AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN

PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

Team Cohesiveness For Synthesizing Studies

Kesepaduan Mempengaruhi Kejayaan Pasukan

Study

Problem Statement

Participant

Instrument

Procedure and Design

Finding

Description
Verma J. P.

Team cohesion

208 Male Elite

The Group

Four Parameters ;

High Performance

Modak P.

between low and

Volleyball

Environment

a) Group intergration-Task

Volleyball players have

Bhukar J.P and

high-performance in

Players

Questionaire

(GI-T)

higher mean values in

Kumar S. (2012)

volleyball players.

b) Group intergration

all four parameters

Social (GI-S)

compared to low

c) Individual Attraction to

performance players. A

the Group-Task (IAG-T)

disrciminant function Z

d) Individual Attraction to

was developed

the Group-Social (IAG-S)

(Z = 5.88 +0.11 (GIT) +0.12 (GIS)

0.05 (IAG-T) +0.15
(IAG-S)).

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

Ramesh N. (2011) Team Cohesion and

48 Male

The Group

Four sub scales are

The findings of the data

Performance among

Volleyball

Environment

contained within the

reveals that there is

University Level

Players (two

Questionaire

questionnaire:

significant relationship

Male Volleyball

finalist team

a) Individual attractions to

between team cohesion

Players

and two non-

Group Task (ATG T)

items with performance

finalist team)

b) Individual Attraction to

of winning male teams

Group Social (ATG-S)

at university level. The

c) Group Integration Task next findings of the

(GI-T)

data reveals that there

d) Group Integration

is no significant

Social (GI-S).

relationship between
team cohesion items
with performance of
losing male teams at
university level.

Su-Chun Wang,

Team Support and

Table tennis

Perceived

Team support into three

No significant

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

Chen-Chih Huang Team Cohesion of

players who

Team Support

dimensions:

difference in team

and Shu-Chuan

College Table Tennis

participated in

and Team

a) Perceived

support and team

Chang (2011)

Players in Taiwan

their colleges

Cohesion

school support,

cohesion among

sports team.

Questionnaire

b) Perceived coach support

college table tennis

c) Perceived

players in terms of the

teammate support.

frequency of training

Team Cohesion into four

per week, seniority in

dimensions:

the sports team, best

a) Team cooperation

team result, and current

b) Interpersonal

grades.

relationship
c) Group adaptation

There was a correlation

d) Interpersonal

between team support

attraction.

and team cohesion

[Team Cohesion was

among college table

Examined with Pearsons

tennis players.

Product moment
Correlation]

Rovio E.

High Group Cohesion

Three adult

The Group

Eskola J

in Junior Ice-Hockey

coaches

Environment

Kozub S. A.

Team

and 22 players

Questionnaire.

The teams practiced 4-5

times and had 1-2 games
a week.

High group cohesion

did not lead to better
performance.

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

Duda J. L and

aged 15 to 16

Abductive content

Lintunen T.

years.

analytical procedures
were used.
18-item Group

(2009)

The performance of a

Environment
Questionnaire was used
to assess group cohesion.

group is better if its

members are united
and feel attraction
towards one another
and to the task they
are performing.

Rachhpal Singh,

Team Cohesion and

42 Subjects

The Group

A questionnaire consists of

The results show that

Kanchan and

Performance in Ball

from different

Environment

18 items measuring 4

the there is significant

Tarandeep (2012)

Games.

ball Games

Questionnaire. aspects of team

relationship of team

such as

cohesiveness on a 9 point

cohesion in relation to

football,

liberate scale

Individual Attraction to

basketball and

ranging from strongly

the Group-Social

volleyball.

disagree to strongly agree

(IAGS) and Individual

are:

Attraction to the

Individual Attraction to

Group-Task (IAGT)

the Group- Task (ATG-I) 4

with performance in

items.

Basketball, Group

Individual Attraction to

Integration Social

the Group Social (ATG-S)

(GIS) with performance

5 items.

in Football and

Group Integration- Task

Individual Attraction to

(GI-T) 5 items.

the Group task (IAGT)

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

Group Integration

in Volleyball

Social (GI-S) 4 items.

Senecal J.

Effect of Team Goal

86 Female high

The Group

Assessed cohesion at both

The results revealed a

Loughead T.M.

Setting on Cohesion

School

Environment

the beginning and the end

significant multi-variate

Bloom G.A.

basketball

Questionnaire. of the season.

(2008)

players from 8

F(12,438) = 2.68, p = .

teams

002

effect, Pillais trace

At the end, athletes in

the goal-setting
condition held higher
perceptions of
cohesion than athletes
in the control
condition.
The results indicated
that team goal setting
was an effective teambuidling tool for
influencing
cohesiveness in sport
teams.

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

Ana Veskovic,

Relationships

151 Athletes

The Group

Zoran Valdevit,

Between Cohesion of

Environment

Dejan Ilic

Competitive Levels

Questionnaire.

(2008)

and Efficacy and

Two sets of variables

(cohesion and efficacy)
can be linked.
SPSS 11.0 were used to
analyze the data.

Performance in

Cohesion dimensions
are positively
correlated to efficacy
beliefs: task-related
dimensions display
very high correlation

Handball Teams

while social-related
dimensions display
average intensity
correlation.
The set of efficacy
beliefs variables,
collective efficacy
shows high
correlation with
cohesion dimensions.
Chicau C.

Group Cohesion and

366 football

The Group

Borrego, Cid L

Anxiety in Soccer

players of both

Environment

and Silva C.

genders male

(2012)

and female,
aged between
15 to 23 years

CSAI-2 was collected +/-

60 min before the game

and with no changes in
Questionnaire.
the teams routine.
Four dimensions come into
sight:
a) Individual Attractions

Female athletes report

experiencing more
cognitive anxiety and
less self-confidence
than male athletes.
Only cognitive anxiety
relates in a

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

old.

Mohades F

significantly
negative way with
the perception of
cohesion (GI-Te
ATG-T) in the total
number of
participants and in
male athletes.
Coaches exhibit higher

272 Male

The Group

Ramzaninezhad R Styles and Team

athletes from

Environment

and Pearson Correlation

democratic and

Benar N

Cohesion among

national to

Questionnaire.

Coefficient were used to

social support in

Khabiri M and

Iranian Professional

professional

analyze the data.

training and

Kazemnezhad A

Teams

league teams

(2011)

Coaching Leadership

to the Group-Social
(ATG-S),
b) Individual attractions
to the Group-Task
(ATGT),
c) Group IntegrationSocial (GI-S)
d) Group IntegrationTask (GI-T).
Kolmogorov-Smimov

(volleyball,

instrusction.
The significant and

futsal, football,

positive relationship

basketball and

between coaches

handball)

leadership styles
with task cohesion
and between 5
dimension style with
social ohesion.
Different leadership
style support and
maintain task and

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

social cohesion.
Relationship between

Alemu S. M

The Relationship

180

Leadership

The LSS contained 40

M. Syam Babu

Between Coaches

Participants

Scale for

items that measured five

group cohesion and

(2012)

Leadership Styles,

Ethiopian

Sport (LSS)

dimensions of leadership

team success and the

Team Cohesion and

Premier

and Group

behaviors and the GEQ

coaches of successful

Team Success: The

League Soccer

Environment

with 18 items assessed

teams exhibited

Questionnaire.

two dimensions of group

higher training and

cohesion.

instruction

Case of Premier
League Soccer Clubs
in Ethiopia

behaviors.
The effect of coaching
behaviors on group
cohesion and team
success apparently
demonstrated the
importance of using
the appropriate
leadership styles.
The average

Rebecca A.

The Relationships

18 participants

The Group

Four sub scales are

Zakrajsek,

Among Coaches and

from NCAA

Environment

contained within the

Christiaan G.

Athletes Perceptions

8 from

Questionnaire. questionnaire:

Abildso, Jennifer

of Coaching Staff

Division 1

a) Individual attractions to

correlated with the

R. Hurst, and Jack Cohesion, Team

5 from division

Group Task (ATG T)

average scores of

C. Watson (2007)

2 and 3.

b) Individual Attraction to

each team on the

Cohesion, and

performance rating
of each team was

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

Performance.

Group Social (ATG-S)

c) Group Integration

GEQ scales.
Both ATG-T (r = .612,

Task (GI-T)

p < .01) and GI-T (r

d) Group Integration

= .739, p < .001)

Social (GI-S).

were found to have

strong positive
relationships with the
athletes average
performance ratings
of the team.
The social scales of the
GEQ was found to
be significantly
correlated with the
teams performance

Mohades F.

The Coach`s

Ramzaninezhad R Leadership Styles,

Khabiri M.
Kazemnezhad A.
(2010)

Team Cohesion and

Athlete

Athletes

The perceived

(n=272), from

version of the

National and
Professional

leadership
scale for

One- Sample
Kolmorov-Smirnov and
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient were used to
analyze the data.

ratings.
Positive relationship
between coachs
leadership stylestraining and

Satisfaction Among

League teams

sport, the

Iranian Professional

(volleyball,

athlete

feedback and social

Teams.

football,

satisfaction

support with task

instruction, positive

AHMAD MUSLEIH B MD SUANDI

AT 03 ISMP SAINS SUKAN
PROJEK TAHUN AKHIR

basketball,

questionnaire

cohesion, and

handball and

and the group

between five

futsal).

environment

dimensions of

questionnaire.

leadership styles
with social cohesion.
Coaches can used
different leadership
styles to support and
maintains of athletes
satisfaction and task
and social cohesion.

Petunjuk :
Jurnal yang sama dengan apa yang hendak di kaji
Jurnal yang sama dengan apa yang hendak di kaji
tapi mempunyai 2-3 pembolehubah.
Jurnal yang hampir sama dengan apa yang hendak
di kaji tapi mempunyai 2-3 pembolehubah.