close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

The relation of performance skill in basketball fundamentals to actual playing ability

код для вставкиСкачать
THE RELATION OE PERFORMANCE SKILL IN BASKETBALL
FUNDAMENTALS TO ACTUAL PLAYING- ABILITY
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Physical Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Ly
Glenn Simmons
August 1940
UMI Number: EP62836
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also; if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
DisserlMion Publishing
UMI EP62836
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48 10 6 - 1346
This thesis, writ ten by
........... 5 L M ? L . S B M 0 N S ................
u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f h .X S . F a c u l t y C o m m i t t e e ,
a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l its m e m b e r s , has been
p r e s e n t e d to a n d a c c e p t e d b y t h e C o u n c i l on
G raduate S tu d y a nd Research in p a r tia l f u l f i l l ­
m e n t o f the re q u ir e m e n ts f o r the degree o f
.JIASTmjJELARTfl.
Secretary
Date
A U O T S T . . . 3 1 ^.J..9 .
4 Q..
F aculty Com m ittee
r~
'hairmdn
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HAPTER
I.
PACE
INTRODUCTION...............
* ........
1
Statement of the problem..................
1
The p r o b l e m ...........................
. 1
Scope of the problem.....................
2
Experimental groups
.
................
2
Purpose of the investigation ..............
2
Conflicting opinions ...................
2
Research attitude
3
.-...................
Importance of the investigation
Related studies
..........
.........................
Brief history of sports and game testing . .
Early development of game t e s t s ........
Motor ability tests
...................
Brace’s game skill tests ................
4
6
6
6
7
8
Los Angeles achievement expectancy
t a b l e s ........................... . .
Bliss’s study of progression . . ........
Testing ability in b a s k e t b a l l
..
Edgren tests ...........................
Test— experimental groups
..............
Crumpacker tests .......................
8
9
9
9
10
11
iii
CHAPTER
PAGE
Griffith tests .........................
12
Cross study
14
.....................
Bunn's investigation . . .
............
Investigation of part and whole method . .
15
16
Achievement scales in skill and know­
ledge abilities' in basketball forsenior high school g i r l s .........
Young and Moser study
...........
18
Score c a r d .............................
20
..........
Outline of remaining chapters
II.
17
21
METHOD OE P R O C E D U R E .......................
22
Selection of g r o u p s ...................
23
Selection of fundamental tests . . . . . . . .
25
The t e s t s .............................
25
Reliability of tests ...................
30
Validity of t e s t s .....................
31
Administrative methods ....................
32
..........
32
Objectivity of tests . . . . .
Ranking of experimental subjects on game
a b i l i t y ...............................
Selection of judges
33
..............
Method of r a n k i n g .......................
Validation of rankings.................
34
34
.
36
iv
■CHAPTER
III.
PAGE
Validation of rankings by score card . . .
44
Rank difference method . . ..............
44
Validation by matched g a m e s ............
45
Summary
49
. . . . . . ...................
RANKING OF EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS ON
FUNDAMENTALS
IV.
.........
.
52
Raw s co r e s .................. ...........
52
Transmutation of raw s c o r e s ............
53
Average T-scores.......... .............
58
RELATION OF T-SCORES TO JUDGES’RANKINGS . . .
62
Correlation of judges’ ranking with
average T-scores .....................
64
S u m m a r y ...........
V.
64
S U M M A R Y .....................
Restatement of problems
70
. . . . . . . . . .
Summary of experimental steps
70
. . . . . .
70
Summary of results.......................
71
Results of reliability experiment
....
Evidence of validity of judges’ ranking
71
.
72
Relationship between experimental
factors
Conclusions
.....................
. . . . . . . . . .
Implications...........
..........
72
73
73
V
CHAPTER
PACE
Applicability of d a t a .............
75
Recommendations.........................
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
76
...........
78
.............
82
APPENDIX A.
Figures illustrating tests used ........
APPENDIX B.
T-scales for transmuting raw’scores
into T-scores
APPENDIX C.
.
...................
83
88
Sample score card to measure playing
efficiency
. . . . . .
............
.
112
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
I. Group I Ranking by J u d g e s ..................
II.
37
Group II Ranking by J u d g e s ..................
38
III. Group III Ranking by J u d g e s ................
39
IV• Group I Efficiency Scores as Measured by
41
Dimick Score Card ;...........
V. Group II Efficiency Scores as Measured by
Dimick Score Card
.....................
42
VI. Group III Efficiency Scores as Measured by'
Dimick Score C a r d ...............
43
VII. Correlation Between Judges1 Ranking and
Ranking on Dimick Score Card-Group I . . . .
46
VIII. Correlation Between Judges1 Ranking and
Ranking on Dimick Score Card-Group II
...
47
Ranking on Dimick Score Card-Group III . . .
48
IX. Correlation Between Judges1 Ranking and
X. Record of Games Won and Lost
XI.
........
50
Raw Scores-Group I ......... X"..............
54
XII. Raw Scores-Group II
................
XIII. Raw Scores-Group I I ....................
XIV. T-Scores and Average T-Scores-Group I
56
. . . .
XV. T-Scores and Average T-Scores-Group II . . .
55
.
59
60
vii
'table
page
XVI,
T-Scores and Average T-Scores-Group III
XVII.
Correlation Between Judges’ Ranking and
. .
61
Average T -Score..................... ..
XVIII.
65
Correlation Between Judges’ Ranking and
Average T-Score .......................
XIX.
66
Correlation Between Judges’ Ranking and
Average T-Score . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XX. T-Scale
for Group I Test I
67
........
88
XXI.
T-Scale
for Group I Test I I ....... ......
89
XXII.
T-Scale
for Group I Test III..... .
90
XXIII.- T-Scale
....
for Group I Test I V ...........
91
XXIV.
T-Scale
for Group I Test V
.
.'..
93
XXV.
T-Scale
for Group I Test VI .
’. ..
93
XXVI.
T-Scale
for Group I Test VII
XXVII.
T-Scale
for Group I Test V I I I ........
XXVIII.
T-Scale
for Group II Test I . . . . . . .
XXIX.
T-Scale
for Group II Test II . . . . . . .
XXX.
T-Scale
for Group II Test I I I ........
98
XXXI.
T-Scale
for Group II Test I V .........
99
XXXII.
T-Scale
for Group II Test V
............
100
XXXIII.
T-Scale
for Group II Test VI
. . . . . .
101
XXXIV.
T-Scale
for Group II Test V I I .........
. . . . . . .
94
95
.
96
97
.
103
viii
TABLE
PAGE
HX7.
T-Soale for Group II Test V I I I ..........
103
22X71.
T-Scale for Group III Test I ............
104
T-Scale for Group III Test I I .........
105
XXXVIII.
T-Scale for Group III Test I I I ..........
106
XXXIX.
T-Scale for Group III Test I V ..........
107
22X711.
XL.
XLI.
T-Scale for Group III Test V .........
.
108
T-Scale >for Group III Test V I ..........
109
XLII.
T-Scale for Group III Test V I I ..........
110
XLIII.
T-Scale for Group III Test V I I I ........
Ill
LIST OF FIGUHES
FIGURE
PAGE
1.
Target for Test II
* .............
83
2.
Diagram of Test I V ...........................
84
3.
Diagram of Test V
...........................
85
4.
Diagram of Test V I I .........................
86
5.
Diagram of Test VIII
_....................
.
87
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The problem. For a number of years there has been a
question in the mind of the writer concerning the problem of
selection of the members of a basketball squad.
It is very
often assumed that skill in fundamentals of the game predicts
skill in game situations.
While this assumption may be true
in a majority of cases, the writer knows of many cases in
which.the boy who scored low in fundamentals has performed
brilliantly when in game situations; and, on the other hand,
the boy who excelled in fundamental drills has many times
been very disappointing in game situations.
This study was undertaken to discover, if possible*
what evidence of relationship between game ability and funda­
mental skills exists.
If players are selected for the team
on the basis of their skill in.fundamentals, and on this basis
along, is this method of selection a practical one?
If skill
in fundamentals does predict game ability, what is the degree
o f 'this relationship?
Are there factors other than skill in
fundamentals which should be considered?
exist, can these factors be measured?
If other factors do
How important are sub­
jective elements such as judgment, cooperation, determination,
2
et cetera?
An attempt to produce evidence that would he of
help'in answering these questions was the motivating factor
for this study.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
Experimental groups. A study was conducted at Provo
High School, Provo, Utah.
in the study.
Three separate groups were used
Group one was made up of twenty-nine members
of the varsity and sophomore basketball squads.
Group two
consisted of thirty-five boys from period two physical edu­
cation class.
Group three consisted of thirty-five boys
from period one physical education class.
Group one was made
up of a selected group from the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth
grades.
Group three was unselected and consisted of tenth
grade boys exclusively.
groups.
No attempt was made to equate the
All three groups were used for separate studies.
No composite or consolidated data were used.
or correlations between groups were made.
No comparisons
Three separate
studies were conducted for the purpose of giving weight to
the importance of the findings.
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Conflicting opinions.
The primary objective of this
study was to test conflicting opinions regarding the
3
importance of skill in fundamentals of basketball as a factor
in selection of team personnel.
Many'coaches believe that
skill in fundamentals is the only basis upon' which to select
squad members.
Other coaches are equally certain that there
are other qualifications such as team play or willingness to
cooperate, determination, competitive spirit, and other sub­
jective factors which should receive first consideration
when selecting the members of the team.
Most coaches who have thought carefully of these con­
flicting opinions have never been really positive that the
best players received first call.
After the season is over,
many coaches express the opinion that possibly some player
might have strengthened the team if he had been used more,
or he may have considered the possibility that the team
might have done better if one of the regular players had been
used less.
Research attitude.
If physical education is to stand
the careful., scrutiny and investigation of critical education,
it must be built upon foundations that have stood the test
of careful measurement.
This thought has been very well'
stated by Bovard and Cozens1 as follows:
cal education face a new situation.
"Students of physi­
No longer are we willing
^ J'. E, Bovard and F. W. Cozens, Tests and Measure­
ments in Physical Education (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders
Company, 1930), p. 7.
4
to stand by and allow our work to be labeled as just exer­
cise •"
The student of physical education must be careful in
accepting opinions that have not been tested.
Many opinions
are founded on false premises and are many times the result
of faulty conclusions.
As pointed out by Bovard and Cozens:
Physical education is confronted with the problem of
discovering laws, the principles and the fundamentals on
which to build such a science. To do this we must adopt
the research attitude, experiment under proper condi­
tions and with the best possible scientific equipment.2
IMPORTANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The writer, while somewhat dubious of providing
definite answers to the concrete questions, raised in the
outline of the problem, was hopeful that evidence could be
found that would be suggestive in the solution of the problem.
It was hoped also that the study might stimulate further
research along similar lines.
It-was thought by the writer that data might suggest
one of two important conclusions:
(1) It might suggest that
skill in fundamentals is related so closely to ability in
game situations that this could very well be used as the one
important factor in selection of team members.
(2) It might
show that the correlation between the two was not significant.
2
Bovard and Cozens, loc. cit.
5
This latter outcome would suggest that other factors should
receive attention.
These other factors, which are chiefly
subjective in nature, might be used as the sole bases in
selecting the best players, or they might be used in conjunc­
tion with the factor of skill in fundamentals.
The writer recognized the limitations of this study
in which only small groups were used, and, therefore, has
made no claim of final proof for this experiment.
There are several places in physical education in which
this type of -effort should be of value:
1.
The instructor is encouraged in giving individual
instruction when he knows the skills of each pupil.
This is
possible only when each pupil has been tested in the activity
in which he is engaged.
2.
The pupil develops an interest in the activity
when he can see the progress he is making in the testing
program.
3.
Testing provides a basis for. more accuracy in
giving final grades.
4.
Coaches of teams can make better selections and
wiser eliminations of men from their squads when men remain
on the squad on the basis of actual performance rather than
mere opinion of one man.
6
RELATED STUDIES
It became necessary to limit this review to closely
related studies* Btfany investigations have been made in basket­
ball, and many books written on the technique of the game.
The writer has become familiar with many of these sources and
has derived much help from them in the study conducted.
The
work reviewed has been of value in acquainting the writer with
what has already been done and has been suggestive of means
of approach and methods of solution of his own problems.
No study was found identical in nature with the one in
this investigation, although several of similar character
were found.
Most studies reviewed assumed the relation and
high correlation that the investigator has attempted here to
measure•
BRIEF HISTORY OF SPORTS AND GAME TESTING
Early development of game tests. A study of the his­
tory of this subject shows that tests in this field are of
comparatively recent origin.
The need for more investigation
is revealed by the statement of Bovard and Cozens that "this
field of measurement is relatively untouched."^
3 Ibid., pp. 146-7.
The little
7
work already done is outlined by the same authors as follows:
The first use of game elements as possibilities for
testing in physical education comes in the development
of the Athletic Badge Tests by the Playground and
Recreation Association of America in 1913. These tests
include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Baseball throw for accuracy
Baseball throw for distance
Basketball throw for distance
Volleyball service
Tennis serve
Baseball goal throw
As early as 1916, Reilly introduced into his program
of rational athletics certain tests which involve the
elements of game activities, such as:
1. Baseball pitching
2. Basketball goal throw
3. Throwing the basketball
4. Service in tennis
5. Putting in golf
6. Driving in golf
These tests were followed by the work of Hetherington
in developing the California Decathlon. New tests which
were added were:
1. Punting a football for distance
2. Soccor kick for goal *
3. Running and catching
4. Tennis and volleyball servings4
Motor ability tests.
The Motor Ability Committee of
the American Physical Education Association has stimulated
the development of sport skill tests.
plain the committee’s work as follows:
4 Ibid., p. 147.
Bovard and Cozens ex
8
A very important position of their work relates spe­
cifically to game activity tests, the aim of which is to
break up team play into interesting, teachable, measura­
ble units, which can be used for mass exercises on a
limited space.5
Brace *s game skill tests.
Brace developed certain
athletic game skill tests to measure athletic achievement
for the purpose of correlating the scores with his motor
ability tests.
He developed and standardized tests in basket­
ball, indoor baseball, indoor soccor, and indoor track and
field events.
he gave.6
He computed sigma index scores from the tests
His battery of basketball tests was more complete
than any tests that had been developed up to that time.
He
attempted to measure all the fundamental skills involved in
playing the game.
7
Los Angeles achievement expectancy tables.
In 1927
the Los Angeles City School District worked out, under the
director of the physical education department, achievement
tests in thirteen events.
fundamental game skills*
Several of these tests include .
Statistical tabulations have been
^ Report of the National Committee on Motor Ability
Tests, American Physical Education Association, TMarch, 1926)
cited by Bovard and Cozens, op.cit.t p. 148.
6 D.K. Brace, "Testing Basketball Technique," American
Physical Education Review« XXIX (April, 1924), pp. 159-65.
7
D. K. Brace, Measuring Motor Ability (New York: A.
S. Barnes and Company, 1927), pp. 74-86.
made from which standards of achievement have "been computed
over an age-grade basis.
The expected achievement from each
pupil is determined by these tabulations.
Blissfs study of progression.
D
In Bliss’s study to
determine the progression in skills attained by boys and
girls of junior high school age, four of his twelve tests
were developed from skills involved in playing basketball
and baseball.
mg, 9
His baseball test measured accuracy in throw-
TESTING ABILITY IN BASKETBALL
Edgren tests, Edgren made a study of basketball test
with the purpose of measuring progress of acquired skills.
The purpose of his study is stated by him as follows:
The study concerns itself with three major problems:
(1) Gan a series of tests be developed which will ade­
quately measure progress in basketball? (2) Can a
series of tests be developed, which flight be used as a
means of predicting potential basketball ability?
® Los Angeles City Schools (Department of Physical
Education) Achievement Expectancy Tables, 1928.
9 J. G. Bliss, ."A Study of Progression Based on Age,
Sex, and Individual Differences in Strength and Skill,"
American Physical Education Review. XXXII. (February. 1927).
pp. 85-89.
(3) Is there any carry over from specific basketball
skill to general ability s k i l l s ? 1 0
Test— experimental groups* Edgren used one battery
of specific skill tests in basketball and two batteries of
general motor ability tests.
cluded four measurements:
One general ability test in­
speed by running around objects;
agility by jumping and reaching; coordination by measuring
ability in shifting from one line to another; endurance by
running up a flight of stairs eight times.
The other general
measurement was Brace’s Motor Ability Test.-*-!
Subjects used by Edgren were:
one experimental group
of thirty members of beginners’ class in basketball; a con­
trol group of thirty members of varied basketball ability.
His general procedure was as follows:
Ths^basketball, general ability, and Brace tests were
given to the experimental groups at the beginning of the
quarter, and the basketball tests were given to the con­
trol group at the same time. After two months of instruc­
tion of forty minutes per day, in basketball fundamentals,
and two weeks of actual play, the experimental group was
again tested to determine whether or not any progress
had been made in motor skill. At this same time the con­
trol group was again tested to see whether or not any
progress had been made in this group which had not been
instructed. This group was used primarily in the basket­
ball test to determine the validity of this particular test.
10 H. D. Edgren, "Experiment in Testing of Ability and
Progress in Basketball," The Research Quarterly of the
American Physical Education Association^ III, (March, 1932),
pp. 159-71.
11 Brace, ojd. cit. » p. 28.
11
The raw scores of each test have been reduced to
T-Scale scores, to make all scores comparable and to
properly place each student in relation to the other
students.12 As a result of these several tests Edgren
drew the following conclusions:'
1. The results of the experiment seem to indicate
that progress in the fundamentals of basketball can be
measured.
2. The similar percentage of increase and the high
correlation between basketball and general athletic
ability proves the close relationship of these two
groups of skills even though the correlation of improve­
ment was very low.
3. The lack of correlation in improvement indicated
that learned skill in one activity does not carry over
in the same amount to another skill.
To objectively test an individual for potential
basketball ability, the test must of necessity measure
untaught skills. The' high correlation between general
ability test scores and specific basketball scores at
the outset seems to warrant the use of general ability
tests as predictive for potential playing ability.13
Crumpacker tests.
Crumpacker attempted to work out
a battery of prognostic tests for high school basketball
players.
He gives his problem in the following words:
The particular purpose of this study was to devise
prognostic tests to measure the potential basketball
skill of high-school players. . . and with a short
time to select and develop a squad there is a demand
for prognostic tests to help select individuals who can
be quickly trained as basketball players.14
12 Edgren, op. crt., p. 163.
13 Ibid., pp. 163-5.
^ Samuel W. Crumpacker, A Prognostic Test for High
School Basketball Players, (unpublished Master’s thesis,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California,
1933).
12
A large amount of material was accumulated by the
author, as a result of reading and interviews.
As a result
seven requirements were set forth as fundamental.
cluded:
These in­
reaching, jumping, throwing, shooting, dribbling
running, and shifting.
Twenty-three tests were then devised
to test these techniques.
Three hundred and thirty-five players divided into
three groups were used in the study.
In the first group of class "A" the extreme relia­
bility of the one-hand running and jump event placed it
first for selective purposes.
In the passing events the
rapid passing against the wall was the most indicative of
ability.
In the shooting events the dribble and one-hand
push shot from the front was the most reliable.
In conclusion the investigator states that it is
possible to provide tests which will accurately measure
potential ability to play the game.
Griffith tests.
Griffith has made numerous studies
in the testing of skill and in methods of teaching basket­
ball players.1^
He found one important factor involved in
the proper distribution of time during the practice period.
^ Coleman R. Griffith, "Experiments in Basketball,"
The Athletic Journal, X, (June, 1930), pp. 9-12.
13
Frequent interruptions of practice, with short rest periods,
showed increased results over the method of having the
players practice steadily for the whole period.
A second study was made with respect to skill in throw­
ing baskets.
Methods of increasing skill with respect to dis-
stance and direction from the basket were studied.
It was
found that errors in the direction of the throw were
corrected when the players learned to adjust themselves to
the strength and speed of the arms.
Visual and muscular
judgments were essential before errors of distance could be
corrected.
The third problem concerned itself with the problem of
whether or not distance from the basket was the only factor
measuring skill in shooting.
The results show that there were
wide differences in the ability of players to score from
different points on the floor.
The shooting expectancy from
three feet away from the basket was 90 per cent.
If the
player was moved back twelve feet, the degree of skill de­
creased slowly.
From twelve feet to a distance of twenty
feet, a rapid decrease set in; 50 per cent at this distance
represented good shooting.
At the thirty-foot mark the shoot­
ing skill fell to twenty-five per cent of the shots being
successful.
At a distance of more than forty feet the chances
of making a goal were small.
Griffith completed a fourth study dealing with the
14
effect of body movements upon the individual’s skill in
shooting.
Relationships found to exist were as follows:
(1) If a player takes two steps, he makes the task of
shooting nearly twice as difficult as it is when standing
still; (2) taking four steps slowly makes the task nearly
four times as difficult; and (4) to take a running shot makes
the task eight times as difficult.
Gross study.
Cross
IS
has made a recent study in
basketball with respect to various methods of teaching the
game.
The experiment was carried out in the Junior High
School, Jefferson City, Missouri, during the school year,
1932-33.
The pupils of the ninth grade were divided into
three groups and each group assigned a different method of
learning.
These groups were given basketball tests worked
out by the investigator.
These tests included the funda­
mental skills of basketball.
The tests were given each
group at the start of the basketball season and were repeated
later in the season, with results noted in each method.
In the whole method the group was given the ball and
allowed to play the game.
The second group carried on a
program of minor games such as; indoor baseball, dodgeball,
Thomas J. Cross, nA Comparison of the Whole Method,
the Minor Game Method, and the Whole Part Method of Teaching
Basketball to Ninth-Grade Boys," The Research Quarterly of
the American Physical Education Association, VIII, (December,
1937), p. 49.
15
volleyball, and relay games.
These games were used to build
up fundamental skills which, it was believed, would be
carried over into basketball.
In the third group the whole-
part method was used by dividing the game into its fundamental
skills.
The conclusions drawn from the study are best stated
in the author1s own words.
1. The simpler unitary skills (visual and hand co­
ordination of catching ball, muscle coordination of
passing ball, and changing from catch to throw) are best
taught by the whole method.
2 . The most complex skills and those are intellectu­
ally complex as well as complex from a motor point of
view (muscular coordination of handling ball, stopping
and grasping ball, skill in shooting, visual and hand
coordination of dribble, muscular coordination of feet
and ability to start and stop) are best taught by the
whole-part method.
3. Skills of intermediate degree of complexity and
ones which are easily carried over from simpler games
in identical form (such as pivoting, change from catch
to throw, ability to start and stop, and ability to
jump) are best taught by the minor game method.I7
Bunn *s investigation. A study has been made by Bunn^®
of Stanford University in comparison of goals at three
different heights.
The goal was placed at ten feet, eleven
feet, and twelve feet; and results of shooting at these
different heights tabulated.
The following results were ob­
tained:
17 Ibid.. p. 54.
18 John W. Bunn, T,A Study of Baskets at Different
Heights," The Athletic Journal, XXIII, (February,1933), p.6-7.
16
Height of
basket
Percentage
shots made
Ten feet
Eleven feet
Twelve feet
30,6
13.3
10.8
of
Tabulation of shots made from various spots on the
court gave the following figures:
Height of
basket
Percentage
shots made
Ten feet
Eleven feet
Twelve feet
of
29.0
25.0
24.6
Bunn is of the opinion that these data are not suf­
ficient to warrant definite conclusions.
From the stand­
point of accuracy it seems that raising the goal is undesir­
able .
Investigation of part and whole method. This study was
made by Kimball19 at Jordan High School, Sandy, Utah.
The
purpose was to compart the part and whole methods of teach­
ing basketball.
Seventy-eight boys were used in the study,
which consisted of six tests in fundamentals.
Initial tests
and final tests were given in the same tests, and the scores
were scaled into T-scores.
Each subjects T-scores were
added to give his Composite Index Score.
Edwin R. Kimball,"A Comparative Study of the Whole
and Part Methods of Teaching Basketball Fundamentals,” (un­
published Master’s thesis, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, California, 1935).
17
The tested subjects were then arranged in two equated
groups.
Correlations, were used to measure validity and re­
liability.
The group learning by the whole method were divided
into teams; they watched demonstrations and were allowed to
scrimmage twenty minutes a day, four days a week for eight
weeks.
The part-method group were introduced to each funda­
mental separately, described, demonstrated, then practiced.
Later fundamentals were combined into drills;, then the group
was divided into teams, and scrimmage took place.
A control group was set up by giving the initial tests
to a large group, sealing their scores, then matching or
equating a group of thirty-nine who were the equal of the
other groups in fundamental skills.
This group was not allowed
to play basketball during the experiment.
J3?he results show that subjects taught by the part
method had a much higher percentage of improvement in each
fundamental except foul pitching, where the whole method was
superior.
Index score improvement for the subjects of each
group was:
control group, 3.39; whole-method group, 18.65; and
part-method group, 38.49.
Achievement scales in skill and knowledge abilities in
i .
II - I
m m m m m m m m w
mmmmmmrn*
basketball for senior high school girls.
m i mmmrnmttmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
In a study
tmmmmm
18
conducted by Schwartz
20
at the University of Southern
California, scales were developed to measure the ability in
skills and knowledge items.
Five skill events and one know­
ledge test were chosen; the tests were validated by sub­
jective judgments and also by giving the tests to fifty
freshman women at the university .
The data from which the
scales were developed were the performance records of 1,000
girls of senior high schools throughout the United States.
The means and standards deviations in each distribution
were then computed and formed the basis for the construction
of the achievement scales.
The procedure in building up the
scales was set so that three standard deviations above the
mean gave 100; and three below gave zero on the scale, with
the mean corresponding to a score of fifty.
Increments for
each point on the scale were worked out by the formula:
three times the standard deviation divided by fifty and this
score or increment added to fifty.
Young and Moser study. A battery of tests has been
constructed to measure playing ability in women’s basketball
by Young and Moser.
A digest of this study follows:
Helen A. Schwartz, "Knowledge and Achievement Tests
in Girls’ Basketball on'the High School Level,” Hesearch
Quarterly of the American Physical Education Association,
VIII, (March, 1937), pp. 143-50.
19
The purpose of the research reported in this study was
to construct a short battery of tests to neasure playing
ability in women’s basketball* It was assumed that the
interest and attitude factors influencing playing ability
were the same for all those who were tested, since these
players had elected basketball voluntarily. For this
reason the study was limited to the consideration of
physical skill factors influencing playing ability.
The method of constructing the battery of tests was
as follows:
1. The game of basketball was analyzed into its
constituent skill elements.
2. Eighteen tests, assembled from the literature in
the field, and in addition, eighteen original tests were
critically analyzed. From these, seventeen tests were
selected on the basis of their comparative reliability,
objectivity, and practicality.
3. The reliability, objectivity, and practicality of
the seventeen tests were then objectively established by
giving the tests twice to a selected group. The coeffi­
cient of reliability for each was computed, and a detailed
statistical study of each was made. The result was that
twelve tests were recommended for use in constructing a
battery.
4. The validity of each of the twelve tests was then
determined. This was done by computing T-scores and
correlating individual test scores with weighted total
scores by Pearson’s product-moment method.
5. Upon the basis of validity objectivity, practicali­
ty, and reliability, five tests were selected for a
battery.
6 . The validity of this battery (i.e., the degree to
which the battery actually measures playing ability) was
established by correlating the total scores of the tests
with the rating by expert judges of the player’s ability
in a game situation. This criterion is a reliable one
since, in 70 cases out of 93, 3 judges agreed on the
player’s rating. In 91 cases out of 93 there was agree­
ment of either 2 or 3 judges. The coefficient of corre­
lation between the total test scores and the judges’
20
ratings is .859, a high degree of validity. This degree
of validity indicates that an individual’s playing abili­
ty can be measured fairly accurately.
7. Each of the five tests in the battery has a high
relation with the total score and a low correlation with
each other. This shows that no two tests measure exactly
the same element, and that each test is adding something
to the validity of the total score.
The result of the correlations of test scores with
judge’s rating show that a battery of tests has a high
degree of validity; that is, it is a faifly accurate
measure of playing ability. The individual tests all
correlate highly with the total score. The coefficients
of correlation range from .668 to .791. The coefficient
of correlation
between tests arelow, ranging from
.218
to .419. This
indicates that notwo tests measure
the
same skill element and that all are adding something to
the validity of the total score.21
Score card.
Dimick,22 working with boys of high
school age, constructed a score card to measure player ef­
ficiency in basketball.
Records were kept, on the score
card, of the number of shots attempted, number of errors
committed, and the sum of these two factors was divided by
the number of baskets scored.
Responsibility for the loss
of the ball constituted an error.
The efficiency record was
21 Genevieve Young and Helen Moser, "A Short Battery
of Tests to Measure Playing Ability in Women’s Basketball,”
Research Quarterly of the American Physical Education
Association. V. (May. 1934}, pp. 2-11.
22 H. A. Dimick, ’’Score Card for Measuring Basketball
Efficiency, (unpublished Master’s thesis, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1938).
21
that score obtained from the division.
The smaller the
record the greater was the efficiency as measured by .this
method.
While some of the relates studies reviewed in this
chapter, particularly Griffith’s, Cross’s, and Bunn’s, are
primarily studies of teaching methods, they are vitally con­
cerned with performance skill.
In view of this fact, the
writer felt that they were of value in his review of related
studies and consequently has shown these review in this
chapter.
OUTLINE OF REMAINING CHAPTERS
The remaining chapters included in this study are as
follows:
Chapter Two, "Method of Procedure”; Chapter Three,
"Ranking of Experimental Subjects on Game Ability”; Chapter
Four, "Ranking of Experimental Subjects on Fundamentals”;
Chapter Five, "Relation of T-scores to Judges’ Rankings”;
Chapter Six, "Summary."
Ah attempt was made to arrange the chapters in
logical sequence, to succeed each other in the same order
as the different aspects of the problem arose.
CHAPTER II
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
It was decided to attack the problem on the following
plan:
The three groups were first given preliminary train­
ing in basketball fundamentals.
Later each individual was
given tests in eight fundamentals of the game, and scores
made by each were tabulated.
The raw scores were changed
to T-scores, and the eight T-scores for each individual were
then added and divided by eight to obtain the average Tscore, which became that individual’s score in fundamentals.
Six experienced people were selected to judge and
rank the subjects on playing ability in actual game situa­
tions.
The six judgments of rank were averaged, and this
average gave the rank position of each subject.
These rank
positions, were then transmuted into scores on a scale of one
hundred.
This score was then considered as measuring the
ability of the subject in playing the game.
After obtaining two scores for each individual, namely,
a score of his ability in fundamentals and a score on his
ability to play the game, these scores were correlated and
conclusions drawn.
group.
These correlations were made within each
No correlations were made between different groups,
and no attempt was made to measure improvements of the subnects in fundamentals or in playing ability.
23
In this chapter the different steps in the selection
of experimental groups and the selection and administration
of tests have been discussed.
Selection of groups.
Three separate groups of boys
were used in the study, which was conducted at Provo Senior
High School, Provo, Utah.
This high school has an enrollment
of 900 pupils in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades.
Ho attempt was made to equate the groups into classes of equal
ability, as each group was used for a separate study.
The members of the varsity and sophomore basketball
squads were selected as group one.
This group consisted of
twenty-nine members and came from the tenth, eleventh, and
twelfth grades.
to eighteen.
The age range of this group was.from fifteen
The boys of this group were much more experi­
enced in the game than the other two groups, having been
members of school teams either at high school or at the junior
high school the year previous.
The squad practiced daily
from December first until March fifteenth.
The tests were
administered during the practice periods in January.
G-roup two consisted of thirty-five boys registered in
the second period physical education class.
The boys of this
group were eleventh and twelfth grade pupils, ranging in age
from sixteen to eighteen.
This group attended physical educa­
tion class daily and were given the tests in January.
All
tests were administered during the regular class periods.
24
The first period class, composed entirely of tenth
grade boys, was used for group three in the experiment.
This group comprised thirty-five members ranging in age
from fifteen to sixteen and alternated days in physical edu­
cation with a study period in the library.
The tests were
given to this group during the regular class periods during
the month of January.
There was a marked difference in ability and experi­
ence between the members of the different groups.
Group one
was a select group of boys chosen to represent the school in
interschool games.
The range in ability between the best
players on the varsity squad and the poorest player on the
sophomore squad was probably as great as that between the
best and poorest players of the other two groups.
Groups two and three were unselected, being composed
of boys who had registered for physical education the first
and second periods.
ability.
These two groups had a marked range in
The better players of both groups were almost good
enough for group one, while the poorer players showed very
little ability in the game.
It was assumed that the interest and attitude factors
influencing playing ability were the same for all those
tested, since all the boys in each group were enthusiastic
and elected to play basketball voluntarily.
25
SELECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL TESTS
The tests.
According to most authorities, the best
method of selecting a battery of tests to measure any
activity is to determine first what skills are fundamental.
The procedure usually followed is the questionnaire method,
or extensive personal interviews with experts in the field.
After determining which skills are fundamental, a
large battery of tests of these skills may be constructed.
This battery of tests should then be given a trial to deter­
mine Vi/hich tests are too difficult and which ones too easy.
The extremely difficult ones and extremely easy ones can then
by eliminated from the battery.
Correlations between each
test score and the battery score should be made, also corre­
lations between individual test scores.
When the correlation
between any two tests is extremely high, one test might be
eliminated from the battery provided the tests are similar
in nature.
The reason for this is the possibility that the
two tests are measuring the same skill, thus giving this
factor too much weight in the battery.
In general, it might
be stated that correlation between each test and the battery
should be high, while correlations between any two tests
should be relatively low.
In regard to the selection of tests, Bovard and
Cozens have set up the following criteria:
26
It behooves teachers in the field of physical educa­
tion, then, to acquaint themselves with the criteria of
a good test and with the scientific methods available
for use in the construction of tests. These methods
must stand the close scrutiny of well informed people
in the field.1
Recent writers in the field of testing have agreed
upon the important criteria to follow in selection of tests.
These criteria include:
reliability, validity., objectivity,
administrative economy, use of norms, duplicate forms, and
standardized directions.
Leaders in the field of testing and measuring agree
that after the battery of tests has been decided upon, this
battery should be administered to a sampling of each age
group at least twice.
Correlations between scores secured
from the first and second administrations should be made to
show the reliability of the battery.
After investigating various batteries of tests in
fundamentals of basketball, the writer decided to use the
2
tests which had been worked out by Bdgren.
Although these
tests were worked out for older boys, it was felt that with
a few modifications they could' very well b.evgiven to boys
of high school age.
The author particularly recommends the
use of tests 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 as a battery of reliable tests
1 John F. Bovard and Fredrich W. Cozens, Tests and
Measurements (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1930),
p. 229.
2 H. D. Edgren, "Experiment in the Testing of Ability
and Progress in Basketball," The Research Quarterly of the
American Physical Education Association, III, (March, 1932),
pp. 159-171.
27
for measurement of skills.
The author shows a significant
correlation in his experiment between test scores and play­
ing ability.
The total basketball test correlation with
actual play is .73 on the pre-test and .77 on the final test.
The writer felt after studying the field of tests in
basketball that this battery which had a proven reliability
and validity would fit his particular problem better than any
other.
A description of these tests follows:
Test number one. Speed pass. This test measures the
rapidity with which the student can receive and pass a
basketball against a wall. The subject stands behind a
line eight feet from the wall and parallel to it. He
passes the ball rapidly as possible, ten times, against
the wall. Time is started when the ball leaves his hand
on the first pass and stopped when the tenth pass returns
to his hands. The subject must not only stand behind
this eight foot line, but also receive and pass from
behind this line. Any kind of pass may be used.
Test number two. Accuracy pass. This test is de­
signed to measure the accuracy of the subject in using
four different passes. Basketball today demands that
the good player have a repertoire of passes. The inves­
tigator has chosen to measure four of the common passes,
namely; chest push pass, underhand pass, two-hand shoul­
der pass, and one-hand overhead hook pass. The subject
stands back of a line drawn parallel to the target.
This line is fifteen feet from the target in the case
of the chest and underhand passes, and thirty feet from
it in case of the shoulder and hook passes. Five throws
are made with each kind of pass. The ball may be passed
at any speed; for accuracy alone is being tested. Passes
are scored on the following basis:
1 . Inner square or line marking it, 3 points.
2. Middle square or line marking it, 2 points.
3. Outer square or line marking it, 1 point.
The target for this test had rectangles with one in­
side the other, with dimensions of 10” by 12” , 24” by
40”, and 48” by 60”.
28
Test number three. Pivot and shoot. This test is
constructed as a measure of the accuracy of shooting
ability, when the shot is attempted immediately follow­
ing a pivot. The subject stands anywhere behind a line
drawn through the far end of the free throw circle and
parallel to the backboard. He turns and shoots immedi­
ately at the basket without advancing toward it. He
takes five such shots and is given one point for every
basket made. There is no attempt at speed between throws.
The turn is made similar to a backward pivot and the shot
follows without any pause.
Test number four. Speed dribble. Even though speed
is not always desirable in dribbling, the efficient
dribbler is able to dribble with great rapidity. This
test is developed to test the subject’s ability to
manipulate the ball around objects. The subject is
urged to go as fast as possible but to keep the ball
under control. The watch is started when the subject
leaves the starting line at "A,f and is stopped when he
crosses the starting-line at
. (See Figure 1, Test 4).
Seore in tenths of seconds.
Test number five. Dribble and shoot. The object of
this test is to measure the ability of the subject to
handle the ball when he is forced to combine a dribble,
a short shot retrieving the ball on the rebound, and
repeating the procedure. He is urged to score as many
baskets as possible, but to make five trips as fast as
possible. The subject starts at rtA ft,dribbles around
the free throw line, and takes a short shot as he ap­
proaches the basket. (See Figure 3, Test 5). He then
retrieves the ball from the basket and repeats the
process, a total of five times. The time is taken from
the second that he leaves the line at "A" until he
covers the fifth shot from the basket. He is scored by
dividing the number of baskets made out of the five
attempts into his total time in seconds.
Test number six. Accuracy shooting. This is a test
to measure the distance and direction judgment of an in­
dividual when making free throws. One point is scored
for each free throw made out of ten attempts with regular
game rules of ten seconds for each“throw. However, the
subject may take as much time as necessary between the
throws. He must leave the circle after each attempt.
29
This is done to make the test more true to the game
situation.
Test number seven. Opposition shooting. Short
shooting is a fundamental that all players should mas­
ter. However, to make a short shot when one is not
hurried is far from what happens in a game. The author
has developed the following test to measure the subject’s
ability to make baskets when placed in a hurried or try­
ing' situation. The subjects are paired with men of
approximately equal ability working against each other.
(Note Figure 4, Test 7) . The subject at
has a
shorter distance to cover than his opposition at "A".
They are both facing away from the basket. At a given
signal from the tester, who cannot be seen by either "A"
or ttB n, both turn and go forward,
dribbling in for
a short shot and "A” attempting to prevent him without
making a foul. Each subject is given five trials and
scores one point for each basket made.
Test number eight. Ball handling. This test is con­
structed to measure the subject’s ability in ball hand­
ling and body coordination. He must pass the ball,
follow the ball with the body, receive the ball, stop
forward progress, and start back in the opposite direc­
tion.
The subject starts at "A” and on the signal throws
the ball against the wall across and outside the mat and
receives the ball at "B". Here he immediately passes
from. ftBft across the mat as indicated by dotted line and
receives the ball at ftA”. (Bee Figure 5, Test 8). The
subject may carry the ball back to ftA" or "Bn before
throwing the ball, if he chooses. He makes ten passes.
The time is started when the ball leaves his hands on
the first pass and is stopped when he recovers the
tenth pass.3
Diagrams of tests 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are shown in the
appendix.
3 Ibid., p. 166
30
Reliability of tests. McCall defines reliability as
follows:
By reliability of a test is meant the amount of
agreement between results secured from two or more ap­
plications of a test to the same pupils by the same
examiner. Perfect reliability obtains when an identi­
cal examiner applies two identical or exactly duplicate
tests according to an identical procedure to identical
pupils.4
The eight tests described above were given an initial
tryout to a group of tenth grade boys of period three
physical education class.
The trial tests were repeated at
the next meeting of the class under identical conditions with
the initial tests.
Correlations between the two sets of
scores were computed in order to determine the amount of
agreement between the results, from the two applications of
the same test to the same group.
The following coefficients
of correlation were obtained:
Test
1
2
3
4
r
.91
.84
.70
.86
Test
5
6
7
8
r
.79
.72
.71
.87
These correlations are significant because they show
close agreement between results secured under similar cir­
cumstances.
It may, therefore, be assumed that they are re­
liable tests.
^ W. A. McCall, How to Measure in Education (New York:
The Macmillan Company, 192277 p. 307.
31
Another reason for giving the tests a preliminary
tryout to a group of tenth grade pupils was to determine
which of the tests needed modifications to fit this age
level.
Since the tests as originally formulated might prove
too difficult for this age level, it was deemed advisable
to make what changes were necessary before applying them to
the experimental subjects.
The following changes and modifications of the tests
were made:
The scoring in Test III was changed to allow one
point if the ball hit on the hoop,, and two points if a
basket was scored.
This change was necessary in order that
every boy could make a score greater than zero.
Validity of tests. Evidence of the validity of the
tests is seen from the work of the author of the tests.
In
devising the tests he selected for comparison in validating
his basketball skills one group which had instruction in
basketball during a two-month experimental period and one
group which had no instruction.
The basketball tests were
given to both groups at the beginning and the end of the
two-month period.
The average increase in the experimental
group was 20 per cent and, in the control group, only 4 per
cent.
Since it is reasonable to presume that the group
with instruction would gain more in skill than the other
group, this difference in gain offers an evidence of vali­
dity of the tests.
32
ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS
All subjects were required to be dressed in regular
gymnasium costumes when taking the tests.
The subjects
were allowed to warm up by practicing fundamentals of the
game before being tested.
They did not, however, practice
the particular tests that were to be given.
The whole group was called together previous to the
test and was given definite instructions and urged to do its
best on all trials.
Score sheets were prepared with the
subjects’ names on them, and the score or record made in the
test was recorded immediately.
A regulation basketball inflated to game specifica­
tions was used in all tests, and directions as outlined in
the description of the tests were followed carefully.
Objectivity of tests.
As far as possible, the in­
vestigator administered every test himself.
Student help
used for recording in some cases but under direct super­
vision of the investigator.
In those tests scored in time,
the writer himself held the watch and gave the readings.
All eight tests are scored either by time or successful
attempts and, therefore, the same results would have occurred
regardless of who administered the tests.
All tests were conducted during the regular class
period or during the regular practice period in the case of
33
group one.
The judges used in rating the subjects on game
ability were not present during the administration of tests
and were not allowed to see the score sheets.
This pre­
caution was taken so the judges would not be unduly in­
fluenced by skill in fundamentals when making their selec­
tions on game ability.
RANKING OF EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS ON GAB/IE ABILITY
Actual ability, as measured by the value of the
individual to the team as a whole, was the basis for this
ranking.
The judges were instructed to watch carefully the
performance of each player in actual games.
Individual
brilliance was considered as a factor but not as the only
factor in this measurement.
Such factors as team play,
judgment, willingness to cooperate with other members of the
team, and leadership qualities were all considered as
elements of actual playing ability.
The judges made their selections individually with­
out consulting each other.
They were also instructed that
they were not to attempt to pick teams; i.e., the first
five ranks would not necessarily consist of two forwards,
two guards, and a center, but: might possibly consist of five
forwards or any other combination.
34
SELECTION OF JUDGES
Six judges were selected by the writer for this
phase of the experiment.
Four of the judges were well
qualified because of their wide experience both as former
players and as coaches.
The other two judges were selected
because of experience as high school and college players
and because they were two of the outstanding officials of
the game in that section of the country.
These two judges
had officiated in the last" six State High School Tournaments
and.had also officiated for the colleges of the Rocky
Mountain Conference.
All six judges were connected with the
school system in the senior high or junior high schools.
The judges were fairly well acquainted with the experimental
subjects and were available for the work and time necessary
in making their rankings.
The investigator felt that by securing judges of
such varied experience, easily available and fairly well
acquainted with the experimental subjects, a more accurate
ranking could be obtained.
METHOD OF RANKING
Each of the groups was ranked separately.
The judges,
after observing the players perform in games only, ranked
the players, giving rank one to the best player, rank two to
35
tile next best player, and so on until all were ranked.
The
rankings of the six judges were averaged; and the subject
with the lowest average was given rank one, the subject with
the next lowest average' was ranked two, and so on until every
player was ranked within his group.
It is often desirable, particularly when correlation
coefficients are to be calculated, to transmute measures
arranged in order of merit to measures or scores on a linear
scale.
This can be easily accomplished if normality can be
presumed in the characteristic for which the ranking has been
made.
While the writer realized the small numbers in his
groups invalidated proof of normality, the distribution of
the average T-scores gave evidence that had the groups been
composed of larger numbers, a distribution approaching
normality would have been obtained.
By use of the formula:
per cent position « 100(R-.5),
N
in which (R) is the rank of the individual in the series, and
(N) the number ranked, the per cent position of each subject
5
was calculated. Then from the text by Garrett , Table -XIII,
page 113, the score, on a scale of one hundred, was read off.
To illustrate this procedure, take an example in
^ H. E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychology and
Education (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, p. 113.
36
Table I.
The third man,.Thurman, was ranked 3, 1, 2, 3, 2,
4 , by the six judges; adding these numbers and dividing by
six gave him an average rank of 2.5, and by the.formula per
cent position equaled 6.9.
A
From the table by Garrett ,
cited above this gave a score of 79.
VALIDATION OF RANKINGS
Two methods were used to produce evidence from which
conclusions might be drawn regarding the validity of the
rankings made by the judges.
The first method was made with
a modification of the Dimick Score Card,^ and an additionalattempt was made by playing matched games between superior
and inferior ranking players; both of these methods are dis­
cussed fully in this chapter.
In speaking of validity McOall says:
What is a valid test? Tests have made characteristics
such as validity, reliability, and objectivity, et
cetera. Of all these traits validity is most fundamental.
What is meant by validity? The National Association of
Directors of Educational Research has defined validity
as the correspondence between the ability measured by
the test and ability as otherwise objectively defined and
measured. When a test really measures what it proposes
6 Garrett, loc. cit.
^ H. A. Dimick, Score Card for Measuring Basketball
Efficiency, (unpublished Master’s thesis, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1938).
37
TABLE I
GROUP I RANKING BY JUDGES
.i.■
Name
i—
I
M. Peterson
1
2
Nilsen
Thurman
3
Gardner
4
Cook
3
6
Nash
Preece
7
8
Kump
Howard
9
10
Crane
11
I . Nelson
12
Kimball
Warner
13
Mortensen
14
G. Peterson 15
16
B. Neilsen
Cornum
17
18
Woods
Hichins
19
20
Bandley
21
Prussee
22
Sears
Clark
23
Lewi s
24
Andrus
25
26
Phillips
Hanson
27
28
Brown
Crowther
29
Note: Names
II
Judges
III IV
V
VI
Average Percent
Position Score
Rank
1
1
1
3.1
1,4
2 .1 6
2
2
5.7
3
2
1
6.9
3
2.5
4
3
5
3.83
4
4
11.5
17.8
6
8
5.67
5
5
6.67
21.3
7
9
7
4
6
6
7.16
9
23
7
6
8.16
26.4
9 10 10
27.6
10
8
8.5
7
5
8
8
12
30.5
9
9.33
11
11.83
39
14 11 15
13.16
43.7
15 11
14
- 15
16 11 12 13
13.16
43.7
13
13.67
45 *4
17
14 10 14 i2
48.2
15
15 13 13 16
14.5
12
15.67
48.9
13 16 16 14
16
16.67 ■ 55.8
17 17 17 17
20 18 18 19
18.67
62.7
19
63.2
18
18.83
19 19 20 18
67.8
20
20.16
18 21 22 20
71.2
20
20
21.16
19
23
23
21
21 22 21 22
72.4
21.5
22.83
22
22 23 24 23
77
82.8
24.5
24
25 24 23 24
86.2
28
25.5
25
24 25 27
26.16
26 28 25 26
88.5
27
26
26.16
26
88.5
27 26
25
94.8
28
28 27 29 27
29
28
. 97.1
.
28.67
29 29 28 29
are listed in order of size of scores.
2
3
4
1
2
3
5
7
• 8
6
11
10
9
12
86
81
79
74
68
66
65
62
61
60
56
53
53
52
51
50
47
44
43
41
39
38
35
31
29
26
26
18
13
38
TABLE II
GROUP II RANKING BY JUDGES
Dame_________ I
Woods
Taylor
Tanner
Tiiorne
Morriss
Houtz
Sturgill
Brim
Overly
Bob Scott
Raile
Myers
Leffler
Peterson
Buckley
Hardy
Rodeback
Humphrey
Harding
Trunkey
Molyneux
Baker
Bill Scott
Chapman
Williams
Callahan
Bown
Clark
Neilson
Vincent
Bob Tanner
Dixon
Halladay
Durant
Grant
Note:
1
2
3
4
4
9
6
5
7
10
14
8
11
16
21
23
17
12
19
21
31
24
18
15
22
29
28
26
25
27
30
34
35
32
33
II
1
2
3
12
4
7
9
2
10
8
12
11
14
16
13
15
18
19
17
20
31
21:
25
22
26
23
24
30
29
27
28
34
35
33
32
III
IV
V
VI
1
3
6
4
7
5
8
9
2
12
11
14
15
10
13
16
17
19
21
22
20
23
27
18
25
29
2
1
5
3
5
6
7
8
9
11
10
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
10
9
11
13
15
14
12
19
18
22
23
20
17
21
26
29
24
16
25
31
28
27
30
35
32
34
33
2
1
4
3
5
8
6
12
10
7
9
14
11
16
13
18
22
15
21
20
17
24
19
29
23
25
26
28
27
31
30
32
33
34
35
24
26
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
17
13
12
15
18
19
29
14
22
16
21
20
27
24
28
25
26
23
30
31
32
33
34
35
Average Percent
Rank
Position Score
1.25
1.83
4*
5.
5.
6.83
7 .1 6 •
7.33
8.5
9.5
11.16
12.83
13.16
14.
14.83
18.16
18.5
19.5
19.16
20.83
22.
2 2 .1 6
22.5
23.33
24.
24.83
25.33
26.16
26.67
28.67
30.
3 3 .1 6
33.5
33.5
33.83
^ .14
1.83
10.
12.8
12.8
14.08
19.
19.5
22.8
25.7
30.5
35.2
36.2
38.6
40.9
50.4 51.4
54.3
53.3
58.1
6 1 .4
61.9
62.9
6 5 .2
67.1
69.5
71.
73.3
74.8
80.5
8 4 .2
93.3
94.2
94.2
95.2
Names are listed in order of size of scores
88
84
75
72
72
71
67
66
64
63
60
58
57
56
55
50
49
48
48
46
44
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
33
30
21
19
19
18
39
TABLE III
GROUP III RANKING BY JUDGES
Name
I
Miner
Smoot
Nilsen
Hundley
Clark
Ostler
Orr
Pendleton
Bosewell
Mock
Packard
Moe
Watkins
Holm
Reese
Ferre'
Anderson
Woolsey
Hardy
Peterson
Crum
Ivie
Christensen
Jenkins
Dunford
Williamson
St. Joer
Bustured
Stevens
Thurston
Hickman
Baker
Mann
Dixon
G-ee
1
2
Note:
II
2
3
5
3
4
5
4
6
6
1
9
7
8
10
7
13
10
11
11
9
13
14
12
8
12
21
16
15
15
18
19
17
22
20
23
24
25
27
26
28
29
30
31
35
34
32
33
16
18
27
14
21
A9
17
20
Judges
III IV
V
VI
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
3
4
5
4
3
5
7
2
6
8
11
12
15
10
14
9
13
7
16
20
18
17
23
19
24
3
5
4
6
8
9
10
8
6
10
10
11
12
9
13
9
13
11
12
14
13
17
14
15
6
8
7
16
15
18
19
20
20
22
21
3.5
8 .6
8 .8 6
3 .6 6
4.67
6.33
7.67
8 .33
1 0 .1 6
10.67
1 1 .1 6
11.9
1 6 .6
20.5
22.3
27.3
29.
30.4
33.8
33.8
88
82
77
76
73
69
66
65
62
61
60
59
59
58
53
52
60
50
49
48
47
5 8 .1
46
23
25
24
25
22
2 2 .1 6
61.9
24
25
23.33
24.67
25.67
26.83
28.
28.5
29.5
30.
32.83
33.
33.63
34*.33
6 5 .2
44
42
40
39
37
35
25
27
23
24
25
26
26
26
29
27
28
30
33
32
35
35
28
27
29
30
32
33
34
35
31
30
28
33
32
34
34
2.3
4.7
18
23
19
16
17
15
19
18
22
28
30
29
31
32
34
33
35
2 .1 6
21
22
20
12
25
24
29
26
1.33
12.33
12.33
12.67
16.33
16.5
17.67
17.67
19.
19.67
20.5
20,83
21
22
23
4
3
5
7
Average Percent
Rank
Position Score
11
21
16
14
17
20
26
28
29
27
31
30
32
33
35
34
3 4 .8
45 •2
45.7
49.
49.
5 2 .8
54.8
57.1
69.
71.9
75.2
7 8 .6
80.
82.9
84.3
9 2 .8
92.9
95.2
96.7
Names are listed in order of size of scores.
33
32
30
22
21
18
15
to measure and consistently measures that same some­
thing throughout the entire range of the test it is a
valid test.®
The Dimick test, as worked out in score card form,
measures the offensive ability in basketball.
A record is
kept of the number of shots attempted, number of errors
committed, and the sum of these two records is divided by
the number of baskets made.
Responsibility for loss of the
ball constituted an error.
Since this score card measures only the offensive
ability, the writer decided to bring the factor of defense,
as well, into consideration.
All games played for this
study were of the man-to-man type of play; therefore, de­
fensive ability may become a factor by adding shots taken,
plus errors, plus opponents* baskets, and then dividing this
sum by the number of baskets the individual scored.
This
was the procedure followed in measuring playing ability, to
determine whether the rankings of the judges were valid or
not.
Tables were worked out to show the method used to
measure the players* efficiency by the score card and are
shown herewith.
8 W. A. McCall, o£. cit., p. 140.
41
TABLE IV
GROUP I EFFICIENCY SCORES AS MEASURED
BY DIMICK SCORE CARD
Name '
Shots
Gardner
Nash
Howard
Crane
Peterson
Nilson
I. Nelson
Cornum
Cook
Thurman
Warner
Preece
B. Neilson
Mortensen
Hump
Kimball
G. Peterson
Woods
Clark
Phillips
Sears
Bandley
Lewis
Prussee
Hansen
Hichins
Andrus
Crowther
Brown
40
115
85
76
110
42
14
25
27
30
10
19
23
9
16
16
12
25
36
48
23
15
34
49
51
28
42
49
16
Errors
Baskets
25
65
50
35
70
34
13
30
17
14
9
20
20
13
17
21
15
15
35
29
20
16
36
41
39
27
18
28
25
14
34
26
20
33
13
4
8
6
6
2
4
4
2
3
3
2
3
5
5
3
2
4
5
5
3
3
4
2
Opponent* s
Baskets Efficiency
12
10
15
6
15
7
2
5
8
9
1
3
1,
3
5
2
3
5
7
3
7
3
2
3
5
3
0
4
1
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6 #4
7.2
7.5
8.6
8.8
10.
10.5
11.
12.5
12.7
13.
15.
15.
1 5 .6
16.
16.6
17.
18.
18.6
19.
19.3
20.
20.2
21.
Note: This table should be read as follows: Peterson,
the fifth name listed, took 110 shots, made 70 errors, scored
33 baskets, allowed opponent to score 15 baskets; his efficiency
by the Score Card would be 110 plus 70 plus 15 divided by 33 or
5*9* Names listed in order of efficiency score.
42
TABLE V
GROUP II EFFICIENCY SCORES AS MEASURED
BY DIMICK SCORE CARD
Name
Morriss
Brim
Woods
Houtz
Overly
Taylor
Tanner
Peterson
Bob Scott
Thorne
Buckley
Trunkey
Raile
Sturgill
Myers
Humphrey
Hardy
Harding
Rhodeback
Chapman
Baker
Bown
Williams
Callahan
Molyneux
Leffler
Clark
Bill Scott
Vincent
Neilson
B. Tanner
Grant
^urant
Halladay
Dixon
Note:
Shots
Errors
Baskets
75
65
89
47
56
59
29
43
63
17
19
29
39
23
79
40
41
29
75
30
60
42
87
30
AO
36
16
8
51
12
50
14
24
63
16
63
45
60
39
49
26
36
29
27
23
19
20
52
16
16
12
15
9
10 .
8
6
6
8
9
8
21
25
26
35
36
55 •
25
13
4
15
5
23
19
30
16
26
29
20
8
4
3
4
8
3
7
4
4
4
8
4
7
5
10
4
4
3
2
1
5
2
5
2
3
5
2
Opponent *s
Baskets Efficiency
18
10
10
14
8
8
7
0
8
11
0
2
12
0
5
4
5
5.
11
0
4
4
3
4
7
6
0
3
7
2
5
5
4
8
8
9.1
10.
10.9
11.1
11.3
11.5
11.8
12.
12.2
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.9
13.
13.1
13.2
13.5
13.7
13.8
14.
14.1
14.4
14.5
14.7
15.
15.3
15.5
16.
16.2
16.5
17.
17.5
18.
20.
22. .
Names are listed in order of efficiency score.
43
TABLE VI
GROUP III EFFICIENCY SCORE'S AS MEASURED
BY DIMICK SCORE CARD
Name
Shots
Ostler
Orr
Miner
Packard
Moe
Smoot
.Watkins
Nilsen
Ferre
Hundley
Clark
Bosewell
Mann
Pendleton
Mock
Holm
Anderson
Peterson
Ivie
Woolsey
Ciiristensen
Jenkins
Dunford
Hardy
Bustured
Reese
Stevens
Crum
St. Joer
Williamson
Dixon
Thurston
Baker
Hickman
Gee
Note:
27
30
7$
6$
19
23
47
63
9
16
39
23
32
79
40
29
30
60
30
12
16
36
48
12
23
50
34
49
51
28
63
49
50
50
70
Names
Errors
Baskets
8
8.6
8.8
9
8
9.1
10
10.
3
10.5
1
11.
11.1
14
8
12.2
3
12.5
5
12.7
12
12.9
0
13.
2
13.
5
13.1
13.2
4
13.7
5
0
26
14.
1A.1
4
35
14.7
4
25
3
15.
15
0
15.5
15
15.6
7
35
16.
3
29
2
16.5
19
16.6
20
7
30
17.
5
2
18.
36
18.6
3
41
5
19.
39
19.3
3
27
8
20.
29
20.2
28
4
20.5
4
25
21.
3
7
22.
30
5
listed in order of efficiency score.
25
14
63
45
20
20
39
27
13
17
52
16
7
8
9
21
6
6
16
12
4
4
9
8
2
3
8
3
7
7
4
4
4
7
4
2
2
5
5
2
3
5
4
5
5
3
5
4
7
6
10
Opponent*s
Baskets Efficiency
44
Validation of rankings by score card.
After estab­
lishing an efficiency score by use of the score card, the
subjects were given a ranking as determined by this ef­
ficiency score.
This rank was then correlated with the
rankings made by the judges to determine to what extent
the judges’ rankings were valid.
In speaking of validity Glasgow and Broer have the
following to say:
How is validity determined? Statisticians who pro­
vided a method of checking the reliability of a test
have also a method of determining the validity. By the
same procedure; correlation; the degree of validity is
expressed by a coefficient of correlation. To determine
the reliability, one set of scores is correlated with
another set of scores for the same individuals on the
same test. To determine validity the scores of a test
are correlated with an accepted measure of the ability
in question.9
Rank difference method.
In finding the correlation
when the data to be correlated have been arranged in order
of merit, the rank difference method provides a very con­
venient procedure.
In the tables immediately following
this explanation, column three gives the rank as measured
by the score card, and column four gives the rank as deter­
mined by the judges.
Column five shows the difference
9 Ruth B. Glasgow and Marion R. Broer, Measuring
Achievement in Physical Education (Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders Company, 1938), p. 31.
45
between columns three and four, and column six gives that
difference after it has been squared.
The correlation be­
tween the two orders of merit may then be computed by use
of the formula: C sl-6£D2
, in which D represents the
N(N-l)
difference in the rank of an individual in the two series
and
is the sum of the squares of all such differences.
N represents the number of cases and C is the1rank order
coefficient of correlation.
The value for C may be trans­
muted into a product-moment r by means of Table XX of
Garrett’s3*0 text.
The P.l. of r found from C is calculated
by the formula: PE^ = .7063(l-r2 ).
r
TW
Validation by matched games.
If the ratings of the
judges are valid, then teams composed of superior rated
players should be able to score more points than teams of
players of lower rating in matched games.
With this in
mind each of the three groups were divided into teams.
Starting from the top of the list, having the players ranked
according to their ability, the first five men on the list
played the second five.
The second five then played the
third five and so on until all teams had played two games
with the exception of the first and last which played only
10 Garrett, oj3. cjlt., p. 192.
46
TABLE VII
CORRELATION BETWEEN JUDGES’RANKING AND
RANKING ON DIMICK SCORE CARD-GRCUP I
Name
;Efficiency
Efficiency
Rank
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6*4
7.2
7.5
8.6
8.8
10.
10.5
11.
12.5
12.7
13.
15.
15.
15.6
16 •
16.6
17.
18.
18.6
19.
19.3
20.
20.2
21.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.5
9.5
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.5
17.5
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Gardner
Nash
Howard
Crane
M. Peterson
Nilsen
I, Nelson
Cornum
Cook
Thurman
Warner
Preece
B. Neilsen
Mortensen
Kump
Kimball
G. Peterson
Woods
Clark
Phillips
Sears
Bandley
Lewis
Prussee
Hanson
Richins
Andrus
Crowther
Brown
Judges’
Rank
Rank Difference
4
6
9
10
1
2
11
17
5
3
12.5
7.
16.
14 •
8.
12.5
15.
18.
23.
26.5
22.
20.
24.
21.
26.5
19.
25.
29.
28.
3
•4
6
6
4
4
4
9
4.5
6.5
1.5
5.
3.
0.
7.
3.5
2.5
.5
4•
6.5
1.
2.
1.
3.
1.5
7.
2.
1.
1.
D2
9
16
36
36
16
16
16
81
20.25
42.25
2.25
25.
9.
0.
49 •
12.25
6.25
.25
16 •
40.25
1.
4.
1.
9.
2.25
49 *
4*
1.
1.
Names are listed in order of efficiency rank.
2D2= 525.00
f =*1-62d 2
P =l--.13
^ote:
to
to•
II
u
P-l- 3150
P=.S7
P.E.r= .03
47
TABLE VIII
CORRELATION BETWEEN JUDGES*-RANKING AND
RAIDING ON DIMICK SCORE CARD-GROUF II
Efficiency
Efficiency
Rank
Name
Judges1
Rank
Rank
Differenc e
D2
Morriss
1
9.1
12.25
4.5
3.5
10.
Brim
2
30.25
7.5
5.5
Woods
2.
1.
10.9
3
4.
2.
11.1
6.
Houtz
4.
4
16.
Overly
9.
5
4*
11.3
6
2.
16.
Taylor
4*
11.5
16.
Tanner
ii .a
4.
7
3.
8
Peterson
12.
25.
13.
"5.
0.
0.
Bob Scott
12.2
9.
9
10
Thorne
30.25
4.5
5.5
12.5
11
12.6
Buckley
9.
3.
14.
12
Trunkey
19.
7.
49.
12.7
10.
Haile
12.9
9.
13
3.
Sturgill
42.25
6.5
14
13.
7.5
16 •
11.
Myers
13.1
4.
15
16
Humphrey
13.2
2.25
1.5'
17.5
2.
Hardy
17
15.
4.
13.5
18
2.25
Harding
1.5
17.5
13.7
1
6
.
13.a
Rhodeback
9.
19
3.
20
14.
Chapman
9.
23.
3.
21
Baker
14.1
.25
.5
20.5
26.
16.
22
Bown
4.
14.4
1.
1.
Williams
24.
23
14.5
1.
1.
Callahan
24
25.
14.7
20.25
Molyneux
4*5
20.5
25
15.
12.
196.
26
Leffler
14.
15.3
0.
o-.
Clark
27
27.
15.5
36.
6•
22.
28
16.
Bill Scott
0.
0.
16.2
Vincent
29.
29
28.
2.
30
Neilsen
4•
16.5
30
1.
1.
B . Tanner
31
17.
32
Grant
9.
35.
3.
17.5
.25
18.
Durant
.5
33.5
33
Halladay
20.
.5
.25
33.5
34
16.
22.
Dixon
4
•
31.
35
Note: Names listed in order of efficiency rank.SD^*606.50
P«l-
6SD2
n (N2-I)
Pa. 91
Pm»1-
3639
xr&m
r=*.92
P«l- .09
r=.02
P.E.;
48
TABLE IX
CORRECTION BETWEEN JUDGES1RANKING AND
RANKING ON DIMICK SCORE CARD-GROUP III
Name
Efficiency
Ostler
Orr
Miner
Packard
Moe
Smoot
Watkins
Nilsen
Ferre
Hundley
Clark
Bosewell
Pendleton
Mock '
Holm
Anderson
Peterson
Ivie
Woolsey
Christensen
Jenkins
Dunford
Hardy
Bustured
Reese
Stevens
Crum
St * Joer
Williamson
.Dixon
Thurston
Baker
Hickman
Gee
Mann
8.6
8.8
9.1
10.
10.5
11.
ll-.l
12.2
12.5
12.7
12.9
13.
13.1
13.2
13.7
IX.
14.1
14.7
15.
15.5
15.6
16.
16.5
16.6
17.
18.
18.6
19.
19.3
20.
20.2
20.5
,21.
22.
23.
Efficiency
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Judges *
Rank
Rank
Difference
6.
7.
1.
11.
12.5
2.
12.5
3.
16.
4.
5.
9.
8•
10.
14.
17.5
20.
22.
17.5
23.
24.
25.
19.
28.
15.
29.
21 •
27.
26.
34.
30.
32.
31.
35.
33.
5.
5.
2.
7.
7.5
4•
5.5
5.
7.
6.
6.
3.
5.
4.
1.
1.5
3.
4.
1.5
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
10.
3.
6«
1.
3.
4.
1.
0.
2.
1.
2.
2
D
25.
25.
4.
49.
56.25
16.
30.25
25.
49.
36.
36.
9.
25.
16.
1.
2.25
9.
16.
2.25
9.
9.
9.
16.
16.
100.
9.
36.
1.
9.
16.
1.
0.
4*
1.
4.
Names listed in order of efficiency ranJ£D^=700.00
p=i- .1 0
4200
6SD2
Pslp=iN(N2-I)
42,840
•ii
vO
o
Note:
r= .91
P-E._a.02
49
once.
The scores of the games were kept and games won and
lost were tabulated and .the results shown in th3 table
following this discussion.
In every case, with one exception, the teams composed
of superior rated players were able to win from teams com­
posed of inferior players.
The results of these matched
games give definite evidence of validity in the rankings
made by the judges.
Summary.
In this chapter an explanation was made of
the method used to rank the experimental subjects on game
ability.
Tables were shown to illustrate how the rankings
of the judges were transmuted to a score on a scale of one
hundred.
An attempt was made to discover evidence from
which conclusions could be drawn whether or not the rankings
of the judges were valid.
The method of presenting evidence
of validity by matched games gave results that showed in
every case but one, teams of superior rated players on the
judges* rankings were victorious over teams composed of
players of inferior ranking.
The other attempt to provide
evidence for or against validity of judges* rankings by
correlation with rankings on the score card gave the follow­
ing results:
50
TABLE X
RECORD OF GAMES WON AND LOST
GROUP I
Teams
Games played
Team 1
t« 2
* 3
” 4
« 5
Won
Lost
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
GROUP II
Team
"
«
”
"
n
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
GROUP III
Team 1
" 2
it
3
"
”
«
4
5
»t
y
5
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
Note: In every case with the lone exception of Team 4
of Group II, the team composed of superior rated players were
victorious over teams of inferior rating*
51
GROUP
r.
PE -r
I
.88
.03
II
.92
.02
III
.91
.02
While correlations obtained by the rank difference
method should be interpreted with caution, the coefficients
are of such size that evidence of a close relationship is
shown.
The results of this chapter were such that the writer
felt justified in assuming that the judges’ rankings were
valid to such an extent they could safely be used in this
study.
CHAPTER III
RANKING OF EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS ON FUNDAMENTALS
Raw scores*
The data for obtaining a score for each
individual in fundamentals were gathered by administering
eight tests.
These tests were first .worked out by Edgren,^
and are designed to measure speed of passing, accuracy of
passing, shooting accuracy following a pivot, speed of
dribble, ability to combine the dribble with a short shot,
distance and direction judgment, shooting against opposition,
and ball handling and body coordination.
A full description
of these tests was presented in Chapter Two of this study.
The tests were administered on successive days.
The
subjects were allowed to warm-up, but did not practice the
tests.
Results were measured in time or in number of per­
formances and, for this reason, answer the criterion of
objectivity.
The writer administered every test after careful ex­
planations of the test were made to the whole group.
Results
were tabulated in score sheets and the eight scores con­
solidated into tables of raw scores.
These tables are shown
^ E. D. Edgren, "Experiment in the Testing of Ability
and Progress in Basketball," The Research Quarterly of the
American Physical Education Association, III, (March, 1932),
pp.159-171.
53
on the following three pages.
Transmutation of raw scores. After the raw scores
were tabulated, it was necessary that these scores be con­
verted into scores on a linear scale so that scores measured
in time and those measured by successful attempts could be
averaged.
For this reason all raw scores were transmuted
into T-scores.
Bovard and Cozens give the following explanation of
the construction of a T-scale:
An extremely convenient score to use in the scaling of
tests is one made popular by McCall which he calls the
T-scale. T-scores are based on the standard deviation
of the distribution in question and range from zero to
one hundred. The zero point on the scale is taken as the
performance at five standard deviations below the mean
and the upper.limit, one hundred points, at five standard
deviations above the mean. One "T" score represents one
tenth of a standard deviation, the mean is fifty and
each ten points above or below the mean is one standard
deviation. McCall's original scale was worked out on
unselected twelve year olds, but because of the fact that
standard measures are comparable within the same group,
T-scores may be used to apply to any group. They may
be derived by a nontechnical method described by McCall
in which:
Column I will represent the distribution intervals
Column II will represent the frequencies
Column III will represent the number of scores
exceeding a given performance
Column IV will represent half those making scores
in a given interval; and
Column V will represent the per cent of those ex­
ceeding (Column III) plus half of those reaching
a particular interval (Column IV), found by divid­
ing Column III plus IV by N (the number of cases
in the distribution).
54
TABLE XI
HAW 30 ORES-GROUP I
Name
I
Andrus
Bandley
Brown
Crowther
Crane
Cook
Cornum
Clark
Gardner
Hansen
Howard
KUflTD
Kimball
Lewi s
Mortensen
I# Nelson
B. Neilsen
R. Nilsen
Nash
Preece
M. Peterson
G. Peterson
Prussee
Phillips
Richins
Sears
Thurman
Warner .
Woods
Note:
8.0
8.5
10.0
10.1
7.4
7.5
9.0
9.0
8.3
9.8
8.0
8.8
7.9
9.5
8.0
9.3
8.1
7.4
9.2
8.1
8 .4
8.3
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.6
7.5
7.6
8.8
Names
TESTS
V
VII
VIII
6
1
9.3
4 10.6
2
8.8
5.2
4
5
9.8
2
10.1
7
4
2
10.0
6
4 10.2
6
6
5
5.3
9.
'6.1
6
4
7
9.
2
9.2
4
5 10.0
6
5.6
6
9.1
3
6
7
4
5.5
8.5
7
8.5
3
4 10.2
8.6
7
4
4
5.5
3
5
9.9
7.4
4
2
6
7
8.5
5.3
5.8
2
9.2
5
4
9.6
8
4
5.4
5
7.8
6
9.8
4
3
6.0
10.0
4
7
4
6
4
7
7.5
8.5
6.0
9.8
7
4
5
6.8
9.8
6
5
4
4
5.7
5
7
8.5
4
7.5
4
5
9.1
8.0
5
3
9.4
4
2
7.2
6
7
9.9
6
5
7.2
9.0
3
10.0
1
46
5 .10.0
7
8
58
7
5
5.4
9,4
8.2
6.0
5
5
4
53
7.6
3
5
49
? 10.1
are listed in alphabetical order.
20.
17.5
22.5
23.
16.2
17.2
21.
22.
17.
21.8
18.
18.5
17.
19.5
18.
18.
20.
17.
21.
17.9
16.8
18.
20.5
19.5
18.5
20.5
16.2
17.5
21.
II III
43
55
44
43
52
54
49
48
54
45
53
50
53
43
55
50
50
57
58
51
58
51
47
51
54
IV
VI
55
TABLE XII
RAW SC ORES-GROUP II
Name
Brim
Buckley
Baker
Bown
Chapman
Clark
Callahan
Dixon
Durant
Grant
Houtz
Hardy
Humphrey
Harding
Halladay
Leffler
Morriss
Myers
Molyneux
Neilsen
Overly
Peterson
Raile
Rhodeback
Sturgill
Bill Scott
Bob Scott
Taylor
W. Tanner
Thorne
Trunkey
B. Tanner
Vincent
Woods
Williams
Note:
I
II III
TESTS
IV
V
VI
VII
10.2
5
4
7 .5
1 1 .0
2
3
11.3
11.0
8.8
5
3
10 ,0
8
12.3
5
10.0
2 4 .0
1
2
2
1 3 .2
15.0
1
11.2
2 7 .0
6
3
29.0
1
1 4 .0
1
14.1
1
25.0
12.0
1
13.5
1 4 .0
12.1
28.5
3
3
10.1
11.0
7
5
a.4
12.1
11.1
3
3
10.3
2
25.0
13.5
10.4
4
11.0
7.0
6
9.0
3
2
1
28.0
13.9
12.5
2
1 0 .a
11.0
9.2
3
10.0
a .6
4
4
9.5
6
1 0 .0
8.8
10.9
3
1 2 .6
22.0
2
1
11.0
27.0
1
11.1
1
2
.
5
5
6.2
1 2 .0
6
10.0
3
1
0
.
8
10.8
5
5
a.5
1 1 .6
2
9.0
7.9
4
2
1 1 .1
6.3
10.0
5
8.0
1 0 .1
2
9.0
7
10.2
10.0
3
1 1 .4
4
28.0
1 3 .0
3
3
12.4
6
6.0
a.i
7
9.9
6
ii . 1
11.3
8.3
4
6.2
6
1 2 .0
48
3
8.5
7.6
1 0 .6
2
38
3
9.5
18.0
1
2
42
10.6
1 3 .5
1 0 .6
8
10.1
3
17.5
31
8
6.1
6
a.o
52
9.4
2
10.2
9.8
38
1 2 .5
3
Names are listed in alphabetical order.
9.3
10.2
8.7
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.5
52
47
39
37
40
47
39
29
35
39
48
43
48
45
29
44
48
48
40
30
21
47
41
45
45
49
40
50
48
4
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
4
3
3
1
1
1
5
2
VIII
20.8
24.5
24.
24.
23.
28.
22.
32.
26.
31.
21.
36.
23.
21.
24.
24.5
20.
20.5
28.
27.
19.5
21.
24.
20.
20.
23.5
29.
20.
19.8
22.
23.
26.
24.
18.
25.
56
TABLE XIII
RAW SCORES-GROUP II
Name
Anderson
Bosewell
Bustured
Baker
Clark
Crum
Christensen
Dunford
Dixon
Ferre
Gee
Hundley
Holm
Hardy
Hi ckman
Ivie
Jenkins
Miner
Moe
Mock
Mann
Nilsen
Ostler
Orr
Pendleton
Packard
Peterson
Reese
Smoot
St. Joer
Stevens
Thurston
Williamson
Watkins
Woolsey
Note:
TESTS
IV
I
II
III
1 0 .1
1 0 .0
1 0 .6
1 0 .2
1 0 .0
1 1 .8
1 1 .0
1 2 .0
1 4 .8
1 0 .0
28
2
1 1 .1
37
44
30
37
37
5
5
3
5
10.5
10.7
17.5
14 •4
9.6
10.0
10.0
10.4
10.5
11.0
9.1
10.1
9.8
16.1
8.0
10.0
9.7
10.0
11.1
10.0
10.1
9.0
13.2
11.0
14.5
10.8
10.5
9.9
42
37
30
41
34
36
34
38
26
42
30
47
39
44
33
40
41
44
41
35
44
31
43
33
33
29
35
39
35
2
5
2
1
1 0 .0
1 1 .0
1 0 .0
1 2 .0
14.P
3
11.5
1 ‘ 14.0
6
9.8
10.8
4
10.9
4
1
11.6
3
10.3
5
10.5
10.0
4
9 .8
4
10.2
4
1
1 3 .0
9.0
5
7
9.1
10.0
5
10.6
3
2
10.2
11.0
4
11.0
4
5
9.9
11.6
3
2
13.1
1
13.5
13.0
3
11.1
4
12.0
3
V
VI
VII
VIII
13.5
9.3
18.0
19.5
3
5
3
2
.2
2
1
28.0
4
1
2 2 .0
2 5 .0
2 3 .0
2 4 .0
2 7 .0
8 .0
17.5
18.5
2 0 .0
28.5
12.5,
2 9 .0
8 .5
1 2 .5
1 6 .5
2 4 .0
18.6
13.0
8.0
11.0
12.0
26.5
8.2
10.0
11.0
10.5
13.0
13.0
13.5
7.5
2 6 .0
20.0
27.0
25.5
13.0
12.5
2
7
3
3
3
1
4
1
6
5
3
1
4
4
7
4
5
1
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
7
3
2
1
2
4
4
Names are listed in alphabetical order.
2
2
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
4
2
2
1
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
3
3
2 1 .0
2 3 .0
35.0
20.5
2 9 .0
23.5
21.4
21.5
3 2 .0
24 •5
20.8
1 9 .0
23.0
22.0
27.0
20.3
20.4
21.0
24.0
23:0
23.5
22.5
1 9 .6
23.0
30.0
25.5
28.0
24.1
25.5
57
The scale will be read from Column V by a table
showing the standard deviation distance of a given per
cent above zero. Each standard deviation value is
multiplied by ten to eliminate decimals with the zero
point at five standard deviations below the m e a n . 2
The writer modified the procedure as explained above
by combining columns III and IV.
The S. D. values were
taken from Table X, page 91, of Garrett’s*^ text.
To take an example, see in the appendix, Table XX
Group I Test I; the second interval has a raw score of ten
seconds; there is a frequency of one on this interval.
Adding
from the top of the frequency column down to this interval
gives two, and two subtracted from twenty-nine (N) gives
twenty-seven; to twenty-seven is added half the frequency on
this interval (in this case five-tenths) and this gives
twenty-seven and five tenths, the entry in the third column.
The entry in the third column is then divided by twenty-nine
or (N), which gives 95 per cent, the entry in the fourth
column.
From the table cited in Garrett’s text, 95 per cent
gives an S. D. value of 1.65, and multiplying this by ten
and subtracting from the mean (50) gives a T-score of
thirty-four.
2 John F. Bovard and Fredrick W. Cozens, Tests-and
Measurement in Physical Education (Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders Company), PP* 217-19.
3 Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychology and
Education (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1933),
p. 91.
58
Twenty-three additional scales were constructed in
this study and are shown in the appendix.
Average T-scores. After the eight raw scores for
each experimental subject had been transmuted into eight
T-scores, these T-scores were listed in tabular form.
The
eight T-scores were then added and divided by eight to give
the average T-score for each individual.
Since all T-scores
were computed upon the same scale (zero to one hundred) it
was permissible to add and divide by the number of scores
to find the average T-score for each individual.
The average T-score was computed for the purpose of
indicating the degree of skill of each individual in funda­
mentals of the game.
The degree of relationship between this
score and the score given each individual by the combined
ranking of the judges should measure the relation of skill
in fundamentals to actual ability in game situations.
The three tables immediately following show in tabu­
lar form the method of computing the average T-scores.
59
TABLE XIV
T-SCORES AND AVERAGE T-SCORES-GROUP I
Name
Thurman
Crane
R. Nilsen
M. Peterson
Gardner
Nimball
Cook
Mortensen
Warner
Howard
Bandley
Nash
Preece
Hichins
B. Neilsen
G. Peterson
Phillips
Clark
I. Nelson
Kuiap
Prussee
Woods
Lewis
Sears
Cornum
Hansen
Andrus
Brown
Crowther
I
64
69
69
51
52
59
64
56
60
56
50
41
54
47
54
52
47
43
40
45
46
45
38
47
43
37
56
34
29
II III
IV
TESTS
V
VI
66
51
62
66
56
54
56
59
65
54
59
66
49
56
47
49
49
44
47
47
42
45
34
51
.55
61
65
41
45
40
34
38
34
71
55
63
63
55
55
63
49
40
40
49
49
55
49
63
40
6*3
55
55
49
40
49
40
64
64
64
64
55
49
71
59
58
47
47
55
42
53
45
53
47
45
51
39
52
42
49
49
42
40
40
35
34
39
?5
40
40
46
55
58
65
51
61
53
58
71
53
50
49
53
46
49
56
44
47
42
45
54
34
40
41
38
37
34
59
51
51
45
59
59
51
71
45
59
37
59
45
51
37
45
51
51
37
37
45
44
45
59
37
59
51
59
51
VII VIII
66
66
69
69
56
56
56
63
56
61
61
41
56
59
52
56
66
56
56
52
56
41
56
41
56
54
47
49
4 6 . 56
56
52
48
47
37
47
52
47
47
49
47
44
48
41
41
48
34
44
41
38
41
47
34
41
41
46
34
29
Average
T. Score
63*3
60.1
58.3
57.8
57.6
57.2
56.8
5 6 .6
55.6
54.2
5 2 .6
51.5
51.2
50.3
49.7
49.1
49.1
4 8 .2
46.1
45.7
44 *6
44 •5
44.0
43.7
42.2
42.1
41.6
4 0 .2
36.6
Note: Tiiis table should "be read as follows: Cook, the
seventh name listed had the following T-scores in the eight
tests: 6 4 , 56, 63, 55, 51, 51, 56, 59, these scores are added
and divided by eight to give the average T-score or 56.8.
Names listed in order of average T-scores.
60
TABLE XV
T-SCORES AND AVERAGE T-SCORES-GROUP II
Name
Woods
Taylor
Brim
Morriss
Houtz
Overly
W. Tanner
Sturgill
Peterson
Myers
Thorne
Harding
Rhodeback
Bob Scott
Bown
Baker
Raile
Leffler
Callahan
Buckley
Vincent
Trunkey
Humphrey
Chapman
Hardy
"Williams
Clark
Neilsen
Molyneux
Bill Scott
B. Tanner
Grant
Durant
Halladay
Dixon
Note:
I
73
67
53
60
63
48
65
56
61
58
61
56
48
48
46
59
56
54
52
45
46
52
43
48
44
51
48
40
41
35
42
37
39
34
31
II
III
66
66
60
55
60
50
55
43
60
50
50
50
43
55
60
60
52
50
50
43
73
40
43
55
57
46
36
50
49
40
50
43
54
.60
44
46
36
46
50
48
43
50
44
36
37
36
31
..
_.l6,
69
63
69
57
57
65
57
52
54
57
57
52
52
61
39
44
47
50
44
54
35
Average
VII VIII T. Score
IV
V
VI
73
65
59
67
53
47
52
60
56
61
47
53
52
49
67
73
52
54
63
63
47
56
51
50
63
60
61
52
54
55
69
63
65
52
58
57
57
63
54
57
57
57
54
73
65
57
58
55
58
58
58
58
58
58
48
58
48
58
73
61
59
61
53
67
65
61
55
58
*53
55
61
50
69
58
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
45
53
45
46
48
53
43
56
51
50
57
57
39
61
49
39
49
45
58
41
42
46
48
48
45
42
45
43
52
45
39
43
37
44
34
41
37
31
43
35
39
43
38
35
42
39
34
39
35
31
48
57
43
57
48
48
48
43
43
48
35
43
3?
48
39
39
48
48
48
48
39
35
48
39
39
39
39
39
39
48
52
52
52
42
44
38
40
58
35
42
34
42
48
31
70.0
67.0
59.2
58.0
57.7
57.1
57.0
5 6 .1
5 6 .1
56.1
56.0
52.8
53.6
52.6
52.5
5 1 .8
49.8
49 •4
49.2
49.0
48.8
48.6
47.2
47.0
4 6 .8
4 6 .6
43.0
42.7
4 2 .2
41.5
41.5
4 0 .0
38.5
37.8
33.1
Names are listed in order of average T-Scores.
61
TABLE XVI
T-SCORES AND AVERAGE T-SCORES-GROTJP III
Note:
65
67
73
55
55
63
61
60
55
55
51
55
55
55
17
55
15
18
15
IB
59
51
13
11
12
51
39
16
15
10
19
30
35
37
?1
Names
III
73
56
59
59
73
59
67
59
56
59
17
64
56
61
60
51
56
50
19
6l
6l
50
56
53
15
IV
V
VI
58
66
61
73
63
59
66
61
56
55
60
58
56
53
53
51
17
19
67
67
73
67
58
58
56
51
53
56
51
56
16
17
61
56
19
61
52
59
50
56
52
58
16
5S
59
56
17
51
53
39
59
51
51
53
17
15
55
17
13
53
17
50
11
56
19
12
56
51
17
12
50
13
13
12
50
18
19
50
12
17
31
39
17
15
13
10
10
17
17
12
13
13
39
30
11
17
39
30
35
15
11
10
37
35
13
35
35
35
37
30
15
35
31
?9
?1
?1
,
?5
are listed in order
H
H
Miner
Smoot
Nilsen
Ostler
Clark
Hundley
Orr
Mock
Bosewell
Pendleton
Moe
Holm
Ferre
Peterson
Bustured
Hardy
Christensen
Watkins
J enkins
Ivie
Woolsey
Reese
Packard
Dunford
Crum
Anderson
St. Joer
Williamson
Stevens
Baker
Hickman
Mann
Thurston
Gee
Dixon
II
>
I
Names
Average
VIII T. Score
65
73
65*3
6 5 .8
67
65
6 l.l
61
65
65
56
6 1 .2
61
63
55
67
65
59 *3
61
56
19
58.7
58
58.6
56
57
19
55
56.3
57
58
55.2
19
57
51.8
65 '18
57
52
19
51
54.3
56
53.7
57
57
61
56
53.5
51
19
19
53.3
51
52.0
l6
52
19
56
51.6
16
19
52
51.6
16
19
56
17
51
51.5
60
19
51.3
51
56
16
51.1
51
56
15
50.5
51
19
50.5
51
51
49.2
52
19
51
45.2
l6'
18
19
16
44.8
39
13
16
41 •7
19
39
46
52
13.7
39
12.3
39
39
41
12 •1
19
35
41
30
38.7
39
11
38.5
31
39
35
37.5
39
11
35
37.0
15
39
35
37
36.5
39
35
36.3
35
1*
3?
of average T-Seores.
CHAPTER IV
RELATION OF T-SCORES TO JUDGES’ RANKINGS
In the preceding chapters of this study an explana­
tion of the method used in deriving two scores for each
experimental subject has been made.
These two scores;
namely, a score derived from the judges’ ranking and an
average T-score derived from eight tests on fundamentals,
represent the two factors between which the degree of rela­
tionship was to be determined.
Glassgow and Broer1 , in speaking of validity, say:
”To determine validity, the scores of a test are correlated
with an accepted measure of the ability in question.”
The
accepted measure used in this study was the ratings on
ability in game situations given each individual by six
well-qualified judges.
The purpose was to show the degree of relationship
between the two factors as expressed by the correlation
coefficient.
It was hoped that this relationship might point
the way to conclusions that would answer the questions raised
in the statement of the problem.
Several studies of a similar nature have been made,
Ruth B. Glassgow and Marion R. Broer, Measuring
Achievement in Physical Education (Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders Company, 1938), p. 31.
63
in which the ability to be measured has been correlated with
subjective ratings of several judges. . Glassgow and Broer 2
have summarized these studies and have shown the results in
tabular form as reproduced in the following table:
Ability measured
Criterion with which
test scores were cor­
related
r
Ability to play
tennis
Combined subjective
rating of 3 judges
.85
Dyer
General athletic
ability
Five judges— 2 and 3
subjective rating
combined
.93
Cozens
Ability to play
volleyball
Three judges--subjective rating not
combined
.79
Locke
Ability to play
basketball
Three judges— combined
subjective rating
.85
Young and
Moser
Grading posture
Nine judges combined
subjective rating
CD
1
—1
VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS FOUND IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES3
McEwan am
Howe
Ability to play
soccer
Ranking of the teach­
ers and the squad
leaders
.61
Rodgers
and Heath
Investigator
2 Ibid., p. 33.
3 This table is reproduced from Glassgow and Broer,
p . 33.
64
Correlation of judges1 ranking with average
T-scores.
The method used for computing the correlation
coefficient was the rank difference method.
A complete
explanation of this procedure has been made in Chapter Two
of this study.
In the table immediately following this discussion,
Column II gives the score of each individual on the combined
ranking of the judges.
Column III gives the rank for each
subject as determined by the score in Column II.
Column IV
gives the average T-score for each subject as determined
by the eight tests in fundamentals.
Column V gives the
rank for each individual as determined by the score in
Column IV.
Column VI gives the rank difference or the dif­
ference between Column III and Column V.
Column VII gives
the difference squared.
Formulas for deriving the coefficient of correlation
and the probable error of the coefficient are shown at the
bottom of each table.
Summary.
In this chapter correlations between
judges’ rankings and scores derived from skill tests have
been made.
These correlations gave the following results:
65
TABLE XVII
CORRELATION BETWEEN JUDGES’ RANKING
AND AVERAGE T-SCOR1
Judges1
Score
Group I
86
81
79
74
68
66
65
62
61
60
56
53
53
52
51
50
47
44
43
41
39
38
35
31
29
26
26
18
M. Peterson
Nilsen
Thurman
Gardner
Cook
Nash
Preeoe
Kump
Howard
Crane
I* Nelson
Kimball
Warner
Mortensen
G. Peterson
B. Neilsen
Cornum
Woods
Hichins
Bandley
Prussee
Sears
Clark
Lewis
Andrus
Phillips
Hansen
Brown
Crcswther
1
.
J
T
Note:
P-l-
T
'
"
1
Judges’ Test Score
Rank
Average
T-Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.5
12.5
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.5
26.5
28.0
29.0
r--
-T..
'
57.8
58.3
63.3
57.6
56.8
51.5
51.2
13
20
10
2
19
6
9
8
16.5
15.0
2 5 .O
22.0
14.0
11.0
21.0
57.2
55.6
56.6
49.1
49.7
4 2 .2
44 •5
50.3
52.6
44.6
43.7
48.2
44.0
4 1 .6
49 *1
4 2.1
40.2
36.6
-
.
Rank
Difference
9.00
3
1
1.00
2
4.00
1
1.00
2
4 .0 0
6
36.00
6
36 .0 0
12
144 .0 0
1
1.00
i
64.00
-8
6 4 .00
4 2.25
6.5
12.25
3.5
36.00
6.0
2.25
1.5
1.0
1.00
6 4 .0 0
8.0
16.00
4.6
25.00
5.0
81.00
9.0
0.00
0.0
4.00
2.0
5.0
25.00
1.00
1.0
4.00
2.0
10.0 100.00
.25
.5
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
3
1
5
7
12
45.7
54.2
60.1
4 6 .1
.
Test
Rank
2 4.0
18.0
2 3.0
2 7 .0
16.5
26.0
28.0
29.0
.
.
.
.
.
-
Names listed in order of Judges' rank.
6SP2
N(N^-l)
P = .81
P=lr=.82
1.668
24,360
_
2 D =778.00
P=l- .19
P.E.r=.7063(l-r2 )= .04
V'N
TABLE XVIII
66
CORRELATION BETWEEN JUDGESf RANKING
AND AVERAGE T-SCGRE
Judges* Judges* Test Score Test
Rank
Score
.Rank
Average
Rank Difference
T-Score
Group II
88
Woods
Taylor
Tanner
Thorne
Morriss
Houtz
Sturgill
Brim
Overly
Bob Scott
Raile
Myers
Leffler
Peterson
Buckley
Hardy
Rhodeback
Humphrey
Harding
Trunkey
Baker
Molyneux
Bill Scott
Chapman
Williams
Callahan
Bown
Clark
Neilsen
Vincent
B. Tanner
Dixon
Halladay
Durant
Grant
Note:
84
75
72
72
71
67
67
64
63
60
58
57
56
55
50
49
48
48
46
44
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
33
30
21
19
19
18
1
2
3
4.5
4 •5
6.0
7.5
7.5
9.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.5
17.5
19.0
20.$
20.5
22.0
23.0
2 4.0
2 5 .0
26.0
27.0
28.0
2 9 .0
3 0.0
31.0
33.5
33.5
35.0
70
67
57
58
57.7
56.1
59.2
57.1
52.6
49.8
56.1
49 *4
56.1
49.0
1
2
7
11
4
5
9
3
6
14
17
9
18
9
20
4 6 .8
26
53:6
47.2
53.8
4 8 .6
51.8 ,
13
23.5
12.0
22.0
16.0
23.5
30.5
25.0
27.0
19.0
15.0
28.0
56
4 2 .4
41.5
47.0
4 6 .0
49.2
52.5
43.0
42.7
4 8 .8
41 •5
33.1
37.8
38.5
40.0
2 9 .0
21.0
30.5
35.0
34.0
33.0
32.0
Psl-
62d2
NCM^-T)
P =.884
P=lr=.S9
4222
42 ,840
0.00
0.00
0
0
4
6.5
.5
1.0
2.5
4.5
3.0
5.0
7.0
2,0
6.0
4.0
6.0
11.0
3.0
6.0
5.5
3.0
4.5
3.0
8.5
2.0
3.0
6.0
11.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
.5
4.0
.5
3.0
3.0
Names listed in order of Judges* rank.
jy2
16.00
4 2.25
.25
1.00
6.25
20.25
9.00
25.00
49.00
4.00
36 .00
16.00
36.00
121.00
9.00
36.00
30.25
9.00
20.25
9.00
72.25
4.00
9.00
36.00
121.00
1.00
1.00
64.00
.25
16,00
.25
9.00
.25
£"Di829.50
? = 1-.116
P.E.„".7063(1-r )-.02
TABLE XIX
67
CORRELATION BETWEEN JUDGES* RANKING
AND AVERAGE T-SCOHE
Judges* Judges * Test Score Test
Score
Rank
Average
Rank
T-Score
Group III
Miner
Smoot
Nilsen
Hundley
Clark
Ostler
Orr
Pendleton
Bosewell
Mock
Packard
Moe
Watkins
Holm
Reece
Eerre
Anderson
Woolsey
Hardv
Peterson
Crum
Ivie
Christensen
Ienkins
Dunford
Williamson
St. Joer
Bustured
Stevens
Thurston
Hickman
Baker
Mann
Dixon
Gee
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.5
12.5
1A.0
15.0
16.0
17.5
17.5
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
2A.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
3A.0
35.0
65.3
6A. 8
64.1
58.7
59.7
61.2
58.6
54.S
55.2
56.5
A9.2
5A.3
51.5
53.7
50.5
53.5
AA.7
50.5
51.6
50.5
AA.8
51.1
51.6
51.3
A5.2
A2.3
A3.7
52.0
42.1
37.0
38.5
38.7
37.5
36.3
36.5
1
2
3
6
5
A
7
10
9
8
23
11
18
12
21.5
13.5
26.0
21.5
16.5
13.5
25.0
,20.0
16.5
19.0
24.0
28.0
27.0
15.0
29.0
33.0
31.0
30.0
32.0
35.0
34.0
62D2
' N(N^-l)
P.E •r=.7063(1(ST
It
r=.'92
P=l-.09
oTj
<P=.91
??54
A 28
A0
D2
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
2
A.00
0
0.00
A.00
2
0
0.00
2
4.00
0
0.00
2
A.00
12
144.00
2.25
1.5
5.5 30.25
2.0
4.00
6.5 42.25
2.5
6.25
8.5 72.25
4.0 16.00
6.25
2.5
6.5 42.25
4.0 16.00
4.0
4.00
6.5 42.25
5.0 25.00
1.00
1.0
2.0
4.00
0.0
0.00
13.0 169.00
0.00
0.0
9.00
3.0
0.0
0.00
4.00
2.0
1.0
1.00
1.0
1.00
1.0
1.00
Names listed in order of Judges* rank.^D^*659
U
it
H
1
Note:
as
82
77
76
73
69
66
65
62
61
60
59
59
58
53
52
50
50
49
48
47
46
44
42
AO
39
37
35
33
32
30
22
21
18
15
Rank
Difference
02
68
r
PEr
CD
GROUP
.04
II
.89
.02
111
.92
.02
I
Strictly speaking, the term high correlation should
be applied only to coefficients which are .95 or above.
However, in mental, social, and educational measure­
ments there are so many actual and potential sources
of error due to the variability of the material dealt
with and the relative crudity of the measurements made,
that very few tests indeed could meet this requirement.
Very seldom do correlations between tests run above a
.70 or .75; and hence it is probably justifiable, in
view of the limitations mentioned, to regard such
coefficients as high.4
In view of the foregoing discussion the writer felt
justified in regarding the degree of relationship between
the two factors as high.
Skill in fundamentals, therefore,
is closely related to playing ability.
An interesting comparison between the results of this
study and studies of a similar nature can be seen from a
study of the table shown on page sixty-five.
The correla­
tion coefficients of these similar studies range from ;61 to
.93, while the coefficients as shown in this study range
from .82 for group one to .92 for group three.
This com­
parison gives evidence that the correlations derived in
4 Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychology and
Education (New York: Longmans, Green and Company), p. 298.
this study are comparable with correlations derived
similar investigations.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
RESTATEMENT OF PROBLEMS ’
Summary of experimental steps.
Correlations have
been derived from two sets of scores to form a basis for
conclusions that have attempted to answer the questions and
problems raised in the introductory chapter.
The questions
raised in the statement cf the problem are questions dealing
with the importance of skill in fundamentals of basketball
as a criterion by which to select the members of a team.
The
steps centering around the conduct of this investigation are
restated briefly as follows:
1.
A comprehensive study of related investigations.
2.
Selection of experimental groups.
3.
Selection of fundamental tests.
4.
Providing evidence of the reliability of the
fundamental tests.
5.
Selection of competent judges to rank experimental
subjects.
6.
ability.
Ranking of experimental subjects on actual game
71
7.
Presenting evidence for or against the validity
of the judgesT rankings.
8 . Administering the fundamental tests.
9.
10.
Transmutation of raw scores to T-scores.
Correlating scores of fundamental tests with
scores derived from judges1 rankings.
The methods used and the results obtained in attack­
ing these problems have been explained.
A summary of the
results with conclusions based on the same are presented in
this chapter.
SUMMARY OP RESULTS
Results of reliability experiment. An attempt to
provide evidence that would indicate whether or not the
tests were reliable was made by giving the tests to a group
not included in the experiment.
The tests were repeated by
this same group under identical conditions and correlations
made between the first and second test results.
The co­
efficients of correlation were as follows:
Test
1
2
3
4
r
.91
.84
.81
.86
Test
5
6
7
8
r
.79
.72
.88
.87
The results outlined above, together with evidence of
reliability presented by the author of the tests, gave the
writer assurance the tests were highly reliable.
Evidence of validity of .judgesT ranking.
Correla­
tions between scores derived from the judges1 rankings and
efficiency as measured by the score card were made with the
purpose of providing evidence that would indicate the degree
of validity of the rankings made by the six judges.
These
correlations gave the following results:
Group
r
P E r
I
II
III
.98
.92
.91
.03
.02
.02
The high degree of relationship between the two
factors seems to indicate that the judges1 rankings were
acceptable in validity.
Another attempt to provide evidence for or against
validity was made by the matched game method.
This pro­
cedure, explained on page forty-five, gave positive results
in every game but one.
The results of the two experiments above justified
the writer in assuming the judges* rankings were valid to
the extent they could be safely used in this study.
Relationship between experimental factors.
After
establishing acceptable reliability of the fundamental tests
and providing evidence of validity of the judges* rankings,
73
the next step in the study was to derive a score for each
subject in the fundamental tests.' The final step in the
experimental procedure was to determine the relationship
between actual ability in game situations as measured by
the scores derived from the judges1 rankings and the scores
derived from the eight tests in fundamentals.
This rela­
tionship gave results expressed in correlation coefficients
as follows:
Group
I
II
III
r
.82
.89
.92
P E r
.04
.02
.02
CONCLUSIONS
Implications.
The data presented above indicate
a relatively close relationship between test scores and
scores derived from the rankings of the judges.
This high
degree of relationship indicates that prospective members of
a basketball squad could be chosen, with a fair assumption
of validity, upon their performance in fundamentals.
It
must be recognized, however, that this does not constitute
conclusive evidence for individual cases but rather for a
general consideration.
The fact that this is not conclu­
sive proof for individual cases probably explains the fact
that frequently boys score low in tests yet are rated high
in game situations; and, on the other hand, boys sometimes
74
score high in fundamental tests yet are rated as poor team
men.
Although the judges were instructed to rank players
on their playing ability in game situations and to give due
consideration to factors such as:
team play, willingness
to cooperate, leadership, (subjective factors), there is
always the possibility that they were unduly influenced
in their selections by performance of fundamentals.
If this
was the case, then the data presented constituted merely
two different methods of measuring the same thing.
There
is also the possibility that the subjective factors spoken
of above exist in relatively high correlation with skill
in fundamentals.
This would indicate that, in general, the
boys- who score highest in fundamentals are really the best
team men, best in leadership, and best in cooperation.
Authorities are generally agreed that factors other
than skill in fundamentals do exist.
The extent or im­
portance of these factors, of subjective nature, have not
been shown by the data presented in this investigation.
Although group one was made up of the more skillful players,
the correlations for this group are lower; this difference
seems to indicate the presence of some intangible factors.
These intangibles might very well exist to a greater degree
in the group of experienced players and thus account for a
lower correlation.
75
Considering the degree of relationship shown between
the rankings of the judges and results of tests in funda­
mentals, or rankings of judges'and efficiency as measured
by the score card, any one method or any combination of
methods could very well be used to evaluate the worth of an
individual.
This evaluation could then be used as a general
consideration in the selection of team members.
Applicability of data.
The tests reported in this
study proved of practical value in this situation as
teaching tools, as a means of motivating the practice of
technique in basketball, as a means of providing the pupil
with definite knowledge of his accomplishments,, and as one
basis for more objective marks in physical education.
When
a pupil can see his score on a table posted on the bulletin
board, he may be motivated to put forth his best efforts.
The tests have deomonstrated to the writer that the
physical education period should include instruction in the
fundamentals of the various activities.
Skill can best be
taught by this method, while social-emotional growth is
enhanced during the supervised play period.
Instruction.-of
the individual is enhanced when the instructor knows the
skill of each pupil.
This is possible when the pupil has
been tested in a certain activity.
76
RECOMMENDATIONS
The writer, after making the foregoing study, found
certain questions unanswered.
of the following reasons:
This may be due to any one
the nature of the problem, the
limitations of the data, or possibly the situations in which
the experimenting was done.
These unanswered questions
deal with the extent and importance of the subjective
factors; since it is generally agreed that these factors do
exist, it should be possible to measure the degree or amount
of their existence and their importance.
Experienced people in the field of tests and measure­
ments, using more refined techniques, should be able to work
out a score card to measure these subjective factors.
Further studies of a similar nature, using larger
groups and tests of fundamentals other than those used in
this study, might prove interesting.
This study has sug­
gested to the writer another investigation in which the
degree.of relationship between the individual’s reaction
time and actual playing ability, as. measured by the score
card, could be determined.
The one point most clearly demonstrated to the writer
by this experiment was the high correlation between skill in
fundamentals and performance skill in game situations.
This
77
high correlation would seem to indicate the two factors are
so closely related that in general scores made on funda­
mental drills can very well be used as the basis for selec­
tion of team members.
The experiment also shows that the use of tables and
figures showing the relative standing of the individual in
fundamental skills acts as a motivating factor for the
individual to improve his skill and thus improve his relative
standing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A.
BOOKS
Almack, John C. Research and Thesis Writing.
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930. 310 pp.
Boston:
Emphasizes fundamental principles of scientific
research. Contains questions, problems, and selected
references at the end of each chapter.
Bovard, John F. and F. W. Cozens, Tests and Measurements
in Physical Education. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders
Company, 1930. 364 pp.
Historical review of the field of testing and measure­
ment, gives procedures in the building, scaling, and
validation of tests.
Brace, David K. , Measuring Motor Ability. Mew York:
Barnes and Company, 1927. 138 pp.
A. S
Includes tests in basketball, indoor baseball, indoor
soccer, and indoor track and field.
Campbell, William C., A Form Book for Thesis Writing. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California Press,
1933. 75 pp.
Explains and illustrates the details of thesis writing
Garrett, Henry E., Statistics in Psychology and Education.
Mew York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1926. 317 pp.
A detailed description of methods in statistical
procedures.
Glassgow, Ruth B. and Marion R. Broer, Measuring Achieve­
ment in Physical Education. Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders Company, 1938. 344 pp.
Gives guides by which proper physical education tests
can be selected and shows how to determine their value
in relation to conveniences, adaptability, economy of
administration, et cetera.
80
McCall, William A . , How to Measure in Education, New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1922, 416 pp.
A description of methods used in research and measure­
ment .
B.
PERIODICAL ARTICLES
Brace, David K. , "A Method for Constructing Athletic
Scoring Tables,” American Physical Education Review,
XXIX, April, 1924.
Bliss, James G., "A Study of Progression on Age, Sex, and
Individual Differences in Strength and Skill,” American
Physical Education Review, XXXII, January and February,
1927, pp. li-21; 85^9W.
An experimental investigation using twelve tables.
Bunn, John W., ”A Study of Baskets at Different Heights,”
The.Athletic Journal, XIII, February, 1933, pp. 6-7.
Cross, Thomas J., ”A Comparison of the Whole Method, the
Minor Game Method, and the Whole Part Method of Teaching
Basketball to Ninth Grade Boys,” The Research Quarterly
of the American Association for Health and Physical
Education, VIII, December, 1937, p. 49.
Edgren, H. D., ”An Experiment in the Testing of Ability and
Progress in Basketball,” American Physical Education
Research Quarterly, III, March 1932, pp. 159-71.
A series of tests developed to measure progress in
basketball.
Griffith, Coleman R., Experiments in Basketball,” The
Athletic Journal, X, June, 1930, pp. 9-12.
This study includes proper distribution of time of
practice, increasing skill with respect to distance-and
direction from the basket.
Los Angeles City Schools, Department of Physical Education,
Achievement Expectancy Tables, 1927.
81
Report of the National Committee on Motor Ability Tests,
American Physical Education Association, March, 1926.
Shows the extent of motor ability test up to the year
1926.
Schwartz-, Helen A., "Knowledge and Achievement Tests in
Girls’ Basketball on the High School Level," Research
Quarterly of the American Physical Education Association,
VIII, March, 1937, pp. 143-50.
Scales developed from the mean performances of 1,000
girls throughout the United States.
Young, Genevieve and Helen Moser, "A Short Battery of Tests
to Measure Playing Ability in Women’s Basketball,”
Research Quarterly, V, May 1934, pp. 3-11.
C . UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Crumpacker, Samuel W . , "A Prognostic Test for High School
Basketball Players.” Unpublished Master’s thesis,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California, 1933.
Dimick, Harold A., "Formuation of a Basketball Scoring
Method That Will Measure General Offensive Efficiency.”
Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California, 1938.
Kimball, Edwin R., ”A Comparative Study of the Whole and
Part Methods of Teaching Basketball Fundamentals.”
Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California, 1933.
APPENDIX
60”
uo
12
FIGURE 1
TARGET FOR TEST II
Note:
Passes are scored on the following basis:
Inner square or line marking it • • • 3 points
Middle square or line marking^it. . • 2 points
Outer square or line marking it . . . 1 point
84
FIGURE 2
DIAGRAM OF TEST IV
Note: Subject starts at T,A” and dribbles around
four chairs and finishes at "B". The distance is fifteen
feet ‘from line AB to the first chair and six feet between
chairs.
85
A
FIGURE 3
DIAGRAM OF TEST V
Note: Subject starts at "A" dribbles around the foul
line and takes a short shot as he approaches the basket* He
recovers the ball and repeats five times* Time is taken from
the time he leaves tTAM until he recovers the ball after the
fifth shot. His score equals the time divided by the baskets
scored.
86
FIGURE U
DIAGRAM OF TEST VII
Hote: Subjects are paired with two men of approximately
equal ability working together. At the given signal both men
turn, nBft dribbles in for a shot, "A” tries to prevent a basket
without fouling. Five trials are given, one point is allowed
for each basket scored.
FIGURE 5
DIAGRAM OF TEST VIII
Note: Subject starts at "A" throws the hall against
the wall across and outside the mat and recovers the hall
at WB” ; here he passes across the mat and recovers at "A"•
Ten passes are taken and the score is the time needed for
the ten passes.
88
TABLE XX
T-SCALE FOR GROUP I TEST I
Number
Score
10.1
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.3
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.4
F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
28.3
27.5
26.3
23.5
24.5
23.5
22.0
20.0
18.3
16.3
14.5
13.5
12.0
10.0
7.5
5.5
4.5
3.0
1.0
98
95
.91
88
84
81
76
69
64
57
50
46
41
34
2.06
1.63
1.34
1.17
.99
.88
.71
.50
.36
.38
.00
.10
.23
.41
26
.64
19
16
10
.03
.88
.99
1.38
1.89
T-Score
29
34
37
38
40
41
43
45
46
47
50
51
52
54
56
59
6°
64
69
N=29
Mote: Column one gives the raw score, column two gives the
number of individuals making this score, column three gives the
number exceeding plus half those reaching this score, column
four gives per cent, column five gives the standard deviation
of per cent listed in column four, column six gives the T-score.
Additional T-scales are shown in the appendix. (The same inter­
pretation will apply to subsequent tables.)
89
TABLE XXI
T-SCALE FOB GROUP I TEST II
Number
Raw
Score
F.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
8 .D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
T-Score
Reaching
Reaching
3
27.5
95
1.65
34
44
i
25.5
88
1.17
38
45
1
24.5
84
.99
40
46
i
23.5
81
.88
41
47
1
22.5
78
.77
42
48
i
21.5
74
.64
44
49
2
2 0 .0
69
.50
45
50
3
17.5
60
.25
47
51
2
1 5.0
52
.06
49
52
2
1 3 .0
45
*
■.13
51
53
3
10.5
36
.36
54
54
3
7.5
26
vO
•
-4-
56
55
2
5.0
17
.95
59
57
1
3.5
12
1.18
62
58
3
1.5
.0 $
1.65
66
-
43
H=29
90
TABLE XXII
T-SCALE FOB GROUP I TEST III
Num/ber
Raw
Score
F.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
9
24.5
84
.99
40
5
8
16.0
55
.13
49
6
6
9.0
31
*51
55
7
5
3.5
12
1.28
63
8
1
.5
.02
2.06
71
N=29
91
TABLE XXXII
T-SCALE FOR G-BOUP I TEST IV
Number
Raw
Score
F.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
10 *6
1
28.5
98-
1.65
34
10.2
2
27.0
93
1.48
35
10.1
2
25.0
86
1.08
39
10.0
3
22.5
78
.77
42
9.9
2
20.0
69
.50
45
9 .8
3
17.5
60
.25
47
9.6
1
15.5
53
.08
49
9.4
2
14.0
48
.06
51
9.2
1
12.5
43
.18
52
9.1
2
11.0
38
.31
53
9.0
3
8.5
29
.55
55
8.8
1
6.5
22
.77
58
8.6
1
5.5
19
.88
59
8.5
4
3.0
10
1.38
64
8.2
1
.5
.02
2 .0 6
71
H=29
92
TABLE XXIV
T-SCALE FOR CROUP I TEST V
Number
Raw
Score
1 0 .0
9.6
9.3
9.2
a. 5
8 .0
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.2
6 .8
6 .1
6 .0
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
N=29
P.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
8 .D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
2 8 .0
26.5
96
91
25.5
24.5
23.5
22.5
21.5
20.5
64
61
78
74
71
1 9 .0
66
60
17.5
1 6 .0
14.5
13.5
11.5
8.5
8.5
7.5
6.0
4.0
2.0
.5
88
55
50
1.65
1.34
1.17
.99
.6 8
.77
.6 4
.55
.41
.25
.13
40
.0 0
.1 0
.2 5
33
.44
29
26
21
14
.07
.02
.5 5
.6 4
46
.81
1.08
1.48
2.06
T-Seore
34
37
38
40
41
42
44
45 '
46
47
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
58
61
65
71
93
TABLE XXV
T-SCALE EGR GROUP I TEST VI
Number
Raw
Score
E.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Beaching
Beaching
T-Score
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
tj
5
26.5
91
1.34
37
7
20.5
71
.55
45
6
8
13.0
45
.13
51
7
8
5.0
17
.95
59
8
1
.5
.02
2.06
71
N=29
94
TABLE XXVI
T-SCALE FOR G-ROUP I TEST VII
Number
Raw
Score
F.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
1
2
28 *0
96
1.65
34
2
7
23.5
81
to
to*
41
3
7
16.5
37
.28
47
4
10
8.0
28
•58
36
5
3
1.3
.05
1.65
66
H=29
95
TABLE XXVII
T-SCALE JOB GROUP I TEST VIII
Number
Raw
Score
J.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
23.0
1
28.5
98
2 .0 6
29
22.5
1
27.5
95
1.65
34
2 2 .0
1
26.5
91
1.34
37
2 1 .8
1
25.5
88
1.17
38
2 1 .0
3
23.5
81
.8 8
41
20.5
2
2 1 .0
72
•
58
44
2 0 .0
2
19.0
66
.41
46
19.5
2
17.0
55
.13
48
18.5
2
1 5 .0
52
.0 6
49
18.0
4
1 2 .0
41
.23
52
17.9
1
9.5
33
•44
54
17.5
3
7.5
26
.6 4
56
17.2
1
5.5
19
.88
59
17.0
2
4.0
14
1.08
61
16.8
1
2.5
.09
1.34
63
16.2
2
1.0
.03
1.98
69
N*29
96
TABLE XXVIII
T-SCALE FOR GROUP II TEST I
Humber
Raw
Score
1 4 .0
12.5
12.4
12.1
12.0
11.1
11.0
10.6
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.3
9.2
9.0
S.8
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
U=35
F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.5
32.5
31.5
30.5
29.5
28.5
27.5
26.5
25.5
24.5
98
95
93
90
87
2 3 .0
19.5
15.5
14.0
12.5
11.5
9.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
5.0
3.5
2.5
1.5
.5
84
81
78
76
73
70
66
56
44
40
36
33
27
21
18
16
14
10
.07
.04
.01
2.06
1.65
1:48
1.28
1.13
.99
.88
.77
.71
.61
.52
.41
.16
.16
.25
.36
.44
.6 1
.81
.92
.99
1.08
1.28
1.48
1.75
2.33
T-Score
29
34
35
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
51
52
53
54
56
58
59
60
61
63
65
67
73
97
TABLE XXIX
T-SCALE FOR GROUP II TEST II
Humber
Raw
Score
F.
2
1
1
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
6
1
I
1
2
29
31
35
37
33
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
43
49
50
51
52
H-35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
i
Reaching
Plus Half
Yalue
T-Score
97
93
90
37
84
74
1.88
1.43
1.28
1.13
.99
31
35
37
39
40
44
64
.36.
.28
.20
.16
.08
.16
•36
•74
1.13
1.28
1.43
1.88
34.0
32.5
31.5
30.5
29.0
26.0
22.5
21.5
20.5
19.5
18.5
15.5
12.5
8.0
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.0
Reaching
61
53
56
53
44
36
23
13
10
.0 7
.0 3
.6 4
46
47
43
49
50
52
54
57
61
63
65
69
98
TABLE XXX
T-SCALE FOR GROUP II TEST III
Number
Raw
Score
P.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Yalue
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
1
5
32.5
93
1.43
36
2
7
26.5
76
.71
43
3
10
18.0
51
.03
50
4
4
11.0
31
.05
55
5
6
6.0
17
.95
60
2
2.0
.06
1.56
66
7
0
.0
00
o
o*
00
8
1
.5
.01
2.33
73
6
.
H-35
99
TABLE XXXI
T-SCALE FOR GROUP II TEST IV
Number
Raw
Score
14*1
1 4 .0
13.9
13.5
1 3 .2
1 3 .0
1 2 .6
F.
1
1
1
3
1 2 .1
1
1
1
2
1
1
12.0
11.6
11.4
11.3
11.2
11.1
11.0
10.8
10.6
10.2
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.5
9 *4
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
12.5
12.3
N=35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
T-Seore
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.5
32.5
30.5
28.5
27.5
26.5
97
95
93
87
81
78
76
71
67
1 .8 8
31
34
35
39
41
42
43
45
2 5 .0
23.5
22.5
21.0
19.5
18.5
17.5
16.5
15.0
12.5
10.0
8.0
6.5
5.5
4.0
2.5
1.5
.5
64
60
56
53
50
47
43
36
28
23
18
16
13
.07
.04
.01
1.65
1.48
1.13
.8 8
.77
.71
.55
•44
.36
.25
.16
.08
.00
.08
.18
.36
.58
.74
.92
.99
1.13
1.48
1.75
2.33
46
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
56
57
59
60
61
65
67
73
100
TABLE XXXII
T-SCALE FOR GROUP II TEST V
Number
Raw
Score
29.0
28.5
28.0
27.0
2 5 .0
24.0
22.0
18.0
17.5
15.0
11.3
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.8
10.2
10.1
10.0
8.8
8.0
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.0
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
F.
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
N=35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.B.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Yalue
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.5
93
95
91
86
80
76
73
70
67
3 2 .0
30.0
28.0
26.5
25.5
24.5
23.5
22.5
21.5
20.5
19.0
17.5
16.5
15.0
13.5
12.0
10.5
9.5
3.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.0
1.5
.5
64
61
59
54
50
47
43
39
34
30
27
22
21
18
16
13
.09
.04
.01
2.06
1.65
1.34
1.08
.8 4
.71
.61
.52
•44
.36
.28
.23
.10
.00
.08
.18
.28
.41
.52
.6 1
.77
.81
.92
.99
1.14
1.34
1.75
2.33
T-Seore
29
34
37
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63.
67
73
101
tabu; x x x i i i
T-SCALE TOR GROUP II TEST VI
Number
Raw
Score
T.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
1
5
32-5
93
1.4S
35
2
6
27.0
77
.74
43
3
8
20.0
57
.18
48
4
3
14.5
41
.23
52
5
2
12.0
34
.41
54
6
6
8.0
23
.74
57
7
3
3.5
10
1.28
63
8
2
1.0
.03
1.88
69
N-35
102
TABLE XXXIV
T-SCALE FOR GROUP II TEST VII
Number
Raw
Score
F.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
10
30.0
86
1.08
39
2
11
19.5
56
.16
48
3
11
8.5
22
.77
58
4
2
2.0
.06
1.55
65
5
1
.5
O.
2.33
73
N=35
H
1
103
TABLE XXXV
T-SCALE FOR GROUP II TEST Till
Number
Haw
Score
32.0
31.0
29.0
28.0
27.0
2 6 .0
25.0
24.5
2 4 .0
23.5
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.8
20.5
20.0
19.3
19.5
18.0
F.
.
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2. .
5
1
3
2
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
N*35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.5
32.5
97
95
93
88
84
78
73
68
53
50
44
37
30
22
21
14
.07
.04
.01
3 1 .0
29.5
27.5
25.5
2 4 .0
20.5
17.5
15.5
13.0
10.5
3.5
7.5
5.0
2.5
1.5
.5
1.88
1.65
1.43
1.18
.99
.77
.61
.47
.20
.00
.16
.33
.52
.77
.81
1.08
1.43
1.75
2.33
T-Score
31
34
35
38
40
42
44
45
48
50
52
53
55
57
58
61
65
67
73
104
TABLE X O Y I
T-SCALE FOR GROUP III TEST I
Humber
Raw
Score
16.1
14.8
14.5
14 •4
13.2
12.2
12.0
11.6
11.1
11.0
10.6
10.6
10.5
10.4
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.6
9.7
9.6
9.1
9.0
6.0
P.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N=35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
3.B.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Yalue
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.5
32.5
31.5
30.5
29.5
26.5
27.5
26.5
24.5
22.5
21.5
20.0
16.5
16.5
11.0
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
.5
98
95
93
90
87
84
81
78
76
70
64
61
57
53
47
31
18
16
13
10
.07
.04
.01
2.05
1.65
1.48
1.28
1.13
.99
.88
.77
.71
.52
.36
.28
.18
.08
.08
.50
.93
.99
1.13
1.28
1.48
1.75
2.33
T-Score
30
34
35
37
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
51
55
59
60
61
63
65
67
73
TABLE XXXVII
T-SCALE FOR GROUP III TEST II
Number
F.
26
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4.0
41
42
43
44
47
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
1
2
1
3
2
1
4
1
N=35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.5
32.5
30.5
28.5
26.5
24.0
21.5
19.5
17.0
14.5
13.0
11.5
9.5
7.0
5.5
3.0
.5
98
95
93
87
81
76
68
61
56
48
41
37
33
27
20
16
08
01
2.05
1.65
1.48
1.13
.88
.71
.47
.28
.16
.05
.23
.33
.44
.61
•8 4
.99
1.40
2.33
106
TABLE XXXVIII
T-SCALE FOR GROUP III TEST III
Number
Raw
Score
F.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
5
32.5
93
1.48
35
2
5
27.5
79
.81
42
3
7
21.5
61
.28
47
4
8
9.0
26
.6 4
56
5
8
6.0
17
.95
59
6
1
1.5
.04
1 .75
67
7
1
.5
o•
2.33
73
Nz35
H
1
107
TABLE XXXIX
T-SCALE FOR GROUP III TEST IV
Number
Raw
Score
17*5
1 4 .0
13*5
13*1
1 3 .0
1 2 .0
1 1 .6
11.5
1 1 .1
1 1 .0
10.9
1 0 .8
10.7
1 0 .6
1 0 .5
10.3
1 0 .2
1 0 .0
9.9
9.8
9.1
9.0
F.
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
N=35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.0
31.5
30.5
98
94
90
87
84
77
71
67
63
56
50
47
44
41
37
33
28
2 9 .0
2 7 .0
25*0
23*5
22.5
19.5
17*5
16.5
15*5
14.5
1 3 .0
11.5
1 0 .0
7*0
4*5
3.0
1*5
*5
20
13
.08
.04
.01
2.05
1 .5 6
1 .2 8
1.13
.99
*74
.55
*44
.33
.1 6
.0 0
.08
.1 6
.25
.33
•44
*58
.84
1.13
1.40
1.75
2.33
T-Score
30
34
37
39
40
43
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
58
61
64
67
73
108
TABLE JXXZ
T-SCALE EOR GROUP III TEST V
Number
Raw
Score
2 9 .0
28.5
2 7 .0
26.5
2 6 .0
25.5
2 4 .0
2 0 .0
19.5
18.6
18.5
18.0
17.5
16.5
13.5
13.0
12.5
1 2 .0
1 1 .0
10.5
1 0 .0
9.3
B.5
8.2
8.0
7.5
P.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
N»35
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
34.5
33.5
32.5
31.5
30.5
29.5
28.5
98
95
93
90
87
2 7 .0
25.5
24.5
23.5
22.5
21.5
20.5
1 9 .0
1 6 .0
12.5
10.5
9.0
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
2.0
.5
84
81
77
73
70
67
64
61
59
54
2.05
1.65
1.48
1.28
1.13
.99
.8 8
.74
.6 1
.52
.44
.36
.28
.23
46
.1 0
.1 1
36
30
.36
.52
26
21
18
16
13
10
.06
.01
.6 4
.81
.93
.99
1.13
1.28
1.56
2.33
T-Score
30
34
35
37
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
53
55
56
58
59
60
61
63
66
73
109
TABLE 3GQQCI
T-SCALE FOB GROUP III TEST VI
Number
Raw
Score
F.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
1
5
32.5
93
1 .4.8
35
2
3
28.5
81
.88
41
3
7
23.5
67
.44
46
4
9
11.5
33
•44
54
5
5
8.5
22
.77
57
6
3
4*5
13
1.13
61
7
3
1.5
.04
1.75
67
N=35
110
TABUS ZXXXII
T-SCALE FOR GROUP III TEST VII
Number
Raw
Score
P.
Percent
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
T-Score
1
9
30.5
87
1.13
39
2
13
19.5
56
.16
49
3
8
9.0
26
.6 4
56
4
5
2.5
.07
1.48
65
N*35
Ill
table
nnni
T-SCALE FOR GROUP III TEST VIII
Humber
Exceeding
Exceeding
S.D.
Plus Half
Plus Half
Value
Reaching
Reaching
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
34.5
33.5
32.5
31.5
98
95
93
90
2.05
1.65
1.48
1.28
3 0 .0
86
28.0
26.5
1 .0 8
.8 4
3
2 5 .0
1
1
2
2
23.5
22.5
80
76
71
67
5
15.5
12.5
Raw
Score
35.0
3 2 .0
3 0 .0
2 9 .0
2 8 .0
2 7 .0
2 5 .0
25.5
24.5
24.1
2 4 .0
23.5
2 3 .0
22.5
2 2 .0
21.5
21.4
2 1 .0
2 0 ,8
20.5
20.4
20.3
1 9 .6
1 9 .0
Percent
F.
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
N=35
2 1 .0
1 9 .0
1 1 ,0
9.5
8.5
7.0
5.5
4*5
3.5
2.5
1.5
.5
64
60
.71
.55
•44
.36
.25
.1 0
,1 6
54
44
36
31
27
.36
.50
13
.77
•8 4
.99
1.13
1.28
1.48
1.75
2.33
22
20
16
10
.07
.04
.0 1
.6 1
T-Score
30
34
35
37
39
41
43
45
46
47
48
49
52
54
55
56
57
58
60
61
63
65
67
73
RUNNING
P>
RUNNING
SCORE
SCORE
Game Summary
HOME TEAM vs.
at
DATE
SCORES
HOME TEAM (total)
Second
Half
First
Half
Half
Second
NOTE:
UMPIRE
EFFICIENCY equals SHOTS plus
ERRORS divided by GOALS.
Summary
REFEREE
Season
First
Half
OPPONENTS (total)
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
4 794 Кб
Теги
sdewsdweddes
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа