Development of the Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory.

Cox, Richard H. ; Sandstedt, Scott D. ; Martens, Matthew P. 等

The Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory (SAEI) and the Student-Athlete Gains Inventory (SAGI) were administered to 217 student-athletes. An exploratory factor analyses (EFA) on the 65-item SAEI resulted in a reduced inventory of 39-items and three factors named assorted experiences, social interaction, and academic experience. An EFA on the 17-item SGI resulted in a 12-item inventory and two factors named practical arts gain and liberal arts gain. For purposes of establishing predictive validity of the SAEI, the relationship between student-athlete experiences (three factors) and perceived student gains (two factors) was evaluated by subjecting the data to a canonical correlation analysis. The structural coefficients between the three SAEI factors and SAGI factors suggested a meaningful relationship between experiences and gains. It was concluded that the SAEI has a three-factor structure and that it provides a reliable and valid measurement of student-athlete experiences.

The experiences of college age students have been studied relative to perceived student outcomes and gains (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1981; Pike, 1995; Pike, 1999). Research investigating the relationship between student experiences (involvement) and academic gains has focused upon the general student population and not upon the student-athlete subgroup. Pike (1999) studied student experiences and academic gains as a function of residence hall type and reported that students in on-campus residential learning communities had significantly higher levels of involvement, interaction, and academic gains than students living in traditional residence halls. Kuh and Hu (2001) studied the academic gains and learning experiences of undergraduates at research universities compared to other comprehensive colleges and universities. Results showed that research universities compare favorably with comprehensive universities in terms of undergraduate education, with a noticeable improvement over the last decade.

Specific to the student-athlete group, those who work with or assist student-athletes are recognizing the potentially negative impact of an athlete's extra-curricular obligations on personal, academic, and vocational development. The literature on the intercollegiate athletic experience generally points to a negative relationship between the athletic experience and outcomes such as career maturity, clarity in educational and occupational plans, and principled moral judgement (Blann, 1985; Bredemeier & Shields, 1986; Kennedy & Dimick, 1987; Martens & Cox, 2000; Sowa & Gressard, 1983; Stone & Strange, 1989). Student-athletes who invest more of themselves in the role of an athlete and who possess a stronger athletic identity have been shown to experience more anxiety regarding career exploration (Grove, Lavalle, & Gordon, 1997). As a result of anxious feelings, student-athletes are less likely to take a proactive approach in their academic and vocational development. Accordingly, Martens and Lee (1998) suggested that it is improbable that the majority of collegiate student-athletes will ever voluntarily seek out university career centers for vocational assistance. Considering the time commitment and multi-faceted obligations of student-athletes, it is plausible to assume that even if a student-athlete were looking to grow academically and/or engage in career exploration, he or she simply may not have the time or energy to do so. Sowa and Gressard (1983) supported such an assertion by suggesting that career planning for athletes is an individual developmental task that athletes have difficulty with due to the time commitment to sport at the collegiate level.

Having recognized the challenges of the academic experience for student-athletes, many college athletic departments have developed "total person programs" designed to assist athletes in academic and career pursuits. The goal of these programs is to help athletes succeed athletically while at the same time helping them succeed academically, socially, and in developing a viable career either within or outside of sport. Experiences that student-athletes have while in college will likely affect the degree to which they are successful in these important areas.

The purpose of this study was to develop a Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory (SAEI) that would adequately measure the experiences of collegiate athletes. To date, the primary instrument that has been used to measure college student experiences is the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ; Pace, 1990; Pace & Kuh, 1998). The CSEQ assesses information about the individual (demographics), college related experiences, opinions about college, the college environment, and the individual's perceived estimate of gains. The college experiences component of the CSEQ is divided into 14 different categories with a total of 136-items. Initially our research group thought that the CSEQ could be utilized to measure student-athlete college experiences, but after careful study it became apparent that the CSEQ was too long and that many of the items within categories were often redundant. Furthermore, because it does not appear that the CSEQ has been subjected to either an exploratory (EFA) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), it is not known if the 14 subsections could be factor analyzed into 14 latent variables, or if some other factor structure would emerge. Rather than simply developing a brief version of the CSEQ we chose to completely rewrite the items and to only include items that we felt were relevant to the student-athlete. In our preliminary 65-item inventory, only five items actually included words such as athlete, coach, or sport. In the final 39-item inventory, only three items contained these words. This was by design, so that with minor modification the inventory could be used with a non-athlete group for the purpose of generating comparison scores. The development, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), internal reliability, and criterion validity of the SAEI is reported in this article.

While the development and testing of the SAEI was our primary research goal, the development and testing of the companion Student-Athlete Gains Inventory (SAGI) was of parallel importance in order to establish the criterion validity of the SAEI. We felt that a valid experiences inventory would be able to predict a student-athlete's perceived academic gains. If it could, this would be evidence of the criterion validity of the SAEI. We recognize, however, that this is only the first step in establishing the validity of the SAEI.

Method

Participants

Participants for this investigation were 150 male and 67 female (N=217) athletes from a large Midwest university. The sample was represented by athletes from the sports of baseball (n=1), men's basketball (n=4), women's basketball (n=9), football (n=96), women's golf(n=3), soccer (n=8), softball (n=1), swimming and diving (n=3), women's tennis (n=1), track and field (n=54), volleyball (n=14), wrestling (n=21), and other (n=2). Missing data were observed for one football player. Therefore the actual sample used for analysis included 216 athletes. Within the total sample, 26% represented persons of color and 74% were European American. Specific to class standing, 22% were freshmen, 29% were sophomores, 27% were juniors, 17% were seniors, 4% were fifth year seniors, and 1% were graduate students.

Materials

As described below; two different inventories were presented to participants. The first inventory was the actual 65-item Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory (SAEI), and the second was the Student-Athlete Gains Inventory (SAGI).

Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory (SAEI). While the CSEQ (Pace, 1990; Pace & Kuh, 1998) was composed of 136 items and 14 grouped categories, the preliminary version of the SAEI was composed of 65 randomly distributed items that represented 13 categories of college experiences written specifically for a student-athlete population. An initial set of 80 items was pilot tested and evaluated by the six members of the research team. Items judged to be redundant, poorly conceived or worded were eliminated, resulting in 65 items and 13 categories. The 13 categories of experiences were as follows: library use, instructor interactions, course work, student union, clubs and organizations, student acquaintances, reading experiences, writing activities, speaking activities, personal experiences, use of computer, discussing or dealing with career issues, and independent thinking. Each of the SAEI 13 categories of experiences was composed of five items that were randomly distributed throughout the 65 item inventory. Eight of the 13 categories were similar to eight of the 14 categories addressed in the 136-item CSEQ, but five categories were relatively unique to the SAEI (i.e., discussing or dealing with career issues, use of computer, independent thinking, reading experiences, speaking experiences). In responding to items, participants were asked to indicate how often they had had a particular experience via a 4-point scale (1=never or almost never, 2=occasionally, 3=often, 4=very often) over the past identified semester.

Student-Athlete Gains Inventory (SAGI). In conjunction with the SAEI, participants completed a 17-item Student-Athlete Gains Inventory (SAGI). For each gain (outcome), the participant was asked to indicate on a four point scale the degree to which they realized the gain (1=not at all, 2=somewhat, 3=greatly, 4=definitely) over the past identified semester. These 17 gain statements were patterned after the 23 gains that appear in the CSEQ inventory and are representative of gains/outcomes that are typically realized by the student-athlete. The 17 gain statements, however, were not meant to represent an exhaustive list of student-athlete gains. As with the SAEI, each item on the gains inventory was carefully reviewed by members of the research team. As with the SAEI, the SAGI was developed so that with minor adjustments it could be used with non-athletes for the purpose of making score comparisons.

Procedure

After receiving approval from the campus Institutional Review Board, the investigators approached coaches from 15 sports and asked for their permission to solicit the voluntary participation of their athletes. After receiving permission, the investigators presented each athlete with a brief overview of the study and asked for his/her voluntary participation. No inducement was offered for participation in the study. Accordingly, it was made clear that failure to volunteer to participate in the study would not result in any type of retribution from their coaches or the investigators. Inventories described in the materials section were presented to each participant in either a team meeting or a one-on-one situation. Prior to completing the inventories, participants were informed of the voluntary nature of the research and that it would take approximately 15-min to answer all the questions. While 15 athletic teams were invited to participate, the greatest cooperation was received from the football team, women's basketball team, track and field, women's volleyball, and wrestling. In all inventory packets, the SAEI preceded the SAGI so that experiences were requested first followed by gains.

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and skewness/kurtosis indices were calculated for each item on the SAEI and the SAGI. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the factor-structure of both inventories. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to establish the internal consistency of the total scale as well as for each identifiable factor. The relationship between SAEI and SAGI sub-scales was ascertained using canonical correlation. In this regard, standardized canonical coefficients and structural coefficients were examined.

Results

Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory

SAEI items were subjected to screening procedures to test for skewness and kurtosis. Based on the results of screening, it was observed that three items exhibited skewness or kurtosis indices that were greater that 2.00. These three items were "used a computer to send and receive e-mail messages", "used a computer to type a term paper or project for a class", and "used a computer to access the World Wide Web." The skewness indices of the three items ranged from 2.49 to 3.13, while the kurtosis indices ranged from 6.39 to 8.9. The reason the kurtosis scores were so high was because 80 to 90% of the participants responded "very often" to these three items. These items were subsequently deleted. The remaining 62-item SAEI was subjected to an exploratory factor analysis using the PROC FACTOR statement in SAS.

A common factor exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was completed using a principal axis extraction method. After conducting the initial EFA, a three-factor promax (correlated) rotation solution was sought based on careful scrutinizing of eigenvalues, eigenvalue proportions, a scree plot, and a consideration of meaningfulness of factors. Using the promax (oblique) rotated pattern matrix, items that loaded .40 or greater on a factor were retained, while items that double loaded on more than one factor were deleted. An additional inclusion criteria was that a retained item had to have a factor loading of at least. 15 greater than its loading on any other factor. This process resulted in 18-items for factor one (assorted experiences), 11-items for factor two (social interaction experiences), and 10-items for factor three (academic experiences). The inter-factor correlation coefficients between factor one and two, one and three, and two and three were .30, .44, and .31, respectively.

Proportion of total variance accounted for by factors one, two, and three was 13%o, 8%, and 8% respectively. Total variance accounted for by the three factors combined was 29%. Proportion of common variance (covariance) accounted for by factors one, two, and three was 44%, 28%, and 28% respectively. Factor loadings from the rotated promax pattern matrix as well as means and standard deviations for each retained item are displayed in Table 1. Calculated Cronbach alphas for factors one, two and three were .89, .79 and .82 respectively. The overall Cronbach alpha for all 39 items combined was .91. The final 39 item SAEI, with scoring key, is found in appendix A.

Student-Athlete Gains Inventory

The 17-items of the SAGI were subjected to screening procedures to test for skewness and kurtosis. Based on the results of screening, it was observed that item-17 exhibited a kurtosis index of 2.43 and was deleted from further analyses. One reason kurtosis of this item was high was because the majority (60%) of the participants responded "very often" to the statement "Learned how to be independent and to make decisions on my own." Using the same procedures described above for the SAEI, the remaining 16-item SAGI was subjected to an exploratory factory analysis. This procedure resulted in a 2-factor solution, with 6-items loading on factor one (practical gain) and 6-items loading on factor two (liberal arts gain). Proportion of total variance accounted for by factors one and two was 19 and 18% respectively. Combined, factor one and two accounted for 37% of the total variability of items. Proportion of common variance (covariance) accounted for by factor one and two was 52 and 48% respectively. The inter-factor correlation between practical gain (factor 1) and liberal arts gain (factor 2) was .58. The internal reliability of the instrument was estimated by calculating Cronbach alphas. The alpha for practical gain was .81 while for liberal arts gain it was .78. The internal reliability for all retained items together was .84. Factor loadings from the rotated promax pattern matrix as well as means and standard deviations for each retained item are displayed in Table 2. Finally, because we were particularly interested in gains related to career development, it is important to note that five of the six items that loaded on "practical gain" were career related. The final 12-item SAGI, with scoring key, is found in appendix B.

Predictive Validity of the SAEI

Theoretically, the SAEI should be able to predict student outcomes or educational gains. The ability of the SAEI to do this would be one indicator of the predictive or criterion validity of the instrument (Ellis, 1994). We were specifically interested in how well the SAEI could predict gains associated with career development. It was for this reason that the student-athletes were asked to complete the Student-Athlete Gains Inventory (SAGI).

Without regard to gender, class or sport, the relationship between student-athlete experiences (three factors) and perceived student gains (two factors) was evaluated by subjecting the data to a canonical correlation analysis. Results of this analysis yielded two canonical variates, the first of which was significant (p<.05) while the second was not. The squared canonical correlation for the first canonical variate was .23. Focusing attention upon the first canonical variate, the standardized canonical coefficients for factors one, two and three of the SAEI were .03, .58, and .60 respectively. The standardized canonical coefficients for factors one and two of the SAGI were .43 and .72 respectively. The structural coefficients for the three factors of the SAEI were .56, .82, and .84; while for the two factors of the SAGI they were .78 and .92. Structural coefficients greater than .30 are considered to be meaningful (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 199). The results of the canonical correlation analysis show a meaningful relationship between student-athlete experiences and educational gains. The details of the canonical correlation analysis are displayed in Table 3.

Discussion

Because the initial 65-item Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory (SAEI) was composed of items from 13 discrete categories, we expected that 13 discrete factors might emerge from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Rather, the EFA on the SAEI resulted in a 39-item inventory composed of three factors titled "assorted experiences", "social interaction experiences" and "academic experiences." Items that loaded on social interaction and academic experience were decidedly social and academic in nature, but items that loaded on factor 1 were a mixture of experiences that might be considered a shallow melange.

One can hypothesize that the education related experiences of a student-athlete should be somewhat related to educational gains and outcomes. To this end we created an instrument composed of 17 discrete educational gains and asked athletes to rate the degree to which these educational gains and outcomes were realized. A factor analysis of the Student-Athlete Gains Inventory resulted in two factors named "practical gains" and "liberal arts gains."

To determine the predictive validity of the SAEI, we studied the relationship between sub-scales on the SAEI with sub-scales on the SAGI. This was accomplished using canonical correlation. While some of the structural coefficients for the first canonical variate were smaller than others, all were meaningful and greater than .30. The results of this analysis indicate that significant and meaningful relationships exist between student-athlete experiences and student outcomes (gains). The strongest associations were between social and academic experience with liberal arts gain. The association, however, between these two SAEI factors and practical application gain was also quite strong. Based on this information one can surmise that student-athletes who experience academia as well as social interactions during college are more likely to realize both practical and liberal arts kinds of gains. From this, we conclude that the SAEI demonstrates strong predictive validity.

While all three of the SAEI factors were meaningfully related to liberal arts and practical gains, it is of interest that the two experience factors defined as academic or social in nature were more predictive of gains than the factor titled "assorted experiences." Apparently, the student-athlete who has an assortment of experiences does not realize academic and practical gains to the same degree as the individual who focuses upon either social or academic pursuits. Perhaps a failure to focus on academics or social experiences results in a melange of shallow experiences that do not translate into meaningful gains. Finally, even though factor analysis of the SAEI resulted in a three-factor structure, it should be of value to select out items that are homogenous in nature to see if they are predictive of selected gains. For example, items 3, 21, 22, 29 and 36 of the SAEI (see appendix A) all relate specifically to the library and could be grouped as a single predictor of some aspect of student-athlete gain (outcome).

While considering the time commitment and extra-curricular obligations of student-athletes that have been observed by researchers, results from this study indicate that the academic and social experiences that are afforded by student athletes do have a beneficial influence on their overall development. Individuals who assist student-athletes with their academic and personal development needs (e.g., vocational exploration, community outreach) can use this awareness to create and implement appropriate experiences for their student-athletes. Moreover, the Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory may be a potential tool used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs (e.g., a total person program) that have been created to facilitate student-athlete academic and personal development.

The primary limitation for this study was the use of a homogenous sample from one large Midwest University. Moreover, although study participants represented all major sports from the cooperating athletic department, relative sample sizes for each sport were not equal. The utilization of such a sample warrants caution when generalizing results to other student-athlete populations as the experiences and subsequent gains characteristic of one college environment may be vastly different compared to those of other college environments. Accordingly, we recommend that further investigations of the reliability and validity of the Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory should include participants representing more than one university and relatively equal numbers of members from all sports as well as both genders.

An additional limitation of the research relates to the manner in which validity of the SAEI was determined. While correlating student-athlete experiences with gains offers some insight into the predictive validity of the SAEI, this can only be viewed as a first step in the process of establishing the overall construct validity of the instrument. To further validate the instrument, future research should examine the relationship of the SAEI to other instruments that are known to provide a valid measure of constructs related to student-athlete experiences.

In summary, we conclude that the Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory has a three-factor structure and that it provides a reliable and valid measurement of student-athlete experiences. Future research should focus upon confirming the theoretical three-factor structure of the SAEI and studying the effect that college related experiences have upon educational outcomes and gains, career situation, and principled moral behavior. If it can be determined that a certain pattern of student-athlete experiences has a positive effect upon graduation rate, career maturity and educational outcome, it might be possible to provide educational interventions that would benefit the student-athlete.

Appendix A

STUDENT-ATHLETE EXPERIENCES INVENTORY

Based on your experiences during--Semester--, indicate how often you have done each of the following (1=never or almost never, 2=occasionally, 3=often, or 4=very often):

01. 1 2 3 4 Offered my opinion on a topic while visiting informally with a group of students.

02. 1 2 3 4 Initiated the opportunity to make a formal oral class presentation.

03. 1 2 3 4 Used a computer to conduct a literature search or to locate books/journals in the library.

04. 1 2 3 4 Went to the Student Union or other student gathering place to have a meal or a snack.

05. 1 2 3 4 Attended an athletic department sponsored personal development event (e.g., financial management workshop).

06. 1 2 3 4 Made a rough draft of a written paper in preparation for writing the final product.

07. 1 2 3 4 Discussed policies and issues related to campus activities and student government with another student.

08. 1 2 3 4 Met my friends at the Student Union or other student gathering place to visit and socialize.

09. 1 2 3 4 Used the library as a place to read current newspapers and magazines.

10. 1 2 3 4 Carefully studied my textbooks and other required readings.

11. 1 2 3 4 Gave a prepared verbal presentation in front of a group of students.

12. 1 2 3 4 Had a serious discussion with a student on topics such as religion or politics.

13. 1 2 3 4 Interacted with one of my instructors in an informal way, such as visiting in the hallway after class or over a cup of coffee.

14. 1 2 3 4 Sought feedback from a friend or a professor relative to my written work.

15. 1 2 3 4 Completed additional readings on topics introduced and discussed in class.

16. 1 2 3 4 Read a magazine or newspaper article that dealt with sports.

17. 1 2 3 4 Visited the career center, talked to a counselor about career opportunities and interests, and/or completed an inventory dealing with career interests.

18. 1 2 3 4 Used a dictionary or thesaurus to look up the proper meaning of a word.

19. 1 2 3 4 Made friends with students whose academic major and interests are different than mine.

20. 1 2 3 4 Participated in campus social events with other students (e.g., dance, concert, political event).

21. 1 2 3 4 Used the library as a resource to find materials related to my classes or to write term papers.

22. 1 2 3 4 Used the library as a place to look up and find interesting material unrelated to my classes.

23. 1 2 3 4 Discussed a controversial subject with a student who embraced a philosophy of life or life-style different than mine.

24. 1 2 3 4 Took part in a discussion group in which the focus was upon personal improvement and enrichment.

25. 1 2 3 4 Took detailed notes in class and studied them outside of class.

26. 1 2 3 4 Talked with my instructor or another professor about career options and opportunities.

27. 1 2 3 4 Socialized with students who were not athletes.

28. 1 2 3 4 Went to the Student Union or other student gathering place to look at the bulletin board for notices about campus events.

29. 1 2 3 4 Used the library's computer resources to help me find books and other journal articles that I used for my classes.

30. 1 2 3 4 Helped plan a campus wide or campus small group social event.

31. 1 2 3 4 Used the Student Union or other nonlibrary student gathering place as a place to relax and study.

32. 1 2 3 4 Completed an inventory dealing with career interests or some other inventory designed to measure career aptitude.

33. 1 2 3 4 Made an appointment to visit with one of my instructors during his/her office hours.

34. 1 2 3 4 Made friends with students whose race and/or cultural background is different than mine.

35. 1 2 3 4 Went to the Student Union or other student gathering place to play games (e.g., table tennis, pool, cards, pinball, video games) or to watch TV.

36. 1 2 3 4 Used the library as a place to study for my classes.

37. 1 2 3 4 Gave a prepared verbal presentation in front of a group of people outside of the University (e.g., school, political gathering, social group).

38. 1 2 3 4 Talked to a close friend or coach about personal things.

39. 1 2 3 4 Participated in student government (e.g., voted, campaigned, ran for office).

Key for scoring 39 item SAEI

Sum items within a factor, divide by the number of items, and multiply by 10 to obtain sub-scale score. Score range is 10 to 40 for each sub-scale.

Assorted Experiences

2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39

Social Interaction Experiences

1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 19, 23, 27, 31, 34, 38

Academic Experiences

3, 6, 10, 14, 18, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36

Appendix B

STUDENT-ATHLETE GAINS INVENTORY

For each of the following items, and relative to your college career to this point, indicate how you feel about each of the following statements on a scale of 1 to 4 (1=not at all, 2=somewhat, 3=greatly, or 4=definitely):

01. 1 2 3 4 Learned to think analytically and logically.

02. 1 2 3 4 Gained knowledge and skills applicable to a specific job or type of work.

03. 1 2 3 4 Learned to get along with many different kinds of people.

04. 1 2 3 4 Learned social skills that will help me to function as a member of a group.

05. 1 2 3 4 Learned skills that will help me in my chosen career.

06. 1 2 3 4 Know what I am going to do when I complete my MU athletic career.

07. 1 2 3 4 Gained a broad range of information that may be relevant to a career.

08. 1 2 3 4 Gained an appreciation for different philosophies, cultures, and ways of living life.

09. 1 2 3 4 Learned to express myself clearly and effectively through the spoken word.

10. 1 2 3 4 Learned the value and importance of a college education.

11. 1 2 3 4 Learned to express myself clearly and effectively through the written word.

12. 1 2 3 4 Learned things in college that should make it possible for me to financially support myself independent of my athletic scholarship or my parents.

Key for scoring 12 item GAINS inventory

Sum items within a factor and divide by number of items in the factor.

Practical Arts Gains

2,5,6,7,10,12

Liberal Arts Gains

1,3,4,8,9,11

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for the 39
Item Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory (SAEI)

 Factors
 Assorted Social Academic
Items Mean S.D. Experiences Experiences Experiences

02 1.59 .88 .55 -.11 .01
05 1.67 .84 .45 -.12 -.02
07 1.97 .94 .49 .11 .04
09 1.68 .95 .48 -.09 .29
11 2.44 1.09 .43 -.12 .22
13 2.18 1.04 .41 .01 .16
15 1.96 .95 .47 .13 .15
17 1.72 .92 .74 .04 -.11
20 2.08 1.06 .60 .09 -.03
22 1.74 .96 .58 -.09 .24
24 1.79 .94 .50 .16 .09
26 2.22 .87 .52 .15 .14
28 1.66 1.00 .66 -.06 -.08
30 1.48 .87 .70 -.04 -.18
32 1.72 .91 .62 .00 .02
35 1.82 .97 .50 .26 -.24
37 1.72 1.01 .62 -.04 -.05
39 1.47 .88 .59 -.11 -.09
01 2.66 .97 .02 .42 .14
04 2.84 1.15 -.03 .54 .09
08 2.61 1.12 .19 .55 -.16
12 2.42 .98 .12 .47 .09
16 3.28 .88 -.14 .42 .09
19 3.09 .98 .07 .61 -.08
23 2.41 1.02 .25 .42 -.05
27 3.28 .88 -.07 .49 -.03
31 2.37 1.09 .28 .45 -.00
34 3.28 .87 -.16 .55 .06
38 3.08 .96 -.02 .46 .06
03 2.66 .97 .24 -.18 .42
06 3.04 .97 -.13 .04 .55
10 2.89 .84 -.16 .23 .44
14 2.78 .87 -.12 .21 .54
18 2.64 1.04 .02 .08 .60
21 2.64 1.02 .15 -.17 .70
25 3.27 .80 -.25 .30 .45
29 2.40 1.05 .35 -.30 .62
33 2.57 .97 .23 .18 .43
36 2.05 1.13 .28 .02 .43

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for
the 12-Item Student-Athlete Gains Inventory (SAGI)

 Factors

Items Mean S.D. Practical Gains Liberal Arts Gains

02 2.82 0.89 0.69 0.07
05 3.00 0.91 0.69 0.02
06 2.70 1.09 0.53 -.08
07 2.94 0.83 0.69 0.07
10 3.27 0.82 0.59 -.02
12 3.03 0.86 0.69 -.02
01 3.12 0.78 0.09 0.56
03 3.45 0.73 -.07 0.62
04 3.16 0.86 0.06 0.61
08 2.91 0.86 0.01 0.58
09 2.81 0.79 0.01 0.59
11 2.94 0.75 -.03 0.63

Table 3
Results of Canonical Correlation Analysis for Purposes of Establishing
Criterion Validity of the Student-Athlete Experiences Inventory

 1st Canonical Variate *

 Standarized Structural
Inventory Variables Weights Coefficients

SAEI Assorted .03 .56
 Social Focus .58 .82
 Academic .60 .84
 % Variance .58
 [R.sup.2]c .23
 Redundancy .13

GAINS Practical .43 .78
 Liberal Arts .72 .92
 % Variance .71
 [R.sup.2]c .23
 Redundancy .16

 2nd Canonical Variate

 Standarized Structural
Inventory Variables Weights Coefficients

SAEI Assorted -1.20 -.81
 Social Focus .23 .01
 Academic .58 .03
 % Variance .21
 [R.sup.2]c .01
 Redundancy .00

GAINS Practical -1.05 -.63
 Liberal Arts .88 .38
 % Variance .29
 [R.sup.2]c .01
 Redundancy .00

* First Canonical Variate Significant (p<.000 1)

References

Blann, F. (1985). Intercollegiate athletic competition and students' educational and career plans. Jornal of College Student Personnel, 26, 115-118.

Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (1986). Moral growth among athletes and nonathletes: A comparative analysis. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 7-18.

Ellis, L. (1994). Research methods in the social sciences. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Grove, J.R., Lavalle, D., & Gordon, S. (1997). Coping with retirement from sport: The influence of athletic identity. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 9, 191-203.

Kennedy, S., & Dimick, K. (1987). Career maturity and professional sports expectations of college football and basketball players. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 293-297.

Kuh, G.D., & Hu, S. (2001). Learning productivity at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 1-27.

Martens, M.P., & Cox, R.H. (2000). Career development in college varsity athletes. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 172-180.

Martens, M.P., & Lee, L.K. (1998). Promoting life-career development in the student-athlete: How can career centers help? Journal of Career Development, 25, 123-134.

Pace, C.R. (1990). CSEQ: College Student Experiences Questionnaire (3rd ed). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Pace, C.R., & Kuh, G.D. (1998). College Student Experiences" Questionnaire (4th ed). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1981). Residence arrangement, student-faculty relationships, and freshman-year educational outcomes. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 147-156.

Pike, G.R. (1995). The relationship between self-reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Research in Higher Education, 36, 1-22.

Pike, G.R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 269-284.

Sowa, C., & Gressard, C. (1983). Athletic participation: Its relationship to student development. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 236-239.

Stone, J., & Strange, C. (1989). Quality of student experiences of freshman intercollegiate athletes. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 148-154.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Richard H. Cox, Scott D. Sandstedt, Matthew P. Martens, D. Giant Ward, S. Nicole Webber and Starla Ivey

University of Missouri-Columbia

Address Correspondence To: Richard H. Cox, Department of ESCP/16 Hill Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211. Phone: 573-882-7602 Email: [email protected]