Antrenör Pedagojik Yeterlik Ölçeğinin Türk Kültürüne Uyarlanması ve Genç Sporcuların Algılarına Göre Antrenörlerin Pedagojik Yeterliklerinin İncelenmesi

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Zetter (2008) tarafından geliştirilen Genç Sporcularda Antrenör Pedagojik Yeterlik Ölçeğinin (Pädagogischer Kompetenzmaßstab des Trainers im Nachwuchsleistungssport-PKTN) Türk genç sporcu örnekleminde uyarlanması ve farklı branşlarda yer alan genç sporcuların antrenörleri ile ilgili pedagojik yeterlik algılarının farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesidir. Verilerin analizinde dil ve kapsam geçerliliği için Davis tekniği kullanılmıştır. Yapı geçerliliği için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), gruplar arası ortalama karşılaştırması için t testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Türkçe formun 4 farklı branşta yer alan toplam 461 genç sporcudan elde edilen veriler üzerinden yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları (X2 /sd =3,89 RMSEA=0.079) PKTN’nin empati ve dikkat, destek veya dayanışmanın engellenmesi, pozitif geri bildirim, sosyal destek, demokratik antrenman iklimi ve hedef odaklı antrenman alt boyutlarından oluşan altı faktörlü modeli ile veri uyumunun desteklendiği görülmekle birlikte özgün ölçekle benzer bir yapıya sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak PKTN’nin Türk sporcuların antrenörlerinin pedagojik algılarını ölçmede, ilgili araştırmalarda kullanılmaya uygun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmanın ikinci aşamasında ise yine 4 farklı branşta (hentbol, voleybol, futbol, basketbol) yer alan toplam 505 genç sporcuya ulaşılmış ve genç sporcuların cinsiyet, yaş ve antrenörün cinsiyeti değişkenlerine göre incelenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda genç sporcuların antrenörlerinin pedagojik yeterlikleri ile ilgili algılarında, empati ve dikkat, pozitif geri bildirim, sosyal destek ve hedef odaklı antrenman davranışlarında kadın sporcuların lehine anlamlı bir fark görülmüştür.

Adaptation of Trainers’ Pedagogical Competencies Scale to Turkish Culture and Examination of Trainers’ Pedagogical Competencies According to Perceptions of Young Athletes

The aim of this study is to adapt Trainers’ Pedagogical Competencies Scale in Young Athletes (Pädagogischer Kompetenzmaßstab des Trainers im Nachwuchsleistungssport-PKTN), developed by Zetter (2008), to the sample of Turkish young athletes and examine pedagogical competency perceptions of young athletes taking place in the different branches related to their trainers according to the different variables. Davis technique was used for language and content validity in the analysis of the data. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for construct validity, and t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used for comparison between groups. In the results of the confirmative factor analysis (DFA) of Turkish form made though the data obtained from 461 young athletes taking place in 4 different branches (X2 /sd =3,89 RMSEA=0.079), although data compliance with 6-factors model of PKTN consisting of the sub-dimensions of “empathy and attention”, “hindering support or solidarity”, “positive feedback”, “social support”, “democratic training climate”, and” target-oriented training” is seen to be supported, it is seen that it has a similar structure to original scale. As a result, it is seen that PRTN is a valid and reliable measuring scale that is suitable for using in the relevant studies in measuring the pedagogical perceptions of Turkish athletes. In the second stage of the study, 505 young athletes taking place again in 4 different branches were reached, and young athletes were examined according to the variables of gender, age and gender of trainers. As a result of analyses, in the perceptions of young athletes related to pedagogical competencies of their trainers, a significant difference was seen in favor of the female athletes in their behavior related to empathy and attention, positive feedback, social support, and target–oriented training.

Kaynakça

1. Alpar R. (2010). Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinden Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.

2. Altıntaş A, Çetinkalp ZK, Aşçı FH. (2012). Evaluating the Coach-Athlete Relationship: Validity and Reliability Study. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(3), 119-128.

3. Baumann S. (2016). Psychologie im Jugendsport: Der Einfluss der Pubertät–Die Auswirkungen auf das Lernen–Die Rolle des Trainers. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag.

4. Baumgartner H, Homburg C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.

5. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.

6. Bentler PM. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual review of psychology, 31(1), 419-456.

7. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.

8. Berry JW, Lonner WJ. (1986). Field methods in cross-cultural research. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

9. Brislin R, Lonner W, Thorndike R. (1973). Cross-cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley.

10. Brown TA. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2. ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

11. Browne MW, Cudeck R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. London; Sage focus editions.

12. Büyüköztürk S, Akgün ÖE, Özkahveci Ö, Demirel F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 232-237.

13. Büyüköztürk Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

14. Chelladurai P. (1993). Handbook of research on sport psychology (Leadership In RN, Singer M, Murphy LK. Tennant, Eds.). New York: Macmillan Pub Co, 647-671.

15. Chu TL. (2018). The Roles of Coaches, Peers, and Parents in High School Athletes' Motivational Processes: A Mixed-Method Study. Doctoral dissertation.

16. Coakley J. (2011). Youth sports: What counts as “positive development?”. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(3), 306-324.

17. Côté J, Baker J, Abernethy B. (2003). From Play to Practice. Expert Performance in Sports: Advances in Research on Sport Expertis. United State: Human Kinetics, 89-113.

18. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. (2010). Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences: SPSS and LISREL Applications. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

19. Davis LL. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197.

20. Durand-Bush N, Salmela JH. (2002). The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: Perceptions of world and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 154-171.

21. Ekenci MT, Yücel MG, Ekenci G. (2017). Antrenör-sporcu ilişkisi ölçeğinin Türkiye için geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5, 1-13.

22. Çelik HE, Yılmaz V. (2016). LISREL 9.1 ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi: Temel Kavramlar-Uygulamalar-Programlama. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

23. Fasting K, Pfister G. (2000). Female and male coaches in the eyes of female elite soccer players. European Physical Education Review, 6(1), 91-110.

24. Filiz B, Demirhan G. (2017). Antrenörlük davranışı değerlendirme ölçeği’nin türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(1), 1-10.

25. Ford PR, Yates I, Williams AM. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link between science and application. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(5), 483-495.

26. Güngörmüş HA, Gürbüz B, Yenel F. (2008). Spor için liderlik ölçeği’nin sporcuların antrenörün davranışlarını algılaması versiyonunun psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 10(2), 16-21.

27. Hinde RA. (1997). Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective. Cambridge: Psychology Press.

28. Holt NL, Kingsley BC, Tink LN, Scherer J. (2011). Benefits and challenges associated with sport participation by children and parents from low-income families. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(5), 490-499.

29. Hu LT, Bentler PM. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.

30. Jowett S, Cockerill IM. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach-athlete relationship. Solutions in Sport psychology, 16-31.

31. Kavussanu M, Stamp R, Slade G, Ring C. (2009). Observed prosocial and antisocial behaviors in male and female soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(S1), S62-S76.

32. Kline RB. (2016). Mean structures and latent growth models. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, (4th ed). New York: The Guildford Press, 369-393.

33. Kline RB. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford publications.

34. Kline, T. J. (2005). Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach To Design And Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

35. Krüger A. (1989). Trainer brauchen Pädagogik. Leistungssport, 19(5), 31-33.

36. Kurz D, Sack HG, Brinkhoff KP. (1996). Materialien zum Sport in Nordrhein-Westfalen: Kindheit, Jugend Und Sport İn Nordrhein-Westfalen: Der Sportverein Und Seine Leistungen. Düsseldorf.

37. Lacy AC, Goldston PD. (1990). Behavior analysis of male and female coaches in high school girls' basketball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 13(1), 29.

38. Lee KS, Malete L, Feltz DL. (2002). The strength of coaching efficacy between certified and noncertified singapore coaches. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 14(1).

39. Leith LM. (2006). The Psychology Of Coaching Team Sports: A Self-Help Guide. Toronto: Sport Books Publisher.

40. Marback TL, Short SE, Short MW, Sullivan PJ. (2005). Coaching confidence: An exploratory investigation of sources and gender differences. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28(1), 18.

41. Martin SB, Zakrajsek RA, Wrisberg CA. (2012). Attitudes toward sport psychology and seeking assistance: Key factors and a proposed model. Psychology of Attitudes, 1-33.

42. Morgan G, Spray CM, Harwood CG. (2008). Coaching behaviours within academies and centres of excellence: A focus on the use of feedback and questioning. FA Insight, Summer, 28-33.

43. Myers ND, Vargas-Tonsing TM, Feltz DL. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6(1), 129-143.

44. Pawlenka C. (2004). Ethik für Training und Wettkampf im Sport. Prohl, R. & Lange, H. Pädagogik des Leistungssports. Schorndorf: Hofmann, 93-114.

45. Pratt SR, Eıtzen DS. (1989). Contrasting leadership styles and organizational effectiveness: The case of athletic teams. Social Science Quarterly, 70(2), 311.

46. Riemer HA, Chelladurai P. (1998). Development of the athlete satisfaction questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(2), 127-156.

47. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.

48. Seçer İ. (2015). SPSS ve LISREL ile Pratik Veri Analizi: Analiz ve Raporlaştırma. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

49. Selağzı, S., & Çepikkurt, F. (2015). Antrenör ve sporcu iletişim düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. CBÜ Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 11-18.

50. Smoll FL, Smith RE. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: a theoretical model and research paradigm 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(18), 1522-1551.

51. Steidinger J. (2014). Sisterhood İn Sports: How Female Athletes Collaborate And Compete. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

52. Sümer N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk psikoloji yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.

53. Tinning R. (2012). The idea of physical education: A memetic perspective. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 17(2), 115-126.

54. Toros T, Tiryaki Ş. (2006). Sporda liderlik ölçeği’nin-futbolcuların antrenör davranışlarını algılaması versiyonunun-geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Uluslararası Spor Bilimleri Kongresi, Muğla.

55. Unutmaz V, Gençer RT. (2014). Spor için liderlik ölçeği-sporcunun antrenör davranışını algılaması versiyonunun psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. CBÜ Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 27-34.

56. Vanden Auweele Y. (1999). Parents-coach interpersonal relationships. Motricidade Humana-Portugese Journal of Human Performance Studies, 12(1), 77-88.

57. Varga D, Földesi G, Gombocz J. (2018). Declared pedagogical values of coaches at hungarian football academies. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research, 77(1), 17-24.

58. Villalon CA, Martin SB. (2020). High school coaches’ coaching efficacy: relationship with sport psychology exposure and gender factors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32(1), 64-80

59. Weinberg RS, Gould D. (2003). Foundations of Sport And Exercise Psychology. Human Kinetics.

60. Zetter H. (2008). Zur Pädagogischen Kompetenz von Trainern und Trainerinnen im Nachwuchsleistungssport. Doctoral dissertation, uniwien.

Kaynak Göster

APA Şirin, E , Sevilmiş, A . (2020). Antrenör Pedagojik Yeterlik Ölçeğinin Türk Kültürüne Uyarlanması ve Genç Sporcuların Algılarına Göre Antrenörlerin Pedagojik Yeterliklerinin İncelenmesi . Spor Bilimleri Dergisi , 31 (3) , 106-120 . DOI: 10.17644/sbd.670510