In general, females scored much higher than did the male coaches.A MANOVA was also used to examine the data for differences between the three levels of coaching (junior high, high school, and college) with regard to leadership behavior in general.Next, the student described specifics about the research design, including the sample, instrumentation, and data analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Junior high coaches also demonstrated a lesser degree of social support than either the high school or college coaches.
A MANOVA was again used to analyze the data for any interaction between gender and coaching level with regard to overall leadership behavior.
There are a number of other factors that could effect the internal validity of the study, yet were not addressed by the researchers.
Coaching experience would greatly effect the responses of the participants, yet this was not considered in the study.