1111iII11I1111 II'1 .'.)1)))):H.( ) 11 1-101. .11...) 1111:" "1111*111‘)""'"t ‘ . . o .o-nfl ”4 W: ——~ fiur”" .- . Us; E1. “ 1A 1111‘. 1 "'1' 1.1 1111131 111.11 11111 ‘ ‘1' . ’ j ;.I-..IIIII I1:11.11!III1I'I1I1'I .0... ._~ . 1131' 1; I...“ C-U. I w...“ v ) 1 1:. " 1 ”1‘5 '3." ':' 3.7' 11 3 111111111 I 1'" 4151 1111 1131 "1‘13“" ' '1 N «v. 'c ‘ ‘4l 1 .I‘l .‘1 ‘1 1 h..-“ L; M... {1' . 3312—3 .5373: “’0 ‘f .m—A-.vvr. Tat—*2 ‘L'.._"_. I... I 'I . I1“ "h. _~.- c—‘m . . ..... . .- H...) . :V ‘4' ‘ ‘ 1" . .. .. — t f . __._._.._... .. - gfi‘.’ . Wm”: - W 11111 I III’11I1 I. I 1111;: 011} 1111 11II1I1'1 11II11‘11I 1): 11 '1111 11.1: -' .. . '11} 1 III = 1111:1111 "I! 7"“ )))) ) 11“ 11:1" : 11112111 ‘11“ 111‘ ‘ ‘ “" "‘IIIII I 11h . ._.1;1;;.I‘.111".7.~, 1'" 1 1 .~ )112‘; " )):.):m " ‘ ' ,.1!:)]1.1’:131' :: 4,. . '. I1..I ,. 1 14'1‘. '.~-."I I ‘21 3.2.11.1: I .: .. a II I in.“ ,. .)) :11' . -V::"' f ,I 'E1IE1"1‘.I’1"‘11"II . 9"" "] :‘:\" 1 1‘ ";'1"' "v" '2 , . II D ‘1 v" Q I'-‘ ' 1"“ nt“‘ I") I).', . ,)I‘ : . 1 #1113”. ,..I. -. ‘_ - '1‘:E '1'!" '1) ) ""11' " 1"""'111 71'11'A‘E‘In753f1'1‘11 1" I11‘ IL ' ... Il1I 1:1“ ”5111I“1‘;‘:"I n. ..', ""I..o'! I. .f‘.’ "I": I'1II‘."1"1'I" *1" I; 11 I: .I .. 1.73.1. I1}:- 1“ 1‘ ‘ "31:111. 5‘“! 1'~' 1:?! ~‘3‘3‘11131L"“":“I1“" " "‘ 5:; II‘ 1 11111111 I? z 1 {133112151111.1“; "‘1 'g‘gé )1. 1.1 ‘K' ‘ 1;} ‘_ 3'1“? a1 “5“ 1 $1“ ' )F 'i'ir' '11::P1W‘i‘ii "‘1 3.2:” 1:4,! 15?, :~. '11-. )11 i.) 55311.1111111 ”1531 111111) '11 1)..” [21‘11'14 jflv? g’] ' “1 11'] Ejglflwz )111411‘ @1119 “wig": 113%] . ') . ‘24" 11hr): ‘ ":v;)-.a )1. ' M1 ‘15-; -- ‘ ‘ '1‘? 111'1“°“,'I"£ r. L1II1111") 31113.1: 11‘: . ..;‘: 'I " II‘ 11.:11-113112'1‘111-‘év‘1'1g.'11111E1111‘u'1'fi51u . . . “1:“: < :5 L 1 . . 12.1 i. '1 :11 I. "'11""" P11 1!] B?) E 1‘ 9"]\ 1‘1“] ‘ m!” :_l ‘ . t ‘ ' ha." a . "F2611." tn “M 1-.‘E1 1):‘11)" I 113.111 I31: 11 111111311 11:11.11 )+)1)1) 1 .11 1511'“- {11'1“1'D1fw R111 . ' ‘ I . III... II III. I1 111‘11éfi1" 311;: 11111“ "qr it“s A may "a”. -3 5-.-: Le_-!_-‘_--_3n "hi-35.- c dr—v-w'! This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Analysis of the Selection, Education, and Evaluation Practices of Michigan High School Basketball Officials presented by Thomas C . Smith has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in K-12 Administration , My /,T.’{/(7 “7/ Major professor Date April 30! 1986 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 lllllljfllm MSU LIBRARIES .—:—. TAT ERSITY LIBRARIES Will”!!! .l! H N 00084 4856 l RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTION, EDUCATION, AND EVALUATION PRACTICES FOR MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL OFFICIALS BY Thomas C. Smith A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1986 at be Mi ev sa 89 qu COé ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTION, EDUCATION, AND EVALUATION PRACTICES FOR MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL OFFICIALS BY Thomas C. Smith The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of athletic administrators, varsity boys' basket- ball coaches, and high school basketball officials in Michigan.au3 they related to the selection, education, and evaluation of high school basketball officials. The sample consisted of 77 athletic directors, 77 coaches, and 89 officials, selected at random from information provided by the Michigan High School Athletic Association. The data were collected by a mailed surveyu The questions determined attitudes of the athletic directors, coaches, and officials relative to the roles assumed by each during the selection, education, and evaluation of offi- cials. The role of the Michigan High School Athletic Association was also examined. The responses were analyzed by employing the chi-square test to determine if differences existed among tine three groups surveyed. In addition, a descriptive analysis was included. Thomas C. Smith The analysis of the data resulted in the following findings: 1. The education of Michigan basketball officials consists of an annual rules meeting and any skills the official can teach him/herself through associa- tion with other officials or by self-instruction. No reliable, valid testing is done at any time. 2. The evaluation of Michigan basketball officials is done by the athletic directors and coaches using a classification procedure. The system is biased, unreliable, and lacks validity. 3. Selection of Michigan basketball officials is based largely on telephone solicitation of games by officials. Athletic directors and coaches support- ed the procedure as efficient. 4. The Michigan High School Athletic Association if; viewed as not fulfilling it's role as leader in the administration of athletic programs in the state. Based on the findings of the study, it was recommended that the Michigan High School Athletic Associatjxni review its policies, procedures, and role as they pertain to basketball officials. Specifically, the institution of a comprehensive education/training program, with a valid testing program; and, the development of a reliable and valid evaluation system were recommended. To Nan and "The Girls" ii Lc ch pr vai dif ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of a doctorate is a long and difficult task. It requires much time, dedication and perseverance. The rewards and enjoyment I experienced were a reflection of the encouragement I received from my committee members: Dr. Louis Romano, Dr. Richard McLeod, Dr. Dan Kruger and my chairman Dr. John Suehr. I thank them very much. In particular, Dr. John Suehr has helped me to grow professionally and personally. He forced me to define my values and strive for the excellence required of a profes- sional educator. His positive attitude and guidance made a difficult process enjoyable. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. IV. THE PROBLEM I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . Population / Sample . . . . . . . . . . Procedures Used . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Athletic Directors and Coaches. . . The Selection of Officials. . . . . . The Education and Training of Officials The Evaluation of Basketball Officials. The Michigan High School Athletic Association. . . . . . . . . . Role Conflicts. . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . Study Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Sample . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . summary 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv vi viii H \DmmflOmmbH 11 ll 11 15 20 26 34 36 42 44 44 48 52 54 54 56 56 104 Ch APPL BIBL Chapter V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12S Implications for Further Research . . . . . 127 VI. REFLECTIONS AND INSIGHTS. . . . . . . . . . . 129 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O I O O O 134 Officiating Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 142 Tables 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. LIST OF TABLES Population Data . . . . . . . . . . Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for Officials. . . . . . . . . Frequency of Official Contributions Dedication of Officials . . . . . . Soliciting Games. . . . . . . . . . Responsibility for Hiring Officials Head Coaches Attendance at Rules Meeting. Officials Attendance at Rules Meeting . Meeting Attendance for Coaches and Officials. Attitude to Open-book Test. . . . . Testing Renewing Officials. . . . . Support for a Closed-book Test. . . Responsibility for Officials' Education Effectiveness of Officials' Organizations Officials' Motive for Improvement . The MHSAA and Officials' Education. Publication of Test Scores. . . . . Knowledge of MHSAA Evaluation Procedures. vi 51 50 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 81 lllllIlIIIIlIlIl nnnnnnnn 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Who Should Evaluate . . . . . . . . . Type of Rating System . . . . . . . . Ratings and Tournament Assignments. . Method of Compensating Officials. . . Officials and Summer Camps. . . . . . Officials' Use of Game Films. . . . . Cost of Revised Rating System . . . . Committee to Revise Evaluations . . . Satisfaction with Current Evaluations Officials' Application of the Rules . Knowledge of Current Rules. . . . . . Reaction to "Poor Officiating". . . . Reaction to "Good Officiating". . . . Controversial Calls . . . . . . . . . Communications with Officials . . . . Naming Officials to the State Finals. View of Officials . . . . . . . . . . vii 82 84 85 87 88 89 91 92 93 94 95 97 98 99 101 102 103 Fig Figures 1. 2. LIST OF FIGURES Great Lakes Observer's Form . MHSAA Regions 0 O O O C O O 0 viii 30 50 Clas. thei Y0unJ SChQ: compE inte. Athle StUde Pride Procl many rEVOl. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction High school athletics, basketball in particular, has always been an important aspect of every school and communi- ty in Michigan. In 1985, basketball ranked #1 in terms of sports offered by high schools, and #2 in number of partici- pants (National Federation, 1985). Of 713 schools in Michigan, 701 offered boys' basketball in 1985 (MHSAA, 1986). Nationally, three out of four parents encourage their students to participate in basketball (Miller Lite, 1984). 131.its purest form, athletics is an extension of the classroom, where young people have the opportunity to expand their knowledge of life through competitive experiences. Young people learn much from their participation in inter- scholastic athletics. Lessons in sportsmanship, teamwork, competition and how to win and lose gracefully are an integral part of every team in the athletic program. Athletic competition adds to school spirit and helps all students - spectators as well as participants - develop pride in their school (National Federation, 1985). Signs proclaiming "Home of State Champions" welcome visitors to many communities. Often the activities of an entire town revolve around the basketball schedule. In many instances a m st CO an- ate time Coac 2 community's identity hinges upon the success of the school's basketball team. In addition to the obvious educational value inherent in athletics, there are many collateral benefits as well. Research runs consistently shown that student-athletes achieve higher grades, on the average than non—participating students (Interscholastic Athletic Administrator, 1984). For some, basketball is a ticket to college which might not otherwise be available. For others, basketball may well prove to be a "one day of glory," providing that life-long story of a game-winning shot. Athletics is a real-lifle competency test, with many common goals for the participants and spectators alike, so long as education is the goal, (Blecke, 1986). There are certainly negative aspects to athletics too. We tend to single out a select few and spend disproportion- ate amounts of money on those students. Basketball demands time of a student; and, an argument could be made that the time involved might be better spent on academics. Also, there is considerable concern for the pressure to ”win." Coaches are beginning to speak out and are calling for a reevaluation of our athletic priorities (Miller Lite, 1984). However, those arguments can be made in another study. Recently, there has been considerable emphasis on stating instructional objectives in terms of learner behavior as one means for insuring a planned, purposeful and 3 relevant program (Mayer, 1962). Sport management, specific- ally basketball officiating, is the focus of this study; and, although it is becoming very complex in terms of purpose and relevancy, its study has been unsupported by empirical data (Parkhouse and Ulrich, 1979). There is very little that has been revealed by past studies in this area. What has been indicated is questionable on methodological grounds, anui is inconsistent and isolated in instance. This state of research still appears to rely heavily'cni the personal convictions of the investigators in the field. Little evidence is available to support these convictions (Rushall, 1966). We need to determine what improvements in basketball officiating are required and to state those needs in concrete behavioral terms. The best reason for attempting to improve officiating in Michigan is because it might contribute to the overall goal of athletics which is to improve the educational experience of the athletes. "The only reliable method of needs determination is social scientific research and analysis through statistical methods“ (Rebore, 1982). High School athletics involve several key people who influence the process of student-athlete growth.tx>.insure that contests are in fact a positive learning experience. Of primary interest to this study is the competency of game administrators, specifically, the game officials. If one assumes that athletic contests are extensions of the academic process, one might also assume that an effort is be ab use An pro wha' ing thi. Athl bask athlé Offic ation 4 being made to recruit, select, train and evaluate knowledge- able people to officiate these contests. This study attempts to carefully analyze the procedures used to select, educate and evaluate basketball officials. An examination will be made to determine if there is a process of recruitment, selection, and development, and to what degree evaluation procedures are utilized in determin- ing the competencies of contest officials. In addition, this study will examine the role of the Michigan High School Athletic Association and its impact;cn1 the status of basketball officials. Purpose of the Study This study was designed to investigate the attitudes of athletsz(administrators, basketball coaches and basketball officials relative to the selection, education euui evalu- ation of the officials. "There is now a greater emphasis on excel- lence from athletes than ever before. Because of this it is imperative that professional leaders and interested individuals do all that is possible in trying to understand and find ways to help produce highly skilled people who measure up to the needs of these athletes" (Foster, 1971). By determining the competency of basketball officials as perceived by the three groups, a base line may be established against which future improvements may be judged. The goal is three-fold: (1) to provide information to officials to assist them in improving themselves, (2) to pr SF in in imp the supe and stud. schol Perf his/he is an and a< State‘ Of th resPO: athlet IO toan Offeri 5 provide information to the MHSAA for use in planning state sponsored education/evaluation programs, and (3) to provide information to athletic directors and coaches to assist them in the recruitment and selection of officials. Definition of Terms Athletic Director - Person in charge of planning and implementing the school athletic program. Duties include the hiring and supervision of all coaches; the planning and supervision of all interscholastic events; and, the hiring and supervision of game officials. Coach - Individual charged with the supervision of student-athletes as they train for and engage in inter- scholastic competition. The coach is responsible for the performance as well as the behavior of the athletes under his/her supervision. MHSAA - The Michigan High School Athletic Association is an organization of member schools created to coordinate and administer the various athletic programs throughout the state. Membership in the organization is nearly 100 percent of the schools in Michigan. The organization also is responsible for the registration and evaluation of all athletic officials in Michigan (9,710 in 1984-‘85). Official - A term synonymous with referee that refers to an individual who is acting as an independent contractor, offering his/her services to local schools in return for a 6 set fee. Officials are first registered with the MHSAA on an annual basis and are then allowed to contract their services with schools. Varsity - A.temm used to describe the level of compe- tition for athletic teams. With few exceptions, the term varsity refers to teams with members who are at the highest skill level in the school, generally 11th and 12th graders. Assumptions This dissertation is based on two assumptions: 1. The survey does determine the attitudes of athletic directors, coaches and officials, relative t1) the compe- tencies of high school basketball officials. 2. Athletics is a viable, integral part of a modern school curriculum, worthy of study, and falling within the domain of educational research. Delimitations 1. The data collected were based only on the responses of Michigan athletic directors, coaches and officials; and, were limited to attitudes concerning only basketball officials. 2. The data were affected by the degree of sincerity of the respondents. 3. The survey provided the required data for this study. re an: in dirt atti of a- 7 4. The data were collected from athletic personnel and represent their view of the relationship between athletics and the total school curriculum. 5. The data were collected by a nailed questionnaire in the fall of 1985. Research Questions This study is an attempt to determine if athletic directors, coaches and officials have the same or similar attitudes regarding the selection, education and evaluation of athletic officials as measured by a survey of each group. The general research question is: ”Do athletic directors, coaches, and basketball officials share similar attitudes relative to the competencies of officials?" Specific research questions include the following: 1. Do the three groups, athletic directors, coaches and officials have a consistent philosophy as to the role and duties of Michigan high school basketball officials? 2. Who do the three groups feel is responsible for the education and training of basketball officials? 3. Are the three groups satisfied with the current Michigan High School Athletic Association procedures for the evaluation of basketball officials? The hypothesis for each question is: "Do the three groups differ in their responses to the question?" In addition to a general test for overall group differences, of 8 interest is how a given group answers a given question compared to another group. If one group has significant differences from another group, what exactly are those differences? Population / Sample Each high school in Michigan was included in the study. This includes all public as well as private high schools and accounts for a total of 701 athletic directors as well as 701 varsity basketball coaches. The officials consisted of all those who were registered in boys' basketball in l984-‘85 and who were on the "approved list,” meaning that they had 16 or more ratings and had the minimal qualifica- tions to work in the state tournaments. The sample consisted of 77 athletic directors, 77 coaches auui 89 officials selected at random from the population outlined above. Procedures Used The data collected for the study were analyzed to determine if athletic directors, coaches and officials have similar attitudes concerning the competencies of officials. The first analysis was descriptive, using frequencies and numerical computations and is summarized in tabular form in Chapter IV. Also, the data are illustrated by inferential statistics using chi-squared tests for similarity. 9 Descriptive analyses of those items resulting in a significant difference in respondents are also included . All data were compiled, and entered into an IBM personal computer for processing. The frequencies, statis- tical tests and summarized results were all generated and tabulated by the computer. Overview of the Study The study consists of five chapters, a selected bibliography and appendices. Chapter I includes a rationale for the study, purpose of the study, research questions, assumptions, definition of terms and the organization of the study. Chapter II contains a review of the literature related in) the topic. This includes a search of appropriate ERIC files, review of periodicals, review of personnel abstracts, business management abstracts, and dissertation abstracts. Chapter III describes and explains the methods and procedures of the study. Included in this chapter are the population, sample, instrumentation, collection, and treatment of the data. Chapter IV is an analysis of the data from the instru- ment. This includes the calculation and tabulation of the frequencies of the data as well as the chi-squared test for differences. Also included are descriptive analyses of the data following each chi-square test. 10 Chapter V presents the summary, findings and recommen- dations of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains a review CHE literature and research in six areas related to the present study. Those areas are (1) the athletic directors and coaches; U2) the selectjxni of officials; (3) the education and training of the officials; (4) the evaluation of basketball officials; (5) the role of the MHSAA; and, (6) the associated role conflicts. The Athletic Directors and Coaches The Miller Lite studies (1983) documented the fact that athletics is an important part of a school curriculum. The goal of schools should be to offer a quality athletic program vfiflxfll fulfills the educational needs of students. It must be a priority for schools to progress toward achieving the goals they set. If schools do not, they have no business pursuing the goals in the first place (McNeil, 1966). One of the best ways to improve performance of students is to enhance the skills of those who work with them (Dillon, 1978). Investment in the competence of school employees is a good business practice, especially for an enterprise like education, which depends heavily on people, not machines (VanRyan and Santelli, 1979). Review of these 11 12 findings leads in) the conclusion that the officials in a basketball contest have at least some effect (M1 the ath- lete's educational experience. The amount of upgrading of skills needed for officials depends largely on one's viewpoint regarding the relation- ship between professional growth activities for officials and the quality of the athletes' educational experience (Saracen, 1971). If Officials' skills are to be improved, it would require the cooperation and involvement of four major groups within the state. These groups include (1) high school athletic directors, (2) high school coaches, (3) high school basketball officials, and (4) the Michigan High School Athletic Association. Other groups such as the secondary principals and the superintendents may exert influence through their athletic directors. ATHLETIC DIRECTORS While the American public supports athletics, they have serious misgivings about the administration of the programs (Miller Lite, 1983). There seems to be concern regarding the ability and willingness of administrators tn) take control of the programs they are charged with. The athletic director's job comes down to having the courage to control the Operation of the athletic program in a sound educational manner (Blecke, 1986). "We must step down from our high horses and humbly accept the role as administrators. This task requires an athletic administrator who combines 13 technical competence with human concerns," (Atterbom, 1976). The implication for officials may be that if the athletic director lacks the technical competence and does not regard officials as an important part of the educational process, then it is unlikely that he/she, the athletic director, will go out of his/her way to hire quality officials. Such a situation may be critical, in light of the findings of Engel & Frederichs (1980); they found the hiring activity was the most crucial task of an administrator. They said, "no single activity of au1 administrator is as important to the operation of an efficient and effective school as the hiring of quality personnel." The hiring of quality personnel in an athletic program would likely include basketball officials. 131 a recent survey (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1983), only one out of seven athletic directors felt that it was a “primary responsibility" of the athletic director to secure competent officials for all contests. In a supporting study done by the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association (1985), almost 35 percent of the athletic directors responding rated "contest officials” as a less important aspect of the job. Several studies have questioned the qualifications of the administrators of athletic programs, (Hacket, 1978; Parkhouse & Lapin, 1980; Pope, 1982; and Mullin, 1980). All of these studies have focused on the problem of turning over sc he in P0 EXC Of the Wor atte has Offi With as the 14 a million dollar business to people who have had little if any preparation for the job. Preparation of athletic directors is "haphazard and poorly articulated" (Zeigler and Spaeth, 1975). Possibly, it is unreasonabLe to expect an unqualified person to hire qualified personnel. If offi- ciating competency is to be improved, then the people who have a direct effect on that improvement must themselves be knowledgeable concerning current personnel recruitment, selection, development, and evaluation practices. COACHES Basketball coaches offer their athletes inspiration and sound judgement as well as teach techniques and skills necessary to compete. They must also be an exemplary model in stressful situations. They must also be knowledgeable, possess necessary skills, demand respect, and inspire excellence in performance (Blecke, 1986). There is a code of ethics for teachers and hence, by default, for coaches as they are teachers, even if not in the strictest sense of the word by being "on-staff" (Pearson, 1982). When coaches attempt to influence officials it's unethical. "The game has become a test of the coach's ability to influence officials and sometimes goes so far as to threaten officials with future contracts" (Pearson, 1982). No coach has the right to expect an official to serve as a disciplinarian. Controlling the emotions of players is the primary responsibility of a coach, not the official. 15 The official (nun only inflict penalties; and, if the situation demands, eject players from the game (Yankoskie, 1985). The matter of keeping a game under control is the responsibility of both the coach and the officials; thus, placing the coach and official on the same side (Yankoskie, 1985). Many studies which refer to the need for better relations between coaches and officials share a common result, that of the need for coaches to learn the rules. Many coaches do not take the time to learn the rules; also, those who do not know the rules, are reported to be involved in a greater number of disagreements with officials than those coaches who know the rules. Both Engle (1976) and time National Federation of State High School Associa- tions (1985) recommended that coaches officiate at some time in their career. The most often suggested method of doing so was for coaches to officiate intramurals at their own school or at a university. As is the case with the athletic directors, coaches must know and understand what their responsibilities are in regard to officials. The Selection of Officials PERSONALITY Officials are generally considered to be athletes in their own right. Studies have documented the pesonality types involved in the decision to become an adult athlete. Posi menu aPPr are follc 16 It is possible that some sort of personality factors exists, which motivate individuals to select and participate in athletics. It may be that those individuals who possess the greatest and most fortuitous combination of these factors continue and become successful (Kroll, 1967). A process of selection based on personality grounds begins to work as the highest levels of athletic achievement are reached. From among the stable, dominant, toughminded, extraverts who are physically gifted there emerge at the top those who are less outgoing and more sensative (Foster, 1971). High level competitors share many personality traits. Positive changes in emotional stability, conscience develop- ment, tough-mindedness, venturesomeness, and the decrease in apprehension are seen (Ogilvie, 1967). In a review of literature concerning individuals who are involved in athletics, Cooper (1969) offered the following views of athletes: 1. More outgoing and socially confident. 2. Socially aggressive, dominant and leading. 3. Higher social adjustment as rated by peers. 4. Stronger competitors. 5. Less anxious and more emotionally stable. 6. Less compulsive. 7. Greater tolerance for physical pain. 8. Low feminine - high masculine interests. A study of adult athletic competitors found that the successful members scored high on emotional stability, high on imagination, low on guilt proneness and high on self- sufficiency (Gilbert, 1974). As a school begins the process of hiring an official it may wish.tx) consider the research to structure, or modify its hiring practices. Knowledge of the personality types al' int may int sch. wil they Stud scho rele» tion. this ble I may w may e1 not be COIIEg: of Emp; who the An arg: 17 involved in officiating may assist the athletic director and coach in selecting the best officials for their contests. RECRU ITMENT When a school wishes to hire an official it has two alternative sources from which to seek employees: the internal and the external labor markets. Since a school maynot hire an official from its own staff (conflict of interest), it must use the external labor market. The school must seek officials who are both qualified and willing to officiate at their school. Schools need to recruit officials in those areas where they have the greatest probability of achieving success. Studies indicate that this may be many miles away from the school where the game will be played (Parnes, 1970). The relevent labor market may be a local Officials' organiza- tion. The school may lose some of its control by utilizing this subcontractor, but if the local association is reputa- ble, it may be well worth the cost. The athletic director may wish to investigate first hand who the members are and may even wish to attend a meeting. Such a practice would not be different from an industrial recruiters visit.tx> a college campus. The school has a responsibility to indicate the terms of employment in a reasonable manner, who the opponents are, who the opposing coach is, and certainly the fee involved. An argument may even be made for the athletic director or to co. op: ind ris onl uner very Qua: 5811( Come irrel equal may b jUSt 1 ’7": popul Offici Certif duIing he Cre ago“, 18 stating the type of game he wants called (no blood-no foul vs. any contact is a foul). Studies indicate that when an organization attempts to communicate realistic expectations to new recruits the result is greater cooperation and fewer conflicts (Wanous, 1977). There is danger in this philos- ophy too. If officials do not retain a certain degree of independence, free from the school's control, there may be a risk of the schools hiring "homers," those officials who only call what that school wants to insure future contracts. When the number of contests is increasing, and the unemployment levels for officials are low, recruitimg is very difficult. Schools must compete aggressively for quality officials. Officials, on the other hand are in a sellers' market and may choose among several schools. The concept of recruitment of qualified officials may be irrelevant if the number of officials does not at least equal time number of contests which need officials. There may be an overriding concern for a "warm body in stripes" just to be able to play the game. A possible alternative to general recruitment from the population may be the use of specialized schools for officials. If officials were required as a part of the certification process to attend classes and/or work games during summer camps, a new pool of potential officials would In; created. Several schools in an area might, in cooper- ation, initiate such a program during the summer months. pe in in\ bes rel seL migl schc sinc Vali< to {m the a 19 Studies in cooperative education have shown that a high percentage of summer interns return to work for the sponsor- ing organization (Tyler, 1961). SELECTION The process of making an informed hiring decision involves two basic principles: (1) past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior; and, (2) collect as much reliable and valid data as possible and then use it to select the best person (Cherrington, 1982). Past behavior might be measured by past performance during a game at a school; lmxt, this is difficult for new, rookie officials, since they have no prior experience. The terms reliability and validity are important. Validity refers to the ability of the selection instrument to measure what is intended, whereas reliability refers to the ability to produce the same results time after time. Reliable and valid data on officials is difficult to determine. Interviews are not done to hire officials. They would consume too much time for the schools and officials alike and would not be cost-effective. Studies have shown that the reliability of ratings from many different sources is quite low (Carlson, Thayer, Mayfield and Paterson, 1971). This would seem to preclude the use of only past ratings from many schools as a determining factor in the hiring process. 20 The use of tests (written and performance) has proven to be useful in many areas to determine what knowledge an individual has about his/her job. Many organizations have been very successful in validating achievement tests when the tests measure information required for the favorable performance of the job (Lawshe auui Balma, 1966). "A criticism of testing is that it involves a statistical prediction in which outstanding performers may be rejected because of low test scores. Because tests are not perfectly reliable and valid, some individuals may be unjustly rejected," (Cherrington, 1982). Although prediction error is unfortunate, tflue conse- quences of not using any predictors should be considered. A random hiring process creates serious consequences for the athletes, coaches, and the sport itself. If the goal is to maximize effective hiring procedures, and minimize the number of erroneous hirings (poor or unqualified officials), then some error must be tolerated. The Education and Traininggpf Officials No physical product is involved in the educational process, but results are nevertheless expected. The sport pages are filled with references to officials who did.rmn: perform satisfactorily during the games they officiated. Product-improvement costs in industry are comparable to staff-development costs in education, yet there is a great disparity between the two. A successful business may spend 21 10 percent of its annual gross on product improvement, yet very few school districts earmark as nuufli as one-one hundredth of that amount specifically for staff development, which is solely designed to improve job performance (Dillon, 1978). Is it reasonable to expect schools to spend any money at all on professional development for officials, especially in light of earlier evidence that athletic directors don't see the hiring of officials as an important aspect of their jobs? There is little literature that refers to the education or training of basketball officials. Education is that knowledge which an official gains through his own reading; watching televised games; or, private study of tune rules. Training on the other hand is the improvement of an offi- cials skills through interaction with other officials or qualified experts (Cherrington, 1982). Typically this might include a group viewing of a video taped game with a critical commentary. Other methods might utilize a clinical setting where officials actually work scrimmages in front of other officials and then receive constructive feedback following the workout (Cherrington, 1982). Ln any event there have been no formal studies into the relatunmhip between levels of education and training for officials and the degree of competence achieved. Traditional officiating courses, few as they are, simply provide students with rules and basic mechanics 22 necessary to officiate (Johnson, 1974). Previous offi- ciating experience is not necessary for instructors of officiating classes so long as they stick to the basic rules (Moss, 1979). What is lacking, however, is the psycho- logical aspects of the officiating task and the methods of dealing with the coaches (Moss, 1979). There is no instruc- tion regarding the principle of advantage-disadvantage, a basic, fundamental concept in the rules of basketball. The concept of advantage-disadvantage involves the "intent and purpose" of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in a play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage that is not intended by rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop that may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule (Steitz, 1985). Application of the rules requires a knowledge of time "spirit" of the rules which includes the advantage-dis- advantage principle. Lack of understanding with respect to the principle of advantage-disadvantage on the part of coaches and officials underlies the majority of conflicts which are created between the two (Atterbom, 1976). Continuing professional development is "recognized by all professionals as a necessity for keeping abreast of new knowledge and developments in their field" (Johnson, 1980). Considering that there are from five to fifteen rule changes each year, some major in their impact on the game, it is obvious that officials need to keep informed of the current 23 status of the rules; and, even more importantly, their interpretations. Professional growth activities are con- sidered essential in maintaining one's skills (Barth, 1979). Several studies have indicated that.au1 initial, one-time test, regardless of how it is administered, is not accept- able, as it allows for no professional development and provides no follow-up instruction (Dalton and Thompson, 1971; Hickam, 1970). There would be no guarantee of understanding new rule changes if a one-time test were used. Another reason for interest in professional development of officials is the recent realization that the test an official takes to initially register, provides only cursory knowledge for the beginning official. The knowledge gained is barely adequate for the beginner let alone an accom- plished official (Johnson, 1980). How should we educate and train officials? in) date, there has been no research on how, or even if, we should improve our education techniques for officials. There seems ‘to be little argument though that we will improve the quality of the educational experience for the athletes if we improve the officials who work the games (Dillon, 1978; VanRyan and Santelli, 1979; Saracen, 1971). Effective professional-development requires strategies for reaching agreement as to the goals and expectations of a development program (Eiken, 1977). The goals of a develop- ment program for officials would be to improve the competen— 24 cies of the officials as measured by some evaluation process. The expectations would include the desire for most, if not all, officials to take part in the program. The needs of the learner constitute the most important consideration in program planning (Tyler, 1950). This suggests that officials should be involved in the assessment of their own needs and the designing and implementing a training program. In addition to merely stating their needs, there may be other reasons for including the officials in the process of organizing some sort of professional development program. The introduction of a development program would represent a fundamental change 1J1 the existing practice of educating officials. The successful introduction of change iJnua an organization is a function of the feeling of influence the individuals feel they had on the adoption of the innovation (Coch, 1948; Likert, 1961; Miles, 1964). Innovations which are perceived as threats to existing practice rather tjmui mere additions to it are less likely of being accepted (Miles, 1964). Shared participation in the solution of problems affecting the group offers a meaningful method of motivat- ing change (Maier and Hoffman, 1964). By including offi- cials in the design of a developmental/educational program, the likelihood of success for the program would greatly increase. ren act. ful make (Jen fOr that 1977) methoc Clinic that a any 0f 25 Because officials are individuals and therefore have different needs, training and education are a: serious problem for planners of the training programs. The heart of development is the training program; therefore, the steps in the process of planning, implementing, and evaluating such a program are vitally important (Smith, 1980). Smith's 12 steps include: 1. Review staff-deveIOpment activities. 2. Establish needs. 3. Establish priorities. 4. Identify target group. 5. Plan the content. 6. Select training strategies. 7. Identify fiscal considerations. 8. Select trainers. 9. Select training site. 10. Arrange for time for the participants. 11. Design and implement evaluation strategy. 12. Implement activities. Smith's 12-point plan for staff-development is self- renewing in that following implementation, a review of the activities is initiated and the process repeats. Unsuccess- ful projects consistently rely on outside consultants, who make one-time presentations with little or no fOllow-up (Jenny, 1984). Although such presentations may be effective for transmitting information, there is little likelihood that they will do much to improve effectiveness (Oliver, 1977). This finding may have serious implications for the method in which the MHSAA currently conducts annual rules clinics, a topic to be covered later. The research predicts that a one hour rules summary has little chance of improving any officials performance. ath of off. many near just: that Criti eaSie Compa Offic: haVe enhanc job Pe 26 The Evaluation of Basketball Officials The purpose of evaluation is to provide information for making important decisions. The idea that a professional involved in education can perform a meaningful evaluation of his own performance is as absurd as the view that every psychologist is capable of evaluating his work with his own patients (Oliva, 1976). Could a person controlling a game which involves 10 athletes running at tOp speed, and covering 4500 square feet of floor space evaluate his own performance? Perhaps some officials can, but would such a method be effective for many? A frequent finding of behavioral scientists is that nearly everyone regards his own behavior as sensible and justifiable (Likert, 1961). No official is likely to say that he did a poor job of working a game or that the coach's criticisms of him were justified. For each party it is easiest to say that the other did not do a good job. Most employees recognize that good job performance is compatible with self—interest (Robbins, 1978). If an official does a good job on the court, he is more likely to have an easier time dealing with the coaches and will enhance his chances of being rehired next season. For this reason, an evaluation which could assist an official in his job performance may effect his development too. ic mc idt imp: imp: rewa Perfl to tr PerS; Cials offic. OffiC evalua C0116g they m T} proCGdL tYPe 0f 27 Evaluation has several purposes: (1) to guide us in personnel decisions such as hiring and firing, (2) to help in the determination of a rewards system, and (3) to identify training needs (Cherrington, 1982). As part of his model for evaluating educational processes, Bolton (1974) identified six reasons to evaluate: 1. To change goals. 2. To modify procedures. 3. To determine new implementations. 4. To improve performance. 5. To reward superior performance. 6. To provide for career planning. In theory, a sound evaluation program would promote improved performance (Robbins, 1978). .As performance improves that translates into more extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. From an officials viewpoint, rewarding superior performance might mean more assignments or even assignments to the state tournaments. From a coaching or administrative perspective it would mean having the most qualified offi- cials assigned to your games. Although not a primary consideration of the high school official, the credibility of a career ladder to collegiate officiating may also be enhanced by a sound high school evaluation procedure. Perhaps, if officials thought that college supervisors were considerate of high school ratings, they might be motivated to improve their performance. The issue of ratings is at the heart of the evaluation procedure for officials. The questions of not only what type of rating system should be used, but also who should do 28 the ratings are central to the issue. Currently, evalu- ations are done on basketball officials by each school the official works for in a given year. The evaluation consists of a strip of paper and provides a place for the official's name and ID number, as well as a number from one to five (one being excellent job, five being a poor job). Either the coach or the athletic director submits one rating per official regardless of the number of times an official may have worked for that school. The ratings are computerized by the MHSAA and a final "grand mean" of all ratings is sent to the official. There is no breakdown of what school sent what rating since individual ratings are not available to the official (MHSAA, 1985). This prevents an official from retaliating against a school for a poor rating. Other procedures are available and each has its positive and negative aspects. Classification procedures, similar to what is currently used, are possibly the quickest and easiest to use, but they are the most unreliable and biased as well (Cherrington, 1982). Classification procedures simply categorize individuals into one of several categories. The minimum number of categories is two and the maximum number is unlimited. If two categories were used the labels would be "high" and "low," With five categories, the labels are usually: excellent, good, average, fair and poor. 29 The major problem with classification procedures is the difficulty in defining each category. Each evaluator may have a different idea of what ”good" or “fair" is. Unless care- fully developed and closely monitored, classifi- cation procedures are of little value (Cherring- ton, 1982). The system currently in use can't be closely monitored due to the large number of schools and the even larger number of officials they are asked to rate. Graphic rating scales are used more frequently in evaluating performance than any other procedure (Bureau of National Affairs, 1975). Graphic rating scales appear in numerous forms and are used to evaluate both performance as well as personality characteristics. Although similar to current methods of evaluation, there is more than one category to rate. Typical characteristics might include appearance, communications, intelligence, decision making and attitude. With the exception of those characteristics prohibited by law, any character- istics may be used on the evaluation form (Camp- bell, 1970). Instead of having an official's performance being reduced to a single digit for the entire game, several categories could be used to give a more detailed evaluation and yield greater differentiation. (Hue Great Lakes Inter- colleiate Athletic Conference (GLIAC) currently uses a format (figure 2.1) which incorporates five categories, each equally weighted. The categories are: appearance, mech- anics, judgement-consistency, decisiveness and game control (GLIAC, 1985). 30 G L I A C Evaluation of Basketball Game Officials Game: at Date RATING SCALE 10 - Superior 9 - Excellent 8 - Very Good 7 - Good 6 - Above Average 5 - Average 4 - Below Average 3 - Fair 2 - Poor 1 - Unsatisfactory Referee Umpire APPEARANCE Proper and neat uniform - weight physical condition - speed & movement MECHANICS Use of approved signals - sharp & clear whistle - strong & controlled voice - floor position - teamwork JUDGEMENT - CONSISTENCY Use of hands - post play - screening block/charge - floor violations DECISIVENESS Firm & Clear GAME CONTROL Players - coaches - bench personnel scorers & timers - courteous reaction under pressure TOTAL - Maximum 50 Using 10 as difficult and 1 as an easy game to work, how do you rate this game? (Observer) 31 A separate category is included for the degree of (fifficulty of the contest (1—10). This allows for even further differentiation. Doing a good job in an easy game may then be equated in some way to doing an average job in a difficult game. One of the best methods of job performance evaluation is the critical incidents method (Flanagan, 1954). The requirements of a job are those behaviors that make a difference between doing the job competently or incompetent- Iy. Critical incidents are descriptions by qualified observers of behaviors that are especially effective or ineffective (Flanagan, 1954). Most coaches and adminis- trators could state or write what those requirements are for officials, but they would be diverse and difficult to consolidate. The critical incidents method requires that the rater-observer know and understand the job which he is rating. Another serious drawback to this method is that it cannot be quantified and computed by machine for rapid feedback (Cherrington,1982). Only a few officials would benefit from this system and that would violate a previously stated expectation of a development program for officials. Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) are very useful in evaluating personnel. BARS are about the same as graphic rating scales except that BARS are described more accurately than the graphic rating scales. ”Each rating, tvithin each category, is described on the rating form 32 inspiring greater agreement among evaluators. Evaluators observe behavior rather than subjective perceptions," (Cherrington, 1982). The research indicates that BARS are superior to most rating scales because they are more reliable and less biased (Campbell, Dunnelle, Darvey and Hellervik, 1973). The disadvantages are the time and effort required.tx) develop the scales. The entire officiating task must be analyzed including the interaction with coaches and administrators, two areas which are usually inaccessible to an observer. This method too, requires the observer to not only observe, but to understand the actions of an official under various circumstances. The evaluator is as critical as the instrument used in the evaluation. Studies have shown that the quality of the ratings improve when (1) the evaluators are trained in rating, (2) they interact with other evaluators, and (3) they know they will have to defend their ratings (Prather, 1974). Previously cited research has indicated that many athletic administrators are marginally qualified for their own jobs, and that coaches rarely know the rules of the game. Can either one of those groups be considered as "trained in evaluation?" Generally, interaction between coaches does not focus on the positive, qualitative evalu- ation of officials. Athletic directors don't see the hiring of officials as an important part of their job. The 33 procedure of mailing in slips of paper and having them computed to a grand mean also excludes the possibility of a school having to defend their rating. Cherrington (1982) found four priority qualifications for evaluators: l. The evaluator must know the job responsibilities of each person evaluated. 2. The evaluator must have accurate information about each person's performance. 3. The evaluator must have a standard by which to judge the adequacy of each persons performance. 4. The evaluator must be able to communicate the evalu- ations to the person and explain the basis on which they were judged. Current evaluators (coaches or athletic directors) probably do not know the job responsibilities of officials. Unlikely also is that evaluators have a uniform, predeter- mined standard by which to judge officials. Finally, evaluators do not communicate the results of the evaluation to the official because of the structure of the current process and the method of computing the rating. There is another problem for raters as well as offi- cials to consider. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence to suggest that raters tend to attribute a number of their own characteristics to the persons they rate. Hostile people tend to attribute more hostility ix: others than nonhostile people. The same relationship is obtained for ratings of friendliness by friendly and nonfriendly raters (Learly, 1957). Perceptual similarity is certainly 34 related to ratings of subordinates (Pulakos and wexley, 1982). The similar-to-me effect accounted for 26 percent of the variance in rating groups (Latham, Wexley and Pursell, 1975). Attitudinally dissimilar applicants in a simulated employment interview are perceived as being less competent and are offered lower salaries (Baskett, 1973). There may be implications of the similar-to-me effect for officials and the evaluation system. Perhaps officials can improve their ratings if they work in schools where the rater is similar in attitudes to the official. This might create somewhat of a conflict if it is assumed that offi- cials work for the purpose of contributing to the education— al experience of athletes. Such an assumption may be invalid if the similar-to-me effect becomes common knowledge among officials. The Michigan High School Athletic Association The Michigan High School Athletic Association is an organization of member schools. Currently 95+ percent of the schools in Michigan belong to the Association. (fine of its stated purposes is.tx) ”increase the educational value of interscholastic athletic programs throughout the state," (MHSAA, 1985). The MHSAA registers over 9,000 officials each year. Of this number over 1000 are registered in basketball (MHSAA, 1985). When a person desires to become an official, he/she writes to the MHSAA and for a $4 fee is sent an open-book 35 test of the rules. After completing the test and returning it to the MHSAA, the person is ”registered." This qualifies him/her to officiate any high school basketball game in the State of Michigan. The MHSAA requires member schools to "use in the sports concerned, only those athletic officials who are registered with the MHSAA for the current year" (MHSAA, 1985). Schools may determine who is registered by consulting the Officials thalletin, which is published annually. Schools which use officials who are not registered, risk being formally disciplined by the cmganization (excluded from tournament play). At the beginning of each basketball season, the MHSAA conducts a "rules meeting" where the rules changes for the current season are passed out. All officials are required to attend. If they do not, they are not assigned to tournament playu ‘There is no examination given or other testing done at this time. Officials are expected to learn the rules on their own, by doing so at home or with the assistance of some other group, class, or local Officials' association. Prior to tournament play a committee of athletic directors meets and selects those officials who will work the tournament games. In 1985, 711 officials were available to work. The criterion for assigning them to the games is listed in a memo to the committee (MHSAA C-3 40 86, 1986). 36 1. Avoid assignments to sites involving relatives. 2. Do not assign officials to more than one site. 3. Avoid assigning officials to their own city. 4. Avoid long-distance travel. 5. Check schedule to insure that the official has worked an adequate number of games i 1 the season. The Officials' schedules, rules meeting attendance record, number of ratings, average rating auui recommenda- tions from host schools are also available (MHSAA, 1986). These are used to resolve any question as to the level of play the official is used to working at or any conflicts with the sites which are requesting officials. If there is to be improvement in the competencies of basketball officials, what role must the MHSAA play? Gnu: MHSAA is an organization of professional educators who are aware of the rigors of educational planning and implemen- tation. They have as resources the time and personnel reeessary to modify the existing procedures in a manner which would be educationally sound. Role Conflicts Role conflict is a popular term used by sociologists to describe "problem situations resulting from multiple role obligations“ (Grace, 1972). The three groups of primary importance to this study, athletic directors, coaches, and officials, may all experience some degree of role conflict as described by the current research. It may also be important to understand the implications of role conflict for the three groups since role conflict may influence 37 the performance of members of each of the three groups as they interact with the other groups. The major types of role conflict have been identified as: 1. Interrole conflict - the noncompatability of two or more roles simultaneously fulfilled by an individual. 2. Inter-reference group conflict - disagreement in two or more reference groups in their expectations for the role of an individual. 3. Intra-reference group conflict - disagreement within a single reference group in their expecta- tions for the role of an individual. 4. Role-personality conflict - disagreements between the expectations for the role and the needs-dispo- sition of the individual. (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974). Each member of the three groups experiences varying «degrees of each type of role conflict with respect to the other two groups, as well as to "significant others" - school administrators, athletes, and parents. The success that an individual has in managing the conflicts may determine his/her effectiveness. A large majority of Michigan athletic directors are not full-time; rather, they are part-time along with other teaching/administrative duties. Studies have shown that the interrole conflicts imposed by dual responsibilities 38 have influenced individuals' effectiveness (Massengale, 1981). Leadership behavior was significantly different between part-time administrators and full-time administrators. The part-time adminis- trators actively assumed the role and were higher in resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. Conversely, the full-time administrators placed greater emphasis on productive output (Schreiner, 1968). When the athletic director must wear too many hats, perhaps the time committed to any one activity is diminish- Gui, thereby reducing the "productive output," and forcing him/her to utilize what time there is to put out fires. Coaches, too, wear many hats. They are usually teachers as well as coaches. "However desirable, it may be insufficient for the teacher/coach to give his or her best effort to these dual responsibilities" (Templin, 1981). Officials may face greater interrole conflict than do athletic directors and coaches. Since officials may not Ibe involved 1J1 the educational environment other than to officiate basketball games, they must be capable of handling two totally different roles. Officiating is only a hobby; and, when the interrole conflict is manifest, officiating may receive less attention. Possibly the most common and most easily recognizable conflict for any of the three groups is that of inter-refer- ence group conflict. There are several groups which each have different expectations of the athletic director's role. The principal and superintendent may expect the athleth: of fa at coa the may con: res; indi coaci reap dire? ethic kEep 1962, 9r8at Hafflei 39 director "to minimize expenditures and control the behavior of coaches" (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974). Coaches may expect the athletic: HH> H> > >H HHH HH H eoaomm ¢B¢D ZOHBflADmOm 52 prior information regarding how respondents might answer. In an initial study the respondents throughout the state would answer in similar fashion. Therefore, the standard deviation represents dispersions in scores of those individ- uals surveyed. Because there are different schools of thought within the state regarding officials, the variance of the responses was expected to be equal. The cost of conducting the survey in each stratum was equal since a one-time mailing has equivalent cost. For these reasons the sampling fraction depended only on the stratum population and tine overall population. Factors of cost and variance over different strata were eliminated. The sample number used was computed based upon a standard deviation of 1.25 (one-fourth of a five point range) and a bound of .25 (20% of one standard deviation) Scheaffer (1979) noted that the bound represents the maximum value of the error and a bound of .25 is considered small in this case. There is a: pOpulation of 700 athletic directors, 700 coaches and 850 officials. There are more officials registered for basketball in Michigan, but it was decided to limit the sample to those officials who had at least 16 .natings and therefore were eligible to work in the state tournaments. It further insured that the responses from officials were based upon knowledge of officiating and past experience and reduced the possibility of getting responses 53 from rookie officials who were unfamiliar with the current Michigan system. The sample size was 77 for athletic directors, 77 for coaches, and 89 for officials. The precision generated was greater tflun1 needed but there were considerations of cost versus resources. Since the informational resources of the MHSAA were available, the number in the sample did not really increase costs appreciably; and therefore, tine in- creased precision was a benefit to the study. Data Collection The questionnaire was sent to those officials, coaches (and athletic directors selected in the sample. They were sent the questionnaire in a large envelope addressed in letter-quality. Inside, along with the questionnaire, was included a stamped envelope for returning tine survey. Following an initial period of 14 days the response rate was in excess of 60 percent and increasing. Dr. Irvin Lehmann (Michigan State University), a noted expert in the field of sampling research, advised that the mailing of a planned follow up questionnaire be delayed pending a brief determi- nation of differences between the nonrespondents and those surveys already in. A check by telephone on a 20 percent sample of the nonrespondents indicated that there was no tangible difference between the rmuuespondents and those surveys already returned. Dr. Lehmann advised that the follow up survey be cancelled. This pmoved to be sound 54 advice as the final response rate reached 77 percent for the athletic directors, 71 percent for the coaches, and 57 percent for the officials. The response rate was exceptional for the random sampling technique. The successful response rate may be attributed in part to the fact that the surveys were sent to the athletic directors and coaches at their schools. This may have provided them with time to complete the survey and return it. The Officials' surveys were sent to their homes, making a return of the materials time consuming. In addition, the lower return rate for officials may be attributed to the greater turnover rate for officials than for coaches and athletic directors. Officials who are not tied to schools frequently move and may not have received the survey in the first place. Data Analysis This study employed the chi-square technique for determining differences among variables. The chi-square technique tests the significance of the differences between variables by comparing the difference between the actual counts in individual cells and the count which would be expected purely by chance. Kirk (1978) pointed out that the use of the chi-square test is for comparisons of independent samples which may be of unequal size and have no pairing of observations. l omnib diffel was r 0pth] and b were Chi- Sign term 55 The disadvantage of using this test was that it was an omnibus test, revealing differences but run:*where the differences were. If the null hypothesis for any question was rejected, then a descriptive analysis of time response options was done. Summary The attitudes of athletic directors, basketball coaches and baskeball officials relative to officiating competencies were determined using a nailed questionnaire. Tflua sample was selected based upon a stratified random samplimg technique with the stratifying variables being geographic regions within the state. Questions which determined attitudes concerning education, evaluation, game administra- tion and general game philosophy of officials were asked to all three groups. The results were analyzed using the chi-square test for differences. Those questions yielding significant differences were then analyzed jiildescriptive terms. tude bask conc thre and stat test chi- Pres Piec that reSp 6180 tab} tESt. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The purpose of this study was to determime the atti- tudes of high school athletic directors, high school basketball coaches, amd high school basketball officials concerning competencies of the basketball officials. The three groups were surveyed; and, the individuals responded to a series of questions related to the hiring, education, and evaluation of high school basketball officials. In this chapter each of the questions asked will be re- stated, along with a restatement of the hypothesis to be tested. Comparisons of the responses will be made using a chi-square test for differences with the results being presented in tabular form. Each of the cells in the chi-square table contain two pieces of data: (1) the number of respondents who chose that answer (M1 the survey, and (2) the proportion of respondents who chose that answer. The marginal data is also included so that a more in depth analysis is possible. Following each question, hypothesis, and chi-square table is a descriptive statement about the statistical testing and what it means. 56 x2 the ire Zhe .nt What is 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TABLE 2 Response 1 2 3 4 5 x2 = 11. your age group? Under 25 years 26-30 31-35 36-40 Over 40 years -- AGE 776; years years years Athletic Directors Question A 14 .23 33 .54 61 1.00 df = Coaches 24 .42 56 1.00 = 15.51 Officials 17 .33 24 .46 52 1.00 17 .10 32 .19 39 .23 81 .47 169 1.00 There is no significant difference among tine ages of the respondents. to late thirties and older. The respondents tend to be in their mid- This fact suggests that they are experienced and their answers are credible relative to the current procedures in Michigan. Further investigation into the level of experience of each group might confirm this fact. How 12: as dire Offi 58 Question B How many years experience do you have? 1. Less than 5 years 2. 6 - 10 years 3. 11 - 15 years 4. 16 - 20 years 5. More than 20 years TABLE 3 -- EXPERIENCE Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 4 14 1 19 .07 .25 .24 .11 2 11 14 13 38 .18 .25 .24 .22 3 15 11 12 38 .25 .19 .22 .22 4 9 9 14 32 .15 .16 .26 .19 5 21 9 14 44 .35 .16 .26 .26 60 57 54 171 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 21.971; df = 8; _95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups as to the level of experience of each. The athletic directors tended to be older, the coaches younger euui the officials were eveny spread across all age groups. The work of Lackey (1977) and Washburn (1980) pointed out the short tenure of coaches, and cited the reason for it as the inability of coaches to cope with the various role 59 conflicts. They concluded that coaches who are entering the coaching profession should expect a relatively short tenure. Question C Which statement best describes your status? 1. A certified teacher 2. A school administrator 3. Certified teacher, but coaching in another school 4. A non-certified employee of the school district 5. Not employed in education TABLE 4 -- STATUS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 10 41 8 59 .20 .73 .15 .37 2 37 6 4 47 .75 .11 .07 .30 3 1 2 0 3 .02 .04 .00 .02 4 1 0 3 4 .02 .00 .06 .03 5 O 7 39 46 .00 .13 .72 .29 49 56 54 159 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 140.97; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups as to the status of each. The athletic directors are school administrators, the coaches are generally teachers and the officials are usually not in education. The data confirms that coaches are also teachers and, therefore, may experience the dual role conflicts described 60 by Templin (1981). Because officials are not professional educators, they may also experience role conflict with both the athletic directors and coaches. QUESTION 1 How essential are officials to a positive learning atmos- phere for players, during a game? 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important nor unimportant 4. Unimportant 5. Very unimportant HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to the importance of officials to a positive learning atmosphere during a game. TABLE 5 -- NEED FOR OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 45 33 31 109 .76 .60 .60 .66 2 11 20 21 52 .19 .37 .40 .31 3 3 2 0 5 .05 .03 .00 .03 4 0 0 0 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 5 0 0 0 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 59 55 52 166 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 8.887; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is no significant difference among the three groups as to the importance of officials to a positive learning atmosphere. All three groups responded that 61 officials were at least "somewhat important" and two-thirds responded that officials were "very important." This agrees with the findings of Dillon (1978) VanRyan and Santelli (1979) that individuals working and with students represent a significant element in the learning environment. Question 2 How often do you feel that officials contribute positive learning atmosphere while involved in a game? 1. Always 2. Frequently 3. Sometimes 4. Almost never 5. Never Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to the frequency of official contributions to the learning atmosphere during a contest. TABLE 6 -- FREQUENCY OF OFFICIAL CONTRIBUTIONS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 5 5 10 .08 .08 .19 2 29 22 24 .48 .40 .46 3 25 20 16 .42 .36 .31 4 1 8 2 .02 .15 .04 5 0 O 0 .00 .00 .00 60 55 52 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 12.79; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 toa 20 .12 75 .45 61 .37 ll .07 167 1.00 62 There is no significant difference among the three groups as to the contribution of officials txnla positive learning atmosphere. Officials at least "sometimes" contributed positively, and almost half the respondents said that officials "frequently" contributed. Several personality factors possessed by adult athletes were identified by Kroll (1967), Foster (1971), and Cooper (1969). If officials are considered athletes, then the positive changes in emotional stability, conscience develop- ment, tough-mindedness, and a decrease in apprehension (Ogilvie, 1967) might be the traits which schools wish to impart to their athletes. Question 3 To what degree do you feel that officials are motivated in their jobs by their dedication to young athletes. 1. Very dedicated 2. Dedicated 3. Concerned 4. Unconcerned 5. Dedication is non-existent Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to the degree of motivation officials possess for dedication to athletes. 63 TABLE 7 -- DEDICATION OF OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 3 2 12 17 .05 .04 .24 .10 2 19 8 23 50 .32 .14 .45 .30 3 30 35 13 78 .50 .63 .25 .47 4 8 7 3 18 .13 .13 .06 .11 5 0 4 0 4 .00 .07 .00 .02 60 56 51 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 39.09; df = 8; .95x23 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups as to the degree of motivation officials possess for their dedication to athletes. Officials feel they are "dedicated" and the athletic directors and coaches feel the officials are only "concerned." Very few of any group thought the officials were "very dedicated.” Question 4 Some officials phone or write to a school in) secure game contracts. How do you View this practice? 1. Unacceptable in any form 2. Unacceptable, but necessary 3. No opinion, don't deal with hiring officials 4. Acceptable because schools can still refuse 5. Perfectly acceptable. It saves time and money. HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning the methods used to hire officials. 64 TABLE 8 -- SOLICITING GAMES Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 4 13 9 26 .07 .24 .17 .15 2 2 8 18 28 .03 .15 .35 .17 3 1 13 1 15 .02 .24 .02 .09 4 39 17 14 70 .64 .31 .27 .42 5 15 4 10 29 .25 .07 .19 .17 61 55 52 168 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 58.88; df = 8 .95x28 = 15.51 ‘0 There is significant difference among the three groups concerning the methods used to hire officials. The athletic directors believe that the practice of calling for games is acceptable; but, coaches and officials indicate that the practice is not acceptable. The officials believe that although the practice is unacceptable, it is necessary under the current situation. The responses by the athletic directors appear to indicate an interrole conflict as described by Lipham and Hoeh (1974). 'The athletic directors may be wearing "too many hats“ and accept the solicitation of games as a time-saving measure. The responses by the athletic directors also indicate that, perhaps, they do not View the hiring of officials as a top priority of their jobs. 65 The National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association (1985) and the Secondary Schools Principals Association (1983) found that a signifi- cant number of athletic directors do not View the hiring of officials as "important." Question 5 Who do you feel is primarily responsible for providing (hiring) officials? 1. The 2. The 3. The 4. The 5. The Ho: There TABLE 9 -- RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIRING OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 31 17 18 .53 .31 .35 2 0 0 1 .00 .00 .02 3 19 27 22 .33 .49 .43 4 5 9 9 .09 .16 .18 5 3 2 1 .05 .04 .02 58 55 51 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 10.76; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 athletic director coach athletic director with help from the coach conference or league secretary local Officials' will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to who is responsible for hiring officials. organization 66 .40 .41 66 There is no significant difference among the three groups as to who is responsible for hiring officials. All three groups believe that the athletic director has the greatest responsibility; but, coaches and officials indicate that the coaches ought to have input to the process. The hiring process may be the single most important activity of time athletic director (Engle and Frederichs, 1980). This data seems to indicate that athletic directors, coaches and officials agree. Question 6 Do you agree with the MHSAA requirement that all head coaches attend an annual rules meeting? 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups that all head coaches attend an annual rules meeting. 67 TABLE 10 -- HEAD COACHES ATTENDANCE AT RULES MEETING Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 47 36 49 132 .78 .65 .94 .79 2 11 10 3 24 .18 .18 .06 .14 3 1 1 O 2 .02 .02 .00 .01 4 0 5 0 5 .00 .09 .00 .03 5 1 3 0 4 .02 .05 .00 .02 60 55 52 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 21.31; df = 8; ,95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups that all head coaches attend an annual rules meeting. Although there appears to be very strong support for the idea of coaches attending, there is enough disagreement on the part of the coaches themselves to be statistically significant. The responses indicate that the three groups feel that cmaches' attendance at the meetings is important. This agrees with the findings of Dillon (1978), Johnson (1980), and Barth (1979) as they indicated the need for continual professional development for anyone involved in the educa- tional process. 68 The disagreement found between some coaches may be due to an interrole conflict (Liphanlanui Hoeh, 1974). They may not see their role as requiring great rule knowl- edge, but rather rule knowledge as the role of officials. QUESTION 7 Do you agree with the MHSAA requirement that all officials attend an annual rules meeting? 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. No opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups that all officials attend an annual rules meeting. TABLE 11 -- OFFICIALS ATTENDANCE AT RULES MEETING Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 54 49 50 153 .93 .89 .96 .93 2 3 3 2 8 .05 .05 .04 .05 3 1 1 0 2 .02 .02 .00 .01 4 0 2 0 2 .00 .04 .00 .01 5 0 0 0 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 58 55 52 165 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 5.23; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 69 There is no significant difference among the three groups that all officials attend an annual rules meeting. There is very strong support across all three groups for the current attendance requirement. This data also agrees with the findings of Johnson (1980) and Barth (1979), citing the need for professional develOpment for officials. The rules meetings will at least transmit information to officials (Oliver, 1977). Question 8 Do you agree that attendance at one rules meeting is enough? 1. Enough for coaches and officials 2. Enough for coaches, but officials should attend more 3. Both coaches and officials should attend more 4. Enough for officials, but coaches should attend more 5. Eliminate the meeting requirement altogether HO: There will 1x3 no difference in attitudes among the three groups tht attendance at (Hue rules meeting per year is sufficient for both coaches and officials. 70 TABLE 12 -- MEETING ATTENDANCE FOR COACHES AND OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 34 21 22 77 .59 .38 .42 .47 2 16 22 8 46 .28 .40 .15 .27 3 8 8 20 36 .14 01.5 .38 .22 4 0 1 2 3 .00 .02 .04 .02 5 0 3 0 3 .00 .05 .00 .02 58 55 52 165 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 26.53; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups that attendance at one rules meeting per year is sufficient for both coaches and officials. Athletic directors are satisfied; coaches prefer to have officials attend more rules meetings; and, officials who are not satisfied believe that both coaches app officials should attend more rules meetings. Coaches, like officials, need continual professional development. The research by Engle (1976) implies that if coaches did know the rules better, then perhaps it would reduce conflicts with officials. Currently, a written, 71 QUESTION 9 Open-book test is required of all officials who register for the first time. How do you feel about this procedure? The test should be eliminated The test should be closed-book The test should be administered, open-book, again during the season The test should be administered, closed-book, again during the season The present situation is fine HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning the open-book test for initial registration of officials. TABLE 13 -- ATTITUDE TO OPEN-BOOK TEST Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 2 2 0 4 .03 .04 .00 .02 2 21 22 10 53 .35 .40 .20 .32 3 6 5 13 24 .10 .09 .25 .14 4 12 6 7 25 .20 .11 .14 .15 5 19 20 21 6O .32 .36 .41 .36 60 55 51 166 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 14.08; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning the open-book test for initial registra- tion. The groups are either satisfied with the present, open-book format or they favor changing to a closed-book format. There is little support for inseason testing. 72 The use of tests to determine job related knowledge was described by Lawshe and Balma (1966) and was found to be appropriate for determining future job performance by Cherrington (1982). Question 10 What is your Opinion regarding the testing Of officials who are renewing their registration. 1. No testing is necessary 2. Test with the Open-book format 3. Test with the closed-book format 4. Test, closed-book, and publish the results 5. No Opinion HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning the testing of Officials who are renewing their registration. TABLE 14 -- TESTING RENEWING OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 8 10 9 27 .13 .19 .18 .16 2 19 14 24 57 .32 .26 .47 .35 3 22 19 11 52 .37 .35 .22 .32 4 8 8 5 21 .13 .15 .10 .13 5 3 3 2 8 .05 .06 .04 .05 60 54 51 165 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 7.19; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 73 There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning the testing of officials who are renewing their registration. of the Open-book format and the closed-book format. finding is similar to the findings for new officials. Question 11 The groups are Split between the use This If finances permitted, would you support a closed-book test for Officials semi-annually, prior to and during the season. 1. Strongly support 2. Support 3. NO opinion 4. Prefer no change in present procedures 5. Strongly prefer no change in present procedure In): There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning support for a closed- book test. TABLE 15 —- SUPPORT FOR A CLOSED-BOOK TEST Athletic Response Directors Coaches 1 15 11 .25 .20 2 28 24 .47 .43 3 4 11 .07 .20 4 10 9 .17 .16 5 2 1 .03 .02 59 56 1.00 1.00 x2 = 19.74; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 Officials 12 .23 15 .29 2 .04 18 .35 52 1.00 38 .23 67 .40 17 .10 37 .22 167 1.00 74 There is significant difference among the three groups concerning support for a closed-book test. Athletic directors and coaches generally support the use of a closed-book test; however, Officials are satisfied with the present, Open-book test. Question 12 What group or organization has the greatest responsibility for educating officials? 1. Michigan High School Athletic Association 2. Local Officials' organization 3. Schools (conferences, leagues) 4. Officials themselves 5. Private groups (clinics, university classes) Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to who has the greatest responsibility for educating officials. TABLE 16 -- RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFICIALS' EDUCATION Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 39 33 16 88 .70 .60 .31 .54 2 6 11 16 33 .11 .20 .31 .20 3 1 1 0 2 .02 .02 .00 .01 4 9 9 19 37 .16 .16 .37 .23 5 1 1 1 3 .02 .02 .02 .02 56 55 52 163 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 20.85; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 75 There is significant difference among the three groups as to who has the greatest responsibility for educating officials. Athletic directors and coaches believe that the MHSAA has the greatest responsibility. Officials are divided. Some officials believe that the MHSAA is respon- sible but others believe that the officials themselves are responsible, through an association or completely by them- selves. The views of the athletic directors and coaches may be explained by interrole conflict, the idea that athletic directors and coaches are already wearing too many hats. Educating officials should not be another. Interreference group conflict may also be a factor. The coaches and athletic directors may View educating officials as not their role, but rather the role Of the MHSAA. The research indicates that perhaps clinics and group sessions with other officials may be of some benefit (Moss, 1979). Education can take place in the presence of recog- nized expert -other officials (Cherrington, 1982). Question 13 How effective do you feel that local Officials' organiza- tions are in educating their members as to the rules of the game? 1. Very effective 2. Only somewhat effective 3. Not effective 4. Don't know 5. Ineffective and counterproductive, teaching the incorrect interpretations of some rules 76 HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to the effectiveness of local Officials' organizations in educating their members. TABLE 17 -- EFFECTIVENESS OF OFFICIALS' ORGANIZATIONS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 8 6 14 28 .13 .11 .27 .17 2 37 25 28 9O .62 .45 .54 .54 3 8 15 5 28 .13 .27 .10 .17 4 6 9 5 20 .10 .16 .10 .12 5 1 0 0 1 .02 .00 .00 .01 60 55 52 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 14.88; df II (D ‘0 .95X28 = 15.51 There is no Significant difference among the three groups as to the effectiveness of local Officials' organiza- tions in educating their members. The three groups believe that the organizations are "somewhat effective” in educating members. The groups do not believe the organizations are counterproductive; and, suggest that Officials' organiza- tions could play an important role in the education process. This conclusion reflects Cherrington's finding that associa- tion with an expert (other Officials) is beneficial (1982). 77 Question 14 What do you think is the primary motive for Officials to improve themselves? 1. Work better games 2. Work tournaments 3. Earn more money 4. Self-gratification 5. Do a better job for athletes and coaches H0: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to the primary motive for officials to work games. TABLE 18 -- OFFICIALS' MOTIVE FOR IMPROVEMENT Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 17 11 14 42 .30 .20 .27 .26 2 9 10 6 25 .16 .18 .12 .15 3 9 17 0 26 .16 .30 .00 .16 4 12 7 28 47 .21 .13 .55 .29 5 9 11 3 23 .16 .20 .06 .14 56 56 51 163 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 39.51; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is Significant difference among the three groups as to the motive of officials to work games. The athletic directors and coaches responded across all categories. Officials believe they improve themselves for reasons of self-gratification. Doing a better job for coaches and athletes was the least important reason for improvement. 78 Considering the possibility of a role-personality conflit (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974), vflua but officials them- selves, know what their own needs dispositions are? Each Official may officiate for different reasons and receive different levels of satisfaction from it. Question 15 How would you react to the statement, “The MHSAA is doing an adequate job in educating Officials." l. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. NO Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups in their reaction to the adequacy of the MHSAA in educating Officials. TABLE 19 -- THE MHSAA AND OFFICIALS' EDUCATION Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 3 2 3 8 .05 .04 .06 .05 2 12 20 21 53 .20 .36 .40 .32 3 9 7 4 20 .15 .13 .08 .12 4 27 22 16 65 .45 .39 .31 .39 5 9 5 8 22 .15 .09 .15 .13 60 56 52 168 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 8.27; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 79 There is no significant difference among the three groups in their reaction to the adequacy of time MHSAA in educating officials. Athletic directors tended to be less satisfied and officials more satisfied with the MHSAA. None of the groups indicated strong feelings. Question 16 Would you favor the release of written test scores as a condition of registration for Officials. 1. Strongly favor 2. Favor 3. NO opinion 4. Against 5. Strongly against HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups in their opinion of releasing test scores as a condition of registration. TABLE 20 -- PUBLICATION OF TEST SCORES Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 7 10 7 24 .12 .18 .13 .14 2 17 13 8 38 .29 .23 .15 .23 3 12 14 9 35 .20 .25 .17 .21 4 18 15 18 51 .31 .27 .35 .31 5 5 4 10 19 .08 .07 .19 .11 59 56 52 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 8.42 df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 80 There is no Significant difference among the three groups in their Opinion of releasing test scores as a condition of registration. There is no clear evidence of a preference to release test scores. There are equal numbers in favor of, and against the release of the scores. Releasing the scores might induce the "dither effect" (Pelz, 1967) and increase conflict for the officials. Interreference group conflict if athletic directors used the scores in the selection process and intrareference group conflict if officials scrutinized each others scores (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974). Question 17 Do you know how the MHSAA currently evaluates officials? 1. I understand and agree with the method 2. I understand, but disagree with the method 3. I would like some other method than we now have 4. NO method Of evaluation works 5. I do not understand the current method Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to their understanding of the current evaluation procedures for officials. 81 TABLE 21 -- KNOWLEDGE OF MHSAA EVALUATION PROCEDURES Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 18 12 5 35 .30 .22 .10 .21 2 13 18 18 49 .21 .33 .35 .29 3 27 18 19 64 .44 .33 .37 .38 4 0 0 2 2 .00 .00 .04 .01 5 3 7 7 17 .05 .13 .14 .10 61 55 51 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is Significant difference among the three groups as to their understanding of the current evaluation proce- dures for officials. Although the differences are statis- tically significant, the three groups indicated that they either disagree with the current method of evaluation or would like some other method. Since few selected the "no evaluation" Option, it appears that all three groups would like some new form of evaluation procedure. 82 Question 18 Who do you think is best qualified to evaluate officials? 1. Athletic directors 2. Coaches 3. Other Officials 4. MHSAA personnel 5. Some combination of the above HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to who is best qualified to evaluate Officials. TABLE 22 -- WHO SHOULD EVALUATE Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 4 0 2 6 .07 .00 .04 .04 2 9 14 1 24 .15 .25 .02 .14 3 3 7 16 26 .05 .13 .31 .15 4 1 3 0 4 .02 .05 .00 .02 5 44 32 32 108 .72 .57 .63 .64 61 56 51 168 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 31.00; df = 8 .95x23 = 15.51 ‘0 There is significant difference among the three groups as to who is best qualified to evaluate officials. The three groups seem to prefer a combination of athletic directors, coaches, officials, and MHSAA staff. Officials seem to prefer, to some extent, the use of other Officials in) do the evaluating. None of the groups had much confi- dence in the MHSAA or athletic directors as sole evaluators. 83 Ratings from several sources would have questionable reliability (Carlson, Thayer, Mayfield, and Paterson, 1971). If there were to be a combination of evaluators as indicated by the responses, then the goal of reliable ratings might be compromised. The data indicates poor confidence in evaluations by athletic directors and the MHSAA personnel; yet, those are the groups who currently determine and select which offi- cials will work the tournaments (MHSAA 1986). Question 19 What type of rating system would you favor? 1. Single digit, one rating per year per school 2. Single digit, but rate as often as an Official has that school during the season 3. A written comments form without numbers 4. A numerical scale with several categories 5. No evaluation should be done In): There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to the type of rating system they each prefer. 84 TABLE 23 -- TYPE OF RATING SYSTEM Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 11 11 7 29 .20 .20 .15 .18 2 12 12 13 37 .22 .23 .25 .23 3 11 13 12 36 .20 .23 .25 .23 4 20 18 16 54 .37 .32 .33 .34 5 0 2 0 2 .00 .04 .00 .01 54 56 48 158 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 5.04; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is no Significant difference among the three groups as to the type of rating system each prefers. The three groups seem to prefer a numerical rating system that involves more than one category. There is also some support for rating officials more than once per year. The lack of responses to ”no evaluation" indicates that all three groups believe that some type Of evaluation system is needed. The respondents agree with the research findings. Evaluation is necessary to promote improved job performance (Robbins, 1978). The single digit, classification proce- dures which lack reliabliity (Cherrington, 1982) anni were rejected by the respondents. The three groups tended to prefer the numerical scale with several categories. Their 85 preference Of the graphic rating scale would improve reliability and validity while at the same time Offer speed of computation (Cherrington, 1982). Question 20 How do you react to the statement, "Ratings should determine tournament assignments." 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree H0: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning the use of ratings to determine tournament assignments. TABLE 24 -- RATINGS AND TOURNAMENT ASSIGNMENTS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 12 18 5 35 .20 .32 .10 .21 2 30 24 19 73 .51 .43 .37 .44 3 5 3 4 12 .08 .05 .08 .07 4 10 8 21 39 .17 .14 .41 .23 5 2 3 2 7 .03 .05 .04 .04 59 56 51 166 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 18.10; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is Significant difference among the three groups concerning the use Of ratings to determine tournament assignments. Athletic directors, coaches, auui some Offi- 86 cials support.tflua'use of ratings to determine tournament assignments. Nearly one-third of the coaches ”strongly" supported the use of ratings. However the majority of Officials rejected the use of ratings in this manner. Some of the uses for an evaluation system are: to provide information for selection of personnel, and the determination of a rewards system (Cherrington, 1982). Therefore, using ratings for selection purposes would be acceptable if not desireable. Coaches indicated a strong preference for time use of ratings. Perhaps this is due to the inter-reference group conflicts posed by the pressure to "win" (Templin and Washburn, 1981). In order to win, they may believe that they need the best Officials possible (Lackey, 1977). Question 21 How do you think officials should be compensated? 1. By each school setting its own pay scale 2. By a pay scale based on test scores and ratings 3. By a scale set by the local Officials' organization 4. By a state-wide scale set by the MHSAA 5. By a percentage of the gate receipts Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to how Officials Should be compensated. 87 TABLE 25 -- METHOD OF COMPENSATING OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 30 14 12 56 .53 .24 .24 .34 2 2 6 0 8 .04 .10 .00 .05 3 3 5 11 19 .05 .08 .22 .11 4 22 34 26 82 .39 .58 .51 .49 5 0 0 2 2 .00 .00 .04 .01 57 59 51 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 29.32; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups as to how Officials should be compensated. Athletic directors want to set their own scale or, at least, have the MHSAA set the scale. The coaches and Officials prefer to have the MHSAA set the scale. Research supports the use of evaluations as a legiti- mate factor in the determination Of rewards (Cherring- ton, 1982 and Bolton, 1974). 88 Question 22 How do you react to the statement, ”Officials should be an integral part of summer camps for the purpose of interaction with coaches and athletes." This assumes no payment for the officials. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning the officials in summer camps. TABLE 26 -- OFFICIALS AND SUMMER CAMPS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 5 11 1 17 .08 .20 .02 .10 2 19 16 9 44 .31 .29 .18 .26 3 8 12 6 26 .13 .22 .12 .16 4 22 14 25 61 .36 .25 .49 .37 5 7 2 10 19 .11 .04 .20 .11 61 55 51 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 23.04; df = 8 ‘0 .95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups concerning the officials in summer camps. Coaches and athletic directors are divided; Officials disagree with the idea of being involved with summer camps. 89 The Officials disagreement may represent a role-person- ality conflict. Their self-perceived role as officials may also require them to be paid (Ritzer, 1977). Question 23 Should Officials be able to use a school's game films for self-evaluation? 1. Yes, but coaches should be present to comment 2. Yes, but it should be private for the officials 3. NO Opinion 4. Not a good idea, but if Officials desire, Ok 5. Officials Should not use school films Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning Officials use of schools' game films. TABLE 27 -- OFFICIALS' USE OF GAME FILMS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 11 22 5 38 .18 .40 .10 .23 2 39 26 38 103 .65 .47 .73 .62 3 3 3 0 6 .05 .05 .00 .04 4 4 2 5 11 .07 .04 .10 .07 5 3 2 4 9 .05 .04 .08 .05 60 55 52 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 19.73 = 8; = 15.51 concerning Officials use of schools' groups support the use Of game films by officials. There is significant difference among the three groups game films. All three The 90 difference between groups is found when coaches are present to make comments. Officials do not want coaches present. The literature supports these findings. When Officials use the films to study or to educate themselves, they realize greater improvement if cxitiqued by a recognized expert (Cherrington, 1982); and, coaches would not qualify as experts since they do not know the rules themselves (Engle, 1976). (Engle, 1976). Question 24 If the system of evaluation were changed, some form of additional cost might be incurred. How would you suggest the additional cost of a revised ratings system be funded? 1. Schools increase their membership dues to the MHSAA 2. Officials registration fees would increase 3. A combination of the above two methods 4. The MHSAA would absorb the cost within its budget 5. I don't want to change the present system In): There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning the source of funding for a revised ratings system. 91 TABLE 28 -- COST OF REVISED RATING SYSTEM Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 6 4 7 17 .11 .07 .14 .11 2 7 10 4 21 .13 .19 .08 .13 3 15 21 23 59 .27 .39 .45 .37 4 24 16 13 53 .43 .30 .25 .33 5 4 3 4 11 .07 .06 .08 .07 56 54 51 161 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 8.78; df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning the source Of funding for a revised rating system. All three groups support spreading out the costs with a slight preference for the MHSAA absorbing the costs in its budget. From what source does the MHSAA generate its funds? Usually it is from membership dues and Officials' registration fees. 92 Question 25 WOuld you be willing to serve on a committee to evaluate and possibly revise the evaluation system for officials? 1. Absolutely 2. Probably 3. Maybe 4. Probably not 5. Definately not HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning their willingness to participate on a committee to revise the system. TABLE 29 -- COMMITTEE TO REVISE EVALUATIONS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 23 17 27 67 .38 .31 .52 .40 2 19 17 11 47 .32 .31 .21 .28 3 9 17 8 34 .15 .31 .15 .20 4 7 3 3 13 .12 .05 .06 .08 5 2 1 3 6 .03 .02 .06 .04 60 55 52 167 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 11.81 df II CD ‘0 .95x28 = 15.51 There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning their willingness to participate on a committe to revise the evaluation system. All three groups indicated they would "probably" serve on a committee. Over cme-half the Officials responded that they ”absolutely” would serve. This may mean that they all consider evalu- 93 ation important enough to devote their own time to a modification Of the system. Very few respondents were not willing to serve on a committee. Question 26 Are you satisfied with the current procedures for evaluation of officials? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. No Opinion 4. Dissatisfied 5. Very dissatisfied HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to their satisfaction with the present system of evaluation. TABLE 30 -- SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT EVALUATIONS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 1 0 1 2 .02 .00 .02 .01 2 20 16 ll 47 .34 .29 .21 .28 3 6 3 3 12 .10 .05 .06 .07 4 24 29 28 81 .41 .53 .54 .49 5 8 7 9 24 .13 .13 .17 .14 59 55 52 166 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 5.39 df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is no Significant difference among the three groups concerning their satisfaction with the present system Of evaluation. Two-thirds of all respondents 94 indicated they are either "dissatisfied" or "very dissatis- fied" with the present system. Question 27 How well do officials apply the rules? 1. Very well 2. Usually ok, the few mistakes seldom have an effect on the outcome of the game 3. Some Officials know the rules, but many others don't 4. Officials as a whole don't know the rules 5. Officials may know the rules, but prefer to call a game based on their own interpretation of a rule HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning how well Officials apply the rules. TABLE 31 -- OFFICIALS' APPLICATION OF THE RULES Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 5 2 9 16 .08 .04 .17 .09 2 31 23 28 82 .51 .42 .53 .49 3 16 18 12 46 .26 .33 .23 .27 4 0 0 0 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 5 9 12 4 25 .15 .22 .08 .15 61 55 53 169 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 10.78 df = 8; .95x23 = 15.51 There is no Significant difference among the three groups concerning how well officials apply the rules. All three groups believe that officials know most of the rules 95 and are willing to accept the few circumstances when they don't. Question 28 How well do you know the current rules? 1. Very well, I am/could be a knowledgeable Official 2. Better than most of my colleagues 3. About the same as most of my colleagues 4. Just well enough to get by 5. Hardly at all H0: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to their knowledge of the rules. TABLE 32 -- KNOWLEDGE OF CURRENT RULES Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 12 19 21 52 .20 .35 .50 .33 2 21 14 7 42 .34 .25 .17 .27 3 26 21 14 61 .43 .38 .33 .39 4 1 1 0 2 .02 .02 .00 .01 5 1 O 0 1 .02 .00 .00 .01 61 55 42 158 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 X?- 12.89 df = 8; .95X28 = 15.51 There is no Significant difference among the three groups as to how well they know the rules. All say they know the rules at least as well as their colleagues. Over one-third of the coaches indicate they know the rules as 96 well as officials. Only one-half of the Officials consider themselves as ”knowledgeable." There may be some indication of role conflict within these responses. It appears that no group wants to admit to less knowledge than his/her colleagues. Possibly an intra-reference group role conflict exists (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974). The coaches' response that they know the rules is contrary to the research (Engle, 1976). QUESTION 29 What is your reaction to "poor officiating?" 1. I usually discuss it with the official after the game 2. I voice my Opinion immediately, even during the game 3. I don‘t say anything 4. I delegate a third party to discuss it with the official 5. I usually just discuss it with some of my colleagues IQ): There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to their reaction to ”poor Officiating." 97 TABLE 33 -- REACTION TO "POOR OFFICIATING" Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 28 18 24 7O .48 .33 '.50 .43 2 8 27 2 37 .14 .49 .04 .23 3 10 7 9 26 .17 .13 .19 .16 4 3 2 0 5 .05 .04 .00 .03 5 9 1 13 23 .16 .02 .27 .14 58 55 48 161 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 42.61 df II (I) ‘0 .95x28 = 15.51 There is Significant difference among the three groups as txa their reaction to ”poor officiating.” Athletic directors and Officials generally choose to discuss it after the game; and, coaches prefer to voice their Opinions immediately. These results may indicate that athletic directors and officials have duties tht preclude them from immediate discussions; and, that coaches are experiencing an inter- reference group role conflict as a result of the "win" pressures (Templin and Washburn, 1981). The conflict may even be role-personality based if the coach has imposed the ”win” mindset on him/herself (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974). 98 Question 30 What is your reaction to "good Officiating?" 1. I compliment the official after the game 2. I compliment the official during the game 3. I don‘t say anything 4. I use a third party to compliment the official 5. I pass the good word with my colleagues Ho: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to their reaction to "good Officiating." TABLE 34 -- REACTION TO "GOOD OFFICIATING" Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 46 43 37 126 .81 .81 .76 .79 2 7 8 8 23 .12 .15 .16 .14 3 3 0 2 5 .05 .00 .04 .03 4 1 0 0 1 .02 .00 .00 .01 5 0 2 2 4 .00 .04 .04 .03 57 53 49 159 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 7.09 df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 groups as to their reaction to There is no significant difference among the three "good officiating." All three groups prefer to compliment the Official following the game. Unlike the reaction to "poor Officiating," there is no desire to use a third party to express the reaction to a job well done. 99 Question 31 How do you feel Officials handle controversial calls? HO: 1. They communicate well with both benches 2. They may answer if they are close to the bench 3. Officials generally avoid contact with the benches in these situations 4. Officials listen with one ear and what the coach says goes out the other 5. Officials are defensive and condescending to coaches There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning the ability of Officials to handle controversial calls. TABLE 35 -- CONTROVERSIAL CALLS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 15 6 14 35 .25 .11 .30 .22 2 17 8 12 37 .29 .15 .26 .23 3 21 23 15 59 .36 .43 .32 .37 4 3 3 3 9 .05 .06 .06 .06 5 3 13 3 19 .05 .25 .06 .12 59 53 47 159 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 18.34 df = 8; ,95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups concerning the ability of Officials to handle controversial calls. All three groups generally believed that officials either communicated with the benches or avoided the benches. The data suggests that officials may experience a role-personality conflict during periods of controversy. 100 If the official believes that he/She can experience a positive interaction with the coaches then they may be likely to communicate with the benches. On the other hand, if the official believes that the discussion would be negative, he/she may be likely to avoid the benches (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974). Coaches who are under pressure to win, may interpret this behavior as condescending and defensive. Question 32 How often do you communicate with officials regarding the applications of rules and game control? 1. Very often, frequently outside the season 2. Often, but only during the season 3. Often, but only at games, during the season 4. Only when necessary 5. Rarely, if at all H0: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to the frequency of communica- tions with Officials. 101 TABLE 36 -- COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 12 15 17 44 .20 .27 .35 .27 2 4 11 22 37 .07 .20 .45 .23 3 10 14 4 28 .17 .25 .08 .17 4 24 9 3 36 .40 .16 .06 .22 5 10 6 3 19 .17 .11 .06 .12 6O 55 49 164 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 42.34 df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is significant difference among the three groups as to the frequency of communication with Officials. A majority of athletic directors communicate vfiifli Officials "only when necessary." Coaches communicate more Often; and, officials communicate with each other "very often, frequently outside the season." The results Of the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Survey (1985) are reflected in these data. Athletic directors may not have contact with officials; because they, the athletic directors, dO not see cmricials as a priority of their jobs - even though the hiring of officials Should be the primary activity of the athletic director (Engel and Frederichs, 1980). 102 Question 33 If asked to name five Officials to work the state finals, knowing that your name would be on the recommendation, could you name five? 1. Very easily 2. Easily 3. Maybe, 4. I doubt it 5. Definitely not if I thought for a long time HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups concerning their ability to name five Officials to work the state finals. TABLE 37 -- NAMING OFFICIALS TO THE STATE FINALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials 1 27 19 23 69 .45 .34 .47 .42 2 21 19 10 50 .35 .34 .20 .30 3 11 9 11 31 .18 .16 .22 .19 4 1 7 2 10 .02 .13 .04 .06 5 0 2 3 5 .00 .04 .06 .03 60 56 49 165 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 13.60 df = 8; _95x28 = 15.51 There is no significant difference among the three groups as to their ability to name five Officials to work the state finals. All three groups indicated that it would be at least "easy" to name five. Perhaps five is too small a number and doesn't yield a great enough differentiation. 103 Question 34 Which statement best reflects your view of officials? 1. Good people, doing a tough job for demanding coaches 2. People pursuing a hobby which affects tine careers of coaches and the lives of athletes 3. People who work one night a week, lacking the drive for excellence that coaches, players and fans expect 4. Officials are basically politicians, eager to please the people who control their destinies 5. Officials are unfulfilled athletes who didn't make it as a player of coach HO: There will be no difference in attitudes among the three groups as to their overall view of officials. TABLE 38 -- VIEW OF OFFICIALS Athletic Response Directors Coaches Officials l 46 36 41 123 .81 .68 .82 .77 2 9 12 9 30 .16 .23 .18 .19 3 2 3 0 5 .04 .06 .00 .03 4 0 2 0 2 .00 .04 .00 .01 5 0 0 0 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 57 53 50 160 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 x2 = 8.26 df = 8; .95x28 = 15.51 There is no significant difference among the three groups as to their overall view of Officials. Nearly 96 percent of the sample agreed that Officials were ”good people, doing a tough job for demanding coaches." 104 Summary The results of the study have been presented along with the statistical analysis. Based on the results of this study, there appears to be several areas of agreement as well as areas of disagreement among the athletic directors, coaches, and Officials. The areas of agreement among the groups are: 1. Officials are essential to an athletic program as they contribute positively to the learning atmos- phere. 2. Athletic directors are the peOple most responsible for the hiring of basketball officials. 3. Officials should be required to attend more than the one mandatory rules meeting annually. 4. Local Officials' associations are only somewhat effective in the education of their members. 5. There is dissatisfaction by all groups with the Michigan High School Athletic Associations proce- dures for education of officials. 6. Over 75 percent of all respondents were dissatis- fied with the Michigan High School Athletic Association procedures for evaluating Officials. 7. Evaluatitu1 instruments Should be numerical, but have several categories with explanations for each category. 8. Increased costs for modified evaluation programs could be spread out over the school membership dues and increased Official registration fees. 9. All groups indicated willingness to serve on a committee to modify the current education and evaluation procedures. 10. Officials generally know the rules of the game. Problems which arise out of a lack of rule knowledge seldon determine who wins or loses. 11. 12. 13. 105 All groups claim to know the rules as well as their colleagues. Everyone found it easy to name five Officials who could work the state finals. Everyone agreed that officials are good people who find themselves often working for demanding coaches. The areas of disagreement among the groups are: Athletic directors and coaches believe that offi- cials are not dedicated to the athletes where officials believe that they are. Athletic directors see nothing wrong with offi- cials phoning to solicit games and coaches and Officials believe that the practice is wrong. Officials believe that coaches too, should attend more rule related meetings. The coaches and athletic directors do not feel as strongly about this as the Officials. Athletic directors and coaches support the idea of using a closed-book test for Officials; but, the officials prefer the continued use of the open- book format. Although all groups are in favor of a revised evaluation system, they differ in the format it should take. Officials prefer officials to rate each other; and, athletic directors and coaches prefer a combination of evaluators. Athletic directors and coaches would prefer to use ratings 1x3 determine tournament assignments, but officials disagree. Athletic directors prefer to control their own pmograms in terms Of salaries and summer camps whereas coaches and officials would prefer greater control by the state association. Officials wish to avoid contact with coaches, be it during the contest, or in the form of comments connected with a film session. Coaches would like to have a forum to make their comments. 106 9. Athletic directors and coaches avoid contact with Officials, making contact "only when necessary." Officials interact and communicate with each other frequently during the season and Often outside the season as well. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary High school basketball provides athletes with an extension of the classroom and the opportunity to experience real-life tests of their athletic and social potential. The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of high school athletic directors, varsity basketball coaches, and high school basketball officials relative to the cxmmetencies of basketball Officials. This information, along with current research findings could then be used to assess the current policies and procedures used to hire, educate, and evaluate high school basketball officials. Any information which might lead to the improved competency of Officials, would increase the likelihood of a more meaning- ful, and positive athletic experience for the student- athletes (Dillon, 1978; Saracen, 1971). The population consisted of all the high school athletic directors, varsity boys' basketball coaches, and high school basketball officials in Michigan. Gnu; sample which was surveyed consisted Of a stratified random sample of the total population. Overall, 77 athletic directors, 77 coaches, and 89 Officials were surveyed. They responded to questions regarding their attitudes concerning tflue hiring 107 108 practices used.tx> secure officials for games, methods of educating Officials, and evaluation procedures for Offi— cials. The responses to the questions were analyzed to determine if differences existed among the three groups in their attitudes towards hiring, education and evaluation Of Officials. The statistical method employed was the chi- square test for significant difference. Following each test, descriptive analyses and literature references were included. If educators have established athletic programs to increase the positive learning experiences a student may engage in, then there must be a commitment on the part of these same educators to guarantee the hiring of dedicated and qualified personnel to work with the athletes (McNeil, 1966). Such a commitment would involve the active, coordi- nated participation of those people directly involved with recruiting, selecting, educating and evaluating game officials. Athletic directors, coaches, officials, and the Michigan High School Athletic Association all need a unified purpose and direction to assist them in the establishment of policies and procedures to meet the needs of the athletes. The athletes should have the best possible officials to work their games. Athletic directors, coaches, the MHSAA, and officials themselves must hire, educate and evaluate 109 officials. Schools that Sponsor basketball have an obliga- tion to provide the best Officials available which, in turn, help to provide the best environment for an athlete to participate in (McNeil, 1966). flflue study attempts to examine the following sub- questions: 1. Are athletic directors, coaches and the MHSAA concerned about how officials are hired, educated and evaluated? 2. Is there any concern for utilizing accepted practices of personnel management in the securing of Officials for games? 3. Are modern methods of staff development being used to educate and/or train existing Offi- cials? 4. Are reliable and valid methods of evaluation being used to improve Officials' on-court competencies? As previously indicated in Chapter II, the Review of Literature, the quality of athletic competition is related to the competence of the officials (Dillon, 1978). However, hiring competent officials was found to be a low priority of athletic directors (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1976; National Interscholastic Athletic Adminis- trators Association, 1985). 110 The technical competence of athletic directors was questioned (Atterbom, 1976). In addition, several studies questioned the professional qualifications of athletic directors (Hacket, 1978; Parkhouse and Lapin, 1980; Pope, 1982; Mullin, 1980; Zeigler and Spaeth, 1975). All studies raised concerns for having an unqualified person adminis- tering a program with major learning implications for young people. Athletic directors may not possess the knowledge or experience necessary to make sound educational decisions based upon accepted practices of personnel management (Miller Lite, 1983; Blecke, 1986; Atterbom, 1976; Pope, 1982; Parkhouse and Lapin, 1980; Zeigler and Spaeth, 1975). Similar studies were presented which addressed the role of coaches relative to officials. Coaches Often did not know the rules as well as they thought; and, coaches should even consider Officiating themselves (Engle, 1976; National Federation, 1985). Often conflict between offi- cials and coaches arose out of a lack of understanding of a rule on the coaches part (Pearson, 1982). Officials, too, are not always knowledgeable. If coaches spend the time to become more knowledgeable concerning the rules, then a Source of conflict might be substantially reduced. The process of securing quality officials might be enhanced through the use of local associations (Parnes, 1970). Although schools might lose some of their control oVer the hiring process, the results might prove to be worth 111 the tradeoff. The development Of an Officials' intern program might also assist in bringing qualified new people into the Officiating ranks (Tyler, 1961). Educating Officials could fall jJHH) the realm of staff-development. Traditional classes offer instruction on the rules, but Often lack instruction on the psycho- logical aspects of the officiating task (Johnson, 1974; Moss, 1979). Current methods of educating officials usually include the administration of a one-time test. The use of tests may be a valid method of determining knowledge (Lawshe and Balma, 1966), but the use of a one-time test Offers little help in increasing effective performance (Dalton and Thompson, 1971; Hickam, 1970; Jenny, 1984). The one-time test, or an annual rules meeting sponsored by the MHSAA, Offers a medium for information dissemination; but, it is not correlated with increased effectiveness (Oliver, 1977). The annual rules meeting sponsored by the MHSAA may be an attempt to educate officials; but, it lacks educational foundation in that there is no reliable measurement device used. Repeated testing of officials and reevaluation of txraining needs would increase the effectiveness of an education program (Bolton, 1974; Lawshe and Balma, 1966). 1\ <:omplete training program would include a review of needs, planning specific content, selection of strategies, financial considerations, selecting the trainers, and implementing the training program (Smith; 1980) . 112 If there is to be improved performance by officials, then there must be some reliable method by which to measure the performance. Performance evaluation procedures were reviewed and the advantages and disadvantages of each cited. The critical incidents method may be the best for perform- ance evaluation (Flanagan, 1954). However, tine critical incidents method can't be quantified, and would be difficult to apply to thousands of officials in Michigan (Cherrington, 1982). In order to make evaluation procedures meaningful, the person doing the evaluation must have four qualifications: 1. The evaluator must know the job. 2. The evaluator must understand an official's perform- ance. 3. There must be a standard by which to make compar- isons. 4. The evaluator must be able to communicate with the official to justify the evaluation criterion. (Cherrington, 1982). Considering the current procedures for evaluating officials, none of the above four qualifications seem to be possessed by those doing the evaluations. The MHSAA has established a system for evaluating officials (MHSAA, 1985). When the MHSAA has an opportunity to use that system, as a factor in determining tournament assignments, it appears not to use it (MHSAA C-3 40 86, 113 1986). The actual criteria used to determine assignments are those related to geography, and the number of games worked during the past season. Those people doing evaluations may tend to attribute a number of their own characteristics to the Officials they rate (Learly, 1957). Perceptual similarity is related to the ratings of subordinates (Pulakos and Wexley, 1982). The similar-to-me effect may have an effect on the ratings Officials receive from some schools. Officials experience role conflicts which may have an effect on the attitudes of the athletic directors, coaches and Officials. The conflicts may also effect the Officials' performance. Four types of role conflict were identified: (1) interrole, (2) inter-reference group, (3) intra-refer- ence group, and (4) role-personality (Lipham and Hoeh, 1974). The lack of clear role definitions for athletic directors, coaches, and officials have caused confusion ill the administration of athletic programs (Chu, 1980); and, has fostered inflexibility in coaching (Edwards, 1973). Role conflicts require analysis and study to determine guidelines for action (Andrews, 1968). 114 FINDINGS The survey data collected and analyzed 1J1 Chapter 11! result in the following findings: 1. There is no significant difference in age among the three groups. Over 70 percent Of the sample was older than 35 years. Only 10 percent was younger than 30 years. 2. There is significant difference in experience among the three groups. The athletic directors have the most experience, 50 percent have more than 15 years. Coaches have less experience, 50 percent have less than 10 years. Officials are evenly distributed in all experience ranges. 3. There is significant difference in the status Of the three groups. The athletic directors and coaches are nearly all educators. Only 22 percent of the officials were certified educators. 4. There is no significant difference among the three groups that officials are essential to a positive learning atmosphere. The data indicates that 97 percent of the respondents said Officials were at least ”somewhat important.” 5. There is no significant difference among the three groups as to the frequency of positive contribu- tions by Officials. Officials "sometimes" (37 percent) or 'frquently” (45 percent) contribute to the learning atmosphere. 6. There is significant difference among the three groups concerning Officials' motivation. Officials feel they are "dedicated" (45 percent) while athletic directors and coaches feel that Officials are "concerned" (53 and 63 percent respectively). 7. There is significant difference among the three groups concerning the solicitation of games by officials. Phoning for games is viewed as not acceptable by 52 percent of the officials; but, as acceptable by coaches and athletic directors (89 percent). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 115 There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning the hiring of officials. Over 80 percent of the sample feels that the athletic director with possibly some help from the coach is responsible for hiring officials. There is significant difference among the three groups concerning head coaches attending rules meetings. Although 79 percent of the sample indicated strong support for a requirement for coaches to attend, there were enough coaches (18 percent) who didn't to make a statistical signifi- cance. There is no Significant difference among the three groups concerning Officials' attendance at rule meetings. Strong support for an attendance requirement for officials was indicated by 93 percent of the respondents. There is significant difference among the three groups that attendance at one rules meeting is enough. Athletic directors are satisfied; coaches are divided, 40 are percent satisfied and 40 percent believe that officials need to attend more. Officials are also divided. Forty-two percent, are satisfied; but 38 percent feel that both coaches and officials ought to attend more. There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning the test for initial registra- tion. Athletic directors were Spread across all responses; coaches prefer the test to be closed- book (40 percent); and, Officials prefer the current, Open-book test. There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning the testing of Officials who are renewing registration. . The groups are evenly split between the Open- and closed-book test. There is Significant difference among the three groups concerning a closed-book test. Athletic directors and coaches support the closed-book test (70 percent each). Officials indicate 52 percent support for a closed-book test, and a 35 percent preference for no change. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 116 There is significant difference among the three groups concerning the responsibility to educte Officials. Athletic directors (70 percent) and coaches (60 percent) feel that the MHSAA is responsible. Officials feel that the MHSAA (31 percent) and the local Officials' organizations (31 percent) are responsible. There is no significant difference among the three groups as to the effectiveness of of local Officials' organizations. Approximately one-half the respondents feel that the organizations are "somewhat effective." There firs significant difference among the three groups as to Officials' motives to officiate. The athletic directors and coaches responded evenly across all categories. Officials cited "self- gratification” (55 percent) as the primary motive to officiate. There is no Significant difference among the three groups as to the adequacy of the MHSAA in educat- ing officials. Thirty seven percent of the respondents feel that the MHSAA'S programs are adequate; 52 percent do not. There is no significant difference among the three groups in their opinion of releasing test scores as a condition of registration. There is IN) clear preference to release the scores or not to. There is significant difference among the three groups concerning the understanding of current evaluation methods. The preference is to keep some system, but to change from the current one (67 percent). There firs significant difference among the three groups concerning the qualifications Of evalua- tors. There is no preference for one group, but rather for a combination of athletic directors, coaches, the MHSAA and officials (64 percent). There is no significant difference among the three groups as to the type of rating system preferred. They preferred a rating system which was numerical with several categories (34 percent). 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 117 There is significant difference among tine three groups concerning the use of ratings to determine tournament assignments. The athletic directors and coaches (75 percent) support using ratings for tournament assignments; officials are split, 47 percent in favor - 45 percent against. There is Significant difference among the three groups as to how officials Should be compensated. Athletic directors favor setting their own scales (53 percent); coaches and officials prefer a state-wide scale by the MHSAA (51 percent). There 1r; Significant difference among the three groups as to the involvement of officials in summer camps. Athletic directors and coaches are divided over all responses. Officials reject the idea by almost 70 percent. There is significant difference among the three groups concerning Officials' use of game films. Use is not the issue, all three groups support use. When coaches are present to make comments, officials and athletic directors reject the idea. There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning the source of funding for a revised rating system. The respondents favor sharing the costs between schools and officials (40 percent). There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning their willingness to participate on a committee to revise evaluations. Sixty- eight percent of the respondents indicate they would “probably" serve. There is no significant difference among the three groups as to their satisfaction with the present system of evaluation. Two-thirds Of all respon- dents indicated they are either "dissatisfied” or "very dissatisfied.” There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning Officials' application of the rules. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents feel that Officials know the rules, auui the few mistakes that are made have little effect. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 118 There is no Significant difference among the three groups concerning their own knowledge of the rules. Over 50 percent of each group indicated knowledge better than their colleagues. In addition, 35 percent of the coaches said they knew the rules as well as Officials; and only 50 percent Of the officials felt they, as Officials, were knowledgeable. There 1r; significant difference among the three groups concerning their reaction to "poor offi- ciating.” Fifty percent of the athletic directors and officials choose to discuss it after the game; whereas, 50 percent Of the coaches prefer to voice their Opinion immediately. There is no significant difference among the three groups as they react to "good officiating." All groups compliment the official after the game. There is significant difference among tine three groups concerning the ability of officials to handle controversial calls. All the groups believe that Officials avoid the benches; but, 25 percent of the coaches believed the Officials were also defensive and condescending. There is significant difference among tine three groups concerning communication with officials. Over 50 percent of the athletic directors com- municate with officials "only when necessary." Coaches and Officials communicate "often." There is no significant difference among the three groups concerning their ability to name five officials to work the state finals. Seventy-two percent of the respondents indicated that they could “easily" name five. There is no Significnat difference among the groups concerning their overall View of officials. Seventy-seven percent said that officials were "good people doing a tough job for demanding coaches.” 119 CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, and the statis- tical analyses employed, the following conclusions are drawn from the survey data collected and reported in Chapter IV. The findings show there are very few professionally accepted practices of selection, development, and evaluation being utilized in the securing of and retaining Officials for high school basketball games. DEMOGRAPHICS The majority of respondents tend to be in their mid- to late-thirties. The athletic directors tend.1x32be more experienced; the coaches had less experience. The officials have a wide range of experience levels. The athletic directors and coaches were nearly all school personnel and therefore, professional educators. On time other hand, 72 percent of the officials were external to education. The demographic data indicates that the athletic directors are generally older, more experienced educators. The teacher/coaches are less experienced, but not neces- sarily younger, possibly suggesting a role conflict and confirming the existance of short coaching tenure in Buchigan. The Officials are non-educators who may have considerable experience as Officials. Emu-1..-; 120 PERSONALITY All three groups viewed Officials as good people doing a tough job for demanding coaches. They also saw quality Officials an; essential to an environment conducive to positive learning, agreeing with the current research. In contrast, however, over 50 percent of the athletic directors and coaches believe that Officials are not dedicated to the athletes; but, are instead, Officiating for other reasons. cmficials cited "self-gratification" as a reason for Officiating and not the reasons cited by the coaches and athletic directors. The athletic directors and coaches work closely with the athletes on a daily basis. They View the Officials' limited contact time with the athletes as being less dedicated. Officials, although Sincere in intent, do not invest time hours in athletics that the athletic directors and coaches do; and, therefore are viewed as less dedicated to the athletes. HIRING OFFICIALS All three groups indicated that the athletic director was responsible for hiring officials, a point supported in the literature. The athletic directors see nothing wrong with the practice of Officials phoning to solicit games since schools still have the right to refuse the official. Coaches and officials View the practice as wrong, but necessary considering athletic directors encourage the 121 practice by hiring those who phone for games. Athleth: directors View phoning by Officials as acceptable, because it saves time and money for the athletic directors. Hiring officials who solicit games violates the accepted practices of recruitment and selection of person- nel. Accepted hiring techniques require tine athletic director to actively recruit the best officials available, by utilizing accepted methods of recruitment and selection. This might include the use of tests, evaluation results, summer camps, and information provided by the local offi- cials' organizatirun. This practice would obviously take time and effort. One conclusion may be that athletic directors are placing their own interests ahead of the interests of the athletes. Furthermore, the description presented in the literature as being professionally unqual- ified to manage the personnel they are charged to supervise may result. EDUCATION OF OFFICIALS All three groups believe that attendance at rules meetings is important for officials. Perhaps tine respon- dents believe that attendance at a rules meeting is pos- itively correlated with greater knowledge of the rules; although this rejected by the literature. Officials believe that coaches need to attend rules meetings as much as they do. The athletic directors and coaches believe that coaches attend enough rules meetings. 122 The literature suggested that coaches need improved rules knowledge as much, if not more than the Officials do. If’ improving the skills of people who work with athletes improves the educational experience, then improving the coaches' rule knowledge can only be a positive step. There was significant difference among three groups concerning the format of the written test for officials. The officials Viewed the open-book format as acceptable. The coaches and athletic directors supported a closed-book format. Apparently, the athletic directors and coaches don't believe that the open-book results are valid, and that changing to a closed-book format might increase the valid- ity. Using an open-book format does not guarantee that officials will learn the rules, even for a short period of time. Using a closed-book format would increase the likelihood of an Official having to study the rules for a: short period of time if for no other reason than to increase his/her score on the test. The only true concern is that Officials know the rules. Athletic directors, coaches, and officials indicate that officials know the rules. Testing rules in any form kbecomes a confirmation of rule knowledge, and is basically can achievement test. A closed-book format might offer IDetter validity, and may by easier to defend on educational grounds . 123 All three groups indicated that local Officials' associations are only somewhat effective in educating their members. Apparently, these associations can not be counted on to educate their own membership without some assistance from the MHSAA, who the respondents identified as the group most responsible for the education of Officials. All three groups were dissatisfied with the procedures employed by the MHSAA to educate Officials. They believed that tine MHSAA, as an educational leader in the state, is not fulfilling its obligation and stated objectives. EVALUATION OF OFFICIALS Over 75 percent of the respondents were dissatisfied with the current system and were willing to serve CH1 committees to modify the procedure. This shows a true concern for the issue of evaluation and a willingness to take action. If the people who are directly involved in, and affected by, evaluation are willing to improve the ‘process, then perhaps all that is required is the initial impetus. Although all groups were in favor of a revised evalu- éation system, they disagreed on its format. Officials £>referred to be evaluated by other officials. Athleth: (iirectors and coaches preferred to do the evaluations ‘tllemselves or iii:some combination with others. This dlifference may point to a lack of mutual trust to evaluate 113 .an unbiased manner. It may also indicate the presence 124 of a substantial role conflict. Athletic directors' and coaches' evaluations would lack reliability Since there is no evidence that either group is qualified to evaluate officials. The three groups favored a critical incidents format; but, that format would be impractical for the number of officials in Michigan. The three groups also favored a numerical format with several categories; each category being described with behaviors. The format which the groups favored would essentially be a graphic rating scale. .A graphic rating scale would reduce rater error and bias. In addition to using evaluation results for improving the Officials' performance, the athletic directors and coaches would use them for determining tournament assign- ments. jHowever, Officials were against that idea. There seems to be general agreement for having some performance appraisal. Even if evaluations were not used for assignment purposes, they could still serve the identified need of giving feedback to officials, and for assisting the athletic directors in the selection process. There is solid evidence that all three groups want to modify the present system, and to develop one that is reliable and valid“ ILf such a system could be develop- ed and instituted, then an evaluation system for hiring, compensation, planning, and staff-develOpment might be realized. There is evidence in the literature that the 125 system desired by the three groups is less biased and more effective than the system in current practice. AS evidenced by perceived neglect of staff-development programs and the lack of reliable evaluation, it does appear that the MHSAA is no more intent on exercising acceptable personnel management practices than are local athletic departments. RECOMMENDATIONS Considering the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations seem appropriate: 1. Time on future MHSAA meeting agendas should be reserved for the specific discussion of the responsibilities inherent in the hiring Of Officials. Emphasis Should Ibe placed (n1 minimizing the use of Officials who solicit games, with explanation of the negative impact soliciting games by officials has on effective hiring. The basketball coaches at all levels of a school's program should be required to attend at least one rules fleeting prior to the season and another during the season, where a rules test is administered. It is further suggested that superintendents be notified of those coaches who do not attend. Rule knowledge on the part of the officials can be improved by instituting a program of education conduct- ed at the local level by the local Officials' associa- tions using MHSAA generated materials. The continuing 126 educational process would be periodically monitored by the administration of a closed-book, written test on an annual basis. The scores from the test would be returned to the official for personal use, but also kept by the MHSAA as another piece of data to supple- ment the other data already available to those select- ing officials for tournament assignments. The MHSAA should change the evaluation procedure for officials. Based on the available research and the collected data, the implementation of a graphic rating scale is recommended. 11 committee representing Officials, coaches, athletic directors, including a professional evaluation designer should compose an acceptable form for evaluating officials. The form should list the specific behaviors to evaluate in order to minimize rater error and bias. The evaluation form must be numerical and computer readable to insure rapid tabulation. By utilizing the advances in computer technology, each Official will have access to the specific ratings he/she received and the ratings will be up-to-date for more timely use. Tina MHSAA should increase the membership dues to schools and the registration fees to Officials. 13m: amount of increase should be sufficient to cover planning, implementing, and evaluating tine modifica- tions proposed within this study. 8. 127 The Michigan High School Athletic Association has been determined to be the leader of tflrfli school athletic programs in the State of Michigan. It is suggested that the MHSAA commit time, money and energy to the development of a standing committee for the purpose of ongoing assessment, implementation and reevaluation of policies, practices and procedures related to Offi- cials. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The findings of this study suggest further research, as indicated by the following recommended questions: 1. Does the Size of the school influence the degree to which accepted management techniques are followed by athletic directors? Does the number of times an Officials works for a school in one season influence the evaluation he/she receives from that school? Does the Size of the school influence the quality of the evaluation an Official may receive? What factors must an individual consider when deciding to officiate high school basketball. Do officials who are also educators receive better evaluations than non-educators? DO officials who are educators get hired disproportion- ately more than officials who are non-educators. 128 7. Are the Officials in other Sports educated or evaluated differently than the officials in basketball? How does Michigan compare to other states in terms of the education and evaluation of basketball officials? The findings Of this study may be compared to Similar studies of officials in other sports, and.tflua entire population of Officials nationwide. CHAPTER VI REFLECTIONS AND INSIGHTS During the course Of this study this researcher had the Opportunity to observe individual athletic direct- ors, coaches, and officials, and to discuss with them the issues relative to athletics. In addition to the data cited and analyzed in Chapter IV, the Opinions, behaviors, and intentions of these individuals provide additional data for further insight into the areas of selection, education, and evaluation of basketball officials. The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes of athletic directors, coaches, and officials relative to the selection, education, and evaluation Of basketball officials. Prior to the analysis of the data, this researcher expected that the athletic directors and coaches would have similar attitudes and Officials would have different attitudes concerning the questions posed. For many questions this was not the case. All three groups held similar beliefs concerning officials and tflu21need to improve our present system of hiring, educating, and evaluating officials. It was also expected that any problems related to offi- ciating basketball and any dissatisfaction with Officiating on the part of coaches and athletic directors would be traceable to the Officials. However, this was also not the 129 130 case. Athletic directors and coaches did not blame the officials, but rather the MHSAA and its policies; therefore, any dissatisfaction with present officiating was directed at the system under which the Officials Operate. Following careful evaluation of the current procedures and the MHSAA, it appears that the weakest links in the system of selection, education, and evaluation of officials are the athletic directors. It is unfortunate such a conclusion can be reached, but the most direct evidence which supports this conclusion is the fact that athletic directors hire officials; and, they do so with no basis other than the need for a body. No standards of recruitment or selection are used when officials who solicit games by phone are hired; nor are standards applied when Officials are assigned to tournaments by athletic directors who have little or no knowledge of the official's ability. The excuse that the MHSAA is at fault for establishing procedures which contribute to the problem must be tempered by the realization that indirectly, athletic directors are the MHSAA. Through a council of representatives, athletic directors control the procedures and policy revisions which might improve the present situation. Athletic directors have the power to Significantly change the MHSAA procedures now in effect; but, to do so would require a substantial commitment and a great effort. Considering the poor management practices now utilized, and 131 that these practices are accepted as the way to conduct business, it is doubtful that the required effort could be generated. Any organization which hires employees to perform a task and which compensates the employee for that task takes the responsibility Of defining the task, hiring competent people to perform it and then evaluating their performance. In short, the organization directs the employees in the most efficient method to meet the organizational goals. On the contrary, it appears that Michigan high school basket- ball Officials are often allowed to define their own roles, educate themselves, and in many cases, assign themselves to their officiating jobs. Officials direct their own terms of employment and schools accept them. This system fails to provide the quality officials athletes have every right to expect. We seem committed to accept, and in some cases depend on, "a warm body in stripes." There seems to be an overriding concern by schools for insuring that all Officials work games - a "Share the wealth" philosophy. Rather than using those Officials who have demonstrated proficiency, and using them often, there is a tendency to use all officials who have minimal qualifi- cations. Who, beside the marginal officials, are served by this philOSOphy? The individuals who benefit from the current practices of education and evaluation are those Officials vflua would 132 score poorly'cni the testing instruments, or on valid evaluation scales. By not having to account for their abilities, and by soliciting games, they continue to work games taking games from those Officials who work hard and strive to do a good job for coaches and athletes. How many knowledgeable Officials sit at home nights simply because they refuse to solicit games? They are the peOple we need and want working on the basketball courts. Why there is no testing of Officials is unclear. There was some indication during the research that officials don't want to be tested out of fear that the results would indicate a lack of rule knowledge and compromise the officials ability to work games. If this is the case, what better reason to do the testing. Why not determine the level of rule knowledge an official has since that knowledge is the very reason the official is hired in the first place? For the MHSAA not to take a firm leadership role in this area is an example of employees telling the organization what the job is. Similar arguments can be made for the revision of a valid evaluation system. Why are we currently using a system which is unreliable, invalid and highly biased? There are alternative systems which Offer greater reliabil- ity, and are easy to use and tabulate. The study cited several reasons to evaluate; yet, the current system does not utilize evaluations for any of the accepted reasons. 133 The current system obligates athletic directors and coaches to do the evaluations, Spending time doing what they, as well as Officials, know is wasted. It has been demonstrated that existing education and evaluatirn1 procedures are deficient; there is support for increasing fees and dues to cover any additional costs to revise the procedures; and, members Of the athletic com- munity are willing to serve on committees to revise pro- cedures. Most importantly, the MHSAA, through its Repre- sentative Council, has the resources necessary to make fundamental changes in existing procedures. There appears to be every reason to test officials for rule knowledge, at least, on an annual basis. There is also ample evidence that a little effort in developing an evaluation system would reap big rewards in developing better Officials and would provide a basis for selection Of Officials to tournament games. Immitics aside, there are many revisions in current procedures which could be made that would cost little, yet provide great benefits. With all data considered, why do we accept what we know is less than the best? APPENDIX OFFICIATING SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Carefully read each question. 2. Following each question are five response options. Choose time response which best fits your Opinion. Choose only one response. SAMPLE: The most overworked and underpaid professionals in education today are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. High School Principals Athletic Directors Basketball Coaches Band Directors Superintendents PERSONAL DATA 1. What is your age group? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Under 25 26-30 31-35 36-40 Over 40 2. How many years experience do you have as a VARSITY coach, official, or athletic director? UTIhWNH .0000 Less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years 3. Which statement best describes your current status? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A certified teacher A school administrator Certified teacher, but coaching in another district A non-certified employee of a school district Not employed in education 134 135 GENERAL PHILOSOPHY How essential are officials to a positive learning atmos- phere, for players, during a game Situation? 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important nor unimportant 4. Unimportant 5. Very unimportant How often do you feel that Officials contribute to a positive learning atmosphere while involved in game situa- tions? 1. Always 2. Frequently 3. Sometimes 4. Almost never 5. Never To what degree do you feel that Officials are motivated in their jobs by their dedication to young athletes? 1. Very dedicated 2. Dedicated 3. Concerned 4. Unconcerned 5. Dedication is non-existent Some officials phone or write to schools to secure game contracts for their schedules. How do you view this practice? 1. Unacceptable in any form 2. Unacceptable, but necessary 3. NO opinion, don't deal with hiring officials 4. Acceptable because schools still have the right to refuse 5. Perfectly acceptable. It saves the schools time & money. Who do you feel is primarily responsible for providing (hiring) Officials? The athletic director The coach The athletic director with help from the coach The conference or league secretary The local Officials' organization m-wal-t o o o o 6. 10. 136 EDUCATION [in you agree with the MHSAA requirement that all head coaches attend an annual rules meeting? 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. NO Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree DO you agree with the MHSAA requirement that all officials attend an annual rules meeting? 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. NO opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree Do you feel that attendance at ONE rules meeting per year is enough? 1. Enough for coaches and officials 2. Enough for coaches, but officials should attend more than one meeting 3. Both coaches and Officials should attend more than one meeting 4. Enough for officials, but coaches should attend more than one meeting 5. Eliminate the meeting requirement altogether Currently, a written, open-book test is required of all officials who register for the first time. How do you feel about this procedure? 1. The test should be eliminated 2. The test should be closed-book 3. The test should be administered, Open-book, again during the season (twice in the initial season) 4. The test should be administered, closed-book, again during the season 5. The present situation is fine What is your opinion regarding the testing of Officials who are renewing their registration? . No testing is necessary . Test with the Open-book format Test with the closed-book format Test, closed-book, and publish the results NO Opinion U'lubUJNH o o 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 137 If finances permitted, would you support a closed-book test for officials, semi-annually, prior to and during the season? 1. Strongly support 2. Support 3. NO opinion 4. Prefer no change in present procedures 5. Strongly prefer no change in present procedures What group or organization has the greatest responsibility for educating officials? 1. Michigan High School Athletic Association 2. Local Officials' organizations 3. Schools (conferences, leagues) 4. Officials themselves 5. Private groups (clinics, university classes, etc.) How effective do you feel that local Officials' organiza- tions are in educating their members as to the rules of the game? 1. Very effective 2. Only somewhat effective 3. Not effective 4. Don't know 5. Ineffective and counterproductive, teaching the incorrect interpretations of some rules What do you think is the primary motivator for Officials to improve themselves? 1. Work better games 2. Work tournaments 3. Earn more money 4. Self-gratification 5. Do a better job for the athletes and coaches How would you react to the statement, "The MHSAA is doing an adequate job in educating Officials." . Strongly agree . Agree . No opinion . Disagree . Strongly disagree U'IuhUJNH Would you favor the release of written test scores as a condition of registration for officials? Strongly favor Favor NO Opinion Against Strongly against Ul-bLAJNH 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 138 EVALUATION Do you know how the MHSAA currently evaluates officials? . I understand and agree with the method . I understand, but disagree with the method . I would like some other method than we have at present NO method of evaluation works I do not understand the current method U'lnbLUNH Who do you think is best qualified to evaluate officials? 1. Athletic directors 2. Coaches 3. Other officials 4. MHSAA personnel 5. Some combination of the above What type of rating system would you favor? 1. A Single digit, one rating per year per school as we currently have 2. A single digit, but rate an Official as often as he/she has a team during the season 3. A written comments form without numbers, where positive and negative comments could be written 4. A numerical scale with several categories 5. No evaluations should be done How do yMMJ react to the statement, "Ratings should determine tournament assignments?” 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree How do you think officials Should be compensated? 1. By each school setting its own pay scale 2. By a pay scale based on test scores and ratings 3. By a scale set by local officials organizations 4. By a state-wide scale set by the MHSAA 5. By a percentage of the gate receipts 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 139 How do you react to the following statement? "Officials should be an integral part of summer camps for the purpose of interaction with coaches and athletes." This assumes no payment to the Officials. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree Should officials be able to use a school's game films for self-evaluation? 11. Yes, and coaches Should be present to add their comments as well 2. Yes, but it should be a personal experience for the official 3. No Opinion 4. It's not a good idea, but if some Officials want to use the films, ok 5. Officials Should not use a schools films at all If the system of evaluation were changed by the MHSAA, some form of additional cost would be encountered. How would you suggest the additional cost of a revised ratings system be funded? 1. Each member school would increase its annual membership dues by approximately $80 2. Officials would fund the system through increased registration fees 3. A combination Of the above two methods 4. The MHSAA would absorb the cost within its budget 5. I don't want to change the present system Would you be willing to serve on a committee to evaluate and possibly revise the evaluation system for officials? 1. Absolutely 2. Probably 3. Maybe 4. Probably not 5. Definitely not Are you satisfied with the current pmocedures for the evaluation of Officials? Very satisfied Satisfied NO Opinion Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Uluwal-t O 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 140 GAME ADMINISTRATION How well do Officials apply the rules? 1. Very well 2. Usually ok, the few mistakes seldom have an effect on the outcome of the game 3. Some Officials know the rules, but many others do not 4. Officials as a whole don't know the rules 5. Officials may know the rules, but prefer to call a game based on their own interpretation of the rules How well do you know the current rules? 1. Very well, I am (could be a knowledgeable Official) 2. Better than most of my colleagues 3. About the same as most of my colleagues 4. Just well enough to get by 5. Hardly at all What is your reaction to ”poor Officiating"? 1. I usually discuss it with the Official AFTER the game 2. I voice my Opinion immediately, even if it is during the contest 3. I don't say anything 4. I delegate a third party to discuss it with the official 5. I usually just discuss it with some of my colleagues How do you react to "good" officiating? 1. I compliment the official after the game 2. I compliment the official during the game 3. I don't say anything 4. I use a third party to compliment the Official 5. I pass the good word with my colleagues How do you feel Officials handle controversial calls? 1. They communicate well with both benches 2. They may answer if they are close to the bench 3. Officials generally avoid contact with coaches in these situations 4. Officials listen with one ear and what the coach says goes out the other 5. Officials are defensive and condescending to coaches 141 32. How Often do you converse with officials regarding the application of rules and game control. 1. Very often, frequently outside the season 2. Often, but only during the season 3. Often, but only at games, during the season 4. Only when necessary 5. Rarely, if at all 33. If asked.1xa name 5 officials to work the state finals, knowing that your name would be cur the recommendationq could you name 5? 1. Very Easily 2. Easily 3. Maybe, if I thought for a long time 4. I doubt it 5. Definitely not 34. Which statement BEST reflects your views of Officials? 1. Good people, doing a tough job for demanding coaches 2. People pursuing a hobby which affects the careers Of coaches and lives of athletes 3. People who work one night a week, lacking the drive for excellence that coaches players and fans expect 4. Officials are basically politicians, eager in) please the people who control their destiny 5. Officials are unfulfilled athletes who didn't make it as a player or coach COMMENTS 1!!! SELECTED B I BLIOGRAPHY B I BLI OGRAPHY Abbott, Max 6., and Eidell, Terry L. ”Administrative Implications of Curriculum Reform." Educational Technology, 10 (May 1970): 62-64. Andrews, Richard L. “Theory Orientation of School Principals as Related to Attainment of Selected Behavioral Goals