i need this tonight

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uspa20

Download by: [Capella University] Date: 15 October 2017, At: 07:07

Journal of Sport Psychology in Action

ISSN: 2152-0704 (Print) 2152-0712 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uspa20

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology: Clarifying Some Misunderstandings and Making Future Progress

David Fletcher & Joanne Maher

To cite this article: David Fletcher & Joanne Maher (2014) Professional Competence in Sport Psychology: Clarifying Some Misunderstandings and Making Future Progress, Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 5:3, 170-185, DOI: 10.1080/21520704.2014.965944

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2014.965944

Published online: 30 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 759

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 5:170–185, 2014 Copyright © [2014] Crown Copyright ISSN: 2152-0704 print / 2152-0712 online DOI: 10.1080/21520704.2014.965944

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology: Clarifying Some Misunderstandings

and Making Future Progress

DAVID FLETCHER School of Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough,

Leicestershire, United Kingdom

JOANNE MAHER Sport, Exercise and Fitness, Loughborough College, Loughborough, Leicestershire,

United Kingdom

Over the past few years, we have presented (e.g., Fletcher & Ma- her, 2011) and published (e.g., Fletcher & Maher, 2013) a call for the profession of applied sport psychology to create and sustain a culture of competence throughout the training and development of its practitioners. This work has roused some stimulating debate at conferences and via electronic media—all of which has had the intention to the advance the practice of sport psychology. Nonethe- less, some misperceptions have been evident which are delaying progress. We recount these misunderstandings in this article and attempt to clarify the nature of professional competence in sport psychology. In doing so, we hope to accelerate the realization of our aspiration of significantly enhancing the practice of sport psy- chologists.

KEYWORDS competency, effectiveness, expert, practitioners, proficiency

Over the past few years, we have presented (e.g., Fletcher & Maher, 2011) and published (e.g., Fletcher & Maher, 2013) a call for the profession of applied sport psychology to create and sustain a culture of competence throughout the training and development of its practitioners. In this work,

Address correspondence to David Fletcher, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Epinal Way, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

170

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 171

we presented a definition of competence with a view to better understanding its role in applied sport psychology, delineated competencies involving the critique of training and development documentation, introduced a compe- tency model and discussed its implications for applied sport psychology, and explored issues relating to professional development and lifelong learning within the field. One of the main overarching messages to emerge was that current training and development documentation are inadequate in terms of preparing trainees in all the necessary competencies for applied sport psy- chology (see also Aoyagi, Portenga, Poczwardowski, Cohen, & Statler, 2012; Portenga, 2014). Notwithstanding the increasing recognition that progress is required in training and development (cf. Tod, 2010; Tod & Lavallee, 2011), there has been stimulating debate at conferences and via electronic media regarding the best way forward for the profession. This discussion has had the intention to the advance the practice of sport psychology but some mis- perceptions of the competency-based approach have been evident which are delaying progress. In this article, we recount the eight main misunder- standings and attempt to clarify the nature of professional competence in sport psychology. In doing so, we hope to accelerate the realization of our aspiration of significantly enhancing the practice of sport psychologists.

MISUNDERSTANDING ONE: COMPETENCE CANNOT BE DEFINED

Sport psychologists and consultants are mandated to practice exclusively within the boundaries of their competence (American Psychological Associa- tion [APA], 2002; Association for Applied Sport Psychology [AASP], 2012). De- spite some considering competence a nebulous and “fuzzy concept” (Boon & van der Klink, 2003, p. 125; see also Le Deist & Winterton, 2005), defining and understanding competence in professional psychology has been a prior- ity over recent years. Notable advancements include the 2002 Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and Credentialing in Professional Psychology (see Kaslow, 2004a, 2004b; Kaslow et al., 2004), the publication of a special issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology (Kaslow, 2004a) and dedicated sections within Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (Brown, 2005, 2007), and the publication of a seminal handbook (Johnson & Kaslow, 2014). Consensus has coalesced around Epstein and Hundert’s (2002) definition of professional competence as “the habitual and judicious use of communication, knowledge, technical skills, clinical reasoning, emo- tions, values, and reflection in daily practice for the benefit of the individual and community being served” (p. 227). In its application to psychology, competence refers to an individual’s overall suitability for the profession and involves understanding and performing tasks consistent with education and training, sensitive to cultural needs, reflecting individual differentiation, and anchored to evidence-based practices (APA, 2006; Rubin et al., 2007).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

172 D. Fletcher and J. Maher

Although competence refers to an individual’s overall or integrated pro- fessional ability, it is also important to consider the elements or components of competence, known as competencies (Kaslow et al., 2004). Competencies are complex and dynamically interactive clusters of integrated knowledge, skills, and abilities; behaviors and strategies; attitudes, beliefs, and values; dispositions and personal characteristics; self-perceptions; and motivations (Mentkowski & Associates, 2000) that enable an individual to execute a professional activity (Marrelli, 1998). As Schön (1987) and Skovholt (1995) pointed out, to ensure their relevance and applicability, the nature of com- petencies should be derived from the practice of experts (see also Hatcher & Lassiter, 2007). Therefore, not only are we able to define what competence is, we can also identity what it consists of and the competencies required for sustained effective practice in sport psychology.

MISUNDERSTANDING TWO: A PRACTITIONER’S EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND DETERMINES HIS OR HER COMPETENCE

This misunderstanding, or similar variants, has been a perennial feature of the turf wars and territorial debates that have plagued applied sport psychology for the past few decades. Although a practitioner’s educational background will undoubtedly influence the nature of his or her competence, trainees will enter practicum or supervised experience with differing educational experi- ences, often (but not always) spanning the potential curricula in psychology and/or kinesiology. Clearly, these educational backgrounds will determine a significant proportion of a trainee’s foundational knowledge and understand- ing, but gaps will inevitably exist that need to be identified and addressed. This is the case for psychology graduates, kinesiology graduates, and anyone else who enters sport psychology training. Regardless of educational back- ground, all trainees will need to tailor their training to develop their strengths and address their areas of weakness. Moreover, most neophyte trainees will (understandably) have limited functional competency and require consider- able training in the application and practice sport psychology.

A more influential factor on an individual’s competence than educational background should be his or her practicum or supervised experience in the practice of sport psychology. Specifically, assuming that an individual is able to demonstrate evidence of various prerequisite personality characteristics, and intellectual and personal skills (Hatcher & Lassiter, 2007; Sakinofsky, 1979), it is the extent to which he or she develops and integrates founda- tional and functional competencies that will determine his or her overall competence. To this end, training activities will need to be tailored to an in- dividual’s needs to optimize his or her development. A crucial aspect—which should ultimately supersede the influence of educational background—is if he or she demonstrates behaviors at the threshold for competent perfor- mance at a level of training (e.g., practicum, supervised experience, etc.).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 173

In general, behavioral anchors indicate increasing levels of independence at successive developmental levels and it is these behaviors, rather than educa- tional background, which ultimately determine an individual’s competence.

MISUNDERSTANDING THREE: COMPETENCE AND EXPERTISE ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED

We have been approached on a couple of occasions with the view that competence and expertise are essentially diametrically opposed and that our profession needs to adopt either a competency-based model or an expertise- based model in the training and development of its practitioners—the argu- ment being that a competency-based approach is fundamentally different from an expertise-based approach, involving distinct processes and proce- dures. As such, it is argued that with two opposing styles one has to be sub-optimal to the other, and a choice needs to be made between compe- tence and expertise.

Although this distinction may at first glance seem intuitively reasonable, it is conceptually flawed and ultimately unhelpful. Before expanding on why this is so, it is important to recognize that an individual’s overall suitability for a profession, reflecting his or her knowledge, skills, and attitudes and their integration—in other words, his or her competence—should not be viewed in a dichotomous manner. Rather than being described as being ei- ther competent or incompetent, practitioners should be viewed as being on a continuum ranging from low to high levels of competence (Barnett, Doll, Younggren, & Rubin, 2007). This continuum can be viewed through the lens of a practitioner’s stage of professional development—for example, novice, intermediate, advanced, proficient, and expert (cf. Alexander, 2004; Ben- ner, 1984; Dreyfus, 1981; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980, 1986; Hatcher & Lassiter, 2007). Thus, it is not an issue of competence versus expertise, but rather an understanding of the gradations of competence, ranging from competence problems, through a minimum threshold of competence to practice ethically, to highly distinctive performance (otherwise known as that of an expert prac- titioner). Hence, expertise is, by definition, demonstrating a high level of competence (cf. Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006; Shanteau, 1992). The APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006) referred to expertise as “competence attained by psychologists . . . that re- sults in effective practice” (p. 275) and encompassing “a number of compe- tencies that promote positive therapeutic outcomes” (p. 276) including:

(a) assessment, diagnostic judgment, systematic case formulation, and treatment planning; (b) clinical decision making, treatment implementa- tion, and monitoring of client progress; (c) interpersonal skills; (d) eval- uation and use of research evidence; (e) understanding the influence

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

174 D. Fletcher and J. Maher

of individual, cultural, and contextual differences; (f) understanding the influence of individual difference; and (g) having a cogent rationale for clinical strategies. (p. 276)

To argue that a choice needs to be made between competence and ex- pertise (or any other stage of development) is to fundamentally misunder- stand the nature and development of practitioners’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes and their integration. Furthermore, it is worth noting that expert sta- tus is “an elusive goal” (Tracey, Wampold, Lichtenberg, & Goodyear, 2014, p. 218) and should not be viewed as a static end point; rather, the notion of competence should remain an aspirational principle (Barnett et al., 2007) whereby a practitioner, even at the “highest” level, continually strives for advancement:

Competence is a dynamic construct in which expertise, established on habitual forms of practice, requires accommodation to the continuous advance of knowledge in the field. This requires clinicians and super- visors to abandon the comfort afforded by the subjective experience of expertise and to commit to processes of self-assessment in which the limits of what one knows are confronted. (Falender & Shafranske, 2007, p. 238)

MISUNDERSTANDING FOUR: COMPETENCY-BASED APPROACHES ARE TOO SIMPLISTIC TO DEVELOP EXPERT PRACTITIONERS

Critics of competency-based approaches often point to the complexity of experts’ practice and argue that attempting to reduce this into its compo- nent parts is too simplistic to facilitate the training and development of professionals. At first sight this appears a reasonable argument; however, it misses the point that, in terms of professional development, it takes time for a novice to build the experiences necessary to embody the complex integration of competencies associated with expert practice. Trainees have to begin somewhere and their focus should be on acquiring and displaying the competencies required to move to the next stage of development (i.e., an intermediate level) and beyond. This development will progress from rudimentary demonstration to complex assimilation (Kaslow et al., 2007), as Falender and Shafranske (2007) observed:

In the beginner, competence will be assessed in terms of the abil- ity to know and to apply rules in a consistent fashion, albeit in an unsophisticated and at times awkward manner. Later in development, we would expect more nuanced application of rules, the ability to deal with increased confusion and greater ability to consider the varied situational aspects, which shape clinical work . . . . The level of expertise

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 175

(or competence) provided by a beginner and an expert will, by definition, be different. (p. 234)

Complex cognitive skills such as judgment, clinical reasoning, and re- flection are integral aspects of Epstein and Hundert’s (2002) definition of competence presented earlier in this paper. Indeed, they also stated that competence “is defined by the ability to solve ambiguous problems, tolerate uncertainty, and make decisions with limited information” (p. 227). Hence, the development of competence provides a foundation for expertise:

A competency-based approach provides a model to consider the means by which we, as clinicians and supervisors, identity and meaningfully apply our knowledge, skills, and values to go beyond what we were originally taught and to apply that foundation of expertise to the pre- senting and at times unknown situations. (Falender & Shafranske, 2007, p. 238)

Despite these observations, there has been an unfortunate tendency for sport psychology-related organizations to specify and focus on minimum levels of competence rather than indicating areas of training that require specific attention (Taylor, 1994) or continued development (Tod, 2007). This is despite competence being both an enforceable standard and, as noted in response to the previous misunderstanding, an aspirational principle (Barnett et al., 2007). Clearly there must be minimum acceptable standards of practice, but there is also a need for practitioners to strive toward higher levels of competence (such as expert status) and, ultimately, a goal throughout one’s career that is never fully achieved. To this end, it is imperative that the profession of sport psychology defines threshold levels of competence for different stages of development. It is important that such a lifelong approach to competence development articulates the competencies and behavioral anchors best suited at various points in the professional career trajectory and that ultimately lead to the development of expert practitioners. As Belar (2009) highlighted, a competency-based approach to continued professional development should cover the range of competencies needed:

In the assessment of competence, APA is not only interested in whether the student gets the right diagnosis, picks an appropriate intervention, or establishes good rapport. We also care if they have mastered the complex cognitive skills fundamental to all clinical decision making. (p. S64)

The final word on this misunderstanding will be given to Falender and Shafranske (2007), who provided a rigorous rejoinder to the suggestion that competency-based approaches are too simplistic:

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

176 D. Fletcher and J. Maher

A competency-based approach does not reduce complexity or elimi- nate artistry from clinical or supervision practice. Rather, such an ap- proach usefully articulates core competencies to be enhanced, which are uniquely assembled to perform specific clinical functions in individual cases. A competency-based approach, together with skills in metacompe- tence, provides . . . an orientation to a development process that results in professionalism both at the point of entry into the profession and in continuous professional development. (p. 236)

MISUNDERSTANDING FIVE: COMPETENCY-BASED APPROACHES ARE TOO GENERIC, NEGLECT CONTEXT, AND LACK PRACTICAL

APPLICABILITY

Following on from the misunderstanding that competency-based approaches are too simplistic, another related argument is that such approaches are too generic to be of practical use. According to this perspective because com- petencies are broadly phrased and have the potential to be applied across multiple settings and tasks they therefore neglect contextual sensitivity. This misunderstanding fails to recognize that, “drawing on its 14th-century roots, “to fall together, to coincide” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2006), competence can be understood as a state of sufficiency in a given context or in respect to a particular requirement” (Falender & Shafranske, 2007, p. 233). To elabo- rate, when considering the contextual nature of competence, an individual’s capability is pertinent:

Capability . . . incorporates and extends the notion of competence. Ca- pability refers to the extent to which competent individuals can adapt their skills to new contexts and situations, generate (rather than simply acquire) new knowledge, and continue to improve their performance (Fraser & Greenhalgh, 2001). Capability . . . is the confluence of compe- tence and lifelong learning, an ongoing professional development con- ceptualization (Stephenson & Yorke, 1998). Psychologists need to ascer- tain whose performance merits the distinction of capability in a particular competency domain; these individuals are likely to be classified as ex- perts (Bransford et al., 2000). (Kaslow et al., 2007, p. 447)

The development of competence and capability takes time and in- volves trainees and practitioners increasingly immersing themselves in situa- tional aspects of practice and producing context-based behaviors (Falender & Shafranske, 2007; Peterson, Vincent, & Fechter-Leggett, 2014). Relevant here is specialty, which has been defined as the “specific area of prac- tice characterized by a distinctive pattern of services” (Rodolfa et al., 2005, p. 349). According to Rodolfa et al. (2005), all psychology-related specialties share the same foundational and functional competency domains but what

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 177

differentiates them is the way in which they are shaped by the configurations of the parameters of practice (see also Baker & Cox, 2014). Within the sport psychology literature, Brown, Gould and Foster (2005) have discussed the importance of contextual intelligence, or “practical know-how” (p. 51), in the provision of support services in our specialty.

In terms of the practical applicability of the notion of competence, it is essential that behavioral anchors are clearly defined and subsequently devel- oped within trainees and practitioners. These benchmarks demonstrate the threshold for competent performance at a level of development. To illustrate using interpersonal skills as an example, relationship competence has been defined as the ability to “relate effectively and meaningfully with individuals, groups, and/or communities” (Fouad et al., 2009, p. S12) with the essential components of interpersonal relationships, affective skills, and expressive skills. Importantly for real world practice, the behavioral anchors for inter- personal relationships range, for example, from “listens and is empathic with others” to “effectively negotiates conflictual, difficult and complex relation- ships including those with individual and groups that differs significantly from oneself” (see Fouad et al., 2009, for the complete list of behavioral anchors). Hence, the key to the practical application of competency-based approaches lies in trainees’ and practitioners’ ability to (consistently) demon- strate behavioral anchors.

MISUNDERSTANDING SIX: COMPETENCIES SHOULD BE VIEWED IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPORTANCE

As noted in the introduction to this article, it is becoming increasingly recog- nized that the current training and development documentation for applied sport psychologists does not adequately prepare trainees in all the necessary competencies (see Aoyagi et al., 2012; Fletcher & Maher, 2013; Portenga, 2014). Notwithstanding this emerging consensus, one potential and more debatable critique of such documentation is their implication that compe- tencies are of equal importance. To illustrate, descriptive checklist-based criteria typically imply that a basic competency, such as record keeping, is equally as important as a more complex competency, such as decision mak- ing. Although we can appreciate the concerns expressed in this equivalence critique, we believe that focusing on the relative weighting of competencies is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of competence in two respects.

First, assuming that competencies have been correctly identified and are relevant to performing tasks consistent with being a sport psychologist, it is remiss to try and “play off” their importance against one another. To illus- trate by revisiting the example above, although record keeping is likely to be established easier and earlier in one’s development in comparison to deci- sion making skills, even record keeping will evolve throughout one’s career

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

178 D. Fletcher and J. Maher

and may, in certain circumstances and at certain times, become equally or even more important than decision making. So, assuming that a competency is relevant in the first place, it is problematic to refer to its importance com- pared to other relevant competencies. In other words, if a competency is pertinent, it is important to develop and maintain regardless of other com- petencies. Second, we believe that attempting to compare competencies in terms of their importance is an unhelpful distraction from what needs to be done: namely, define each competency, break them down into their es- sential components, and define the behavioral anchors that demonstrate the threshold of competent performance at each level of development. By tak- ing this approach, one can see the progress of knowledge, skill, and attitude expected within a competency area (e.g., from basic to advanced record keeping, decision making, etc.) and across difference stages of development (e.g., novice, expert, etc.).

MISUNDERSTANDING SEVEN: COMPETENCY-BASED APPROACHES FOCUS ON ASSESSMENT RATHER THAN DEVELOPMENT

This misunderstanding stems from a preoccupation with competency-based assessment. Assessment is an integral part of competency-based approaches because it facilitates the determination of what one knows, if one knows how, if one shows how, and how one does things (Miller, 1990); however, it should not be the sole focus at the detriment of maintaining a developmental approach (cf. Neimeyer & Taylor, 2014). In their seminal paper on the topic, Kaslow et al. (2007) outlined 15 guiding principles and 9 recommendations to enhance the assessment of competence within professional psychology. Particularly pertinent in the context of the present discussion are the prin- ciples that a developmental perspective must undergrid the assessment of competence and that assessment approaches must integrate formative and summative evaluations.

To elaborate, Kaslow et al. (2007) stated that the meaningful assessment of competence takes into account developmental and incremental learning factors and outlines the competencies that should be mastered at which stages of professional development (e.g., novice, intermediate, advanced, proficient, expert). Importantly, this should result in benchmarks and behav- ioral indicators of expected performance at each developmental stage (see, e.g., Fouad & Grus, 2014; Fouad et al., 2009; Hatcher et al., 2013). Hence, assessment procedures should support training and development that is se- quential, cumulative, and graded in complexity. This progressive approach should be reflected in the evolutionary nature of the assessment:

It is likely that assessments at earlier stages of development will reflect the breadth and simplicity and will be of relatively low fidelity. Assessments

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 179

at later stages of professional development will reflect greater depth, complexity and fidelity. (Kaslow et al., 2007, p. 443)

In addition to adopting a developmental perspective, Kaslow et al. (2007) also stated that assessment approaches are most effective if they integrate for- mative (i.e., ongoing, developmentally informed feedback to improve learn- ing and performance) and summative (i.e., an outcome measurement) eval- uations, as these are mutually informative processes. Proper formative and summative assessments of competence focus on strengths, relative weak- nesses, and areas of competence problems. This information should guide education and training plans and remediation efforts in ways useful to the person being evaluated.

MISUNDERSTANDING EIGHT: THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETENCE MUST BE MECHANISTIC

Although competence-based training and development should be progres- sive in terms of its complexity, this should not be confused with adopt- ing a mechanistic approach. The training and development documenta- tion currently available for applied sport psychologists typically adopts checklist-based criteria that often lack individual and contextual sensitivity (cf. Portenga, 2014). However, rather than adopting a mechanistic checklist- based approach, effective training and development should utilize a wide range of learning and assessment methods. In addition to supervised practi- cal experience, learning methods should include formal learning involving a structured learning content with a predetermined objectives (e.g., complet- ing a professional degree), informal learning involving largely independent, self-directed activities (e.g., reading books or articles), incidental learning in- volving development as byproduct of engaging in professional activity (e.g., presenting a professional workshop), and nonformal learning involving de- velopment that occurs outside of recognized educational institutions (e.g., community education courses; Lichtenberg & Goodyear, 2012; Werquin, 2008). Assessment methods should go beyond checklists and include as- sessment of attitudes and values, oral examination, decision-tree analysis, computer-based assessments, assessments of problem solving in standard- ized simulated environment, or 360◦ valuations, which gather feedback from multiple raters (cf. Kaslow et al., 2007; Leigh et al., 2007).

An essential concept in the development of competence is metacompe- tence (Brown, 1993, 1994; Brown & McCartney, 1995; Cheetham & Chivers, 1996, 1998; Le Deist & Winterton, 2005). Weinert (2001) made the distinc- tion between metaknowledge or knowing what one knows and what one does not know, and metacompetencies or the ability to judge the availability, use, and learnability of personal competencies. To illustrate, a professional

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

180 D. Fletcher and J. Maher

psychologist’s metaknowledge might involve being aware of the range and limits of what he or she knows, whereas metacompetencies might involve the ability to recognize whether he or she is able to acquire new or missing skills. The development of metaknowledge and metacompetencies depend on self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-assessment, because introspection is fundamental to the development of professional competence (Falen- der & Shafranske, 2007; Hatcher & Lassiter, 2007; Weinert, 2001). Fur- thermore, metaknowledge and metacompetencies are crucial in utilizing multiple competencies to make judgments and decisions in real world practice.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Although current training and development documentation in applied sport psychology sometimes claims, and often implies, that it is adopting a competency-based approach, we argue that to date this has not been the case and, even if it were, it has not been as effective as it might have been. Furthermore, we also believe that the inadequacies of this documentation have in part given rise to the misunderstandings recounted in this article, which are possibly more reflective of frustrations with the current processes and procedures. Even though we have used this article to attempt to clarify these misperceptions and the nature of professional competence in sport psychology, we do share these frustrations.

In terms of making future progress, we firmly believe that an interna- tional conference specifically focused on professional competence in sport psychology should be convened between the major organizations and stake- holders in the profession. As we and others have highlighted elsewhere (see Fletcher & Maher, 2013; Watson & Portenga, 2014), the focus of such a con- ference should be on more clearly identifying and benchmarking the compe- tencies for sport psychology practitioners (Cremades, Tashman, & Quartiroli, 2014; Wylleman, Harwood, Elbe, & de Caluwé, 2009; see also Hays, 2010; Tenenbaum, Lidor, Papaianou, & Samulski, 2003; Ward, Sandstedt, Cox, & Beck, 2005). This should involve the development of a framework that delin- eates competencies and their essential components and behavioral anchors. Attention also needs to be paid to informed education and training across an applied sport psychologist’s life span (Tod, 2007), with a particular emphasis on articulating the tasks and activities that occur throughout the different phases of a practitioner’s career (e.g., becoming an expert). A developmen- tally appropriate and progressive training pathway that outlines more specific methods for teaching competencies and their subcompetencies should be de- veloped. We believe that such developments would help to create a culture of competence in the profession and, in doing so, significantly enhance the practice of sport psychologists.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 181

REFERENCES

Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual func- tioning and development (pp. 273–298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). Ethical principles of psy- chologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060

APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Report of the 2005 Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271

Aoyagi, M. W., Portenga, S. T., Poczwardowski, A., Cohen, A. B., & Statler, T. (2012). Reflections and directions: The profession of sport psychology past, present, and future. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(1), 32–38. doi:10.1037/a0025676

Association for Applied Sport Psychology. (2012). Ethics code: AASP ethical prin- ciples and standards (Chapter 3). http://appliedsportpsych.org/about/ethics/ code

Baker, J., & Cox, D. R. (2014). Specialization in professional psychology. In B. W. Johnson & N. J. Kaslow (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of education and training in professional psychology (pp. 120–132). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Barnett, J. E., Doll, B., Younggren, N., & Rubin, N. J. (2007). Clinical competence for practicing psychologists: Clearly a work in progress. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 510–517. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.510

Belar, C. D. (2009). Advancing the culture of competence. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(4), S63–S65. doi:10.1037/a0017541

Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.

Boon, J., & van der Klink, M. (2003). Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 3(2), 125–137. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2003.002415

Brown, C. H., Gould, D., & Foster, S. (2005). A framework for developing contextual intelligence (CI). The Sport Psychologist, 19(1), 51–62.

Brown, R. B. (1993). Meta-competence: A recipe for reframing the competence debate. Personnel Review, 22(6), 25–36. doi:org/10.1108/EUM0000000000814

Brown, R. B. (1994). Reframing the competency debate: Management knowledge and meta-competence in graduate education. Management Learning, 25(2), 289–299. doi:10.1177/1350507694252008

Brown, R. B., & McCartney, S. (1995). Competence is not enough: Meta-competence and accounting education. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 4(1), 43–53. doi:10.1080/09639289500000006

Brown, R. T. (Ed.). (2005). Competency education–competent professionals–ethical practice [Special section]. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4), 347–375.

Brown, R. T. (Ed.). (2007). Assessment of competence [Special section]. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 441–509.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

182 D. Fletcher and J. Maher

Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1996). Towards a holistic model of professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(5), 20–30. doi:10.1108/03090599610119692

Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: A model of professional competence which seeks to harmonize reflective prac- titioner and competence-based approaches. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(7), 267–276 doi:10.1108/03090599810230678

Cremades, J. G., Tashman, L. S., & Quartiroli, A. (2014). Initial considerations: Devel- oping the pathway to become a sport, exercise, and performance psychology professional. In J. G. Cremades & L. S. Tashman (Eds.), Becoming a sport, exer- cise and performance psychology professional: A global perspective (pp. 3–11). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Dreyfus, S. E. (1981). Four models vs. human situational understanding: Inherent limitations on the modeling of business expertise (Report No. ORC-81-3). Berke- ley, CA: University of Berkeley.

Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Washington, DC: Storming Media.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional com- petence. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(2), 226–235. doi:10.1001/jama.287.2.226

Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.). (2006). Cam- bridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2007). Competence in competency-based su- pervision practice: Construct and application. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(3), 232–240. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.232

Fletcher, D., & Maher, J. (2011, July). Toward a competency-based understanding of the training and development of applied sport psychologists. Poster presented at the European Congress of Sport Psychology, Madeira, Portugal.

Fletcher, D., & Maher, J. (2013). Toward a competency-based understanding of the training and development of applied sport psychologists. Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology, 2(4), 265–280. doi:10.1037/a0031976

Fouad, N. A., & Grus, C. L. (2014). Competency-based education and training in professional psychology. In B. W. Johnson & N. J. Kaslow (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of education and training in professional psychology (pp. 105–119). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Fouad, N. A., Grus, C. L., Hatcher, R. L., Kaslow, N. J., Hutchings, P. S., Madson, M. B., . . . , Crossman, R. E. (2009). Competency benchmarks: A model for understanding and measuring competence in professional psychology across training levels. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(Suppl. 4), S5–S26. doi:10.1037/a0015832

Hatcher, R. L., Fouad, N. A., Grus, C. L., McCutcheon, S. M., Campbell, L., & Leahy, K. L. (2013). Competency benchmarks: Practical steps toward a culture of competence. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 7(2), 84–91. doi:10.1037/a0029401

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 183

Hatcher, R. L., & Lassiter, K. D. (2007). Initial training in professional psychology: The practicum competencies outline. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1(1), 49–63. doi:10.1037/1931-3918.1.1.49

Hays, K. F. (2010). Competence in sport psychology. Professional Psychology: Re- search and Practice, 41(2), 149–150. doi:10.1037/a0017976

Johnson, B. W., & Kaslow, N. J. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of education and training in professional psychology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Kaslow, N. J. (2004a). Competencies conference: Future directions in education and credentialing in professional psychology [Special issue]. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(7).

Kaslow, N. J. (2004b). Competencies in professional psychology. American Psychol- ogist, 59(8), 774–781. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.774

Kaslow, N. J., Borden, K. A., Collins, F. L., Forrest, L., Illfelder-Kaye, J., Nelson, P. D., & Rallo, J. S. (2004). Competencies conference: Future directions in education and credentialing in professional psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(7), 699–712. doi:10.1002/jclp.20016

Kaslow, N. J., Rubin, N. J., Bebau, M. J., Leigh, I. W., Lichtenberg, J. W., Nelson, P. D., . . . Smith, I. L. (2007). Guiding principles and recommendations for the as- sessment of competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 441–451. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.441

Le Deist, F. D., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence? Human Resource De- velopment International, 8(1), 27–46. doi:10.1080/1367886042000338227

Leigh, I. W., Smith, I. L., Bebeau, M. J., Lichtenberg, J. W., Nelson, P. D., Portnoy, S. M., . . . Kaslow, N. J. (2007). Competency assessment models. Professional Psy- chology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 463–473. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.463

Lichtenberg, J. W., & Goodyear, R. K. (2012). Informal learning, incidental learning, and deliberate continuing education: Preparing psychologists to be effective lifelong learners. In G. J. Neimeyer & J. M. Taylor (Eds.), Continuing edu- cation: Types, roles, and societal impacts (pp. 73–82). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Marrelli, A. F. (1998). An introduction to competency analysis and modeling. Perfor- mance Improvement, 37(5), 8–17. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140370505

Mentkowski, M., & Associates. (Eds.). (2000). Learning that lasts: Integrating learn- ing, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, G. E. (1990). Assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Aca- demic Medicine, 65(9, Suppl.), S63–S67.

Neimeyer, G. J., & Taylor, J. M. (2014). Top ten trends in lifelong learn- ing and continuing professional development. In W. B. Johnson & N. J. Kaslow (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of education and training in pro- fessional psychology (pp. 214–234). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, R. L., Vincent, W. L., & Fechter-Leggett, M. (2014). Rethinking the core curriculum of the education of professional psychologists. In B. W. Johnson & N. J. Kaslow (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of education and training in professional psychology (pp. 52–66). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

184 D. Fletcher and J. Maher

Portenga, S. T. (2014). A critical review of sport and performance psychology certi- fications. Athletic Insight, 6(3), 201–219.

Rodolfa, E., Bent, R., Eisman, E., Nelson, P., Rehm, L., & Ritchie, P. (2005). A cube model for competency development: Implications for psychology educators and regulators. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4), 347–354. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.4.347

Rubin, N. J., Bebeau, M., Leigh, I. W., Lichtenberg, J. W., Nelson, P. D., Portnoy, S., . . . Kaslow, N. J. (2007). The competency movement within psychology: An historical perspective. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 452–462. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.452

Sakinofsky, I. (1979). Evaluating the competence of psychotherapists. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry/La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 24(3), 193–205.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shanteau, J. (1992). Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(2), 252–266. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90064-E

Skovholt, T. M. (1995). The evolving professional self: Stages and themes in therapist and counselor development. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Taylor, J. (1994). Examining the boundaries of sport science and psychol- ogy trained practitioners in applied sport psychology: Title usage and area of competence. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6(2), 185–195. doi:10.1080/10413209408406293

Tenenbaum, G., Lidor, R., Papaianou, A., & Samulski, D. (2003). Competencies (occupational standards, knowledge, and practice) and their accomplishment (learning specification, essential knowledge and skills) in sport and exercise psychology: An ISSP position stand. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(2), 155–166. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2003.9671709

Tod, D. (2007). The long and winding road: Professional development in sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 21(1), 94–108.

Tod, D. (2010). Training and professional development in applied sport psychology. In S. J. Hanrahan & M. B. Andersen (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied sport psychology (pp. 21–29). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Tod, D., & Lavallee, D. (2011). Taming the wild west: Training and supervision in ap- plied sport psychology. In D. Gilbourne & M. B. Andersen (Eds.), Critical essays in applied sport psychology (pp. 193–215). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Tracey, T. J. G., Wampold, B. E., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Exper- tise in psychotherapy: An elusive goal? American Psychologist, 69(3), 218–229. doi:10.1037/a0035099

Ward, D. G., Sandstedt, S. D., Cox, R. H., & Beck, N. C. (2005). Athlete-counseling competencies for U.S. psychologists working with athletes. The Sport Psycholo- gist, 19(3), 318–334.

Watson, J. C., & Portenga, S. T. (2014). An overview of the issues affecting the future of certification in sport psychology. Athletic Insight, 6(3), 261–276.

Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7

Professional Competence in Sport Psychology 185

Werquin, P. (2008). Recognition of non-formal and informal learning in OECD Countries: A very good idea in jeopardy. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 3, 142– 149.

Wylleman, P., Harwood, C. G., Elbe, A.-M., & de Caluwé, D. (2009). A perspec- tive on education and professional development in applied sport psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(4), 435–446. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009. 03.00

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

C ap

el la

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

07 :0

7 15

O ct

ob er

2 01

7