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.Following the information on threats to internal validity, the student provided suggestions regarding how these threats could have been dealt with. Not only does the student know what the weakness of the study are, he provides ways the study could have been improved. Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale. 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 first hypothesis was that male and female coaches would respond differently to the RLSS in overall leadership behaviors.
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.
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.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 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.Here is a really good example of a scholary research critique written by a student in EDRS 6301.The student who submitted this paper last semester earned a 100 on his critique. A succint summary is provided in the first paragraph.Once again, a better analysis method could have been chosen based on the nature of the data collected. The ecological generaliziability for the study is fairly high.The surveys were mailed out, and returned on a volunteer basis.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.