Recreational Sports Journal, 2013, 37, 66-83

© 2013 Nirsa Foundation

A Comparative Analysis of Perceived

Benefits of Participation Between
Recreational Sport Programs
Leeann M. Lower, Brian A. Turner, and Jeffrey C. Petersen

This study examined recreational sports, with a focus on a comparative analysis

of the overall, social, intellectual, and fitness perceived benefits associated with
participation in three separate recreational program areas: group fitness, intramural
sport, and sport clubs. A survey instrument, based upon the Task and Ego Orienta-
tion in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) and Quality and Importance of Recreational
Services (QIRS) perceived benefit scale, was administered to 1,176 students at a
postsecondary institution. Results revealed a significant difference in perceived
benefits between recreational program areas, with sport clubs reporting the greatest
mean in all four perceived benefit groups (overall, social, intellectual, fitness). The
study also found a significant positive correlation between all perceived benefit
groups. These findings have implications for practitioners in terms of perceived
benefit differences, suggesting advantages of the sport club program structure and
the potential multiple effects of enhancing a perceived benefit group.

Keywords: goal orientation, group fitness, intramurals, sport clubs

Sport has emerged in several domains (recreational, collegiate, and profes-

sional) over time and can be partaken in different ways (e.g., participant or spec-
tator). The value, function, and impact of recreational sport has transformed to
take on new meaning as physical activity associated with daily living has become
increasingly obsolete (Dalleck & Kravitz, 2002). Sport remains a source of personal
and social entertainment, but the psychological and physical health benefits associ-
ated with participation have become more important with the onset of diminished
physical activity within the modern American lifestyle.
University recreational sport departments have the unique opportunity to
provide diverse programs that act as conduits for physical activity, assisting the
promotion, education, and development of a healthy lifestyle. The diminished
level of physical fitness among students is a major problem on college campuses.
The American College Health Association National College Health Assessment II,
administered in 2011, found 52.6% of respondents failed to meet physical activ-
ity guidelines set by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American

Lower and Turner are with the Dept. of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Petersen is with the Dept. of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation, Baylor University, Waco, TX.

66
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   67

Heart Association (American College Health Association, 2011). Epidemiologal

studies show a decline in physical activity from high school to college (Kilpatrick,
Hebert, & Bartholomew, 2005). The status of college students’ level of physical
activity suggest that students may not be taking advantage of recreational sport
opportunities which exist in part to help students combat the detrimental effects
of physical inactivity (e.g., hypokinetic diseases, Type II diabetes, and heart dis-
ease; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). It is essential for
postsecondary institutions to offer programs that meet the physical activity needs
and interests of a diverse student body to assist the development and maintenance
of a healthy lifestyle.
The provision of activity programming for students within the university
requires resources. To acquire these resources, the recreational sport department
must often compete with other departments on campus for university funding.
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

Funding is necessary to support existing and expanding recreational programs for

students. With the cost of tuition growing, there is a demand for documentation of
how funding is spent and validation of the consequential participant benefits of the
funded programs (Haines & Fortman, 2008). Research examining the outcomes of
recreational sport programs can help establish guidelines and practices by illuminat-
ing the optimal environment and program structure that will encourage participation.
The purpose of this study was to assess the perceived benefits of student par-
ticipation in recreational sport, with a focus on three primary program areas: group
fitness, intramural sports, and sport clubs. Such assessment can potentially support
funding requests for recreational sport departments enabling the development and
sustainability of programs that provide physical activity opportunities for students.
According to Hall (2006), “Current data are one of the most important documented
criteria to substantiate an increased operating budget, to justify adding personnel,
and to validate the need for additional or new facilities” (p. 41). Previously, grow-
ing participation rates were often considered an adequate measure of a program’s
success. Professionals have been able to advance the field of recreational sport by
facilitating a deeper assessment of program needs, trends, and interests. Success
can now be determined by identifying a program’s impact on university objectives,
such as recruitment, retention, and the holistic development of students (Watson,
Ayers, Zizzi, & Naoi, 2006). Limited research has made a comparative analysis
across recreational sport programs, most likely because of potential participant
overlap. A comparative analysis across programs can provide valuable information
regarding the unique strengths and weaknesses of specific programs in relation to
others, which offers insight for optimal program structure. The findings of this study
can be used to determine the perceived benefit differences between recreational
sport programs and provide implications for structuring a program to produce the
greatest benefits for students.

Review of Related Literature

Recreational Sport
Extracurricular activities on college campuses allow institutions to reinforce and
augment classroom learning as well as help fulfill institutional objectives. Astin
(1999) claimed “the most precious institutional resource may be student time”
 68  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

(p. 522). With the multitude of opportunities for involvement on and off campus,
institutions are faced with the difficulty of competing for a students’ time to entice
program participation and campus involvement. Greater student involvement allows
greater opportunity for an institution to develop the student.
The recreational sport (also referred to as campus recreation) department
is one of many mediums facilitating extracurricular activities for students on
most American college campuses. Recreational sport is considered an important
element of the college experience, as was demonstrated by a longitudinal study
conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (Haines, 2000; The Ohio
State University, 2003). Researchers administered the Quality and Importance of
Recreational Services (QIRS) survey at The Ohio State University (OSU) during
the 1997–98 academic school year and the 2002 spring quarter (Haines, 2000; The
Ohio State University, 2003). The 2002 study found that 91.9% of students reported
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

participation in sport/fitness activities at least one time per week. Students reported
receiving the greatest benefit from participation in recreational sports in the fol-
lowing areas: experiencing fun and enjoyment, reducing stress level, developing a
feeling of physical well-being, and maintaining a level of fitness. The results show
the impact that recreational sport has on the recruitment, retention, lifestyle, and
development of students.
A purpose of recreational sport is to provide programs that aid in the devel-
opment of holistic students and the improvement of one’s quality of life. Parsons
(1989) believed the “quality of life for students beyond the classroom is measured
in many ways, but perhaps none more universal than recreational pursuit” (p. 59).
Participation in recreation increases a student’s satisfaction with their overall college
experience and develops a sense of community (Hall, 2006; Snodgrass & Tinsley,
1990). A university recreation center creates an environment that fosters social
interaction and integration which can help acclimate new students to campus life
and build a sense of campus community (Elkins, Forrester, & Noël-Elkins, 2011;
Henchy, 2011). Benefits of participating in recreation include, but are not limited
to stress reduction (Bryant, Banta, & Bradley, 1995; Haines, 2000; Lindsey &
Sessoms, 2006), holistic wellness (Haines, 2000; Henchy, 2011; Osman, Cole,
& Vessel, 2006), physical strength (Haines, 2000; Kovac & Beck, 1997; Lindsey
& Sessoms, 2006), and academic performance (Osman, Cole, & Vessel, 2006).
Benefits associated with recreation can come from participation in many different
program areas within the recreational sport department. The three recreational
sport program areas that the current study examined were group fitness, intramural
sport, and sport clubs.

Group Fitness
Group fitness is growing in popularity and becoming multifarious with the varying
societal exercise trends. Dance-style programs, such as Zumba, have recently seen
a tremendous increase in popularity (“Health Clubs,” 2010). The dynamic structure
of group fitness enables the program to meet the interests of a diverse consumer
population. A purpose of group fitness is to facilitate physical exercise in an instruc-
tional, cooperative environment, with a focus on effort and personal achievement.
On college campuses, group fitness classes are most often led by students, creat-
ing the opportunity for students to develop leadership and communication skills.
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   69

The most common forms of physical activity are either group-based or

individual-based (Burke, Carron, Eys, Ntoumanis, & Estabrooks, 2006). Several
studies have focused on comparing the effectiveness of group versus individual
based exercise. Burke et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis to compare physi-
cal activity contexts (home-based programs not involving contact, home-based
programs involving contact, standard exercise classes, and exercise classes using
group dynamic principles) in five outcomes (adherence, social interaction, quality
of life, physiological effectiveness, and functional effectiveness). The meta-analysis
included 44 studies with a total of 4,578 participants. Overall, results found that
exercising in an exercise class using group dynamic principles was statistically
superior to exercising in a standard exercise class, which in turn, was statistically
superior to exercising at home without contact (Burke et al., 2006). The results
suggest a positive direct relationship between amount of contact and/or social
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

support and the beneficial effects of the intervention. Further assessment of group
fitness is necessary to provide evidence of the benefits associated with participation
in the program, improve the quality of the program, and enable administrators to
better understand how group fitness can best fit into the mission of the recreational
sport department.

Intramural Sport
The purpose of intramural sport has expanded as evidence has indicated several
benefits associated with participation and as programs have become more promi-
nent on university campuses. The intramural sport philosophy has transitioned
from strictly physical exercise and competition to incorporating higher education
objectives (Stewart, 1992). Benefits associated with intramural sport include: social
interaction (Artinger et al., 2006; Belch, Gebel, & Maas, 2001; Bourgeois et al.,
1995), self-esteem (Bourgeois et al., 1995; Kanters & Forester, 1997), physical
health (Belch, Gebel, & Maas, 2001; Bourgeois et al., 1995), and psychological
health (Bourgeois et al., 1995).
One key study, conducted by Artinger et al. (2006), investigated the social
benefits of participating in intramural sport. Social benefits were divided into four
categories: university integration, personal social benefits, cultural social benefits,
and social group bonding. The sample consisted of 349 students who participated
in intramural sport at a midsized postsecondary institution. Results of the study
indicated that the respondents benefited the most in two categories: personal social
benefits and social group bonding. The strongest individual benefit was found to be
“improves my overall happiness.” The study also determined that greater involve-
ment in intramural sport improves students’ ability to work with a diverse group.
Results of the study support Astin’s supposition that greater involvement creates
more opportunity for students to benefit from that involvement.
The intramural sport program is a tool for student interaction which can
improve one’s sense of community, overall satisfaction with the college experi-
ence, and increase retention (NIRSA, 2004). Dalgarn (2001) noted that recreational
sport programs’ goal should be to provide increased opportunities for interaction.
Artinger et al. (2006) added that the goal of these increased student interactions is
“to foster student learning, personal, and social development” (p. 82). It is neces-
sary to assess whether recreational sport programs are increasing opportunities for
 70  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

student interaction and fostering student development to ensure that programs are
effectively impacting the lives of students.

Sport Clubs
Sport clubs are designed to be an opportunity for a greater number of students to
participate in competitive sport games. The role of sport clubs has adapted from
acting as a stepping stone for varsity athletics to becoming a recreational alternative
to varsity athletics (Cooney, 1979). Participation in sport clubs is purposeful. Sport
club members pay dues, attend practices, and are often in charge of coordinating
and hosting competitions. Sport clubs are student oriented in that members have the
opportunity to take personal responsibility over the creation, quality, and growth
of the club and team competitions (Cooney, 1979). From a structural standpoint,
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

not all sport club teams have coaches; many teams appoint members to act as
coach or captain and initiate instruction and guidance among the team members.
The administration and development of the sport is often completely dependent
on student members, creating a unique opportunity for student development and
positive learning outcomes (i.e., the knowledge, skill, and value students learn
through participation in an educational activity).
Haines and Fortman (2008) conducted a key study investigating sport club
learning outcomes. A 41-item proxy-pretest posttest survey was developed to
measure perceived outcome level. The survey outcome items were derived from
existing outcome literature, professional presentations, and discussion with recre-
ational sport professionals. The survey was administered to the Washington State
University and The Ohio State University sport club members and to the NIRSA
National Collegiate Volleyball Championship participants in 2007, comprising a
total of 954 subjects. Results of the study indicated a significant difference in all
pretest-posttest learning outcome items. There was an overall mean increase in
all outcome items with the greatest gains found in travel planning skills, sense of
belonging, time management, school pride, and overall leadership development.
The study demonstrated that sport clubs have a positive impact on the learning
outcomes associated with participation.
Through participation and administration, sport club members have the
opportunity to develop important skills such as leadership, organization, and time
management (Nesbitt, 1998). An additional value associated with participation in
sport clubs is the heightened importance placed on academics through the grade
point average requirements often set by the sponsoring institution. Through the
roles that sport club members play in the administration and development of their
teams, they are able to implement cooperative learning and gain vital lifelong skills
(R. Graham, personal communication, January 26, 2011). Assessment remains
critical to ensure the quality of the program and continue to foster the benefits
associated with participation.

Perceived Benefits Scale

Recreational sport experts have developed scales to measure the perceived ben-
efits of physical activity programs to demonstrate and understand the outcomes of
program participation. The literature emphasizes three benefit subgroups found in
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   71

physical activity programs: intellectual, social, and fitness (Artinger et al., 2006;
Haines, & Fortman, 2008; NIRSA, 2004). Intellectual benefits include academic
improvement, communication skills, time management skills, problem solving
skills, and study habits (NIRSA, 2004). The intellectual skills developed through
participation in recreational sport can equip students to perform better in the class-
room and consequently lead to more intellectual gains. Leadership skills, gaining
a sense of belonging, developing respect for others, and group cooperation skills
are examples of social benefits (NIRSA, 2004). Social benefits attained through
participation can ease integration in to campus, help students have a more positive
college social experience, and possibly influence student persistence. Fitness ben-
efits include physical strength, sport skills, feeling of physical well-being, stress
reduction, and feeling a sense of accomplishment (NIRSA, 2004). Fitness benefits
can circumvent the negative effects of an inactive lifestyle and also positively influ-
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

ence one’s classroom performance. Data received from perceived benefit scales
has the potential to validate the quality and success of physical activity programs
such as group fitness, intramural sport, and sport clubs.
Four primary instruments regarding participant outcomes have been found
valuable for the assessment of recreational sport programs: Recreation Experience
Preference (REP) scales, Exercise Benefits/Barriers Scale (EBBS), Measuring
Outcomes from Recsports Experiences (MORE), and Quality and Importance of
Recreational Services (QIRS) survey. The perceived benefits scale within the QIRS
survey is concise, specific to recreational sport participant outcomes, and has been
heavily used within recreational sport research and literature, which is why it was
selected for the current study (Haines, 2000; Lindsey & Sessoms, 2006; The Ohio
State University, 2003). Validity and reliability of the QIRS perceived benefits scale
will be discussed within the method section.

Goal Orientation
The current study used goal orientation as a control variable. Goal orientation stems
from achievement goal theory. Achievement goal theory suggests that motivation to
participate in an achievement activity is based on how one subjectively determines
success and failure (Watson et al., 2006). An individual’s goal orientation determines
how success and failure is subjectively perceived (Roberts, Treasure, & Balague,
1998). Two types of goal orientation have emerged within the theory–task goal
orientation and ego goal orientation. A task goal orientation determines success by
comparing one’s present performance with personal past performances (Watson
et al., 2006), whereas an ego goal orientation determines success by comparing
one’s performance with another’s performance on a relatively challenging task
(Duda, 1989; Roberts et al., 1998). A task goal oriented individual focuses more
on expending effort, personal improvement, and accomplishing tasks. Winning
and demonstrating higher achievement than another are factors that an ego goal
oriented individual will likely emphasize.
The Task and Ego Orientations in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) was used
in the current study to measure achievement goal orientations within the sport
domain (Duda, 1998). The TEOSQ has been heavily used to measure dispositional
goal orientations (Biddle, Want, Kavussanu, & Spray, 2003). The instrument was
selected to measure dispositional goal orientations for the current study based upon
 72  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

the significant number of studies that have used the TEOSQ, the prominence of the
instrument throughout achievement goal orientation literature, and the sport focus
of the instrument (Anderson & Dixon, 2009; Biddle et al., 2003).

Methods
Participants
The study was conducted at a midsized, private, postsecondary institution in the
Southwestern United States during the 2010 Fall Semester. The target population
included students who have participated in at least one of three recreational sport
programs: group fitness, intramural sport, or sport clubs. The 2009–2010 group
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

fitness, intramural sport, and sport club rosters served as a sampling reference for
students who have participated in one of the target recreational programs before
the 2010 Fall Semester. The researchers used the institution’s student directory
to create a usable sampling frame and eliminate all students who had graduated,
transferred, or dropped out. The researchers also included intact groups within
the target program areas from the 2010 Fall Semester in the sampling frame to
increase responses. The sampling frame consisted of 6,467 subjects. A nonprob-
ability convenience sampling technique was used in which accessible recreational
sport participants were surveyed during a two week period. The sample was
limited to students who had participated in at least one of the three recreational
sport programs for at least one semester before the term the study was conducted.
This limitation was incorporated based upon the premise that students who had
participated in recreational sport for more than one semester are likely more aware
of the perceived benefits associated with their participation than students who had
participated for less than one semester, therefore strengthening the accuracy of the
perceived benefit responses.

Instrumentation
The research instrument consisted of a 44-item questionnaire organized within three
primary sections: demographics (10 items), a modified version of the TEOSQ (12
items), and a modified version of the QIRS perceived benefits scale (22 items). The
first section was a demographic section similar to the demographic items in the
QIRS survey (NIRSA, 2000). The demographic section included data regarding:
recreational sport program participation, level of involvement, gender, age, aca-
demic year, ethnic group, residence, employment, and partial student identification
number (to enable the elimination of duplicate surveys).
The second section of the questionnaire consisted of the Task and Ego Orienta-
tion in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ). For the purpose of this study, the question-
naire was modified to 12 items—six ego orientation items and six task orientation
items. The modification allowed for each domain to be represented equally. Reli-
ability of the TEOSQ was established through test-retest (r = .68 and r = .75) and
internal consistency (task orientation scales: α = .79, ego orientation scales: α =
.81), indicating an acceptable reliability (Duda, 1998). Validity of the TEOSQ was
established by factorial validity, concurrent validity, and predictive validity.
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   73

The third questionnaire section was comprised of a modified version of the

QIRS perceived benefits scale. The perceived benefits scale is comprised of 22
items and was modified to use a four-point Likert type scale ranging from 1=
“no benefit” to 4 = “great benefit” for clarity within the scale. Reliability of the
perceived benefits scale was implied by its psychometric properties (Forrester &
Beggs, 2005). Principal component analysis demonstrated that the three perceived
benefit subgroups (social, intellectual, and fitness) accounted for 68.59% of the
variance and confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated an overall chi-square with
a p < .001, indicating a good fit (Forrester & Beggs, 2005). The researchers of the
current study also conducted principal component analysis with varimax rotation
and found the perceived benefit subgroups to account for 61.2% of the variance;
the items were subsequently divided into the three perceived benefit subgroups
based upon the extracted components.
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

Procedures
The researchers used an online survey tool (Qualtrics) to host the online instrument
and collect responses. The researchers used the mail-merge procedure to distribute
the consent form, which included a link to the online questionnaire, by e-mail to the
sampling frame. To collect additional responses, the principal investigator attended
group fitness classes, intramural sport competitions, and sport club meetings and
practices, to explain the purpose of the study, communicate informed consent, and
administer a hard copy of the instrument. Following the completion of data col-
lection, the responses to the hard copy questionnaire were manually entered into
Qualtrics to coalesce with the online responses.
Following data collection, the subjects were identified by dominant involvement
in one of the three recreational sport programs: group fitness, intramural sport, or
sport clubs. Dominant program involvement was determined as greater than 50%
of total recreational sport participation in one program. The dominant program
involvement ratio was selected to guarantee greater participation in one program
over the other two programs of interest. Any subject unable to be identified by
dominant program involvement was removed from statistical analysis to allow for
comparison across program areas.

Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis included: descriptive statistics, correlation, mean comparison,
and analysis of covariance. Microsoft Excel and SAS (statistical analysis system)
were used to analyze the data. The level of significance was set at α < .05 for all
analyses, a commonly accepted probability level in the behavioral sciences (Ary,
Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). The Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to
examine the relationship between the perceived benefit groups (overall, intellectual,
social, fitness). Analyses of covariance tested the perceived benefit mean differences
between the three recreational sport programs (group fitness, intramural sport, and
sport clubs), with the continuous goal orientation variables (task, ego) acting as
the covariate. Tukey’s post hoc mean comparison tested the degree of significant
difference among the three program areas following the analyses of covariance.
The researcher conducted Brown-Forsythe’s test for homogeneity of variance, a
 74  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

requirement for Tukey’s post hoc mean comparison, and found the data to have
homogeneity of variance.

Results
The survey instrument was distributed through e-mail to 6,467 undergraduate and
graduate students at a private, postsecondary institution, which resulted in a total
of 1,125 online responses. The principal investigator augmented the response by
administering hard copy questionnaires to recreational sport participants at group
fitness, intramural sport, and sport club events, which resulted in a total of 1,277
hard copy responses. A total of 2,402 subjects participated in the study (response
rate = 37.1%); after eliminating incomplete questionnaires, duplicate question-
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

naires, and questionnaires completed by nonstudent participants, the researcher

had a usable sample size of 1,919 subjects (usable response rate = 29.7%). Once
the sample was limited to subjects who had participated in recreational sports for at
least one semester before the term the study was conducted and could be identified
by dominant program involvement (greater than 50% of total recreational sport
participation in one program), the final sample consisted of 1,176 subjects. The
results section will include a description of the sample population demographics
and a description of the statistical analysis results.

Demographics
The respondents consisted of 50% male (n = 582) and 50% female (n = 590) stu-
dents. Of the 1,176 respondents, 240 (20%) were classified as dominant involvement
in group fitness, 706 (60%) were classified as dominant involvement in intramural
sport, and 230 (20%) were classified as dominant involvement in sport clubs. The
majority of respondents (91%) ranged from 18–22 years of age, with less than
1% of respondents younger than 18 years of age (n = 3) and approximately 9%
of respondents 23 years or older (n = 106). The results demonstrated a relatively
representative academic class distribution—9% freshman (n = 102), 26% sopho-
mores (n = 305), 28% juniors (n = 327), 28% seniors (n = 336), and 9% graduate
students (n = 106). The majority of respondents were Caucasian (78%, n = 913);
8% were Hispanic (n = 96), 6% were African-American (n = 67), 5% were Asian
(n = 54), 2% were classified as ‘other’ (n = 26), and 1% were Native-American (n
= 9). A total of 951 (81%) respondents reported living off campus and 223 (19%)
respondents reported living on campus.

Analyses of Covariance
One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted to determine whether
there were significant differences in perceived benefits (overall, intellectual, social,
fitness) among the three recreational sport programs (group fitness, intramural sport,
sport clubs), while controlling for goal orientation. For the analyses examining
perceived benefits, 1176 respondents were used based on the recreational sport
experience requirement of participation before the 2010 Fall semester; those not
meeting this criterion were removed. Of the four ANCOVA models, the task goal
orientation covariate was found statistically significant for three of the four analyses
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   75

and the ego goal orientation covariate was found statistically significant for one
of the four analyses. Incorporating a covariate can increase statistical power and
adjust for preexisting differences between the program areas.
The first one-way ANCOVA model found a significant difference in overall
perceived benefits among the three programs, F(2, 1171) = 18.03, p < .001. Tukey’s
post hoc mean comparison found a significant difference in overall perceived
benefits between sport clubs (M = 3.181, SD = 0.500) and intramural sport (M =
2.945, SD = 0.615), t = 5.36, p < .001, and between sport clubs and group fitness
(M = 2.870, SD = 0.566), t = 5.81, p < .001. There was no significant difference in
overall perceived benefits between the intramural sport and group fitness programs
(t = 1.74, p = .193). Sport clubs reported the greatest overall perceived benefits
with a mean score of 3.181.
The second one-way ANCOVA model examined the intellectual perceived
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

benefit subgroup and found a significant difference in perceived benefits among the
three programs, F(2, 1152) = 17.83, p < .001. Tukey’s post hoc mean comparison
found a significant difference between all three programs with sport clubs report-
ing the greatest intellectual perceived benefits (M = 2.800, SD = 0.681), intramural
sport reporting the second greatest perceived benefits (M = 2.645, SD = 0.742), and
group fitness reporting the lowest perceived benefits among the groups (M = 2.398,
SD = 0.800). Table 1 provides a summary of the intellectual perceived benefit mean
differences between the program areas.
The third one-way ANCOVA model found a significant difference in social
perceived benefits among the three programs, F(2, 1149) = 52.73, p < .001. Tukey’s
post hoc mean comparison found a significant difference in social perceived benefits
between all three programs, with sport clubs reporting the greatest social perceived
benefits (M = 3.334, SD = 0.602), intramural sport reporting the second greatest
perceived benefits (M = 3.142, SD = 0.677), and group fitness reporting the lowest
perceived benefits (M = 2.716, SD = 0.837). Table 2 provides a summary of the
social perceived benefit mean differences between program areas.
The fourth one-way ANCOVA model found a significant difference in fitness
perceived benefits among the three programs, F(2, 1170) = 18.04, p < .001. Tukey’s
post hoc mean comparison showed a significant difference between all three pro-
gram areas. Sport clubs reported the greatest fitness perceived benefits (M = 3.385,
SD = 0.480), group fitness reported the second greatest perceived benefits (M =
3.222, SD = 0.533), and intramural sport reported the lowest perceived benefits (M

Table 1 Summary of Intellectual Perceived Benefit Mean

Differences Between Program Areas
Intellectual perceived benefits
Program areas Mean difference t value p value
SC—IM .155 2.75 .017
SC—GF .402 5.82 < .001
IM—GF .247 4.38 < .001
Abbreviations: GF = group fitness; IM = intramural sport; SC = sport clubs.
 76  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

= 3.075, SD = 0.645). Table 3 provides a summary of the fitness perceived benefit

mean differences between the program areas.

Correlations
The Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to determine the relationship
between the perceived benefit groups (overall, intellectual, social, fitness). A strong
correlation was found between the overall perceived benefit group and three per-
ceived benefit subgroups in all three program areas. A correlation was also estab-
lished between the three perceived benefit subgroups in all three program areas;
however the correlations between the overall perceived benefit group and perceived
benefit subgroups was stronger than the correlations among the perceived benefit
subgroups. Table 4 summarizes the correlations found.
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

Discussion
Demographics
This study was designed to examine the perceived benefits associated with par-
ticipation in recreational sport programs (group fitness, intramural sport, sport
clubs), while controlling for goal orientation. A sample of 1,176 recreational sport
student participants was used for statistical analyses. Based on the 2009–2010
recreational sport program rosters, the study’s participants represented 17.3% of

Table 2 Summary of Social Perceived Benefit Mean Differences

Between Program Areas
Social perceived benefits
Program areas Mean difference t value p value
SC—IM .193 3.63 .001
SC—GF .618 9.49 < .001
IM—GF .426 8.00 < .001
Abbreviations: GF = group fitness; IM = intramural sport; SC = sport clubs.

Table 3 Summary of Fitness Perceived Benefit Mean Differences

Between Program Areas
Fitness perceived benefits
Program areas Mean difference t value p value
SC—IM .309 6.85 < .001
SC—GF .162 2.96 .009
IM—GF .147 3.31 .003
Abbreviations: GF = group fitness; IM = intramural sport; SC = sport clubs.
 Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

Table 4 Summary of Perceived Benefit Correlations for the Three Program Areas
Group fitness Intramural sport Sport club
Avg. Int. Soc. Fit. Avg. Int. Soc. Fit. Avg. Int. Soc. Fit.
Avg. – 0.862* 0.819* 0.803* – 0.893* 0.868* 0.928* – 0.843* 0.801* 0.864*
Int. 0.862* – 0.708* 0.502* 0.893* – 0.726* 0.707* 0.843* – 0.594* 0.547*
Soc. 0.819* 0.708* – 0.470* 0.868* 0.726* – 0.747* 0.801* 0.594* – 0.583*
Fit. 0.803* 0.502* 0.470* – 0.928* 0.707* 0.747* – 0.864* 0.547* 0.583* –
* p < .001.
Abbreviations: Avg. = Average; Fit. = Fitness; Int. = Intellectual; Soc. = Social.

  77
 78  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

the group fitness program, 17.6% of the intramural sport program, and 66.9% of
the sport club program.
The sample showed a relatively representative academic class distribution;
91% of respondents were undergraduate students (n = 1070) and 9% were graduate
students (n = 106). The study’s gender demographic breakdown for each program
is comparable to the programs’ 2009–2010 participant gender breakdown. The
greater male representation in intramural sport and sport clubs (59% male, 41%
female) may be explained by the sport nature of the activities studied or the time at
which the study was conducted (e.g., during intramural flag football). The uneven
gender distribution within group fitness (13% male, 87% female) is supported by
recreation literature that maintains the dominant female presence (Burke et al.,2006).
Respondents living off-campus resulted in a dominant representation. Recre-
ational sport participants tend to have a stronger on-campus representation because
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

of the recreation center’s close proximity to on-campus housing and the community
developed on campus (Watson et al., 2006). The study’s strong off-campus resi-
dence representation could suggest high program retention, effective marketing,
or a sense of community fostered off campus.

Comparative Analyses
Many recreational sport studies examine specific sport activities or make a compari-
son between recreational sport users and nonusers (Artinger et al., 2006; Haines,
& Fortman, 2008; NIRSA, 2000). The current study takes existing research a step
further by comparing specific recreational sport activities. A comparison across
recreational sport programs can enable administrators to more effectively analyze
program strengths and weaknesses and better understand how programs work
together to meet university objectives.
Results of the first ANCOVA model found statistical significance in overall
perceived benefits between sport clubs and intramural sport and between sport clubs
and group fitness. The overall perceived benefit score was calculated by averaging
all 22 perceived benefit item scores. The use of an overall benefit score may not be
appropriate due to the unequal distribution of the perceived benefit subgroup items
(six intellectual items, four social items, nine fitness items). A way to circumvent
this problem would be to calculate the overall benefit score by taking the average
of the three perceived benefit subgroup mean scores.
Results of the analyses indicated a significant difference in all three perceived
benefit subgroups (intellectual, social, fitness) for all three program areas (group
fitness, intramural sport, sport clubs). Sport clubs reported the greatest mean score
in all three perceived benefit subgroups; intramural sport reported the second
greatest intellectual and social perceived benefit mean scores and the lowest fit-
ness perceived benefit mean score; group fitness reported the second greatest fit-
ness perceived benefit mean score and the lowest intellectual and social perceived
benefit mean scores. The result finding intramural sport to have the second greatest
social perceived benefit mean score supports the 2006 study by Artinger et al. that
found intramural sport participants to benefit socially. The result revealing superior
benefits found in sport clubs supports the study conducted by Haines and Fortman
(2008) which found sport club members to have a significant increase in learning
outcomes following participation. There are several possible reasons for why sport
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   79

clubs may have scored higher in all three perceived benefit subgroups. The implica-
tions that will be discussed include sport club program structure, competitive level,
availability of skilled coaches, and identification.
Sport clubs have been described as the intersection between intramural and
varsity sport. They offer the opportunity of heightened competition in a recreational
environment. Unlike group fitness and intramural sport, sport clubs typically main-
tain a consistent team throughout the competitive season and often out-of-season
as well. This consistent, cohesive team structure creates opportunity for continual
interaction and the development of interpersonal relationships. The frequency of
organized participation (e.g., multiple times per week) enables members to inter-
relate and develop social skills through participation, interaction, and leadership
opportunities. Sport clubs may have reported greater social perceived benefits
based on the program’s unique structure which fosters interaction and requires
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

student leadership.
Sport clubs are student driven. To sustain a club team, student responsibili-
ties may include managing membership dues and financial resources, organizing
practices and securing the practice field/court, arranging competitions, and often
coaching. The multifarious responsibilities are opportunities to develop organi-
zational skills, communication skills, and leadership skills. Most university sport
club programs set a minimum grade point average (GPA) requirement for mem-
bership which may discourage participation from students who do not prioritize
academics or encourage current members to keep academics a high priority. The
time commitment necessary for active membership may help students develop time
management skills and encourage members to be productive and use their time
efficiently. These are only a few possible explanations for why sport clubs reported
greater intellectual perceived benefits.
The current study’s results indicate that sports club participants experience
greatest fitness perceived benefits. In comparison with group fitness and intramural
sport, sport clubs operate at a higher level of competition which creates for more
vigorous physical activity. The level of competition may be an influential factor
impacting the fitness perceived benefits associated with participation. Coaches may
also be an influential factor. Many sport club teams have coaches or advisors who
are knowledgeable about the sport and can assist the physical fitness development
of members whereas intramural sport teams typically do not have skilled coaches
available, which offers a possible explanation for the significant fitness perceived
benefit mean difference between sport clubs and intramural sport. Many sport club
teams require active members to attend a certain number of practices and compe-
titions; this requirement ensures consistent physical activity among members. In
comparison, group fitness and intramural sport participation is voluntary, students
may attend or be absent from classes and competitions. Sport club membership is
voluntary, but to maintain active membership, certain responsibilities and expec-
tations are required to be fulfilled. This structure may significantly influence the
perceived benefits associated with participation.
Group fitness participants reported the lowest social and intellectual perceived
benefits out of the three recreational sport programs. The social perceived benefit
results support the Burke et al. (2006) meta-analysis results that suggest the impor-
tance of group dynamics. A possible explanation for group fitness reporting the
lowest social perceived benefit may be its program structure. In comparison with
 80  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

sport clubs and intramural sport which are created for true groups, the group fitness
structure does not foster group cohesion and limits social interaction. Group fitness
at the postsecondary institution studied has recently developed a class called “Cardio
Fit,” modeled after Cross Fit, a high intensity cardiovascular fitness program made
popular by the P90X workout DVD set. Cardio Fit includes group interaction and
requires an additional fee to entice consistent attendance from participants. Group
fitness classes with a structure similar to Cardio Fit may help increase the social
benefits gained from participation.
An element of identification is another possible explanation for the greater
social perceived benefits reported by sport clubs and intramural sport. Sport club
teams and many intramural sport teams possess matching team apparel such as
jerseys or t-shirts, shorts, and socks. Matching team apparel acts as an element that
identifies a participant with the activity, their team, and their teammates. Program
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

and team identification can enhance one’s investment in the activity and group,
group bonding, and team cohesion.
Results of this study indicated that intramural sport participants experience
the lowest fitness perceived benefits. Many intramural sport programs facilitate
multiple sport leagues concurrently. The intramural sport program at the postsec-
ondary institution studied facilitates a maximum of two sports concurrently, which
limits participation in intramural sport competition to zero to four games per week
during regular season play. Intramural sport participation opportunities increase
during the sport’s tournament held at the end of regular season play. In comparison,
sport clubs and group fitness consistently offer opportunities for physical activity
multiple times per week. Intramural sport participation is also limited based on the
particular sport rules. For example, during intramural basketball season, only five
players are permitted to participate at one time, which makes the opportunity for
physical activity dependent on the size of the team. Sport clubs and group fitness
are able to involve all participants in physical activity during the entire practice/
class which allows for greater opportunity for fitness benefits.
Out of the three perceived benefit subgroups (intellectual, social, fitness), all
three recreational sport programs reported the lowest perceived benefits in the
intellectual subgroup. Sports by nature are physical activities that typically require
group involvement, which could explain the expected social and fitness perceived
benefits associated with participation. Participation in recreational sport programs
may equip students to perform better in the classroom and indirectly lead to intel-
lectual gains.

Conclusions
Limited research has conducted a comparative analysis of recreational sport
programs on college campuses. In light of the education system’s focus on assess-
ment, research that identifies program outcomes and offers insight regarding the
factors that impact those outcomes is critical. Examining program benefits can help
administrators better understand participant experiential differences, programmatic
strengths and weaknesses, the optimal program structure and environment, as well
as other significant elements of a successful program.
Multifarious recreational sport programs are offered to reach a broad portion
of the student body. The sport club program is more competitive and requires a
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   81

greater level of commitment than group fitness and intramural sport, which many
students may not be interested in. Although the group fitness and intramural sport
programs reported lower perceived benefits associated with participation than sport
clubs, both programs are still positive because students are participating and there-
fore receiving some amount of benefit. At the postsecondary institution studied,
the sport club program had the lowest participation out of the three programs and
yet reported the greatest perceived benefits. To increase participation, the recre-
ational sport department may consider assisting students with the development of
sport teams and organization of competitions. The assistance should not take away
student leadership opportunities but offer a resource to reduce the administrative
demands placed on students and consequently encourage more participation and
program expansion.
The findings of this study suggest that the sport club program structure offers
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

more opportunities for participants to benefit intellectually, socially, and physically.

Based on this finding, recreational sport departments should consider translating
some of the advantageous characteristics of the sport club program into other sport
programs. To augment existing benefits associated with participation in group fitness
or intramural sport, administrators may consider creating reasonable conditions tied
to registration, such as mandatory frequency of participation, forfeit fees, grade
point average requirements, or leadership opportunities.
The results from this study suggest the importance of a true group. Group
fitness administrators should devise methods to incorporate group-dynamic prin-
ciples and social interaction in to the program’s structure to foster social benefits
associated with participation. The findings of this study also support programs that
consistently offer physical activity opportunities multiple times a week. Intramural
sport administrators should consider placing a cap on team rosters, offering more
competitions per sport, offering more sports concurrently, lengthening game time,
or scheduling available court time for participants to practice to increase physical
activity opportunities for participants.
Several implications regarding the outcomes of program participation and the
factors influencing those outcomes can be derived from the results of this study.
Continual communication across recreational sport departments at various institu-
tions can facilitate benchmarking and the sharing of innovative ideas which will
in turn assist the development and quality of recreational sport programs. Further
research should be conducted to confirm the findings of this study or offer additional
insight for these findings.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study offers many opportunities for expansion to better understand the differ-
ence in perceived participatory benefits among recreational sport programs. The
researcher suggested program structures as an explanation for sport clubs reporting
the greatest perceived benefit in all four benefit groups (overall, social, intellectual,
fitness). Further research should use a qualitative model to interview recreational
sport program administrators and participants to better understand program struc-
tures and the impact structures have on participant experiences. Recreational sport
administrators should investigate the group dynamic effect and how to effectively
incorporate group dynamic principles in to the group fitness program. The study
 82  Lower, Turner, and Petersen

found intellectual perceived benefits to have the lowest mean scores in comparison
with social and fitness perceived benefits. Administrators should examine how
to enhance mental stimulation and intellectual development in recreational sport
programs and examine if participation directly or indirectly leads to intellectual
gains. Additional studies should seek to confirm this trend regarding low intellectual
benefits or provide evidence to suggest that this result is an anomaly.
This study focused on recreational sport; however, there are varying levels of
competitive sport that can be examined and compared (community sport leagues,
interscholastic sports, collegiate sports, and professional sports). Further research
should make a comparison between recreational and varsity sport to better under-
stand how the programs fit into the mission of the university. Building on existing
research and integrating new concepts can propel recreational sport forward and
help secure its significance on college campuses.
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

References
American College Health Association. (2011). American College Health Association National
College Health Assessment: Reference group executive summary fall 2011. Retrieved
from http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_Execu-
tiveSummary_Fall2011.pdf
Anderson, D.M., & Dixon, A.W. (2009). Winning isn’t everything: Goal orientation and
gender differences in university leisure-skills classes. Recreational Sports Journal,
33(1), 54–64.
Artinger, L., Clapham, L., Hunt, C., Meigs, M., Milord, N., Sampson, B. (2006). The social
benefits of intramural sports. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 69–86.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Astin, A.W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
Belch, H.A., Gebel, M., & Maas, G.M. (2001). Relationship between student recreation
complex use, academic performance, and persistence of first-time freshman. NASPA
Journal, 38(2), 254–268.
Biddle, S.J., Want, C.K., Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C.M. (2003). Correlates of achievement
goal orientations in physical activity: A systematic review of research. European Journal
of Sport Science, 3(5), 1–20. doi:10.1080/17461390300073504
Bourgeois, A., LeUnes, A., Burkett, S., Dragges-Bourgeois, T., Friend, J., & Meyers, M.
(1995). Factors influencing intramural sport participation. Recreational Sports Journal,
19(3), 44–49.
Bryant, J.A., Banta, T.W., & Bradley, J.L. (1995). Assessment provides insight into the impact
and effectiveness of campus recreation programs. NASPA Journal, 32(2), 153–160.
Burke, S.M., Carron, A.V., Eys, M.A., Ntoumanis, N., & Estabrooks, P.A. (2006). Group
versus individual approach? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to
promote physical activity. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 2(1), 13–29.
Cooney, L. (1979). Sports clubs: Their place within the total intramural-recreational sports
program. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 50(3), 40–41.
Dalgarn, M.K. (2001). The role of the campus recreation center in creating a community.
NIRSA Journal, 25(1), 66–72.
Dalleck, L., & Kravitz, L. (2002). The history of fitness [Electronic version]. IDEA Health
and Fitness Source, 20(2), 26–33.
Duda, J.L. (1989). Relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose
of sport among high school athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11(3),
318–335.
 Benefits of Participation Between Rec Sport Programs   83

Duda, J. L. (1998). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Morgantown:

Fitness Information Technology.
Elkins, D.J., Forrester, S.A., & Noël-Elkins, A.V. (2011). The contribution of campus rec-
reational sports participation to perceived sense of campus community. Recreational
Sports Journal, 35(1), 24–34.
Forrester, S.A., & Beggs, B. (2005). Validation of the quality and importance of recreational
sports scale. [Abstract] Canadian Congress on Leisure Research accessed online at
http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr11/CCLR11-35.pdf
Haines, D.J. (2000). Undergraduate student benefits from university recreation. Recreational
Sports Journal, 25(1), 25–33.
Haines, D.J., & Fortman, T. (2008). The college recreational sports learning environment.
Recreational Sports Journal, 32(1), 52–61.
Hall, D.A. (2006). Participation in a campus recreation program and its effect on student
retention. Recreational Sports Journal, 30(1), 40–45.
Downloaded by Univ of Florida on 09/20/16, Volume 37, Article Number 1

Health Clubs. (2010). A look at trends in health, fitness and sport clubs. Recreation Man-
agement, 11(6), 58–60.
Henchy, A. (2011). The influence of campus recreation beyond the gym. Recreational Sports
Journal, 35(2), 174–181.
Kanters, M.A., & Forester, S. (1997). The motivations and self-esteem of intramural sports
participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 21(3), 3–7.
Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Bartholomew, J. (2005). College students’ motivation for
physical activity: Differentiating men’s and women’s motives for sport participa-
tion and exercise. Journal of American College Health, 54(2), 87–94. doi:10.3200/
JACH.54.2.87-94
Kovac, D.C., & Beck, J.E. (1997). A comparison of student perceptions, satisfaction and
patterns of participation in recreational sports. NIRSA Journal, 22(1), 10–12.
Lindsey, R., & Sessoms, E. (2006). Assessment of a campus recreation program on student
recruitment, retention, and frequency of participation across certain demographic
variables. Recreational Sports Journal, 30(1), 30–39.
National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA). (2000). Quality and impor-
tance of recreational services (QIRS). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. (2004). The value of recreational
sports in higher education. Corvallis, Oregon: NIRSA.
Nesbitt, G. (1998). Qualitative study of differences in benefits of sport club participation
versus other extracurricular involvement. Recreational Sports Journal, 22(2), 24–27.
Osman, R.W., Cole, S.T., & Vessel, C.R. (2006). Examining the role of perceived service
quality in predicting user satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a campus recreation
setting. Recreational Sports Journal, 30(1), 20–29.
Parsons, T.W. (1989). Recruitment, retention, and recreation. NIRSA Journal, 14(2), 59–61.
Roberts, G.C., Treasure, D.C., & Balague, G. (1998). Achievement goals in sport: The
development and validation of the perception of success questionnaire. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 16(4), 337–347. doi:10.1080/02640419808559362
Snodgrass, M.L., & Tinsley, C.E. (1990). Recreation and wellness: Identifying motivations
for participation in recreational sports. Recreational Sports Journal, 15(1), 34–48.
Stewart, R.E. (1992). A brief history of the intramural movement. Recreational Sports
Journal, 17(1), 12–14.
The Ohio State University. (2003, April). 2002 QIRS—general report. Retrieved from http://
studentlife.osu.edu/pdfs/assess_recreation_report.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). 2008 Physical activity guidelines
for Americans. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf
Watson, J.C., Ayers, S.F., Zizzi, S., & Naoi, A. (2006). Student recreation centers: A com-
parison of users and non-users on psychosocial variables. Recreational Sports Journal,
30(1), 9–19.