| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 體育學系碩士班 === 90 === The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the cogitating factors of performance evaluation for collegiate athletic teams, and to examine the current statues of collegiate athletic teams. Differences between/among the perceptions of cogitating factors with different demographics and between athletic directors and coaches were also analyzed. In addition, the relationships between coaches’ demographics variables and their self-evaluation of current status were also examined.
The research subjects of this study were 122 athletic directors and 500 coaches of universities and colleges in Taiwan. Data were collected through the use of the “Cogitating Factors of Performance Evaluation for Collegiate Athletic Teams and the Coaches’ Self-evaluation of Current Status Scale”. Statistical analyses were performed on 439 valid responses. The results of this study were as follows:
1.The cogitating factors of performance evaluation of athletic teams were “Training and Competition”, “Administrative Operation” and “Team Interaction”.
2.Among the cogitating factors, “Team Interaction” was most recognized by the athletic directors, “Training and Competition”being the second, and “Administrative Operation”the third.
3.Athletic directors’ gender, coaching experience, school-category and recruiting excellent athlete or not hadn’t affected on the recognition level of all of the three dimensions.
4.Athletic directors’ length of service had no significant correlation with the recognition levels of all of the three dimensions.
5.There was a significant difference on the recognition level of “Training and Competition” factor between athletic directors of public and private universities/colleges.
6.Among the cogitating factors, “Team Interaction” was most recognized by the athletic directors, “Administrative Operation” beign the second, and “Training and Competition” the third.
7.There was no significant difference between male and female coaches’, or coaches from public and private universities/colleges on the recognition levels of all of the three dimensions.
8.Coaches’ length of service and the age of the athletic team had no significant correlations with their recognition levels of all of the three dimensions.
9.Coaches who served in athletic universities/colleges had significant higher recognition levels of all of the three factors than those who served in not-athletic schools.
10.Coaches who were belonged to the universities/colleges which had recruited excellent athlete had significant higher recognition level of “Training and Competition” factors than those who were not.
11.There was a significant difference of the coaches’ recognition level of “Training and Competition” factor among teams with different sources of funding.
12.There was a significant difference of the coaches’ recognition level of “Administrative Operation” factor among different kinds of athletic teams.
13.There was a significant difference on the recognition levels of “Administrative Operation” and “Team Interaction” factors among coaches of male teams, female teams and teams with both male and female athletes.
14.Coaches of the athletic team which had different kind of athlete, or had different achievement of the team in past 5 years had significant positive correlation with the recognition level of “Training and Competition” factor.
15.Coaches of the athletic team which had different achievement in 2001 had significant positive correlation with the recognition levels of “Training and Competition” and “Team Interaction” factors.
16.Athletic directors had significant higher recognition level of “Training and Competition” factor than coaches.
17.Among the self-vealuation of current status by coaches, “Team Interaction” was the best, “Administrative Operation” being the second, and “Training and Competition” the third.
18.Coaches who served in public universities/colleges had significant higher scores in the factors of “Training and Competition” and “Team Interaction” than those who served in private schools.
19.Coaches who served in athletic universities/colleges had significant higher self-evaluation scores of all the three dimensions than those who served in not-athletic schools.
20.Coaches who served in the universities/colleges which had recruited excellent athlete had significant higher self-evaluation scores in the dimension of “Training and Competition” than those who were not.
|
|---|
