A Rating System for Evaluating An Intramural Program Francis M. Rokosz Wichita State University

Most recreational sport directors, at one time or another, have utilized some sort of participant sur- vey format to evaluate intramural programs. Most commonly, increases in participation figures are used as indicators of a successful program. How- ever, a questionnaire which permits participants the opportunity to rate specific elements of program organization and administration can be useful in overall evaluation and in identifying areas of the pro- gram that need improvement. One other motive for administering a participant survey is to generate in- put for job performance rating. This would be par- ticularly important in a situation where a significant number of complaints are being lodge against the program.

The specific survey format which will be examined in this paper was developed in response to a prob- lem encountered early in the author's professional career at a large midwestern university. A dispute had arisen between the intramural director and several fraternities on campus over two specific playing rules in the touch football program which had been changed to help reduce unnecessary violence in the games. The first change involved switching from two-hand to one-hand touch to reduce the number of violent collisions. Secondly, the number of players per team was reduced from eight to six to hopefully emphasize passing over run- ning and give the officials a better chance of con- trolling the game, as fewer people would be on the field hitting each other.

The decision was made to change the rules, despite objections by four of the six participating fraternities. The dormitory and independent groups seemed somewhat neutral to the changes although they may have actually preferred to stay with the traditional rules. But, the fraternities were very upset and voiced their discontent across campus, from im- mediate superiors to the Dean of Students and even to the President's office, trying to overturn the deci- sion. The fraternity representatives indicated that without the running game, without collisions, with- out eight people on a team, it just wasn't football. Furthermore, they didn't like the way the decision was made, as it was made in a dictatorial fashion.

The most upsetting effect of the dispute was that it eventually spilled over into a question of the overall job performance of the intramural director. The complaints were so vociferous and unrelenting that the director was almost fired for not rescinding the decision. The decision was not changed because

the whole atmosphere of the intramural program was at stake.

It seemed completely unfair that the job perfor- mance of the director was being evaluated on the basis of the two rules changes and the complaints that resulted. What about all the good things that had been done for the program? It was out of that situation that a specific type of program evaluation form was developed.

The evaluation form follows an outline format. That was done in an attempt to put specific items within the evaluation form into their proper perspec- tives. There are three major areas of the evaluation form - Organization, Administration, and Atmos- phere or Outcomes of Play. These categories are deemed to be on an equal level of importance. Under each major area, there are several sub-areas, again on an approximately equal level of significance. And the outline breaks down even further, always trying to place items in appropriate categories. As one can gather from the instructions on the first page, the survey participant rates only the asterisked items, which always are at the lowest end of the outline under any specific category. From there, ratings are averaged to arrive at a rating for the next higher level on the outline (see evaluation form for details).

The significance of the format is that someone who has a complaint about the times that hislher team gets to play (item 1.C.l.b.) cannot easily con- demn the whole scheduling process, because there are several other items to be rated and averaged into the total rating for the scheduling category. Assum- ing that the participant is making honest judgments and is otherwise satisfied with the scheduling pro- cess, then one bad area becomes de-emphasized in the total rating. Similarly, a bad rating on football rules (item I.B.5.a.) can easily be absorbed by good ratings in the other sports. Such a system can in- dicate that, while some people might strongly object to certain elements of the program, the overall rating might still be high. That certainly puts a program director in a better position with one's superiors relative to complaints about the program. Further- more, the system elicits rating numbers which can be compared to the same items year after year or be- tween sports within the same year.

The survey should be administered to a good- sized sample, in a random and anonymous fashion, at least one week after a sport season finishes (to allow emotions to settle). The results should be com-

continued on next page

FALL 1987

PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM Identfflcatlon of Evaluator (Check appropriate items) Faculty: male - Freshman - Fraternity -

female - Sophomore - Sorority - - 1. Acceptabilitylfairness Junior - Dormitory - a . days on which games are scheduled

male - Senior - Independent - b. times of games Student: female - *- c. number of games per team

*- d. formulation of leagues or pairings Undergrad male - -2. Method Student: female - a. format (mimeographed)

Instructions b. accuracy (absence of conflictslmistakes)

This survey is an Instrument which is used to evaluate the in- - c. clarity

tramurai program. From your responses, areas of organization and d . distribution (mail)

administration which require improvement can be identified. Also, a e . timeliness of distribution before first game

numerical rating of the program is possible. - D. Major Decisions (rules changes, sports offerings, In the categories presented, please rate each item that is pre- etc.)

ceded by an asterisk. RATE ONLY THE ASTERISKED ITEMS, and 1. Manner in which made leave the others blank. The ratings of the blank categories depend on 2. Degree to which they are satisfactory the average ratings of the subsidiary items. If you have insufficient - E. Miscellaneous

*- 1. Variety of sports offered *- 2. Sequential arrangement of sports during the

year 1. very good to excellent 3 . Entry procedure and regulations

4. Means of recognizing sports champions 3. unsatisfactory 5. Point system

Place the appropriate number on the blank line next to the asterisk. Try to isolate your thinking to the current year's program. -11. ADMINISTRATION Don't confuse the Issue by accumulating thoughts of past years. If - A. Reliability you have a specific complaint or comment about an area or sport in 1. Degree to which contests start on time the program, write it in the "Comment" space. 2. Degree to which contests proceed smoothly

When evaluating the total program, complete the whole form. For 3. Degree to which appropriate game equipment the evaluation of a particular sport(s), do not rate sections I.A., is provided 1.8.(1-4), I.D., and I.E. Those Items apply to the program as a whole. *- 4. Degree to which facilities are well prepared

Please evaluate the checked Items: 5. Degree to which first aid care is provided for injured players

-Total program 6 . Degree to which proper number of officials1 -Swimming -Tennis singles supervisors is present to work games -Gymnastics T a b l e tennis - B. ParticipantlStaff Relations - Free throw -Wrestling 1. Availability of supervisory staff to answer ques-

-Floor hockey shooting - Pool tions or settle disputes -Touch football T r a c k & field -Golf *- 2. Manner in which supervisory staff fields and

-Cross country R a c q u e t b a l l answers questions -Tennis doubles - Bicycle sprint -Badminton 3 . Degree to which problems are settled or

satisfied -1. ORGANIZATION - C. Quality of officiating - A. Program Information 1. Judgment - 1. Directly from the intramural office *- 2. Rules knowledge

a . availability 3. Game control b. clarity *- 4. Appearance c. accuracy *- 5. Demeanor

-2. From other media (IM Bulletin, Sunflower, mail) 6. Objectivity

a. availability *- b. clarity -Ill. ATMOSPHERE OR OUTCOMES OF PLAY

c. accuracy - A. Degree to which your participation is d . timinglfrequency of conveyance characterized by

1. Funlexcitement - B. Program Regulations 2. Social maturitylhuman understanding (coopera-

1. Conditions of participation tion, self control, graciousness in victory and *- 2. Protests defeat, willingness to accept mistakes of *- 3. Forfeits others)

4. Postponents *- 3. Friendship - 5. Sports Rules 4 . Mental refreshment (as opposed to frustration)

a. football 5. Feeling of self-worth b. basketball c. softball

... Degree-to. which .you_perceive_that.participatio others, as a whole, is characterized by:

1. Funlexcitement Others in which you would like to comment 2 . Social maturitylhuman understanding

3. Friendship 4. Mental refreshment (as opposed to frustration)

NlRSA JOURNAL

t 1 Rating System- continued from page 48

INDEX TO ADVERTISERS BussardlDikis Associates, Ltd ............ .25 Chronomix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 & 45 Colorado Time Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Domino's Pizza Teamtennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Hastings & Chivetta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Heart Rate, lnc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Insports Productions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Killington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Midwest Sporting Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ll Nat'l Flag Football.. . . . . . . .Inside Front Cover NlRSA Media Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Recreational Sports Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Schick Super Hoops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Sports Officials' Development Center . . . . . .39 Sunflower Graphics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover

.- Supreme Audio _..,,-. .A,..._.-. ,a_.-.-.-.-._.. ._.-.--.-.- 53- Triple Threat Flag Belts . . . . . Inside Back Cover USF&G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1 piled by someone unaffiliated with the intramural office to ensure objective tallying. The results should be used as a program evaluation tool. In the specific case cited at the beginning of this article, survey results to protect the director's job were never required because the original problem with touch football naturally defused itself, and players came to accept six-man football as a satisfactory ex- perience. However, the survey would be a useful tool in the overall evaluation of the program as partici- pant input is most valuable in making programmatic decisions.

Y + Y

-0 @

NlRSA JOURNAL