the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Results of Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory Hypothesis One No difference exists by status in general sport moral reasoning using the HBVCI. × No significant difference was found (p < .05) by status on HBVCI scores for moral reasoning. F (2,183) = .50, p = .61. Athletic training students scored slightly higher (M = 31.46 + 5.20) than both individual (M = 29.46 + 8.88) and team sport athletes (M = 29.01 + 9.43), although not significantly. Hypothesis Two No difference exists by gender of athletic training students and student athletes in general sport moral reasoning using the HBVCI. × A significant difference was found (p < .05) by gender on HBVCI scores for moral reasoning. F (1,183) = 11.78, p = .001. Females, regardless of status, (M = 32.93 + 8.11) scored significantly higher on moral reasoning compared to males (M = 25.92 + 8.20). Hypothesis Three No difference exists in the interaction of gender by status in general sport moral reasoning using the HBVCI. × No significant difference was found (p < .05) with the interaction of gender by status on HBVCI scores for moral reasoning. F (2,183) = 2.52, p = .08 (see Table 2). 56
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the interaction of gender by status on HBVCI Males Females N Mean Sd N Mean Sd Team Sport 69 25.06 8.05 55 33.96 8.73 Individual Sport 15 27.47 10.48 24 30.71 7.71 Athletic Training Students 10 29.50 3.24 16 32.69 5.89 Results of Ergogenic Aids Moral Competence Inventory Hypothesis Four No difference exists by status in the moral reasoning of doping in sport using the EAMCI. × A significant difference was found (p < .05) by status on EAMCI scores for the moral reasoning of doping in sport. F (2,173) = 3.03, p = .05. Athletic training students scored slightly higher (M = 8.73 + 1.28) than individual sport athletes (M = 8.15 + 1.50) and team sport athletes (M = 7.93 + 1.46) (see Table 3 for descriptive data). The EAMCI required participants to make a choice about what the subject of the scenario should do. After making the decision participants were required to rank the three reasons provided that correspond to the decision they chose in order of most important to least important in making their decisions. For example, if a participant decided to select take the drug then he or she was asked to rank the reasons such as it’s not illegal, everybody’s doing it, and it’s not technically cheating. 57
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 and 56: CHAPTER THREE Methodology Research
Page 57 and 58: Ergogenic Aids and Moral Competence
Page 59 and 60: and then evaluated each of the thre
Page 61 and 62: Procedures Arrangements were made w
Page 63: CHAPTER FOUR Results The purpose of
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?