Antrenörlerin Sportmenlik Öz-Yeterliği: Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Abstract

Sporun bütün paydaşları oyunun rekabetçi doğasının neden olduğu gerilimlere ve dramatik yankılanmalara tepki verirken yüzleşmeleri gereken birçok benzersiz ahlaki zorluklarla karşılaşmaktadır. Bu paydaşların en önemlileri oyunun içinde yer alan sporcular ve oyuna ve sporculara rehberlik eden antrenörlerdir. Bu bağlamda sportmenlik anlayışı, oyunun en önemli otoritesini temsil eden antrenörlerin ahlaki perspektiften değerlendirilebilmesini mümkün kılan önemli parametreler arasında yer almaktadır. Dolayısıyla mevcut araştırmada bu değerlendirmeye olanak sağlayan bir ölçme aracı geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, ölçeğin faktör yapısını (1. Çalışma, AFA n=314 DFA n=172) ve yapı geçerliliğini (2. Çalışma n=378) test etmek için iki çalışma ile yürütülmüştür. Sonuçlar, ölçeğin 4 faktör altında birleşen 24 maddeden oluştuğunu ayrıca madde ve faktör istatistiklerinin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu göstermektedir. Bunun yanı sıra korelasyon analizi sonuçları, ilgili yapının antrenörlerin mesleki yaşantılarında karşılaşabileceği olası ahlaki ve sosyal durumlarda tepkilerini değerlendiren bazı özelliklerle (kolektivizm, uyumluluk, empatik düşünce, ahlaki kimlik) ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Ölçülebilir hale dönüştürülen bu yapının, spor bilimleri alanının ilgili literatürüne katkı sağlamasının yanı sıra antrenörlük seminerleri düzenleyen kurumlara da rehberlik edeceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Antrenör
• Sportmenlik
• Öz-Yeterlik
• Ölçek Geliştirme

Coach Sportsmanship Self-Efficacy: Scale Development Study

Abstract

Because of the competitive nature of the sport, all stakeholders experience many unique moral challenges, during to respond to the tensions and dramatic repercussions. Athletes take part in the competitions, and the coaches, guide the athletes and competitions, are forming the most important component of the stakeholders. Sportsmanship is among the important parameters that make it possible to evaluate the coaches, who represent the most important authority of the game, from a moral perspective. Therefore, in the present study, it was aimed to develop a scale that allows this evaluation. The research was conducted with two studies to test the factor structure (study 1-EFA n=314 CFA n=172) and construct validity (study 2 n=378). The results show that the scale consists of 24 items united under 4 factors and that the item and factor statistics are valid and reliable. In addition, the results of the correlation analysis show that the structure is related to some characteristics (collectivism, Agreeableness, empathic concern, moral identity) that evaluate the reactions of the coaches in possible moral and social situations that they may encounter in their professional lives. It is thought that this structure, which has been transformed into a measurable form, will contribute to the relevant literature in the field of sports sciences, as well as guide the institutions that organize coaching seminars.

Keywords

• Coach
• Sportsmanship
• Self-Efficacy
• Scale Development

References

1. 1. Aktaş, İ. ve Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2018). The levels of empathy and social problem solving skills of physical education and sports teac-her candidates. Journal on Educational Psychology, 11(4), 8-14.
2. 2. Aquino, K. ve Reed, A. II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.
3. 3. Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
4. 4. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. W. M. Kurtines ve J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development içinde (s. 45-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.
5. 5. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior içinde (Cilt. 4, s. 71–81). New York: Academic.
6. 6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
7. 7. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. F. Pajares ve T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents içinde (s. 307-337). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age.
8. 8. Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

9. 9. Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy induced altruistic motivation. M. Mikulincer ve P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature içinde (s. 15–34). American Psychological Association.
10. 10. Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L. ve Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 65–74.
11. 11. Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3(2), 178-210.
12. 12. Boardley, I. D. (2018). Coaching efficacy research: learning from the past and looking to the future. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 214-237.
13. 13. Boardley, I. D. ve Kavussanu, M. (2009). The influence of social variables and moral disengagement on prosocial and antisocial behaviours in field hockey and netball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(8), 843-854.
14. 14. Bolter, N. D. ve Weiss, M. R. (2013). Coaching behaviors and adolescent athletes' sportspersonship outcomes: Further valida-tion of the Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors Scale (SCBS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2(1), 32-47.
15. 15. Bolter, N. D., Kipp, L. ve Johnson, T. (2018). Teaching sportsmanship in physical education and youth sport: Comparing perceptions of teachers with students and coaches with athletes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 209-217.
16. 16. Carpita, M. ve Manisera, M. (2011). On the imputation of missing data in surveys with Likert-type scales. Journal of Classification, 28(1), 93-112.
17. 17. Ciairano, S., Gemelli, F., Molinengo, G. ve Musella, G. (2007). Sport, stress, self-efficacy and aggression towards peers: unravelling the role of the coach. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 11(1), 175-194.
18. 18. Clifford, C. ve Feezell, R. M. (2010). Sport and character: Reclaiming the principles of sportsmanship. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
19. 19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. Baskı). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. 20. Costa Jr, P. T., McCrae, R. R. ve Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887-898.
21. 21. Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Holmgren, H. G., Davis, E. J., Collier, K. M., Memmott-Elison, M. K. ve Hawkins, A. J. (2018). A meta analysis of prosocial media on prosocial behavior, aggression, and empathic concern: A multidimensional approach. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 331–347.
22. 22. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
23. 23. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
24. 24. De Vellis, R. (2017). Scale development. Theory and applications (4. Baskı). Los Angeles: Sage.
25. 25. Decety, J. ve Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337-339.
26. 26. Durkheim, E. (2014). The rules of sociological method (2. Baskı). S. Lukes (Ed.) (Çev. W. D. Halls), New York: The Free.
27. 27. Eisenberg, N. Fabes, R. A. ve Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial deve-lopment. N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, ve R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Hand-book of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development içinde (6. Baskı) (s. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
28. 28. Engeler, A. (2005). Psikopati ve antisosyal kişilik bozukluğu (Dok-tora Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi Adli Tıp Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
29. 29. Ettekal, A. V., Ferris, K. A., Batanova, M. ve Syer, T. (2016). Adolescent athletes’ perceptions of the peer motivational climate in sport: Do they matter for empathic concern?. Research in Human Development, 13(2), 142-156.
30. 30. Feezell, R. M. (1986). Sportsmanship. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 13(1), 1-13.
31. 31. FeldmanHall, O., Dalgleish, T., Evans, D. ve Mobbs, D. (2015). Empathic concern drives costly altruism. Neuroimage, 105, 347-356.
32. 32. Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E. ve Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765–776.
33. 33. Feltz, D. L. ve Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams and coaches. R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas ve C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology içinde (s. 340-361). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
34. 34. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4. Baskı). London: Sage.
35. 35. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
36. 36. George, D. ve Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference. New York: Routledge.
37. 37. Graziano, W. G. ve Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. M. R. Leary ve R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior içinde (s. 46–61). New York: The Guilford Press.
38. 38. Guivernau, M. ve Duda, J. L. (2002). Moral atmosphere and athletic aggressive tendencies in young soccer players. Journal of Moral Education, 31(1), 67-85.
39. 39. Hamilton, M. G. ve LaVoi, N. M. (2017). Ethical professional identity and the development of moral exemplar collegiate coaches. Journal of Moral Education, 46(2), 114-128.
40. 40. Hamilton, M. G. ve LaVoi, N. M. (2020). Coaches who care: Moral exemplars in collegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psycho-logy, 32(1), 81-103.
41. 41. Hardman, A., Jones, C. ve Jones, R. (2010). Sports coaching, virtue ethics and emulation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(4), 345-359.
42. 42. Hardy, S. A. ve Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?. Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218.
43. 43. Higham, A. J., Newman, J. A., Stone, J. A. ve Rumbold, J. L. (2021). Coaches’ experiences of morality in english professional football environments: recommendations for creating a moral atmosphere. International Sport Coaching Journal, 9(2), 211-221.
44. 44. Hinkin, T. R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. R. A. Swanson ve E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry içinde (s. 161–179). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
45. 45. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, ınstitutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46. 46. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
47. 47. Huber, M. J., Fruth, J. D., Avila-John, A. ve López-Ramírez, E. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and student outcomes: A transactional approach to prevention. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(1), 46-54.
48. 48. Jackson, B. ve Beauchamp, M. R. (2010). Self-efficacy as a meta-perception within coach–athlete and athlete–athlete relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(3), 188-196.
49. 49. Jensen‐Campbell, L. A. ve Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323-362.
50. 50. Kavussanu, M. (2008). Moral behaviour in sport: A critical review of the literature. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(2), 124-138.
51. 51. Kavussanu, M. ve Ring, C. (2017). Moral identity predicts doping likelihood via moral disengagement and anticipated guilt. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 39(4), 293-301.
52. 52. Kavussanu, M., Seal, A. R. ve Phillips, D. R. (2006). Observed prosocial and antisocial behaviors in male soccer teams: Age diffe-rences across adolescence and the role of motivational variables. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(4), 326-344.
53. 53. Kavussanu, M., Stanger, N. ve Ring, C. (2015). The effects of moral identity on moral emotion and antisocial behavior in sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4(4), 268-279.
54. 54. Kavussanu, M., Willoughby, A. ve Ring, C. (2012). Moral identity and emotion in athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(6), 695-714.
55. 55. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4. Baskı). New York: Guilford.
56. 56. Lirgg, C. D., Dibrezzo, R. ve Smith, A. N. (1994). Influence of gender of coach on perceptions of basketball and coaching self-efficacy and aspirations of high school female basketball players. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 3(1), 1-14.
57. 57. Mills, J. ve Clark, E. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relations-hips. L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology içinde (Cilt. 3, s. 121-144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
58. 58. Myers, N. D., Wolfe, E. W. ve Feltz, D. L. (2005). An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the coaching efficacy scale for coaches from the United States of America. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9(3), 135-160.
59. 59. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. ve Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60. 60. Nunnally, J. C. ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3. Baskı). New York: McGrawHill.
61. 61. Peláez, S., Aulls, M. W. ve Bacon, S. L. (2016). Morality in sport: The coach's perspective. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(2), 237-249.
62. 62. Romand, P. ve Pantaléon, N. (2007). A qualitative study of rugby coaches’ opinions about the display of moral character. The Sport Psychologist, 21(1), 58-77.
63. 63. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581-592.
64. 64. Sage, L., Kavussanu, M. ve Duda, J. (2006). Goal orientations and moral identity as predictors of prosocial and antisocial functioning in male association football players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(05), 455-466.
65. 65. Saylık, A. (2019). Hofstede’nin kültür boyutları ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması; geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi, 8(3), 1860-1881.
66. 66. Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R. ve Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173-212.
67. 67. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 ve 4), 207-231.
68. 68. Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(2), 139-157.
69. 69. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2009). Fair play and empathy: A research study with student teachers. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 6(4), 79-84.
70. 70. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2014). Fair play in professional sports: Sportspersonship orientations of futsal players. FairPlay, Revista de Filosofia, Ética y Derecho del Deporte, 2(1), 33-49.
71. 71. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. ve Sezen, M. (2019). The relationship between empathy and antisocial-prosocial behaviours in youth field hockey players. International Journal of Learning and Change, 11(1), 57-65.
72. 72. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. ve Yıldıran, İ. (2011). Profesyonel futbolcuların sportmenlik yönelimleri ve empatik eğilim düzeyleri. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 49-56.
73. 73. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. ve Yıldıran, İ. (2018). Elit salon hokeyi oyun-cularında empatik beceri ile prososyal davranışlar arasındaki ilişki. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(1), 1-8.
74. 74. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G., Aktaş, İ. ve Sezen, M. (2018). Antrenörlerin sportmen davranış ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlama çalışması. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(4), 236-245.
75. 75. Shields, D. L., Funk, C. D. ve Bredemeier, B. L. (2018). Relationships among moral and contesting variables and prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport. Journal of Moral Education, 47(1), 17-33.
76. 76. Shields, D., Bredemeier, B. L., LaVoi, N. M. ve Power, F. C. (2005). The sport behaviour of youth, parents and coaches. Journal of Research in Character Education, 3(1), 43-59.
77. 77. Skaalvik, E. M. ve Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacherburnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611-625.
78. 78. Smoll, F. L. ve Smith, R. E. (2002). Coaching behavior research and intervention in youth sports. F. L. Smoll ve R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychological perspective içinde (2. Baskı, s. 211–234). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
79. 79. Spruit, A., Van Vugt, E., Van Der Put, C., Van Der Stouwe, T. ve Stams, G. J. (2016). Sports participation and juvenile delinquency: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(4), 655-671.
80. 80. Stanger, N. ve Backhouse, S. H. (2020). A multistudy cross-sectional and experimental examination into the interactive effects of moral identity and moral disengagement on doping. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 42(3), 185-200.
81. 81. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidel, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. Baskı). Boston: Pearson.
82. 82. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psycholo-gical Association.
83. 83. Triandis, H. (2018). Individualism and collectivism. New York: Routledge.
84. 84. Tsorbatzoudis, H., Daroglou, G., Zahariadis, P. ve Grouios, G. (2003). Examination of coaches' self-efficacy: Preliminary analysis of the coaching efficacy scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97,1297-1306.
85. 85. Vidoni, C. ve Ulman, J. D. (2012). The fair play game: Promoting social skills in physical education. Strategies, 25(3), 26-30.
86. 86. Wang, X., Yang, L., Yang, J., Wang, P. ve Lei, L. (2017). Trait anger and cyberbullying among young adults: A moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and moral identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 73(2017), 519-526.
87. 87. Worthington, R. L. ve Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838.
88. 88. Yıldız, M., Şenel, E. ve Yıldıran, İ. (2018). Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport: The roles of personality traits and moral identity. The Sport Journal, 21, 1-13.
89. 89. Yılmaz, F. ve Yılmaz, F. (2015). Ahlaki Kimlik Ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. CBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(4), 111-134.
90. 90. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. ve Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofste-de's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210.
91. 91. Zhao, H. ve Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.