the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(1981), Rest’s theory of moral development (1984) and Piaget’s (1932) theory of moral development. The instrument uses 10 commonly occurring issues in sport and asks respondents to answer whether they strongly agree, agree, are neutral, disagree or strongly disagree to the scenario. The instrument has been used in studies with over 80,000 participants both within and outside of sport (Beller, Stoll, & Hahm, 2006) and is considered the Gold Standard for general moral reasoning in sport competition. The inventory has a 9 th grade reading level as identified by the Flesch-Kinkaide Grade Level (Microsoft Word). Cronbach alphas range between .77 and .88. The range of scores for the instrument is 10 – 50. The higher the score the more an individual tends towards principles in making moral decisions. Scores in the teens and low twenties reflect a ego-centered view, scores in the 30s reflect an understanding of social rules and laws, score in the 40 reflect an understanding of principles as they guide moral decision making. Ergogenic Aids Moral Competence Inventory (EAMCI) The Ergogenic Aids Moral Competence Inventory (see Appendix B) has five main questions based in deontological moral reasoning and moral philosophy (Frankena, 1973; Kohlberg 1981; Piaget, 1932; Rawls, 1971; Rest, 1984). The purpose of the EAMCI is to help examine other domain specific measures of morality – in this case doping. The five main scenarios (questions/dilemmas) were designed to create a moral character index. These scenarios attempt to create a cognitive dissonance in the respondent, a prerequisite that Piaget and Kohlberg argue must be present to affect the degree to which moral principles become necessary knowledge for the individual (Lickona, 1991). The nine sub-questions purport to measure how respondents reason morally about common doping issues in sport. 48
Ergogenic Aids and Moral Competence Inventory (EAMCI) Validity and Reliability One goal of this study was to pilot the Ergogenic Aids and Moral Competence Inventory (EAMCI) and conduct preliminary validity and reliability measures. Although validity and reliability are interrelated, for purposes of clarification, validity and reliability will be discussed separately and then in their totality to the instrument’s purpose. General Theoretical Construct The EAMCI was developed with deontological moral theory and cognitive moral development as its theoretical foundation. Deontological theory holds that there is an inherent right and wrong apart from the consequences in making moral decisions (Frankena, 1973). Cognitive moral development theory as defined within this study is based on Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1981). Cognitive moral developmentalists are concerned with examining an individual’s ability to examine “what is right”, “why it is right” and the “underlying sociomoral perspectives that underlie what is right and why it is right.” The EAMCI’s underlying construct is based on the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) (Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989; Beller, Stoll, & Hahm, 2006). In this study respondents took both the HBVCI and the EAMCI. A correlation was run on the total scores for the HBVCI and the EAMCI. A significant correlation of r = .39 was found (p=.001). While the underlying construct for both instruments is purported to be the same, the HBVCI (Cronbach Alphas of .77 - .89) measures moral reasoning relative to general sport moral issues, while the EAMCI was developed specific to doping in sport. Respondents on the HBVCI are asked to respond to 12 questions using a Likert scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree. The higher the score, the more an individual purports to use principles in making moral decisions. On the other hand, the EAMCI asks respondents to read a scenario involving doping in sport, and then respond as to whether the individual should take the drug, not 49
Page 1 and 2:
THE MORAL REASONING OF STUDENT ATHL
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Competitive, Respon
Page 5 and 6: sport. The results of this study we
Page 7 and 8: APPENDIX A ________________________
Page 9 and 10: CHAPTER ONE Introduction What is it
Page 11 and 12: college edifice, their paternalisti
Page 13 and 14: are stronger adults because of the
Page 15 and 16: purpose of higher education, which
Page 17 and 18: dope or not dope as well as how ins
Page 19 and 20: the athletic training facilities. T
Page 21 and 22: Certified athletic trainers and ath
Page 23 and 24: 5. What are the differences between
Page 25 and 26: 4. Designer Drugs - A drug produced
Page 27 and 28: CHAPTER TWO Literature Review The p
Page 29 and 30: more of a look like German institut
Page 31 and 32: institutions, conferences, and nati
Page 33 and 34: the cultural norms as a measure of
Page 35 and 36: “Moral reasoning, a systematic, l
Page 37 and 38: describe the reasons for particular
Page 39 and 40: it must be noted that only a low po
Page 41 and 42: Taylor-Hanson, in review). However,
Page 43 and 44: issues in sport or specific issues
Page 45 and 46: naturally occurring male sex hormon
Page 47 and 48: stored. After a few weeks, normal l
Page 49 and 50: of what the supplement actually con
Page 51 and 52: Despite the research and the warnin
Page 53 and 54: use their judgment in discriminatin
Page 55: CHAPTER THREE Methodology Research
Page 59 and 60: and then evaluated each of the thre
Page 61 and 62: Procedures Arrangements were made w
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER FOUR Results The purpose of
Page 65 and 66: Table 2. Means and standard deviati
Page 67 and 68: I do not care whether Arnold choose
Page 69 and 70: Danny should do whatever will make
Page 71 and 72: Team Indiv. ATS F % F % F % Most co
Page 73 and 74: Most common reason not to take the
Page 75 and 76: Hypothesis Six No difference exists
Page 77 and 78: and find that low levels of moral r
Page 79 and 80: athletic training students did not
Page 81 and 82: another paper, the notions of care-
Page 83 and 84: esearch scored relatively low when
Page 85 and 86: Scenario five presented a similar s
Page 87 and 88: conversation and attitude speaks to
Page 89 and 90: consistent set of moral principles,
Page 91 and 92: REFERENCES Alder, P., & Alder, P.A.
Page 93 and 94: Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., Williams
Page 95 and 96: Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J.,
Page 97 and 98: Honour, J.W. (2004). The fight for
Page 99 and 100: Perry, P.J., Lund, B.C., Deninger,
Page 101 and 102: Smith, R.A. (1988). Sports and Free
Page 103 and 104: APPENDIX A HAHM - BELLER VALUES CHO
Page 105 and 106: APPENDIX B EAMCI Instrument Please
Page 107 and 108:
2. George, while hanging out at the
Page 109 and 110:
4. Tony is the kind of athletic tra
Page 111 and 112:
APPENDIX C IRB approval 103
show all

the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?