Gemini IA a noté :
Dafotec Récupération De Données

Le 2025-04-26 04:52:30

Psychosocial Development of Junior Hockey Players Psychosocial Development of Junior Hockey Players Alexander John Sturges Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Sturges, Alexander John, "Psychosocial Development of Junior Hockey Players" (2018). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 7295. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/7295 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu. Psychosocial Development of Junior Hockey Players Alexander John Sturges Dissertation submitted to the College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sport & Exercise Psychology Edward Etzel, Ed.D., Chair Kristen Dieffenbach, Ph.D. Larry Lauer, Ph.D. Scott Barnicle, Ph.D. Department of Sport & Exercise Psychology Morgantown, West Virginia 2018 Keywords: Psychosocial development; adolescence; elite sport development; athletic identity Copyright 2018 Alexander John Sturges ABSTRACT Psychosocial Development of Junior Hockey Players Alexander John Sturges Junior hockey is an elite sport development model that impacts over twenty thousand adolescent male athletes each year. Participation in junior hockey commonly requires adolescents, 16 to 21 years of age, to move away from home, disrupt academic plans, and participate in an intense elite sport development model during critical developmental years. The influence of junior hockey on long-term psychosocial development is widely unknown. The present research measured developmental outcomes of college-enrolled former junior hockey player utilizing the Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) and the Athlete Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS). Statistical analyses examined the impact of various measures of the junior hockey experience on measures of athletic identity and psychosocial development, with comparisons also being made to a representative population of male college students. Findings indicate junior hockey’s potential contribution to increased measures of athletic identity as well as delays in specific aspects of adolescent psychosocial development when compared to a normative population of male college students. Recommendations are provided for junior hockey shareholders towards improving the developmental outcomes associated with a junior hockey experience. iii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Statement of Purpose .................................................................................................6 Primary Research Questions ......................................................................................7 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................7 Methods................................................................................................................................8 Introduction ................................................................................................................8 Theoretical Orientation ..............................................................................................8 Previous Research ......................................................................................................9 Research Design.......................................................................................................10 Sample inclusion criteria.....................................................................................10 Sampling procedure ............................................................................................10 Electronic surveys ...............................................................................................12 Data collection procedures ..................................................................................12 Sample size .........................................................................................................13 Statistical Analyses ..................................................................................................13 Research question 1 variables .............................................................................14 Research question 1: Junior hockey and athletic identity ...................................14 Research question 2 variables .............................................................................15 Research question 2: Psychosocial development compared to normative population ................................................................................................................................15 Research question 3 variables .............................................................................15 Research question 3: Athletic identity and psychosocial development ..............15 Summary ..................................................................................................................16 Results ................................................................................................................................17 Data Preparation.......................................................................................................17 Overview of Data Analysis ......................................................................................18 Demographic Characteristics of the Participants .....................................................19 iv Table 1: Number of participants by ethnicity .....................................................19 Table 2: Number of participants by age ..............................................................20 Table 3: Number of participants by class rank ...................................................20 Table 4: Number of participants by international student status ........................20 Table 5: Number of participants by current hockey status .................................21 Table 6: Number of participants by junior hockey years ....................................21 Table 7: Number of participants by number of JH teams played for ..................21 Table 8: Number of participants by school changes due to JH ...........................22 Table 9: Number of participants by residence changes due to JH ......................22 Table 10: Participant rating of “enjoyment” of junior hockey experience .........22 Table 11: Participant rating of “benefit” of junior hockey experience ...............23 Table 12: Descriptive statistics for participant AIMS scores .............................23 Table 13: Frequency distribution of participant AIMS scores............................23 Analysis of Research Question 1 .............................................................................23 Table 14: Bivariate correlation of AIMS and JH experience .............................24 Analysis of Research Question 2 .............................................................................24 Table 15: SDTLA subtask standard T scores by class ........................................25 Table 16: SDTLA task standard T scores by class .............................................26 Analysis: Research Question 3 ................................................................................26 Table 17: Multivariate analysis of the variance (AIMS and SDTLA)................26 Table 18: Test of between-subject effects ..........................................................26 Discussion .....................................................................................................................27 Introduction .........................................................................................................27 Research Question 1 Discussion .........................................................................28 Research Question 2 Discussion .........................................................................31 Academic autonomy subtask ........................................................................32 Instrumental autonomy subtask .....................................................................34 Salubrious lifestyle scale ................................................................................36 v Research Question 3 Discussion .........................................................................39 Summary of findings...........................................................................................40 Recommendations ...............................................................................................41 Limitations ..........................................................................................................43 Future Directions ................................................................................................45 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................47 Appendix A: Extended Review of the Literature ..............................................................48 Junior Hockey ..........................................................................................................49 Introduction to Junior Hockey ............................................................................49 Junior hockey history .....................................................................................49 Fundamental Experiences ........................................................................................53 Athlete relocation ................................................................................................53 Academic disruptions..........................................................................................54 New primary support system ..............................................................................58 Junior hockey structure .......................................................................................58 Junior hockey player rights ............................................................................60 Junior Hockey Culture .............................................................................................62 Deviance .............................................................................................................63 Alcohol and Substance use .................................................................................64 Positive junior hockey outcomes ........................................................................65 Enjoyment ......................................................................................................65 Junior Hockey Development System .......................................................................66 Long-term athlete development ..........................................................................66 Youth sport.....................................................................................................68 Elite sport development .................................................................................69 Sport mastery .................................................................................................70 Relative age effect..........................................................................................71 Perceptions of junior hockey ..............................................................................73 vi Summary of the Junior Hockey Experience ............................................................74 Adolescence .............................................................................................................76 Introduction to adolescence ................................................................................76 Problem behavior theory .....................................................................................78 Adolescent risk behaviors ...................................................................................79 Adolescent development .....................................................................................81 Athletic identity ..................................................................................................83 Adolescent transition ..........................................................................................84 Adolescent mobility ............................................................................................86 Educational mobility ......................................................................................88 Residential mobility .......................................................................................89 Homesickness ...........................................................................................90 Adolescent adjustment ...................................................................................91 Late adolescence .................................................................................................91 Developmental tasks ...........................................................................................93 Adolescent psychosocial development ...............................................................94 Psychosocial development in college .................................................................95 Non-traditional college students .........................................................................96 Student Development Task & Lifestyle Assessment ...............................................99 Uses of the SDTLA ...........................................................................................103 Athletic Identity Measurement Scale .....................................................................104 Uses of the AIMS..............................................................................................105 Research with the SDTLA and AIMS ...................................................................106 Summary ................................................................................................................107 Appendix B: Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................109 Appendix C: Basic Demographic Questions ...................................................................112 Appendix D: Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) ...........................................114 Appendix E: Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) ..............116 vii Appendix F: Participant Cover Letter ..............................................................................142 Appendix G: Participant Recruitment Email Templates .................................................144 Appendix H: Participant Follow-up Email Templates.....................................................146 Appendix I: Academic Autonomy Subtask Questions ....................................................149 Appendix J: Instrumental Autonomy Subtask Questions ................................................151 Appendix K: Salubrious Lifestyle Scale Questions ........................................................153 References ........................................................................................................................156 Introduction 1 Junior hockey is an elite sport development system providing athletic opportunities for over 20,000 participants annually. Selection to join a junior hockey team represents a watershed moment in a player’s career, as they are following in the footsteps of the many thousands of great professional players who taken the same path. The junior hockey system is widely celebrated across Canada and the United States as it is viewed as a shaper of men, a molder of professionals, and as a symbol of community prosperity and opportunity. However, despite its prominent role in advancing the careers of talented hockey players, little is known about the influence of this experience on adolescent psychosocial development. Junior hockey is unique compared with other mainstream North American sports in that it systematically challenges traditional academic, family, and social institutions. Furthermore, success in junior hockey is measured primarily through athletic outcomes (e.g. achieving a college scholarship or being drafted into the National Hockey League) and professionalized competitive forces hold substantial influence over the structuring of the system and therefore the experience for participants. Because of this, little attention is paid to the intricate process of adolescent development taking place throughout and after the junior hockey experience. To date, research on junior hockey has focused primarily on team and individual performance variables, and little work has been done to consider the potential impact of junior hockey on athletes moving through the system or transitioning to advanced developmental stages. The modern junior hockey system is rooted in the growth and professionalization of Canadian ice hockey throughout the 20th century (Kidd & MacFarlane, 1972). Junior hockey’s earliest form involved regional sponsors hosting local senior league teams that would compete for distinction across Canada and some Northern sections of the United States. Through the initial years of organized ice hockey, teams were stocked with local talent and embraced the 2 ideology of amateur competition (viewing sport as leisure instead of a legitimate vocational option). However, as the popularity of ice hockey grew, so did opportunities for money to be made by sponsors, promoters, and organizers. The introduction of new revenue streams and financial sponsorship led to private and community investments in larger, more spectator friendly arenas, as well as the recruitment and payment of hockey talent brought in to help teams win (Whitson & Gruneau, 2006). As the sport of ice hockey grew and elite professional leagues began to organize, top franchises needed a system of identifying and developing young talent to eventually play for their elite teams, and therefore began sponsoring junior organizations. Conceived as a stepping stone to the pro ranks, junior hockey embodies characteristics of professionalized sport, emphasizing performance and athletic advancement to serve the interests of professional sport organizers. From small-town beginnings, junior hockey expanded exponentially, evolving to ideally suit the needs of higher level programs making selections from the junior hockey talent pool. Through this growth, junior hockey has become a major financial and social institution, as well as a source of pride for many communities across the United States and Canada. The junior hockey landscape is diverse, involving over 600 registered teams in 60 different leagues. Although most leagues and teams are affiliated with national governing bodies of sport for either Canada or the United States, very little oversight or standardized regulation exists. Most of the operational and cultural norms of junior hockey are guided by traditions that have been passed down through generations of the sport, making junior hockey a unique but unifying experience for those who participate in the system. Despite diversity in locations, competitive levels, and offered resources of junior hockey teams and leagues, four fundamental components can be identified that encapsulate the lived experience for participants within the 3 junior hockey system. For the purposes of this study, these common factors have been established to conceptualize junior hockey and its key developmental influences. The four identified fundamental factors of junior hockey included: 1) athlete relocation, 2) new primary support systems, 3) academic disruption, and 4) the professionalized nature of the junior hockey environment. First, the full-time relocation of junior hockey participants is a long-accepted practice of junior hockey. Junior hockey relocation involves moving adolescents away from their immediate families, established peer groups, and familiar community support systems, and placing them in unfamiliar environments subject to forces of highly competitive sport. Advocates for junior hockey have historically embraced the process of athlete relocation and see it as a benefit to the cultural integration of the athlete to the sport (Mason, Duquette, & Sherer, 2005). However, the impact of youth athlete relocation and the environments participants are being asked to integrate into have not been critically examined. Junior hockey often represents an individual’s first experience living away from home. While relocation has long been viewed as a necessary step towards maturity, junior hockey’s lack of oversight, and inconsistent policy regarding relocation and housing make this fundamental process worthy of further examination. Second, physically relocating for junior hockey introduces personal challenges for participants as they are introduced to new towns and teammates to which they have limited if any social or emotional connection. This period of transition can have a range of behavioral and developmental consequences, including the formation of a strong emotional attachment with teammates, team personnel, and overall junior hockey culture (Finn & McKenna, 2010). Traditionally, the process for relocating junior hockey players involves the assignment of billet, 4 or host families (local families willing to house junior hockey players, often compensated by the team). Players live in their billet’s home, share meals and experiences, and even take responsibility for chores and helping around the house. Familiarizing with a billet’s rules and values can be a very impactful experience for junior hockey participants, especially because this may be their first experience living away from their own families (Dubé & Schinke, 2008). Junior hockey and its relocation practices have the potential to significantly impact an individual’s development by means of exposure to unique social and interpersonal challenges. The third feature of a junior hockey experience is the regular feature of academic disruption. Junior hockey participation typically occurs during the transition between high school and college. While many junior hockey players are required to maintain high school academic progress, players who have completed high school may not be enrolled in any schooling at all. While most current junior hockey teams and leagues encourage the continuation of academic progress, no enforceable guidelines exist, and no public data is available regarding individual or team academic progress. Furthermore, junior hockey requires a commitment to strenuous training and competition schedules, often conflicting with classes and/ or participation in the school environment (Koshan, 2004). Overall, the fundamental structure of junior hockey lacks congruency with the academic goals and interests of participants, and long-term consequences of this process remain widely unknown. The fourth fundamental experience of junior hockey is the professionalized approach in structuring this elite sport development system. Franchises and leagues are privately funded, and their primary purpose is to serve the financial interests of management and ownership groups, who yield substantial power and influence (Whitson & Gruneau, 2006). Teams are not required to make long-term commitments to players, despite holding considerable control over their hockey careers. Players can be cut or traded at any time based on subjective performance 5 standards, and franchises that fail to produce financial viability can fold or relocate, even after a single season. This instability contributes to a competitive, high-pressure environment that is found consistently throughout junior hockey’s varying levels. Overall, junior hockey’s competitive structure, together with required relocation, and social and academic disruptions represent four foundational factors that are found at all levels of junior hockey and have strong developmental implications. Junior hockey occurs during the developmentally dynamic stage of adolescence. Adolescence is a period of intense change and identity exploration in which numerous meaningful developmental challenges must be overcome (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Along with the challenge of establishing a stable and authentic sense of self-identity, adolescents also must navigate social interactions of ever-increasing complexity and significance. Normative adolescent development also calls for the healthy formation of career ambitions, ability to form proper interpersonal relationships, and to solidify oneself as an autonomous feature of the environment (Demos & Demos, 1969; Eccles et al., 1993). Taking into consideration the timing and potential intrusiveness of the junior hockey experience, an established understanding of the influence of junior hockey on adolescent development is crucial. The transition from high school to college is a well-documented developmental process that has a significant impact on the lifespan trajectory of individuals. Development within the college environment is seen as constant, cumulative, and occurs on a continuum that can provide insight as to potential developmental outcomes (Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999). Research in this domain has identified specific developmental tasks associated with proper psychosocial development. Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven developmental vectors (which include developing competence, interdependence, mature interpersonal relationships, emotional 6 management, sense of purpose, and integrity) have played a major role in shaping the accepted notion of appropriate college student development. The unique demands placed by junior hockey on academic progress produces many non-traditional college students, a population known to adapt differently to the college environment, and therefore may require specialized programming and accommodations (Macari, 2003). Given the long-term developmental significance of the college and university, factors that influence this experience are worthy of inquiry. Overall, the presence of junior hockey in key transitional periods of adolescence, as well as its potential influence on the transition to the college setting, emphasizes the importance of research on the development of individuals participating in this system. Statement of Purpose The present study explored the psychosocial development of college-enrolled former junior hockey players. The study also examined long-term developmental implications of junior hockey and offers recommendations to improve programming and participant experiences. Junior hockey is unique from other major sport development structures in North America in its scale (over 20,000 annual participants) and its cultural norms, (e.g., expected participant relocation) which actively disrupt sources of adolescent stability and support. Junior hockey’s intense and professionalized system influences participants lives during a developmentally sensitive period in which the formation of a stable and secure identity is a primary feature. Furthermore, the role of junior hockey in normalizing the delay of college enrollment as well as its potential influence on college selection may play a role in altering the college experience and potentially in subsequent development. Overall, the present study examined the influence of junior hockey on identity formation and subsequent psychosocial development in the college 7 setting. Primary research questions The following three research questions were developed to address the primary purpose of the study and to guide the methodology: 1. What is the relationship between measures of junior hockey participation and measures of athletic identity in college-enrolled former junior hockey players? 2. In what ways does junior hockey participation influence measures of psychosocial development when compared to the normative sample population of male college students? 3. Are measures of athletic identity predictive of measures of psychosocial development in a population of college-enrolled former junior hockey players? Hypotheses The following represent the three primary research hypotheses, although methodology tested null hypotheses. 1. Measurements of junior hockey participation are related to measurements of athletic identity in college-enrolled former junior hockey players. 2. Junior hockey participation influences measurements of psychosocial development when compared to a normative sample population of college students. 3. Measurements of athletic identity are predictive of measurements of psychosocial development in college-enrolled former junior hockey players. Methods 8 Introduction The selected methodology examined the relationship between the junior hockey experience and developmental processes in a sample of college-aged, former junior hockey participants utilizing the collection and analysis of data from validated measurements of athletic identity and psychosocial development. Two primary measurement instruments were featured: The Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (Brewer, Van Raalte & Linder, 1993) to measure participant athletic identity, and the Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999) to measure aspects of psychosocial development within the college setting. The following chapter outlines the selected research parameters and methods of statistical analysis applied to address the primary research questions pertaining to the developmental impact of junior hockey. Theoretical underpinnings, data collection procedures, and aspects of research integrity are also discussed. Theoretical Orientation The present research adopted a positivist theoretical stance. A positivist perspective aims to test a theory or describe a unique experience through observation and measurement to establish the ability to predict and/ or control a phenomenon (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). A positivist perspective also assumes that observable phenomena are knowable through empirical and reductionist scientific inquiry, and that methodology should be constructed with precision and detail so that experimental conditions can be replicated by other researchers (O’Leary, 2004). Concepts of psychosocial development and athletic identity have generally agreed upon definitions previously established through the literature. However, concrete understanding of these topics is an ongoing and fluid process, as evidenced by the 9 varied theoretical positions and continued empirical work expanding to new and emerging contexts (Shutte & McNeil, 2015; Gucciardi, 2017; Hardy et al., 2017). The present research contributes to the literature by focusing on a specific realm of elite sport development system (junior hockey) and its potential impact on aspects of adolescent psychosocial development. Previous Research A pilot study utilizing an electronic version of the SDTLA on a sample of college enrolled former junior hockey players was conducted by the principal investigator, testing the appropriateness of this methodology. SDTLA and demographic data was collected from a convenience sample of 45 male college students with varying levels of junior hockey experience. Participant scores were compared to the normative population of male college students on each developmental task. Results showed that standard scores produced by former junior hockey players were significantly lower on tasks of developing mature interpersonal relationships and establishing autonomy. Results were consistent with developmental principles proposed by Chickering and Reisser (1993) that college students display psychosocial development through time spent in college (scores for freshman were typically lower than seniors). Furthermore, the pilot study results suggested that junior hockey has a potential impact on former participants’ ability to successfully transition and display appropriate psychosocial development in the college setting. Results of the pilot study generally supported the need for more research on the topic of psychosocial development on this population. Research Design The present study utilized a descriptive, correlational research design to address the 10 research questions. Descriptive correlational design refers to research in which the size and direction of a relationship between variables is observed, however no direct attempt is made to control for or randomize participant experience (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002). Descriptive correlational research evaluates connections between various behavioral outcomes and illuminates potential paths of inquiry that may provide a deeper understanding of the observed phenomenon (Lappe, 2000). Correlational designs are well-suited for studies that apply validated measures to novel contexts, especially when the observed behaviors are social and exploratory in nature. Furthermore, descriptive data collection can help formulate new research questions or guide future research (Anderson, 1998). Sample inclusion criteria. College-enrolled males with experience playing junior hockey, whether they are still competing in the sport or not, were eligible to participate. The construct of junior hockey experience was defined (for this study) as time spent within any level of junior hockey for any duration of time. Participants were required to be currently enrolled in a college or university continuously for at least four weeks to ensure adequate acclimation to the environment (Winston, Cooper, Miller, 1999). Participants also had to be at least 18 years of age. No additional participant exclusion criteria regarding race, ethnicity, or nationality were featured. Sampling procedure. The present study utilized non-probability purposive sampling. Purposive sampling, the deliberate choice of participants based on inherent characteristics, best meets the goals of the study in understanding a specific population through a theoretical framework (Tongco, 2007). Presently, no collective database of former junior hockey players exists, and therefore purposive sampling allows for data to be collected from the desired population in a timely manner (Battaglia, 2008). Participant contact information was accessed by networking with hockey shareholders 11 willing to provide contact information of potential participants. Current and former junior and collegiate hockey coaches/ organizers were contacted through email and phone to discuss possible inclusion of former junior hockey player contacts. Snowball sampling was also used in limited cases in which participants were willing to connect other individuals within their network to the research study (Goodman, 1961). Electronic correspondence in the form of email was established directly with potential participants, or indirectly through a coach/ organizer. This initial contact was followed by delivery of an anonymous and unique access code for the testing instrument (See Appendix F, G, & H for email correspondence templates). One initial email, and two follow-up emails were distributed individually to all participants to maximize survey completion (McPeake, Batterson & O’Neill, 2014). Limitations to this method of participant recruitment included: a) potential selection bias (Ahern, 2005) towards successful junior hockey players (indicated by actualized opportunities to continue competing after junior hockey), b) surveying of a potentially non-representative sample (Jones, Murphy & Edwards, 2008) through exclusion of junior hockey participants who do not continue on to college, c) non-randomized participant sampling (Reeves, Deeks, Higgins & Wells, 2008) and d) potential for lower response rates (Robson, 2011) due to the format of the survey instrument. To counteract bias and establish trustworthiness, connections were established with as large and diverse a population of former junior hockey participants as possible, and specific inclusion/ exclusion criteria were followed to increase the generalizability of findings (McPeake, Batterson & O’Neill, 2014; Higgins et al., 2013; Hopkins, Marshall, Batterham & Hannin, 2008). 12 Electronic surveys. Electronic surveys were utilized for data collection. Online surveys can be an effective data collection tool that yield meaningful responses regarding a phenomenon within a specific target population with near universal internet access (Crawford, Couper & Lamias, 2001; Aldridge & Levine, 2001; Creswell, 2003). Electronic surveying has been found to be a reliable and efficient way to reach a large proportion of the sample population and is considered a valid form of data collection (Schleyer & Forest, 2000). For the present study, use of electronic surveying allowed for the most convenient data collection procedure, reaching the maximum possible sample population. Both the SDTLA and the AIMS are approved and validated for use in electronic form by their authors (Winston, Milller & Cooper, 1999; Brewer, Van Raalte & Linder, 1993). Furthermore, both the SDTLA and AIMS have been successfully utilized in online versions in research settings with similarly aged populations (Coe-Meade, 2015; Turton, Goodwin, & Mayer, 2017; Wisdom, 2006). Benefits of employing these measures in an online format include ordered presentation of questions, reduction of non-responses, increased convenience for participants, lower cost, and faster data analysis (Aldridge & Levine, 2001; Granello & Wheaton, 2004). Data collection procedures. Prior to data collection, approval was obtained from the West Virginia University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects to ensure ethical protection of all participants. Study procedures, outline of participant rights, and informed consent were presented to participants for approval prior to accessing the survey instrument. The full survey instrument (see Appendices B, C, & D) was administered to participants utilizing the Qualtrics software platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Each participant received a unique and anonymous link to the instrument that was accessed at their convenience. All possible efforts 13 were made to ensure confidentiality and minimize collection of identifying information through the survey instrument, and no identifying information as included in data analysis proceedings. Data was secured and accessible through one password protected account, only accessible to the researcher. Downloaded data sets were stored on a password protected computer. Sample size. Data collection remained open until desired sample size was reached. Estimates utilizing the GPower software suite (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang & Buchner, 2007) indicated that for a low-to-medium effect size, with power set at .95, and a .05 Pearson’s coefficient, that approximately 210 participant responses would be required to obtain significant results. Desired sample size has further been determined through recommendations from similar studies as well as parameters in the literature regarding appropriate sampling procedures (Bartlett, Kotrlik & Higgins, 2001). Statistical Analyses Statistical analysis of the data was conducted in three separate steps and addressed each research question individually. All data analyses were conducted through the SPSS statistical software suite (SPSS Inc.) and Microsoft Excel. First, participant scores on the AIMS and SDTLA were calculated as defined by official assessment manuals and published data calculation procedures. Prior to conducting any statistical analyses, the data set was examined for missing/ incomplete responses, and multicollinearity (Schroeder, Lander & Levine-Silverman, 1990). Cook’s distance measure was conducted to test for and remove unduly influential outliers in the data set. In addition, SDTLA task and subtask data missing more than 12% of responses were not included in the data analysis, as recommended by the authors (Winston, Miller, & Cooper 1999). AIMS measures missing any of the seven question responses were also excluded (Brewer, Van Raalte & Linder, 1993). Participant total scores on the AIMS were reflected by a 14 cumulative score of the seven answered questions, ranging from a minimum of 7 to a maximum of 49. Scores on each of the SDTLA’s five tasks/scales were converted to standard scores, allowing individual scores to be compared to the normative population. Research question 1 variables. Research question one examined the relationship between junior hockey experience and athletic identity. To address this question, two demographic variables and two questions related to perceived enjoyment and benefit of the junior hockey experience were collected through the survey instrument and served as independent variables. The four independent variables included: a) number of years of junior hockey participation, b) number of junior hockey teams played for, c) “I enjoyed my junior hockey experience”, and d) “junior hockey was beneficial to my college experience”. The two questions regarding perceived enjoyment and benefit of the junior hockey experience were scored on five-point Likert scales. The dependent variable was represented by cumulative athletic identity scores assessed by the AIMS, ranging from 7 to 49 (Brewer, Van Raalte & Linder, 1993). Research question 1: Junior hockey experience and athletic identity. Research question one addressed the relationship between measures of junior hockey participation and the athletic identity measurement scale (Brewer, Van Raalte & Linder, 1993). Junior hockey experience was measured by four variables; number of years played, number of teams played for, and rating of perceived enjoyment and benefit. Pearson product correlation coefficient, r, was calculated to determine the relationship between two key demographic variables (i.e., years in junior hockey and number of teams played for) and athletic identity. Bivariate correlations are used to assess the degree of relationship between two continuous variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Results of this test are intended to assess the relationship between athletic identity and factors associated with junior hockey experience, including years played, and number of teams played 15 for, and ratings of perceived enjoyment and benefit. Research question 2 variables. Research question two examined the relationship between college-aged former junior hockey players and non-junior hockey playing college students on measures of psychosocial development through the SDTLA (Winston, Cooper, & Miller, 1999). Comparisons were drawn between former junior hockey players and a normative population of male college students categorized by academic class standing. Between each academic class standing (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior), four developmental measures of psychosocial development were assessed. The four SDTLA tasks/ scales included; a) academic autonomy, b) mature interpersonal relationships, c) clarifying sense of purpose, d) salubrious lifestyle scale. Research question 2: Psychosocial development compared to normative population. Research question two examined the relationship between psychosocial development in former junior hockey players in comparison to normative scores for male college students. Participant SDTLA data was stratified based on academic class standing to allow for comparison to normative data. Comparisons of converted T-scores were conducted between participant SDTLA task and subtask scores with normative sample population scores provided by the authors. This comparison determined if mean score on specific tasks for the research sample were significantly different than established norms for male college students (Tambachnick & Fidell, 2001). Research question 3 variables. Research question three examined the relationship between psychosocial development and levels of athletic identity in former junior hockey players. To address this question, participants were stratified according to their AIMS scores into low, medium, and high athletic identity groups. The middle group was formed based on +/- 0.5 16 standard deviation from the sample mean. High athletic identity was represented by scores more than 0.5 standard deviations above the sample mean, and low athletic identity was represented by scores more than .05 standard deviations below the sample mean. The research question was addressed by comparing the stratified groups of athletic identity (measured through the AIMS), with participant aggregate scores on the Student Development Task & Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) for the established primary developmental tasks. Research question 3: Athletic identity and psychosocial development. Participants were stratified according to their AIMS scores into low, medium, and high athletic identity groups. The middle group was formed based on +/- 0.5 standard deviation from the sample mean. High athletic identity was characterized by scores more than 0.5 standard deviations above the sample mean, and low athletic identity was characterized by less than scores more than .05 standard deviations below the sample mean. The stratified groups of AIMS scores were used as independent variables and run in a one-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), testing mean differences between athletic identity and the four scales/ task measures of the SDTLA (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). This test explored the predictive value of athletic identity scores and specific aspects of psychosocial development in college-enrolled former junior hockey players. Summary The present methodology was determined to be the best means to address the primary research questions based on a thorough empirical review of the literature. The methodology addressed the examined relationships between junior hockey experience, athletic identity, and psychosocial development in a college-aged population. The sample population was defined as college enrolled former junior hockey players, having been in college for at least four weeks. The electronic survey instrument for this study included demographic questions, the AIMS, and the 17 SDTLA. Data analyses was conducted to make comparisons between the data sets and to address the three primary research questions outlined previously. Responsible and ethical research practices were observed as defined by the Institutional Review Board, and participant rights to confidentiality were enforced throughout the data collection and analysis process. Results Data Preparation Data collection conducted through the Qualtrics online platform was closed when pre determined sampling thresholds were reached. From a potential audience size of 563 participants, 344 participants accessed the survey and 258 surveys were submitted (75% completion rate for surveys opened by participants). Collected data was converted and downloaded through Qualtrics to SPSS v.25 for analysis. All remaining identifying information was removed from the data set in preparation for analysis. In addition, score adjustments for individual items were entered according to the published SDTLA scoring key before scale, subtask, and task scores were calculated. Following a preliminary review of participant data, specific factors were determined to be grounds for removing cases from the data set. Total sample size progressed through three adjustments based on the requirements of each of the three research questions. For research question one, participants were removed if they did not indicate having any junior hockey experience (based on years played or teams played for). Graduate students (N=10) were also removed from the sample prior to analysis. A final exclusion criterion implemented prior to analysis for research question one involved the SDTLA response bias scale. The SDTLA includes a six-item response bias scale within the instrument, through which the authors recommend removal of participant scores on this scale equal to or exceeding 3 of a possible 6 18 (Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999). Although research question one did not involve the SDTLA instrument, the indication of a high participant social desirability rating was determined to be a threat to AIMS and demographic measurements, both administered at the same time as the SDTLA. Analysis for research question one included N=215 participants. The data set from research question one was established then adjusted in preparation for analysis with research question two. Exclusion criteria for this question included participant responses that fell below 75% completion due to their inability to provide complete SDTLA task or subtask scores. Although the authors of the SDTLA provide instructions for customized scoring of assessments with missing data, it was determined that all participants would be scored the same. If a participant’s subtask or subsequent task score was incomplete, that measure was excluded in the final analysis. Surveys with 75%-100% completion were retained for analysis only on task/ subtasks where all required items were completed, and scores were able to be calculated. Analysis for research question two included N=203 participants. One final exclusion criterium was utilized for research question three. Incomplete participant responses (below 100%) were not included in the MANOVA analysis, which reduced the sample to N=199 participants. Overview of Data Analysis The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of junior hockey participation on identity formation and psychosocial development in a population of college-enrolled former junior hockey players. Research question one was examined by running bivariate correlations between junior hockey experience (as measured by years of junior hockey played, number of junior hockey teams played for, and personal ratings of enjoyment and benefit) and athletic 19 identity (as measured by the seven item AIMS). Research question two was addressed by comparing differences on standardized scores between former junior hockey players and the norm sample population on task and subtask measures of the SDTLA. Research question three was addressed through mean score comparisons of task measures of psychosocial development through the SDTLA and athletic identity scores as measured by the AIMS. The following results are presented in this chapter: (a) description of participants, (b) description of AIMS scores, (c) description of SDTLA task and subtask scores, and (d) the results of a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Demographic Characteristics of the Participants The utilized sample population was comprised of 215 college-enrolled former junior hockey players. All participants were male and over the age of 18. The average participant was 22 years old. Demographic summaries of ethnicity, age, class rank, and international status are provided in tables 1-4. Table 1 Number of Participants by Ethnicity Ethnicity Label White Black American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic RQ1 207 1 0 5 1 1 RQ2 196 0 0 5 1 1 RQ3 192 0 0 5 1 1 Totals (N) 215 203 199 20 Table 2 Number of Participants by Age Age RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 19 5 4 4 20 29 27 27 21 43 41 39 22 57 55 54 23 41 39 38 24 24 23 23 25 9 8 8 26 1 1 1 27 1 1 1 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Mean age = 22 *Five participants did not register age information Table 3 Number of Participants by Class Rank Class Rank RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 Freshman 42 40 38 Sophomore 57 51 51 Junior 61 59 58 Senior 55 53 52 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Table 4 Number of Participants by International Student Status Classification RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 International Student 36 35 35 Not International Student 179 168 164 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Hockey Experience. Demographic information pertaining to experience within the sport of hockey was measured through self-reported current hockey status (level of participation), number of years spent playing junior hockey, number of junior hockey teams played for, number of school changes due to junior hockey, and number of residence changes due to junior hockey. 21 Two additional questions were included regarding participant perception of enjoyment and benefits of their junior hockey experience (“I enjoyed my junior hockey experience”, and “junior hockey was beneficial to my college experience”). These questions were scored on five-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Frequency and mean scores for these questions are provided in Tables 5-11. Table 5 Number of Participants by “Current Hockey Status” Status RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 Competing in college (NCAA/ CCAA level) 114 113 112 Competing in college (Club level) 94 84 82 Participating in college (rec./ intramural) 3 2 1 Not participating in hockey 4 4 4 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Table 6 Number of Participants by “Junior Hockey Years” Years RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 0-1 22 19 19 1-2 74 71 69 2-3 54 49 49 3-4 42 41 39 4-5 23 23 23 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Mean years = 2.9 Table 7 Number of Participants by “Number of JH Teams Played For” Teams RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 1 76 71 70 2 64 60 60 3 38 36 34 4 20 20 20 5 17 16 15 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Mean number of teams = 2 22 Table 8 Number of Participants by “School Changes Due to JH” Changes RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 0 7 6 6 1 97 92 91 2 64 61 60 3 24 23 23 4 18 16 14 5 5 5 5 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Mean school changes = 1.8 Table 9 Number of Participants by “Residence Changes Due to JH” School Changes RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 0 1 1 1 1 51 47 46 2 38 36 36 3 44 42 42 4 37 34 33 5 44 43 41 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Mean residence changes =2.9 Table 10 Participant Rating of “Enjoyment” of Junior Hockey Experience RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 Strongly disagree 2 2 1 Somewhat disagree 5 5 5 Neither agree nor disagree 10 9 9 Somewhat agree 55 49 48 Strongly agree 143 138 136 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Table 11 Participant Rating of “Benefit” of Junior Hockey Experience RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 23 Strongly disagree 2 2 1 Somewhat disagree 5 4 4 Neither agree nor disagree 17 15 15 Somewhat agree 44 43 42 Strongly agree 147 139 137 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Participant frequency scores and descriptive statistics for the AIMS are provided in Tables 12-13. Table 12 Descriptive Statistics for Participant AIMS Scores N Min Max Mean SD RQ1 215 18 49 40 5.4 RQ2 203 18 49 40 5.4 RQ3 199 21 49 40 5.2 Table 13 Frequency Distribution of Participant AIMS Scores AIMS Score RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 18-21 2 2 1 22-25 1 1 1 26-29 8 6 6 30-33 18 13 13 34-37 32 28 27 38-41 76 61 60 42-45 65 60 59 46-49 37 32 32 Totals (N) 215 203 199 Analysis: Research Question One Research question one addressed the relationship between the athletic identify (measured by the AIMS) and junior hockey experience (measured by years spent in junior hockey, number of teams played for, and personal perception of benefit and enjoyment of the experience). Because junior hockey experience was a requirement for participation in this study, the lowest value for participation was one year (i.e., participant years included time spent up to or equaling that number). Significant positive correlations were observed between AIMS score and the 24 variables representing time, perceived enjoyment, and perceived benefit. Bi-variate correlation results are presented in Table 14. Table 14 Bivariate Correlation: AIMS and Junior Hockey Experience Time (years) AIMS .2* Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Sum of Squares and Cross products .004* 260.2 # of teams “Enjoyable” .083 .228 117.7 .2* .003* 176.1 “Beneficial” .18* .009* 166 N = 215 Significance marked at the .05 level. Analysis: Research Question Two Data collected for the SDTLA was sorted by current academic standing and then converted into standard scores according to the published scoring instrument provided by the SDTLA authors. Means and standard deviations derived from the normative sample population were used to compute individual standard T scores for each participant for each sub-scale and scale of the SDTLA. The purpose of converting participant raw scores to T scores was for comparison to the normative sample population, represented as 50 for each category. Participant scores .5 standard deviations above or below the published norm (+/- 5) are considered significant findings according to the SDTLA technical manual (Winston, Brewer, & Cooper, 1999). Average scores for each academic class standing are presented below (See Table 15). Analyses revealed significant differences between the sample population and the norm in two subtask categories and on the Salubrious Lifestyle Scale. On the Academic Autonomy subtask, sophomores, juniors, and seniors scored below the published norms. For the 25 Instrumental Autonomy subtask, scores for sophomores also fell below the expected range, while scores for the other three class ranks neared falling significantly below. Both subtasks containing significantly lower participant scores fell within the Developing Autonomy Task. Table 15 SDTLA Subtask Standard T Scores by Class Class Career Purpose Tolerance Peer Relationships Lifestyle Planning Cultural Participation Educational Involvement Academic Autonomy Interdepende nce Instrumental Autonomy Emotional Autonomy FR 48.1 51.4 46.5 49.1 54.8 45.2 46.4 48.8 45.3 50.9 SO 46.3 47.1 46.7 46.4 53.9 46.3 43.9* 48.9 44.3* 48.3 JU 46.5 49.7 46.3 50.0 52.1 45.7 43.4* 49.1 45.1 52.0 SR 46.1 50.6 46.0 47.2 53.4 48.2 44.5* 47.7 45.7 51.7 * Indicates score >.5 +/- standard deviations from the normative sample Significant differences were also found in the Salubrious Lifestyle Scale, one of the instruments primary measurements (See Table 16). Cumulative scores from Freshman and Seniors on this measure fell below the expected range. Table 16 SDTLA Task Standard T Scores by Class Class FR SO JU SR Salubrious Lifestyle Scale 43.1* 48.2 48.3 44.7* Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task 47.9 47.7 46.9 48.1 Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task 50.1 45.8 49.6 48.2 Developing Autonomy Task 47.3 45.9 47.3 47.1 * Indicates score >.5 +/- standard deviations from the normative sample 26 Analysis: Research Question Three AIMS scores were categorized to “high”, “medium” and “low” according to +/- 0.5 standard deviation from the mean to test variance of the SDTLA model in relation to athletic identity. Table 17 shows the results of the one-way MANOVA conducted. Wilks’ Lambda and F values were not found to be significant. A subsequent between-subjects test of the AIMS categories and the SDTLA tasks did not yield significant values. F scores for the Clarifying Purpose and Salubrious Lifestyle Scale neared significance (See Table 18). However, these findings were not maintained when controlling for differences attributed to class rank within the model. Table 17 Multivariate Analysis of the Variance (AIMS and SDTLA) Value F df Error Sig. Power AIMS Rank Wilks' Lambda .96 1.2 8 386 .39 .5 N=199 Table 18 Test of Between-Subject Effects DV SS df F Sig. Power AIMS AUT 23.9 2 .514 .599 .13 SAL 153.1 2 1.617 .201 .34 PUR 392.9 2 3.25* .041* .62 MIR 10.7 2 .420 .658 .12 N=199 Discussion 27 Introduction Junior hockey is an influential sport development system that impacts thousands of adolescent hockey players prior to their developmental transition to college and early adulthood. Despite the size of this system (approximately 20,000 annual participants in 250 teams in 40 leagues across North America), very little work has been done to understand the effect of a junior hockey experience on participants. Unique from other sport development models, junior hockey embraces a series of non-traditional organizational norms, including the requirement of participants to move away from home, change schools, and alter educational trajectory. Thus, the purpose of the present research was to better understand developmental outcomes of a junior hockey experience through measurements of athletic identity and psychosocial development in a population of college-enrolled former junior hockey players. Research Question One Discussion Research question one hypothesized that the junior hockey experience would influence the amount of athletic identity reported by former junior hockey participants. Junior hockey experience was represented by time spent (in years) within the system, number of teams played for, as well as personal reflection on enjoyment and benefits of the junior hockey experience. The hypothesis was partially supported, as significant positive correlations were found in self reported “time spent” (r = .2), ratings of personal enjoyment (r = .2), and ratings of perceived benefit of junior hockey (r = .18) yielded a significant correlation of at the .01 level. Number of teams played for was not significantly correlated with scoring on the AIMS. These findings indicated that more time spent in junior hockey is associated with the greater athletic identity 28 formation when transitioning