Gandhi Athletes PDF

THE IDENTIFICATION OF KEY FACTORS
STUDENT-ATHLETES PERCEIVED TO BE IMPORTANT TO

THE COLLEGE STUDENT-ATHLETE RETENTION PROCESS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Christina A. Rivera, M.S. Ed.
*****
The Ohio State University

2004
Dissertation Committee:
Approved By
Professor Ada Demb, Adviser
Professor Leonard Baird

Adviser
Professor Donna Pastore College of Education
Copyright by
Christina A. Rivera
2004
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the key factors student-athletes
perceived to be important in their decision-making to stay in school. To accomplish this
purpose, it was necessary to – 1) construct a conceptual model of student-athlete retention
based upon the literature associated with traditional student retention and the college
student-athlete experience, 2) utilize the conceptual model of student-athlete retention to
guide the creation of an instrument that captures student-athlete perceptions of factors
important to the retention process, and 3) use exploratory factor analysis to extract
meaningful factors underlying the items of the instrument.
Participants in this study consisted of 330 NCAA Division I student-athletes
attending a large west coast university. These student-athletes participated in one of 16
varsity sports, ranging from sports classified as high profile (baseball, football, women’s
basketball, women’s soccer, and women’s tennis) to sports classified as low profile
(men’s & women’s golf, men’s & women’s swimming and diving, men’s & women’s
track and field, men’s & women’s volleyball, men’s & women’s waterpolo, and women’s
rowing).
Using the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire
developed specifically for this study, data were collected in person during a team meeting
ii
for each participating sport. A total of 42 items, one question regarding intent to leave,
and 17 demographic questions were included in the questionnaire. The Likert-scaled
items were measured on a six-point scale ranging from “Not Important” (1) to “Very
Important” (6) with the Importance scale referring to how important each statement is to
the participant’s decision to stay in school.
Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify meaningful factors underlying the
items of the instrument. Specifically, principal components analysis with VARIMAX
rotation extracted a four-factor model that explained 49 percent of the variance.
Cronbach’s alpha and split-half (Spearman-Brown) reliability coefficients were
calculated for the instrument as a whole and for each extracted factor. The questionnaire
had a reliability coefficient of .930, whereas each factor had a reliability coefficient
greater than or equal to .784, which is considered highly reliable.
Forty-one of the 42 items included in the questionnaire loaded onto one of the
four factors within the final factor solution. These four factors – Quality of Academic
Experience, Quality of Athletic Experience, In-Network Support, and Out-Of-Network
Support – reflect what student-athletes perceived to be important in their decision-making
to stay in school. When examined by individual items, the student-athletes indicated that
timing of courses, variety of course offerings, institutional fit, academic performance, and
ease of declaring a major were variables perceived most important to staying in school.
Conversely, involvement in special interest groups and extracurricular activities,
academic support from teammates, informal student-faculty interactions, and individual
athletic achievement were variables perceived to be least important. Differences based
iii
on gender, race/ethnicity, class rank, and sport classification (high vs. low profile) were
also examined.
Factor scores were also calculated for each factor for two separate groups –
1) respondents who had intentions of leaving school prior to graduation and 2)
respondents who had no intentions of leaving school early. The results indicated that
respondents who did not have intentions of leaving school prior to graduation placed a
significantly higher level of importance on the “Quality of Academic Experience” than
those who had intentions of leaving. On the other hand, respondents who did have
intentions of leaving school prior to graduation placed a significantly higher level of
importance on the “Quality of Athletic Experience” than those who did not have
intentions of leaving. There was not a statistically significant difference in the level of
importance placed on “In-Network Support” and “Out-of-Network Support” for the two
groups.
Student-athlete experiences and perspectives, as expressed by student-athletes
themselves in this study, have strong implications for future policy and practice within
the academic and athletics communities. Their experiences and perspectives not only
provide a comprehensive explanation of what is important to the student-athlete retention
process, but they also demonstrate the significance of developing institutional actions that
appropriately address the various dimensions of retention.
iv
Dedicated to my family and friends
for taking me under their supportive wings
and encouraging me to soar
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An ancient saying reveals, “We have no friends; we have no enemies; we only
have teachers.” My life has been blessed with many teachers and guiding influences,
who in their own ways, have contributed to the completion of this dissertation.
I would like to thank my parents, Joe and Angie Rivera, for their endless love,
faith, and support. It has been a long, strenuous, yet amazing journey and with each step,
you always encouraged me to achieve all my goals and allowed me to develop into the
person I truly am. I could not have asked for better company along this journey.
I would also like to thank my brother, Joseph, sister, Clarisa, brother-in-law, Rob,
and niece, Bryce, for serving as my biggest cheerleaders throughout life. Whether it was
at my soccer games or in my obsessive pursuit of my dreams, you were all there cheering
louder and longer than anyone. You are my best and most loving friends.
This accomplishment would not have been possible without dedicated and
supportive faculty members. To my advisor, Dr. Ada Demb, I thank you for serving as
an amazing mentor and friend. Your belief in me pushed me to strive for goals I did not
think were attainable. To Dr. Donna Pastore, I thank you for always being there for me
with an open mind and a passion for my interests and goals. Your mentorship and
friendship are truly appreciated. To Dr. Len Baird, I thank you for your expertise and
vi
creative ideas for enhancing my research. And to Dr. Susan Jones, I thank you for your
unwavering support and encouragement.
I would also like to thank my friends within the Student-Athlete Support Services
Office for their assistance in completing this study and having trust in my abilities and
passion for my profession. I would like to personally thank Kate, Darin, John, Teri, Kim,
Ericka, Leslie, and Vicki. Additionally, I would like to thank my colleagues within the
Student-Athlete Academic Services Office for their cooperation and support. Personally,
my sincerest thanks to Brent, John, Cassidy, Allah-mi, Donna, Emily, Mimi, Monica,
Willie, Brandon, and Magdi.
I would like to thank the head coaches of each of the teams that kindly
participated in this study and the panel of experts, whose knowledge contributed to the
success of this study. My sincerest thanks for your time, cooperation, and support of the
research.
I would like to also thank my Ohio State family, particularly my amazing cohort,
Kathy, Tammy, Cricket, Dwayne, and Ben. From the moment I arrived in the Midwest,
you welcomed a small, but feisty Southern California girl in your homes with open arms
and an open heart. My experience at Ohio State is one I will treasure forever and it is
because of all of you. I know I have made life-long friends. I would also like to thank
Jennifer Whitney, my trusty research assistant and friend, for your dedication to this
study and your willingness to support my research. Additionally, my sincerest thanks to
my dearest friend, Raeal. From the first day we met, I knew I could achieve this goal
because you were in my life. To the other members of my Ohio State family, Melissa,
vii
Tisha, Fergee, Brittny, Anthony, Joy, Francine, and James, I thank you for your endless
support and encouragement. Furthermore, my heartfelt gratitude to my friend Erin, who
displays more courage than anyone I have ever known and whose infectious spirit has
energized my soul.
A special acknowledgment to Cheryl Dingus, whose knowledge, skills, and
unconditional support allowed me to complete this study.
Finally, I would like to thank my friend, Keri, who for the last six years, was there
for every laugh, scream, tantrum, tear, and success. Thank you for sharing a part of your
life with me. I am better person today because of you and our adventures together.
viii
VITA
August 14, 1974 ............................................Born – Monterey Park, CA
1996 ...............................................................B.A., Social Ecology

University of California, Irvine
1998 ...............................................................M.S. Ed., Educational Policy

University of Pennsylvania
2000 – 2002 ...................................................Graduate Administrative Assistant

Student-Athlete Support Services
2002 – 2003 ...................................................Athletic Academic Counselor

Student-Athlete Support Services
2003 – present ...............................................Academic Counselor

Student-Athlete Academic Services
University of Southern California
PUBLICATIONS
Research Publication
1. Cunningham, G. B. & Rivera, C. A. (2002). Structural designs within American

intercollegiate athletic departments. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
9, 369-390.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Education

Higher Education Administration
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii
Dedication .....................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... vi
Vita .............................................................................................................................. ix
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xiv
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xvii
Chapters:
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ......................................................................8
Statement of the Purpose ......................................................................9
Significance of the Study ......................................................................9
Research Questions .............................................................................11
Constitutive Definitions ......................................................................12
Overview of the Chapters ...................................................................17
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................18

Definition of Dropout .........................................................................19
Major Models of Student Retention ....................................................21
Retaining Special Student Populations ...............................................30
Common Model of Student Retention ................................................33
Background Factor ..................................................................35
Academic Integration Factor ...................................................35
Social Integration Factor .........................................................36
Institutional Factor ..................................................................37
Environmental Pull Factor ......................................................38
Attitudinal Factor ....................................................................39
Intent to Leave ........................................................................40
College Student-Athlete Experience ...................................................42
The Birth of Today’s College Student-Athlete .......................44
x
Student-Athletes Versus Non-Athletes ...................................56
Student-Athlete In-Group Differences ....................................57
Student-Athlete Psychosocial & Identity Development .........59
Athletic Identity ..........................................................64
Race & Sexual Orientation .........................................68
Student-Athlete Cognitive Development ................................73
Anticipated & Unanticipated Transitions ...............................77
Issues Affecting Student-Athlete Retention ........................................81
Coach, Player, & Team Relationship ......................................83
Balancing Roles of Student and Athlete .................................84
Academic Emphasis by the Athletics Department ..................87
Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM) ........................................88
3. Methodology ...................................................................................................96
Research Design ..................................................................................96
Questionnaire Design ..........................................................................97
Item Generation ......................................................................97
Panel of Experts ......................................................................98
Pilot Study .........................................................................................100
Sampling Method ..................................................................100
Subject Description ...............................................................102
Data Collection Procedures ...................................................103
Questionnaire Administration ...................................104
Final Study ........................................................................................107
Item Revision ........................................................................107
Sampling Method ..................................................................109
Subject Description ...............................................................111
Data Collection Procedures ...................................................112
Data Analysis Procedures for Pilot & Final Study ...........................113
Validity Procedures ...............................................................113
Objectives of Factor Analysis ...................................115
Designing Factor Analysis ........................................116
Assumptions in Factor Analysis ...............................117
Deriving Factors & Assessing Overall Fit ................118
Interpreting the Factors .............................................121
Computing Factor Scores ..........................................122
Reliability Procedures ...........................................................124
Internal Validity ................................................................................125
External Validity & Generalizability ................................................129
Operational Definitions .....................................................................134
Retention Variables ...............................................................134
Demographic Variables ........................................................140
xi
4. Results ...........................................................................................................144
Pilot Study .........................................................................................144
Sample ...................................................................................144
Retention Variables Perceived to be Most Important ...........149
Retention Variables Perceived to be Least Important ...........160
Intent to Leave ......................................................................163
Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................165
Assumptions in Exploratory Factor Analysis .......................166
Statistical Procedures ............................................................170
Results from a Five-Factor Model ............................172
Results from a Four-Factor Model ............................174
Comparison of Factor Models ..................................174
Factor 1: Quality of Academic Experience ...............180
Factor 2: Quality of Athletic Experience ..................181
Factor 3: In-Network Support ...................................182
Factor 4: Out-of-Network Support ............................182
Reliability Analysis ...............................................................184
Final Study ........................................................................................186
Sample ...................................................................................186
Retention Variables Perceived to be Most Important ...........191
Retention Variables Perceived to be Least Important ...........202
Intent to Leave ......................................................................204
Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................207
Assumptions in Exploratory Factor Analysis .......................207
Statistical Procedures ............................................................211
Results from a Four-Factor Model ............................213
Results from a Five-Factor Model ............................214
Comparison of Factor Models ..................................214
Factor 1: Quality of Academic Experience ...............220
Factor 2: Quality of Athletic Experience ..................221
Factor 3: In-Network Support ...................................222
Factor 4: Out-of-Network Support ............................223
Reliability Analysis ...............................................................223
Factor Scores Based on Intent to Leave for Final Study ......225
5. Discussion .....................................................................................................229
Psychometric Properties of the Questionnaire ..................................236
Utility of the Questionnaire ..............................................................237
Limitations ........................................................................................240
Directions for Future Research .........................................................241
List of References .....................................................................................................245
xii
Appendices:
A: Letter to Panel of Experts ........................................................................254
B: Panel of Experts – Questionnaire Item Content Validation Form ...........257
C: Thank You Letter to Panel of Experts ......................................................264
D: Version 1 of “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention”
Questionnaire (SARQ) ......................................................................266
E: Pilot Study – Permission Letter to Head Coaches ....................................275
F: Pilot Study – Participant Letter ................................................................279
G: Pilot Study – Oral Script for Questionnaire Distribution .........................281
H: Pilot Study – Thank You Letter to Head Coaches ...................................284
I: Version 2 of “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention”
J: Final Study – Permission Letter to Head Coaches ....................................296
K: Final Study – Participant Letter ...............................................................300
L: Final Study – Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research ...................302
M: Final Study – Oral Script for Questionnaire Distribution .......................305
N: Final Study – Thank You Letter to Head Coaches ..................................308
O: Version 3 of “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention”
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Chronological Outline of Major Models of Student Retention ..........28
2.2 Comparison of the Major Models of Student Retention .....................29
2.3 Student Retention Factors & Their Corresponding Variables ............41
2.4 Graduation Rate of Division I Student-Athletes,

1984-1994 (percent) (NCAA, 2003c) .................................................50
2.5 Major Division IA Football Conference Television Deals,

1996-2000 (Zimbalist, 1999) ..............................................................51
2.6 Television Rights Fees for the Division I Men’s Basketball

Tournament (Weiberg, 1999) ..............................................................51
2.7 Trends in Division IA Institutions’ Revenues & Expenses,

1960-1997 (in $thousands) (Zimbalist, 1999) ....................................52
2.8 Number of Sponsored Sports Teams by Gender in Division I,

1981-1995 (Zimbalist, 1999) ..............................................................53
2.9 Female Participants in NCAA-Sponsored Sports (All Divisions),

1981-2001 (NCAA, 2003c) ................................................................53
2.10 Student-Athlete Retention Factors & Their Corresponding

Variables .............................................................................................95
3.1 Total Population Based on Gender for Pilot Study ...........................101
3.2 Total Population Based on Sport Classification for Pilot Study .......102
3.3 Methods for Employing the Elements of Dillman’s (2000)

Tailored Design .................................................................................104
xiv
Table Page
3.4 Total Population Based on Gender & Sport for Final Study ............111
3.5 Threats to Internal Validity (Gliem, 2001) .......................................126
3.6 Threats to Ecological Validity (Gliem, 2001) ...................................132
4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Pilot Study ................................................145
4.2 Variables Perceived to be Most Important to Staying in School for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................149
4.3 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Gender for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................152
4.4 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Race/Ethnicity for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................155
4.5 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Class Rank for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................157
4.6 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Sport Classification

(High vs. Low Profile) for Pilot Study ..............................................160
4.7 Variables Perceived to be Least Important to Staying in School for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................161
4.8 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Intent to Leave for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................165
4.9 Correlation Matrix for Pilot Study ....................................................168
4.10 Results for the Initial Extraction of Component Factors for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................171
4.11 VARIMAX-Rotated Component Analysis Factor Matrix for

Pilot Study .........................................................................................177
4.12 Factor Reliability Coefficients for Pilot Study .................................185
4.13 Descriptive Statistics for Final Study ...............................................187
xv
Table Page
4.14 Variables Perceived to be Most Important to Staying in School for

Final Study ........................................................................................192
4.15 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Gender for

Final Study ........................................................................................194
4.16 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Race/Ethnicity for

Final Study ........................................................................................196
4.17 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Class Rank for

Final Study ........................................................................................199
4.18 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Sport Classification

(High vs. Low Profile) for Final Study .............................................202
4.19 Variables Perceived to be Least Important to Staying in School for

Final Study ........................................................................................203
4.20 Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Intent to Leave for

Final Study ........................................................................................206
4.21 Correlation Matrix for Final Study ...................................................209
4.22 Results for the Initial Extraction of Component Factors for

Final Study ........................................................................................212
4.23 VARIMAX-Rotated Component Analysis Factor Matrix for

Final Study ........................................................................................217
4.24 Factor Reliability Coefficients for Final Study .................................225
4.25 Mean Factor Scores Based on Intent to Leave for Final Study ........226
4.26 Summary of Two-Sample t-test for Equality of Means Based on

Intent to Leave for Final Study .........................................................227
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Common Model of Student Retention ................................................34
2.2 Model of Relationships Between Athletic Identity, Socialization

Factors, & Developmental Tasks (Cornelius, 1995) ...........................67
2.3 Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM) ........................................94
4.1 Eigenvalue Plot for Scree Test Criterion for Pilot Study ..................172
4.2 Eigenvalue Plot for Scree Test Criterion for Final Study .................213
5.1 Revised Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM) ........................232
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
College student-athletes are a unique student population that encounters a number
of challenges and obstacles that are not within the usual set of academic and social
pressures faced by their non-athlete peers. Student-athletes are confronted with an array
of demands that includes athletic training, competition, media relations, and frequent
travel during their athletics season. Student-athletes are also constantly managing the
roles of student and athlete while attempting to successfully satisfy their obligations to
their academic unit, family, coach, team, athletics department, and the policies and
regulations of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (Watt & Moore,
2001). At an institutional level, student-athletes play an important role in the culture of
the university as athletics competitions are viewed as community events where victories
and defeats have the potential to affect an entire campus. Even more, the success of the
athletics teams often reflects on the perceived value of the university. With the college
selection process becoming more of a consumer decision (Levine & Cureton, 1998; Noel,
1985), the influence athletics prestige can have on college choice is quite substantial.
These overwhelming responsibilities of student-athletes are seen as a cause of
related problems, such as identity foreclosure (Brown, Glastetter-Fender, & Shelton,
1
2000; Nelson, 1983; Petitpas & Champagne, 1988; Watt & Moore, 2001), isolation from
other students (Carodine, Almond, & Gratto, 2001; Nishimoto, 1997; Parham, 1993;
Person & LeNoir, 1997), issues of academic competence and readiness (Ender & Wilkie,
2000), health and injury challenges (Parham, 1993), low levels of career maturity
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), and anxiety and fear associated with the sport retirement
process (Parham, 1993; Pearson & Petitpas, 1990; Petitpas, Brewer, & Van Raalte, 1996).
The demands of college athletics have also contributed to high attrition among certain
groups of student-athletes, specifically among those who participate in revenue-
generating sports, such as men’s basketball and football (NCAA, 2003a). Yet, while the
problem of student retention has been well-documented, little research has been devoted
exclusively to understanding the college student-athlete experience beyond a calculation
of the graduation rates for this unique student population. As a result, student-athlete
concerns and issues have been buried in studies of traditional student attrition because no
conceptual framework has been available to guide retention research on the college
student-athlete experience.
In the absence of a conceptual framework for understanding student-athlete
retention, colleges and universities have designed retention programs consisting of
academic support services, such as tutoring, mentoring, and remedial services, which
address the issues piece by piece. Based upon research that discusses academic
unpreparedness and student academic success (Bean, 1990a), such programs and services
focus solely on improving the academic skills of the student-athletes. However, when
programs and services focus solely on “improving the student” rather than asking
2
whether there might be institutional issues of culture or structure that affect retention,
responsibility for perseverance appears to rest with the student-athletes themselves. This
engenders a belief that the student-athletes are to blame and that it is the responsibility of
the university to try and “fix” them. This approach of “blaming the victim”, however,
ignores the interrelationships between individual student characteristics, academic, social,
institutional and environmental matters, and the various athletics issues that do not affect
the general student body, such as managing the dual roles of student and athlete, the
relationship between the student-athlete, coach and teammates, and the academic
emphasis by the athletics department (Benson, 2000; Berson, 1996; Carodine et al., 2001;
Nishimoto, 1997; Parham, 1993; Person & LeNoir, 1997; Stoll, Beller, & Hansen, 1998).
One explanation for the lack of substantial information regarding the dynamics of
student-athlete retention is that on the whole, student-athletes are able to persist to
graduation at a comparable and often higher rate than their non-athlete peers. As
indicated in the 2003 NCAA Division I Graduation-Rates Report, Division I student-
athletes entering college in 1996 graduated at a rate of 62 percent within six years, while
during the same time period, 59 percent graduated from the general student body
(NCAA, 2003a). These statistics are often a surprise to faculty, staff, non-athletes, and
the public because the academic performance of college student-athletes is regularly
scrutinized within and outside the academic community. The similarity in overall rates,
however, has allowed the uniqueness of the student-athlete experience to be overlooked
as their experience is often lumped into traditional models of student retention, which are
focused specifically on a student’s interaction with the academic and social systems of
3
the institution. Even more, using overall graduation rates to justify the applicability of
traditional retention models to explain the student-athlete experience is very misleading
because the high overall rate for student-athletes is a byproduct of the rising graduation
rate for female student-athletes, thereby masking lower rates for males.
For example, when the graduation rate for the 1996 Division I entering class is
examined by gender, female student-athletes continue to have a much higher graduation
rate than the female student body and male student-athletes. Breaking the 1988 NCAA
female graduation rate record of 69 percent, female student-athletes within the 1996
entering class graduated at a rate of 70 percent (NCAA, 2003a). This represented an
eight percent difference from the female student body (62%) and a 15 percent difference
from male student-athletes (55%) (NCAA, 2003a). Additionally, black female student-
athletes continue to show the largest differential between the student-athlete population
and the general student body with black female student-athletes graduating at a rate of 62
percent and their non-athlete peers graduating at a rate of 46 percent (NCAA, 2003a).
While the athletics community celebrates this upward trend, many are closely
analyzing the graduation rates of men’s basketball and football, two cohorts who have
typically performed lower than their student-athlete and non-athlete peers. According to
the 2003 report, neither cohort was able to keep up with the overall student body and both
were significantly below the overall student-athlete rate. Male football student-athletes
graduated at a rate of 54 percent, which is a two percent increase from the previous year,
but still five percent below the 1996 general student body and eight percent below all
student-athletes. Male basketball student-athletes matriculating in 1996 graduated only at
4
a rate of 44 percent, which is 15 percent lower than the general student body and 18
percent lower than the overall student-athlete rate. When the graduation rate for men’s
basketball is differentiated by race, black male basketball student-athletes graduated at an
alarmingly low rate of 41 percent. Zimbalist (1999) attributed this ongoing struggle
within men’s basketball to the increased commercialization of the sport and the
scheduling shift to more mid-week games as a means of accommodating television
programming needs. Overall, neither group has been able to graduate at a higher rate
than the general student body in any year since the first graduation rates report was
produced for the 1984 entering class.
Considering the unique issues associated with the student-athlete experience, it is
difficult to justify the continued use of traditional models of student retention to explain
the student-athlete experience. Theories of traditional student attrition, led by the work
of Spady (1970), Tinto (1993), Pascarella (1980), and Bean (1980), rely heavily on the
successful academic and social integration of the student into the institution to explain the
retention process. This includes frequent interactions with faculty, involvement in
extracurricular and leadership activities, and friendship support. These researchers also
expect background and institutional characteristics to affect retention decisions and many
agree that dropping out is a longitudinal process. Despite such advances in the literature,
it appears that traditional models of student retention have not fully incorporated the
realities that shape the lives of student-athletes.
To appropriately address the issues faced by the student-athlete population,
current and accurate information must be generated and reported. Yet, one wonders
5
whether traditional models of student retention can merely be expanded to fit the student-
athlete life or whether a reconceptualization of the student-athlete retention process is
necessary. For instance, would it be appropriate to redefine and broaden the social
integration of students, a factor within current retention models, to include team, coach,
and player relationships? Could frequent interactions with coaches, in addition to or in
substitute of faculty interactions, play a significant role in the student-athlete’s academic
integration into the university? Or is the student-athlete experience so substantially
different from the non-athlete that a redefinition of traditional retention factors is
insufficient to address student-athlete issues? If so, a new conceptual framework
composed of different retention factors is needed in order to incorporate decision-making
processes, experiences, and perspectives of the college student-athlete.
Due to the increased pressure and stress that student-athletes assume because of
their roles of student and athlete, it seems unlikely that the theoretical frameworks that
have been constructed for traditional students can precisely represent the issues faced by
the student-athlete population. Certainly, the student-athlete population shares many of
the elements, such as academic performance and institutional fit, presented in studies of
traditional student retention. However, at a time when intercollegiate athletics faces
increased commercialization, media attention, professionalization, and public scrutiny,
the need for understanding the student-athlete retention process as a special population
within the general student body is very compelling.
A deeper understanding of the student-athlete retention process also seems both
germane and timely when considering the financial costs that are associated with student
6
attrition. Bean (1990a) maintained that the premature departure of one student often
measures in the thousands of dollars. If a student drops out during his or her first year,
the institution loses three to four additional years of tuition. For athletics departments,
this situation can translate into even higher financial losses since recruitment costs for
attracting new student-athletes are higher than for non-athletes. Additional financial
losses can be expected by the athletics department if the student-athlete was a high profile
player whose athletics performance attracted larger attendance totals, higher alumni and
booster contributions, and increased media exposure.
The problem of student-athlete attrition, however, extends beyond institutional
financial losses. Attrition can potentially be a problem for society because the premature
departure of students from higher education means a reduction in the level of training of
those entering the labor force (Bean, 1990b). This situation, in turn, has a negative effect
on human capital resources. Additionally, leaving school prior to graduation places the
individual in an income level that is 15 percent below those with a college degree (Bean,
1990b). It is irresponsible for the academic and athletics communities to continue to place
student-athletes in the high-pressure environment of college sports and higher education
without a true sense of what student-athletes perceive to be important to their college
experience.
7
Statement of the Problem
Despite comparable overall graduation rates, the student-athlete experience, in
contrast to that of their non-athlete peers, presents many unique circumstances that
cannot easily be explained by traditional models of student retention. Yet, little research
has been done to help explain student-athlete concerns and issues apart from their non-
athlete peers and no conceptual frameworks have been found to guide research on this
topic. To address this gap in the literature, a comprehensive research study must be
conducted that focuses solely on the college student-athlete experience. More
specifically, researchers must begin to construct an empirically-based model of student-
athlete retention that accurately reflects student-athlete perceptions of factors important to
the retention process and establishes the relationships between these factors and a
student-athlete’s intent to leave. The construction of an empirically-based model,
however, relies first on the identification of the key factors student-athletes perceive to be
important in their decision-making to stay in school. This, in turn, cannot be
accomplished without the development of an instrument that can identify the meaningful
dimensions underlying the items of the instrument. The identification of student-athlete
retention factors and the development of this instrument represent the starting point to a
series of research studies that are needed in order to address the gap in the retention
literature on college student-athletes.
8
Statement of the Purpose
meaningful factors underlying the items of the instrument.
Significance of the Study
Many factors interacting with one another affect the retention process. For
student-athletes, these factors are often different than those that affect the general student
body. For this reason, unique variables, such as academic support from coach, managing
athletics responsibilities, academic emphasis by the athletics department, and other
athletics issues that influence the quality of the athletic experience, must be incorporated
into discussions of student-athlete retention. Student-athlete experiences and
perspectives, as expressed by student-athletes themselves in this study, have strong
implications for future policy and practice within the academic and athletics
communities. Their experiences and perspectives not only provide a comprehensive
explanation of what is important to the student-athlete retention process, but they also
9
demonstrate the significance of developing institutional actions that appropriately address
the various dimensions of retention.
Administrators can no longer rely on intuition to guide funding for programs and
services that may or may not attend to the critical issues facing student-athletes.
Athletics administrators, coaches, and university personnel need to understand the
student-athlete context, the appeal of a particular university, and what factors affect a
student-athlete’s decision-making to stay or leave. Identification of the key factors
perceived to be important in a student-athlete’s consideration to stay in school will
provide administrators with an understanding of this multi-dimensional retention process
necessary for both effective strategic planning and policy analysis. More specifically, the
data collected from this study can be used to guide the direction of services and resources
offered to student-athletes. In addition, the perceptions and perspectives uncovered from
this study can modify the expectations academic and athletics communities have for
student-athletes. With the NCAA’s recent adoption of an incentives/disincentives
program for its member institutions based upon the graduation rates of its student-
athletes, the results from this study could also have enormous financial significance,
particularly for those institutions functioning under considerable financial constraints and
cannot afford to service their student-athletes without the financial support of the NCAA.
Lastly, understanding student-athlete perceptions of factors important to their decision-
making to stay in school has the potential to improve and provide insight into the
graduation rates of certain student-athlete subgroups (i.e., men’s basketball and football),
10
who have traditionally performed lower than their student-athlete peers and the general
study body.
Research Questions
In order to identify the key factors that student-athletes perceived to be important
in their decision-making to stay in school, the following research questions were
necessary:
Question 1: Which retention variables did the student-athletes perceive to be
most important in their decision-making to stay in school? Are
their patterns based upon:
(a) Gender?
(b) Race/Ethnicity?
(c) Class Rank?
(d) Sport Classification?
Question 2: Is exploratory factor analysis an appropriate analytic technique for
achieving the purpose of the study?
(a) Have the assumptions in factor analysis been met?
(b) Does the instrument identify meaningful factors
underlying the items of the instrument?
(c) To what extent is each variable explained by each
factor?
11
Question 3: To what extent can the results be generalized to the target
population? To what extent is the instrument reliable?
Question 4: How do the factors student-athletes perceived to be important in
their decision-making to stay in school compare to those found in
models of traditional student retention?
Constitutive Definitions
Below is a listing of the constitutive definitions associated with this study of
college student-athlete retention. The operational definitions associated with this study
are outlined in Chapter 3.
1. Academic integration – The extent to which an individual integrates into the
academic system of the institution as defined by their academic performance, study
skills and habits, formal student-faculty interactions, major certainty, and class
attendance.
2. Attitude about self & school – An individual’s perception of their attitude and interest
in college and academic success as defined by their perceived institutional fit, loyalty,
senses of satisfaction, self-development and self-confidence, and belief that a college
education has a practical value for future employment.
3. Attrition – A longitudinal process in which an individual does not persist to
graduation.
4. Division I – An NCAA member who sponsors at least seven sports for male students
and seven sports for female students or at least six teams for men and eight teams for
12
women. Division I qualification also includes contest and participation minimums for
each sport, such as a specific number of home games played during a season and
contests played against other Division I institutions. Division I members who
sponsor football are categorized as Division I-A or I-AA. These categorizations are
dependent upon minimum attendance requirements, stadium seating, and financial aid
awards for their athletics program (NCAA, 2003b).
5. Eligibility – Defined by the NCAA, conference, and/or institutional policies,
eligibility refers to whether a student-athlete is able to participate in his or her sport.
6. High profile sport – An intercollegiate varsity sport in which career opportunities
within the top-level American professional sports leagues are available. An example
of a high profile male sport is football and an example of a high profile female sport
is basketball.
7. Integration – “The extent to which the individual shares the normative attitudes and
values of peers and faculty in the institution and abides by the formal and informal
structural requirements for membership in that community or in the subgroups of
which the individual is a part” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 51-52).
8. Intent to leave – A content free variable that does not explain why an individual
decides to stay or leave. Rather, intent to leave is hypothesized to intervene between
attitudes and behavior.
9. Low profile sport – An intercollegiate varsity sport in which career opportunities at
the professional level are available, but not necessarily at the top-level widely seen by
13
the American public. An example of a low profile male sport is volleyball and an
example of a low profile female sport is rowing.
10. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) – The governing body of
intercollegiate athletics for approximately 1,200 member colleges and universities
(NCAA, 2003b). The NCAA formulates and enforces rules and regulations that
relate to athletics eligibility, recruitment, financial aid, and other athletics
administrative matters of general concern to the membership.
11. NCAA Clearinghouse – A central clearinghouse that certifies initial athletics
eligibility for NCAA Divisions I and II. Upon an evaluation of the high school
academic record, the clearinghouse designates each student-athlete as a qualifier,
partial qualifier, or non-qualifier. These statuses are used to determine practice,
competition, and athletics grant-in-aid eligibility during the student-athlete’s first
academic year in residence.
12. NCAA Division I Graduation Rate – Each year, Division I member institutions are
required to provide the NCAA with graduation rate information for their student-
athletes. The disclosure of such information is mandated by both the Federal Student
Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act and NCAA Bylaw 30.1. Defined by the
Department of Education, a student-athlete graduation rate (percent), also known as
the IPEDS-GRS rate, is based upon a comparison of the number of student-athletes
who enter a college or university and the number of those same student-athletes who
graduate within six years. All student-athletes who enter the institution in a given
academic year and receive athletics grant-in-aid during any term of that academic
14
year are included. Anyone who left an institution, for any reason and regardless of
their academic standing, is counted as a nongraduate from that institution. For
example, individuals who transfer to another institution and graduate do not count as
an academic success for the institution to which they transferred. The reporting of the
IPEDS-GRS rate allows for a comparison of graduation rates for student-athletes to
the overall student body. The IPEDS-GRS rate is only calculated for selected sports
(baseball, men’s and women’s basketball, football, and men’s and women’s track &
field). All other sports are lumped together to reflect a “men’s other sports” rate and
a “women’s other sports” rate.
13. Non-athlete – An individual enrolled at a college or university who is not a member
of a NCAA varsity athletics team.
14. Non-qualifier – A student who has not graduated from high school or who has
presented neither the core-course grade point average nor SAT or ACT scores
required for a qualifier, as deemed by the NCAA Clearinghouse. A non-qualifier
shall not be eligible for regular season competition or practice during the first
academic year of residence and then has three seasons of competition remaining.
During the first academic year in residence, a non-qualifier is eligible for nonathletics
institutional financial aid that is not from an athletics source and is based upon
financial need only (NCAA, 2003b).
15. Partial qualifier – A student who is a high school graduate and who has met the
minimum initial eligibility standards set by the NCAA Clearinghouse. In order to be
classified as a partial qualifier, a student is required to – 1) successfully complete a
15
core curriculum of at least 13 academic course units in English, math, natural or
physical science, social science, and very selective electives and 2) have a core-
course grade point average and combined score on the SAT verbal and math sections
or a sum score on the ACT based upon the partial qualifier index scale (NCAA,
2003b). For the entering class of 2005, the partial qualifier status will be eliminated.
A partial qualifier is eligible to practice, but not compete, during his or her first
academic year in residence. A partial qualifier can also receive athletics grant-in-aid,
but only has three years of competition remaining.
16. Qualifier – A student who is a high school graduate and who has met the minimum
initial eligibility standards set by the NCAA Clearinghouse. In order to be classified
as a partial qualifier, a student is required to – 1) successfully complete a core
curriculum of at least 13 academic course units in English, math, natural or physical
science, social science, and very selective electives and 2) have a core-course grade
point average and combined score on the SAT verbal and math sections or a sum
score on the ACT based upon the qualifier index scale (NCAA, 2003b). For the
entering class of 2005, the core curriculum requirement will increase to 14 core
courses, while the qualifier index scale will be adjusted to place more emphasis on
the core course grade point average.
17. Red-shirt – A student-athlete shall complete his or her seasons of participation within
five calendar years from their first full-time enrollment at a collegiate institution. If
at any point during this five year period a student-athlete practices, but does not
16
compete, the student-athlete is deemed a “red-shirt” for that particular competition
season.
18. Retention – A longitudinal process in which an individual persists to graduation.
19. Social integration – The extent to which an individual integrates into the social
system of the institution as defined by their friendship support, informal contact with
faculty, and involvement in extracurricular activities and special interest groups.
20. Student-athlete – An individual enrolled full-time at a college or university who is a
member of a NCAA varsity athletics team.
Overview of the Chapters
In Chapter 1, an introduction to the study is presented and serves as a preface to
the statement of the problem, statement of the purpose, significance of the study, and the
research questions that guide the study. In Chapter 2, a synthesis of the related literature
and previous research findings is provided. In Chapter 3, an overview of the research
methodology is outlined, which includes a description of the research design,
questionnaire design, pilot study, final study, data analysis procedures, internal and
external validity, and operational definitions. In Chapter 4, the results of the study are
reported and analyzed and in Chapter 5, a discussion of the results and recommendations
for further research is presented.
17
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to provide a synthesis of previous research
findings, theoretical perspectives, and writings related to the research questions outlined
in Chapter 1. The first section delves into the research of Spady, Tinto, Pascarella, Bean,
and others to uncover the complex factors that influence student persistence. Although
these researchers differ in their units of analysis and conceptual foundation, they share an
emphasis on the importance of students becoming involved in the academic and social
systems of their institution.
The second section is an exploration of the college student-athlete experience.
Specifically, this section profiles the student-athlete population, discusses differences in
their college experience from their non-athlete peers, and examines how their roles of
student and athlete affect their mastering of stage- and age-appropriate developmental
tasks throughout college.
The third section of the literature review focuses on the subject of student-athlete
retention. Theoretical models that have been constructed to understand the retention
process for traditional students have often left out the many unique needs and experiences
of student-athletes. This section focuses on the coach, player and teammate relationship,
18
balancing the roles of student and athlete, academic emphasis by the athletics department,
and other athletics issues in order to facilitate a more in depth discussion of the student-
athlete retention process.
The final section unveils a conceptual model of student-athlete retention. The
Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM) incorporates six factors that ultimately
influence a student-athlete’s attitude about self and school, their intent to leave, and their
final decision to stay or leave. The factors, defined by a multitude of variables, were
derived from the literature on student attrition and the college student-athlete experience
and are the foundation for the development of an instrument that captures student-athlete
perceptions of factors important to the retention process.
Definition of Dropout
Despite the extensive literature on student attrition from higher education, much
remains unknown about the nature of the dropout process (Bean, 1990a; Bean &
Metzner, 1985; Tinto, 1993). In large part, this shortcoming has been attributed to the
inadequate attention researchers have placed on defining “dropout” appropriately,
resulting in much confusion and contradiction regarding the character and causes of
attrition in higher education (Tinto, 1993). For instance, many institutions have labeled
dropout as all forms of leaving regardless of the student’s individual intentions. From
this perspective, it would seem as if an institutional definition of student dropout was
rather simple. Yet, this is not the case. First, Tinto argued that the labeling of all student
departures as dropouts neglects the differences among different forms of leaving, such as
19
voluntary withdrawal versus academic expulsion. Such differences are observed when
the institution defines leaving as a failure to complete a given course of study, while the
student views the decision as a positive step towards goal completion. In this case, the
student’s understanding of the leaving behavior differs from the institutional perspective
due to differences in goals and interests.
Second, Tinto (1993) maintained that using the label dropout to describe all
student departures leads institutions to believe that retention programming, such as
academic advising, university survey courses, and faculty-student mentoring, is the
solution to student attrition. Indeed some retention programs can serve to benefit those
students whose departure is associated to their goals and commitment; yet, not all reasons
for leaving are linked to such issues. Lastly, Tinto asserted that the term dropout has
come to signify a form of individual failure on the part of the student. This negative
perspective has led to the belief that attrition is the result of the student’s failure to meet
the academic and social demands of college life. Yet, completing a degree program may
not be the student’s desired end. A student may only choose to attend college for a short
period of time in order to achieve their personal goals. Therefore, defining the student’s
behavior as an individual failure to meet the demands of college neglects the great
diversity of goals and intentions of entering students.
By generalizing the term dropout to all forms of student departure, institutions can
easily omit their part in the student departure process. Tinto (1993) maintained that the
definition for dropout should not come from the institution’s perspective, but rather from
the student’s own understanding of their reasons for leaving school. When the student
20
understands their departure as a positive action rather than negative, so should the
institution. The term “dropout” is best applied when both individuals view their leaving
as a personal failure and when the institution fails to assist the student in attaining a
desired and reasonable educational goal (Tinto, 1993).
Student attrition results from a variety of factors that influence a student’s
decision to either stay or leave school. Withdrawal decisions are complex and generally
develop over time. The one consistent research finding is that attrition is a longitudinal
process, which results from students not fitting in socially, academically, religiously,
and/or economically at school (Bean, 1990a; Pascarella, 1980; Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1993).
Students leave because the school is not a good match for their needs. Yet, similar to the
definition of dropout, the definition of “fitting in” depends on both the student and the
institution. Either one can change their actions or behaviors to enhance the social and
academic fit. The implication of these findings is that institutions need to not only focus
on why students are leaving, but must pay attention to whom they admit and how
responsive they are to students’ needs as they evolve over time (Bean, 1990a).
Major Models of Student Retention
As indicated by Bean (1982), a model of student retention is a depiction of the
factors that appear to impact a student’s decision to stay or leave school. It is through a
conceptual model that interrelationships between factors and the departure process are
identified. Likewise, it is through a model that abstract theory and practical application
are bridged. The use of a model, however, is based upon certain assumptions about the
21
factors that are important in the departure process and how dropout is defined. A variety
of assumptions and definitions of dropout are incorporated in the conceptual models
developed by researchers over the years. Although all of the models have the potential to
help us understand the attrition process, each is unique in its theoretical foundation for
understanding retention.
An extensive review of the retention literature uncovered seven major models of
student retention. The models differ in their theoretical foundations; yet, the practical
function of the models is what makes them valuable to the higher education community.
The first set of retention models all borrowed from Durkheim’s (1961) notion of suicide
to explain the dropout decision. Spady (1970) was the first to develop a theoretical
model that defined dropouts as those students who withdraw from the social system of
the institution because of a lack of shared values (acceptance of the importance of
academic work) or normative support (having support from close family and friends).
Spady argued that this behavior is analogous to suicide or a more permanent withdrawal
from a social system. The justification for treating dropout in manner analogous to that
of suicide is based on the rationale that a college community is a social system with its
own values and social structures (Spady, 1970). Therefore, the social conditions that
affect student attrition resemble those resulting in suicide in the wider society, namely a
lack of interaction with others in the college and an insufficient fit with the values of the
college community.
Refining and simplifying Spady’s (1970) model, Tinto (1993) emphasized the
longitudinal nature of the attrition process and the importance of background attributes in
22
the departure decision. Tinto acknowledged Spady as a pioneer in attrition research, but
argued that Spady’s descriptive model simply specified the conditions under which
different types of dropout occurs. Tinto sought an attrition model that consisted of
factors that account for individual characteristics. To do so, Tinto (1993) developed a
theoretical framework, which explained the longitudinal progression of interactions that
consist of both individual characteristics and expectational and motivational attributes of
individuals related to student persistence. He argued that intention, commitment,
adjustment, difficulty, congruence, and isolation all contribute to individual departure
from institutions. Leaving college has little to do with a student’s inability to meet the
formal academic requirements of college. In actuality, most departures are voluntary.
Rather, dropping out is a reflection of differences in the intentions of the students, while
also consisting of real differences in the student’s experiences within the academic and
social systems of the institution. In all, Tinto related attrition to the problems of adjusting
to college life, to the congruence between the student and the institution, and to the
isolation from the life of the college.
Another longitudinal-process model grounded in Durkheim’s (1961) research,
Pascarella (1980) developed a theoretical model of student persistence that examines the
importance of student-faculty interactions. Contact between students and faculty
members is argued to enhance a student’s integration into the academic system of the
institution, which in turn is expected to decrease attrition. Similarly, informal contact
among students and faculty is expected to have a positive affect on the student’s
23
cognitive and social development, which in turn, allows the student to have a more
positive attitude about their institution and reduces the likelihood of them dropping out.
Incorporated in Pascarella’s (1980) model is the examination of the interactions
between background, the institution, college experiences, and educational outcomes
within the departure process. Pascarella argued that background characteristics are
expected to interact with institutional items, such as institutional image, administrative
policies and decisions, size, admissions, and academic standards. These in turn influence
the amount of informal interaction between a student and faculty as well as the student’s
college experience (i.e., involvement in extracurricular activities and peer relationships)
and educational outcomes (i.e., academic performance, intellectual and personal
development, educational and career goals, and college satisfaction). Finally, Pascarella
maintained that the resulting educational outcomes are what directly influence a student’s
decision to stay or leave school.
Although compatible to the approach utilized by Spady (1970), Tinto (1993), and
Pascarella (1980), Bean’s (1980) research did not reflect any of Durkheim’s work on
suicide. Rather Bean’s theoretical model of student attrition is a synthesis of research
findings on turnover in work organizations. The work of Price (1977), whose work
involved a series of structural and individual determinants of job satisfaction, such as the
interaction of job satisfaction, as defined by compensation, centralization,
communication, and the opportunity structure of the organization, grounded his approach.
The Price model also demonstrates that departure involves those individuals who are
24
dissatisfied with their job regardless of the high opportunities available to them within the
organization.
Bean (1980) adapted the Price model and developed a model of retention that
focuses on several main factors, particularly those that emphasize a student’s interaction
with their institution, including: grades, practical value of education, sense of self-
development in regards to school, repetitiveness of school life, participation in decision
making, close friendships, being treated fairly, membership in campus and student
organizations, and desired course options. External items related to intent to leave
included opportunity to transfer and likelihood of marriage. Bean expected all of these
variables to influence satisfaction, which is subsequently suppose to decrease one’s intent
to leave.
Another set of retention models, developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and
Bentler and Speckart (1979), focus on psychological modeling. At their most basic form,
the Fishbein and Ajzen model suggest that an individual’s behavior is a result of a
cyclical process of specific intentions and behaviors. First, an individual develops both
beliefs about the consequences of a behavior and normative beliefs about a behavior.
Subsequently, the individual moves from beliefs to developing an attitude toward a
behavior and a subjective norm concerning a behavior. The attitude and subjective norm
about a behavior is then followed by the intention to perform the behavior and finally, the
actual performance of the behavior. This process is repeated as a feedback loop, which
connects the actual behavior back to the individual’s beliefs.
25
Reflecting the psychological modeling process of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975),
Bentler and Speckart (1979) analyzed student attrition in a similar fashion; however, they
argued that past behavior and a subjective norm lead to intent to perform a specific
behavior. As with Fishbein and Ajzen, intent is followed by the actual performance of a
behavior. This results in attitudes, norms, and past behavior directly affecting the intent,
and all four influencing future behavior.
For Bentler and Speckart (1979), the decision to drop out of school is the result of
the individual’s past behavior, attitudes about school, and norms. Intent to leave is thus
an intervening variable within the process. This view of student attrition varies from that
of the longitudinal-process models developed by Spady, Tinto, and Pascarella, where the
immediate antecedent to dropping out is institutional commitment. Intent to leave is
apparently a valuable variable for predicting attrition (Bean, 1980); however, unlike the
longitudinal-process models, models focusing on intent to leave have difficulty
explaining the actual factors that cause student attrition (Bean, 1982).
The final major model of student retention used a force field analysis to identify
the causal forces that produce either academic achievement and persistence or academic
failure and attrition. Anderson (1985) looked to the work of Lewin (1951) who believed
that behavior is predicted by analyzing the strength and direction of multiple forces that
either promote (i.e., driving forces) or impede (i.e., restraining forces) the desired goal.
For instance, when driving and restraining forces are in equilibrium, there is no
movement in the behavior. When the restraining forces outmuscle the driving forces,
26
movement towards a new future regresses. Conversely, when the driving forces are
stronger than the restraining forces, positive change results.
In using the force field analysis to explain attrition, Anderson (1985) indicated
that the forces acting upon students differ in intensity and type and from person-to-person
and group-to-group. Students encounter various demands dependent on the institution’s
degree requirements, resources, services, atmosphere, and faculty expectations, and
Anderson believed that both the student and the individual institution needed to be
analyzed in order to understand student persistence.
Attrition is caused by a complex assortment of factors, not one specific external or
internal force (Anderson, 1985). Some external forces identified by Anderson include
parents and friends, cultural values, community exposure to college educated people,
information on college opportunities, financial realities, work demands, social demands,
discrimination, and family obligations. Understanding persistence also involves
understanding the positive and negative internal forces acting either for or against the
desired behavior. Some internal forces include academic skills, self-confidence, career
aspirations, achievement motives, enjoyment of learning, procrastination, loneliness, and
fears of failure, success and rejection. The central point of Anderson’s model is that the
categorization of forces as either positive or negative and the size of their influence
depends upon the individual being analyzed. Therefore, the power of force field analysis
is that it demands explicit identification of forces in particular circumstances. As the
positive and negative internal and external forces are identified and are assessed for
intensity and institutional differences, researchers and practitioners can then begin to
27
uncover the causes of student attrition and develop programs and services that can
promote retention. Unique about Anderson’s (1985) approach to understanding
persistence is that the force field model can be modified to explain attrition among
individual students and can be used to analyze the departure process for various groups of
students, such as minority students, nontraditional students, and student-athletes.
Researcher(s) Year Conceptual Foundation

Spady 1970 Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide
Fishbein & Ajzen 1975 Psychological Modeling
Bentler & Speckart 1979 Psychological Modeling
Bean 1980 Turnover in Work Organizations
Pascarella 1980 Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide
Anderson 1985 Force Field Analysis
Tinto 1993 Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide
(1975 & 1987)
Table 2.1: Chronological Outline of Major Models of Student Retention
28
Conceptual
Researcher(s) Year Type of Model Key Factors Focus
Foundation
Spady Durkheim’s Theory 1970 • Explanatory • Background characteristics • First theoretical model of the
of Suicide • Longitudinal-process • Shared values dropout process
• Normative support • Dropping out is analogous to
• Academic & social integration suicide
Tinto Durkheim’s Theory 1975 • Explanatory • Background characteristics • Longitudinal progression of
of Suicide 1987 • Longitudinal-process • Environment interactions between individual
1993 • Intentions characteristics & expectational/
• Academic & social integration motivational behaviors
Pascarella Durkheim’s Theory 1980 • Explanatory • Background characteristics • Formal student-faculty
of Suicide • Longitudinal-process • Student-faculty interactions interactions enhance a student’s
• Institution academic integration, while
• College experiences informal interactions assist with
• Educational outcomes the student’s social integration
Bean Turnover in Work 1980 • Predictor • Satisfaction • Industrial model of retention that
Organizations • Attitudes emphasizes a student’s interaction
• Intent to leave with their institution
29
• Institution • Retention factors affect

satisfaction, which affects intent
Fishbein & Psychological 1975 • Predictor • Attitudes & norms • Behavior is a cyclical process of
Ajzen Modeling • Intent to leave specific intentions and behaviors
Bentler & Psychological 1979 • Predictor • Past behavior • Dropping out is the result of past
Speckart Modeling • Attitudes & norms behavior, attitudes about school,
• Intent to leave and norms
Anderson Force Field Analysis 1985 • Predictor • Positive internal & external • All behavior is caused
forces (family, friends, etc.) • Force field analysis examines
• Negative internal & external what factors push and pull
forces (financial aid, work, etc.) students towards persistence
Table 2.2: Comparison of the Major Models of Student Retention
29
Retaining Special Student Populations
Although the nature of the dropout process has been well-documented, few
theoretical or empirical studies have focused on the retention of minority student groups,
such as racial/ethnic minority students and nontraditional students (Bean, 1990a; Bean &
Metzner, 1985; Person & LeNoir, 1997). These student groups have been lumped into
retention studies of traditional and majority students. College students, however, are not
a homogeneous group and the needs of students differ across majority and minority lines
and even within minority classifications.
Bean and Metzner (1985) recognized such differences as they explored the nature
of the dropout syndrome among nontraditional students. In their study, nontraditional
students are defined as older, part-time, and commuters. Unlike the younger student
population, older, part-time students are defined by their limited interaction with other
members of the institution. Due to their lessened intensity and duration of interaction
with faculty and peers, social integration is found to be less important for these students.
Specifically, the chief difference between the attrition process presented by earlier
researchers and Bean and Metzner is that older, part-time students are more affected by
the external environment than by their ability to socially integrate into the institution,
which positively affects traditional student attrition. For a residential student, social
support comes from their interactions with faculty and peers. Conversely, for a
nontraditional student, social support comes from a student’s family, friends outside of
school, or people at work. For this reason, Bean and Metzner (1985) suggested that
nontraditional students do not become socialized to the values of their college
30
community. Rather nontraditional students attend college for academic reasons and are
more influenced by their ability to integrate into the academic system of the institution
when deciding to stay or leave school (Bean & Metzner, 1985).
Racial/ethnic minority students also face many unique issues that are often not
addressed in models of majority student retention. Of the research focused on minority
students, most studies are focused on the African American student experience. Only a
few have explored the departure process of Hispanic, Asian American, or Native
American students.
For African American students, background characteristics, such as high school
class rank (Moline, 1987) and high school grade point average (Wiley, 1983), have been
found to be significant predictors in a student’s decision to stay in school. Schwartz and
Washington (2002) validated these findings as they determined that for African American
freshmen, there are statistically significant relationships between high school grade point
average, high school class rank, and several noncognitive variables and students’
academic performance and retention. Yet, Bennett and Bean (1984) found that once a
student matriculates into the institution, the degree to which grade point average is linked
to retention shifts significantly. For instance, if African American students encounter
prejudice from faculty and are made to feel as if they are inferior to other students, grade
point average is no longer significant. A high achieving student who is made to feel
inferior is as likely to drop out as a low performing student encountering the same
educational environment. This is consistent with Jones’ (2001) research on minority
student retention. Jones argued that African American students attending predominantly
31
white institutions experience more stress, racism, and isolation than their peers at
historically black institutions. Such an environment makes it less likely for African
American students at predominantly white institutions to persist to graduation. Minority
students need to perceive the social and academic climate as inclusive and affirming if
they are to remain in school (Jones, 2001).
The degree to which institutional rules and regulations affect persistence also
varies among white and minority students. When white students feel constrained by rules
and regulations, their level of satisfaction is affected (Bean & Hull, 1984). Yet, when
African American students feel controlled by the rules of their predominantly white
institution, they are more likely to leave school. The differential is because African
American students perceive rules coming from white school officials as a loss of their
internal locus of control. When the student feels as if someone else is running their life,
they become alienated from the institution and are more susceptible to dropping out.
Another area that is strongly correlated with African American student retention
is adequate financial aid. This is not an uncommon issue among white and other minority
student populations. For example, finances are also particularly important to Hispanic
students (Nora, 1990). Adequate financial aid, however, is not only based on the amount
of aid awarded, but also the proportion of grants to loans (Jones, 2001). Level of
indebtedness creates stress, which can subsequently effect satisfaction and academic
performance for many students. For minority students, anxiety about financial aid can be
even more pronounced when combined with feelings of alienation and isolation within
the campus (Jones, 2001).
32
Common Model of Student Retention
As reflected in the conceptual models and perspectives presented, several key
factors affect a student’s decision to stay in school. These factors reflect experiences or
beliefs that a student may hold, which vary in respect to the retention process for different
types of students. Figure 2.1 shows a synthesis of these elements and gives a graphical
view of the key factors that the conceptual models share. Incorporated into this model
are five factors that either directly or indirectly affect a student’s attitude about self and
school – 1) background, 2) academic integration, 3) social integration, 4) institutional,
and 5) environmental pull. In turn, attitude about self and school influences a student’s
intention to leave and ultimately their departure decision.
33
INPUTS INTERACTION OUTCOMES INTENT DECISION
Institutional
Factor
Academic
Integration
Factor
Background Student’s Attitude Intent to Departure
Factor about Self & School Leave Decision
Social
Integration
Factor
34
Environmental
Pull Factor
Figure 2.1: Common Model of Student Retention
34
Background Factor
The background factor consists of characteristics of students that are most widely
known and are often used to provide objective, factual information about a student (Bean,
1990a). These characteristics include age, gender, racial/ethnic background, high school
class rank, number of college preparatory classes, standardized test scores, level of
parental education, and full-time or part-time status. Unlike the remaining factors,
background characteristics precede the student’s interaction with the institution. Thus,
these items are often of practical use for the office of admissions and can give an
institution some insight into what can be expected from an incoming student.
Of these pre-entry attributes, initial intentions regarding college attendance and
academic goals are extremely important to how the student interacts with the academic
and social systems of the institution. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) claimed that it is
these intentions that are continuously modified as the student encounters the structures
and members of the academic and social domains.
Academic Integration Factor
Within the academic domain of the institution, student attrition appears to be
related primarily to a student’s academic grade performance, the most visible form of
reward in the academic system (Bean, 1980; Bean, 1990a; Tinto, 1993). Grade
performance is defined as the student’s ability to meet the standards of the academic
system and the ability to develop the appropriate attitude for academic work. In order to
meet the academic demands of college, a student must acquire the necessary study skills
35
and habits to achieve in the classroom, including time management skills, note-taking
skills, exam preparation techniques, and oral and written communication skills. Bean
(1990b) maintained that programs that are capable of improving these skills are likely to
positively effect retention.
Student-faculty interactions are also helpful in enhancing academic integration
and therefore, reducing attrition (Bean, 1990a; Pascarella, 1980). For instance, when
students interact with faculty who are concerned about their cognitive development,
students exhibit more positive attitudes towards self and school, have more clearly
defined career goals, and are more self-confident about their role as students (Bean,
1990a). Major certainty is also related to a student’s successful integration into the
academic domain of the institution. Students who have declared their major are said to
have an identity, feel a sense of belonging to their respective academic unit, have a
direction, and are more easily able to link their coursework with their long-term career
goals (Bean, 1990a). Finally, Bean (1990a) indicated that absenteeism is an indicator that
a student is having difficulty integrating into the academic system of the institution. The
student’s grade point average, however, is often what affects whether absenteeism is
related. Having high grades and being absent may not affect student persistence; yet,
having low grades and being absent are strongly link to attitudes and intentions.
Social Integration Factor
Like academic integration, the ability for the student to integrate into the social
domain of the institution greatly affects student persistence. Specifically, social
36
integration is defined by a student’s extracurricular participation, involvement in special
interest groups (i.e., religious or recreational), and shared values. Friendship support is
also of significant importance since students who have close friends are more likely to
exhibit positive attitudes about themselves as students and as members of the campus
community.
Similar to academic integration, informal student-faculty interactions affect social
integration. Students who feel accepted by faculty members either through a mentoring
or friendship relationship are often more likely to continue in school (Bean, 1990a;
Pascarella, 1980). Support from other members of the institution, such as counselors,
residence hall staff, central administrators, and academic personnel, can also influence a
student’s attitude toward school. Researchers specifically indicate that the student’s
perception of their own social fit and their satisfaction with the social opportunities at
their institution significantly contributes to the dropout process (Bean & Metzner, 1985;
Pascarella, 1980, Tinto, 1993, Spady, 1970). However, social integration may not be as
important to nontraditional students as it would be for traditional students (Bean &
Metzner, 1985).
Institutional Factor
Individual behavior is as much a function of the institution as it is the effect of
personality traits; thus, the items that define this factor constitute the dynamics of the
student’s interaction with the institution. One example is the rules and regulations that
cover the academic conduct (i.e., plagiarism or general curriculum requirements) and
37
social conduct (i.e., no alcohol in the residence halls) of the students. The intention of
having such rules and regulations is to ensure a degree of order and uniformity across the
campus. Yet, when the rules and regulations that govern student academic and social life
produce resentment and alienation, this can have an enormous affect on a student’s
attitude about school and their intentions about staying or leaving. Bean (1990a)
indicated this is particularly true for minority students who often feel alienated on
predominantly white campuses.
The timing and variety of course offerings and the number of courses required for
graduation also affect retention. Bean (1990a) maintained that the curriculum itself is the
most influential institutional issue within the departure process. This institutional factor
also includes the retention programs and student support services that are provided at the
student’s school. Finally, while the effects of financial aid on retention are mixed, there
is no denying that if a student cannot pay their tuition, involuntary attrition will occur.
Opportunities for grants, loans, scholarships, or work-study programs are a vital
component to the departure process. Not only do they provide the students with the funds
to continue their enrollment, but some financial aid may also symbolize to the student an
increased acceptance by their institution and in turn, increase the student’s attitude and
loyalty to their school (Bean, 1990a).
Environmental Pull Factor
The environmental pull factor consists of issues beyond the institution’s control
(Bean, 1982; Bean, 1990a). These include family matters, health, significant others or
38
friends, work or family responsibilities, and financial realities. Additional items include
the military status, socio-political movements, and economic cycles. In contrast to those
forces that “push” a student out of school, this factor incorporates ways students are
“pulled” out of school and is often found to have a direct link to intent to leave.
Attitudinal Factor
Unlike background characteristics, the attitudinal factor is defined by those
indicators that provide more subjective evaluations of a student’s attitude toward their
education, self, educational institution, and educational goals. This includes a general
sense of satisfaction with life at the school, feelings of self-development, a sense that
their education has a practical value for securing employment upon graduation, and a
sense of self-confidence (Bean, 1990a). Institutional fit and loyalty are also attitudes that
affect a student’s decision to stay in school. Loyalty has a more psychological
component than institutional fit, which is based upon a more general attitude about the
student’s experiences. For example, a student who is loyal feels attached to their school,
rather than to their degree; therefore, the student feels it is more important to graduate
from this institution, instead of just any institution. Such positive attitudes can be
enhanced by the rites and rituals of the school (i.e., campus mascot or fight song) and
other symbols that help the student identify with their institution (Bean, 1990a). Overall,
attitudes subsume the majority of the direct effects of the academic integration, social
integration, institutional, and environmental pull factors on intent to leave; thus, leaving
39
intent to leave to be more appropriately explained by these block of attitudes than any
other set of factors.
Intent to Leave
Intent to leave is a factor included in many theoretical models of attrition most
often intervening between behaviors and attitudes (Bean, 1980; Bean, 1990a; Bentler &
Speckart, 1979; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). For example, students who intend to leave are
unlikely to remain in school and by asking if the student plans on enrolling the following
term, the institution can determine who is at risk of leaving early. Bean (1980) suggested
that the attitudinal factor is expected to be the best predictor of intent to leave; however,
often times, environmental pull (i.e., opportunity to transfer) has its own direct effect on
intent to leave.
40
Background Factor Environmental Pull Factor
• Age • Financial realities
• Gender • Significant other elsewhere
• Race/Ethnicity • Opportunity to transfer
• Religion • Work demands
• Socioeconomic status • Family responsibilities & approval
• Educational level of parents • Military status
• Full-time/part-time status • Socio-political movements
• College class rank • Economic cycles
• High school grade point average • Health issues
• High school class rank
• Standardized test scores
• Number of college preparatory courses
• Initial intentions regarding college
attendance and academic goals
Academic Integration Factor Social Integration Factor

• Academic performance • Friendship support
• Study skills & habits • Informal student-faculty interactions
• Formal student-faculty interactions • Involvement in special interest groups
• Major certainty • Involvement in extracurricular activities
• Absenteeism • Shared values
Attitudinal Factor Institutional Factor

• Sense of satisfaction • Rules & regulations
• Sense of self-development • Timing & variety of course offerings
• Sense of self-confidence • Curriculum
• Sense that education has practical value for • Student support services
employment • Financial aid
• Institutional fit
• Loyalty
Intention
• Intent to leave
Table 2.3: Student Retention Factors & Their Corresponding Variables
41
Contrary to the common misconception that college students drop out of school
because of academic failure, retention theories, such as Tinto’s (1993) path analysis,
Anderson’s (1985) force field analysis, and Bean’s (1980) industrial model of student
attrition, conclude that a plethora of complex factors influence student persistence. Most
often, factors related to retention center on the personal life of the students, their
uncertainty about academic goals, attitude about college, financial resources, their
intentions about staying or leaving, and the degree to which they can successfully
integrate into the academic and social systems of the institution. Yet, while the seven
theoretical models discussed have increased our knowledge about student retention, none
of the models can consistently explain why some students drop out of school while others
stay. Even the common model, whose purpose was to synthesize the various theoretical
perspectives regarding retention, only depicts a general understanding of the departure
process and cannot fully explain all the issues affecting all groups of students. New
models outlining new relationships and factors are needed to further explain the process
in which students make decisions regarding their educational career.
College Student-Athlete Experience
The college student-athlete experience often varies from the non-athlete
experience. These two student groups experience college differently because of the
increased pressures and time demands student-athletes encounter while in school and the
constant juggling of the dual roles of student and athlete. Student-athletes also live an
42
atypical student lifestyle because of the public scrutiny they often face by people in and
outside the academic community. Shriberg (1984) specifically stated,
“College athletes are simultaneously loved and hated, admired and despised.
They are seen as heroes one day and villains the next. We see them as saviors of
the university for the revenue they create and as pampered, spoiled brats for the
benefits they receive” (pg. 1).
Student-athletes experience college differently from their non-athlete peers
because of their need to satisfy both university academic responsibilities and NCAA
eligibility standards. Often these academic eligibility standards exceed those that are
imposed by the institution on the non-athlete population. Yet for student-athletes, failure
to satisfy the NCAA standards results in a lost of eligibility and financial aid, which in
turn, potentially jeopardizes a student-athlete’s ability to persist to graduation and can
lead to an unanticipated transition away from athletics. Even the most academically
prepared and emotional strong student-athletes can find it difficult to manage both the
student and athlete roles under these conditions (Carodine et al., 2001).
The first part of this section briefly discusses the student-athlete experience from
a historical perspective and outlines the development of the current popularity of college
sports and its effect on student-athletes. The second part of this section will delve deeper
into the profile of the current intercollegiate athlete and will discuss the main differences
between student-athletes and non-athletes. Finally, the last part of this section discusses
the challenges student-athletes face when attempting to master their age- and stage-
appropriate developmental tasks. In all, the goal of this section of the literature review is
to demystify the student-athlete experience by surfacing the experiences of the real
43
student-athlete, whose image has often toggled between that of a “savior” and a
“pampered, spoiled brat” (Shriberg, 1984, p. 1).
The Birth of Today’s College Student-Athlete
It is difficult to truly understand the breadth and depth of the conflict between the
academic and athletic experiences of the student-athlete without firmly comprehending
the historical development of the current popularity of college sports (Watt & Moore,
2001). With the face of college sports having changed tremendously from its beginnings,
the attitudes and perceptions that once guided our thinking may no longer be relevant.
More specific, what may have been retention factors perceived to be important twenty
years ago may now be unrelated to the current college student-athlete experience due to
increased commercialization, professionalization and media coverage of college sports,
implementation of higher academic eligibility standards, and rise in women’s athletics
participation.
Intercollegiate athletics were first introduced in the United States in the nineteenth
century (Zimbalist, 1999). Crew was the first sport to obtain a level of popularity, but
was quickly overtaken by the emergence of football in the late 1880s. This shift in
attention from crew to football grew specifically out of the media coverage and
sponsorship opportunities available in football and the potential for intercollegiate
athletics to develop into a lucrative business venture (Watt & Moore, 2001). As the
interest in football increased, so did the aggressive play and serious injuries associated
with the sport. By 1905, 330 deaths were reported in college football (Zimbalist, 1999).
44
Concerned with the growing violence in this sport, President Theodore Roosevelt
summoned representatives from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to Washington and
threatened to shutdown college football unless drastic reform was implemented. From
this meeting in 1905 the NCAA was formed.
Since the formation of the NCAA, the partnership between higher education and
intercollegiate athletics has been strained (Watt & Moore, 2001). Many critics have
raised questions about the nature of college sports and its effects on the mission of higher
education. Specifically, a 1929 report issued by the Carnegie Commission stated,
“The heart of the problem facing college sports was commercialization: an

interlocking network that included expanded press coverage, public interest,
alumni involvement and recruiting abuses. The victim was the student-athlete in
particular, the diminishing of educational and intellectual values in general” (as
cited in Zimbalist, 1999, p. 8).
In addition, the report asked whether the university can “concentrate its attention on
securing teams that win, without impairing the sincerity and vigor of its intellectual
purpose?” (as cited in Watt & Moore, 2001, p. 8). Despite these concerns from the
higher education community, few rule modifications were produced and college football
was poised to grow even more. Between 1920 and 1940, attendance had soared and large
football stadiums were emerging everywhere. It appeared that as college sports grew in
popularity, greater investments in winning were being made often at the cost of the
student-athletes (Zimbalist, 1999).
Increased commercialization of college sports, however, was not the only issue
confronting intercollegiate athletics in the early twentieth century. Corruption in college
sports via increased cheating and financial scandals (i.e., gambling and financial gifts
45
during the recruiting process) also emerged with the increased popularity (Watt & Moore,
2001; Zimbalist, 1999). The Carnegie Commission reported that three-quarters of the
112 member colleges were found to be in violation of NCAA codes and the principles of
amateurism (Zimbalist, 1999). A follow-up study in 1931 found that not a single college
had changed its practices to adhere to the policies set by the NCAA (Zimbalist, 1999).
To alleviate such an issue, the NCAA in the mid-1940s adopted the “Principles
for the Conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics”, also known as the “Sanity Code”
(Zimbalist, 1999). The purpose of this code was to restore the order and sanity of college
sports by expelling those colleges and universities that did not adhere to the rules
established by the NCAA to protect student-athletes. Included in this code was also a
uniform, national grant-in-aid rule. Specifically, under the Sanity Code, a student-athlete
was only allowed to receive tuition and fees if he showed financial need and met the
institution’s entrance requirements, i.e., a merit scholarship for athletic ability.
The Sanity Code, however, was short-lived. Too many institutions believed
athletes should receive financial assistance regardless of their academic skills or financial
need. Additionally, economists argued that the Sanity Code allowed the NCAA to
behave as a cartel because the code permitted colleges to set rules that limited the price
they had to pay for their student-athletes (Zimbalist, 1999). It was argued that such could
be prevented if the colleges were able to openly compete with one another for the best
athletes. By 1950, the Sanity Code had been buried and what emerged in its place was a
“pay for play” grant-in-aid system.
46
By allowing aid to be based upon athletic ability alone, new concerns arose
regarding the extent to which student-athletes were academically prepared for the rigors
of college. With a student’s scholarly accomplishments having no significant bearing on
the awarding of financial aid, the NCAA was in desperate need of rules that could protect
the integrity of the academic mission and intellectual environment of postsecondary
education. It also was in desperate need of addressing the functional illiteracy among
college football and basketball players, which was observed due to the expansion of
television coverage and requests for student-athlete interviews (Zimbalist, 1999).
In response, the NCAA implemented several landmark athletics eligibility
policies to address the conflicting demands faced by student-athletes. The first policy,
Proposition 48 passed in 1983, toughened freshmen eligibility standards by requiring
prospective student-athletes to have a 2.0 grade point average in 11 core courses and a
minimum of a 700 on the SAT. While its intention was to improve academic standards
for student-athletes, the proposal was met with vehement protest from black coaches and
educators who argued that standardized tests were known to be culturally biased (Byers,
1995; Zimbalist, 1999). To compensate for such concerns, Prop 48 was reconstructed to
allow for partial and non-qualifier categories. Under this policy, a partial qualifier was
one who met either the grade point average requirement or the test score minimum, and
thus could still receive a full athletics scholarship, but could not practice or play with the
team for the first year. On the other hand, a non-qualifier was allowed to receive federal
Pell grant funds or other need-based aid, but was prohibited from practicing or competing
with the team.
47
With the addition of the partial and non-qualifier categories, Prop 48 did little to
address the concerns about the role of college sports in postsecondary education and did
little to impose effective academic standards for prospective student-athletes (Zimbalist,
1999). For instance, the partial qualifier status allowed students to disregard their
academics while in high school, yet still be awarded a full athletics scholarship for four
years. As a means of addressing this issue, the NCAA adopted Proposition 42 in 1989.
This proposition reasserted the 2.0 grade point average standard, while also banning
partial qualifiers from receiving grant-in-aid funded by the athletics department. Yet,
while partial qualifiers could not receive an athletics scholarship, partial qualifiers were
still permitted to receive grant-in-aid so long as the funding for such scholarship did not
come from the athletics department. In other words, Prop 42 was merely a copy of Prop
48, but now with the added incentive that institutions could use funds previously
designated for other areas to sponsor athletics scholarships (Zimbalist, 1999).
Again, the goal of protecting academic integrity was left unmet as the loopholes
found in these two propositions allowed little meaningful change to take place. It was not
until the 1992 adoption of Proposition 16 that significant reform of intercollegiate
athletics had emerged. To be eligible under this new proposition, incoming freshmen had
to meet three academic standards. These included – 1) graduation from high school, 2)
successful completion of 13 core courses, and 3) a 2.0 grade point average in the 13 core
courses combined with a standardized test score that qualifies on an index scale. For
instance, a student with a 2.0 grade point average must obtain a 1010 on the SAT, while a
student with a 2.5 grade point average must obtain an 820 on the SAT. Partial qualifiers
48
under this proposition were once again allowed to receive athletics grant-in-aid and were
allowed to practice, but not compete their first year.
Similar to the reactions observed with the implementation of Prop 48 and 42,
many black coaches and other educators attacked Prop 16 as being discriminatory
towards minority student-athletes because of the use of standardized test scores as one of
the required eligibility requirements. They once again asserted that the SAT is culturally
biased and many blamed the measurement tool and the increased standards for the rise in
the number of black prospective student-athletes ineligible for competition (i.e.,
ineligibility rose from 16.3 percent to 26.9 percent during the initial years of Prop 16)
(Zimbalist, 1999).
While the implementation of higher academic standards caused both minority and
overall eligibility to plummet initially, Prop 16 has significantly affected the graduation
rates of student-athletes. As summarized in Table 2.4, the overall graduation rates of
student-athletes did steadily improve since the NCAA began to address the persistent
concerns regarding the role of intercollegiate athletics within postsecondary education.
Additionally, while Prop 16 raised important concerns regarding the use of standardized
test scores for minority student-athletes, the graduation rates for both black male and
female student-athletes also did steadily increase since 1984.
49
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992* 1993 1994
Overall Rate 52 52 57 57 58 58 58 57 58 58 58
Black Males 33 34 41 43 42 43 43 41 40 41 42
Black Females 45 44 54 53 58 58 59 56 53 57 59
* First class to adhere to the Proposition 48 athletics eligibility standards
Table 2.4: Graduation Rate of Division I Student-Athletes, 1984-1994 (percent)

(NCAA, 2003c)
Today, the socioeconomic dimension of college sports dictates the nature of this
industry just as it does in professional sports, corporate America, and even society itself.
Large Division I athletics programs now operate on multimillion dollar budgets with
much of the revenue coming from increased media coverage and multi-year television
contracts worth millions of dollars. Table 2.5 summarizes the major Division IA football
conference television deals from 1996-2000, Table 2.6 reports the television rights fees
for the Division I men’s basketball tournament from 1963-2013, and Table 2.7 outlines
the trends in Division IA institutional revenue and expenses from 1982-1997. The lure
of such revenue and exposure has fueled a win-at-all-costs syndrome regardless of the
increased pressure it has created for the student-athletes (Zimbalist, 1999). Additionally,
it has made universities dependent on the extra attention and notoriety because of the
perceived connection to increase enrollment and improved institutional image (Watt &
Moore, 2001).
50
Conference/School TV Network Contract Amount
(in $millions)
ACC ABC/ESPN 70
Big East CBS 65
Big Ten/Pac-10 ABC 115
SEC CBS 85
Notre Dame NBC 38*
* Notre Dame began a new 7-year contract with NBC in 1998 worth $45 million
Table 2.5: Major Division IA Football Conference Television Deals, 1996-2000

(Zimbalist, 1999)
Year(s) TV Network Contract Amount

1963 Sports Network $140,000 (Final Only)
1969 NBC $547,500 (Final Only)
1973 NBC $1,165,755
1981-1984 CBS $48 million
1985-1987 CBS $55.3 million
1988-1990 CBS $166 million
1991-1995 CBS $1 billion
1995-2002 CBS $1.725 billion
2003-2013 CBS $6.2 billion
Table 2.6: Television Rights Fees for the Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament
(Weiberg, 1999)
51
Annual Growth
Rates
1960- 1982-
1960 1974 1981 1985 1993 1995 1997 1981 1997
Avg Revenues 672 1,708 3,391 6,833 13,632 15,482 17,734 8.0% 8.9%
Avg Costs 635 1,761 3,243 6,894 12,972 14,336 17,297 8.1% 8.6%
Table 2.7: Trends in Division IA Institutions’ Revenues & Expenses, 1960-1997

(in $thousands) (Zimbalist, 1999)
How this all happened is still unknown. Mihalich (1984) argued that increased
alumni support for intercollegiate athletics is partly to blame. He believed that
institutions derive much of their character and image from alumni contributions; thus
much of the pressure placed on colleges is derived from alumni wanting a return on their
invest in the form of national prominence and national championships. On the other
hand, our society’s obsession with winning could also be to blame as sport is merely a
microcosm of our American institution (Mihalich, 1984).
Whatever the reason, today’s college student-athlete experience hardly resembles
the situation when Harvard faced Yale in the first rowing contest back in 1852. The
notion of an “off-season” has diminished as the nature of college sports has evolved into
an enterprise that pressures student-athletes to intensely train year round. This leaves
student-athletes with limited time to integrate into mainstream college experiences, to
socialize with others, to build relationships outside the athletics community, to become
involved in service-learning and community projects, or to step back from an
environment that is based upon commercial interests. Expanded media coverage has also
52
elevated many high-profile student-athletes to celebrity status with many institutions
reaping the benefits of this status via increased merchandise and ticket sales.
Of the more positive significant changes observed throughout the years is the
expanded role females have taken within college sports. The increase in female
participation is due in large part to the passage of Title IX of the 1972 Education
Amendments. Since its implementation, the number of sponsored women’s sports and
the number of female participants have steadily risen as reflected in Tables 2.8 and 2.9.
Additionally, Title IX has provided female student-athletes with more equitable facilities,
coaching opportunities, scholarships, competition schedules, and equipment.
1981-82 1986-87 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95

# Women’s Teams 2,011 2,274 2,409 2,436 2,527 2,576
# Men’s Teams 2,829 2,821 2,848 2,836 2,885 2,853
Table 2.8: Number of Sponsored Sports Teams by Gender in Division I, 1981-1995

(Zimbalist, 1999)
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91
Female 64,390 78,027 82,449 89,062 92,192 89,640 88,266 90,180 88,206 90,472
1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
Female 94,922 97,978 102,994 107,605 125,250 129,289 133,445 145,873 146,617 149,115
Table 2.9: Female Participants in NCAA-Sponsored Sports (All Divisions), 1981-2001

(NCAA, 2003c)
53
Another main effect of Title IX that has seldom been discussed is the way in
which women have reconceptualized the role of sport in their lives since the
implementation of this statute. While in the beginning female athletes appeared to place
more importance on having fun and playing well (LeUnes & Nation, 2002), the win-at-
all-costs syndrome that has been primarily evident in male sports has slowly began to
infect women’s intercollegiate athletics. Such a movement can specifically be seen in the
rise in violations committed by female athletics programs. Mahoney, Fink, and Pastore
(1999) found that the number of women’s teams that have been penalized due to rule
violations increased from 3.3 per year in the 1980s to 6.0 per year in the 1990s. Further
analysis of the data indicates that while the percentage of violations occurring in men’s
sports is still higher, violations in women’s programs are growing at a faster rate, and the
severity of the violations is equal to or greater than the severity of the violations in men’s
programs (Mahoney et al., 1999). Such findings are consistent with Beller and Stoll’s
(1995) contention that female student-athletes’ attitudes about fair play have consistently
declined since the merger of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women
(AIAW) and NCAA in the early 1980s. Overall, these findings give credence to the
argument that as female teams have been exposed to increased media attention, prestige,
glamour, and pressure to win, the need to engage in unethical and dishonest behavior has
become more prevalent, thus changing the face of the female student-athlete and the
issues associated with her college experience.
It has been over seventy years since the Carnegie Foundation first challenged the
concept of intercollegiate athletics. While much has changed since this time, the
54
questions raised by the Carnegie Foundation are still as persistent today as they were in
the past. Commercial interests are still continuously at work. Media coverage of
collegiate sporting events is still as seductive as before and college administrators still
continue to be consumed with their competitive success on the playing field. The need to
win still stimulates unfortunate practices, such as the admission of underprepared
students, tendencies to bet, and propensities to cheat. Yet, despite such consistencies
over time, current student-athletes experience college in a vastly different way from the
student-athletes of the past. This can be attributed to the increased pressure to win and its
associated financial gains or the demanding academic and athletics schedules student-
athlete must endure (Carodine et al., 2001; Parham, 1993; Walter & Smith, 1989; Watt &
Moore, 2001). Likewise, it can be attributed to competitive athletics pressuring student-
athletes into forming a self-image that is defined by their athletic prowess rather than
their academic achievement (Watt & Moore, 2001). This can significantly contribute to
student-athletes’ feelings of isolation from non-athletes and the campus in general
(Carodine et al., 2001).
As argued by Lewin (1936), behavior is a function of the person and their
environment and the interaction shapes how the individual experiences their
environment. Thus, today’s student-athletes are a function of their athletics environment.
As the athletics environment becomes more commercially and professionally-driven, the
way in which student-athletes interact with this environment will have significant
implications for whether they can succeed as both students and athletes. Ultimately, it
may have considerable implications for whether they will remain in school.
55
Student-Athletes Versus Non-Athletes
Research conducted by Walter and Smith (1989) identified four areas that
separate student-athletes from non-athletes. The first area focuses on the amount of time
and energy student-athletes devote to their sport. Student-athletes, in addition to their
academic responsibilities, must expend hours practicing, training, competing, and
rehabilitating injuries in order to satisfy their athletics requirements. For many sports,
this includes practicing at least three hours per day for five to six days a week during both
the regular and off-season. Such a finding is confirmed by Ender and Wilkie (2001) who
claimed, “Becoming a college athlete at all levels of intercollegiate sports is a lifestyle
commitment” (p. 125). The intensive nature of these activities means that student-
athletes are often drained and depleted, even before they are able to start to manage their
responsibilities as students.
The second area identified involves issues of academic competence and readiness.
Some student-athletes, on average, earn significantly lower grades in high school and
lower scores on college entrance exams than non-athletes. The 1987 American Institute
for Research study revealed that 60 percent of African-American student-athletes scored
in the lowest quartile of the SAT and ACT, whereas only six percent scored in the highest
quartile (Person & LeNoir, 1997). As a result, some student-athletes are unprepared for
the academic demands of the college curriculum. The consequences of their
unpreparedness are exacerbated by the limited amount of time available to devote to their
academics. Parham (1993) noted that the ability to attend to academic responsibilities is
especially stressful when the student-athlete is in season.
56
The inability of student-athletes to socialize and become involved in the campus
community is another unique aspect of the student-athlete population. For student-
athletes, the demands of sports and academics leaves them with limited time and
potentially little desire to engage in activities and develop friendships outside the athletics
realm. Similar to Walter and Smith’s (1989) findings, Parham (1993) believed that this
lack of social involvement leads student-athletes to feel left out or estranged from campus
life. It also makes it more difficult for the campus community to fully understand the
student-athlete experience. Parham stated, “This lack of contact and interaction interferes
with the discovery by the greater campus community that student-athletes are not the
prima donnas or ‘dumb jocks’ that they are made out to be” (p. 413).
The final area identified by Walter and Smith (1989) focuses on the fishbowl
atmosphere in which many student-athletes live. Due to their high visibility and status on
campus, student-athletes are often over criticized and scrutinized for their behavior
compared to non-athletes. For many student-athletes, this added pressure causes them to
resort to unhealthy social behaviors and often substance and alcohol abuse.
Student-Athlete In-Group Differences
Despite popular perception, the student-athlete population is not a homogeneous
group. Significant differences are prevalent across sports, race/ethnicity, sex, and
division level. Student-athletes of color have a difficult time integrating into the
academic domain of the college, often due to the stereotypes associated with their skin
color and athletic role, which causes these student-athletes to struggle to convince their
57
professors and peers they are serious about academics (Parham, 1993; Person, Benson-
Quaziena, & Rogers, 2001). Additionally, Parham argued that institutionalized
discrimination based upon skin color is not unknown in intercollegiate athletics.
Systematic biases are also present in the way minority student-athletes are recruited and
how their academic planning for athletics eligibility is carried out.
For female student-athletes, the stereotypic and dichotomous view of acceptable
feminine behavior and successful athletic behavior creates a source of dissonance
(Parham, 1993). Such a conflict between being an athlete and being a woman results in
various modes of behavior, which extend from overcompensation defined by apologetic
behavior to ultra-feminine dress to complete withdrawal from participation.
Additionally, while male athletes may struggle with anger and aggression issues, female
student-athletes face severe issues related to eating disorders and nutritional concerns
(Parham, 1993; Person et al., 2001). Known as the Female Athlete Triad, disordered
eating, amenorrhea, and osteoporosis are the three most common disorders found
amongst today’s collegiate female athletes (Parham, 1993). Consequentially, female
athletes suffer greater number of sports-related injuries, particularly stress fractures and
musculoskeletal injuries (Parham, 1993; Person et al., 2001). Finally, in contrast to men,
women in athletics confront issues of sexual harassment and sexism (Parham, 1993;
Person et al., 2001).
The variation among student-athletes also extends across division levels as
Division I student-athletes, compared to Division II and III, face greater time demands
due to the higher level of competition, benefits and rewards, media attention, and public
58
scrutiny (Watt & Moore, 2001). A similar argument can be made for sport differentials,
particularly between revenue and non-revenue generating sports. The internal and
external pressures faced by football and basketball players can significantly differentiate
them from their athlete peers. Overall, as Watt and Moore maintained, many issues
differentiate student-athletes from one another and it is these differences that create
“many different ways of defining and experiencing life as a student-athlete” (p. 7).
Student-Athlete Psychosocial & Identity Development
Despite the many challenges student-athletes face because of their roles of student
and athlete, these individuals do benefit from their athletic experiences. Research has
shown that athletics participation is positively linked to high levels of self-esteem (Colker
& Widom, 1980; Taylor, 1995; Zimbalist, 1999), teamwork and discipline (Watt &
Moore, 2001; Zimbalist, 1999), and increases in interpersonal and leadership skills along
with a higher level of satisfaction with their college experience, particularly for African
American and White male student-athletes (Pascarella & Smart, 1991). Even more,
college sports have been found to promote physical and emotional well-being, while team
sports have been determined to build character, friendships, and community (Zimbalist,
1999).
From an identity development perspective, student-athletes have also benefited
from their athletics participation. Specifically, student-athletes are able to accomplish a
sense of industry rather than inferiority because their athletic ability is often rewarded
and recognized. This is generated through praise they receive from their family, friends,
59
peers, and the media. Such positive reinforcement can be viewed as beneficial to the
student-athlete since it can be seen as a method of building self-confidence and self-
esteem. It also allows student-athletes to feel a sense of accomplishment, approval,
validation, recognition, and feeling as if they are a part of someone or something
(Parham, 1993; Pearson & Petitpas, 1990).
Despite athletics participation satisfying some very fundamental emotional needs,
student-athletes often experience difficulty in their psychosocial and identity
development. As reflected in Erikson’s (1980) and Marcia’s (1980) theories of identity
development, the establishment of a personal identity requires both a personal exploration
of various ideological and occupational alternatives and a sense of freedom to commit to
those alternatives that are consistent with their own needs, skills, interests, and values.
Such an exploratory process, however, is not compatible with the college athletics
system. From the start of their athletics careers, student-athletes are socialized to develop
a sense of identity based upon how successful they are as athletes. The athletics system
promotes conformity and requires large amounts of physical and emotional time from its
athletes. Additionally, in the context of Erikson (1980), while in the industry versus
inferiority stage, student-athletes learn quickly that to gain recognition from others is
important in our culture and seek to develop the necessary skills needed. With athletics
so highly regarded in our society, student-athletes learn that their athletic skills are a
means of attaining success and prestige (Nelson, 1983).
The transition to developing a personal identity, and in essence mastering
Erikson’s (1980) next developmental task, becomes extremely problematic for student-
60
athletes who have been consistently rewarded for their athletic prowess. Researchers
have argued that a lack of personal exploration and narrow identity focus places student-
athletes at risk for developing an identity that is foreclosed (Brown et al., 2000; Howard-
Hamilton & Sina, 2001; Nelson, 1983; Pearson & Petitpas, 1990; Petitpas & Champagne,
1988). Identity foreclosure is defined as a commitment to an occupation or ideology in
the absence of an active exploration of alternative possibilities (Brown et al., 2000;
Erikson, 1980; Marcia, 1980). The level of rigidness and inflexibility of a college
athletics system also concerns researchers who claim that rather than promoting
exploratory behavior, the athletics system actually promotes identity foreclosure (Brown
et al., 2000; Nelson, 1983; Pearson & Petitpas, 1990; Petitpas & Champagne, 1988).
The athletics system, however, may not be the only obstacle standing in the way
of student-athletes actively exploring alternative possibilities. Petitpas and Champagne
(1988) argued that the student-athletes themselves may not see the benefit or urgency in
engaging in exploratory behavior. College student-athletes already have an identity on
campus. Their dual roles of student and athlete keep them extremely busy and their lives
are very regulated so that they can attempt to successfully manage their dual roles.
Student-athletes also enjoy the privileges that are associated with their athletic status,
such as an athletics scholarship and specialized services, which make them believe that
exploring alternatives is unnecessary.
Despite their lack of urgency, a foreclosed identity does have significant
consequences to the student-athletes and their ability to master other developmental tasks.
Identity foreclosure has been found to be related to low levels of career maturity
61
(Kennedy & Dimick, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) and unrealistic educational
goals (Blann, 1985; Sowa & Gressard, 1983). Additionally, Howard-Hamilton and Sina
(2001) argued that the consequence of a foreclosed personality is that,
“…when recognition comes only for athletic competence, a person’s entire sense
of self-worth hinges on making big plays and winning the game. This is a
problem because students should be making tangible steps toward a future that
focuses on all their strengths, not just athleticism. Ego identity can become
fragile when society defines a developing personality based upon superficial
values” (p. 37).
Having a foreclosed identity has additional implications to the developmental
process of student-athletes. Specifically, researchers have argued that identity
foreclosure negatively affects a student-athlete’s ability to develop a sense of autonomy
(Broughton, 2001; Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001). To fully comprehend this
developmental issue, it is beneficial to explore Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) theory of
student development since it provides a useful framework for conceptualizing a student-
athlete’s movement towards autonomy.
In general, Chickering and Reisser (1993) argued that as students progress
through college, they successfully move along several vectors of development that
contribute to the formation of their identity. Specifically, college students generally
make a positive movement towards developing a sense of autonomy and independence,
purpose, and mature interpersonal relationships. For instance, students who have
mastered these developmental tasks are more independent in their thinking and feeling,
have more clearly defined educational and life goals, are more tolerant of others, and
have more meaningful relationships (Cornelius, 1995). Achieving a sense of autonomy,
however, has been very problematic for student-athletes, which has significant
62
implications for further positive movement along Chickering and Reisser’s vectors of
development.
Chickering and Reisser (1993) indicated that there are three components of
developing autonomy. The first component is emotional independence, which involves
freedom from needing reassurance, affection, and approval from others. While achieving
emotional independence is somewhat dependent on the student-athlete’s cognitive skills
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993), the ability to be free from approval from others is difficult
for student-athletes to accomplish because of the strong emotional bond between the
coach and athlete. Due to the large amount of time coaches spend with their student-
athletes, coaches are able to hold a great influence over the lives of the student-athletes
entrusted to them. In return, student-athletes seek guidance and approval from their
coach in a variety of aspects of their lives, such as school, home, social, and athletic
development. For many student-athletes, coaches often become surrogate parents,
especially for student-athletes who come from single-parent families. Thus, while at
some level coming to college allows student-athletes to gain some separation from their
parents, the coach/player relationship only reinforces a need for affection, reassurance,
and approval from others.
The second component is instrumental independence, which is the ability to carry
on activities and solve problems in a self-directed manner. As with emotional
independence, the athletics system makes it very difficult for student-athletes to become
self-directed because of the strict structure of practice, study table, team meetings, and
other athletically-related activities. Such a strict, rigid environment creates limited
63
emotional and physical space for student-athletes to achieve this developmental task
(Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001).
The third component is interdependence, which is an awareness of one’s place in
the larger community. For student-athletes, achieving interdependence can be very
problematic because the demands of sports and academics leaves them with limited time
and potentially little desire to engage in activities and develop friendships outside the
athletics arena. Parham (1993) believed that this lack of social involvement leads
student-athletes to feel left out or estranged from campus life. It also makes it more
difficult for the campus community to fully understand the student-athlete experience.
Parham stated, “This lack of contact and interaction interferes with the discovery by the
greater campus community that student-athletes are not the prima donnas or ‘dumb jocks’
that they are made out to be” (p. 413).
As with identity establishment, the structure and environment of the athletics
system makes it very difficult for student-athletes to achieve a sense of autonomy. It is
this lack of autonomy that subsequently has a negative affect on a student-athlete’s
emotional independence, self-direction, problem-solving ability, persistence, and
mobility, which Chickering and Reisser (1993) indicated can have future implications for
recognizing the importance of interdependence or an awareness of the interconnectedness
with others.
Athletic Identity. While student development theories (i.e., Chickering & Reisser,
1993; Marcia, 1980) are extremely helpful in understanding the developmental process of
student-athletes, there has been a significant movement in the sports psychology field to
64
construct a set of theories and/or models that focus exclusively on the construct of
athletic identity. Athletic identity is defined as “ the degree to which an individual
identifies with the athlete role” (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993, p.237). Using the
Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS), Brewer et al. suggested that the construct
of athletic identity is extremely relevant to comprehending the career decision-making
process of student-athletes as well as the potential risks a strong athletic identification can
have on participation-related transitions.
Expanding on the work of Brewer et al. (1993), Cornelius (1995) created a model
of the relationships between athletic identity, socialization factors, and developmental
tasks. Cornelius strongly argued that the athletic identity construct is a more useful
theoretical framework for examining the developmental process of student-athletes than
is the athlete/non-athlete dichotomy. This is because research has shown that the athletic
identity is conceptually just one domain of a multidimensional self-concept (Brewer &
Linder, 1992; Brewer et al., 1993). For example, based upon multidimensional self-
concept theory, the various dimensions of a student-athlete’s identity vary in their
importance and centrality. This means that particular identity dimensions will be more
developed than others, which can have strong implications for how a student-athlete
processes information, responds to success or failure, and decides which activities and
relationships to pursue (Cornelius, 1995). What this theory further suggests is that
having the athlete role as the central dimension of the self-concept will have further
implications for how a student-athlete relates to other psychosocial developmental tasks.
As such, Cornelius developed a model of athletics participation and college student
65
development by correlating the construct of athletic identity to three of Chickering and
Reisser’s (1993) vectors of development. As seen in Figure 2.2, this model suggests that
there is a direct relationship between athletic identity and college student development
(i.e., establishing and clarifying purpose, developing mature interpersonal relationships,
and academic autonomy). Thus, for student-athletes, any stagnation in the developmental
process will effect the formation of other identities outside of the athletic identity
(Cornelius, 1995).
66
ATHLETIC SOCIALIZATION DEVELOPMENTAL
IDENTITY FACTORS TASKS
Faculty Interaction Establishing &

Clarifying Purpose
1. AIMS
2. Hours per Week

Participating in Sport Developing Mature
Interpersonal
3. Level of Relationships
Participation
67
Moderator Variables
Academic
1. Gender
Autonomy
2. Year in School
Peer Interaction
Background Variables LEGEND

1. Age 3. GPA Direct Relationship
2. Race 4. SES Moderator Effect
Figure 2.2: Model of Relationships Between Athletic Identity, Socialization Factors, & Developmental Tasks
(Cornelius, 1995)
67
Race & Sexual Orientation. Unlike the previous sections where development
theories could be easily applied to explain the identity development of student-athletes,
understanding racial/ethnic identity development and gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity
development within the context of college sports cannot easily be done by citing the
works and analyzing the theoretical models presented by Cross (1995), Phinney (1990),
Helms (1995), Cass (1979), or D’Augelli (1994). This is because the process by which a
student-athlete first considers and acquires the identity of “Black” or “homosexual” is
less age- and stage-related than other identity developmental tasks. Specifically with
sexual orientation, the successful movement through the different stages of gay, lesbian,
and bisexual identity development can take years to accomplish and can vary
significantly between individuals (Greene, 1994). Often there is even a considerable
delay between discovering a gay or lesbian orientation and accepting it as one’s own
identity. Therefore, this section will not try to place student-athletes in developmental
stages or try to pinpoint which theoretical models are most useful for understanding these
developmental processes. Rather this section will focus on understanding how the
athletics culture impedes or facilitates racial/ethnic and sexual orientation identity
development.
On the surface, intercollegiate athletics creates an environment where differences
are widely accepted. For example, Levine and Cureton (1998) argued that unlike other
student groups, the student-athlete community appears to be very integrated and not
voluntarily segregated, which is common among today’s college students. They believed
integration among these students is possible because student-athletes are constantly in
68
close contact with one another and they share common goals (i.e., winning
championships). Similarly, in their study of diversity in college sports, Wolf-Wendel,
Toma, and Morphew (2001) found that there is a remarkable sense of community
between and among student-athletes even though as a group, they are significantly
diverse by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender. Sport is a microcosm of
society; thus, as our society begins to tackle issues of race, so does college sports (Wolf-
Wendel et al., 2001). Often student-athletes of color are the majority on teams, especially
among the revenue-generating sports of football and men’s basketball, and many of
today’s sports heroes are of color and have become significant role models to all types of
racial/ethnic communities. The increased contact between racial groups and increased
exposure of athlete role models of color has allowed the athletics community to become
more accepting and comfortable with racial differences.
Wolf-Wendel et al. (2001), however, were quick to point out that not all forms of
diversity are widely accepted within intercollegiate athletics. These researchers found
that there is still a considerable amount of hostility towards gay and lesbian student-
athletes. Specifically, Wolf-Wendel et al. (2001) stated,
“What is so striking about intercollegiate athletics with respect to issues of sexual

orientation is that the heterosexist and homophobic views held by student-
athletes, coaches, and athletics administrators exists in sharp contrast to their
progressive conceptualization of other forms of difference… The extent to which
those in athletics openly express hostility to gay men and lesbians seems above
and beyond that found on other parts of campus” (p. 466).
One reason for this hostility is that student-athletes have less exposure to sexual
orientation differences than they do to differences in racial differences (Wolf-Wendel et
al., 2001). The lack of exposure to gay, lesbian, and bisexual student-athletes does not
69
imply that there are no student-athletes who identify themselves with this community.
Contrary, Parham (1996) strongly argued that such a community of student-athletes does
exist and is constantly growing. However, out gay, lesbian, and bisexual student-athletes
are few, particularly because of the consequences that are associated with being open
about one’s sexual orientation.
Specifically for female student-athletes, the common perception is that a high
percentage of athletes participating on women’s teams are lesbian (LeUnes & Nation,
2002). The origin of this perception can be traced back to a time in which females
athletes were considered “mannish” or participating in sports would make a woman
“become a man”. The power and longevity of this perception has led many female
athletes to vehemently disclose their heterosexuality and denounce any association with
homosexuality. In addition, this perception has contributed to many athletics teams
vigilantly promoting the most feminine image of female athletes as possible. Such
tactics that have been employed by some coaches to combat this perception include
instituting a “no lesbian” policy or removing student-athletes from their teams who
identify as homosexual (LeUnes & Nation, 2002). LeUnes and Nation (2002) further
argued that some coaches during the recruitment process have even informed parents of
prospective student-athletes that they do not want to let their child attend a certain
institution because lesbianism is perceived to be prevalent at that school. These
perceptions and acts have forced female student-athletes to suppress their feelings and
keep their sexual orientation a secret. Female student-athletes may find that while
participating in collegiate sports, they do not have the opportunity to begin or accelerate
70
an exploration of their sexual orientation as part of their identities. This is in contrast to
Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito’s (1998) contention that “college is often seen as a
‘safer’ environment in which to explore and ‘come out’ than the home and family
environment” (p. 90).
A similar pattern of homophobia can be found within male sports. However, the
consequences of being open about one’s sexuality for male athletes often appear to be
much more severe than for female athletes. This increased hostility stems from the
emphasis on masculinity, which is in sharp contrast to male homosexuality (Wolf-
Wendel et al., 2001). On the other hand, the intimacy that student-athletes endure while
participating in athletics seems to contradict the masculine nature of sports. Very often
because of the close contact athletes have with one another, athletes begin to care deeply
about each other and engage in intimate behaviors (i.e., hand holding, butt slapping, and
hugging), which by societal standards would seem unacceptable between men. Yet, in
order to rationalize their behavior as normal, many male student-athletes negatively react
to gay and bisexual student-athletes as a way to separate themselves from their
homosexual peers (Wolf-Wendel et al., 2001). This is often done by striving toward an
identity that overemphasizes their masculinity and manliness.
Given the likelihood that the proportion of gay men and lesbians in athletics
mirrors that of society, this issue of homophobia and heterosexism in intercollegiate
athletics is significant. Consistent with Sanford’s (1966) notion that student development
is a function of person-environment interaction, gay, lesbian, and bisexual student-
athletes who encounter a non-supportive environment may be highly susceptible to
71
feelings of isolation, depression, fear for their own safety, and even suicide (Wolf-
Wendel et al., 2001). Particularly among lesbian student-athletes, a homophobic athletics
environment can contribute to low self-esteem, low self-confidence, high stress, and
substance abuse (Krane, 1996).
Despite the positive change towards the acceptance of racial differences within
collegiate sports, student-athletes of color are not guarded from some of the issues that
plague their homosexual peers. Yes, the increased exposure to racial differences has
helped student-athletes, coaches, and administrators accept some forms of difference, but
as Wolf-Wendel et al. (2001) found, “although student-athletes indicated that they were
able to work with people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, they didn’t
necessarily mean that they were comfortable with people with whom race is a major facet
of their identity” (p. 475). Student-athletes of color may feel inhibited from pursuing a
deeper understanding of their racial/ethnic identity because the athletics environment
does not truly allow student-athletes to develop a sense of cultural identity that draws
from the values of all groups. An exploration of individual identity has the potential to
undermine all efforts to achieve conformity and teamwork. In particular, the environment
of Division I intercollegiate athletics has the potential to hinder the identity development
of student-athletes in order to emphasize the notion of team, cooperation, and community
(Wolf-Wendel et al., 2001). These findings imply that student-athletes are not
encouraged and may be discouraged from moving along the stages of identity
development, particularly racial/ethnic identity and gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity
development.
72
Student-Athlete Cognitive Development
Researchers argue that college students enter school with a meaning-making
system that is rigid, stereotyped, and externally driven (Kegan, 1994; Perry, 1999). As
such, the developmental task of the college student-athlete is to expand on their
perceptions and views through a process of self-exploration and relativistic thinking
(Petitpas & Champagne, 1988). Applying Perry’s (1999) ethical and intellectual theory of
development and Kegan’s (1994) orders of consciousness to student-athletes yields
several central insights.
According to Perry (1999), young adults initially make meaning through a
dualistic perspective, which is portrayed as an uncomfortableness with uncertainty and
inability to embrace multiple perspectives. The ability to transition to the next position,
multiplicity, is dependent on whether an imbalance is introduced into an individual’s
meaning-making process. Perry noted that for students, this assistance can come from a
professor who does not have all the right answers or expresses some uncertainty. Yet, for
student-athletes, uncertainty is rarely encountered because behaviors on and off the field
are led by absolute rules and regulations, such as those imposed by the team, athletics
department, and NCAA (Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001). The consequence of this
strict structure is that student-athletes are presented with too much support and not
enough challenges to transition away from a dualistic frame of reference to a higher level
of cognitive development. The rules-driven, control-oriented sports environment has the
potential to allow a student-athlete to remain stagnate in one developmental position for a
long period of time. Howard-Hamilton and Sina argued that such a fixed state of
73
development has the potential to also affect a student-athlete’s frame of reference towards
relationships, academics, and work.
The structure and environment of the college athletics system also has severe
implications for whether a student-athlete is able to achieve what Kegan (1994)
considered to be a fourth order of consciousness. Focused on the evolution of meaning
making, Kegan examined the principles of mental organization and suggested that there
are five orders of consciousness that span an individual’s lifetime. As an individual
progresses through these orders, they achieve an increasingly complex understanding of
how they know, what kinds of relationships they want to construct, and who they are.
At the point of entry, most college student-athletes exhibit all the qualities
associated with third order meaning-making. Cognitively, student-athletes demonstrate
abstract reasoning and deductive thinking. This allows for relationships to be very
prescriptive, such as with the coach-player relationship where the coach advises and the
student-athlete acts. Additionally, a student-athlete who is operating at a third order is
able to integrate other points of view and can create a shared reality, but the student-
athlete is unable to reflect or modify external sources of knowledge that are influencing
the student-athlete’s point of view. The college experience, however, is assumed to assist
in the student-athlete’s progression to the next order of consciousness provided that the
student-athlete experiences effective support. Kegan (1994) suggested that effective
support includes practicing sympathetic coaching, creating holding environments, and
building bridges from the former way of knowing to a more complex meaning system.
Given the magnitude of this journey, Baxter Magolda (2001) further advised that student-
74
athletes be exposed to as many educational experiences as possible that promote self-
authorship. This exposure, however, must be supplemented with educators, counselors,
coaches, and athletics administrators who are capable of providing sound guidance and
good company throughout the journey (Baxter Magolda, 2001). For Baxter Magolda
(2001), being good company requires a shift away from the traditional forms of teaching
and control-oriented environments to a more student responsibility-oriented atmosphere
that even allows the student life to experience moments of messiness. Such an
atmosphere will permit student-athletes to engage in an active learning process, where
student-athletes are encouraged to “ bring their life experiences into the learning process,
reflect on their own and others’ perspectives as they expand their viewpoints, and apply
new understandings to their own lives” (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 327).
The problem, however, is that student-athletes do not have the time to devote to
such educational experiences. If not in regular season competition, student-athletes are
intensely practicing and enhancing their athletics skills during the off-season. Although
NCAA rules prohibit extensive off-season training, the nature of college sports has
evolved into an enterprise that pressures student-athletes to intensely train 12-months a
year. This leaves student-athletes with limited time to integrate into mainstream college
experiences, to socialize with others, to build relationships outside the athletics
community, and to become involve in service-learning and community projects. This also
leaves student-athletes in a third order of consciousness because they are not afforded the
opportunity to step back from an environment that reinforces a third-order way of making
meaning. Furthermore, the ability to distinguish one’s needs and interests from that of
75
the team, coach, and other external sources is difficult because the third order
environment of sports creates a system that does not allow self development to occur
outside of the self (Baxter Magolda, 2001).
At a time when intercollegiate athletics faces increased commercialization,
professionalization, media attention, and public scrutiny, the need for promoting any
form of self-development is critical. Yet in order to be successful in the sports world,
student-athletes must co-construct their sense of meaning with external sources,
specifically those associated with their coaches, athletics administrators, media, agents,
boosters, and the many adoring fans that support them. Even more, student-athletes must
also work in an environment that requires them to be subject to and consumed by the
external influences of others in order to win championships, increase attendance and
ticket sales, and potentially be awarded with a lucrative professional contract. Sport is
also defined by its level of loyalty, dedication, commitment, and discipline, and more
importantly, teamwork. However, it is a misconceived notion of teamwork that makes
the transition to the fourth order of consciousness so difficult. Student-athletes are asked
on a daily basis to be subordinate to their own interests on behalf of their greater loyalty
to maintaining the bonds of teamwork and friendship. There is no “I” in team; therefore,
the process of how student-athletes make sense of knowledge and experiences places
them in a position where cognitive development is a struggle.
Overall, Kegan (1994) argued that college students are often “in over their heads”
because of the developmental mismatch between the majority of students’ meaning-
making system and the academic community’s fourth order expectations. Yet, the issue
76
is not that the demands of college sports requires fourth order meaning-making when the
student-athletes are clearly at order three. Instead, the issue is that the nature of college
sports forces student-athletes to experience a delay in becoming comfortable with an
independent state of mind because of its control-oriented, authoritative environment
(Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001).
Anticipated & Unanticipated Transitions
As outlined, there are many perspectives that are useful in describing and
clarifying the developmental process for college student-athletes. The construct of
transition is particularly helpful in understanding how the psychological, social, and
physical changes associated with development can impact an individual (Pearson &
Petitpas, 1990). Like their non-athlete college peers, student-athletes experience some of
the normal transitions related to adolescence and early adulthood; yet, unlike their non-
athlete peers, student-athletes must also cope with issues, such as injury, deselection, and
retirement, that either intensify or increase the dimensions associated with the typical
demands of the developmental process (Pearson & Petitpas, 1990). Schlossberg’s (1981)
Adaptation to Transition Model further illuminates the developmental process by
focusing on the transitions of student-athletes.
Schlossberg (1981) stated, “A transition can be said to occur if an event or
nonevent results in a change in assumptions about oneself and the world and thus requires
a corresponding change in one’s behavior and relationships” (p. 5). A transition can
manifest from an experience that leads to a change in one’s physical (i.e., relocating to a
77
new city), psychosocial (i.e., having a child), or physiological (i.e., puberty or
menopause) domain. Of particular relevance for college student-athletes is that the
experience that leads to a change does not need to be an event that actually occurred, but
rather a transition may be precipitated from an event that does not actually happen. For
example, a student-athlete is susceptible to transitional events, such as retirement and
injury, but they are also susceptible to transitional nonevents, like not making the team,
because the student-athlete anticipated a change that never occurred.
In her model, Schlossberg (1981) identified three main factors that influence the
characteristics, impacts, and outcomes of transitions – 1) the individual, 2) the
individual’s perception of the transition, and 3) the characteristics of the setting. The
characteristics of the individual are particularly important to the transition process
because they can either hamper or enhance the degree of success the individual
experiences with the transition. For example, Pearson and Petitpas (1990) claimed that
the athlete is better able to cope with participation-related transitions when they have a
wide variety of alternatives and fewer self-imposed restrictions. Additionally, athletes
who possess high level adaptation skills are more capable of translating their sport
success into their life experiences upon retiring than those who do not possess such skills
(Ogilvie & Howe, 1986). Ability to ask for help is another individual characteristic that
influences the transition process. Those who are unwilling to seek assistance tend to
separate themselves from potential sources of social support that are vital to a successful
transition. On the other hand, athletes who are use to being overprotected and
overindulged may develop a sense of entitlement that perpetuates a belief that the
78
athletics system will take care of them even past their playing days (Pearson & Petitpas,
1990). Such a feeling of entitlement can lead athletes away from non-athletics career and
life opportunities and can lead them to avoid developing the skills necessary to deal with
transitional events or nonevents.
The individual’s perception of the transition also has an enormous impact on
whether the transition is successful or unsuccessful. Anticipated transitions are more
likely to cause less stress because the individual can plan and prepare for the change.
Yet, when the transition is unexpected, like with a sports-related injury, the
unpredictability of the event can generate an enormous amount of anxiety for the
individual. For athletes, this anxiety or stress is further heightened if the injury
necessitates retirement from their sport (Pearson & Petitpas, 1990). Whether or not the
transition is a welcome transition also impacts the individual’s perception of the event or
nonevent. If the transition is perceived as positive (i.e., moved from backup to starter),
the transition will be dealt with more successfully than if the transition is viewed
negatively (i.e., moved from starter to backup).
The last factor identified by Schlossberg (1981) deals with the physical and social
setting within which transitions take place. This includes the physical resources available
to the individual, such as proper medical support for an injury. It also includes the
characteristics of the social support system. The isolation athletes experience, due to
their intense time demands, leads student-athletes to socialize and rely on social systems
that tend to be associated with member homogeneity (Pearson & Petitpas, 1990). Such
homogeneity can result in “the fostering of dense social systems in which the
79
conventional wisdom about dealing with developmental issues serves to restrict, rather
than broaden, alternatives for action” (Pearson & Petitpas, 1990, p. 9).
For college student-athletes, the most challenging transition is the player-to-
nonplayer transition (Parham, 1993; Petitpas et al., 1996; Pearson & Petitpas, 1990),
which can result from one of four main events/nonevents – 1) deselection from the team,
2) sustaining a sports-related injury, 3) completion of athletics eligibility, or 4) sport
retirement. Obviously, because of the increasingly strict focus that is placed on the
athletic identity, these events/nonevents create an enormous amount of stress and anxiety
for the student-athlete. While such a strict focus helps a student-athlete progress through
the various levels of competition and helps them achieve a sense of accomplishment,
having an identity that is so narrow and foreclosed limits their willingness to expand and
explore additional personal and social identities (Pearson & Petitpas, 1990).
As we have seen, identity foreclosure has been a significant barrier to a student-
athlete’s ability to master psychosocial and identity developmental tasks. It is this same
issue that is a barrier to successful transitions for student-athletes. Again, in high school,
student-athletes are able to establish a sense of industry because athletic achievement is
highly valued. However upon entering college, the task shifts to the development of a
personal identity where the focus should be on expanding and exploring and not limiting
oneself and one’s identity to athletic success. Such exploratory behavior, however, is
unlikely since the athletics system promotes conformity and is defined by strict rules and
regulations. It is because of these issues that Pearson and Petitpas (1990) extrapolated
from Schlossberg’s (1981) model to suggest that the transition process will be most
80
difficult for student-athletes who – 1) base their identity exclusively on athletic success,
2) who have the widest gap between level of aspiration and ability, 3) who have the least
prior experience with the same or similar transitions, 4) who are limited in their ability to
change and to form and maintain supportive relationships, and 5) who must manage a
transition in an environment that lacks the physical and emotional resources needed to
reduce transitional stress.
Issues Affecting Student-Athlete Retention
Many of the theoretical perspectives on student retention emphasize the
importance of students' academic and/or social interactions with the campus community.
For traditional students, both grade performance and friendship support have an
enormous impact on a student’s decision to stay in school, while academic achievement
and family responsibilities play a significant role in the retention process for
nontraditional students. Adequate financial aid, an inclusive academic and social
environment, and background characteristics are also strongly related to minority student
retention. Despite their atypical student lifestyle, the student-athlete population share
many of the same elements presented in these various theoretical perspectives. As
concluded in Stier’s (1971) study on student-athlete attrition, grades, family problems,
financial support, and lack of commitment to educational goals were some of the
underlying issues that effect the student-athlete population. Yet, attrition is a complex
issue, which has yet to be fully explained and examined, particularly for student-athletes.
81
As previously described, college student-athletes face an overwhelming task of
trying to manage the competing academic and athletic expectations placed on them by the
various campus constituencies. For instance, Nishimoto (1997) maintained that this
student group is examined and judged not only for their academic difficulties, but also for
their athletic prowess, recruiting practices, graduation rates, and racial problems.
Carodine et al. (2001) suggested that the huge time demands associated with playing a
college sport leaves student-athletes with little time to engage in campus activities and
can potentially create a disconnection between the student-athlete and the campus
community.
In spite of such reported differences, an exploration of the student retention
literature found that researchers have opted to include student-athletes within the analysis
of the non-athlete college experience and have neglected to examine those factors that
specifically affect a student-athlete’s decision-making process. It is this lack of
differentiation between the two student experiences that has allowed the area of student-
athlete retention to be unexplored. The following section delves into the issues, such as
coach, player, and team relationship, balancing roles of student and athlete, and academic
emphasis by the athletics department, that have been documented to uniquely affect the
student-athlete experience and in turn, potentially influence a student-athlete’s decision to
stay in school.
82
Coach, Player, & Team Relationship
Because athletics can be seductive and can cause student-athletes to lose sight of
their academic goals, the coach plays a key role in restoring a balance between athletics
and academics (Stoll et al., 1998). Overall, within the campus setting, coaches have the
most direct contact with the student-athlete and can exert the greatest influence over their
lives (Stoll et al., 1998). Student-athletes seek guidance from their coach in a variety of
areas, such as school, home, social, and athletic development. Even more, for many
student-athletes, coaches often become surrogate parents and/or role models, especially
for student-athletes who come from single-parent families (Stoll et al., 1998).
Since student-athletes will (and are trained to) listen to their direction, coaches are
also able to help their players establish academic priorities that will enable them to
achieve in the classroom and ultimately, in achieving their educational goals (Stoll et al.,
1998). This is done through a coach’s continuous reinforcement of the importance in
attaining academic goals, periodic checks of goal progress, and sincere acknowledgement
when a student-athlete achieves within the classroom.
It is therefore no surprise that the relationship between the coach and student-
athlete is a key factor in the retention process. If a student-athlete is receiving minimal
direction from their coach regarding their academic career, this can have a negative effect
on the student’s educational experience. When a coach is also sending messages that
contradict the mission of the university, this can lead to the student-athlete feeling
conflicted about their own educational goals versus their coach’s goals. Lastly, the
coaching style of the coach can have an enormous impact on the student-athlete’s
83
decision to stay in school. Dependent on whether the student-athlete appreciates or
resents the way the coach interacts with the players can be a significant variable in the
retention process.
Berson’s (1996) study on student perceptions of the intercollegiate athletics
program at a community college revealed the importance of the relationship between the
student-athlete, coach and teammates, and the student-athlete’s affiliation with a team.
Specifically, Berson indicated that the players attributed their continuation in college to
their membership on the team. The participants particularly named their coach and
teammates as factors in persisting in school. The student-athletes credit their coach for
giving them guidance and support, staying on top of them regarding their academic
responsibilities, and requiring study time on athletics road trips. Taking classes with
teammates was also found to be associated with a student-athlete’s willingness to stay on
top of their schoolwork. One student-athlete stated that it is the team that “gets me
through school. There is always someone to turn to. It’s a ‘lean on me’ team” (Berson,
1996, p. 21).
Balancing Roles of Student and Athlete
Having to negotiate the dualism of being students and athletes has caused many
student-athletes to experience a wide range of emotions throughout their college
experience (Parham, 1993; Person & LeNoir, 1997). Some of these emotions are
positive, such as excelling on the field and in the classroom; yet, many of these feelings
stem from negative experiences or stereotypes that are associated with being a student
84
and an athlete. “Learning to balance academic and athletic pursuits is perhaps one of the
most obvious challenges that today’s collegiate student-athlete confronts” (Parham, 1993,
p. 412).
For all first-time college students, effectively integrating into the academic and
social domains of a campus can be a very daunting task. The added responsibility of
being an athlete creates substantial pressures. During the recruitment process, high-
profile student-athletes are courted onto campus and placed on a pedestal in attempt to
demonstrate on behalf of the coach to the student that they are a special person that can
make an athletic difference at the university (Person & LeNoir, 1997). This leaves the
prospective student-athlete feeling needed as if their athletic achievements would benefit
not only the team, but also the campus community who supports them.
When the student-athlete arrives on campus, however, this belief that the student-
athlete is a special student on campus is eroded as they encounter the many other student-
athletes who feel the same sense of uniqueness. The lack of individual attention provided
by the coaches once these student-athletes matriculate is a stark contrast to the
recruitment process and affects the student-athlete’s perceptions of self and their ability
to manage their dual roles (Person & LeNoir, 1997). Even more, Person and LeNoir
indicated that student-athletes immediately find that many of their professors,
administrators, and peers label them as just “dumb jocks”, which diminished their role as
a student before they even complete their first academic course. In investigating the
student-athlete culture and their dual role demands, Nishimoto (1997) found that the
perceptions football players had about their lives as students and as athletes were
85
identified with feelings of discrimination and reverence from the campus community.
Nishimoto’s participants mentioned experiencing “attitudes” from fellow students and
professors in the classroom. This directed or imposed disengagement the student-athletes
faced in the academic arena cultivated a distinct “us” versus “them” mentality, which led
to a deflated self-esteem and feelings of abandonment and isolation (Person & LeNoir,
1997).
The balancing of academic and athletic responsibilities appears to be especially
challenging for at-risk or underprepared student-athletes (Parham, 1993). Parham
asserted that for the at-risk student-athletes, this leads to a compromise regarding the
amount of time that is devoted to each area. Due to the greater amount of attention our
society places on athletics, Parham argued that the academic responsibilities are often the
first to be pushed to the side.
It is interesting to point out that Stier’s (1971) study on student-athlete attrition
among selected liberal arts colleges concluded that the dual role did not affect a student-
athlete’s decision to leave. Specifically, 88 percent of athletics directors did not believe
that student-athletes left school prematurely because of the added pressure or stress
placed on them because of the roles they assumed. This finding, however, should be
reviewed with caution because the researcher’s finding was from the athletics directors’
perspective and not the student-athletes themselves. In addition, the face of college
athletics has changed tremendously, and the responsibilities, attitudes, and perceptions of
the student and the athlete are dramatically different today than in the past.
86
Academic Emphasis by the Athletics Department
Academic emphasis is defined as the school’s press for student achievement and
is expressed in a school’s willingness to set high standards for student academic
performance (Hoy & Miskel, 2001). It also refers to the extent to which the learning
environment is orderly and serious, campus constituencies believe in a student’s ability to
achieve, and the students work hard and respect those who do well academically. Based
upon Hoy and Miskel’s research, the degree to which the athletics department
emphasizes the importance of academics and expects their student-athletes to excel
within the classroom can have an enormous influence on a student-athlete’s educational
experience.
This notion of academic emphasis and its effects on the educational experience
can specifically be seen in Benson’s (2000) study on African American athletes’ stories
of school. In her qualitative study, Benson captured student-athletes’ perspectives of their
schooling experiences at a Division I predominantly white public university.
Specifically, she claimed that the marginal academic performance of the football players
she interviewed is associated with the establishment and reinforcement of limited
expectations and attitudes set by the university, and especially the athletics department.
These experiences and perceptions of limited expectations are found throughout the
recruitment process, orientation, and the student-athletes’ college career. One student-
athlete indicated that he felt that advisors chose classes for athletes based upon negative
assumptions about the student’s abilities and a lack of knowledge about the athletes as
individual persons. The idea that others are responsible for the student-athlete’s
87
academic career is also communicated through the practice of advisors, not students,
choosing classes for the student-athletes. This type of advising contradicts studies that
show student involvement to be the key to student persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991; Ratcliff, 1991). Specifically, Ratcliff found that African American students are
successful when they demonstrate a sense of control over their lives, possess academic
goals that are supported by others, and hold high aspirations for themselves. Therefore,
Benson believed that the ways in which all members of the academic and athletics
communities act and interact with the student-athletes significantly contributes to a
student-athlete’s academic performance and persistence in school.
Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM)
The models of student retention reviewed in this chapter demonstrate the
interrelationships between various factors (i.e., background, academic, social, etc.) and
the departure process. While these models have proven to effectively explain student
retention, these models have yet to fully incorporate the unique issues and concerns of
student-athletes. These include the significance of the coach, player and team
relationship, the student-athlete’s ability to effectively balance the roles of student and
athlete, the academic emphasis by the athletics department, and other athletics issues that
influence the quality of the athletic experience. Considering the amount of pressure
universities confront from the media and public to fully understand why student-athletes
leave school prematurely, developing a conceptual model of student-athlete retention is
overdue.
88
As depicted in Figure 2.3, the Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM) attempts
to give the readers a dynamic understanding of the issues that today’s college student-
athletes face when making their decisions to stay in school. It even takes us a step further
by asking the question of whether all “performing” student populations (i.e., music
students, drama students, etc.) need to be investigated the same way student-athletes have
been examined in this study. Could it be possible that the quality of the band experience,
just as in the athletic experience, greatly influences a band student’s decision to stay in
school or how influential is the band director’s relationship with the student in the
retention process? Given that the model was derived solely from the literature, caution
should be exercised when making generalizations to the entire student-athlete population
and even other student groups; however, the SARM is a beginning effort to organize a
conceptual framework for student-athlete retention and to the development of an
instrument that captures student-athlete perceptions of factors important to the retention
process.
Several assumptions guide the proposed student-athlete retention model. First, as
concluded by Spady (1970), Tinto (1993), Pascarella (1980), and others, departure
decisions are complex and are the result of a longitudinal process. Thus, the factors
outlined in the SARM are assumed to take effect slowly; otherwise, if attrition occurred
spontaneously, intervention programs would be ineffective since they could not be
planned nor could student-athletes benefit from them prior to their leaving. Another
assumption that guides this model is that retention is the joint responsibility of the
student-athletes and the institution. To ignore the interrelationship between these two
89
would suggest that the student-athlete is to blame for attrition and it is the institution’s
responsibility to try to fix the student-athlete prior to their premature departure. The
implication for this assumption is that administrators need to focus on who is admitted to
their institution and how responsive they are to student-athlete needs as they change over
time. Finally, it is assumed that the student-athlete population is a diverse group.
Different types of student-athletes (i.e., high/low profile, male/female, minority, and
Division I, II, II student-athletes) will depart for various reasons. While the model
encompasses most of the factors that will influence a student-athlete to stay or leave, in
certain situations, almost anything can increase attrition or retention.
To explain the student-athlete retention process, the SARM incorporates factors
that ultimately influence a student-athlete’s attitude about self and school, their intent to
leave, and their final decision to stay or leave. Similar to other models of retention,
background, academic, social, institutional, and environmental factors are included and
are virtually unchanged from the common model of student retention outlined in Figure
2.1. The rationale for incorporating these factors into the student-athlete model is based
upon the consistency of their presence amongst the seven major retention models outlined
previously and the statistical evidence presented by their respective researchers
(Anderson, 1985; Bean, 1980; Bentler & Speckart, 1979; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;
Pascarella, 1980; Spady, 1970; Tinto 1993). In addition, this model incorporates a sixth
factor, which encompasses the additional issues student-athletes face that are not
common amongst the non-athlete population.
90
The SARM begins with the student-athlete’s pre-entry attributes. It is presumed
that the student-athlete enters college with a variety of personal, family, and academic
characteristics. Additionally, the student-athlete enters college with a set of initial
dispositions regarding their reason for attending college and their intended academic and
athletic goals. It is these initial intentions that are then modified as the student-athlete
begins to interact with the academic, social, and athletics systems of the institution.
Common to previous studies of retention, rewarding experiences within these systems are
hypothesized to lead to greater integration into the academic, social, and athletics
domains.
While the flow of the conceptual model of student-athlete retention is not vastly
different from other student retention models, the incorporation of an athletics domain
with which the student-athlete must also interact is a significant addition. Of the three
institutional systems presented in the SARM, the athletics domain is hypothesized to
have the most influence on a student-athlete’s attitude about self and school. This area
speaks to the quality of the athletic experience for the student-athlete, including the
coach, player, and team relationship, balancing the roles of student and athlete, and
academic emphasis by the athletics department. As described previously, the coach often
has the most direct contact with the student-athlete and therefore, is capable of exerting
the greatest influence over the student-athlete’s life (Stoll et al., 1998). Thus, when the
student-athlete experiences a poor relationship with their coach or teammates, this leads
to a poor integration into this system of the institution, which then triggers a potential
negative attitude about self and school. The same can be said about the ability for the
91
student-athlete to balance their academic and athletic pursuits. Parham (1993) contended
that this balancing act is the most challenging issue facing today’s college student-
athletes. When student-athletes are unable to maximize their involvement in both areas,
many of them experience high levels of stress and frustration. It is these feelings that can
lead to an unsuccessful integration into the athletics system and can negatively effect the
student-athlete’s decision to stay in school.
Like other student retention models, institutional and environmental factors were
added to the SARM. A student-athlete’s attitude about self and school, and subsequently
their intent to leave, is affected by the characteristics of the institution as well as those
issues that are outside of the institution’s control. For example, if the timing or variety of
course offerings are unsatisfactory to the student-athlete or if financial aid opportunities
are limited, such issues can negatively influence the student-athlete’s attitude about
school and can presumably “push” the student-athlete out of school. Conversely, when
the student-athlete is confronted with health issues, family matters, and/or extensive work
responsibilities, it is these issues that can actually “pull” the student-athlete out of school.
Particularly for highly talented student-athletes who are faced with some difficult
financial realities, the lure of professional sports and the money available in the industry
is often too good to pass up; thus, because of the profound impact environmental forces
can have on the student-athlete’s life, this environmental factor often has a direct link to
intent to leave without affecting the student-athlete’s attitude about self and school.
Overall, the SARM was designed to serve as a conceptual framework for the
development of an instrument that captures student-athlete perceptions of factors
92
important to the retention process. Based upon previous research findings and personal
experience, the model was purposefully structured to flow from the student-athlete’s pre-
entry attributes to their interaction with the various systems of the institution to their
attitude about self and school to their intent to leave, and finally, to their actual
performance of the behavior (i.e., staying or leaving). Such a process is consistent with
Lewin’s (1936) theory that behavior is a function of the person and their interaction with
their environment. While other models of student retention encapsulate many of the
elements covered in the SARM, what makes this model so valuable is that it specifically
addresses the issues confronting student-athletes. In no other student retention models is
the relationship with the coach and teammates incorporated. Even more, in no other
student retention model is a student-athlete’s ability to balance the roles of student and
athlete discussed. Therefore, it is the introduction of these new athletics issues in the
retention process that expands our knowledge of the student-athlete experience and gives
us a better sense of how researchers can approach more comprehensive studies of
student-athlete retention.
93
INPUTS INTERACTION OUTCOMES INTENT DECISION
Institutional
Factor
Academic
Integration
Factor
Social Student’s Attitude Intent to Departure

Background Integration about Self & School Leave Decision
Factor Factor
94
Athletics
Factor
Environmental
Pull Factor
Figure 2.3: Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM)
94
Background Factor Athletics Factor
• Age • Academic support from coach
• Gender • Athletic support from coach
• Race/Ethnicity • Academic support from teammates
• Sport • Athletic support from teammates
• College class rank • Academic support by athletics department
• Athletics scholarship status • Academic emphasis by athletics department
• Athletics eligibility status • Acknowledgment of academic achievement
• Red-shirt status by athletics department
• NCAA Clearinghouse status • Respect from teammates for academic
• Major achievement
• College grade point average • Management of academic responsibilities
• High school grade point average • Management of athletics responsibilities
• Standardized test scores • Playing time
• Socioeconomic status • Individual athletic achievement
• Educational level of parents • Team athletic achievement
• Initial academic intentions
• Initial athletic intentions
Academic Integration Factor Social Integration Factor

• Academic performance • Friendship support
• Study skills & habits • Informal student-faculty interactions
• Formal student-faculty interactions • Involvement in special interest groups
• Major certainty • Involvement in extracurricular activities
• Absenteeism • Shared values
Attitudinal Factor Environmental Pull Factor

• Sense of satisfaction • Financial realities
• Sense of self-development • Significant other elsewhere
• Sense of self-confidence • Opportunity to transfer
• Sense that education has practical value for • Work demands
employment • Family responsibilities & approval
• Institutional fit • Military status
• Loyalty • Health issues (non-athletic related)
• Sports-related injury
• Opportunity to play professionally
Institutional Factor Intention

• Rules & regulations • Intent to leave
• Timing & variety of course offerings
• Curriculum
• Student support services
• Financial aid
Table 2.10: Student-Athlete Retention Factors & Their Corresponding Variables
95
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The focus of this chapter is to provide an outline of the procedures that were taken
in order to investigate and test the research questions outlined in Chapter 1. These
methodological procedures are discussed in the following eight sections – 1) research
design, 2) questionnaire design, 3) pilot study, 4) final study, 5) data analysis procedures,
6) internal validity, 7) external validity, and 8) operational definitions.
Research Design
meaningful factors underlying the items of the instrument. For this purpose, a cross-
96
sectional study was employed to gather student-athlete perceptions regarding the
retention process at one point in time (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). Specifically, data was
collected from a self-administered questionnaire, which focused on collecting
demographic information, perceptions, and intentions. The advantage of using this
research methodology was the ease with which the data was collected and the quick
turnaround time for collecting the data.
Questionnaire Design
In order to identify the key factors student-athletes perceived to be important to
the retention process, the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention”
questionnaire was specifically designed for this study. To ensure that the questionnaire
produced valid and reliable results, several steps were taken prior to the questionnaire
being distributed to the final study population. The following discussion outlines how the
initial questionnaire was constructed and the steps that were implemented to determine
whether the questionnaire measured what it purported to measure and accurately captured
the key factors associated with the college student-athlete retention process.
Item Generation
In step one, the researcher generated a list of items from an extensive review of
the literature. Many of the items were based upon the findings outlined in seven major
models of traditional student retention (Anderson, 1985; Bean, 1980; Bentler & Speckart,
1979; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Pascarella, 1980; Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1993). Items for
97
the questionnaire were also generated from the literature on the college student-athlete
experience (Benson, 2000; Berson, 1996; Carodine et al., 2001; Nishimoto, 1997;
Parham, 1993; Person & LeNoir, 1997; Stoll et al., 1998). A total of 36 items were
initially generated (Version 1). The Likert-scaled items were measured on a six-point
scale ranging from “Not Important” (1) to “Very Important” (6) with the Importance
scale referring to how important each statement is to the participant’s decision to stay in
school.
Panel of Experts
The second step in the development of the questionnaire was to determine the
face and content validity of the instrument. The purpose in examining the face validity of
the questionnaire was to determine whether the questionnaire looked like it was
measuring what it was intended to measure by judging its appeal and appearance (Miller,
2003). Content validity refers to the extent to which the items accurately represent and
fairly measure the phenomenon of interest. To determine whether the questionnaire
measured the intended content area, a panel of ten experts was established. Each expert
was given a letter outlining the purpose of the study and specific directions for reviewing
the questionnaire, a copy of the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention”
questionnaire, a questionnaire item content validation form, a list of variables that affect
student-athlete retention, and a copy of the Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM)
conceptualized for this study. The panel was asked to provide feedback regarding the
content, wording, format, ease of use, clarity, and appropriateness of both the items and
98
the instrument as a whole. The panel was also asked to determine whether there were
any missing items and was asked to logically examine the items of the instrument to
determine whether the items represented the various factors (i.e., academic integration,
social integration, athletics, institutional, environmental pull, attitude about self and
school, and intent to leave) included in the SARM. Specifically, the panel was asked to
place the item number of each statement under the most appropriate factor.
Although ten experts were solicited, only nine responded. These experts included
two associate athletics directors for student-athlete academic services, two assistant
directors and coordinators of athletics counseling, one coach, three higher education
administration faculty members, and one sport management faculty member. Overall,
modifications were made to the questionnaire if six out of the nine experts provided
similar feedback; however, amendments to the questionnaire were also made without
gaining consensus from the majority of the panel. In these cases, the purpose for
modifying the questionnaire was because the suggestion was consisted with the literature
and conceptual model created for this study.
The use of a panel of experts led to the addition of seven new items, six new
demographic questions, and the rewrite of several existing items. Such modifications
were necessary because some items were too broad and corresponded to one or more
factors, some were repetitive, and others were unclear and needed to be reworded for
clarity. As a result of the panel, the instrument was expanded to include 42 items, one
question regarding intent to leave, and 17 demographic questions (Version 2).
99
Pilot Study
The purpose of conducting a pilot study is to test the proposed procedures and to
discover any problems that may exist prior to the implementation of the final study.
Based upon the results of this trial run, corrections can be made to the data collection
procedures, sampling method, instrument construction, data analysis techniques, and
other areas of the study. It is considered to be the dress rehearsal for the final study. A
pilot study was carried out using Version 2 of the questionnaire and all of the proposed
procedures designed for the final study. The details of the pilot study are discussed in the
following sections.
Sampling Method
Nine NCAA Division I varsity teams at a large Midwest university were chosen
using a purposive sampling method. While this nonrandom sample introduces unknown
bias, makes it difficult to estimate the sampling error, and limits the generalizability of
the study, this method was preferred because it deliberately selected subjects that were
assumed to be representative of the entire Division I student-athlete population. Because
the athletics department from which the subjects were chosen is one of the most
comprehensive athletics departments in the country, there was a high probability that the
sample selected would be representative of the Division I student-athlete population.
The nine teams were chosen based upon gender and sport classification (high vs.
low profile) and all members of the nine teams were asked to participate in the study. A
high profile sport is an intercollegiate varsity sport in which career opportunities within
100
the top-level American professional sports leagues are available. Conversely, a low
profile sport is an intercollegiate varsity sport in which career opportunities at the
professional level are available, but not necessarily at the top-level widely seen by the
American public. In this case, the five high profile sports chosen for the pilot study were
men’s basketball, football, women’s basketball, women’s soccer, and softball. The four
low profile sports chosen were men’s lacrosse, men’s volleyball, women’s lacrosse, and
women’s rowing. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 outline the number of student-athletes included in
the total population based on gender and type of sport (N = 322).
MALE FEMALE
Men’s Basketball 14 Women’s Basketball 16
Football 100 Women’s Lacrosse 34
Men’s Lacrosse 54 Women’s Rowing 36
Men’s Volleyball 20 Women’s Soccer 30
Softball 18
TOTAL: 188 (58.4%) TOTAL: 134 (41.6%)
Table 3.1: Total Population Based on Gender for Pilot Study
101
HIGH PROFILE LOW PROFILE
Men’s Basketball 14 Men’s Lacrosse 54
Football 100 Men’s Volleyball 20
Women’s Basketball 16 Women’s Lacrosse 34
Women’s Soccer 30 Women’s Rowing 36
Softball 18
TOTAL: 178 (55.3%) TOTAL: 144 (44.7%)
Table 3.2: Total Population Based on Sport Classification for Pilot Study
Subject Description
The participating institution for the pilot study is considered to have one of the
largest and most comprehensive athletics programs in the country with a budget in excess
of $80 million. A total of 36 sports are offered (16 male sports, 17 female sports, and 3
coed sports) with over 1,000 student-athletes participating in one or more of these sports.
Among these student-athletes, 54.2 percent are male and 45.8 percent are female with
approximately 40 percent of them receiving some form of athletics grant-in-aid.
Additionally, 0.6 percent of the student-athletes have identified themselves as American
Indian/Eskimo, 1.5 percent as Asian/Pacific Islander, 12.8 percent as Black, 1.9 percent
as Hispanic, 75.7 percent as White/Caucasian, and 7.5 percent as Other. Based upon
their 2003 graduation rates report (for the 1996 incoming class), 60 percent of the
student-athletes at the participating institution graduated, while all students graduated at a
rate of 59 percent. When examined by gender, male student-athletes graduated at a rate
of 57 percent and female student-athletes graduated at a rate of 65 percent.
102
Data Collection Procedures
In order to conduct a study that produces high quality information, high response
rates, and low overall survey error, Dillman’s (2000) “Tailored Design” method was
implemented for this study on college student-athlete retention. Specifically, Dillman
maintained that this data collection and survey methodology is designed to “create
respondent trust and perceptions of increased rewards and reduced costs for being a
respondent” (Dillman, 2000, p. 29). Additionally, this method takes into account features
of the survey situation and has as its goal the overall reduction of survey error.
What distinguishes this method from others is that it is based heavily on social
exchange theory and respondent behavior. Dillman (2000) strongly contended that
“actions of individuals are motivated by the return these actions are expected to bring,
and in fact usually do bring, from others” (p. 14). In effect, the likelihood of someone
responding to a self-administered questionnaire (i.e., the “Understanding College
Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire) is dependent on whether the participant trusts
that the rewards of responding will outweigh the costs of doing so. Another
distinguishing feature of the Tailored Design method is that it does not specify one
procedure for every survey situation. Instead, the Tailored Design method applies its
social exchange ideas by effectively understanding the population that is to be surveyed,
respondent burden, and sponsorship (Dillman, 2000).
As a means of following the principles of the Tailored Design method, several
aspects of the questionnaire and survey implementation process were configured to
establish trust, increase rewards, and reduce costs. Table 3.3 outlines the procedures that
103
were necessary to ensure that high quality information, high response rates, and lower
survey error were achieved.
To Establish Trust To Increase Rewards To Reduce Social Costs

• Cover letter was printed on • Twice in the questionnaire • The questionnaire’s
university and departmental the participant was thanked introduction specifically
letterhead to demonstrate for their input and assistance. stated that the questionnaire
sponsorship by a legitimate would only take 15 minutes
authority and included the • Questionnaire was made to to complete and the scale for
signature of both the student be as interesting as possible responding to each item was
researcher and the to the participant through the repeated at the top of each
sponsoring faculty member. questionnaire’s layout, page to make the task of
design, and ordering of the completing the questionnaire
• Participant letter expressed questions. appear to be short and easy.
the importance of the task
and that something useful • Participant letter • Subordinating language and
will happen as a result of the communicated the need for embarrassment was avoided
study. the participant’s response, within the questionnaire.
expressed support for group
values, and showed positive • There was a minimal request
regard. for personal information in
the demographic section of
the questionnaire.
• Inconvenience was avoided

by administering the
questionnaire as a group in a
team meeting.
Table 3.3: Methods for Employing the Elements of Dillman’s (2000) Tailored Design
Questionnaire Administration. For the pilot study, questionnaires were
administered in person to an assembled group of the participants. Specifically,
permission was granted from the head coaches of each of the participating teams to allow
the distribution of the questionnaire to take place during a team meeting. Since team
meetings are mandatory, it was relatively easy to gain access to all of the desired
participants at one time, which is often very difficult to accomplish because of the time
constraints associated with this student population. Additionally, the cost savings
104
associated with this type of administration were enormous and reduced the nonresponse
issues that are often found with mail or web survey procedures.
Dillman (2000), however, maintained that group administration does have its
limitations. This type of procedure has the potential to exert some independent
influences on responses. For example, if the administration was done at the end of a class
session and the students were informed that upon completion of the questionnaire they
could leave, this situation could prompt students to complete their questionnaire as
quickly as possible and without much contemplation about their responses. Another
concern of group administration is that it may resemble a test-taking environment. This
type of environment may invoke test-taking behavior, which may prompt the respondent
to think that there is a right or wrong answer and thus must choose a response in terms of
how they think they should respond or how others will respond, not on how well the
statement describes them. Finally, when people are absent from a group administration,
they are often mailed a questionnaire. If the information provided in the cover letter
differs from what was stated at the group administration, this may invoke a threat to the
internal validity of the study because the testing environments were different.
To compensate for these potential limitations, Dillman (2000) strongly advised
that a carefully structured method for group administration with the aim of achieving
similar completion environments be developed. Central to this method is a general
protocol for group administration that covers five main points – 1) introduction,
2) special instructions, 3) distribution, 4) retrieval, and 5) debriefing. The following is a
description of how each of these points was adhered to for the pilot study.
105
1) Introduction
An identical introduction was read to all of the participants that highlights an
appreciation for what they are about to do, a description of the task and what the task is in
a very limited way, and a summary of the steps. These steps included reading the cover
letter, taking the questionnaire out of the envelope, completing the questionnaire,
immediately putting it back in the envelope the questionnaire came in, and sealing it to
maintain confidentiality.
2) Special Instructions
The following instructions were offered:
(a) This is not a test. Thus when reviewing the available responses, it is
important that you choose a response that corresponds to “how well the
statement describes you”, not in terms of how you think you should
respond or how well others will respond. There are no right or wrong
answers to these statements.
(b) As soon as you have answered the last question, please make sure you
have given only one response for each statement, circled each response
clearly, and left none blank. Then place the completed questionnaire back
in the provided envelope and seal the envelope by using the clasp.
3) Distribution
Each participant was given a large 9”x12” unsealed envelope that contained a
cover letter and a copy of the questionnaire. The unsealed envelope also doubled as the
106
return envelope. Participants were told that they could begin completing the
questionnaire upon reading the cover letter.
4) Retrieval
Once all the participants finished, the surveyor came by and collected all the
sealed envelopes with only the completed questionnaire enclosed. Participants were
instructed to take the cover letter with them for their records.
5) Debriefing
When all of the questionnaires were retrieved, appreciation was expressed again
to the participants and questions were answered as fully as possible.
Final Study
Based upon the results of the pilot study, a few modifications were implemented
for the final study. These modifications included changes to the instrument items,
sampling method, and data collection procedures.
Item Revision
Only minor revisions were made to the “Understanding College Student-Athlete
Retention” questionnaire based upon the results of the pilot study. All revisions were
specifically made to the available answers to three demographic questions. For example,
for the questions asking for the participant’s cumulative grade point average in college
and high school, the range of answers was not distinct from one another. If a participant
had a 3.50 cumulative grade point average, he or she could have chosen from either the
107
“4.00 to 3.50” or “3.50 to 3.00” option. To resolve this problem, the ranges in grade
point averages were modified to not allow for any overlap amongst the answers.
Additionally, in asking the participant to indicate how many years of athletics eligibility
he or she had remaining after their last competitive season, there was not a clear answer
available for those who had exhausted their eligibility. To alleviate this issue, a “0 years”
option was included.
Despite these changes to the demographic questions, the remaining parts of the
questionnaire remained intact. This is in spite of the fact that upon an analysis of the
pilot data, two items did not load on any of the factors. When such an instance occurs,
Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) suggested that a researcher has one of two
options – 1) interpret the item as is and simply ignore it or 2) evaluate the item for
possible deletion. In this case, these items were evaluated for possible deletion.
Consideration for deletion was dependent on the variable’s overall contribution to the
student-athlete retention research, conceptual significance, and communality index.
Despite their low communality values, both items were not deleted and were included in
the instrument used for the final study (Version 3) because of their significant
contribution to the research and conceptual significance. Specifically, Item 13, which
was associated with financial aid, was not deleted because research has demonstrated that
financial aid is strongly correlated to student retention (Bean, 1990a; Jones, 2001; Nora,
1990). Opportunities for financial aid not only provide students with the financial
support needed to continue in school, but financial aid symbolizes to the student an
increased acceptance by the institution. Likewise, Item 32, friendship support, did not
108
load on any of the factors. However, a student’s ability to successfully integrate into the
social system of the institution is highly dependent on friendship support (Bean, 1990a;
Pascarella, 1980; Tinto, 1993). Students who have close friends are more likely to
exhibit positive attitudes about themselves as students and as members of the campus
community. Therefore, despite statistical results, these items were included in Version 3
of the questionnaire because of their conceptual and practical significance, not their
statistical significance.
Sampling Method
In factor analysis, it is often believed that sample size is a function of the number
of items being analyzed. For instance, Hair et al. (1998) recommended that the minimum
is to have at least five respondents per each item and the more acceptable ratio is ten-to-
one. Gorusch (1983) suggested a similar ratio, but also stated that not less than 100
respondents for any analysis. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) even expressed concern for
any study with less than 300 cases. Yet, MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, and Hong (1999)
argued that these “rules of thumb” regarding sample size in factor analysis are based
upon a misconception. The misconception is that the minimum sample size necessary to
assure accurate recovery of the major factors that exist in the population is invariant
across studies. Instead, MacCallum et al. (1999) advised that when communalities are
high (i.e., > 0.7 or so) and factors are well determined (adequately represented by at least
4-5 indicators each), then the accurate recovery of population factors could be achieved
with a relatively small sample size (i.e., N = 60). Yet, when communalities are low (i.e.,
109
< 0.4 or so) and factors are not well determined, then the accurate recovery of population
factors may require large samples (i.e., N > 400).
Using the guidelines set by MacCallum et al. (1999), the final study employed a
different sampling method than the pilot study. Whereas the pilot study purposefully
chose nine teams from the 36 sports offered at the participating institution, the final study
did not actually sample the experimentally accessible population. Instead, a census
method was used whereby all of the teams at the participating institution were asked to
participate. Based upon the results of the pilot study, several of the communality values
for the items were low and the factors that were recovered were not easily interpretable.
These findings suggested that a larger number of respondents was necessary to accurately
recover the major factors that exist in the population. Therefore, 19 NCAA Division I
varsity teams at a large west coast university were chosen for the final study. Table 3.4
outlines the number of student-athletes included in the total population based on gender
and sport (N = 508).
110
MEN’S SPORTS WOMEN’S SPORTS
Baseball 39 Basketball 14
Basketball 14 Cross Country 1
Football 89 Golf 9
Golf 8 Rowing 49
Swimming & Diving 18 Soccer 22
Tennis 13 Swimming & Diving 34
Track & Field 53 Tennis 12
Volleyball 18 Track & Field 51
Waterpolo 25 Volleyball 11
Waterpolo 28
TOTAL: 277 (54.5%) TOTAL: 231 (45.5%)
Table 3.4: Total Population Based on Gender & Sport for Final Study
Subject Description
Similar to the institution used for the pilot study, the final study’s participating
institution sponsors a comprehensive athletics program that operates on a budget of $39
million and offers 19 sports (9 male sports and 10 female sports) for its 508 student-
athletes. Among these student-athletes, 54.5 percent are male and 45.5 percent are
female with approximately 47 percent of them receiving some form of athletics grant-in-
aid. Additionally, 8 percent of the student-athletes have identified themselves as Asian,
20.5 percent as Black, 9.4 percent as Hispanic, 1.6 percent as Native American, 50.2
percent as White/Caucasian, 7.3 as Non-Resident, and 3 percent as Unknown. Based
upon their 2003 graduation rates report (for the 1996 incoming class), 56 percent of the
111
student-athletes at the participating institution graduated, while all students graduated at a
rate of 76 percent. This offers a contrast to the pilot study’s participating institution
where the student-athlete population graduated at a higher rate than the non-athlete
population. When examined by gender, male student-athletes at the final study’s
participating institution graduated at a rate of 50 percent and female student-athletes
graduated at a rate of 69 percent.
Data Collection Procedures
Like the pilot study, Dillman’s (2000) “Tailored Design” method was
implemented for the final testing of the questionnaire (Version 3). Again, the
questionnaires were administered in person to an assembled group of the participants.
Permission was granted from the head coaches of each of the participating teams to allow
the distribution of the questionnaire to take place during a team meeting. A similar
protocol to the one used for the pilot study was utilized for the final study. The protocol
covered the five main points (introduction, special instructions, distribution, retrieval, and
debriefing) recommended by Dillman. The only change that was made was in the
instructions given to the potential participants. The Institutional Review Board for the
final study’s participating institution required that the participants not only read the cover
letter from the researchers, but also read an information sheet for non-medical research
prior to completing the questionnaire. The addition of this information sheet was the
only procedural change implemented for the final study.
112
Data Analysis Procedures for Pilot & Final Study
In general, research findings and its respective conclusions and generalizations
must be based upon data that are both relevant and accurate. Relevant data are valid data
and indicate that the instrument measures what it purports to measure, all it purports to
measure, and just what it purports to measure (Miller, 2003). Conversely, accurate data
are reliable data and indicate that the instrument yields consistent results on repeated
trials. Validity and reliability, however, can also be understood by their relationship to
measurement error. Measurement error represents all of the effects that operate to bias
the results of the study. This includes both systematic and random errors of measurement
with validity referring to systematic error and reliability referring to random error.
Validity Procedures
In order to establish validity and thus effectively create an instrument that
captures student-athlete perceptions of factors important to the retention process, face,
content, and construct validity were evaluated for this study. Face and content validity
were examined through the use of a panel of experts during the initial construction of the
instrument. To evaluate the construct validity of the instrument, both logical and
empirical approaches were employed. The logical approach involved examining the
items of the instrument logically to determine whether the items represented those
elements that made up the constructs being measured. Again, the panel of experts was
used for this purpose. The empirical approach, however, involved the use of factor
analysis. Broadly speaking, factor analysis is a generic name given to a group of
113
multivariate statistical methods whose purpose is to analyze the interrelationships or
correlations among a large number of variables and to explain these variables in terms of
their common underlying dimensions, also known as factors (Gliem, 2003; Hair et al.,
1998; Kim & Mueller, 1978). This statistical technique is most often used in the
development or validation of psychometric instruments and in testing theories about
instruments or in testing the theories on which instruments are based (Tinsley & Tinsley,
1987). By using factor analysis, a researcher can identify the separate dimensions of the
data structure and then determine to what extent each variable is explained by each
factor. Once these factors and the explanation of each variable are determined, factor
analysis can be used for data summarization and/or data reduction.
The purpose of factor analysis can be achieved from either an exploratory or
confirmatory perspective. Exploratory factor analysis is used to explore the underlying
dimensions of an observed data set and to ascertain the minimum number of hypothetical
factors that can account for the observed correlations among variables. On the other
hand, confirmatory factor analysis is used as a means of confirming a hypothesis. For
instance, a researcher may posits that there are a certain number of underlying factors and
that certain variables fall under particular factors. When factor analysis is used to test
this expectation, factor analysis is implemented from a confirmatory perspective. While
preconceived thoughts on the actual structure of the data were outlined in Chapter 2, this
study took an exploratory approach because this prior information was not explicitly used
in the analysis of the data. Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis was utilized because
no prior information about the positions of zero loadings was included in the analysis.
114
However, it is highly recommended that subsequent studies on student-athlete retention
employ a confirmatory approach. This can be done by developing hypotheses based
upon the data from this study and using structural equation modeling to test the goodness-
of-fit for the proposed confirmatory factor solution, which is not possible with principal
components or exploratory factor analysis.
A six-stage process was implemented to effectively utilize factor analysis as the
statistical analysis technique for this study. This process was derived from Hair et al.’s
(1998) factor analysis decision-making process and included the following stages –
1) objectives of factor analysis, 2) designing factor analysis, 3) assumptions in factor
analysis, 4) deriving factors and assessing overall fit, 5) interpreting the factors, and 6)
computing factor scores.
1) Objectives of Factor Analysis
As previously stated, the primary purpose of factor analysis is to condense the
information contained in a number of original variables into a smaller set of new
dimensions or factors with a minimum loss of information. This is done by either
identifying structure through data summarization or data reduction. For the purpose of
this study, data summarization was the objective. By identifying structure through data
summarization, the structure of the relationships among variables was examined by the
correlations between the variables. This allowed data summarization to be achieved
when the underlying dimensions were identified and when the contributions of each
variable to the factors were determined. Such a result could not have been achieved,
however, without a clearly defined set of variables to be examined. As argued by Hair et
115
al. (1998), “The quality and meaning of the derived factors reflects the conceptual
underpinnings of the variables included in the analysis” (p. 97). Therefore, an extensive
review of the literature and construction of a conceptual model of student-athlete
retention (outlined in Chapter 2) proved to be necessary prior to the development of the
instrument to ensure that the objective of factor analysis was carried out as effectively as
possible.
2) Designing Factor Analysis
The design of a factor analysis is based upon three main decisions. First, the
design is dependent on the calculation of the input data to meet the objectives of grouping
variables. Since the objective of the study was data summarization, the input data matrix
or correlation matrix was derived from the computation of correlations between the
variables, which is a classified as an R-type factor analysis.
Second, the design of the factor analysis is dependent on the number of variables,
measurement properties of the variables, and the types of allowable variables. In most
cases, variables for factor analysis are assumed to be of metric measurement and this was
the case for this study. No dummy or nonmetric variables were used in the analysis.
Additionally, there was much contemplation about the number of variables to include in
the study as well as the number of variables hypothesized to represent each factor. Using
the recommended standard proposed by Hair et al. (1998), at least five variables were
hypothesized to represent each factor. Finally, sample size affects the design of a factor
analysis. As described in the sampling method section for both the pilot and final study,
116
much consideration was made to the number of respondents needed to effectively utilize
factor analysis.
3) Assumptions in Factor Analysis
Hair et al. (1998) argued that the critical assumptions of factor analysis are both
conceptual and statistical in nature. At the very minimum, it must be assumed that an
underlying structure does exist amongst the selected variables. To ensure that this
assumption was met, the selected variables incorporated into the study were validated and
rooted in educational theory and research. Additionally, factor analysis assumes that the
sample is homogeneous with respect to the underlying factor structure. For example, it
would be inappropriate to utilize factor analysis when known differences already exist
within the sample (i.e., gender or race/ethnicity differences). Since there was no previous
knowledge of known differences within the sample, this assumption was assumed to be
satisfied.
From a statistical standpoint, a researcher must also ensure that the data matrix
has sufficient correlations. This was initially done by visually inspecting the correlation
matrix to determine whether there were a substantial number of correlations greater than
.30. To further test this assumption, the Bartlett test of sphericity was conducted.
Specifically, this test provides the statistical probability that the correlation matrix has
significant correlations amongst the variables. As a final measure, the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) was used to determine the appropriateness
of factor analysis. MSA is an index for comparing the magnitude of the observed
correlation coefficients to the magnitude of the partial correlation coefficients. The index
117
ranges from 0 to 1 and can be interpreted using the following guidelines: .80 or above,
meritorious; .70 or above, middling; .60 or above, mediocre; .50 or above, miserable; and
below .50, unacceptable (Hair et al., 1998). Results of these tests can be found in Chapter
4.
4) Deriving Factors & Assessing Overall Fit
Upon meeting the assumptions that guide factor analysis, the method of extracting
the factors and the number of factors selected to represent the underlying structure were
determined. There are two basic models that can be utilized to obtain factor solutions –
common factor analysis or principal components analysis. For the purpose of this study,
principal components analysis was used as the primary method of extraction. Principal
components analysis partitions the total variance in the original set of variables through
linear combinations of the original variables, known as principal components (Gliem,
2003). The component factor model is found to be appropriate when the focus is on
prediction or determining the minimum number of factors needed to account for the
maximum amount of variance in the original set of variables (Hair et al., 1998).
The first principal component extracted represents the linear combination of the
original variables that accounts for the maximum amount of variance in the original set of
variables (Gliem, 2003).
y1 = a11 x1 + a12 x2 + … + a1p xp
y1 = first principal component
a= weights (eigenvectors) for each variable in the original variable set
118
x= standardized values (mean = 0; variance = 1) for each variable in the
original variable set
p= number of variables in the original variable set
The second principal component extracted is uncorrelated from the first and is the
linear combination of the original variables that accounts for the next largest amount of
variance (Gliem, 2003).
y2 = a21 x1 + a22 x2 + … + a2p xp
y2 = second principal component
The third principal component extracted is uncorrelated with the first two
components and accounts for the third largest amount of variance. The number of
principal components initially extracted is equal to the number of variables in the original
variable set. Thus, the rationale of principal components analysis is that the smaller
number of components will account for most of the variance in the original variable set,
which leads to a meaningful interpretation of the components, also known as factors.
Yet, the key to factor analysis is knowing when to stop extracting factors. Hair et
al. (1998) suggested that when deriving factors, certain stopping criteria must be utilized.
Specifically, three stopping criterion were used, the Kaiser criterion, percentage of
variance criterion, and the scree test. The Kaiser criterion retains components with
eigenvalues greater than one. The rationale for the Kaiser criterion is that components
with eigenvalues less than one contain less information than a single variable; therefore,
any component with an eigenvalue less than one should be considered insignificant and
disregarded.
119
A second stopping criterion used for deriving factors was the percentage of
variance criterion. This criterion is “an approach based upon achieving a specified
cumulative percentage of total variance extracted by successive factors” (Hair et al.,
1998, p. 104). The reason for using this criterion is to ensure some level of practical
significance for the derived factors. Currently, no absolute threshold exists for all
applications; however, within the social sciences, a solution that accounts for 60 percent
of the total variance is considered satisfactory (Hair et al., 1998).
Lastly, the purpose of the scree test is to identify the optimum number of factors
that can be extracted before the unique variance dominates the common variance
structure (Hair et al., 1998). This is done by plotting the latent roots against the number
of factors and retaining all factors up to where the curve first begins to level off forming a
straight line with an almost horizontal slope. The eigenvalue data, variance percentages,
and scree plots for both the pilot and final study can be found in Chapter 4.
While principal components analysis was used as the primary method of
extraction, factors were also derived using maximum likelihood, an extraction method
used in common factor analysis. Maximum likelihood assumes a normal distribution of
the data and then extracts factors by maximizing the likelihood of finding a factor
solution which would best fit the observed correlations (Kim & Mueller, 1978). In most
instances, both principal components analysis and maximum likelihood produce similar
results. Thus, the purpose for also using maximum likelihood was to provide additional
support for the results obtained using the primary extraction method, principal
components analysis.
120
5) Interpreting the Factors
The interpretation of the factors and the selection of the final factor solution were
based upon the size of the factor loadings for practical and statistical significance,
rotation of the factors, and the assessment of the communalities of the variables. Factor
loadings are basically Pearson product-moment correlations between each variable in the
original variable set and each of the factors that are retained (Gliem, 2003). They serve
as the means of interpreting the role of each variable in defining each factor. For this
study, the inclusion criterion that was used was based upon both practical and statistical
significance. First, factor loadings greater than +.30 were considered to meet the minimal
level, loadings of +.40 were considered more important, and loadings +.50 or greater
were considered practically significant (Hair et al., 1998). On the other hand, from a
statistical perspective, Hair et al.’s guideline for identifying significant factor loadings
based upon sample size was used. The reason for using this guideline is that significance
is based upon a .05 significance level, a power level of 80 percent, and the proposed
inflation of the standard errors of factor loadings. In effect, with a sample size of 271 for
the pilot study and 330 for the final study, factor loadings greater than .35 were
considered statistically significant and thus represented the inclusion criteria used for the
overall study.
Another important tool in interpreting factors is factor rotation. Gliem (2003)
argued that since factors are derived variates designed to maximize the variance
accounted for in the original variable set, factors are often difficult to interpret. Factor
rotation allows for a simpler interpretation of the factor pattern by making as many values
121
in each row and/or column as close to zero as possible. To facilitate the interpretation of
the factors, an orthogonal rotation, specifically VARIMAX rotation, was utilized. The
purpose of VARIMAX rotation is to simplify the columns of the factor matrix by making
the number of high loadings in each column as few as possible.
Lastly, the communality value for each variable was assessed. Communalities
represent the proportion of variance in a variable accounted for by the set of principal
components. The reason for examining the communalities was to determine whether
each variable met acceptable levels of explanation. For this study, variables with
communalities less than .50 were considered to not have sufficient explanation. In such
cases, these variables were evaluated for possible deletion. Consideration for deletion
was dependent on the variable’s overall contribution to the student-athlete retention
research, conceptual significance, and communality index.
6) Computing Factor Scores
In addition to using factor analysis as a data summarization tool, factor analysis
was utilized as a means of data reduction for the final study only. In this context, factor
scores were calculated for each of the four factors in the final study’s factor solution as a
means of creating a smaller set of variables to replace the original set. Conceptually, a
factor score represents the degree to which each individual scores high on the group of
items that have high loadings on a factor; therefore, higher values on the variables with
high factor loadings will result in a higher factor score (Hair et al., 1998). The purpose in
calculating factor scores is to determine a respondent’s relative ranking or standing on a
latent factor. In this case, factor scores were calculated for two separate groups –
122
1) respondents who had intentions of leaving school prior to graduation and 2)
respondents who had no intentions of leaving school early. By calculating the factor
scores for each group, each group’s relative ranking or standing on each of the four
factors within the final factor solution was determined.
The analysis of factor scores for these two groups required several steps to be
employed. First, standard scores (z-scores) were computed for each item on the
questionnaire. Each z-score is the score minus the mean score divided by the standard
deviation of the scores. Second, factor scores equal to the sum of the z-scores for the
items loading on each factor were calculated. Factor scores per each respondent were not
calculated for this analysis. Instead, factor scores by group were computed. Finally, a
two-sample t-test was conducted for each factor score, which determined whether there
were statistically significant mean differences between the two groups. In doing so, the
same data was used for all of the tests conducted. For instance, if an observation was not
used for any one t-test, it was not used for any t-test. This allowed for all of the tests to
be based on the same data set. A one-way ANOVA would have been an alternative
method employed to examine factor score differences. However, this statistical method
would have not been appropriate since the variances of the two groups were more often
not equal based on Levene’s test of equality of variance. Since the t-test was able to
adjust for unequal variances, it was a better choice for this analysis.
123
Reliability Procedures
In addition to determining whether the instrument measured what it intended to
measure, a series of diagnostic measures were used to assess the instrument’s level of
reliability or internal consistency. The first diagnostic measure determined the internal
consistency of each separate item. This was done by examining the inter-item
correlations or correlations among items. Hair et al. (1998) stated that the rule of thumb
suggest that the inter-item correlations must exceed .30 to be considered reliable.
As a means of measuring the internal consistency of the entire instrument, a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for the instrument. Cronbach’s alpha is a
widely used form of determining the internal consistency or homogeneity of the items
within an instrument (Vogt, 1999). Specifically, it estimates reliability by determining
how single items on a multiple-item instrument correlate within one another and come
together to measure the underlying constructs of the instrument (Miller, 2003). This
statistical procedure is dependent on both the mean inter-item correlation and the number
of items included in the instrument (Miller, 2003). Alpha coefficients range from 0 to 1.0
and Vogt maintained that a score above 0.7 suggests that the instrument is reliable. To
verify the results, the internal consistency of the entire instrument was also determined by
splitting the instrument in half and correlating the scores of the same respondent from
each half of the instrument. Since this method produces a very conservative estimate of
reliability, the Spearman-Brown correction formula was used to statistically correct the
obtained reliability coefficient and achieve a more accurate estimate of reliability for the
true length of the instrument.
124
Lastly, the internal consistency of each factor within the final factor model was
determined. The same procedures that were used to determine the internal consistency of
the entire instrument were used for each factor. This included calculating the reliability
coefficient for the each individual factor and then determining the split-half reliability
scores and the correlation between halves. The Spearman-Brown correction formula
was again utilized to statistically correct the split-half reliability coefficients as a means
of obtaining a more accurate estimate of reliability.
Internal Validity
Extraneous variables are those potential independent variables that can exert a
systematic influence on the relationship between variables if left alone (Keppel, 1991).
This is because extraneous variables and independent variables can often become
intertwined and inseparable leaving the researcher to wonder whether the independent
variables alone affected the dependent variable. The extent to which extraneous variables
are controlled for determines the extent to which the study is internally valid. When a
study has internal validity, it means that the relationship observed between the variables
is meaningful in its own right and not due to flaws in the research design.
The internal validity of a study can be threatened by a variety of different sources.
Often these potential threats can be identified during the design phase of the study and
can be eliminated or minimized before the study even begins. Table 3.5 summarizes
these threats to internal validity and methods that could be used to control for these
threats.
125
Source Methods of Control
1. Selection – Factors that might work together to make the • Randomization
treatment subjects different or unequal at the beginning • Use a pre-test
of the study (i.e., students may differ on achievement • Randomized blocking
level, SES status, ethnicity, etc.). Major source of error • Select subjects who are similar
variance is due to individual differences. • Use same subjects in all treatment
levels
• Analysis of covariance
2. Location – The environment where the different levels • Assure quality environment and
of the independent variable takes place may be different similar locations
from the other levels; May result in different outcomes.
3. Instrumentation – The nature of the instrument, scoring • High instrument validity/reliability
procedure, and observers or scorers used may produce • Minimize measurement error
changes in the scores due to differences in measurement • Consistency in observers or scorers
alone.
4. Testing – The “practice effect” of testing - A pretest can • Randomization
often make a respondent more alert or aware of what • Do not use pre-test
may take place, making them more sensitive to and
responsive toward the treatment that subsequently
occurs.
5. History – Events that occur during the treatment that • Keep diary of events
disrupt the normal course of action (i.e., fire drills, • Randomization
current social and political events, etc.). • Experimental isolation
6. Maturation – Changes due to factors associated with the • Randomization
passing of time rather than treatment (i.e., over the • Minimize length of experiment
course of the school year, students change due to aging • Use mature subjects
and experience).
7. Attitude of Subjects – Way in which participants view a • Treat subjects as normal as possible
study and their participation in it. If students were aware • Use unobtrusive measures
of their participation, they may work extra hard or can • Do not treat groups different except
be demoralized dependent on their view of the study. for the levels of the treatment
8. Implementation – An implementation threat can occur • Randomization
when different individuals are assigned to implement the • Monitoring and proctoring of the
different treatment levels (i.e., a different teacher for implementation
each reading instructional method). • Hold implementer constant
9. Statistical Conclusion Validity – Problems with the data • Use reliable measures
leading to invalid conclusions (i.e., low power, violation • Increase sample size
of ANOVA assumptions, fishing and error rate problem, • Pre-experiment power analysis
and unreliable measures).
10. Mortality – Loss of subjects, which can bring about bias • Randomization
or large error variance within the treatment levels. • Use of pre-test
Researcher must determine whether a treatment is • Use all subjects
causing subjects to drop out.
Table 3.5: Threats to Internal Validity (Gliem, 2001)
126
Although cross-sectional survey studies are not necessarily susceptible to
implementation, history, attitude of subjects, and maturation threats because no
intervention occurs within this type of research, there were some internal validity threats
that were applicable and could have affected the data associated with this study on
college student-athlete retention. These internal validity threats included – 1) location
threat, 2) testing threat, 3) instrumentation threat, and 4) selection threat.
1) Location Threat
A location threat occurs when the testing conditions for the participants are
different, especially when individual tests are used. Since the questionnaire
administration for both the pilot and final study took place during a team meeting, the
testing conditions for the participants varied. Questionnaires were administered at a
location chosen by the coach. Locations included the team’s locker room or conference
room, the athletics department’s auditorium or meeting room, and a classroom located in
the student-athlete academic services office. With the questionnaires being administered
in different environments, it was imperative that the data collection procedures were as
consistent as possible to alleviate for the differences in testing environments. Regardless,
a location threat must be recognized and taken into account when analyzing the results of
this study.
2) Testing Threat
Often a testing threat occurs when pre and post-tests are used because the pre-test
can make the participants more sensitive to and responsive to the study’s interest causing
a practice effect to occur. In order to ensure that this threat was eliminated, each
127
participant was only required to complete one questionnaire at one particular point in
time.
3) Instrumentation Threat
The characteristics of the data collectors can often create a threat since gender,
age, or race/ethnicity may affect specific responses and the seriousness with which the
respondents answer certain questions, particularly with attitudinal instruments (Fraenkel
& Wallen, 2000). To avoid this potential threat, all of the participants for the study were
administered the same questionnaire by the same data collector. Specifically, for the
pilot study, a research assistant was employed to distribute the questionnaire at each of
the nine team meetings, while the main researcher of this study distributed the
questionnaire at each of the team meetings for the final study.
4) Selection Threat
The internal validity of this study was also susceptible to a selection threat.
Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) stated that the selection of subjects could result in “the
individuals differing from one another in unintended ways that are related to the variables
to be studied” (p. 191). When a differential selection of subjects exists, there often are
characteristics or attributes that work together to make the subjects unequal at the start of
the study. For example, participants may differ on achievement level, socioeconomic
background, or race/ethnicity. In this case, a differential selection of subjects would
make it difficult to determine whether student-athlete perceptions are due to the factors
focused on in the study or to experiences, attributes, or attitudes outside the realm of the
study. Randomization is the recommended method for controlling for this threat;
128
however, for the pilot study, a non-probability sampling method was used, which needs
to be recognized when analyzing the results of the pilot study. To compensate for this, all
elements of the experimentally accessible population for the final study had an equal
probability of being included in the study since all 19 teams were asked to participate.
External Validity & Generalizability
One of main purposes of a research study is to generalize the results of the study
to different subjects and settings. The extent to which the findings are relevant to
subjects and settings outside of the study is defined by the external validity of the study.
Yet unlike the internal validity factors that directly affect the dependent variable, external
validity factors are those that interact with the independent variable. In both cases,
extraneous variables are the culprits, but the difference between these internal and
external validity factors is the extent to which the independent and dependent variables of
the study are affected.
Threats to external validity are classified into two different groups – 1) threats to
population validity and 2) threats to ecological validity. Specifically, population validity
asks to what groups of subjects are these findings true, whereas ecological validity asks
to what situations are these findings true. In either case, the extent to which these are
threatened will determine the external validity of the study.
There are three main threats to population validity. The first threat examines to
what extent the experimentally-accessible population (i.e., group available to the
researcher) accurately reflects the target population (i.e., group the researcher wants to
129
generalize to). If these two populations vary from one another, it will be extremely
difficult for the researcher to generalize the findings to the target population since the
accessible group is not representative of the larger group. The best method for
minimizing this threat is to utilize a random sampling method.
A second threat to population validity is related to the interaction of
personalogical variables and the treatment condition. For instance, a researcher is
interested in examining the effects of instructional methods on a student’s reading score
on the fourth grade proficiency exam. Three classes are chosen to participate and each is
instructed to use one of the three instructional methods. After a semester of using the
instructional method, all of the students are administered the proficiency exam. Based
upon the findings, students in one class scored much higher than students in the other
classrooms. Yet, unless ability level of the students was controlled for in the study, it
will be difficult to determine whether this personalogical variable did not interact with
the treatment and produce the change in the dependent variable. Such interactions must
be anticipated and built into the study in order for the generalizations to be applicable to
the target population.
Population validity can also be threatened by sample bias. Sample bias can be
attributed to four main errors – 1) frame error, 2) selection error, 3) non-response error,
and 4) sampling error. A frame error can occur when there is a discrepancy between the
target population and the population from which the subjects are chosen. For example, a
researcher is interested in surveying all athletics administrators in the Big Ten conference
and therefore uses the Big Ten directory as the list to draw from. If the directory has not
130
been updated in a year and is missing several administrators within the conference, a
frame error is said to exist because not every element of the population has an equal
opportunity of being chosen. On the other hand, a selection error occurs when an
administrator is listed twice in the directory and thus has a greater chance of being chosen
than the other sampling units. A non-response error is mostly problematic in survey
research and occurs when a subject chooses not to respond. Even more, this error arises
when the non-respondents are in some way different from those who did respond. To
alleviate this problem, a researcher can choose to use techniques like imputing the mean,
inserting a random number, or utilizing weighted or unweighted means.
Finally, sample bias can be attributed to sampling error, which is the degree to
which a sample statistic is expected to differ from a population parameter (Gliem, 2001).
Unlike the other types of errors, sampling error is unavoidable and will always be present
within a study. This is because it is the result of taking a sample rather than studying the
whole population. However, sampling error can be estimated and minimized if a random
sampling method is used.
As with population validity, there are several factors that can negatively affect the
ecological validity of a study. These threats to ecological validity and their causes are
summarized in Table 3.6.
131
Source Cause(s)
1. Describing the Independent • When the independent variable is not described in enough detail,
Variable Explicitly a study cannot be properly replicated.
2. Multiple Treatment • Hard to generalize to a population who has not experienced the
Interference multiple treatments that were administered to the sample.
3. Hawthorne Effect • When subjects are aware that they are participating in a study,
they change their behavior simply because they are in the study
and not because the treatment had an effect on them.
4. Novelty & Disruption Effect • When the treatment is new, the subjects may respond differently
than when the treatment is not new.
5. Experimenter Effect • When the researcher influences the results of a study to the
extent that it cannot be replicated.
• Occurs if the researcher is an expert on the treatment.
6. Pretest Sensitization • When a subject is administered a pretest, they may gain

information that can be helpful to them while participating in the
treatment.
• Can result in higher posttest scores.
7. Posttest Sensitization • When a subject is administered a posttest, the posttest may give
the subject an opportunity to acquire the concept, which would
not have occurred without the posttest.
8. Interaction of History & • When the results are unique because of certain historical events
Treatment Effects or conditions occurring during the time of the treatment.
9. Measurement of the • When other instruments designed to measure the same concept
Dependent Variable do not yield the same results.
10. Interaction of Time of • When the effects of the treatment cannot be sustained over time.
Measurement & Treatment
Effects
Table 3.6: Threats to Ecological Validity (Gliem, 2001)
Similar to internal validity, survey studies are also susceptible to external validity
threats. For this particular study, the threat to population validity was a source of
concern. The reason this threat was a major concern was because it was difficult to
determine whether the experimentally accessible population (i.e., all student-athletes
attending the participating institution) is the same as the target population (i.e., all
132
student-athletes attending Division I institutions). A random sample was not utilized for
the pilot study limiting the generalizability of the findings to only those student-athletes
who participated. Yet, for the final study, every element of the experimentally accessible
population had an equal chance of participating in the final study increasing the
probability that the findings are relevant to all Division I student-athletes. Despite this,
generalizations beyond these participants must rest with the readers and are encouraged
to be done with caution.
Two threats to ecological validity were also potential concerns for this study. The
first ecological threat, measurement of the dependent variable, was specifically dependent
on the validity and reliability of the instrument. If other instruments designed to measure
student-athlete perceptions of retention yield different results, this threat would apply. As
such, this study, as described in the subsequent section, took the necessary steps to ensure
that appropriate validity and reliability procedures were implemented. The second
ecological threat, describing the independent variable explicitly, examines the ability of
the study to be replicated. This threat applies if the researcher fails to describe the levels
of the independent variable in sufficient detail. Aware of this potential threat, the
appropriate steps to ensure sufficient detail was provided were taken.
133
Operational Definitions
The following are the operational definitions associated with the variables
included in the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire.
Specifically, these definitions define how each variable was observed and measured.
Retention Variables
1. Absenteeism - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a participant’s
response to how important is “attending classes on a regular basis” to you for staying
in school.
2. Academic emphasis by athletics department - A continuous variable that was
operationally defined by a participant’s response to how important is “playing for an
athletics department that expects me to excel in the classroom” to you for staying in
school.
3. Academic performance – A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “meeting my own academic goals” to you
for staying in school.
4. Academic support from athletics department - A continuous variable that was
operationally defined by a participant’s response to how important is “playing for an
athletics department that provides me with the resources and services I need to excel
academically” to you for staying in school.
134
5. Academic support from coach - A continuous variable that was operationally defined
by a participant’s response to how important is “having a coach who helps me
achieve my academic goals” to you for staying in school.
6. Academic support from teammates - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “having teammates who
support my academic goals” to you for staying in school.
7. Access to athletics eligibility counseling - A continuous variable that was
operationally defined by a participant’s response to how important is “access to my
athletic counselor for eligibility counseling” to you for staying in school.
8. Access to career counseling - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by
a participant’s response to how important is “access to my college academic advisor
for career counseling” to you for staying in school.
9. Access to class scheduling advisement - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “access to my college
academic advisor for class scheduling” to you for staying in school.
10. Access to personal counseling - A continuous variable that was operationally defined
by a participant’s response to how important is “access to personal counseling
services” to you for staying in school.
11. Acknowledgement of academic achievement by athletics department – A continuous
variable that was operationally defined by a participant’s response to how important
is “playing for an athletics department that rewards me for my academic
performance” to you for staying in school.
135
12. Athletic support from coach - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by
a participant’s response to how important is “having a coach who helps me achieve
my athletic goals” to you for staying in school.
13. Athletic support from teammates - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “having teammates who
support my athletic goals” to you for staying in school.
14. Career advancement opportunity (non-athletic related) - A continuous variable that
was operationally defined by a participant’s response to how important is
“opportunity for career advancement (non-athletic related)” to you for staying in
school.
15. Ease of declaring a major - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “being admitted into the major I am most
interested in” to you for staying in school.
16. Financial aid - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a participant’s
response to how important is “opportunity for financial aid (i.e., grants, loans,
scholarships, work-study programs)” to you for staying in school.
17. Formal student-faculty interaction - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “interacting with my
instructors during class” to you for staying in school.
18. Friendship support - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “having friends outside of the team who
support me” to you for staying in school.
136
19. Individual athletic achievement - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “receiving individual athletic
awards (i.e., All-Conference & All-American)” to you for staying in school.
20. Informal student-faculty interaction - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “interacting with my
instructors outside of class” to you for staying in school.
21. Institutional fit - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “sense that this college was the right
choice for me” to you for staying in school.
22. Involvement in extracurricular activities - A continuous variable that was
operationally defined by a participant’s response to how important is “involvement in
extracurricular activities on campus” to you for staying in school.
23. Involvement in special interest groups - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “involvement in special
interest groups on campus (i.e., religious, political, academic)” to you for staying in
school.
24. Loyalty - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a participant’s
response to how important is “having a sense of loyalty to my college” to you for
staying in school.
25. Major certainty - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “being certain about the major I choose” to
you for staying in school.
137
26. Management of academic responsibilities - A continuous variable that was
operationally defined by a participant’s response to how important is “having
sufficient time to attend to my academic responsibilities” to you for staying in school.
27. Management of athletics responsibilities - A continuous variable that was
sufficient time to attend to my athletics responsibilities” to you for staying in school.
28. Playing time - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a participant’s
response to how important is “playing time in games” to you for staying in school.
29. Practical value of an education - A continuous variable that was operationally defined
by a participant’s response to how important is “knowing that graduation course
requirements are connected to my future career goals” to you for staying in school.
30. Professional sports opportunity - A continuous variable that was operationally defined
by a participant’s response to how important is “opportunity for advancement to the
professional sports level” to you for staying in school.
31. Relevancy of courses (curriculum) - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “knowing that my required
classes are connected to my major” to you for staying in school.
32. Respect from teammates for academic achievement - A continuous variable that was
teammates who respect me for doing well academically” to you for staying in school.
138
33. Sense of academic satisfaction - A continuous variable that was operationally defined
by a participant’s response to how important is “feeling satisfied with my college
academic experience” to you for staying in school.
34. Sense of athletics satisfaction - A continuous variable that was operationally defined
by a participant’s response to how important is “feeling satisfied with my college
athletic experience” to you for staying in school.
35. Sense of self-confidence in academics - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “being confident in my
academic abilities” to you for staying in school.
36. Sense of self-confidence in athletics - A continuous variable that was operationally
defined by a participant’s response to how important is “being confident in my
athletic abilities” to you for staying in school.
37. Sense of self-development - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by
a participant’s response to how important is “having a sense that my college
experience has helped me grow as a person” to you for staying in school.
38. Shared values - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “having friends with similar personal
interests” to you for staying in school.
39. Study skills & habits - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “having the study skills to achieve in the
classroom” to you for staying in school.
139
40. Team athletic achievement - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by
a participant’s response to how important is “playing for a team who has a winning
record” to you for staying in school.
41. Timing of courses - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant’s response to how important is “being presented with a variety of times for
which to take my classes” to you for staying in school.
42. Variety of course offerings - A continuous variable that was operationally defined by
a participant’s response to how important is “being able to choose from a variety of
different courses that will fulfill my graduation requirements” to you for staying in
school.
Demographic Variables
1. ACT test score - A categorical variable that was operationally defined as the
participant’s test score on the ACT (American College Test). ACT test score was
identified for each participant through his or her response to the question “What was
your highest standardized test score (on the ACT)?”.
2. Age – A continuous variable that was operationally defined as the birth year of the
participant. Age was identified for each participant through his or her response to the
question “What year were you born in?”.
3. Athletics scholarship status – A dichotomous variable that was operationally defined
by a participant indicating yes or no to the question “Are you receiving an athletics
scholarship?”.
140
4. Class rank – A categorical variable that was operationally defined as the participant’s
current year in school. Class rank was identified for each participant through his or
her response to the question “What is your current class rank?”.
5. College cumulative grade point average (GPA) – A categorical variable that was
operationally defined as a participant’s cumulative college GPA. College cumulative
GPA was identified for each participant through his or her response to the question
“What is your current college cumulative grade point average (on a 4-point scale)?”.
6. Eligibility status - A categorical variable that was operationally defined as the number
of years of eligibility the participant has remaining after completing the 2003-04
athletics season. Eligibility status was identified for each participant through his or
her response to the question “After completing the 2003-04 athletics season, how
many years of eligibility will you have remaining?”.
7. Father’s educational level - A categorical variable that was operationally defined as
the highest level of formal education completed by the participant’s father. Father’s
educational level was identified for each participant through his or her response to the
statement “Highest level of education completed for: (Father)”.
8. Gender – A dichotomous variable that was operationally defined as female or male.
Gender was identified for each participant through his or her response to the question
“What is your gender?”.
9. High school cumulative grade point average (GPA) – A categorical variable that was
operationally defined as a participant’s cumulative high school GPA. High school
141
GPA was identified for each participant through his or her response to the question
“What was your high school cumulative grade point average (on a 4-point scale)?”.
10. Mother’s educational level - A categorical variable that was operationally defined as
the highest level of formal education completed by the participant’s mother. Mother’s
educational level was identified for each participant through his or her response to the
statement “Highest level of education completed for: (Mother)”.
11. NCAA Clearinghouse status - A categorical variable that was operationally defined as
the participant’s initial athletics eligibility status as determined by the NCAA
Clearinghouse. The choices included qualifier, partial qualifier, non-qualifier, not
applicable, or other. Clearinghouse status was identified for each participant through
his or her response to the question “What was your NCAA Clearinghouse status?”.
12. Race/Ethnicity – A categorical variable that was operationally defined as the race or
ethnic group the participant identifies with. The choices included Asian,
Black/African-American, Hispanic, Native American, White/Caucasian, or Other
(specification was needed). Race or ethnicity was identified for each participant
through his or her response to the question “What is your race or ethnicity?”.
13. Red-shirt status - A dichotomous variable that was operationally defined by a
participant indicating yes or no to the question “Did you ‘red-shirt’ at any time
throughout your college athletic career?”.
14. SAT test score - A categorical variable that was operationally defined as the
participant’s test score on the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test). SAT test score was
142
identified for each participant through his or her response to the question “What was
your highest standardized test score (on the SAT)?”.
15. Socioeconomic status – A categorical variable that was operationally defined as the
socioeconomic level of the participant’s family. Socioeconomic status was identified
for each participant through his or her response to the question “Which of the
following broad categories best describes your family’s socioeconomic status?”.
16. Type of athletics scholarship - A dichotomous variable that defined by a participant’s
indicating full or partial to the question “If yes, what type of athletics scholarship
have you been awarded?”.
143
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Pilot Study
Sample
A total of 280 student-athletes from nine varsity sports (N = 322) participated in
the pilot study. Within this sample, cases were excluded listwise, leaving 271
observations included in the analysis. This represented a response rate of 84.2 percent for
the pilot study. Data were collected from participants in the following sports: men’s
basketball, football, men’s lacrosse, men’s volleyball, women’s basketball, women’s
lacrosse, women’s rowing, women’s soccer, and softball. Table 4.1 presents the
descriptive statistics for the sample.
144
Variable n Percent
By Gender:
Male 169 62.6
Female 101 37.4
By Sport: High Profile
Men’s Basketball 11 4.1
Football 91 33.6
Women’s Basketball 9 3.3
Women’s Soccer 21 7.7
Softball 18 6.6
Total: 150 55.4
By Sport: Low Profile
Men’s Lacrosse 51 18.8
Men’s Volleyball 17 6.3
Women’s Lacrosse 25 9.2
Women’s Rowing 28 10.3
Total: 121 44.6
By Race/Ethnicity:
Black/African-American 49 18.1
Hispanic 9 3.3
Native American 1 0.4
White/Caucasian 198 73.3
Other 13 4.8
By Class Rank:
Freshman 72 26.8
Sophomore 73 27.1
Junior 62 23.0
th
4 Year Senior 46 17.1
th
By Scholarship Status:
Full Scholarship 108 40.0
Partial Scholarship 101 37.4
Non-Scholarship 61 22.6
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for Pilot Study (Continued)
145
Table 4.1 (cont.)
Variable n Percent
By Athletics Eligibility Status:
1 Year Remaining 53 19.7
2 Years Remaining 70 26.0
Exhausted Eligibility 47 17.5
By Red-Shirt Status:
Yes 103 38.3
No 166 61.7
By NCAA Clearinghouse Status:
Qualifier 254 95.8
Partial Qualifier 3 1.1
Non-Qualifier 3 1.1
Not Applicable – Transfer 4 1.5
Other 1 0.4
By College Cumulative GPA (Self-Reported):
4.00 to 3.50 29 10.7
3.50 to 3.00 91 33.7
3.00 to 2.50 92 34.1
2.50 to 2.00 48 17.8
Below 2.00 10 3.7
By Highest SAT Score (Self-Reported):
0-500 1 0.4
501-800 8 3.0
801-1000 56 21.0
1001-1300 116 43.4
1301-1600 15 5.6
Not Applicable 71 26.6
(Continued)
146
Table 4.1 (cont.)
Variable n Percent
By Highest ACT Score (Self-Reported):
0-12 1 0.4
13-19 31 11.6
20-25 98 36.7
26-30 45 16.9
31-36 7 2.6
By High School Cumulative GPA (Self-Reported):
4.00 to 3.50 106 39.8
3.50 to 3.00 101 38.0
3.00 to 2.50 44 16.5
2.50 to 2.00 15 5.6
Below 2.00 0 0.0
By Family’s Socioeconomic Status:
$20,000 or Less 8 3.1
$20,001 to $35,000 22 8.4
$35,001 to $50,000 43 16.5
$50,001 to $100,000 105 40.2
$100,001 or More 83 31.8
By Mother’s Educational Level:
Some High School 2 0.7
High School 58 21.5
Some College 59 21.9
College 90 33.3
Graduate School 60 22.2
By Father’s Educational Level:
High School 41 15.2
College 101 37.5
147
Based upon the descriptive statistics, 62.6 percent of the respondents were male
student-athletes, while 37.4 percent were female student-athletes. A little more than half
of the respondents participate in a high profile sport (55.4%), whereas 44.6 percent
participate in a low profile sport. This sport breakdown mirrors the actual ratio of
student-athletes participating in high profile to low profile sports within the total pilot
population. White/Caucasian student-athletes comprised the majority of the respondents
(73.3%) with the remaining respondents identifying themselves as Black/African-
American (18.1%), Hispanic (3.3%), Native American (0.4%), and Other (4.8%). Of the
271 respondents, there was an approximately equal distribution between lowerclassmen
(freshmen and sophomores) and upperclassmen (juniors and 4th and 5th year seniors).
The majority of the respondents indicated that they receive some form of athletics
grant-in-aid (77.4%), have not red-shirted (61.7%), and were classified as qualifiers by
the NCAA Clearinghouse for initial athletics eligibility purposes (95.8%). Most
respondents self-reported that they have a college cumulative grade point average
between a 3.50 to 3.00 (33.7%) and 3.00 to 2.50 (34.1%); yet, while in high school, the
majority of the respondents self-reported having a cumulative grade point average
between a 4.00 to 3.50 (39.8%) and 3.50 to 3.00 (38.0%). Of the 196 respondents who
took the SAT, the majority of these student-athletes scored between a 1,001-1,300
(43.4%). Conversely, of the 182 respondents who took the ACT, the majority of these
student-athletes scored between the ranges of 20-25 (36.7%) and 26-30 (16.9%). Over 40
percent of the respondents classified their family’s socioeconomic status between
$50,001 to $100,000 and 31.8 percent classified their family’s socioeconomic status as
148
$100,001 or more. Lastly, the majority of the respondents have a mother whose highest
educational level was either college (33.3%) or graduate school (22.2%) and a father
whose highest educational level was either college (37.5%) or graduate school (30.9%).
Retention Variables Perceived to be Most Important
The “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire asked the
participants to indicate how important each retention variable is to their decision to stay
in school. The Likert-scaled items were measured on a six-point scale ranging from “Not
Important” (1) to “Very Important” (6). Means, standard deviations, and variance were
calculated for each of the 42 items included in the instrument (Version 2). Table 4.2
outlines the variables that the respondents perceived to be most important in their
decision-making to stay in school. Tables 4.3-4.6 breaks down these perceptions by
gender, race/ethnicity, class rank, and sport classification.
Variable Mean SD Variance
Item 38 – Ease of declaring a major

5.38 .955 .911
“Being admitted into the major I am most interested in”
Item 8 – Academic performance
5.37 .925 .856
“Meeting my own academic goals”
Item 28 – Career advancement opportunity (non-athletic related)
5.30 1.103 1.216
“Opportunity for career advancement (non-athletic related)”
Item 17 – Management of academic responsibilities
5.23 1.104 1.220
“Having sufficient time to attend to my academic responsibilities”
Item 29 – Athletic support from coach
5.23 1.136 1.290
“Having a coach who helps me achieve my athletic goals”
Table 4.2: Variables Perceived to be Most Important to Staying in School for Pilot Study
149
Several of the top variables student-athletes perceived to be most important to
staying in school did not vary significantly from the what has been found within
traditional student retention. Academic performance was argued to have a significant
effect on a student’s ability to integrate into the academic system of the institution,
whereas students who have a declared major were determined to have an identity and
thus were able to feel a sense of belonging to their respective academic unit (Bean, 1980;
Bean, 1990a; Tinto, 1993). However, what is surprisingly missing is the importance of
student-faculty interactions, both formal and informal, to the student-athlete retention
process. Based upon the pilot data, formal student-faculty interactions earned a mean
score of 3.98 and informal student-faculty interactions received a mean score of 3.57,
which were both ranked near the bottom in terms of importance. This is specifically in
contrast to Pascarella’s (1980) retention model, which placed significant importance on
student-faculty interactions within the retention process. He found that formal contact
between students and faculty members enhanced a student’s integration into the academic
system of the institution, whereas informal contact had a positive effect on the student’s
cognitive and social development.
Instead, what has replaced this interaction is the importance of the coach to the
retention process, which demonstrates the uniqueness of the retention process for student-
athletes. A review of the literature on the student-athlete experience indicated that
coaches have the most direct contact with the student-athlete, thus can exert the greatest
influence over their lives (Stoll et al., 1998). Such a finding has been validated by the
participants of this pilot study who suggested that having a coach who helps them achieve
150
their athletic goals is one of the most important variables in the retention process. Also
interesting about this finding is that a student-athlete’s decision to stay in school was
impacted on some level by their athletic experience because it was the coach’s support of
their athletic goals, not academic goals, which made a difference to them. Again, this
result validates the necessity of evaluating the retention process of student-athletes
separate from non-athletes since traditional student retention models have neither
discussed the role of the coach nor a student-athlete’s pursuit of athletic goals.
When the results were examined by gender as outlined in Table 4.3, both male
and female respondents indicated academic performance and ease of declaring a major as
important variables to their decision-making to stay in school. However, male
respondents also placed significant importance on the coach-player relationship and their
sense of athletics satisfaction, whereas female respondents placed significant importance
on more academically-related variables, such as a sense of academic satisfaction,
management of academic responsibilities, and sense of self-development. This disparity
between genders informs us that differences between male and female student-athletes do
exist at some level and it is important to recognize that persistence for male student-
athletes is more related to their athletic experience than academic experience, which was
found to be the opposite for female student-athletes.
151
By Male Student-Athletes (n = 169):

5.28 1.042 1.086
5.28 1.103 1.216
5.25 1.068 1.140
5.24 1.188 1.411
Item 5 – Sense of athletics satisfaction
5.21 1.164 1.356
“Feeling satisfied with my college athletic experience”
By Female Student-Athletes (n = 101):

5.62 .661 .437
Item 41 – Sense of academic satisfaction
5.50 .702 .492
“Feeling satisfied with my college academic experience”
5.50 .673 .452
5.48 .769 .592
Item 20 – Sense of self-development
“Having a sense that my college experience has helped me grow as a 5.47 .890 .791
person”
Table 4.3: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Gender for Pilot Study
Differences also emerged based upon the racial/ethnic background of the
respondents. Table 4.4 presents these differences amongst Black/African-American,
Hispanic, White/Caucasian, and Other respondents. For the respondents who identified
themselves as Black/African-American, three of the most important variables in the
retention process for this group were related to athletics. These respondents indicated
that being confident in their athletic abilities, having a coach who helps them achieve
their athletic goals, and having an opportunity for advancement to the professional sports
152
league were most important to staying in school. What is interesting about the high
ranking of the professional sports opportunity variable is that no other racial/ethnic group
identified this as a variable most important to the retention process. Professional sports
opportunity received a mean score of 3.78 for Hispanic respondents, 3.59 for
White/Caucasian respondents, and 3.54 for respondents who identified themselves as
Other. These mean scores were among the lowest for all retention variables for these
three racial/ethnic groups. For Black/African-American respondents, what may have
contributed to the high mean score for the professional sports opportunity variable, as
well as sense of self-confidence in athletics and athletic support from coach, is that a
large percentage of these respondents (87.7%) participate in either men’s basketball or
football. The opportunity to play professionally in either of these sports is more readily
available than in most other sports, which is assumed to have contributed to this variable
reaching its level of importance. Additionally, research has demonstrated that in the
African-American community, sport is seen as a mechanism for social mobility (LeUnes
& Nation, 2002). The expectancy that sport can elevate the black student-athlete within
society may be another indication of why this retention variable was ranked so high for
this racial/ethnic group.
Black/African-American respondents also perceived financial aid opportunities as
most important in their decision-making to stay in school. Such a finding is consistent
with the literature on the retention of African-American students. Jones (2001) argued
that adequate amounts and types of financial aid cannot be overly stressed when
examining student persistence for this group of students. Nora (1990) found that finances
153
are also particularly important to Hispanic students. While financial aid was not ranked
amongst the most important variables, financial aid did receive a mean score of 5.00,
which provided some evidence that financial aid opportunities are very important to
Hispanic student-athletes.
While athletically-related variables were perceived to be of most importance to
the Black/African-American student-athlete, respondents who identified themselves as
Hispanic, White/Caucasian, or Other indicated that their ability to meet their academic
goals, ease of declaring a major, institutional fit, and the practical value of an education
were very important. White/Caucasian respondents also found the opportunity for career
advancement to be important in their decision-making to stay in school. But unlike their
Black/African-American peers, they were more concerned with opportunities outside of
athletics. This could have been attributed to the fact that a large percent of the
White/Caucasian respondents (73%) participate in low profile sports where professional
sports opportunities are limited.
154
Black/African-American (n = 49):
Item 25 – Sense of self-confidence in athletics
5.20 1.414 1.999
“Being confident in my athletic abilities”
5.14 1.399 1.958
Item 3 – Academic support from coach
5.08 1.367 1.868
“Having a coach who helps me achieve my academic goals”
Item 10 – Professional sports opportunity
5.00 1.486 2.208
“Opportunity for advancement to the professional sports level”
Item 13 – Financial aid
“Opportunity for financial aid (i.e., grants, loans, scholarships, work- 5.00 1.291 1.667
study programs)”
5.00 1.354 1.833
Hispanic (n = 9):
Item 6 – Study skills & habits
5.56 .527 .278
“Having the study skills to achieve in the classroom”
5.56 .527 .278
Item 14 – Institutional fit
5.56 .726 .528
“Sense that this college was the right choice for me”
Item 16 – Majority certainty
5.56 .726 .528
“Being certain about the major I choose”
Item 18 – Practical value of an education
“Knowing that graduation course requirements are connected to my 5.56 .527 .278
future career goals”
5.56 .527 .278
Table 4.4: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Race/Ethnicity for Pilot Study
(Continued)
155
Table 4.4 (cont.)
White/Caucasian (n = 198):
5.49 .785 .617
5.45 .790 .624
5.39 .916 .839
5.32 .985 .969
5.29 1.045 1.091
Other (n = 13):
Item 42 – Sense of self-confidence in academics
5.62 .506 .256
“Being confident in my academic abilities”
5.54 .519 .269
5.46 .877 .769
Item 18 – Practical value of an education
“Knowing that graduation course requirements are connected to my 5.46 .877 .769
future career goals”
The variables perceived to be most important to a student-athlete’s decision to
stay in school were also differentiated by class rank as presented in Table 4.5. Overall,
academic performance was perceived to be very important for all five class ranks.
However, sense of self-confidence in athletics was only perceived important for freshmen
and sophomore student-athletes. Additionally, freshmen and junior respondents believed
that having a coach who helps them achieve their athletic goals was important to their
decision-making to stay in school. Upperclassmen stressed the importance of more
academically-related variables, such as relevancy of courses, career advancement
156
opportunity, and timing of courses. The most interesting result was how important
management of athletics responsibilities was to fifth year seniors. It is assumed that this
variable would become extremely important to them considering that these respondents
would exhaust their athletics eligibility at the end of their competition season and would
want to ensure they had enough time to fulfill their athletics responsibilities before their
athletics career is arguably over.
Freshmen (n = 72):
5.56 .902 .814
5.50 .856 .732
5.38 .956 .914
5.33 1.222 1.493
5.32 1.197 1.432
Sophomores (n = 73):
5.36 .991 .982
5.34 .946 .895
5.23 .993 .987
5.22 1.031 1.062
5.15 1.089 1.185
Table 4.5: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Class Rank for Pilot Study
(Continued)
157
Table 4.5 (cont.)
Juniors (n = 62):
5.45 .823 .678
5.39 .912 .831
5.37 1.134 1.286
5.32 .919 .845
5.32 1.004 1.009
4th Year Seniors (n = 46):

5.61 .577 .332
5.43 1.109 1.229
5.41 .858 .737
Item 40 – Relevancy of courses (Curriculum)

5.39 .829 .688
“Knowing that my required classes are connected to my major”

5.30 1.209 1.461

5.75 .447 .200
Item 4 – Timing of courses
5.44 .892 .796
“Being presented with a variety of times for which to take my classes”
5.44 .727 .529
Item 22 – Management of athletics responsibilities
5.44 .892 .796
“Having sufficient time to attend to my athletics responsibilities”
5.38 .806 .650
158
Finally, the variables perceived to be most important were examined by sport
classification (high vs. low profile) as outlined in Table 4.6. For the pilot study, men’s
basketball, football, women’s basketball, women’s soccer, and softball were classified as
high profile sports because they represent an intercollegiate varsity sport in which career
opportunities within the top-level American professional sports leagues are available.
Conversely, men’s lacrosse, men’s volleyball, women’s lacrosse, and women’s rowing
were classified as low profile sports because they represent an intercollegiate varsity
sport in which career opportunities at the professional level are available, but not
necessarily at the top-level widely seen by the American public. The results clearly
demonstrated that student-athletes who participate in high profile sports placed a high
level of importance on athletically-related variables, such as athletic support from coach
and senses of athletics satisfaction and self-confidence in athletics. This is in contrast to
student-athletes who participate in low profile sports. These student-athletes did not rank
any athletically-related variables amongst the retention variables perceived most
important. Instead, the emphasis was on academically-related variables, such as sense of
self-confidence in academics, career advancement opportunity (non-athletic related), and
management of academic responsibilities. The two groups, however, did rank ease of
declaring a major and academic performance amongst their most important retention
variables. This disparity amongst sports informs us that differences based on sport
classification do exist at some level and it is important to recognize these differences in
order to fully understand the retention process for college student-athletes.
159
By Sport Classification – High Profile (n =150):

5.28 1.063 1.129
5.26 1.033 1.066
5.23 1.177 1.385
5.17 1.292 1.670
5.15 1.184 1.401
5.15 1.266 1.603
By Sport Classification – Low Profile (n = 121):

5.52 .786 .618
5.51 .787 .619
5.50 .754 .569
5.45 .785 .617
5.45 .741 .549
Table 4.6: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Sport Classification (High vs.
Low Profile) for Pilot Study
Retention Variables Perceived to be Least Important
Means, standard deviations, and variance were also calculated for those variables
that the respondents perceived to be least important to their decision-making to stay in
school. Table 4.7 presents the five least important retention variables amongst all
respondents.
160
Item 23 – Involvement in special interest groups
“Involvement in special interest groups on campus (i.e., religious, 3.37 1.572 2.472
political, academic)”
Item 27 – Involvement in extracurricular activities
3.53 1.488 2.213
“Involvement in extracurricular activities”
Item 2 – Informal student-faculty interaction
3.57 1.486 2.209
“Interacting with my instructors outside of class”
Item 10 – Professional sports opportunity
3.85 1.860 3.460
“Opportunity for advancement to the professional sports level”
Item 1 – Academic support from teammates
3.86 1.513 2.289
“Having teammates support my academic goals”
Table 4.7: Variables Perceived to be Least Important to Staying in School for Pilot Study
Research has found that one of the most distinguishing factors that separates the
student-athlete experience from the non-athlete experience is the amount of time and
energy student-athletes have to devote to their sport. Student-athletes, in addition to their
academic responsibilities, must also expend countless hours practicing, training,
competing, and rehabilitating injuries in order to satisfy their athletics requirements. The
intensive nature of these activities often leaves student-athletes drained and depleted
before they can even attend to their responsibilities as students. Therefore, it was not
surprising that the variables that received the lowest mean scores all pertained to
activities that would require student-athletes to devote a considerable amount of time
outside of their academic and athletics responsibilities.
The low mean score of informal student-faculty interactions was also not
surprising considering the level of importance the respondents placed on the coach in the
retention process. Whereas student-faculty interactions were very important to the
traditional student retention process, a student-athlete’s relationship with their coach was
161
perceived to be more important as indicated by its high mean score for all respondents.
Teammate relationships, however, were not considered to be in the same vein as coach-
player relationships. Having teammates who support a student-athlete’s academic goals
received one of the lowest mean scores. This is in contrast to Berson’s (1996) study that
revealed that teammates were associated with a student-athlete’s commitment to their
academics. Such a finding further highlights the importance of the coach in the retention
process as the coach-player relationship was perceived to be the most important
interaction.
Lastly, opportunity for advancement to the professional sports level was
perceived to be one of the least important retention variables. What was interesting about
this finding was that professional sports opportunity was perceived to be one of the most
important variables to Black/African-American respondents; yet overall, minimal
importance was placed on this variable for all respondents. This can be attributed to the
limited opportunities for student-athletes to actually progress to the professional ranks.
According to the NCAA (2004), 2.9 percent of men’s basketball student-athletes, 1
percent of women’s basketball student-athletes, 2.0 percent of football student-athletes,
10.5 percent of baseball student-athletes, 4.1 percent of men’s ice hockey student-
athletes, and 1.9 percent of men’s soccer student-athletes make it to their respective
professional leagues. As such, the reality is that the majority of student-athletes end their
athletics career at the college level and are sensitive to this fact based upon the level of
importance they gave to this variable.
162
While these items did obtain the lowest mean scores amongst all of the variables
included in the questionnaire, these variables are still very relevant to the student-athlete
retention process. Each of these variables was included in the final factor model derived
from the pilot data and contributed to a better understanding of the student-athlete
retention process.
Intent to Leave
Intent to leave is a factor included in many theoretical models of attrition often
intervening between attitudes and behaviors (Bean, 1980; Bean, 1990a; Bentler &
Speckart, 1979; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). For instance, students who intend to leave are
unlikely to remain in school and by asking if the student plans on enrolling the following
term, the institution can determine who is at risk of leaving early. While determining the
relationship between the factors and intent to leave was outside of the scope of this study,
the pilot study data revealed that 66.4 percent of the respondents had never thought about
leaving school before graduating at any point during their college experience. Of the
33.6 percent who indicated that they did have intentions of leaving, 73.6 percent were
male respondents, while 26.4 percent were female respondents. When analyzed by sport,
43.9 percent were football student-athletes, 7.6 percent were men’s basketball student-
athletes, and 16.5 percent were men’s lacrosse student-athletes. When analyzed by
race/ethnicity, 54.9 percent were White/Caucasian respondents, while 30.8 percent were
Black/African-American. Lastly, of the reasons why a student-athlete had intentions of
leaving, 32 respondents indicated they would leave to pursue a professional sports
163
opportunity, 29 respondents indicated they would leave for financial realities, and 26
respondents would leave for a reason specified as other.
Considering the percentage of pilot study participants who indicated that they had
intentions of leaving school prior to graduation, retention variables perceived to be most
important were examined based on intent to leave. Table 4.8 presents the results for
these two groups. For those respondents who had intentions of leaving school early,
three of the most important variables in the retention process were related to athletics.
These respondents indicated that athletic support from coach and senses of athletics
satisfaction and self-confidence in athletics were most important to staying in school.
This high ranking of athletically-related variables amongst the most important mirrors
that of those participating in high profile sports. With football considered a high profile
sport and representing the highest percentage of those who had intentions of leaving, the
emphasis on athletics is not surprising.
In contrast to those who had intentions of leaving, participants who did not have
any intentions of leaving school early did not rank any athletically-related variables
amongst the most important. Rather, they emphasized academically-related variables,
such as academic performance, ease of declaring a major, career advancement,
institutional fit, and senses of academic satisfaction and self-confidence in academics.
The implication of this result is that persistence for those without intentions of leaving is
more related to their academic experience, whereas persistence for those with intentions
of leaving is related more to the athletic experience.
164
By Intent to Leave – No (n =180):

5.56 .662 .438
5.48 .794 .631
5.41 .990 .980
5.37 .825 .680
5.36 1.007 1.014
5.36 .895 .800
By Intent to Leave – Yes (n = 91):

5.25 1.091 1.191
5.24 1.177 1.385
5.19 1.201 1.442
5.19 1.192 1.420
5.08 1.276 1.627
Table 4.8: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Intent to Leave for Pilot Study
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a statistical analysis technique used to reduce a large number of
interrelated variables to a smaller number of latent or hidden dimensions (Tinsley &
Tinsley, 1987). These dimensions, also known as factors, are basically hypothetical
constructs that help interpret the consistency in a data set. Therefore, the value in using
165
factor analysis is that this technique can provide a researcher with “a meaningful
organizational scheme that can be used to interpret the multitude of behaviors analyzed
with the greatest parsimony of explanatory constructs” (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987, p. 414).
The following outlines the steps that were taken to effectively utilize factor analysis as
the statistical analysis method for the pilot study.
Assumptions in Exploratory Factor Analysis
Prior to using factor analysis, the assumptions in factor analysis had to be tested
and met. The purpose in testing the assumptions in factor analysis was to assess whether
the data matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. This was done through an evaluation
of the correlation matrix and the use of Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Measure of
Sampling Adequacy (MSA).
Correlation Matrix. A visual examination of the correlation matrix indicated that
a moderate number of the coefficients were below the .30 standard. This raised initial
questions about the prospects of a successful factor analysis for the data set. Table 4.9
presents the correlation matrix for the pilot study.
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was conducted to assess
the overall significance of the correlation matrix. Specifically, it is a test of the following
statistical hypothesis:
H0: Correlation matrix = Identity matrix
H1: Correlation matrix ≠ Identity matrix
166
Based on the results, χ2 = 6867.935 with 861 d.f, p = 0.0000, we reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative because the results implied that the correlation
matrix was not the identity matrix. Since the correlation matrix was not equal to the
identity matrix, the items were considered collinear, and thus factorable. Therefore,
Bartlett’s test indicated that factor analysis was an appropriate method of analysis.
167
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21
Q1 1.00
Q2 0.47 1.00
Q3 0.57 0.49 1.00
Q4 0.32 0.28 0.41 1.00
Q5 0.33 0.18 0.40 0.40 1.00
Q6 0.38 0.34 0.46 0.40 0.45 1.00
Q7 0.38 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.41 1.00
Q8 0.33 0.31 0.43 0.38 0.34 0.58 0.34 1.00
Q9 0.20 0.29 0.41 0.49 0.41 0.50 0.35 0.53 1.00
Q10 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.08 0.20 -0.02 0.09 0.01 0.03 1.00
Q11 0.35 0.59 0.45 0.27 0.27 0.44 0.28 0.42 0.43 0.17 1.00
Q12 0.13 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.30 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.47 0.21 1.00
Q13 0.20 0.14 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.24 0.30 0.14 0.25 0.20 1.00
Q14 0.26 0.22 0.39 0.31 0.37 0.43 0.25 0.43 0.42 0.03 0.35 0.17 0.34 1.00
Q15 0.38 0.39 0.52 0.42 0.34 0.48 0.30 0.45 0.41 0.23 0.46 0.34 0.34 0.42 1.00
Q16 0.23 0.29 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.48 0.30 0.44 0.52 0.07 0.38 0.15 0.26 0.48 0.54 1.00
Q17 0.28 0.31 0.42 0.49 0.31 0.51 0.29 0.50 0.52 -0.04 0.43 0.04 0.35 0.38 0.55 0.65 1.00
Q18 0.26 0.29 0.43 0.38 0.28 0.53 0.26 0.48 0.55 0.03 0.38 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.50 0.54 0.50 1.00
Q19 0.24 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.43 0.27 0.45 0.47 0.18 0.41 0.18 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.56 1.00
Q20 0.34 0.27 0.42 0.33 0.41 0.52 0.42 0.38 0.43 0.07 0.34 0.25 0.31 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.45 1.00
Q21 0.35 0.31 0.38 0.32 0.33 0.54 0.27 0.47 0.37 -0.08 0.34 0.00 0.25 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.50 0.42 0.45 0.41 1.00
Q22 0.24 0.19 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.36 0.31 0.29 0.40 0.28 0.22 0.34 0.25 0.38 0.45 0.31 0.34 0.28 0.33 0.45 0.36
Q23 0.27 0.38 0.22 0.12 0.13 0.30 0.15 0.28 0.18 0.04 0.39 0.16 0.11 0.26 0.34 0.19 0.25 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.28
Q24 0.27 0.42 0.30 0.29 0.22 0.40 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.04 0.47 0.04 0.19 0.28 0.35 0.44 0.46 0.37 0.59 0.40 0.43
Q25 0.23 0.22 0.30 0.28 0.46 0.20 0.26 0.18 0.24 0.35 0.29 0.39 0.21 0.24 0.39 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.36 0.16
168
Q26 0.38 0.28 0.35 0.27 0.36 0.31 0.36 0.29 0.23 0.10 0.28 0.20 0.16 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.24 0.25 0.29 0.50 0.30
Q27 0.39 0.41 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.34 0.09 0.18 0.20 0.29 0.11 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.36 0.26
Q28 0.10 0.16 0.26 0.24 0.11 0.38 0.19 0.36 0.35 -0.07 0.23 -0.03 0.12 0.28 0.31 0.43 0.49 0.46 0.31 0.28 0.28
Q29 0.31 0.26 0.51 0.32 0.54 0.31 0.33 0.32 0.40 0.23 0.33 0.36 0.24 0.31 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.45 0.33
Q30 0.07 0.10 0.18 0.17 0.39 0.08 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.37 0.19 0.48 0.22 0.15 0.29 0.19 0.10 0.12 0.19 0.23 0.02
Q31 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.24 0.26 0.38 0.20 0.42 0.25 0.33 0.32 0.38 0.47 0.39 0.37 0.59 0.44 0.37
Q32 0.34 0.25 0.33 0.24 0.25 0.35 0.51 0.28 0.30 0.22 0.31 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.46 0.32
Q33 0.11 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.40 0.13 0.23 0.17 0.26 0.32 0.20 0.43 0.26 0.18 0.34 0.25 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.33 0.04
Q34 0.33 0.47 0.37 0.23 0.26 0.45 0.27 0.28 0.35 0.16 0.41 0.22 0.30 0.29 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.50 0.45 0.38
Q35 0.50 0.36 0.50 0.32 0.43 0.52 0.32 0.44 0.43 0.04 0.42 0.14 0.27 0.38 0.54 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.53 0.50
Q36 0.47 0.27 0.39 0.30 0.50 0.26 0.43 0.30 0.33 0.20 0.26 0.31 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.51 0.28
Q37 0.38 0.28 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.52 0.25 0.44 0.46 -0.05 0.40 0.02 0.32 0.42 0.50 0.42 0.58 0.48 0.42 0.44 0.54
Q38 0.28 0.22 0.38 0.43 0.36 0.51 0.35 0.48 0.46 0.02 0.34 0.11 0.25 0.39 0.43 0.61 0.60 0.53 0.46 0.43 0.47
Q39 0.58 0.35 0.49 0.29 0.34 0.43 0.38 0.45 0.30 0.04 0.43 0.12 0.22 0.24 0.51 0.37 0.43 0.43 0.34 0.38 0.36
Q40 0.30 0.27 0.36 0.41 0.30 0.43 0.25 0.45 0.54 -0.06 0.41 0.01 0.25 0.37 0.42 0.51 0.56 0.57 0.51 0.37 0.50
Q41 0.37 0.29 0.48 0.32 0.41 0.55 0.28 0.58 0.52 -0.09 0.38 0.05 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.53 0.55 0.57 0.48 0.46 0.52
Q42 0.32 0.26 0.40 0.33 0.36 0.57 0.31 0.62 0.50 -0.04 0.41 0.14 0.30 0.40 0.48 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.45 0.39 0.52
Table 4.9: Correlation Matrix for Pilot Study (Continued)
168
Table 4.9 (cont.)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22 1.00
169
Q23 0.21 1.00

Q24 0.29 0.39 1.00
Q25 0.58 0.20 0.26 1.00
Q26 0.36 0.24 0.30 0.40 1.00
Q27 0.14 0.60 0.33 0.12 0.34 1.00
Q28 0.14 0.22 0.32 0.08 0.18 0.20 1.00
Q29 0.59 0.13 0.20 0.62 0.36 0.14 0.12 1.00
Q30 0.42 0.07 0.05 0.66 0.22 0.05 0.06 0.52 1.00
Q31 0.41 0.28 0.61 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.20 0.35 0.34 1.00
Q32 0.28 0.22 0.37 0.26 0.33 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.12 0.28 1.00
Q33 0.49 0.12 0.13 0.54 0.31 0.18 0.17 0.48 0.62 0.33 0.32 1.00
Q34 0.31 0.38 0.59 0.30 0.26 0.38 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.64 0.39 0.25 1.00
Q35 0.44 0.36 0.48 0.30 0.49 0.40 0.37 0.41 0.13 0.42 0.39 0.26 0.51 1.00
Q36 0.55 0.19 0.25 0.52 0.36 0.30 0.09 0.60 0.38 0.35 0.36 0.46 0.33 0.52 1.00
Q37 0.38 0.26 0.43 0.22 0.32 0.30 0.38 0.42 0.06 0.39 0.28 0.14 0.42 0.66 0.37 1.00
Q38 0.31 0.17 0.43 0.21 0.27 0.16 0.47 0.30 0.17 0.37 0.36 0.28 0.35 0.49 0.35 0.58 1.00
Q39 0.31 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.19 0.29 0.34 0.21 0.36 0.56 0.47 0.49 0.49 1.00
Q40 0.23 0.24 0.54 0.15 0.29 0.28 0.42 0.26 0.09 0.42 0.35 0.13 0.42 0.55 0.30 0.60 0.64 0.47 1.00
Q41 0.21 0.29 0.41 0.17 0.26 0.28 0.47 0.35 0.12 0.31 0.30 0.11 0.34 0.49 0.35 0.54 0.56 0.52 0.63 1.00
Q42 0.26 0.26 0.34 0.23 0.32 0.23 0.53 0.39 0.15 0.29 0.39 0.25 0.30 0.49 0.33 0.53 0.61 0.53 0.58 0.76 1.00
169
Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA). MSA is an index for comparing the
magnitude of the observed correlation coefficients to the magnitude of the partial
correlation coefficients. The MSA for the correlation matrix was .929. Based on Hair et
al.’s (1998) guidelines, the MSA value for the matrix indicated that factor analysis was
appropriate.
The most positive indicators for a successful factor analysis of the observed data
set were Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the MSA value for the correlation matrix. A
visual examination of the correlation matrix raised some initial questions regarding the
appropriateness of factor analysis for the data set; yet, the strength of the other statistical
tests indicated that there was a high probability that the correlation matrix has significant
correlations among the variables, which made factor analysis an appropriate method of
analysis for the pilot study.
Statistical Procedures
In order to identify the meaningful factors underlying the items of the instrument,
principal components analysis was first used without specification of the number of
factors to extract. This initial extraction produced principal components equal to the
number of variables in the original variable set. After this initial solution was derived,
the Kaiser criterion was used to obtain a better representation of the data. This extraction
yielded an eight-factor model. Likewise, an examination of the cumulative percentage of
total variance also revealed an eight-factor model using the 60 percent standard utilized
in the social sciences (Hair et al., 1998). Table 4.10 outlines the information regarding
170
the eight-factor solution and their relative explanatory power as expressed by their
eigenvalues and the cumulative percentage of total variance accounted for by these
factors.
Cumulative Percent of
Factor Eigenvalue Percent of Variance
Variance
1 15.036 35.800 35.800

2 3.603 8.579 44.379
3 2.128 5.067 49.446
4 1.734 4.128 53.574
5 1.265 3.013 56.587
6 1.231 2.931 59.518
7 1.144 2.723 62.241
8 1.040 2.476 64.717
Table 4.10: Results for the Initial Extraction of Component Factors for Pilot Study
Yet, an examination of the scree plot resulted in accepting a smaller factor model,
which is much more consistent with the current literature on student retention. Figure 4.1
illustrates the results of the scree test. In looking at the plot, the bend is approximately
around component 5 with the difference between components 4 and 5 being greater than
the difference between components 5 and 6. The difference between any two
components after component 5 is approximately equal. Therefore, both four-factor and
five-factor models were considered.
171
15
10
Eigenvalue
41
21
23
25
27
29
9
31
33
35
3
5
7
37
39
1
11
13
15
17
19
Component Number
Figure 4.1: Eigenvalue Plot for Scree Test Criterion for Pilot Study
Results from a Five-Factor Model. Principal components analysis with
VARIMAX rotation was performed using the total sample. This method extracted a five-
factor model that included 40 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion criterion. A total of
56.587 percent of the variance was explained by the five-factor model. This is slightly
less than the general guideline that the number of factors to extract should account for
approximately 60 percent of the total variance in the observed variable set.
While principal components analysis was the primary extraction method used for
the pilot study, maximum likelihood with VARIMAX rotation was also utilized so that
the results from both methods could be compared. According to Johnson and Wichern
172
(2002), if the two methods produce similar results, this provides further evidence that the
analysis has identified the “true” factors. The five-factor model using maximum
likelihood included 38 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion criterion and explained 50.995
percent of the variance.
Results from the two methods of extraction produced similar, though not
identical, factors. Factors 3 and 5 were identical. Factor 1 produced similar results from
the two methods although two items using maximum likelihood extraction were not
included using principal components extraction. Factors 2 and 4 showed overlap of
items. Specifically, some items that loaded high on Factor 2 using principal components
loaded high on Factor 4 using maximum likelihood. On the other hand, some items that
loaded high on either Factor 2 or Factor 4 using principal components did not load high
on either factor using maximum likelihood. Therefore, it was assumed that Factors 2 and
4 were not strongly differentiable.
Additionally, several items loaded high on more than one factor, which indicated
that the items may provide information about more than one underlying factor. The other
possible interpretation was that the factors were not truly distinct. Furthermore, two
items, 13 (financial aid) and 32 (friendship support), did not load high on any of the
factors using either method of extraction. This indicated that these items did not correlate
high with the item grouping identified by the five-factor model. More specific, these
items did not provide information on any of the underlying factors identified by the
model.
173
Results from a Four-Factor Model. Principal components analysis with
VARIMAX rotation was once again performed using the total sample. This method
extracted a four-factor model that included 40 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion
criterion. A total of 53.574 percent of the variance was explained by the four-factor
model. Like the five-factor model, this is less than the general guideline used in the
social sciences. Maximum likelihood method of extraction was also employed as a
means of comparison. Using maximum likelihood, a four-factor model was extracted
that included 40 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion criterion and explained 48.876 percent
of the variance.
Like the five-factor model, results from the factor analysis using each of the two
methods of extraction produced similar, though not identical, factors. All four factors
were similar although for Factors 1, 3 and 4, some items not included using principal
components analysis were included using maximum likelihood and vice versa. Factor 2
consisted of the exact same items for both methods of extraction. Yet, unlike the five-
factor model, none of the factors appeared to overlap. On the other hand, like the five-
factor model, Items 13 (financial aid) and 32 (friendship support) did not load high on
any of the four factors. Several of the other items also loaded high on more than one
factor, which indicated that the items provide information about more than one
underlying factor and the factors were not truly distinct.
Comparison of Factor Models. The results for the five-factor and four-factor
models were very similar. Several factors consisted of the same items and two items (13
and 32), regardless of extraction method, did not load on any of the factor models. Each
174
model also explained a similar percentage of the total variance. However, a major
argument supporting the extraction of five rather than four factors is that the percent of
total variance extracted from the five-factor model was larger than the four-factor model.
With a lesser percent of total variance extracted, the possibility of getting a simple,
interpretable factor structure with the four factors is not as likely as it would be with five
factors. On the other hand, a major argument supporting the extraction of four rather
than five factors is based upon the principle of parsimony. The goal of principal
components analysis is to use the smallest number of explanatory concepts to explain a
larger number of variables; therefore, a four-factor model is more parsimonious.
Following the results from the principal components analysis, the factors and
items were examined to determine their conceptual appropriateness. While it was
originally hypothesized that the results would yield a five-factor model based upon a
review of the literature, a four-factor model was deemed conceptually more appropriate
for the pilot study. Table 4.11 outlines the factors, item loadings, communalities,
eigenvalues for each factor, and percentage of variance accounted for by each factor for
the four-factor model. For those items that loaded on more than one factor, the final
decision on where to include the item was based upon a conceptual perspective. For
example, Item 19 had a loading of .599 on Factor 1 and a loading of .443 on Factor 4.
Statistically, because of the higher factor loading, it was assumed that Item 19 would be
included in Factor 1; however, conceptually, Item 19 fit more appropriately with Factor
4. Therefore, in such cases, decisions were based upon a conceptual perspective rather
than a statistical one.
175
For the two items that did not load on any of the factors, communality values
were assessed to determine whether the item met acceptable levels of explanation. The
communalities for each variable represented the amount of variance accounted for by the
factor model for each variable. Hair et al. (1998) suggested that communalities with less
than .50 do not have sufficient explanation; yet, consideration for deletion also depends
on the item’s overall contribution to the research. Both Item 13 and Item 32 had
communality values that were lower than the .50 standard (.235 and .316 respectively), so
neither was included in the final factor model derived for the pilot study. However, due
to their overall contribution to the research, both items were still included in Version 3 of
the questionnaire, which was used for the final study, to either validate or rescind the
results of the pilot study. The communality values of several other items also did not
meet the .50 standard recommended by Hair et al. Yet, these items achieved factor
loadings that were both practically and statistically significant; thus, they were not
deleted and were included in the four-factor model.
176
VARIMAX-Rotated Loadings
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Communality
X4 - Being presented with a variety of times for which to take classes .483 .349
X6 - Having the study skills to achieve in the classroom .628 .551
X8 - Meeting my own academic goals .631 .511

X9 - Being able to choose from a variety of different courses that will fulfill
.671 .532
my graduation requirements
X14 - Sense that this college was the right choice for me .520 .371
X15 - Playing for an athletics department that rewards me for my academic
.479 .520
performance
X16 - Being certain about the major I choose .720 .613
X17 - Having sufficient time to attend to my academic responsibilities .751 .631

X18 - Knowing that graduation course requirements are connected to my
.713 .565
177
future career goals

X20 - Having a sense that my college experience has helped me grow as a
.423 .491
person
X21 - Attending classes on a regular basis .576 .481
X28 - Opportunity for career advancement (non-athletic related) .617 .398

X37 - Playing for an athletics department that provides me with the resources
.634 .578
and services I need to excel academically
X38 - Being admitted into the major I am most interested in .747 .612
Table 4.11: VARIMAX-Rotated Component Analysis Factor Matrix for Pilot Study (Continued)
177
Table 4.11 (cont.)
X40 - Knowing that my required classes are connected to my major .722 .613
X41 - Feeling satisfied with my college academic excellence .738 .661
X42 - Being confident in my academic abilities .746 .656
X5 - Feeling satisfied with my college athletic experience .511 .527
X10 - Opportunity for advancement to the professional sports level .596 .431
X12 - Receiving individual athletic awards (i.e., All-Conference & All-
.669 .467
American)
X22 - Having sufficient time to attend to my athletics responsibilities .634 .567
178
X25 - Being confident in my athletic abilities .755 .647

X29 - Having a coach who helps me achieve my athletic goals .622 .654
X30 - Playing time in games .804 .649
X33 - Playing for a team who has a winning record .737 .575
X36 - Having teammates who support my athletic goals .506 .627
X1 - Having teammates who support my academic goals .742 .643
X3 - Having a coach who helps me achieve my academic goals .524 .502
(Continued)
178
Table 4.11 (cont.)
X7 - Having friends with similar personal interests .490 .350
X26 - Having a sense of loyalty to my college .491 .397

X35 - Playing for an athletics department that expects me to excel in the
.543 .622
classroom
X39 - Having teammate who respect me for doing well academically .601 .557
X2 - Interacting with my instructors outside of class .620 .541
X11 - Interacting with my instructors during class .530 .490

X19 - Access to my college academic advisor for class scheduling .443 .616
X23 - Involvement in special interest groups on campus (i.e., religious,
179
.614 .476
political, academic)
X24 - Access to my college academic advisor for career counseling .661 .646
X27 - Involvement in extracurricular activities on campus .565 .548
X31 - Access to my athletic counselor for eligibility counseling .580 .642
X34 - Access to personal counseling services .683 .645
Eigenvalues 15.036 3.603 2.128 1.734
Percentage variance 35.800 8.579 5.067 4.128
179
Once all variables with significant loadings were assigned to a factor, each factor
within the four-factor model was assigned a label that accurately reflected the variables
that loaded on that factor. Variables with higher loadings were considered to be more
important and had a greater influence on the chosen label. A more detailed description of
each factor and the variables representing the underlying dimensions of each factor are
described below.
Factor 1: Quality of Academic Experience
The 17 items contained in Factor 1 have factor loadings ranging from .423 and
.751, an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .936, and includes variables that
relate to a student-athlete’s experience as a student and not an athlete. The quality of
their academic experience is defined by a student-athlete’s interaction with their
institution, such as timing of courses, variety of course offerings, ease of declaring a
major, institutional fit, and the relevancy of their coursework. Additional variables relate
to their interaction with their athletics department. These include the level of resources
and services the athletics department provides to it student-athletes and acknowledgment
by the department for their academic performance. The remaining variables focus on a
student-athlete’s ability to manage their academic responsibilities, while meeting their
academic goals, gaining some level of satisfaction, self-confidence and self-development
from the experience, and believing their collegiate academic experience is linked to
future career goals. Therefore, the quality of a student-athlete’s academic experience is
judged by the student-athletes themselves based upon their interactions with their
institution and athletics department, the ability of these entities to fulfill their needs as
180
students and acknowledge them for their progression as students, and their own feelings
of whether or not they are gaining something from their academic experience.
Factor 2: Quality of Athletic Experience
The nine items contained in Factor 2 have factor loadings ranging from .506 and
.804, an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .842, and includes variables that
relate to a student-athlete’s experience as an athlete and not a student. The quality of
their athletic experience is defined by a student-athlete’s interaction with their coach and
teammates, specifically associated with assisting in the achievement of athletic goals.
The quality of their athletic experience is also based upon the level of recognition a
student-athlete receives for their athletic skills as defined by individual athletic awards,
team athletic achievement, playing time in competitions, and the opportunity to play
professionally. Like in Factor 1, the quality of their athletic experience is also based
upon a student-athlete’s ability to manage their athletics responsibilities and achieve
some level of satisfaction and self-confidence from this experience.
While Factor 1, quality of academic experience, presented several of the same
elements found in the academic integration factor often found in traditional models of
retention, the emergence of Factor 2 validates the argument that the student-athlete
retention process is inherently different from that of the non-athlete. In no other model of
student retention did a factor recognize the influence of the coach and teammates, sense
of satisfaction in athletics, playing time, recognition for athletic achievements, or any
other athletics issues that are relevant to a student-athlete. It is expected that the
presence of these aspects would be important considerations to why student-athletes stay
181
in school and thus need to be validated and explored further in order to gain a better
understanding of the student-athlete retention process.
Factor 3: In-Network Support
The five items contained in Factor 3 have factor loadings ranging from .490 and
.742 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .824. The variables associated
with this factor relate to the importance of a support network within the retention process,
but specifically a network associated with the athletics system. For instance, this factor
focuses on the support a student-athlete receives from their coach and teammates in
regards to their role as a student. Factor 3 also focuses on the degree to which the
athletics department expects their student-athletes to excel in the classroom. Support for
their role as a student, therefore, comes from not just assisting in the achievement of
academic goals, but also in the expectation that these goals are met.
Factor 4: Out-of-Network Support
The nine items contained in Factor 4 have factor loadings ranging from .443 and
.683 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .854. Factor 4 includes items that
relate to the support a student-athlete receives from those not directly associated to
athletics and in the form of student support services needed to assist in their role as a
student. This includes support in the area of class scheduling, career development,
personal counseling, and eligibility. It also includes their involvement in activities
outside of athletics, such as student organizations and special interest groups, as well as
their interactions with faculty inside and outside the classroom.
182
The focus on the quality of the academic and athletic experience is a departure
from previous models of traditional student retention, which have often highlighted the
degree to which a student integrates into the systems of the institution. In these previous
models, integration focused on the degree to which the individual shares the normative
attitudes and values of their peers and faculty and abides by the formal and informal
structural requirements within each domain of the institution. Often this is determined by
understanding the interactions between the student and the educational environment. The
shift from focusing on integration to emphasizing quality does not ignore how influential
interactions can be to the retention process. The only difference is that for student-
athletes, there is limited need to integrate into the academic and social systems of the
institution since their status as student-athletes in some way already integrates them into
the institution as a whole via the athletics system. This is because many Division I
athletics departments have organized their departments to represent mini versions of the
entire institution, which leads many student-athletes to believe that there are no other
domains of the institution except for the athletics system. Additionally, while the
student-athlete population is not a homogeneous group, in order to succeed at the
Division I level, student-athletes need to share the normative attitudes and values of their
peers and need to abide by the formal and informal structural requirements of the
athletics system in order to excel athletically and fulfill their roles as athletes. Therefore,
there is no need to integrate since assuming the role of student-athlete already means you
are a part of the athletics system, which again is just a subset of the entire institution that
includes both academic and social components. The focus of the retention process then
183
becomes on the quality of the student-athlete’s academic and athletic experience within
athletics system and the level of in-network and out-of network support they are
receiving, which are all defined by their interactions over time.
Reliability Analysis
A series of diagnostic measures were used to assess the instrument’s level of
reliability or internal consistency. The first diagnostic measure determined the internal
consistency of each separate item. This was done by examining the inter-item
correlations or correlations among items. Hair et al. (1998) stated that the rule of thumb
suggest that the inter-item correlations exceed .30. Table 4.9 provides the correlation
matrix for the pilot data. An examination of the matrix revealed a moderate amount of
correlations below the .30 standard, which raised initial questions about the internal
consistency of the instrument.
The second diagnostic measure used Cronbach’s alpha to determine the internal
consistency of the entire instrument. Based upon the pilot data, the instrument as a
whole had an internal consistency of .949 and .954 based upon standardized items, which
indicated that over 90 percent of the variance in scores is due to true variance leaving less
than 10 percent due to error. These values indicated that the instrument is highly reliable.
When splitting the items of the instrument into two halves, the first half had an internal
consistency of .904, the second half yielded an internal consistency of .910, and the
correlation between these halves was .858, indicating a high degree of correlation
between the two halves of the instrument. Since the split-half reliability coefficients are
184
very conservative estimates of reliability, the Spearman-Brown formula was used to
statistically correct the obtained reliability coefficients. The application of this correction
formula yielded a reliability coefficient of .924, which again indicated that the instrument
as a whole is highly reliable.
The internal consistency of each factor in the four-factor model for the pilot study
was also determined. The same procedures that were used to determine the internal
consistency of the entire instrument were used for each factor. Overall, results indicated
that each extracted factor was highly reliable because at least for each factor, over 80
percent of the variance in scores was due to true variance and not error. Table 4.12
outlines the reliability coefficients for each of the four factors.
Cronbach’s Alpha Spearman-Brown

Factor Cronbach’s Alpha (Based on standardized items) Coefficient
1 .936 .938 .906

2 .842 .855 .817
3 .824 .824 .817
4 .854 .856 .851
Table 4.12: Factor Reliability Coefficients for Pilot Study
185
Final Study
An analysis of the pilot study data revealed very interesting perceptions about the
student-athlete retention process. The relationship between the student-athlete and the
coach was determined to be vastly more important than student-faculty interactions.
Actually student-faculty interactions was ranked amongst the lowest in terms of variables
perceived to be important to the retention process. Other athletically-related variables
were found to be important amongst different groups of student-athletes. Sense of self-
confidence in athletics was important to Black/African-American and freshmen
respondents, whereas management of athletics responsibilities was perceived important
by fifth year seniors. Most notably, the results of the pilot study revealed that the
“Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire was highly reliable
and the original variable set can be condense to a four-factor model of student-athlete
retention with a minimum loss of information. However, the pilot study was only a dress
rehearsal for the final study. Based upon the results of this trial run, corrections were
made to the data collection procedures, sampling method, instrument construction, and
other areas of the study. The subsequent sections outline the results of the final, full-
scale study on the student-athlete retention process.
Sample
A total of 350 student-athletes from 16 varsity sports (N = 508) participated in the
final study. Within this sample, cases were excluded listwise, leaving 330 observations
included in the analysis. This represented a response rate of 65 percent for the final
186
study. Data were collected from participants in the following sports: baseball, football,
men’s golf, men’s swimming and diving, men’s track and field, men’s volleyball, men’s
waterpolo, women’s basketball, women’s golf, women’s rowing, women’s soccer,
women’s swimming and diving, women’s tennis, women’s track and field, women’s
volleyball, and women’s waterpolo. Table 4.13 presents the descriptive statistics for the
final sample.
Variable n Percent
By Gender:
Male 168 50.9
Female 162 49.1
By Sport:
Baseball 27 8.2
Football 60 18.2
Men’s Golf 5 1.5
Men’s Swimming & Diving 17 5.2
Men’s Track & Field 30 9.1
Men’s Volleyball 15 4.5
Men’s Waterpolo 14 4.2
Women’s Basketball 10 3.0
Women’s Golf 8 2.4
Women’s Rowing 38 11.5
Women’s Soccer 19 5.8
Women’s Swimming & Diving 11 3.3
Women’s Tennis 11 3.3
Women’s Track & Field 35 10.6
Women’s Volleyball 8 2.4
Women’s Waterpolo 22 6.7
Table 4.13: Descriptive Statistics for Final Study (Continued)
187
Table 4.13 (cont.)
Variable n Percent
By Race/Ethnicity:
Asian 20 6.1
Black/African-American 61 18.6
Hispanic 23 7.0
Native American 2 0.6
White/Caucasian 207 63.1
Other 15 4.6
By Class Rank:
Freshman 126 38.2
Sophomore 80 24.3
Junior 73 22.2
th
th
By Scholarship Status:
Full Scholarship 131 39.8
Partial Scholarship 59 17.9
Non-Scholarship 139 42.2
By Athletics Eligibility Status:
1 Year Remaining 64 19.5
Exhausted Eligibility 39 11.9
By Red-Shirt Status:
Yes 113 34.5
No 215 65.5
By NCAA Clearinghouse Status:
Qualifier 320 97.6
Partial Qualifier 0 0.0
Non-Qualifier 1 0.3
Not Applicable – Transfer 7 2.1
Other 0 0.0
(Continued)
188
Table 4.13 (cont.)
Variable n Percent
By College Cumulative GPA (Self-Reported):
4.00 to 3.50 45 14.0
3.49 to 3.00 101 31.5
2.99 to 2.50 99 30.8
2.49 to 2.00 61 19.0
Below 2.00 15 4.7
By Highest SAT Score (Self-Reported):
0-500 0 0.0
501-800 4 1.2
801-1000 87 26.9
1001-1300 162 50.2
1301-1600 58 18.0
By Highest ACT Score (Self-Reported):
0-12 0 0.0
13-19 12 3.7
20-25 24 7.4
26-30 27 8.4
31-36 12 3.7
By High School Cumulative GPA (Self-Reported):
4.00 to 3.50 182 57.1
3.49 to 3.00 97 30.4
2.99 to 2.50 34 10.7
2.49 to 2.00 6 1.9
Below 2.00 0 0.0
By Family’s Socioeconomic Status:
$20,000 or Less 18 5.9
$20,001 to $35,000 32 10.5
$35,001 to $50,000 37 12.2
$50,001 to $100,000 78 25.7
$100,001 or More 139 45.7
(Continued)
189
Table 4.13 (cont.)
Variable n Percent
By Mother’s Educational Level:
High School 36 11.2
College 122 37.9
By Father’s Educational Level:
High School 35 10.9
College 107 33.2
Based on the descriptive statistics, there was an approximately equal
representation of males (50.9%) and females (49.1%) within the sample.
White/Caucasian student-athletes comprised the majority of the respondents (63.1%) with
the remaining respondents identifying themselves as Asian (6.1%), Black/African-
American (18.6%), Hispanic (7 %), Native American (0.6%), and Other (4.6%). More
than half of the sample included freshmen and sophomores (38.2% and 24.3%
respectively) with the remaining portion of the sample including a moderate amount of
juniors and few senior level student-athletes.
Approximately 60 percent of the respondents receive some form of athletics
grant-in-aid (i.e, full and partial scholarships). Several respondents have at least two to
three years of athletics eligibility remaining and many did not red-shirt at any point in
190
their athletics career. A vast majority of the respondents were qualifiers based upon their
NCAA Clearinghouse initial athletics eligibility certification (97.6%). Most respondents
self-reported that they have a college cumulative grade point average between a 3.49 to
3.00 (31.5%) and 2.99 to 2.50 (30.8%); however, 80 percent of the respondents self-
reported that they had a cumulative high school grade point average above a 3.0. A very
small percent of the respondents took the ACT. Instead, the majority of the respondents
took the SAT with approximately 50 percent of them scoring between 1,000-1,300 and
18 percent scoring above 1,300. Over 45 percent of the respondents classified their
family’s socioeconomic status above $100,000, while on the other hand, 38 percent
indicated that their family’s socioeconomic status was below $50,000. Lastly, the
majority of the respondents’ parents graduated from college and several even pursued and
completed an advanced degree.
Retention Variables Perceived to be Most Important
Means, standard deviations, and variance were calculated for each of the 42 items
included in the instrument (Version 3). Table 4.14 outlines the variables that the
respondents perceived to be most important in their decision-making to stay in school.
Tables 4.15-4.18 breaks down these perceptions by gender, race/ethnicity, class rank, and
sport classification.
191

5.42 .959 .919
Item 9 – Variety of course offerings
“Being able to choose from a variety of different courses that will fulfill 5.41 .817 .667
my graduation requirements”
5.38 .929 .862
5.31 .946 .895
5.29 1.028 1.057
Table 4.14: Variables Perceived to be Most Important to Staying in School for

Final Study
Since college athletics demands so much from it student-athletes, often they have
limited time to attend to their academic responsibilities. It is, therefore, no surprise that
what was perceived to be most important to the respondents were variables that allow
student-athletes to effectively manage their academic responsibilities with the limited
time they have available. Specifically, three of the top five dealt with ease, choice, and
variety. Because of practice times and competition travel, student-athletes often have
small windows of time to schedule courses. Thus, being presented with a variety of times
for which to take classes and then being able to choose from a variety of different courses
to fulfill graduation requirements is extremely important to student-athletes because the
flexibility and variety gives them the opportunity to meet their academic responsibilities
while pursuing a college athletics career. If presented with more strict and inflexible
choices, the task of managing the student role would be a very daunting one, which could
negatively effect a student-athlete’s decision to stay in school.
192
While it was no surprise that these variables were ranked most important to a
student-athlete’s decision to stay in school, it is very surprising that only five of the top
20 retention variables student-athletes perceived to be important were related to their role
as an athlete. Of these five, feeling satisfied with my athletic experience received the
highest mean score (5.20), while having a coach who helps me achieve my athletic goals
received the next highest mean score (5.13). Such ratings were slightly different from
what was found in the pilot study, whereby the importance of the coach was ranked in the
top five for the pilot study respondents. Despite this, the role of coach in the retention
was seen as more important than the role of the faculty member, which is highly
emphasized in traditional models of student retention. Based on the data, both formal and
informal student-faculty interactions were ranked amongst the lowest based on item mean
scores. Formal student-faculty interactions earned a mean score of 3.95 and informal
student-faculty interactions received a mean score of 3.77. Again, this is in contrast to
the research conducted by Pascarella (1980) and others who expressed the importance of
these interactions in the student retention process; yet, such findings are consisted with
the literature on the college student-athlete experience which revealed the high degree of
influence a coach can have on the lives of his or her student-athletes and gives credence
to the necessity of examining the retention process of student-athletes apart from their
non-athlete peers.
When the results are examined by gender as outlined in Table 4.15, both genders
had similar perceptions of what was important to the retention process. The focus again
was on variety and choice. Where differences emerged was in which area of their college
193
experience a student-athlete needed to feel some level of satisfaction in order to stay in
school. For male respondents, feeling satisfied with their college athletic experience was
very important to their decision-making to stay in school. On the other hand, for female
respondents, feeling satisfied with their college academic experience was very important
to the retention process. Such results are consistent with the pilot data where male
respondents placed significant importance on their sense of athletics satisfaction and the
coach-player relationship, while female respondents placed more significant importance
on more academically-related variables.
By Male Student-Athletes (n = 168):

5.33 1.082 1.170
5.31 .979 .958
5.30 1.031 1.063
5.22 1.035 1.071
Table 4.15: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Gender for Final Study
(Continued)
194
Table 4.15 (cont.)
By Female Student-Athletes (n = 162):

5.51 .806 .649
5.45 .871 .758
5.43 .833 .693
5.41 .956 .915
When the results were examined by race/ethnicity as outlined in Table 4.16, the
results were very similar across the various racial/ethnic groups. Like the previous
results, there was much emphasis on academically-related variables, particularly those
associated with ease, choice, and variety in meeting their responsibilities as students.
Having a sense that their college was the right choice for them was also perceived to be
very important for respondents who identified themselves as Hispanic, White/Caucasian,
and Other. Additionally, being able to meet their academic goals was perceived to be
very important to Asian, Black/African-American, and White/Caucasian student-athletes.
What was very interesting, however, was that only the Hispanic student-athletes
ranked an athletically-related variable amongst the most important variables in the
retention process. Similar to male student-athletes, feeling satisfied with my college
athletic experience was perceived to be very important to the retention process for
Hispanic respondents. This is contrast to the findings of the pilot study which revealed
195
that only Black/African-American student-athletes placed significant importance on
athletically-related variables, such as opportunity to play professionally and athletic
support from their coach. For the Black/African-American respondents in the final study,
opportunity to play professionally had a mean score of 4.56, which ranked 31st out of the
42 variables included in the questionnaire.
Asian (n = 20):
5.70 .470 .221
5.65 .745 .555
5.60 .598 .358
5.55 .605 .366
5.40 .681 .463
5.40 .598 .358
Black/African-American (n = 61):
5.46 .808 .652
5.43 .991 .982
5.43 1.008 1.015
Item 20 – Sense of self-development
“Having a sense that my college experience has helped me grow as a 5.43 .784 .615
person”
Table 4.16: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Race/Ethnicity for Final Study
(Continued)
196
Table 4.16 (cont.)
Hispanic (n = 23):
5.78 .422 .178
5.78 .422 .178
Item 16 – Major certainty
5.74 .449 .202
“Being certain about the major I choose”
5.65 .714 .510
White/Caucasian (n = 207):
5.45 .885 .783
5.35 .851 .725
5.29 .876 .768
5.27 .981 .963
Other (n = 15):
study programs)”
5.20 1.014 1.029
Item 36 – Athletic support from teammates
5.13 1.598 2.552
“Having teammates who support my athletic goals”
5.07 1.335 1.781
Item 26 – Loyalty
5.00 1.558 2.429
“Having a sense of loyalty to my college”
197
Differences also emerged based on class rank. As outlined in Table 4.17, ease,
variety, and choice were common across the different class ranks. The concentration
again was on allowing the student-athlete the opportunity to effectively tackle their role
as student by offering courses at times that are convenient for them and in a format in
which they have a choice. Freshmen through fourth year seniors also perceived
institutional fit to be important to the retention process. Additionally, meeting my
academic goals was perceived to be very important to sophomores, juniors, and fourth
year seniors.
Very similar to the pilot data was the level of importance fifth year seniors placed
on athletically-related variables. In the final study, these respondents indicated that
athletic support from teammates and coach and management of athletics responsibilities
were amongst the most important variables within the retention process. For the fifth
year seniors, the comparative importance of athletically-related variables may have
occurred because for these student-athletes, they only had one more year to play and this
may have been their last opportunity to fulfill their athletic goals.
198
Freshmen (n = 126):
5.41 .897 .804
5.38 1.019 1.038
5.35 .906 .821
5.32 .977 .954
Sophomores (n = 80):
5.50 .796 .633
5.41 .990 .980
5.37 .877 .769
5.34 .779 .606
Table 4.17: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Class Rank for Final Study
(Continued)
199
Table 4.17 (cont.)
Juniors (n = 73):
5.45 .943 .890
5.44 .897 .805
5.44 .897 .805
5.42 .815 .664
5.41 .863 .745
5.49 .721 .520
5.38 1.042 1.085
5.38 .877 .769
5.36 .903 .815
5.33 .737 .544

study programs)”
Item 36 – Athletic support from teammates
5.55 .934 .873
“Having teammates who support my athletic goals”
5.45 .688 .473
5.36 1.502 2.255
200
Finally, the variables perceived to be most important were examined by sport
classification (high vs. low profile) as outlined in Table 4.18. For the final study,
baseball, football, women’s basketball, women’s soccer, and women’s tennis were
classified as high profile sports. On the other hand, men’s and women’s golf, men’s and
women’s swimming and diving, men’s and women’s track and field, men’s and women’s
volleyball, men’s and women’s waterpolo, and women’s rowing were classified as low
profile sports. Unlike in the pilot study, sport classification did not produced significant
differences in the retention variables perceived most important. Both groups ranked
variety of course offerings, institutional fit, and timing of courses amongst the most
important, which was a theme consistent across final study differentiations based on
gender, race/ethnicity, and class rank. Additionally, unlike the pilot study, only one
athletically-related variable was ranked amongst the most important. Those who
participate in high profile sports indicated that sense of athletics satisfaction was
important to the retention process, while ease of declaring a major and academic
performance rounded out the remaining variables perceived to be most important for
student-athletes participating in low profile sports. The apparent differences in the results
between the pilot and final study based on sport classification gives credence to the idea
that the academic culture of the institution may have a greater influence on the results
than sport classification or other attributes.
201
By Sport Classification – High Profile (n =127):

5.35 .987 .974
5.28 1.159 1.344
5.28 .942 .887
5.25 1.161 1.349
By Sport Classification – Low Profile (n = 203):

5.51 .798 .637
5.40 .892 .795
5.36 .898 .807
5.36 .987 .974
Table 4.18: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Sport Classification (High vs.
Low Profile) for Final Study
Retention Variables Perceived to be Least Important
Means, standard deviations, and variance were also calculated for those variables
that the respondents perceived to be least important to their decision-making to stay in
school. Table 4.19 presents the five least important retention variables amongst all
respondents.
202
Item 23 – Involvement in special interest groups
“Involvement in special interest groups on campus (i.e., religious, 3.15 1.549 2.398
political, academic)”
Item 27 – Involvement in extracurricular activities
3.51 1.500 2.251
“Involvement in extracurricular activities”
Item 1 – Academic support from teammates
3.77 1.599 2.556
“Having teammates support my academic goals”
Item 2 – Informal student-faculty interaction
3.77 1.422 2.021
“Interacting with my instructors outside of class”
Item 12 –Individual athletic achievement
“Receiving individual athletic awards (i.e., All-Conference & All- 3.78 1.765 3.115
American)”
Table 4.19: Variables Perceived to be Least Important to Staying in School for

Final Study
A consistent pattern continues to emerge within the results of this study. Once
again, time is an issue for student-athletes, which is one of the major differences observed
by Walter and Smith (1989) in their research on student-athletes versus non-athletes. In
this instance, the variables that received low mean scores were also those that would have
required student-athletes to devote time to these activities outside of the energy they must
give to their academic and athletics responsibilities. Due to the intensive nature of
college athletics, student-athletes are often so depleted from their athletics activities that
they barely have energy to attend to their academics let alone extracurricular activities,
special interest groups, and/or informal student-faculty interactions. Therefore, it is not
surprising that these variables are not as important as other issues in the retention process.
It is also not surprising that these results are consistent with what was revealed in the
pilot study because time is an issue confronted by all student-athletes, which only
203
validates the need to examine the retention process for student-athletes outside of their
non-athlete peers.
Like in the pilot study, the level of importance placed on teammate academic
support was minimal in comparison to the level of importance placed on coach academic
support and other retention variables. It is assumed that student-athletes rely more on
their coach (4.25), academic advisors (4.82) and athletic counselors (4.27) to assist them
in achieving their academic goals than they do their teammates. However, student-
athletes do rely on their teammates to assist them in achieving their athletic goals as
revealed by the level of importance the respondents placed on athletic support by
teammates (4.75).
It is important to understand that while these items did obtain the lowest mean
scores amongst all of the variables included in Version 3 of the questionnaire, these
variables are still very relevant to the student-athlete retention process. Each of these
variables was included in the final factor model derived from the final data and
contributed to a better understanding of the student-athlete retention process.
Intent to Leave
Intent to leave is a factor in most retention models that intervenes between
attitudes and behaviors. For instance, students who intend to leave will most likely not
remain in school and by asking a student if they intend to leave and the reasons why, an
institution can determine who is at risk and provide services that could address their
issues. While intent to leave was not a factor derived from the instrument, frequencies
204
and percents were calculated for those respondents who had thought about leaving school
early and for what reasons. Based upon the results, 66.7 percent of the respondents had
never thought about leaving school before graduating, which mirrors the results from the
pilot study. On the other hand, 33.3 percent had thought about leaving school at some
point during their college experience. Of these student-athletes, 60.5 percent were male
student-athletes, while 39.5 percent were female student-athletes. When the results were
analyzed by sport, 25.7 percent were football student-athletes, 16.5 percent were baseball
student-athletes, 11 percent were women’s track and field student-athletes, 7.3 were
men’s track and field student-athletes, and 5.5 percent were women’s swimming and
diving student-athletes. Upon further analysis, more than 50 percent of student-athletes
in the following sports indicated they had thought about leaving school at least once
during their college experience - baseball, women’s basketball, men’s golf, women’s
swimming and diving, and women’s track and field. When intent to leave was analyzed
by race/ethnicity, 5.5 percent identified themselves as Asian, 26.6 percent as
Black/African-American, 4.6 percent as Hispanic, 1.8 as Native American, 56.9 percent
as White/Caucasian, and 4.6 percent as Other. Finally, of the reasons why a student-
athlete had intentions of leaving school prior to graduating, opportunity to play
professionally (43 respondents) was the primary reason for leaving. This is consistent
with the results of the pilot study. Additional reasons for leaving included financial
realities (29 respondents) and for a reason specified as other (26 respondents).
Considering the differences that emerged when the pilot study results were
examined by intent to leave, retention variables perceived most important to the final
205
study participants were also examined based on intent to leave. Table 4.20 presents the
results for these two groups. Again, for those respondents who had intentions of leaving
school early, three of the most important variables in the retention process were related to
athletics. These respondents indicated that management of athletics responsibilities and
senses of athletics satisfaction and self-confidence in athletics were most important to
staying in school. This is in contrast to those who did not have intentions of leaving
school early. These respondents placed a higher level of importance on academically-
related variables, such as academic performance, ease of declaring a major, and
institutional fit. The only similarity found between the two groups was in the ranking of
timing and variety of courses amongst their most important retention variables. As with
the pilot study, intentions to leave school early played a significant role in what student-
athletes perceived to be important to the retention process.
By Intent to Leave – No (n =220):

5.48 .862 .774
5.47 .862 .743
5.43 .822 .676
5.40 .962 .926
Table 4.20: Variables Perceived to be Most Important by Intent to Leave for Final Study
(Continued)
206
Table 4.20 (cont.)
By Intent to Leave – Yes (n = 109):

5.29 1.125 1.265
5.28 1.121 1.257
5.21 .924 .853
5.21 1.306 1.705
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis was the statistical analysis technique used for the final
study. The following sections outline how the six-stage factor analysis decision-making
process was implemented for the final study.
Assumptions in Exploratory Factor Analysis
Correlation Matrix. A visual examination of the correlation matrix indicated that
few of the correlation coefficients were above the .30 standard, while a moderate number
of the coefficients were lower than .20. This visual examination of the correlation matrix
raised initial questions about the prospects of a successful factor analysis for the final
data set. Table 4.21 presents the correlation matrix for the final study.
207
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was conducted to assess
the overall significance of the correlation matrix. Specifically, it is a test of the following
statistical hypothesis:
H0: Correlation matrix = Identity matrix
H1: Correlation matrix ≠ Identity matrix
Based on the results, χ2 = 7093.982 with 861 d.f, p = 0.0000, we reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative because the results implied that the correlation
matrix was not the identity matrix. Since the correlation matrix was not equal to the
identity matrix, the items were considered collinear, and thus factorable. Therefore,
Bartlett’s test indicated that factor analysis was an appropriate method of analysis for the
final study.
208
Q1 1.00
Q2 0.47 1.00
Q3 0.54 0.44 1.00
Q4 0.21 0.24 0.30 1.00
Q5 0.27 0.17 0.16 0.21 1.00
Q6 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.22 1.00
Q7 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.24 0.11 1.00
Q8 0.23 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.53 0.21 1.00
Q9 0.20 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.18 0.31 0.17 0.42 1.00
Q10 0.12 0.14 0.03 -0.11 0.43 -0.01 0.18 -0.08 0.13 1.00
Q11 0.27 0.47 0.31 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.31 0.25 0.10 1.00
Q12 0.21 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.44 -0.06 0.23 -0.01 0.09 0.63 0.20 1.00
Q13 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.21 1.00
Q14 0.24 0.13 0.19 0.20 0.24 0.18 0.22 0.35 0.38 0.12 0.18 0.19 0.13 1.00
Q15 0.31 0.32 0.38 0.22 0.27 0.21 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.23 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.35 1.00
Q16 0.24 0.31 0.24 0.33 0.18 0.32 0.17 0.44 0.37 0.10 0.36 0.17 0.03 0.36 0.36 1.00
Q17 0.27 0.33 0.41 0.33 0.06 0.41 0.10 0.54 0.39 -0.08 0.30 0.01 0.10 0.26 0.31 0.58 1.00
Q18 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.09 0.34 0.14 0.46 0.38 0.05 0.34 0.08 0.10 0.20 0.33 0.49 0.54 1.00
Q19 0.35 0.40 0.36 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.16 0.24 0.34 0.13 0.42 0.15 0.09 0.29 0.35 0.41 0.43 0.46 1.00
Q20 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.29 0.05 0.26 0.12 0.08 0.42 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.32 0.35 1.00
Q21 0.28 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.02 0.40 0.01 0.43 0.18 -0.13 0.37 -0.04 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.29 0.41 0.39 0.33 0.22 1.00
Q22 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.25 0.44 0.13 0.16 0.04 0.21 0.39 0.16 0.43 0.18 0.25 0.27 0.32 0.18 0.15 0.31 0.21 0.16
Q23 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.16 0.19 0.16 0.12 -0.10 0.33 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.24 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.24 0.25
Q24 0.33 0.38 0.37 0.27 0.17 0.41 0.10 0.30 0.33 0.05 0.41 0.12 0.13 0.22 0.30 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.63 0.34 0.36
Q25 0.28 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.59 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.19 0.56 0.21 0.57 0.14 0.29 0.41 0.22 0.12 0.13 0.32 0.25 0.05
209
Q26 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.36 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.19 0.29 0.04 0.46 0.30 0.25 0.16 0.11 0.21 0.30 0.02
Q27 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.03 -0.01 0.14 0.21 0.18 0.07 -0.10 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.21 0.16 0.22 0.21 0.10 0.28 0.26
Q28 0.14 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.25 0.03 0.33 0.21 -0.08 0.19 0.02 0.14 0.33 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.09 0.28 0.21
Q29 0.37 0.19 0.33 0.26 0.52 0.09 0.22 0.05 0.13 0.33 0.20 0.43 0.20 0.21 0.33 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.25 0.06
Q30 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.45 0.00 0.22 -0.01 0.14 0.51 0.03 0.58 0.21 0.23 0.32 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.16 -0.08
Q31 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.37 0.25 0.12 0.16 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.38 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.31 0.53 0.30 0.30
Q32 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.19 0.20 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.09 0.23 0.19 0.08 0.35 0.31 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.44 0.13
Q33 0.17 0.05 0.05 -0.01 0.37 -0.05 0.24 -0.08 0.13 0.47 0.04 0.55 0.12 0.16 0.31 0.12 -0.06 -0.01 0.10 0.17 -0.13
Q34 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.12 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.15 0.44 0.31 0.15 0.26 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.48 0.33 0.34
Q35 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.24 0.17 0.36 0.13 0.44 0.23 0.03 0.45 0.15 0.09 0.25 0.43 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.49 0.34 0.48
Q36 0.40 0.21 0.22 0.08 0.43 0.03 0.39 0.05 0.14 0.30 0.21 0.37 0.09 0.26 0.34 0.19 0.04 0.08 0.24 0.29 0.05
Q37 0.36 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.24 0.40 0.15 0.36 0.30 0.07 0.36 0.11 0.10 0.25 0.41 0.37 0.44 0.39 0.58 0.37 0.43
Q38 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.41 0.17 0.31 0.23 0.37 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.07 0.13 0.35 0.37 0.55 0.50 0.46 0.39 0.31 0.35
Q39 0.52 0.41 0.43 0.18 0.14 0.26 0.32 0.31 0.20 0.02 0.36 0.17 0.12 0.22 0.45 0.34 0.36 0.33 0.36 0.31 0.35
Q40 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.18 0.24 0.18 0.36 0.30 0.12 0.28 0.14 0.15 0.27 0.30 0.45 0.41 0.54 0.40 0.27 0.32
Q41 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.21 0.47 0.20 0.49 0.35 -0.04 0.34 -0.01 0.11 0.39 0.34 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.33 0.43 0.39
Q42 0.22 0.26 0.22 0.26 0.18 0.46 0.15 0.48 0.27 0.01 0.34 0.06 0.14 0.28 0.30 0.43 0.37 0.45 0.33 0.39 0.43
Table 4.21: Correlation Matrix for Final Study (Continued)
209
Table 4.21 (cont.)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
210
Q22 1.00
Q23 0.03 1.00
Q24 0.24 0.37 1.00
Q25 0.54 0.04 0.23 1.00
Q26 0.27 0.09 0.28 0.41 1.00
Q27 0.04 0.66 0.26 0.05 0.23 1.00
Q28 0.13 0.22 0.21 0.05 0.29 0.26 1.00
Q29 0.52 0.09 0.21 0.64 0.32 0.04 0.19 1.00
Q30 0.41 0.02 0.08 0.64 0.32 0.09 0.11 0.50 1.00
Q31 0.44 0.18 0.50 0.48 0.27 0.16 0.08 0.41 0.36 1.00
Q32 0.07 0.26 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.32 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.24 1.00
Q33 0.34 0.04 0.09 0.53 0.31 0.12 0.08 0.38 0.57 0.30 0.32 1.00
Q34 0.26 0.34 0.54 0.30 0.29 0.39 0.20 0.26 0.23 0.51 0.35 0.24 1.00
Q35 0.23 0.23 0.47 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.27 0.15 0.39 0.34 0.10 0.55 1.00
Q36 0.42 0.13 0.21 0.56 0.38 0.12 0.02 0.54 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.30 0.30 1.00
Q37 0.25 0.13 0.47 0.35 0.22 0.15 0.23 0.29 0.18 0.47 0.28 0.16 0.42 0.59 0.33 1.00
Q38 0.26 0.16 0.37 0.20 0.24 0.16 0.39 0.27 0.09 0.28 0.25 0.05 0.24 0.39 0.22 0.49 1.00
Q39 0.18 0.23 0.35 0.27 0.22 0.29 0.18 0.29 0.16 0.28 0.44 0.21 0.41 0.58 0.44 0.45 0.33 1.00
Q40 0.22 0.18 0.33 0.19 0.12 0.21 0.32 0.25 0.09 0.39 0.27 0.14 0.30 0.42 0.21 0.44 0.58 0.38 1.00
Q41 0.12 0.22 0.36 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.50 0.19 0.03 0.25 0.35 -0.03 0.28 0.48 0.19 0.48 0.56 0.34 0.53 1.00
Q42 0.19 0.18 0.36 0.23 0.17 0.19 0.36 0.22 0.10 0.32 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.53 0.23 0.52 0.52 0.35 0.48 0.71 1.00
210
Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA). MSA is an index for comparing the
magnitude of the observed correlation coefficients to the magnitude of the partial
correlation coefficients. The MSA for the correlation matrix was .906. Based on Hair et
al.’s (1998) guidelines, the MSA value for the matrix indicated that factor analysis was
appropriate.
Like the pilot study, the most positive indicators for a successful factor analysis of
the observed data set were Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the MSA value for the
correlation matrix. A visual examination of the correlation matrix raised some initial
questions regarding the appropriateness of factor analysis for the data set; yet, the
strength of the other statistical tests indicated that factor analysis was an appropriate
method of analysis for the final study.
Statistical Procedures
Principal components analysis was the primary method of extraction used for the
final study. This initial extraction produced principal components equal to the number of
variables in the original variable set; yet, after the initial solution was derived, the Kaiser
criterion was used to gain a better representation of the data. The Kaiser criterion
extracted a ten-factor model. On the other hand, an examination of the cumulative
percentage of total variance uncovered an eight-factor model using the 60 percent
standard utilized in the social sciences (Hair et al., 1998). Table 4.22 outlines the results
from this initial extraction of factors as expressed by their eigenvalues and the cumulative
percentage of total variance accounted for by these factors.
211
Cumulative Percent of
Factor Eigenvalue Percent of Variance
Variance
1 11.811 28.121 28.121

2 4.621 11.003 39.123
3 2.021 4.812 43.935
4 1.971 4.693 48.628
5 1.477 3.516 52.144
6 1.268 3.020 55.164
7 1.236 2.942 58.106
8 1.171 2.787 60.893
9 1.092 2.600 63.494
10 1.011 2.407 65.901
Table 4.22: Results for the Initial Extraction of Component Factors for Final Study
As a means of identifying the optimum number of factors to extract, the scree test
criterion was used. Figure 4.2 illustrates the scree plot for the final study. Looking at
this plot, the bend is at component 4. Components 3 and 4 appear to be equal, which is
followed by a drop to component 5. The difference between any two components after
component 4 is approximately equal and less than the difference between components 2,
3, and 4. Thus, the scree plot revealed that extracting a four-factor model was most
appropriate; however, as the pilot study and previous research indicated, a five-factor
model may also be an appropriate factor solution. The results of both a four-factor and
five-factor model were, therefore, analyzed and compared.
212
12
10
8
Eigenvalue
41
21
23
25
27
29
5
31
37
3
7
9
33
35
39
1
11
13
15
17
19
Component Number
Figure 4.2: Eigenvalue Plot for Scree Test Criterion for Final Study
Results from a Four-Factor Model. Principal components analysis with
VARIMAX rotation was performed using the total sample. This method extracted a four-
factor model that included 41 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion criterion. A total of
48.628 percent of the variance was explained by the four-factor model, which is less than
the general guideline used in the social sciences. Maximum likelihood method of
extraction was also employed as a means of comparison. Using maximum likelihood, a
four-factor model was extracted that included 41 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion
criterion and explained 43.477 percent of the variance.
213
Results from the factor analysis using each of the two methods of extraction
produced very similar results. Several items loaded onto more than one factor, while
Item 13 did not load on any factor. Such a result is consistent with the results of the pilot
study. Based on the two methods, plots of the factor scores again indicated very high
agreement, but also indicated the possibility of outliers.
Results from a Five-Factor Model. Principal components analysis with
VARIMAX rotation was once again performed using the total sample. This method
extracted a five-factor model that included 40 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion criterion.
A total of 52.144 percent of the variance was explained by the five-factor model. As a
means of comparison, maximum likelihood method of extraction was also used. This
method extracted 40 items with 46.070 percent of the variance explained by the factor
solution.
Results from the two methods of analysis produced very similar results. As with
the five-factor model, several items loaded onto more than one factor, of which most of
these items loaded on Factor 1 and another factor. On the other hand, Item 13 and 15 did
not load onto any factor. Plots of the factor scores based on the two methods of
extraction indicated very high agreement amongst the factors. The plots also indicated
the possibility of outliers in the data, particularly with respect to the plots for Factors 1
and 3.
Comparison of Factor Models. The results for the four-factor and five-factor
models were similar. In both models, many of the factors shared many of the same items;
however, there appeared to be less overlapping of items within the four-factor model than
214
the five-factor model. Additionally, Item 15, which did not load on any factor in the five-
factor model, did load on Factor 2 in the four-factor model. Each model also explained a
similar percentage of the total variance. Yet, like in the pilot study, a major argument for
supporting the five-factor model is that the percent of total variance explained was
greater for the this model than for the four-factor model. Conversely, a major argument
supporting the four-factor model is that this model is more parsimonious, which is the
goal of principal components analysis.
As the determining criterion for deriving the factor solution, the results from the
principal components analysis were examined for their conceptual appropriateness.
Consistent with the pilot study, the four-factor model was deemed conceptually more
appropriate. Table 4.23 outlines the factors, item loadings, communalities, eigenvalues
of each factor, and percentage of variance accounted for by each factor for the four-factor
model. For those items that loaded on more than one factor, the final decision on where
to include the item was based upon a conceptual perspective.
For Item 13, which did not load on any factor, the communality value was
assessed to determine whether the item met acceptable levels of explanation. This item
produced a communality value of .065, which is extremely below the .50 standard
recommended by Hair et al. (1998). Yet, consideration for deletion is also dependent on
the the item’s overall contribution to the research. Research has demonstrated that
financial aid is strongly correlated to student retention; however, since this item also did
not load on any of the factors in the factor model produced in the pilot study, this item
was deleted despite its contribution to the research. Future studies using the
215
“Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire should consider
including an item related to financial aid, but the item must be rewritten and reassessed
for clarity and content validity. The communality values of other items also did not meet
the .50 standard. These items, however, achieved factor loadings that were both
practically and statistically significant. In effect, they were not deleted and were included
in the final factor model derived for this study.
216
X4 - Being presented with a variety of times for which to take classes .461 .294
X6 - Having the study skills to achieve in the classroom .546 .383
X8 - Meeting my own academic goals .672 .528

X9 - Being able to choose from a variety of different courses that will fulfill
.537 .335
my graduation requirements
X14 - Sense that this college was the right choice for me .524 .448
X16 - Being certain about the major I choose .605 .481
X17 - Having sufficient time to attend to my academic responsibilities .591 .536

X18 - Knowing that graduation course requirements are connected to my
.577 .483
future career goals
X20 - Having a sense that my college experience has helped me grow as a
217
.390 .397
person
X21 - Attending classes on a regular basis .390 .463
X28 - Opportunity for career advancement (non-athletic related) .556 .408

X37 - Playing for an athletics department that provides me with the resources
.472 .549
and services I need to excel academically
X38 - Being admitted into the major I am most interested in .705 .565
X40 - Knowing that my required classes are connected to my major .591 .449
Table 4.23: VARIMAX-Rotated Component Analysis Factor Matrix for Final Study (Continued)
217
Table 4.23 (cont.)
X41 - Feeling satisfied with my college academic excellence .751 .654
X42 - Being confident in my academic abilities .668 .543
X5 - Feeling satisfied with my college athletic experience .676 .497
X10 - Opportunity for advancement to the professional sports level .722 .548
X12 - Receiving individual athletic awards (i.e., All-Conference & All-
.744 .580
American)
X15 - Playing for an athletics department that rewards me for my academic
.373 .395
performance
X22 - Having sufficient time to attend to my athletics responsibilities .634 .500
218
X25 - Being confident in my athletic abilities .825 .727
X26 - Having a sense of loyalty to my college .444 .366
X29 - Having a coach who helps me achieve my athletic goals .682 .532
X30 - Playing time in games .774 .615
X33 - Playing for a team who has a winning record .701 .554
X36 - Having teammates who support my athletic goals .623 .529
X1 - Having teammates who support my academic goals .574 .438
(Continued)
218
Table 4.23 (cont.)
X2 - Interacting with my instructors outside of class .669 .477
X3 - Having a coach who helps me achieve my academic goals .587 .404
X11 - Interacting with my instructors during class .563 .405
X19 - Access to my college academic advisor for class scheduling .630 .584
X24 - Access to my college academic advisor for career counseling .628 .523
X31 - Access to my athletic counselor for eligibility counseling .497 .534
X34 - Access to personal counseling services .596 .553

X35 - Playing for an athletics department that expects me to excel in the
219
.582 .574
classroom
X39 - Having teammate who respect me for doing well academically .543 .523
X7 - Having friends with similar personal interests .489 .350

X23 - Involvement in special interest groups on campus (i.e., religious,
.596 .485
political, academic)
X27 - Involvement in extracurricular activities on campus .720 .588
X32 – Friendship support .646 .560
Eigenvalues 11.811 4.621 2.021 1.971
Percentage variance 28.121 11.003 4.812 4.693
219
Factor 1: Quality of Academic Experience
.751 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .899. Consistent with the factor
model extracted in the pilot study, the variables included in this factor relate to a student-
athlete’s experience as a student and not an athlete. Again, the focus was on the quality
of the academic experience and not the student-athlete’s ability to integrate into the
academic system of the institution. An evaluation of the quality of the academic
experience is based on the student-athlete’s interaction with the institution as defined by
the timing and variety of the course offerings, ease of declaring a major, and the
relevancy of the coursework. Quality is also defined by the student-athlete’s interaction
with their athletics department. This interaction is based on the types of academic
support services the department provides to the student-athlete. On another level, the
quality of the academic experience is also defined by the student-athlete’s own self-
assessment of their ability to meet their academic goals, having the skills to achieve in the
classroom, feelings of satisfaction with their academic experience, sensing that the
college experience has helped in their self-development, and being confident in their
academic abilities.
As previously discussed with the pilot study, student-athletes are a unique student
group in that their roles as student-athletes alone integrate them into the institution as a
whole via the athletics system. This is because within the athletics system, they are able
to function independently as students and as athletes without much interaction with other
domains of the institution because the athletics department is a subset of the entire
220
institution. There is limited need to determine to what degree the student-athlete shares
the normative attitudes and values of their peers or to what extent the student-athlete
abides by the structural requirements since in order to even reach this level, integration
had to have already occurred. Thus the shift is towards the student-athlete’s evaluation of
the academic experience and determining whether the quality of the experience is of a
high enough standard for them to want to stay in school.
In comparison to the pilot study, there was only one difference that emerged
between the two factor models. Item 15, acknowledgment of academic achievement by
the athletics department, was originally included in this factor for the pilot study;
however, for the final study, this item was included in Factor 2. Otherwise, the variables
that defined Factor 1 were consistent across both the pilot and final study.
Factor 2: Quality of Athletic Experience
.825 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .886. As with the model extracted
in pilot study, the variables included in this factor relate to a student-athlete’s experience
as an athlete and not a student. The focus again is on the quality of the experience, not
the level of integration into the athletics system. Additionally, it is this factor that
differentiates the student-athlete retention process from that of their non-athlete peers.
The focus is on the coach-player relationship and their interactions associated with
achieving athletic goals. The quality of the athletic experience is also defined by the
level of recognition a student-athlete receives for their athletic skills. For instance, if a
student-athlete has been awarded individual accolades for their athletic achievements, is
221
playing for a winning team, and is contributing to their team’s success, their overall
athletic experience would be viewed as a high quality experience, which would positively
influence their decision to stay in school. On the other hand, if the student-athlete is not
receiving much playing time, is playing for a team that is not succeeding, and there are no
opportunities for athletic recognition, the quality of their experience would be perceived
as low, which would have a negative effect on their decision to stay in school.
In comparison to the pilot study, the overall concept of the factor has not changed.
The number of items that define this factor, however, has increased from nine to 11
items. The two items that were included in this final factor solution, Items 15 and 26,
deal with a student-athlete’s sense of loyalty to their institution and acknowledgment of
academic achievement by the athletics department. Since the factor loadings for these
items were the lowest amongst the variables included in this factor, their contribution to
their overall labeling of the factor were minimal and were not considered as important as
other variables included in the factor.
Factor 3: In-Network Support
The ten items contained in Factor 3 have factor loadings ranging from .497 and
.669 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .875. Due to the intense nature of
college athletics, student-athletes are in need of a high level of support to assist them in
balancing their dual roles. As demonstrated in the pilot study, this support comes in two
forms – in-network support and out-of-network support. In this instance, the in-network
support system is one that is focused on helping a student-athlete achieve their academic
goals through interactions with individuals closest to the student-athlete. In the pilot
222
study, these individuals consisted of only coaches, teammates, and those associated with
the athletics system; however, based on the results of the final study, those considered in-
network expanded to include faculty and other academic administrators, such as
academic advisors and career counselors. The inclusion of these individuals solidified
the idea that an in-network support system is one that is focused directly on helping the
student-athlete manage their role as a student.
Factor 4: Out-of-Network Support
The four items contained in Factor 4 have factor loadings ranging from .489 and
.720 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .684. Unlike Factor 4, the out-of-
network support system is the support system that allows the student-athlete to step away
from their student-athlete identity and become involved with activities and groups
disassociated from either their student responsibilities or their athlete responsibilities.
Thus, the extent to which these student-athletes have friends outside of the team and are
involved in special interest groups or other activities will affect their decision-making to
stay in school.
Reliability Analysis
The same diagnostic measures used in the analysis of the pilot data were utilized
to assess the level of reliability or internal consistency for Version 3 of the questionnaire.
First, the internal consistency of each item was examined. This was done by visually
examining the inter-item correlations and determining whether a substantial number of
the correlations exceed the .30 standard (Hair et al., 1998). Table 4.21 provides the inter-
223
item correlation matrix for the final study. A moderate number of correlations were
below the .30 standard. This suggested that there may not be significant correlations
amongst the variables, which raised initial questions about the internal consistency of the
instrument.
Second, Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the
entire instrument. Consistent with the pilot study, the instrument had an internal
consistency of .930 and .934 based on standardized items. This indicated that over 93
percent of the variance in scores was due to true variance, which left less than 7 percent
due to error. These values revealed that the instrument is highly reliable. To confirm
these results, the items of the instrument were split in half and the two halves produced
Cronbach’s alpha values of .850 and .891 with a .823 correlation between halves. Since
split-half reliability coefficients are very conservative estimates of reliability, the
Spearman-Brown formula was used to statistically correct the obtained reliability
coefficients. This correction formula yielded a reliability coefficient of .903, which again
was consistent with the pilot data and indicated that the instrument is highly reliable.
Finally, the internal consistency of each factor derived from the principal
components method of extraction was calculated. The same procedures that were used to
determine the internal consistency of the entire instrument were used for each factor. The
results indicated that Factors 1-3 were highly reliable because for each of these factors,
over 87 percent of the variance in scores was due to true variance and not error.
However, due to the reliability coefficient for Factor 4, initial questions were raised about
the internal consistency of this factor. Factors with coefficients less than .7 are usually
224
considered unreliable. Therefore, to further test the reliability of this factor, split-half
reliability coefficients were calculated for each half of the factor. These halves produced
coefficients of .311 and .477 with a .645 correlation between forms. With the application
of the Spearman-Brown correction formula, Factor 4 yielded a .784 reliability coefficient,
which exceeded the .7 standard, and was deemed reliable. Table 4.24 outlines the
reliability coefficients for each of the four factors.
Cronbach’s Alpha Spearman-Brown

Factor Cronbach’s Alpha (Based on standardized items) Coefficient
1 .899 .901 .853

2 .886 .889 .875
3 .875 .877 .834
4 .684 .681 .784
Table 4.24: Factor Reliability Coefficients for Final Study
Factor Scores Based on Intent to Leave for Final Study
Factor scores were calculated for each of the four factors in the final study’s
factor solution. The purpose in calculating factor scores was to determine a respondent’s
relative ranking or standing on each of the four factors. In this case, factor scores were
calculated for two separate groups – 1) respondents who had intentions of leaving school
prior to graduation and 2) respondents who had no intentions of leaving school early.
Table 4.25 presents the mean factor scores for the two groups per each factor.
225
Factor Intent to Leave N Mean SD
Yes 109 -2.665 11.442
1
No 220 1.425 9.107
Yes 109 1.448 7.485
2
No 220 -.799 7.550
Yes 109 -1.135 7.535
3
No 220 .454 6.463
Yes 109 -.464 2.820
4
No 220 .172 2.900
Table 4.25: Mean Factor Scores Based on Intent to Leave for Final Study
Based on the results, there appears to a large amount of difference between those
who had intentions of leaving and those who did not have intentions of leaving school
prior to graduation. For those who had intentions of leaving school, the individual
responses to the items included in Factors 1, 3, and 4 were lower than the average of all
respondents on these factors, while the individual responses to the items included in
Factor 2 were higher than the average of all respondents on these factors. The converse
can be said about those who did not have any intentions on leaving school prior to
graduation. For Factors 1, 3, and 4, individual responses were higher than the average of
all respondents, whereas for Factor 2, individual responses were lower than the average
of all respondents.
226
To determine whether there were statistically significant mean differences
between the two groups, a two-sample t-test for each factor was conducted. The
statistical hypotheses of the t-tests are as follows:
H0: µ1 = µ2
H1: At least one of the means differs
The results of each t-test by factor are summarized in Table 4.26.
95% Confidence
Interval for Difference
Adjusted
Lower Upper
Factor t df Sig.** Mean Std. Error
Difference Bound Bound
1* 3.256 177.796 .001 4.090 1.164 1.800 6.381
2 -2.549 327.000 .011 -2.247 .882 -3.982 -.513
3* 1.885 188.714 .061 1.589 .843 -.074 3.252
4 1.891 327.000 .060 .636 .336 -.026 1.298

* Equal variance not assumed based on Levene’s test for equality of variances
** 2-tailed significance
Table 4.26: Summary of Two-Sample t-test for Equality of Means Based on Intent to
Leave for Final Study
Based on the results for Factors 1 and 2, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
the alternative because the results implied that there was a statistically significant
difference between the mean factor scores for those with intentions to leave and those
with no intentions of leaving school prior to graduation. Yet, based on the results for
Factors 3 and 4, we failed to reject the null hypothesis because the results implied that
there was a not statistically significant difference between the mean factor scores for the
two groups.
227
As such, the overall results imply the following:
1. Respondents who did not have intentions of leaving school prior to graduation
placed a significantly higher level of importance on the “Quality of Academic
Experience” than those who had intentions of leaving.
2. Respondents who did have intentions of leaving school prior to graduation
placed a significantly higher level of importance on the “Quality of Athletic
Experience” than those who did not have intentions of leaving.
3. There was not a statistically significant difference in the level of importance
placed on “In-Network Support” and “Out-of-Network Support” for the two
groups.
228
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
perceived to be important in their decision-making to stay in school. In order to
accomplish this purpose, it was necessary to – 1) construct a conceptual model of
student-athlete retention based upon the literature associated with traditional student
retention and the college student-athlete experience, 2) create an instrument, based on the
conceptual model, that captures student-athlete perceptions of factors important to the
retention process, and 3) extract meaningful factors underlying the items of the
instrument using exploratory factor analysis. Forty-one of the 42 items included in the
“Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire (Version 3) resulted in
the extraction of a four-factor model. These four factors – Quality of Academic
Experience, Quality of Athletic Experience, In-Network Support, and Out-of-Network
Support – reflect what student-athletes perceived to be most important in their decision-
making to stay in school. Specifically, the factors extracted in this study suggest that the
quality of the academic and athletic experience, as well as the in-network and out-of-
network support system of the student-athlete need to be considered when exploring and
understanding the student-athlete retention process.
229
As outlined in Chapter 2, an extensive review of the literature revealed a
conceptual model of student-athlete retention (SARM – Figure 2.2) that included nine
factors – 1) background factor, 2) institutional factor, 3) academic integration factor, 4)
social integration factor, 5) athletics factor, 6) environmental pull factor, 7) attitude about
self and school, 8) intent to leave, and 9) departure decision. The model was
purposefully structured to flow from the student-athlete’s pre-entry attributes to their
interaction with the various systems of the institution to their attitude about self and
school to their intent to leave, and finally, to their actual performance of the behavior
(i.e., staying or leaving). While this study heavily relied upon this conceptual model to
construct the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire, the
focus of the study was not to validate the entire model, but to take the first steps in
identifying those factors that are influenced by a student-athlete’s background and
contribute to a student-athlete’s attitude about self and school, intent to leave, and
departure decision.
Although it was hypothesized that the model would yield five factors intervening
between background, attitude, intent, and behavior, the results actually revealed a four-
factor solution that differed significantly from the SARM. All of the variables that
defined each of the factors within the initial SARM, with the exception of financial aid,
loaded on one of the four factors within the final factor solution. Where and how they
loaded created a new look at understanding the college student-athlete retention process.
Figure 5.1 presents the revised SARM based on the results of this study. Considering the
purpose of this study, this model can only represent a conceptual understanding of the
230
retention process since the relationships between the four factors and pre-entry attributes,
attitudes, intent, and behavior have yet to be empirically derived. However, this visual
representation of the retention process serves as a launch pad to future studies that are
needed to fully comprehend the student-athlete experience.
The results of this study revealed additional ideas about the college student-
athlete retention process that were both expected and unexpected. First, athletically-
related issues and experiences that have never been addressed in previous models of
traditional student retention were revealed within the four-factor solution. For example,
in this study, it was uncovered that the coach-player relationship is of significant
importance in a student-athlete’s decision to stay in school. Actually it was found that
this interaction is more important than the student-faculty interaction, which Pascarella’s
(1980) determined was extremely vital to traditional student retention. The importance of
student-faculty interactions was not undermined within this study; however, their overall
importance in comparison to the coach-player relationship was minimal.
Second, there was a shift away from the idea of integration to a focus on the
quality of the experience and the support system of the student-athlete. The reason for
this shift was that it appears that the student-athlete status itself integrated the student-
athlete into the athletics system, which is a subset of the entire institution. Therefore,
there was limited need to extend outside of this system since the needs and issues of the
student-athletes can be addressed within the athletics system. As a result of this
integration via athletics, an evaluation of the quality of the academic and athletic
experience was deemed more important for student-athletes.
231
INPUTS EXPERIENCES/ OUTCOMES INTENT DECISION
INTERACTIONS
Quality of
Academic
Experience
Quality of
Athletic
Experience
Background Student’s Attitude Intent to Departure
Factor about Self & School Leave Decision
232
In-Network
Support
Out-of-Network
Support
Figure 5.1: Revised Student-Athlete Retention Model (SARM)
232
Third, time is an issue for student-athletes. Due to the intense nature of college
athletics, student-athletes are often so depleted from their athletics activities that they
barely have energy to attend to their academics let alone extracurricular activities, special
interest groups, and/or informal student-faculty interactions. Therefore, unlike traditional
models of student retention, involvement in extracurricular activities and special interest
groups and informal student-faculty interactions took a backseat to variables that dealt
with ease, choice, and variety in meeting academic responsibilities. For example, being
presented with a variety of times for which to take classes and then being able to choose
from a variety of different courses to fulfill graduation requirements is extremely
important to student-athletes because the flexibility and variety gives them the
opportunity to meet their academic responsibilities while pursuing a college athletics
career. If presented with more strict and inflexible choices, the task of managing the
student role would be a very daunting one, which could negatively effect a student-
athlete’s decision to stay in school.
Fourth, although both participating institutions sponsor comprehensive athletics
programs and have a rich athletics heritage, there appeared to be significant differences in
the variables that were considered most important to the respondents. While academic
performance and ease of declaring a major were amongst the most importance variables
for both studies, the remaining top three variables were considerably different from one
another. The pilot study respondents focused more on career advancement and sufficient
time to attend to academic responsibilities, while the final study respondents placed
greater emphasis on choice, flexibility, and variety. However, where the greatest
233
difference emerged was in the ranking of athletically-related variables amongst the most
important variables. While the pilot study respondents included athletic support from
coach amongst the top five, the final study respondents did not rank any athletically-
related variables amongst the most importance. Even more, only five of the top 20
retention variables perceived to be important were related to their role as an athlete.
The difference in emphasis on athletically-related variables amongst the most
important is assumed to be attributed to the academic culture of each institution. For
example, at the pilot study’s participating institution, student-athletes graduated at a
higher rate than their non-athlete peers. Yet, at the final study’s participating institution,
the overall student body graduated at a rate of 76 percent, which is 20 percent higher than
the student-athlete graduation rate. Furthermore, for the 2003 incoming class at the final
study’s participating institution, the mean grade point average was 3.99 and average SAT
score was 1,345, which is approximately 200 points higher than the average SAT score of
the 2003 incoming class at the pilot study’s participating institution. Based on the
academic expectations of the final study’s participating institution, emphasis on more
academically-related variables versus athletic variables appears to be necessary to
succeed at the institution and it is assumed the respondents have recognized such
expectations through the results of this study. The academic culture of the institution,
therefore, must be taken in account in future studies of student-athlete retention.
Lastly, an examination of the final study’s mean factor scores for each of the four
factors revealed that there were statistically significant differences between those who
had intentions of leaving school and those who did not have intentions of leaving school
234
prior to graduation. Specifically, respondents who had intentions of leaving early placed
a significantly higher level of importance on the quality of the athletic experience,
whereas those who did not have intentions of leaving placed a significantly higher level
of importance on the quality of the academic experience. Considering that opportunity to
play professionally was the primary reason for leaving school early amongst the final
study respondents who had intentions of leaving, it is not surprising that there is a greater
emphasis on the athletic experience than the academic experience for these respondents.
Although factor scores are not easily replicated across studies and therefore only
reflect the experiences and perceptions of the respondents of the final study, the
implication of this result is that athletics administrators and coaches need to pay
particular attention to the level of athletic support a student-athlete receives from their
coach and teammates, level of acknowledgment of academic achievement a student-
athlete receives from their athletics department, and the degree to which a student-athlete
is able to manage their athletic responsibilities since those who had intentions of leaving
placed a high level of importance on the quality of the athletic experience. It can also be
concluded that coaches need to be sure to understand how each student-athlete prioritizes
athletics in their overall career planning. For example, some student-athletes use their
athletics scholarship to support their educational experience so that they can go onto
other professional careers (i.e., medicine, business, or education). Other student-athletes
consider athletics as the primary career preparation for their future. Understanding a
student-athlete’s academic and athletics priorities can assist administrators and coaches in
235
better serving the needs of their student-athletes to ensure high quality academic and
athletic experiences.
Psychometric Properties of the Questionnaire
The results of this study suggested that the “Understanding College Student-
Athlete Retention” questionnaire is highly reliable. Cronbach’s alpha and split-half
(Spearman-Brown) reliability coefficients were calculated for the instrument as a whole
and for each extracted factor. In fact, for both the pilot and final study, the instrument as
a whole had a reliability coefficient above .930. This indicated that over 93 percent of
the variance in scores was due to true variance, which left less than seven percent due to
error. Additionally, each of the factors in the final factor solution had reliability
coefficients greater than or equal to .784, which is also considered to be highly reliable.
The questionnaire was also examined for face and content validity. Since these
types of validity cannot be represented numerically, an evaluation of the instrument was
done through the use of a panel of experts. While minor changes were implemented, the
questionnaire was deemed to be appropriate and valid.
Lastly, much energy was put into determining the construct validity of the
questionnaire. While high internal consistency provides evidence of construct validity,
the items of the instrument needed to be assessed to determine what underlying
constructs are contributing to the respondents’ scores through the use of exploratory
factor analysis. Specifically, principal components analysis with VARIMAX rotation
was performed using the total sample. This method extracted a four-factor model that
236
included 41 items based upon a 0.35 inclusion criterion. This inclusion criterion
followed Hair et al.’s (1998) guideline for identifying significant factor loadings based
upon sample size. The reason for using this guideline is that significance is based on a
.05 significance level, a power level of 80 percent, and the proposed inflation of the
standard errors of factor loadings.
A total of 48.628 percent of the variance was explained by the four-factor model,
which is less than the general guideline used in the social sciences. The 16 items
contained in Factor 1 have factor loadings ranging from .390 and .751 and an internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .899. The 11 items contained in Factor 2 have factor
loadings ranging from .373 and .825 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of
.886. The ten items contained in Factor 3 have factor loadings ranging from .497 and
.669 and an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .875. The four items contained in
Factor 4 have factor loadings ranging from .489 and .720 and an internal consistency
(Spearman-Brown) of .784. Overall, the factor loadings for each of the items included in
the four-factor model were considered statistically and practically significant.
Utility of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire, in its present form, was designed for use with student-athletes
competing at the NCAA Division I level. The reason for this distinction is that the
student-athlete population is not a homogeneous group, particularly across divisional
levels. Division I student-athletes, in comparison to Division II and III, face greater time
demands due to the higher level of competition, benefits and rewards, media attention,
237
and public scrutiny (Watt & Moore, 2001). As such, we can only be certain that the
questionnaire is, at the very least, applicable to the Division I level. However, it is
suggested that the underlying premise of the questionnaire would also be valid for use
with Division II and III student-athletes. A more extensive review of the literature on the
college student-athlete experience would be necessary to ensure that the variables
included in the questionnaire are applicable to these divisional levels, but the use of the
Importance scale and focus on student-athlete perceptions can lead to a better
understanding of the retention process for this subset of the overall student-athlete
population.
While the questionnaire was developed for the intercollegiate athletics setting, it
is also suggested that the underlying premise of the questionnaire could be valued in
other contexts, such as the performing arts. The use of the Importance scale and focus on
perceptions can help in further understanding and differentiating the retention process of
band students or drama students from the overall student population. Could it be that the
quality of the band experience is as influential as the athletic experience in the retention
process for band students? Additionally, is the acting coach as influential in the retention
process as is the athletics coach in the retention process of student-athletes? These are
questions to consider when examining the college student retention process and the
underlying premise of the questionnaire can serve as a starting point for a more
comprehensive understanding of the retention process for different types of students.
Overall, the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire
was focused on identifying the key factors student-athletes perceived to be important to
238
the retention process. Through the use of factor analysis, these factors can be extracted
from the items of the instrument and can provide a researcher or an athletics
administrator with a meaningful organizational scheme that can be used to interpret a
multitude of perceptions, attitudes, and intentions. This can either be done on a global or
institutional level. For instance, the questionnaire can be used in study that attempts to
understand the retention process for all Division II student-athletes or in a study that
examines the retention process for Division I student-athletes participating in high profile
sports. Conversely, the questionnaire can be used in an evaluation of an institution’s
student-athlete population. For instance, with the NCAA’s recent adoption of an
incentives/disincentives program for its members based on the graduation rates of its
student-athletes, an institution may want to gain a better understanding of what is
important to their student-athletes in their decision-making to stay in school. The
athletics department can utilize the questionnaire to capture these perceptions and design
programs and services to address the specific issues affecting their student-athlete
population. With the inclusion of demographic questions, such as gender, sport, class
rank, race/ethnicity, and eligibility status, differentiations can also be made within their
specific student-athlete population. The utility of the questionnaire, however, is only for
identifying the key factors important to the student-athlete retention process. No
empirical evidence is currently available to determine whether the questionnaire is
capable of establishing the relationships between the four factors and between the factors,
attitudes, intent to leave, and departure decision. Subsequent studies need to be
conducted to establish these relationships.
239
Limitations
While the results of this study represent the starting point to a greater
understanding of the college student-athlete retention process, they should be viewed
with caution due to a number of limitations. A few of the limitations have already been
identified in previous chapters. These include – 1) the use of a non-probability sampling
method for the pilot study, which introduces unknown bias, makes it difficult to estimate
the sampling error, and limits the generalizability of the study and 2) the inability to
appropriately control for all internal and external validity threats. An additional
limitation of this study is the selection bias that is inevitably involved in the selection of
variables to examine. As Kim and Mueller (1978) explained, a selection bias is present
regardless of whether a researcher designs a factor analytic experiment or takes a subset
of variables from an existing questionnaire. It is difficult for any given set of items to
constitute the universe of all potential variables. Additional items to consider for future
studies include enjoyment of learning, housing issues, fears of failure, success or
rejection, and boredom.
One issue in assessing Cronbach’s alpha is its positive relationship to the number
of items in the questionnaire and within each factor (Hair et al., 1998). Considering that
Factor 1, Quality of Academic Experience, included 17 items, the reliability values
presented in this study must be reviewed with caution. Additionally, while no absolute
threshold has been adopted to ensure practical significance for the derived factors, the
social sciences consider a solution that accounts for 60 percent of the total variance as
satisfactory (Hair et al., 1998). For both the pilot and final study, the cumulative
240
percentage of total variance explained by the factor solution was less than the 60 percent
standard. Generalizations beyond these participants must then rest with the readers and
are encouraged to be done with caution. Lastly, factor scores are not easily replicated
across studies because they are based on the factor matrix, which is computed for each
study separately. In order to replicate the results of the factor scores based on intent to
leave, sophisticated statistical programming is necessary, which was not employed for
this study.
Directions for Future Research
While this study was able to identify the key factors student-athletes perceived to
be important to the retention process, this exploratory study is only the first step in a
series of research studies that are needed in order to address the gap in the retention
literature on college student-athletes. Subsequent studies must shift away from an
exploratory approach to a more confirmatory perspective in order to validate the retention
factors identified in this study. This can be done by first developing hypotheses based on
the results of this study and using structural equation modeling to test the goodness-of-fit
for the proposed confirmatory factor solution. In doing so, researchers can then begin to
construct an empirically-based model of student-athlete retention that accurately reflects
student-athlete perceptions of factors important to the retention process and establishes
the relationships between these factors and a student-athlete’s intent to leave.
As stated before, the student-athlete population is not a homogeneous group;
therefore, future studies must also continue to examine differences based on gender,
241
race/ethnicity, class rank, and sport classification to arrive at a fuller explanation of the
student-athlete retention process. An initial exploration within this study found potential
differences in perceptions of variables deemed most important; therefore, future
researchers must continue to be cognizant of these potential differences when deriving at
factors considered important to staying in school. Since differences already exist
amongst the variables deemed most important, it is assumed that further probing would
also find differences in the factors derived from these variables and the relationships
between them. Furthermore, it is assumed that in addition to segmentation by gender,
race/ethnicity, class rank, and sport classification, an analysis based on a combination of
these attributes would produced various outlooks to the retention process of college
student-athletes. Not only will gender or class rank alone produce varying results, but
analyses that look at African-American female student-athletes participating in high
profile sports would potentially produce even greater differences in how we understand
the student-athlete retention process. The potential for such results emphasizes the need
for future studies to utilize a stratified random sampling method that would allow for
such differences to be explored.
It is also important to stress that the questionnaire developed for this study is only
in the preliminary stages of development. Further validation is necessary, particularly
related to the construct validity of the instrument. A construct is a complex, higher-level
abstraction created to summarize observations and provide explanations (Miller, 2003).
They cannot be directly observed. Instead, they are constructed by individuals to explain
observable events, perceptions, or attitudes. Thus, due to their complexity, construct
242
validity flaws can arise if the construct is represented incompletely in a questionnaire.
For this reason, factor analysis was employed to determine if the elements of the
constructs were fully represented by the measured variables within the instrument. High
factor loadings and high internal consistency provided evidence of construct validity;
however, considering that some items loaded high on more than one factor, further
research is needed to determine the questionnaire’s validity. This can be done by
revisiting the literature on the retention process and ensuring that the underlying
theoretical assumptions that guided the construction of the instrument’s items were valid.
Considering the level of importance placed on coach-player interactions in the
retention process, future studies should also explore the perceptions of coaches and what
they consider is most important to the student-athlete retention process. The results may
either reveal that coaches are sensitive to or disconnected from what student-athletes
perceive to be important to the retention process. Specifically, if the results indicate
some level of disconnect, particularly on the level of importance the coaches believe they
have in the retention process, this could have significant implications on the types of
educational programs that are implemented for the coaches by the athletics department
and applicable coaches associations.
Finally, qualitative approaches to the study of student-athlete retention need to be
employed. For example, in her study on African-American athletes’ stories of school,
Benson (2000) utilized a qualitative approach to capture very powerful and meaningful
perspectives of the collegiate experience for these student-athletes at a predominantly
white institution. Through the use of interviews, she was able to determine that the ways
243
in which all members of the academic and athletics communities act and interact with the
student-athletes significantly contribute to a student-athlete’s academic performance and
persistence in school. It is the recurring themes and differences found in these stories that
make this research method so valuable to making fundamental changes to the way in
which we view the college student-athlete experience and what influences a student-
athlete to stay in school.
244
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson, E. (1985). Forces influencing student persistence and achievement. In L. Noel,

R. Levitz, D. Saluri, & Associates (Eds.), Increasing student retention (pp. 44-61).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming
higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing,
LLC.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Bean, J. P. (1982). Conceptual models of student attrition: How theory can help the
institutional researcher. In E. T. Pascarella (Ed.), Studying student attrition: New
directions for student services (pp. 17-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P. (1990a). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler, J. P.

Bean, & Associates (Eds.) The strategic management of college enrollments (pp.
147-169). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P. (1990b). Using retention research in enrollment management. In D. Hossler,

J. P. Bean, & Associates (Eds.) The strategic management of college enrollments
(pp. 170-185). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P. & Hull, D. (1984). Determinants of Black and White student attrition at a
major southern university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bean, J. P. & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate

student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55, 485-540.
Beller, J. M. & Stoll, S. K. (1995). Moral reasoning of high school student athletes and
general students: An empirical study versus personal testimony. Pediatric
Exercise Science, 7, 352-363.
245
Bennett, C. & Bean, J. P. (1984). A conceptual model of Black student attrition at a
predominantly white university. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 4,
461-478.
Benson, K. F. (2000). Constructing academic inadequacy: African American athletes’

stories of schooling. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 223-246.
Bentler, P. M. & Speckart, G. (1979). Models of attitude-behavior relations.

Psychological Review, 86, 452-464.
Berson, J. S. (1996). Student perceptions of the intercollegiate athletic program at a

community college. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Atlanta, GA.
Blann, F. W. (1985). Intercollegiate athletic competition and students’ educational and

career plans. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 115-118.
Brewer, B. W. & Linder, D. E. (1992). Distancing oneself from a poor season:

Divestment of athletic identity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Colorado
Springs, CO.
Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’
muscles or achilles heel?. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 237-254.
Broughton, E. (2001). Counseling and support services for college student athletes. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the American College Personnel
Association, Boston, MA.
Brown, C., Glastetter-Fender, C., & Shelton, M. (2000). Psychosocial identity and career
control in college student-athletes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 53-62.
Byers, W. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan Press.
Carodine, K., Almond, K. F., & Gratto, K. K. (2001). College student athlete success
both in and out of the classroom. In M. F. Howard-Hamilton & S. K. Watt (Eds.),
Student services for athletes: New directions for student services (pp. 19-34). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of

Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.
246
Chickering, A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Colker, R. & Widom, C. S. (1980). Correlates of female athletic participation:

Masculinity, femininity, self-esteem, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 6,
47-58.
Cornelius, A. (1995). The relationships between athletic identity, peer and faculty
socialization, and college student development. Journal of College Student
Development, 36, 560-573.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In J.
G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (pp. 93-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of

lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D.
Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-333).
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Durkheim, E. (1961). Suicide. Translated by J. Spaulding and C. Simpson. Glencoe, IL:

The Free Press.
Ender, S. C. & Wilkie, C. J. (2000). Advising students with special needs. In V. N.

Gordon, W. R. Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A
comprehensive handbook (pp. 118-143). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: Norton. (Original work
published in 1959)
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design & evaluate research in education
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
247
Gliem, J. A. (2001). AGR EDU 886: Research design. Department of Human and
Community Resource Development. The Ohio State University.
Gliem, J. A. (2003). AGR EDU 995: Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Department
of Human and Community Resource Development. The Ohio State University.
Gorusch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Greene, B. (1994). Lesbian and gay sexual orientations: Implications for clinical training,
practice, and research. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay
psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 1-24). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helm’s white and people of color racial identity
models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Howard-Hamilton, M. F. & Sina, J. A. (2001). How college affects student athletes. In

M. F. Howard-Hamilton & S. K. Watt (Eds.), Student services for athletes: New
directions for student services (pp. 35-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and

practice (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, R. A. & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (5th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, L. (2001). Retaining African Americans in higher education: Challenging

paradigms for retaining students, faculty and administrators. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing, LLC.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
248
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, J. & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to
do it. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Krane, V. (1996). Lesbians in sport: Towards acknowledgment, understanding, and

theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 237-246.
LeUnes, A. & Nation, J. R. (2002). Sport psychology: An introduction (3rd ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Wadsworth.
Levine, A. & Cureton, J. S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today’s
college student. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor
analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.
Mahoney, D., Fink, J. S., & Pastore, D. L. (1999). Ethics in intercollegiate athletics: An
examination of NCAA violations and penalties. Journal of Personal Ethics, 7, 53-
74.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of

adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York, NY: Wiley.
Mihalich, J. C. (1984). College sports: Decisions for survival. In A. Shriberg & F. R.

Brodzinski (Eds.), Rethinking services for college athletes: New directions for
student services (pp. 71-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, L. E. (2003). AGR EDU 888: Instrumentation and procedures for data
collection. Department of Human and Community Resource Development. The
Ohio State University.
Moline, A. E. (1987). Financial aid and student persistence: An application of causal

modeling. Research in Higher Education, 26, 130-147.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2004). Estimated probability of competing in

athletics beyond the high school interscholastic level. Retrieved May 14, 2004,
from www.ncaa.org.
249
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2003a). 2003 NCAA graduation-rates
report. Retrieved May 14, 2004, from www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2003b). 2003-04 NCAA division I manual.

Indianapolis, IN: NCAA.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2003c). Division I facts and figures. Retrieved
February 22, 2003, from
http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/fact_sheet_d1.html.
Nelson, E. S. (1983). How the myths of the dumb jock becomes fact: A developmental
view for counselors. Counseling and Values, 27, 176-185.
Nishimoto, P. A. (1997). Touchdowns and term papers: Telescoping the college student-
athlete culture. College Student Affairs Journal, 16, 96-103.
Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: New challenges and potential. In L. Noel,
R. Levitz, D. Saluri, & Associates (Eds.), Increasing student retention (pp. 1-27).
Nora, A. (1990). Campus-based aid programs as determinants of retention among

Hispanic community college students. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 312-331.
Ogilvie, B. C. & Howe, M. (1986). The trauma of termination from athletics. In J. M.

Williams (Ed.), Applied sports psychology: Personal growth to peak experience
(pp. 365-382). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Parham, W. D. (1993). The intercollegiate athlete: A 1990s profile. The Counseling

Psychologist, 21, 411-429.
Parham, W. D. (1996). Diversity within intercollegiate athletics: Current profile and

welcomed opportunities. In E. F. Etzel, A. P. Ferrante, & J. W. Pinkney (Eds.),
Counseling college student-athletes: Issues and interventions (pp. 27-54).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review

of Educational Research, 50, 545-595.
Pascarella, E. T. & Smart, J. C. (1991). Impact of intercollegiate athletic participation for

African American and Caucasian men: Some further evidence. Journal of College
Student Development, 32, 123-130.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
250
Pearson, R. E. & Petitpas, A. J. (1990). Transitions of athletes: Developmental and
preventive perspectives. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 7-10.
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college
years: A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Person, D. R., Benson-Quaziena, M., & Rogers, A. (2001). Female student athletes and
student athletes of color. In M. F. Howard-Hamilton & S. K. Watt (Eds.), Student
services for athletes: New directions for student services (pp. 55-64). San
Person, D. R. & LeNoir, K. M. (1997). Retention issues and models of African American
male athletes. In M. J. Cuyjet (Ed.), Helping African American men succeed in
college: New directions for student services (pp. 79-92). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Petitpas, A. J., Brewer, B. W., & Van Raalte, J. L. (1996). Transitions of the student-
athlete: Theoretical, empirical, and practical perspectives. In E. F. Etzel, A. P.
Ferrante, & J. W. Pinkney (Eds.), Counseling college student-athletes: Issues and
interventions (pp. 137-156). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology,
Inc.
Petitpas, A. & Champagne, D. E. (1988). Developmental programming for intercollegiate

athletes. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 454-460.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
Price, J. J. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Ratcliff, J. L. (1991). Dropout prevention and at-risk college students. In L. L. West

(Ed.), Effective strategies for dropout prevention for at-risk youth (pp. 251-257).
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York, NY: Atherton Press.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. The

Counseling Psychologist, 9, 2-18.
Schwartz, R. A. & Washington, C. M. (2002). Predicting academic performance and

retention among African American freshmen, 39, 354-370.
251
Shriberg, A. (1984). Editor’s notes. In A. Shriberg & F. R. Brodzinski (Eds.), Rethinking
services for college athletes: New directions for student services (pp. 1-3). San
Sowa, C. J. & Gressard, C. F. (1983). Athletic participation: Its relationship to student

development. Journal of College Student Development, 24, 236-39.
Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and

synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85.
Stier, W. F. (1971). Student-athlete attrition among selected liberal arts colleges.

Sioux City, Iowa: Briar Cliff College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 058 834).
Stoll, S. K., Beller, J. M., & Hansen, D. (1998). The coach and player relationship.
Strategies, 11, 5-6.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Taylor, D. L. (1995). A comparison of college athletic participants and nonparticipants on

self-esteem. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 444-451.
Tinsley, H. E. A. & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling

psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414-424.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for the
social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Walter, T. L. & Smith, D. E. P. (1989). Student athletes. In M. L. Upcraft & J. N.

Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and
succeed in college (pp. 327-339). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Watt, S. K. & Moore III, J. L. (2001). Who are student athletes?. In M. F. Howard-
Hamilton & S. K. Watt (Eds.), Student services for athletes: New directions for
student services (pp. 7-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiberg, S. (1999, November 19). Basketball TV deals blunts drive for football playoff.
USA Today, pp. 14C.
252
Wiley, J. L. (1983). A study of attrition among black freshmen at eight Mississippi
public institutions of higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54,
3A.
Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Toma, J. D., & Morphew, C. C. (2001). How much difference is too
much difference?: Perceptions of gay men and lesbians in intercollegiate athletics.
Journal of College Student Development, 42, 465-479.
Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time

college sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
253
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS
254
October 20, 2003
[Expert Name]
[Title]
[Institution]
[Address 1]
[Address 2]
[City, State Zip Code]
Dear [Expert],
I am conducting a study on the factors associated with the college student-athlete retention
process. Currently, little research has been done to help explain student-athlete concerns and
issues apart from their non-athlete peers and no conceptual frameworks have been found to guide
research on this topic. To address this gap in the literature, a comprehensive research study must
be conducted that focuses solely on the college student-athlete experience. More specifically,
researchers must begin to focus their attention on identifying the key factors associated with
college student-athlete retention, establishing the relationships between those factors and a
student-athlete’s intent to leave, and constructing a model of student-athlete retention that
accurately reflects these factors and their relationship to one another. The effectiveness of this
study, however, relies on the construction of an instrument that can measure student-athlete
perceptions of factors important in their decision to stay in school. The development of this
instrument represents the starting point to a series of research studies that need to be carried out in
order to address the gap in the retention literature on college student-athletes.
As such, the purposes of this study are to: (1) construct a conceptual model of student-athlete
retention, (2) utilize the conceptual model to guide the creation of an instrument that measures
student-athlete perceptions on factors important in their decision to stay in school, (3) test the
validity and reliability of the instrument, and 4) determine whether the instrument supports an
analysis based on gender and sport.
In the conceptual model of student-athlete retention constructed for this study, seven primary
factors are included, which are hypothesized to lead to a student-athlete’s departure decision.
These factors are:
• Background factor includes age, gender, year in school, race or ethnicity, high school
grade point average, educational level of parents, socioeconomic status, and initial
academic & athletic intentions for coming to college.
• Academic Integration factor refers to academic performance, study skills and habits,
student-faculty formal interactions, major certainty, and absenteeism.
• Social Integration factor encompasses friendship support, informal contact with faculty,
involvement in extracurricular activities & special interest groups, and shared values with
friends and community.
• Athletics Integration factor deals with balancing the dual roles of student and athlete,
playing time, athletic success, and coach, player, and teammate relationships, and
academic emphasis by the athletic department.
255
• Institutional factor relates to the timing of courses, variety of course offerings,
curriculum, student support services, and financial aid.
• Attitudinal factor involves the student-athlete’s perception of self and school,
particularly their sense of satisfaction, sense of self-development, sense of self-
confidence, institutional fit, loyalty, and sense that education has a practical value for
employment.
• Environmental Pull factor focuses on those events or realities that would pull a student
out of school, such as financial realities, significant other elsewhere, work demands,
military status, health issues, opportunity to transfer, opportunity to play professionally,
and family responsibilities and approval.
• Intent to Leave uncovers a student-athlete’s intentions for remaining in or leaving
school.
Your expertise is requested in helping to establish the content validity of the “Understanding
College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire. As stated previously, this instrument will be
used to gather current student-athletes’ perceptions about the factors associated with college
student-athlete retention. Enclosed you will find a draft of the instrument, a questionnaire item
content validation form, list of factors associated with student-athlete retention, and an illustration
of the conceptual model of student-athlete retention used to construct the instrument. Please
provide comments and suggestions regarding content, wording, format, clarity, focus, ease of use,
and appropriateness of individual items as well as for the instrument as a whole. Additionally,
please indicate whether there are any missing items and whether each item is correctly associated
with the factors ascertained from the literature. It would be greatly appreciated if your comments
and suggestions could be returned to me in the pre-addressed envelope by Friday, November 14,
2003.
I hope that the results of this study will be valuable for athletic and academic administrators
concerned with the retention of student-athletes. Understanding student-athlete perceptions about
the factors important to their decision to stay in school has the potential to reverse the decline in
graduation rates among certain student-athlete subgroups. For example, the data collected could
be used to guide the direction of services and resources for student-athletes. Moreover, with the
NCAA considering the adoption of an incentives program for its member institutions based on the
graduation rates of its student-athletes, improving our understanding of student-athlete retention
could also have substantial financial impact.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation in completing this important study.
Sincerely,
Christina A. Rivera
Doctoral Candidate
rivera.118@osu.edu
(213) 821-0753
256
APPENDIX B
PANEL OF EXPERTS –
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM CONTENT VALIDATION FORM
257
Questionnaire Item Content Validation Form
Please place the item number of each statement on Part I of the “Understanding College
Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire under the most appropriate factor below. If it is
unclear which factor a certain item corresponds to, please note that at the end.
1. Academic Integration Factor - The extent to which an individual integrates into the
academic system of the institution as defined by their academic performance, study
skills and habits, formal interactions with faculty, certainty about their major, and
class attendance.
a. Academic performance (i.e., grades)
b. Study skills & habits
c. Student-faculty interactions
d. Major certainty
e. Absenteeism
2. Social Integration Factor - The extent to which an individual integrates into the
social system of the institution as defined by their friendship support, informal
contact with faculty, involvement in extracurricular activities and special interest
groups, and shared values with friends and community.
a. Friendship support
258
b. Informal contact with faculty
c. Involvement in extracurricular activities
d. Involvement in special interest groups
e. Shared values with friends and community
3. Athletics Factor – This factor addresses those unique issues that student-athletes
endure while in college. These include their ability to balance their dual roles of
student and athlete, relationship with their coach and teammates, the quality of their
athletic experience as defined by playing time and athletic success, and the academic
emphasis by the athletics department.
a. Balancing roles of student and athlete
b. Relationship with coach
c. Relationship with teammates
d. Playing time
e. Athletic success
f. Academic emphasis by the athletics department
259
4. Attitudinal Factor – This factor focuses on a student’s attitude toward their
education, self, educational institution, and educational goals. An individual’s
attitude about self and school is defined by their perceived institutional fit, loyalty,
sense of self-development, sense of satisfaction, sense of self-confidence, and sense
that their education has a practical value for employment.
a. Institutional fit
b. Loyalty
c. Sense of self-development
d. Sense of self-satisfaction
e. Sense of self-confidence
f. Sense that education has a practical value for employment
5. Institutional Factor - This factor focuses on a student-athlete’s interaction with the

institution. This includes timing and variety of course offerings, curriculum, student
support services, and financial aid.
a. Timing of courses
b. Variety of course offerings
c. Curriculum (relevancy of courses)
260
d. Student support services
e. Financial aid
6. Environmental Pull Factor - Environmental pull represents those events,

circumstances, or issues that are outside of the institution’s control. This includes
financial realities, significant other elsewhere, opportunity to transfer, work demands,
family responsibilities & approval, military status, health issues, and opportunity to
play professionally.
a. Financial realities
b. Significant other elsewhere
c. Opportunity to transfer
d. Work demands
e. Family responsibilities & approval
f. Military status
g. Health issues
h. Opportunity to play professionally
261
7. Intent to Leave – Intent to leave does not explain why an individual decides to stay
or leave. Rather, intent to leave is hypothesized to intervene between attitudes and
behavior.
a. Intent to leave
8. Please list the item number of any statement that did not seem to correspond with any
of the above factors.
9. Please list the item number of any statement that seemed to correspond to more than
one factors, and identify the particular factors to which it applied.
10. Are there any factors of college student-athlete retention that should be added or
deleted? If so, please explain.
11. Are any of the items repetitive?
262
12. Is the phrasing and terminology clear and easy to understand?
13. Are the directions easy to follow?
14. Is there any important background information that may be missing?
15. Please include any other comments relevant to the improvement of this survey.
Thank you for your assistance!
263
APPENDIX C
THANK YOU LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS
264
November 19, 2003
[Expert Name]
[Title]
[Institution]
[Address 1]
[Address 2]
Dear [Expert],
I wanted to thank you very much for taking the time to participate on my panel of experts
for my study on the college student-athlete retention process. Many of the suggestions
and comments you provided have been incorporated into the instrument. If at anytime
you are interested in obtaining further information about the study, please do not hesitate
to ask. I would gladly share my instrument and results with you.
Again, your time and assistance are truly appreciated. Because of the expertise and
knowledge you shared with me, I strongly believe this study will provide us with a wealth
of information about student-athlete retention.
Sincerely,
Christina Rivera
265
APPENDIX D
VERSION 1 OF “UNDERSTANDING COLLEGE STUDENT-ATHLETE

RETENTION” QUESTIONNAIRE (SARQ)
266
Understanding College
Student-Athlete Retention
267
Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention
The purpose of this study is to gather student-athlete perceptions about the factors important to
the college student-athlete retention process. There are two parts to this questionnaire and it is
estimated that it will take you 15 minutes to complete. Your input is very much appreciated.
PART I.
The following statements represent factors related to staying in school. For each of the following
statements, please indicate your preference by circling a number on the 6-point Importance
scale. Please use the following Importance scale to make your choice:
The Importance scale refers to how important each statement is to you for staying in school:
Not Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Important
It is essential that you choose a response that corresponds to “how well the statement describes
you”, not in terms of how you think you should respond or how others will respond. There are no
right or wrong answers to these statements.
Not Very Very

Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
How important is each statement to you for staying in school: (Circle one number)
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important
1. Having supportive teammates 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Interactions with my instructors outside of the

1 2 3 4 5 6
classroom
3. Having a coach who helps me achieve my

1 2 3 4 5 6
academic goals
4. Being presented with a variety of times for which to

1 2 3 4 5 6
take my classes
5. Feeling satisfied with my overall college experience 1 2 3 4 5 6
268
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important
6. Having the study skills to achieve in the classroom 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Having friends with similar personal interests 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. Meeting my own academic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Being able to choose from a variety of different

1 2 3 4 5 6
courses that will fulfill my graduation requirements
10. Opportunity for advancement to the professional

1 2 3 4 5 6
sports level
11. Interactions with my instructors during class 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. Receiving individual athletic rewards (i.e., All-

1 2 3 4 5 6
Conference & All-American)
13. Opportunity for financial aid (i.e., grants, loans,

1 2 3 4 5 6
scholarships, work-study program)
14. Sense that this college was the right choice for me 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Playing for an athletics department that rewards me

1 2 3 4 5 6
for my academic performance
16. Being certain about the major I choose 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. Having sufficient time to attend to my academic

1 2 3 4 5 6
responsibilities
18. Knowing that graduation course requirements are

1 2 3 4 5 6
connected to my future career goals
19. Access to my college academic advisor for class

1 2 3 4 5 6
scheduling
20. Having a sense that my college experience has

1 2 3 4 5 6
helped me grow as a person
269
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important
21. Attending classes on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. Having sufficient time to attend to my athletics

1 2 3 4 5 6
responsibilities
23. Involvement in special interest groups on campus

1 2 3 4 5 6
(i.e., religious, political, academic)
24. Access to my college academic advisor for career

1 2 3 4 5 6
counseling
25. My college experience builds self-confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. Having a sense of loyalty to my college 1 2 3 4 5 6
27. Involvement in extracurricular activities on campus 1 2 3 4 5 6
28. Opportunity for career advancement (non-athletic

1 2 3 4 5 6
related)
29. Having a coach who helps me achieve my athletic

1 2 3 4 5 6
goals
30. Playing time in games 1 2 3 4 5 6
31. Access to my athletic counselor for eligibility

1 2 3 4 5 6
counseling
32. Having supportive friends outside of the team 1 2 3 4 5 6
33. Playing for a team who has a winning record 1 2 3 4 5 6
34. Access to personal counseling services 1 2 3 4 5 6
35. Playing for an athletics department that expects me

1 2 3 4 5 6
to excel in the classroom
270
36. During the course of your college experience, have you ever thought about leaving school?
Yes
No
If yes, indicate the reason(s) why you have thought about leaving school:
(Check all boxes that apply)
Financial realities
Significant other elsewhere
Opportunity to transfer
Work demands
Family responsibilities & approval
Military status
Health issues
Opportunity to play your sport professionally
PART II.
Please provide the following information:
1. Which sport do you participate in? (Fill in the blank)
2. What is your gender? (Check one)

Female
Male
3. What year were you born in? (Fill in the blank)
4. What is your current class rank? (Check one)

Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
4th year senior
5th year senior
271
PART II. (Continue)
5. What is your race or ethnicity? (Check one)

Asian
Black/African-American
Hispanic
Native American
White/Caucasian
Other, please specify
6. Are you receiving an athletics scholarship? (Check one)

Yes
No
If yes, what type of athletics scholarship have you been awarded? (Check one)
Full
Partial
7. What was your high school cumulative grade point average (on a 4-point scale)? (Check one)
4.0 to 3.5
3.5 to 3.0
3.0 to 2.5
2.5 to 2.0
Below 2.0
8. Which of the following broad categories best describes your family’s socioeconomic status?
(Check one)
$10,000 or less
$10,001 to $20,000
$20,001 to $35,000
$35,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 or more
272
PART II. (Continue)
9. Highest level of education completed for: (Check one for each parent)
Mother: Father:
Some high school Some high school
High school High school
Some college Some college
College College
Graduate school Graduate school
Not applicable Not applicable
10. What were your initial academic intentions for coming to college? (Fill in the blank)
11. What were your initial athletic intentions for coming to college? (Fill in the blank)
273
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your
assistance in providing this information is very much appreciated. If you
would like to make additional comments, please do so in the space
provided below.
274
APPENDIX E
PILOT STUDY –
PERMISSION LETTER TO HEAD COACHES
275
October 20, 2003
Coach
[Institution]
[Address 1]
[Address 2]
Dear Coach,
My name is Christina Rivera. I am a Doctoral Candidate at The Ohio State University and an
Academic Counselor for the Student-Athlete Academic Services Office at the University of
Southern California. The reason for this letter is to ask for your help in conducting a study about
the college student-athlete retention process. Under the supervision of my graduate program
advisor at Ohio State, Dr. Ada Demb, the purpose of the study is to develop a survey instrument
that will measure student-athlete perceptions of the factors important in their decision to stay in
school.
I would like to give a questionnaire to each of the student-athletes on the following teams: men’s
and women’s basketball, football, women’s rowing, women’s soccer, men’s and women’s track
& field, and men’s volleyball. In order for the research to generate an accurate depiction of the
college student-athlete experience, I need to have a large number of individuals completing the
questionnaire and we would like to ask for your help.
Specifically, I would like your permission to attend a team meeting in order to administer the
questionnaire. I feel it would be more effective to hand out the questionnaires in person, rather
than to mail them to individual students. The questionnaire takes approximately 15 minutes to
complete. With your permission, I would like to administer the questionnaire at the beginning or
end of a team meeting during the month of December or January.
Participating students, the teams and the athletics department can be assured of complete
confidentiality. Individual questionnaire responses will not be identified or reported. The
published and reported results of this study will not be linked to the name of any individual and
discussions will be based upon group data. Furthermore, student participation will have no
influence on their status as a student or an athlete at [participating institution]. The study has
been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at [participating institution], the
Associate Athletics Director & Director of Student-Athlete Support Services, and the Social and
Health Responsibility Committee of the [participating institution].
If you are willing to assist, please check the appropriate box on the enclosed postcard and
return it in the pre-addressed envelope or reply via email at carivera@usc.edu by Friday,
November 14, 2003. I will contact you to arrange a time that is convenient for you. At the
distribution of the questionnaire, my research assistant, Jennifer Whitney, will facilitate the
process and will ensure that your student-athletes are fully aware of the purpose of the research
study, will allow time for questions, and will thoroughly explain their rights as a participate and
the efforts that will be made to ensure their confidentiality.
276
We hope that the results of this study will be valuable for athletics and academic administrators
Thank you in advance for your participation and cooperation in completing this important study.
Sincerely,
Christina A. Rivera, M.S. Ed. Dr. Ada Demb

Academic Counselor Associate Professor
Student-Athlete Academic Services School of Educational Policy & Leadership
University of Southern California The Ohio State University
(213) 821-0753 (614) 292-1865
carivera@usc.edu demb.1@osu.edu
277
*** Please check one and return in pre-addressed envelope ***
_______ Yes, I permit the researchers to distribute the questionnaire during

a team meeting.
_______ No, I prefer not to schedule this during a team meeting.
Coach’s Name:
(Print)
Coach’s Signature:
*** You may also reply via email to Christina Rivera at

carivera@usc.edu ***
Thank you for your time and please feel free to

make additional comments on the reverse side.
278
APPENDIX F
PILOT STUDY –
PARTICIPANT LETTER
279
November 28. 2003
Dear Participant,
My name is Christina Rivera and I am a Doctoral Student at The Ohio State University in the College of
Education. Recently I took a job at the University of Southern California, where I now live, but yet
continue to work on my dissertation. My dissertation research involves a study about college student-
athlete retention. Under the supervision of Professor Ada Demb, I am interested in determining which
factors are important in a student-athlete’s decision to stay in school. If I can determine those factors that
are most important, I hope that in the future, athletics and academic administrators can use the results of
this study to better understand the student-athlete retention process, to guide the direction of services and
resources offered to student-athletes, and perhaps to help reverse the decline in graduation rates among
certain student-athlete subgroups.
In order for the research to generate an accurate depiction of the college student-athlete experience, I need
to have a large number of individuals completing the questionnaire. Thus, I hope that you will choose to
participate.
If you are considering participating, or have already decided to participate, please know that you as an
individual, and your team and athletics department as a whole, can be assured of complete confidentiality.
The number you will see on the questionnaire cover page is only to help with the questionnaire distribution.
It will not be used for any other purpose. Individual responses will not be identified or reported. You will
see that there is no place for you to enter your name on the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires will
be collected and coded without any distinguishing information. The published and reported results of this
study will not be linked to the name of any individual and discussions will be based upon group data.
Furthermore, be assured that your responses to the questionnaire will not have any influence on your status
as a student or an athlete at [participating institution]. The study has been reviewed and approved by the
Institutional Review Board at [participating institution], the Associate Athletics Director & Director of
Student-Athlete Support Services, and the Social and Health Responsibility Committee of the
[participating institution].
I estimate that the questionnaire will take 15 minutes to complete. There are no known risks for your
involvement in completing the questionnaire. If you change your mind partway through the questionnaire,
you may feel free to stop at any time.
Please feel free to contact either of the researchers at any time. I anticipate that the research project will be
completed by August 31, 2004. Thank you in advance for your participation. It is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,

(213) 821-0753 (614) 292-1865
280
APPENDIX G
PILOT STUDY –
ORAL SCRIPT FOR QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION
281
“UNDERSTANDING COLLEGE STUDENT-ATHLETE RETENTION”
QUESTIONNAIRE (VERSION 2)
Oral Script for Questionnaire Distribution
Hello my name is Jennifer Whitney and I am a doctoral student in the College of

Education at The Ohio State University and a research assistant for a study conducted
under the supervision of Dr. Ada Demb, Associate Professor in the School of Educational
Policy & Leadership and Christina Rivera, doctoral candidate in the School of
Educational Policy & Leadership at The Ohio State University.
Each of you has a packet containing a cover letter and a questionnaire. Please do
not open the packet until I instruct you to do so. The focus of this research study is to
analyze the college student-athlete retention process and the factors that are important in
a student-athlete’s decision to stay in school. I am asking you to help us by completing a
15-minute questionnaire. Your participation is entirely voluntary. If you decide to
participate, you will need to read the cover letter prior to completing the questionnaire. If
you prefer not to participate, please return your questionnaire unmarked.
Please open your packet now and look at the questionnaire. As you can see the
questionnaire consists of 43 statements and 17 information questions. For each of the
statements, you are to indicate your preference by circling a number on the 6-point
Importance scale. The Importance scale refers to how important each statement is to you
for staying in school. The Importance scale ranges from a 1, which is equaled to “Not
Very Important” to a 6, which is equaled to “Very Important”. For each of the
information questions, either fill in the blank or check the appropriate box.
This is not a test. Thus when reviewing the available responses, it is important
that you choose a response that corresponds to “how well the statement describes you”,
not in terms of how you think you should respond or how well others will respond. There
are no right or wrong answers to these statements.
Please do not place your name or any other identifiable information anywhere on
the questionnaire. Your responses to the statements on the questionnaire will be kept
completely confidential and your name will not be identified with your responses in the
final written report. Your responses will not have any influence on your status as a
student or an athlete at the [participating institution].
Are there any questions?
If you would like to consider participating, or have already decided to participate,

please take out the cover letter. Please read the cover letter thoroughly. Once you have
finished reading the cover letter, you may begin completing the questionnaire. Please
282
know that by completing the questionnaire, you have given your consent to participate in
the study. If you prefer not to participate, please leave the questionnaire in the envelope
unmarked.
As soon as you have answered the last question on the questionnaire, please make
sure that you have given only one response for each statement, circled each response
clearly, and left none blank. Then place the completed questionnaire back in the
provided envelope and seal the envelope by using the clasp. Once all the participants
have finished, I will come around and collect the sealed envelopes with only the
completed questionnaire enclosed. Please feel free to take the cover letter with you.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this study. You may begin reading
the cover letter.
283
APPENDIX H
PILOT STUDY –
THANK YOU LETTER TO HEAD COACHES
284
January 14, 2004
Coach
[Institution]
[Address 1]
[Address 2]
Dear Coach,
On behalf of Jennifer Whitney and myself, we wanted to thank you very much for
allowing us to distribute the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention”
questionnaire to your student-athletes during one of your team meetings. Your time and
assistance with this study are truly appreciated. We hope that the results of this study
will be valuable for athletics and academic administrators concerned with the retention of
student-athletes. If at anytime you are interested in obtaining further information about
the study, please do not hesitate to ask. I would gladly share my results with you.
Again, we thank you for your time and assistance and we strongly believe this study will
provide us with a wealth of information about student-athlete retention.
Sincerely,
Christina Rivera Jennifer Whitney

Academic Counselor Research Assistant
Student-Athlete Academic Services College of Education
(213) 821-0753 whitney.34@osu.edu
carivera@usc.edu
285
APPENDIX I

286
287
PART I.
Not Very Very

Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important
1. Having teammates who support my academic

1 2 3 4 5 6
goals
2. Interacting with my instructors outside of the

1 2 3 4 5 6
classroom

1 2 3 4 5 6
academic goals
4. Being presented with a variety of times for which

1 2 3 4 5 6
to take my classes
5. Feeling satisfied with my college athletic

1 2 3 4 5 6
experience
288
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
sports level
11. Interacting with my instructors during class 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. Receiving individual athletic awards (i.e., All-

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Playing for an athletics department that rewards

1 2 3 4 5 6
me for my academic performance

1 2 3 4 5 6
responsibilities

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
scheduling

1 2 3 4 5 6
289
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important

1 2 3 4 5 6
responsibilities

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
counseling
25. Being confident in my athletic abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
related)

1 2 3 4 5 6
goals

1 2 3 4 5 6
counseling
32. Having friends outside of the team who support

1 2 3 4 5 6
me
35. Playing for an athletics department that expects

1 2 3 4 5 6
me to excel in the classroom
290
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important
36. Having teammates who support my athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6
37. Playing for an athletics department that provides

me with the resources and services I need to excel 1 2 3 4 5 6
academically
38. Being admitted into the major I am most interested
1 2 3 4 5 6
in
39. Having teammates who respect me for doing well

1 2 3 4 5 6
academically
40. Knowing that my required classes are connected

1 2 3 4 5 6
to my major
41. Feeling satisfied with my college academic

1 2 3 4 5 6
experience
42. Being confident in my academic abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yes
No
Financial realities
Work demands
Military status
Health issues (non-athletic related)
Sports-related injury
Other, please specify__________________________________________________
291
PART II.

Female
Male

Asian
Hispanic
Native American
White/Caucasian

Yes
No
Full
Partial
6. After completing the 2003-04 athletic season, how many years of eligibility will you have
remaining?
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
7. Did you “red-shirt” at any time throughout your college athletics career?
Yes
No
292
PART II. (Continue)
8. What was your NCAA Clearinghouse status? (Check one)

Qualifier
Partial qualifier
Non-qualifier
Not applicable (i.e., transfer student)

Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
4th year senior
5th year senior
10. What is your current academic major? (Fill in the blank)
11. What was your current college cumulative grade point average (on a 4-point scale)?
(Check one)
4.0 to 3.5
3.5 to 3.0
3.0 to 2.5
2.5 to 2.0
Below 2.0
12. What was your highest standardized test score? (Check all that apply) (i.e., For the SAT,
Math = 500 and Verbal = 500 for a combined score of 1,000. For the ACT, English = 20,
Math = 15, Reading = 18, and Science = 17 for a composite score of an 18.)
SAT: ACT:
0-500 0-12
501-800 13-19
801-1,000 20-25
1,001-1,300 26-30
1,301-1,600 31-36
Not applicable – Did not take SAT Not applicable – Did not take ACT
13. What was your high school cumulative grade point average (on a 4-point scale)?
(Check one)
4.0 to 3.5
3.5 to 3.0
3.0 to 2.5
2.5 to 2.0
Below 2.0
293
PART II. (Continue)
(Check one)
$20,000 or less
$20,001 to $35,000
$35,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 or more
Mother: Father:
College College
294
provided below.
295
APPENDIX J
FINAL STUDY –
PERMISSION LETTER TO HEAD COACHES
296
February 20, 2004
Coach
[Institution]
[Address 1]
[Address 2]
Dear Coach,
My name is Christina Rivera. I am an Academic Counselor for the Student-Athlete Academic

Services Office at the University of Southern California and a Doctoral Candidate at The Ohio
State University. The reason for this letter is to ask for your help in conducting a study about the
college student-athlete retention process. Under the supervision of my graduate program advisor
at Ohio State, Dr. Ada Demb, the purpose of the study is to develop a survey instrument that will
measure student-athlete perceptions of the factors important in their decision to stay in school.
I would like to give a questionnaire to each of the student-athletes on all 19 varsity athletics teams
at [participating institution]. In order for the research to generate an accurate depiction of the
college student-athlete experience, I need to have a large number of individuals completing the
questionnaire and we would like to ask for your help.
Specifically, I would like your permission to attend a team meeting in order to administer the
questionnaire. I feel it would be more effective to hand out the questionnaires in person, rather
than to mail them to individual students. The questionnaire takes approximately 15 minutes to
complete. With your permission, I would like to administer the questionnaire at the beginning or
end of a team meeting during the month of March.
Participating students, the teams and the athletics department can be assured of complete
confidentiality. Individual questionnaire responses will not be identified or reported. The
published and reported results of this study will not be linked to the name of any individual and
discussions will be based upon group data. Furthermore, student participation will have no
influence on their status as a student or an athlete at the [participating institution]. The study has
been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at The Ohio State University and
the [participating institution] and the Associate Athletics Director & Director of Student-Athlete
Academic Services.
If you are willing to assist, please check the appropriate box on the enclosed postcard and
return it in the pre-addressed envelope or reply via email at carivera@usc.edu by Monday,
March 8, 2004. Christina Rivera will contact you to arrange a time that is convenient for you.
We hope that the results of this study will be valuable for athletics and academic administrators
297
Thank you in advance for your participation and cooperation in completing this important study.
Sincerely,

(213) 821-0753 (614) 292-1865
298
*** Please check one and return in pre-addressed envelope ***
_______ Yes, I permit the researchers to distribute the questionnaire during

a team meeting.
_______ No, I prefer not to schedule this during a team meeting.
Coach’s Name:
(Print)
Coach’s Signature:
*** You may also reply via email to Christina Rivera at

carivera@usc.edu or by phone at (213) 821-0753 ***
Thank you for your time and please feel free to

make additional comments on the reverse side.
299
APPENDIX K
FINAL STUDY –
PARTICIPANT LETTER
300
March 1, 2004
Dear Participant,
My name is Christina Rivera and I am an Academic Counselor in the Student-Athlete Academic Services
Office as well as a Doctoral Student at The Ohio State University in the College of Education. While I am
currently working at USC, I am still continuing to work on my dissertation in pursuit of my doctoral
degree. My dissertation research involves a study about college student-athlete retention. Under the
supervision of Professor Ada Demb, I am interested in determining which factors are important in a
student-athlete’s decision to stay in school. If I can determine those factors that are most important, I hope
that in the future, athletics and academic administrators can use the results of this study to better understand
the student-athlete retention process, to guide the direction of services and resources offered to student-
athletes, and perhaps to help reverse the decline in graduation rates among certain student-athlete
subgroups.
In order for the research to generate an accurate depiction of the college student-athlete experience, I need
to have a large number of individuals completing the questionnaire. Thus, I hope that you will choose to
participate.
If you are considering participating, or have already decided to participate, please know that you as an
individual, and your team and athletics department as a whole, can be assured of complete confidentiality.
The number you will see on the questionnaire cover page is only to help with the questionnaire distribution.
It will not be used for any other purpose. Individual responses will not be identified or reported. You will
see that there is no place for you to enter your name on the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires will
be collected and coded without any distinguishing information. The published and reported results of this
study will not be linked to the name of any individual and discussions will be based upon group data.
Furthermore, be assured that your responses to the questionnaire will not have any influence on your status
as a student or an athlete at the [participating institution]. The study has been reviewed and approved by
the Institutional Review Boards at The Ohio State University and the [participating institution] and the
Associate Athletics Director & Director of Student-Athlete Academic Services.
I estimate that the questionnaire will take 15 minutes to complete. There are no known risks for your
involvement in completing the questionnaire. If you change your mind partway through the questionnaire,
you may feel free to stop at any time.
Please feel free to contact either of the researchers at any time. I anticipate that the research project will be
completed by August 31, 2004. Thank you in advance for your participation. It is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,

(213) 821-0753 (614) 292-1865
301
APPENDIX L
FINAL STUDY –
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
302
[Participating Institution]
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
The development of an instrument to measure student-athlete perceptions

about the factors important to the retention process
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Christina A. Rivera from
the Student-Athlete Academic Services Office at the University of Southern California
and Dr. Ada Demb from the School of Educational Policy & Leadership at The Ohio
State University. The results of this study will contribute to the dissertation of Ms. Rivera
in pursuit of her doctoral degree from Ohio State. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because you are a current student-athlete at [participating
institution]. A total of 600 subjects from all 19 varsity athletic teams will be selected to
participate. Your participation is entirely voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to develop an
instrument that measures student-athlete perceptions on factors important in their
decision to stay in school.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions

will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to complete the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention”
questionnaire. The questionnaire will take 15 minutes to complete. The questionnaire
consists of 43 statements and 17 information questions. For each of the statements, you
are to indicate your preference by circling a number on the 6-point Importance scale. The
Importance scale refers to how important each statement is to you for staying in school.
For each of the information questions, either fill in the blank or check the appropriate
box.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

There are no foreseeable risks, discomforts, or inconveniences for participating in this
study. Be assured that your responses to the questionnaire will not have any influence on
your status as a student or an athlete at [participating institution].
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

The results of this study will be valuable for student-athletes, athletic administrators, and
academic administrators concerned with the retention of student-athletes. Understanding
student-athlete perceptions about the factors important to their decision to stay in school
has the potential to reverse the decline in graduation rates among certain student-athlete
303
subgroups. For example, the data collected could be used to guide the direction of
services and resources for student-athletes. Moreover, with the NCAA considering the
adoption of an incentives program for its member institutions based on the graduation
rates of its student-athletes, improving our understanding of student-athlete retention
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. Those who choose to complete the questionnaire will not be asked to
write their name or any other identifiable information anywhere on the questionnaire.
The number on the questionnaire will be used only for the coordination of the
questionnaire distribution. It will not be used for any other purpose. Individual
responses will not be identified or reported. The questionnaire will be collected and
coded without any distinguishing information. The published and reported results of this
study will not be linked to the name of any individual and any discussion will be based
upon group data. Responses to the questionnaire will not have any influence on the
participant's status as a student or an athlete at the [participating institution]. Completed
questionnaires will be stored in a locked file cabinet at the residence of the principal
investigator, Christina A. Rivera. Upon the completion of the study (August 2004), the
questionnaires will be shredded and recycled at the Student-Athlete Academics Office at
USC.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Christina A. Rivera, Principal Investigator, at (213) 821-0753 or Dr. Ada Demb, Co-
Investigator, at (614) 292-1865.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the [participating institution].
304
APPENDIX M
FINAL STUDY –
ORAL SCRIPT FOR QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION
305
“UNDERSTANDING COLLEGE STUDENT-ATHLETE RETENTION”
QUESTIONNAIRE (VERSION 3)
Oral Script for Questionnaire Distribution
Hello my name is Christina Rivera and I am a doctoral candidate in the College of

Education at The Ohio State University and an academic counselor for the Student-
Athlete Academic Services Office at the University of Southern California. I am
conducting a study under the supervision of my graduate program advisor, Dr. Ada
Demb.
Each of you has a packet containing a cover letter, information sheet, and a
questionnaire. Please do not open the packet until I instruct you to do so. The focus of
this research study is to analyze the college student-athlete retention process and the
factors that are important in a student-athlete’s decision to stay in school. I am asking
you to help us by completing a 15-minute questionnaire. Your participation is entirely
voluntary. If you decide to participate, you will need to read the cover letter and
information sheet prior to completing the questionnaire. If you prefer not to participate,
please return your questionnaire unmarked.
Please open your packet now and look at the questionnaire. As you can see the
questionnaire consists of 43 statements and 17 information questions. For each of the
statements, you are to indicate your preference by circling a number on the 6-point
Importance scale. The Importance scale refers to how important each statement is to you
for staying in school. The Importance scale ranges from a 1, which is equaled to “Not
Very Important” to a 6, which is equaled to “Very Important”. For each of the
information questions, either fill in the blank or check the appropriate box.
This is not a test. Thus when reviewing the available responses, it is important
that you choose a response that corresponds to “how well the statement describes you”,
not in terms of how you think you should respond or how well others will respond. There
are no right or wrong answers to these statements.
Please do not place your name or any other identifiable information anywhere on
the questionnaire. Your responses to the statements on the questionnaire will be kept
completely confidential and your name will not be identified with your responses in the
final written report. Your responses will not have any influence on your status as a
student or an athlete at the [participating institution].
If you would like to consider participating, or have already decided to participate,

please take out the cover letter and information sheet. Please read both of these
thoroughly. Once you have finished reading the cover letter and information sheet, you
306
may begin completing the questionnaire. Please know that by completing the
questionnaire, you have given your consent to participate in the study. If you prefer not
to participate, please leave the questionnaire in the envelope unmarked.
As soon as you have answered the last question on the questionnaire, please make
sure that you have given only one response for each statement, circled each response
clearly, and left none blank. Then place the completed questionnaire back in the
provided envelope and seal the envelope. Once all the participants have finished, I will
come around and collect the sealed envelopes with only the completed questionnaire
enclosed. Please feel free to take the cover letter and information sheet with you.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this study. You may begin reading
the cover letter and information sheet.
307
APPENDIX N
FINAL STUDY –
THANK YOU LETTER TO HEAD COACHES
308
April 12, 2004
Coach
[Institution]
[Address 1]
[Address 2]
Dear Coach,
I wanted to thank you very much for allowing me to distribute the “Understanding
College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire to your student-athletes during one of
your team meetings. Your time and assistance with this study are truly appreciated. I
hope that the results of this study will be valuable for athletics and academic
administrators concerned with the retention of student-athletes. If at anytime you are
interested in obtaining further information about the study, please do not hesitate to ask.
I would gladly share my results with you.
Again, thank you for your time and assistance and I hope this study will provide us with a
wealth of information about student-athlete retention.
Sincerely,
Christina Rivera
Academic Counselor
Student-Athlete Academic Services
University of Southern California
(213) 821-0753
carivera@usc.edu
309
APPENDIX O

310
311
PART I.
Not Very Very

Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important
1. Having teammates who support my academic

1 2 3 4 5 6
goals
2. Interacting with my instructors outside of the

1 2 3 4 5 6
classroom

1 2 3 4 5 6
academic goals
4. Being presented with a variety of times for which

1 2 3 4 5 6
to take my classes
5. Feeling satisfied with my college athletic

1 2 3 4 5 6
experience
312
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
sports level
11. Interacting with my instructors during class 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. Receiving individual athletic awards (i.e., All-

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Playing for an athletics department that rewards

1 2 3 4 5 6
me for my academic performance

1 2 3 4 5 6
responsibilities

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
scheduling

1 2 3 4 5 6
313
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important

1 2 3 4 5 6
responsibilities

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
counseling
25. Being confident in my athletic abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6
related)

1 2 3 4 5 6
goals

1 2 3 4 5 6
counseling
32. Having friends outside of the team who support

1 2 3 4 5 6
me
35. Playing for an athletics department that expects

1 2 3 4 5 6
me to excel in the classroom
314
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
Imp ort an ce
Not Very Very
Important Important
36. Having teammates who support my athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6
37. Playing for an athletics department that provides

me with the resources and services I need to excel 1 2 3 4 5 6
academically
38. Being admitted into the major I am most interested
1 2 3 4 5 6
in
39. Having teammates who respect me for doing well

1 2 3 4 5 6
academically
40. Knowing that my required classes are connected

1 2 3 4 5 6
to my major
41. Feeling satisfied with my college academic

1 2 3 4 5 6
experience
42. Being confident in my academic abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yes
No
Financial realities
Work demands
Military status
Health issues (non-athletic related)
Sports-related injury
Other, please specify__________________________________________________
315
PART II.

Female
Male

Asian
Hispanic
Native American
White/Caucasian

Yes
No
Full
Partial
6. After completing the 2003-04 athletic season, how many years of eligibility will you have
remaining?
0 years
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
7. Did you “red-shirt” at any time throughout your college athletics career?
Yes
No
316
PART II. (Continue)
8. What was your NCAA Clearinghouse status? (Check one)

Qualifier
Partial qualifier
Non-qualifier
Not applicable (i.e., transfer student)

Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
4th year senior
5th year senior
10. What is your current academic major? (Fill in the blank)
11. What was your current college cumulative grade point average (on a 4-point scale)?
(Check one)
4.00 to 3.50
3.49 to 3.00
2.99 to 2.50
2.49 to 2.00
Below 2.00
12. What was your highest standardized test score? (Check all that apply) (i.e., For the SAT,
Math = 500 and Verbal = 500 for a combined score of 1,000. For the ACT, English = 20,
Math = 15, Reading = 18, and Science = 17 for a composite score of an 18.)
SAT: ACT:
0-500 0-12
501-800 13-19
801-1,000 20-25
1,001-1,300 26-30
1,301-1,600 31-36
Not applicable – Did not take SAT Not applicable – Did not take ACT
13. What was your high school cumulative grade point average (on a 4-point scale)?
(Check one)
4.00 to 3.50
3.49 to 3.00
2.99 to 2.50
2.49 to 2.00
Below 2.00
317
PART II. (Continue)
(Check one)
$20,000 or less
$20,001 to $35,000
$35,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 or more
Mother: Father:
College College
318
provided below.
319

Gandhi Athletes PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gandhi Athletes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE IDENTIFICATION OF KEY FACTORS

STUDENT-ATHLETES PERCEIVED TO BE IMPORTANT TO

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Christina A. Rivera, M.S. Ed.

The Ohio State University

Professor Leonard Baird

perceived to be important in their decision-making to stay in school. To accomplish this

purpose, it was necessary to – 1) construct a conceptual model of student-athlete retention

student-athlete experience, 2) utilize the conceptual model of student-athlete retention to

guide the creation of an instrument that captures student-athlete perceptions of factors

meaningful factors underlying the items of the instrument.

Participants in this study consisted of 330 NCAA Division I student-athletes

attending a large west coast university. These student-athletes participated in one of 16

Using the “Understanding College Student-Athlete Retention” questionnaire

and 17 demographic questions were included in the questionnaire. The Likert-scaled

the participant’s decision to stay in school.

items of the instrument. Specifically, principal components analysis with VARIMAX

rotation extracted a four-factor model that explained 49 percent of the variance.

Cronbach’s alpha and split-half (Spearman-Brown) reliability coefficients were

greater than or equal to .784, which is considered highly reliable.

Experience, Quality of Athletic Experience, In-Network Support, and Out-Of-Network

Support – reflect what student-athletes perceived to be important in their decision-making

Conversely, involvement in special interest groups and extracurricular activities,

academic support from teammates, informal student-faculty interactions, and individual

athletic achievement were variables perceived to be least important. Differences based

1) respondents who had intentions of leaving school prior to graduation and 2)

significantly higher level of importance on the “Quality of Academic Experience” than

intentions of leaving school prior to graduation placed a significantly higher level of

Student-athlete experiences and perspectives, as expressed by student-athletes

provide a comprehensive explanation of what is important to the student-athlete retention

appropriately address the various dimensions of retention.

An ancient saying reveals, “We have no friends; we have no enemies; we only

unwavering support and encouragement.

Willie, Brandon, and Magdi.

study and your willingness to support my research. Additionally, my sincerest thanks to

support and encouragement. Furthermore, my heartfelt gratitude to my friend Erin, who

A special acknowledgment to Cheryl Dingus, whose knowledge, skills, and

unconditional support allowed me to complete this study.

August 14, 1974 ............................................Born – Monterey Park, CA

1996 ...............................................................B.A., Social Ecology

1998 ...............................................................M.S. Ed., Educational Policy

2000 – 2002 ...................................................Graduate Administrative Assistant

2002 – 2003 ...................................................Athletic Academic Counselor

2003 – present ...............................................Academic Counselor

1. Cunningham, G. B. & Rivera, C. A. (2002). Structural designs within American

Major Field: Education

List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xiv

List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xvii

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................18

List of References .....................................................................................................245

2.1 Chronological Outline of Major Models of Student Retention ..........28

2.2 Comparison of the Major Models of Student Retention .....................29

2.3 Student Retention Factors & Their Corresponding Variables ............41

2.4 Graduation Rate of Division I Student-Athletes,

2.5 Major Division IA Football Conference Television Deals,

2.6 Television Rights Fees for the Division I Men’s Basketball

2.7 Trends in Division IA Institutions’ Revenues & Expenses,

2.8 Number of Sponsored Sports Teams by Gender in Division I,

2.9 Female Participants in NCAA-Sponsored Sports (All Divisions),

2.10 Student-Athlete Retention Factors & Their Corresponding

3.1 Total Population Based on Gender for Pilot Study ...........................101