Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Julio Garganta

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 2. Mean (m), Standard deviation (sd), Ranking (rk), Paired t-test (t), Correlation (r) between the Importance Given and Adopted Behaviors by the Coach

Table 2 Mean (m), Standard deviation (sd), Ranking (rk), Paired t-test (t), Correlation (r) between the Importance Given and Adopted Behaviors by the Coach

Related Figures (4)

The results, presented in table I, indicate some differences in the efficacy factors evaluation rank, although without statistical significance. Thus, both coaches as athletes attribute greater importance to motivation and character factors, with the technique have been the third most valued factor by athletes, and strategy by coaches. Table 1. Mean (M), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk) and t-test (t) Comparison of Player’s and Coaches’ Perspectives About the Most Important Factors to the Sports Success of the Football Coach
The results, presented in table I, indicate some differences in the efficacy factors evaluation rank, although without statistical significance. Thus, both coaches as athletes attribute greater importance to motivation and character factors, with the technique have been the third most valued factor by athletes, and strategy by coaches. Table 1. Mean (M), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk) and t-test (t) Comparison of Player’s and Coaches’ Perspectives About the Most Important Factors to the Sports Success of the Football Coach
The results presented in table III also showed moderate to strong positive correlation between the athletes’ evaluation of the four efficacy factors and their perceptions about how their favorite coaches adopt the correspondent behavior in their practices. However, it should be noted that the values corresponding to the behavior frequency of their best coach were always lower than the values corresponding to the athletes’ evaluation of the factors, being that differences statistically significant for all factors, excepting the character. Table 4 presents the comparison of the efficacy factors’ evaluations made by the athletes of different Table 3. Mean (m), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk), Paired t-test (t) and Correlation (r) between the Importance Given and the Best Coach Behavior to the Players
The results presented in table III also showed moderate to strong positive correlation between the athletes’ evaluation of the four efficacy factors and their perceptions about how their favorite coaches adopt the correspondent behavior in their practices. However, it should be noted that the values corresponding to the behavior frequency of their best coach were always lower than the values corresponding to the athletes’ evaluation of the factors, being that differences statistically significant for all factors, excepting the character. Table 4 presents the comparison of the efficacy factors’ evaluations made by the athletes of different Table 3. Mean (m), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk), Paired t-test (t) and Correlation (r) between the Importance Given and the Best Coach Behavior to the Players
Table 4. Mean (m), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk) and ANOVA, concerning the most important factors for determining the Sports Success of the Football Coach, in the opinion of athletes U15, U17 and U19; As we can see in table IV, it appears that the three groups of athletes considered all efficacy factors important to the coach success. However the factors’ ranking order made by U19 athletes was different to the ranking orders made by the other two groups of athletes. Motivation was the most valued factor by the three groups followed, on U15 and U17, by the character factor, with the strategy and technique factors receiving less importance. To the U19 athletes the second most valued factor was the technique, followed by the character and strategy.
Table 4. Mean (m), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk) and ANOVA, concerning the most important factors for determining the Sports Success of the Football Coach, in the opinion of athletes U15, U17 and U19; As we can see in table IV, it appears that the three groups of athletes considered all efficacy factors important to the coach success. However the factors’ ranking order made by U19 athletes was different to the ranking orders made by the other two groups of athletes. Motivation was the most valued factor by the three groups followed, on U15 and U17, by the character factor, with the strategy and technique factors receiving less importance. To the U19 athletes the second most valued factor was the technique, followed by the character and strategy.
The results of table V indicate that the values’ ranking orders made by the UI5 and U19 were equal: motivation related behaviors were indicated as the more frequent, followed by the character related behaviors, with the technique and strategy related behaviors being less frequent. On the other hand, for U17 character related behaviors were more frequent than motivation related behaviors. ps Pee ee ee setae os. pare eo ‘| we ge ie ate sae Table 5. Mean (M), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk) and ANOVA, for the factors most valued by the Best coaches of athletes U15, U17 and U19, for determining the Sports Success of the Football Coach.
The results of table V indicate that the values’ ranking orders made by the UI5 and U19 were equal: motivation related behaviors were indicated as the more frequent, followed by the character related behaviors, with the technique and strategy related behaviors being less frequent. On the other hand, for U17 character related behaviors were more frequent than motivation related behaviors. ps Pee ee ee setae os. pare eo ‘| we ge ie ate sae Table 5. Mean (M), Standard Deviation (sd), Ranking (rk) and ANOVA, for the factors most valued by the Best coaches of athletes U15, U17 and U19, for determining the Sports Success of the Football Coach.
Related topics:
PsychologyPhysical Education Sport
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved