INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION IN SPORTS SITUATIONS

Tatjana Tubi *, and pela Golubovi ** * Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, Novi Sad, Serbia ** Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia

Abstract
How do we perceive childrens behavior in sports situations? Is there any congruence among trainers in relation to perception of particular forms of behavior of preschool children? Consequently, can any eventual coincidence of perception be treated as a potential criterion of precision of a particular perception? This Paper gives a contribution to studies of interpersonal perception, which is understood both as an instrumental of social interaction and its cause. Research was performed on the sample of 133 preschool and younger-school-age children of both sexes. Their behavior in sports situations was assessed by four trainers as evaluators, independently of each other, as per Conners Rating Scale. Interpretation of the obtained results enables their application beyond kinesiological framework too. Keywords: interpersonal perception, perception congruence, perception precision.

Introduction
According to Thorndike, an ideal assessor is a person who has most often been in a position to observe the person appraised in the situations in which the person in question is most likely to express the assessed qualities (Thorndike, cited as Freeberg, 1969). Undoubtedly, there have been attempts to approach as closely as possible this ideal assessor, especially in the situations and professions where the issue of assessment accuracy is, in fact, the issue of professional competence. In sport, for example, it is quite common to hear that a good coach is not distinguished from a bad one only on the basis of how much knowledge, will and eagerness he/she has, but primarily on the basis of how successfully they transfer their own knowledge to children, i.e. how much they are able to adapt the way of transferring the knowledge to the needs of an individual child so that the child finds it easy to understand while a healthy and positive attitude towards sport in general is created. Similar problems can also be found in other professions where interpersonal communication is required: a good doctor will be said to be the one who apart from prescribing the therapy, leaves an impression that he/she is interested in us as persons, who honestly thinks of our problems as important to him/her as well, etc. Furthermore, in school students will consider a good teacher the one who understands them rather than the one who happens to be a great lecturer or an expert, which is confirmed not only by abundant and practical experience but also by the results of psychological researches at all school levels (Tubi, 2005). In order for a coach, a doctor or a teacher to be successful in professional and more general terms, they have to be qualified to assess as accurately as possible those personal traits of the people they come into contact with and which are relevant for doing their jobs properly. In other words, interpersonal perception seen as the process of leaving impressions and drawing conclusions about other people (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2005) represents the essence of interpersonal communication. Interpersonal perception includes observation and assessment of other people, of their specific characteristics, in other words. Thus two people can, for example, observe the same thing, but estimate it differently. Unlike the observation that refers to mere detecting impulses by means of our senses, while assessing there is a connection between what we have perceived, our behavior towards another person that is based on perception, the impact of our behavior on the perception of another person and his/her behavior and finally our perception of that persons reaction (Stewart, 2002). Assessment is impossible to conceive without interpretation, that is without making sense of what is perceived, which is again 259

unthinkable without higher cognitive processes participating in it. All things considered, if we look back upon Throndikes idea that represents the starting point for this paper, it is easy to understand why a number of people who are trying to get closer to the model of an ideal assessor or even achieve that level, if possible, actually face a number of objective and subjective obstacles. The most common ones appear to be lack of time (which brings us to the halo effect); stereotypes (we associate the perceived traits with our simplified beliefs about certain categories of people); mistakes made when tracing the causes of peoples behavior (whether we connect them to internal or external causes); mistakes related to the personal assessment of the assessor (e.g. some of us think of people as predominantly good, while others think people are predominantly bad), etc. (Petar, 2005). In addition to the obstacles in interpersonal perception deriving from the very assessor, there are a number of subjective factors which derive from the person who is assessed and which lead to the mistakes in the appraisal of those people, e.g. prominence of a trait which is the object of assessment or verbal abilities of the assessed person or their health condition or their self-esteem etc. (Tubi, 2000; 2001). Factors deriving from the mutual interaction between the assessor and the assessee also influence the assessment mistakes (Tubi, 2008): the same traits are not prominent to the same extent at home, in sports trainings or in the surgery room. Therefore, their availability for being assessed is different; even the same characteristics of one and the same person are expressed differently in the PE classes and during the breaks; the teacher sees us in one way, while our classmate we sit next to in a different one, our girlfriend in another way etc. Our position in a hierarchy of relationships is also determined by the way we are going to evaluate others, but also by the way we are going to be evaluated, even by the way we are going to evaluate ourselves (!). There are, on the other hand, factors which facilitate interpersonal perception making it more objective. These factors derive from the fact that the assessor and the assessee belong to the same culture, thus having in common a number of norms, values, standards, behavior patterns and ways of reacting (Rot, & Havelka, 1968). In addition, the persons included in interpersonal communication are most often connected by a clearly defined activity, for example, sports training, and therefore, a certain number of features with a high manifestation rate are restricted when compared to some other situations or social groups, which further makes it even more possible to check the perceived features. If we add to what has been said so far certain common interests or motives of the participant in the interpersonal perception, which is, for instance, quite common in the interaction between a coach and a player, then a more firm ground is created for a more impartial assessment of the relevant behavior characteristics. However, this does not mean that assessment accuracy is an easily achieved goal. Burdened with numerous methodological problems (ipka, 1977), in the previous period in order to determine the assessment accuracy the researches in this field were directed towards the empirical verification of the following criteria of that accuracy (Havelka, 1992): the extent of congruence between the evaluation of the assessor and the results of the prominence of the same feature achieved on the basis of the standardized measuring instruments; the extent of congruence between the assessments of specific persons whose evaluation we are interested in and the clinical assessment done by the experts in the field which is the object of the assessment; consensus of a group or panel of judges by comparing an individual assessment with the average evaluation done by the group or the panel, etc. Bearing in mind that coaches who are more accurate in assessing childrens behavior in sports situations create preconditions for timely reacting and adjusting their working methods to every child thus contributing to the childs improvement, but also to the improvement of their pedagogical work, this paper was conceived as a contribution to the study of assessment accuracy in sports situations. Namely, this paper will examine the issue of whether assessment of one and the same behavior of the same group of children under the same conditions (in this case, the focus is on the assessment of hyperactivity in children during sports practices using the standardized evaluation scale) by four coaches who have undertaken the roles of independent evaluators can offer a more precise illustration of the prominence of the assessed aspect of behavior of certain children when compared to the individual assessment of each and one of them, which practically occurs most often. This would help improve the work with children in the situations related to sport, but even beyond sport.

260

Method
The research included 139 children aged between 4 and 9 that are engaged in institutionalized forms of physical activities within the Athletic Preschool in Novi Sad. Out of the total number of the children, the data on six of them were incomplete, thus the final sample included 133 examinees, 101 boys and 32 girls. Their behavior was continually observed and then evaluated by four coaches qualified to work with children. The assignment for every coach was to give independent evaluation of a certain childs behavior using the Conners` Rating Scale (Edelbrock, & Rancurello, 1985; Danforth, & DuPaul, 1996; Conners, 2008). This measuring instrument consists of ten indicators assessed by a four point Likert scale. Total absence of the evaluated aspect of behavior is rated 0 points, while the prominent presence is rated 3 points with the corresponding intermediate steps (1 and 2 points). It took 5 to 10 minutes to examine one child at a time, which absolutely coincides with the time needed for filling out the scale recommended by its author. The data were gathered within the experimental part of the scientific research project Integral development, physical activity and aberrant behavior in preschool children actualized by the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education in Novi Sad and financed by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

The Results and Discussion

Considering the goal set in this paper regarding the testing of congruence in assessments of childrens behavior by several independent assessors, in this case the emphasis was neither on evaluating the specific aspects of behavior nor on obtaining concrete results using the Conners` Rating Scale. Therefore, while presenting and discussing the results there will be no talk about the scores obtained by means of the scale or about individual items and their interpretation from the point of view of studying hyperactivity as a psychological phenomenon, but the attention will be focused on the accuracy problems in evaluating any form of behavior by comparing assessments conducted by different independent assessors. For the aforementioned reason, while presenting the results no concrete items will be listed from the used instrument, but their sequence numbers will be used. The Table 1 shows the results of descriptive statistics according to the items for every independent assessor. Table1. Descriptive statistics (AS, SD) according to the items for every assessor (coach)
Coach I AS 1.98 1.92 1.92 2.08 2.02 2.19 1.86 1.85 1.86 2.07 SD .59 .63 .76 .61 .76 .57 .64 .61 .59 .65 Coach II AS 2.09 1.89 1.80 2.06 2.19 2.00 2.17 1.95 1.84 2.05 SD .65 .66 .66 .66 .70 .48 .39 .41 .44 .74 Coach III AS 2.07 2.04 2.07 2.29 2.26 2.29 2.14 2.15 2.17 2.10 SD .62 .43 .39 .52 .47 .45 .34 .36 .39 .41 Coach IV AS 1.64 1.37 1.50 1.61 1.54 1.34 1.38 1.32 1.24 1.39 SD .73 .57 .71 .70 .72 .56 .52 .54 .45 .57

Item1 Item2 Item3 Item4 Item5 Item6 Item7 Item8 Item9 Item10

Given the results in Table 1 it is evident that the Coach IV gives all the items from the used scale considerably lower scores when compared to the other three ones. Even though the invariability of the results regarding certain items is evident among the first three coaches, the Coach III still does have slightly higher scores in almost every item (the exception being Item7). Furthermore, no regularity can be observed in evaluating certain items. To be more precise, there are no items that all the assessors would agree upon in the course of evaluation (whether giving the highest or the lowest values to a certain aspect of hyperactivity manifesting in the observed children), which implies both good metric characteristics of the measuring instrument (the reliability of the scale ranges between 0.728 and 0.942 for an extended form, that is 0.857 and 0.938 for the abbreviated form) and relevant features of the assessor which become particularly prominent in the course of evaluation. In Table 1 it is possible to notice that the 261

Coach IV, apart from the lowest scores for all the items, has also a greater dispersion of results when compared to the second and the third assessor. And again, between the first three coaches, the Coach III can be distinguished from Coaches I and II giving more consistent assessment (the dispersion of results is the lowest even though the values of the assessed features are the highest). Table2. Descriptive statistics (AS, SD) for every assessor (coach)
AS Coach I Coach II Coach III Coach IV 19.75 20.04 21.55 14.32 SD 4.26 3.54 2.67 3.84

The Table 2 shows the aforesaid more clearly: The Coach IV has the lowest score in the evaluation of certain aspects of hyperactivity in children and a greater standard deviation (along with the Coach 1), while the Coach III has the highest score with the lowest dispersion of the results. Based on all of this, it is possible to conclude that numerous traits of the assessors, but also of the assessees, along with their mutual relationship are particularly expressed in the course of evaluation influencing thus, the accuracy of the assessment itself (Tubi, 2000; 2001; 2008). All of the differences here point to the delicacy of the practical application area even in the case of such standardized measuring instruments with good metric characteristics, mush as Conners` Rating Scale is. Accordingly, this research shows how much it is necessary to be cautious to a certain extent, not only when using this measuring instrument, but all those whose essence is naturally based on assessment (of the behavior, that is of its individual aspects). Up until now the extent of congruence has been considered among the coaches according to the items based on the principal indicators of descriptive statistics. In order to confirm the impartiality of the assessor further in the paper (Table 3) the intercorrelation matrix of the assessor, Cronbach coefficient and inter-item correlation were calculated. Table 3. Intercorrelation of an assessor (coach) and objectivity coefficient values (inter-item correlation and Cronbach coefficient)
Coach I Coach II Coach III Coach IV Coach I 1.00 .71 .57 .72 Coach II .71 1.00 .56 .64 Coach III .57 .56 1.00 .59 Coach IV .72 .64 .59 1.00 IIr .63 .87

The Table 3 contains the intercorrelation values of the assessors based on which it is possible to deduce two ideas. Namely, it is possible to say that correlations are remarkably high considering this is the case of connection between the evaluation results obtained by independent assessors, but at the same time those correlations are not too high if we take into account that the same features are assessed using four categories. In the previous researches it was proved that a man is the best assessor if he assesses the phenomenon based on three different categories (Grgin, 1994). Considering the sophistication of certain psychological instruments operating on the basis of five, six, seven and more categories, we expected, however, higher correlation coefficients in the concrete case. Standard objectivity indicators, such as Cronbach coefficient and inter-item correlation have satisfactory values ( = 0.868; IIr = 0.631). As it is widely known, in order to determine relation between any values it is not enough to know only the value of correlation coefficient, but it is necessary to prove that they were not obtained merely by chance, i.e. that they are statistically significant. All of the obtained correlations in our case are statistically significant at a level of 0.01. Based on the Table 3 we can say the connection between the assessment of certain coaches ranges from the moderate to high. It is also necessary to provide an additional interpretation of the meaning of correlation coefficient in this and similar cases. By means of correlation we practically measure the connection among the phenomena, evaluation, physical units, measures, and etc., in our concrete research among the assessments of the same traits carried out by different independent assessors. Thus, high correlation coefficient is a preferable, but not a sufficient condition for us to say something more about assessment accuracy. Ideally, if we were to measure two phenomena and obtain the correlation r=1, that would not necessarily mean we measured the same phenomenon and that the accuracy was high. This would only mean that the two phenomena we measured ideally connected and that there was absolute connection between these two phenomena, and they always 262

depended on one another in the same way that is easy to control and describe. In our case we do not know the exact measure of the phenomenon, but only its evaluation by independent assessors. For that reason, it is only seemingly illogical for a Coach I to have the highest correlation with the Coach IV (Table 3), even though according to the result on the scale he is much closer to the results obtained by Coaches II and III. Similar results are more to be found in the Table 3. What can be concluded based on the Tables 2 and 3 is that the assessment methods of all four of the coaches are consistent, i.e. every coach has a pretty much clear idea which forms of childrens behavior they classify into which behavior category, it is only that the first three coaches moved their categories towards higher values when compared to the fourth one. Thus, here we can discuss precision, but not accuracy.

Instead of a Conclusion
Conners hyperactivity scale was designed for testing a larger number of children by a particular competent and qualified person in order to distinguish the children manifesting certain problems in this area. If we take a look at this rationally, if four people equally qualified to do the job of a coach working with the children of the same age, of equal working experience are assigned to roles of assessors and given the standardizes test, it is expected that the possibility for wrong assessments will be lower if their individual assessments are compared. Furthermore, if three assessors have approximate scores with moderate standard deviations and high intercorrelation, it is also to be expected that they have appraised a certain phenomenon more accurately when compared to the fourth assessor who has considerably lower scores. Our research has shown that even with rational and logical thinking supported by statistical methods just described, does not provide a sufficient guarantee that the evaluation will be correct. Namely, from the clinical point of view Conners` Rating Scale is quite reliable in distinguishing the children with hyperactivity problems from the rest of the children: the score that is higher than 18 (Jerkovi, 2002) on this scale implies certain hyperactivity problems. In our case, even three independent assessors have average scores above 18, which means that the assessed children would approximately be classified as hyperactive! To be more precise, even 57% of the children assessed by the first assessor, according to this criterion, are classified as hyperactive, that is 62% in the case of the second and in the case of the third one 95.5%! Therefore, only the fourth assessor appraises about 15% of the children as hyperactive, which is as close to the distribution of the hyperactive in the population as it gets (Veselinovi-Jovanovi, 2001; Golubovi, & Golubovi, 2003; Golubovi, Jerkovi, & Rapai, 2008). Of course, we have to bear in mind that the sample examinees in our case do not make a representative sample of the examinees in the population considering that there are a significant number of parents who direct their preschool children towards institutionalized forms of physical activities in order to control in a timely manner the manifested symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, restlessness, disobedience or any other similar symptoms which are actually visible forms of hyperactivity. Everything said so far, it is evident that the fourth assessor that deviates mostly from the rest, is the most impartial when it comes to appraising the assessed personality trait. Apart from this, we see that congruence in assessing as the measure of accuracy in general does not have to be eligible.

References
1. Aronson, E., Wilson, D. T., & Akert, R. (2005). Socijalna psihologija [Social psychology]. Zagreb: MATE. 2. Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners` Rating Scales for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 3rd Edition. North Tonawanda, New York: Multi Health Systems. 3. Danforth, J. S., & DuPaul, G. J. (1996). Interrater Reliability of Teacher Rating Scales for Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 18(3), 227-237. 4. Edelbrock, C., & Rancurello, M. D. (1985). Childhood hyperactivity: An overview of rating scales and their applications. Clinical Psychology Review, 5(5), 429-445. 5. Freeberg, N. E. (1969). Relevance of rater-ratee acquaintance in validity and reliability of ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 518-524.

263

6. Golubovi, ., Jerkovi, I., & Rapai, D. (2008). Sposobnost odravanja panje i ispoljavanje hiperaktivnosti i impulsivnosti u zavisnosti od pola deteta [The ability to maintain attention and manifestations of hyperactivity depending on the gender of the child]. Pedagogija, 63(3), 465-471. 7. Golubovi, . i Golubovi, B. (2003). Sindrom hiperaktivnog deteta [Hyperkinetic Sindrome]. Norma, 9(2-3), 253-262. 8. Grgin, T. (1994). kolska dokimologija. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. 9. Havelka, N. (1992). Socijalna percepcija [Social perception]. Beograd: Zavod za izdavanje udbenika i nastavnih sredstava. 10. Jerkovi, I. (2002). Uloga kauzalnih atribucija roditelja u formiranju i odravanju razvojnih poremeaja kod dece [Role of parents` causal attributions in formation and persistence of development disorders in children]. Doktorska disertacija, Beograd: Filozofski fakultet. 11. Petar, S. (2005). Osnove uspene komunikacije. Zagreb: Mozaik knjiga. 12. Rot, N. i Havelka, N. (1968). Podudarnost u ocenjivanju osobina linosti [Congruence in assessing personality traits]. Psihologija, 1, 135-146. 13. Stewart, J. (2002). Bridges not walls: a book about interpersonal communication. New York: Mc Graw Hill Higher Education. 14. ipka, P. (1977). Korelati uspenog interpersonalnog procenjivanja sadrani u linosti procenjivaa [Correlates of success in interpersonal assessment incorporated into the personality of an assessor]. Psihologija, 3-4, 43-57. 15. Tubi, T. (2000). Saglasnost uitelja i uenika u opaanju osobina koje utiu na kolsko postignue [Congruence of teachers and pupils in the perception of features which influence school achievement]. Norma, 1-2, 31-39. 16. Tubi, T. (2001). Kako uitelji opaaju osobine uenika razliitog kolskog uspeha [The way teachers recognize pupils with different school achievement]. Pedagoka stvarnost, 1-2, 122-132. 17. Tubi, T. (2005). Od uenika do uenja [From pupils to learning]. Sombor: Uiteljski fakultet. 18. Tubi, T. (2008). Saglasnost u opaanju uitelja i uenika: uzrok ili posledica kolskog neuspeha [Teacher`s and student`s perceptual congruence: cause or effect of academic attainment]. Nastava i vaspitanje, 1, 3-15. 19. Veselinovi-Jovanovi, M. (2001). Hiperaktivno dete [Hyperactive child]. Beograd: Zadubina Andrejevi.

264