X hits on this document

145 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

35 / 65

27

Results

The survey was completed by 195 volunteers. The sample included 38

gymnasts classified as Level 11’s (“elites”), 46 as Level 10’s, 48 as Level 9’s, 36 as

Level 8’s, and 27 were classified as Level 7’s. Hispanics comprised 1.5% of the

sample, African-American 4.4%, Native American .3%, Asians 3.1%, and Whites

90.7%. Ages ranged from 10-21 years of age with one 28 year old. These parameters

are illustrated in Table II.

Comparison by Level Results of the MANOVA comparing ACSI-28 sub-scale scores of the five levels

are shown in Table III. As noted, a significant MANOVA was found for the Levels

Variable {Wilks’ Lambda F(32,673) = 3.97, p<.0001}, while ANOVA procedures

revealed significance for the Coping with Adversity sub-scale{F(4,190) = 3.93,

p<.004}. Subsequent post hoc analyses (Tukey's HSD) indicated that Level 11, the elite

gymnasts, scored significantly higher (M = 7.81, SE = .40) than did Level 9 gymnasts

(M = 6.10, SE = .35) and level 8 gymnasts (M = 5.72, SE = .41).

A significant Level effect was also seen for the Goal Preparation variable

{F(4,190) = 3.88, p<.005}. Tukey’s analyses indicated that Level 11 (M = 6.35, SE =

.42) scored significantly higher on Goal Preparation than did Level 8 (Mean = 4.58, SE

= .42) and Level 9 (M = 4.55, SE = .36). Significant effects were noted {F(4,190) =

3.86, p<.005} for the Concentration sub-scale with Level 11 (M = 8.24, SE = .40)

higher than Level 8 (M = 7.47, SE = .40). A significant ANOVA {F(4,190) = 3.87,

p<.005} for the Confidence and Achievement Motivation variable was observed with

Document info
Document views145
Page views145
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 11:19:34 UTC 2016
Pages65
Paragraphs1585
Words13246

Comments