首页    期刊浏览 2024年11月10日 星期日
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Workshop Effects on Measures of Coaches' Cognitions Toward Integrating Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy Communication into Practice.
  • 作者:Saville, Paul D. ; Bray, Steven R.
  • 期刊名称:Journal of Sport Behavior
  • 印刷版ISSN:0162-7341
  • 出版年度:2018
  • 期号:June
  • 出版社:University of South Alabama
  • 摘要: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.

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.

联系我们|关于我们|网站声明
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有