A six-week PST program improved youth basketball players' team cohesion relative to a control group, except on the GI-S subscale¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The mixed design MANOVA revealed significant time x group interaction, time, and group main effects for GEQ cohesion subscales favoring the experimental group. → Miçooğullari and Kirazci 2016 q3 i3 Univariate follow-ups showed significant differences on ATG-T, ATG-S, and GI-T subscales between experimental and control groups, but not on GI-S. → Miçooğullari and Kirazci 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

Miçooğullari and Kirazci 2016¶

Bülent Okan Miçooğullari, Sadettin Kirazci. (2016). Effects of 6 Weeks Psychological Skill Training on Team Cohesion, Self-confidence & Anxiety: A Case of Youth Basketball Players. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(12): 2761-2768. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.041210

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Mixed design MANOVA (5 time points x 2 groups) on GEQ subscales in the quasi-experimental team study; the article reports a significant time x group interaction with Wilks' Lambda =.27, F (16, 19) = 3.25, p < .05, plus significant time and group main effects. No effect size is printed for this omnibus result.

"The results of the mixed design MANOVA (5 (time) x 2 (group)) for the subscales of GEQ (ATG-T, ATG-S, GI-T, and GI-S) revealed significant time x group interaction effects; Wilks’ Lambda =.27. F (16, 19) = 3.25 p < .05."

Miçooğullari and Kirazci 2016 (2)¶

q3 · i3 · causal · r1

Univariate follow-up ANOVAs on the GEQ subscales found group differences favoring the experimental group on ATG-T (η2 = .55), ATG-S (η2 = .21), and GI-T (η2 = .41); the article reports "There was not a significant difference on GI -S".

"Another univariate follow -up analysis related with group effect revealed significant differences in ATG -T F(1, 34) = 41.56, p < .05 η2 = .55, ATG-S F(1, 34) = 8.86, p < .05 η2 = .21, and GI-T F(1, 34) = 23.83, p < .05 η2 = .41 subscales and GI -S F(1, 34) = 7.33, p > .05 η 2 = .18."

Discussion¶

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-02`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.