Athletes' Perceptions of Social Support Provided by Their Head Coach, Assistant Coach, and Athletic Trainer, Pre-Injury and During Rehabilitation.

Robbins, Jamie E. ; Rosenfeld, Lawrence B.

The purpose of this investigation was to assess athletes' perceptions of social support provided by their head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers, pre-injury and during rehabilitation. Data were collected on who provides each of six types of support, how satisfied the athletes are with the amount and type of support they received, and the perceived effect of support on their well being. Thirty-five male and female Division I collegiate athletes from various sports completed a modified version of the Social Support Survey (Richman, Rosenfeld, & Hardy 1993). Results indicated a significant difference between the athletes' satisfaction with the three types of providers and their impact on the athletes' overall well being during rehabilitation. Athletic trainers were perceived to provide more support than either the head coaches or assistant coaches. Findings confirm the positive effects of athletic trainers' social support on injured athletes' recovery efforts, and the possible positive impact add itional coaching support may provide. Implications of the results for interactions between coaches and injured athletes are discussed.

As many as 17 million sport injuries occur each year among American athletes (Heil, 1993): as many as 8 out of 10 athletes are injured at some point during their high school and college careers (Henderson & Carrol, 1993). Given the positive effects social support can have on the consequences of injury and other stressors (Ganster & Victor, 1988; Hardy & Grace, 1993; Hardy, Richman, & Rosenfeld, 1991; Wiese & Weiss, 1987), social support, especially from those with whom the athletes work closely, should serve as a means for responding to the psychosocial needs of injured athletes. Few studies, however, have focused on the use of social support to help injured athletes, although it has been studied as it relates to team dynamics, improving athletic performance, and overall satisfaction among athletes (Garland & Barry, 1990; Rosenfeld & Richman, 1997; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986).

Athletic injury causes a great deal of stress to athletes (Heil, 1993; Leddy, Lambert, & Ogles, 1994; McDonald & Hardy, 1990). For example, injured athletes tend to experience tension, confusion, hostility, loneliness, fear, irritability, and anxiety (Leddy et al., 1994; Macchi & Crossman, 1996; Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Beck, 1997). They also tend to feel isolated and estranged from their teams and their sport (Mainwaring, 1999), and experience increases in depression and anger, and decreases in vigor (Smith et al., 1993). Many athletes feel guilty about incurring an injury and "letting down" the team, or they may feel ignored by teammates and coaches (Petitpas & Danish, 1995). According to Danish (1986), an injury not only affects athletes' physical well-being, but also their self-concept, self-esteem, belief system, values, and commitments, in addition to emotional equilibrium.

Gould, Udry, Bridges, and Beck (1997) assessed the value of social support in responding to athletic injury in a study of U.S. ski team athletes. They found that 70% of the female athletes sought after and used social support following their injury, in addition to several other coping mechanisms. Those who accessed social support did so by finding others for "companionship and fun," and by finding models among those athletes who had returned from similar injuries. Only 19% of the athletes mentioned support from their coaches, while 62% discussed the importance of social support from family and friends when recovering. In a follow-up study with the same skiers, Udry, Gould, Bridges, and Tuffey (1997) found that two thirds of the skiers perceived that their coaches were distant, insensitive to their injury, provided inappropriate or insufficient rehabilitation guidance, and demonstrated a lack of belief in them. Some athletes, however, aware of the demanding schedules of their coaches, appraised the adequacy o f their contact with the coach based on the coach's availability.

Rosenfeld, Richman, and Hardy (1989) investigated why coaches would choose not to provide emotional support to their athletes. Coaches claimed that it was inappropriate, that the players needed to figure out the problem on their own, or that it was unfair to the remainder of the team. Rather than assisting injured athletes, Weiss and Troxel (1986) found that coaches often ignore them, neglect to console them on the sidelines, and instead of encouraging their rehabilitation, merely question when they will return.

Although social support from coaches may be limited, there are others available to provide needed support to injured athletes. According to Weiss and Troxel (1986), the traditional role of the sports medicine professionals includes treating the injury, creating a rehabilitation plan, and getting the athletes back on the field. However, many of the athletic trainers they studied mentioned that although physical treatment is their primary responsibility, emotional and psychological assistance are needed as well.

The Social Support Process

The benefits of social support are corroborated in numerous studies; in fact, according to Komproe, Rijken, Ros, Winnubst, and Hart (1997), so much research has been done on social support that the beneficial effects are claimed to be common knowledge. The mechanism through which social support has positive effects relies on uncertainty reduction (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987). Supportive communication reduces ambiguity, complexity, and unpredictability-sources of uncertainty-and thus provides the support recipient with increased feelings of personal control. Supportive messages may enhance feelings of control by helping the recipient see realistic alternatives to a stressful situation, gain skills, and recognize that help and resources are available from others.

Social support is a multidimensional concept (Pines, Aronson, & Kafry, 1981; Richman et al., 1993). Richman et al. (1993) identified eight separate types of social support: (a) listening support, perceived nonjudgmental listening; (b) emotional support, the perception that the provider is acting in a caring and comforting way; (c) emotional challenge, perceived challenge to help the recipient evaluate her or his attitudes, values, and feelings; (d) reality confirmation support, support from someone similar to the recipient that helps him or her by confirming his or her perspective of the situation; (e) task appreciation support, perceived acknowledgment and appreciation of the recipient's efforts; (f) task challenge support, perceived challenge of the recipient's way of thinking about an activity in order to motivate her or him to greater involvement; (g) tangible assistance, support in the form of financial assistance, products and/or gifts; and (h) personal assistance support, services or help, such as run ning errands or driving the recipient somewhere.

Depending on the situation, the type of support needed may vary. In addition, certain types of support can only be given by specific others, while some types of support can come from anyone. For example, in a study of healthy Division I collegiate athletes, Rosenfeld et al. (1989) found that coaches, teammates, friends, and parents were most commonly listed as social support providers. Coaches were perceived as providing task challenge, task appreciation, and emotional challenge support, and they were perceived as specifically not providing reality confirmation support, listening support, and emotional support. In a later study looking at team building and social support, Rosenfeld and Richman (1997) argued that athletes will not perceive receiving a certain type of social support unless they first believe in its importance for their personal well-being.

According to Hardy and Grace (1993), social support should be a concern to those directly involved in an athlete's care. Although they do not specify exactly who this should be, arguments could be made for head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers, considering the impact each of these people has on the athletes. Athletic trainers see athletes often and they have the power to sideline an injured athlete. Their job involves detecting, diagnosing, and rehabilitating injured athletes to return to play as expediently as possible. Head and assistant coaches mandate who will play and who will sit on the bench on any given day. These individuals control the direction of an athlete's career. They see these athletes everyday at practice and have the power to encourage an injured athlete, possibly enhancing her or his self-esteem, or to ignore an injured athlete, adding to her or his feelings of frustration and possibly discouraging a positive recovery. Research conducted on injured athletes found that wha t athletes perceive and prefer, and what coaches believe and provide, do not necessarily match up (Mainwaring, 1999; Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Tuffey, 1997). Because of this discrepancy, more research is needed to provide a better understanding of the social support process.

Research Questions

The majority of research on athletic injuries aims primarily at identifying the negative psychological consequences of injury to the athlete. Researchers have touched on the question concerning who provides social support to injured athletes, yet because the research is so limited, it is difficult to generalize findings or make well-supported recommendations. The literature demonstrates the necessity for an individual to have access to socially supportive people, especially during a stressful event; however, who takes on that role and who would be more successful in that role is still an important and unanswered question. Previous research also has failed to look at social support given before an injury and during rehabilitation, and to account for changes. To allow for comparisons of pre-injury and during rehabilitation social support, the following research questions guided the present investigation:

RQ1: How satisfied are athletes with the social support they perceive they receive from their head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers, pre-injury and during rehabiitation?

RQ2: What types of support from their head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers do athletes consider to be the most important to their well-being, pre-injury and during rehabilitation?

METHOD

Procedure

Permission was obtained from the athletic department, the head of the athletic training room, and the coaches of a large southeastern university to distribute surveys to injured athletes who missed practice or competition for at least three days. The university's Institutional Review Board and Athletic Director provided written approval for the consent forms and instruments. The head of the athletic training room and coaches provided oral consent.

Athletes were recruited to fill out the research survey by either the primary investigator or by their athletic trainers. Once approached, athletes were asked how long they were absent from their sport due to the injury and, if they fit the criterion for inclusion, were asked to complete a modified version of the Social Support Survey (SSS; Richman et al., 1993). To ensure confidentiality, the investigator and the athletic trainers administered the questionnaires to the injured athletes and then left the area, allowing the athletes complete privacy when completing the forms. In addition, the athletes placed the completed forms in a sealed envelope only opened by the investigator.

Respondents

Respondents were 35 athletes with minor to severe injuries who were forced to sit out of practice or competition for at least 3 days due to their injury. According to the National Athletic Training Association (NATA), an injury forcing a loss of participation for less than one week is considered minor, injuries spanning 8-21 days are moderate, and anything beyond 21 days is severe (Powell, 1991). Three days was selected as the criterion for inclusion in this investigation based on Powell's work and information provided by athletic trainers, who considered a three-day loss of participation "significant." Given its objective nature and ease of recording, "time lost from participation" is one of the most popular procedures for developing a definition of injury (Powell, 1991).

The athletes ranged from freshmen to seniors and were participants in a variety of sports, including soccer, field hockey, wrestling, football, crew, track and field, cross country, fencing, lacrosse, volleyball, softball, and gymnastics. Table I presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Sports Medicine Program

The sports medicine program in which data were collected consisted of 9 full-time and part-time certified athletic trainers, plus 16-18 certified athletic trainers in the graduate program, for about 650 athletes. The trainer-to-athlete ratio may be higher than is typical of large Division 1 universities (Hunt, 2000), although this is dependent on the sports (e.g., gymnastics and wrestling have a higher injury rate equivalent than golf and rowing).

Instruments

A modified version of the SSS (Richman et al., 1993) required athletes to indicate: (a) whether or not the head coach, assistant coach, and athletic trainer provided each of six types of social support (two from the original instrument were removed because they were not applicable for the given population: tangible support is against NCAA rules, and personal support was found in preliminary interviews to be irrelevant to the athletes); (b) how satisfied the athlete was with his or her social support, both pre-injury and during rehabilitation; and (c) the perceived importance of each type of social support for the respondent's well-being, both pre-injury and during rehabilitation. If an athlete responded "no" to the primary question asking whether or not she or he received a certain type of support, she or he was instructed not to respond to the follow-up questions concerning satisfaction or well-being.

In addition to not asking for information regarding two types of social support, the modified form also does not ask for information regarding the difficulty the person completing the instrument would have obtaining more of each type of social support, which is on the original SSS (see Appendix). The SSS has a history of being modified and working well in its modified forms (e.g., see Rudy, Rosenfeld, Galassi, Parker, & Schanberg, in press; Woodward, Rosenfeld, & May, 1996).

Support for the content, structural, concurrent, and construct validity of the instrument are provided in many studies using the SSS, both in its original form and in a variety of modified forms (Bowen & Chapman, 1996; Richman, Brewster, & Bowen, 1998; Richman & Rosenfeld, 1987; Richman, Rosenfeld, & Bowen, 1998; Rosenfeld & Richman, 1997, 1999; Rosenfeld, Richman, & Bowen, 1998, 2000; Rudy et al., in press; Woodward et al., 1996).

Data Analysis

In order to identify the effect of moderator variables on the responses, preliminary analyses compared male and female athletes, and possible differences associated with time missed from practice or play.

For both RQ1 and RQ2, a series of dependent t-tests was conducted comparing pre-injury means to during rehabilitation means. A second series of t-tests was conducted to compare the three sources of support. These tests were carried out for each of the six types of support in the study. To control family-wise error, the Bonferroni procedure was used to adjust the alpha level for each test. Given a family-wise error rate of .05, and nine tests associated with each independent type of social support, alpha was set at .0055 (.05/9 = .0055).

The study used numerous dependent t-tests rather than ANOVAs in response to RQ1 and RQ2 because of the violation of the ANOVA assumption that random samples are independent of each other (Moore & McCabe, 1996). Overall, the study attempted to assess whether or not there was a difference between the head coach, assistant coach, and athletic trainer, and by conducting multiple t-tests, both a discrepancy could be noted and the direction of the findings (e.g., who provided more or less satisfactory support).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

A series of t-tests and ANOVAs indicated no sex differences and no differences associated with the time missed from practice or games, for all six types of social support.

Satisfaction with Social Support

The first research question focused on athletes' satisfaction with the perceived support from their head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers before their injury and during rehabilitation. To respond to this question, three different comparisons were made: (a) comparisons of each support provider's pre-injury and rehabilitation means for each type of support, (b) between-providers comparisons of pre-injury means for each type of support, and (3) between-providers comparisons of rehabilitation means for each type of support. Table 3 presents the Ms and SDs for ratings of satisfaction for each provider for each of the six types of support, pre-injury and during rehabilitation, and the t-test comparisons of each provider's pre-injury and rehabilitation means. In addition, Table 3 presents the obtained probability level for each significant t-test result and the variance it account for, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] (squared point-biserial correlation; Cohen, 1988).

Comparisons of pre-injury and rehabilitation means. With one exception, results indicated no differences between pre-injury and during rehabilitation satisfaction with the support provided by head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers. The exception was for task challenge support: satisfaction with task challenge support provided by an assistant coach prior to an injury was rated significantly higher than satisfaction with the support provided during rehabilitation.

Pre-injury between-provider comparisons. Results of all but three of the t-tests revealed no significant differences in satisfaction with support supplied by the three possible providers prior to injury. One exception was listening support: head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(28) = -5.09, p [less than] .001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .590; and assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(30) = -5.78, p [less than] .001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .527. Another exception was for task appreciation support: assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(22) = -3.28, p [less than] .003, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .328. Taken together, these results indicate that athletes were more satisfied with the pre-injury listening support from athletic trainers than from either assistant or head coaches, and with the pre-injury task appreciation support from athletic trainers than from assistant coaches.

Rehabilitation between-provider comparisons. Results comparing satisfaction with perceived support during rehabilitation revealed that athletes were more satisfied with the listening, task appreciation, task challenge, emotional, and reality confirmation support they received from their athletic trainers than they were with the support received from either their assistant coaches or head coaches: listening support-head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(26) = -4.16, p [less than] .001 [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .520; assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(30) = -5.95, p [less than].001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .522; task appreciation support-head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(23) = -3.81, p [less than] .001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .387; assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(25) = -5.96, p [less than].001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .587; task challenge support-head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(20) = -3.41,p [less than] .003, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .368; assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(23) = -4.70, p [less than].001, [[r .sup.2].sub.pb] = .490; emotional support-head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(24) = -3.26, p [less than].003, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] =.306; assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(27) = -5.3l, p [less than].001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .511; and reality confirmation support-head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(22) = -3.53, p [less than] .002, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .362; assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(23) = -3.42, p [less than] .002, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .337.

Emotional challenge support was the only exception to this finding. During rehabilitation, athletes were more satisfied with the emotional challenge support provided by their athletic trainers than that provided by their assistant coaches, t(16) =-3.35, p [less than] .004, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] =.412. There was no significant difference between the satisfaction with emotional challenge support provided by their head coaches and the support provided by their athletic trainers.

Social Support and Well-being

The second research question focused on how athletes perceived that their well-being was affected by support from their head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers before their injury and during rehabilitation. Analyses conducted to respond to this question paralleled those conducted to respond to the second research question, and information in Table 3 parallels information presented in Table 2.

Comparisons of pre-injury and rehabilitation means. In general, results indicated no differences in the perceived importance to their well-being of support provided by head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers, pre-injury and during rehabilitation. The exceptions were for listening support and emotional support: for both listening and emotional support, the support provided by athletic trainers during rehabilitation was perceived as more important by the athlete to his or her well-being than that provided pre-injury.

Pre-injury between-provider comparisons. Results of all but one test revealed no significant differences in the perceived importance to their well-being of the support supplied by the three possible providers prior to injury. The exception was listening support: assistant coach vs. athletic trainer-t(30) = -3.4l, p [less than] .002, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .279. Athletes perceived pre-injury listening support from athletic trainers as more important to their well-being than listening support from their assistant coaches.

Rehabilitation between-provider comparisons. With regard to what types of support injured athletes perceived to be the most meaningful to their well-being from their head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers during rehabilitation, tests revealed that athletes perceived the listening support and task appreciation support from athletic trainers as contributing more to their well-being than those types of support from either their head coaches or assistant coaches: listening support-head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(26) = -4.73, p [less than] .001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .463; assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(30) = -5.55, p [less than].00l, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .507; task appreciation support-head coach vs. athletic trainer, t(23) = -4.03, p [less than].001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .414; assistant coach vs. athletic trainer, t(25) = -5.74, p [less than].001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .569.

In addition, athletes perceived the task challenge and emotional support from athletic trainers as contributing more to their well-being than these types of support from their assistant coaches: task challenge support-t(23) = -4.14, p [less than] .001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .427; and emotional support t(27) = -3.97, p [less than] .001, [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .373. Findings also revealed no differences between the head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic trainers regarding the importance of their emotional challenge support and reality confirmation support.

DISCUSSION

In addition to causing self-concept and self-esteem problems, athletic injury causes anger, frustration, tension, anxiety, fear and depression (Danish, 1986; Leddy et al., 1994; Macchi & Crossman, 1996), and forces an athlete to reorganize his or her life (Johnson, 1997). Social support helps injured athletes diminish their uncertainty by providing them with a sense of control over their situation (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987). However, for social support to be beneficial there must be a match between what the recipient needs and what the provider is willing and able to give. In addition, the support must come from the appropriate provider, and most importantly, the injured athlete must perceive that he or she is actually receiving the support (Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990).

Findings regarding the first research question revealed a change in athletes' satisfaction with task challenge support provided by assistant coaches. Respondents noted that assistant coaches provided more task challenge support pre-injury than during their time spent in rehabilitation. Informal conversations with athletes who served as respondents in this investigation suggest that assistant coaches see their role as technical advisors, to attend practice and teach skills or lead drills; therefore, if an athlete is injured and not participating, they have no reason to provide task challenge support.

In general, there were few remarkable differences in satisfaction with the three providers' support prior to injury. When comparing satisfaction with support providers during rehabilitation, however, results revealed important differences. Athletes were more satisfied with the support provided by their athletic trainers than their head or assistant coaches. Findings also indicated no distinctions between satisfaction with head coaches' and assistant coaches' support.

The second research question examined which types of support athletes perceived as contributing to their well-being, both pre-injury and during rehabilitation. Overall, if a provider's support was perceived as influential pre-injury, it was likely to be perceived as influential to well-being during rehabilitation-with few distinctions among the three providers. During rehabilitation, however, there were important differences: injured athletes perceived their athletic trainers' listening, task appreciation, task challenge, and emotional challenge support as more influential to their well-being than support from either their head or assistant coaches. It is uncertain, however, whether this is because the trainers are their primary source of support (with support from coaches either decreased or stopped), or because they truly do not feel the need for social support from their coaches. While some of the athletes who served as respondents mentioned that their coaches expected them to get their social support fro m the trainers (perhaps relieving the coach of any responsibility for continuing to provide support), other athletes mentioned that they still would have appreciated receiving support from the coaching staff.

Implications for Coaches

Athletes receive social support during their rehabilitation, and, according to the results of this investigation, that support comes primarily from their athletic trainers. All of the athletes who served as respondents mentioned that more support from the coaching staff would have been readily accepted and appreciated. However, coaches may be reluctant to provide social support to injured athletes because they believe it would be unfair to the remainder of the team, or because being socially supportive might undermine their authority (Rosenfeld et al., 1989), regardless of the benefits support could have for the injured athletes (Chelladurai, 1984; Garland & Barry, 1990; Macchi & Crossman, 1996; McDonald & Hardy, 1990; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986).

This study identified task appreciation, task challenge, and emotional challenge support as the three types of social support provided by a head coach pre-injury but not during rehabilitation. In addition, task challenge support was provided by the assistant coaches prior to injury and not during rehabilitation. Given that coaches are the main providers of task appreciation and task challenge support (Rosenfeld et al., 1989), it seems that these types of support would be beneficial to maintain during rehabilitation.

To provide task appreciation and task challenge support, coaches can question the athletes' progress and provide ideas or alternative activities. If the athlete is ready and willing, the coach could put him or her into stationary positions in drills and assign various duties that would not harm her or him or risk further injury. By involving athletes, even in minor ways, they may feel more appreciated and noticed, which could help them feel less isolated from the team or frustrated with their situation. If involvement in practice is impossible, the coach could still provide support with a concerned comment or remark of appreciation. Coaches can stop by rehabilitation once or twice a week and check up on the athlete, rather than finding out an athlete's progress only from the athletic trainers. Even if the coach knows the progress of the athlete, he or she may still approach the athlete and ask him or her directly.

It also may be beneficial if athletic trainers, who already have insight into the injury process, could discuss the primary psychosocial effects of injury with the coaching staff. Athletic trainers occupy a mediating role between athletes and coaches, and they could use their position to explain to coaches what they should do with their injured athletes, how they should encourage their injured athletes and, in general, how they should support their injured athletes. Coaches may be more willing to receive this information from the athletic trainers than an "outsider" with no real link to the team and the athletes. Therefore, it may be necessary to provide athletic trainers with information regarding the best ways to approach coaches and how to communicate what coaches need to understand to best assist their injured athletes.

An often-mentioned fear of injured athletes is that they will be "brushed aside," and the loss of attention from coaches enhances the negative consequences of injury (Macchi & Crossman, 1996; McDonald & Hardy, 1990). A pat on the back, a concerned remark or question, and a visit to the athletic training room from a coach may be all an injured athlete needs to ensure a more positive recovery experience. In addition, social support from coaches during rehabilitation helps maintain their relationship with the athletes, thus avoiding any awkwardness upon the injured athlete's return to play.

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusions drawn from the results of this investigation are limited by the relatively small sample size and the collection of data in only one Division I college, albeit in a variety of sports. Future research in this area should look at a variety of colleges, high schools, and middle schools, and at a greater number of athletes going through the rehabilitation process. Comparisons between and among different divisions and different age athletes may provide insights into how the different levels of competition affect the social support process.

It also would be beneficial to acquire base-line scores (e.g., at the beginning of the school year) prior to athletes' getting injured, so that problems associated with memory and collecting retrospective perceptions are avoided. In addition, future research could identify at what point the athletes are in their athletic careers and whether they see themselves continuing athletic participation in college or as a future profession.

Overall, the most important limitation of this study is the inability to account for possible individual differences. Some athletes, for example, need more social support than others, and some coaches and athletic trainers provide more social support than others.

Even with these limitations, findings of this investigation are convincing enough to argue for future research in this area. For example, future studies could assess coaches' perceptions of the social support they provide athletes during rehabilitation (the type of support, the amount of support, and the perceived relation of the sport to the athletes' wellbeing), as well as whether the support they provide injured athletes matches what the athletes report they receive and need. Other studies could focus on assessing interventions, such as the effects of a program designed to explain the psychosocial effects of injuries to coaches. Research into the area of social support and athletic injury has the potential for helping coaches, athletic trainers, sport psychologists and athletes decrease the negative effects of injury and promote a more positive experience for everyone involved.

References

Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bowen, G. L., & Chapman, M. V. (1996). Poverty, neighborhood danger, social support, and the individual adaptation among "at risk" youth in urban areas. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 641-666.

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 27-41.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Danish, S.J. (1986). Psychological aspects in the care and treatment of athletic injuries. In P. F. Vinger & E. F. Hoerner (Eds.), Sports injuries: The unthwarted epidemic (pp. 345-353). Littleton, MA: PSG Publishing Company.

Ganster, D. C., & Victor, B. (1988). The impact of social support on mental and physical health. British Journal of Medical Psychology 61, 17-36.

Garland, D. J., & Barry, J. R. (1990). Personality and leader behaviors in collegiate football: A multidimensional approach to performance. Journal of Research in Personality 24, 355-370.

Gould, D., Udry, E., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Coping with season-ending injuries. Sport Psychologist, 11, 379-399.

Hardy, C. J., & Grace, R. K. (1993). The dimension of social support when dealing with sport injuries. In D. Pargman (Ed.), Psychological bases of sport injuries (pp. 121-144). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Hardy, C. J., Richman, J. M., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1991). The role of social support in the life stress/injury relationship. Sport Psychologist, 5, 128-139.

Heil, J. (1993). Psychology of sport injury. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Henderson, J., & Carroll, W. (1993). The athletic trainer's role in preventing sport injury and rehabilitating injured athletes: A psychological perspective. In D. Pargman (Ed.), Psychological bases of sports injuries (pp. 15-31). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Hunt, V. (2000). Task force releases tool to gauge collegiate care. NATA News, April, 8-25.

Johnson, U. (1997). Coping strategies among long-term injured competitive athletes. A study of 81 men and women in team and individual sports. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 7, 367-372.

Komproe, I. H., Rijken, M., Ros, W. J. G., Winnubst, J. A. M., & Hart, W. & H. (1997). Available support and received support: Different effects under stressful circumstances. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 59-77.

Leddy, M., Lambert, M., & Ogles, B. (1994). Psychological consequences of athletic injury among high-level competitors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 4, 347-354.

Macci, R., & Crossman, J. (1996). After the fall: Reflections of injured classical ballet dancers. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 221-234.

Mainwaring, L. M. (1999). Restoration of Self: A model for the psychological response of athletes to severe knee injuries. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 12, 145-156.

McDonald, S. A., & Hardy, C. J. (1990). Affective response patterns of the injured athlete: An exploratory analysis. Sport Psychologist, 4, 261-274.

Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (1996). Introduction to the practice of statistics. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Petitpas, A., Danish, S. (1995). Caring for injured athletes. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 255-275). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pines, A. M., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout. New York: Free Press.

Powell, J. W. (1991). Epidemiologic research for injury prevention programs in sports. In Mueller, F. O., & Ryan, A. J. (Eds.), Prevention of athletic injuries: The role of the sports medicine team (pp. 11-25). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.

Richman, J. M., Brewster, A., & Bowen, N. (1998). Sense of school coherence, perceptions of danger at school, and teacher support among youth at risk of school failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15, 273-386.

Richman, J. M., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1987). Stress reduction for hospice workers: A support group model. The Hospice Journal, 3,205-221.

Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). Social support for adolescent at-risk of school failure: Providers, relationship to school outcomes, and implications for practice. Social Work, 43, 309-323.

Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Hardy, C. H. (1993). The social support survey: a validation study of a clinical measure of the social support process. Research on Social Work Practice, 3, 288-311.

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Richman, J. M. (1999). Supportive communication and school outcomes, part II: Academically at-risk low income high school students. Communication Education, 48. 294-307.

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Richman, J. M. (1997). Developing effective social support: team building and the social support process. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 9, 133-153.

Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2000). Social support networks and school outcomes: The centrality of the teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17,205-226.

Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). Supportive communication and school outcomes for academically "at-risk" and other low income middle school students. Communication Education, 47, 309-325.

Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Hardy, C. H. (1989). Examining social support networks among athletes: Description and relationship to stress. Sport Psychologist, 3, 23-33.

Rudy, R. R., Rosenfeld, L. B., Galassi, J. P., Parker, J., & Schanberg, R. (In press). Participants' perceptions of a peer-helper, telephone-based social support intervention for melanoma patients. Health Communication.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support: The search for theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 133-147.

Smith, A. M., Stuart, M. J., Wiese-Bjornstal, M., Milliner, E. K., O'Fallon, W. M., & Crowson, C. S. (1993). Competitive athletes: Preinjury and postinjury mood states and self-esteem. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 68, 939-947.

Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Down but not out: Athlete responses to season-ending injuries. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19, 229-248.

Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., Tuffy, S. (1997) People helping people? Examining the social ties of athletes coping with burnout and injury stress. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19, 368-395.

Weiss, M., & Friedrichs, W. (1986). The influence of leader behavior, coach attributes, and institutional variables on performance and satisfaction of collegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology 8, 332-346.

Weiss, M. R., & Troxel, R. K. (1986). Psychology of the injured athlete. Journal of Athletic Training, Summer, 104-109.

Wiese, D. M., & Weiss, M. R. (1987). Psychological rehabilitation and physical injury: Implications for the sportsmedicine team. Sport Psychologist, 1, 318-330.

Woodward, M. S., Rosenfeld, L. B., & May, S. K. (1996). Sex differences in social support in sororities and fraternities. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 260-272. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Sex Males 54.3% Females 45.7% Coach sex Males 85.7% Females 14.3% Sport Revenue/team 14.3% Non-revenue/team 51.4% Non-revenue/individual 34.3% Status Starter 68.6% Non-starter 20.0% No response 8.6% Place Injured Playing 80.0% Not playing 14.3% No response 5.7% Injury Type Minor (3-7 days) 17.3% Moderate (8-21 days) 31.5% Severe (22+ days) 48.9% No response 2.9% Table 2 Satisfaction with Perceived Support Provider Pre-Injury Rehabilitation M SD M SD Listening Support Head Coach 3.68 .94 3.44 1.26 Asst. Coach 3.50 1.14 3.43 1.07 Ath. Trainer 4.55 .62 4.55 .62 Task Appreciation Support Head Coach 3.64 1.29 3.55 1.30 Asst. Coach 3.79 .88 3.42 1.18 Ath. Trainer 4.30 .78 4.56 .64 Task Challenge Support Head Coach 3.90 1.09 3.48 1.17 Asst. Coach 3.78 .85 3.30 1.06 Ath. Trainer 4.00 .82 4.32 .72 Emotional Support Head Coach 3.87 1.14 3.70 1.26 Asst. Coach 3.85 1.03 3.52 1.22 Ath. Trainer 4.19 .74 4.52 .75 Emotional Challenge Support Head Coach 3.95 1.00 3.85 1.23 Asst. Coach 3.73 .80 3.80 1.21 Ath. Trainer 4.11 .88 4.42 .61 Reality Confirmation Support Head Coach 3.68 1.17 3.59 1.26 Asst. Coach 3.75 .85 3.71 1.23 Ath. Trainer 4.09 .95 4.43 .66 Provider t df Listening Support Head Coach -1.19 24 Asst. Coach -.42 29 Ath. Trainer .00 32 Task Appreciation Support Head Coach .31 21 Asst. Coach 1.90 24 Ath. Trainer -1.89 37 Task Challenge Support Head Coach 2.42 20 Asst. Coach 3.14 * 22 Ath. Trainer -1.78 21 Emotional Support Head Coach .72 22 Asst. Coach 2.08 26 Ath. Trainer -2.69 26 Emotional Challenge Support Head Coach -.44 19 Asst. Coach .29 14 Ath. Trainer 1.84 18 Reality Confirmation Support Head Coach -.53 21 Asst. Coach -.24 23 Ath. Trainer 2.15 22 (*)p [less than].005]; [[r.sup.2].sub.pb] = .309 Table 3 The Perceived Effect of SocialSupport on an Athlete'sWell-being Provider Pre-Injury Rehabilitation M SD M SD Listening Support Head Coach 3.32 1.31 3.32 1.31 Asst. Coach 2.97 1.13 3.13 1.38 Ath. Trainer 3.73 1.10 4.45 .67 Task Appreciation Support Head Coach 3.59 1.44 3.45 1.43 Asst. Coach 3.67 1.27 3.33 1.09 Ath. Trainer 3.74 1.13 4.33 .79 Task Challenge Support Head Coach 4.10 1.09 3.48 1.25 Asst. Coach 3.78 .95 3.26 1.25 Ath. Trainer 3.73 1.03 4.05 1.00 Emotional Support Head Coach 3.78 1.00 3.53 1.34 Asst. Coach 3.63 1.01 3.44 1.31 Ath. Trainer 3.67 .96 4.41 .69 Emotional Challenge Support Head Coach 4.10 .968 3.75 1.21 Asst. Coach 3.93 .704 3.73 1.22 Ath. Trainer 3.84 .834 4.32 .75 Reality Confirmation Support Head Coach 3.50 1.30 3.41 1.30 Asst. Coach 3.67 1.05 3.54 1.10 Ath. Trainer 3.83 1.11 4.04 1.07 Provider t df Listening Support Head Coach .00 24 Asst. Coach .69 29 Ath. Trainer -3.71 32 Task Appreciation Support Head Coach -.49 21 Asst. Coach 1.14 23 Ath. Trainer -2.67 26 Task Challenge Support Head Coach -2.15 20 Asst. Coach -2.41 22 Ath. Trainer 1.23 21 Emotional Support Head Coach .92 22 Asst. Coach .96 26 Ath. Trainer -4.08** 26 Emotional Challenge Support Head Coach -1.32 19 Asst. Coach -1.00 14 Ath. Trainer 2.46 18 Reality Confirmation Support Head Coach -.39 21 Asst. Coach -.59 23 Ath. Trainer .96 22 (*)p [less than] .001; [[r.sup.2].sub.pb]=.294; (**)p [less than] .001; [[r.sup.2].sub.pb]=.390