1. BY AMITA TIWARI Dr. NITA BANDYOPADHYAY
A CRITICAL STUDY ON SELECTED PHYSICAL FITNESS PARAMETERS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES OF INDIAN VARSITY WOMEN VOLLEY BALL PLAYERS BY
AMITA TIWARI
Dr. NITA BANDYOPADHYAY

2. INTRODUCTION
The Development of volleyball in India cannot be said exactly when and by whom volleyball was introduced in India. But sometime during early parts of the twentieth century. Volleyball was introduced by Y.M.C.A. in India Y.M.C.A. college of Physical education, Madras, was one of the pioneer institutions in Indian to take up volleyball. Volleyball federation of India came into existence in 1951 at Ludhiana. It has also shown in recent years that there is a trend that more women’s teams adopt the technique, tactics and physical performance that were previously seen only in male volleyball players. The skills like higher attack, powerful jumping-serve, attack from the back row and aggressive blocking are now widely used by female volleyball players. All these bring forward greater demand for specific physical fitness and physique of female volleyball players. For example, during the period from 1992 to 2002, the number of female volleyball players who were taller than 190 cm increased rapidly (Gao, 2006). Performance Characteristics of the Volleyball players are depend on Lower body power, speed, and agility. This is the most important indicators of volleyball performance (Vescovi & Mcguigan, 2008). Volleyball requires players to be explosive in the lower limbs; this is especially emphasized in the front row hitting positions when attacking on offense or blocking on defense. Vertical jump emphasizes lower body power, and it is known that Power = (Force x Distance)/Time. Vertical jump is an anaerobic explosive movement that requires recruitment of the highest threshold motor units (Amasay, 2008). The body needs to apply large amounts of muscular force over the largest amount of distance in the smallest amount of time in order to produce the highest vertical jump. It is now being claimed, "regardless of how much ability, skill or fitness a person possesses for a particular task or sport, the success or quality of his performance in the final analysis probably depend on his particular psychological make-up." Psychological make-up here, to a great extent, encompasses personality structure, motivation and emotional control and anxiety.

3. METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of this study one hundred and ninety two female volleyball players were selected from All India Interuniversity volleyball tournament. The ages of the subjects were between 20 to 25 years. 1st two team who achieved 1st, 2nd position selected as a winner group and randomly selected 2 team from remaining team who didn’t get any position selected as a looser group. This competition was organized by the Banaras Hindu University at the year of The commencement of the tournament at Total 16 university participated in this tournament. For conducted this study investigator selected 2 criteria, physical fitness variables and psychological variables. Those were AME, speed ,ES, flexibility, anxiety and AC. And then researcher gone through statistical analysis for computation, calculation and analysis through Mean, SD, and t test.

4. RESULT Personal data Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Age (yrs) 22.5
Table 1 showed Personal Data of the Indian varsity Women Volley ball players
Variables
Mean SD
Minimum
Maximum
Age (yrs)
22.5 - 20 25
Height (cm)
163.94
2.88
159.46
167.32
Weight (kg)
61.46
1.46
59.33
63.49

5. The above table presents total 192 women university volleyball players personal data and the mean age was 22.5 years. The average height was cm (±2.88) though the winner two teams height (167.18cm) longer than average height. Maximum height and minimum height respectively and cm. The mean weight was kg (±1.46) maximum and minimum weight was and 59.33kg respectively.

6. Achievement Motivation
Table 2 showed Profile of the Indian varsity Women Volley ball players
Variables
Mean SD
Minimum
Maximum
Skewness
Kurtosis
Height (cm)
163.94
±2.88
159.46
167.32
-0.21
-1.77
Weight (kg)
61.46
±1.46
59.33
63.49
-0.17
-1.52
AME (no/min)
37.61
±3.56
34.25
45.5
1.38
0.60
Speed (sec)
8.11
±0.15
7.91
8.55
1.73
4.75
LES (m)
1.83
±0.07
1.99
0.97
0.31
Flexibility (cm)
27.73
±5.07 23
35.50
0.59
-1.63
Arm Length(cm)
72.85
±0.58
71.95
74.03
0.14
-0.42
Hip Circum(cm)
90.66
±0.42
89.74
91.46
-0.35
0.61
Leg Length(cm)
89.70
±1.64
87.57
92.28
0.26
-1.49
State Anxiety
44.35
±2.6
38.83
48.92
-0.381
-0.120
Trait Anxiety
49.14
±1.13
47.17
51.17
-0.18
-0.65
Achievement Motivation
27.67
±2.28
23.75
30.83
-0.16
-1.42

7. The table 2 presents total 192 women university volleyball players profile of physical fitness and psychological variables which represents the mean SD minimum maximum value and skewness kurtosis of the score. The mean muscle endurance of the women intervarsity level volley ball player was numbers per min which may be considered as 80th percentile as per AAHPER norms and come under standard level. The mean Speed was 8.11 sec which may be considered as 35th percentile as per AAHPER norms. The mean Explosive Strength was 1.83 m which may be considered as 60th percentile as per AAHPER norms and come under average level. The mean flexibility was cm which may be considered as percentile as per ACSM norms and come under low category. The mean state anxiety of the the women intervarsity level volley ball players was and level was moderate. The mean trait anxiety of the the women intervarsity level volley ball players was and level was moderate. The mean achievement motivation of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was and level was moderate.

8. Table 3 showed the mean SD and t value of height weight AME speed LES and flexibility of the winner and looser team of Indian varsity Women Volley ball players
Mean SD DF
Mean diff
Std Err
t-value LS
Winner
Looser
Height (cm)
167.18
162.72
±1.03
±3.69 46
4.46
0.78
5.706
0.01*
Weight (kg)
63.29
61.81
±2.22
±1.83
1.48
0.59
2.521
AME(no/min)
44.67
36.25
±2.06
±3.31
8.42
0.80
10.573
Speed (s)
7.93
8.06
±0.20
±0.30
0.13
0.07
1.801
0.10
LES (m)
1.97
1.81
±0.14
±0.05
0.16
0.03
5.115
Flexibility (cm)
29.92
25.21
±1.67
±5.01
4.71
1.08
4.367
*significant at 0.05 level.

9. It was revealed from Table 3 that the calculated value of mean SD and t value in case comparison of height of winner and loser team of women intervarsity level volleyball players were cm (±1.03) and cm (±3.69) respectively. The calculated t value was The obtained t value was significant at 0.01 level. The mean weight of winning team kg (±2.22) and for losing team was 61.81kg (±1.83) respectively. The calculating t value in case of weight was which was statistically significant at the level of 0.01.The mean AME of winning team (±2.06) and for losing team was (±3.31) respectively The calculating t value in case of AME was which was statistically significant at the level of 0.01.The mean SD of speed of winning and losing team were 7.93 sec (±0.20) and 8.06 sec (±0.30) respectively . The calculating t value obtained from the table was which was not significant. The mean value of leg explosive strength of winning team was 1.97 with SD ± 0.14 and of losing team was 1.81with SD ±0.05 and t value appeared which was significant at 0.01 levels.The mean SD of flexibility of winning and losing team were (±1.67) and (±5.01) and the obtained t value was which was significant at 0.01 level.

10. Table 4 showed the mean SD and t value of SA, TA and AM the winner and looser team of Indian varsity Women Volley ball players
Mean SD DF
Mean diff
Std Err
t-value LS
Winner
Looser SA
44.75
46.46
±5.02
±4.32 46
1.71
1.35
1.264
0.10 TA
47.29
49.46
±4.30
±3.55
2.17
1.14
1.801 AM
30.21
27.50
±1.84
±3.34
2.71
0.78
3.482
0.01*
*significant at 0.05 level.

11. The mean value of state anxiety of winner and looser team was 44
The mean value of state anxiety of winner and looser team was (±5.02) and (±4.32. The mean of trait Anxiety of winner and looser team was (±4.30) and was (±3.55) respectively. The calculating t value in case of state and Trait Anxiety was and which was statistically not significant. The mean value of achievement motivation of winning team was (± 1.84) and of losing team was ( ± 3.34) and t value appeared which was significant at 0.01 levels.

12. DISCUSSION
Height, weight, AME, LES, and flexibility of winner team significantly better than the looser team. The ability of speed of both the group more or less same though there was little difference observed in mean time between the groups. Clark and Clark stated that the basic element of physical fitness like strength, speed, agility, Flexibility and endurance are useful for volley ball games. He also stated that strength is so much important in volley ball where as endurance is also important in volley ball. It was observed the mean of SA and TA of winner and loser group were moderate level (Speilberger 1986). No significant difference found between the groups. According to classification of Kamlesh (1986) the winner may be considered as highly motivated than (30 and above) and the other hand the loser group may be considered moderate level of achievement motivation and winner groups had higher level of achievement motivation than loser group.

13. On Physical Fitness Profile
CONCLUSION
The present investigation had its own limitations however, on the basis of the findings following specific conclusions be made
On Physical Fitness Profile
The mean muscle endurance of the women intervarsity level volleyball player was (numbers per min) and it was measured by sit up test which determines the 80th percentile in AAHPER norms and may be considered as standard level.
The mean speed of the women intervarsity level volleyball players was 8.11 sec and it was measured by 50m dash test which determines the 35th percentile in AAHPER norms.
The mean explosive strength of the women intervarsity level volleyball player was 1.83 m and it was measured by standing broad jump which determines the 60th percentile in AAHPER norms and come under average level.
The mean flexibility of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was cm it was measured by sit and reach test which determines the percentile in ACSM norms and come under low category.

14. On Anthropometric Profile On Psychological Profile
The mean height of women intervarsity level volleyball players was cm.
The mean weight of women intervarsity level volleyball players was kg which may be considered as healthy category.
The mean arm length of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was cm and it is longer than the normal population.
The mean hip circumference of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was cm.
The mean leg length of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was cm which may be considered as normal as compared to their normal height.
 On Psychological Profile
 The mean state anxiety of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was and level was moderate.
The mean trait anxiety of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was and level was moderate.
The mean achievement motivation of the women intervarsity level volley ball players was and level was moderate.

15. Comparison of Physical Fitness Parameter
1. As far muscular endurance ability is concerned the winner group was better than the loser group among intervarsity women volleyball players.
2. In respect of speed ability, no difference has been found between the groups.
3. As far explosive strength ability is concerned the winner group was better than the loser group among intervarsity level women volleyball players.
4. In respect of flexibility the winner group was better than the loser group among women intervarsity level volleyball players.

16. Comparison of Anthropometric Parameter
1. In height the winner group was taller than the loser group among intervarsity women volleyball players.
2. In case of weight, winner group was heavier than the loser group among intervarsity women volleyball players.
3. In arm length the winner group had longer arm than the loser groups.
4. In hip circumference, no difference was found between the groups.
5. In leg length the winner group had longer leg length than the loser groups.
Comparison of Psychological Parameter
1.As far the state anxiety is concerned no difference was found between the groups and both had moderate level of state anxiety.
2. As far the trait anxiety is concerned no difference was found between the groups and both had moderate level of trait anxiety.
3. As far the achievement motivation is concerned the winner group was highly motivated than the loser group and winner group had higher level of achievement motivation and loser group had moderate level achievement of motivation.

17. THANK YOU