Journal Article Critique Discussion
flyky2010
afkhami_2011.pdf
Available online at www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com
Scholars Research Library
Annals of Biological Research, 2011, 2 (4) :469-475
(http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive.html)
ISSN 0976-1233
CODEN (USA): ABRNBW
469
Scholars Research Library
Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy
in Coaches
Esmaeel AFKHAMI 1*
, Poone MOKHTARI 2 , Farshad TOJJARI
3 , Mahdi BASHIRI
4 and
Mir Hamid SALEHIAN 5
1, 4, 5 Department of Physical Education, Tabriz branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2, 3 Department of Physical Education, Central Tehran branch, Islamic Azad university, Tehran, Iran
______________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between emotional intelligence and
coaching efficacy of university coaches. Therefore, 120 coaches (60 male and 60 female) were
selected randomly and completed emotional intelligence (Syberyashring, 1986) and the coaching
efficacy questionnaires. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and inferential (Pierson
correlation, and single-variable and multivariate regression) with SPSS 16 software (P<0.05).
Suggested hypothesis showed that the scale and subscales of coaches’ emotional intelligence are
associated with the scale and subscales of coaching efficacy. The coaches’ emotional
intelligence was considered as a good predict of coaching efficacy. Generally speaking, there is
a significance relationship between emotional intelligence as a variable affecting the coaching
efficacy.
Key words: Emotional intelligence, coaching efficacy, coach.
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, it is known that the most important necessary condition in training top sportsmen and
sportswomen depends on excellent coaches. Huge investments in the field of coaching as well as
employing effective and efficient coaches for the clubs represent the necessity of great attention
in choosing efficient coaches. An efficient coach should have several characteristics. Coaching
efficacy consists of four main subscales that is creating incentive game strategy, effective
technique and processes in character developing. By creating incentives coaching can influence
their players’ skill and mental states [1]. The game strategy is related to the coaches ability in
guiding their players during the contest toward success [2, 3]. Eventually, the process of
Esmaeel AFKHAMI et al Annals of Biological Research, 2011, 2 (4):469-475
_____________________________________________________________________________
470
Scholars Research Library
character development is related to the coaches beliefs whether he will be able to influence his
player character development as well as to alter view of people toward sport [4, 5]. According to
Chase at al., coaching efficacy involve the level of their experience and preparedness, leading
skills and success, prior achievement, prior skills, players development and progress, and social
support [6]. In this regard, Gondy believes that an efficient coach should have the following
characteristics; listening, leading, teaching, guiding, consulting and being a good sample for his
players [9]. According to Feltz et al., coaching efficacy means coaches trust in their abilities to
impact and instruct the sportsmen and sportswomen successfully [7]. A research in this field
makes clear the importance and position of coaching efficacy. For example, Myres et al. have
reported that coaching efficacy effects coaches behavior, team satisfaction and percentage of
victory [14]. Sullivan and Kents also showed that there is a positive relation between coaching
efficacy and leading style [17]. Kavussanu et al. showed that coaching experience was a suitable
prediction of the effect of technique [11]. Regarding the effective role of coaching efficacy and
factors related to it, researchers are trying to identify variables which are related to it. One of the
variables which play an important role in most situations is emotional intelligence. Emotional
vector in different situations of life causes enhancement in identifying and realizing one’s own
feelings and others to motivate himself and control his feelings better and handle with others
[11]. Lyons et al. showed that high levels of emotional intelligence effect the improvement of
performance and lack of emotional intelligence in bosses and authorities, results weak
management [13]. Because of the efficacy of emotional intelligence as mentioned, perhaps it is
possible to imagine a relationship between this variable and coaching efficacy as in coaching
there are many qualifications which require the coaches to follow, otherwise, they will not have a
way ahead to achieve there goals. For instance the coaches should not only master the
excitements but they should also transfer the knowledge of controlling emotions to there players.
Also those coaches who succeed in creating relationship with his players and others receive
positive feedback and can improve there faults and stabilize there positive points. In this regard
coaches who have powerful social skills can comfortably direct his players’ behavior toward
their ideal path [11]. It seems that having such qualities is a coaching prerequisite to achieve
goals and this probably in a way is related to emotional intelligence.
For instance, in Gould et al. research it is proved that coaches who can evaluate their emotions in
high sensitive specific conditions will be able to harness their own feeling [10]. Although
coaching is the most important factor in sporting and physical education to promote the teams
position this important factor hasn’t received enough consideration. There fore noting the
mentioned statements and the importance of coaches efficacy and its important role in gaining
success in the field of training goals and effective role of emotional intelligence in improving the
players performance is necessary to pay attention to this matter carefully. This study intends to
deal with the relationship between coaching efficacy and emotional intelligence and also to
specify coaching efficacy through emotional intelligence to recognize the characteristic of
efficient coaches who are active in this field and to learn more about the relationship between
efficacy and the level of emotional intelligence of the coaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
One hundred and twenty coaches (60 males and 60 females) were selected randomly among
different East Azarbayjan universities. They ranged in age from 23 to 42 years (M = 32.03, SD
Esmaeel AFKHAMI et al Annals of Biological Research, 2011, 2 (4):469-475
_____________________________________________________________________________
471
Scholars Research Library
= 5.48) and they had between 2 to 20 years coaching experience (M = 8.90, SD = 5.37). To
obtain appropriate demographic data, a background information questionnaire was developed to
ascertain details such as age, gender, the sport coached in, the number of years that they have
been coaching, and the current level of their coaching (Table 1).
Table1. Mean ages and coaching experience
Parameters Sex Min. Max. Mean St. dev.
Male 23 42 32.25 6.25
Age Female 27 39 31.60 3.75
Total 23 42 32.03 5.48
Male 2 20 8.10 5.83
coaching experience Female 4 17 10.50 4.12
Total 2 20 8.90 5.37
The Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS; Syberyashring., 1986) was employed in the present
study. The EIS, totaled of 33 items (where items are rated on a 5-point scale anchored by 1 =
strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree), is made up from five factors. The Coaching Efficacy
Scale (CES; Feltz et al., 1999) was used to measure coach efficacy. The CES, totaled 24 items
(where items are rated on a 10-point scale anchored by 0 = not at all confident to 9 = extremely
confident), is made up from four factors, where the four subscale scores, as well as total scale
scores, can be employed. Each question is preceded with the statement 'How confident are you in
your ability to,' which is followed by a subscale specific item. Motivation efficacy has seven
items (e, g., maintain your confidence), game strategy has seven items (e. g., make critical
decisions during competition), character building efficacy contains four items (e.g., promote
good sportsmanship), and teaching technique efficacy has six items (e, g., demonstrate the skills
of your sport). Alpha values in the present study were 0.95 for the total scale, with subscale
values being 0.92 for motivation efficacy, 0.88 for game strategy efficacy, 0.86 for character
building efficacy, and 0.87 for teaching technique efficacy.
Having received ethical clearance from the institution of the first author, coaches who were
known to the institutions to which the authors were affiliated were contacted via either telephone
or electronic mail. Having indicated an interest to participate in the study, the coaches were then
required to read the participant information sheet prior to volunteering their consent and then
completing the EIS and then the CES measures. Completion of the measures, which all took
place in the presence of a member of the research team either individually or in small groups,
implied that the participants were consenting to their participation.
By attending teams drill time and getting the coaches approval to cooperate with us, 140 forms
were distributed among the chosen coaches. Then the raw data form among 120 forms sorted and
analyzed. In this regard first through Kolmogrov-Smirnov test the nature of the diversification of
data was verified. Then by means of statistical methods of Pierson’s correlation coefficient to
survey relationship between both variables to specify the probability of existence of the
regression model and multi variable regression model to determine the strength of the prediction
of subscales of emotional intelligence to evaluate scales and subscales of couching efficacy and
ultimately one variable regression model to determine the strength of the predication of the scale
of emotional intelligence in evaluating the scale and subscale of coaching efficacy were used the
whole date were analyzed in a meaningful level a!0.05 by SPSS 16 software (Table 2).
Esmaeel AFKHAMI et al Annals of Biological Research, 2011, 2 (4):469-475
_____________________________________________________________________________
472
Scholars Research Library
Table 2. Kolmogrov-Smirnov test to the diversification of data
Index Parameter P
Total Emotional intelligence 0.835 0.489
Self- motivation 0.656 0.783
Emotional intelligence Self- awareness 1.103 0.175
Self- regulation 0.910 0.380
Empathy 1.083 0.191
Social skills 1.013 0.256
Total coaching efficacy 0.905 0.249
Motivating effect 1.096 0.181
Coaching efficacy Game strategy effect 1.115 0.166
Instructing technique effect 0.896 0.398
Character developing effect 0.914 0.306
RESULTS
Table 3. Correlation matrix variables between emotional intelligence subscales with coaching efficacy
subscales
Character
developing
effect
instruction
technique
effect
Game
strategy
effect
Motivating
effect
Coaching
efficacy
0.519(**) 0.303(**) 0.174 0.447(**) 0.513(**) Pierson correlation Emotional intelligent
0.0001 0.001 0.057 0.0001 0.0001 Sig.
0.282(**) 0.15 0.130 0.221 (*) 0.215(*) Pierson correlation Self- motivation
0.002 0.102 0.158 0.015 0.018 Sig.
0.415(**) !0.353(**) 0.254 (**) 0.391(**) 0.486 (**) Pierson correlation Self- awareness
0.0001 0.0001 0.005 0.0001 0.0001 Sig.
0.206(*) 0.139 0.206(*) 0.282(**) 0.326 (**) Pierson correlation Self- regulation
0.024 0.13 0.024 0.002 0.0001 Sig.
0.377(**) 0.418 0.027 0.318(**) 0.304(**) Pierson correlation Empathy
0.0001 0.113 0.766 0.0001 0.001 Sig.
0.460(**) 0.217(*) -0.064 0.297(**) 0.365(**) Pierson correlation Social skills
0.0001 0.020 0.490 0.001 0.0001 Sig.
!P<0.01 ""#""!! P< 0.05"
Table 4. Regression analysis of coaching efficacy, Motivating effect, Game strategy effect, instruction
technique effect, character developing effect on emotional intelligence subscales
Model R
2 Corrected R
2
coaching efficacy Enter 1
0.311 0.281
Motivating effect Total 0.228 0.194
Game strategy effect Total 0.126 0.088
instruction technique effect Total 0.138 0.100
character developing Total 0.328 0.299
As it is shown in table 3, the correlation matrix between two variables (emotional intelligence
and coaching efficacy) and their subscales showed that there is a positive relationship between
emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy (r=0.513 p=0.001), and considering the relationship
between the subscale of these two variable that there is positive and meaningful relationship
between motivating effect and character developing effect with all aspects of emotional
intelligence (subscales of self-motivating , self- awareness, self-regulation, empathy and social
skills) a positive meaningful relationship between subscales of game strategy with self awareness
of (r=0.254 , p=0.0005) and self regulation (r=0.206 , p=0.024) was observed. Also there was a
Esmaeel AFKHAMI et al Annals of Biological Research, 2011, 2 (4):469-475
_____________________________________________________________________________
473
Scholars Research Library
positive meaningful relation ship between minor self of instructing technique effect with self
awareness of (r=0.353, p=0.005) and social skills of (r=0.211, p=0.02).
As it shown in table 4, the result of multi regression analysis test R 2 shows that about 31% of
deviation in coaching efficacy variable was to due subscales of emotional intelligence variable
which is average and considered acceptable statistically and it is seen that the level of deviation
for subscales character developing is 0.32, motivating effect is 0.23, instructing technique effect
is 0.13 and game strategy effect 0.12.
Table 5. Predictor of coaching efficacy by emotional intelligence subscales
Model Standardized coefficient T P
Beta
(constant) 7.042 0.000
Self- motivation 0.026 0.299 0.765
Total Self- awareness 0.357 4.020 0.000
Self- regulation 0.117 1.329 0.186
Empathy 0.086 0.970 0.334
Social skills 0.185 2.029 0.045
As it shown in table 5, the result of multi regression test shows that the rate of the existing
regression is meaningful (f=10.29, p<0.01) that is the fire prediction variable (subscales of
emotional intelligence) meaningfully determine standard variable (coaching efficacy and it is
subscales). The standardized regression coefficient for self awareness equals Beta=0.357 and is
meaningful (t=4.02, p<0.01) and the standardized regression coefficient for social skills equals
Beta=0.185 and is meaningful (t=2.029, p=0.045).in other words self awareness in comparison
with social skills is a better prediction for coaching efficacy.
Table 6. Predictor of coaching efficacy subscales by emotional intelligence subscales
Motivation
effect
Technique
effect
Game
Strategy
effect
Character
developing
effect
Model Beta t p Beta t p Beta t p Beta t p
(constant) 6.35 0.00 6.41 0.00 5.82 0.00 -0.15 0.87
Self- motivation 0.08 0.87 0.38 0.01 0.14 0.88 0.14 1.51 0.13 0.06 0.77 0.44
Total Self- awareness 0.25 2.70 0.00 0.31 3.17 0.00 0.21 2.12 0.03 0.26 3.06 0.00
Self- regulation 0.10 1.15 0.25 -0.00 -0.09 0.92 0.19 1.98 0.05 -0.03 -0.38 0.70
Empathy 0.15 1.65 0.10 0.01 0.15 0.87 -0.03 -0.38 0.70 0.18 2.14 0.03
Social skills 0.10 1.06 0.28 0.11 1.07 0.28 -0.21 -2.10 0.03 0.29 3.23 0.00
As it shown in table 6, in this section other variable have less strength in predicting coaching
efficacy (p>0.05). In subscale of motivating effect the standardized regression coefficient for self
awareness Beta=0.25 and is meaningful (t=2.070, p=0.000). So only self awareness variable is
considered as meaningful prediction for motivating effect and other variable are not powerful
enough to be used for the prediction of motivating effect (p>.0.05). In subscale of game strategy,
the standardized regression coefficient for self awareness equals Beta = 0.21 and self regulation
Beta = 0.19 and social skills equal Beta = -0.21 and is meaningful. So self- awareness in
comparison with self-regulation and social skills is a better prediction for minor self of game
strategy, here the two variable that is self motivating and empathy have less strength for the
prediction of game strategy (p>0.05). In the subscale of the technique effect the standardized
regression coefficient for self awareness equals Beta=0.316 and thus is meaningful (t=30.17,
Esmaeel AFKHAMI et al Annals of Biological Research, 2011, 2 (4):469-475
_____________________________________________________________________________
474
Scholars Research Library
p=0.002). So only the self awareness variable is considered as a powerful and meaningful
predictor of technique effect here other variables have less strength in the prediction of technique
effect (P>0.05). In the subscale of character building developing effect the standardized
regression coefficient for self awareness equals Beta=0.269, empathy equals Beta=0.182 and
social skills equals Beta=0.292 and are meaningful .So social effects in comparison with self
awareness and empathy is a better predictor of the character developing effect of subscale .here
the two variable that is self motivating and self regulation have less power in the prediction of
character developing effect (P>0.05)
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research is to determine the relationship between coaching efficacy and
emotional intelligence of East Azarbayjan university coaches. The results revealed that there is a
positive and meaningful relationship between emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy.
Coaches who owned high emotional intelligence had high levels of efficacy. This research
yielded results which were in accordance with those of Richard et al. [15]. Comparing the results
of Jordan's research [15], George [11] and Lyons et al. [13] with the result of this research
showing a close relationship between coaching efficacy and emotional intelligence. We conclude
that coaches who own high emotional intelligence perform their job well in recognizing and
applying their own feeling as well as their players and are able to face contest stress and manage
their own relations and motivate themselves as well as their players. These coaches make
positive and right decision in critical situations .They make later plays and choose better
solutions in order to achieve their goals. The result of the application of many actions improves
the performance and increases the level of coaching efficacy. Finding of this research made it
clear that there is a positive and meaningful relationship between subscales of motivating and
character developing effect and all subscales of emotional intelligence. In other words, coaches
who owned high emotional intelligence could have high motivating effect and character
developing effect. Port of this result is in accordance with those that Richard et al they had
reported that mirror scale of motivating effect has correlation with subscales of emotions
adjustment and social skill [15]. Considering Feltz et al. description about coaching efficacy we
learn that efficient coaches are those who can influence their player's character development can
change people's view about sport and motivate his players to improve mental and practical
abilities [7]. It is expected that coaches who have such abilities should also own prerequisite
qualities to apply them. This research also shows that owing high levels of subscales of
emotional intelligence have relationship with mentioned abilities.
In this research positive and meaningful relationships were only observed between subscales of
game strategy with self- awareness, self- regulation and the vector of technique effect with
subscales of self- awareness and social skills. So, coaches who had high self- awareness and self-
regulation had better game strategy effect and coaches who owned high self- awareness and
social skills had high instructing technique effect. It should be noted that among dimensions of
emotional intelligence there is relationship between subscale of self- awareness and coaching
efficacy. The result of this research can be explained by Golmans (1995) who believes that self-
awareness is the basis of all other subscales of emotional intelligence. Golman points out people
with high levels of self- awareness recognize their own strong and weak points and can arrange
their own needs comfortably. These people are well aware of their own abilities, since they have
Esmaeel AFKHAMI et al Annals of Biological Research, 2011, 2 (4):469-475
_____________________________________________________________________________
475
Scholars Research Library
high level of self- confidence. The results showed that five variable predictors (self- motivating,
self- awareness, self-regulation, empathy and social skills) determine the variable standard
(coaching efficacy) meaningfully, but in detailed analysis of the subscales of variable predictor,
it is seen that subscales of self-awareness is a better predictor of coaching efficacy than the
vector of social skills and other subscales of emotional intelligence. The result of this research is
parallel to Seunghyuns’ (2008) who had pointed the scale of emotional intelligence can predict
the level of coaching efficacy [11].
According to the research results the most deviation percent in the variable of character
developing effect was due to the subscales of emotional intelligence variable which is more open
to fluency, game strategy. These results are parallel to Seunghyuns’ [11]. Finally, subscales of
social skills are better predictors of subscales of character developing, self-awareness and
empathy. Subscales of social skills are considered as an important quality of coaching, involving
the ability to manage the relations between their players and themselves. Coaches who have
powerful social skills can impress their players easily to guide their mind and behavior toward
the planned direction.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank East Azarbayjan Coaches participating in this study.
REFERENCE
[1] G.A. Bloom, D.E. Stevens, T.L. Wickwire, J Appl Sport Psycho, 2003, 15, 129-143.
[2] C. Botterill; Sport Psycho, 1990, 4, 358-368.
[3] K.A. Candan, Ph.D thesis, Farleigh Dickinson University, 2007.
[4] A.V. Carron and P. Chelladurai, J Sports Psych, 1981, 3, 123-129.
[5] A.V. Carron, J Sports Psycho, 1982, 4, 123-126.
[6] M.A. Chase, D.I. Feltz, S.W.Hayashi, I. J. Hepler, Inter J Sport and Exerci Psych, 2005, I, 7-
25.
[7] D.I. Feltz, M.A. Chase, S.E. Moritz, and P.J. Sullivan; J Ecuc Psycfio, 1999, 91, 765-776.
[8] J. M. George, Hum Relat, 2000, 53, 1027-1055.
[9] A. Gondi, Coach Assessment form. http:/www. Vemp.learninq.orq, Doc s/ecadoo.75. htm,
1998. [10] D. Gould, C. Greenleaf, D. Guinan and Y. Chung; The Sport Psych, 2002, 16, 229-250
[11] P.J. Jordan, N.M. Ashkanasy, E.J. Charmine, Acad Manag Rev, 2002, 27, 361-372.
[12] M. Kavussanu, I.D. Boardley, N. Jutkiewicz, S. Vincent, C. Ring, Sport Psych, 2008, 22, 4,
383-404.
[13] J.B. Lyons, T.R. Schneider, Person Indivi Differ, 2005, 39, 693–703.
[14] N.D. Myers, Vargas-Tonsing, T.M. and D.L. Feltz, Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate
coaches: sources, coaching behavior, and team variables; Psych Sport & Exerci, 2005, 6,129-
143.
[15] C.T. Richard, M.L. Andrew, J.V.W. Neil, A.G. Iain, IJSEP, 2008, 6, 224-235
[16] H. Seunghyun, M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 2008.
[17] P. Sullivan, A. Kent, J App Sport Psych, 2003, 15, 1, 1-11.
Copyright of Annals of Biological Research is the property of Scholars Research Library and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
