Ridinger and Pastore (2000a) proposed a theoretical model to measure international student-athlete adjustment to college consisting of: (a) adjustment factors, (b) antecedent dimensions to those factors, and (c) outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the antecedent factors listed by Ridinger and Pastore were indeed the best indicators of successful adjustment to college for international migrant athletes and to determine if other antecedent factors were also relevant to adjustment. Multiple qualitative interviews with 13 international athletes from four NCAA Division I institutions were conducted. Data collected through those interviews supported all of the antecedent dimensions of the Ridinger and Pastore (2000a) model with the exception of the perception dimension subheading of faculty/staff. New dimension subheadings (a) sense of adventure, (b) previous international travel experience, and (c) family influence emerged from the data and were added to a revised model of international athlete adjustment. During the recent "age of migration" (Castles & Miller, 1993), many contexts both within and outside of sport have seen a growing influx of international migrants. Collegiate sports in the United States have been no exception to this trend. According to a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) study, individuals from outside the U.S. comprised 5.5% of all male athletes and 6.9% of all female athletes at the Division I level in 2007-08, up from 2.4% of male athletes and 2.4%

No abstract

No abstract

This study examined the principles of distributive justice held by male and female coaches and athletic administrators from all three NCAA divisions in allocating resources within athletic departments. A total of 328 subjects from Divisions I, II, and III responded to the instrument, which contained 12 scenarios describing situations of either distribution or retribution of three different resources-—money, facilities, or support services. The eight allocation principles listed under each scenario were (a) equality of treatment, (b) equality of results, and (c) equality of opportunity; contributions based on (d) productivity, (e) spectator appeal, (f) effort, and (g) ability; and (h) need. In each distributive situation, subjects were asked to rate the justness of each allocation principle and to choose one of the eight principles for implementation. All subgroups rated equality of treatment, need, and equality of results as the most just and the other principles as relatively unjust. These principles were also the principles most frequently chosen by subjects for implementation.

No abstract