A comparison of two methods of shooting the lay-up shot in basketball among college women
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Phillips, Penelop Ruth, 1948-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 29/09/2021 13:32:12
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/554420 A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF SHOOTING
THE LAY-UP SHOT IN BASKETBALL
AMONG COLLEGE WOMEN
by ■ Penelope. Ruth Phillips
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION FOR WOMEN
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE .
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 7 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowl edgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the inter ests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
s IGNED :__ (j>judtU .
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
(Zo w j L ^ . ______(IxaJ a* / 72 A. E. ATWATER Is Date Associate Professor of Physical Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes, to express- her sincere apprecia tion to Dr. Anne E , Atwater for her guidance5 enthusiasms and helpful suggestions throughout the development of this study.
Appreciation is also extended to the members of the committee„ Dr, Patricia C, Fairchild and Miss Kathryn R , E ,
Russell.
The author is also grateful to Miss' Sandra Johnson for her cooperation and assistance, to the students at The
University of Arizona who served as subjects» and to the physical education.students who assisted in the study. A debt of.gratitude is also extended to the author8 s family for their encouragement and assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS
’ Page LIST OF. TABLES , ...... , - « . o . . . . -> . . . vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 0 . . „ ...... ix
ABS TFAC T ...... » . . © « * © . © . . © © © © © ■©■ x I NT R03DUC T ION © © © © © © © © © © © © * © « © . © © © I Introduction to the Problem . , © ©©..©.. © 1 Statement of the Problem © . © © © . . . 2 Hypotheses © . © © © © © © © ©.© © © © © © .© ©■ 2 . Definition of Terms , © © © © . © © .©■ . . © © . 3. Lay-Up Shot ©• . . © © ■. ■ © © © © © © © © . © 3 Overhand Lay-Up Shot . . . . . © © © © . . ; 3. Underhand Lay-Up Shot . . . © . © © . © ©• 3 Experimental Groups « . . ... © . , © © © © 3 Control Groups . ,©»..© . . © ...... 4 Scope of the Study 4 Probable Value , of the Study © .© © , , © . . © © 5
REVIEW,OF SELECTED LITERATURE
The Lay-Up Shot . . © © . .© © © . © © © © , . , 6 Similar Methods Studies in Physical Education © 9 Experienced Performers ..©©.. © . © . 9 - . Inexperienced Performers © . , « . © © © ©. 10 S ummary © © © ©: © . © © © © © © © © © © ■ © © 12 Evaluation of the Lay-Up Shot © © © © © © © © © 13 Skill Tests of the Lay-Up Shot © © , .- ©. © 13 The Bounce and Shoot Test © , © © © „ © , . 15 S ummary © © © © © © © . © © © © © © © © © . 1*^ Summary of Chapter © © © © . . © . . , , . . . 17 DESIGN OF . THE STUDY AND PROCEDURES USED © ...... © © . 19-
Subjects Participating in the Study © © © . © © 19 Design of the Study. , © ... © © . © . © . . . . . 20 Experimental Groups © „ .© © © © © © © © © © 20 Control Groups . © . © © © . © © . © © © ©. 23 . Test of Lay-Up Shooting Ability . . © . . © © . 24 . Description of the Test © , . . © © © . © © 25 Administration of the Test © . © . © © © 31
■ ■ iv . V
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
Treatment of the Data . 6 ® 8 6 0 6.® 0 e O 0 32 Summary of Chapter c o o e o o * o © o . o e o 33 4, ANALYSIS OF. THE DATA AND PRESENTATION OP THE '
FINDINCS e > c 0 .0 e e 0 e o o o c 0 0 @ 0 o o o 35 Comparison of Overhand and Underhand Achievement Scores o e o e c 6 o o e o o e c 35 Shooting Accuracy Scores e e g o o © e c 36 Time Scores c o o o o o o e o o-8 o e o © 40 Analysis of Change .in Performance Over Test Sessions o o o o o o o o @ ? o © © © © © © © 44 Shooting Accuracy Scores © . . .. © . © . 44 Time Scores 8 ® o c e © e e c o e © o o.o 48 Effect of Repeated Testing o o e c e • o o e c 48 Discussion of Results o o e o © e 6 e © e o e Summary of Chapter « o o © o o o e o o e o .o ii 5© SUMMARYt MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS e 9,e-o o o o e e o e © o © o .e © 62
Summary o o e © o' © o 0 0 a o a e e © o c e o 62 Major Findings e e o o o o o © 6 a © e © © '© 64 Conclusions . © © 6 0 0 ® e 8 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 8 66 Recommendations © . a o e e o e e © © e o c ■ 6?
APPENDIX As QUESTIONNAIRE GIVEN TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN BEGINNING BASKETBALL CLASSES ceeooeee eeeoe© 68
APPENDIX Bs INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO SUBJECTS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY . 69 APPENDIX Cs INSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE OF THE . OVERHAND AND UNDERHAND LAY-UP SHOTS 70
APPENDIX Ds INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE REVISED BOUNCE AND SHOOT, TEST . . , ...... © 78
APPENDIX Es THE REVISED BOUNCE AND SHOOT TEST SCORE SHEETS ...... 80
APPENDIX F s' GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP DATA FOR TEST ONE ...... 83 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued '
Page
APPENDIX G s GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP DATA FOR TEST TWO , ...... 86
APPENDIX H s GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP DATA FOR TEST THREE . . . ' 89
APPENDIX I 1 OVERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP.RAW SCORE DATA ...... 92
APPENDIX J > . UNDERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA ...... 9^k
APPENDIX K ; ' OVERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA . . . e e ® . « o o c e . . . . . 9^
APPENDIX L ! UNDERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA « . e e e » o 0 e « ... . * . . 98
REFERENCES eoeeeeeeeeeoeeeeo o. 100 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
•'I. Experimental Group Means for Accuracy of Shooting oo.o... 37
II. Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Shooting Accuracy Scores of the Experimental Groups. » 39 ■
III. Results of Tukey Procedure for Multiple Compar isons of Group and Test Session Mean Scores for Shooting Accuracy , . ... . • . . . . . , . 41
IV. Experimental Group Means for Time Necessary to ■ Complete the Test ...... „ . . . . . » . 42
V. Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Time Scores of the Experimental Groups ...... 45
. VI. Results of Tukey Procedure for Multiple Compar isons of Test Session Mean Scores for Shooting Accuracy , . . » ...... 46
VII. Control Group Means for Accuracy of Shooting . 50 ■ v n ; . Control Group Means for Time Necessary to Com plete the Test » , ...... 51
IX. Experimental Group Standard Deviations for Accuracy of Shooting ...... 59
■ x. Experimental Group Standard Deviations for Time Necessary to Complete the Test . . . . , . . 5 9
XI. Overhand Experimental Group Raw Score Data for Shooting Accuracy „ , . , . , ...... 92
XII. Overhand Experimental Group Raw Score Data for Time Necessary to Complete the Test ..... 93
XIII. Underhand Experimental Group Raw Score Data for Shooting Accuracy ...... 9*4
XIV. Underhand Experimental Group Raw Score Data for Time Necessary to Complete the Test ..... 95
VT1... LIST OF TABLES""Continued
Table Page
XV. Overhand Control Group Raw Score Data for Shooting Accuracy , . « , „ .... » . .... 96
XVI. Overhand Control Group Raw Score Data for Time Necessary to Complete the Test ...... 97 XVII. Underhand Control Group Raw Score Data for Shooting Accuracy ...... 98
XVIII. Underhand Control Group Raw Score Data for Time Necessary to Complete the Test „ . , . . . . 99 LIST' OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Regulation Basketball. Backboard. With . 18" x 24" Rectangle , . . . . „ . „ „ „ » , „ 26 2„ Testing Station for Administration of the Revised Bounce and Shoot Test .■ . „ « . . . 28
3 » Experimental.Group Means for Accuracy of S h. O O "C mg . e . . e e e . s o ’ . . o e . . • . . . 3 6
4. Experimental Group Means for Time Necessary to Complete the Test ...... 43 5. Control Group Means for Accuracy of Shooting « ... 52
6. Control Group Means for Time Necessary to Complete the. Test ...... » - i. » ■ . » 53.
7. Shooting Accuracy Scores of Test One ...... 84
8. Time Scores of Test One ...... 85 9. Shooting Accuracy Scores of Test Two ..... :. 8?
10. Time Scores of Test Two ...... 88
11. Shooting Accuracy Scores of Test Three . . . . . , 90 12. Time Scores of Test Three ...... 91
ix ABSTRACT.
The purpose of this study was to compare the over hand and underhand lay-up shots, among college women classi fied as beginning basketball players. Thirty-six subjects were divided into two groups and assigned either the over hand or underhand methods of shooting the lay-up shot. All subjects were administered a revised version of the bounce and shoot test to evaluate initial ability to ex ecute a lay-up shot. Following this test, the two groups of subjects received instruction and practice in the lay-up shot and were tested again at periods of two and four Weeks after the initial test, A two.factor analysis of variance for repeated meas ures was employed to analyze the data. The results showed no significant difference (p i. ,25) in accuracy and time scores between students executing an overhand lay-up shot and those performing an underhand shot following a four week instruction period. Both the overhand and underhand groups
improved significantly (p = ,001) in shooting accuracy over
.this period. Based on the results of this study, it was concluded that beginning basketball students can be equally successful with either the overhand or underhand lay-up shot following
' ; x . ' a four week instruction period and can improve in shooting ability, using either technique, during this period. CHAPTER 1
■INTRODUCTION '
Introduction to the Problem
Within the.past several years the game of basket ball has increased tremendously in popularity.Women8s basketball has undergone numerous modifications, culmi nating in the adoption of the five—player game« This change has resulted in an increase in the tempo of the game which in turn has lead to additional emphasis on the fast break offense, The emergence of this style of play has placed an added emphasis on the lay-up shot„ Anderson and
Albeck (1964, p. 96) clearly echoed this viewpoint by stating that, “with the rapid pace of the game -increasing the number of fast break baskets, the lay-up is more, impor tant than ever in your fundamental teaching."
A survey of literature dealing with the lay-up shot reveals varying opinions as to the recommended method of executing a lay-up. Some authors propose the exclusive use of an "overhand" lay-up shot while others advocate an
“underhand" shot. Still others recommend either style de pending on such factors as individual preferences and prevailing circumstances. 2
In reviewing each author's analysis of the lay-up shot one finds that the recommended method.for. shooting the lay-up seems to be based .solely on the author6s considered opinion and is not supported by any scientific data. Therefore, an investigation as to the most effective method of shooting the lay-up shot is in order.
Statement of the Problem . ° . The purpose of this study was to compare the over hand and underhand methods of shooting the lay-up shot among college women enrolled in a beginning basketball class. An attempt was made to determine whether both methods of shooting resulted in equivalent levels of achievement at the end of a four week period, and whether improvement occurred over initial test scores.
Hypotheses . ■ .
The following experimental hypotheses were formulateds
1. There will be no significant difference in achievement (accuracy and/or time) scores at the end of a four week period, between students instructed in an overhand lay-up shot and those who received instruction in an under hand shot.
2. A significant improvement in achievement
(accuracy and/or time) scores will occur among all students 3 during a four week period, regardless of the method of instruction.
Definition of Terms
Lay-Up Shot . ' The term "lay-up" was used to describe a short shot made by a player following a move toward the basket. For the purpose of this study, good performance was defined as a situation in which the player executed an approach, a one-foot take-off and layed the ball against the backboard causing it to rebound into the basket.
Overhand Lay-Up Shot Overhand lay-up shot referred to a method of exe cuting the. lay-up with the shooting hand placed behind the ball and the palm of the hand facing toward the basket.
Underhand Lay-Up Shot Underhand lay-up shot denoted a form of the lay-up in which the shooting hand was placed under the ball with the palm facing toward the shooter.
Experimental Groups
The experimental groups were two groups of students enrolled in beginning basketball classes who received the experimental treatment of instruction and practice in one of two methods of shooting the lay-up shot— overhand or underhand«
Control Groups
The control groups consisted of two groups of stu
dents enrolled in a recreational games class who received no instruction or practice in the lay-up shot but partici
pated in the testing phase of the study. One group at tempted the overhand lay-up and the other, the underhand lay-up.
Scope of the Study
The subjects in the experimental groups were 36 college women enrolled in beginning basketball classes at
The University of Arizona and classified as beginners ac-
cording to their initial test score. Eighteen women, enrolled in a recreational games class participated as sub
jects in the Control groups. No attempt was made to equate
either the experimental or control groups in terms of pre vious basketball experience. .Several of the subjects in
the original control groups either dropped out of the study or. missed one of the three test periods, leaving a limited number of students who participated throughout the entire period.
The study was limited to a five week period at the beginning of the semester. Classes met for fifty-five min utes, two times a week. The amount of actual instruction. 5 in the lay-up shot was limited to the amount of time. nor mally al.loted to this skill in a beginning class 6
.Probable Value of the Study
No experimental evidence exists as to the most ef fective method of shooting the lay-up shot in basketball.
It was the purpose of this study to compare two methods of shooting the lay-up shot--overhand and underhandOn the basis of the results# conclusions could then be drawn as to which method $ if either * was more successful with beginning basketball students and should therefore be employed in teaching beginning players CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE
The review of literature has been.divided into three main areas $ the underhand and overhand basketball lay-up shotsi similar methods studies in physical educa tion; and skill evaluation of the lay-up shot.
The Lay-Up Shot . The lay-up shot is the most fundamental shot in basketball and is one of the first skills acquired by begin ning players. With the increased emphasis in basketball on the fast break offense, the development of a good consistent lay-up takes on added importance (Anderson and Alheck 196^,.
Baker I960, McLendon 196$, McGuire 1958).
In consulting the literature dealing with the lay-up shot in basketball one finds a general agreement as to the basic mechanics of shooting a lay-up, with a few notable exceptions. One of the major areas of controversy concerns . the method of releasing the ball. Is it desirable for the shooting hand to be under the ball with the palm facing to ward the shooter in the underhand style, or should the hand be placed behind the ball with palm facing away from the shooter, in the overhand style?
■■ 6 7
Numerous authors, both men and women, have stated that the shooting hand should definitely "be. placed behind the ball with palm facing away from the shooter (Dean 19^6, McCracken . 1955$ Murphy 1962, Samaras 1966, Teague 1962, Vannier and Poindexter I960), In most of these references no mention was made, of the underhand style,
" .h r ' There are, on the other hand, several authors who have claimed, just as emphatically, that the lay-up shot should be performed with the shooting hand placed under the ball with the palm of the hand facing the shooter (Anderson and Albeck 1964, Cousy 1953» Meissner and Meyers 1950,
Meyer 1967, S.chayes 1957)« However, it is interesting, to note that Bunn (1964, p. 75) claimed that one of the common errors in executing the lay-up shot was ‘"shooting with the back of the hand away from the face" or, in other words, in the underhand manner. Once again, the above'authors who advocated the underhand style did not discuss the other method--the overhand lay-up.
However, many writers have discussed both styles of shooting and there is a considerable amount of disagreement as evidenced in the reasons given for the use of either style. Ramsay (1963, p. 124) stated that "the size of the player is a determining factor in whether the driver will lay the ball up in an underhand or an overhand motion,"
He claimed that a shorter player will be more successful 8
with the underhand style while the taller player should, use an overhand shot. Baker (i960, pi 31)„ on the other hand,
advocated the use of the underhand style for taller players and discouraged its use by young players "because of their height and small hands."
Another reason for the use of the underhand style was offered by McGuire (1958, p. 108) when he stated that the underhand shot results in a "greater reach and more
complete follow-through." However, Bunn (1964) disagreed
with this for he claimed that the ball could be carried higher using the overhand method.
It has frequently been said that the more advanced player will have more success with the underhand style.
Both Neal (1966) and Cousy and Power (1970) supported this
idea and stated that the underhand method allows for better fingertip control and a softer touch.
Finally, Cooper and Siedentop (1969, p. 6.3) stated that the overhand and underhand methods are the two basic styles of shooting the lay-up shot and that the use of one
over the other is "largely an individual and/or situational 7 matter."
In summary, it is obvious that, based on the avail
able literature, no conclusions can be drawn as to whether
the overhand or underhand style of lay-up shot should be
taught to beginning basketball players and that there is a definite need for experimental evidence in this area. 9
Similar Methods Studies in Physical Education, There have been numerous studies in physical educa tion in which two or more methods or styles of executing a skill have been compared in order to determine which method is superior. One basis for categorizing these studies is the level of skill or experience possessed by the subjects who are employing the different methods or styles of performance,
Experienced Performers
Several studies have involved the use of experienced performers. In these studies, each subject executed each method and then their performances were compared,
Warshawsky (I963) compared two backfield stances in fodt> ball; Seymour (1959) studied base running in baseball? and Stock (1962) tested four sprint starting positions.
There have been several studies of this same type conducted in the area of swimming. Maglischo and Maglischo
(1968) compared three styles of racing starts, Scharf and
King (1964) analyzed two methods of performing freestyle swimming turns, while King and Irwin (1957) did a similar study of two backstroke turns.
In each of these studies the subjects received a limited amount of instruction so that they were able to per form each method. They were then tested on each method and 10
scores were compared using t tests or analysis of variance as statistical.techniques to determine whether or not-sig nificant differences existed between methods. Another study, in swimming used both experienced and inexperienced swimmers to compare two types of frog kick used in the breast stroke (Cake 19^2). No significant dif ferences, in the methods were, found among the inexperienced
subjects, but one method was concluded to be superior to the
other for the experienced swimmers.
Inexperienced Performers
Many experimental designs have revolved around the use of inexperienced performers or beginning students as a basis for comparison of two or more methods of skill execution.
Track starting positions for sprinting and the use of various javelin grips were analyzed in this manner,
Menely and Rosemier (1968) compared four styles of sprint starts and found one method superior to the others, while Bankhead and Thorsen (1964) found no significant differences
in power among four methods of holding the javelin.
Base stealing in baseball was the object of- study by
Edwards and Lindeburg (1969). The cross-over step, which is the method recommended by most experts, and the jab step, which is proposed by some, were compared and findings showed that the cross-over step was, in fact, the better method. 11
In each of the above studies the same.subjects re ceived Instruction. and were tested in each method and final performance scores were compared using t tests or analysis of variance, Another frequently employed method of research in this area has been to instruct different groups of beginning studentsE using different methods for each group of subjects, with comparisons being made of the results of each group.
Such is the case in the following studies,
Pekara (1963) found that improvement appeared to be made by each group of beginning archery students when using, two types of anchor points, but neither method resulted in a • significant difference in final performance. Similarly,
Knippler (1958) found a significant improvement over an en tire semester, within each group, when comparing three methods of aiming in archery, but one method did not prove to be superior to the others. Likewise, Grebner .(1969) com pared two methods of attaining a full draw in archery following nineteen instructional lessons and found no sig nificant difference between methods.;
Bowling was studied by Summers (195?) and Inabinett (1961)$ both reported that beginning bowlers were just as successful with the hook ball as with the straight ball.
Inabinett also found a significant difference with regard.to fewer number of gutter balls when using the hook ball. In 12 additionf Supners compared two points of aim-spot and pinl and found that the spot method of aiming proved more suc cessful. It is interesting to note that Summers’ study was conducted during an instructional period of seven and one- half weeks while the results of Inabinett’s research were obtained over an entire semester.
The effectiveness of two grips in teaching beginning golf was investigated by Alderman (1967)„ It was concluded that the. spread or "baseball" grip proved superior^ in terms of accuracy, to the Yardon or "overlapping" grip over a six week period of instruction. However, there were no differ ences in range, angle of impact, or velocity.
Alexander (1968) found that college women attained greater speed and accuracy using the conventional method of softball pitching, in comparison with the windmill style, after receiving instruction for six ten-minute lessons.
Summary .
In summary, studies in physical education involving a comparison of two or more methods or styles of executing a skill have generally involved the use of either experienced performers or inexperienced performers. This latter cate gory has been further divided depending upon whether the same group of beginning students or different groups were evaluated with regard to each of the experimental methods. 13
In many of these studies, one method was found to be definitely superior to others but there were also cases in which no significant difference existed between methods. It is possible that the length of the study might have been an important factor in the cases where significant differences between methods did not exist. In several of these studies no mention was made of the length of the instruction or practice periods. Perhaps a variation in these factors might have resulted in different findings,
Evaluation of the Lay-Up Shot A survey of the.literature dealing with skill test ing in basketball resulted in the finding that there was a limited number of existing tests/ especially in the area o f . those constructed primarily for women. Furthermore, most tests consisted of a battery of Several items designed to yield a measure of overall.basketball playing ability.
Those batteries containing a "bounce and shoot" test, which essentially involves a lay-up shot, will be reviewed, but the first category of skills tests to be discussed are those which include an item specifically designed to measure the ability to perform a lay-up shot.
Skill Tests of the Lay-Up Shot
One of the first test batteries used to evaluate basketball techniques was developed by Brace (1924, p. 161) 14 and included a "dribble and. shoot'* test. The subject.was asked to dribble diagonally from the free throw line, around an Indian club, dribble once, and then shoot at.the basket, scoring one point if the basket was;made.
Edgren (1932$ p. 169) described an "opposition shot” in which the subject executed a lay-up shot while under pressure from an opposing player. Both players started;1 from the free throw line with their backs turned to the basket.
At a given signal, they both turned and went forward. The shooter attempted to dribble in and shoot a lay-up while1 the other player tried to prevent him from doing so, without committing a foul.
Friermood (193^) included a test of lay-up ability in his progress tests. The subject was required to dribble toward the basket and shoot three times from the right side with the right hand and three times from the left side with the left hand, scoring one point for each basket, A similar test was a part of the skill test battery constructed by Wilbur (1959). The subject dribbled and shot a lay-up from the right, center, and left of the basket, and scored five points for making three baskets, three points. for two baskets and one point for making one basket. Wilbur also stated (pu 32) that "poor form earned no score," It is clear that relatively few batteries, measuring basketball playing ability involve a test specifically : - ' 15 designed to evaluate the lay-up shot. In each of the above tests no provision was made for the speed of execution of the lay-up. shot, which is a factor that may be of importance.
The Bounce and Shoot Test
One of the first comprehensive studies of basketball skills tests for. women was made by Young and Moser in 1934. They developed a battery of five tests designed to measure playing ability. The "bounce and shoot" test, although not called a lay-up test, was one in which the subject started, from a position fifteen feet from the basket at a forty-five degree angle, dribbled once and shot for the goal.: The exe cution of such a movement would essentially be that which is called for in executing a lay-up shot. The subject per formed a total of ten trials, alternating the direction of approach for each trial. The final score was the total num ber of baskets made. A trial was repeated when the Subject dribbled more than once (at this time, women’s rules prohib ited more than one dribble), traveled, or dribbled illegally, A low reliability: was reported-- .67, and once again "time" was not included as an element of the test.
In 1939 Glassow, Colvin, and Schwarz examined the battery recommended by Young and Moser and determined that the reliability of each separate test, with the exception of the "speed passwas too low and could not be. used for evaluative purposes, Therefore, they devised a new battery 16
of tests in which a revised bounce and shoot test was in
cluded. The subject started from a point eighteen feet from
the basket instead of fifteen. Ten trials were again taken
with the score being a combination of time and accuracy.
The time was that needed to complete the entire test, and the accuracy score consisted of two points for each basket
made, one point for missing the basket but hitting the rim
and zero points for missing both basket and rim. One second of time was added to each score for any violations, which
included dribbling more than once, traveling, or failure to
start behind the restraining line each time. The relia
bility reported was .816.
In 1952, Leilich conducted a factor analysis of all basketball tests which appeared in the literature and were
designed for college women. Four basic factors wer iden
tified: basketball motor ability, speed, ball handling involving passing accuracy and speed, and ball handling in
volving accuracy in goal throwing. The bounce and shoot test
of Glassow, Colvin, and Schwarz (1938)W as found to have a correlation of .63^ with the. basketball motor ability factor
and was one of three tests chosen which, when combined with
the others, reflected the basic factors of basketball skill, A study by Miller (1954) provided, norms in the form
of T-scores and percentile rankings for college women physi
cal education majors on the three skills tests proposed by Leilich. 17
More recently, the bounce and shoot test of Glassow,
Colvin, and Schwarz was revised by Lambert (I969) in an attempt to provide a single test by which to measure bas ketball playing ability. The penalties imposed for bouncing; the ball more than once, traveling with the ball or failure to start behind the restraining line were eliminated and it was concluded that this revised version "was a statistically reliable and valid as well as administratively practical measure of basketball playing ability" (pv 30), A relia-? bility of ,92 was reported.
Summary:. In summarythe G las sow, Colvin, and Schwarz bounce and shoot test, in which the subject basically performs a lay-up shot, has undergone considerable study and been found to be a reliable, test which is still, in popular use at the present time.
Summary of Chapter
Three main topics pertinent to this study were, dis cussed: the lay-up shot in basketball; method studies in. physical educations and skill evaluation of the lay-up shot, . Most authors agreed that the lay-up shot was a most important and fundamental aspect in the game.of basketball.
However, there was considerable controversy among the au thors as to whether the overhand or underhand shot was the preferred method of executing the lay-up. Consequently, It 18
is. clear that a need exists for experimental evidence in
this area. A comparison of two^or more methods of executing a
skill has been a frequent topic of study in physical educa
tion. The use of either experienced or inexperienced subjects has been the main form of investigation. Compari
sons have been made among subjects with regard to the various methods and, in many cases, have resulted in a sig nificant conclusion as to the superiority of one or more methods. It has been suggested,that perhaps a finding of significant results might depend additionally on the length
of instruction or practice periods. Relatively few basketball skills tests exist which would enable one to compare methods of executing the lay-up
shot since few tests have been specifically designed to
evaluate ability to shoot a lay-up. The bounce and shoot
test is, however, a test which involves a lay-up shot and*
after various revisions, has been termed both reliable and valid by several investigators. CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OP THE STUDY AND'PROCEDURES USED
In the following chapter the procedural methods of this study will be discussed. Consideration will be given to the nature and criteria for selection of subjects, The methods of investigation and the tests chosen for evaluative purposes will be described as well as the treatment of the data obtained with these procedures.
Subjects Participating in the Study
The subjects participating in the experimental groups were 36 college women enrolled in two beginning bas ketball classes at The University of Arizona in the Spring
Semester, 1972. Six of the subjects were physical education majors,. Ages of these subjects ranged from 18 to 23 with the mean age being 18,9 years. Eighteen women enrolled in a recreational games class at The University of Arizona during •the same semester participated as subjects in the control groups. Ages in the control groups ranged from 18 to 20, the mean age being 18,6 years. All students enrolled in each of the beginning basketball classes were asked to supply the following infor mation on a written questionnaires, age, major, height,
19 20
weight, previous basketball instruction and competitive ex perience. A copy of the questionnaire may be found in - Appendix A.
All students then were tested initially to assess
their ability to execute a lay-up shot. A revised version,
of the bounce and shoot test, to be described later in this
chapter, was used to evaluate lay-up shooting ability. Those students who achieved a high score (forty-seven or
more points from a possible fifty points) in this initial
testing were judged to be nonbeginners and were not included as subjects in the final analysis of the data. However,
they were permitted to participate in the testing and in
structional aspects of the study. Furthermore, students indicating considerable experience and/or instruction in
basketball were not included in the final data analysis, Students enrolled in the.recreational games class
also were asked to complete the questionnaire, and the same
criteria were used to determine their eligibility as subjects.
Design of the Study
Experimental Groups There were two classes of beginning basketball of
fered at The University of Arizona during the Spring
Semester, 1972. Classes met twice a week for fifty-five 21
minutes, One class„ which met from ?s00-7$55 A,M, on Tues
days and Thursdays* was taught by the investigator. The
other class met from 8$00-8$55 .A.M, on Mondays and Wednes days and was taught by another instructor.
Both classes received instruction in passing* catch ing and dribbling by their respective instructors on the first day of classes. Following the first class meeting* each class was divided into two groups by means of a table of random numbers. The two treatments--overhand lay-up shot and underhand lay-up* were randomly assigned to the two groups, within each class. The total number of subjects in the underhand experimental group was eighteen--ten students from one class and eight from the other. The overhand ex perimental group also consisted of eighteen subjects--nine students from.each of the.two classes„
At the second meeting of each class* the nature and purpose of this study were explained by the investigator to all students in both classes, and their cooperation was so licited, The instructions given to the students are found in Appendix B . A revised version of the bounce and shoot test, which was the form of evaluation of lay-up ability used in this study, was described and each subject was al lowed a brief practice period of five shot attempts.
Subjects were asked, by the investigator, to shoot with the palm of the hand facing toward or away from them, depending upon the group to.which they had been assigned. 22
During the third class period, two days later, the subjects in both the overhand and underhand.experimental groups were tested to determine their initial level of abil ity. Each subject performed two trials of the revised bounce and shoot test*
The fourth class period was then devoted to instruc tion in the lay-up shot. Both groups within each class were taught simultaneously by the investigator, but were taught different methods of holding and releasing the ball, accord ing to their respective assignments--overhand or underhand.
All practice situations dealing with the lay-up shot were identical within each group and in each of the two classes throughout the entire,study, with the investigator supervis ing all practice, instruction and testing sessions. The details of the.instruction and subsequent practice are in cluded in Appendix C .
After the initial day of instruction, practice of the lay-up shot was limited to a period of ten to fifteen minutes at the beginning of each class.
Subjects were tested again two weeks from the date of the initial testing and a third time after an additional two weeks had elapsed. Classes met a total of three times between each administration of the test.
The only deviation from the above schedule was that the second administration of the test was delayed one class meeting in one of the classes because of the intervention 23
of a school holiday. However, this was not believed to have
influenced the results of the investigation. The experimen tal groups were composed of members from both of.the basketball classes and, therefore, each group was equally affected by the holiday.
Control Groups Eighteen college women enrolled in a recreational games class at The University of Arizona in the Spring Se- ■ mester, 1972, served as subjects for the control groups in this study. The control groups were used in an attempt to determine whether a significant improvement was made during a four week period in the subjects* ability to execute e l - . ther the underhand or overhand lay-up shot without the benefit of instruction or practice in lay-up shooting. In other words, was there improvement among the subjects simply as a result of repeated performances of the bounce and shoot test? The subjects' were randomly divided into two groups of nine students and the two treatments, overhand and underhand, were assigned in.the same manner as in the exper
imental groups. However, several subjects either dropped out of the study or missed one of the three test dates and only seven subjects in the overhand group and four in the underhand group participated throughout the entire study. 24
The nature and purpose of the study were explained to the control group by the investigator and their coopera tion was requested. The revised version of the bounce and shoot test was also explained, followed by a period of prac tice, All testing procedures used with the control groups were identical to those used in the experimental groups.
The subjects in the control groups were evaluated on their ability to shoot a lay-up shot on three occasions, A period of two weeks (three class meetings) elapsed between the first and second tests, but the third test was adminis tered three weeks from the date of the second test due to the fact that spring vacation occurred during this period.
Although this situation may have altered the tests results of the control group on the third test, the degree to which the scores were affected was impossible to determine,
' Test of Lay-Up Shooting Ability . The skill test chosen for evaluating the ability to execute a lay-up shot was a revised version of the bounce and shoot test. As described in the previous chapter, a bounce and shoot test was originally designed by Young and
Moser (1934) and was altered by Glassow, Colvin, and Schwarz
(1938) in order to obtain greater reliability. Subsequent revisions also were made by Lambert (1969), The design of
Lambert6s version of the bounce and shoot test was believed to be an adequate means of evaluation for this study. • - " 25
However, revisions were made in the scoring system in an at tempt to make it a more discriminating test of lay-up shooting ability. The original method of scoring shooting accuracy was as follows $
Two points for each basket that was made, One point for missing the basket but hitting the rim. No points for missing both the basket and the rim.
It was felt that such a system would not allow for sufficient discrimination among beginning students and, therefore, a new five-point, system was designed.
Revisions in the scoring system for time scores also were made after the actual administrations of the test, and will be described later in this chapter.
Description of the Test
The revised version of the bounce and shoot test as used in this study is described below. The actual instruc tions given to the subjects may be found in Appendix D,
Purpose. The purpose of this test was to measure speed and accuracy in executing the basketball lay-up shot.
Facilities and Equipment. The equipment necessary for administration of the revised bounce and shoot test in cluded two basketballs, a stopwatch and two chairs, A regulation basketball goal marked with a rectangle, accord ing to the specifications shown in Figure 1 was also required. The rectangle is the marking which is commonly seen on basketball backboards. The backboards in the Figure 1. Regulation Basketball Backboard With 18” x 24” Rectangle - 2?
Women's Gymnasium at The University of Arizona were not so marked„ Therefore, the investigator marked the backboards according to the standards established by D,G,W.S„ Women6s
Basketball Rules The testing area was arranged in the manner illus trated in Figure 2. A 24-inch line was placed bn the floor on both sides of the basket at a distance of 18 feet from the center of the basket and at an angle of 45 degrees with the end line. Two additional lines (18 inches in length) were placed at a point 12 inches behind the 24-inch lines and 30 inches to the outside of an 18-foot line running from the center of the basket to the 24-inch lines (this appears as a dotted line in Figure 2 and was not actually drawn on the floor). A chair was then placed on each of these lines, the back of the chair facing the basket.
Personnelo Testing, personnel included a timer, scorer, and two pass receivers»
Procedure« The subject started on the 24-inch line at the right side of the basket. The timer signaled "Ready,
Go!" The subject then picked up the ball from the chair, dribbled toward the basket, executed a lay-up shot, recov ered the rebound and passed the ball to the receiver standing behind the chair on the right side of the basket.
She then ran to the chair on the left side of the basket, picked up the ball and repeated the entire sequence of drib bling, shooting and throwing the ball to the pass receiver 26
/8 A
Figure 2. Testing Station for Administration of the Revised Bounce and Shoot Test 29 on the left side of the basket, This procedure was repeated a total of ten times with the subject shooting alternately from the right and left sides. Each dribble was to start from behind the 24-inch line.
Scoring. The subject received a time score and an accuracy score. The amount of time that elapsed between the starting signal and the moment the subject caught the ball following the tenth shot was recorded to the nearest tenth of a second. One second of time was added to this score for each violation that occurred, A violation was defined as traveling with the ball, illegal dribble or failure to start behind the 24-inch line each time.
It was the duty of the timer to record the total elapsed time and the number of violations that occurred. The accuracy score was determined in the following manner. Each of the ten attempted shots was awarded a point value according to the scale below $
5 points = Basket was made, using backboard,
4 points = Basket was made without using backboard, 3 points = Basket was missed and the ball hit the backboard, in or on the rectangle, (The ball may or may not have hit the rim.)
2 points = Basket was missed and ball hit the back board, above or level with the rim but
1. These violations were recorded at the time of testing but were not used in the actual analysis of data. Justification for such action will be presented later in this chapter, ■ . 30
outside the rectangle„ or ball hit the top or side of the rim,
1 point = Basket was missed and ball hit the un derside of rim or hit the backboard below the level of the rim. -
0 points = Basket was missed and the ball did not strike the backboard or rim„
The total of all ten shots comprised the subject's accuracy score for one trial. ' It was the duty of the scorer to record the point value for each shot and to notify the timer when the ninth shot had been attempted.
An overall score for each subject, consisting of a mean score for accuracy and one for time based on all=three ■ trials of a test period, was calculated and reported to the subjects.. However, a mean of only two trials was calculated for the initial test. On the first day of testing each sub ject completed only two trials of the test due to the slow rate of execution of the lay-up shots prior to any instruction. As explained previously, the subjects were instruc ted that, in performing the revised bounce and shoot test, a penalty would be assessed their score for each violation committed. In other words, one second of time was to be ad ded to the subject's score each time she traveled, dribbled illegally, or failed to start from behind the restraining line, (Dribbling the ball more than once was not recorded as a violation, as was done in all previous bounce and shoot 31 tests. Women6s basketball rules have changed such that dribbling the ball more than once is no longer a violation.)
However, as was stated in Chapter Two of this study,
Lambert (1969) eliminated the penalties of traveling, bounc ing, the ball more than once, and failure to start behind, the restraining line and found no loss of reliability in a re vised form of the bounce and shoot test. Therefore, although the subjects in this study were instructed that a penalty would be assessed for each viola tion committed, and all violations were recorded by the timers, the decision was made to eliminate all violations from the final analysis of data. Thus, each subject's time score reflected only the time needed to complete the test and did not include the addition of any penalties.
Administration of the Test
The revised bounce and shoot test was administered on three occasions to each group of subjects. Both experi mental groups (overhand and underhand) were tested simultaneously but at two different testing stations. Sub jects were given a rest of at least three minutes between trials and, in most cases, the interval was considerably, longer, ' Three persons served as scorers in this study. The investigator scored all subjects in the underhand group in both basketball classes. The other basketball instructor 32 acted as scorer for the subjects in the overhand group in her class» and a graduate student in physical education per formed this role in the investigator's class,
Two undergraduate physical education students served as timers in both basketball classes„ with one timing the overhand group and the other, the underhand group.
The investigator acted as scorer and timer for the underhand subjects in the control group, and the graduate student referred to above scored and timed all of the over hand subjects„
An example of the score sheets used by the scorers and timers may be found in Appendix E .
Each of the scorers practiced scoring the subjects during their practice attempts on. the day prior to the ini tial test, This was done to familiarize the scorers with the scoring system. The timers did not participate in this practice situation.
Treatment of the Data
The statistical procedure employed in this study was a two factor analysis of variance with repeated measures on the same subjects, The use of such a statistical design made it possible to determine whether significant differ ences occurred between the two experimental treatments— the overhand and underhand lay-up shots. It was also possible to test for significant differences among achievement scores 33 .
on Test Onep ■Test-Two, and Test Three* In additione multi
ple comparison tests, were performed, using the Tukey
procedure, to identify specific sources of significant dif
ferences between test sessions and within the interaction
factor*
Summary of Chapter
Thirty-six college women'enrolled in beginning bas ketball classes at The University of Arizona were selected
as subjects for the experimental groups of this study*
Eighteen women from a recreational games class served as subjects in the control groups, All subjects were randomly
assigned to either the overhand or underhand methods of
shooting the lay-up shot.
The subjects were initially evaluated in terms of ability to execute a lay-up shot, using a revised version of
the bounce and shoot test, Following.this test, students in the experimental groups received instruction and practice in
the overhand and underhand lay-up shots, depending upon the group to which they were assigned. The control groups re
ceived no instruction or practice, All subjects in the
experimental and control groups were tested an additional
two times at periods of two and four weeks from the initial
test. Achievement scores consisted of two components— .
accuracy of shooting and time necessary to complete the
test o 34
The data were analyzed using a two factor analysis of variance with repeated measures on the same subjects. Multiple comparison tests made possible the identification of specific sources of significant differences. CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND PRESENTATION OF THE'FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of shooting the lay-up shot in 'basketball and to determine . which method? if either? was more successful among beginning basketball students. The following chapter contains the analysis of the data obtained in this investigation and the conclusions that were made regarding the experimental hy potheses presented in Chapter One,
Comparison of Overhand and Underhand Achievement Scores
The first experimental hypothesis under considera tion in this study was that there would be no significant difference in achievement (accuracy and/or time scores be tween students instructed in an overhand lay-up shot and those who received instruction in an underhand shot? at the end of a four week period. Since this experimental hypoth esis was stated in the form of a null hypothesis? the statistical test of no difference was employed. The data for the accuracy scores were analyzed separately from the time score data,
35 36
Figures 7-12 in Appendices F-H represent a graphical analysis of the data of the experimental groups for each trial of. each test session, for both shooting accuracy and
time needed to complete the test. The actual test scores for each subject are included in Appendices I and J. No
consistent increase or decrease was evident in either the accuracy or time mean scores over trials within each test session. This indicated that performance on a single test
day was not affected by either practice or fatigue. There fore, it was concluded that the mean of all trials for each
subject on a particular test day would give a representative
indication of the level of performance for that individual.
Shooting Accuracy Scores
The results of the analysis of the accuracy scores
are presented in Table 1 and are portrayed graphically in
Figure 3. A two.factor analysis of variance with repeated measures on the same subjects was performed on these data.
The results of the analysis are shown in Table II,
A significant difference (p £ .01) in shooting accu racy was found between the two experimental groups, between
the three test sessions and also in the interaction factor. The main consideration in the first hypothesis was whether significant differences between the overhand and underhand • groups existed at the end of a four week period. Analysis
of the interaction factor provided such information. Since 37
TABLE I EXPERIMENTAL GROUP MEANS FOR ACCURACY OF SHOOTING
Test One Test Two Test Three
Overhand Group X=35.8 X=38.7 J=39.4 X=37.97
Underhand Group X=26.0 5C=35.1 X=3?.8 X=32.96
j(=30.92 X=36.89 X=38.59 iue • xeietlGopMas o cuay ofShooting for Accuracy Means Group Experimental 3•Figure Mean Accuracy Score 20 30 40 50 n To Three Test Two Test One Test ------0ve rhand, Underhand, 18 =N 18 =N 38 TABLE IT
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FOR SHOOTING ACCURACY SCORES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS
Source of Degrees Sums of Mean F Ratio Probability Variation of Freedom Squares Squares'
Groups 1 677.0015 677,0015 8.5048 .01
Between Subjects Error 34 2706.4718 79,6021 -
. ; Test Sessions 2 '• II69.955O 584.9775 • 37.9166 ,001
Interaction 2 331.2291 165.6146 10,7347 .001
Within Subjects Error 68 1049.1026 15.4280
Total 10? 5933.7600
V) VO 40
the -interaction factor was found to be significant, the
Tukey multiple comparison test was performed, the results of ,which may be found in Table III.
At the conclusion of the four week instructional pe riod (at the third evaluation period) the probability of chance occurrence of the F ratio for the differences in .
shooting accuracy between the experimental groups was .25= Thus, the difference between these two groups at the conclu sion of the four week period was considered not highly
significant. However, the overhand group did perform sig nificantly better than the underhand group in shooting
•accuracy at the first evaluation period (p - .001) and at
the second evaluation period (p = .025)= Therefore, although the two methods of shooting the
lay-up shot did result in significant differences in shoot
ing accuracy during the first portion of this study, no such difference existed at the conclusion of.the study. Thus,
there was no experimental evidence to reject the null hy
pothesis that there would be no significant difference between the overhand and underhand groups at the end of the
four week instruction period.
Time Scores The scores for the two experimental groups reflect
ing the difference in the time necessary to complete the
test are presented in Table IV and in Figure 4. Results of TABLE III
RESULTS OF TUKEY PROCEDURE FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF GROUP AND TEST SESSION MEAN SCORES FOR SHOOTING ACCURACY
- Comparison of Cell Means Cell Means F Ratio Probability
Overhand Test One 35.8 Underhand Test One 26.0 10.6214 .001
Overhand Test Two 38,7 Underhand Test Two 35.1 3,8465 ,025 0ve rhand Test Three 39.4 Underhand Test Three 37,8 1.7583 .25 Overhand Test One 35.8. Overhand Test Two . ' 38.7 3.0664 .10 Overhand Test One 35,8 Overhand Test Three 39.4 3.8586 ,025 Overhand Test Two 38.7 Overhand Test Three 39.4 ,7922 N,S ,
Underhand Test One 26,0 Underhand Test Two 35.1 9.8413 .001 Underhand Test One 26.0 Underhand'Test Three 37.8 12.7218 ,001
Underhand Test Two 35.1 Underhand Test Three 37.8 2,8804 .10 42
TABLE IV
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP MEANS FOR TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TEST
Test One Test Two Test Three
Overhand Group 1=77•78 1= 72.93 X=71.11 2=73.939
Underhand Group 1= 77.33 X=74.58 X=73.09 X=74.998
^=77.550 X=?3.754 X=72.102 Figure 4. Experimental Group Means for Time Necessary to Necessary for Time Means Group Experimental 4.Figure Mean Time Score (Seconds) 65 70 75 80 85 One Test opee theTest Complete Two Test Underhand, Overhand, Three Test 18 =N 18N=
3 4 44 the analysis of variance performed on these data are shown in Table V, The differences in time scores between the ex perimental treatments and for the interaction factor were not of sufficient magnitude to be considered highly signifi cant (p £ ,25). Therefore, the hypothesis of no significant difference between the overhand and underhand experimental groups was not rejected.
Analysis of Change in Performance Over Test Sessions .
The second experimental hypothesis of this study was that significant improvement in achievement scores would oc cur among all students during a four week period, regardless of the method of instruction. The statistical method of analysis was a test of the null hypothesis of no difference in achievement over testing sessions, in terms of both accu racy and time scores.
Shooting Accuracy Scores The analysis of scores from Test One, Test Two, and
Test Three showed a significant difference (p = ,001) in shooting accuracy over test sessions, independent of the method of shooting (Table II, page 39)- The Tukey multiple comparison test made possible the identification of the spe cific sources of score variance between test sessions.
Table VI contains these results. TABLE V
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FOR TIME SCORES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS.
Source of Degrees Sums of Mean F Ratio Probability - Variation of Freedom Squares Squares
Groups 1 30.2842 30.2842 ,2329 N.S.
Between Subjects Error 34 4420.6?56 130,0199
.Test Sessions 2 561.786? 280.8934 2,1604 ,25
Interaction 2 31.2222 15.6111 1.8980 . ,25 .
Within Subjects Error 68 559.3134 8.2252
Total 10? 5603.2821 46
TABLE VI .
RESULTS OF TUKEY PROCEDURE FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF TEST SESSION MEAN SCORES FOR SHOOTING ACCURACY
Comparison of Cell Means Cell Means F Ratio Probability
Tests One 30,92 and Two 36*89 9*1277 .001
Tests One 30.92 and Three 38.59 11.7247 .001
Tests Two 36.89 and Three 38.59 2.5970 .10 4?
The shooting accuracy scores for the overhand and underhand groups were combined and analyzed.for each test session. The mean accuracy score of the combined experimen tal groups improved significantly (p = .001) from Test One to Test Three, and also from Test One to Test Two. The im provement from Test Two to Test Three was less marked (p = .10).
The accuracy scores of both the overhand and under hand experimental groups were also analyzed separately to determine whether significant improvement occurred within each group between test periods. Table III, page 41 con tains these results. The overhand group improved significantly (p = .025) in shooting accuracy between Test
One and Test Three. However, the improvement of this group between Test One and Test Two was significant only at the
.10 level, and no significant improvement existed between
Test Two and Test Three. Shooting accuracy of the underhand group improved significantly (p = .001) between Test One and
Test Three and also between Test One and Test Two. A less marked improvement occurred in this group between Test Two . and Test Three (p = .10).
Therefore, the statistical null hypothesis was re jected, and it was concluded that all subjects made significant improvements in shooting accuracy between the start and the end. of the four week instruction period, re gardless of whether they received instruction and practice 48
in the overhand lay-up shot or the underhand shot. The im provement for both groups was greater from Test One to Test Two than from Test Two to Test Three (see Figure 3$ page 38),
Time Scores Differences, between the mean time scores for over
hand, and underhand groups on Test One, Test Two, and Test Three were not of sufficient magnitude to be considered
highly significant (p = .25)« (See Table IV, page 42 and
Table-Vf, page 45.,) Therefore, the null hypothesis of no '. difference in time score achievement over testing sessions,
regardless of the method of instruction, was not rejected.
Effect of Repeated Testing
The purpose of testing the control groups was to de termine whether the subjects improved in the execution of" an
overhand or underhand lay-up shot during a four week period
without receiving instruction and practice in the assigned
method of shooting. In other words, did the subjects in the
control groups improve as a result of simply performing the bounce and shoot test on three, occasions?
Because of the extremely small number of subjects
. for whom data were obtained, it was not advisable to analyse these data with the statistical procedures used for the ex
perimental groups. However, a descriptive analysis of the
data was performed. 4-9
The accuracy and time scores of the control groups were initially treated in the same manner as were the scores of the experimental groups = The penalties for travelingg illegal dribbles and failure to start behind the restraining line were recorded during the actual administration of the tests but were not included in the final scores. Also, the mean of each subject’s trials on a test day was calculated and recorded as the subject’s score for that test period.
Tables VII and VIII and Figures 5 and 6 contain the test results for all participants in the overhand and under-■ hand control groups. The actual test scores for each subject are included in Appendices K and L, Inspection of the accuracy scores of the control groups revealed that those subjects attempting an overhand lay-up shot appeared to improve considerably during this study while subjects in the underhand group showed only slight improvement. There was only a very slight decrease (indicating improvement) in the time necessary to complete the test during the four week period for both the overhand - ' i and underhand groups„ Therefore6 because the overhand control group made apparent improvement in shooting, accuracy through repeated performances of the revised bounce and shoot test, the im provement of the overhand experimental group also might, at first glance, be attributed to this. On the other hand, the improvement in shooting accuracy of .the underhand 50
TABLE VII CONTROL GROUP MEANS FOR ACCURACY OF SHOOTING
Test One Test Two Test Three
Overhand Group X=31.2 X=37.6 X=38.4 X=35.74
Underhand Group X=21.5 X=22.9 X=23.8 X=22.72
X=26,36 X=30.24- X=31.09 51
TABLE VIII CONTROL GROUP MEANS FOR TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TEST
Test One Test Two Test Three
Overhand Group X=?6.12 X=73•50 X=72.84 X=74.155
Underhand Group X=83.24 X=79.98 X=78.53 X=80.579
X=?9.680 X=76.740 X=75•882 iue • Control GroupFigure 5•Means for Accuracy of Shooting Mean Accuracy Score 30 40 50 et et Test Test Test n To Three Two One ______Overhand, Underhand, N=4 ? =N 52 Figure Mean Time Score (Seconds) 80 65 85 6 Control Group. Means for Time Necessary to Complete the Test et et Test Test Test n To Three Two One Overhand, Underhand, N=? N= 4
53 54
experimental group could, be attributed to the instruction and practice in the lay-up shot rather than to the repeated
performance of the bounce and shoot test. However, such conclusions are only tentative and should be viewed with caution, for there are several possible interpretations of
these results8 ■
The initial size of both control groups was consid erably smaller than the experimental groups and the final
size of the groups made comparisons between the experimental and control groups highly questionable. Furthermore, the
improvement of only the overhand control group might reflect
their familiarity with the overhand shot, whereas the under hand group members may have been less familiar with the type
of shot to which they were assigned and therefore did not
improve without instruction. Differences in familiarity were most likely due to the fact that, if the subjects in either group had had any previous experience with the lay-up shot, it was probably with the overhand method of shooting.
One major factor that was not reflected in the scores of the bounce and shoot test was the degree to which each subject performed a true lay-up shot. It was observed by the investigator that most subjects in the experimental and control groups did not perform a true lay-up shot during the first administration of the bounce and shoot test. Many subjects in the overhand group dribbled to the basket, stop ped, and then shot a two-hand chest shot. Several of the / 55 subjects in the underhand group also dribbled to the basket, stopped and then attempted either a two-hand or one-hand un derhand shot. As a result of the instruction and practice provided for the overhand and underhand experimental groups, most of these subjects performing on the second and third . tests no longer appeared to slow down or stop prior to shooting or to use a two-hand.shot in releasing the ball.
On the other hand, several of the overhand control group subjects, who did not receive practice or instruction in the lay-up shot, continued to shoot incorrectly and may have improved their shooting accuracy test scores by merely repeatedly performing the relatively stationary shot rather than the more involved moving shot. It would, therefore, be. invalid to compare the improvement of the control group6s incorrect method of shooting with the improvement of the ex perimental group subjects, who not only became more successful in shooting accuracy, but also learned to execute the lay-up shot as defined in this study. In summary, the use of a control group.in this study did not permit one to determine conclusively whether or not the accuracy improvement reported in the experimental groups was due primarily to the effect of instruction and practice in the lay-up shot, or to the repeated performances of the revised bounce and shoot test. However,■the evidence sug gested that repeated performances of the bounce and shoot 56 test alone may have contributed somewhat.to the improvement in shooting accuracy of the overhand experimental group.
Discussion of Results
The results of this study have shown that beginning basketball.students were equally successful with the over hand and underhand lay-up shots in terms of accuracy and time scores at the conclusion of a four week instructional period. However, such was not the case at the beginning or following the first portion of the study. Figure 3? page 38, clearly shows the initial difference in accuracy of shooting between those- subjects assigned to perform the overhand lay-up shot and those in the underhand group.
Those subjects executing an overhand shot achieved consider ably higher scores initially, and the difference between these groups during the second test was still significant
(Table III, page 4l).
This large discrepancy in the initial accuracy scores of the two experimental groups might be explained in the following manner. All subjects in the experimental groups were classified as beginning basketball students be cause they had had no previous college instruction in basketball, no competitive experience, and were enrolled in a beginning basketball class. However, most subjects indi cated that they had received some previous instruction in basketball in either junior or senior high school. It is, : ;■ .. ■ .. 57 therefore t entirely possible that some.had - received instruc tion in the lay-up shot. Furthermore„ if such were true s the .method of instruction was most likely the overhand lay up shot because, as indicated in basketball instructional literature, the overhand' style is believed by most teachers to be the more orthodox and, therefore, the preferred method of shooting the lay-up shot. Thus, those subjects assigned to perform the overhand lay-up shot may have been somewhat familiar, though not proficient, with this style of shoot ing. On the other hand, the subjects executing the underhand shot may have been unfamiliar with that method and, as a result, performed at a much lower level of achievement prior to instruction.
However, after receiving instruction and practice in the underhand lay-up shot, the subjects in the underhand ex-, perimental group improved significantly in their shooting accuracy. They we're not significantly different from the subjects in the overhand group at the conclusion of the study in their level of performance for both accuracy and time scores. A final topic which should be considered in this in vestigation is that of variability. Did the subjects in the experimental groups become less variable (more consistent) in both ,,accuracy of shooting and time necessary to complete the test as these scores improved? Also, was there a 58 difference in the variability of either of these factors be^
tween the two experimental groups?
Referring to Figures 7-12 in Appendices F-Hp one can observe no definite increase or decrease in the variability of subjects between the trials for each test session as re flected in the standard deviation of the accuracy and time scores. The standard deviation of each group for each test is presented in Tables IX and X, Neither experimental group appeared to become more consistent over test sessions in their performance in either shooting accuracy or time neces sary to complete the test« However, the subjects who received instruction and practice in the overhand lay-up shot seem to have been somewhat less variable throughout the study in both accuracy and time scores, when, compared with subjects in the underhand group. Once again, , such a result might have been due to the lack of familiarity with the un derhand lay-up shot experienced by the subjects assigned to that group, as compared to the subjects assigned the over hand lay-up.
The accuracy and time achievement scores obtained in this study were analyzed using a two factor analysis of var iance with repeated measures on the same subjects as the statistical design. Significant differences were found to TABLE IX
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ACCURACY OF SHOOTING
Test One Test Two Test Three
Overhand - Group SD=4.62 SD=5.08 SD=5.14
Underhand Group • SD=6„54 SD=7«91 SD-6A8
TABLE X
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR TIME.NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TEST
Test One Test Two Test Three
Overhand Group . SD— 6 «03 SD=6„70 SD=5=61
Underhand Group SD=8.85 SD=7.l4 SD-7.13 60 exist between the two experimental groups, the three.test sessions and in the interaction factor,
A multiple comparison test was performed to deter mine the specific sources of significant variation among test sessions and cell means. The results of this analysis showed that those subjects performing an overhand lay-up shot were more successful, in terms of shooting accuracy, than subjects.executing an underhand shot prior to instruc tion and again after two weeks of instruction and. practice.
However, following an additional two weeks of practice there was no significant difference between these groups. It ap peared that a four week period of instruction was sufficient to overcome initial performance differences in shooting methods and to yield shooting accuracy scores that were sim ilar for both methods of executing the lay-up shot. Such evidence supported the first experimental hypothesis that no significant difference would exist between achievement scores attained with the overhand and underhand lay-up shots at the conclusion of the four week instruction period.
No significant differences between the experimental groups were reported with regard to the time necessary to complete the revised bounce and shoot test. This finding also supported the first experimental hypothesis, -
Further analysis showed that both groups improved in shooting accuracy throughout the four week period, regard less of the method of lay-up shot being used. Therefore, 61 the statistical null hypothesis of no difference over test sessions for accuracy scores, was rejected, in favor of the experimental hypothesis. However, neither group improved significantly in time scores over the three, test days,.
Thus, the second experimental hypothesis of this study was supported for the accuracy scores but not for the time scores. However, it was not possible to determine conclu sively how much of this improvement was due to the repeated practice of the revised bounce and shoot test. Furthermore, despite significant improvement, neither the overhand or un derhand experimental groups became more consistent in performance during the four week instructional period. CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary The lay-up shot is the most fundamental shot in bas ketball and plays an important role in the instruction of beginning players. The basis of this study was a comparison of two methods of shooting'the lay-up shot among beginning basketball students. The intent was to determine which method proved more successful, in order to provide a basis for instructors' decisions concerning which method to teach in beginning basketball classes.- The shooting methods under investigation were the overhand and underhand lay-up shots.
Before undertaking such a study, a review of perti nent literature was conducted„ This review focused upon three areas $ the method of shooting the lay-up shot advo cated by most authorities? similar methods studies in physical education? and skill tests of the lay-up shot. Findings showed that numerous studies comparing two or more methods of executing a skill have been conducted in physical education. A considerable controversy exists as to the rec ommended method of shooting the lay-up, and it was apparent that only a limited number of skill tests designed to evalu ate ability to execute a lay-up shot.were available.
62 63
The. subjects participating in this study were 36 college women enrolled in beginning basketball classes at -The University of Arizona who were classified as beginners
on the basis of a questionnaire and a skill test of lay-up ; shooting ability. These subjects were divided into two ex
perimental groups— one receiving instruction in the overhand
lay-up shotp and the other being instructed in the underhand lay-up.
In addition, 11 students enrolled in a recreational
games class served as a control group, receiving no instruc tion or practice in the lay-up shot but participating in the
evaluative portions of the study, A revised form of the Glassow, Colvin, and Schwarz
bounce and shoot test (1938) was-selected as the method of
evaluating ability to execute a lay-up shot. The scoring system devised by this investigator was considerably differ
ent from those systems used in all previous bounce and shoot
tests and was designed to improve discrimination among sub jects with regard to shooting accuracy.
All subjects in both the experimental and control
groups were tested at the beginning of the study to deter
mine their initial level of ability. Following this test,
subjects in the experimental groups received instruction and
practice in the overhand and underhand lay-up shots, depend
ing upon the group to which they were assigned. The revised
bounce and shoot test was administered on two additional 64
occasions, .at periods of two and four weeks after the ini
tial test.
. Subjects in the overhand and underhand control
groups received no instruction or practice in the lay-up
shot but were tested two additional times', in the same man ner as the experimental groups were tested. The purpose of
the control groups was to determine whether improvement oc
curred in the ability of subjects to execute a lay-up shot
simply as a result of repeated performances of the revised bounce and shoot test, •
A two factor analysis of variance with repeated measures on the same subjects was the statistical procedure employed in an analysis of the accuracy.and time scores of the experimental groups. Multiple comparison tests were also performed to aid in identifying specific sources of variation occurring in the treatment variables. The data of the control groups did not lend itself to such procedures and was subjected only to a descriptive analysis.
Major Findings
The major hypothesis under investigation in this study was that there would be no significant differences in achievement scores (shooting accuracy and/or time necessary to complete the test), between students instructed in an overhand lay-up shot and those who received instruction in an underhand, shot, at the end of a four week period. , 65
The results of this study indicated that, at the conclusion of the four week instruction period, the accuracy scores of subjects executing an overhand lay-up shot were
not significantly different (p = .25) from the accuracy scores of those subjects performing an underhand shot.
Therefore, although the overhand lay-up group did obtain
significantly better shooting accuracy scores than the un
derhand group at the first (p = ,001) and second (p = ,025)
periods of evaluation, no such difference existed at the conclusion of the study. Differences between the experimen
tal groups with regard to time necessary to complete the
test were not of sufficient magnitude to be considered high ly significant (p < .25)« Thus, the main hypothesis of no significant difference between the overhand and underhand
methods of shooting, following instruction, was not rejected. ■
The second hypothesis under consideration was that
significant improvement in achievement (accuracy and/or - time) scores would occur among all students during a four week period, regardless of the method of shooting. Results of this analysis showed that the mean accuracy score for the
combined overhand and underhand experimental groups improved
significantly (p ™ .001) between Test One and Test Three and also between Test One and Test Two. Differences in time scores over the three testing sessions were not considered highly significant (p = .025)• Thus, the second 66
experimental hypothesis was supported for the shooting accu racy scores but not for the time scores.
Inclusion of a control group did not make it possi ble to determine conclusively the degree to which improvement in shooting accuracy was a result of the in structional and practice portions of the study, rather than
just the repeated performance of the revised bounce and shoot test.
Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn from.the re sults of this investigations 1, Either, the overhand or underhand method of shooting the lay-up shot is acceptable for use in a begin ning basketball class when a period of at least four weeks is'available for instruction and practice. Within this time period, both methods yield equal success, However, if prac tice and instruction is limited to a shorter period of time, students may prove to be more successful with the overhand lay-up shot, 2, Improvement in ability to execute a lay-up shot can occur over a four week period regardless of whether stu dents receive instruction in the overhand or underhand methods of shooting. 6?
Recommendations
Recommendations for further investigation of the overhand and underhand methods of shooting the lay-up shot include the following;
1, A similar study should be conducted with, sub jects who have had no previous exposure to basketball, such as junior or senior high school students,
2, A larger control group should be employed, to evaluate the effect of repeated performances of the revised bounce and shoot test on improvement in the.execution of the lay-up shot, ■3= A method of evaluating shooting form should be devised and. included as a portion of the bounce and shoot test to determine whether or not subjects perform a true lay-up shot. APPENDIX A
- QUESTIONNAIRE GIVEN TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN BEGINNING BASKETBALL GLASSES
NAME
Age '
Height
Weight
Major .
Have you had instruction in basketball prior to this semester? If so, please indicate whens
Junior High High School Junior. College
College Other
Have you ever played basketball competitively? For example» have you played on a high school, junior college, or college team? If so, please explains
68 APPENDIX B
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO SUBJECTS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY
The beginning basketball classes this semester will be participating in an experiment dealing with the lay-up shot. One-half of each class will be taught one method of shooting the lay-up shot and the other will be taught a dif ferent method,
. Therefore, it will be greatly appreciated if each of you will make every effort to be present at each class meet ing, to practice the lay-up shot only during class periods and, when practicing, to use only the method in which you have received instruction.
In order to evaluate these two methods you will be tested on three occasions--once initially, again at a point halfway through the study and at the conclusion of the experiment. It is desirable for you to be somewhat familiar with the test before you actually perform it. Therefore, the test will be explained to you today, demonstrated, and then you will each be allowed a brief period of practice. The actual testing will begin at the next class meeting, 69 APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE OP THE OVERHAND AND UNDERHAND LAY-UP SHOTS
Instruction' in the Lay-Up Shot
The following is an outline of the instruction in the overhand and underhand methods of shooting the lay-up shot, as presented to. the subjects of the experimental groups,
I. Definitions The lay-up shot is the most fundamental shot in the game of basketball. It is a shot taken from a po sition close to the basket following a dribble or after receiving a pass from another player. A player executing a lay-up shot jumps as high as possible and lays the ball against the backboard.
II. Demonstration of a lay-up shots Instructor demonstrates a lay-up shot (using ei ther style) in order to give students a general concept of the shot.
III. Analysis of the lay-up shots A player.shooting with the right hand should take off from the left foot and a left-handed shooter should take off. from the right foot. The following instructions are for a right-handed shooter. Left-handers should do just the opposite % Stop forward momentum by planting the left foot-- shoving it into the ground. The right knee should be swung forward and upward The jump should be primarily in an upward direc tion and not outward or forward, ■ . ' The right knee should then be. extended and player should land on both feet, • 71
A, Students stand in place, feet parallel. . Take one step with the left foot, swing right- knee up and jump upward. ,Repeat.several times at the command of the instructor,
B , Repeat the above sequence and add the raising of the right arm overhead as the right knee is swung upward. Instructor divides students into their respec tive groups--overhand and underhand, and instructs each group as to the direction which the palm of the hand should faces Overhand-?-away from the performer. ■ Underhand--palm facing toward the performer.
C, Students walk forward several steps and repeat the above sequence at the instructor's command.
D, Holding and Carrying the Balls The ball is held a,b waist level with both hands on the sides of the ball. From this posi- . tion, rotate both hands to the proper positions Overhand— Right hand on top of the ball with the left underneath it. Underhand--Left hand on top of the ball and the right underneath. Bring the ball up to the level of the nose . while holding it in this manner. . Remove the non-shooting hand. . Take the ball up above the head and then ex tend the elbow. The ball should be released off the finger tips. The ball should be released at the height of the player's jump,
E, Students stand in place with feet parallel. Re peat Part B with students attempting to add all of the above information but using an "imaginary ball," Repeat several times,
F, Students walk forward several steps and repeat Part E at the instructor's command. ■
IV, Practice of the lay-up shots Students are divided into groups of approximately three or four people and assigned.to a basket, left- handed people are put at one basket and instructed to shoot from the left side of the basket. All others 72 shoot from the right side. Overhand and underhand shooters are placed at different baskets.
A. Aiming the ball: The ball should be layed-up in the upper right-hand portion of the rectangle on the back board when shooting from the right side of the basket. B. The following progression of drills is then used: 1. Students stand approximately 3 or 4 feet from the basket at an angle of 45°. Take one step with the left foot, jump upward and lay the ball up on the backboard. Shooting only from the right side of the basket. Students rebound own ball and pass it to next person in line. Re turn to the end of the line.
2. Students walk in and lay the ball up on the backboard.
3. Jog in and then finally run in and lay the ball up on the backboard. In none of these drills has a dribble been used. 4. Students receive a pass (hand-off) from a post player while moving toward the basket to exe cute a lay-up. This should be performed slowly at first and gradually the pace is accelerated. Once again, there is no xx dribble.
5. Students dribble in and shoot a lay-up shot. Instructor first explains how to gather the ball from the dribble: Catch ball with both hands as forward mo mentum is stopped by planting the left foot. 73
Walk in, dribbling ball and shoot a lay-up. The speed should be gradually increased V-y until students are able to run in, dribbling the ball, and execute a lay-up shot.
6 . Students move to the left side of the basket and practice lay-ups, using the following progression: a. Walk in, no dribble. b. Run in, no dribble. c. Dribble in slowly.
7. Continue to practice lay-ups using the follow ing formation: —
xxv y x x X X X X REBOUND LINS SHOOTING- LINE
The shooter lays the ball up on the backboard and then moves to the other side of the basket and joins the rebound line. The rebounder re bounds the ball, passes it to the next person in the shooting line and moves to the end of the shooting line. The balls should be switched from one side of the court to the other periodically so that students practice shooting from both sides of the court.
Practice of the Lay-Up Shot The details of the practice sessions of the experi mental groups are as follows. Each practice session represented a separate class meeting.
Practice Session One
The investigator briefly reviewed the mechanics of the lay-up shot to each group and then circulated among the students, correcting individual errors. 74
The following practice situations were used: I. The shooter dribbles toward the basket, lays the ball up on the backboard and then moves to the oth er side of the basket, joining the X rebound line. X The rebounder rebounds the ball, x X passes it to the next person in the X X shooting line and moves to the end REBOUNDBR5 SHOOTERS of the shooting line. The balls should be switched from one side of the basket to the other so that students practice from both sides of the basket.
II. Use of a Post Player: Shooter passes ball to post player, moves toward the basket, re ceives a pass from the post and then executes a lay-up shot. She then joins the rebound line. The rebounder rebounds the ball, passes it to the next shooter and then moves to the end of the shoot ing line. KE90 UNDERS SHOOTERS The balls should also be moved to the other side of the basket so that students practice from both sides. In addition, the shooting line may be moved back farther from the basket, thus requiring the shooter to dribble the ball after receiving the pass from the post player, be fore shooting a lay-up. 75
Practice Session Two
I. Drill I, Practice Session One. SHOOTERS II. y X p x p / p \ p y p D C
xX\
SHOOTERS Students assume the post positions. Shooters drib ble around the posts (following the path of the dotted line) and then shoot a lay-up shot when reaching the basket. Shooters should complete the entire course (shoot ing at both baskets) twice before exchanging places with those students in the post positions,
Practice Session Three
I.
S55 5* a
Lines Si and Sg are the shooting lines while lines Rl and Rg are the rebounding lines. Si shoots a lay-up shot and proceeds to the end of line R2 as Ri rebounds Si's ball, passing it back to the next shooter in the Si line, and then moving to the end of the Sg line. Similarly, Sg shoots and goes to the end of the Ri line while R2 rebounds and moves to the Si line. Thus, shooters become rebounders and rebounders become shooters. 76
Practice Session Four
I. Figure Eight Lay-Ups: Begin with three lines with all balls starting in the center line. Xi passes to Xg and then runs XXX Xz behind her. Xg passes to X3 and runs behind her, with all three X XX X, players continuing to weave a figure XXX X, eight as they move down the court. As they near the basket, one of the three players shoots a lay-up and either of the other two rebound the ball.
II.
% s D a / P, X X X X SHOOTERS
Four students serving as posts are stationed at ap propriate positions on the court. Each shooter passes the ball to Pi and then runs toward Pg. Pi throws a leading pass designed to reach the shooter at a point about halfway between Pi and P2 . The shooter then passes the ball to Pg who throws an other leading pass as the shooter continues to move toward the basket. After receiving the pass from Pg, the shooter executes a lay-up shot at the basket and rebounds her ball. She then passes the ball to P3 and repeats the same pattern on the other side of the court, shooting at the opposite end of the court. All passes should be thrown in such a manner that the shooter is forced to run at maximum speed. 77
Practice Session Five
I. Drill I , Practice Session One. II. passes the ball to Xg and then cuts toward the basket. Xg X2 X .Y X passes the ball back to X% and Xi executes a lay-up shot. X2 rebounds the ball and passes it back to the next shooter. Each then goes to the end of the opposite line. The lines should also be moved X to the other side of the basket in order that students may shoot from both sides of the basket. APPENDIX D
• • INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE'REVISED BOUNCE AND- SHOOT TEST
The test which you are about to perform is a measure of your accuracy and speed in executing a lay-up shot.
The starting position for the test is behind this white line which has been placed on the floor. At the sig nal "Ready, Go!" you will pick up the ball from the chair, dribble toward the basket and execute a lay-up shot. Re bound the ball and then pass it back to the person who is standing behind the chair from which you took that ball.
Run immediately to the chair on the other side of the basket, pick up the ball, dribble toward the basket, execute a lay-up shot, rebound the ball and pass it back to the person stand ing behind that chair. You will repeat this same, procedure, alternating sides until you have attempted ten shots at the basket and rebounded your final shot. You. must start from behind.the 24-inch line on each attempt and you must not travel with the ball nor dribble il legally., You will receive a score for both time, and accuracy in shooting.
The scoring system is as follows s
5 points = Basket is made, using backboard.
■ 4 points ;= Basket is made without using backboard.
78 79
3 points - Basket is missed and the "ball hits the back board, in or on the rectangle. (The ball may or may not have hit the rim.) 2 points = Basket is missed, and ball hits the backboards above or level with the rim but;outside the rectangle, or ball hits the top or side of the rim.
1 point .= Basket is missed and ball hits the underside . of rim or hits the backboard below the level of the rim.. 0 points = Basket is missed and the ball does not strike the backboard or rim.
You will perform the test a total of three times with .a period of rest between each trial and the average of your time scores and accuracy scores will be calculated. . : ' APPENDIX E
THE REVISED BOUNCE AND SHOOT TEST SCORE SHEETS
The following pages include the score sheets used to record shooting accuracy and time' necessary to complete the revised bounce and shoot test.
80 81
Shooting Accuracy Score Sheet
Name
Point Va„lues $
5 points - Basket is made„ using backboard. 4 points = Basket is made without using backboard. 3 points s Basket is missed and ball hits the backboard, in or on the rectangle, (The ball may or may not have hit the rim,) 2 points Basket is missed and ball hits the backboard, above or level with the rim but outside the rectangle, or ball hits the top or side of rim, 1 point Basket is missed and ball hits the underside of rim or hits the backboard below the level of the rim, _ 0 points Basket is missed and the ball does not strike the backboard or rim.
Trial One Trial Two Trial Three 1. 1, 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3- 3. 4. 4, 4.
5 e 5* 5. 6. 6, 6. 7. 7. 7. 8. 8. 8 , 9. 9. 9. 10, 10. 10, Total Total Total 82
Timer8S' Score Sheet
Name
Trial One Trial Two Trial Three
Time Time Time
Fouls 8 Fouls i Foulss 1. 1* 1* 2 „ 2 e 2 . 3* 3. 3» 4. 4, 4.
Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Time Time Time
T Traveling D Illegal Dribble
, F Foot Foul APPENDIX F
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP DATA FOR TEST ONE
The following pages contain a graphical analysis of the shooting accuracy and time scores of the overhand and underhand experimental groups for Test One.
83 Mean 0 = Overhand U = Underhand
Trial One
Figure ?. Shooting Accuracy Scores of Test One iue . ieSoe ofOneTest TimeScores 8.Figure Time (Seconds) 100 110 Trial OneTrial
TrialTwo Deviation Deviation itivange Standard U =Underhand U 0 = Overhand0= Mean (fa/L
Vx co APPENDIX G
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF. EXPERIMENTAL GROUP DATA FOR TEST TWO
The following pages.contain a graphical analysis of. the shooting accuracy and time scores of the overhand and underhand experimental groups for Test Two,
86 iue . hoigAcrc crs ofTestTwo Scores Accuracy Shooting 9.Figure Shooting Accuracy Trial ThreeTrial eito'v^anSe Deviation' Standard U =UnderhandU 0Overhand= Mean •"0 0 0 iue 0 Tm crs ofTestTwo TimeScores 10.Figure Time (Second 110 50 Trial One Trial Two Trial OneTrial TrialThree eito] r^anSe Deviation] Standard U % U =UnderhandU 0 = Overhand0= Mean
APPENDIX H
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS■OF EXPERIMENTAL . - GROUP DATA FOR TEST THREE
The following pages contain a graphical analysis of
the shooting accuracy and time scores of the overhand and ;underhand experimental groups for Test Three„
89 iue 1 Sotn cuaySoe ofThreeTest Accuracy Scores Shooting 11.Figure Shooting Accuracy 40 45 35 30 25 50 20 15 X. ¥ 0 Trial OneTrial s u 0 TrialTwo I. I U u / iue 2 Tm crs ofTestThree TimeScores 12.Figure Time (Seconds) 100 110 Trial Three Trial Xx= / U =UUnderhand 0=Overhand Mean vo APPENDIX I OVERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA TABLE XI OVERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA FOR SHOOTING ACCURACY Subject Test One Test Two Test Three 1 40,5 42,3 4-5.0 2 40 „ 5 33.0 27.7 3 . 31.0 30,0 37.0 4 30,5 40.6 40.7 ' 5. 43.5 44,3 40.0 6 32.0 . 33.3 34.3 7 34.5 33,6 37.3 8 39.0 36,0 39.0 9 31.0 44,3 43.3 10 41,0 48,0 46.7 11 37.0 43.7 44,7 12 42,0 36.7 39.3 13 35.0 32.3 33.7 14 37.0 39.0 42.3 15. 27.5 38.7 37.3 16 31.5 42.3. 45,0 17 34,5 40,7 43.7 18 37.0 32.3 32,3 92 93 TABLE. XII OVERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA . FOR TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TEST Subject Test One Test Two Test Three 1 70.70 . 65,67 61.53 2 80.50 72,97 : 71.70 3 80,65 74, 70 72.83 4 81.70 75,27 75.53 5 74,80 66.00 63.93 6 70,90 72,20 70.87 7 84 c 05 69»73 72,13 8 80.95 70,10 69.83 9 74.50 65-03 63.13 10 67.65 65,27 65.07 11 79,90 74.37 72.50 12 80.30 87.07 74,57 13 78.85 81.00 75.73 14 74.05 66,57 70.87 15 82.75 75.40 73.13 16 66.40 68.10 65.77 1? 82,95 78.07 77 0 03 18 88,35 85,20 83.90 APPENDIX J UNDERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA TABLE XIII UNDERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RAW SCORE ' DATA FOR SHOOTING ACCURACY Subject Test One Test Two Test Three 1 18,0 28.0 28,0 2 19.5 23.3 35-7 3 34.0 44.6 40.7 4 28.5 35.6 44.0 5 28.0 26,0 36.3 6 16.5 35.6 38.0 7 20.5 26.0 34.7 8 28.0 45.6 44.0 9 27.5 43.0 44.7 10 21.5 33.0 35.3 11 30.5 35.7 33.Q 12 25 = 5 33.0 43.0 13 15.0 23.0 21.3 14 40.5 4?.0 44.7 15 26.0 37.0 40.0 16 27.5 35.3 34.3 1? 32.0 33.3 36.0 18 29.0 47.0 46.3 94 95 TABLE XIV UNDERHAND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA FOR TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TEST Subject Test One Test Two Test Three 1 83.40 76.17 76.83 2 101.75 93.03 89,10 3 74.50 70.13 71,33 A . 81,15 77.73 77.27 5 77.75 78.10 76,33 6 83.55 79.90 82,57 7 87.40 79.37 . 75.33 8 74.05 69.13 66.2? 9 67.80 62,67 59.03 1 10 75.80 71.80 68.1? 11 65.70 65.50 65.37 12 77.30 • 79.60 72.70 - 13 84.60 77.37 76.73 14 71.30 69.63 67.80 15 74.60 72.70 69.40 16 72.40 77.50 77.50 17 74.30 . 77.17 77.60 18 64.50 64.93 66.30 APPENDIX K OVERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA TABLE XV OVERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA FOR SHOOTING ACCURACY Subject „ Test One Test Two Test-Three 1 . 26,5 39*0 42.7 2 23.0 30=0 30.0 3 31.0 30.3 . 38.3 4 30.5 • ■ 40.7 30.7 5 . 36.5 39-3 45.3 6 . 30.5 39-7 41.7 7 40.5 44.0 40.3 96 97 TABLE XVI OVERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA FOR TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TEST Subject Test One Test Two • Test Three 1 69.10 70.03 68.07 2 •79.05 77.30 73.27 3 93.05 8?.10 82«03 4 78.90 71.37 71.57 5 71.80 71.63 69,73 6 73 AO 67.10 74,77 7 67.55 70,00 70.43 APPENDIX L UNDERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA TABLE XVII UNDERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA FOR SHOOTING ACCURACY ■Subject Test One Test Two Test Three 1 26.5 28.0 27.0 2 13.5 17.3 22.0 3 25.5 28.3 26.3 4 20.5 . . 18..0 ■ 19.7 98 99 TABLE XVIII ' UNDERHAND CONTROL GROUP RAW SCORE DATA FOR TIME.NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TEST Subject Test One Test Two Test Three 1 ' 75.10 66.70 68 A3 2 93-50 90.23 91.27 3 81,15 ' 80,97 76,13 4 83.20 82.00 78,27 REFERENCES Alderman, Richard B „ “A Comparative Study on the Effec tiveness of Two Grips for Teaching Beginning Golf," Research Quarterly, 38:3-9, March, 1967„ Alexander, Marion Joyce Lindsay, "The Speed and. Accuracy Attained by College Women in the Windmill and Conven tional Methods of Softball Pitching," Master5s Thesis, University of Washington.,. 1968, Anderson, Forrest, and Stan Albeck. Coaching Better Basketball, New Yorks Ronald Press Co., 190T. Baker, Paul M, "Mechanics of Shooting," Scholastic Coach, 30s8-9»28-32, December, i960. ” ™ Bankhead, .William H., and Margaret A, Thorsen, ”A Compari son of Four Grips Used in Throwing the Javelin," Research Quarterly, 35:438-442, October, 1964. Brace, David K. "Testing Basketball Technique," American Physical Education Review, 29:159-165, April, 19247 Bunn, John W . Basketball Techniques and Team Play. . Englewood Cliffs s Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Cake, Frances. "The Relative Effectiveness of Two Types of Frog Kick Used in Swimming the breast Stroke," Research Quarterly, 13:201-204, May, 1942. “ Cooper, John M., and Daryl Siedentop. The Theory and Science of Basketball. Philadelphiai Lea and Febiger, 19%9. Cousy, Bob. "Cousy Shooting," Scholastic Coach, 23:8-9, December, 1953« ______and Frank Power. Basketball, Concepts and Techniques.. Boston: Allyn and"Bacon, Inc., 19"?0, Dean, Everett S . Progressive Basketball. Stanford: Everett S . Dean,' 1946„ - - Edgren, H . D . "An Experiment in the Testing of Ability and Progress in Basketball," Research Quarterly. 3 § 159-171, March, 1932. ' • 100 ' 1.01 Edwards, Donald K., and Franklin A. Lindeburg = ”A Compari son o f.the Jab Step vs. the Cross-Over Step in Running, a Short Distance/' Research Quarterly»■ 40$284-287, May, 1969. ™ " . Friermoodp-He T. "Basketball Progress Tests Adaptable to Class Use/' Journal of Health and Physical. Education, 5 $45-4?, January-, 193^« ~ ~ ™ , Glassow, Ruth B ., Valarie Colvin, and Marguerite M, Schwarz« "Studies in Measuring Basketball Playing Ability of Col lege Women," Research Quarterly, 9»60-68, December, 19381 . • . ; Grebner, Florence. "Effectiveness of Two Methods of Attain ing a Full Draw by Beginning Archers," Research Quarterly0 40$50-54, March, 1969. Inabinett, Virginia Nell. . "A Comparison of the Effective ness of the Hook Ball and Straight Ball Deliveries for Beginning BowlersMaster's Thesis, University of Illinois, 1961. King, William H., and Leslie W. Irwin. "A Time and Motion Study of Competitive Backstroke Swimming Turns/ 8 Research Quarterly, 28$257-268* October, 1957• Knippler, Lynne D . "The Effect of Method of Aiming on Ini tial Improvement in Target Archery." Master's Thesis, University of Illinois, 1958. Lambert, Ann Thomas. "A Basketball Skill Test for College Women." Master's Thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1969= Leilich, Avis Rae. "The Primary Components of Selected Bas ketball Tests for College Women." Doctor's Dissertation, Indiana University, 1952. Maglischo, Cheryl W ., and Ernest Maglischo. "Comparison of Three Racing Starts Used in Competitive Swimming," Research Quarterly, 39*604-609, October, 1968. McCracken, Branch, Indiana Basketball. Englewood Cliffsi Prentice-Hall, Inc "1955™ McGuire, Frank, Offensive Basketball, . Englewood Cliffs s Prentice-Hall7 Inc., 1958. 102 McLendon* John B. Fast Break Basketball. West Nyacks Parker Publishing Company* Inc.* 19%5° - Meissner, Wilhelmine E .* and Elizabeth Y. Meyers. Basketball for Girls. New York; A. S . Barnes and Co.* 1950. Menely* Ronald C .5 and Robert A. Rosemier. "Effectiveness, of Four Track Starting Positions on Acceleration*" Research Quarterly,. 39:161-165, March* 1968. Meyer* Ray. Basketball* as Coached by Ray Meyer. Englewood Cliffs; Prentice-Hall* Inc., 1967. Miller* Wilma K. "Achievement Levels in Basketball Skills for Women Physical Education Majors," Research Quarterly* 25:^50-435, December* 1954. Murphy * C. T. "The Lay-In Shot*" Athletic Journal* 43:26* 43-45*56* November* 1962. ' Neal* Patsy, ' Basketball Techniques for Women. . New York: Ronald Press Co., i960. Pekara, Jean H. "A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Two Types of Anchor Points Used in Beginning Archery," Master's Thesis * University of Illinois, 1963. Ramsay, Jack, Pressure Basketball. Englewood Cliffs$ Prentice-Hall* Inc., 1963T Samaras, Robert T. Blitz Basketball, West Nyacks Parker Publishing Companyr*TncT7~T96ST Scharf, Raphael, and William H. King. "Time and Motion Analysis of Competitive Freestyle Swimming Turns *" Research Quarterly, 35$37-44, March, 1964. Schayes, Dolph. "Shooting Touch*" Scholastic Coach* 27:8-9, 60-62* November* 1957. Seymour, Emery W . "Comparison of Base Running Methods," Research Quarterly, 30:321-325* October, 1959. Stock, Malcolm. "Influence of Various Track Starting Posi tions on Speed*" Research Quarterly, 33 $ 607-614* December, 1962. Summers, Dean, "Effect of Variations of Delivery and Aim on Bowling Achievement of College Women," Research Quarterly* 28:77-84, March, 1957 * 103 Teague, Bertha Frank. Basketball for Girls. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1962. Vannier, Maryhelen, and Rally Beth Poindexter. Individual and Team Sports for Girls and Women. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., I960. Warshawsky, Lawrence. "A Comparative Time Study of Two Backfield Stances in Football." Master's Thesis, University of Illinois, 1963. Wilbur, Carol D . "Construction of a Simple Skills Test,” D. G. W. S. Basketball Guide, 1959-1960, Washington, D . C .: American Association of Health, Physical Educa tion and Recreation, 1959» pp. 30-33• Young, Genevieve, and Helen Moser. "A Short Battery of Tests to Measure Playing Ability in Women's Basketball," • Research Quarterly. 5:3-23, May 1934.