選手知覺教練領導行為、團隊衝突 、團隊凝聚力及滿意度關係之實證研究

吳慧卿

44.201.94.236，Hello！

Close
Search Quick Search Advanced Search Publication Search	Personal Service Member Login Searching History Use Bonus Card SYMSKAN
Browse Browse by University of Graduate Thesis Browse by Pinyin of Graduate Thesis Browse by Conference Proceedings Topic Browse by Conference Proceedings Publisher Browse by Pinyin of Conference Proceedings Browse by eBook Category Browse by eBook Topic Browse by eBook Publisher
Customer Services Authorize Airiti Recommend a Journal

Search Symbol (Half-width)	Description of Search Symbols
Space	"AND" indicates the intertwining of key terms used in a search
Double Quotation Marks ("") ( " " )	Double quotation marks indicate the beginning and end of a phrase, and the search will only include terms that appear in the same order of those within the quotations. Example: "image process" ： " image process "
?	Indicates a variable letter. Entering two ? will indicate two variable letters, and so on. Example: "Appl?", search results will yield apple, apply… e , appl y … ( (often used to English word searches) )
*	Indicates an unlimited number of variable letters to follow, from 1~n. Example: Enter "appl*", search results will yield apple, apples, apply, applied, application…(often used in English word searches) e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( (often used to English word searches) )
AND、OR、NOT	Boolean logic combinations of key words is a skill used to expand or refine search parameters. (1) AND (1) AND: Refines search parameters (2) OR (2) OR: Expands search parameters (3) NOT: Excludes irrelevant parameters

DOI stands for Digital Object Identifier （ D igital O bject I dentifier ） ,
and is the unique identifier for objects on the internet. It can be used to create persistent link and to cite articles.

Using DOI as a persistent link

To create a persistent link, add「http://dx.doi.org/」「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」 before a DOI.
For instance, if the DOI of an article is 10.5297/ser.1201.002 , you can link persistently to the article by entering the following link in your browser: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
The DOI link will always direct you to the most updated article page no matter how the publisher changes the document's position, avoiding errors when engaging in important research.

Cite a document with DOI

When citing references, you should also cite the DOI if the article has one. If your citation guideline does not include DOIs, you may cite the DOI link.

DOIs allow accurate citations, improve academic contents connections, and allow users to gain better experience across different platforms. Currently, there are more than 70 million DOIs registered for academic contents. If you want to understand more about DOI, please visit airiti DOI Registration （ doi.airiti.com ）。

Data Source

College of Sports and Leisure > Department of Physical Education
Social Sciences > Physical Education

Bibliography Management Tool

Related Links

Report an Issue

Search for full text in Holdings

There is no full-text available at the moment. Airiti would like to request author's authorization. I would like to provide authorization.

選手知覺教練領導行為、團隊衝突、團隊凝聚力及滿意度關係之實證研究

吳慧卿 , Ph.D　　Advisor：鄭志富　　

繁體中文

運動教練領導行為；團隊衝突；團隊凝聚力；選手滿意度；結構方程模式

Abstract │ Reference (270) │ Times Cited (62) │ Altmetrics

Abstract 〈TOP〉

本研究旨在瞭解大學校院桌球選手知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突、團隊凝聚力及滿意度關係之現況，並比較不同背景變項桌球選手所知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度差異情形。其次，分析桌球選手所知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度各變項間的典型關係。最後，根據典型相關分析結果，建立桌球選手所知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度之結構方程模式。研究對象為227名臺灣地區大學校院桌球選手，並以自編之『大學校院桌球隊團隊內部運作調查問卷』為研究工具進行調查。根據調查所蒐集之資料，經多變項變異數分析（One-way MANOVA）、典型相關分析（Canonical Correlation Analysis）及結構方程模式（Structural Equation Modeling，SEM）等統計方法處理，結果發現：（一）國內大學院校桌球選手知覺到教練較多的『獎勵行為』；其次，  『認知與價值觀』的差異是造成團隊衝突的主要原因。此外，『妥協』方式為大學校院桌球選手在面對衝突時最主要的處理方式。同時，大學校院桌球選手之團隊凝聚力主要是以『人際親和』為形成來源。而在滿意度方面，選手對於『團隊內部』的滿意度最高。（二）組別、性別、學校類別及訓練頻率的差異會影響選手對於教練領導行為的知覺。其次，不同組別、性別、年齡的選手，其衝突發生原因有顯著差異存在。此外，不同性別、入隊時間、與教練相處年數、學校類別及訓練頻率的選手，其衝突處理方式有顯著差異存在。同時，不同組別、教練相處年數、學校類別及訓練頻率的選手，其凝聚力有顯著差異存在。再者，不同組別、性別、教練相處年數、學校類別的選手，其滿意度有顯著差異存在。（三）選手知覺的教練領導行為對團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度均可有效解釋，其各別解釋力為28%、19.1％、30.1％、36.4％。其次，團隊衝突發生原因對於衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力、滿意度亦均可有效解釋，其分別解釋力各為5.2％、15.5％、10.7％。此外，衝突處理方式對團隊凝聚力及滿意度均可有效解釋，其分別解釋力為29.5％、19.5％；再者，滿意度亦可有效解釋團隊凝聚力，其解釋力為44.7％。（四）選手知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度間之結構方程模式，主要是藉由選手所知覺到的非專制式的教練領導行為之展現，影響選手對於『領導與團隊』的滿意度，進而影響團隊凝聚力的作用力會達到最大。其次，選手知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及選手滿意度結構方程模式之χ2最佳適合度（χ2/DF）、模式比較適合度（CFI）、標準適合度指標（NFI）、根號平均平方餘差（RMR）所得之數值而言，除標準適合度指標（NFI）略微低於最佳模式的標準之外，其餘皆達到模式的最佳適合度指標所要求的標準，因此本研究之教練領導行為、團隊衝突、選手滿意度及團隊凝聚力之結構方程模式是可被接受的。關鍵詞：運動教練領導行為、團隊衝突、團隊凝聚力、選手滿意度、結構方程模式。 The purpose of this study was to understand the current status of the relationship among coaches’ leadership, team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players in universities, and compare the difference among coaches’ leadership, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players with different-background variables. Finally, according to the results of Canonical Correlation Analysis, the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) among coaches’ leadership, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players. The studying subjects were 227 university tennis players in Taiwan, and the self-edited “Questionnaire of Internal Operation of University Tennis Teams” was used as the studying tool for investigation. Based on the collected data, through One-way MANOVA, Canonical Correlation Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and the like statistical methods, the results showed: (1)Domestic university tennis players perceived more “positive behaviors” for their coaches. Secondly, the difference of “recognition and concept of value” was the major cause resulting in team conflict. Beside, in face of conflict, the major solution was “compromise”. Meanwhile, “human-relational harmony” was the main source that unified players. Last, the players had the highest satisfaction for “inside of team ”. (2)The difference in team, gender, school and training frequency would affect players’ perception to their coaches’ leading behaviors. Secondly, there was significant difference of the conflicting causes existing in different teams, genders and ages. Beside, there was significant difference of the solution of conflicts existing in the players with different gender, team-attending time, years for getting along with the coach, school and training frequency. Meanwhile, there was significant difference of team cohesion existing in the players with different team, years for getting along with the coach, school and training frequency. Last, there was significant difference of solution existing in the players with different team, gender, years for getting along with the coach, and school. (3)Coaches’ leadership perceived by the players could effectively explain the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The respective explaining capabilities were 28%, 19.1%, 30.1% and 34.4%. Secondly, the causes of team conflict could also effectively explain the solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The respective explaining capabilities were 5.2%, 15.5% and 10.7%. Beside, the solutions of team conflict could effectively explain team cohesion and satisfaction as well. The respective explaining capabilities were 29.5% and 19.5%. Last, satisfaction could also effectively explain team cohesion. The respective explaining capability was 44.7%. (4)The Structural Equation Modeling among coaches’ leadership perceived by the players, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction mainly affected players’ satisfaction to “leader and team”, so as to reach the maximum influence on team cohesion, through coaches’ non-despotic leadership perceived by players. Secondly, as for the numbers obtained by the RMR of x2/DF, CFI and NFI of the structural equation modeling of coaches’ leadership perceived by the players, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction, except that NFI was a little bit lower than the standard of DF, all of the rest reach the standard required by DF Index of the modeling. Therefore, the structural equation modeling of coaches’ leadership, team conflict, players’ satisfaction and team cohesion of this study was acceptable. Keyword: coach leadership behavior, team conflict, team cohesion, athletics’ satisfaction, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Parallel Abstract 〈TOP〉

The purpose of this study was to understand the current status of the
relationship among coaches’ leadership, team conflict, team cohesion
perceived by the table tennis players in universities, and compare the
difference among coaches’ leadership, the causes and solutions of team
conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players with different-
background variables. Finally, according to the results of Canonical
Correlation Analysis, the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) among coaches’
leadership, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion perceived
by the table tennis players. The studying subjects were 227 university tennis
players in Taiwan, and the self-edited “Questionnaire of Internal Operation
of University Tennis Teams” was used as the studying tool for investigation.
Based on the collected data, through One-way MANOVA, Canonical Correlation
Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and the like statistical
methods, the results showed:
(1)Domestic university tennis players perceived more “positive behaviors”
for their coaches. Secondly, the difference of “recognition and concept of
value” was the major cause resulting in team conflict. Beside, in face of
conflict, the major solution was “compromise”. Meanwhile, “human-relational
harmony” was the main source that unified players. Last, the players had the
highest satisfaction for “inside of team ”.
(2)The difference in team, gender, school and training frequency would affect
players’ perception to their coaches’ leading behaviors. Secondly, there was
significant difference of the conflicting causes existing in different teams,
genders and ages. Beside, there was significant difference of the solution of
conflicts existing in the players with different gender, team-attending time,
years for getting along with the coach, school and training frequency.
Meanwhile, there was significant difference of team cohesion existing in the
players with different team, years for getting along with the coach, school
and training frequency. Last, there was significant difference of solution
existing in the players with different team, gender, years for getting along
with the coach, and school.
(3)Coaches’ leadership perceived by the players could effectively explain the
causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The
respective explaining capabilities were 28%, 19.1%, 30.1% and 34.4%. Secondly,
the causes of team conflict could also effectively explain the solutions of
team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The respective explaining
capabilities were 5.2%, 15.5% and 10.7%. Beside, the solutions of team
conflict could effectively explain team cohesion and satisfaction as well. The
respective explaining capabilities were 29.5% and 19.5%. Last, satisfaction
could also effectively explain team cohesion. The respective explaining
capability was 44.7%.
(4)The Structural Equation Modeling among coaches’ leadership perceived by
the players, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and
satisfaction mainly affected players’ satisfaction to “leader and team”, so
as to reach the maximum influence on team cohesion, through coaches’ non-
despotic leadership perceived by players. Secondly, as for the numbers
obtained by the RMR of x2/DF, CFI and NFI of the structural equation modeling
of coaches’ leadership perceived by the players, the causes and solutions of
team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction, except that NFI was a little
bit lower than the standard of DF, all of the rest reach the standard required
by DF Index of the modeling. Therefore, the structural equation modeling of
coaches’ leadership, team conflict, players’ satisfaction and team cohesion
of this study was acceptable.
Keyword: coach leadership behavior, team conflict, team cohesion, athletics’
satisfaction, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Reference ( 270 ) 〈TOP〉

　吳定、陳錦德、黃靖武等譯，Robret A. & David D. & Van F. 原著（民80）：組織行
連結：
　吳國銑（民89）：我國大專院校運動教練領導行為比較研究。體育學報，第二十八輯，
連結：
　吳慧卿（民87a）：運動組織衝突與因應策略初探。中華體育季刊，46期，頁15-25。
連結：
　吳慧卿(民87b)：運動教練領導行為、團隊衝突與選手滿意度之影響初探。臺灣師大體
連結：
意度對成績表現之影響。建國學報，17期，頁135-150。
連結：

Times Cited (62) 〈TOP〉

Altmetrics

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

When an article is available to download, a notice will be sent to your mailbox address.

E-mail ：