Coaching leadership styles and athlete satisfactions amongMalaysian University Basketball Team

Mohamad Nizam Nazarudin · Mohd Sofian Omar Fauzee · Marjohan Jamalis · Kim Geok Soh · Anuar Din

42 citations0/0 files storedUniversiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Putra Malaysia)

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Sport Psychology and Performance Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports Sports and Physical Education Studies

Abstract

Purposes of this study were to identify the leadership style of coaches, player satisfaction and relationship between leadership style of the coaches and player satisfaction. This study comprises of 101 basketball players in Malaysian Intervarsity Championship. This study was conducted during the competition season. A descriptive study is used in carrying out this research. Two instruments, revised version Leadership Scale for Sport (RLSS) by Zhang, Jensen and Mann (1997) and Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ) by Chelladurai and Riemer (1997) were used to examined style of coaching behaviors whichuniversity football players preferred and their satisfaction in football team. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) The descriptive analysis of the data were analyzed using by means, frequencies, percentage, and standard deviations for each item were found for males, females and each level of sport involvement. For the purpose of correlation, Pearson’s was used. Correlation was done with leadership style against athlete satisfaction. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Athletes were more preferred training and instruction coaching behavior which the highest mean score (M = 3.01, SD = .82) and followed by positive feedback coaching behavior (M = 2.94, SD = .85), social consideration coaching behavior (M = 2.87, SD = .86), social support coaching behavior (M = 2.61, SD = .90), democratic coaching behavior (M = 2.37, SD =.92) and autocratic coaching behavior (M = 2.03, SD = .96). Team integration (M = 3.74, SD = .83) was the most important subscale influencing athlete satisfaction in universities basketball team. Analyzed of the mean scores showed that training and instruction (M = 3.65, SD = .84) was the second highest mean scored for athlete satisfaction. The others factors were external agents (M = 2.84, SD = .92) factors most obvious of which are media and local community, the lowest rated satisfied for athlete satisfaction. The overall correlations were moderate and positive indicating a substantial relationship was democratic (r = .407, p <0.01), positive feedback (r = .442, p < 0.01), training and instruction (r = .456, p < 0.01), social consideration (r = .550, p < 0.01), social support (r = .428, p < 0.01) and autocratic (r = .413, p < .0.01).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 42 citations exist upstream.

References

1969A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness 1980Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports: Development of a Leadership Scale 2000Intrinsic Motivation: Relationships with Collegiate Athletes’ Gender, Scholarship Status, and Perceptions of Their Coaches’ Behavior 1998Development of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ)1997A Classification of Facets of Athlete Satisfaction 1985Compatibility in Coach-Athlete Relationships 1988Sport Leadership in a Cross-National Setting: The Case of Japanese and Canadian University Athletes 1997Modification and revision of the leadership scale for sport.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.