| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 體育學系碩士班 === 92 === Abstract
This pourpose of this study was to develope the Woodball Attention Inventory (WAI) in order to better understand the woodball players’ attention as well as to facilitate the techniques of teaching and training in woodball.
The WAI was composed of four subscales: attention duration, attention flexibility, attention intensity, and attention selectivity. In this study, 25 items measured by the Likert 5-point scale were quite simple and need no further explanation. As for the subjects, 320 woodball players joining the National Youth Cup in 2004 participated in this study.
Statistically analyzed, the findings of this study were summarized as follows:
1. Reliability: The coefficients of each item and subscale range from .56 to .83. The internal consistency α coefficient of the total WAI was .90. Moreover, the coefficients of the two week test-retest reliability range from .55 to .68. The total reliability of test-retest is .76.
2. Validity
(1) Content Validity: The content of the WAI refers to related theories and literature, the viewpoints of national woodball athletes, and the teaching experience of the researcher. Sixteen experts including sports psychologists, woodball coaches, and national woodball athletes analyzed the validity of the content of the WAI. As a result, the content validity of each item was above 2.45, showing the positive content validity.
(2) Concurrent Validity:
a. The correlation of self-confidence and the WAI was significant (.58).
b. The correlation of woodball seniority and the WAI was significant (.24).
c. The correlation of woodball scores and the WAI was significant (.22).
(3) Contruct Validity: The prominent coefficients of each scale range from .45 to .74. Moreover, the prominent coefficients of each subscale and the total WAI range from .75 to .88.
(4) Prediction Validity: The coefficient of the scores of the WAI and the games was -.37, showing negative correlation. That was, the more attention the players paid, the better scores they got. The result proved the positive prediction validity of the WAI.
3. Discriminant Analysis: The WAI, analyzed by t-test, was apparently suitable for both male and female. Following the analyses of One-Way ANOVA and Scheffe’s Post Hoc multiple comparisons, the excellent players performed better than the medium-level or low-level players. The low-level players performed the worst. The result indicated the importance of players’ attention as well as the practicability of the evaluation of different level players.
|
|---|
