study indicated the female college athletes in Kerala were generally having good overall satisfaction. The pair wise comparison on group means on variable shows that, Athletics and Volleyball, Basketball and Volleyball groups differ significantly and there is no difference between Athletics and Basketball groups in overall athletic satisfaction.
Introduction
Athlete satisfaction has been defined as a positive affective state resulting from a complex evaluation of the structures, processes, and outcomes associated with the athletic experience (Chelladurai and Riemer, 1997). Although the construct of athlete satisfaction has been of interest to researchers, few studies have addressed the underlying standards and processes that determine whether an athlete perceives his or her experience as being satisfying or dissatisfying (Riemer and Chelladurai, 1998). An individual's perception of his or her satisfaction has been posited to be important in sport. Riemer and Chelladurai (1998) noted several reasons why this might be the case. First, individual satisfaction and performance should be naturally linked. For example, a more satisfied athlete might be expected to exert more effort and persistence in the face of competition. Second, athlete involvement is central to athletic programmes and endeavours and, therefore, the satisfaction of the athlete has both theoretical and practical implications. Third, athlete satisfaction is related to and/or included as an antecedent or outcome in the conceptual frameworks of other constructs, such as cohesion and leadership. Finally, member satisfaction (as well as individual performance) has been theorized, and shown in a substantial body of research undertaken by Chelladurai and his colleagues, to be a major consequence of specific coaching behaviours (Chelladurai, 1993).
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the athlete satisfaction level of collegiate female athletes in Kerala. The results of this study will provide athletic trainers/ coaches and administrators’ with an understanding of the athlete satisfaction of female players at the collegiate level have with them and the services they provide. More importantly, the results provide insight into the differences in satisfaction levels among collegiate female athletes at various levels of participation from different games (Basketball and Volleyball) and Track and Field. It was also hypothesized that, there would not be any significant difference in the athlete satisfaction between sports and levels of participation among female college athletes in Kerala.
Methods and Materials
Selection of Subjects
The sample consists of 281 female players and track and field athletes (Track and Field = 131, Basketball= 88 and Volleyball = 72) . They belong to different colleges of four Universities in the State of Keralaviz. MahatmaGandhiUniversity, Kottayam, KeralaUniversity, Thiruvananthapuram, CalicutUniversity, Thenjipalam and University of Kannur, Mangattuparambu. The subjects were the members of first and second position holders in inter collegiate games in Basketball, Volleyball and individual first, second and third position holders in Track and Field. Players age ranged from 17 to 23 years with a mean age of 19.98 years and a standard deviation of 2.38 years.
Instrumentation
The Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) is a 15 - dimension, 56 - item multi-dimensional scale designed to measure an athlete’s satisfaction with his or her athletic experience. The subscales examine Individual performance, Team performance, Ability utilization, Strategy, Personal treatment, Training and instruction, Teamtask contribution, team social contribution, Ethics, Team integration, Personal dedication, Budget, Medical personnel, Academic support services and External agents. The scope of this study is limited to only overall satisfaction of female athletes in Kerala.
The ASQ (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) was designed for use with intercollegiate team sport athletes and is appropriate to use in other team sport settings where the level of task dependence is relatively high. Due to the authors’ (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) effort to include several dimensions of athlete satisfaction that do not strictly pertain to a specific sport setting, the ASQ may also be useful for evaluating satisfaction for athletes participating in an individual sport where the athlete performance is conducted by a single member as opposed to a team sport which requires coordinated efforts between athletes. The authors of the ASQ also support the use of athlete satisfaction as an outcome variable in various sport related contexts such as leadership, coach and player goal orientation and motivational climate. High internal consistency confirmed the reliability of the questionnaire with coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) that ranged from .78 to .95 with a mean of .88. The coefficients were higher than .85 in 12 of the 15 subscales, higher than .80 in one, and .78 and .79 in the remaining two.
Data Collection
The measurement was conducted over a period of 3 months from November 2011 to January 2012.The samples were taken from the female under graduate and post graduate student athletesofKerala statewhoparticipated in the University level competitions during the 2011 - 2012 academic year. Participants are asked to respond toAthlete Satisfaction Questionnaire - 56 item questions, each on a 7-point Likert- type scale (1 = not satisfied, 2 = satisfied very little, 3 = some what satisfied, 4 = moderately satisfied, 5 = generally satisfied, 6 = satisfied a great deal, 7 = extremely satisfied).
Data Analysis
Sport (Athletics, Basketball, Volleyball) and level of participation (State RepresentedUniversity Represented, Inter Collegiate Participation) were the independent variables used for comparing overall satisfaction scores.The data pertaining to athlete satisfaction were tested using SPSS Version 17.0, the two-way ANOVA and LSD Post Hoc analysis were performed to find significant differences between sports and levels. Testing of hypothesis level of significance was set at .05 level.
Results of the Study
The descriptive statistics on Athlete Satisfaction variable was presented in Table 1 shows that the mean score in Athletics was 5.20 (SD = 0.759), Basketball players mean score was 5.29 (SD = 0.779), and the Volleyball players the mean score was 4.91 (SD = 0.982). In the case of different levels of participation, the State represented players mean score was 5.27 (SD = 0.845), University represented players mean score was 5.25 (SD = 0.833), and Inter collegiate participated players mean score of Athlete Satisfaction was 4.96 (SD = 0.799). The maximum composite score on Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire scale was 392. For computation purpose the total score is divided by the total number of questions and the maximum achievable score was 7. Therefore, high composite score on individual performance indicates high level of satisfaction. The mean scores of all the selected groups were above 5 which means that mean scores were above 71% of the total possible score.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Overall Athlete Satisfaction
SPORTS / LEVELS / Mean / S. D / NAthletics / State Represented / 5.41 / .682 / 63
University Represented / 5.32 / .707 / 16
Inter Collegiate participation / 4.90 / .779 / 52
Total / 5.20 / .759 / 131
Basketball / State Represented / 5.38 / .812 / 40
University Represented / 5.44 / .791 / 12
Inter Collegiate participation / 5.08 / .704 / 26
Total / 5.29 / .779 / 78
Volleyball / State Represented / 4.92 / 1.020 / 39
University Represented / 4.74 / 1.073 / 7
Inter Collegiate participation / 4.94 / .934 / 26
Total / 4.91 / .982 / 72
Total / State Represented / 5.27 / .845 / 142
University Represented / 5.25 / .833 / 35
Inter Collegiate participation / 4.96 / .799 / 104
Total / 5.15 / .837 / 281
The graphical representation of mean score on athlete satisfaction is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Mean scores of Athlete Satisfaction
Table 2
Two-way ANOVA on Athlete Satisfaction
Source of Variation / Sum of Squares (SS) / df / Mean Sum of Square (MSS) / F / p-value (Sig.)Sports / 5.182 / 2 / 2.591 / 3.902 / .021
Levels / 3.861 / 2 / 1.931 / 2.907 / .056
Interaction (Sports * Levels) / 3.385 / 4 / .846 / 1.274 / .280
Error / 180.611 / 272 / .664
Corrected Total / 196.169 / 280
a .R Squared = .079 (Adjusted R Squared = .052)
The p-values for Sports (Athletics, Basketball and Volleyball) and Levels (State Represented, University Represented and Intercollegiate Participation) in Table 2 are less than 0.05 hence the two F-values 3.902 and 2.907 were significant at 5% level. In the case of Interaction (Groups X Levels) the p-value was 0.280 which was more than 0.05 and the value of F obtained 0.280 is not significant. Thus the research hypothesis for Interaction (Groups X Levels) is accepted and for Factor A (Sports) and Factor B (Levels) are rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Subsequent LSD Post hoc analysis was performed on groups and levels were presented below.
Table 3
Pair wise comparison of Means of Sports on Athlete Satisfaction variable
Sport (I) / Sport (J) / Mean Difference(I-J) / Sig
(p-value)
Athletics (5.20) / Basketball (5.29) / -.09 / .431
Volleyball (4.91) / .29* / .017
Basketball (5.29) / Athletics (5.20) / .09 / .431
Volleyball (4.91) / .38* / .005
Volleyball (4.91) / Athletics (5.20) / -.29* / .017
Basketball (5.29) / -.38* / .005
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
The Table 3 reveals that, the Athletics and Volleyball groups differ significantly at 0.017 levels and the Basketball and Volleyball groups differ significantly at 0.005 levels and Athletics group does not differ significantly with Basketball group. The result shows that, there is significant difference on Athlete satisfaction with the individual athletes’ talents / abilities of Basketball and Volleyball players. The pair wise comparison on group means on variable Athlete Satisfaction shows that, Athletics and Volleyball, Basketball and Volleyball groups differ significantly and there is no difference between Athletics and Basketball groups. Basketball group scored highest i.e.5.29 and the lowest scored was Volleyball group (4.91).
Table 4
Pair wise comparison of Means of various levels on Athlete Satisfaction
Levels (I) / Levels (J) / Mean Difference(I-J) / Sig.
(p-value)
State Represented
(5.27) / University Represented / .02 / .874
Inter Collegiate Participation / .31* / .003
University Represented
(5.25) / State Represented / -.02 / .874
Inter Collegiate Participation / .29 / .073
Inter Collegiate Participation (4.96) / State Represented / -.31* / .003
University Represented / -.29 / .073
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
The Table 4 reveals that, the State represented and Inter Collegiate participation groups differ significantly at 0.003 level and University represented group does not differ significantly with State represented and Inter Collegiate participation group. The pair wise comparison of means of various levels on variable Athlete satisfaction shows that, State represented group and inter collegiate participation group differ significantly. There was no significant difference between State represented and University represented and University represented and Inter collegiate participation groups. Which indicate that, there is significant difference between State represented and Inter collegiate participation groups on individual satisfaction with the individual athletes talents/abilities.State represented group scored highest i.e.5.27 and the lowest scored was Inter Collegiate participation group (4.96).
Discussion
The results of this study indicated the female college athletes in Kerala were generally having good overall satisfaction, which included in the satisfaction measure were scales on team and individual performance,coaches’behaviours and treatmentof theathlete, training and instruction, team taskand social contributions,personal dedication, ability utilization, and team integration. Other facets of satisfaction included in the results were ethics, budget, medical and academic support and external agents.
Female basketball players of Kerala showed highest level of satisfaction and the female volleyball players showed the lowest. In Kerala, the female volleyball players having the higher level of achievement in inter university and national level competitions in India. The low scores by the female volleyball players shows that, they believe they are not getting the eligible level of recognitions and facilities compared to other sports groups. This suggests female volleyball players perceive that athletic trainers/coaches/administrators generally offer greater attention to other high-profile sports than they do to volleyball.
Staffing issues also may influence the satisfaction of these athletes. Athletic training programs may not be staffed well enough to provide thorough or comprehensive coverage to all teams. Perhaps having more staff available to athletes in athletics and basketball could enhance satisfaction outcomes.Equal treatment of athletes is a professional responsibility to which all athletic training professionals. Treating all athletes with dignity and respect, providing emotional support, and considering each athlete's individual perspective, no matter the sport, are just a few of the strategies to increase satisfaction without increasing staff, supplies, or equipment. Addressing these areas of care delivery is in keeping with what other health care professionals have done in an effort to increase players’ satisfaction.
Practicing athletic trainers might improve on theirathletes'satisfactionwith care by simply enhancing their own listening and communication skills. Athletes who perceive their athletic trainers as willing to listen to them and interested in their concerns may demonstrate a higher level of satisfaction, which can only improve the working relationship between the athletes and the athletic trainers.
The value of sub variables of likeTeam task contribution, team social contribution, Team integration, and Academic support services may high in basketball players because it is a body contact game compare to volleyball and academic achievement of female basketball players is higher than the volleyball players in Kerala. Trust between players, friendship, and feedback among the players during the match and from the coach had a positive impact
to develop more athletic satisfaction among female basketball players. This may be another reason the satisfaction scores are found higher in basketball players compare to volleyball players when examine with the nature of the game. Enjoyment of competition, communication style, and ability to relate on a personal
level may be also high in female basketball players; this may be the other reason for the higher level of satisfaction among female basketball players.
High student-athlete satisfactionmay reflect the quality of health care provided by athletic trainers/coaches/administrators. The results suggest that the collegiate female athletes who participated have a high level of satisfaction with the care provided by their athletic trainers. The findings also demonstrate, however, that satisfaction is not uniform and that athletic training professionals need to continue to work to improve delivery of health care across the athlete population.
References:
Chelladurai, P. (1987). Multidimensionality and multiple perspectives of Organizational effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 1, 37-47.
Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tenant (Eds.), Handbook on research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: MacMillan.
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in Sports. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), The sport psychology handbook (pp. 113-135). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
Chelladurai, P., Imamura, H., Yamaguchi, Y., Oinuma, Y., & Miyauchi, T. (1988). Sport leadership in cross-national setting: The case of Japanese and Canadian university athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 374-389.
Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. A. (1997). A classification of the facets of athlete satisfaction. The Journal of Sport Management, 11, 133-159.
*Physical Education Teacher, St.Joseph’s High School, Mattakara, Palai, Email:
#Associate Professor, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram, Email: