| Literature DB >> 32024100 |
Wiesław Firek1, Katarzyna Płoszaj1, Marcin Czechowski1.
Abstract
We assume that all institutions and individuals involved in the organization of sport for children and young people should utilize the educational potential of sport. We assessed the quality of referee interactions with children during sports competitions in soccer. Based on the developmental theory and research suggesting that interactions between kids and adults are the primary mechanism of their development and learning, we focused on the quality of the referee-player interactions in terms of (1) emotional support, (2) game organization, and (3) instructional support. Twenty-five soccer referees who refereed matches for children aged 9-12 years were recruited. The Referee Educational Function Assessment Scoring System (REFASS) was used to assess the quality of the referee-player interactions. This tool was developed based on Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Upper Elementary. Regarding the REFASS dimensions, the mean scores for positive climate, Sensitivity, behavior management, content understanding and quality of feedback were in the medium range, while productivity and negative climate in the high range. In the case of the positive climate variable, the lowest mean ratings were recorded compared to other assessed dimensions. The assessments of the quality of referee-player interactions obtained for particular dimensions translated into the ratings for the specified domains. The highest ratings were given to game organization (6.0 ± 0.8; Me = 6.0), whereas the emotional support and instructional support were in the medium range (4.6 ± 1.5; Me = 4.5, and 5.2 ± 1.8; Me = 6.0, respectively). Referees are usually not aware of their pedagogical function and the complexity of their respective responsibilities. They are commonly considered to be ordinary technicians and evaluators of performance in competition. Based on the results, a postulate was formulated that referees should consciously perform a pedagogical function in the youth sport. Therefore, it is necessary to train them in educational methods and techniques appropriate to the age and needs of the child. The referees will then be prepared to take actions to prevent negative behavior of players on the field and to encourage prosocial behavior.Entities:
Keywords: assessment; educational practice; observational instruments; pedagogical function; referee; referee–player interactions; soccer
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32024100 PMCID: PMC7037352 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030905
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Framework for assessing quality referee–player interactions.
Example of determining the assessment for the dimension of positive climate of the REFASS tool (based on Pianta, Hamre, Mintz 2012).
| Positive Climate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive climate reflects the emotional connection and relationships among referees and players, and the warmth, respect, and enjoyment communicated by verbal and non-verbal interactions. | |||
| Indicators | Low (1,2) | Mid (3,4,5) | High (6,7) |
| Relationships | The referee and players appear distant from and disinterested from in one another. | The referee and some players appear generally supportive and interested in one another but the interactions are muted or not representative of the majority of players on the pitch. | There are many indications that the referee and players enjoy warm and supportive relationships with one another. |
| Positive affect | The referee and players display flat affect and do not appear to enjoy their time on the pitch. | The referee and players demonstrate some indications of genuine positive affect; however, these displays may be brief, muted, or not characteristic of the majority of players on the pitch. | There are frequent genuine displays of positive affect among the referee and players. |
| Positive communications | The referee and players rarely provide positive comments. | The referee and players sometimes provide positive comments; however, these communications may be brief, somewhat perfunctory, or not observed among the majority of players on the pitch. | There are frequent positive communications among the referee and players. |
| Respect for and recognition of the authority of the referee | The referee and players rarely, if ever, demonstrate respect for one another. Competitors do not recognize the authority of the referee, often questioning his or her decision. | The referee and players sometimes demonstrate respect for one another; however, these interactions are not consistently observed across time or players and it happens that the players question the referee’s authority. | The referee and players consistently demonstrate respect for one another. The referee has the authority and his decisions are not called into question. |
The method to determine the assessment of individual dimensions based on their indicators.
| Two Indicators * | Three Indicators | Four Indicators | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L, L | L, L, L | L, L, L, L | 1 |
|
| L, M | L, L, M | L, L, L, M | 2 | |
| M, L | L, M, M | L, L, M, M L, M, M, M | 3 |
|
| M, M | M, M, M L, M, H | M, M, M, M L, M, M, H | 4 | |
| M, H | M, M, H | M, M, M, H M, M, H, H | 5 | |
| H, M | M, H, H | M, H, H, H | 6 |
|
| H, H | H, H, H | H, H, H, H | 7 | |
Abbreviations: L = Low; M = Mid; H = High. * in the case of two indicators, the indicator which is higher in the dimension description is more important.
Descriptive statistics and normality assessment for the ratings of quality of referee–player interactions for individual dimensions observed in soccer referees (n = 25).
| Dimension | Mean (SD) | Median | Skewness | Kurtosis | Shapiro-Wilk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Climate | 4.0 (1.8) | 4.0 | 0.172 | -1.475 | 0.004 |
| Sensitivity | 5.2 (1.5) | 5.0 | −0.886 | 1.173 | 0.016 |
| Behavior Management | 4.8 (1.7) | 5.0 | −0.316 | −0.833 | 0.022 |
| Productivity | 6.4 (0.9) | 7.0 | −1.339 | 1.038 | <0.001 |
| Negative Climate | 6.7 (0.9) | 7.0 | −3.619 | 13.65 | <0.001 |
| Content Understanding | 5.2 (1.8) | 6.0 | −0.632 | −0.913 | 0.002 |
| Quality of Feedback | 5.2 (1.9) | 6.0 | −0.658 | −1.148 | <0.001 |
Figure 2Mean (±SD) ratings of the quality of referee–player interactions in individual domains observed in Soccer (n = 25) referees. * significantly (p < 0.05) higher than in the two other domains (Friedman’s ANOVA followed by Wilcoxon’s signed ranks test).
Results of factor analysis after Varimax rotation (two-factor solution): values represent factor loadings for the assessments.
| Variable | Factor 1 | Factor 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Positive Climate | 0.789 | |
| Sensitivity | 0.653 | |
| Behavior Management | 0.694 | |
| Productivity | 0.846 | |
| Negative Climate | 0.701 | |
| Content Understanding | 0.744 | |
| Quality of Feedback | 0.715 | |
| Eigenvalue | 2.53 | 2.11 |
| Explained variance | 36.2% | 30.2% |
Results of factor analysis after Varimax rotation (three-factor solution): values represent factor loadings for the assessments.
| Variable | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Climate | 0.918 | ||
| Sensitivity | 0.747 | ||
| Behavior Management | 0.675 | ||
| Productivity | 0.924 | ||
| Negative Climate | 0.923 | ||
| Content Understanding | 0.635 | ||
| Quality of Feedback | 0.646 | ||
| Eigenvalue | 2.43 | 1.88 | 1.19 |
| Explained variance | 34.8% | 26.8% | 17.0% |