| Literature DB >> 35664421 |
Zhen Wang1, Bin Tan1, Binquan Yi1.
Abstract
In order to enrich campus sport life and promote the development of campus ball game, this paper uses the analysis method to analyze the development mode of campus football and evaluates the relevant factors combined with the development status, characteristics, and future trend of campus football. Factor analysis is a comprehensive analysis method, which can realize multifactor comprehensive analysis and qualitative and quantitative analysis of campus football. At the same time, analyze the relationship between various factors and find a scheme conducive to the development of campus football. The results show that both comprehensive method factors and single method factors are positive, indicating that the two models have a significant positive impact on the development model of students' football. However, the influence degree of the comprehensive method (0.314) is the largest, followed by the single method factor (0.128), and the sig. values of the two variable factors are <0.05, so the comprehensive method is the main mode of campus football development. Therefore, the factor analysis method proposed in this paper is conducive to the selection of campus football development model and provides support for the development of campus football.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35664421 PMCID: PMC9162855 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3260571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
The research assumptions.
| Number | Research hypothesis |
|---|---|
| H1 | H1a is significant differences in the development model and influencing factors of campus football between different genders |
| Hlb is significant differences in the development model and influencing factors of campus football at different ages | |
| H1c is significant differences in the development mode and influencing factors of campus football in different grades | |
| H1d is significant differences in the development model and influencing factors of campus football with different experience | |
|
| |
| H2 | The comprehensive method has a significant positive impact on the development model of campus football |
|
| |
| H3 | The single method has a significant positive impact on the development model of campus football |
The reliability analysis.
| Latent variable | Number of variables | Cranach's alpha |
|---|---|---|
| Number of variables | 8 | 0.835 |
| Mode 1 | 2 | 0.738 |
| Mode 2 | 6 | 0.843 |
The KMO and Bartlett's test.
| Kaiser–Meyer–Olk in measure of sampling adequacy | 0.826 | |
|---|---|---|
| Bartlett's test of sphericity | Approx. chi-square | 543.983 |
| df | 27 | |
| Sig. | 0.000 | |
The factor analysis results of campus football development model.
| Mode code | Load value | Characteristic value | Explanatory ability (%) | Cumulative interpretation (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mode 1 | Infrastructure | 0.862 | 2.918 | 45.9 | 45.9 |
| Football practice form | 0.746 | ||||
| Practice standard | 0.744 | ||||
| Special salary | 0.724 | ||||
| Training reward | 0.775 | ||||
| Extracurricular practice | 0.793 | ||||
|
| |||||
| Mode 2 | Structure of personnel | 0.705 | 1.023 | 1.3 | 64.1 |
| Grade ratio | 0.646 | ||||
The criteria for KMO statistics.
| KMO | Suitability of factor analysis |
|---|---|
| >0.9 | Suitability of factor analysis |
| >0.8 | It is very suitable for factor analysis |
| >0.7 | Suitable for factor analysis |
| >0.6 | Factor analysis can be carried out |
| >0.5 | Forced factor analysis |
| <0.5 | Not suitable for factor analysis |
The criteria for reliability coefficient.
| Reliability coefficient range | Judgment conclusion |
|---|---|
| >0.9 | Good reliability |
| 0.8-0.9 | Good reliability |
| 0.7-0.8 | The reliability is average, and some items need to be revised |
| <0.7 | The reliability is not very good. Some items need to be deleted |
The statistics of demographic characteristic variables (n = 400).
| Demographic variables | Sample distribution | Number (person) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number | 400 | 100 | |
|
| |||
| Gender | Male | 133 | 33.9 |
| Female | 267 | 66.1 | |
|
| |||
| Age | Under 18 | 60 | 15 |
| 18–25 years old | 55 | 13.8 | |
| 26–30 years old | 35 | 34.5 | |
| 31–35 years old | 68 | 17 | |
| Over 35 | 85 | 21.25 | |
|
| |||
| Experience | 1–5 years | 63 | 15.7 |
| 6–10 years | 70 | 17.6 | |
| 11–15 years | 83 | 20.8 | |
| 16–20 years | 59 | 14.7 | |
|
| |||
| Grade | Secondary specialized school | 4 | 1.0 |
| Junior college | 23 | 5.8 | |
| Undergraduate | 334 | 83.4 | |
| Master | 39 | 9.9 | |
|
| |||
| Grade | Freshman | 90 | 22.4 |
| Sophomore | 220 | 55.0 | |
| Junior | 90 | 22.7 | |
|
| |||
| Experience | A year | 54 | 13.4 |
| Two years | 340 | 85.0 | |
| More than three years | 6 | 1.6 | |
The descriptive statistical analysis of football development model indicators (n = 400).
| Factor |
| Maximum | Minimum | Average | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incentive effect | 400 | 4 | 1 | 2.996 | 0.910 |
| Infrastructure | 400 | 5 | 1 | 2.866 | 0.849 |
| Football practice form | 400 | 5 | 1 | 3.618 | 0.747 |
| Practice standard | 400 | 5 | 1 | 3.161 | 0.654 |
| Football match | 400 | 4 | 1 | 2.882 | 0.851 |
| Training reward | 400 | 5 | 1 | 3.616 | 0.745 |
| Extracurricular practice | 400 | 5 | 2 | 2.995 | 0.63 |
| Structure of personnel | 400 | 5 | 1 | 3.163 | 0.911 |
| Grade ratio | 400 | 5 | 2 | 2.872 | 0.851 |
The difference analysis of gender on various research variables (n = 400).
| Research variables | Gender |
| Mean value | Standard deviation |
| Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Development model of campus football infrastructure | Male | 133 | 3.44 | 0.821 | 0.977 | 0.779 |
| Female | 267 | 3.91 | 0.905 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Football practice form practice standard | Male | 133 | 3.06 | 0.908 | 0.928 | 0.753 |
| Female | 267 | 2.94 | 0.880 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Football match training reward | Male | 133 | 3.88 | 1.328 | 0.598 | 0.074 |
| Female | 267 | 3.76 | 1.495 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Extracurricular practice structure of personnel | Male | 133 | 3.80 | 0.896 | −0.059 | 0.130 |
| Female | 267 | 3.80 | 0.999 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Grade ratio research variables | Male | 133 | 3.42 | 0.789 | 1.248 | 0.264 |
| Female | 267 | 3.27 | 0.917 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Development model of campus football infrastructure | Male | 133 | 3.57 | 0.879 | −0.733 | 0.034 |
| Female | 267 | 3.79 | 1.031 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Football practice form practice standard | Male | 133 | 3.59 | 0.829 | −0.592 | 0.390 |
| Female | 267 | 3.66 | 0.892 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Football match training reward | Male | 133 | 3.52 | 0.803 | 1.103 | 0.578 |
| Male | 267 | 3.39 | 0.843 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Extracurricular practice | Female | 133 | 3.21 | 0.738 | ||
| Male | 267 | 3.17 | 0.699 | 0.399 | 0.289 | |
P < 0.05.
Figure 1The difference analysis of age on various research variables (n = 400).
The analysis on the differences of various research variables in grade.
| Secondary specialized school | Junior college | Undergraduate | Master |
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incentive effect | 2.26 | 2.79 | 3.24 | 3.02 | 3.775 | 0.027 |
| Infrastructure | 2.55 | 2.81 | 2.91 | 3.33 | 4.311 | 0.001 |
| Football practice form | 3.73 | 3.76 | 3.55 | 3.89 | 1.284 | 0.015 |
| Practice standard | 3.18 | 3.39 | 3.57 | 3.86 | 3.363 | 0.092 |
| Football match | 3.45 | 3.17 | 3.19 | 3.58 | 3.486 | 0.795 |
| Training reward | 3.55 | 3.60 | 3.64 | 3.94 | 4.227 | 0.331 |
| Extracurricular practice | 3.27 | 3.35 | 3.66 | 3.89 |
| 0.351 |
| Structure of personnel | 2.73 | 2.97 | 3.43 | 3.83 | 7.311 | 0.255 |
| Grade ratio | 3.18 | 3.05 | 3.02 | 3.36 | 3.507 | 0.102 |
Figure 2The difference analysis of experience on various research variables (n = 400).
Correlation analysis results of football development model indicators (n = 400).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
|
| 0.182 | |||||||
|
| 0.115 | 0.014 | 1 | |||||
|
| 0.259 | 0.094 | 0.129 | 1 | ||||
|
| 0.307 | 0.121 | 0.203 | 0.556 | 1 | |||
|
| 0.389 | 0.105 | 0.078 | 0.553 | 0.605 | 1 | ||
|
| 0.194″ | 0.126 | 0.215 | 0.257 | 0.251 | 0.266 | 1 | |
|
| 262 | 0.072 | 0.133 | 311 | 0.365 | 0.497 | 0.127 | 1 |
|
| 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |
Significantly correlated at the 0.01 level (bilateral);Significant correlation at 0.05 level (bilateral). X1 = infrastructure, X2 = football practice form, X3 = football match, X4 = training reward, X5 = practice standard, X6 = extracurricular practice, X7 = personnel structure, X8 = grade proportion.
The correlation analysis results between campus football development model and various indicators.
| Pearsonrelevance | 0.514 | |
|---|---|---|
| Single method factor | ||
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.000 | |
| Pearson relevance | 0.47 | |
|
| ||
| Comprehensive method factors | ||
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.000 | |
|
| 400 | |
Significantly correlated at the 0.01 level (bilateral).
The model summary.
| Model summary | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model |
|
|
| Standard |
| 1 | 0.469a | 0.235 | 0.176 | 0.34962 |
Predictive variables (constant): comprehensive method factors and single method factors. Dependent variable: football development model.
The regression coefficient and test.
|
| Standard error | Standardized coefficient |
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 4.330 | 0.036 | 2.458 | 0.000 | |
| Comprehensive method | 0.314 | 0.036 | 0.432 | 8.025 | 0.000 |
| Single method | 0.128 | 0.036 | 0.378 | 5.907 | 0.000 |
Dependent variable: development model of campus football.
The analysis of variance results.
| Model | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 20.077 | 5 | 4.0158.750 | 0.000a |
| Residual | 27.381 | 224 | 0.122 | |
| Total | 47.458 | 229 |
Predictive variable (constant): comprehensive method and single method; Dependent variable: development model of campus football.