THE LEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF TWO RACQUETBAI,L

SKILL TESTS

By

PRESCOTT PETERSON ALAN II Bachelor of Science in Education Miami University Oxford, Ohio 1976

Master of Arts in Education Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, Kentucky 1977

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma. State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December, 1981 -Jhe.sl.s Jqt1D. f>L/8':5 d C-bp I;;< THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF TWO RACQUETBALL

SKILL TESTS

Thesis Approved:

1110807

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express sincere gratitude to the following persons who were instrumental in seeing this dissertation to its completion.

Dr. Edgley's time and patience as my adviser is especially appreciated.

Dr. Abercrombie, Dr. Zucker, and Dr. Lamport, my other committee members, were very supportive and offered much professional advice.

Thank you Barbara Adams for the expert care in typing the manuscript.

A special word of love is given for my family, Dee and Merryll.

And finally my deepest thanks to my parents who were supportive personally and financially throughout my collegiate attendance and are outstanding educators in their own right.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Discussion . 1 Statement of the Problem • • 5 Pilot Study 6 Hypothesis • 7 Limitations 7 Delimitations 8 Assumptions 9 Definition of Terms 9

II. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11

Racquetball Studies 14 Racquetball Tournament Play 18 Related Sports Activities 20 Paddleball . . • • • 21 Handball 21 Tennis 23 Squash • • • • 26 Badminton • . • • • • 27 Caloric Cost Studies . 29 Conclusions and Discussion • 32

III. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES . 34

Test Subjects 34 Subject Motivation • 35 Equipment . • • . • 35 Written Materials • • • . 36 Research Procedures . • . . • • • • • 36 Description of Skill Tests and Tournaments . 37 The Sixty-Second Rally Test . 37 Round Robin Tournament . . . • 37 Double Elimination Tournament • • 38 The Peterson Partner Rally Test 38 Criterion • . • . • 39 Statistical Analyses • 39

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41

Statistical Results 41

iv Chapter Page

Reliability 42 Objectivity 46 Validity . . • 46 Norms 49 Round Robin Comparison With the Dotilile Elimination . 51 Summary 51

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS • 53

Statement of the Problem • 53 Study Focus 54 Procedures . 54 Skill Test Selection • 54 Administration . • 55 Criterion • . •. 55 Treatment of Data 56 Results 56 Discussion • 56 Conclusions 57 Recommendations 58

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 60

APPENDIXES • . • • • • 64

APPENDIX A - DESCRIPTION OF SKILL TESTS 65

APPENDIX B - HANDOUTS AND LETTERS TO THE SUBJECTS 70

APPENDIX C - 60-SRT RAW DATA 76

APPENDIX D - PPRT RAW DATA 81

APPENDIX E - ROUND ROBIN AND DOUBLE ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT COMPARISON . . . • . 85

APPENDIX F - EQUIPMENT DONATIONS 87

v LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Obtained Research Values ••• . . . . 43 II. Reliability of Skill Test Data . 45

III. Validity of Skill Test Data 49

IV. PPRT Norms •••••. 50 V. Norms, 60-SRT Men . . . . 50 VI. Norms, 60-SRT Women . . . . 50

VII. 60-SRT Validity 77

VIII. 60-SRT Reliability 78

IX. Rank Order of Initial 60-SRT Scores 80 x. PPRT Validity . . . . 82 XI. PPRT Reliability ...... 83 XII. Final Rank Order Comparison, Round Robin and Double Elimination Tournaments ...... 86

vi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Discussion

In the past twenty years racquetball has become a popular recrea- tion and fitness sport being played outdoors and indoors primarily at

Y.M.C.A. 's, private clubs, and educational facilities throughout the country. Kaplan1 reports that between 1968 and 1978 the number of active players increased from 10,000 to over 5.5 million. Lansberry 2 estimated that in 1978 there were 1900 racquetball facilities in the

United States, 600 of which were private clubs. One prediction 3 sees the number of players and facilities more than doubling by 1982.

Evidence of the popularity of racquetball at the college level is indicated by the thirty-four colleges and junior colleges which sent teams to the 1980 United States Racquetball Association collegiate national tournament. 4 Many more individual entries participated in the event. Memphis State University, whose team has won the event the last

1 Jim Kaplan, "Both the Best and Worst," Sports Illustrated (April 10, 1978), p. 68.

2 Reg Lansberry, "What's All This Noise About Racquetball," World Tennis (December, 1978), pp. 44-46.

3Jeffrey Tarter, "Racquetball Madness," Tennis USA (January, 1979), p. 21.

4Ed Sherman, "Memphis State--Still Number One," National Racquet­ ball (June, 1980), pp. 38-42.

1 2 three years in a row, has a varsity team composed of twenty-six men and women, a coach, and athletic scholarships.

The racquetball boom may be attributed to several factors, many of which relate to the nature of the game itself. Bq.sic characteristics include appropriateness for people of all abilities; most beginners can play successfully in a relatively short time; there is low cost for equipment; and the sport is adaptable for recreational, social, and competitive purposes. A second major factor concerns societal trends toward increased physical fitness and leisure time.

Caloric cost studies by Adamson 5 and McKie6 show that vigorous one-hour workouts in racket sports can contribute significantly to aerobic capacity and weight control. Adamson's study concluded that racquetball is categorized as heavy exercise, and McKie showed that exertion was greatest in singles play.

Like most sports, racquetball is more enjoyable when played between players of similar ability. In competitive tournaments sponsored by the American Amateur Racquetball Association and the United States

Racquetball Association, it is common for there to be four or five different singles levels and three or four doubles levels for players to enter. For competitive players, tournaments offer an excellent opportunity to discover relative ability.

In the educational setting the.determination of racquetball ability is complex and necessary. Racquetball instructors must fairly

5Catherine L. Adamson, "The Energy Cost of Playing Racquetball" (unpub. Ed. Specialist dissertation, Eastern Kentucky University, 1977).

6 Thomas D. McKie, "Energy Cost of Racquetball" (unpub. Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1972). 3

evaluate each student's ability in order to determine a skill grade, which is a major component of the course grade. Until recently in-

structors have had to rely on self-developed methods for assigning a

skill grade; either through various methods of subjective evaluation,

self-constructed skill tests, or class tournaments that may restrict

instructional time.

The importance of the skill test as an evaluative tool cannot be overemphasized. Sheehan7 believed that reporting the overall results of the environment experience is one of the three overall general responsibilities of the physical educator. Weber and Lamb 8 stressed

the importance of objectivity in evaluating student performance, while

Sheehan 9 stressed the necessity of scientifically reliable measurement of student learning.

Oberteuffer10 said that the. class which develops skills appropri- ate to the individual's interests, needs, and capacities is "the heart of modern physical education." Johnson and Nelson11 said that skill

tests are especially applicable to the instructional phase of teaching because sports activities represent such a major part of the physical

7Thomas J. Sheehan, An Introduction to the Evaluation of Measure­ ment Data in Physical Education (Reading, Mass., 1971), p. 9.

8 Jerome C. Weber and David R. Lamb, Statistics and Research ·in Physical Education (St. Louis, 1970), p. 181.

9 Sheehan, p. 11.

10Delbert Oberteuffer, Physical Education (New York, 1951), p. 185.

11Barry L. Johnson and Jack K. Nelson, Practical Measurements for Evaluation in Physical Education (2nd ed., Minneapolis, 1974), pp. 230- 231. 4 education progran1. Johnson and Nelson12 listed seven specific uses of skill tests, which are as follows:

1. The tests may be used to measure achievement in the particular sports activity. a. This information may be used to help evaluate the instructional program in terms of the effective­ ness of the teaching methods and the strengths and weaknesses of the course's content. b. Achievement measures may also be utilized in con­ junction with other information, for grading purposes. 2. Skill tests can, and should, play an important role as a teaching aid to supplement instruction and to be used for practice. This would apply to the coach as well as to the teacher. 3. Skill tests enable each student to objectively plot his individual progress throughout the course and conceivably, from one year to the next. 4. Skill tests can be used for diagnostic purposes by point­ ing out needs for special emphasis at each particular grade level in which a sport is taught. This is one way to avoid the needless repetition and lack of progression that characterize many physical education programs. 5. In some cases skill test items can, in themselves, be used for competition in intramural programs and for rainy day activities. 6. Skill tests have been used effectively as one of the means of interpreting the program to the administration, the parents, and the public. 7. Skill tests can and should serve as excellent motivational devices.

Johnson and Nelson13 cautioned that skill tests can only measure certain aspects of performance in a particular sport. Factors such as environmental conditions, emotional pressure, and daily variations in performance can greatly influence one's score. They suggested that the teacher use skill tests more as an instructional aid and motivator rather than as a valid measure of the student's ability to play a sport.

12Ibid.

13Ibid., p. 231. 5

It seems clear that the instructor of formalized racquetball classes in the educational setting must seek the best skill ability measurement tools available. He must be able to justify philosophically his formulation of a student's skill grade. The skill test which has been proven to be reliable, valid, and is objectively measured appears to be the best method to assign an ability grade.

There is a real need to investigat·e racquetball skill testing.

This need is due to the relatively little attention devoted to this aspect in professional journal~ and books. Many of the racquetball skill tests to be found are only suggested, and several that have been researched have yielded low results. As of this writing, there had been only one published test of racquetball ability which had yielded useable results. 14

Statement of the Problem

The primary purpose of this study was to establish validity and reliability coefficients for two racquetball skill tests designed by the author, the Peterson Partner Rally Test (PPRT) and the Sixty-Second

Rally Test (60-SRT). Sub-problems studied include: to establish a table of norms for both skill tests, to examine differences in skill test scores between male and female students in the 60-SRT, and to determine the correlation between the Round Robin and Double Elimination

Tournament formats.

The research goal was to develop a skill test to predict and classify the abilities of students in coed college racquetball classes.

14Larry D. Hensley, W. B. East, and J. L. Stillwell, "A Racquetball Skills Test," Research Quarterly, 50:1 (1979), pp. 114-118. 6

Skill test viability is reflected by its ease of administration and obtained validity and reliability coefficients.

Pilot Study

During the spring semester of 1980 a pilot study was conducted for

the purpose of learning and revising the proposed dissertation study.

The population consisted of thirteen female and fifteen male students

(n = 28), enrolled in a college-level beginning tennis and racquetball class. Prior to the pilot testing, the class had completed a nine-week tennis unit and a four-week racquetball instructional unit.

Class members first undertook a peer administered, single person, sixty-second rally test. Each person's score consisted of the number of times the individual could hit the front wall with the ball while standing behind the short service line in sixty seconds. Two trials were given, with the average used as that person's official score.

Results of the Sixty-Second Rally Test (60-SRT) were used to pair students for the Peterson Partner Rally Test (PPRT). When the PPRT was completed, the top eight scorers were designated as seeds for a class­ wide double elimination tournament. Matches were also played to break ties in the order of finish. Matches con~isted of one game to fifteen points, with a margin of at least two points required to win.

Using the Spearman rank-order formula, the PPRT had a validity coefficient of 0.81; an? the 60-SRT had a validity coefficient of 0.78,

in relation to the tournament results. The 60-SRT had a reliability of

0.91 in comparing the first and second trial. No reliability measure­ ment was attempted for the PPRT.

It was concluded that both tests yielded statistical coefficients 7 worthy of future investigation. Both tests were easy to administer and closely simulate match competition. Results of the double elimination tournament seemed congruent to the author's subjective opinion of the student's raw playing ability.

Hypothesis

The researcher predicted that the statistical analyses of the obtained data would result in the following:

1. The Peterson Partner Rally Test of racquetball ability would

yield no validity and reliability correlation, a zero coeffi­

cient value, using a round robin tournament criterion.

2. The Sixty-Second Rally Test of racquetball ability would yield

no validity and reliability correlation, a zero coefficient

value, using a round robin tournament criterion.

3. There would be no difference in performance of the 60-SRT

between male and female subjects.

4. There would be no correlation in comparing the round robin

and double elimination tournament methods.

Limitations

Limitations of the research investigation included the following:

1. Matches in both the round robin and double elimination tour­

naments were refereed by the competing players. Any indecision

resulted in replay of the point in question.

2. Subjects for the study were concurrently enrolled in Leisure

1242, Beginning Tennis and Racquetball, at Oklahoma State

University during the 1980 fall semester. Students in all 8

class sections participated.

3. No initial screening device was used to measure the ability

level of the test subjects. Research results may accurately

reflect skill ability of college racquetball classes at

Oklahoma State University only.

4. The round robin tournament, double elimination tournament, and

skill testing were conducted on the nineteen regulation

racquetball courts at Oklahoma State University. Inconsist­

encies with regard to court maintenance are realistic limita­

tions of the study.

5. Since practice by the study participants may have effected the

results, all participants were asked not to practice during

the study, however, there was no control of this.

Delimitations

Delimitations of the research investigation included the following:

1. Each of the research participants were concurrently enrolled

in a tennis and racquetball class at the time of the study.

Every attempt was made to insure that instruction was compara­

ble for all subjects.

2. Skill testing took place during scheduled instructional .time.

Tournament play occurred outside of class time •.

3. The researcher was the tournament director for both the round

robin and double elimination tournaments. Skill testing was

administered chiefly by the researcher and assisted by faculty

and well-trained students. 9

4. Courts used for the study were regulation size with four walls,

a ceiling, and wood floors. Some courts had an upper observa­

tion area.

5. Balls and rackets used for all aspects of the study met regula­

tion specifications.

Assumptions

Basic assumptions of the research investigation included the following:

1. The liveliness of racquetballs used for tournament play and

skill testing were fairly consistent.

2. Directions to all research subjects throughout the study were

explicit and consistent.

3. The subjects used are representative of the population in an

average college-level racquetball class at Oklahoma State

University.

Definition of Terms

Selected terms for the research study are defined and used accord­ ing to the following statements:

1. Cut-throat. A racquetball match which involves three players.

The server plays against the other two participants; singles

procedures are followed; the serve is rotated in a set clock­

wise order; the first player to score fifteen points wins the

game.

2. Double Elimination Tournament. A competitive tournament where­

by players are not eliminated from winning until they have lost 10

twice. Players who lose once may still come back to win.

3. Groundstrokes. The forehand and backhand methods used for

hitting the ball in tennis or racquetball. The ball is struck

after it bounces on the court or floor, not volleyed.

4. Rally. The exchange of shots, after the serve, during a tennis

or racquetball game point is referred to as a rally.

5. Restraining Line. A line is drawn on the floor between the

test subject and the front wall, behind which legal hits are

counted in the rally tests.

6. Round Robin Tournament. A competitive tournament whereby all

participants play each other once. Thus if there are thirty

players, each will play twenty-nine matches. The winner is

determined by best overall winning. percentage; ties are broken

by who won the individual match between the two players.

7. Seed. A tournament player who by past success or prediction

has an excellent chance to finish high or win. Seeds are

placed apart from one another in the tournament draw so the

best players will not eliminate one another early in the

tournament.

8. Volley. A shot where the ball is hit in the air before it

can bounce on the court or floor. (Readers should take careful

note of the definition difference between rally and volley as

contained in this section.) CHAPTER II

A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

As of this writing, there had been only one valid published skill test for the sport of racquetball. There have been other unpublished studies which have utilized statistical research methods, but they obtained reliability and validity coefficients which deem the tests too low for instructional use. Because of the limited amount of racquetball research, instructors have had to rely on self-developed methods for assigning skill grades, either through various subjective methods, self­ constructed skill tests, or class tournaments that may restrict instruc­ tional time.

The major task of this study was to develop a skill test to pre­ dict and classify the abilities of students in coed college racquetball classes. Skill test effectiveness will be reflected by its ease of administration and obtained validity and reliability coefficients.

The two most popular types of skill tests used today are the battery of test items and the wall rally. Wall rally tests consist of the test subject repeatedly hitting.the ball against the front wall for a specified period of time with the subject's score being the number of times the ball hits the front wall within the time period. Usually, there is a restraining line behind which the subject must stand when striking the ball. The wall rally measures racket control and the coordination of the body in reaction to the speed and flight of the

11 12 ball. 1 Test batteries consist of two or more individual skill aspects, which in combination with one another make up the qualities necessary to play well.

Johnson and Nelson2 have stated that in constructing a valid skill test there must be a critical analysis as to the nature of the activity and the skills and special abilities which are involved. They empha- sized that the selected skills should be basic and fairly general re- gardless of the test subject's ability.

Safrit 3 suggested the following procedural list to be used in constructing a skill test:

1. Decide on the purpose and use of the skills test.

2. Determine if mastery levels are needed (formative evaluation)

or norms (summative evaluation).

3. Identify and rate the principal skills involved in effective

partici~ation. Define a good performance.

4. Review the literature for previously validated tests and secure

expert opinions.

5. Select the groups by age, sex, education, and skill level.

6. Design the test and select the items.

7. Standardize directions for using the test.

8. Determine test reliability.

1 John Reznick, Racquetball (New York, 1979), p. 159; Bob Klass, "The Validation of a Battery of Reaction Time Tests to Predict Racquet­ ball Ability for College Men" (unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1977).

2 Johnson and Nelson, p. 43.

3Margaret J. Safrit, Evaluation in Physical Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973), pp. 169-172. 13

9. Select and obtain a criterion for comparison (validity).

10. Develop a battery of skill tests by correlating test scores to

a criterion for formulating an optimal regression equation in

which each test is given a weighting.

11. Develop norms if the tests are reliable and valid.

Racquetball is a vigorous sport characterized by the ball traveling at high rates of speed and chan·ging directions quickly. Girardin and

Alain said "the rapid succession of events during play requires a good sense of anticipation and puts speci.al demands on the player's motor and perceptual adaptation capacity. 114 Horgan 5 said that at the begin- ning level physical skill proficiency is the prime factor governing success or failure in racquetball competition. Harriet Lavenue, 6 a racquetball instructor at Memphis State University, over a two-year period asked the students in her beginning level classes to list their major problems in playing. They included using a tennis swing, posi- tioning, timing, playing the back wall, maintaining a firm grip, watch- ing the ball, returning serves, "wallpaper" shots (when the ball travels very close to the side wall), hitting the ball with force, gaining con- trol, being afraid of running into a wall or getting hit by the ball or opponent's racket, and being overanxious.

In referring to the battery of racquetball skill test items,

Wickstrom and Larson said,

4Yuan Girardin and Claude Alain, "Task Analysis in Racquetball," Canadian Journal of Applied Sport, 3 (December, 1978), pp. 237-239.

5James Horgan, "Skill Characteristics of the Winning Competitor," NAGWS Team Handball, Racquetball and Orienteering Guide (April, 1979- April, 1981), p. 122.

6 Ibid. , p. 105. 14

Unfortunately tests of this sort are usually time consuming and require elaborate court markings to designate target areas. Considering these technical problems as well as the fundamental question of test validity, the worth of such individual skill tests is debatable. 7

They mention further in the text that general skill tests seem to be preferable to specific ones and can be conveniently utilized for practicing and evaluating playing ability. The wall rally is reco- mmended as one such general skill test.

Racquetball Studies

Presently, the study by Hensley, East, and Stillwell8 contained the only valid published racquetball skill test. They studied 212 men and women students enrolled in college-level coed classes at the

University of Georgia during 1978. Two skill tests were used, a "short" wall rally test from behind the service area and a "long" wall rally test from in back of a restraining line twelve feet behind and parallel to the short service line. Scoring for both tests consisted of the sum total of two successive thirty-second trials. The long rally test re- sulted in a realiability of 0.82 for women, 0.85 for men, and a combined validity of 0.86. The short rally test resulted in reliability coeffi- cients of 0.86 for women, 0.76 for men, and a combined validity of 0.79.

Validity was determined by using a criterion rating scale whereby the instructor judged each student's playing ability from one-poor to five-· excellent.

7Ralph Wickstrom and Charles Larson, Racquetball and Paddleball Fundamentals (Columbus, Ohio, 1971), p. 75.

8Hensley, East and Stillwell. 15

Hensley, East, and Stillwell reasoned that the long rally test achieved the best results because the greater distance from the front wall requires more power. They stated that power is a component "of critical importance to racquetbalr skill achievement" and an aspect which provides discrimination among ability levels.

In this writer's opinion, the validity criterion used in the

Hensley, East, and Stillwell study is questionable for two reasons.

No evidence was given to suggest that the instructors were in fact experts in judging racquetball ability, and the rating scale used seems

too simplistic considering the complexity of physical skills required

to play racquetball well.

Buschner 9 and Klass10 authored two other important investigations

of racquetball skill testing. In 1976 Craig Buschner attempted to classify beginning racquetball players by constructing a battery of

skill test items. The items included a thirty-second rally test, a

thirty-second rally test using only the backhand stroke, a ceiling shot

placement test, a front wall kill shot placement test, and a thirty-

second maximum-rally test to keep the ball in play as long as possible without making a mistake (a timed test of successful consecutive hits with a thirty-second maximum duration of time). Buschner concluded

that the thirty-second rally test and the ceiling shot placement test

were the most significant measures of beginning racquetball ability.

9 Craig Buschner, "The Validation of a Racquetball Skills Test for College Men" (unpub. Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1976).

10Bob Klass, "The Validation of a Battery of Reaction Time Tests to Predict Racquetball Ability for College Men" (unpub. Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1977). 16

He obtained validity coefficients of 0.68 for the rally test and 0.67 for the ceiling shot test in comparison to the results of a round robin tournament with shortened matches. The rally test and ceiling shot test produced a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.76.

In 1977 Bob Klass, as part of his racquetball study, correlated the results of a round robin tournament with the total of two thirty­ second rally tests in studying sixty-seven male beginners. He obtained a validity coefficient of 0.56 between the rally test and the student's winning percentage in the round robin. The tournament matches had a time restriction of eight minutes. Jn his conclusion Klass recommended that the rally test be expanded to sixty seconds for one trial.

Two main ideas presented by Hensley, East, and Stillwell and by

Klass were chiefly influential in developing the 60-SRT for this inves­ tigation. Klass suggested the rally test be expanded to sixty seconds;

Hensley, East, and Stillwell obtained their best results with the restraining line further removed from the front wall.

In their text, Wickstrom and Larson11 suggested a two-part racquet­ ball skill test. The first test consists of a thirty-second rally test from behind the service line whereby the ball must contact the front wall between the floor and a line four feet high. The second test item requires the subject to volley the ball (hit the ball in the air before it bounces on the court) from behind a ten-foot restraining line. For each test, the subject's score is the total sum of three thirty-second trials. No statistical analysis was presented as the tests were merely suggested.

11Wickstrom and Larson. 17

John Reznick's 1979 racquetball instructional book12 contains several pages devoted to skill testing. He suggested that periodic testing can indicate progress and improvement. Four different tests are then suggested. The first is a rally test, using any stroke from behind the short service line for either thirty or sixty seconds. A person's score would be the average of three trials. A second and third test are essentially the same a:s the first, but the forehand stroke only and the backhand stroke are the only ones used. The fourth test measures the power aspect of the forehand and backhand drives. While standing in the service area, the player must drive the ball below a line four feet high on the front wall and scores increasing points de- pending on where the ball rebounds and touches the floor. There are five zones which are four feet wide and parallel to the service area which extend all the way to the back wall. Increasing points from one to five are scored depending on the zone/depth of the shot; six points are scored if the ball hits the back wall and zero if the ball hits above the four-foot line on the front wall. Three sets of ten trials are attempted for the forehand stroke as well as the backhand. All four tests by Reznick were merely suggested and no statistical research values are indicated in the text.

John Reznick's 1976 text13 suggested a battery of skill test items to determine racquetball skill ability. Included in the battery is a sixty-second backhand rally test, a sixty-second rally test, and a

12John Reznick, Racquetball (New York, 1979), pp. 158-161.

13John Reznick, ed., Championship Racquetball (Cornwall, New York, 1976). 18

service placement test. For the service placement test there are five

zones between the short service line and the back wall with a point value for each zone. This test battery is not supported by a statis-

tical analysis in the text.

In 1977 Steven Epperson28 conducted statistical research of

Reznick's 1976 proposed skill test. He measured four coed college

racquetball classes, forty-four males and forty-four females, and used

a round robin tournament as the criterion. All six test items had

acceptable reliability. There was significantly different test scores

for men and women. Epperson found the most valid battery for men con-

sisted of the forehand rally and back wall placement tests; for women

the forehand rally and the power drive tests were most valid.

Sciarra29 has proposed a rating form by which an expert could

classify a racquetball player at the A, B, or C ability level. The

player is subjectively judged either one-low, three-medium, or five-

high in five different ability categories: game strategy, aggressive- ness, endurance, forehand, and backhand. An A player would total be-

tween twenty-one to twenty-five points, a B player sixteen to twenty

points, and a C player five to fifteen points.

Racquetball Tournament Play

John Reznick16 stated, "Regardless of how high you score on skills

or knowledge tests, performance in tournament play is probably the best

14Steven W. Epperson. "Validation of the Reznick Racquetball Test" (unpub. Master's degree thesis, Washington State University, 1977).

15Frank Sciarra. Racquetball Magazine (May/June, 1976), p. 3.

16Reznick. 19 indication of your ability." Teachers in the educational setting are presented with the problem of a class tournament taking up too much time and restricting instructional emphasis. Another decision must be made as to what format the class tournament will take.

Tournaments sanctioned by the two main racquetball governing bodies, the American Amateur Racquetball Association (formerly the

I.R.A.) and the United States Racquetball Association, follow a single elimination concept to determine a champion in each ability category.

They also have a consolation bracket for all first-round losers so that all players get to play at least two matches.

One possible drawback of any tournament using an elimination con- cept is the "luck of the draw." Those players that are not seeded, ranked, or of unknown ability have their names drawn randomly in an objective manner and are placed in order of selection on the empty bracket lines on the tournament draw sheet. This luck affects the initial tournament position and opponents for all players.

Reznick17 said that the Round Robin is the best way to measure a player's performance in relation to the other players in the tournament.

Further, he mentions that the Round Robin eliminates extraneous factors, such as a better player losing on an "off day," and allows him to finish higher in the standings.

In discussing Round Robin tennis tournaments, Davis18 stated that a Round Robin lets everyone play the same amount of tennis and can

17Ibid.

18Cheryl Davis, "What You Need to Know to Give a Successful Tennis Party," Tennis Magazine (March, 1978), p. 75. 20 provide good competition even though the playing abilities of the group differ. But, she pointed out two problems with conducting a round robin: some mathematical ability is required to work out the order of play, particularly if there is an odd number of players; and for large player groups, many rounds are required if the total Round Robin is to be completed. When time is a factor, Davis recommended shortened matches or time limits depending on the number of rounds to be com­ pleted. The total number of matches to be played can be figured mathe­ matically by the formula n x (n - 1)/2. Thus if there are nine players,

36 matches are necessary, (9 x 8)/2 = 36.

A majority of the racquetball studies utilizing statistical research have used the round robin format. Most have used shortened matches, placing a time restriction or reduced points/games to win.

Another format used is partial round robin play, whereby a complete round robin is conducted as far as possible until a time or date restriction ends the tournament.

Related Sports Activities

The following portion of the chapter contains a selected review and analysis of skill tests from the sports of paddleball, handball, tennis, squash, and badminton. These sports were chosen because their game characteristics and physical/motor coordination demands upon the player are similar to those of racquetball. Skill tests.within the related sports were selected based on possible adaptability for racquetball skill testing. Research methodology and test administra­ tion procedures were chief criteria· for selection of the studies reviewed. 21

Paddleba11

Paddleball is a sport very similar to racquetball, using a com- pletely wooden paddle/racket and a slower traveling ball. The sport can be played in an enclosed court like racquetball or adapted to only front wall play.

A 1966 study by Walden Gurney19 consisted primarily of a test battery to measure beginning paddleball skills. The battery includes a Z-serve placement test, a thirty-second rally test, a kill shot place- ment test, and a back wall forehand recovery shot test. In comparing the results of a round robin tournament to the results of the battery, minus the kill shot test, a validity coefficient of 0.56 was obtained.

Handball

Handball is a sport which resembles racquetball closely, the major difference being the use of the hand to strike the ball instead of a racket. Either hand may be used to strike the ball and typically the ball travels at a lesser rate of speed than racquetball.

Clayton Cornish20 developed a handball skill test battery in 1946.

He tested 134 college students enrolled in physical education classes at Louisiana State University. The validity criterion was partial round robin play; each student played twenty-three games, and the num- ber of points scored minus those scored by his opponents were tabulated.

19Walden 0. Gurney, "A Paddleball Skills Test for College Men" (un­ pub. Master's degree thesis, Brigham Young University, 1966).

20clayton Cornish, "A Study of Measurement of Ability in Handball," Research Quarterly, 20:215-222 (May, 1949). 22

Skill testing consisted of a five-part battery. Selected aspects in- eluded a thirty-second rally test, a front wall placement/accuracy test, a back wall return to the front wall test, and a power test.

Cornish found that the test battery had a multiple correlation of 0.694, with the power test receiving the highest individual test coefficient of 0.58. A combination of the thirty-second rally test and the service placement test in comparison to the criterion was found to be 0.667.

In 1972 John C. Hemmer 21 had studied the Cornish handball skill test using 125 male students at Eastern Kentucky University. The sub- jects were divided into six groups, and they competed in a round robin tournament within groups. It was concluded that the Cornish battery was not valid due to the low reliability of the service placement test.

The thirty-second rally test had the best validity, 0.73 of any indi- vidual aspect.

Kenneth Tyson's handball study22 measured the skill ability of sixty-four college students. Round robin tournament results were com- pared to performance on a seven-part test battery. Battery items in- eluded a thirty-second rally test, a front wall kill shot test with the dominant hand, a front wall kill shot test with the non-dominant hand, a back wall recovery test with the dominant hand, and a back wall recovery test with the non-dominant hand. It was concluded that the thirty-second rally test was the best individual test item, and the

21John C. Hemmer, "A Determination of the Reliability and Validity of the Cornish Handball Skill Tests" (unpub. Educational Specialist thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, 1972).

22Kenneth W. Tyson, "A Handball Skill Test for College Men" (unpub. Master of Education thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 1970). 23 best battery was the rally test and the kill shot test with the dominant hand.

Michael Christ conducted a handball study23 using a one-wall court.

Thirteen test subjects played a round robin tournament and took a five- part test battery. Matches consisted of one game to fifteen points, and the average points per game was the criterion measure. The battery consisted of a rally test, a rally-speed test, a power test, a kill shot test, and a service placement test. All the battery items had a multiple correlation validity coefficient of 0.91; the kill shot test had a validity coefficient of 0.85; and a battery of the speed-rally, rally, and kill shot aspects had a validity coefficient of 0 .. 96.

Pennington, Drowatzky, Day, and Hansan conducted a handball study24 which measured performance on seventeen strength, motor ability, and handball skill test items. Subjects were thirty-seven male college students and non-regulation courts and balls were used. The criterion measure was the average score from a partial round robin tournament. A multiple r of 0.802 was obtained by combining results of the service accuracy test, the total score from two thirty-second rally tests, and the off-the-back-wall placement test into one test battery.

Tennis

The tennis skill test with the _highest statistical validity to be

23Michael Christ, "Development and Validation of a Skills Test for One-Wall Handball" (unpub. Master's thesis, Western Illinois University, 1973).

24 G. G. Pennington, James Day, John Drowatzky, and John Hanson, "A Measure of Handball Ability," Research Quarterly, 38:2 (May, 1967), pp. 247-253. 24 found in the professional literature is a study done by Joann Kemp and

Marilyn F. Vincent in 1967. 25 Their test requires two players of similar ability to rally with one another for three minutes, and a person's score is the number of team hits minus the number of individ- ual errors committed. Validity coefficients of 0.84 for beginners and

0.93 for intermediates, in relation to round robin tournament results, were obtained. This tennis skill test was the most influential source toward creation of the PPRT.

On the basis of articles by Tatem26 and other authors, the wall or backboard rally is recognized both as an instructional aid and a method by which tennis skill ability can be measured. Ed Weathers27 stated that in tennis the wall rally can aid in the development of a player's steadiness and endurance. One weakness he cites is that no feedback is gained as to the ball's position or landing depth on the opponent's side of the court. The racquetball wall rally is free of this weakness as the court structure is identical for both the rally test and a com- petitive match situation. Another weakness mentioned by Weathers is that the wall neutralizes spin on the tennis ball, making returns easier.

Tennis wall rally tests for measuring skill ability have been developed by Dyer, Hewitt, Fox, and Greene. Joanna Dyer developed the

25Joann Kemp and Marilyn F. Vincent, "Kemp-Vincent Rally Test of Tennis Skill," Research Quarterly, 39:04 (1968), pp. 1000-1004.

26J. Albert Tatem, Jr., "Use That Backboard," The Athletic Journal (March, 1975), p. 247.

27Ed Weathers, "The Practice Wall: A Player's Best Friend," Tennis (May, 1977), p. 54. 25 first tennis wall rally test in 1935. 28 Her test measured the number of times a player could hit a ball above a net-line on the wall in thirty seconds. In 1938 Dyer revised her original test29 by adding a five-foot restraining line. This was because some students were choosing to hit short volleys instead of groundstrokes. The validity coefficient of the 1935 test, as compared to a judge's rating criterion, was reported as ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 and the reliability coeffi- cient as ranging from 0.84 to 0.90. The validity coefficient of the revision, when measured against the original test, was 0.94 compared to

0.99, with reliability of 0.86 compared to 0.92.

Jack Hewitt 30 and Katherine Fox 31 conducted studies of the Dyer tests and obtained results considerably lower than Dyer and concluded that the test does not discriminate sufficiently to indicate different ranks of tennis ability among beginners. Fox obtained a validity coef- ficient of 0.53 between Dyer test scores of beginning players and subjective ratings of their ability to execute the forehand, backhand, and serve. Hewitt found validity coefficients for the Dyer revision as ranging from 0.12 to 0.34 for beginning players and from 0.68 to

0.78 for advanced players when compared to rankings of a round robin tournament.

28Joanna T. Dyer, "The Backboard Test of Tennis Ability," Research Quarterly, 6:63 (1935), Suppl.

29Dyer, "Revision of the Backboard Test of Tennis Ability," Re­ search Quarterly, 9:25-31 (1938).

30Jack E. Hewitt, "Hewitt's Tennis Achievement Test," Research Quarterly, 37:231-40 (1966).

31Katherine Fox, "A Study of the Validity of the Dyer Backboard Test and the Miller Forehand-Backhand Test for Beginning Tennis Players," Research Quarterly, 24:1 (1953). 26

In another study, Jack Hewitt 32 revised the Dyer tests by adding a twenty-foot restraining line from the wall. Using round robin tourna- ment rankings, he found validity coefficients of 0.71 to 0.73 for begin- ners and 0.84 to 0.89 for advanced players. The reliability of the

Hewitt revision was 0.82 for beginners and 0.93 for advanced players.

Robert Greene 33 suggested a unique variation of the tennis wall rally. His test requires that -the ball land in a 4 1 x 2' main target area centered directly above a 3~ foot net line. The subject hits only forehand or backhand groundstrokes for a two-minute time period from behind a twenty-five foot restraining line. Greene conducted no sta- tistical research but claimed that the tests discriminated in a like manner with the match playing abilities of his college varsity players.

Squash

Squash is a sportwhich resembles racquetball in that a ball is struck against a wall from within an enclosed court. The court is smaller, the ball is smaller, softer and bounces less, and the racket is considerably longer and slimmer.

Vernon A. Sevier developed a wall rally test to measure skill ability in squash. 3 '+ The player puts the ball into play from behind the back court service line and rallys the ball from behind a sixteen-

32Hewitt, "Revision of the Dyer Backboard Tennis Test," Research Quarterly, 36:153-157 (1965).

33Robert Ford Greene, "Backboard Evaluation of Tennis Ability," The Athletic Journal (April, 1976), p. 26.

34Vernon A. Sevier, "A Physical Performance Test for Squash Rack­ ets," Journal of Physical Education (September-October, 1971), p. 9. 27

foot restraining line for one minute. If an error is made, the player must first return to the service line to continue. Shots which hit the

telltale or go out of bounds are not scored. Two trials are taken, the

highest counting as the official score. Sevier tested twenty-one adult

males and obtained a validity of 0.91 using a tournament ladder as the

criterion measure. Reliability was 0.69 using the trial one and trial

two, test-retest method, and 0 •. 756 using the split halves method for

trial one.

Cahill 35 developed a squash skill test consisting of a ten-part

battery. Battery items included a thirty-second rally test, forehand

and backhand alley tests, forehand and backhand crosscourt tests, serve

to the right and serve to the left accuracy tests, a volley test, an

agility test, and a power test. Sµbjects tested included 107 beginning-

level students and 92 intermediate-level college students. The final

test battery which was deemed to be valid included the thirty-second

rally test, the forehand crosscourt test, and the volley test.

Barbara Knapp 36 studied twenty international-level ability squash

players to compare their reaction time with a group of twenty students.

She concluded that the reaction times of the squash players were

shorter (meaning better) than those of the students.

Badminton

Badminton resembles other racket sports in that quickness, eye-hand

35Peter J. Cahill, "The Development of a Skills Test for Squash Racquets" (unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Springfield College, 1977).

36 Barbara Knapp, "Simple Reaction Time of Selected Top-Class Sports­ men and Research Students," Research Quarterly, 32:409-11 (1961). 28 coordination and physical fitness are required to play well. O'Conner's study 37 supported this as she found that both speed and skill were essential to success in badminton, but success depended to a greater degree on racket-striking skill than speed of movement. Also she con- eluded that the Miller Wall Volley Test was the best single predictor of success in singles competition.

Francis A. Miller's badminton wall volley test 38 measured primarily the clear shot. Her test differs from other badminton wall volley tests in that a seven-foot six-inch net line is used, the restraining line is ten feet from the wall, and an outdoor shuttlecock (heavier than the indoor) is used to provide more rebound off the wall.. The sum of three thirty-second trials counts as the official score. Test- retest of one hundred college girls resulted in a reliability coeffi- cient of 0.94. Validity was found to be 0.83 in comparing test results and round robin win percentage of twenty players.

In 1948, Lockhart and McPherson 39 developed a wall volley test to measure badminton skill ability. Their test requires the player to volley the shuttlecock above a five-foot net line marked on the wall, while standing behind a three-foot restraining line. The sum of three thirty-second trials are counted as the player's official score.

37Patricia T. O'Connor, "A Study of Speed and Skill in Relation to Success Achieved by College Women Engaged in Badminton Singles Competi­ tion" (unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Women's University, 1965).

38 Frances A. Miller, "A Badminton Wall Volley Test," Research Quarterly, 22:208-13 (May, 1951).

39Aileen Lockhart and Frances A. McPherson, "The Development of a Test of Badminton Playing Ability," Research Quarterly, 20:402-5 (December, 1949). 29

Lockhart and McPherson's study tested 529 sophomore college women at the University of Nebraska. Reliability of the wall volley was found to be 0.90, and several validity figures ranged from 0.60 to 0.72. It was suggested that for revision that the restraining line should be moved back to increase the validity.

A sports skills text by Seidel, Biles, Figley, and Neuman 40 suggested a five-part badminton skill battery. Battery items included a test which counts the number of consecutive hits into the air using the palm side of the racket face, a test which counts the number of consecutive hits into the air alternating sides of the racket face, a test which counts the number of consecutive overhand hits against the wall, a service test dividing the number of legal clear (long-high) serves by the number attempted, and a similar service test for the short serve. They further suggested that these items be placed on a skill card, and periodic testing would indicate progress and improvement.

Caloric Cost Studies

There have been several studies done to determine caloric usage when playing racquetball and those sports related to it. These studies give evidence to the amount of effort, exertion, and physical fitness required to play. In some cases caloric usage among different ability levels are compared. It should be noted that the PPRT requires two

40Beverly L. Seidel, Fay R. Biles, Grace E. Figley, and Bonnie J. Neuman, Sports Skills, A Conceptual Approach to Meaningful Movement (2nd ed., Dubuque, Iowa, 1980), p. 282. 30 people of approximately equal ability to rally for three continuous minutes.

Medical doctors Levisohn and Simonlt 1 gave the following figures in terms of calories burned per hour: badminton doubles, 300; table tennis and tennis doubles, 350; tennis singles, 480; recreational squash, 600; and championship squash, 650.

McKielt 2 conducted an investigation into the energy cost of playing racquetball in 1972. Caloric cost, oxygen consumption, and mean heart rate fitures were obtained for singles, doubles, and cut-throat racquet- ball played by four skilled players. Results indicated that mean heart rates were highest in singles play. The mean predicted oxygen intake for singles was 2.4 liters/minute, cut-throat 1.75 liters/minute, and doubles 1.65 liters/minute. Caloric cost was twelve calories per min- ute for singles, 8.75 calories/minute for cut-throat, and 8.15 calo- ries/minute for doubles play. There was a significant difference be- tween singles and cut-throat, as well as singles and doubles, but there was none between doubles and cut-throat play.

In 1977 Adamson 43 measured the caloric cost of playing racquetball by five experienced and five inexperienced women players. Results indicated a mean energy expenditure of 7.8 Kcal./min./55 kg. for the experienced group and 5.9 Kcal./min./55 kg. for the inexperienced group. Players competed against only those within their own ability

lt 1 Steven R. Levisohn and Harvey B. Simon, "Examine Tennis and Your Heart," Tennis (November, 1979), p. 20.

42Thomas D. McKie, "Energy Cost of Racquetball" (unpub. Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1972).

43Catberine L. Adamson, "The Energy Cost of Playing Racquetball" (unpub. Educational Specialist dissertation, Eastern Kentucky Univer­ sity, 1977). 31 group. The overall mean energy expenditure was 6.9 Kcal./min./55 kg.

Experienced players expended energy at a higher rate than the inexpe- rienced players (.£less than 0.001). Playing racquetball was cate- gorized as heavy exercise (6.0 Kcal./min./55 kg. or higher).

A study by Campbell44 in 1968 measured the heart rate of handball players during competition. The subjects were sixteen intermediate- level college students at the University of Texas. Each player's heart rate was recorded periodically during warm-up and thirty minutes of competitive play. It was concluded that the average performing heart rate of 168.37 was high, and thus thirty minutes of vigorous handball requires a high level of physiological efficiency.

A study by Bannister, Ribisil, Porter, and Cillo 45 measured the caloric cost of playing handball .. Two experienced and two inexpe- rienced players each played three singles matches (round robin) for fifteen minutes. The two experienced players had mean calories per hour expenditures of 502 and 564. The two inexperienced players had mean calories/hour figures of 602 and 814. When the two experienced players competed against one another, the mean calories/hour expendi- ture was 652.8; and competition among the two inexperienced players resulted in a nearly equal figure of 656.4. The two matches involving players of different ability levels showed a mean difference of 284.7 calories/hour (734.1 inexperienced minus 449.4 experienced= 284.7 difference).

1 ~ 4 Donald E. Campbell," The Effect of Handball on Heart Rate," Journal of Physical Education, 65:81-2 (January-February, 1968).

45E. W. Bannister, P. M. Ribisil, G. H. Porter, and A. R. Cillo, "The Caloric Cost of Playing Handball," Research Quarterly, 35:236-40 (October, 1964). 32

D~le Mower 46 studied heart rate and the caloric cost of playing paddleball. Subjects used were three highly-skilled and three semi- skilled players. Mean heart rates ranged from 147-181 beats per minute.

Greatest caloric expenditure took place in competition against an equal or superior opponent.

The data suggest two main conclusions. One, caloric cost is greater for inexperienced racquetball players; and two, when playing to increase physical fitness, play someone of equal or greater ability.

Conclusions and Discussion

From presently completed research and studies of racquetball and related sports, several conclusions and critical elements can be iden- tified. All are crucial toward the successful development of a highly valid and reliable skill test of racquetball ability. There must be a critical analysis of the characteristics required to play the sport well. Further, the specific skill test aspects must reflect the game characteristics typical of the ability level being tested.

Also, the rally/volley test against a wall or backboard can be highly valid and reliable. The wall rally test obtained the best re- sults with a time period of sixty seconds or more and a significant restraining line distance whereby a degree of power is required to score high.

Lastly, the round robin tournament and the subjective ratings of judges and/or experts are the two most prevalent validity criterion

46 Dale W. Mower, "Cardiac Response and Caloric Costs of Playing Paddleball" (unpub. Master's thesis, University of Idaho, 1971). 33 measures. In many cases the methodology in obtaining the validity criterion is questionable. Round robin tournmnents were frequently of a partial nature and almost all used shortened matches. Studies using subjective ratings often failed to show evidence that the judges were in fact experts and that the rating system used was viable. CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The primary purpose of this study was to establish a valid and reliable skill test of racquetball ability that is easy to administer.

Two skill tests developed by the author were studied: the Peterson

Partner Rally Test (PPRT) and the Sixty-Second Rally Test (60-SRT). A further investigation examined the relationship between two racquetball tournament formats, the round robin and double elimination.

Test Subjects

The research population consisted of male and female students enrolled in Leisure 1242, seven Beginning Tennis and Racquetball classes, at Oklahoma State University during the fall semester of 1980.

A total of 212 students took the two skill tests for purposes of meas­ uring reliability.

Participants in the round robin and double elimination tournaments were volunteers from the beginning tennis and racquetball classes.

Fifty-eight students (thirty female and twenty-eight male) originally volunteered to play in the tournaments. Sixteen male and sixteen female students, n = 32, were randomly selected by drawing names out of a hat to participate in both tournaments. During the course of the research project, four males and one female withdrew from participation.

Two players withdrew due to intramural football injuries, two because

34 35

of fraternity/sorority obligations, and one left school. Twelve males

and fifteen females completed the tournament play aspect.

No attempt was made to predetermine ability level. It was assumed

that the population selection process resulted in a number of research

subjects that reflected an average coed college racquetball class at

Oklahoma State University.

Subject Motivation

Since the motivation of participants can have a large effect on

akill test scores, the following factors are worthy of mention:

(1) The 27 students who participated in the tournaments were given a

grade of A for the racquetball skill aspect (25%) of their course

evaluation. (2) The students in the seven racquetball classes took both skill tests to determine their racquetball skill grade. (3) Par­

ticipants in the tournaments were asked not to practice between matches, but realistically this could not be enforced by the researcher.

(4) The tournament participants were eligible to receive one of the

eight rackets or seven equipment bags donated by the manufacturers in

a door prize drawing.

Equipment

The following pieces of equipment were necessary to carry out the

proposed research project:

1. Blue colored Voit "Rollout Bleu" brand racquetballs were used.

2. Racquetball rackets were available for all players who did not

own one. Rackets came from the Colvin Center equipment check­

out window. 36

3. Pencils, clipboards, scoresheets, and stop watches were

necessary for the skill testing.

4. Colored marking tape was used for the 60-SRT restraining line.

Written Materials

An introductory letter was distributed to students in all seven classes during the second week of the semester to describe the study and recruit thirty-two volunteers for tournament play. The selected tournament players filled out a preference sheet designating their preferred times and dates for tournament play outside of class time.

A handout was then given to the tournament players designating the schedule for completing the round robin and double elimination tourna­ ments. The last handout was given to all members of the classes which described the rules and procedures for the two skill tests.

Research Procedures

The first aspect of the research study consisted of each tourna­ ment player taking the 60-SRT twice. Players were divided randomly into groups of four and administered the test to one another. The purpose was to familiarize them with the test procedures and to use the average of the two trials as a basis for seeding players in the double elimina­ tion tournament.

Secondly, the tournament players competed in a round robin tourna­ ment. When the round robin was completed, a double elimination tourna­ ment began. Matches for both tournaments consisted of the best two out of three games to fifteen points, a margin of at least two points re­ quired to win a game. All tournament matches took place outside of the 37 students' tennis/racquetball instructional class time.

The final aspect consisted of skill testing. The tournament players and class members of all sections of Leisure 1242, Beginning

Tennis and Racquetball, took the 60-SRT twice. Rank order results within class sections from the 60-SRT were used to pair stu.dents for · the PPRT. All students then took the PPRT once.

Description of Skill Tests and Tournaments

The Sixty-Second Rally Test

The purpose of the 60-SRT was to classify students and rate their achievement in playing skill as measured by the ability to rally against the front wall. One person rallies for a sixty-second time period from behind a restraining line which is thirty-two feet from the front wall. The trial score consisted of the number of times the ball hits the front wall during the test period. Two trials were averaged for an official score. Equipment, court markings, test in­ structions, scoring, and test administration guidelines are listed in

Appendix A.

Round Robin Tournament

Following the initial 60-SRT, tournament play began with a round robin. Each player competed in one tournament match against every other player for a total of twenty-six matches each. The entire round robin required 352 matches.

To determine the statistical validity at the end of the study, each person's winning percentage was computed. All matches consisted 38 of the best two out of three games to fifteen points, with a margin of at least two points required to win a game.

Double Elimination Tournament

Upon completion of the round robin, tournament play continued using a double elimination concept. For this tournament, the top eight scorers from the initial 60-SRT were seeded and placed apart on the tournament draw/bracket chart. Seeded players received first priority in assinging first-round byes. Non-seeded players were placed from top to bottom on the draw sheet as their names were randomly drawn from a hat.

As the tournament continued, players who had not yet lost proceeded

to the right side of the draw sheet. When players lost for the first time, they were placed on the 1eft side in assigned bracket placings.

Players losing a second time were eliminated from the tournament, but matches were played to break ties in the order of finish. Ultimately,

the winner from the right side played the winner of the left side to determine a champion. All matches consisted of the best two out of

three games to fifteen points, with a margin of at least two points

required to win a game.

The Peterson Partner Rally Test .

The purpose of the PPRT was to classify students and rate their achievement in playing skill as measured by their rally ability in

simulated racquetball competition. Two players of similar ability

rallied for a three-minute time period and tried to hit the front wall

as many times as possible. They had to alternate turns in hitting the 39 ball. The total front wall hits were the team score, and the errors committed by an individual were subtracted to derive his official score. Equipment, test instructions, scoring, and test administration guidelines are l:i.sted in Appendix A.

Criterion

The criterion measure used to compute the validity of the two skill tests was the winning percentage from the round robin tournament.

Guidelines and procedures for the round robin were described previously in this chapter.

Statistical Analyses

Validity for the 60-SRT and the PPRT was determined via comparison with the winning percentage from the round robin criterion measure.

The Pearson product-moment r formula was used.

Reliability for the 60-SRT and PPRT were computed to determine the tests' internal consistency, via split halves. The 60-SRT compared the results of two consecutive sixty-second trials. Correlation of the two trials was obtained by using the scattergram method and the

Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. The reliability of the PPRT compared the first and third quarters with the second and fourth quarters of one three-minute time period. A scattergram form and the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula were used to obtain the resulting correlation value

(see Reliability Formula on following page).

Norm tables for both skill tests were developed using the mean, standard deviation, and range from the obtained results. For the 60-

SRT, performance differences of male and female subjects were examined 40 to determine if different norm scales were necessary.

Rank orders from the round robin and double elimination tourna­ ments were compared via the Spearman rank correlation formula. The resulting coefficient determined the amount of relationship between the methods.

Reliability Formula

1 + 3 vs. 2 + 4

1 + 3 vs. 2 + 4

1 + 3 vs. 2 + 4

2 + 4 vs. 1 + 3

2 + 4 vs. 1 + 3

2 + 4 vs. 1 + 3 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to establish a valid and reliable skill test of racquetball ability that is easy to administer. Two skill tests newly developed by the researcher were studied: the Peter­ son Partner Rally Test (PPRT) and the Sixty-Second Rally Test (60-SRT).

A further investigation examined the relationship between two racquet­ ball tournament formats, the round robin and the double elimination.

Thirty-two students from beginning tennis and racquetball classes at Oklahoma State University volunteered for the validity and tournament aspects of the study. They were randomly selected to derive sixteen male and sixteen female subjects from a volunteer pool of fifty-eight.

Twenty-seven students completed the study. All students in seven begin­ ning tennis and racquetball classes at Oklahoma State University were tested for the reliability measurement of the PPRT and 60-SRT. The

PPRT n was 212, and the 60-SRT n was 205.

This chapter provides an analysis of the obtained data for both tests and a comparison of the tournament formats.

Statistical Results

Computed statistics that reveal the effectiveness of the skill tests and comparison of the tournament formats include the validity and reliability of both skill tests; the mean, range, and standard deviation

41 42 for both the men's and women's performance of the 60-SRT; and the corre­ lation between the round robin and double elimination tournament for­ mats. Non-parametric grouped formulae were used and computation was aided through the use of an advanced programmable hand-held calculator.

The 60-SRT had an obtained validity coefficient of 0.88 and a reliability coefficient of 0.92. Male subjects averaged twenty-six

(25.95), with a 4.16 standard deviation of scores. Female subjects averaged twenty (19.81), with a 3.06 standard deviation of scores. The scores for all subjects were distributed between a low of eight and a high score of thirty-seven.

The PPRT had an obtained validity coefficient of 0.80 and a reli­ ability coefficient of 0.94. Because subjects for this test were paired without regard to sex, the test values reflect a coed population. The mean was 73.4, the standard deviation was 20.4, and scores were distri­ buted between a low of thirty and a high of one hundred thirty-nine.

The rank order of finish for the round robin and double elimina­ tion tournaments correlated very high, 0.96. The high validity and reliability coefficients for the two skill tests would indicate a re­ jection of the hypothesis stated in Chapter I. Table I sunnnarizes the obtained statistical values of the entire research study.

Reliability

The reliability of a test reflects qualities such as the depend­ ability of scores, relative freedom from errors, and its tendency toward consistency on two or more trials. 1 A test must be reliable or it cannot be valid.

1 Safrit, pp. 125-126. 43

TABLE I

OBTAINED RESEARCH VALUES

Study Aspect Statistics Obtained Value

1. 60-SRT Validity (n = 27) 0.88 Reliability (n = 205) Scattergram 0.86 Spearman-'Brown Prophecy Formula 0.92 Male Subjects (n = 92) Mean 26 (25.95) Standard Deviation 4.16 Range 14-37 Female Subjects (n = 113) Mean 20 (19. 81) Standard Deviation 3.06 Range 8-29

2. Round Robin/ Double Elimination Rho correlation o. 96

3. PPRT Validity (n = 27) 0.80 Reliability (n = 212) Scattergram 0.89 Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula 0. 94 Mean 73.4 Standard Deviation 20.4 Range 30-139 44

Reliability is enhanced by using large groups, heterogeneous popu­ lations, competent test administrators, and controlling such factors as scoring accuracy, instructions used, testing environment, outside distractions, and subject familiarity with the task. 2 The use of small sample pilot studies can reduce operator error. 3

Reliability can be expressed as a coefficient of equivalence, a coefficient of stability, or as a coefficient of internal consistency. It

From these three main areas are derived the common reliability methods of parallel forms, test-retest, odd-even, and split halves.

For this study, the coefficient of internal consistency was utilized. It is obtained by subdividing the total number of trials making up a single test and comparing the two subdivisions. Using this method reduced the length of time between compared scores and thus con­ trolled variables such as maturation, learning, practice, motivation, and possible inhibitors to the research project such as students being

_absent from class during either aspect of a test-retest.

College students in seven beginning tennis and racquetball classes

(n = 212) were used as subjects to measure the two skill tests' reli­ ability. Using the scattergram correlation technique (see Appendix C and Appendix D), the 60-SRT had an obtained reliability of 0.86, and the PPRT had 0.89. Using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, the corrected values were 0.92 and 0.94, respectively (see Table II).

2 Johnson and Nelson, pp. 45-46.

_. 3Johnson and Nelson, p. 50.

ltSheehan, pp. 51-54. 45

TABLE II

RELIABILITY OF SKILL TEST DATA

Correlation Test Coefficient Value

60-SRT Scattergram 0.86 Fairly High Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula 0.92 High

PPRT Scattergram 0.89 Fairly High Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula 0.94 High

Weber and Lamb 5 said that an obtained realiability coefficient

between 0.90 and 0.94 is "high and equaled. by a few of the best tests."

The Spearman-Brown predicted reliability is considered the upper limit

for the number of trials utilized because research has shown this method results in significantly higher values when compared to test-

retest. 6 Test-retest involves administering the same test twice to the

same population, with a three to seven day period between test

administrations.

Other supporting indicators of the skill tests effective reli-

ability are indicated by the wide range of scores, the random

5Weber and Lamb, p. 182.

6 Safrit, p. 150. 46 fluctuation of scores in comparing the two test divisions, the suffi­ cient length of the test, and the theory that beginners are generally less consistent than advanced ability players.

Objectivity

The objectivity of a test refers to its ability to produce con­ sistent results when administered by different people. 7 This variable was controlled in the study as only the researcher or class instructors administered the tests. Occasionally a student helper would assist by controlling the stopwatch, but the actual test scores were counted by

the faculty. Directions for the skill tests were typed onto·handouts and distributed to the students for consistency (see Appendix B). If

the students had questions before or during their test trials, the administrator would answer verbally. If a student appeared bewildered

or puzzled, they were instructed to reread the handout, copies of which were kept in the back corner of the test court.

The PPRT and 60-SRT were given on the same two racquetball courts

throughout the study. Each court had an observation area for the administration of the tests.

Validity

Validity can be defined as the· degree to which a test measures what it is designed to "measure. 8 The 60-SRT and PPRT were designed to

7Weber and Lamb, p. 182; Safrit, p. 132.

8Weber and Lamb, p. 181. 47 measure the ability of coed college racquetball classes as demonstrated by their ability to rally the ball.

For the investigation of the tests' validity, sixteen male and sixteen female scbjects were randomly selected from thirty female and twenty-eight male volunteers. The coed population of thirty-two players was chosen to closely simulate a typical college racquetball class.

The volunteers were recruited from seven beginning tennis and racquet- ball classes. Twelve males and fifteen females finished the validity aspect of the research study.

Validity coefficients were obtained by correlating the players' test scores with their finish in the round robin tournament. The

Pearson product-moment r formula was used. The PPRT had an obtained validity coefficient of 0.80 and the 60-SRT 0.88. A survey of the literature placed these values as high, 9 indicating a very close re- lationship between the criterion and performance on the skill tests.

Criterion-related validity is demonstrated by comparing the test scores with one or more external variables that are considered to pro- vide a direct measure of the characteristic or behavior in question. 10

Consensus of expert opinion11 indicates that the round robin is con- sidered the best criterion to measure comparative ability. The validity of the study was further enhanced by using full fifteen-point, two out of three game matches as used in sanctioned racquetball tournaments.

9Weber and Lamb, p. 165, p. 182; Johnson and Nelson, p. 25; Sheehan, p. 132.

10Safrit, p. 104.

11 See Chapter II. 48

Safrit12 said that a test with a relevant criterion may be more valuable than a test with a higher validity coefficient if the criterion for the latter is less relevant.

The literature points out several other factors that should be examined in evaluating the obtained validity. Safrit13 indicated that the validity coefficient cannot exceed the square root of the reli­ ability coefficient; thus 0.85 and 0.88 would be considered the upper limit of validity for the 6 0-SRT and PPRT respectively.

The coefficient of determination is obtained by squaring the validity coefficient. Thus we may conclude that sixty-four percent

(0.802 ) of the variance in the round robin was related to the variance in the PPRT. Also, that seventy-seven percent (0.88 2 ) of the variance in the round robin tournament was related to the variance in the 60-SRT.

Variance represents the average or mean of the sum of the squared de­ viations from the mean.

Weber and Lamb's predictive index chart14 showed from the obtained validity coefficients that the skill tests were approximately fifty per­ cent better predictors of ability than mere chance or guessing would be.

Further, the statistical criterion of significance chart15 indicated that there is less than one chance in a thousand that the correlation between the skill tests and the criterion is nonexistent and due to chance (see Table III).

12Safrit, p. 118.

13Ibid., p. 96.

14Weber and Lamb, p. 64.

15Ibid., p. 222. 49

TABLE III

VALIDITY OF SKILL TEST DATA

Correlation Test Coefficient Value

60-SRT 0.88 High

PPRT 0.80 High

Norms

Table IV represents a suggested norm table for the PPRT. The scale was based on the obtained mean and standard deviation. If the obtained data were plotted on a graph, a slight negative skewedness would be noticed (the mean is below the median and extreme scores above the mean are present). The norm table represents a mixed coed population and a symmetric distribution of scores.

Tables V and VI represent the suggested norm tables for men's and women's performance on the 60-SRT. The norm tables were developed on the basis of the obtained mean and standard deviation values. If the men's scores were plotted on a graph, the resulting distribution-would assume a symmetric bell shape. The women's scores would be distributed in a curve that would reveal a slight positive skewedness (the mean is above the median and there are extreme scores below the mean). 50

TABLE IV

PPRT NORMS

Excellent 105+ Good 84-104 Average 63-83 Low 42-62 Poor 21-41

Standard Deviation 20.4 Mean 73.4 Range 30-139

TABLE V TABLE VI

NORMS, 60-SRT MEN NORMS, 60-SRT WOMEN

Excellent 34+ Excellent 24+ Good 29-33 Good 20-23 Average 24-28 Average 16-19 Low 19-23 Low 12-15 Poor 14-18 Poor 8-11

Standard Deviation 4 Standard Deviation 3 Mean 26 Mean 20 Range 14-37 Range 8-29 51

Round Robin Comparison With the Double

Elimination

The validity population of twenty-seven male and female beginning racquetball students competed in a round robin tournament, then a double elimination tournament. Matches were two out of three games to fifteen points in both tournaments. In the double elimination tourna­ ment, matches were played to break ties in the order of finish. Eight players were seeded in the double elimination tournament, based on scores obtained from a 60-SRT given at the beginning of the study. The obtained correlation coefficient was 0.96, using the Spearman rank order formula.

Summary

Based on the obtained data presented in this chapter, the two skill tests studied obtained high correlation coefficients. The 60-SRT and the PPRT respectively obtained validity coefficients of 0.88 and

0.80 and reliability coefficients of 0.92 and 0.94. The validity criterion was a round robih tournament involving twenty-seven male and female students who played full-length matches. Obtained reliability coefficients reflect the tests' internal consistency by using the split halves correlation procedure and the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula.

Reliability test subjects were 205 coed college students for the 60-SRT and 212 coed college students for the PPRT. Norm tables based on the mean, standard deviation, and range of scores were suggested by the author.

A final aspect of the study compared two tournament formats. The 52 validity population first competed in a round robin tournament, then in a double elimination tournament. Resulting rank orders of finish were compared; and a correlation coefficient of 0.96, very high, was obtained. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOM11ENDATIONS

This chapter provides a summary of the research study, conclusions based on the obtained statistical values, subjective observations and comments by the researcher, implications for racquetball instructors, and recommendations for further study.

Racquetball is a very popular sport being played by well over six million people in private clubs, Y.M.C.A. 's, and educational facilities.

The popularity can be traced to the sports adaptability to people of all ages and abilities, its high contribution to physical fitness, and recent societal trends toward worthy use of leisure time.

In the educational setting, racquetball classes frequently reach maximum enrollment capacity. The teacher must fairly evaluate each student's ability as part of the instructional process and for purposes of grading. Most experts would agree that the skill test which has been proven to be reliable, valid, and is objectively measured appears to be the best method to assign an ability grade. At the time of this re­ search study there has been only one published test of racquetball · ability which has yielded useable results.

Statement of the Problem

The major task of this study was to develop a skill test to pre­ dict and classify the abilities of students in coed college racquetball

53 54 classes. Factors such as ease of administration and obtained validity and reliability coefficients reflect the skill test's viability.

Study Focus

The main focus of the research study was to establish validity and reliability coefficients for two racquetball skill tests, the Peterson

Partner Rally Test (PPRT) and the Sixty-Second Rally Test (60-SRT).

Sub-problems studied included the establishment of a suggested norm table for each test, the examination of differences in skill test performance between male and female students, and the study of the correlation between round robin tournament and double elimination tournament formats.

Procedures

The procedures for the research study are listed below for ease of understanding:

1. The validity population, n = 27, took the 60-SRT to seed

players for the double elimination tournament.

2. The twenty-seven players competed in a round robin tournament.

3. The twenty-seven players competed in a double elimination

tournament.

4. The twenty-seven players and members of seven coed beginning

tennis and racquetball classes took the two skill tests.

Skill Test Selection

The PPRT and 60-SRT were developed after careful analysis of ex­ pert opinion and previously completed research in racquetball and 55 related racket sports. Research 1 shows that the wall rally test can be highly valid and reliable when the subject stands at least two-thirds of the court length away. The distance factor more closely simulates actual game competition and skill factors such as power and accuracy are required to score high. Consensus also shows that the wall rally should last a minute or more so there is more range and discrimination in the obtained test data. One of the developed skill tests, the PPRT, introduces a second person to the wall rally and more closely simulates game action, as each player must react to the other's shot.

Administration

The 60-SRT and PPRT are fairly easy to administer. Essential equipment includes paper and pencil to record scores, a stopwatch, two racquetballs, and some colored marking tape for the 60-SRT. With some practice, the tester can administer both tests by himself.

Criterion

The validity criterion for both skill tests was a round robin tournament. Matches were of a full-length, the best two out of three games to fifteen points as played in sanctioned tournaments. At the time of this study, all other completed research2 of racquetball skill testing with a tournament criterion has used considerably shortened matches, usually with a time limit of five to ten minutes.

1 Squash tests by Sevier; Cahill; Racquetball tests by Hensley, East and Stillwell; Buschner; Klass; Handball test by Christ; Tennis tests by Dyer; Hewitt; Greene.

2 Tests by Buschner; Klass. 56

Treatment of Data

Validity for the 60-SRT and the PPRT was determined via compari­

son with the winning percentage from the round robin criterion measure.

The Pearson product-moment r formula was used.

Reliability for the 60-SRT was determined by comparing trial one with trial two on one test day and the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula.

Rank orders from the round robin and double elimination tourna­ ments were compared via the Spearman rank correlation formula to deter­ mine the relationship between the methods.

Results

The obtained reliability coefficients for the 60-SRT and PPRT were very high, 0.92 and 0.94 respectively. The validity of the two tests were high; 0.88 for the 60-SRT and 0.80 for the PPRT. A very high correlation value of 0.96 in comparing the round robin and double elim­ ination tournament formats suggests their interchangeability as a direct measure of skill ability.

Discussion

The author feels that the successful research coefficients were obtained by using research procedures which include full tournament matches for the criterion, a coed population characteristic of a

typical college racquetball class, and skill tests which closely simu­ late actual competition. Wherever possible, the research procedures were designed to parallel methodology that occurs during a normal coed college racquetball class at Oklahoma State University. 57

Conclusions

Within the limits of this study and based on the hypothesis stated, the following conclusions were made:

1. THE PETERSON PARTNER RALLY TEST OF RACQUETBALL ABILITY WOULD

YIELD NO VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CORRELATION, ZERO COEFFICIENT

VALUES, USING A ROUND ROBIN TOURNAMENT CRITERION. This

hypothesis was rejected as the PPRT obtained sufficiently high

correlation values to be used in the educational setting as a

tool to classify and grade students.

2. THE SIXTY-SECOND RALLY TEST OF RACQUETBALL ABILITY WOULD YIELD

NO VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CORRELATION, ZERO COEFFICIENT

VALUES, USING A ROUND ROBIN TOURNAMENT CRITERION. This

hypothesis was rejected as the 60-SRT obtained sufficiently

high correlation values to be used in the educational setting

as a tool to classify and grade students.

3. THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE OF THE 60-SRT

BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS. This hypothesis was re­

jected as there was a clear difference in performance between

male and female students. Males had a mean score of 26 and

females a mean score of 20.

4. THERE WOULD BE NO CORRELATION, IN COMPARING THE ROUND ROBIN

AND DOUBLE ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT METHODS. This hypothesis

was rejected as the correlation coefficient was very high,

0.96. The double elimination tournament takes less time to

organize and complete the matches. 58

Recommendations

The following observations were noted; and, accordingly, several changes and possibilities for further research are suggested:

1. During the 60-SRT, some of the test subjects felt that the

space between the restraining line and the back wall was too

small or restrictive. It is recommended that the restraining

line be moved one or two feet toward the front wall.

2. During the PPRT, the teams which scored high would often hit

the ball in close proximity to the front wall. Further re­

search is recommended usingthe short service line as a re­

straining line.

3. Further research might be done using only one racquetball for

the skill tests. Using two or more balls during the tests

presents the possibility of injury from stepping on a loose

ball.

4. During the study, medium speed Voit "Rollout Bleu" racquetballs

were used. Using a fast ball such as the Seamco 600 or a slow

ball such as the Vail "Rollout Red" represent factors worthy

of future investigation.

5. During the tournament play, the author noted significant

improvement in ability by several players. Studying the

effect of concentrated play vs. traditional instruction

methods might produce important implications for racquetball

instructors.

6. The 60-SRT and PPRT might be investigated using men or women

only subjects or intermediate/advanced/experienced players. 59

7. Because the PPRT and 60-SRT measure the rally aspect of the

game, a service test might be added to simulate more closely

actual competitive strategy.

8. The use of subjective vs. objective measures of determining

skill ability might be studied. A subjective rating form

could be developed, and expert opinion could be correlated

with the results of a tournament criterion.

9. The literature search revealed that as of this writing there

has been no published written racquetball test.

10. Possible further research could study motivational effects

upon skill test results. For instance, does taking·a skill

test for a grade produce different results than a non-graded

test? SELEG.TED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Adamson, Catherine. "The Energy Cost of Playing Racquetball." (Unpub. Educational Specialist dissertation, Eastern Kentucky University, 1977.)

2. Bannister, E.W., P. M. Ribisil, G. H. Porter, and A. R. Cillo. "The Caloric Cost of Playing Handball." Research Quarterly, 35 (October, 1964), pp. 236-40.

3. Buschner, Craig. "The Validation of a Racquetball Skills Test for College Men." (Unpub. Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1976.)

4. Cahill, Peter J. "The Development of a Skills Test for Squash Racquets." (Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Springfield College, 1977.)

5. Campbell, Donald E. "The Effect of Handball on Heart Rate." Journal of Physical Education, 65 (January-February, 1968), pp. 81-82.

6. Christ, Michael. "Development and Validation of a Skills Test for One-Wall Handball." (Unpub. Master's thesis, Western Illinois University, 1973.)

7. Cornish, Clayton. "A Study of Measurement of Ability in Handball." Research Quarterly, 20 (May, 1949), pp. 215-222.

8. Davis, Cheryl. "What·You Need to Know to Give a Successful Tennis Party." Tennis Magazine (March, 1978), p. 75.

9. Dyer, Joanna T. "The Backboard Test of Tennis Ability." Research Quarter_!y, 6: Suppl. (1935), P'• 63~

10. "Revision of the Backboard Test of Tennis Ability." Research Quarterly, 9 (1938), pp. 25-31.

11. Epperson, Steven. W. "Validation of the Reznick Racquetball Test." (Unpub. Master's thesis, Washington State University, 1977.)

12. Fox, Katherine. "A Study of the Validity of the Dyer Backboard Test and the Miller Forehand-Backhand Test for Beginning Tennis Players." Research Quarterly, 24 (1953), p. 1.

60 61

13. Girardin, Yuan and Claude Alain. "Task Analysis in Racquetball." Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3 (December, 1978), pp. 237-239.

14. Greene, Robert Ford. "Backboard Evaluation of Tennis Ability." The Athletic Journal (April, 1976), p. 26.

15. Gurney, Walden 0. "A Paddleball Skills Test for College Men." (Unpub. Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1966.)

16. Hensley, Larry D., W. B. East, and J. L. Stillwell. "A Racquetball Skills Test." Research Quarterly, 50:1 (1979), pp. 114-118.

17. Hewitt, Jack E. "Revision of the Dyer Backboard Tennis Test." Research Quarterly, 36 (1965), pp. 153-157.

18. "Hewitt's Tennis Achievement Test." Research Quarterly, 37 (1966), pp. 231-240.

19. Horgan, James. "Skill Characteristics of the Winning Competitor." NAGWS Team Handball, Racquetball and Orienteering Guide, April, 1979-April, 1981. Washington, D. C.: AAPHERD, 1979.

20. Johnson, Barry L. and Jack K. Nelson. Practical Measurements for Evaluation in Physical Education. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1974.

21. Kemp, Joann and Marilyn F. Vincent. "Kemp-Vincent Rally Test of Tennis Skill." Research Quarterly, 39: 04 (1968), pp. 1000-04.

22. Klass, Bob. "The Validation of a Battery of Reaction Time Tests to Predict Racquetball Ability for College Men." (Unpub. Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1979.)

23. Knapp, Barbara. "Simple Reaction Time of Selected Top-Class Sportsmen and Research Students." Research Quarterly, 32 (1961), pp. 409-411.

24. Lansberry, Reg. "What's All This Noise About Racquetball." World Tennis (December, 1978), pp. 44-46.

25. Levisohn, Steven R. and Harvey B. Simon. "Examine Tennis And Your Heart." Tennis (November, 1979), p. 20.

26. Lockhart, Aileen and Frances A. Mcl)herson. "The Development of a Test o:f Badminton Playing Ability." Research Quarterly, 20 (December, 1949), pp. 402-405.

27. McKie, Thomas D. "Energy Cost of Racquetball." (Unpub. Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1972.)

28. Miller, Frances A. "A Badminton Wall Volley Test." Research Quarterly, 22 (May, 1951), pp. 208-213. 62

29. Mower, Dale W. "Cardiac Response and Caloric Costs of Playing Paddleball." (Unpub. Master's thesis, University of Idaho, 1971.)

30. Oberteuffer, Delbert. Physical Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951, p. 185.

31; O'Connor, Patricia T. ''A Study of Speed and Skill in Relation to Success Achieved by College Women Engaged in Badminton Singles Competition." (Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Women's University, 1965.)

32. Pennington, G. G. et al. "A Measure of Handball Ability." · Research Quarterly, 38:2 (May, 1967), pp. 247-53.

33. Reznick, John. Racquetball. New York: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 1979, p. 159.

34. Championship Racquetball. Cornwall, New York: Leisure Press, 1976.

35. Safrit, Margaret J. Evaluation in Physical Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973, pp. 169-172.

36. Sciarra, Frank. Racquetball Magazine (May/June, 1976), p. 3.

37. Seidel, Beverly L. Fay R. Biles, Grace E. Figley, and Bonnie J. Neuman. ~rts Skills, A Conceptual Approach to Meaningful Movement. 2nd ed. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company Publishers, 1980, p. 282.

38. Sevier, Vernon A. "A Physical Performance Test for Squash Rackets." Journal of. Physical Education (September-October, 1971)' p. 9.

39. Sheehan, Thomas J. An Introduction to the Evaluation of Measure­ ment Data in Physical Education. Reading, Mass.: Addison­ Wesley Publishing Company, 1971, p. 9.

40. Sherman, Ed. "Memphis State--Still Number One." National Racquet­ ball (June, 1980), pp. 38-42.

41. Tatem, J. Albert, Jr. "Use That Backboard." The Athletic Journal (March, 1975)., p. 247.

42. Tarter, Jeffrey. "Racquetball Madness." Tennis USA (January, 1979), p. 21.

43. Tyson, Kenneth W. "A Handball Skill Test for College Men. 11 (unpub. Master of Education thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 1970.)

44. Weathers, Ed. "The Practice Wall: A Player's Best Friend." Tennis (May, 1977), p. 54. 63

45. Weber, Jerome C. and David R. Lamb. Statistics and Research in Physical Education. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1970, p. 181.

46. Wickstrom, Ralph and Charles Larson. Racquetball and Paddleball Fundamentals. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Company, 1971, p. 75. APPENDIXES

64 APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF SKILL TESTS

65 66

DESCRIPTION OF SKILL TESTS

I. The Sixty-Second Rally Test

A. Purpose: to classify students and rate achievement in playing skill as measured by the ability to rally against the front wall.

B. Equipment

1. A regulation racquetball court

2. One accurate time piece with a second hand per testing site

3. Colored floor marking tape

4. Two regulation blue racquetballs in good condition per testing site

5. A racquetball racket for the test subject to use

C. Special Court Markings: the colored floor marking tape is used to lay down a restraining line at each testing site. The restraining line is parallel to and twelve feet behind the short service line (32 feet from the front wall).

D. Time of Test Period: sixty seconds.

E. Test Instructions

1. The player being tested takes a position in the court any­ where between the restraining line and the back wall. The player holds both racquetballs in his non-racket hand.

2. On the signal "Go" of the command "Ready, Go," the player drops one of the racquetballs and attempts to hit the front wall as many times as possible in sixty seconds. When ball control is lost, the player may use the second ball or retrieve the first.

3. Any stroke or shot may be used during the rally.

4. The player is responsible for retrieving and continuing when control of both balls is lost.

F. Scoring

1. Each time the ball touches the front wall, it is counted as one. The ball may contact the floor, any of the side walls, back wall, or ceiling without penalty.

2. The ball may be allowed to bounce more than once or be volleyed without penalty. 67

3. Balls hit from in front of the restraining line do not count.

4. The player's official score is the average of two trials.

G. Test Administration

1. A trial test period of fifteen minutes, part of one class period, should be allowed to practice and understand the scoring, procedures, and administration of the test. Prac­ tice is allowed only to familiarize students with the test so that the actual test administrative processes run smoothly.

2. Players should be warmed up before.stepping on the court to take the test.

3. Two officials are needed. Class members may be used under supervision of the instructor.

a. One time-keeper using a stopwatch or wrist watch with a second hand. This person commands the test subject to start and stop. The watch is started when the ball is dropped from the player's hand.

b. One person to count the number of times the ball con­ tacts the front wall. This person notices any shots made from in front of the restraining line and does not count them.

4. The test is best administered from an observation area if the racquetball court has one.

5. The player should be allowed a three-minute rest period between trials. Alternate trials between two players.

II. The Peterson Partner Rally Test

A. Purpose: to classify students and rate achievement in playing skill as measured by rally ability in simulated racquetball competition.

B. Equipment

1. A regulation racquetball court

2. One accurate time piece with a second hand per testing site

3. Two regulation blue racquetballs in good condition per testing site

4. A racquetball racket for each test subject to use

5. No special court markings are needed. 68

C. Time of Test Period: three minutes.

D. Test Instructions

1. Test subjects should be paired with a partner of equal ability via results from a sixty-second, single person, rally test.

2. Two players of similar ability take positions in the middle of the court; each person should have one good regulation ball in his non-racket hand. Both players are tested simultaneously.

3. On the signal "Go" of the command "Ready, Go," one player drops a ball and puts it into play using any type of stroke. The two players rally the ball, alternately taking turns and attempt to hit the front wall as many times as possible in three minutes. When ball control is lost, the players may use the second ball or retrieve the first.

4. Any stroke or shot may be used during the rally.

5. Players are responsible for retrieving when control of both balls is lost.

E. Scoring

1. The total number of times the ball contacts the front wall is counted as the team score.

2. Each individual's score is the team score minus the number of errors that person makes.

3. An error is counted only when the player has a clear, fair chance to hit the ball on the fly or after it has bounced on the court. Thus one player is not penalized for a successful offensive shot made by his rally partner. When given a fair chance to hit the ball, errors apply as in a game situation.

4. It is not counted as a team hit when one player hits the ball twice in a row. Even if one player commits an error, his test partner must hit the ball next.

5. Example: Players A and B are taking the PPRT together. During the three-minute test period, they together hit the front wall forty-five times. Player A commits five errors, and player B commits three errors. Player A officially scores forty and player B officially scores forty-two.

F. Test Administration

1. A trial test period of fifteen minutes, part of one class 69

period, should be allowed to practice and understand the scoring, procedures, and administration of the test. It is recommended that the players not know who their test partner will be until shortly before they take the test. Practice is allowed only to familiarize students with the test so that test administrative processes run smoothly.

2. Players should be warmed up before stepping on the court to take the test.

3. Four officials are needed. Class members may be used under supervision of the instructor.

a. One time keeper using a stopwatch or wrist watch with a second hand. This person commands the test subjects to start and stop.

b. One person for each of the players to count the number of errors made.---n:le instructor should say "error" when one is made.

c. One person to count the total number of times the ball hits the front wall, the team score.

4. The test is best administered from an observation area if the racquetball facility has one. APPENDIX B

HANDOUTS AND LETTERS TO TEST SUBJECTS

70 71

INTRODUCTORY LETTER FOR VOLUNTEER SUBJECTS

September 2 and 3, 1980

TO: All Students Leisure 1242, Beginning Tennis and Racquetball Sections 1-8, Oklahoma State University

FROM: Alan P. Peterson HPELS Department Oklahoma State University

The students in this class along with the other tennis and racquet­ ball classes at OSU are invited to participate in a doctoral disserta­ tion study. The study will be conducted by Alan Peterson, a member of the HPELS staff at OSU.

The purpose of the study is to develop a valid and reliable skill test for the sport of racquetball. To complete the study, 32 volunteers are needed, 16 male and 16 female. These 32 volunteers will play in a round robin tournament and a double elimination tournament. All equip­ ment, balls and rackets will be provided. Trophies will be awarded to the top two male and top two female finishers in each tournament. In addition, seven brand new rackets worth $35 each will be awarded as door prizes by drawing names out of a hat. Each tournament player will play approximately 35 matches, two each session, and expectedly will take the whole semester to complete. If more than 32 wish to partic­ ipate, the final 32 will be drawn out of a hat. All people wishing to participate in the two tournaments, fill out the following form and return it to your instructor. Racquetball is a fun sport, so I'm look­ ing forward to an enjoyable racquetball study! Thanks for your help and cooperation.

TOURNAMENT ENTRY FORM

Name: Sex: M. F (print) (circle)

Tennis/Racquetball Instructor Section: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Campus Phone:

Campus Address: 72

TOURNAMENT SCHEDULING PREFERENCE SHEET

TO: Tournament Players

FROM: Alan Peterson

1. Please designate when you are free to play your racquetball tourna­ ment matches. Write in exact times you are ·free (example: 2-4:30).

Afternoon Night

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

2. In the above chart, circle the five times and days when you prefer to play your matches.

3. Write in below the days and times when you absolutely cannot play.

Time

4. Please return this form to your instructor. You will be phoned soon to arrange your first tournament match. Thank you. 73

PROCEDURES FOR TOURNAMENT PLAY

TO: Tournament Players

FROM: Alan Peterson

Scheduling of Matches

1. Tournament matches will be scheduled one week in advance according to the preference sheets you have filled out.

2. Please call me every Sunday evening to find out when your scheduled matches are (624-7681).

3. If you cannot play a match as scheduled, call that person and arrange a new time to play. Each of you will receive a list of phone numbers. Contact me if you need help in reserving a court.

Tournament Play

1. For safety reasons, eyeguards are highly recommended, but optional.

2. Three players will be assigned to a court. The court will be reserved for two hours; and in that time, each player will play one match against the other two (1-2, 1-3, 2-3).

3. Matches will consist of the best 2/3 games. Games will con­ sist of 15 points, a margin of at least 2 points required to win.

4. Players are allowed three 30-second timeouts per game.

5. Indecisions during play will result in replay of the point in question. The server should announce the score before each point is played.

6. Please report the results of the matches to me when play is completed.

7. Tournament players are asked not to practice outside of class time and tournament matches.

8. If you are any problems or questions, call me (Office: 624-7681; Home: 377-8753).

Thanks. 74

MEMORANDUM

TO: Tournament Players

FROM: Alan Peterson Office: 624-7681 Home: 377-8753

1. Attached you will find your schedule for completing the round robin tournament. Please don't lose it, and show up for your matches as scheduled.

2. If you absolutely cannot make it to a scheduled match, call that person (or people) and arrange another time to play. Please play those makeup matches as soon as possible. Stay on schedule. Tell me ahead of time if you can't make it to a match. Let me know if you need my assistance in reserving a court. The best time to make­ up a match is to play on weekends. Please report makeup results to me. All matches must be played--no forfeits!

3. Performance ability (skill) testing will take place during the week of December 1 to 7. This will end the racquetball study. You will be notified when to show up for your testing.

4. The rackets and equipment bags drawing will be on Monday, Decem­ ber l (13 lucky winners!).

I can't thank you all enough for your time and inconvenience. Let me know if you need any help or have any problems. Thanks again.

Use the space below to keep track of matches missed to be made up. 75

MEMORANDUM

TO: Racquetball Students

FROM: Alan Peterson

SUBJECT: Skill Testing

All students in all of the racquetball classes will take two racquetball skill tests. Results of the test will be used to calculate your skill grade. The test will be administered by Alan Peterson who will use the test results as part of his doctoral dissertation study. Testing will begin on December 1 and 2. The two tests are described below.

Test 1

The student will rally (volley) the ball for 60 seconds against the front wall. Legal hits must be made from behind the restraining line. Two balls are used; when control is lost, use the other ball or retrieve the lost one and continue. Two chances are given and averaged for the official score. Every time the ball hits the front wall, it is counted--the ball may bounce more than once or skip into the floor and still be good. front wall

t t t I I t

------restraining line

Test 2

Two players will rally the ball for three minutes. The ball will be hit alternately by the two players for the whole three minutes. The official score will be the total front wall hits by the players minus the number of individual mistakes. Example: Player A and B together hit the front wall 70 times. Player A makes five mistakes, and Player B makes seven mistakes; A scores 65, B scores 63. Two balls are used; the ball must be hit alternately. A mistake is only counted when the player has a fair, clear opportunity to hit the ball--thus one is not penalized for a successful offensive shot by the other. The players may hit the ball from any place on the court and use any type of shot. The intent of the test is to simulate actual racquetball play between two players. APPENDIX C

60-SRT RAW DATA

76 77

TABLE VII

60-SRT VALIDITY

RR Tour. 60-SRT Name x y

SM 100 26.5 CT 96 29 RH 92 26 DE 88 29 SW 85 31 SH 81 30 TM 77 28.5 BF 73 31 JW 69 25 CH 65 25 TT 58 26 DS 58 27 GR 54 19.5 DM 46 25.5 DM 46 21.5 DG 42 23.5 JH 35 22 MR 31 20.5 LC 31 19.5 DB 31 22 LT 27 22 DW 19 19.5 DA 15 19 NB 12 17 CF 12 17 GS 04 18 SF 04 11.5 78

TABLE VIII

60-SRT RELIABILITY

Tournament Group 8:30 MWF Class 9:30 MWF Class 10:30 MWF Class

JH 21 23 PB 21 21 DL 26 32 JL 29 30 CM 20 23 JB 27 26 MC 26 30 NA 16 16 TM 29 28 BB 20 22 cc 21 22 SC 17 20 GS 16 20 EF 14 17 CG 18 23 PE 17 18 RH 26 26 GF 18 18 DB 20 20 VF 18 19 BF 33 29 KF 17 15 MD 29 27 DH 17 16 DE 30 28 DG 13 18 SW 16 16 CI 18 18 CT 29 29 CG 20 19 TB 28 31 DL 21 26 DS 26 28 VG 21 24 SA 19 21 SP 21 24 DM 24 27 DG 24 24 PR 21 22 CP 27 24 LC 19 20 HH 20 19 JW 17 21 DS 29 25 NB 16 18 TH 19 22 PS 21 21 MS 27 29 GR 21 18 TH· 24 29 ES 15 16 DS 26 29 LT 22 22 SH 21 22 CB 22 25 MS 27 29 DW 19 20 WJ 18 18 GO 25 25 DS 26 29 SF 13 10 PJ 19 25 DP 29 29 ST 18 18 TT 26 26 RJ 20 17 TP 23 22 BW 31 27 SM 26 27 PL 17 21 AH 22 20 AH 17 22 JW 25 25 NM 21 18 JH 24 24 ML 19 19 DG 23 24 TM 13 15 WR 14 14 PC 25 28 CF 19 15 DM 20 22 TC 18 19 LK 24 26 DB 20 24 LN 27 23 cc 36 32 HM 20 17 DA 20 18 KP 34 32 EK 24 27 JP 14 13 CH 22 28 GR 16 18 GM 23 27 CP 18 14 SH 31 29 ES 20 22 PM 15 17 DA 27 27 SW 30 32 LS 23 17 JO 26 29 MR 20 21 JV 21 28 SS 23 24 AB 21 21 79

TABLE VIII (Continued)

2:30 MWF Class 9:00 T-Th Class 12:30 T-Th Class 2:00 T-Th Class

DF 16 16 FB 21 21 yy 29 28 SR 20 24 MR 17 20 DM 28 32 VH 29 29 BJ 25 26 DM 20 19 AK 24 20 SA 29 29 SJ 22 20 MH 19 27 BL 18 19 FA 17 17 JM 16 16 JT 30 30 JB 21 17 CB 29 27 MM 19 17 LL 12 14 RM 21 21 DC 24 22 JA 19 20 KC 18 19 CL 21 18 PC 25 29 MA 22 26 LT 18 13 FY 18 19 TC 22 19 DB 23 25 DP 22 23 LH 24 25 DF 20 21 JR 21 23 GC 24 24 AM 10 10 PG 21 20 DR 25 29 LG 33 36 cc 11 12 DG 18 18 KC 30 23 BL 19 23 WD 21 22 AI 23 20 EH 22 19 EC 17 17 SB 19 19 FM 15 16 KL 21 21 FE 27 26 DC 16 16 SM 20 18 MS 24 27 CG 20 20 FP 29 33 RP 17 20 TZ 17 18 JE 22 19 cs 17 20 WN 32 30 DC 20 16 cc 16 17 BW 09 08 FP 21 20 DB 30 27 BT 23 22 MS 18 18 MW 21 19 SD 30 31 HS 21 25 JR 19 20 SS 32 31 TB 17 14 NB 29 28 sz 14 11 DS 27 27 MI 18 21 DJ 21 22 MH 33 29 AS 27 22 DM 19 19 BB 22 17 RW 20 28 DS 15 15 PE 18 19 PS 26 28 KT 27 28 SS 22 24 GW 21 16 WP 27 24 DW 27 32 cw 20 20 AD 20 21 HP 29 29 SS . 18 19 SL 19 21 DM 12 13 GV 15 17 LL 20 19 WM 23 17 BR 17 17 LR 20 20 JW 16 24 DP 21 19 80

TABLE IX

RANK ORDER OF INITIAL 60-SRT SCORES

Name Trial 1 Trial 2 Average

DE 36 44 40 CT 37 40 38 .5 BF 36 38 37 RH 34 38 26 SM 31 37 34 TM 34 34 34 CH 27 29 28 SH 25 30 27.5 SW 27 28 27.5 DM 24 28 26 DS 22 30 26 JW 23 27 25 DG 23 25 24 TT 22 25 23.5 MR 25 22 23.5 JH 25 21 23 CM 22 23 22.5 DB 22 22 22 DA 19 25 22 GR 20 22 21 LT 20 21 20.5 LC 20 21 20.5 NB 17 23 20 GS 21 15 18 CF 16 18 17 SF 14 18 16 DW 12 16 14 APPENDIX D

PPRT RAW DATA

81 82

TABLE X

PPRT VALIDITY

Name W-L % PPRT

SM 26-0 100 94 CT 25-1 96 86 RH 24-2 92 110 DE 23-3 88 85 SW 22-4 85 94 SH 21-5 81 107 TM 20-6 77 95 BF 19-7 73 108 JW 18-8 69 93 CH 17-9 65 102 TT 15-11 58 72 DS 15-11 58 91 GR 14-12 54 67 DM 12-14 46 90 CM 12-14 46 89 DG 11-15 42 92 JR 9-17 35 87 MR 3.:..13 31 71 LC 8-18 31 68 DB 8-18 31 66 LT 7-19 27 66 DW 5-21 19 58 DA 4-22 15 64 NB 3-23 12 67 CF 3-23 12 70 GS 1-25 04 64 SF 1-25 04 55

2211 83

TABLE XI

PPRT RELIABILITY

Tournament Group 9:30 MWF Class

LC/NB 18 16 17 18 SS/TP 18 21 18 20 LT/GR 17 12 20 18 AH/CG 14 17 17 16 SF/DW 18 11 14 16 ES/PS 18 16 15 15 TT/MR 22 18 13 19 PM/JD 21 20 20 19 JH/CM 22 23 21 24 SW/WR 10 11 12 11 SM/TM 26 25 22 24 JO/EK 33 35 36 40 GS/CF 18 16 15 15 MD/MC 26 22 25 27 RH/BF 29 31 27 27 TB/CC 39 45 45 46 DE/CT 22 23 24 18 DB/SA 28 27 26 30 DS/DM 24 23 20 25 DL/DP 26 27 32 26 GR/LT 17 12 20 18 GM/GO 22 20 24 21 JW/DG 22 24 25 23 JH/CB 22 20 18 19 DB/DA 18 14 17 19 CC/PR 16 14 16 14 CH/SH 29 25 29 24 TC/JW 15 16 13 18 SW/SH 23 28 24 24

8:30 MWF Class 10:30 MWF Class

DG/HH 12 14 20 15 HM/CI 16 12 12 15 PL/HH 16 15 18 17 PE/SC 20 17 17 18 VG/CG 18 20 18 15 BW/JL 20 19 24 23 NM/CG 19 17 15 15 SP/ST 20 17 13 17 JB/KP 24 19 20 20 DA/DS 19 22 21 22 ES/SH 19 20 17 20 DH/AH 14 17 11 12 PB/ES 16 14 16 15 MS/CP 25 23 25 23 PJ/BB 19 19 21 13 LK/DL 22 23 19 22 WJ/GF 13 14 15 17 SC/ML 14 15 15 12 JN/JV 22 24 16 23 CF/NA 15 15 16 15 RJ/TH 19 12 15 18 PC/DS 22 22 19 19 KF/TM 16 13 10 14 JP/CP 13 11 08 10 DG/GR 14 14 10 12 DM/DG 15 12 12 13 84

TABLE XI (Continued)

2:30 MWF Class 12:30 T-Th Class

G/T 27 35 28 28 R/P 19 22 20 19 T/G 18 17 16 18 R/W 22 20 16 18 R/B 17 15 14 14 S/S 26 21 22 21 C/L 13 13 11 18 C/I 22 21 17 18 S/M 23 14 18 20 G/A 22 20 15 24 L/T 16 15 16 17 W/L 17 17 15 19 H/T 21 20 28 25 P/M 20 19 16 21 M/C 14 16 16 15 R/M 20 22 19 21 C/E 14 14 17 15 C/F 22 19 21 19 F/V 19 14 12 17 S/N 35 32 29 34 S/E 26 23 22 25 Y/B 25 25 26 29 P/C 23 19 20 22 S/C 21 24 23 23 P/B 24 21 26 26 H/A 29 30 27 30 P/T 21 23 20 21 P/G 19 25 17 18 J/E 18 16 16 20

9:00 T-Th Class 2:00 T-Th Class

W/R 16 13 13 15 M/C 15 14 09 13 W/K 19 20 17 23 D/M 14 14 15 11 D/B 15 12 12 13 H/C 20 19 18 18 S/S 18 20 14 14 D/B 24 20 24 22 N/B 12 10 14 13 M/E 17 18 15 13 L/M 21 18 12 21 R/R 21 19 20 20 B/L 14 16 14 14 L/J 20 18 17 16 M/W 22 24 24 20 A/B 21 16 20 23 C/M 11 07 09 08 J/S 18 20 18 18 S/Y 14 13 11 14 Z/M 18 14 16 18 H/T 19 17 21 16 R/C 18 22 18 19 H/P 24 25 26 26 H/I 16 15 17 16 W/Z 15 10 15 16 APPENDIX E

ROUND ROBIN AND DOUBLE ELIMINATION

TOURNAMENT COMPARISON

85 86

TABLE XII

FINAL RANK ORDER COMPARISON, ROUND ROBIN AND DOUBLE ELIMINATION TOURNAMENTS

Name DE RR Diff.

SM 01 01 00 CT 02 02 00 DE 03 04 01 RH 04 03 01 TM 05 07 02 BF 06 08 02 SW 07 05 02 JW 08 09 01 SH 09 06 03 CH 10 10 00 DS 11 12 01 GR 12 13 01 TT 13 11 02 DG 14 16 02 DB 15 20 05 LT 16 21 05 DM 17 14 03 CM 18 15 03 JH 19 17 02 MR 20 18 02 LC 21 19 02 DA 22 23 01 NB 23 24 01 CF 24 25 01 DW 25 22 03 GS 26 26 00 SF 27 27 00 APPENDIX F

EQUIPMENT DONATIONS

87 88

EQUIPMENT DONATIONS

1. Balls provided by AMF Voit.

2. Rackets provided by

a. Leach

b. Omega

c. Sportcraft

3. Equipment bags provided by Penn Athletic Products Company VITA

Alan Prescott Peterson

Candidate for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Thesis: THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF TWO RACQUETBALL SKILL TESTS

Major Field: Higher Education

Minor Field: Health, Physical Education, and Recreation

Biographical:

Personal Data: Born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on October 8, 1953. Parents are Dr. and Mrs. Clifford S. Peterson of West Boylston, Massachusetts.

Education: Graduated from Glenbrook South High School in Glen­ view, Illinois, in 1972; received an Associate of Arts degree from Mayfair City College, Chicago, Illinois, in June of 1974; received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physical Education from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, in June of 1976; received a Master of Arts degree in Physical Education from Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky, in August of 1977; completed requirements for the Doctor of Education degree at Oklahoma State University in December, 1981.

Professional Experience: Student teacher at Watts Middle School, Centerville, Ohio, during the winter quarter of 1976; graduate teaching assistant at Eastern Kentucky University from August of 1976 to May, 1978; substitute teacher for Kettering Public Schools from October to December of 1978; graduate teaching assistant at Oklahoma State University from January of 1979 to July, 1981; member of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.