Comparing athletes' and their coaches' perceptions of athletes' mental toughness among elite tennis players.

Cowden, Richard G. ; Anshel, Mark H. ; Fuller, Dana K. 等

Coaches, sport psychology practitioners, and researchers agree that a fundamental component of success in competitive sport is mental toughness (MT; Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002; Crust, 2007; Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2007). MT enables an athlete to sustain performance by maintaining performance efficiency during conditions of high stress and pressure. Antecedents of MT in sport reflect an athlete's perception of high self-control, a strong determination to succeed, moderate to high risk-taking, the ability to control one s emotions during adverse and high pressure conditions, and the ability to quickly recover from negative events and failures (Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005, Clough et al., 2002; Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002).

Related constructs of MT include hardiness, resiliency, attentional focusing to proper environmental cues, insensitivity to distractions, and effective coping skills (Bull et al., 2005; Clough et al., 2002; Golby, Sheard, & Lavallee, 2003). In one study, Kaiseler, Polman, and Nicholls (2009) found that athletes categorized as mentally tough reported lower levels of perceived stress and higher self-control when encountering a stressor during competition.

During high-pressure competition, MT enables athletes to control their emotions in order to buffer against stress and pressure, to feel control over the competitive situation and performance outcomes, to respond favorably to pressure and challenges in sport competition, and to view defeat and failure as opportunities for feedback and improvement. MT also enables athletes to rebound swiftly after experiencing negative events during training, competition, and post-competition (Fourie & Potgieter, 2001).

MT has been defined differently by authors using various measurement techniques. Fourie and Potgieter (2001), for instance, defined MT by qualitatively analyzing the written opinions of 131 coaches and 160 elite athletes from a variety of sports who was asked to describe their perceptions and characteristics of MT. The authors identified 12 components of MT, including discipline and goal-directedness, team unity, ethics, preparation skills, motivation level, religious convictions, competitiveness, coping skills, cognitive skill, confidence maintenance, psychological hardiness, and possession of prerequisite physical and mental requirements. The athletes and coaches considered perseverance and "concentration" to be the most important components of MT, respectively. However, the authors noted that conclusive validation of the identified components could not be achieved because of the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding MT at the time of data collection.

Based on their qualitative identification of the properties of mentally tough athletes, Jones et al. (2002) defined MT as "having the natural or developed psychological edge that enables you to generally, cope better than your opponents with the many demands (competition, training, lifestyle) that sport places on a performer. Specifically, [mentally tough athletes are] more consistent and better than [their] opponents in remaining determined, focused, confident, and in control under pressure" (p. 209).

From interviews with 10 elite international level athletes, Jones et al. (2002) identified the following characteristics of MT: (1) Having an unshakable self-belief in the ability to achieve competition goals; (2) bouncing back from performance setbacks as a result of increased determination to succeed; (3) having an unshakable self-belief of possessing unique qualities and abilities that create feelings of superiority over opponents; (4) having an insatiable desire and internalized motives to succeed; (5) remaining fully focused on the task at hand in the face of competition-specific distractions; (6) regaining psychological control following unexpected, uncontrollable events; (7) pushing back the boundaries of physical and emotional pain, while still maintaining technique and effort under distress in training and competition; (8) accepting that competition anxiety is inevitable and knowing that you can cope with it; (9) not being adversely affected by others' good and bad performances; (10) thriving on the pressure of competition; (11) remaining fully-focused in the face of personal life distractions; and (12) switching a sport focus on and off as required, that is, not excessively reflecting about sport competition.

In a second study, Jones et al. (2007) extended their earlier findings by identifying 30 attributes categorized into four dimensions of MT. The attributes were grouped into the general category of attitude/mindset (e.g., self-belief and focus) and three time-specific categories: training (e.g., using long term goals as a source of motivation, maximizing one's training effort), competition (e.g., self-belief, controlling thoughts and emotions, maintaining concentration, embracing and dealing with pressure), and post-competition (e.g., dealing with both success and failure).

Thelwell, Weston, and Greenlees (2005) reported the most important attribute of mentally tough soccer players as similar to the previously identified top ranked attribute in the Jones et al. (2002) study. However, participants in the two studies differed in their perceptions about what characteristics best describe MT. That is, the soccer athletes suggested that possessing a presence that influences the opposition is a critical component of MT (Thelwell et al., 2005), which is absent from Jones et al.'s (2002) characteristics of MT.

Clough et al. (2002) defined mentally tough individuals as "Individuals [who] tend to be sociable and outgoing as they are able to remain calm and relaxed, they are competitive in many situations and have lower anxiety levels than others. With a high sense of self-belief and an unshakeable faith that they control their own destiny, these individuals can remain relatively unaffected by competition or adversity" (p. 38). In addition, the authors divided MT into four components, what they called the 4 C's of mental toughness: Control, Commitment, Challenge, and Confidence (Clough et al, 2002). Clough et al. (2002) acknowledged control, commitment, and challenge as necessary components of MT, but suggested that confidence is the factor that differentiates MT from other constructs (e.g., hardiness).

The scenarios, conditions, and factors associated with MT in tennis appear to differ from other sports. For instance, tennis may require MT prior to competition to enter competition mentally prepared to compete against a skilled, perhaps superior opponent. MT in tennis is also necessary during competition to sustain performance during positive and, especially, negative circumstances associated with competing in individual sports. Finally, post-competition MT in tennis is important for rebounding from a loss to prepare for upcoming competition.

Developing Mental Toughness

The recent MT literature has devoted substantial effort towards determining the developmental capacity of MT. Drees and Mack (2012) examined MT among 54 high school wrestlers, to determine whether MT changed over the course of a season. While they found significant differences in MT between seniors and freshmen, MT did not significantly change from pre-to post-test over the season using an instrument called the McBTough questionnaire (Mack & Ragan, 2008). Their findings suggest that MT characteristics develop gradually over several years.

Connaughton, Hanton, and Jones (2010) have offered additional support for identifying and developing MT. The authors examined elite athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists regarding the impact of critical positive or negative events on developing certain components of MT. They found that MT development is a long-term process based on a combination of factors including significant others the individual is associated with (both inside and outside of the sporting context), motivation, and experiences inside and outside the sporting context. These influences transpire across phases called early, middle, and later years. A fourth phase, maintenance years, follows the later years phase and is directly associated with factors responsible for maintaining MT, which includes the effective use of mental skills, such as self-talk, controlled imagery, and positive thinking.

In another study, Gucciardi (2009) compared two groups of adolescent Australian Rules football players on their respective level of MT using the MTI. One group played Australian Rules football throughout the year, while the other group played Australian Rules football in the winter and another sport in the summer. Significant differences in MT development between two groups were found, with the year-round group showing more consistent MT across the four components than the winter only group (Gucciardi, 2009). The difference between the two groups is indicative of the influence of sport specific contexts on the development of MT. Identifying specific intervention strategies for developing or improving MT remains unknown until MT can be understood and to determine what differentiates it from other constructs.

The Coach's Role in Developing Mental Toughness

In recent years, there have been high expectations of coaches to influence their athlete's sport performance, such as providing technical assistance, improving pedagogical skills, and applying state of the art research for improving athletes' fitness. In addition to physical preparation for competition, high quality coaching also promotes the athletes' mental capacity (Bloom, 1985; Cote, Baker, & Abernathy, 2003). Among the more prominent psychological characteristics in preparing the athlete mentally for competition that has gained increased attention in recent years is MT (Nicolas, Gaudreau, & Franche, 2011). Coaches seem to be playing an important role in developing the athlete's MT. In a study involving Australian Rules football coaches, for example, Gucciardi, Gordon, Dimmock and Mallett (2009) concluded that, through a variety or combination of factors (e g., strategies, behaviors), coaches have the capacity to foster and augment sport-specific types of MT. The researchers noted that coaches can assist or hinder the growth of MT among their athletes.

The view that coaches may influence an athlete's MT supports the contention that MT is not a personality trait, but instead, is susceptible to growth and change. In particular, Polman, Clough, and Levy (2010) concluded, in their literature review, that "although the development of mental toughness can occur (however) it is uncertain whether or not this is due to changes in mental toughness per se, or rather changes in the individual's coping systems and techniques" (p. 151).

Driska, Kamphoff, and Armentrout (2012) conducted a rare two-part qualitative study of coaches' perceptions of mental toughness of their highly skilled swim athletes. They interviewed 13 swim coaches to determine their perceptions of different dimensions of their swimmers' mental toughness using Jones et al.'s (2007) conceptual framework. The results confirmed Jones et al.'s posited subcomponents of MT (described earlier), however, they also found two additional components, coachability and retaining psychological control on poor training days. The second part of their study consisted of describing how the coach and swimmer each developed the swimmer's MT. The primary findings were that the coach was demanding and challenging, had high expectations of athletes' performance, attempted to improve MT in training and workout sessions, and developed a motivational climate that fostered MT. The coaches described the swimmers' actions to improve the swimmers MT, including rigorous preparation, the use of psychological skills and cognitive strategies that promote MT, and the ability to deal with hardship. This study confirmed that coaches and their athletes can work jointly in nurturing MT among athletes, and that MT is not necessarily dispositional (i.e., a trait), but can be learned, improved over time, and applied prior to and during competition.

It remains apparent from the extant literature that MT is still not fully understood by researchers, practitioners, and athletic participants in a coherent and clear manner; there remains variation in defining, measuring, and improving this characteristic. The various MT inventories using different constructs and items are testimony to the uncertainty and unfocused nature of this construct (Clough et al., 2002; Middleton, Marsh, Martin, Richards, & Perry, 2004; Sheard, Golby, & van Wersch, 2009). There is an apparent absence of sport-specific MT empirical investigations in the sport psychology literature.

Although MT is receiving increasing attention by researchers, particularly in sports such as rugby (Golby & Sheard, 2004), ice-hockey (Davis & Zaichowsky, 1998), cricket (Bull et ah, 2005; Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009), swimming (Driska et ah, 2012), and Australian football (Gucciardi, 2010; Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2008), elite level competitive tennis has been neglected. In addition, there is a paucity of research examining the extent to which athletes and their coaches agree on the components of MT and the extent to which the athletes possess this characteristic. This is particularly important given literature recognizing the role of the coach in improving and developing an athlete's MT. The relationship between the coach's appraisal of the athlete's MT and the athlete's self-appraisal of MT has yet to be investigated in the context of elite tennis athletes.

Therefore, purposes of the current exploratory study were: (a) to examine differences between athletes' and their respective coaches' perceptions of the athletes' degree of MT, and (b) to compare athletes' and their respective coaches' perceptions of the relative important of each component of MT among elite tennis players. It was predicted that university tennis athletes and their respective coaches would be consistent in identifying the primary components of mental toughness and the degree to which each athlete and coach agreed on the athletes' MT level.

Method

Participants

Participants in the present study included 16 elite intercollegiate tennis players (eight males and eight females) who competed for their respective NCAA Division 1 university team at a university located in the southeastern U.S. and their respective head and assistant coaches (two males and two females). The athletes and coaches ranged in age from 18 to 22 yrs (M = 20.13 yrs, SD = 1.46) and 22 to 32 yrs (M= 25.00 yrs, SD = 4.76), respectively. University ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board and signed informed consent were obtained prior to participation.

Materials

Measuring mental toughness. The Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ; Sheard et al., 2009) was used to obtain measures of athletes' MT. The SMTQ consists of a 14-item Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). Sample items include "I interpret potential threats as positive opportunities," "I give up in difficult situations," and "I am overcome by self-doubt." Sheard et al. reported an internal consistency of r = .81 for the SMTQ. In the current study, however, item 6 ("I regain my composure if I have momentarily lost it") displayed a negative item-total correlation and was subsequently excluded from the calculations of MT. Cronbach's alpha for the SMTQ based on items 1 to 5 and items 7 to 14 was moderate, r = .65.

Two measures of MT were computed, unweighted and weighted. An unweighted MT rating was computed by obtaining averages for each SMTQ item and then summing the item averages to create the overall MT score. A weighted MT rating was computed by: (1) obtaining averages for each SMTQ item, (2) obtaining an average importance rating for each item (see below), (3) multiplying each SMTQ item's average rating by its average importance, and (4) summing the weighted items.

Importance of mental toughness. An adapted version of the SMTQ, called the Importance of Mental Toughness Questionnaire (IMTQ), was utilized to measure the perceived importance of each item with respect to MT in tennis. Each item was rephrased to communicate the proper response frame of the desired reference. For example, the item "I interpret potential threats as positive opportunities" was revised to read "Interpreting potential threats as positive opportunities." Scoring consisted of a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 4 (very important). A measure of overall importance (i.e., average of the importance ratings) was calculated.

Athlete's playing position. Team rank was calculated by averaging the player's ranked positions on the tennis team over the previous five matches prior to participation, as determined by each team's head coach, in which "1" represented the athletes' highest ranked position. Because there were more players on each team then the number of playing positions (six), athletes who did not participate in matches were ranked equally (i.e., each scored as 7). Instances in which athletes were ranked seventh for specific matches due to injuries or suspensions were removed from ranking calculations. Athletes were also asked to indicate the singles position they believed they should have played for those same five matches, again, to obtain an average score. If the athletes believed they should not have played, they were ranked seventh for each of those matches.

Procedure

The inventories were administered separately to the female and male athletes, and to their respective coaches, on one occasion on the university campus. In addition, the athletes' tennis coaches-head coach and assistant coach for male and female teams-were asked to complete an inventory for each tennis athlete currently competing on their team.

The athletes completed the SMTQ that reflected their own MT, the IMTQ, and indicated the singles position they believed they should have played for the previous five matches. The coaches completed the SMTQ for each athlete on their team, the IMTQ, and provided the singles playing positions of the athletes for the previous five matches.

Results

Descriptive statistics for item importance, overall rated importance, unweighted MT, and weighted MT as a function of team role (i.e., coach or player) are reported in Table 1. The coaches rated items 9 (difficult situations), 4 {perform well), 14 (angry and frustrated), and 6 (regain composure) as most important. The players rated items 9 (difficult situations), 4 (perform well), 5 (make decisions), and 2 (unshakable confidence) as most important.

As suggested by Shrout and Fleiss (1979), estimates of inter-rater reliability (ICCs) were based on the assumptions that the judges formed a random sample from a larger population of judges (i.e., two-way random effects model) and that assessing MT in applied settings would come from a single rater. The analyses indicated statistically significant ICC's for unweighted MT (p < .01) and weighted MT (p < .01). The ICC for importance was not significant, as shown in Table 2.

Pearson correlations (N = 16) were used for the remaining analyses. The head coaches' unweighted MT ratings were significantly related to the athletes' average singles playing position (r = -.56, p = .02). The head coach's weighted MT ratings, however, were not significantly related to the athletes' average singles playing position (r = -.05, p = .87). The athletes' MT self-ratings were unrelated to each player's average singles playing position (unweighted MT r = .06, p = .82; weighted MT r = .07, p = .81).

The athletes' MT ratings were not correlated with their head coaches' MT ratings (unweighted MT r = .20, p = .47; weighted MT r = .13, p = .63). However, the athletes' average actual playing position, as determined by their respective head coaches, was significantly correlated with the average of the athletes' perceived playing position for the previous five matches, r = .93, p < .01.

Discussion

The purposes of this study were to determine the degree to which four elite level (NCAA Division 1) college tennis coaches and their respective athletes agreed: (a) on the importance of various characteristics of MT in tennis, (b) on the importance of each item on an inventory-the modified SMTQ (the IMTQ)--that measures and describes components of MT, and (c) on the extent to which each athlete possessed characteristics of MT. It was predicted that tennis coaches and their respective athletes would rank the items for MT and the importance of each item similarly, resulting in significant correlations between coaches and athletes on these measures.

Results of this study, contrary to the predictions, indicated differences between coaches' and athletes' perceptions of athletes' MT and perceptions of item importance. Specifically, coaches ranked the four most important items of MT as "not giving up in difficult situations," "having what it takes to perform well while under pressure," "not becoming angry and frustrated when things do not go one's way" (as equally important), and "regaining one's composure if one has momentarily lost it." Their athletes, on the other hand, ranked the four highest indicants of MT as: "not giving up in difficult situations," "having what it takes to perform well while under pressure," "having unshakeable confidence in one's ability," and "being able to make decisions with confidence and commitment while under pressure" (the latter two as equally important).

The present results were in contrast to Jones at al. (2007), who found that MT reflected "an unshakeable self-belief in your ability to achieve your competition goals" (p. 248) as the foremost attribute of MT. The results of other studies indicated that the most important components of MT consisted of confidence (Weinberg, Butt, & Culp, 2011), self-belief, perseverance (Gucciardi et al., 2008), and a winning mentality and desire (Coulter, Mallett, & Gucciardi, 2010).

In the present study, elite intercollegiate tennis coaches and their athletes generally agreed on the most important items that best reflect MT in tennis. However, the groups displayed divergent perceptions of the importance of particular items considered highly important by the other group, as indicated by the ratings of importance for the items "avoiding anger and frustration when faced with adversity," "accurate and rapid-decision making," and "possessing an unwavering confidence in one's ability."

The current findings lend credence to the importance of generating operational definitions and cognitive-behavioral strategies that enhance MT as a function of moderator variables, such as gender, sport type, skill level, and culture (Polman et al., 2010). A more harmonious perception of the most relevant components of MT between coaches and their athletes would allow players and their respective coaches the opportunity to work more effectively towards assessing and, if needed, teaching and developing the components of MT most relevant to the specific sport, situational conditions, and for meeting personal needs, as suggested by Driska et al. (2012).

The results concerning athletes' playing position, ranked 1 to 6 (1 = highest ranked playing position), provided insights into the importance of MT in tennis. A negative, statistically significant relationship was found between the head coach's (unweighted) MT ratings and the athletes' average singles playing position for the entire sample, with lower numerical values associated with higher ranked playing positions. The finding that higher ranked singles playing positions were associated with greater MT is consistent with Golby and Sheard's (2004) findings in which the head coach perceived higher ranked (i.e., better skilled) players as possessing greater MT. Ostensibly, coach perceptions of athletes' MT may be partially influenced by pre-established knowledge about each athlete's tennis ability, which may result in athletes of higher tennis ability benefiting from the halo effect and attaining higher MT appraisals.

The ICC's between the average player rating and average coach rating of MT for the entire sample indicated that total unweighted and weighted MT ratings by players and coaches coincided. These results suggest that athletes and coaches possess similar perceptions of the average MT of all tennis athletes, as hypothesized. Coaches and athletes also demonstrated similar perceptions of athlete ability, as evidenced by the strong positive relationship between actual playing position (i.e., rank) and the athletes' self-perceived rank. Because head coaches are responsible for selecting the respective playing positions of each athlete, this finding may indicate that athletes and coaches tended to agree on the athletes' skill level and ranked playing position. Perhaps, coaches' and athletes' are more likely to agree on the tennis athletes' skill level, as compared to MT, as tennis skills may be considered a more tangible and objective concept to identify and evaluate.

Coaches and athletes did not agree relative to item importance in the context of intercollegiate tennis. The dissimilar perceptions of item importance between athletes and coaches with respect to average rated importance suggests that attempts to improve or alter an intercollegiate tennis athlete's MT may be a challenging undertaking for many coaches. Coaches' attempts to improve an athlete's MT will undoubtedly become more difficult if the athlete considers such components as unimportant in the context of elite intercollegiate tennis. If coaches attempt to initiate improvements in the MT of athletes, it is critical that both parties possess similar perceptions of the characteristics of MT for a particular sport and skill level.

The correlations between (unweighted and weighted) ratings of MT between the coach and his/her respective athletes were not statistically significant for the total sample of males and females, suggesting that the head coach and each athlete's unweighted and weighted MT ratings are not predictive of each another. Whether coaches are more accurate in their appraisal of each athlete's MT remains speculative and open to future research.

It may be reasonable to surmise that athletes may overestimate self-appraised MT, or that athletes and their respective coaches differ on their operational definition and appraisals of MT. Research on determining plausible explanations for differences between athletes and their coaches is needed to identify and apply strategies for improving coaches' ability to improve various components of the athletes' MT. Given the significance of MT in athletic contexts, it may be important for athletes and their respective coaches to agree on ratings of the athletes' MT, followed by an evaluation of the each athlete's performance and specific areas, and conditions where MT can be further developed and applied (Clough et al., 2002; Crust, 2007; Jones et al., 2007).

The present study was not without selected limitations, which form areas for future research. The low sample size, for instance, may have partly attributed to the direction of selected results, although the sample was restricted to two university (elite) tennis teams. Nevertheless, it is desirable in future studies to include a larger sample of participants to improve statistical power. In addition, the sample of U.S. intercollegiate athletes restricts the generalizability of the results to tennis athletes at different skill levels and cultures, such as athletes who compete outside the U.S. Cultural differences may also bias the perceptions of athletes and coaches on defining, identifying, and improving MT.

Another possible limitation is that coaches may perceive athletes who compete at the elite level to have a higher degree of MT than they really do, similar to the behavioral artifact called the halo effect. Thus, athletes with superior tennis skills may have benefitted from the halo effect associated with the coaches' ratings of MT. The halo effect may be overcome by having individuals appraise athletes' MT without prior knowledge of the athletes' tennis skill level. Finally, the use of a pre-established measure of MT, the SMTQ, may have restricted the information generated about coaches' and athletes' perceptions of MT and ratings of the importance of posited constituents of MT. As a result, pertinent characteristics of MT, not included in the SMTQ, may have been omitted.

The present results provide an additional framework for future investigations aimed at ascertaining and alleviating current discrepancies in the perceptions and definitions of MT. Areas of future study include understanding components of MT for specific sports, investigating and comparing coach and athlete perceptions of the components of MT, exploring gender differences in perceptions of MT, and examining MT across different skill levels (i.e., presumably elite athletes possess superior levels of MT than their less-skilled counterparts). Acknowledging the specific components of MT, however, that are uniquely characteristic of higher skilled (tennis) athletes would provide coaches and non-elite athletes insights of MT that require additional coaching. Improving the psychometric properties of MT instruments so that MT may be accurately measured as a function of moderator variables such as gender, sport type, and skill level (i.e., level of competition) provides one additional area requiring further research.

References

Bloom, B. (Ed). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Bull, S., Shambrook, C., James, W., & Brooks, J. (2005). Towards an understanding of mental toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 209-227. doi: 10.1080/10413200591010085

Clough, R, Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill, (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32-45). London, England: Thomson.

Cote, J., Baker, J., & Abernathy, B. (2003). From play to practice: A developmental framework for the acquisition of expertise in team sports. In J. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 89-114). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Connaughton, D., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2010). The development and maintenance of mental toughness in the world's best performers. Sport Psychologist, 24, 168-193.

Coulter, T., Mallett, C., & Gucciardi, D. (2010). Understanding mental toughness in Australian soccer: Perceptions of players, parents, and coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 699-716. doi: 10.1080/02640411003734085

Crust, L. (2007). Mental toughness in sport: A review. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 270-290. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2007.9671836

Davis, H., & Zaichkowsky, L. (1998). Explanatory style among elite ice hockey athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 1075-1080. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/ pms.1998.87.3.1075

Drees, M. J., & Mack, M. G. (2012). An examination of mental toughness over the course of a competitive season. Journal of Sport Behavior, 35, 377-386.

Driska, A., Kamphoff, C., & Armentrout, S. (2012). Elite swimming coaches' perceptions of mental toughness. The Sport Psychologist, 26, 186-206.

Fourie, S., & Potgieter, J. (2001). The nature of mental toughness in sport. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation, 23, 63-72.

Golby, J., & Sheard, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of rugby league. Personality & Individual Differences, 37, 933-942. doi : 10.1016/j. paid.2003.10.015

Golby, J., Sheard, M., & Lavallee, D. (2003). A cognitive-behavioural analysis of mental toughness in national rugby league football teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 455-462.

Gucciardi, D. (2009). Do developmental differences in mental toughness exist between specialized and invested Australian footballers? Personality & Individual Differences, 47, 985-989. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.001

Gucciardi, D. (2010). Mental toughness profiles and their relations with achievement goals and sport motivation in adolescent Australian footballers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 615-625. doi: 10.1080/02640410903582792

Gucciardi, D., & Gordon, S. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory (CMTI), Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1293-1310. doi: 10.1080/02640410903242306

Gucciardi, D., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. (2008). Towards an understanding of mental toughness in Australian football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 261-281. doi: 10.1080/10413200801998556

Gucciardi, D., Gordon, S., Dimmock, J., & Mallett, C. (2009). Understanding the coach's role in the development of mental toughness: Perspectives of elite Australian football coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1483-1496. doi:10.1080/02640410903150475

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205-218. doi: 10.1080/10413200290103509

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007). A framework of mental toughness in the world's best performers. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 243-264.

Kaiseler, M., Polman, R., & Nicholls, A. (2009). Mental toughness, stress, stress appraisal, coping and coping effectiveness in sport. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 728-733. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.012

Mack, M. G., & Ragan, B. G. (2008). Development of the Mental, Emotional, and Bodily Toughness Inventory in collegiate athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 43, 125-132.

Middleton, S., Marsh, H., Martin, A., Richards, G., & Perry, C. (2004). Discovering mental toughness: A qualitative study of mental toughness in elite athletes, Self Research Centre Biannual Conference. Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.sectiononewrestling. com/discovering_mental_toughness.pdf

Nicolas, M., Gaudreau, R, & Franche, V. (2011). Perception of coaching behaviors, coping, and achievement in a sport competition. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 460-468

Polman, R., Clough, R, & Levy, A. (2010). Personality and coping in sport: The big five and mental toughness. In A. R. Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in sport: Theory, methods, and related constructs (pp. 141-157). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Sheard, M., Golby, J., & van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress toward construct validation of the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 186-193. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.186

Shrout, R, & Fleiss, J. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.

Thelwell, R., Weston, N., & Greenlees, I. (2005). Defining and understanding mental toughness within soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 326-332. doi: 10.1080/10413200500313636

Weinberg, R., Butt, J., & Culp, B. (2011). Coaches' views of mental toughness and how it is built. International Journal of Sport And Exercise Psychology, 9, 156-172. doi: 10.1080/1 612197X.2011.567106

Richard G. Cowden

Mark H. Anshel

Dana K. Fuller

Middle Tennessee State University

Address correspondence to: Mark Anshel, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132. Email: Mark.Anshel@mtsu.edu Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Item Importance, Overall Importance, and Mental Toughness for the Total Sample (Means, 95% CI) Importance Entire Sample Coach (N = 4) Item M 95% CI Lower Upper 1 'Potential threats' 3.25 1.73 4.77 2 'Unshakable confidence' 3.50 2.58 4.42 3 'Qualities that set' 2.75 1.95 3.55 4 'Perform well' 4.00 -- -- 5 'Make decisions' 3.50 2.58 4.42 6 'Regain composure' 3.75 2.95 4.55 7 'Completing the tasks' 3.50 2.58 4.42 8 'Takes responsibility' 3.00 -- -- 9 'Difficult situations' 4.00 -- -- 10 'Gets distracted easily' 3.50 2.58 4.42 11 'Performing poorly' 2.75 1.95 3.55 12 'Self-doubt' 3.50 2.58 4.42 13 'Anxious by events' 3.00 1.16 4.84 14 'Angry and frustrated' 4.00 -- -- Overall Importance * 3.40 3.00 3.81 Unweighted MT * 36.97 34.57 39.36 Weighted MT * 137.11 128.64 145.57 Importance Entire Sample Player (N = 16) Item M 95% CI Lower Upper 1 'Potential threats' 3.56 3.23 3.90 2 'Unshakable confidence' 3.81 3.60 4.03 3 'Qualities that set' 3.75 3.51 3.99 4 'Perform well' 3.94 3.80 4.07 5 'Make decisions' 3.81 3.60 4.03 6 'Regain composure' 3.75 3.51 3.99 7 'Completing the tasks' 3.63 3.30 3.95 8 'Takes responsibility' 3.69 3.43 3.94 9 'Difficult situations' 4.00 -- -- 10 'Gets distracted easily' 3.44 3.16 3.71 11 'Performing poorly' 3.31 2.99 3.63 12 'Self-doubt' 3.56 3.29 3.84 13 'Anxious by events' 3.38 2.90 3.85 14 'Angry and frustrated' 3.63 3.36 3.89 Overall Importance * 3.65 3.53 3.78 Unweighted MT * 40.19 38.28 42.10 Weighted MT * 148.06 139.01 157.11 (a) item 6 was excluded from the total due to its negative item-total correlation. Table 2 Intraclass Correlations Between Average Player and Average Coach Absolute Consistency p-value r r Importance .33 .42 .07 Unweighted MT .65 .76 <.01 Weighted MT .55 .72 <.01