66 for democratic; 0.70 for autocratic; 0.52 for social support; 0.78 for positive feedback; and 0.69 for situational consideration. There was no information, however, regarding the validity of the RLSS. A MANOVA was used to analyze the data for differences between male and female coaches with regard to leadership behaviors. This is not consistent with the type of data collected. The RLSS used a Likert scale (ordinal), yet a MANOVA would be most applicable for normally distributed, quantitative data. The analysis showed there were no significant differences between male and female coaches in overall leadership behaviors. When the six leadership styles were examined separately, there was a significant difference in social support between males and females. In general, females scored much higher than did the male coaches. .
A MANOVA was also used to examine the data for differences between the three levels of coaching (junior high, high school, and college) with regard to leadership behavior in general. There were significant differences between the three levels. When breaking down the six behaviors and examining them individually, an ANOVA was used to analyze the data. Again, because the data for the RLSS is ordinal, an ANOVA is not the best analysis tool. The three coaching levels scored differently on three of the six behaviors: democratic behaviors, training and instruction, and social support. High school coaches scored much higher than college level coaches in democratic behavior. Junior high coaches were significantly lower in training and instruction than either high school or college coaches. Junior high coaches also demonstrated a lesser degree of social support than either the high school or college coaches. A MANOVA was again used to analyze the data for any interaction between gender and coaching level with regard to overall leadership behavior. Once again, a better analysis method could have been chosen based on the nature of the data collected.
