Construction of the Evaluation Index System of High-level Track and Field Sports Teams of Colleges and Universities
|School||Capital Institute of Physical Education|
|Course||Physical Education and Training|
|Keywords||university High level track team index system|
After20years of development, high level sports teams of colleges and universitieshave got good results with expanding scales and improving performance. Track-and-fieldteams have made great changes in size and rank from the first world university games tothe26th world university games held in Shenzhen in2011. Despite these achievements,there are some problems which affected the team’s construction and development. Atpresent some evaluation index and evaluation standard in evaluation index system ofhigh-level track teams in ordinary universities are inappropriate or inaccurate. So it isurgently needed to establish a set of complete, effective and feasible evaluation plan tosupervise and administrate high-level track team construction.In this study we preliminarily constructed, analysised and collated evaluation indexsystem for high-level track teams, established successive hierarchical structure model andtested consistency of single sorting and total sorting. Finally high-level track-and-fieldteam evaluation index system was established though comparative analysis of high-levelsport teams construction project evaluation index system in2005and2010. Methods usedin this study conclude literature review, expert consultation, analytic hierarchy process,mathematical statistics and logic analysis.The results were as follows:(1) Indexes of the first two rounds of evaluation were established on the basis of allevents and are not appropriate on track and field. Experts have got broad consensus onnecessity and feasibility of building evaluation index system for the high-level track teamsin ordinary universities.(2) Six first-class indexes and nineteen second-class indexes were established inhigh-level track team evaluation index system finally. Six first-class indexes wereorganization and leadership, team management, coach team construction, conditionguarantee, team performance and sports cultural construction on campus. Nineteensecond-class index were enrollment management, students’ identity management, trainingand competition management, special management, personnel organization and structure,construction and management, coaches quality, training and improvement, venue andfacilities for training, auxiliary training facilities, funds, teaching effect, training effect,social reputation, ongoing track-and-field school competition and track-and-field websiteconstruction.(3) The score of first-class index weights of high-level track team evaluation indexsystem were9points for leadership,11points for sports management,10points for coach team construction,18points for guaranteed conditions,43points for team performance,9points for campus sports culture construction.9points for second-class index weights.Thescore of first-class index weights were4points for the school leader attention,2.5pointsfor organization,2.5points for development plan,3points for enrollment management,2points for school roll management,2points for training and competition management,4points for special management,2.5points for formation and structure,2.5points forconstruction and management,2.5points for coaches quality,2.5points for training andimproving,3points for facilities and Stadiums,3points for the training auxiliary facilities,12points for funds,8points for teaching effect,30points for training effect,5points forsocial reputation,4.5points for competition situation in the track and field,4.5points forsite construction in school.(4) On this study, the region and the number of experts we consulted is limited. Themodel and the assignment were finished simply, and further enrichment and improvementare needed such as the evaluation rules and principles. According to the development andchange of the college track teams, appropriate adjustment will be needed for a morereasonable index system.