See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327776552

The Sport Participation Model Questionnaire: A Tool for the Assessment of Sport
Orientations

Article · September 2018

CITATION READS

1 19,166

2 authors, including:

Steven Aicinena
University of Texas of the Permian Basin
29 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven Aicinena on 07 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SPMQ 26

Running Head: SPMQ

The Sport Participation Model Questionnaire:

A Tool for the Assessment of Sport Orientations

Steve Aicinena

And

Dr. James Eldridge

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Contact: Steve Aicinena

4901 East University

Odessa, TX 79762

432-552-2675

[email protected]
 SPMQ 27

Abstract

The Sport Participation Model Questionnaire (SPMQ) was given to two hundred and sixty-four

subjects to determine if significant differences existed in the composite scores of parents,

coaches, youth sport participants, high school participants and college students; if the groups

differed in their responses to pooled items; and if subject groups differed on individual

questionnaire items. Subjects more frequently agreed with Pleasure and Participation statements

than with Power and Performance statements. No significant difference was found to exist in the

composite scores of any grouping of subjects. College students differed significantly from the

parents and coaches on items involving coaches and athletes, and view of opponents. High

school and youth sport parents and coaches differed significantly on five items, while parents

and coaches differed on thirteen.

 SPMQ 28

The Sport Participation Model Questionnaire:

A Tool for the Assessment of Sport Orientations

Parents and coaches bring to the youth and high school sport environment personal goals and

expectations that are to be gained or realized as a result of the sport experience (Brower, 1979).

Because all parents and coaches do not share the same opinions, values, goals, and expectations,

conflict may be observed to take place between individuals as they interact within the sport

environment (Aicinena, 2002; Weiss, 1993).

Conflict abounds in youth and high school sport settings between parents and coaches. They

experience conflict concerning coaching methodology, team selection, athlete position

assignment and playing time (Gilbert, Gilbert, & Trudel, 2001; Strean, 1995); parental

involvement in the coaching role (Mach, 1994); emphasis upon winning and losing (Sachs,

2000); sport specialization (Watts, 2002); evaluation of athletes’ playing abilities and parent

behavior on the sidelines (McCallister, Blinde, and Kolenbrander, 2000), and the list could go

on.

Newspaper and journal articles serve as further evidence of how differences in values, goals

and expectations result in serious conflict between parents, between parents and coaches, as well

as between parents and youth sport organizations.

• A sixteen-year old youth hockey player’s father sued the local league for $300,000 in

damages because his son was not named the league MVP. Reportedly, the child was

humiliated by this fact and has since lost the desire to play (Dobie, 2003).

• Two coaches and two parents engaged in a fistfight after a child was benched (Brenner,

2003). In another incident a San Fernando, California man was jailed for beating a coach

after his son was taken out of a youth baseball game (Jones, 2003).
 SPMQ 29

• Many youth sport and high school parents believe that if their child is not placed in the

right position or have enough opportunity to handle the ball that scholarships to college

and pro contracts are jeopardized. Consequently, they attempt to influence coaches.

Because of their meddling, parents have become the greatest reason for prep school

coaches leaving their positions (Monson, 2003).

• Parents in Blaine, Minnesota have sued their children’s professionally run soccer club.

The politics associated with the club, playing time for children and budgets exceeding

$300,000 led to the litigation. One parent did not seem to think that enjoyment was an

important aspect of a child’s involvement in soccer. He stated, “Well, I don’t know about

you, but I want them to improve to the point they can play varsity high school and

beyond” (Kaszuba, 2003).

• A youth sport coach resigned after working with children for six years. Parent behavior

and influence led to his resignation. He stated, “It was all about winning, no matter what

the cost… It’s sickening” (Brett, 2003).

• Mach (1994) offered a sentiment shared by many high school coaches, “The best

coaching jobs are at orphanages because there are no parents there” (p.5). McCallister,

Blinde, and Kolenbrander (2000) shared a belief held by many youth sport coaches,

“Youth sport would be great if you could just put the parents in a room so they could

watch but you couldn’t hear them” (p. 17).

Parents and coaches with disparate views concerning the appropriate values, goals and

accepted means to achievement are placed into the same competitive settings and often find

themselves associated with the same team (Aicinena, 2002). In an effort to minimize conflict

between parents and coaches in such situations, organizations have created separate recreational
 SPMQ 30

and competitive youth sport leagues in the same city. This step alone did not prevent conflict

between parents and coaches (Kroening, 2002).

Youth sport and high school sport are not fun and games in the eyes of many parents: it is

serious business (Williams & Munson, 2000). Many parents view their child’s sport involvement

as an investment in their child’s future (Fiore, 2003). If sport is viewed as a business and the

goals, values and accepted means to achievement associated with a professional sport

environment are present, conflict with coaches and parents who view sport as a recreational

activity is inevitable.

Various authors have created participation paradigms in an effort to illustrate the differences

existing between individuals concerning the values of sport participation, desirable sport goals,

and the acceptable means of achieving them. Drawing from the ideas of Bill Gilbert (1972),

Eitzen and Sage (1997) classified sport as being Informal, Organized, or Corporate. Informal

sport is governed by rules, but they are changeable at the whim of the participants. Sport in this

form exists for the enjoyment of the participant. Games of touch football played in the streets of

suburbia are a good example of Informal sport. Organized sport is more formal in the use of

codified rules and regulations regarding play. Little League baseball and high school sports are

examples of Organized sport. Coaches, boards of directors and parents provide organization and

supervision for practice and play. Play is not free or spontaneous but fun and enjoyment are

always included in the stated goals of these programs. In extreme cases organized sports

programs begin to resemble Corporate sport where the goal of having fun is but an afterthought

to parents and coaches. Corporate sport exists to make profits and participants are essentially

cogs in the corporate machine. Athletes are expendable and replaceable. Participants do not have

autonomy as they participate and the pleasure of the participants is not a concern to those
 SPMQ 31

controlling the environment. The dichotomy present in this paradigm of sport participation is that

of play and work. Informal sport is play-like and Corporate sport is work-like.

Theoretically any individual’s preferred sport form would fall somewhere along the

continuum between Informal and Corporate sport. It is unlikely that all parents, coaches and

children participating in a Little League Baseball or Junior High school soccer league would be

able to agree upon which level of sport is most appropriate. No published attempt has been made

to assess the chosen orientation of parents and coaches associated with youth or high school

sport utilizing the characteristics of Eitzen and Sage’s model.

Dubois (1980) presented the Process and Product models of sport participation.

According to Dubois’ paradigm, individuals holding a Process orientation to sport participation

would view participation as an ends in itself. There is intrinsic value to be gained from sport

participation and extrinsic rewards are not sought, not necessary. Excellence is found in the

quality of the performance, winning and losing are not of importance. There is sensitivity to the

aesthetic aspects of movement and skilled performance. Because participants focus upon the

present, not the potential outcome of the contest, they may appreciate the feelings and aesthetic

nature of human movement. Rapport exists between opponents because each is needed to bring

out the best in the other.

According to Dubois (1980) those holding a Product orientation toward sport participation

see winning as an end in itself. Winning leads to feelings of superiority and what goes on in the

contest is secondary to this goal. The pursuit of tangible rewards such as trophies may even

become more important than the contest with the prize serving as a constant reminder of the

victor’s superiority. Participants seek the admiration and approval of others, not personal

satisfaction through the playing of the game. Opponents are dehumanized as they come to be
 SPMQ 32

viewed as obstacles to success. Destroyed opponents are likened to casualties of war. Dubois

hypothesized that the preferred participation style for any individual would fall somewhere

between the two extremes. Through the use of an evaluation scale he developed, Dubois (1986)

assessed the Process and Product orientations of children, but not parents or coaches associated

with youth and school sport.

The Process and Product model of sport was used by Malmberg (1988) as the basis of the

“Coaching for Cognition” approach to sport instruction. He believed that coaches partial to the

Product orientation are trainers whose goal it is to whip athletes into shape. Conversely, Process

oriented coaches strive to achieve higher-level learning, understanding of the game and enhanced

interpersonal relationships. No published attempt was made to assess the orientations of

practicing coaches utilizing Malmberg’s framework.

Hellstedt (1987) attempted to explain conflict taking place between parents, coaches and

child athletes. He characterized parents as being under involved, moderately involved or over

involved. Over involved parents emphasize winning, have frequent disagreements with coaches

and other parents, are dissatisfied with improvement if winning is not achieved and are often

angry and disapproving. They hope their child’s participation will lead to scholarships or

professional careers and often cannot separate their own goals and aspirations from those of their

children. Moderately involved parents are flexible, supportive, allow athletes to make their own

decisions concerning athletics and are realistic about their children’s abilities. Under involved

parents are conspicuously absent from their child’s sporting activities. No published attempt to

objectively assess parental levels of involvement based upon their orientation to sport

participation could be found.

 SPMQ 33

Coakley (2001) formulated the Power and Performance and Pleasure and Participation

Models of sport participation in an effort to explain differences in individual goals, values and

acceptable means of achievement. The characteristics of each model are presented below.

Aicinena’s (2002) modifications of each model are placed in italics. The modified Power and

Performance and Pleasure and Participation models encompass many of the characteristics of the

Informal/Organized/Corporate, Process/Product, Coaching for Cognition, and Levels of Parental

Involvement models of sport participation.

The Power and Performance Model

Strength, speed and power are emphasized in the Power and Performance model. Excellence

is demonstrated through success with winning serving as the greatest measure of success.

Winning is valued more highly if hard work, dedication, sacrifice, risk and pain are evidenced.

The body is viewed as a machine and participants should not be concerned with injury. Training

should be technologically enhanced and scientific. A clear hierarchy of authority structures

exists in the Power and Performance model. Players should be subordinate to coaches. Coaches

are to be in control and it should be clear to observers that coaches are in control. Opponents are

viewed as enemies. Only the best on a team should play. If an athlete is unskilled and allowed to

play, it may cost the team a victory and this is unacceptable.

The Pleasure and Participation Model

The primary purpose of participation in the Pleasure and Participation model is active

participation. Playing is the reason for an individual’s involvement in sport. There is a

mind/body/spirit connection. Both the participant and the opponent are considered valued and

needed. The participant’s control of his or her body and objects, skilled movement, and

demonstration of cunning in the sport environment provide satisfaction. Domination and victory
 SPMQ 34

are not requisites of satisfaction. It is possible and desirable for the inclusion of the weak and

unskilled. Accommodations are acceptable in terms of rules modifications. Decisions and power

are shared in a cooperative manner between coaches and athletes. There is give and take between

coaches and athletes.

Sport sociologist Jay Coakley stated (personal communication, June 18, 2003) that to his

knowledge, “nobody has used the [Pleasure and Participation and Power and Performance]

typology from Sport in Society as a basis of collecting data on orientations towards sport in

general or particular.” If conflict based upon differences between parents and coaches in the

appropriateness of specific values, goals and acceptable means to achievement is common in

youth and high school sport, why haven’t sport sociologists investigated these differences in their

research to any large degree? The current Authors were unable to find any published study in

which investigators attempted to assess and compare the preferred participation model of parents

and coaches using any participation model paradigm.

The first purpose of the current study was to determine if the composite scores of a sample

population completing Aicinena’s (2002) Sport Participation Model Questionnaire (SPMQ)

demonstrated a useful range in scores along the continuum from Pleasure and Participation to

Power and Performance. Secondly, the purpose of the study was to demonstrate if parents,

coaches, college students, or high school and youth sport parents and coaches differed

significantly in their composite SPMQ scores. The third goal of the study was to determine if

parents, coaches and students differed significantly in their response to pooled statements

concerning Coaches and Athletes; Success, Winning and Losing; Health, Injuries and

Performance; View of Opponents; Science and Technology; and Participation. Finally, it was to
 SPMQ 35

be determined if parents and coaches or subjects involved with youth sport and high school sport

responded differently to individual SPMQ items.

Method

Aicinena (2002) constructed the seventy-item Sports Participation Model Questionnaire

(SPMQ) based upon the characteristics of the modified Power and Performance and Pleasure and

Participation Models of sport. The SPMQ was composed of thirty-five statements reflecting a

Power and Performance perspective and thirty-five contrasting statements reflective of a

Pleasure and Participation orientation. The seventy statements were randomly placed within the

final questionnaire. Subjects were to either agree or disagree with each statement. Subjects were

instructed that responses should reflect how they felt about youth sport and school sport, not

professional and international sport. After a test-retest of the SPMQ on thirty-seven college

students the Intra-class Correlation for individual scores was .9506. The Equal-Length

Spearman-Brown Coefficient was .7038. The composite scores and individual items proved to

have acceptable levels of reliability based upon the criteria set forth by Ferguson and Takane

(1989). Jay Coakley stated (personal communication, June 18, 2003) that the SPMQ should be

useful in obtaining baseline data concerning preferred participation models.

In the current study, questionnaires were administered to subjects by the authors and

graduate students. Samples were gathered by convenience and no effort was made to obtain

randomized samples of parents or coaches. All subjects completed an informed consent form. A

total of two hundred sixty-four questionnaires were included in the data analysis.

Subjects were located in Maryland, New York, Texas, and Michigan. Parents and coaches

associated with high school competition were classified as High School Sport (N = 80). Parents

and coaches involved in organized youth sport or junior high sports were classified as Youth
 SPMQ 36

Sport (N = 144). Three of the subjects were college coaches. One hundred fifty-one subjects

were parents with children actively participating in youth or high school sport and seventy-six

were active coaches of youth or high school sport teams. The data obtained from the SPMQ’s

reliability study’s thirty-seven college students were also included in the data analysis for the

present study.

Results and Discussion

Scoring the SPMQ consisted of awarding a point for every Power and Performance

statement that the subject agreed with and for every Pleasure and Participation statement the

subject disagreed with. A score reflecting a purely Pleasure and Participation orientation would

have been 0. A score reflecting an exclusively Power and Performance orientation on all

statements would have been 70.

The scores for the sample population ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 59. The mean was

21.28 and the standard deviation was 8.47. The distribution of the scores is presented in figure 1.

Scores were positively skewed indicating that the sample population leaned more toward the

Pleasure and Participation end of the continuum as opposed to the Power and Performance end.

Based upon the distribution of scores, this sample of subjects more often agreed with Pleasure

and Participation statements and disagreed with Power and Performance statements.

INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

Sixteen of the subjects scored in the upper 5.4% of the distribution, while only four subjects

scored in the lower 5.4%. A greater number of the subjects were most extreme in their Power

and Performance orientation as compared to the mean than those who were most extreme in their

Pleasure and Participation orientation.

 SPMQ 37

Differences Between Subject Groupings on Composite Scores

The composite questionnaire scores of the subjects were analyzed using analysis of variance

(ANOVA). No significant differences (p > .05) were found to exist between parents and coaches

involved in youth or high school sport, between high school parents and youth sport parents,

between high school and youth sport coaches, or between parents, coaches and college students.

Furthermore, no interaction existed between any of the independent variables and composite

scores. Subjects, regardless of level of participation, or role classification, were found to have a

wide range of composite scores.

Differences in Responses to Pooled Items by Subject Grouping

A MANOVA procedure was used to assess whether subjects differed significantly by group

in how they responded to pools of items concerning: Coaches and Athletes; Success, Winning

and Losing; Health, Injuries and Performance; View of Opponents; Science and Technology;

and Participation. Significant differences (p < .05) were found to exist in the multivariate

analysis for role classification. A post-hoc Scheffe analysis was used to determine where the

significant differences occurred. Significant differences were found to exist between students,

parents and coaches in the pools of questions regarding coaches and athletes and view of

opponents. The results are presented in Table 1.

_____________________________________________________________________________

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

_____________________________________________________________________________

The college students differed significantly (p < .05) from the parents and coaches

concerning the role of the coach and athlete in the youth sport and high school sport experience.

The college students were more likely than parents or coaches to believe that coaches should not
 SPMQ 38

complain in an effort to influence officials, should not set training rules, should not make all

decisions concerning the training of the athletes for competition, should not always be in control

of the athletes during contests, do not have to obviously be in control during contests, and were

less likely to believe that television provides good models for the behavior of coaches and

athletes. The college students also differed significantly (p < .05) from parents and coaches in

their responses to the questions concerning View of Opponents. College students were less likely

than parents and coaches to believe that opponents were enemies, obstacles to success, should be

hated, and should be defeated by as great a margin as possible.

The sample of college students had just completed a Sociology of Sport course and Aicinena

(2002) stated that his goal was to move the students toward the Pleasure and Participation end of

the continuum. The students were required to read about and discuss varied values, goals,

accepted means to achievement, as well as controversial issues associated with youth and school

sports programs. Perhaps the experiences associated with participation in the class resulted in the

students agreeing with more Pleasure and Participation statements concerning Coaches and

Athletes and View of Opponents than did the parents and coaches. One could not conclude

however that the educational experiences effected changes in beliefs because no pre-test was

given before the course began.

Differences Between Youth Sport and High School Sport Participants on Individual

Questionnaire Items

In an effort to determine if the subjects involved with youth sport differed significantly from

those involved in high school sport on any of the seventy questionnaire items, an ANOVA

procedure was conducted. Significant differences (p < .05) were noted on five items and are

presented in Table 2.
 SPMQ 39

___________________________________________________________________________

INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

___________________________________________________________________________

Parents and coaches involved in youth sport significantly more often agreed with statement

30 “It is acceptable to break the rules in order to win,” and disagreed with statement 60 “It is not

acceptable to cheat in order to win,” than did those involved with high school sport. Aicinena

(2002) observed that some parents and coaches associated with youth sport would do whatever

was necessary for their children and teams to find success. In his study one particular parent-

coach broke recruiting rules in an effort to create superior youth sport teams and engaged in

behavior that resulted in others describing him as unethical and unscrupulous. Perhaps closer

scrutiny, more restrictive rules, oversight by high school athletic organizations, fear of sanctions

that may result in their child’s banishment from competition and/or the fear of coaches losing

their jobs as a consequence of cheating resulted in the subjects of the current study affiliated with

high school sport being more concerned with honor and the adherence to rules. This sample of

youth sport parents and coaches were less concerned with following the letter and spirit of rules

than were the high school parents and coaches.

It was alarming to find that parents and coaches associated with youth sport were

significantly more likely to agree with statement 47 “Athletes should take illegal performance-

enhancing drugs in the pursuit of success” than were those involved in high school sport. It is

possible that because drug testing is rare in youth sport programs that a significantly greater

number of adults involved in these programs condoned the use of illegal performance-enhancing

drugs. Perhaps the youth sport parents and coaches had received less information than high

school parents and coaches concerning the health consequences of illegal performance-
 SPMQ 40

enhancing drugs. If parents believed that drugs were a means to success in professional sport,

why wouldn’t it have seemed appropriate to seek medicinal means to success for their children?

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush called upon individuals associated with

professional sports to take a lead in ridding sport of illegal performance-enhancing drugs

(Wilstein, 2004). He believed that professional athletes have been serving as poor role models

for the nation’s young people regarding the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

As a group, the high school parents and coaches were significantly more likely than the

parents and coaches associated with youth sport programs to agree with statement 68 “The latest

information from the sport sciences should be used in training sessions,” and disagree with

statement 24 “It is not necessary to utilize current information from the sport sciences in training

sessions to be successful in sport.” Perhaps because high school coaches generally have college

degrees, because they are expected to be knowledgeable of recent advances in their sport, and

because they are paid for their services, the parents and coaches involved with high school sport

were more likely to expect coaches to utilize current scientific findings in their performance in

the role of coach. How could youth sport coaches, who are most often volunteers (Gould, 1996;

Miller, 1992), be expected to keep abreast of scientific advances and to utilize them in their

coaching?

Differences Between Parents and Coaches on Individual Questionnaire Items

To determine if parents and coaches differed on individual questionnaire items, an

ANOVA procedure was conducted. Significant differences (p < .05) were noted on thirteen items

and are presented in Table 3.

______________________________________________________________________________

INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

 SPMQ 41

Concerning the items grouped under the heading of Coach and Athlete Behaviors, coaches

agreed with statement 63 “Coaches should set training rules for athletes (Examples: don’t smoke,

no alcohol)” significantly more than did parents. In fact, the entire sample of coaches agreed

with the statement. Eitzen and Sage (1997) offered a reasonable explanation for this finding. In

an effort to increase the potential for victory, coaches attempt to control the off-field behavior of

their athletes. The coaches in the current study undeniably expressed their desire to control the

off-field behavior of athletes.

Parents were more likely to agree with statement 37 “Coaches should make all decisions

during competitive events.” Past research has demonstrated that parents preferred coaches to be

in control (less democratic) than did young boys and girls (Martin, Jackson, Richardson &

Weiller, 1999). Perhaps, the desire for the coach to be in control is great among parents and only

after it is clear that the coach differs from the parent in values, goals and accepted means to

achievement do conflicts between parents and coaches surface.

Parents were more likely to agree with statement 13 “Televised sporting events do not

provide good examples of behavior for coaches and athletes.” If parents look at youth and school

sport as an opportunity for healthy use of leisure time and a recreational activity,

professionalized play and behaviors would not be perceived as ideal. On the other hand, if

professionalized behaviors were associated with success as measured by wins and losses, it is not

surprising that the coaches were more likely to view professionalized models of behavior as

desirable.

In the group of items composing Success, Winning and Losing parents agreed with statement

49, “Losing should not have much of an affect upon an individual” and disagreed significantly

more often with statement 12 “Losing should be a painful experience” than did the coaches. The
 SPMQ 42

success or failure of the team is often attributed to the coach. Therefore it should not be

surprising that coaches would want athletes to take a loss harder than the sample of parents. If

parents view sport participation as a recreational experience, they would understandably be less

likely to expect or encourage their children to be upset over losses. It is also possible that the

coaches had higher expectations for the young athletes and consequently expected poor

performances and losses to be mourned.

Parents agreed significantly more often with statement 31 “It is not necessary for athletes

and coaches to study game films in order to find success” than did the coaches. Apparently the

coaches saw studying game films as something they should do in an effort to increase the

probability of success.

Parents agreed with statement 3 “Performing to one’s capabilities is the most significant

measure of success in sport” significantly more than did coaches. Earlier in the current study it

was noted that those parents and coaches involved in youth sport were more likely to condone

cheating and the use of illegal drugs compared to those associated with high school sport. Why is

it that the parents as a group did not believe that winning was the greatest measure of success?

Perhaps as parents gain experience in the youth sport setting, make observations and place the

sport experience of their children and themselves into perspective do they realize that there is

more to sport than winning. Most reasonable parents, it seems, would realize after a period of

time that their child is not the second coming of Michael Jordan or Mia Hamm and that the teams

they follow are unlikely to be the next NBA team to three-peat as world champions. In American

society winning is considered the greatest measure of a successful coach. Perhaps that is why the

coaches were less likely to believe that performing well was the greatest measure of success.
 SPMQ 43

Parents agreed with statement 70 “Individuals should not sacrifice large sums of money in

the pursuit of athletic success” and disagreed significantly more frequently with statement 29

“Large sums of money should be sacrificed in the pursuit of athletic success” than did coaches. If

high-level competition and training results in better trained and experienced athletes, it would

benefit coaches to have these athletes on their teams. Perhaps the coaches were in a position to

not care what the financial cost of athletic success was: they did not have to pay the bills! Parents

might be more likely to question the benefit of investing large sums of money in the pursuit of

their children’s athletic dreams. Aicinena (2002) reported that the expense associated with high-

level soccer participation was a topic of debate and source of conflict between parents associated

with his teams.

On the questionnaire items concerning View of Opponents, Parents agreed significantly

more frequently with statement 19 “Opponents are my friends” and disagreed with statement 23

“Opponents stand in the way of my achievement of success” than did coaches. It is possible that

parents were less likely to objectify children and see them as impediments to success. Perhaps

coaches were more likely to look at children as a means to an ends and competitions as zero sum

events.

In the Participation group of items parents significantly more often agreed with the

statement, “All athletes should be given an opportunity to play in all contests” than did the

coaches. The results demonstrate that parents were more concerned with children playing than

were the coaches. The parents wanted to see their children play. Coaches may have been more

concerned with the success of the team instead of the participation of individuals.

In the Science and Technology group of items coaches were significantly more likely to

agree with statement 68 “The latest information from the sport sciences should be utilized in
 SPMQ 44

training sessions” than were parents. Perhaps coaches looking for an edge in training as a means

to success believed that science could provide such an edge.

In this study the SPMQ was found to provide a useful range of scores for the classification

of parents, coaches and college students on the continuum of participation models from Pleasure

and Participation to Power and Performance. The level of sport subjects were associated with, or

whether they were parents, coaches or students did not significantly affect composite scores.

Individual scores were based upon subject preferences and perceptions concerning what the

appropriate values, goals and means to achievement should be in youth sport and school sport.

The questionnaire would therefore be useful in assessing individual orientations to sport

participation in a general sense.

The college students were more likely than parents or coaches to believe that coaches should

not complain in an effort to influence officials, should not set training rules, should not make all

decisions concerning the training of the athletes for competition, should not always be in control

of the athletes during contests, do not have to obviously be in control during contests, and were

less likely to believe that television provides good models for the behavior of coaches and

athletes. They were also less likely than parents and coaches to believe that opponents were

enemies, obstacles to success, should be hated, and should be defeated by as great a margin as

possible.

Analysis of the responses to individual questions demonstrated that a significant difference

existed in how subjects associated with youth sport and high school sport responded to five

items. There were differences in how parents and coaches responded to thirteen items. In total,

eighteen of the seventy items were found to demonstrate significant differences between youth

sport participants and high school participants, or parents and coaches.

 SPMQ 45

For the current sample of subjects there were significant differences concerning values,

goals and accepted means to achievement as measured by the SPMQ. The range in composite

scores was great in all subsets of the sample population surveyed. Consequently SPMQ scores

could be used as a starting point for meaningful discussions between parents and coaches

associated with youth and high school sport in an effort to minimize conflict.

Scores, Potential Conflict and Further Research

How might conflict between parents and coaches be predicted based upon the composite

SPMQ score? Hypothetically, the farther an individual’s score is from another along the

continuum from Pleasure and Participation to Power and Performance, the more likely conflict is

to occur. Individuals very close in their scores would presumably have fewer disagreements

concerning the values, goals and acceptable means to achievement in sport. Greatly disparate

scores would result in a higher likelihood of conflict because of disagreement on a wider range

of issues.

Assuming that individuals located more than two standard deviations from one another

would have a high potential for conflict because of extreme variance in their outlook concerning

the goals, values and acceptable means to achievement in sport settings, the following model is

proposed (Figure2).

_____________________________________________________________________________

INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

_____________________________________________________________________________

The following serves as an illustration. Individuals whose score places them into group “A”

(score between 0-3) would experience a high probability of conflict with parents and coaches

whose scores place them in groups D, E, F and G. The number of disagreements an individual in
 SPMQ 46

group A would have with parents and coaches from group D, E, F and G would be great and

theoretically would make the situation so uncomfortable that the probability of overt

disagreement, potential physical confrontations, or a parting of the ways (removing the child and

themselves from the current athletic environment) would be increased. The potential for such

conflict is reduced as scores get closer to the range found in group A. Individuals whose

composite scores placed them in group A would be expected to interact with individuals from

group B and C with a lower likelihood and frequency of serious conflict.

Conflict is not always a negative thing. It can actually bring about positive changes in

individuals and groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1997). The use of the Sports Participation Model

Questionnaire in youth and school sport contexts is not meant to remove conflict from the

sporting lives of the participants. The questionnaire is to be used in order to illustrate that

differences do exist, and to give parents and coaches a starting point from which they may begin

to explore, discuss and understand them. Tolerance and acceptance increase with understanding.

Perhaps such a process could lessen conflict that too frequently makes the sport environment an

ugly and unwholesome one. Perhaps it may assist in reducing conflict that ends in violence or a

child’s discontinuance in sport. How many children are denied the opportunity to continue their

participation in sport because their parents do not agree with other parents and coaches

concerning desired values, goals and acceptable means to success?

At this time, it may not be claimed that the Sport Participation Model Questionnaire is an

accurate predictor of what behaviors individuals would actually engage in within the sport

context. Beliefs as expressed and assessed through instruments are not necessarily reflected in

the behavior of an individual experiencing the heat of a hotly-contested athletic event. Perhaps

future researchers may engage in context-specific observational research to determine if scores

 SPMQ 47

on the SPMQ would actually correlate with overt and internal conflict in sport settings. Further,

it remains to be demonstrated that if the results from the SPMQ are used as a basis of discussion

concerning values, goals and accepted means to achievement that an actual decrease in conflict

would be noted between parents and coaches in youth and high school sport settings.
 SPMQ 48

References

Aicinena, S. (2002). Through the Eyes of Parents, Children and a Coach: A Fourteen-Year

Participant -Observer Investigation of Youth Soccer. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.

Brenner, R. (2003, April 28). Parental code of conduct now in play in Wellington. Palm Beach

Post, p. A1.

Brett, J. (2003, June 29). Parents' conduct turns kids' sports into brawl games. The Atlanta

Journal and Constitution. Retrieved July 3, 2003 from LexisNexis database.

Brower, J. (1979). The professionalization of organized youth sport: Social psychological

impacts and outcomes. Annals, AAPSS, 445, 39-46.

Coakley, J. (2001). Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies (7th ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Dobie, M. (2003, February 16). The litigation game. Newsday (New York), p.B06

Dubois, P. (1980). Competition in youth sport: Process or product? The Physical Educator. 37,

151-154.

Dubois, P. (1986). The effect of participation in sport on the value orientations of young

athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3, 29-42.

Eitzen, D. & Sage, G. (1997). Sociology of North American Sport (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown

and Benchmark.

Ferguson, J. & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical Analysis in Education and Psychology (6th ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiore, D.K. (2003). Parental rage and violence in youth sports: How can we prevent “soccer

moms” and “hockey dads” from interfering in youth sports and causing games to end in
 SPMQ 49

fistfights rather than handshakes? Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, 10,

103-129.

Gilbert, B. (1972). Gleanings from a troubled time. Sports Illustrated, 25, 34-46.

Gilbert, W.D., Gilbert, J.N., & Trudel, P. (2001). Coaching strategies for youth sport (part 2).

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 72, 41-46.

Gould, D. (1996). Sport psychology: Future directions in youth sport research. In F. Smoll & R.

Smith (Eds.). Children and Youth in Sport: A Biopsychosocial Perspective (pp. 405-422).

Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F.P. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills

(6th edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Jones, M. (2003, January 26). Pushy parents. Tulsa World. Retrieved July 3, 2003 from

LexisNexis database.

Kaszuba, M. (2003, May 29). Soccer emotions are boiling over in Blaine; Underlying issues in

the battle royal involve egos and finances of youth sports. StarTribune. Retrieved July 3,

2003 from LexisNexis database.

Kroening, B. (2002). Minor leagues, major headaches? Parks and Recreation, 37, 50-57.

Mach, F. (1994). Defusing parent-coach dissonance: How to make the parents feel happy,

wanted and non-confrontational. Scholastic Coach, 63, 5-6.

Malmberg, E.L. (1988). Process-product orientation in sport: a justification of coaching

cognition. The Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics, 3, 128-137.

Martin, S.B., Jakson, A.W., Richardson, P.A., & Weiller, K.H. (1999). Coaching preferences of

adolescent youths and their parents. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 11, 247-262.

McCallister, S.G., Blinde, E.M., & Kolenbrander, B. (2000). Problematic Aspects of the role of
 SPMQ 50

youth sport coach. International Sports Journal, 4, 9-26.

Miller, A. (1992). Systematic observation behavior similarities of various youth soccer coaches.

The Physical Educator, 49, 136-143.

Monson, G. (2003, May 18). Intruding Parents Hurt Prep Sports. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved

July 3, 2003 from LexisNexis database.

Sachs, M. (2000). Lighten up parents! It’s only a game. ProQuest Educational Journals 129,

62-63. Retrieved July 23, 2003 from ProQuest database.

Strean, W.B. (1995). Youth sport contexts: Perceptions and implications for intervention.

Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 7, 23-37.

Watts, J. (2002). Perspectives on sport socialization. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation

and Dance, 73, 32-37, 50.

Weiss, D.H. (1993). Conflict resolution. New York: AMACOM.

Williams, W., & Munson, L. (2000). Out of control. Sports Illustrated, 93, 86-95.

Wilstein, S. (2004). Bush uses bully pulpit against steroids. Cincinnati Enquirer.

Retrieved May 15, 2004 from http://reds.enquirer.com/2004/01/24/red1a.html.

 SPMQ 51

Figure Caption

Figure 1. Frequency Distribution of SPMQ Scores

 SPMQ 52

Figure Caption

Figure 2. SPMQ Scores and Anticipated Conflict

 SPMQ 53
Table 1

Scheffe Analysis of Mean Differences for Role Classification

Role Classification

Parent Coach Student

Coaches and Athletes 1.55 2.047 0.498*

Success, Winning and Losing 0.097 0.651 0.741

Health, Injuries and Performance 0.484 0.424 0.066

View of Opponents 0.573 0.813 1.351*

Science and Technology 0.181 0.123 0.058

Participation 0.455 0.453 0.028

*P<0.05

Role Classification
Parent Coach Student
Mean 1.18 1.14 -0.28
N 150 74 39
Coaches and Athletes Std. Deviation 2.33 2.26 2.70
Mean -5.13 -4.78 -4.51
N 150 74 39
Success, Winning and Losing Std. Deviation 3.26 3.22 3.94
Mean -2.58 -2.79 -2.38
N 150 73 39
Health, Injuries and Performance Std. Deviation 1.58 1.49 1.44
Mean -3.66 -3.24 -2.77
N 150 74 39
View of Opponents Std. Deviation 2.16 1.91 2.36
Mean -1.32 -1.39 -1.18
N 150 74 39
Science and Technology Std. Deviation 1.70 1.52 1.64
Mean -2.20 -1.78 -1.77
N 150 74 39
Participation Std. Deviation 1.53 1.71 2.26
 SPMQ 54
Table 2

Significant Differences (p < .05) Between Youth Sport and High School Sport

Participants on Individual Questionnaire Items

Mean Square F Ratio

Q24 2.830 11.30
Q30 0.357 7.21
Q47 0.300 6.56
Q60 0.500 7.30
Q68 1.501 9.35

Level q24 q30 q47 q60 q68

Mean 0.40 0.08 0.0764 0.89 0.73
Youth N 144 144 144 144 144
Std. Deviation 0.492 0.277 0.267 0.315 0.446
Mean 0.1875 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.90
High N 80 80 80 80 80
School
Std. Deviation 0.393 0.000 0.000 0.112 0.302
 SPMQ 55

Table 3

Significant Differences (p < .05) on Individual Questionnaire Items by Role

Mean Square F Ratio

Q3 0.701 5.72
Q12 0.779 5.68
Q13 1.390 5.36
Q19 1.680 7.54
Q23 0.782 6.59
Q29 0.554 5.04
Q31 0.935 4.05
Q37 1.609 6.57
Q43 2.488 11.35
Q49 1.907 7.88
Q63 0.316 6.42
Q68 0.729 4.42
Q70 0.861 5.41

P–C q3 q12 q13 q19 q23 q29 q31

Mean 0.89 0.13 0.56 0.71 0.10 0.09 0.32
Parent N 151 151 151 151 151 151 151
Std.
0.309 0.333 0.498 0.456 0.300 0.291 0.470
Deviation
Mean 0.78 0.25 0.39 0.53 0.22 0.20 0.46
Coach N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Std.
0.419 0.436 0.492 0.503 0.419 0.401 0.502
Deviation

P–C q37 q43 q49 q63 q68 q70

Mean 0.57 0.72 0.52 0.92 0.75 0.84
Parent N 150 151 151 151 151 151
Std.
0.496 0.450 0.501 0.271 0.435 0.367
Deviation
Mean 0.39 0.50 0.33 1.00 0.87 0.71
Coach N 76 76 76 75 76 76
Std.
0.492 0.503 0.473 0.000 0.340 0.457
Deviation
 SPMQ 56

25

20
Frequency

15

10

0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 70
Composite Score
 SPMQ 57

120

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20

0
A B C D E F G
Group

Group A B C D E F G

Score Range 0-3 4-12 13-20 21-29 30-37 38-46 47-70

Conflict With: DEFG EFG FG AG AB ABC ABCD

SPMQ 58
 SPMQ 59

Sport Participation Model Evaluation Scale

Instructions:

For each of the statements below you are asked to select either agree or disagree.

Your responses should reflect how you feel about sport in general (youth sport, school sport), not
what you feel should be done at the professional and international levels.

1. Winning is not the most significant measure of success in the sport experience.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

2. My opponents should be respected.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

3. Performing to one’s capabilities is the most significant measure of success in sport.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

4. Athletes should take legal performance-enhancing drugs in the pursuit of success.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

5. Only the best should be allowed to play.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

6. An individual must work very hard in order to experience success in sport.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

7. Individuals can be successful in sport without allowing other aspects of their lives to
suffer (Examples: relationships can be maintained and excellence can be achieved in
other areas of life).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

8. Only coaches should make decisions during contests.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

9. I do not consider success in sport more valuable if an individual experiences pain during
a contest.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

10. Athletes that are poorly skilled should not get the opportunity to play.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

11. It is the coach’s responsibility to complain to officials when calls are often made against
his or her team.
 SPMQ 60

Agree ___ Disagree ___

12. Losing should be a painful experience.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

13. Televised sporting events do not provide good examples of behavior for coaches and
athletes.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

14. The greatest measure of success in sport is whether or not an individual enjoyed the
contest.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

15. An individual can decide not to participate in a contest when injured and still be
committed to success.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

16. Sport participation should be very hard work.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

17. Individuals that are not willing to sacrifice their short-term health are not committed to
success in sport (Example: not willing to break a bone)
Agree ___ Disagree ___

18. All individuals should strive to play like the professionals.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

19. Opponents are my friends.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

20. Winning is more important than my honor.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

21. Coaches should not set training rules for athletes (Examples: don’t smoke, no alcohol).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

22. Individuals unwilling to sacrifice their long-term health can experience success in sport
(example: not willing to have a limp for life).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

23. Opponents stand in the way of my achievement of success.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

24. It is not necessary to utilize current information from the sport sciences in training
sessions to be successful in sport (Examples: Exercise Physiology and Biomechanics).
Agree ___ Disagree ___
 SPMQ 61

25. The win-at-all-cost philosophy common in professional sport is unacceptable for youth
and school sport.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

26. Individuals should strive to win by as much as possible, even if the opponents are
embarrassed.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

27. Athletes should not take illegal performance-enhancing drugs in the pursuit of success.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

28. Athletes and coaches should regularly study game films of events in order to be
successful.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

29. Large sums of money should be sacrificed in the pursuit of athletic success.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

30. It is acceptable to break the rules in order to win.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

31. It is not necessary for athletes and coaches to study game films in order to be successful.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

32. It is important for athletes to use the latest technology to find success in sport (Example:
high tech equipment).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

33. It is appropriate to participate in sport and not reflect the behaviors of professionals.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

34. Coaches should make all decisions concerning the training of the team or individual
athlete.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

35. It should be clear to anyone watching that the coach is in control.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

36. Competitors keep me from achieving success.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

37. Coaches should make all decisions during competitive events.

Agree ___ Disagree ___
 SPMQ 62

38. Winning is the most significant measure of success in the sport experience.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

39. Opponents are my enemies.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

40. I believe that if an individual overcomes pain in the pursuit of success that the
achievement is even more valuable than if pain were not experienced.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

41. Televised sport events provide good examples for the behaviors of coaches and athletes.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

42. Sport participation should be fun.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

43. All athletes should be given an opportunity to play in all contests.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

44. Even poorly skilled athletes deserve the right to play.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

45. Athletes should be allowed to make decisions during contests.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

46. Individuals should strive to win, but should be careful not to embarrass opponents.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

47. Athletes should take illegal performance-enhancing drugs in the pursuit of success.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

48. If an individual is not willing to compete when in pain, he or she lacks commitment to
success.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

49. Losing should not have much of an affect upon an individual.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

50. Both my competitors and I can achieve success in a contest.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

51. The win-at-all-cost philosophy common in professional sport is acceptable for youth and
school sport.
Agree ___ Disagree ___
 SPMQ 63

52. Individuals should not be willing to sacrifice their short-term health in pursuit of success
in sport (Example: break a bone).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

53. It is not important for athletes to use the latest technology to find success in sport
(Example: high tech equipment).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

54. The greatest measure of success in sport is not enjoyment.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

55. Athletes should not take legal performance-enhancing drugs in the pursuit of success.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

56. My honor is more important than winning.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

57. Athletes should have input into their training.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

58. Individuals can experience success in sport without working hard.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

59. It is acceptable if the coach does not seem to be in control at all times.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

60. It is not acceptable to cheat in order to win.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

61. The coach should not complain to officials concerning calls that are made against his or
her team.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

62. Performing to one’s capabilities is not the most significant measure of success in sport.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

63. Coaches should set training rules for athletes (Examples: don’t smoke, no alcohol).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

64. Individuals should be willing to sacrifice their long-term health in the pursuit of success
(Example: life-long joint pain).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

65. My opponents should be hated.

Agree ___ Disagree ___
 SPMQ 64

66. Athletes should have input into decisions during competitive events.
Agree ___ Disagree ___

67. In order for individuals to be successful in sport, they must dedicate themselves to the
point that other aspects of their life may suffer (Examples: sacrifice relationships and the
achievement of excellence in other areas of life).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

68. The latest information from the sport sciences should be utilized in training sessions
(Examples: Exercise Physiology and Biomechanics).
Agree ___ Disagree ___

69. Opponents assist me in achieving my success.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

70. Individuals should not sacrifice large sums of money in the pursuit of athletic success.
Agree ___ Disagree ___
 SPMQ 65

Response Key
Instructions:

For each response that you made on your evaluation, give yourself one point every time your
answer is the same as the key.

For Example:
• If the key states Agree and your response is Agree give yourself one point: +1
• If the key states Agree and your response is Disagree you would give yourself no points:
0

When you complete scoring your evaluation, add up the total number of points and then go to
the next page.
 SPMQ 66

1. Disagree 47. Agree

2 Disagree 48. Agree
3. Disagree 49. Disagree
4. Agree 50. Disagree
5. Agree 51. Agree
6. Agree 52. Disagree
7. Disagree 53. Disagree
8. Agree 54. Agree
9. Disagree 55. Disagree
10. Agree 56. Disagree
11. Agree 57. Disagree
12. Agree 58. Disagree
13. Disagree 59. Disagree
14. Disagree 60. Disagree
15. Disagree 61. Disagree
16. Agree 62. Agree
17. Agree 63. Agree
18. Agree 64. Agree
19. Disagree 65. Agree
20. Agree 66. Disagree
21. Disagree 67. Agree
22. Disagree 68. Agree
23. Agree 69. Disagree
24. Disagree 70. Disagree
25. Disagree
26. Agree Total Score:
27. Disagree
28. Agree
29. Agree
30. Agree
31. Disagree
32. Agree
33. Disagree
34. Agree
35. Agree
36. Agree
37. Agree
38. Agree
39. Agree
40. Agree
41. Agree
42. Disagree
43. Disagree
44. Disagree
45. Disagree
46. Disagree
 SPMQ 67

View publication stats