CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL TEST FOI III BADMINTQM
SHORT S1BTS AID THE EFFECT OF WALL
PRACTICE ON COURT PERFORMANCE
APPROVE Ds
Major Professor
" -•
Elinor Professor
^ctor of the^e^rtment/^f Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
Dean 6fthe Graduate School
CONSTRUCTION OP A WALL TEST FOR THE BADMINTON
SHORT SERVE AND THE EFFECT OF WALL
PRACTICE ON COURT PERFORMANCE
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
Jean Washington, B» S.
Denton, Texas
August, 1968
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pagt
LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi
Chapter
I. INT HO DUCT I ON 1
Statement of the Problem Definition, of Terms Purposes of the Study Limitations of the Study-Sources of Data
II. BE VIEW OF LITERATURE 8
Wall Tests Performance of the Short Serve Badminton Short Serve Tests
III. PROCEDURES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY . 28
Preliminary Procedures Construction of the Test First Pilot Study Second Pilot Study Third Pilot Study Selection and Description of
Tests for Final Study Procedure® in Test Administration Experimental Design Treatment of Data
IV. FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Validity and Reliability Restraining Line Practice Effect Test of Hypotheses Discussion of Findings
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 69
iii
TABLE OP CONTENTS-Continued
Page
APPENDIX • « * * • • * * # * • » • « « • • « # « * » 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY * * * • « • • • » • * « * * * 96
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pag® I. Correlation of Three Sets of Trials with
Total Trials, Second Pilot Study . . . . . 37
II. Beliability and Validity Coefficients, Second Pilot Study . . . . . . 39
III. Correlation of Three Sets of Trials with Total Tri&la, Third Pilot Study *+1
IV. Reliability and Validity Coefficients,
Third Pilot Study . . . . . . . ^2
V. Rotation Order 51
VI. Correlation Matrix of Badminton Short
Serve - Pre-Test (N* 179) . 56
VII. Reliability of Badminton Short Serve Tests * . 57
VIII. Performance Changes on Tests With and Without a He straining Line 58
IX. Mean Differences Between Groups on Pre and Post-tests » « « . . . . 59
X. Mean Changes Among Sixty-five College Women Participating in Badminton Glasses (Control Oroup) . . . . . . . . . 60
XI. Mean Changes Among Sixty-seven College Women Participating in Prescribed Practice (Experimental Group). . . . . . . 61
LIST OF ILLUSTBATIONS
Flgurt Pag«
1. Determination of Wall Grid Siz® 29
2* Diagram of Wall Testing Station 31
3, Clusters of Hits for Fourteen Majors 33
k. Seorlng Ar@aj Court Tssts . . . .
5* Scoring Ar@a§ Wall Tests *+7
iri
CHAPTER I
HTBODUCTIGN
Psychologists tell us that the amount of skill desired,
in any activity is dependant on th® present and future needs
of the individual* Consequently physical educators should
seek to provide opportunities for all students to develop
satisfying skill levels in a wide variety of activities*
Th© student should be encouraged to develop that degree of
skill necessary for performance on a par with others of his
peer group. If w® are to expect any activity to have carry-
over value for the individual's leisure time, we must first
provide the instruction necessary for achieving some degree
of success.
The recently organized Lifetime Sports Foundation,
established for the purpose of increasing interest in sports
activities, adopted as one of its objective® the develop-
ment of skill in games which can be played and enjoyed
throughout life (5, p* 66). Teachers of physical education
are aware that the development of proficiency in th® skill®
included in the Lifetime Sports will help individuals to
retain their interest in the sports. The designation of bad-
minton as one of the Lifetime Sports has increased the amount
of emphasis placed on the development of badminton skills in
physical education classes* Increasing ability in the
various badminton strokes thus becomes m objective of bad-
minton classes in a balanced physical education program#
To determine the level of performance acquired, is
necessary to use a reliable and objective measuring device.
The device which is frequently employed by physical edu-
cators is the skill test* throughout the past thirty-five
years tests have beta developed for various ftpevtt* They
have proven helpful to teachers for evaluative purposes as
veil as helpful to performers for self-evaluation. The
skill tests which ai»e the most valuable In assessing the
quality of performance are those tests designed to be admin-
istered in a situation as much like the game as possible*
Unfortunately teachers of large ©lasses with a limited
amount of space have frequently found it necessary to delete
skill testing from the program. Therefore) the construction
of tests which are easily administered, require very little
space, but are still as much like the game as possible has
become a major concern of physical education teachers.
Two tests that require very little space have been de-
veloped in badminton# The wall volley test (2) and the clear
test (3) require a minimum of space, and each test is admin-
istered at the wall rather than on a badminton court* Since
court space is not required for these tests, the testing pro-
gram may continue without interfering with play on the
courts, The two vail tests are often inelmded as a daily
warm-up5 or they are utilised as practice stations in large
classes where students ar@ rotated from courts to practice
stations so that everyone may play# However, the question
arises concerning whether or not practise of a skill at the
wall will improve performance on the oouvt*
In badminton th# most frequently used strokes art the
serve, high clear, smash, and dropshots. The ability to
serve accurately is necessary for all badminton players.
The performer must be able to serve well because only the
server can win a point# Of the two type# of serve, long and
short, th® short servo is used primarily in double® and as a
change of pace serve in singles. Although tests have been
developed for the short serve, there appears to be a need
for a short serve test which can be given in space other than
oourt space. The effeet of periodic practice on a wall type
test on improvement on a court test is another phase of
testing that seems to be worthy of further investigation.
This Investigation will be the construction and vali-
dation of a wall type short serve test. The investigation
will further attempt to determine whether or not practise on
a wall short serve test significantly improves performance
on a court type short serve test. It is hoped that the
findings of this study will provide additional information
of value for those persons interested in motor performance
testing and specifically for teachers of beginning bad-
minton. A wall type badminton short serve test will not
only b« of value in the tasting program, but it may prove
useful in large classes aa a practice station while courts
ar® being used for games. fh® result of periodic practice
on the wall test on improvement in performance on the court
may be of value in determining the effectiveness of wall
type tests involving accuracy. Perhaps the wall short serve
test may b® combined with the wall volley test and the clear
test to make a battery of tests which may be given in an
area other than the gymnasium. A wall type battery of tests
would be particularly helpful in situations where the gym-
nasium is shared with other groups.
Statement of the Problem
The problems of this study were to construct and validate
a wall type short serve test. Also, the attempt was made to
determine whether or not periodic practice on a wall short
serve test significantly improved scores on a court short
serve test.
Definition of Sems
The following terms and definitions were used in the
study?
serve.--A low underhand stroke which is directed
into the diagonally opposite service court.
USES*—The shuttle must be struck at a point
lower than the server's waist. The head of the racket
at contact with the shuttlecock must be no higher than any
part of the server*s hand holding the racket (1» p. 137)*
S&&S& £2<i2a*-~The spot on the court from which
serves are initiated.
Trajectory.The arc described in space by the flight
of the shuttle.
Placement.^-Directing the shuttle toward a particular
area of a court or a spot on a target.
Distance.--The apace between the basic position of the
server and the point of aim.
Height.-"The interval of space between the top of the
net and a point above the net.
drawn three feet behind and
parallel to the short service line, and between the short
service line and the back boundary line#
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of this study are a@ follows*
1. To construct and validate a wall type test of bad-
minton short serve skill by comparison with the French Short
Serve test (k),
2# $o determine the effect of changing the distance
through which the serve must pass on scores made on tests
with and without a restraining line.
3« To determine the effect of practice on a proposed
wall short serve test on scores mad® on a court short serve
test.
Specifically, the following null hypotheses war®
tested:
1. The true correlation among the subject's per-
formance on the modifications of the French Short Serve
test and the proposed wall tests is zero.
2. There will be no significant difference in the
subject's performance on the tests when a restraining line
is marked three feet behind th® short service line.
3. There will be no significant difference in the
change shown by the experimental group which has practiced
on a motor task* X* SL* > (Bg ~ % = c2 ~ cl^*
Limitations of the Study and Sources of Data
The study was limited to college women enrolled in
beginning badminton classes# The human sources of data
were 20 women enrolled in beginning badminton at Forth
Texas State University during the second stumer session,
1967 and 159 women enrolled in the beginning badminton
classes at Worth Texas State University during the fall
semester, 1967 •
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
X. Division of Girls and Women's Sports, Tennis-Badminton Guide« Washington, D. C., American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1966-1968.
2* Lockhart, Aileene, and Frances A. MePherson, "The Development of a Test of Badminton Playing Ability,11 Research Quarterly, XX (December, 19 9)» S02-*f05»
3' Millar, Frances A., "A Badminton Wall Yolley Test," Research Quarterly# XXII (May, 1951), 208-213-
Scott, M. Gladys, "Achievement Examinations in Badminton, Quarterly, XII (May, 19*+1), 2 2-253*
5» Wilkinson, Bud, "The Lifetime Sports Foundation,"
JXX?Ff jiff 1?^l|l%)671 ^
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Th® literature reviewed in this chapter was chosen
primarily because of its relationship to th© investigation.
Wall tests in various activities were reviewed in order to
determine the effectiveness of wall tests as a measuring de-
vice. The elements of good short serve performance as
recommended by various authorities were surveyed* Finally,
previous badminton short serve tests were reviewed in order
to determine whether a need existed for another badminton
short serve test. The construction of the wall test was
based on criteria established in several textbooks regard-
ing motor performance test construction (1, 10, 39)*
The procedures followed in the study were based on the
techniques followed by other investigators in designing and
validating motor performance tests.
Wall Tests
Skill tests which utilised wall space were surveyed
to determine the effectiveness of wall tests in measuring
skill. Wall tests appear to be either of the rebound or
the accuracy type. In the rebound wall test, the subject
keeps an object in continuous motion for a designated period
of time. Rebound tests art usually timed tests with the
score determined by counting the number of repetitions in
the time period* Kebound tests have bean constructed in
various activities. Several tests have been designed in
volleyball to determine the ability to volley the ball
against a wall for a brief period (*f, 5* 21). Although the
overall design of than# teats is similarf they differ In
the size of the target as veil as the use of a restraining
line. Brady's ¥olleylng Test (5) excluded the restraining
line while lassett and (KLassow (k) included a restraining
line drawn 6 feet from the wall* French and Cooper (21)
marked a restraining line 3 feet from the wall in their
volleying test* The Bassett and the French tests have the
wall target bottom line 7i feet above the floor s whereas
Brady has his target H i feet above the floor. All three
tests were validated by correlating test scores with the
criterion of fudge's ratings. Brady's test yielded a coef-
ficient of .86$ French and Cooper's test validity was .72;
and the Bassett test validity was «5l* The reliability of
the Bassett test was .89 and that of the Brady test was ,925.
Beliability for both tests was determined by the test-ret#at
method. The Brady test was not only the most reliable but
it also had the highest degree of validity.
Several tests have been designed to objectively pre-
dict the ability to play basketball. In Swarts's study (37)
10
a restraining line vac drawn 8 feet from the vail, while
in the Knox test (28), the restraining lint was marked 5
feet from the wall. Both of these tests war® designed for
high school students. Neither test reported test validity#
fhe Knox test reliability was reported a# *78 after correction
by the Pearson Product-Moment [email protected] technique# In a
battery of tests designed to measure th® Motor ability of
college inen» Barrow (2) included a vail pass item to deter-
mine eye-hand coordination. The reliability of the total
battery vac *95 as determined by th# te$t~rete#t method.
The validity vas *7& when correlated with th® criterion of
twenty-nine selected fitness items.
Several tennis tests have been devised which utilized
wall space. The Dyer Backboard feit (18) and the subsequent
revision (19) were designed to measure ability in tennis in
order to classify students. She test utilised a wall apace
ten feet high by fifteen feet wide. A line was marked 3 feet
above the floor on the vail. Subjects in the original study
could move as close to the wall as necessary, but in the
revision a restraining line was marked 5 feet from the wall*
Data collected from several colleges were reported. Validity
and reliability coefficients varied for each group but the
addition of the restraining line and a new method of scoring
increased both the reliability and validity. For
11
example, the reliability of the data collected at North
Texas Stat® Teachers College was *90 computed by the
test-retest method of correlation. The revisions increased
the reliability to #92. The validity was .85 with the cri-
terion of a round robin tournament. The validity was
increased to *90 after the revisions*
The Driver tennis tests (17) were designed to use a
target b feet wide and 3 fast high drawn on a wall or board.
The target was 1 foot above the net line. In the serving
teat the player served toward the target from behind the re-
straining line 39 feet from the target* Striking the target
counted as points* The same target was used for the ground
stroke test. The player stroked the ball against the target
from behind a 25 foot restraining line. If the ball hit the
target, a point was awarded. In the rally test a player hit
a ball anywhere on the backboard until she failed to return
the ball on the first bounce* The player stood anywhere on
the court in the elementary test, remained behind a 12 foot
restraining line in the intermediate test* and behind a 25
foot restraining line in the advanced test* No statistical
analysis of the tests was given. Since so few trials were
allowed, the test may have lacked reliability.
The DeWitt tennis wall tests (16) consisted of serving,
ground stroke, and rally tests. A target consisting of five
concentric eireles was drawn on a board. The center circle
12
had a diameter of 1 foot, the center of which was 5 f®«t
above the ground. Each additional circle was 2 feet wide
with the outside circle haying a diameter of 9 feet# The
subject remained behind a restraining line drawn 39 feet
from the target to serve# Points were awarded with the
highest -value of nine points for hitting the center circle•
Points decrease to one point for the outside circle. The
score was the total of five trials# For the ground stroke
accuracy test, the subject hit the ball to the wall and when
it returned, she drove it to the same target used in the
serving test* The target was placed parallel to the wall
area. In the rally test for speed, the subject stood at
least 10 feet from the wall to stroke the ball against the
wall as many times as possible in one minute# Statistical
evidence was not reported concerning test validity or
reliability#
The Hilding (26) study was designed to determine the
most suitable tennis wallboard test to measure playing abil-
ity. The subjects were forty-two beginners and varsity
players# The criterion was a round robin tournament to rank
the beginning players, and the performance of the varsity
players was ranked by their coach. The target was a brick
wall with a line marked 3 feet above the floor to represent
the net height# The rebound area was 8£ feet high by 22
feet wide. Tests were given at restraining line distances
13
of 5, 15» 25» and 35 feet. Subject® were timed for thirty
and sixty seconds. After nine weeks of instruction, four
students were tested at each station with twelve tested
during each evening session. The varsity player® were
tested in one session# Subjects tools one trial at each
station and continued rotating until completing three trials
on all eight testa, The final score for each test was the
sun of three trials, fhe reliability between trials one
and two was *921 at the 35-foot test distance, fhe validity
was *897 for beginners and .970 for varsity players at the
35-foot test distance.
Loekhart and McPherson developed a rebound test of bad-
minton playing ability (30). The subject stood behind a
restraining line and volleyed a shuttlecock off the wall
above a 5 foot horizontal line for three periods of thirty
seconds each. A restraining line was placed 3 feet from the
wall, fhe criterion for the test was three Judges1 ratings
of each subject. The validity coefficient was .60 to .72,
depending upon the skill level of twenty-seven subjects.
Reliability was .90, as determined by the test-retest method.
Another badminton test is the Miller Wall folley test, which
is a test of ability to hit high clears (33). A 7i~foot
line marked the area above which the subject volleyed.
There was a restraining line marked 10 feet from the wall,
fhree thirty second time periods were given each subject.
The reliability for 100 college women was &» determined
by the test-retest correlation technique. The validity w m
.33 when teat results were correlated with playing ability.
The second type of wall test is the accuracy type, In
which the subject attempts to propel an object to strike a
target, thus scoring points. Scoring is usually dependent
upon the amount of deviation from the center of the target.
More trials are allowed for the accuracy tests than for the
volleying tests. A wall test for determining accuracy of
basketball passing was developed by Young and Moser (¥+•)
for college women, the subjeet was instructed to remain
behind a 30 foot restraining line and pass toward the target
marked on the wall. The test wa® administered to beginning,
intermediate, and advanced players. The reliability was .78
as determined by the test-ratest method. The validity was
.86 as correlated with three judge's ratings. Although
norms were established for 160 subjects, only 52 subjects
were included in the reliability portion of the study.
Sogers and Heath (36) devised a wall test for the baseball
throw. A restraining line was marked 35 feet from the wall
target. She test was administered to 3000 fifth and sixth
grade boys during a three year period. The criteria for
the test were judges' ratings and selection for the
school team. Validity was .63 for fifth grade boys and .65
for sixth grade boys. The reliability for the 755 fifth
15
graders was •61, and for 563 sixth graders, .60. In a battery
of tests designed to determine general athletic ability for
college women, Cogens and Cubberley (11) included a wall
test of accuracy in throwing a baseball. A restraining lint
was marked 35 feet from the wall target. Ho information was
provided concerning reliability and validity.
Performance of the Short Serve
Prior to designing the wall test, expert opinion of
good performance was reviewed. The serve is probably the
most important single technique in the game because only
the server is able to score point®. There are three types
of servei the long serve, the driven serve, and the short
serve. Sine® this study is concerned with short serve per-
formance, th® other two types of serve will not be discussed.
According to Broer (6, p. 27)» only accuracy it required for
a good serve, sine® there is neither balance nor weight
transfer needed for serving. Any test of ability to serve
should stress accuracy.
The recommended basic position from which the serve
is initiated is one foot to the side of the center service
line and three to four feet behind the short service line
0» 79 9» 12, 13, 15, 23, 27, 35» *+2)* One reason given
for assuming this position is that the server may move up
to the net quickly (12). Furthermore it 1® easier to serve a
perfect serve from this position because it allows the time
la
and distance necessary for the shuttle to reach Its height
on the server's side of the net and begin dropping Just
before or while crossing the net (9t 12, If, 27 )• Assuming
a serving position close to th# center service line leaves
fewer openings for th# return by th® receiver (3, Its 29)*
Authorities seem to aire® that th® height of the short
serve should be an arc which passes as close to th® net as
possible (3» 7» 12, 13, l^t 15, 2»f, 27t 32, *H, **2» %3>* A
short serve which has a high trajectory over the net can be
easily smashed by the receiver* to prevent the receiver
from smashing, the serve should skim the top of the net (7,
9, 12, 15)* Several practice drills have been used by
physical education teachers to stress the importance of a
low serve* Burton (3) suggests marking a line 5 feet high
on the vail and marking off the distance a server stands
from one court to another* Students should serve to hit th®
wall line* Shaw (HO) and Galley (2*0 recoiaaend suspending
a rope one foot above the net and having students serve
under the rope*
There seems to be a difference of opinion concerning
the point of aim for the short serve* Some authorities
state that the short serve should be directed toward the
angle formed by the center service line and the short ser-
vice line (7, 8, 12, 13f 15# 23, 2f)* Other authorities
recommend that the point of aim should be close to the
17-
short serve line (3» 2hf *K), **2)« Several others recommend
that the point of aim be to either of the front corners of
the service court (8, 13, 32, 3^t H-3). fh® specific point
of aim varies among the experts but they seem to agree that
in general the point of aim should he along the front of the
service tomrt between the side line and the center service
line*
Aeeording to authorities« it appear® that for skilled
short serve performance * the server should stand near the
tenter service line and at least three feet behind the short
service line* fhe serve should he low and in a downward
trajectory prior to crossing the net. fhe shuttlecock
should he directed toward the front corners of the service
court, or to the area Just behind the short service line
with the area at the' angle of the ©enter service line and
the short service line as the most strategic area#
Badminton Short Serve Tests
A search of the available literature revealed four
published short serve tests, fwo tests presented evidence
of validity and reliability.
One of the earliest short serve tests was constructed
by Edgren and Hobinson (20)* A target was marked on the
court and scored one, two, and three.
Five trials were allowed each subject* Statistical
evidence of the validity and reliability of the test was
18
not given, It is doubtful whether or not the test would be
reliable since only five trials are allowed. According to
Scott and French (39), many trials are necessary for a re-
liable test of accuracy involving beginners, fhere is not
any way provided to differentiate between the height of
serves nor does the scoring give the highest value to serves
in the primary area along the short serve line. Since the
test construction does not appear to require skilled per-
formance a® defined previously by experts, it is unlikely
that the test would be valid.
In the DeWitt short serve test (16), a target was
marked on the court for testing accuracy in serving. The
same target was used for the long serve test. Sixteen
equal areas were marked with point values. Subject® were
given five trials, with the score determined by the initial
contact of the shuttlecock with the floor. Mo reliability
or validity coefficients were reported, fhe PeWitt test has
some of the same weaknesses of the Edgren-ftobinson test.
Only five trials are not sufficient for a reliable test for
beginners. There is no way provided to differentiate be-
tween the height of serves\ thus a high serve falling in the
angle formed by the center service line and the short ser-
vice line would score ten points, but in reality this would
be a poor serve.
19
The serv® test devised by French (22, 38) was dssignsd
to measure tli# ability t® serve to the right service court.
A rope was suspended parallel to the top of the mt at a
height of twenty inches* The eeorlng area was marked in the
right serriae court in ares that were drawn using the inter-
section of the ©eater service lint and the short service
line a® the midpoint• The subjeot was allowed to stand any-
where within the right service court. She was instructed
to serve twenty short serves under the rope and into the
scoring urea. Scores ranged fro® fire to one, provided the
shuttlecock passed under the rope, lay shuttle going over
the rope was recorded m & zero for that trial. Tb@ test
was first administered to twenty-nine physical education
majors. The odd-even method of determining reliability
yielded a coefficient of .89 stepped up by the Speapman-
Brown Prophecy formula. The validity was *66 when corre-
lated with a criterion of tournament standings (38). When
the French test was administered to lk9 beginners and 72
advanced players$ the validity was A3 for the beginners
and .70 for the advanced players. The test scores were
correlated with subjective ratings of playing ability.
The reliability was determined by the odd-even method and
yielded coefficients of .77 for the beginners and .87 for
the advanced players after correction by the Spearman-
Brown Prophecy formula. The investigators found that while
20
ten trials were sufficient for advanced players , beginners
needed more than ten trials (38).
In the French and Stalter study (22), the French Short
Serve test was administered to fifty-nine majors and minors
along with other badminton tests to form a battery of bad-
minton skill tests. Subjects wars beginner® who were given
instruction for twelve hours prior to testing* All sub-
jects were instructed by the same person. After the
completion of testing} four judges rated each subject
according to her playing ability. The reliability was #511
when determined by the odd~even method of correlation
corrected by the Spearrnan-Brown Prophecy formula. The in-
vestigators stated that the low reliability was probably
because of the inconsistent performance of beginners (2.2,
p. 260). The criterion for test validity was the ratings
of the four Judges, on® of whom was the instructor* The
validity coefficient was All when correlated with th©
Judges' ratings. Based on the results of the study, the
investigators recommended further study of the number of
trials and the amount of time involved in administering
th© test. They suggested that data should be collected on
a large group of subjects with a wider rang® of ability.
The suggestion was also made that a better criterion should
be found than Judges' ratings. They proposed the idea
that ratings of each skill might be more appropriate than
21
ratings of general playing ability, tests of competitive
spirit and strategical sense also need to be devised if a
criterion of playing ability is used.
A comparison of the French test with the definition
of good short serve performance indicates that while the
French test is superior to the other badminton tests? it
too has several weatoesses» First, the rope is too high
to adequately differentiate between good and poor short
serves* It is possible for the shuttle to stay below the
rope in flight and still be smashed by the receiver, fhe
scoring area for the test does not give proper value for
the serve to the outside corner nor for the serve which
drops close to the short service line, fhe test falls to
measure the ability to serve to the left court, although
during games serves are alternated between the right and
left service courts.
fhe Greiner short serve test (25) was administered to
ninety-three high school girls in beginning badminton
classes, three tests were administered simultaneously.
fest I was a court test with a scoring grid which had
been previously devised through several pilot studies.
Subjects were instructed to stand so that the shuttle was
held suspended above an X marked with masking tape at a
point two feet behind the short service line and three feet
to the right of the center service line. £he distance
scorej lateral deviation score, height score, and combined
22
scores were recorded toy an assistant, The distance and
lateral deviation scores were determined "by the point where
the shuttlecock touched the floor first. The height score
was determined by the point at which the shuttle passed
through the parallel strings. Adding the three scores to-
gether gave the combined score for each of twenty trials#
Test II was the proposed test without the net but with
parallel strings beginning 2& feet above the floor and con-
tinuing upward# to a maximum height of 8 feet h inches* The
floor target was the same as Test I* The scoring for height
was somewhat different from Test I# Any shuttlecock going
below the net height was a minus score which was subtracted
from the lateral deviation and distance score. This test
can be given in space other than on a court, but space would
be required for the target. Test III was the French Short
Serve test. Tests were given in two successive class
periods# Subjects were randomly placed in one of six groups,
and each group was assigned a different rotation order#
The validity of the tests was not determined statis-
tically. The investigator stated that Test I and II met the
criterion;thus they were logically valid. The criterion was
the definition of short serv® performance by expert opinion.
Beliablllty was determined by the test-retest method of
correlation. The reliability coefficients were .619 for Test
I and .666 for Test II* All coefficients were corrected by
the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula.
23
The usefulness of the Greiner test seems to be
fuestionable for several reasons* The difficulty in mark-
ing the target on the floor would prohibit using it for
classroom testing* the scoring method is too complicated
for classroom use. Several people have to administer the
test in order to actor® properly. The test reliability is
below the acceptable level (30). And the test fails to
measure ability to serve to the left court although serving
it alternated between service courts throughout a game •
After surveying the available short serve tests,
there does appear to be a need for a valid and reliable
test which is simple to administer, requires very little
space, and will test ability to serve from both service
courts *
2:^-
CHAPTSR BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. AMQTlean Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation* ideation, a^d ^ Association for a*«u.wu, ru, Recreation, 2nd @d., 1959*
2. Barnes, Mildred J., Margaret G. Fox, Gladys M. Scott, and Pauline A. Loeffler, Sports Activities for Girls and Women. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966?
3. Barrow. Harold M., "feast of Motor Ability for College M#n,ft jff.sffty,# Quarterly, XXV (October, 195*0* 253-260,
b, Bassett, Gladys, Ruth Glasgow, and Mabel Lock®, "Studies in testing Volleyball Skills," Quarterly, VIII (December, 1937), 60.
5' Brady, George F., "Preliminary Investigations of Volley-ball Playing Ability," ifaiHTOfa BsmMslZf XVI (March, 19 W » 1*-17»
6, Broer, Marlon R., 2l itatt MmyS§0&» Philadelphia, Pa*, W. B. Saunders Co*, 2nd ed., 1966.
7- Burr, Hilda V., "Technique and $actios for the Beginning Badminton Player," m g ^ l Guide. lew York, A, S. Barnes, 19^0-194-?,18~S.
8. Burton, Vernon 0*, "A Teaching Progression That Works.11
T«nn<fl-^mintnn - Division of Girls and Women's
9. Choong, Sddy, and Fred Brundle, 3&g, Efcffitafo J22li M Badminton* London, Camelot Press Ltd., 1956.
10. Clarke, H. Harrison, 4pp^ff|o*l sX. j& fifaftm Pfefiil^ ldyssti2B» Inglewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 'fth ad., 1967.
11. Cozens, Frederick, and Haael J. Cubberley, "Achievement Scales in Physical Education for College Women," Research Quarterly* VI (March, 1935)4-1^-23.
25
12. Davidson, Kenneth B., and Zealand 1. Gustavson, ins Badminton* New York, A. S. Barn®® and Co.,
13» Dayj June, "Strategy and tactics In Ladles Doubles," |ennis»Badmlntog^Guide«^Divi slon of Girl® and Women's
Xk. Day, June, "First Lessons in Badminton," Journal Health* Physical Education, aim Recreation, March, 1963, 28-32.
15. Devlin, J. P., Badminton For 41.lt * « fork, Double day, Dorah and Co., Inc., 1937*
16. DeWitt, H. T., Teaching Individual and Tean |port3, New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953, 395-396.
17. Driver, Helen, Tennis For Teachers* Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders and Co., 1936, 162-16^.
18. Dyer, Joanna, "The Backboard Test of Tennis Ability," Supplement to the Hesearch Quarterly* VI (March, 1935), 63-7^.
19. Dyer, Joanna, "Bevision of the Backboard Test of Tenniii Ability," IX (March, 1938), 25-31.
20. Sdgren, H. D., and 0. Bobinson, Group Instruction la XSBBtt AB& S a s H M m t *<>rk» A. S. Barnes and Co., 1939.
21. French, Esther, and Bernice Cooper, "Achievement Tests in Volleyball for High School Girls," 1 Quarterly. VIII (May, 1937), 150-157.
22. French, Bather, and Evelyn Stalter, "Study of Skill Tests in Badminton for Collet# Women," j Quarterly* XX (October, 19 W * 257-272.
23. Friedrich, John, and Abble Butledge, B|Ma|on» Belmont, Calif., Wadsworth Pub. Co., Ihg#| lf6t#
2^. Galley, Jeanne C., "Techniques for Advanced Badminton Students," Tennis-Badminton Guide* Division of Girls and Women'© Sports, 1966-1968, 111-115*
26
25. Greiner, Marilyn "Construction of a Short Serva feat for Beginning Badminton Player®#" unpublished master's thesis* Department of Physical Sduoation, University of Wisconsin, 196*f»
26• Hlldingf loaning £arlt "Wan Tests for xSraluatlng fannis Ability,w unpublished master*® thesis, Department of Phytic*! Education, Stat# Collage of Washington, 1959.
27. Jackson, Carl I., and Lester A. Swan, gtllfjr, JMlAslSIlt lew York| A. S. Same® and Co., 1939*
28, Knox, Bobert D», "Basketball Ability fast®," Scholastic Coach. X?II (Movemfear, 19^?), 5-^7»
29, Landtroop, Peggy, "Placement, Strategy, and Baton of Senre,*1 MM* 1966-1968, 96-97*
30. Lockhart, Alleene, and Franca• A. McPharaon, h
31. Mathaws* Donald K., Measurement to f t e l W Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, Co., 2nd ed., 1965«
32. Millar, Donna Kae, and Katharine L. Lay, .foiteldffill m & | | M imjt& t M i M i iSnglewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall,In©., 1959•
33. Millart Franeaa A., "A Badminton Wall Volley f©si,H
ifraelrch Quarterly. XaI I (May, 1951)» 208-213.
3^. McCloy, Char la a H. # and Rorma 0. Young, |aiM M M itiimBialg M m & M s M Zterissl Ifipl§«» York, Applaton-Cantury-Crofta, In®., 3rd ad., 195*-
35. Phillips, Marjorie, "Teaching tha Badminton Serve to Beginners, $ s m & s £ Sfiilpf gjpglfll. rn& i f f t l M t IIV {December, X ^ ) » 531-559.
36. Sogers, iSlisabeth a., and Marjorit L. Heath. "An Experiment In tha us® of Knowledge and Skill Teats la Playground Baseball." MfffMfH SSKSitiLlt ** (December, 1931>t 113-131.
37. Schtrarts, Helen, "lawledge and Achievement fasts in Oirl'• Basketball on the Senior High School Level, ' Research Quarterly, Till (March, 1937)» 1^3-156.
27
38. Scott9 M. Gladys, "AeMavamtat Sxaminationa in M m a ^ xxx <m&y, 19 1),
2^2-253.
39• Scott, M. Gladys, and Esther Fr©iaehs jfeMBEtitpl jteitenUaft in BHaftlMfl Mucatlon. Dubuque, Iowa, Wm* €, Brown Co., 1959*
kO. Shaw, ftuth £.f HA Badminton Unit for Larga Claaaas,"
Biiriaioa of iportif
*fl. Thoiaaa, Sir G«©rga A. * Backets. Sauaah Baskets. Tsimis#
Ltd***1933 n* Lon<iont 8aol«y Service and Co* ,
b2« fragatt, Mrs. J. C*i Sft4iM» XSSL MMmX&t London, Percy Lund, Humphries, and Co., Ltd., 1929.
**3» Varaer, Margaret, Badminton> DmMque, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Co., 1966.
Mi-, Young, Genevieve, and Halan Moser, "A Short Battery of faata to Measure Playing Ability in Woman'» Basket-Wlf Qmihlkf,* v (May, 193^), 3-23.
CHAPTEH III
PKOCIDURES IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE STTOX
The problem of this study was to construct and validate
a wall type short serve test for badminton. Also the
attempt was made to determine whether or not periodic prae-
tice on a wall short serve test significantly improved
scores ©a a court short serve test#
Preliminary Procedures
The initial procedure was the through examination of
literature la the areas of test construction, performance*
wall type skill tests, and good badminton short serve.
Previous studies related to the present study were then
reviewed.
Construction of the Test
The skill test for the badminton short serve should be
constructed so that it meets the objective® of a good short
serve as established in Chapter II» The specific definition
of a good short serve is a serve that clears the net at a
height of ten inches or less and, if allowed to fall, lands
near the short service line. Ideally, the shuttlecock
28
29
should be In a downward trajectory as It clears the mat.
fhres pilot studies were conducted in order to gain Infor-
mation concerning the basic test construction.
First Pilot Study
The purpose of the first pilot study was to determine /
whether or not a proposed wall test correlated with the
French Short Serre Test (2). fest reliability and va-
lidity war« determined.
The wall grid was designed by measuring the area
directly above the net through which a shuttlecock must
pass to land in the service court (Figure 1). fhe vertical
side lines of the grid were determined by using a string and
a plumb line. A chalk line was drawn on the right terries
/ i s
s *
\
'
J /
•
x | -
\
'
Figure 1—Determination of wall grid size
aourt three feet behind the short service line and on® foot
to the right of the center line# A restraining line was
3'0
marked on the floor parallel to the short service line with
masking tap® for a distance of three feet# An X was marked
one foot to the right of the center line immediately behind
the restraining line in the right service court to represent
the basic position of the server. One end of.a string was
placed on the tenter of the X and stretched along the floor
until the string touched the ©enter line in the opposite
court. A plumb line was held in a vertical position beside
the net so that the plumb hob was directly above the string
on the floor and the top of the plumb line intersected the
top of the net. An identifying mark was made on the band on
the top of the net. The string was held by one end on the X
and the other end was stretched toward the diagonally
opposite court and the doubles side boundary line# The
plumb line was used in the same manner to determine the left
vertical boundary. A Mark was made on the net band to desig-
nate the left vertical line# fhe distance between the two
marks was measured using a steel tape# fhe distance between
the two marks on the net band was recorded as the length of
the wall target. She bottom line of the target was deter-
mined by the height of the top of the net* A line was
measured five feet above the floor and parallel to the floor.
The line was marked horizontally from one vertical end line
to the other end line, fhe top boundary of the grid was a
line.parallel to the floor and twenty inches above the five
31
foot net height. This upper boundary Xlne was extended
horlsontally from one vertical end line to the other verti-
cal end line. fhis height was selected be@am§# the French
Short Serve test direct® that a rope lid suspended twenty
inches above the not* However» in Chapter IX It vat deter~
mimod that a good serve should not ele&r the not by nor#
than ten Inehesj therefore* another horizontal line was
added to the grid* fhls olddXe line was marked ton lashes
above the not height and extended horlaontaXXy from one
rortloaX end Xiao to the other vertical end line.
To further differentiate between serves, two additional
rortloaX lines were added. One Xlne was added at the point
necessary for a shuttlecock to Xand near the Intersootion
between the oontor Xlne and the short service Xlne* The
other vertical Xlne was added near the Xeft vertical tide
2 i H 3 2 5!
i 1,1 -Is' I
Figure 2—Diagram of waXX testing station
32
lin® because serves going into the alley art legal in
doubles and may b@ strategically important during a gam®#
The diagram of the testing station indicates the initial
test as it was administered during the first pilot study
(Figure 2). Scoring for each area is also illustrated#
Scoring was based on th@ relative importance of each area
In relation to th© placement of the serve to th® court. The
short ssrvle® line was marked on th® floor six feet six
inches from th® wall. Th® center line was also marked on
th® floor in front of th® wall grid. fh® restraining line
was marked three feet behind the short service line and ex-
tended for three f®et#
Th® subtests were fourteen physical education major®
enrolled in a beginning badminton class. Physical education
majors were chosen because th® French 'Short Serve fast was
initially administered to physical education majors* Th®
proposed wall short serve test was administered after
twelve hours of instruction*
The subjects were divided into two groups# One group
took the French Short Serve Test first (Appendix A) while
th® other group took the proposed wall test first. Th®
groups thon rotated to th® other test station# A senior
physical education major administered the wall test and the
Investigator administered th® French Short Serve Test* The
subjects wer® given identical instructions on both tests
33
(Appendix B). Ho practice serves were allowed. All trial®
were from the right court to th® diagonally opposite right
court* Twenty trials were given on eaah of the two tests.
Scores were recorded ©a a score sheet so that a record of
hlt« OR th® grid for each student was available» Clusters
of tot® for all fourteen subjects were later placed on a
single score sheet (Figure 3), Jhe ohart showing: th®
» « ' » •
• • » *
* % « «
• *
Figure 3—Clusters of hit® for fourteen majors
clusters of scores for all fourteen sublets revealed that
all of th# subjects seemed to aim for th® area storing th®
highest point value. Although It might seem to be in order
to shorten th# grid, the length should remain the same for
the grid to maintain full value as a practise device# Stu-
dents may then practice serving to the outside corner which
may be strategically important during a game*
Xhe reliability of both tests was determined by using
th® split-half method corrected by the Spearman-Brown
3*
Prophecy Formula. Th@ reliability of the vail short stir#
test for this group of subjects was .91* The correlation
between th© French Short Serve Test and the wall short serve
test was .^7. Possibly the restraining line used in the
wall test and not used in the French Short Serve fast re-
sulted in the low correlation. A comparison ©f the rankings
on the wall short serve test with the rankings on a sub-
jective evaluation ©f general playing ability by the in-
structor resulted in a rank difference correlation of *k2*
A comparison ©f the rankings ©a the French Short Serve Test,
with the subjective ranking evaluation resulted in & rank
difference correlation of .18. A comparison ©f th® ranking
on th® wall short serve test and a singles tournament rank-
ing resulted in a correlation of .**9» These low corre-
lations are t© be expected when a specific skill ranking is
compared with over-all ability rankings (1* p. 2kl).
Observations made during the first pilot study seemed
to indicate further changes were necessary. Scores on the
tests during the first pilot study appeared t® be affected
by the distance the server was from the target. It was also
observed that a receiver would be able to smash many of the
serves which were high but still remained under the twenty
Inch rope on the French Short Serve Test. The decision was
made to devise or modify court and wall tests to determine
the effect on performance of various combinations of height
and distance as Indicated by raw scores*
Second Pilot Study
She purposes of the second pilot stmdy wer® to deter-
mine the effect of differences in height and distance on
accuracy ©f serving the short serve, to determine relia-
bilities of the tight tests devised and their correlation
with the French Short Serve Test* to determine the number of
trials necessary, and to determine whether or not serves
should be made from both the right and left courts.
the criterion for the second pilot study was the
French Short Serve Test but it was modified by continuing
the scoring area into the left service court (Appendix 0)#
fhe second test was the same French test with two modi-
fications. A restraining line was marked ©a both the right
and left court three feet behind the short service line and
the scoring area was increased to cover both the right and
left courts (Appendlas D). fhe third test was mother modi-
fication of the French test, fhe rope was lowered to a
height of ten laches above the aet and the scoring area en-
larged to include both the right and left court (Appendix F),
fhe French Test was modified for the fourth test by lower-
ing the rope to a height of ten inches, adding a restraining
line three feet behind the short service line* and enlarging
3@
the scoping area to include both courts (Appendix H). flit
fifth test was another modification ©f the French Test, fht
scoring area was enlarged to include both courts and tht
Instructor assumed a receiving position# Any shuttle served
high enough to be smashed was smashed by tht receiver
{Appendix J)#
The sixth test was a proposed wall test with the grid
lengthened to include the area above the net through which
the shuttle must pas# t© go into both the right and left
service court (Appendix L). The seventh test was the
lengthened wall test with a restraining line marked three
feet behind the short service line (Appendix !)» The eighth
test was the lengthened wall test with the height of the grid
lowered to ten inches above the bottom line (Appendix P).
She ninth test was the lengthened wall te«t with the height
of the grid lowered to ten inches above the bottom line and
a restraining line marked three feet behind the short
service line (Appendix H).
fhe subjects for the second pilot study were twenty
college women enrolled in a beginning badminton class during
the first summer term of 196?. fhe tests were administered
during three consecutive class periods after the completion
of twelve hours of instruction# fhe subjects were placed
in groups and instructed to begin on different tests. The
order'of rotation around the tests continued until the nine
37
tests were completed. The number of trials was increased to
twenty trials from the right court and twenty trials from
the left court for each test# lo practice was allowed on
any of th© tests*
The raw scores of the subjects indicated that trials
should be given from both the right and left court. Bach
subject seemed to perform better on one court than the
other»
To determine the number of trials necessary for a
reliable test, the total of the first five triali from the
right court on a modified French lest (Appendix C) and the
total of twenty trials were correlated. Herb* the total of
the first ten trials and the total of twenty trials were
correlated* Finally? th® total of fifteen trials were
correlated with the total of twenty trials* The same pro-
cedure was followed for th® left court. The data in Sable I
seemed to indicate that fifteen trials from each court
TABLE I
C0H1ILAT2QI OF THBEri SETS OF TRIALS WITH TOTAL TRIALS
SECOND PILOT STUDY
Court First 5 Trials
First 10 Trials
First 15 Trials
Sight Af .59 • 90
Left .70 •77 • 97
3$
would be sufficient j however, all subjects began each test
with twenty trials on the right court before taking twenty
trials on the left court* Sine# some learning seemed t®
be taking place during the right court serves, It was
decided that In a third pilot study the trial# would be
alternated from right to left court as in an actual game.
The proposed wall short serve test (Appendix L) wa®
administered .on® week following the first administration
©f the test* The reliability of the test was #52 as deter-
mined by th® test-retest method of ©orrelation.
the validity of the test# was determined by correlating
the scores of each test with the French Short Serve Test
scores* the reliability was determined by the split-half
method corrected by the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula.
The results of the second pilot study described in fable II
revealed the most reliable court tests were those with the
rope height at tea inches above the net# The two most
reliable wall tests were the tests with the grid height of
ten inches and of twenty inches • Both wall tests were per-
formed without the restraining line* The addition of the
three foot restraining line decreased the reliability of the
two other wall tests. The validity of each of the tests was
below the acceptable level. The wall short serve test with
the grid height of twenty inches was the most valid of the
eight tests administered*
39
TABLE II
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS SECOND PILOT STUDY
ft it
Modified French Short Serve test with three foot re-straining line*
2. Modified French Short Serve test with rope at ten inch height#
3. Modified French Short Serve test with ten inch rope and a three foot restraining line.
Modified Freneh Short Serve test with a reseller.
5. Wall ihort serve test, grid height twenty inches.
6. Wall short serve test, grid height twenty inehe®, three foot restraining line.
7. Wall short serve test, grid height ten Inches three foot restraining line#
8. Wall short serve test, grid height ten inches
Reliability Validity
35"
• +0
•3*f
,26
.58
.22
Ml
.22
Before eonducting a third pilot study, the erlterlon
test for the short serve was earefuiiy analysed. All of the
tests devised and administered in the second pilot study
were designed to meet the elements of a good short serve as
recommended by the majority of authors reviewed in Chapter
II, A cartful comparison of expert opinion, of a good short
serve with the French Short Serve Test seemed to reveal
discrepancies la the criterion test which would preclude
any acceptable level of validity. The criterion test was
©hanged In order to aeet all of the elements of good short
serve performance recommended by expert opinion. The test
to be used a® the criterion In the mx% pilot study was a
modification of th® French Test* The rope was lowered to a
height of tea lathes above the net. She target area was
enlarged to cover both the right and left courts* A re*
straining line was marked on both sides of the center line*
A receiver stood in position to wait the serve (Appendix T)«
Third Pilot Study
Site purposes of the third pilot study wer® to deter-
mine the number of trials necessary for beginning badminton
players when serves were alternated from the right and the
lift courtf and to determine the reliability of the cri-
terion test as devised from expert opinion. The tiat
refuired to administer each test to & subject was also re-
recorded*
Subjects for the third pilot study were twenty college
women enrolled in a beginning badminton class during the
second session of the summer* 1967. The subjects were
1*1
randomly plasod in flv# groups for testing* lash group
thoa bogfttt da any tost thoy solootod aad toatisiMii In a
Latia S«uaro rotation to oliainato ordor offsets* 8«oriag
vas doao by oas porsoa dosigaatod vithia oaoh group. Baoh
tott vat oxplaiaod ami domoastratod boforo tssting bogaa.
Written instructions voro alto available at all of ths
oourts and wall stations.
To dotormiao tho awbor of trials necessary for oaoh
tost* tho sax* toohalquo was usod that vas usod la tho
soooad pilot study* flu result® la fabl® XII »o#» to
tmm III
COJKHBLAXIOIf OF fHHEE SETS Of TRIALS WITH TOTAL TRIALS
fllBD PILOT STODT
SS»f" f Irit 5 Trials
First 10 Trials
"First 1J~ Trials
Mill " 1 *i$1 ' .55
ladioat* that flftooa trials from oaoh oourt woro suffioitat
for a roliablo toat. Alternating sorros from tho right aad
loft oourt soons to bo a roliablo sothod of toatiag short
sonr® performance.
Tho tosts wort selected ©a th® bast# of their relia-
bility duriag tho soeoad pilot study. la tho modified
French tost with a receiver, tho investigator was tho
receiver for all subjects. Any shuttle served so that it
went above th© pop# was smashed toy the receiver*
The reliability and validity ©f th# five tests pre-
sented in Table I? revealed that both th® modifications of
the French test and th# two proposed wall tests were worthy
TABLE IV
RELIABILITY AJfB VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS THIBD PILOT STUDY
Test Reliability • Validity1
Test 1* 'Modified French ' Short Serve test, rope height ten inches, three foot reatraining line* and & receiver
•n intern®^
Test 2* Modified French Short Serve test, rope ten inches#
*82 •36
Test 3* Modified French Short Serve test, rope ten inches, three foot restraining line#
.as
Test h* Proposed wall short serve test* grid height ten inches
.82 • 6^
Test Jf# Proposed wall short serve test, grid height ten inches, three foot restrainiriK line.
•73 .67
of inclusion in the final study. The reliability was deter-
mined by the split~hfilf method ©f correlation and corrected
with the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula. fhe results
appeared t© indicate that the criterion test was reliable
for the twenty subjects involved in the third pilot study*
The time required to administer the court test was
approximately three minutes per subject* Several factors
seemed to increase the amount of time involved in testing*
The length of time required to gather shuttle# and return
them to the server was one major factor# toother factor
was the length of time curing the flight of the shuttle
from the point of the serve to the point ©f contact with
the eourt* Is the teats without a restraining line* the
shuttle had to pass through a distance of thirteen feet*
In the tests with a restraining linet the shuttle had to
pass through a distance of sixteen feet* He-serves were
allowed ©n all trials in which the shuttle touched the rope
suspended above the »@t. The allowance of re-serves also
increased the time necessary to test a subject. The pro-
posed wall tests took approximately me mi one-half
minutes per subject. the construction ©f the wall tests was
sueh that the shuttles landed near the subject after serves
were completed, ae-terres were unnecessary because all
serves touching any line were good except for those hitting
the bottom horizontal line which were considered to be net
serves. fht tim® of flight of th® thuttl® was considerably
r®duo®d because of the nearness of the target to the
subject.
S®l®@ti@fi and D®»eriptlon of fists for Final Study
Th® selection ©f th® tests to be included la th® study
was bas«d on th® objectives of th® study, r®vl«w of liter-
ature, tad results of the three preliminary studies* flit
eriteria for the tests selected for the study w«r® that
th®y should bellik© th® gam® situation^ encourage good form*
involve on® perform® r$ provide for aeourat® moving $ and
provide a sufficient number of trials la relation to the
ability of ths performers (3f pp* 10-^2).
There were five tests selected t© b® administer«d at
the beginning and again at th® eoncluslen of tw®nty-on®
®la§s hours of ®xp®ria®ntation« Th® tests selected for
this study w®r®
Modified French fast #1 (Appendix T) with th® rope ten
inches above th® n®t, a three foot restraining line, and a
receiver, fh® investigator aeted &# a reeelver throughout
th# testing program for all subjects. fh® smbjeet was la-
struet®d to remain behind the thr»® foot restraining line*
Subjects w®r® allowed thirty trials beginning with a serve
from th® right oourt and alternating fro® th® right and
l«ft eourtt until completing thirty trials# The soaring
BJtm was a i®rl«s of s«mi-ciral«s with th® midpoint at th#
intersection of the ©enter line and the short servio® 11a®
(figure k)« The first area was marked by a semicircle 22
inches from the midpoint. A shuttle touching the area be-
tween th® 22t inch line and the short serve lis® • scored fir#
points * !Fhe second, semicircle was marked 30 inches from
the midpoint. A shuttle touching between the 30 inch line
mat th# inch line scored four points, th® third semi-
circle was marked fey * line 3@ iaefeet from th© midpoint.
A shuttle touching th® area between the 38 ineh lino and
th® 30 inch line scored thr«« points. Th® fourth semi-
circle was mailed *+€ inches from th® midpoint. A shuttle
if % 1Z3HS 5 HJE 1
figmr® k—Scoring area§ court test®
touching th# area between th® h6 ineh lino and th® 38 inch
lint scored two points* A shuttle touching any other area
within the service court was scored as one point. Any
shuttle going above the rope suspended above th© net was
seortd as zero* Any ihmttle landing 0s a scoring area di-
viding 11a# received th® acore of the higher area. Any
shuttle hitting the suspended rope was re~served*
Modified French lest #2 (Appendix ?) had a rope sus-
pended from net post to nit post at a height of 10 inches
above th<§ net* The numbsr of trials allowed as well as the
method for teorlag wire described In the dissuasion of the
Modified French fest #!• fh@ subjeot began In th® right
court and continued by alternating serves from. the right
and left courts until completing thirty trial* t
Modified French Test #3 (Appendix H) had a rope ap-
pended 10 l&ehes above the net* A restraining line was
marked three feet behind and parallel to th® short servioe
line* Subjects were instructed to remain behind the re-
straining line while serving* Servi# were alternated from
th® right and left courts until completion of thirty trials,
fh# scoring method was described In th# discussion of the
Modified French feat #1.
Proposed Wall feat #1 (Appendix P) had a wall grid
height of 10 lushes* Subjects were instructed to stand
anywhere behind the short service line and to serve to th®
diagonally opposite wall grid# Serve# were alternated froa
the right and left courte until thirty trial® were «©»-
pitted* Th© scores were recorded as five, two» or three
kB
(Figure 5)* Any serve touching the area A between the out*
side vertieal line and. the second vertical line was seoret
%
3 2 5 5 2 Figured—Scoring areaf wall tents
as three points# Any serve touching area B between the
second vertical line and the third vertical line vat scored
a* two points, lay serve touching area G between the third
and fifth vertical lines was seared as five points. Any
serve touching a line received the score of the higher area.
The two middle storing areas overlap 2 inchesj therefore,
a serve from either court touching this 2 inch area receives
five points. Mf serve which touches the bottom lin© ©f the
grid 1® scored a zero.
Proposed Wall Test #2 (Appendix 1) contained a re-
straining line 3 feet behind the short service line. 3ub~
Jeets were instructed to remain behind the restraining line
while serving# They were further instructed to begin by
serving alternately from the right and left courts until
thirty trials were completed, The grid size and scoring
method were described with Wall Test #1.
1+ §
Selection of Subjects
The sublets selected fop the study were 161 women
enrolled in beginning badminton classes at forth Texas
Stat# University during the Fall Semester, 1967« Two of
the women who began the study withdrew from th# University
before the post-teat vat administered. Their withdrawal
was not attributed to the study. Twenty women in beginning
badminton during the second session of th® summer term of
1967 war® also Included in a portion of th® study. For th#
experimental portion of the study, 65 subjects were desig-
nated as th® experimental group and 6? sublets wtrt
designated as th# control group*
College women w#r« selected for th® study because bad-
minton is more frequently included at th® college level
than at th® elementary or secondary level, The tost was
designed to measure the short serve performance of college
women*
Procedures in Test Administration
The tests were administered in the gymnasium where
©lasses regularly met for instruction. All of the testing
stations were prepared for testing prior to the adminis-
tration of the tests. The scoring areas for the three
modified French tests were marked on the courts prior to
the beginning of the testing program* In order for the
marks to be identical for all subjects in all five classes)
h9
the floor markings were mad® with, one-quarter inch red
plastic tap®. Scoring areas on both the courts and the
wall grids were marked with colored plastic tape.
Prior to the beginning of each class period, the net
height for th® three court tests was measured to insure
proper height# A nylon and cotton cord rope was secured
to the net posts on three courts and suspended ten inches
above th# top of th® net. Twenty new shuttlecocks were
placed on each court and twelve new shuttlecocks placed at
each wall station. A clipboard with typed instructions,
score sheets, and pencils was placed at each of five
test stations.
Upon completion of nine hours of instruction, the mod-
ified French tests and th© proposed wall tests were admin-
istered to all beginning classes. All of the subjects were
enrolled in one of the five sections of beginning badminton.
Subjects were uniformly dressed in the required costume of
green shorts, white blouses, tennis shoes, and socks.
Subjects were given complete instructions and demon-
strations of the tests. Opportunity for questions was
allowed. No practice trials were allowed on any of the
tests;? however regular class warm-ups were taken. All
tests were administered and scores were recorded by
members within each group. Upon completion of a test by
all members of a group, they rotated to the next test
50
station. This rotation procedure was followed until all of
the tests were completed. At the end of each day's testing
score sheets were collected and filed until the next
testing period.
Experimental Design
Upon completion of nine hour© of instruction, the
modified French tests and the proposed wall tests were
administered to five beginning badminton classes.
Three instructors taught the five badminton classes*
Two instructors taught two classes each and the third
instructor taught one class. The instructors with two
class®# each had both an experimental and a control
class. In an attempt to control the variable of time of
day) one experimental and one control class were desig-
nated in the morning| and one experimental and one control
class were designated in the afternoon*
Before testing began, subjects in each class were
asked to line up in any order and count off by fives. All
number ones were designated group one; twos, group two;
threes, group three} fours, group four? and fives, group
five# The size of each group within a class was dependent
upon class size. One person from each numbered group was
designated as the score caller for her group. Another per-
son in the numbered group recorded score® on the score
sheets as they were announced by the score caller# The
St
score callers were instructed to call the score for every-
one in their group throughout all of the tests. The score
callers were scored by a score caller fro® another numbered
group.
The rotation order for testing was that of a Latin
Square, to eliminate order effects. The test ordar was tie-
plained to the subjects prior to their being tested and
after they were randomly assigned to their numbered groups,
fable ? presents the rotation order followed by each num-
bered group in each class. The testing extended through
four class periods.
TABLE ?
HOTAfION 0BD1B
Group lest Test 1 Test Tesi" "Test" Group #1 SO
rrr. Jjf£vi r r. .#1. #f
1 1 2 3 k 5
2 2 3 l«j*- 5 1
3 3 if 5 1 2
k if ? 1 2 3
5 , „ , ,5 i 2 if
Upon completion of the pre-tests, the two experimental
classes were given practice on -the proposed wall short
serve test with a three foot restraining line every class
period for seven weeks. Four wall grids were placed on the
walls of the gymnasium and practice shuttlecocks were avail-
able at th© practice stations# Subjects
experimental classes were Instructed to practice on th,®
wall test for three minutes every class period. After each
practice session the subject made a cheek mark by her name
on the practice chart which was kept on the bulletin board
in th© gymnasium during the class period. If the subject
was absent and missed a practice time, she was instructed
to practice tw© separate practice periods the next time.
Mo one was allowed to practice more than twice in one class
period in an attempt to prevent any effect from massed
practice. The control group was prevented from practice
on the wall grids by placing gymnastic equipment in front
of the grids.
After practicing during twenty-one class hours, all
of the tests administered during the pretest were repeated
for the post-tests# Subjects were assigned to th® same
groups in the post-te®t as in the pretest, The order of
rotation was identical for the post-test as for the pre-
test. Score callers were the sane as in th® pretest. Each
test was explained and demonstrated for all classes prior
to th© post-test. The time necessary to administer all of
the tests was the same as for the pretest.
53
Treatment of Data
The tests selected for the final study wer© admin-
istered to 159 subjects prior to and upon conclusion of
twenty-one class hours of experimentation. Scores for
20 additional subjects from the third pilot study were in-
cluded in the validation of the wall, test. Data vara
recorded for 159 subjects who completed all of the tests
and these scores were used to determine test reliability.
The experimental portion of the study includes data for
132 subjects*
Statistical data were calculated through th® us© of
means| standard deviations, and j|~tests. Through the us®
of ja-t®si8j a comparison was made between th® first set of
scores and the second set of scores in order to determine
whether or not a difference between them occurred at the
5 percant level of confidence# Belationships between
tests were calculated by the Pearson Product-Moment Zero
Order method of correlation. Teat reliabilities were de-
termined by the odd-even method, using the Pearson Product-
Moment Zero Order method of correlation. Each coefficient
was stepped up by the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula.
$b
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. MeCloy, Charles H«, Mid Horma B. Yotmg, Tests and J& Health f t e W M M f t e l
New York, AppXeton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 3rd ed., 195^.
2* Scott, M* Gladys, "Achievement Examinations in Badminton," ^ w t ? 4 y > XII (May, 19^1)» 2b2-2$3.
3* Scott, M. Sladys, and Bsttor Fr®neh, ^ 1q £tes|c,q ideation, Dubtiqm#, Iowa,
W®. C. Brown CoV, 19#.
CHAPJBB I?
FINDINGS
An analysis and interpretation of the findings of the
study ,is:: presented to this chapter# The finding® were
determined by statistical treatment of the data* Calcu-
lations were completed by m IBM 1620 computer* Bela-
tionships between the criterion test and the proposed wall
tests were calculated by the Pearson Product-Moment Zero
order method of correlation, Test reliabilities were
determined by the odd-eren method,using Pearson's &» Reli-
ability coefficients were stepped up by the Spearman-Brown
Prophecy formula* Fisher' s j -test was used to deternlne
whether or not significant differences existed between$ (1)
mean® of tests with and without a restraining lines and (2)
mean# of pre-and post-tests of the experimental and the
control groups«
Validity and Heliabillty Hesuits
Pearson Product-Moment correlations were computed to
determine the relationship between the criterion test and
the other tests# The correlation matrix is presented in
fable ?I« The results repealed that all of the tests were
statistically significant.
55
56
TABLE VI
CORRSLASIOI MATRIX OF THE BADMINTON SHOfS SBHTB PRE-TBSTS (1*179)
Variables " test
I fe#t II H I IV
' f©ft V
fast 1$ Modified French test with & reoeiver
.623* .MOV*
Test H i Modified French test-no . restraining line
.6X7* .hlS*
Test Ills Modified Freneh test with a restraining line
.^30* •kl6*
Test IV t Proposed Walltest-no restraining line
.600*
Test Vt Proposed T a f test with a
restraining line
•Significant at th® 5 per oant lerel of eoafidenoe.
The reliability of eaoh test was determined by the
odd-eren method using the Pearson Product-Moment Zero-order
method of correlation and adjusting each ooefflolent by the
Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula. Th® reliability coef-
ficient# and th® Spearman-Brown adjustments &re in Table
VII. The results indicate that the tests were highly reli-
able in the pre-test administration with the exception of
57
TABLE VII
RELIABILITY OF BADMINTOK SHOUT SSIm TESTS*
Variable Pearson Produot Moment Corre-lation
Spe arsaan-Brown Prophecy Formula Adjustments for the Sum of 30
trial*
predioted r
Pro-test 1» Modified French test-vith
. a reee&rer Test Jii Modified French test-no restraining line
Teat III» Modified French t®st-with a restraining line
Teat IYi Proposed Walltest-no restraining line
Tent ft Proposed Wall test-with & restraining line
Post-test Teat It Modified French test-vith a J*#©#!1?#?
Tast fit Modified French test-no restraining line
tmI Hit Modified French teet-vith & restraining line
Test ly.i Proposed Wall test-no restraining line
Test V» Proposed Veil test-with a restraining line
.570
.392
•700
•663
.6l>f
•75»f
S76
•762
.662
• 823
,797
•859
•897
.859
• 9**5
•93^
58
Tests XX and 1X1* All five t«fts v«» highly reliable in
the post~test administration. The self»oorrelation of the
half-tests is adjusted to the total of thirty trials to in-
crease the test to the original mnber of trials#
Restraining Line
fht m m w and standard deviations of the experimental
and control groups on the pre-tests are shown in Table VIII.
The differences between the neans on the test soores with ?nd
without a restraining line are included in Table ?XXX*
TABLE fill
msmmmci camms m with mo wmmm x m m m m m l i k e
J ' ' t t a 8e straining
Lino
.itaout a Usttraining
Line Differ-ence
i
W$m 31T~ W$m IS"'
Cajanet Testes Control 8xp«rlmMital
9*09 9*32 10.1*2
19*21 15.37
16*38 17*09
10*12 6.05
6*^3* K$l*
Wall Testsi 'Control Experimental
30.82 29.63
1U-.59 i iM
18.5^ 39*3®
17*65 16.**0
7*72 9.75
k*00+ y#oa*
•Significant at the $ percent level of confidence*
The results revealed that there vere significant differences
between the tests with and without a restraining line*
TABLE IX
MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS 01 PHI AND POST-TESTS
5:9
Control (H«65)
Dlfft enee Variable
Experimental (N«67)
Ma an SD Mean I SD
r - 1
Pre-tests Test I-Modified French test with a reetiver Test H-Modi-fied French test no restraining line
jfciJL"*Modi-fied French test with restraining line
XY-Proposed Wall test-no-re straining line SMI I-Fropos«d vail test-vith restraining line
Post-Testi Test -Modified French test with a receiver
MM-Modi-French test
no restraining line Ifst m-Modi-fied French test with restraining line Teft IV-Proposed Wall test-no- re-straining line
Mi-Proposed test-vith
restraining line
9.1?
17.09
9.32
39.38
29.63
17.31
26.86
17.5^
52.58
38,80
11.86
15.37
10. if 2
16. WO
13 A2
18.27
17 A l
13.71
20.88
15.51
8.37
19.21
9.09
38.5^
30.82
12 #76
23.12
17.36
51.^3
37.19
11.08
16.28
9 A 8
17.65
1^.59
12.61
15.5^
13.30
20.70
16.5^
.80
2.12
.23
Sk
1.19
M 5
3.7^
18
1.15
1.61
,ko
.76
>13
,28
.^8
1.66
1.29
,08
• 32
57
6£>
Practice Effects
la T&blt XX, the »*anu and standard deviation* of the
experimental and control groups on the pre and post-tests
are shorn a® well as the result® obtained from the teat of
significance of difference between a»«R®. 1© significant
differences were found between the groups on the pre-tests
nor between the groups on the post-tests after experi-
mentation*
fable 1 presents the changes by the control group on
th# modified French tests and the proposed wall tests# Th®
TABLE X
MS AN CHANGES AMONG SXOT-FIVi COLLKOK WOMEN PARTICIPATING IN BADMINTON CLASSES
(CONTBOL GBOUP)
Variables
|-kodlfied mch test with
a receiver Test n-ltodi-fiii French test no restraining line Test Ill-Modi-fled French test line
M IV-Proposed test-no re-
straining line ill i-Proposed
test-wlth
Pre-test
"T ean """""SU
T f
19.21
9.09
38.5^
30.82
OT
16.38
9.^8
17.65
lh.59
Post-test
li.fi
23.12
17.3^
51. *6
3 7 . 1 9
SD
I O T
15.5V
13 .30
20*70
1 6 . 5 V
Differ-ence
3.91
8.27
12.89
6.37
i
1.96"
6.72*
V.91*
2.97*
restraining line
•Significant at the 5 per cent level of con:
61
results rowoal that thoro m m statiatioally sigslfieant
gain* by th® control group on all t#«ti with tho oxooptioa
of tho oodifiod Fronch tost without n restraining lin®.
Tablo II presents tho ohangos by ths o*pori*ontal
group on tho aodifiod fronoh toft* and proposed wall toats.
f A M SI
msas ghahhui mm mwmm mm mmxexmm m pjkscjobrd mcxxci
(SmaSMOffAL OHOTJP)
"?0f!- #ist» ence
» U W : ; M W I I W W W M »
variables Pro~tosis
Moan — —
26*86
$t*58
38.80
WW
17 M
13.71
20.88
1J.*1
w
9*77
§.22
13*20
f.17
JHR*
*.62*
5.03'
*•89*
_ , r o r ~ _ _ raeh test with a reooiirer Test li-lteii-flSl fre&iih tost 30 restraining lino Ii«t Ill-Modi* fiod Froooh tost with restraining line fait -.Proposed wall tost m re-straining Xiao fast T-Propoatd ffl tost with restraining lino
17.09
9*32
39*38
29.63
TT,
15.17
10 .*2
16.H0
13.*2
•Significant at the 5 por sent lorol of ooafidenoe.
Th@ £ yiklm® shorn* in Table XI that thoro trtr#
slgnifieaat ineroasos in the scores on all of ths tosts by
the experimental group.
62
Tests of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 stated that the time correlation of the
subject's performance on the modifications of the French
tests and. the proposed wall tests would he zero. Since the
correlation coefficients shown in Table VI were all statis-
tically significant at the 5 percent level of confidence,
hypothesis 1 was rejected.
Hypothesis 2 stated that there would he no significant
difference in the subjects' performance on the tests with
and without a restraining line. An analysis of increases
in all five tests was statistically significant; therefore,
hypothesis 2 was rejected.
Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be no significant
difference in the means of the experimental and control
groups on the post-tests after the experimental group
practiced on a motor task. The results presented in Table
IX were not statistically significant. Hypothesis 3 was
accepted.
Discussion of Findings
Validity.—The validity coefficients of A O and
for the proposed wall short serve tests are low for confi-
dence, although the tests did indicate a higher validity in
the third pilot study when the £ was .6^ and .67* There
appear to be several possible reasons for the low validity
of the wall tests. The presence of the receiver in the
63
criterion test may hair© introduced a factor that was not
present in either of the wall tests; however, this does not
appear to be the primary reason for the correlation of the
wall tests with the two other court tests is equally low*
Another possible reason for the low validity of the
tests may he found in the skill level of the subjects. The
subjects in the study were beginners with only nine hours
of instruction prior to testing# Low validity coefficients
are produced in studios concerned with test construction
using beginners as subjects• In a study by Scott (7),
the French Short Serve test was administered to 1^9 beginners
and ?2 advanced players. The correlations between the
serve test and subjective ratings were .**3 tor beginners
and »70 tor the advanced players. Using the same short
serve test as a part of a battery of tests, French and
Stalter (2) administered the tests to 59 beginners» She
correlation between the criterion of the subjective rating
of playing ability and the serve score was «**1. In the
Broer-Miller study (l)t the validity coefficient for be-
ginners was »61 when correlated with subjective ratings,
fhe test appeared to be more valid for the intermediate
players for the correlation coefficient was .35. Although
the use of more highly skilled players appears to yield
higher validity coefficients, skill tests are not only
necessary for beginners, they are helpful as a method of
6lf
motivating students. Consequently, tests developed fop
beginners should be validated with beginners.
One other possible reason for the low validity may lie
in the errors of measurement. Ouilford (**, j>» 86) states
that when two tests are correlated and the errors of meas-
urement %r@ meorrelatedj the correlation coefficient is
lowered, to find what the coefficient would, he if there
were no measurement error®, there is a formula for cor-
rection* When the formula is applied the coefficient of the
proposed wall test without a restraining line li cor-
rected fro® »**0 to #51* ^he coefficient of the proposed
wall test with the restraining line is corrected fro® «V3
to «56* fh® correction does increase the validity coef-
ficients to & more substantial level*
The primary reason for th# low validity coefficients
of the wall tests may he found in Guilford's statement that
to make a single test reliable and valid say he impossible
because the two aims are inconsistent 0t>f pp. Ml©-2)» He
explains his statement by saying that high reliability
requires items of equal difficulty for high intercorre-
lation, and high validity requires items of differing
degrees of difficulty and low lntercorrel&tlons• He sug-
gests that the solution for the different purposes of
reliability and validity is in the use of a battery of
tests rather than a single test# fh® primary concern for
65
each single test would then be with attaining high reli-
ability; the primary concern of the battery would be with
attaining high validity. It would appear that since the
wall short serve test is a single item test, it should be
included in a battary of tests to improve the validity.
The wall testd nay be considered to have content va-
lidity since they do have the various components found
necessary by expert opinion for skillful short serve per-
formance as previously discussed in Chapter II.
leliabllitv»—The reliability coefficients of the wall
tests were .82 for the test without a restraining line and
.80 for the test with a restraining line during the pre-
test administration. The reliability was increased on all
of the tests in the post-test administration. Possibly the
increase in reliability may be explained by th® increase in
skill of the subjects| because the performance of beginners
is usually less reliable than the performance of more ex-
perienced players (6, p. 255•
Effect of & restr.ain.ing line.—The addition of a re-
straining line on th® court test and on the wall test
resulted in significant differences between the means for
both the experimental and control groups. The differences
may be related to the visual acuity of the subjects.
McCloy (5> p. 236) suggests that several factors are in-*
volved when an object is closer than twenty feet. These
66
factors ax© "eye accomraodation," "convergence,H and
"stereoscopic influence of dissimilar images" (5, p« 23?).
The restraining line for the wall test as well as for the
court test was marked 3 feet behind and parallel to the
short service line* The addition of the restraining line
on the court test increased the distance between the server
and the target from 13 to 16 feet* fhe addition of a re-
straining line to the wall test increased the distance from
6£ to 9i feet* The inability of a subject to adjust visually
to the increased distance from the target by the addition
of a restraining line may account for the differences.
Depth perception may explain the results reported in
fable VI, fhe correlations between the wall tests and the
court tests were between >k0 and .Mf. Since the distance
involved in a wall test was feet, and in a court test
the distance was 16 feet, the degree of visual acuity
necessary for accuracy was increased.
It is interesting to note that in Table VII, test
reliabilities appear to be altered slightly between the
tests with a restraining line and those without a re-
straining line* Tests II and I? during the pre-tests,
as well as the post-tests, have a slightly higher reliability
coefficient than Tests III and V. Since the reliability
was computed in terms of Internal consistency, It appears
that the addition of a restraining line caused a variation
67
in the internal consistently of the tests. On the other
hand* the validity coefficients were increased by the
addition of a restraining line as shown in Table ?I#
falfitfe MXaflfcl*--3ince the experimental group after
wall practice revealed no significant gain over the control
group on the post-tests, wall practice cannot he said to
hare improved court teat performance« An examination of
teveral factors involved may explain the findings. There
was no attempt to liait the amount of practise or play
of the control group so that is was possible for them to
work on improving their short serve skill during practice
drills and class tournaments* Although they were repeat-
edly cautioned to practice for the entire three minutes,
it was possible for the experimental group to show o. vide ,
variance in the quality of practice. It was not possible
to control these variables because of the class organ-
isation*
Both groups shewed improvement on the post-tests.
The control group failed to improve significantly on the
modified French test without a restraining line although
they improved significantly on four of the tests • The
experimental group improved significantly on five tests.
It is possible that regular classwork Improves court test
performance proportionately as well as wall test practice*
68
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Broer, Marion H., and Donna Mas Millerj "Achievement tests tor Beginning and Intermediate Tennis," Research Quarterly. XXI (October, 1950)* 303-321.
2. French, Esther, and Evelyn Stalter, "Study of Skill Tests in Badminton for College Women," Research Quarterly. XX (October, 1 9 W , 257-272,
3. Garrett.. Henry E., M EwrffftPlffJOt; M M Education. New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 6th ed*, 1966.
b. Guilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York, McGraw-Hill Book, Co., **th ed., 1965*
5. McCloy, Charles H., and Norma Young, Testa and Measure-SaabM. M Health and Pfty^cal jj&BfigUfiib York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 3rd ed., 195 »
6. Scott, M. Gladys, and Esther French, Measurement and Evaluation In Physical Education. Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Co.,1959• '
7. Scott, M. Gladys, Aileen Carpenter, Esther French, and Louise Kuhl, "Achievement Examinations in Badminton,"
Quarterly. XII (May, 19^1), 2^2-253.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AID BSC0HMENMTX09S
This chapter presents a summary of th® problem, aa
analysis of the results, conclusions based 011 the results,
and recommendations •
This study was designed to validate a wall type short
serve test and to determine the effect of wall test prac-
tice on eourt test performance. Three modifications of the
French 8hort Serve test were used to validate the two pro-
posed wall tasts*
Data were collected from 179 subjects to determine
test validity and from 159 subjects to determine test reli-
ability* Two groups war® designated as experimental and
control groups and scores were collected during two admin-
istrations of the five short serve tests* The experimental
group was given three minutes to practice on a proposed
wall test for twenty-oa® class hours* The experimental
portion of the study began after completion of the pre-tests
and continued for twenty-one class hows.
In general* the hypotheses were that the true corre-
lation among the modified French Short Serve test® and the
proposed wall tests would be zsro, that there would be no
significant difference between the subjects' performance
69
70
on the test® with and without the restraining line, and
that there would be no significant differences between the
means of the experimental and. control groups on the post-
tests after practice on a motor task*
The data were analyzed statistically, with all compu-
tations completed by the IBM 1620 computer. Pearson's j*
and Fisher's £*taat of significance were the statistical
techniques utilized, The result® revealed that while the
validity of the test was low, reliability was high* The
results indicated that there was a statistically signi-
ficant difference between the means on the tests with and
without the restraining line. The result® indicated that
practice on the wall test by the experimental group did not
significantly improve their court test performance#
Based on the results of this study, the following
conclusions appear to be Justified:
1. The two proposed wall tests indicate low validity
and high reliability.
2. The results of the tests with a restraining line
were significantly lower than on the teste without a re-
straining line.
3* Practice on the wall test by the experimental
group did not significantly improve their court test
performance.
71
The following recommendations are presented as a result
of this study:
1. A wall short serve test may fee useful in situations
where there is limited space for testing badminton.
2. Wall test practice stations may he useful as a
method of providing activity for students who are not par-
ticipating in a gam© situation.
3. Combining the wall short serve test with other
badminton wall tests may provide a useful battery of bad-
minton tests suitable for administering in areas other
than the gymnasium such as In a class room* locker room,
or hall.
k* A wall short serve test should be included as a
part of a battery of wall tests rather than separately if
it is to be used to predict badminton playing ability
accurately.
5. Alternating serves from the right and left courts
appears to be worthy of consideration when measuring
serving ability in badminton.
6. The effect of wall practice on court performance
appears to be worthy of further study.
72
APPE8DIX A
French Short Serve Te*t
Thl* teat is ill® ihort tew® te«t devised toy French,
mid firet published In the jtfffimfi fiHMfrllta ia M»y»
19 1?
1 I
1 1 1
1 1 1 \
1 1
20*
M. Qledy* Scott, Aileen C&rpe&ter, Isthar Frenoh* end kouise Kuhl, %iehiw#s®Et Examinations in Badminton," jfcMBMJMft 5bMUdfettiLX> X K (U&Wt pp. 2^2-253 •
73
APPENDIX B
Instructions to Subject*
First Pilot Study
Stand in tli® right service court and star?® the shuttle-
cock toward the target diagonally opposite la such a manner
that it wiH hit within the target area* Any shuttle that
lands on a line will score the higher value. The target is
marked with the value of each area, k shuttle that fails
to hit vithin the target boundaries receives no score. The
serve must b@ a legal serve# Twenty trials are allowed. A
swing and a miss does not corat as a trial unless the
racket contacts the shuttle.
7h
A?miDU c
Modified French T«st
This t«»t is a modification of th» standardized French
Short Serve test# The target v&* enlarged to include
both the right and left courts• The subject v&s directed
to st*md mywtmr® within the proper serve court *nd 8trv«
tventy trials to the right court and change oourts in order
to serre tventy trials to the left court*
20"
75
APFEHDEv D
Modified French Test
This t@it Is a modified version of the French Short
Serve test* the target area was increased to include both
the right and left courts so that the nusber of trials was
increased to twenty trials from the right court and twenty
trials from the left court. A three foot restraining line
was marked parallel to the short serve line* The subject
was directed to stand behind tfas retraining line while
serving.
76
APPENDIX I
Instructions to Subjects
Modified French Test
Stand anywhere b©hind the restraining line beginning
in the right service court* After completing twenty trial®
fro® the right court* acre to the left court and complete
twenty trials# Serve the shuttlecock across the net and to
the court diagonally opposite in such & manner that it will
pass feetveen the rope and the net» and land m the target
area.
fhe score® are Barked for each area fo the target#
Any shuttle first hitting a line dividing two areas counts
the higher store# Any shuttle that goes over the rope la
scored as a sero* If the shuttle hits the rope, the trial
will he repeated. The mrv% must be & legal serve#
Are there any questions?
77
APPENDIX F
Modified French Test
This test is a modified version of the Freneh Short
Serve test* Th«' target area was iaer#anad to include both
til# right and left court® so that the number of trials was
increased to twenty trials from the right court and twenty
trials from the l*ft court. The rope suspended eve© the
net wm lov*r#4 to ten inches.
JL i
10"
78
AP3HDIX 0
Instructions fop Sublets
Modified French Test
Stand anywhere in the right service court and serve
twenty trials. After completing twenty trials from the
right court, move to the left service eowt and couplet©
twenty trial#. Serve the shuttle across the net and to th©
court diagonally opposite In such a manner that It will
pas® between the mt and the rope, and land on the target
area*
Scores are marked for each area of the target. Any
serve first hitting a line dividing two area® ©cants the
higher score* Any shuttle that goes over the rope 1®
scortd as a zero# If a shuttle hits the rope, the trial
will he repeated* The u r n smst be a legal serve.
Are there any questions'?
79
APPENDIX H
Modified French Test
This test is a modified version of the French Short
Serr# test. Th« target area was Increased to tnclud® both
the right and left courts so that the number of trial® was
Increased to twenty trials from the right court and twenty
trials from the left court# fh® rope was suspended atoore
the net at a height of ten Inches. A restraining line was
marked three feet behind and parallel to the short serve
line •
to*
80
APPENDIX I
Instructions for Subjects Modified French Test
Stand behind the restraining line in the right ser-
vice court and s®rv® twenty trial®. After completing
twenty trials from the right courtt more to the left ser-
vie® court and complete tventy trials• Serre the shuttle
across the net and to the court diagonally opposite in
such a manner that the shuttle will pass between the net
and the rope, and land on the target area*
Scores are marked for each area of the target* Any
serre first hitting a line dividing two areas counts the
higher score* Any shuttle that goes over the rope is
scored as a aero. If a shuttle hits the rope* the trial
will he repeated* The «enr« mast he a legal
Are there any questions?
81
APPENDIX J
Modified French Test
fills test i® a modified version of the French Short
Serve test. The court markings are enlarged by continuing
th® marking procedure Into th© left service court. A
receiver wait® in the proper service court in order to
attempt to smash my serves which go over the ropt#
1 1 I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
=5sX
I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
M -o<
1 1
20"
X - receiver
82
APPBIDIX K
Modified French fest
Stand anywhere In the right service court and serve
twenty trials# After completing twenty trials from the
right court» SOT® to the left service court and complete
twenty trials. Serve the shuttle across the net and to
the court diagonally opposite in such a manner that it
will pass between the net and the rope» and land on the
target area. The receiver will smash any serves high
enough for her to smash*
Scores are marked for each area of the target. Any
serve first hitting a line dividing two areas counts the
higher score. Any shuttle that goes over the rope is
scored as a »ro* If a shuttle hits the rope, the trial
will be repeated* The serve must b® a legal serve*
Are there any questions?
83
APPENDIX L
Proposed Wall Test
fills t«st Is st proposed wall short t«rr« tost* The
target arsa corresponds to th# srsa. of #pae« between the
rope suspended twenty inches abova the net and the top of
the net to th« French Short Serve Test.
it" Ma" \a"
z 1 H H m 3 2 5 5 2 *
i v -y-J v"" V"""* \Z* MZ" 18*»
• 5'
/(,%"
8^
APPENDIX IS
Proposed tf&ll Test
Stand anywhere within the boundaries of the proper
serving court. Begin with twenty serves fro® the right
court to the wall grid diagonally opposite. Upon com-
pletion of twenty trials from the right court, more to
the left court and serve twenty trials to the wall grid
diagonally opposite. Serve the shuttle toward the wall
grid diagonally opposite in such a manner that it will
hit within the boundaries of the target. The grid is
marked with the value of a&eh urea, lay shuttle touching
the bottom line r@c®ivas & scora of aero. Any shuttle
touching any other line on the proper side of the wall
grid receive® the higher score. A shuttle that does not
hit within the proper side of the grid boundary receives
a soore of 2#ro. She servt must be a legal serve.
Are there any questions?
85
APPENDIX I
Proposed Wall Test
This test is a proposed wall short serr® test* A
restraining line has been marked three feet behind and
parallel to the short service line. The subject is
directed to stand behind the restraining line while being
tested#
if* \2" «•
z 1 H H 1 z 3 2 5 5 e z
5'
j, 10" } 10"
.86
APPENDIX 0
Instruction# for Sublets
Stand behind the restraining line beginning with twenty
trials from the right service court# After completing all
twenty trials from the right court, move to the left court
and complete twenty trial*. Serve the shuttle toward the
wall grid diagonally opposite in such a manner that it will
hit between the boundaries of the target area. Th# wall
grid is marked with the value of each area* toy shuttle
touching the bottom line receives a score of zero. Any
shuttle touching any other line in the proper sida of the
wall grid receives the higher score• A shuttle that does
not hit within the proper side of the grid boundary
receives a score of zero. The serve must be a legal serve.
Are there any questions?
8?
APPENDIX P
Proposed Mall Ta®t
This t®#t is a proposed vail short sarv® test. The
target height is i®n inehos* The suhjeet is directed to
stand &nywh@ra within the proper »®rwim court.
12" 12" 1«"
h i ;
i
i 5'
I
10"
/ / LX"
APPENDIX Q
Instructions for Subjects
Stand anywhere within the boundaries of the proper
serving court* Begin with twenty serves from the right
court to the wall grid diagonally opposite. fhe next
twenty trials will to® from the left court to the wall
target diagonally opposite. Serve the shuttle toward the
wall grid diagonally opposite in such a manner that it
will hit between th# target boundaries. The grid is
marked with the value of each area. Any shuttle touching
the bottom line receives a score of zero. Any shuttle
touching any other line in the proper side of the wall
grid receives the higher score. A shuttle that does not
hit within the proper side of the grid boundary receives
a score of zero. The serve must be a legal serve.
Are there any questions?
89
APPENDIX 1
Proposed Wall T®st
This t@st is a proposed wall short s«rve test. Th«
target 1b tan Inch&s high* A restraining lint has been
marked three f##t bshind and parallel to the short service
line. The sublet is dir<§et®d to stand behind th«
rtstraining line vhil© b@ing tested*
131 z M M z I 3 ll io" I 12* HZ' 19"
90
APPENDIX S
Instructions for Sublets
Stand h®hiad th® r®straining 1*»® beginning in the
right atrrlot eourt• Upon th® oonipl®tioa of tv®aty trials
from th@ right s®nrie® court» m m ® to th® l®ft »®rsrle#
court and eoiipl®t# tv®aty trials# S«rv® th® shuttl® tov&rd
th® vail grid diagonally opposit® in such a mann«r that it
will hit b®tv®®n th@ grid boundaries, th® vail grid is
marksd. vith th® value of «aoh area. lay shuttle touching
th® bottom li&@ r«c®iT®s a scora of zero. Any shuttl®
touching any other lin® in th# prop®r aid® of th® wall grid
rtotiv®' th® higher scor®• A shuttl® that do®® not hit
within th® prop®r sid® of th# grid boundary r«c®iv«s & store
of «®ro# th® §®rwi atust b® a l«gal s«rm*
' Are th®r® any questions?
91
APPENDIX T
Modified French Test
fhl# test is a modified version of th© French Short
Serve Test* The target area was increased to include both
the right and left aourts. The rope susptadei above the
net was lowered to * height of tea inches. A three foot
restraining line was marked parallel to the short terve
line. A receiver await# any serve high enough to be
returned with a smash.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
If 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
^ X
i
to"
X- receiver
APPEHDIX U
Experimental Group Saw Score®
92
S
Modified Frtneh Test
Modified French Test #2
Modified French Test #3
Wall Test
Wall Test #5
Pre Pmt Pr® Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1 2
i 5 6
9 10 11 12
11 15 16 V, 1' 19 20 21 22
25
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
10 10 if 0 12 13 6
k$ 0
27 1
10 k 0 0 0
12 0 I 5 o 7 5 12 18
0 0 8 5 12 0 0 0
5 7
20 1
22 23
5 75 16 29 6 6
31 8 0 21 26 0 6
13 27 26 0 0
29 32 11 4# 10 6 0
17 6 16 21 W
26 if
35 0
36 11 15 12 0
2
12
20 10
k 32 0 f
26 23
0 0 21 18 20 20
11 31 13 6
70 1** hi 15 29 10 11 12 %1
31 37 39 23 20 2k 18 31 0 10 31 22 19 19 17 0
21 0
30 2 0
23 11 8 0
23 2 1 12 0 0 0 5 0 2 9 o
15 20 1 3:
0 0 3 12 19 0
15 o
i
5 0
28 15
61 0
27 ?
15 3 3 5 3 9 0
15 2 0
20 26 33 12 0 12 10 *+3 22 1-5 21" ?
28 12 35 32
57 30 55 W 57 37
30 26 20 Ik
3 sfc ^5 23 37 2k 3^ 70 h9 27 32 17 30
62 kl 30 k2
30 92 kf 68 3^ 23 51 56 29 ^5 29 k2 71 26 82 32 1*0 b5
103 22 38 66 kf 51 22 kl 51
3 | 38 33 30 Ik
13 81 29 55 37 32 32 35 30 10 23
5 if
29 21
ik
i
25 32 20 29 k$
50 13 26 3^ 18 27 36 86 W0 56 32
If9 36 16
36 56 38 31
Ik 57 *h 18 31 16 23 39
93
Modlfl«d French t««t #1
M©dlft#& Fr@neh T«ft #2
Modified French f#st #3
Wall T«i
Mall T«»t
Pra Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
3*» 35 36
i*l **2 & T T
¥9 50 51 52
5* 55 56
59 60 61 62
s 65
17 0 0
13 0 2fr 0 5 0
23 10 15 0 1
20 kf m 0
39 0
37 0 8 21 15 o o if 0 0 0
31
30 5 5 3 0
26 56 67 53 27
I 10 0
0 0 5 3 6 3^ 31 10
0 0
22 0
20
11 0 11 13 23 0 6 0
2 mm
18 k$%
it 6-2 i|»0 60 23 3© 15 17 1 10 kl 6 10 0 0 5 16 k
27
57 35 50 8 **5 25 9
57
37 II 53 7
76 13 **6 0
26 29 26 **2 32 3^ 6
15
1 Is# 4 12
11 0 0 0 0
16 0
I 5 12
18
28 k U 0
Ik 12
5 0 0 a o
13
hi 1 2:
2k 16 29 25 27 M5 17 29
5 22 3 I
25 15' 13 0
29 20 kl k9 31 *s % X3 32 t II 23 7
22
31 11 26 25 23 37 32
2:
33
32 32 •<*#
*3* *N 27 30 20 50 33 66 27 37 16 18 32 21 23 27 16
67 3j
26 32 50 51 59 55 20 63
19 61 37 53 20 38 28 36 37 53
52 2 6
APPEHDIX ¥
Control Group Haw 3 m m &
9b
S
Modified fmmh test #1
Modified Frtnota Test
Modified French Teat #3
Wall U»t
Wall Tot
#5 Pre Post Pre Post Pr® Post Pre Post Pr® Pott
1 2
I 5 6
9 10 11 12
h 15 16 1 1 19 20 21 22
21
25 26
29 30 31 32 33
0 0
13 5
1 5 0 2 5 0 1 0 0
27 0 0 b
52 18 2 0 ¥ 0 12 0 5 2 0 0 21 25 0
0 12 22 11 38 9
17 1 6 5
1? 5 o 0
27 0 S3 13
$ 8 21 30 10 0
ll 2 10 0 0
22 10 12
2 25 22 15 A 25 31 |
26 0 15 10 0
50
3^ 10 S3 18 35 19 2 18 8 1
17 13 0
28 18 23
6 ik 7 5 1 21 18 23 11 25 ^3
lb 27 9 2*+ 13 21 13 19
2 36 16 3^
0 3 0
15 lb 33
2 0 9 ]+ 0 11 0 0 *f0 10 0 7
33 15 1 1:
o 2 0 6 0 16 9 0
18 3^ 1^
5 23 15 14
1*9
1 K 10 6
IN-0 0 18 50 10 15 9
29 28 21 30 2
lb 3
29 19 16 11 10
20 0
65
i
31
21 0 3^ lb 0 •9
26 26
50 b2 bl 26 16 75 0 l»
71 39 32
6' 60 32
bi 31 bo 83 55 26 32 13 33 30 35 29 * 9
50 57 71 52
% 56 8 17 39 % b6 3j+ t* 5b 51
19 32 19 36 30 26 22 20
5 21 2b bO 26
18 6*» 61 51 28 0
28 23 0
33 39 12 26 39 51 22
6 26 22 39 52 50 33 29 28 32 16 7
If bf 50 23 bl 38 be 37 22 29 25 8
22 29 bb 30 Ik 60 57 31
95
s
Modified French Ttst #1
Pr® Post
Modified French Teft #2
Pre Post
Modified French Test #3
Pre Post
Wall Test
Pr© Post Pre
Wall Test #5
Post
3^ 35 36
11
n ki k2
u
hi k& 1+9 50 51 52 % 55 26
S 58 59 60 61 62
I 65 66 67
0 0
W3 2
10 11 17
5 0 9 0 8 5
25 1
15 11 21 0
10
10 10
9 5 3
4 17 0 16 27 0
8 0
l*f 8 6
2!
6 0 9
17 6 0
b6 29 21 25 11
3 1 6
)U.k TT 12 11 17 0
8 23 0
35 11 3
5 2
32 11
6 28 27 36
0 10 2 1 18 29 **3 22 2*f 2*+
10 0 19
8 9
19
3 21 22 Ik 33 39 31
0
23 21 13 15
5 20
0 M»9
5 10 0
k7 1 lb 36 32 31
U 11 7
19 It" 2*i 55 25
25 21 18 0
0 2b 10 11 11
5 16
0 7 2 7
1 18 10
6 16
5 11 0
12 0
1 0
10 5
27 16
22
10
17 20 21 10 29 30 0
21 1 5
10 39 9
12 11 10 18
2 20 36 11
3 22
6 10 35
l
o *+3 19 3
£
29 29 56 61 69 **2 fT*T l*f 70 32 11
*+2 51* 19 1*9 28 22 25 55
8 35
11 75 65 39
8 **2 **6
39 23 31 9 53 61 56 62 58 S
7** 93 33 66
70 20 5N-95 62 18 69 21 62 k9 75 76
8
U
29 23
2 3
37 11%
32 1*6 28 21
2 25 33 21 60
8 28 38 2^ 7 1 17 3p 3^ 51 25 31
29 29 S2 t2
32 68 1*8 62 31 »+6 2 3 51+ 107 **3
5+0
K ^7 65 32 25 30
25 68 kO 62 35 30 &
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
American Association f o r Health, Physical Education, <*ua Recreation, M.MM££k MftlfeMl. M Ms2£ht B U l i M i MBilliaBt £M MmmtlM* Washington, D. C., American Association for Hea l th , Physical Education, and Recreation, 2nd ed., 1959*
B a r n e s , M i l d r e d J . , M a r g a r e t G. Fox, G l a d y s M« Scott, and P a u l i n e A. L o e f f l e r , fiMi, and Women* M®w York, Applet lon-Ckmtury-Crofts, 1960«
B r o e r , Mar lon R., JIlMftlg, M BHjWft ISSafiSli • » «»*•*«» A*, m delphia, M. B. Saunders Co<
Ghoong, Bddy, and F red Brundl©, ffh® Phoenix Book of Badminton, London, Camelot Press Ltd., 1956.
C l a r k e , H. H a r r i s o n , M | % » f | p y M J t e l f f t i A |B& Itelljil M p f t t f e j l » I n g l w o o d C l i f f ® , 1 . 3 . , Prentice-Hall, Inc., M>th ed., 1967.
Davidson, Kennath R., and Laaland R. Gustavson, Winning Badminton. lew f o r k , A. S. Barnes and Co., 1953.
Devlin, J. I., Badminton For All. Hew York, Doufcleday, Doran and Co., Ino., 1937*
B e W l t t , R. T., f p f f M « J B i X l » S l S X l l t Nev York, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c ., 19?3V
Division of G i r l s m d M o m e n t S p o r t s , I i m l S r M i M S B J H U t « W a s h i n g t o n , D. C», American A s s o c i a t i o n for Heal th , Physical Education, and Recreation, 1966-1968.
'Driver, H# l@n, S i m l a £ g & P h i l a d e l p h i a , W. B. Saunders and Co., 1936.
Edg ran , H. D M and G. 0. Robinson, fefilB M |,gMrA,|^a A i a l a t e l t H w York, A. S. l a m a s and
96
97'.
Friedrich, John, and Abbie Butledge, Beginning Badminton* Belmont, Calif#, Wadsworth Pub*, Co* Inc., 1962.
Garrett, Henry E., Statistics in HmjtojUay and Mps$42Bi New fork, David McKay Co., Inc., 6th ed., 1966.
Guilford, J. P., fltaUEfcEOII J& and Education. New York, McGraw-Hill Book, Co., 4-th ed.,
Jackson, Carl H., and Lester A* Swan, Batter Badminton. New York, A« S. Barnes and Co., 1939*
Mathews, Donald K., Meftsuren e in f^y^a^ MBcatlog, Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, Co., 2nd ed., 1965.
Miller, Donna Mae, and Katherin® L. Lay, Individual and Team Sisorta for Women. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959*
Scott, M. Gladys, and Esther French, Measurement and WfOmtlQfo in ,ftef4g# Bmbutue, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Co., 1959*
fhomas, Sir George A., Mgtefet* Sa»Sh J&Sl£§iS> Fives, and Badminton. London, Seeley Service and Co., Ltd., 1933»
Tragett, Mrs. E. C.t &2L JSjtoKEfi London, Percy Lund, Humphries, and Co., Ltd., Iy29•
Yamer, Margaret, Badminton. Dubutue, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown, Co., 1966.
Articles
Barrow, Harold M., "Teat of Motor Ability for College Men," fiBUtaOXf X3W (October, 195*0» 253-260.
Bassett, Gladys, Huth Glassow, and Mabel Locke, "Studies in Jesting Volleyball Skills," Research Quarterly. VIII (December, 1937), 60.
98
Broar, Marlon R»y and Donna Ma# Killer, ,fAohlev@m#nt Tests
for Beginning and Intermediate Tennis,B Research SMSSiZte, XXI (Oetober, 1950), 303-323.-
Brady, George F#» "Preliminary Investigations of Volleyball Plying Ability," atiffityA SBMlSZlZt ^VI (March, 1 9 W ,
3urr, Hilda ?*, "Technique and Tactics for the Beginning Badminton Flayer,** gllltlll flflMfatataft M M t » 19^5i 18-2V.
Burton, Vernon 0., "A Teaching Progression That Works," ItmlrfftiSfolM fflffiMtf 196W1966, 102-105•
Coaens, Frederick, and Easel J. Cufeberley, "Achievement Soalet In Physical Education for College Women," Besearah Quarterly. VI (March, 1935)# 1 W 3 *
Bay, June, "First Lessons in Badminton," Journal of Health* Phytic*! Education, and Jtocr-atlon,
, "Strategy and Tactics in Ladies Doubles," Tennis-Badminton Guide. 196*f-1966, 99-101
Dyer, Joanna, "The Backboard Test of Tennis Ability,n
suppiMMnt to the ftmaBh ftart«rter» 7 1 (March, 193?). 63-7**.
. "Sevision of the Backboard Test of Tennis Ability,w ftitmli ftmtMiMf DC (Mareh, 193®>» 25-31*
French, Either, and Arnica Cooper, "Achievement Tests in Volleyball for High School Girls," Mlftftllftl MzMtitos VIII, (May, 1937)» 150-157-
and Evelyn Stalter, "Study of Skill Tests Lyn in Badminton for College Women," jgjijgfll SMtiatili XX (October, 1 9 W , 257-272.
Galley, Jeanne C., "Techniques for Advanced Badminton Student* i11 M M f 1966-1968, 111-115.
Knox , Robert 0., "Basketball Ability Tests, "jgfetoitt.f Coach. XVII (November, 19^7), 5-^7-
Landtroop, Peggy. "Placement, Strategy, and Beturn of Serve," 1966-1968, 96-97•
99
Lockhart, Aileene, and Frances A. McPherson, "The Development of a fast of Badminton Playing Ability," fle search
XX (.December, 1 9 W , *»0a-*»0*.
Miller, Frances A., "A Badminton Wall Volley Test," IftlftMlll ftMrtMflr* < ^ » 1951) f 208-213.
PhillipsI Marjorie, "Teaching the Badminton Serve to
IfiuL iteoraatlon* XIV (December, 19^3), 531-559*
Hogers, Elizabeth 0#, and MarJorle L. Heath, "la Experiment in the Use of Knowledge and Skill tests in Playground Baseball," jfrftml. ftfBtffoM&Et II (December, 1931), 113-131*
Schwartz, Stolen, "Knowledge and Achievement Tents In Girl®1
Basketball on the Senior High School Level," Research m&SXiZf vni (March, 1937), 1^3-156.
Scott, M. Gladys, Allien Carpenter, Esther French, and Louise Kuhl, " Achievement Examinations in Badminton," UtiUMMil QlWtoilXt XII (Hay, 19^1), 2^2-253•
Shaw, Ruth E., "A Badminton Unit for Large Clauses,M
Tennis-Badminton Guide> 1958-1960, 111-llW.
Wilkerson, Bud, "The Lifetime Sports Foundation; te
Young, Genevieve, and Helen Meter, nA Short Battery of Tests to Measure Playing Ability in Women!# Basket-ball#" JfrfiflEBh Saiytflito v (May, 193*0, 3-23.
Unpublished Materials
Oreiner, Marilyn 1*, "Construction of a Short Serve Test for Beginning Badminton Players,n unpublished master's thesis| Department of Physical Education, University of Wisconsin, 196>f»
Eliding| Bonnlng Earl, "Wall fests for Evaluating Tennis Ability,11 unpublished master1 s thesis, Department of Physical Education, State College of Washington, 1959«
«
U>
