Nr. 1 - Lietuvos sporto informacijos centras

2010 Nr. 1(59)
31
– from 11 to 20 years, and the rest 13 coaches (14,0
%) more than 20 years. Two coaches did not indicate
the years of working experience.
The research data were processed applying SPSS 13
for Windows. We calculated the values of Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient, KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity,
Pearson’s coefficients of relations, means, standard
deviations and percentage distribution of data.
Results
After the inquiry we applied the mathematical
model of factor analysis aiming to distinguish the
factors from the scale. We established that the data
for the factor analysis were suitable – KMO =
0,73, Bartlett’s test p < 0,001. We applied the main
component analysis with the orthogonal Varimax
rotation.
Table 1
Identified factors and the statements included
Statements of
the scale
Athletes’ manipulation
with the final results of the
competition
Provocations against
competitors
Factors
Manipulation of the rules of
the sports contest
Athletes’ role-playing for
their own benefit
Manipulation of referees and
organizers of competitions
with the final results
Statement 10 0,82
Statement 11 0,79
Statement 5 0,60
Statement 8 0,58
Statement 1 0,65
Statement 2 0,88
Statement 3 0,58
Statement 7 0,57
Statement 13 0,81
Statement 14 0,79
Statement 15 0,81
Statement 16 0,43 0,43
Statement 17 0,61 0,41
Statement 18 0,66
Statement 12 0,55
Statement 19 0,82
Statement 4 0,79
Statement 9 0,61
Statement 6 0,63
It should be noted that some statements belonged
to several factors (Table 1). Thus we analyzed the
statements of the factors according to their meaning.
In this way the statements belonging to several
factors were attributed to one factor depending on
their meaning (the sixteenth statement – to the third
factor). Three statements were attributed to absolutely
different factors were they initially did not belong
(the seventeenth and the eighteenth statements –
to the third factor, and the sixth statement - to the
fifth factor). In this way the first factor indicated
behaviours associated with the manipulation with
the final results of the competition (eg,. “The team
or athletes try to lose deliberately in order to meet a
more beneficial team or opponent in the next stage
of the competition”). The second factor includes
behaviours when the athlete provokes the opponent
to take certain actions (eg., “During the competition
athletes try to overbalance the leader of the opposing
team psychologically aiming to make him / her
violate the rules”). The third factor is linked with
the manipulation of the rules of the sports contest
(eg., “ Athlete holds the opponent by his / her clothes
trying to limit his / her actions”). The fourth one is
linked to athletes’ role-playing for their own benefit
(eg., “Athlete pretends to be injured”), and the fifth
– with the manipulation of referees and organizers of
competitions with the final results (eg., “The referee
deliberately awards the penalty for an athlete who
has not violated the rules”). The values of internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of each factor were
respectively 0,81; 0,80; 0,77; 0,67 and 0,64. The
values of two latter factors were lower than 0,70. It
is possible that the low alpha was due to the small
number of items included in this scale, as alpha is
highly dependent on the number of items in the scale.
The numbers of statement in those factors were the
smallest. On the other hand, D. George and P. Mallery
(2003) suggest that the scale would be unacceptable
if its internal consistency of which equalled or were
lower than 0,50.
Validity of deception in sports activities scale was
examined by evaluation it correlation with MSOS‐25
scale. We supposed that justification of deception in
sports activities are positively related to the negative
approach towards the practice of sport subscale and
in contrary negatively correlate with others subscales
of MSOS‐25. Our assumption was proved (Table
2). Deception in sports activities scale was related
positively to coaches negative approach towards the
practice of sport (r=0,22, p < 0,05) and negatively
to coaches respect for social conventions (r = ‐0.27,
p