A discriminant analysis of team cohesiveness among high - performance and low - performance elite Indian volleyball players

• Autorzy: Verma J.P. , Modak P. , Bhukar J. P. , Kumar S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 19
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.191-196,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Verma J.P.

• Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education, H.N. 73, LNUPE, Shakti Nagar, Gwalior - 474002, M.P., India

autor

Modak P.

• Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India

autor

Bhukar J. P.

• Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education, H.N. 73, LNUPE, Shakti Nagar, Gwalior - 474002, M.P., India

autor

Kumar S.

• Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education, H.N. 73, LNUPE, Shakti Nagar, Gwalior - 474002, M.P., India

Bibliografia

• 1. Mullen B, Cooper C. The Relationship between Group Cohesion and Performance: an Integration, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 115, 1994: 210-227.
• 2. Murray NP. The Differential Effect of Team cohesion and Leadership Behavior in High School Sports, Individual Differences Research, vol. 4, 2006: 216-225.
• 3. Salas E, Fowlkes JE, Stout RJ, et al. The effects of team building on performance, on integration. Small Group Research, 1999; 30, 3: 309¬-329.
• 4. Cohen SG, Bailey DE. What makes team work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Man¬agement, 1997; 23, 3: 239-290.
• 5. Hardy Crace. Foundations of team building: Introduction to the team building primer Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, vol. 9, Issue 1 March 1997: 1-10.
• 6. Gross N, Martin WE. On group cohesiveness. Am. J. Social, 1952; 57: 546-554.
• 7. Carron AV, Brawley LR, Widmeyer WN. Measurement of cohesion in sport and exercise. In: Duda JL (ed.), Advance in sport and exercise psychology measurement, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 1998: 213-226.
• 8. Williams JM, Widmeyer WN. The cohesion-performance outcome re¬lationship in a co-acting sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol¬ogy, 1991; 13: 364-371.
• 9. Lenk H. Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a functionalistic proposition. In: Loy JW and Kenyon GS (eds.) Sport, Culture and Society, New York: Macmillan, 1969: 393-397.
• 10. Salas E, Bowers CA, Cannon-Bowers JA. Military team research, Ten years of progress. Military Psychology, 1995; 7: 55-75.
• 11. Zaccaro SJ, Blair V, Peterson C, et al. Collective efficacy. In: Mad¬dux J(ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation and adjustment, New York: Ple¬num, 1995: 305-328.
• 12. Hackman JR, Oldman G. Work redesign. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1980.
• 13. Williams JM, Hoepner BJ, Moody DL, et al. Personality traits of cham¬pion level female fencers. Research Quarterly, 1970; 41: 446-453.
• 14. Morgan WP. Personality characteristics of wrestlers participating in the world championships. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 1968; 8: 212-216.
• 15. Davids K, Nutter A. The cohesion-performance relationship of Eng¬lish National League Volleyball teams. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 1988; 15: 205-213.
• 16. Carron AV, Widmeyer WN, Brawley LR. The development of an instru¬ment to assess cohesion in sport teams: the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1985; 7: 244-266.
• 17. Ball JR, Carron AV. Cause effect characteristics of cohesiveness and participation motivation in intercollegiate Hockey. International Re¬view of Sports Sociology, 1977; 12: 49-60.
• 18. Bird AM. Team structure and success as related to cohesiveness and leadership. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1977; 103: 217-223.
• 19. Landers DM, Crum TF. The effect of team success and formal struc¬ture on interpersonal relations and cohesiveness of baseball teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1971; 2: 88-96.