|
By: Bill Ferguson and Michelle Moosbrugger Originally Published in: Techniques Magazine Provided by: USTFCCCA
During the past decade, the importance placed on strong and competitive collegiate athletic programs has grown exponentially. The process of recruiting has become more complex than ever with numerous factors influencing the thoughts and decisions of prospective student-athletes. The need to enhance recruiting procedures has subsequently followed the trend to keep up with the need of competitive athletic programs (Pauline, 2012). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs intercollegiate athletics at over 1,300 higher education institutions in the United States. The position population includes 19,373 head coaching positions to be filled by Directors of Athletics (NCAA, 2013). Of those 19,373 positions, males hold 13,952 and females hold 5,421 positions. A profession imbalance exists between male coaches and female coaches; the question of differences in recruiting factors between student-athletes and coaches by gender exists (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014). A Postsecondary education equity report by the United States Education Department (2014) revealed that 263,352 male student athletes had participated in intercollegiate athletics and females accounted for another 203,673. Such large numbers of student athletes of both genders requires collegiate coaches to understand the motivating factors in college selection for these athletes. The understanding of the factors may enhance recruiting techniques to attract and retain athletic and academic talent for the overall enrichment of the institution. Several constructs have been investigated by Magnusen, Kim, Perrewe, and Ferris (2014) in the college selection process. Constructs such as repu-tation/information framework, economic model, status attainment-based approach, and social effectiveness theory have been used to gain understanding of motivation factors in the college selection process. Self-effectiveness theory was determined to be the most directly related to the college selection process with three specific characteristics of cognitive, behavioral, and personality. The characteristics can help explain why certain individuals are more effective than others at influencing and getting the desired behavioral responses of a prospective student athlete in both organized and unorganized settings. Researchers (Goss, Jubenville, & Orejan, 2006; Pauline, 2012; Ryan, Groves, & Schneider, 2007; Stevens, 2003) had similar findings when evaluating student athletes in the athletic setting. Most athletes ranked the head coach in the top percentage of importance. Respective researchers discovered that the head coach played a significant role in the recruitment of the student athletes surveyed. Goss et al. (2006) surveyed first-year student athletes of small universities and determined that male student athletes consider the head coach the most influential factor, while females consider degree program the most important factor in choosing of an institution.
Ryan et al. (2007) used meta-analysis to determine that personal attention from the coach ranked most influential in the decision-making process of male high school basketball students, while coaching style ranked second most influential in the recruiting process of high school male basketball players. Stevens (2003) used the Influential Factors Survey for Student Athletes (IFSSA; Pauline, 2005) among baseball players and revealed coaching personality to be fourth most influential to the collegiate baseball players surveyed; winning program, opportunity to play, and baseball-specific facilities were the top three factors. Pauline (2012) surveyed NCAA soccer players using the IFSSA, finding coaching factors ranked highest among male soccer players and third among females. Researchers (Goss et al., 2006; Pauline, 2012; Ryan et al. 2007; Stevens, 2003) have used both qualitative and quantitative research in the past to examine factors influential to the recruiting process. The role of coach gender was not examined as an influential recruiting factor in prior research. Additional research examining the dif-ferences in recruiting factors that exist between male and female student athletes as it pertains to the individual sports and team sports should be undertaken. Research is needed to determine if influential factors in the college selection process differ for male and female prospective student athletes who ultimately choose to play for male as compared to female coaches. Understanding the role coach gender has on college selection criteria will focus recruiting efforts, thereby enhancing athletic programs by attracting and retaining student athletes. Comprehension of the most influential recruitment factors with regard to coaching gender would be utilized to not only recruit the desired athletes, but aid in retention in the respective athletic program. Findings of the current research could also enhance hiring practices of coaching staffs. The current researcher expected a mean difference between male and female student athletes on the subscales of Athletic and Academic. Based upon prior research, males tend to pick athletic factors as more influential than academic factors, in contrast to the factors that female student athletes identify as most influential (Goss et al., 2006). The subscale of Financial Aid was expected to have no mean difference between any of the independent variables since the researcher is investigating Division III student athletes. While athletic scholarships are not awarded at division III, some may have picked the less expensive school over another more expensive school but no difference by gender was to be expected. The researcher expected no mean dif-ference between male and female athletes on the subscale of Coaching due to student athletes of both genders picking the more reputable coach. The researcher expected a mean difference between male and female student athletes on the Social/Personal subscale because past researchers (Burnett, 2010; Goss et al., 2006) have indicated that male student athletes look for a more social atmosphere in the college selection process verses female student athlete counterparts. METHOD The study was designed to examine differ-ences that may exist between the recruiting factors of 1st and 2nd year student athletes of female or male head coaches with respect to the gender of the participants on the athletic team. An ex post facto design was used to identify any differences that may have occurred in recruiting factors between male and female head coaches with respect to the gender in which they recruited. A revised version of the Influential Factors Survey for Student Athletes (Pauline, 2012) was used to collect the data. PARTICIPANTS After examining the data, 152 participants fit the criteria for data analysis, 72 did not fit criteria and were eliminated. Female student athletes represented 55.9% (n = 85) of the participants. Male student athletes represented 43.4% (66). Participants from Division III NCAA sports of Cross Country, Tennis, Track & Field, and Swimming & Diving were represented in the analysis. The schools were chosen using the equity in athletics data analysis cutting tool (Office of Postsecondary Education, 2013) to determine which schools have the desired coaching population. Then email addresses of the Director of Athletics and the Head Coach were obtained through the website of the institution. Utilizing a demographic questionnaire, student athletes self-reported the gender of the coach as well as their own gender, whether or not the student athlete was recruited by said coach, and the sport in which the student athlete participated. Individuals who self-reported not being recruited were eliminated from the study. Prior to taking the survey, all participants recruited or not, reviewed an implied consent form. TESTING INSTRUMENTS Participants completed the Influential Factors Survey for Student Athletes (IFSSA; Pauline, 2005). The IFSSA measurement tool is a 32-question Likert scale response system ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important). Test retest reliability of the IFSSA was reported with r = .81 along with the five Subscales of Athletic r = .88, Academic r = .80, Coaching r = .82, Financial r = .84, Personal/Social r = .79 (Pauline, 2012). The subscales and IFSSA were then tested over an 8-week period for stability and scores were as follows: Academic r = .85, Athletic r = .84, Personal/ Social r = .78, Coaching r = .77 and Financial r = .71 (Pauline, 2012).
PROCEDURES Following Institutional Review Board approval of the study, the researcher made initial contact via email to the Directors of Athletics. A sample size of 210 Directors of Athletics were emailed (n = 67 Granted Approval; 33%) within NCAA athletic departments that supported the desired athletic program and coaching sample using the Equity in Athletic Department Act (EADA) web-based data collection tool. Following permission by the Director of Athletics, an email was sent to the head coach of 133 (86 Male Head Coaches; 47 Female Head Coaches) NCAA cross coun-try, track and field, tennis, and swimming and diving programs. The email provided information on the questionnaire objectives, the purpose of the research, length of the questionnaire process, ensuring that the questionnaire is voluntary and designated questionnaire anonymity. Following the permission to include the team as participants (n = 28; 17 Male Head Coaches; 11 Female Head Coaches), the researcher then sent a subsequent email to the head coach with the hyperlink to the online questionnaire, requesting the head coach forward the hyperlink address, with instructions, to the team. Once the partici-pants received the email with the online questionnaire hyperlink, participants then read the informed consent form knowing that all data from the questionnaire would remain confidential throughout the research process. An inadequate amount of participants took the survey; therefore, a follow-up email was then sent to the head coach two weeks after the original email. An inadequate amount of female coaches agreed to participate and send the link to student-athletes, so a decision was made to eliminate coach gender as an independent variable. Once the data was collected through the online questionnaire provider Qualtrics, data was then entered into data-analysis software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 24. Once the acceptable amount of participants completed the online survey of the IFSSA, a thank you email was sent to the Athletic Director of the respective school along with an email to the head coach. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The study was an ex post facto research design to evaluate differences by gender in influential recruiting factors among 1st and 2nd year student-athletes (N = 151). Using the IBM SPSS Statistics 21, data collected from the questionnaire were coded and input into the program. Descriptive statistics were then computed. Each dependent variable of the IFSSA was scored with respect to the order in which the question appears in the subscales: Athletic, Academic, Coaching, Financial, and Personal/Social. The intended independent variables were student-athlete gender and coach gender. Due to an inadequate amount of responses from female coaches, coach gender was eliminated as an independent variable. An independent groups t-test was conducted for each subscale. The alpha level was set at the .05. RESULTS Basic assumptions for normal distribution were investigated: Skewness and kurtosis were reported with negative skews. No significant (p > .05) differences were found in the variances of the subscales based on Levene's Test for homogeneity of variance. Sources on the subscale Coaching Staff were significantly different between male (3.367 ± .761) and female (3.635 ± .627) student athletes with females having the higher mean. Female student athletes (2.843 ± .615) scored significantly higher on the Social subscale than male student athletes (2.498 ± .683). A medium effect size was reported for Coaching Staff (d = .530) and Social (d = .534). No significant mean difference was found between male student athletes and female student athletes with respect to the Financial Aid and Academic subscales. No significant mean difference existed between male and female student athletes with respect to the Athletic subscale. DISCUSSION The purpose of the study was to examine what had been influential recruiting factors of first and second-year student athletes of individual sports between male and female athletes. Ordering the means of the current study from greatest to least are as follows: Male student athletes ranked Academics, Financial Aid, Coaching Staff, Athletic, and Social Atmosphere. Female student athletes ranked Academics, Coaching Staff, Financial Aid, Athletic, and Social Atmosphere. The findings of the study included a moderate mean difference and Cohen's D values (d > .05) of .534 and .530 respectively between male and female student athletes in the subscales of Social and Coaching Staff. Statistical and medium meaningful differences were found between both Social and Coaching Staff.
The results of the current study differ from Mathes and Gurney (1985), who discovered that male student athletes found social environment of more importance than the current research study. The contradiction between the findings could exist within the confines of the research study. Participant parameters of Mathes and Gurney (1985) included 231 scholarship and partial scholarship student athletes of various sports in the Midwest. The region differs from that in the current research study. The testing instrument was a 52-item 5-point Likert Scale survey with 4 subscales followed by a multivariate analysis of vari-ance, a longer more complex statistical analysis than used in the current research. Finally, in 1985, the number of student athletes in the NCAA was 292,742 between all three divisions. In 2017, the total of NCAA participants is 492,531 (Irick, 2016). Therefore, with the increase in student athlete participation, a need exists for college coaches to be more effective in their recruiting processes in order to field a competitive program. The current research had similar findings to that of Gabert et al. (1999) who revealed results with female student athletes regarding coaching staff of most importance. Male student athletes in the same research study regarded coaching staff as the second most important. Gabert et al. (1999) examined NCAA Division I, II, and NAIA student ath-letes as compared to the current study with NCAA Division III student athletes. Similar findings with different participant demo-graphics could support the need for further research in recruiting. Stevens (2003) reported similar findings using the same IFSSA measurement tool as the current research study. Participants were NCAA Division I, II, and III baseball players. The researchers found coach- Pauline (2012) used the IFSSA to survey 792 Division I, II, and III NCAA lacrosse players and compared differences across divisions. Isolating the results of the Division III male and female student athletes to make a connection to the current research participants, both male and females ranked academics as most important. Examining the current research, similarities by gender existed between subscales academic, financial aid, and athletic. When ordering the subscales by averaged score, both male and female student athletes found Academics to be the most important factor in the college selection. Pauline (2010, 2012) and Pauline et al. (2005) also found academics to rank as the most influ ential factor of student athletes, all using IFSSA. The similarity of the findings from the current research and Pauline discovered academics to have remained the most important recruiting factor among the surveyed student athletes for the past 12 years. Financial Aid subscale ranked second for males and third for females. The current findings are different from that of Stevens (2005), Pauline (2010, 2012), Konnert and Giese (1987), Cooper et al. (2011); all used different measure tools and found financial aid to be of less of importance to Division III student athletes. The rising cost of higher education and the associated need for financial aid to alleviate student debt over the years could attribute to this change in findings between past research and the current research study. No differences between male and female student athletes existed in the current research due to the fact that tuition of institutes does not change based on gender, so the need for financial aid is the same whether you are male or female. The subscale of Athletics has also changed from previous research. Schneider and Messenger (2012) and Goss et al. (2006) found athletic-related factors to be of more importance to student athletes than the current research. The participants surveyed in the current research determined Athletics was the 4th most important factor in the recruiting process. The consideration for the change in the ranking of athletic-based factors in the recruiting process could be due to the greater need of other factors in the recruiting process since prior research has been completed. No difference existed between male and females on the Athletic subscales because those factors related to athletics are the same whether you are a male or female. In college athletics, coaches spend a lot of time recruiting individuals to strengthen their athletic programs. Coaches that understand the complexities of the recruiting process can be more effective in the selection of athletes by focusing the recruiting objectives. The results of the current study can help coaches at the Division III level in becoming more efficient in the recruiting process when looking at the averaged means of all five subscales. College coaches that are able to examine and understand the differences that are present in the recruiting process, such as coaching staff and social atmosphere when recruiting a male or female student athletes, could see more success in the process when planning recruiting visits, using more social athletes on the team to meet the recruit when hosting a female student athlete. Letters to the recruit can be more open and conversational rather than mundane and boring. Head Coaches can utilize all coaches on the coaching staff to recruit an individual to see which coach the recruit gravitates towards more in a conversation to aid in the development of a relationship with the recruit. Coaches who may recruit both genders must be cognizant of the differences that exist between genders and can make adjustments based on the gender of the student athletes. Coaches who can understand the similarities in the recruiting strategies based on both genders of the student athletes can be more effective. With financial aid, although the coach does not have much control over this decision, he or she can stress the potential a recruit may have at the respective school. Athletic fac-tors, such as facilities, are out of the coach's control. Team atmosphere, tradition, and history are in the control of the coach and can be stressed in the recruiting process. Academic is another factor that is out of the control of the coach, but strong academic majors, academic experiences such as internships and fieldwork, academic facilities such as labs and updated features, and future academic programs can be stressed in the recruiting process. The limiting factors in the study to con-sider are the ability to recall the recruiting process and the imbalance of male and female sample size. Recall of the influential factors of the surveyed participants, the time between when the participants made their college choice, and when they were surveyed could have influenced their responses. Future researchers in the field of recruiting should consider using more athletic programs, more divisions, scholarship verses non-scholarship, and private institutions verses public institutions. Further research will provide more opportunity for a variation of statistical tests that would provide a greater sample size, variation in sport, and statistical power. The possibility of a qualitative research project with potential student athletes in the process would provide a great opportunity to evaluate the recruiting process firsthand. Differences exist between recruited male and female student athletes. Social environment and coaching staff are two areas where the two groups diverge. When examining the raw means, one can evaluate the similarities between the groups as well. Both genders feel academics to be of the utmost importance when selecting a school and financial aid to be the second most important factor. Although no difference existed between the groups, these factors are still important when proceeding through the recruiting process. To provide a more in depth investigation, multiple factors and criteria should be considered for further research. REFERENCES Acosta, V., & Carpenter, L. (2014). Women in intercollegiate sport. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from http://acostacarpenter.org/2014 Status of Women in Intercollegiate Sport -37 Year Update - 1977-2014.pdf Composition and sport sponsorship of the NCAA membership. (2013, November 20). Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://www. ncaa.org/about/who-we-are/membership/ composition-and-sport-sponsorship-ncaa-membership?division=d3 Cooper, C. G., Huffman, L., & Weight, E. (2011). Choice factors and best principles encouraging “best fit” principles: Investigating college choice factors of stu- Gabert, T., Hale, J., & Montalvo, G. (1999). Differences in college choice factors among freshman student-athletes. Journal of College Admission, 164, 20-29. Goss, B., Jubenville, C., & Orejan, J. (2006). An examination of influences and factors on the institutional selection processes of freshman student athletes at small colleges and universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 16(2), 105-134. Irick, E. (2016). Student Athletes Participation 1981-2016 : NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report [Scholarly project]. In NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Research. Retrieved March, 2017, from http://www. ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/ PR1516.pdf Magnusen, M., Kim, Y., Perrewe, P., & Ferris, G. (2014). A critical review and synthesis of student-athlete college choice factors: Recruiting effectiveness in NCAA sports. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1265-1286 Office of Postsecondary Education. (2014). Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool. Retrieved March 20, 2015 from http:// ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx Pauline, J., Pauline, G., & Stevens, A. (2005). Influential factors in the college selection process of baseball student- athletes. Issues in Contemporary Athletics, 4, 135-144. Pauline, J. (2012). Factors influencing college selection by NCAA Division I, II, III soccer players. International Journal of Sports Management, 13(1), 87-103. Ryan, C., Groves, D., & Schneider, R. (2007). A study of factors that influence high school athletes to choose a college or university, and a model for the development of player decisions. College Student Journal, 41(3), 532-539. Schneider, R., & Messenger, S. (2012). The impact of athletic facilities on the recruitment of potential student athletes. College Student, 46(4), 805-811. Stevens, A. (2003). Factors that influence the college selection process of baseball players. (Unpublished master's thesis). Ball State University, Muncie, IN. Bill Ferguson is in his third year as an assistant Track & Field Coach at Moravian College. Michelle Moosbrugger is the Co-Chair of The Department of Physical Education & Health Education at Springfield College. |
Influential Recruiting Factors – For Collegiate Individual Sport Athletes
