Sport Team Culture of Malaysian College Athletes

IOSR Journal of Sports and Physical Education (IOSR-JSPE)
e-ISSN: 2347-6737, p-ISSN: 2347-6745, Volume 2, Issue 1 (Jan - Feb. 2015), PP 11-16
www.iosrjournals.org
DOI: 10.9790/6737-0211116 www.iosrjournals.org 11 | Page
Sport Team Culture of Malaysian College Athletes
Wee Eng Hoe
Department of BioScience & Sport Science, Tunku Abdul Rahman University, Malaysia
Abstract: This study examined sport team culture among athletes in the Malaysian Public Universities. Team
Culture Inventory was adopted from Kao & Cheng (2005). A total of 316 student athletes were surveyed using
convenience sampling method. Research findings revealed that there were more males student athletes (60.8%)
than female athletes (39.2%). Majority (73%) of the athletes was involved in team sport and 57% of them were
in the university and state teams. Only 14.5% of the athletes hold leadership positions including captain and
assistant captain. The ranking of team culture sub-domains showed that ‘togetherness within other team
member’ sub-domain was ranked first, ‘compliance to coaching’ second, ‘competitive desire’ third and
‘perseverance’ forth for the respondents of the whole sample, males and females respondents. Inferential
statistics found that there were no significant differences in team culture among athletes according to gender,
age groups, category of sports and level of involvement. However, one-way ANOVA results revealed significant
difference in the ‘together within other team member’ sub-domain (F[3,312] = 4.044, p<0.05). Team captains
have a more positive team culture as compared to athletes holding other team posts. The findings have
significant implications for coaches and sport program directors.
Keywords: Sport culture, Athlete’s culture, Team culture
I. Introduction
One of the most important experiences athletes and coaches can have is to be a member of a team. A
strong team culture means values are shared deeply by team members. Consequently, the development and
nurturing of team culture leads to team effectiveness (Hardy & Grace, 1997).
Every group or team develops its own culture to improve team effectiveness. As such the need to study
the various cultural influences on sport team and coaching behavior has become increasingly important because
of the enormous and continuous dissemination of new coaching information (Ryska, Yin, Cooley & Ginn,
1999). Even though social environment is significant in examining sport, sport psychology research has almost
exclusively focused on the individual (Kao & Cheng, 2005) thus knowledge about sport teams are rather limited
(Carron & Hausenblas, 1998).
Marten (2012) stressed that in sport physical training, conditioning and tactics are not the only
elements to achieve success but what is equally important is to nurture the culture of a team. In supporting the
notion, other researchers (Weinberg & Gould, 2011) reiterated that great teams do not only depend on talent but
how that talent is blended into one.
Team culture is the way things are done in a team. It is the soul and spirit of a team. A healthy team
culture creates a climate for success (Martens, 2012). Martens (2012) emphasized that if a team’s culture is not
adequately developed, or is incompatible with the team direction, a team may function substantially below its
performance capabilities and widespread dissatisfaction is likely to occur. Team climate develops from how
athletes perceive the interrelationships among team members. In addition, athletes’ perceptions and evaluations
set the team culture (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Effective team culture could be built through social support
(Weinberg & Gould, 2011) which include ‘listening support’, ‘emotional support’, ‘emotional-challenge
support’, reality-confirmation support’, ‘task-appreciation support’, task-challenge support’, and ‘personal-
assistance support (Rosenfeld & Richman, 1997). It is important for a coach to emphasize team concept and the
spirit of supporting each other at the beginning of the season (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).
Social supports include compliance to coaching. Compliance is a form of social influence that involves
a direct request, often by a person in need, such as a coach. It is the process by which we change our attitudes,
values and behaviors in response to the attitudes or behaviors, or both, of other people. Compliance is
associated with the trust in a coach. Athletes trust their coaches if they believe in their coaches’ good intentions
(Gallucci, 2008). When they trust their coaches, they have a strong tendency to accept coaching decisions, and
are more willing to accept individual roles in the team, and will sacrifice individual goals for team goals
(Gallucci, 2008, Valle & Bloom, 2005).
However, compliance to coaching is not enough to achieve a team’s goal as perseverance is also
needed to achieve team success. Perseverance is considered as persistence in adhering to a course of action, a
belief, or a purpose and it is the characteristics that keeps one trying although it is physically and mentally
exhaustive (Kao & Cheng, 2005). It is one of the elements of mental toughness. Mental toughness is the ability
to play one’s best in any situation, particularly when encountering problems, obstacles, adversity, or failure. It

brings out the best in performers when they have the most at stake. Mental toughness revolves around creating
and maintaining an ideal mental performance state (Gallucci, 2008).
Mental toughness coupled with competitive desire would ensure team success. Martens (2012) defined
competition as a process that encompasses four distinct events or stages (objective competitive situation,
subjective competitive situation, response and consequences). Different athletes experience different
competitive processes. An individual is capable of influencing the relationship among various stages (Weinberg
& Gould, 2011). Personal attributes, such as previous experience, ability, motivation and attitude could
influence a person’s responses in a competition. In short, the competitive process could be viewed through four
stages.
Team culture can take many forms. It includes developing a winning attitude, instilling commitment,
inculcating pride, building team spirit, organizing practice procedures, understanding game protocol, committed
to the style of leadership, accepting how decision is made and dress codes. However, this study was to examine
team culture in terms of perseverance, compliance to coaching, togetherness within other team member, and
competitive desire.
II. Methodology
2.1Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study is a composite of the schematic conception of four team
culture factors (Fig. 1). The conception of team culture is based on the model proposed by Kao and Cheng
(2005). This team culture model deals with the relationship of four domains that is perseverance, compliance to
coaching, togetherness within other team member and competitive desire.
Fig. 1: The Team Culture Model (Kao & Cheng, 2005)
2.2 Participants
Convenience sampling method was used to solicit information from student athletes. The sample
consisted of 316 undergraduate athletes from six public universities (192 males, 124 females) aged 17-26 years
(M = 23.54 years, SD = 1.83) and they have participated in 23 various sports. Thirty nine of the athletes
participated in individual sport (e.g. shooting, weight lifting, athletics, and rhythmic gymnastics), 229 in team
sport (e.g. netball, basketball, volleyball, hockey, and softball), 35 in mixed sport (e.g. badminton, archery,
table-tennis and squash) and 18 in martial arts (e.g. Malay Martial Art [‘SilatOlahraga’], Tae-kwon-do and
Karate). In terms of level of involvement, athletes were involved at national (n = 20), state (n = 131), university
(n = 103), zone (n = 12), district (n = 21), college (n = 15), and school (n = 14) levels. As for position held, only
14.5% of the surveyed athletes hold a post in their teams. Thirty two held the post of captain, 5 were assistant
captains and 9 held other posts in their teams.
2.3 Measures
The inventory consisted of 25 items which were divided into 4 sub-domains. The four sub-domains are
perseverance’ (9 statements), ‘compliance to coaching’ (6 statements), ‘togetherness within other team member’
(5 statements) and ‘competitive desire’ (5 statements). The four factors or dimensions were found to be

internally consistent with high alpha coefficients: perseverance (0.91), compliance to coaching (0.88),
togetherness within other team member (0.86) and competitive desire (0.83). The coefficient alpha for the whole
sample is 0.92. The inventory was pilot tested in Malaysia and reliability of the four sub-domains was reported
as: perseverance (0.871), compliance to coaching (0.860), togetherness within other team member (0.846) and
competitive desire (0.812). The reliability of inventory was 0.931.
The statements were scored from one to six. All the items were weighed on a priori weight method
from Very Much My Characteristic (6), My Characteristic (5), Majority of them My Characteristic (4), Majority
of them Not My Characteristic (3), Not My Characteristic (2) to Very Much Not My Characteristic (1). The sum
of the 25 items provides an indication of a subject's team culture. A maximum score of 150 points would
indicate a very high level of Team Culture while a minimum score of 25 points would indicate otherwise.
2.4 Statistical Methods
Descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation and unweighted mean were calculated.
Unweighted mean is calculated by dividing the mean value of each sub-category with the number of items. A
mean value above 3.50 showed dominant team culture, a mean value below 3.50 is considered the opposite and
a mean value of 3.50 is deemed neutral. T-tests were computed to determine whether differences exist in the
stress mean scores for each sub-category according to gender. One-way ANOVA were computed to determine
whether differences existed between the team culture mean scores for the independent factors of age, category
of sport, level of involvement and position held in the team. All t-test and ANOVA in this study were carried
out at 95% confidence level, using SPSS Ver. 16 for Windows. For the one-way ANOVA, where F-tests were
significant, a post-hoc test using the Tukey-HSD test was employed.
III. Research Findings
As shown in Table 1, the males and female athletes demonstrated moderate high score for team culture
(unweighted mean = 4.85). ‘Togetherness within other team member’ sub-domain (unweighted mean = 5.02 &
5.01) was the most dominant sub-domain as compared to the other three sub-domains. Both male and female
athletes ranked the four sub-domains similarly.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Team Culture Sub-Domains for Male (N=192) and Female (N=124) Athletes
Table 2: T-Tests of Mean Differences in Team Culture Scores of Male and Female Athletes
Team Culture sub-domains Variable No. of
cases
Mean S.D. t-value p
Perseverance
Male 192 42.98 5.68 0.605 0.545
Female 124 42.59 5.48
Compliance to Coaching
Male 192 29.19 4.29 - 0.325 0.746
Female 124 29.35 4.41
Togetherness within Other Team Member
Male 192 25.10 3.37 0.126 0.900
Female 124 25.05 3.64
Competitive Desire Male 192 24.04 3.81 0.775 0.439
Female 124 23.70 3.81
Team Culture
Male 192 121.31 13.78 0.379 0.705
Female 124 120.69 14.75
Based on the results in Table 2, t-values were not significant at p<.05 for all the four sub-domains.
Hence, there were no significant differences between male and female athletes for all the four sub-domains.
Table 3 showed the relationship between team culture and position held in the team. For the purpose of this
analysis, the positions held in the sport teams were categorized into team captain, assistant captain, other
position or team member (no position). F-values of the four domains in Table 3 showed that only the
‘Togetherness Within Other Team Member’ domain was significant at p<.05. Team captains (M = 26.35) have
a more positive team culture as compared to athletes holding other posts in the teams (M = 22.33). Inferential
statistics on team culture based on age groups (perseverance [F=0.888, p>0.05], compliance to coaching
[F=1.841, p>0.05], togetherness within other team members [F=1.878, p>0.05], competitive desire [F=2.448,
p>0.05]) , category of sports (perseverance [F=1.381, p>0.05], compliance to coaching [F=1.003, p>0.05],
Sub-scale
No. of
item
Mean Scores Unweighted
Mean
Std. Deviation Rank
M F M F M F M F
Perseverance 9 42.98 42.59 4.78 4.73 5.68 5.48 4 4
Compliance to Coaching 6 29.19 29.35 4.87 4.89 4.29 4.41 2 2
Togetherness within Other Team Member 5 25.10 25.05 5.02 5.01 3.37 3.64 1 1
Competitive Desire 5 24.04 23.70 4.81 4.74 3.81 3.81 3 3
Note: M = Male, F = Female

togetherness within other team members [F=1.644, p>0.05], competitive desire [F=0.420, p>0.05]) and level of
sport involvement (perseverance [F=1.122, p>0.05], compliance to coaching [F=1.568, p>0.05], togetherness
within other team members [F=0.444, p>0.05], competitive desire [F=1.672, p>0.05]) were not statistically
significant for each of the team culture sub-scales.
Table 3: Anova on Mean Team Culture Scores of Student Athletes When Compared To
Position Held in Sport Team
Sub-domain Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Post-hoc
Tukey-HSD
Perseverance Between Groups 62.127 3 20.709 .660 .577 NS
Within Groups 9795.300 312 31.395
Total 9857.427 315
Compliance to coaching Between Groups 91.791 3 30.597 1.642 .180 NS
Within Groups 5812.447 312 18.630
Total 5904.237 315
Togetherness within other team
member
Between Groups 142.280 3 47.427 4.044 .008* C > OP
Within Groups 3658.742 312 11.727
Total 3801.022 315
Competitive desire Between Groups 70.281 3 23.427 1.627 .183 NS
Within Groups 4492.057 312 14.398
Total 4562.339 315
Team culture Between Groups 972.684 3 324.228 1.629 .183 NS
Within Groups 62103.784 312 199.051
Total 63076.468 315
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TM = Team member, C = Captain, AC = Assistant Captain, OP = Other Position held
IV. Discussions
The findings of this study showed that as a whole, student athletes from the Malaysian public
universities demonstrated favourable response toward team culture. In addition, both male and female student
athletes ranked all the four sub-domains similarly. The mean scores for team culture and the four sub-domains
were almost similar for both male and female athletes. This finding is consistent with the findings of Weinberg
and Gould (2011) in their work of ‘Group and team dynamics’. They emphasized that sports teams are a special
type of group. It was found that athletes in group have mutual interaction and task interdependence which
subsequently led to collective sense of identity; the ‘we-ness’ rather than ‘I-ness’. Similarly other researchers
(Carron & Hausenblas, 1998) stressed that team members must interact with each other to accomplish shared
objectives.
Perseverance is considered as steady persistence in adhering to a course of action, a belief, or a purpose
which is also known as steadfastness. The high unweighted means for male and female (4.78 and 4.73) showed
that athletes in this study were tough mentally. Mental toughness is the ability to play one’s best in any situation,
particularly when encountering problems, obstacles, adversity, or failure. It brings out the best in performers
when they have the most at stake. Mental toughness revolves around creating and maintaining an ideal mental
performance state (Burton & Raedeke, 2008). However, contemporary social psychologists have shifted their
emphasis from static personality traits to an increased emphasis on the importance of the interaction between
cognitive processes and situational factors in influencing behavior (Bowers, 1973; Mischel, 1968). On the other
hand, Deci (1978) argued that process motivation is more likely to lead to consistent behaviour than product
motivation because the continued participation of the athlete is not unduly dependent upon an objectively
successful outcome (Deci, 1978). Athletes involved would enjoy their participation without being affected by
extrinsic motivation. As such, coaches can intentionally nurture this process orientation in their athletes
(Luschen, 1970). Other researchers concurred that persistence in sport is likely if the group atmosphere in
which the activity takes place is perceived by the athlete to be socially supportive. Persistence in an activity is
partially a function of the quality of the environment in which the athlete functions (Duquin, 1978).
The high unweighted means of compliance to coaching for male (M=4.87) and female (M=4.89) could
be explained in terms of compliance, which is a form of social influence that involves a direct request, often by
a person in need, such as a coach. In addition, compliance to coaching may be viewed in terms of social
influence. Social influence is the process by which a team member changes his or her attitude, value and
behaviour in response to the attitudes or behaviours, or both, of other people. In sport, the most important

feature of a team that influences us to change our behaviour is the relative importance of the team to us. When a
person is influenced by many, and goes along with their decision, the person is said to be conformed to the
group. Although people are likely to conform to a unanimous majority, the conformity level reduces (but not
disappear) when the majority is no longer unanimous. Conformity to others is likely to increase as the number of
people in the group also increases. There is no exact group size at which conformity will peak, which could
apply to sports teams. Similarly, the high values of ‘togetherness within other team member’ sub-domain for
both male and female athletes (unweighted mean = 5.02 & 5.01) mean that the spirits of team members to stick
together as family members was very high (unweighted mean > 3.5) (Kao & Cheng, 2005) and it is definitely
the results of team members compliance to coaching as well.
As for the high unweighted means for competitive desire for male (M=4.81) and female (M=4.74), this
maybe due to the fact that highly competitive person tends to seek out competitive situations and be more
motivated to achieve than person with lower levels of competitiveness. This is supported by Gill and Decter’s
(1988) three competitive orientations: competitiveness, win orientation and goal orientation. According to Gill
and Dector (1988), competitiveness is an enjoyment of competition and desire to strive for success in
competitive sport settings. A competitive person simply loves to compete and actively seeks competitive
situations. When the focus is to win in a competition, a person is said to be in the ‘win orientation’. Due to the
focus on interpersonal comparison and winning in competitions; winning becomes more important than
improving their personal best. However, in certain situations, an individual’s desire to compete is just to
improve on personal performance. When that happens, the orientation is said to be ‘goal orientation’. Gill
(1988) found that males were more competitive and also scored high on win orientation as compared to females
who scored high on task orientation. Gill (1988) also found that athletes scored higher on the three orientations
especially the competitiveness sub-scale, as compared to non-athletes. However, other research findings (Gill,
1988; Weinberg, Burton, Yukelson & Weigand, 2000) revealed that athletes are task oriented, giving
importance to improving their achievement and placing winning as the second important goals. In addition,
other researchers (Hardy, Jones & Gould, 1996) found that elite athletes scored high on both win and goal
orientation.
As majority of the athletes were from team sports (72.5% of the total number of athletes), the non-
significant results may be explained by Carron’s (1982) statement that the teams that stay together for a long
time have a strong desire for group success and also exhibit high levels of group cohesion. Similarly, other
researchers (Smith & Bar-Eli, 2007) emphasized that the rate of interaction among team members is greatly
enhanced in interacting-type team sports since the task is such that it requires member-reliance upon others to
complete their sub-task. In addition athletes’ positive team culture may also be explained in terms of self –
satisfaction (Carron & Dennis, 2001). When athletes are satisfied, their task and social cohesion improve
Widmeyer & Williams, 1991) and this leads to positive team culture. This finding is not consistent to the
findings of Granito and Rainey (1988) who found that level of competition seems to influence cohesion, with
high school teams being more cohesive than collegiate teams. However, team culture may be developed by mere
characteristics of team being more distinctive from others because they have special uniforms and unique group
names (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).
The findings on the ‘togetherness within other team member’ domain showed significant differences
between athletes holding the position of captain (M = 26.35) and athletes holding other posts in the team (M =
22.33). Leadership in sport depend on characteristics of leaders, group members and situations (Smith & Bar-
Eli, 2007). The higher mean value of athletes holding team captain post as compared to those team members
holding other post (other than assistant team captain) may be explained in terms of responsibility to the team.
Team captain has to play a more crucial role as compared to those athletes holding other sport team posts.
Leadership not only provide direction to others (team members) but also to develop team culture to achieve
common goals. In this context, the team captain has to unite team members to form team culture (Martens,
2012). Gallucci (2008) stressed that a team thrives and make togetherness a top priority when members have
time for each other, treat each other fairly, follow agreed-upon rules, respect and trust each other.
V. Conclusion And Recommendation
This study examined sport team culture among athletes in the Malaysian Public Universities. Research
findings revealed that there were more male student athletes (60.8%) than female athletes (39.2%). Majority
(73%) of the athletes was involved in team sports; 57% of them were in university and state teams with almost
60% of them male. Only 14.5% of the athletes hold a leadership position. The ranking of team culture sub-
domains showed that ‘togetherness within other team member’ sub-domain was ranked first, ‘compliance to
coaching’ second, ‘competitive desire’ third and ‘perseverance’ forth for the respondents of the whole sample.
Inferential statistics found that there were no significant differences in team culture among athletes according to
gender, age groups, category of sports and level of involvement. However, ANOVA results of team culture on

position held revealed significant difference in the ‘together within other team member’ sub-domain. Team
captains have a more positive team culture as compared to athletes holding other team positions.
The findings have significant implications for coaches, sport program directors, and sport
administrators. As such these findings should be made available to them in order to strengthen the relationships
between coaches, program directors, sport administrators and athletes.
In addition, the sample of this study is confined to public university athletes, similar studies should be
conducted on other groups of students from private educational institutions and a cross cultural study should
also be considered. Furthermore, as only 6% of the national athletes were involved in this study, a follow-up
study focusing on national athletes is recommended and would be useful to compare national team culture to
other national teams as well.
References
[1]. Hardy, L. , Jones, J. G. & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite
performers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
[2]. Ryska, T.A., Yin, Z., Cooley, D. & Ginn, R. (1999). Developing team cohesion: A comparison of cognitive behavioural strategies
of US and Australian sport coaches. The Journal of Psychology, 133(5), 523-539.
[3]. Kao, S.F. & Cheng, B.S. (2005). Assessing sport team culture: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Int. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 36, 22-38.
[4]. Carron, A.V. & Hausenblas, H.A (1998). Group dynamics in sport. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
[5]. Martens, R. (2012). Successful coaching (4th
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[6]. Weinberg, R. S. & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (5th
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
[11]. Rosenfeld, L. B. & Richman, J.M. (1997). Developing effective social support: Team building and social support process. The
Sport Psychologist, 9: 133-153.
[13]. Gallucci, N.T. (2008). Sport psychology, NY: Taylor & Francis.
[15]. Valle, C.N. & Bloom, G.A. (2005). Building a successful university program: Key and common elements of expert coaches. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 179-196.
[16]. Kao, S.F. & Cheng, B.S. (2005). Assessing sport team culture: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Int. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 36, 22-38.
[21]. Carron, A.V. & Hausenblas, H.A (1998). Group dynamics in sport. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
[22]. Burton, D. & Raedeke, T.D. (2008). Sport psychology for coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[23]. Bowers, K.S. (1973). Situationism inpsychology: An analysis and a critique. PsychologicalReview, 80: 307-336.
[24]. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and adjustment. NY: Wiley.
[25]. Deci, E. L. (1978). Intrinsic motivation: Theory and application. In D.M. Landers & R.W. Christina (1977)(Eds.), Psychology of
motor behaviour and sport (pp. 388-396). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[26]. Deci, E. L. (1978). Intrinsic motivation: Theory and application. In D.M. Landers & R.W. Christina (1977)(Eds.), Psychology of
motor behaviour and sport (pp. 388-396). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[27]. Luschen, G. (1970). Coperation, association and contest. Journal of Conflict Resoluation, 14, 125-152.
[28]. Duquin, M. E. (1978). Attributions made by children in coeducational sport settings. In D.M. Landers & R.W. Christina
(1977)(Eds.), Psychology of motor behaviour and sport. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
[29]. Gill, D.L. & Decter, T.E. (1988). Development of the sport orientation questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
59, 191-202.
[30]. Gill, D. L. (1988). Gender differences in competitive orientation and sport participation. Int. Journal of Sport Psychology, 19, 145-
159.
159.
159.
[33]. Weinberg, R.S., Burton, D. Yukelson, D. & Weigand, D. (2000). Perceived goal setting practices in Olympic athletes: An
exploratory investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 279-295.
[34]. Hardy, C.J & Grace, R.K. (1997). Foundations of team buuilding: Introduction to the team building primer. Journal of applied
psychology, 9, 1-10.
[35]. Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
[36]. Smith, D. & Bar-Eli, M. (2007)(Ed). Essential readings in sport and exercise psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[37]. Carron, A.V. & Dennis, P. (2001). The sport team as an effective group. In J.M. Williams (Ed.).Applied sport psychology: Personal
growth to peak performance (4th
ed., pp. 120-134). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
[38]. Widmeyer, J. M. & Williams, J. M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in coaching teams. Small Group Research, 22, 548-557.
[39]. Granito, V. & Rainey, D. (1988). Differences in cohesion between high school and college football teams and starters and
nonstarters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66: 471-47.
[41]. Smith, D. & Bar-Eli, M. (2007)(Ed). Essential readings in sport and exercise psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Sport Team Culture of Malaysian College Athletes

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Sport Team Culture of Malaysian College Athletes (20)

More from IOSR Journals (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Sport Team Culture of Malaysian College Athletes