The predictability of coaching efficacy on team efficacy and player efficacy in volleyball.

Vargas-Tonsing, Tiffanye M. ; Warners, Amber L. ; Feltz, Deborah L. 等

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between coaching efficacy and player and team efficacy. This study examined the four sub-scales of the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES), game strategy efficacy (GSE), motivation efficacy (ME), technique efficacy (TE), and character building efficacy (CBE), and their predictability of player and team efficacy Participants were female varsity athletes (N = 133) and their coaches from 12 American high school volleyball teams from a midwestern state. The athletes were administered a volleyball efficacy questionnaire measuring player and team efficacy; coaches were administered the CES. Regression analyses showed coaching efficacy to significantly predict team efficacy, F(4, 7) = 4.44, p < .05, R = .85. [R.sup.2] = .72 with no meaningful association with player efficacy, F(4, 7) = 0.51, p > .05, R = .47, [R.sup.2] = .22. Also, ME ([beta] = 1.05, t = 2.87, p < .05) and CBE ([beta] = -1.43, t = -3.92, p < .01 were shown to be the strongest predictors of team efficacy.

**********

The concept of self-efficacy was introduced as a person's belief in his/her ability to perform a specific task (Bandura, 1977). This concept stimulated vast amounts of research over the last 20 years in areas such as education, business, and sport. The research literature has supported Bandura's (1986) premise that an individual's self-perceptions of efficacy can impact a subsequent outcome or performance. Self-efficacy is influenced through four sources: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). These sources include instructional elements, found often in both teaching and coaching.

In the field of education, research has shown that self-efficacy has an impact on teachers' effectiveness (Denham & Michael, 1981), commitment to their profession (Coladarci, 1992), persistence in a failure situation (Gibson & Demo, 1984), and time spent teaching (Gibson & Demo, 1984). There is also reason to believe that teachers with high efficacy beliefs will have students who show greater achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Based on the teaching efficacy research, it follows that coaching efficacy also would be a powerful variable in coaching effectiveness.

Feltz et al. began a series of investigations to study the concept of coaching efficacy and its implications for learning and performance (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999). In their first study, Feltz et al. (1999) developed the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) because no other scales existed to measure this concept in coaching. This scale was based on the preliminary work of Park (1992) on coaching confidence, Bandura's (1977) concept of self-efficacy, and Denham and Michael's (1981) multidimensional model of teacher efficacy. Coaching efficacy was defined as the extent to which coaches believe they can affect the learning and performance of their athletes (Feltz et al., 1999). The CES was generated with a focus on the high school level coach, where Feltz et al. thought that coaching efficacy would have its greatest impact on coaching effectiveness. The CES consists of 24 items containing four dimensions: game strategy (GSE), motivation (ME), technique (TE), and character building (CBE) efficacy. GSE represents efficacy beliefs in a coach's ability to coach during competition and lead a team to successful performance. ME represents a coach's efficacy in the ability to affect the psychological skills and states of one's athletes. TE focuses on the belief coaches have in their instructional and diagnostic skills, while CBE is defined as the confidence coaches have in their ability to influence a positive attitude towards sport and good sportspersonship. The authors found the psychometric properties of the CES to be sound. The four dimensions were supported with a confirmatory factor analysis of the four-factor solution structure with two independent samples (Feltz et al., 1999; Lee, Malete, & Feltz, 2002).

Feltz et al. (1999) also proposed a model of coaching efficacy in which the four dimensions of coaching efficacy are influenced by coaching experience and preparation, past performance and record, perceived team ability, as well as community, school, and parental support. In turn, coaching efficacy was proposed to influence coaching behavior, player satisfaction of the coach, player/team performance, and player/team efficacy levels. Using high school basketball coaches, Feltz et al. found that coaches' years of experience and perceived social support were the strongest sources of coaching efficacy. They also found that high efficacy coaches had significantly higher winning percentages, used more praise and encouragement, and had greater player satisfaction than lower efficacy coaches.

One outcome variable of coaching efficacy in the Feltz et al. (1999) model that has not been investigated is the efficacy of the players, individually and as a team. Research conducted in the classroom suggests a strong relationship between teaching efficacy and student efficacy (Green, Anderson, & Loewen, 1988). Denham and Michael (1981) found that teachers' self-percepts of efficacy influenced students' self-concept of academic ability. Thus research from education provides some support for the hypothesis that coaching efficacy should predict player efficacy. Furthermore, whether the separate dimensions of coaching efficacy predict an athlete's and team's efficacy beliefs differentially is unknown.

In addition to the predicted influence of coaching efficacy on an athlete's individual self-efficacy beliefs, coaches are just as likely to influence their athletes' efficacy beliefs at the team level because much of coaching is done at the team level. The concept of team efficacy refers to a team's shared judgment on how well it thinks it can perform as a group (Bandura, 1977; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). Bandura (1997) suggested that the modeling of confidence or ineffectiveness by a group's leader may influence the rest of the group's sense of efficacy. Research from organizational psychology has also shown that charismatic leaders appear to exhibit persuasive influence on the collective confidence of their organization's members (Eden, 1990). Watson, Chemers, and Preiser (2001), in measuring the collective efficacy of intercollegiate basketball team members, found that players who believed they had effective leaders were more confident in their teams. Furthermore, just as separate dimensions of coaching efficacy may differentially influence a player's individual efficacy beliefs, these same dimensions may also differentially influence team efficacy beliefs.

In order to study efficacy theory issues within teams, it is necessary to conduct analyses at the team level. Individual perceptions of members within teams can be aggregated to represent the team's perception if perceptual consensus is demonstrated (James, 1982). When members perceive the team or their abilities to function within the team similarly, then perceptual consensus exists. Additionally, Bandura (1997) suggests that although group and personal versions of collective efficacy measurement differ in their relative focus on individual versus coordinative factors, the personal efficacy beliefs of team members are not detached from the member's team. Team members cannot make judgments regarding the skills they perform without considering the quality of their teammates. Consequently, there is reason to believe that there would be some consensus among players' perceptions of their abilities to perform within the team unit (Feltz, & Lirgg, 1998) and therefore data could be aggregated.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the strength of the relationship of coaching efficacy with the individual and team efficacy beliefs of sport teams. We hypothesized that the four dimensions of coaching efficacy would predict team and player efficacy.

Method

Participants

Participants were 133 female varsity athletes and head coaches from 12 American high school volleyball teams in a midwestern state. The number of players on a team consisted of 7 to 15 players ranging from freshman to senior standing. The years of coaching experience ranged from 1 to 15 years (M= 6.6, SD = 3.89). The teams represented Class A through D schools, a classification for interscholastic competition based on school size.

Dependent Measures

Self-efficacy questionnaire. In order to assess an athlete's self-efficacy, a 7-item questionnaire was developed by the authors, two of whom had been volleyball coaches. Using an II-point Likert scale, the participants were asked to circle the number ranging from 0 (not confident) to 10 (very confident) that best corresponded with their feelings of confidence. Items pertained to the athlete's confidence in performing specific skills and overall performance in their next match. Self-efficacy questions began with the stem, "How confident are you that you will ..." The seven items included play well in the next match, pass the ball well on serve receive, make good serves, hit the ball well, block well, play good defense, and make few unforced errors. The scale had an internal consistency of .82 with the present sample.

Team-efficacy questionnaire. Using the same Likert scale, athletes were asked to respond to 10 questions on a scale of 0 (not confident) to 10 (very confident) based on their feelings concerning their team's performance in the next match. The content of the questions was closely matched to the content in the self-efficacy questionnaire. Questions began with the stem "How confident are you that your team will ..." The items included play well in the next match, pass the ball well on serve receive, make good serves, hit the ball well, block well, play good defense, make few unforced errors, make a lot of assists, and win. The question of "how much control do you feel you will have over your team's outcome in the next match" was also included. The team efficacy questionnaire had an internal consistency of .88 with the present sample.

Coach's efficacy questionnaire. The CES (Feltz et al., 1999) was administered to the coaches of the 12 volleyball teams to measure coaching efficacy. The CES is a 24-item self-report measure that uses a 10-point Liken scale anchored by 0 (not at all confident) to 9 (extremely confident). The CES consisted of four subscales: GSE (7 items), ME (7 items), TE (6 items), and CBE (4 items). Questions of GSE included, " How confident are you in your ability to understand competitive strategies?" ME was measured through items including, "How confident are you in your ability to motivate your athletes?" TE was scored by responses to questions such as, "How confident are you in your ability to coach individual athletes on technique?" The fourth subscale, CBE was approached through questions such as "How confident are you in your ability to instill an attitude of good moral character?" The internal consistency alphas were .86 (GSE), .88 (ME), .83(TE), and .77(CBE) for the present sample. A list of the 24 items is contained in the Appendix.

Procedure

Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects. A letter was sent to each coach explaining the purpose and procedure of the research and requesting permission to include his/her team in the study. The athletes were considered minors and therefore consent forms were read and signed by both the athletes and their parent or guardian. Questionnaires were administered between l0 min and 2 hrs prior to a team's next match or game. All teams were given the questionnaires after the mid-point in the season. Questionnaires were completed anonymously. The same investigator performed the instructions and collection of data for all 12 teams. Instructions given to coaches and athletes can be found in the Appendix. After completing the questionnaires, players and coaches placed their forms in an envelope that was designated with their team name.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

In order to use aggregated data at the level of team, perceptual consensus had to be demonstrated for team and player efficacy scores (James, 1982). We calculated inter-rater agreement for each team. The average within-group agreement was .68 (SD = .08) for player efficacy and .79 (SD = .11) for team efficacy. Based on these levels of agreement, data were aggregated to the team level. Descriptive statistics for player efficacy, team efficacy, CES and its sub-scales are presented in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, the means for all variables are above the midpoint of the scales. This is typical for efficacy ratings in the athletic realm (Feltz et al., 1999).

Regression Analyses

Two multiple regression analyses predicting player efficacy and team efficacy, based on coaches' efficacy, were conducted. Results of the multiple regression analysis for player efficacy indicated no significant overall effect, F(4,7) = 0.43, p >.05, R = .45, [R.sub.2] = .20. However, the regression analysis for team efficacy was significant, F(4,7) = 4.44, p <.05, R = .85, [R.sup.2] = .72. The significant variables in the equation were ME ([beta] = 1.05, t = 2.87, p < .05) and CBE ([beta] = -1.43, t = -3.92, p < .01) as the best predictors for team efficacy. The Betas for TE and GSE were [beta] = 0.05 and [beta] = -0.26 respectively. In examining the correlations across variables, significant correlations were found between the variables of team efficacy and CBE, r = -.60, p <.05 and the variables of CBE and ME, r =.83, p <.01. All correlations can be found in Table 2.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between coaching efficacy and player efficacy (individual and team efficacy). Specifically, this study sought to answer whether GSE, ME, TE, or CBE, predicted individual and team efficacy. Our results showed coaching efficacy to be a significant predictor of team efficacy but not of player efficacy and thus, adds some additional support to the Feltz et al. (1999) model. These findings may be due to it being easier for athletes to assess the team's accomplishments as a whole than to assess one's own contributions. Team accomplishments are less ambiguous in team sports. Furthermore, the nature of our study required an analysis at the level of team, aggregating the player efficacy scores. A study in which athletes rated their perceptions of their coach's efficacy along with ratings of their own player and team efficacy beliefs would allow an analysis at the individual level to determine if our results are still supported.

In addition, the assessment of coaching efficacy via the CES focused more on team-related coaching competencies than competencies for coaching individual athletes. For instance, items such as confidence in building team cohesion, building team confidence, making critical decisions during competition, and maximizing a team's strengths during competition all relate to team variables. The only items that are specific to individual athletes are the items on the TE subscale. Thus a coach with higher confidence on these team-related coaching competencies had players who were more confident in their team. Coaches and athletes of individual sports, such as gymnastics, swimming, or wrestling may show a different relationship between coaching efficacy and individual/team efficacy. Future research is needed to determine whether there are sport-type differences in our findings.

As well, the lack of coaching efficacy influence on individual efficacy may be the result of the players having developed skill specific efficacy and thus creating a confounding variable. The questionnaire used may not have accounted for efficacy differences according to specific position. Weigand and Stockham (2000) suggest that team-sport athletes are likely to develop specific skills required for their specific position at the loss of other less relevant skills. Therefore, their self-efficacy may be higher for some skills than for others and thus, the questionnaire may not have accurately assessed player efficacy. However, analyses indicated that for this study, there was no difference in self-efficacy between the different positions, F(16, 106) = .80, p = .68.

Of the four coaching efficacy sub-scales, motivation efficacy and character building efficacy most effectively predicted team efficacy. It is possible that ME relates to team efficacy because it utilizes traditionally effective components for instilling confidence. For example, ME items include building and maintaining confidence in one's teams, mentally preparing them for games, building their self-esteem, and building team cohesion. Gibbons and Forster (2002) found that even Olympians ranked the ability to motivate as one of the two most important qualities of a coach.

However, the CBE sub-scale was negatively associated with team efficacy, r = -.60, p < .05. The more confident coaches were in their character building skills, the less confident players were in their team's ability to be successful. The CBE sub-scale was composed of items regarding the instillation and promotion of good moral character, fair play, sportspersonship, and respect for others. This is potentially a result of the bias of the team efficacy questionnaire as it is performance oriented. Or perhaps the coaches who were more confident in their character building skills stressed the importance of sportspersonship as opposed to winning while athletes may have placed more importance on winning. In the future, it would be beneficial to replicate these results with additional measures of team performance and players' satisfaction. These additional variables were found to be associated with coaching efficacy by Feltz et al. (1999) and could help explain the negative relationship between CBE and team efficacy. It is also possible that the positive relationship between ME and team efficacy is due to both having correlated with team performance. Future research could partial-out this variable to examine coaching efficacy's unique association with team efficacy.

Technique efficacy and game strategy efficacy did not appear to influence team or player efficacy. This may have occurred because the athletes were at the high school level, where learning does not involve the teaching of new skills but rather refining skills already learned. In addition, it is proposed that at this level, the players view the coach as a leader more than as a teacher. In this case, a leader is more likely to motivate to victory than teach athletes strategies and skills to win. This is a skill that would have already been acquired. There may also be a lack of teams; the subject to variable ratio was only 3:1.

There are multiple implications of these results. Coaches need to be cognizant that their sense of efficacy can impact their team as a whole. Specifically, coaches' efficacy beliefs may be beneficial to the team when trying to increase the team's confidence. However, this same sense of efficacy may be detrimental when coaches show their diffidence in front of the team. This underscores the importance of coaches implementing strategies to influence team efficacy. These techniques can include encouraging positive talk, the coach acting confident, verbal persuasion, setting performance goals with the team, and using reward statements (Gould, Hodge, Peterson, & Giannini, 1989). Research has found athletes to consider these techniques highly effective in increasing their perceptions of efficacy (Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, Munk, & Feltz, 2002).

Future research might examine the athletes' perspective on their coach's efficacy on the four dimensions of technique, game strategy, motivation, and character building competencies. The relationship between individual/team efficacy and the athletes' perceptions of coaching efficacy may confirm present findings. In addition, future research should explore the behaviors of coaches who are high and low in motivational efficacy to observe their use of motivational techniques. Knowledge of these procedures and techniques may help in designing strategies to build team efficacy beliefs among players. This "blueprint" for motivation will then assist coaches in finding the best way to help mentally prepare athletes.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics on the ME, TE, GSE, CBE, Player
Efficacy and Team Efficacy

Variable Mean SD

Athletes
 Player Efficacy 7.22 .62
 Team Efficacy 7.59 .52

Coaches
 Motivation 6.88 .78
 Technique 7.55 .64
 Game Strategy 7.11 .72
 Character Building 7.95 .78

Table 2. Correlations Across the Variables of Player Efficacy,
Team Efficacy, GSE, ME, TE and CBE

 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Player Efficacy
2. Team Efficacy .11
3. GSE -.33 -.26
4. ME .28 -.19 .21
5. TE .05 -.05 .50
6. CBE .33 -.60 * .17 .83 * .02

* p<.05

References

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

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

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

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

Denham, C.G., & Michael, J.J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model for future research. Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 39-63.

Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalian in management. Lexington, MS: Lexington Books.

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

Feltz, D.L, & Lirgg, C.D. (1998). Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 557-564.

Gibbons, T., & Forster, T. (2002). The path to excellence. Olympic Coach, 12, 6-7.

Gibson, S., & Demo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 565-582.

Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Giannini, 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.

Greene, M.L., Anderson, R.N., & Loewen, ES. (1988). Relationships among teachers' and students' thinking skills sense of efficacy and student achievement. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

James, L.R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.

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

Park, J.K. (1992). Construction of the coaching efficacy scale. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., Myers, N.D., Munk, D.M., & Feltz, D.L. (2002, June). Coaches' and athletes" perceptions of efficacy enhancing techniques. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Baltimore, MD.

Watson, C.B., Chemers, M.M., & Preiser, N. (2001). Collective efficacy: A multilevel analysis of collective efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1057-1068.

Weigand, D.A., & Stockham, K.J. (2000). The importance of analyzing position-specific self-efficacy, Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 61-69.

Zaccaro, S.J., Blair, V., Peterson C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 305-328). New York: Plenum.

Appendix

Coach and Athlete Instructions

Coaches and athletes were read the following instructions:

There are no right or wrong answers, so please answer how you feel right now. Try to answer each question by circling the number you feel best represents your confidence. Please do not put a circle between numbers. Do not talk or share your answers with anyone until everyone has completed and turned in the questionnaire. If you play more than one position list the position you play the most. Your answers will be kept confidential.

CES Items

1. maintain confidence in your athletes

2. recognize opposing team's strengths during competition

3. mentally prepare athletes for game/meet strategies

4. understand competitive strategies

5. instill an attitude of good moral behavior

6. build the self-esteem of your athletes

7. demonstrate the skills of your sport

8. adapt to different game/meet situations

9. recognize opposing team's weakness during competition

10. motivate your athletes

11. make critical decisions during competition

12. build team cohesion

13. instill an attitude of fair play among your athletes

14. coach individual athletes on technique

15. build the self-confidence of your athletes

16. develop athletes' abilities

17. maximize your team's strengths during competition

18. recognize talent in athletes

19. promote good sportspersonship

20. detect skill errors

21. adjust your game/meet strategy to fit your team's talent

22. teach the skills of your sport

23. build team confidence

24. instill an attitude of respect for others

Tiffanye M. Vargas-Tonsing

Michigan State University

Amber L. Warners

Calvin College

Deborah L. Feltz

Michigan State University

Address Correspondence To: Deborah L. Feltz, Kinesiology, Michigan State University, IM Sports Circle, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824. E-mail: dfeltz@msu.edu.