Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)


Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

First Advisor

Myers, Herman


This study examined the validity and reliability of the Extended Version of the Multidimensional Sportspersonship Orientation Scale (EMSOS; Stornes & Bru, 2002; Vallerand, Briere, Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997) for use among college athletes. The problem addressed by this study was the need for a well substantiated tool which demonstrates reliable and valid assessments of sportspersonship attitudes among U.S. collegiate athletes. Measuring tendencies towards good sporting behavior is valuable and necessary for the on-going study of the phenomenon of sportspersonship. There was a gap in the literature, however, as no instrument specific to the measurement of sportspersonship tendencies among U.S. college athletes had been validated for use among that population. This was a case study involving a Catholic, liberal arts, residential, NCAA Division II college in New England, with an enrollment of approximately 2,000 students and a student-athlete population of 352. The survey was administered at team meetings by a research assistant not affiliated with the athletics program. The participants were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses and their ability to terminate participation at any time and for any reason without repercussion. Results indicated that the EMSOS demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability among most subscales and as an overall instrument. The exception included one subscale, that of the “negative approach”. This subscale relates to participating in sport for extrinsic reasons, making excuses for poor performance, and being a poor sport. The negative approach subscale had unacceptable reliability and very weak correlation to the corresponding subscale, indicating weak construct validity. In addition, it appears that the addition of the sixth subscale (instrumental aggression) to the original version of the tool (the MSOS), improved the psychometrics of the instrument. Sportspersonship factors that emerged from the principal component analysis included “social convention & respect for rules/officials”, “instrumental aggression”, and “respect for opponents”. Relationships between demographic variables and the global sportspersonship index were examined both with the EMSOS intact as well as with the “negative approach” subscale removed. These results, both with and without the “negative approach” subscale, suggested that male athletes, contact sport athletes, team athletes, and athletes with 15 or more years of involvement in competitive sports are more likely to have a negative sportspersonship orientation. The data also indicated that class year, age, and scholarship status did not necessarily result in different sportspersonship orientations. This current study supports a modification of the EMSOS to exclude the “negative approach” subscale. This recommendation is made based on the problematic reliability and validity findings of that subscale. This study should provide researchers and practitioners with the knowledge that the revised EMOS appears to be a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to assess the sportspersonship orientations of U.S. collegiate athletes. The complexities and paradoxes surrounding the evaluation of sportspersonship are discussed in detail. Suggestions for future research to further explore sportspersonship in the collegiate setting are also provided.