Workshop Effects on Measures of Coaches' Cognitions Toward Integrating Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy Communication into Practice.
Saville, Paul D. ; Bray, Steven R.
Workshop Effects on Measures of Coaches' Cognitions Toward Integrating Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy Communication into Practice.
Self-efficacy refers to one's belief about her/his ability to
execute a specific task or skill successfully (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy has been a construct of interest in sport research for
over 40 years and has important implications for athletes'
performance and motivation (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008).
Research has shown athletes who report higher levels of self-efficacy
take on more challenging tasks, expend more effort and are likely to
overcome greater adversity than those who are uncertain about their
abilities (Bandura, 1997; Feltz et al., 2008; Samson & Solmon,
2011).
According to Bandura (1997), gauging one's self-efficacy
requires making sense of one's objective experiences as part of a
complex self-appraisal process that relies on the interpretation of four
primary sources of information including: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological or affective states.
Evidence supports the value of each proposed determinant; however,
mastery experiences are often recognized as the most influential source
of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Beauchamp, Jackson, & Morton,
2012).
Although direct experiences are critical for developing
self-efficacy beliefs, Bandura (2001) also recognized that efficacy
judgments generally operate within a broader social context and may be
influenced by the appraisals of various social agents. In this vein,
Chan, Lonsdale, and Fung (2012) noted that, in the sport environment,
parents, coaches and peers may each have an important impact on
participants' self-efficacy and that social influences may be
particularly powerful when performance experiences are limited.
The idea that interpersonal interactions, such as those that occur
between a coach and athlete, represent an alternate pathway for
self-efficacy development is a fundamental feature of Lent and
Lopez's (2002) tripartite model of relational efficacy. According
to Lent and Lopez's model, self-efficacy perceptions arise as a
consequence of one's interpretation of both personal (e.g., past
performance accomplishments) and interpersonal experiences (e.g.,
performance feedback provided by others in the environment). A focal
construct in Lent and Lopez's theory is Relation-inferred
Self-efficacy (RISE). RISE is a meta-perception that represents a
person's (person A's) perception of how another person (or
others) views his or her (person A's) capabilities (Lent &
Lopez, 2002). For example, a basketball player may have a RISE
perception regarding how confident her coach is in her (the
player's) ability to successfully score a 3-point shot in a
high-pressure game situation. RISE is theorized to develop from
one's interpretation of the verbal and non-verbal cues received
from others and, as noted above, may contribute to the formation of
self-efficacy.
Although the relational efficacy perspective put forth by Lent and
Lopez (2002) has not received a great deal of attention in the
psychology literature, research by Jackson and colleagues has explored
the phenomenology of RISE within sport and physical activity contexts.
In the first studies to investigate RISE in sport, Jackson, Knapp, and
Beauchamp (2008; 2009) conducted interviews with members of competitive
sport (athlete-athlete and coach-athlete) dyads who shared their
perceptions about RISE. Participants from athlete-athlete dyads
acknowledged verbal and nonverbal behaviors from their partners, as well
as past accomplishments they had with them, to be important antecedents
of their RISE beliefs (Jackson et al., 2008). Athletes also described
several consequences of RISE including greater confidence in their own
abilities (higher self-efficacy) and having stronger intentions to
remain a member of the dyad when they perceived their partner had
greater confidence in them (i.e., higher RISE). Results of the study
involving coach-athlete dyads (Jackson et al., 2009) were consistent
with those found in the study of athlete dyads. In this study, the
researchers found that verbal information as well as the intonation
coaches used to convey information was important for developing RISE.
Athletes also reported that positive RISE perceptions helped them
develop and maintain greater self-efficacy. Together these findings
provide evidence supporting the phenomenological nature of RISE, its
antecedents, and the role of RISE as a unique source of self-efficacy.
Building on the qualitative investigations by Jackson and
colleagues (2008; 2009) research using quantitative measures has
explored the association between RISE and self-efficacy as well as other
variables in both sport and physical education (PE) domains (Jackson
& Beauchamp, 2010; Jackson, Myers, Taylor, & Beauchamp, 2012;
Jackson, Whipp, Chau, Pengelley, & Beauchamp, 2012). For example,
Jackson and Beauchamp (2010) found support for a positive relationship
(r = .65) between adolescent athletes' RISE and self-efficacy
beliefs. As far as we are aware, this study represents the only attempt
to investigate the RISE-self-efficacy relationship within a sport
context. However, two additional studies found corroborative evidence of
this relationship in PE. In one study, conducted by Jackson, Whipp and
colleagues (2012), high school PE students' RISE perceptions were
positively related to their self-efficacy in two separate samples (rs =
.69 and .72, respectively). Results also showed self-efficacy to be
positively correlated with effort and enjoyment for engaging in PE
activities. Similarly, Jackson, Myers, and colleagues (2012) found that
when college students believed their course instructor was highly
confident in their abilities to perform physical activities required in
the course (i.e., RISE), they reported correspondingly high ratings of
self-efficacy for performing those specific skills. Furthermore, results
show'ed self-efficacy was positively related to students'
ratings of enjoyment for the activities performed in that course.
Although a growing body of evidence supports the Lent and Lopez
(2002) model regarding the consequences of RISE (e.g., self-efficacy),
considerably less research has been devoted to understanding how RISE
perceptions are developed. Jackson and colleagues (2008; 2009)
documented several general categories of verbal and non-verbal behaviors
athletes use to inform their RISE perceptions. However, their results
lacked specific details identifying the content of those RISE-enhancing
statements or interactions.
In a previos study, Saville, Bray, Martin Ginis, Caimey,
Maimoff-Shupe, and Pettit (2014) interviewed youth sport participants
(ages 8-12) about their perceived sources of RISE and invited them to
share the specific content of their RISE-enhancing experiences.
Participants identified multiple verbal and nonverbal behaviors from
interactions with their coaches or instructors that they used to inform
their RISE beliefs. Specific sources of RISE included: efficacy-building
statements spoken by coaches (e.g., "I believe you can do
this"), special opportunities (e.g., when the coach selects you to
guard a skilled opponent) and being involved in positive interpersonal
exchanges (e.g., high five, pat on the back, etc.). These findings
provided the first evidence that youth sport participants develop RISE
perceptions about their coaches' beliefs in their abilities as well
as specific behaviors that could be used by coaches to develop the RISE
perceptions of their athletes.
Building from the evidence obtained by Saville and colleagues
(2014), Saville and Bray (2016) carried out a correlational study in
which they measured how often athletes received RISE-relevant
information form their coaches during practices and games and examined
whether the frequency of those occurrences was related to athletes'
RISE and self-efficacy. Results showed that athletes who reported more
frequent RISE-relevant interactions with their coaches reported greater
RISE. Findings also supported Lent and Lopez's (2002) relational
efficacy model inasmuch as RISE was positively related to self-efficacy.
These findings serve as evidence that receiving RISE-enhancing
information from coaches on a more frequent basis may be an important
pathway for developing RISE and self-efficacy. Thus, coaches interested
in nurturing athletes' positive psychological development may seek
to integrate more frequent RISE-enhancing behaviors into their
coach-athlete interactions.
Cultivating knowledge about RISE and identifying effective methods
for developing RISE through coach-athlete interactions is a new area of
research that may have important benefits for coaching practice.
Previous research indicates coaches have strong motivation to increase
their knowledge and application of Sport Psychology research into their
coaching practice (Nash & Sproule, 2012; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007;
Wiersma & Sherman, 2005). However, opportunities for coaches to
develop knowledge and confidence to implement evidence-based techniques
may be limited by the cost, time, and availability of appropriate
resources. For example, research by Williams and Kendall (2007)
indicates that despite a desire to include evidence-based techniques in
their coaching practice, coaches found information published in
scientific journals to be overly complex, time-consuming to retrieve,
and difficult to apply in the field. Coaches involved in a study by Nash
and Sproule (2012) further identified a need for sport science
researchers to integrate more practical knowledge and experiences into
coaching interventions.
In response to calls from coaching practitioners for greater
knowledge mobilization efforts from sport scientists, researchers have
aimed to develop and build upon existing coach education interventions
that have shown considerable promise for influencing change in coaching
behaviors as well as athlete outcomes (Coatsworth & Conroy, 2006;
Conroy & Coatsworth, 2004; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). One of
the most influential coaching interventions that set the foundation for
many modem youth sport coach training programs is Smith, Smoll, and
Curtis' (1979) Coach Effectiveness Training (CET). This 2-hour
workshop focuses on conveying a positive approach to coaching that
emphasizes effort over normatively-defined success and provides coaches
with behavioral guidelines that can be used to create a positive
relational environment conducive to children's development (Smith
& Smoll, 1996). Specifically, CET involves educational,
role-playing, and self-monitoring components intended to increase
coaches' use of supportive coaching behaviors (e.g., reinforcement,
mistake contingent encouragement). The CET model has demonstrated
consistent improvements in children's perceptions of their coaches
(Smith et al., 1979; Smith & Smoll 1990).
Although CET has received extensive empirical attention, similar
programs including The Penn State Coach Training Program (Coatsworth
& Conroy, 2006), American Coach/ Sport Education Program (Martens,
1997), and National Youth Sport Coaches Association Program (Brown &
Butterfield, 1992) have also been shown to be effective for influencing
positive changes in various aspects of youth development. However, the
focus of these programs is on general characteristics of behavior that
can be applied to coaching practice. As mentioned earlier, coaches often
express interest in more specialized knowledge such as Sport Psychology
(Nash & Sproule, 2012; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007; Wiersma & Sherman,
2005), which may not be adequately addressed in more generalized coach
training programs.
In a recent study, Edwards, Law, and Latimer-Cheung (2012)
evaluated the effects of a training workshop for coaches on the delivery
of mental imagery skills training to athletes. Mental imagery is
commonly used by competitive sport participants (Cumming & Williams,
2012) yet, recreational-level participants may not benefit from imagery
training because their coaches lack knowledge about imagery and
confidence to teach imagery skills to their athletes. In an attempt to
address this knowledge-to-action gap, Edwards and colleagues (2012)
developed an imagery skills education workshop intended to teach coaches
about the basics of imagery and provided opportunities for coaches to
engage in role-playing exercises to develop and share effective
strategies for promoting the use of imagery with their athletes. Results
showed that coaches' knowledge and attitudes towards imagery use
were high both prior to the workshop and did not increase; however,
their confidence to carry out imagery training with their athletes
increased significantly following the workshop.
Results of Edwards and colleagues' (2012) study were
encouraging; however, those researchers advocated for further research
that would extend their methods to incorporate more enriched
experiential activities that would allow coaches to apply their new know
ledge and skills. Revisiting research on sources of self-efficacy, it
may be critical to allow coaches opportunities to gain mastery
experience and receive formative feedback about their application of new
knowledge and skills in order to enhance their self-efficacy and apply
these skills to their coaching practice beyond the workshop environment
(Bandura, 1997).
The objective of the current study was to examine the effects of a
coach-athlete communication workshop on coaches' perceptions toward
engaging in RISE-enhancing interactions with their athletes.
Specifically, w'e investigated the effects of a two-phase
intervention designed to enhance coaches' perceived knowledge,
outcome expectations, self-efficacy and intentions. Phase One consisted
of a classroom-based workshop component, similar to that outlined by
Edwards and colleagues (2012), including information sharing and
collaborative planning/strategizing. Phase Two involved an experiential
component wherein participants practiced delivering RISE-enhancing
information to peers in a sport coaching setting. In line with findings
from Edwards and colleagues (2012), it was hypothesized that
coaches' scores on measures of perceived knowledge and outcome
expectations would increase following Phase One. Based on Self-efficacy
Theory (Bandura, 1997) and the experiential nature of the activities
involved, we predicted scores for self-efficacy and intentions would
increase following Phase Two.
Method
Participants and Context
Participants were male (n = 27) and female (n = 16) alpine ski
coaches ([M.sub.age] =35 years; SD = 14) involved in a pre-season ski
coaching training program at a regional ski club in Canada. All
participants were coaches of small groups (M= 11 athletes; SD = 5) of
competitive youth skiers between the ages of 8 and 14.
Participants' coaching experience varied (M= 13 years; SD = 12;
Range = 0-47). They reported having received formal {n = 36), informal
(n = 2), or no coach training (n = 1) prior to the study. Four
participants failed to report their training experience. Formal training
was defined as having a formal coaching certification (e.g., Canadian
Ski Coaches Federation or National Coaching Certification Program)
whereas informal training consisted of attending public coaching
workshops provided by a group without any formal affiliation.
Measures
Questionnaires developed for this study were used to assess social
cognitive variables at multiple time points and were expected to show
changes over the course of the study. Accordingly, to capture
participants' state perceptions and allow us to examine any changes
in perceptions that occurred, each set of measures included a basic
statement to prompt coaches to report the beliefs they held at that
point in time (i.e., "At this point in time, ...").
Outcome Expectancies: Coaches' beliefs about the utility of
engaging in RISE-enhancing interactions with their athletes were
assessed using a 9-item scale developed for this study. Example items
included: "To what extent do you think providing verbal/nonverbal
feedback helps kids develop confidence in their skiing abilities?";
"Effectively communicating confidence in my athletes'
abilities would make them feel more confident in their own
abilities"; and "Effectively communicating confidence in my
athletes' abilities would motivate them to attempt things they
haven't done before." Responses to all items were rated on a
7-point Likert type scale anchored at 1 (Strongly disagree) and 7
(Strongly agree). Responses to each item were used to generate mean
scores at each time point and a high level of internal consistency was
observed for this measure at each assessment (Cronbach's [alpha]
=.85-.95).
Perceived Knowledge. Coaches' perceived knowledge regarding
methods for providing RISE-enhancing information was assessed using a
7-item scale developed for this study. All items were prefaced with the
stem: "To what extent are you knowledgeable about ..." and
were followed by items including: "things to say in order to
effectively communicate your confidence in your athletes'
abilities" or "ways to effectively tailor your feedback to
different athletes?" Responses to the items were rated on a 7-point
scale anchored at 1 (Not knowledgeable at all) and 7 (Very
knowledgeable). Average response scores were computed and acceptable
internal consistency was observed for this measure at each time point (a
= .88-.95).
Self-efficacy. Coaches rated their beliefs in their abilities to
engage in RISE-enhancing interactions with their athletes using a 7-item
scale developed for this study. All items were prefaced with the stem
"How confident are you in your ability to ..." followed by 7
items including: " use verbal feedback to effectively communicate
your belief in your athletes' abilities"; "identify
appropriate situations in which to communicate your belief in your
athletes' abilities." Each item was rated on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 = Not at all confident to 7 = Completely confident. Item
scores were summed and averaged to yield a scale score with acceptable
internal consistency at each time point ([alpha] = .87-.92).
Intentions. Coaches' intentions to engage in RISE-enhancing
interactions with their athletes in the future were assessed using a
3-item scale developed for this study. The scale items were: "I
intend to use verbal feedback to communicate my confidence in my
athletes' skiing abilities in the future.", "I intend to
use nonverbal feedback to communicate my confidence in my athletes'
skiing abilities in the future.", and "I plan on communicating
my confidence in my athletes' skiing abilities during every
training session/competition in the future." Items were rated on a
7-point scale anchored by 1 (Not at all true) and 7 (Very true). This
measure was only used at Time 2 and Time 3, after coaches had been
exposed to information about, and experiences with, delivering
RISE-relevant feedback. Mean scores were computed and acceptable
internal consistency was observed at each time point ([alpha] = .78 and
.88, respectively).
Procedure
Once informed consent was obtained, all eligible coaches provided
their demographic information and completed a pre-workshop questionnaire
designed to measure their beliefs (perceived knowledge, outcome
expectations, and self-efficacy) with regard to the provision of
RISE-enhancing behaviors. Then, all coaches took part in a two-phase
(educational and experiential) coach-athlete communication workshop
designed to enhance their cognitions toward implementing RISE-enhancing
interactions with their athletes. Study variables were measured after
each phase.
The workshop was developed and delivered by the authors, who were
university-based researchers in the area of Sport Psychology and
certified professional coaches with coaching experience at elite and
recreational levels in numerous sports including alpine skiing. The
content of the workshop was informed by empirical evidence provided by
past studies on RISE and RISE-relevant behaviors (Jackson et ah, 2008;
2009; Saville et ah, 2014). The session structure was modeled after the
workshop described by Edwards and colleagues (2012) and was pilot tested
and refined with input from key stakeholders including youth coaches
from a variety of sports as well as youth sport camp instructors and
program coordinators (Bray et ah, 2014). All procedures involved in this
study were reviewed and approved by an institutional research ethics
board prior to data collection.
Workshop Description
Phase One. The classroom component of the workshop consisted of
five activities specifically designed to enhance coaches' perceived
knowledge about, and outcome expectations toward, incorporating
RISE-enhancing interactions during coaching sessions. First, coaches
were exposed to a brief audiovisual presentation based on work by
Saville and Bray (2016), which was used to introduce and define the
concept of RISE, how RISE may relate to young athletes'
self-perceptions, and examples of RISE-enhancing behaviors drawn from
the literature (Saville, et al., 2014). They then participated in an
open discussion, in which they shared their previous experiences with
interactions (as coaches or athletes) they felt had been RISE-enhancing.
Next, coaches watched three short video demonstrations of sport coaches
engaging in a variety of RISE-enhancing behaviors with children in a
youth sport camp environment. After watching the videos, participants
engaged in a brainstorming activity in which they generated and wrote
out brief (4-6 items) lists of RISE-enhancing behaviors they could
integrate into their interactions with athletes during training sessions
or at competitions. Finally, ski coaches worked together in small
groups, to develop and share strategies they could use to deliver
RISE-enhancing cues during training and competition. At the end of this
phase, coaches were given a take-home brochure providing a summary of
the session content and a supplementary list of exemplar RISE-enhancing
cues based on research findings by Saville and colleagues (2014).
Phase Two. The experiential component of the workshop consisted of
two interactive activities that took place on the ski hill. Coaches from
the initial workshop formed groups of 8-10 members. For the first
activity, each coach selected a partner from her/his group and practiced
giving RISE-relevant statements, developed during the classroom
component, to their partners for 5-7 minutes. This rehearsal exercise
allowed coaches opportunities to practice the delivery of RISE-enhancing
behaviors, to experiment with different tones and expressions, and
provide feedback to each other regarding the quality and authenticity of
their RISE-oriented interactions.
In the second activity, the coaches engaged in role-playing
activities to practice RISE-enhancing behaviors in a simulated coaching
session. Each pair of coaches from the earlier exercise was responsible
for leading the rest of the group through one of five on-hill practice
drills (i.e., drills that coaches would use during technical
skill-development sessions with their athletes). During the drills,
coaches engaged in RISE-relevant interactions with others participants
in the group. For example, some coaches provided RISE-relevant
information prior to skill performance (e.g., "If you concentrate
on using proper technique, I believe each of you will make it through
this drill without making any mistakes"). Others employed
RISE-enhancing behaviors while the drill was going on (e.g., giving high
fives, thumbs up, and selecting individual skiers to demonstrate certain
aspects of the drill for others in the group) and others provided
RISE-oriented feedback immediately following the drills (e.g., "We
may have some more work to do but, I know if you concentrate on
exploding out of your turns, you will do even better on the next
run").
At the completion of each drill session, one of the researchers
guided the group in a short debriefing that involved coaches'
discussion of how effective RISE-relevant behaviors had been executed
and shared suggestions with the drill leaders that could enhance their
delivery (e.g., noting when and how' behaviors were applied,
suggesting variations that could be substituted or combined with the
interactions that were provided, highlighting missed opportunities when
RISE-enhancing behaviors could have been integrated, and limitations
about when RISE-enhancing interactions might not be appropriate or could
be perceived as being disingenuous). All experiential activities were
repeated with each group until all coaches had a chance to practice
giving and receiving RISE-relevant information. Each drill session
lasted approximately 7-10 minutes, for a total session length of
approximately 40 minutes.
Study Design and Data Analysis
The study employed a single group A, B, C intervention design where
A was designated as the baseline assessment, B was the post-classroom
assessment, and C was the post-experiential assessment. Although single
group studies lack the control of randomized or experimental designs,
their use has been advocated in the area of Applied Sport Psychology
where the effects of complex interv entions on athletes' and
coaches' cognitions and behaviors are frequently investigated
(Barker, McCarthy, Jones, & Moran, 2011).
Data from an initial sample of 59 coaches were screened for
outliers and missing data. Although there were no outliers, examination
of the pattern of missing data revealed 16 coaches were missing data for
all variables at one or more time points and were thus dropped from the
analysis. Of the remaining coaches included in the analysis (n = 43),
eight did not provide complete data follow ing Phase Two of the
workshop. Although several treatment techniques for missing data are
available, we employed an approach known as hot-deck imputation,
advocated by Roth, Switzer, and Switzer (1999), whereby missing data
points were replaced by carrying forward the previous value reported by
the participant for each missing data point. In each of these cases,
values reported after Phase One were carried forward and substituted for
these missing values.
Descriptive statistics were computed for all study variables at
each of the three time points (i.e., baseline, Phase One, Phase Two)
with the exception of intentions, which w ere measured after Phase One
and Phase Two only. A repeated measures MANOVA was computed to test the
effects of the workshop on ski coaches' perceived knowledge,
outcome expectations, and self-efficacy for implementing RISE-enhancing
behaviors. Significant MANOVA results were followed-up with univariate
analyses and simple (between time) contrasts. For the intentions
measure, a dependent t-test was computed to compare coaches'
ratings of intentions to use RISE-enhancing behaviors with their
athletes following each phase of the workshop. To control for multiple
comparisons and reduce the possibility of a Type 1 error, a Bonferonni
correction was employed such that values of p < .0167 were considered
significant. The magnitude of the workshop effects were also calculated
using online software (Wiseheart, 2013) to compute Cohen's d for
repeated measures, where .20, .50, and .80 represent small, medium and
large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1988). All statistical analyses were
carried out using SPSS version 20.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the study variables are displayed in
Table 1. At baseline coaches' scores on measures of outcome
expectations, self-efficacy, and perceived knowledge regarding useful
techniques for transferring these beliefs to their athletes were high
(i.e., rated at a score of 5 or greater on a 7-point scale). However, as
shown in Table 1, mean scores for all variables increased over time.
Hypothesis Testing
The repeated measures MANOVA evaluating changes in scores, over
time, was significant (Pillai's Trace = .54, F(6, 37) = 7.35, p<
.01). To decompose this overall effect, univariate, within-subjects
contrasts were computed to identify which variables differed at which
time-points. As shown by the subscripts presented in Table 1, scores for
measures of coaches' perceived knowledge, F(1, 42) = 15.17, p <
.01, [[eta].sup.2] = .27, d= .60, and outcome expectations, F(1, 42) =
19.26, p < .01, [[eta].sup.2] = .31, d- ,71, increased significantly
(from baseline) after Phase One of the workshop while self-efficacy
scores remained unchanged F(1, 42) = 1.7, p = .19, [[eta.sup.2] = .04, d
= .24. In contrast, coaches' self-efficacy ratings significantly
increased from Phase One to Phase Two, F(1, 42) = 18.19, p < .01,
[[eta].sup.2] = .30, d= .67, while scores for perceived knowledge and
outcome expectations did not change significantly. Results of a
dependent t-test showed scores for the measure of coaches'
intentions to implement RISE-enhancing behaviors were higher following
the workshop, but the effect did not reach statistical significance t(1,
42) = 1.72, p = .09, d= .26.
Discussion
In the present study, we examined the effects of a tw o-phase
coach-athlete communication workshop that emphasized both classroom and
simulated, field-based, experiences on coaches' perceptions toward
engaging in RISE-enhancing interactions with their athletes. The focal
outcomes were scores derived from questionnaire instruments from which
we inferred coaches' cognitions relating to perceived knowledge,
outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions.
Generally, findings were consistent with our hypotheses, showing that
coaches' perceived knowledge, outcome expectations, and
self-efficacy significantly increased following the workshop. The
results also provide empirical evidence supporting a two-phase approach
to coaching education that may be effective for enhancing coaches'
self-efficacy for integrating RISE-enhancing interactions as well as
other coaching behaviors into their coaching practice.
Overall, findings provided support for the use of a practical
approach to coach education that aimed to transfer sport science
knowledge to youth-sport coaches. More specifically, Phase One of the
workshop led to significant increases in coaches' ratings of their
perceived knowledge and outcome expectations about integrating
RISE-related information into their coach-athlete interactions. Phase
Two led to further (but not significant) increases in perceived
knowledge and outcome expectations. In contrast, self-efficacy was not
significantly affected by the content of Phase One, as it was only after
Phase Two that significant increases in self-efficacy were observed.
These results were similar to those reported by Edwards and colleagues
(2012) who observed increases in self-efficacy for coaching mental
imagery skills from pre- to post-workshop, but diverge from their
findings insofar as changes in knowledge and attitudes towards coaching
imagery skills were not seen in that study.
The lack of change in knowledge and attitudes in the study by
Edwards and colleagues (2012) may have been attributable to a high level
of knowledge and positive attitudes among coaches participating in the
study. In comparison, the concept and content of RISE-relevant exchanges
was a novel consideration to many coaches in the present study, which
may have allowed greater scope for knowledge development. On the other
hand, the similarity in the findings (i.e., that scores for
self-efficacy increased) may be attributable to the role-playing and
coaching simulation activities that were incorporated into the workshop
activities included in both studies. Indeed, the fact that a significant
increase in self-efficacy ratings was found only after the on-hill
simulations in the present study supports an interpretation that these
activities are critical to the development of self-efficacy for coaches.
The increases in self-efficacy observed after the on-hill practice
segment of the intervention provide support for Bandura's (1997)
self-efficacy theory in that coaches' self-efficacy was enhanced
following mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, and persuasive
information provided by influential others. That is, when coaches
participated in the on-hill coaching sessions they had opportunities to
gain mastery experiences by engaging in RISE-relevant exchanges with
other skiers. With at least five opportunities per drill, each time a
coach engaged in RISE-enhancing interactions (e.g., told a skier:
"I believe you can do this" or made the drill more challenging
for a certain skier) s/he generated an additional mastery experience on
which to base her/his self-efficacy to provide RISE-relevant
information.
The interactive, group nature of on-hill ski sessions also offered
coaches opportunities to build self-efficacy via vicarious experiences.
For example, when coaches participated in the ski drills, they were able
to observe peers providing RISE-enhancing behaviors. Although vicarious
experiences may be less powerful determinants of self-efficacy than
one's own experiences, they have been shown to be effective when
the person modeling the behavior shares similar characteristics with the
target individual (Bandura, 1997; George, Feltz, & Chase, 1992).
Furthermore, the on-hill practice sessions provided exposure to coping
modeling (Clark & Ste-Marie, 2007) as coaches observed and shared
strategies with one another about ways in which the content and delivery
methods for providing RISE-enhancing interactions could be improved or
optimized as they were all learning novel ways of communicating with
others.
Verbal persuasion from the researchers and other coaches may also
have contributed to improvements in self-efficacy during the on-hill
component of the workshop. In each of the on-hill sessions, the ski
drills were followed by short debriefings that allowed researchers and
fellow coaches to provide encouragement, evaluative feedback and, in
some cases, RISE-enhancing statements to convey their belief in the next
drill leader's ability to effectively communicate RISE. In one
poignant example, members of one group embraced RISE by intimating to
their group leaders: "we believe in your abilities to make us
believe you have confidence in us". Considering the circumstances,
it is difficult to interpret the impact of such statements on
coaches' self-efficacy, but it is encouraging to note that coaches
understood the concept of RISE well enough to recognize its versatility
and apply it in situations beyond the coach-athlete relationship.
Although findings indicate the workshop was effective for
developing coaches' beliefs toward adopting RISE-enhancing
behaviors, improvements in coaches' behavioral intentions did not
increase significantly. However, it is important to note that
coaches' high ratings on the initial measure of intention may have
limited our ability to detect subsequent improvements.
The results of this study have direct relevance to research and
practice in the area of knowledge translation for coaching science;
however, they may also be important to consider in other areas of Sport
Psychology that involve coaching and self-efficacy. One area in which
the findings are particularly relevant is in regards to coaching
efficacy. Coaching efficacy refers to coaches' beliefs in their
abilities to affect the learning and performance of their athletes
(Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999). Research has shown that
higher levels of coaching efficacy are associated with positive coaching
behaviors such as: praise, encouragement and social support (Feltz et
al., 1999; Sullivan, Paquette, Holt, & Bloom, 2012) as well as
desirable outcomes for athletes such as: player/team satisfaction and
team efficacy (Malete & Feltz, 2000; Sullivan et al., 2012).
Not surprisingly, coaching education is a factor that has been
found to be positively associated with coaching efficacy (Malete &
Feltz 2000). Although research investigating this relationship has
relied primarily upon correlational or case-control designs, one study
by Malete and Feltz (2000) investigated the effects of a coaching
education program on the coaching efficacy of high school coaches. This
classroom-based intervention produced moderate improvements in overall
coaching efficacy compared to controls; however, Malete and Feltz
suggested that allowing coaches to experiment with unfamiliar behaviors
in a simulated sport environment may further contribute to coaching
efficacy. Our findings support this assertion and suggest that role
play, mock coaching sessions, or other simulations may be critical
aspects of coaching interventions that should improve coaches'
self-efficacy to apply their acquired knowledge in a practical manner.
Findings from the present study extend knowledge and contribute to
a variety of research areas relevant to coaching education programs, but
it is not without limitations.
One limitation was the use of a single-group design that did not
have a control condition for comparison. This aspect of our design does
not allow us to rule out the possibility that participating in a
workshop of any kind could have increased coaches' cognitions
toward the use of RISE-enhancing behaviors. In fact, the primary benefit
of including a control group is to determine whether or not findings
were a consequence of being exposed to an intervention (regardless of
its content) and is referred to as the mere exposure effect (Zajonc,
1968). Flowever, if a mere exposure effect had occurred, we might expect
that all study variables would have increased after each phase of the
workshop, which was not the case in the current investigation. In
particular, ratings of coaches' self-efficacy did not change in
response to activities in Phase One, but did increase significantly
following Phase Two, and vice versa for coaches' perceived
knowledge and outcome expectations. Together, these findings give us
confidence that the results were not attributable to mere-exposure
effects. Nonetheless, it is critical to acknowledge the conceptual
overlap among the psychosocial measures (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, intentions) as having some common expectancy-value content
and, therefore, observed changes in those measures may reflect changes
to an underlying latent construct. We also acknowledge that including a
no-intervention control condition, or complete within-group comparison
(e.g., multiple baseline and multiple follow-up assessments), would
provide a stronger empirical basis for applied implications of the
findings and studies incorporating these design characteristics are
recommended for future research in this area.
A second limitation is that we did not assess any effects of the
workshop on coaches' use of RISE-enhancing behaviors in practice or
competitions and thus, cannot infer the findings can translate beyond
the intervention workshop setting itself. With this consideration in
mind, it is important to understand that the current study was designed
to test whether a twophase workshop was capable of producing positive
effects on coaches' social cognitions. Behavior change
interventions work by targeting change in theory-based mediating
variables that, in turn, evoke changes in behavior (Baranowski,
Anderson, & Carmack, 1998). Therefore, having demonstrated change in
the social-cognitive mediators of perceived knowledge, outcome
expectancies, and self-efficacy, we would propose that changes in
behavior may also be expected to occur. However, future research is
required to examine the effects of this workshop as they apply to
coaches' use of RISE-relevant behaviors in the field.
Despite these limitations, current findings provide support for the
positive effects of a two-phase workshop intervention for promoting
perceived knowledge and positive outcome expectations as well as
building coaches' self-efficacy to interact with their athletes in
ways that should help them facilitate positive RISE perceptions.
Findings also advocate for the use of supplemental strategies designed
to improve knowledge translation, which include providing opportunities
for coaches to gain mastery through guided or simulated experiences with
targeted behaviors. Without integrating effective knowledge translation
strategies, coaching education programs are more likely to fail to
accommodate coaches' interests in staying current with new
developments in sport and coaching science (Williams & Kendall,
2007). Furthermore, the approach to coaching education implemented in
this study aligned with preferences of coaches who expressed their
dissatisfaction with past coaching education programs that do not
provide peer interactions, hands-on experience or practical simulations
(Nash & Sproule, 2012). Therefore, coach education initiatives may
benefit from integrating features of the workshop used in this study
(e.g., coping modeling, field-based activities) into future training
programs.
What Does This Article Add?
This article provides the first evidence that an interactive
coaching education workshop can enhance coaches' knowledge of RISE
and bolster their outcome expectations and self-efficacy to incorporate
RISE-enhancing behaviors into their coach-athlete interactions.
Furthermore, results of this study lend empirical support to the
coaching education literature by demonstrating the value of hands-on
experience and how it influences change in coaches' cognitions,
which is viewed as a vital step toward behavior change. Providing
peer-interactions, coping modeling, and practice simulations are
theory-based techniques that allow coaches to gain self-efficacy to
implement RISE-enhancing interactions that may be an under-utilized
method for building self-efficacy for youth sport participants.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H.
Freeman & Co.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology'. 52, 1-26.
doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00024
Baranowski, T., Anderson, C., & Carmack, C. (1998). Mediating
variable framework in physical activity interventions: How are we doing?
How might we do better? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15,
266-297.
Barker, J., McCarthy, P., Jones, M., & Moran, A. (2011). Single
case research methods in sport and exercise. New York, NY: Routledge.
Beauchamp, M. R., Jackson, B., & Morton, K. L. (2012). Efficacy
beliefs and human performance: From independent action to interpersonal
functioning. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and
performance psychology (1st ed., pp. 273-293). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731763.013.0014
Bray, S. R., Saville, P. D., Brown, D. M., Martin Ginis, K. A.,
Cairney, J., Marinoff-Shupe, D., & Pettit, A. (2014). "Let me
show you how confident I am in you!" Effects of a coaches'
communication workshop on youth sports participants' perceptions of
RISE and self-efficacy. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the
International Society for Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.
San Diego, CA.
Brown, B. R., & Butterfield, S. A. (1992). Coaches: A missing
link in the health care system. American Journal of Diseases in
Childhood, 146, 211-217. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1992.02160140077025
Chan, D., Lonsdale, C., & Fung, H. (2012). Influences of
coaches, parents, and peers on the motivational patterns of child and
adolescent athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, 22, 558-568. doi: 10.1111/j. 1600-0838.2010.01277
Clark, S. E., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2007). The impact of
self-as-a-model interventions on children's self-regulation of
learning and swimming performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25,
577-586. doi: 10.1080/02640410600947090
Coatsworth, J. D., & Conroy, D. E. (2006). Enhancing the
self-esteem of youth swimmers through coach training: Gender and age
effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 173-192.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2004). The effects of coach
training on fear of failure in youth swimmers: A latent growth curve
analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 25, 193-214 doi: 10.1016/i.appdev.2004.02.007
Cumming, J., & Williams, S. E. (2012). The role of imagery in
performance. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and
performance psychology (pp. 213-232). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731763.013.0011
Edwards, J., Law, B., & Latimer-Cheung, A. (2012). Effects of
an imagery workshop on coaches' encouragement of imagery use.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 7, 317-332.
doi:10.1260/1747-9541.7.2.317
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. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.91.4.765
Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. (2008).
Self-efficacy in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
George, T. R., Feltz, D. L., & Chase, M. A. (1992). Effects of
model similarity on self-efficacy and muscular endurance: A second look.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 237-248.
Jackson, B., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2010). Efficacy beliefs in
coach-athlete dyads: Prospective relationships using actor-partner
interdependence models. Applied Psychology', 59, 220-242.
Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2008). Origins and
consequences of tripartite efficacy beliefs within elite athlete dyads.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 512-540.
Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2009). The
coach-athlete relationship: A tripartite efficacy perspective. The Sport
Psychologist, 23, 203-232.
Jackson, B., Myers, N. D., Taylor, I. M., & Beauchamp, M. R.
(2012). Relational efficacy beliefs in physical activity classes: A test
of the tripartite model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34,
285-304.
Jackson, B., Whipp, P. R., Chua, K., Pengelley, R., &
Beauchamp, M. R. (2012). Assessment of tripartite efficacy beliefs
within school-based physical education: Instrument development and
reliability and validity evidence. Psychology of Sport & Exercise,
13, 108-117. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.10.007
Lent, R. W., & Lopez, F. G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: A
tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in growth-promoting relationships.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 256-286. doi:
10.1521/jscp.21.3.256.22535
Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2000). The effect of a coaching
education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 74,
410-417.
Martens, R. (1997). Successful coaching (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Nash, C., & Sproule, J. (2012). Coaches perceptions of their
coach education experiences. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
43, 33-52.
Roth, P. L., Switzer, F. S., & Switzer, D. M. (1999). Missing
data in multiple item scales: A Monte Carlo analysis of missing data
techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 211-232. doi:
10.1177/109442819923001
Samson, A., & Solmon, M. (2011). Examining the sources of
self-efficacy for physical activity within the sport and exercise
domains. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology', 4,
70-89. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2011.564643
Saville, P. D., Bray, S. B., Martin Ginis, K. A., Caimey, J.,
Marinoff-Shupe, D., & Pettit, A. (2014). Sources of self-efficacy
and coach/instructor behaviors underlying relation-inferred
self-efficacy (RISE) in recreational youth sport. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology', 36, 146-156. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2012-0144
Saville, P. D., & Bray, S. R. (2016). Athletes'
perceptions of coaching behavior relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE)
and self-efficacy in youth sport. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology', 28 (1), 1-13. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2015.1052890
Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F.L. (1990). Self-esteem and
children's reactions to youth sport coaching: A field study of
self-enhancement processes. Developmental Psychology, 26, 987-993. doi:
10.1037//0012-1649.26.6.987
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1996). Way to go, coach! A
scientifically-proven approach to coaching effectiveness. Portola
Valley, CA: Warde.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach
effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioral approach to enhancing
relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology,
1, 59-75.
Sullivan, P., Paquette, K. J., Holt, N. L., & Bloom, G. A.
(2012). The relation of coaching context and coach education to coaching
efficacy and perceived leadership behaviors in youth sport. The Sport
Psychologist, 26, 122-134.
Vargas-Tonsing, T. M. (2007). Coaches' preferences for
continuing coaching education. International Journal of Sports Science
and Coaching, 2, 25-35. doi: 10.1260/174795407780367186
Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Warners, A. L., & Feltz, D. L. (2003).
The predictability of coaching efficacy on team efficacy and player
efficacy in volleyball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 396-407.
Wiersma, L. D., & Sherman, C. P. (2005). Volunteer youth sport
coaches' perspectives of coaching education/certification and
parental codes of conduct. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
76, 324-338. doi: 10.5641/027013605X13080719840870
Williams, S. J., & Kendall, L. (2007). Perceptions of elite
coaches and sports scientists of the research needs for elite coaching
practice. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1577-1586. doi:
10.1080/02640410701245550
Wiseheart, M. (2013). Effect size calculator. Retrieved from:
http://www.cognitiveflexibility. org/effectsize/
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27. doi: 10.1037/h0025848
Paul D. Saville and Steven R. Bray
McMaster University
Address correspondence to: Paul Saville, Department of Exercise and
Sport Science, Azusa Pacific University, 901 East Alosta Avenue, Azusa,
CA91702. Email: psaville@apu.edu
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables at Baseline and following
Phase One and Phase Two of the Coaching Workshop
Variable Baseline Post-phase one
M SD M SD
Perceived knowledge 5.81 (a) .75 6.24 (b) .77
Outcome expectations 6.09 (a) .78 6.54 (b) .55
Self-efficacy 6.08 (a) .72 6.20 (a) .62
Intentions -- -- 6.50 (a) .63
Variable Post-phase two
M SD
Perceived knowledge 6.43 (b) .67
Outcome expectations 6.67 (b) .47
Self-efficacy 6.46 (b) .55
Intentions 6.59 (a) .54
Note: N = 43. Means (in the same row) that do not share a common
subscript differ at p < .05.
COPYRIGHT 2018 University of South Alabama
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.