FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2034129259> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2034129259 endingPage "491" @default.
• W2034129259 startingPage "486" @default.
• W2034129259 abstract "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Perceived Exploitation of College Athletes Questionnaire Derek Van Rheenen (bio) and Jason R. Atwood (bio) The exploitation of college athletes has been a topic of controversy within American higher education for over half of a century. Ever since the term student-athlete was coined in the 1950s (Sperber, 1999), academics and administrators have debated the extent to which the commercialization of college sports has turned college athletes into commodities, excluded from the free market while their coaches, colleges, and conferences reap huge financial rewards (Branch, 2011; Van Rheenen, 2013; Zimbalist, 1999). Especially in the revenue-generating sports of men’s basketball and football, critics have highlighted the surplus gains expropriated by colleges and universities on the backs of these young men, who are disproportionately Black (Eitzen, 2000; Hawkins, 2010; Rhoden, 2006). The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (“Are the flagship,” 2005) argued, “The case is strong that flagship universities are exploiting Blacks for their athletic talents,” by noting: “The majority of flagship state universities admit Black students who are not academically qualified . . . [and] solely for the purpose of their participation in intercollegiate athletics” (p. 2). James Duderstadt, a former college football player and President of the University of Michigan, also observed that universities “exploit” the athletic talents of college athletes “for financial gain and public visibility,” in part by “tolerating low graduation rates and meaningless degrees in majors like general studies or recreational life” (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 5-6). Even Walter Byers, who served as NCAA Executive Director from 1951 to 1987, titled his memoir Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes (Byers & Hammer, 1995), a clear indictment of modern college sports and the institutional commodification of at least some of these student athletes. To date, only a few studies (Adler & Adler, 1991; Beamon, 2008; Leonard, 1986) have explored the idea of exploitation from the perspective of college athletes, and the limitations of these reports reveal the need for a more comprehensive and comparative analysis. The proposed Perceived Exploitation of College Athletes (PECA) Questionnaire is an internally consistent three-item scale (α = .80). These three items were initially part of a seven-item index about perceived exploitation, which was one of several constructs studied in earlier papers about noncognitive predictors of academic success among college athletes (Simons & Van Rheenen, 2000) and the academic motivation of college athletes (Simons, Van Rheenen & Covington, 1999). In these studies it was found that college athletes who were more committed to their sports were also more likely to feel exploited. Additionally, the more college athletes felt exploited, the lower their university grade point averages. Utilizing this three-item exploitation scale on a sample of 581 Division I college athletes, Van Rheenen (2011) found significant differences by gender, sport, and race. Participants on the revenue-generating sports of [End Page 486] men’s basketball and football were over seven times more likely to report feeling exploited than their peers on nonrevenue sports teams. Van Rheenen (2011) also found significant differences by race in self-reported perceptions of being exploited. The odds of Black college athletes feeling exploited were nearly five times as great as that of White varsity athletes and four times as great as student athletes who identified as Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or any other racial group. The Perceived Exploitation of College Athletes (PECA) Questionnaire, if found to be statistically valid and reliable as hypothesized, will help researchers and student affairs practitioners interested in this important area. For example, the scale will allow researchers to examine whether perceptions of exploitation differ by sport, gender, race, year in school, and/or scholarship status. These analyses can be conducted at colleges and universities who participate at varying levels of athletic competition, are public or private, and who offer scholarships or not. The demographics of the student body at large, relative to the student athlete population, may also be a factor in these perceptions of exploitation. Findings could inform administrators and educators about the need to reform institutional policies related to recruiting, academic support services, career counseling, and compensation. If it is determined that a subset of college athletes are particularly vulnerable to feelings of exploitation, colleges and universities—and the conferences and associations to..." @default.
• W2034129259 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2034129259 creator A5032290728 @default.
• W2034129259 creator A5060767630 @default.
• W2034129259 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2034129259 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2034129259 title "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Perceived Exploitation of College Athletes Questionnaire" @default.
• W2034129259 cites W1558416165 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W1573016907 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W1575374423 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W1583794780 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W175099978 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W176908907 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W1982142169 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W2008258732 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W2071260095 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W2093585254 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W2113198112 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W2139936627 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W2798794851 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W2803154375 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W589399639 @default.
• W2034129259 cites W93425709 @default.
• W2034129259 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0045" @default.
• W2034129259 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2034129259 type Work @default.
• W2034129259 sameAs 2034129259 @default.
• W2034129259 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2034129259 countsByYear W20341292592021 @default.
• W2034129259 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2034129259 hasAuthorship W2034129259A5032290728 @default.
• W2034129259 hasAuthorship W2034129259A5060767630 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C103189561 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C195487862 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C2778444522 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C2779529714 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C2780020723 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C2780625559 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C2781054738 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C10138342 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C103189561 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C120912362 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C127413603 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C144024400 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C144133560 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C15744967 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C166957645 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C17744445 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C1862650 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C195487862 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C199539241 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C2778444522 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C2779529714 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C2780020723 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C2780625559 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C2781054738 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C39549134 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C509550671 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C71924100 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C78519656 @default.
• W2034129259 hasConceptScore W2034129259C95457728 @default.
• W2034129259 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2034129259 hasLocation W20341292591 @default.
• W2034129259 hasOpenAccess W2034129259 @default.
• W2034129259 hasPrimaryLocation W20341292591 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W175836743 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W1968558874 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W217598468 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W2561802365 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W3126064250 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W329886154 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W53464739 @default.
• W2034129259 hasRelatedWork W3091686296 @default.
• W2034129259 hasVolume "55" @default.
• W2034129259 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2034129259 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2034129259 magId "2034129259" @default.
• W2034129259 workType "article" @default.