شهرام شفیعی کردشولی

This aim of this study was to prioritize and examine the relationship between coache's leadership styles and athletic identity subscales in players of handball super league in Iran. The statistical population was equal to the sample including all the players playing in handball super league (n=144). The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) by Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) with 5 behavioral modes and athletic identity questionnaire (AIMS Plus) of Cieslak (2004) with 5 subscales of identity (reliability of 93% and 89% respectively) were used to collect data. For data analysis, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Spearman correlation coefficient, variance analysis with repeated measures and Bonferroni post hoc test and Friedman test with SPSS software were used (P≤0.05). The results showed that education and training style (3.59±0.68 M±SD) was mostly used and democratic style (2.94±0.84 M±SD) had the least application by coaches. Likewise, positive influence subscale had the highest and monopolizing had lowest mean scores in athletic identity scale. The results of correlation was significant and positive only in the relationship between coache's education and training style and player's athletic identity in handball super league (r: 0.23). According to these findings, it seems that Coaches can take essential measures to maintain player's strong athletic identity through an awareness of suitable behavioral aspects during training and education.

The purpose of this study was comparative surveying of athletic identity of Iranian Super League Handball players and leading behavior of their coaches based on team performance. The statistical society includes all the working players in handball Super League (n=144). The survey’s materials have been Leadership questionnaires of LSS (conduct scale) and athletic identity questionnaires (AIMS Plus) with reliability of (93%) and (89%) respectively. Also for evaluation of the performance of teams, final chart of league based on points difference and ranks of teams were divided into three parts. For analyzing the data, kolmogrov-smirnov tests, ANOVA and Gabriel post hoc test, Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tracing measuring and SPSS software have been used (p≤0/05). Results of comparing coaches’ leadership styles showed that training and instruction leadership styles, social support style, positive feedback style and democratic style among the coaches of successful, less successful and unsuccessful had significant differences (p