Next, the student described specifics about the research design, including the sample, instrumentation, and data analysis.
Ecological and population generalizability were discussed. The student spoke at length on threats to internal validity.
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.
In previous classes we spent more time talking about statistics than the literature review. The sample was nonrandom, including 162 coaches that were chosen on a volunteer basis.
That's why you'll see some fairly complex explanations in this paper on the data analysis but no information on the literature review. Within the sample, 118 (0.73) of the coaches were male, while 44 (0.27) were female.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.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.This paper would have been even better if the student had added a sentence or two about the results of the study.That way, after reading the first paragraph, the reader would know the purpose, hypotheses, and findings.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.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.