Qualitative Research Proposal

flyky2010

coaches_vs_athletes_coaching_efficacy.pdf

Home >Literature homework help >Qualitative Research Proposal

ABSTRACT

COMPARING COACHES’ AND ATHLETES’ PERCEPTIONS OF COACHING

EFFICACY

Jennifer Caron

May 2015

The current study investigated ratings of coaches and their athletes on the

Coaching Efficacy Scale. Coaches (n = 12) and athletes (n = 177) were recruited from

several Southwestern universities and community colleges to participate in this study.

The purpose of this study was to compare coaching efficacy ratings of coaches to those of

their athletes to determine how similarly coaches and athletes perceive the coach’s

efficacy. Coaches and athletes from a variety of team and individual sports, including

male teams, female teams, and teams with a mixture of males and females participated in

this study. Results indicated that there is a difference between coaches’ ratings of

themselves and athletes’ ratings of their coaches. Differences were found in athlete

gender as well as gender matching of coaches and athletes.

COMPARING COACHES’ AND ATHLETES’ PERCEPTIONS OF COACHING

EFFICACY

A THESIS

Presented to the Department of Kinesiology

California State University, Long Beach

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Kinesiology

Committee Members:

Tiffanye Vargas, Ph.D. (Chair) Stephen Hawn, Ph.D. Douglas Young, Ph.D

College Designee:

Grant Hill, Ph.D.

By Jennifer Caron

B.S., 2012, Florida Southern College, Lakeland

May 2015

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 1586149

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 1586149

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... v CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 Coaching Efficacy...................................................................................... 1 Coaching Efficacy Model .......................................................................... 2 Coaching Efficacy Scale ............................................................................ 3 Determining Coaching Efficacy ................................................................ 4 Gender ........................................................................................................ 5 Purpose of Study ........................................................................................ 7 2. METHOD ........................................................................................................ 8 Participants................................................................................................. 8 Measures .................................................................................................... 9 Procedure ................................................................................................... 11 Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 11 3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 13 4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 17 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 22 A. COACHING EFFICACY SCALE FOR COACHES ...................................... 23 B. COACHING EFFICACY SCALE FOR ATHLETES..................................... 28 C. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COACHES ............................... 33 D. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ATHLETES ............................. 36 E. COACH RECRUITMENT LETTER............................................................... 39

Page REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 44

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page 1. Coaches’ and Athletes’ Average Score by Team.............................................. 41

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Coaches and athletes have a unique relationship in which coaches can influence

athletes’ behaviors, performances, and psychological and emotional well beings through

their own actions and behaviors (Horn, 2002). Many different factors of coaches’

behaviors can affect their athletes’ performances and satisfaction. In particular, a coach’s

own confidence in his or her ability has been found to impact his or her athletes, a

concept defined as coaching efficacy (Feltz, Chase, Mortiz, Sullivan, 1999; Kenow &

Williams, 1992,1999). The current study seeks to compare coaches’ and their athletes’

perceptions of the coaches’ coaching efficacy.

Coaching Efficacy

Coaching efficacy is the “extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity

to affect the learning and performance of their athletes,” and these performances include

psychological, attitudinal, and teamwork skills of athletes (Feltz et al., 1999, p. 765).

Coaching efficacy is believed to influence how one coaches, how players perform, how

confident and motivated athletes are, and how satisfied athletes are with the coach

(Ashton & Webb, 1986; Coladraci, 1992; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990; Woolfolk,

Rossoff, & Hoy, 1990). The concept of coaching efficacy is developed from Bandura’s

(1977) theory of self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to successfully perform a

behavior that produces positive results. Self-efficacy is essential for self-motivation

because one sets certain standards in order to evaluate one’s self. As behaviors are

strongly driven by reinforcement, a person seeks reinforcement of his or her behavior

according to the outcome his or her behavior produces. Positive results of an

accomplishment motivate the behavior and negative results of an inadequate performance

discourage the behavior.

The strength of one’s confidence and belief that one can successfully perform a

task, also known as efficacy expectation, will determine that person’s effort and

persistence during performance. Those with higher levels of self-efficacy tend to

experience better personal performances than those with lower levels of self-efficacy

(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Thus, efficacy can be considered a significant predictor of

performance outcomes, which is why it is critical to study when considering a coach’s

effectiveness in relation to his or her athletes’ performances.

Coaching Efficacy Model

Feltz et al. (1999) developed the Coaching Efficacy Model to determine the

causes, components, and outcomes of coaching efficacy. Bandura’s conceptualization of

self-efficacy (1977), Denham and Michaels’ (1981) multidimensional model of teacher

efficacy, and Park’s (1992) initial measure of coaching confidence were used to develop

the coaching efficacy model. The model includes the sources of efficacy specific to

coaching and the possible effects and outcomes of coaching efficacy. The four sources of

coaching efficacy determined are coaching experience, prior success, perceived skill of

athletes, and community support (Feltz et al., 1999).

These sources are predicted to have influences on the four dimensions of coaching

efficacy developed by Feltz et al. (1999). Game strategy efficacy is the confidence

coaches have in their abilities to coach during competition and lead their teams to

successful performances. Motivation efficacy is the confidence coaches have in their

abilities to affect the psychological skills and states of their athletes. Teaching technique

efficacy is the belief coaches have in their instructional and diagnostic skills. Character

building efficacy is the confidence coaches have in their abilities to influence the

personal development of and positive attitude toward sport in their athletes. These four

dimensions were based on the National Standards for Athletic Coaches (National

Association of Sport and Physical Education, 1995). More recent findings support this

model by showing a relationship between the sources and dimensions of coaching

efficacy (Myers, Vargas-Tonsing, & Feltz, 2005).

Feltz et al. (1999) also claimed that the dimensions of the coaching efficacy

model create certain outcomes according to high and low coaching efficacy beliefs. The

four determined outcomes of coaching efficacy are coaching behavior (including type of

feedback, management strategies, and coaching styles), athletes’ satisfaction, athletes’

performances and attitudes, and athletes’ efficacy. Feltz and colleagues measured the

relationship between the sources, dimensions, and outcomes by using the Coaching

Efficacy Scale (CES).

Coaching Efficacy Scale

Responses on the CES have supported the relationship between the sources and

dimensions of the Coaching Efficacy Model. Coaches with higher perceptions of team’s

ability, perceived social support from athletes’ parents and the community, higher career

winning percentages, and more experience as collegiate head coaches were more

confident in their motivating, character building, game strategizing, and technique

teaching abilities (Myers, Vargas-Tonsing, & Feltz, 2005).

In a more recent study using the CES with volunteer youth sport coaches, Feltz,

Hepler, and Roman (2009) found that more confident coaches had more extensive

playing and coaching backgrounds, thought their players improved more throughout the

season, and perceived more social support than less confident coaches did.

Furthermore, Feltz and colleagues (1999) found that coaches who scored higher

or lower in general coaching efficacy on the CES differed on several proposed outcomes,

which include praise and encouragement behavior, instructional and organizational

behavior, player satisfaction, and winning percentage. High efficacy coaches won more

games than did lower efficacy coaches, and winning games is related to effective

instruction, good decision-making and strategy formulation, and effective motivation and

attitude instruction. High-efficacy coaches also used more effective coaching behaviors

such as praise and encouragement than did lower efficacy coaches. In addition, player

satisfaction was one of the strongest outcome measures of coaching efficacy.

Determining Coaching Efficacy

In order to determine coaching efficacy patterns, past studies have asked coaches

to evaluate their own coaching efficacy; however, it has been determined that people tend

to evaluate themselves more positively than others evaluate them (Green & Gross, 1979;

Irwin, 1944; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In these past studies, most coaches rated their

levels of coaching efficacy higher than their team members did (Short & Short, 2004),

reported a higher frequency of using certain efficacy-enhancing techniques than their

players perceived them to use (Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, & Feltz, 2004), and evaluated

themselves as more socially supportive and rewarding than their athletes reported

(Salimen & Luikkonon, 1996).

Kenow and Williams (1992) also noted that coaches are not always aware of their

behaviors or the effect their behaviors have on athletes. Additionally, Smith, Smoll, and

Curtis (1978) found that correlations between observed coaching behaviors and coaches’

self-perceptions of their behaviors were generally low and nonsignificant; in contrast,

athletes’ ratings of perceived coaching behaviors correlated much more highly with

observed coaching behavior.

Although Smith et al. (1978) objectively assessed coaching behaviors, an

important issue to consider is that the coaches’ actual behaviors may not be as significant

to the athletes’ motivation and performances as the athletes’ perceptions and

interpretations of those behaviors (Horn, 2002). Moreover, Smoll and Smith (1989)

found that the final effects of coaching behaviors were often mediated by the meaning

players gave to them. Athletes’ perceptions should also be considered to determine a

strong relationship between the sources, dimensions, and outcomes of coaching efficacy.

In relationships set for growth, learning, and healing, it is important to understand

how people process efficacy-relevant information. In these relationships, people tend to

develop beliefs about others’ efficacy, and these beliefs have the ability to influence how

they respond to others, particularly in supportive or discouraging manners (Lent &

Lopez, 2002). Therefore, both athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions are necessary to

establish the most effective efficacy enhancing techniques (Gould, Hodge, Peterson, &

Gianni, 1989).

Gender

Another factor to consider is gender, as the gender of the coach and athletes may

influence athletes’ perceptions of coaching behaviors (Horn, 2002). In a study conducted

by (Myers, Vargas-Tonsing, & Feltz, 2005), when the gender of the coach matched the

gender of the team, the coach’s beliefs in his or her abilities to affect the learning and

performance of athletes adequately predicted coaching behavior. Those with coaches of

the opposite sex have perceived lower efficacy in their coaches, particularly in motivation

and character building. Those coached by the same sex reported more positive

perceptions of efficacy in motivation and character building (Kavussanu, Boardley,

Jutkiewicz, Vincent, & Ring, 2008).

Vargas-Tonsing et al. (2004) also found a major difference in preferred efficacy-

enhancing techniques between female athletes coached by women versus coached by

men. Female athletes of female coaches preferred reward statements in developing

efficacy more than female athletes of male coaches did. In addition, female athletes of

female coaches preferred verbal persuasion and the coach acting confident more than

female athletes of male coaches did.

Research has also found that gender of the coach predicted strategy efficacy.

Male coaches reported significantly higher beliefs in their abilities to coach and lead their

teams to successful performances during competitions than female coaches did

(Kavussanu et al., 2008), which is consistent with previous research (Marback, Short,

Short, & Sullivan, 2005; Sullivan & Kent, 2003). A possible explanation is that males

emphasize winning more and thus spend more time developing skills to lead the team to

success during competition, which enhances game strategy efficacy (Kavussanu et al.,

2008). Therefore, it is predicted that the gender of the coach and athletes will have an

effect on athletes’ perceptions and thus on ratings of coaching efficacy.

Purpose of Study

Coaching efficacy and its reflected behaviors can influence athletes’ attitudes and

behaviors in the sports setting. In order to measure coaching efficacy and study its

effects, the coaches’, as well as the athletes’, perceptions are crucial to understanding the

relationship. Coaches may act in a certain way, but athletes’ interpretations of the

behaviors determine whether they are successful or not.

The purpose of this study is to examine differences in coaching efficacy

perceptions in coaches and athletes, coach gender, athlete gender, type of sport, and

coach to athlete gender matching. This information is intended to promote more effective

coach-athlete relationships in which performance is enhanced. Such information could

directly benefit coaches through coaching education programs on coaching efficacy as

previous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of these programs (Campbell &

Sullivan, 2005; Malete & Feltz, 2000; Sullivan, Paquette, Holt, & Bloom, 2012).

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Participants

Head coaches (n = 12) and their athletes (n = 177) from a variety of sport teams at

Division I southwestern universities and community colleges participated in this study.

Participants were recruited from individual (cross-country, track and field, golf) and team

(basketball, soccer, baseball, softball, volleyball, and tennis) sports. Two coaches

completed their questionnaires without their team’s responses for comparison, and one

team completed their questionnaires without their coach’s responses with which to

compare.

The coaches were 9 males and 3 females, whose age ranged from 28 to 55 years

(M = 42.89, SD = 10.00) for males and 29 to 45 years (M = 38.00, SD = 8.19) for

females. Their coaching experience ranged from 6 to 32 years (M = 16.00, SD = 8.89)

for males and 11 to 23 years (M = 15.67, SD = 6.43) for females, and they had

participated in their sport in varying standards: recreational (n = 9), high school (n = 10),

college (n = 11), and professional (n = 9).

The athletes were 87 males and 89 females, whose age ranged from 18 to 23 years

(M = 19.57, SD = 1.28) for males and 18 to 23 years (M = 19.56, SD = 1.36) for females.

Their sport experience ranged from 1 to 20 years (M = 9.52, SD = 5.31) for males and 1

to 18 years (M = 11.19, SD = 4.42) for females. Time with their current coach ranged

from 1 to 7 years (M = 1.71, SD = .90) for males and 1 to 5 years (M = 1.78, SD = .86)

for females. Concerning gender matching of males and females include the following:

male athletes with a male coach (n = 87), female athletes with a male coach (n = 47), and

female athletes with a female coach (n = 43).

Measures

Coaching Efficacy Scale

Coaches completed the CES (Feltz et al., 1999). The CES contains 24 items, and

each item is scored on a 10-point Likert Scale from 0 (“not at all confident”) to 9

(“extremely confident”). Coaches were asked to rate their own efficacy on the CES. The

stem for each item was “how confident are you in your ability to…” The CES measures

the four dimensions of coaching efficacy: motivation (7 items), game strategy (7 items),

technique (6 items), and character building (4 items). A sample of the CES for coaches

can be found in Appendix A. Researchers have found good factorial validity (Lee,

Malete, & Feltz, 2002) and good levels of internal consistency for both multidimensional

and unidimensional coaching efficacy estimates with reliability coefficients ranging from

.83 to .91 across the subscales (Myers, Wolfe, & Feltz, 2005). According to Feltz and

colleagues (1999), this scale has good internal consistency, with an alpha coefficient

reported of .95. In the current study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .94 for the total

CES scale for coaches and .91 for the subscales.

Revised Coaching Efficacy Scale

Athletes completed a modified version of the CES in which they rated their

coach’s confidence (Short & Short, 2004). The stem for each item was “how confident is

your coach in his or her ability to…” The items were the same as those used in the CES

with some word changes (see Appendix B). For example, “your” was substituted with

“his or her.” According to Short and Short (2004), this scale for athletes has good

internal consistency, with a high alpha coefficient reported for the total CES scale and the

four subscales. In the current study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .97 for the total

CES scale for athletes. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .93 for all of the subscales.

Demographic Questionnaire

Participants also completed a demographic questionnaire. Coaches completed

separate demographic questionnaires from athletes. Coaches’ questionnaires asked their

gender, their highest degree of education, and the sport or sports they coach at the

university as well as the gender of the team or teams. The coach was also asked to

predict the team’s highest accomplishment for the current season by circling one of the

following options: “winning record,” “conference playoffs,” “conference title,” “NCAA

tournament,” “NCAA championship,” or “Other.” This questionnaire is shown in

Appendix C.

Athletes identified their class standing, their gender, their sport or sports, the

number of years playing for their varsity team, the number of years they have been

playing for their current coach, and the total number of years they have been playing their

sport. They were also asked to list any other sports played in the past and for how long.

Athletes rated their satisfaction with their coach, their satisfaction with their team, their

coach’s knowledge, their enjoyment playing with their team, and their enjoyment playing

for their coach. The athlete questionnaire is shown in Appendix D.

Procedure

Upon approval from the Institutional Review Board, coaches and athletes were

recruited from the athletic department of universities and community colleges. Coaches

were contacted through emails in which the purpose and measures of the study were

explained (see Appendix E). At a designated time and place, the primary researcher met

with each team and distributed informed consent forms. Upon indication of consent,

participants completed the demographic questionnaires and the CES. Coaches were sent

away while the team finished their questionnaires to ensure athletes had confidentiality in

whether they decided to participate or not. When the athletes completed their forms, they

placed their informed consent forms in a box with a lid and their questionnaires in a

separate box with a lid.

The coaches finished their questionnaires at their convenience. Each coach

placed his or her informed consent form in a separate folder from his or her

questionnaires, and the primary investigator retrieved them in person.

Data Analysis

To compare athletes’ ratings to those of coaches, the coaches’ scores were

averaged for each efficacy dimension. Seven scores were averaged for motivational

efficacy (items 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 15, 23), seven scores were averaged for game strategy

efficacy (items 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21), six scores were averaged for technique efficacy

(items 7, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22), four scores were averaged for character building efficacy

(items 5, 13, 19, 24), and total CES was determined by averaging all 24 items on the

scale. Athletes’ ratings were averaged for each dimension as a team. There was a 95%

confidence interval around athletes’ ratings. If a coach’s score fell within the confidence

interval, it was concluded that the coach’s and athletes’ ratings were similar. This

process was repeated for each coach and team.

One way multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to analyze three

different comparisons on each CES dimension and the total CES scale. The three

comparisons are the following: athlete gender differences, differences of gender

matching, and team and individual sport differences. A chi-square analysis was

conducted to compare coach genders.

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Table 1 in Appendix F shows subscales and total scores for each coach and the

descriptive statistics for the athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s efficacy. The data was

examined by calculating 95% confidence intervals around the athletes’ ratings of

coaching efficacy. If the coach’s score was in the confidence interval, then it was

concluded that the coaches’ and athletes’ ratings were similar. If the coach’s rating was

not in the confidence interval, then it was concluded that the ratings were not similar.

This format is similar to the one used by Kenow and Williams (1992) and Short and

Short (2004).

The results indicated that the athletes tended to perceive the coaches’ efficacy as

lower than the coaches did. The coaches in this study, on the average, rated themselves

high on all four Coaching Efficacy subscales. Overall, nine out of the 10 coaches who

had a team to compare to rated themselves higher on the total CES. When the coaches’

and athletes’ ratings were compared, usually the athletes rated their coach’s efficacy

lower than the coach did. When all coaches were compared to all athletes on total CES,

the coaches’ average (M = 7.64) fell above the confidence interval of the athletes (M =

7.12, SD = 1.43, CI = 6.90 – 7.33). Thus, the athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ efficacy

were generally not aligned with the coaches’.

A Chi-square test for independence (with Likelihood Ratio) indicated no

significant association between coach gender and CES subscales: motivation efficacy,

x^2 (6, n = 10) = 8.4, p = .21, game strategy efficacy, x^2 (7, n = 10) = 12.22, p = .09,

teaching technique efficacy, x^2 (5, n = 10) = 6.7, p = .22, character efficacy, x^2 (6, n =

10) = 12.22, p = .06, and total CES, x^2 (9, n = 10) = 12.22, p = .20. Therefore, the null

is accepted. Coach gender and personal perceptions of coaching efficacy are independent

of each other.

A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance was performed to

investigate athlete gender differences in perceptions of coaching efficacy. Five

dependent variables were used: motivation efficacy, game strategy efficacy, technique

efficacy, character efficacy, and total CES. The independent variable was athlete gender.

There were statistically significant differences between males and females on the

combined dependent variables, F (1, 168) = 5.519, p < .0001; Wilks’ Lambda = .882;

partial eta squared = .118. When the results for the dependent variables were considered

separately, the differences of statistical significance, using an adjusted alpha level of .01,

was motivation efficacy F (1, 168) = 7.10, p = .008, partial eta squared .072; technique

efficacy F (1, 168) =10.14, p = .002, partial eta squared .073; character efficacy F (1,

168) = 13.44, p < .0001, partial eta squared .101; total CES F (1, 168) = 10.65, p = .001,

partial eta squared .099.

An inspection of the mean scores indicated that female athletes reported lower

ratings for their coaches on perceived motivation efficacy (M = 6.42, SD = 1.85),

technique efficacy (M = 6.78, SD = 1.76), character efficacy (M = 6.76, SD = 1.67), and

total CES (M = 6.68, SD = 1.55) than male athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’

motivation efficacy (M = 7.34, SD = 1.44), technique efficacy (M = 7.62, SD = 1.21),

character efficacy (M = 7.72, SD = 1.15), and total CES (M = 7.57, SD = 1.13).

A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance was performed to

investigate differences in CES ratings between female athletes with female coaches,

female athletes with male coaches, and male athletes with male coaches. Five dependent

variables were used: motivation efficacy, game strategy efficacy, technique efficacy,

character efficacy, and total CES. The independent variable was coach-athlete gender

matching with three levels: female athletes with female coach (n = 43), female athletes

with male coach (n = 47), and male athletes with male coach (n = 87). There were

statistically significant differences between female athletes with a female coach and male

and female athletes with a male coach on the combined dependent variables, F (8, 330) =

7.56, p < .01; Wilks’ Lambda = .714; partial eta squared = .155.

When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, all

dependent variables had significant differences: motivation efficacy, F (2, 168) = 25.26,

p < .01, partial eta squared = .231; game strategy efficacy, F (2, 168) = 26.10, p < .01,

partial eta squared = .237; technique efficacy, F (2, 168) = 21.63, p < .01, partial eta

squared = .205; character efficacy, F (2, 168) = 24.03, p < .01, partial eta squared = .222;

total CES, F (2, 168) = 30.57, partial eta squared = .267. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed

that female athletes with a female coach differed from both male athletes with a male

coach and female athletes with a male coach on all dependent variables. An inspection of

the mean scores indicated that female athletes with a female coach reported slightly lower

levels than both males and females with a male coach in perceived motivation efficacy

(M = 5.45, SD = 1.93), game strategy efficacy (M = 6.05, SD = 1.50), technique efficacy

(M = 5.98, SD = 1.79), character efficacy (M = 6.02, SD = 1.66), and total CES (M =

5.85, SD = 1.51).

A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance was performed to

investigate differences in CES ratings from athletes in team sports and individual sports.

Five dependent variables were used: motivation, efficacy, game strategy efficacy,

technique efficacy, character efficacy, and total CES. The independent variable was type

of sport (team or individual). There was a statistically significant difference between

athletes on team sports and athletes on individual sports on the combined dependent

variables, F (4, 166) = 3.83, p = .005; Wilks’ Lambda = .92; partial eta squared = .084.

When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, no significant

differences were found.

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

Coaching efficacy is an important variable in coaching effectiveness and athletic

performance (Feltz, Chase, Mortiz, & Sullivan, 1999). In relationships set for growth,

learning, and healing, it is important to have greater understanding of how people process

efficacy-relevant information within close relationships. Individuals develop beliefs

about the efficacy of other persons in interpersonal contexts, and these beliefs can

influence whether they respond to others in supportive or discouraging ways (Lopez &

Lent, 2002). It is important to consider athletes’ perceptions of their coach because they

are most closely affected by their coach’s behaviors.

In the current study, coaches’ ratings of themselves were generally higher than

their athletes’ ratings of them. This may be attributed to the fact that people tend to

evaluate themselves in a more favorable manner than others evaluate them (Irwin, 1944).

Smith and colleagues (1978) found that observed coaching behaviors had low and non-

significant correlations with coaches’ self-perceptions whereas athletes’ ratings of

perceived coaching behaviors correlated much more highly with observed coaching

behavior. Therefore, athletes’ perceptions are of important consideration, and coaches’

perceptions may not be reliable in providing information on coaching efficacy.

One of the factors this study investigated was gender on coaching efficacy. In the

current study, coach gender did not appear to be a significant factor when coaches were

rating themselves. However, coach gender was a factor when athletes’ opinions were

considered. Female coaches received significantly lower ratings on all four CES

dimensions and total CES compared to male coaches according to athletes’ reports.

Coach and athlete gender matching also found significant differences. Male

athletes rated their male coaches higher than female athletes rated their female coaches

on all scales. In addition, female athletes rated their coaches’ efficacies higher if they

had a male coach compared to female athletes of female coaches. Whether the athletes

were male or female, both had significantly higher CES ratings for male coaches than

female coaches.

As Horn (2002) and Smith and Smoll (1989) previously discovered, athlete

gender is a predictor of perceived coaching effectiveness. When considering solely the

gender of the athletes, females rated their coaches significantly lower on all subscales

except one (game strategy efficacy) compared to males despite the gender of their coach.

The discrepancies may result from the difference in gender preferences for coaching

styles.

According to the multidimensional model of leadership, the coach is most

effective when his or her behaviors match behaviors preferred by the athletes

(Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978). Athletes may evaluate coaches of the same sex more

positively than they do coaches of the opposite sex due to the similarities between

athletes’ preferences and coaches’ behaviors (Kavussanu et al., 2008). For instance, male

athletes have reported a greater preference for social support and autocratic coaching

behaviors from coaches than female athletes preferred (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978).

Female athletes have reported that they prefer participatory styles in which they assist in

the decision-making process (Chelladurai & Arnott, 1985). Also, in a study with elite

female soccer players, the athletes reported that they were more satisfied with female

coaches because they preferred female coaches’ understanding and caring style of

communication (Fasting & Pfister, 2000).

However, the current findings are inconsistent with past research and theories.

While the current study may support gender preferences for males, female preferences

were inconsistent with past research. Furthermore, college athletes have reported that

they would prefer to have a male coach, which may be due to their emphasis on mastery

of skills rather than on competition and winning (Lirgg, Dibrezzo, & Smith, 1994).

The results demonstrate the importance of considering a perspective separate from

the person evaluating his or herself. As this perspective is from the followers, who

typically value and are dependent on their coach or leader, it may help explain how they

respond to their leaders.

Effective coaching behaviors have been shown to yield positive psychological

effects in athletes such as high perceived ability and self-esteem (Horn, 2002). Boardley,

Kavussanu, and Ring (2008) found that coaching efficacy affects athletes’ own levels of

effort, commitment, enjoyment, self-efficacy, and prosocial and antisocial behavior in

rugby. Athletes’ perceptions of a coach’s motivation efficacy influenced athletes’ effort,

commitment, and enjoyment in rugby. These factors predict lower levels of burnout

(Raedeke, 1997). Coaches’ higher levels of confidence in their coaching may positively

impact the way that they coach and be beneficial in increasing their team’s confidence

(Vargas-Tonsing, Warners, & Feltz, 2003). Coaches need to be aware that their coaching

efficacy can impact their team as a whole. Coaching efficacy can dramatically improve

overall coaching.

Future studies should consider possible sources and outcomes associated with the

coaching efficacy dimensions as described in the Coaching Efficacy Model to determine

the effects they may have on athletes’ perceptions. A winning or losing season,

satisfaction with the coach or team, and experience with the coach or team, may affect

how the athletes respond. Additionally, a coach’s perception of community or school

support, experience coaching and playing the sport they coach, and experience with their

current athletes may affect his or her behavior in some way that has an effect on athletes’

perceptions.

In addition, while the current study intended to gather data from varying sports,

type of sports, athlete gender, coach gender, and interactions of coach and athlete gender,

more data can be gathered from all groups to better generalize the findings. For instance,

the group of female athletes with female coaches was a smaller sample compared to male

athletes with male coaches and female athletes with male coaches. Additionally, there

was a larger sample of male coaches compared to female coaches. Other possibilities for

future research include sampling different levels of sport. The current study sampled

athletes and coaches from Division I sports and community colleges.

In conclusion, coaches need to be made more aware of their behaviors and how

they can affect athletes’ psychological functioning and the quality of the athletic

experience. As a whole, coaching education programs create more positive athlete-coach

relationships, which benefit both the team and the athletic program (Pompei, 2005).

Coach education has been shown to significantly affect coaching efficacy in a positive

way (Campbell & Sullivan, 2005; Malete & Feltz, 2000; Sullivan, Paquette, Holt, &

Bloom, 2012). The current information should be used in coaching education programs

to help improve awareness of coaching behavior effects on athletes’ behaviors and

satisfaction.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COACHING EFFICACY SCALE FOR COACHES

Coaching Efficacy Scale

Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes. Think about how confident you are as a coach. Rate your confidence for each of the items by circling a number provided.

How confident are you in your ability to…

1) Maintain confidence in your athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

2) Recognize opposing team’s strengths during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

3) Mentally prepare athletes for game/meet strategies?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

4) Understand competitive strategies?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

5) Instill an attitude of good moral character?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

6) Build the self-esteem of your athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

7) Demonstrate the skills of your sport?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

8) Adapt to different game/meet situations?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

9) Recognize opposing team’s weakness during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

10) Motivate your athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

11) Make critical decisions during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

12) Build team cohesion?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

13) Instill an attitude of fair play among your athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

14) Coach individual athletes on technique?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

15) Build the self-confidence of your athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

16) Develop athletes’ abilities?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

17) Maximize your team’s strengths during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

18) Recognize talent in athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

19) Promote good sportsmanship?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

20) Detect skill errors?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

21) Adjust your game/meet strategy to fit your team’s talent?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

22) Teach the skills of your sport?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

23) Build team confidence?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

24) Instill an attitude of respect for others?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

APPENDIX B

COACHING EFFICACY SCALE FOR ATHLETES

Coaching Efficacy Scale

Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes. Think about how confident your coach is as a coach. Rate your coach’s confidence for each of the items by circling a number provided.

How confident is your coach in his or her ability to…

1) Maintain confidence in his/her athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

2) Recognize opposing team’s strengths during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

3) Mentally prepare athletes for game/meet strategies?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

4) Understand competitive strategies?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

5) Instill an attitude of good moral character?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

6) Build the self-esteem of his/her athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

7) Demonstrate the skills of his/her sport?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

8) Adapt to different game/meet situations?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

9) Recognize opposing team’s weakness during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

10) Motivate his/her athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

11) Make critical decisions during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

12) Build team cohesion?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

13) Instill an attitude of fair play among his/her athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

14) Coach individual athletes on technique?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

15) Build the self-confidence of his/her athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

16) Develop athletes’ abilities?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

17) Maximize his/her team’s strengths during competition?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

18) Recognize talent in athletes?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

19) Promote good sportsmanship?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

20) Detect skill errors?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

21) Adjust his/her game/meet strategy to fit your team’s talent?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

22) Teach the skills of his/her sport?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

23) Build team confidence?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

24) Instill an attitude of respect for others?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Confident

Extremely confident

APPENDIX C

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COACHES

Demographic Information

Age:____________

Gender (circle one): Male Female

Highest degree of education: _____________________

Please list the sport that you coach: ____________________________________

What is the gender of this team that you coach? (circle one): Male Female Both

Have you played this sport (circle one)? Yes No

If yes, for how many years did you play at each level?

Recreation ______________________

High School ______________________

College ______________________

Professional _______________________

Other:________________________ _______________________

Please list the number of years you have been coaching this team, including this current season: ____________________

What is your overall win-‐loss record at this school? ________________

What is your overall win-‐loss record in addition to your time at this school? __________________

Please list the total number of years you have been coaching this sport including and in addition to your time coaching at this school: ___________________________

If you coach any other sports or teams at this school, please list them below and specify the gender(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Have you coached any other sports in the past (circle one)? Yes No

If yes, please list all sports previously coached and the amount of time you have coached each sport:

____________________________________ ______________________________________

How much do you agree with the following statements? 1. My community supports me as a coach:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

2. My Athletic Director supports me as a coach:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

3. My school supports me as a coach:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

How do you predict this team will do next season? (circle the highest accomplishment expected)

Winning record

Conference playoffs

Conference title

NCAA tournament

NCAA championship

Other: ______________________________

APPENDIX D

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ATHLETES

Demographic Information

Age: __________

Class Standing (circle one): Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Other: _____________

Gender (circle one): Male Female

Please list the varsity sport you are currently playing: ____________________________

If you play any other varsity sports for this school, please list: _______________________

Please list the number of years you have been playing for this team, including the current season: ____________________

Please list the number of years you have been playing for your current coach, including the current season: ____________________

Please list the total number of years you have been playing this sport including and in addition to your time playing for this school: _________________________

Do you play any other sports at this school? Yes No

If yes, please list: _______________________________________________________________________

Have you played any other sports in the past (circle one)? Yes No

If so, please list all sports previously played and the amount of time you have played each sport:

____________________________________ ______________________________________

Please rate your agreement with the following statements: 1. I am very satisfied with my coach:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

2. I am very satisfied with my team:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

3. My coach is very knowledgeable about my sport:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

4. I enjoy playing for my coach:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

5. I enjoy playing for this team:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

APPENDIX E

COACH RECRUITMENT LETTER

Dear Coach …,

We are writing to you with the hope that you will be willing to participate in an important research project. We recognize that you are an extremely busy individual and so we are asking for no more than 30 minutes of your time.

We are asking you to take part in a study titled, “Comparing Coaches’ and their Athletes’ Perceptions of Coaching Efficacy.” The purpose of the study is to compare athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ confidence to their coaches’ perceptions of their own confidence in coaching. Findings from this study will expand on coaching efficacy literature and provide much needed insight into coaches’ behaviors. Findings will also contribute to coaching education, subsequently improving athlete efficacy and performance.

We are asking you to take part in this study because you are a coach of a collegiate varsity team. Approximately 10 coaches and their teams are expected to take part in this study.

If you are interested in participating, researchers will meet you at one of your practices to go over the procedure and gain your written consent. You and your athletes will then be given two questionnaires to complete, a perceptions of coaching confidence questionnaire and a demographic questionnaire. We will collect your completed responses when you have completed the questionnaires. Participation in this survey is confidential. No personally identifiable information will be released; group data will be reported only and you will not be identified with your school. The researchers foresee minimal risk from participation. Results of this research will provide a better understanding of coaching behaviors, which will help guide revisions to coaching education. If you are willing to participate, or wish to learn more, please contact Jennifer Caron at 321-‐266-‐3870 or email to [email protected]. If you have any other concerns or additional questions, you may contact Dr. Tiffanye Vargas at 562-‐985-‐4116 or email to [email protected]. This study has been approved by the CSULB Institutional Review Board. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, or if you have any complaints, concerns, or questions about the research, you may contact the Office of University Research, CSU Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840; Telephone: (562) 985-‐5314 or email to ORSP-‐[email protected]. Thank you for your consideration and good luck with your season. Sincerely, Jennifer Caron & Dr. Tiffanye Vargas

APPENDIX F

TABLE 1. COACHES’ AND ATHLETES’ AVERAGE SCORES BY TEAM

TABLE 1. Coaches’ and Athletes’ Average Scores by Team

Team Variable

Coaches' Self-

Rating Athletes' Ratings 95% Confidence

Interval n M SD Lower Upper

1 Motivation 7.43 19 7.39 1.10 6.86 7.92 Game Strategy 8.14 8.03 0.78 7.65 8.41 Technique 7.33 7.58 1.15 7.03 8.13 Character Building 7.75 7.36 1.00 6.87 7.86 Total CES 7.67 7.62 0.94 7.16 8.09

2 Motivation 7.43 12 4.81 1.80 3.66 5.96 Game Strategy 8.57 5.56 1.12 4.85 6.27 Technique 8.67 5.94 0.95 5.34 6.55 Character Building 8.75 5.33 1.47 4.40 6.27 Total CES 8.29 5.40 1.10 4.70 6.10

3 Motivation 8.86 13 7.88 0.80 7.39 8.36 Game Strategy 8.14 8.49 0.32 8.30 8.69 Technique 8.50 8.11 0.62 7.71 8.51 Character Building 9.00 7.87 0.65 7.47 8.26 Total CES 8.58 8.12 0.55 7.77 8.47

4 Motivation 7.29 11 5.21 2.48 3.54 6.87 Game Strategy 7.71 6.48 1.58 5.42 7.54 Technique 8.50 6.68 1.69 5.55 7.82 Character Building 8.50 6.50 1.81 5.28 7.72 Total CES 7.92 6.16 1.69 5.03 7.30

5 Motivation 8.29 20 5.97 1.58 5.23 6.71 Game Strategy 7.29 6.10 1.63 5.34 6.86 Technique 6.00 5.61 2.16 4.60 6.62 Character Building 8.00 6.16 1.63 5.40 6.92 Total CES 7.38 5.95 1.63 5.19 6.71

6 Motivation 7.00 8 7.64 0.61 7.13 8.15 Game Strategy 7.00 7.54 0.51 7.11 7.96 Technique 7.50 7.94 0.60 7.43 8.44 Character Building 7.50 8.22 0.49 7.81 8.63 Total CES 7.21 7.78 0.38 7.47 8.09

7 Motivation 7.43 39 7.69 1.07 7.34 8.03 Game Strategy 7.14 8.08 0.83 7.81 8.35 Technique 7.33 7.91 0.83 7.64 8.17

TABLE 1. Continued.

Team Variable

Coaches' Self-

Rating Athletes' Ratings 95% Confidence

Interval n M SD Lower Upper

7 Character Building 8.25 39 8.03 1.24 7.62 8.43 Total CES 7.46 7.91 0.87 7.63 8.19

8 Motivation 6.29 8 4.65 1.91 2.88 6.42 Game Strategy 6.71 5.66 0.99 4.83 6.49 Technique 7.50 6.31 1.52 5.04 7.58 Character Building 7.50 6.75 1.09 5.84 7.66 Total CES 6.92 5.59 1.26 4.43 6.75

9 Motivation 9.00 30 7.58 0.99 7.18 7.97 Game Strategy 8.14 7.10 1.15 6.65 7.55 Technique 8.67 7.53 1.47 6.98 8.09 Character Building 8.25 7.70 1.03 7.32 8.08 Total CES 8.54 7.47 1.02 7.07 7.88

10 Motivation 9.00 11 7.17 1.54 6.13 8.21 Game Strategy 9.00 7.81 0.83 7.25 8.37 Technique 9.00 7.68 1.11 6.94 8.43 Character Building 9.00 7.68 1.25 6.85 8.52 Total CES 9.00 7.57 1.04 6.87 8.27

11 Motivation - 5 5.89 1.24 4.34 7.43 Game Strategy - 6.31 1.65 4.27 8.36 Technique - 5.70 1.82 3.45 7.95 Character Building - 5.55 1.61 3.55 7.55 Total CES - 5.91 1.53 4.01 7.80

REFERENCES

Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. NY: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Boardley, I.D., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2008). Athletes’ perceptions of coaching effectiveness and athlete-related outcomes in Rugby Union: An investigation based on the coaching efficacy model. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 269-287.

Campbell, T., & Sullivan, P. (2005). The effect of a standardized coaching education program on the efficacy of novice coaches. Avante, 11(1), 38-45.

Chelladurai, P., & Arnott, M. (1985). Decision styles in coaching: Preferences of basketball players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 15-24.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. (1978). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.

Denham, C.H., & Michael, J.J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model for further research. Educational Research Quarterly, 5, 39-63.

Fasting, K. & Pfister, G. (2000). Female and male coaches in the eyes of female elite soccer players. European Physical Education Review, 6(1), 91-110.

Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Mortiz, S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765-776.

Feltz, D.L., Hepler, T.J, & Roman, N. (2009). Coaching efficacy and volunteer youth sport coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 24-41.

Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Gianni, J. (1989). An exploratory examination of strategies used by elite coaches to enhance self-efficacy in athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 128-140.

Green, S.K., & Gross, A.E. (1979). Self-serving biases in implicit evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 214-217.

Horn, T.S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sports domain. In T.S. Horn (Ed,), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 309-354). Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics.

Irwin, F.W. (1944). The realism of expectations. Psychological Review, 51, 120-126.

Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I.D., Jutkiewicz, N., Vincent, S., & Ring, C. (2008). Coaching efficacy and coaching effectiveness: Examining their predictors and comparing coaches’ and athletes’ reports. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 383-404.

Kenow, L., & Williams, J.M. (1992). Relationship between anxiety, self-confidence, and evaluation of coaching behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 344-357.

Kenow, L., & Williams, J.M. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athletes’ perception of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 251-259.

Lee, K.S., Malete, L., & Feltz, D.L. (2002). The strength of coaching efficacy between certified and noncertified Singapore coaches. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 14(1), 55-67.

Lent, R.W. & Lopez, F.G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in growth-promoting relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21(3), 256-286.

Lirgg, C.D., Dibrezzo, R., & Smith, A.N. (1994). Influence of gender of coach on perceptions of basketball and coaching self-efficacy and aspirations of high school female basketball players. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 3(1), 1-14.

Malete, L., & Feltz, D.L. (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 410-417.

Marback, T.L., Short, M.W., Short, S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (2005). Coaching confidence: An exploratory investigation of sources and gender differences. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28, 18-34.

Myers, N.D., Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., & Feltz, D.L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 129-143.

Myers, N.D., Wolfe, E.W., & Feltz, D.L. (2005). An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the coaching efficacy scale for coaches from the United States of America. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9(3), 135- 160.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). Quality coaches, quality sports: National standards for athletic coaches. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Park, J.K. (1992). Construction of the Coaching Confidence Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Pompei, D. (2005). Coaching stability offers a lot of hidden benefits. Sporting News, 229(22), 44-409.

Raedeke, T.D. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.

Salminen, S., & Luikkonen, J. (1996). Coach-athlete relationship and coaching behaviors in training sessions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 59-67.

Short, S.S., & Short, M.W. (2004). Coaches’ assessment of their coaching efficacy compared to athletes’ perceptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 729-736.

Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League baseball. In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp. 173-201). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Smoll, F.L., & Smith, R.E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.

Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.

Sullivan, P.J., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1-11.

Sullivan, P.J., Paquette, K.J., Holt, N.L., & Bloom, G.A. (2012). The relation of coaching context and coach education to coaching efficacy and perceived leadership behaviors in youth sport. The Sport Psychologist, 26, 122-134.

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., Myers, N.D., & Feltz, D.L. (2004). Coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of efficacy-enhancing techniques. Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc., 18, 397-414.

Wood, R.E., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181-201.

Woolfolk, A.E., Rossoff, B., & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.

Blank Page