Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Development and Validation of The Basketball Offensive Game Performance Instrument
Development and Validation of The Basketball Offensive Game Performance Instrument
net/publication/289318073
CITATIONS READS
14 478
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Weiyun Chen on 13 October 2017.
The purpose of this study was to design and validate the Basketball Offensive Game
Performance Instrument (BOGPI) that assesses an individual player’s offensive
game performance competency in basketball. Twelve physical education teacher
education (PETE) students playing two 10-minute, 3 vs. 3 basketball games were
videotaped at end of a basketball unit in one physical education teaching methods
course. Two investigators independently coded each player’s offensive game
behaviors with BOGPI. The interrater reliability of the BOGPI was 99% and the
alpha reliability coefficient for the total scale of the BOGPI was .95. The content
validity evidence of the BOGPI was established by six experienced experts’ judg-
ment. The results of this study indicate that the BOGPI is a theoretically sound
and psychometrically supported measure that can be used by researchers and
teacher educators to assess the preservice teachers’ offensive game performance
ability in basketball.
Chen and Hendricks are with the Kinesiology Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Zhu is with the Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, IL.
100
Game Performance 101
of BOGPI, (b) examine the construct validity of the instrument, and (c) determine
the reliability of the instrument.
that the broad game component definition and the general coding system of the
GPAI might cause difficulty for teachers and researchers to objectively assess and
code if a player’s game performance on a specific game component is appropriate/
efficient or inappropriate/inefficient to a specific game situation. Therefore, it is
critical to modify the global features of the GPAI by defining them as specifically
as possible as well as to make the game performance assessment criteria and coding
protocols more adaptable to a particular game context (Memmert & Harvey, 2008).
Methods
Research Participants and Setting
The participants were junior and senior physical education teacher education (PETE)
majors (5 males and 7 females) who were enrolled in a physical education teach-
ing methods course at a major university. Their average age was 21 years old with
a standard deviation of 2.27 years. Among them, seven had varsity high school
playing experience in basketball and the other five did not have any experience in
basketball. Throughout the semester, the PETE students were taught three inva-
sion games and one net game using a tactical games approach (Mitchell, Oslin, &
Griffin, 2006) The University Institutional Review Board approved the study and
the participants signed an informed consent form before data collection
possession of the ball. Using the BOGPI assessment sheet, an evaluator observed
and recorded the presence or absence of a specified game behavior on each subgame
component with a tally mark when the observed player’s team gained possession
of the ball. The coding protocol included: (a) identifying two targeted players to
observe; one from each team; (b) observing the targeted player’s offensive game
behaviors until a turnover in possession occurred; (c) coding the player’s offen-
sive game performance in each subgame component; (d) switching to observing
and coding the opponent’s offensive game behaviors until there was a turnover in
possession; (e) taking turns observing and coding the pair of individual players’
offensive game behaviors throughout the 10-minute game play using the above
procedures; (f) rewinding the DVD to the beginning of the game to observe and
104 Chen, Hendricks, and Zhu
code the next pair of individual players’ offensive game behaviors throughout the
10-minute game until all players’ offensive game performance have been coded.
Data Collection
At the end of the basketball unit, the participants were organized into four teams
of three players. Three of the teams consisted of two females and one male while
the fourth team consisted of two males and one female. In addition, three of the
teams consisted of two students who had played on varsity basketball teams in
high school (one male and one female) while the fourth team only consisted of
one student (female) with such experience. The seven participants (four females
and three males) who had high school varsity playing experience in basketball
were classified into the experienced group. In contrast, the five participants (three
Game Performance 105
Support
Attempts to Reads defense Reads defense Reads the Reads defense
shoot when in and offense and offense defender to and offense
good position situations to situations to effectively situations to
or wide open effectively and effectively and come off effectively and
appropriately appropriately screens by appropriately
use cuts or/ set screens using roll, pop relocate posi-
post up out, curl, or tions
fade appropri-
ately
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
females and two males) who did not have any previous basketball playing experi-
ence before participating in the methods course were classified into the novice
group. They played two 10-minute 3 vs. 3 games, which were videotaped by a
research assistant. Before officially coding the two videotaped 10-minute game
play sessions, the two investigators spent an estimated 20 hr observing and coding
four players’ offensive game behaviors with the BOGPI assessment sheet until
they obtained 88% interrater reliability. Then, the two investigators independently
coded each player’s game behaviors using the BOGPI assessment sheet. At the end
of the coding process, the investigators transformed the coded game behaviors into
an index score of each game component. An example of calculating an index score
is: Skill Execution Index (SEI) = [the number of efficient game responses ÷ (the
number of efficient game responses + the number of inefficient game responses)]
× the total number of times the player gained possession of the ball. The Overall
106 Chen, Hendricks, and Zhu
Game Performance Index (OGPI) is calculated as: OGPI = (SEI + DMI + SI) ÷ 3
(Oslin et al., 1998).
Data Analysis
Subgame component definitions were considered appropriate if 66% of the experts
rated a definition as “precisely” or “very precisely.” A Welch’s formula of t test was
used to examine differences of offensive game behaviors between the novice and
experienced groups. The standardized-difference effect size (Cohen’s d) (Trusty,
Thompson, & Petrocelli, 2004) was used to report the mean differences of the
dependent variables between the two groups. The interrater reliability of the BOGPI
was examined by checking each investigator’s coding results item by item using
the formula: % R = numbers of agreement ÷ (numbers of agreement + numbers
of disagreement) * 100 (van der Mars, 1989). The Cronbach alpha reliability coef-
ficient was used to determine the internal consistency reliability of the BOGPI.
Results
Validity of the BOGPI
Content Validity. Table 3 presents the percentage of the expert judgment of the
content of the BOGPI with a 5-point rating scale. Sixty-six percent of the experts
rated that the definition of Dribbling and Passing was stated “very precisely” and
33% of the experts rated it “precisely”. Fifty percent of the experts rated that the
definition of Shooting was stated “precisely” and 50% rated it “sort of precisely”.
In addition, three experts suggested changing the definition of shooting to the new
definition of “shoots when getting open and scores a basket,” which was adopted
in the BOGPI. Sixty-six percent of the experts rated that the definitions of the three
subgame components on the Decision Making were stated “very precisely” and
33% rated them “precisely”. Fifty percent of the experts rated that the definitions
of the four subgame components on the Support were stated “very precisely” and
50% rated them “precisely”. The results of the experts’ judgment established the
content validity evidence of the BOGPI.
Construct Validity. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics for the index scores
of the four game components, the results of the t tests, and the Cohen’s d values
between the two groups. The t test yielded that the mean score of the OGPI in the
novice group was significantly lower than that of the OGPI in the experienced
group, indicating that the BOGPI was a valid instrument to distinguish the play-
ers’ overall offensive game ability between the two groups. In addition, the t tests
revealed a significant mean score difference of the SEI, DMI, and SI between the
two groups, indicating that the BOGPI could differentiate the players’ ability of
executing skills, making decisions, and providing support between the novice and
the experienced groups.
References
Gréhaigne, J.F., Walllian, N., & Godbout, P. (2005). Tactical-decision learning model
and students’ practices. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 255–269.
doi:10.1080/17408980500340869
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning:
Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
21, 177–192.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
MacPhail, A., Kirk, D., & Griffin, L. (2008). Throwing and catching as relational skills in
game play: Situated learning in a modified game unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 27, 100–115.
Memmert, D., & Harvey, S. (2008). The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI):
Some concerns and solutions for further development. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 27, 220–240.
Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L., & Griffin, L.L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A
tactical games approach (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). (2009). National stan-
dards & guidelines for physical education teacher education (3rd ed.). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Oslin, J.L., Mitchell, S.A., & Griffin, L.L. (1998). The game performance assessment
instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 17, 231–243.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Trusty, J., Thompson, B., & Petrocelli, J.V. (2004). Practical guide for reporting effect
size in quantitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 107–110.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00291.x
van der Mars, H. (1989). Observer reliability: Issues and procedures. In P. Darst, D. Zakrajsek,
& V. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd ed., pp.
53–80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.