REPORT OF
THE
NCAA
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
1. ACTION
ITEMS.
None.
2. INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS.
Association-wide.
a. Discussion
of the Research Committee Graduate Student Research Grant Program. Numerous issues were discussed, including:
(1) Timing
of the Call for Proposals. The
committee requested NCAA staff to disseminate the Call for Proposals in
mid-January and establish a deadline of May 1.
(2) Possible
refinement of the topic areas noted in the Call for Proposals. The committee agreed to maintain the
topic areas as they are presented in the current Call for Proposals.
(3) Future
presentations by the grant winners.
The committee recommended that in subsequent years current grantees and
grantees from the previous year that have completed their studies make presentations
at the annual Research Committee meeting.
(4) The
inclusion of undergraduates in the Call for Proposals. The committee decided to table the
inclusion of undergraduates in the Call for Proposals until a future meeting.
(5) How
the Call for Proposals is disseminated. The committee requested NCAA staff to
disseminate the Call for Proposals through a press release in the NCAA News,
forwarding an email to the contact person in each Sports Management department
at member institutions and to forward an email announcing the Call for
Proposals to faculty athletics representatives at each member institution.
(6) The
role of NCAA staff and consultants in the review process. The committee requested NCAA staff to
include in the review documents a staff review of each proposal focusing on an
assessment of the study methodology, analysis plan and possible overlap with current
NCAA research initiatives.
b. Future
meetings. The committee agreed to
continue holding its annual in-person meeting in conjunction with the NCAA
Faculty Athletics Representatives Fall Forum.
c. Research
updates. Mr. Petr led a
discussion of Association-wide research updates, and Mr. Paskus did the same
for Division I. Mr. Hartung led the
discussion of research updates for Divisions II and III.
The committee requested the committee chair and NCAA
staff to forward the substance of the discussion on the proposed NCAA Campus
Climate Study to the principal investigator, consultants and the NCAA Committee
on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sport, the group sponsoring
the proposed study. The NCAA
Research Committee is charged with oversight responsibilities of all
NCAA-sponsored research and was compelled to make this request of the committee
chair and NCAA staff following a comprehensive review of the proposed study.
The committee would like to make clear that it supports
the study goal to gather information on the working and learning environment in
athletics departments and in particular assess the climate on campuses related
to sexual orientation and the comparative receptiveness or hostility or even
victimization to such diverse populations. The committee did have a number of
concerns associated with the study ranging from methodological to human subject
safety issues. Those concerns are
outlined here followed by recommended action.
The committee questioned the study methodology, in
particular the sampling plan, length of the survey instrument, and analysis
plan. The committee was not
convinced that the study in its current form could adequately meet the study
aims. Specifically:
(1) The
proposed sampling plan is one used in previous NCAA Association-wide studies
where the sample is drawn based on sports-sponsorship records. This results in select teams being
chosen to complete the survey.
Considering the nature of the survey items focused on victimization, the
group questioned the adequacy of the proposed sampling plan in obtaining a
representative sample.
(2) The
long item response lists were seen as problematic considering those study respondents
that have either experienced or witnessed victimization would be required to
use these long lists to respond to the prompt and this, in turn, would extend
the amount of time needed to complete the survey to an inordinate amount.
(3) Further,
in terms of analysis, concern was voiced that the principal investigator and consultants
would have difficulty in drawing valid conclusions from such long item response
lists with multiple responses within item.
Discussion of the items above closely relate to the
risk/benefit assessment that the NCAA Research Review Board and campus-level
institutional review boards are required to conduct. The safety of human research subjects is
of paramount importance to the NCAA Research Committee, and the committee had
serious safety questions on this study.
First, the sensitivity of certain survey items and
their potential impact on the study respondent as well as study administrators
was discussed. The nature of certain
survey items may trigger an adverse reaction from the study respondent. That potential adverse reaction could
also result in situations for which the survey administrators are not prepared. The large group settings in which these
surveys are typically administered have the potential to be extremely
problematic.
Second, possible identification of an individual who
has experienced the events questioned in the survey by peers and the study
administrator may occur because of the survey design (i.e., a respondent who
has experienced the events questioned will take dramatically longer to complete
the survey due to the item skip pattern and the length of the response lists
for the relevant questions).
Confirming adequate confidentiality procedures on studies of this type
is a central charge of the NCAA Research Review Board and campus-level
institutional review boards. In its
current form, the NCAA Research Committee predicts likely rejection of the
study by the NCAA Research Review Board and campus-level institutional review
boards. Even if the study was
modified to the point where it could pass the muster of the NCAA Research
Review Board, the committee still predicts potential issues with campus-level
institutional review boards. A
significant rejection rate at the campus-level could cause sampling complications
for this study as well as undermining future NCAA-sponsored studies seeking
institutional review board approval due to the potential sharp negative
reaction to this proposed study.
The Research Committee strongly urges the principal
investigator, the consultants and the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards
and Medical Aspects of Sport to consider the areas of concern noted above and
modifications to the study to ensure its ability to meet the stated aims and
the safety of human research subjects.
In short, the committee recommends significant modification to the study
design and survey instrument. It also
is recommended that the principal investigator, consultants and committee
should work closely with NCAA research staff to make these modifications, since
they have been thoroughly briefed by the Research Committee and the Data
Analysis Research Network and can assist with determining whether the
modifications align with the recommendations forwarded by these two
groups. Once again, the committee
supports the study goal, recognizing the importance of the topic area. However, the committee seriously
questions the ability of the survey as currently drafted to reach its intended
goal while protecting the safety of the study respondents.
d. Graduate
Student Research Grant Program presentations. The committee received presentation from the
three grant winners of the 2006 Research Committee Graduate Student Research
Grant Program.
(1) “Sports
Expertise and Perceptual and Cognitive Performance,” Michelle Voss,
(2) “An
Examination of the Transformational Leadership Behaviors of Female Head Coaches
and Performance in Division I Women's Soccer Teams: The Mediating Role of
Cohesion,”
(3) “The
Under-Representation of Women in Athletics Leadership: A Qualitative Study of
NCAA II Women Coaches and Athletics Administrators and their Career
Decisions,” Jill McCartney,
e. Election of
Research Committee chair. The committee elected Grace Calhoun,
3. LEGISLATIVE
ITEMS.
None.