and ExerciseISport Science Departments: Sport Psychology Issues and Training

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 1994,8,28-36 O 1994 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. A Survey of Counseling Psychology Programs and ExerciseISport Science Departments: Sport Psychology Issues and Training Trent A. Petrie and C. Edward Watkins, Jr. University of North Texas As the field of sport psychology has evolved and become more focused on applied/practitioner issues, the need for interdisciplinary training has been noted. Little information exists, however, concerning the acceptability of sport psychology training in applied psychology programs. Thus, 41 counseling psychology programs and 41 exercise/sport science departments (matched pairs) were surveyed to determine their relative attitudes toward sport psychology research, training, and current professional issues. The exercise/sport science departments were found to offer more courses in sport psychology and to have more faculty and students interested in sport research. Over 70% of the counseling psychology programs, however, had students with sport psychology interests. In addition, the two academic areas reported equally high levels of acceptance concerning their graduate students pursuing sport psychology research and training. Mechanisms for promoting interdisciplinary training in sport psychology are discussed. Sport psychology has a relatively long history that can be traced back to the turn of the century (Wiggins, 1984), yet contemporaq sport psychologists have seen unprecedented growth, change, and controversy in the last 10 to 15 years. During this time new professional organizations (Division 47 of the American Psychological Association [APA], the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology [AAASP]) and journals (The Sport Psychologist, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology) devoted to sport psychology research and professional issues have been developed. In addition, there has been an increased interest in and emphasis on applied sport psychology, which has led to discussions in the professional literature about who should be able to use the title sport psychologist, whether licensure or certification should be required (e.g., Danish & Hale, 1981; Heyman, 1982; Nideffer, Feltz, & Salmela, 1982), and how best to train and prepare students for future careers in sport psychology (e.g., Lutz, 1990; Weinberg, 1989). The authors are with the Department of Psychology at the University of North Texas, P.O. Box 13587, Denton, TX

2 A Survey of Programs 29 As sport psychology has evolved throughout the last decade and become more focused on applied issues, researchers have attempted to better understand the field's current status by surveying professionals in existing academic programs. For example, Feltz (1987) surveyed 33 graduate programs that offered master's and doctoral-level degrees in sport psychology. She found that (a) the majority of students' coursework was taken within their departments, with an emphasis on classes such as sport psychology and motor development; (b) most elective coursework was taken in various areas of psychology, education, or perhaps sociology; and (c) the majority of programs prepared their students for academic positions. For future graduate education in sport psychology, however, Feltz speculated that there would be an increased emphasis on applied or practitioner issues and a subsequent change in how students were trained. But she questioned whether sport psychologists, who lacked applied counseling psychology training, should be supervising applied sport psychology training experiences. As she noted, it may be that such training experiences should be offered through counseling or clinical psychology programs. Feltz (1987) also predicted that sport psychology would change and eventually be subsumed within psychology departments. This trend, she suggested, would be due to increased interest in sport psychology by psychologists and the restrictions that exist concerning the use of the title psychologist for those professionals who have not been trained within psychology departments and thus do not qualify for licensure. Feltz, however, asserted that sport psychology should remain within departments of exerciselsport science and that students should plan their graduate studies dependent upon their major interests. Whether students are affiliated primarily with a department of psychology or exerciselsport science, Feltz recognized the importance of students pursuing coursework or training in the other area. That is, students may benefit most from interdisciplinary training. In a more recent study, LeUnes and Hayward (1990) surveyed chairpersons of APA-approved clinical psychology programs to assess their current perception of and future predictions for sport psychology. They found that (a) sport psychology courses were not being absorbed by psychology departments, with the majority of programs not offering an undergraduate or graduate course of that nature and over 90% having no intention of offering one in the future, (b) over half of the programs had at least one faculty member with interests in sport psychology, and (c) almost half of the respondents indicated that the title sport psychologist should be restricted. In general, sport psychology was viewed positively by the clinical psychology programs, though some respondents questioned the viability of the discipline. Although these two studies have cataloged important changes and trends that have occurred in sport psychology, it would appear that additional information is needed to address relevant areas not covered by their surveys. First, an interdisciplinary training format has been suggested as the ideal model for students, yet little information has been obtained as to how open and supportive psychology and exercise/sport science programs would be to such an approach. That is, would there be programmatic support for students who wanted to pursue sport psychology training experiences, coursework, and research across academic disciplines? Second, because counseling psychology has expressed a real interest in sport psychology (Howard, 1993), because counseling psychology programs offer

3 30 Petrie and Watkins courses of particular value to applied sport psychology training (e.g., counseling practica, theories of counseling), and because we had earlier surveyed 61 counseling psychology programs about sport psychology research and training (Petrie & Watkins, in press), we thought it would be interesting to survey exercise/sport science departments at the same 61 universities to see what similarities, if any, might exist between counseling psychology programs and exerciselsport science departments on such issues. We thought such a comparative study might be of value, complementing previous surveys that had focused solely on one academic area. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare counseling psychology (CP) programs and exerciselsport science (EISS) departments concerning their attitudes and perceptions toward (a) the status of sport psychology in these academic programs; (b) faculty andlor students pursuing research, training, or coursework in sport psychology; and (c) current professional issues. Method Because the primary purpose of this study was to compare graduate EISS departments and APA-accredited CP programs regarding sport psychology issues and training, the sample of potential participating universities was predetermined. Only those universities within the United States that had graduate CP programs accredited by the APA were asked to participate. From the 61 universities that sponsored such programs, the directors of these programs and the chairs of the corresponding EISS departments were identified. The CP program directors were found in the most current listing of the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs, and the EISS chairs were identified through telephone calls to the respective universities. Of the 61 universities, 6 indicated not supporting graduate exercise/sport science departments and, thus, were not included in the final sample. The CP program directors and EISS department chairs from the participating universities were sent (a) a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study, (b) the survey questionnaire, and (c) a prepaid envelope in which the survey could be returned. After an initial mailing and one follow-up that occurred within 2 weeks following the first mailing, 86.9% and 94.5% return rates were achieved for the CP programs and EISS departments, respectively. Although a high overall response rate was achieved, only matched-pairs (i.e., the program and department from the same university returned the surveys) were included. With this criterion, 41 matched-pairs (which represents 77.4% of the usable surveys included in the earlier study of counseling psychology programs) were identified and included in the final sample.' As often happens in survey research, some individual questions were left unanswered. Thus, the total number of respondents by item sometimes varied. The survey questionnaire was modeled partially after the one developed by LeUnes and Hayward (1990) for their study of sport psychology issues in clinical psychology programs. The present survey, however, comprised 16 questions that addressed (a) the current status of sport psychology in counseling psychology and exerciselsport science (e.g., in which discipline are sport psychology courses being offered); (b) faculty members' attitudes (as perceived by CP program directors or EISS department chairs) toward teaching, training, and

4 A Survey of Programs 31 research in sport psychology; and (c) professional issues, such as restrictions on the use of the title sport psychologist and in what discipline(s) might the best sport psychology training be found. For 7 questions, the format was a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all acceptable) to 7 (totally acceptable); the format of the 9 remaining questions was yeslno, with the exception of the final one, which was open ended for respondents to provide additional comments. The E/SS department survey paralleled the one used in the counseling psychology study so that the responses from the two academic areas could be compared. To determine whether the two academic units differed in their attitudes toward sport psychology issues and training, several analyses were performed. For the items presented in yeslno format, chi-square analyses were conducted. Although the Likert-scale items in this study lend themselves to multivariate analysis, this approach was contraindicated given the presence of missing data points across items. Instead, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed with these items. To maintain the familywise error rate at.05, the per comparison alpha was set at.007. Results Undergraduate sport psychology courses were offered more often by E/SS departments (87.2%) than CP programs (7.5%), x2(1) = 50.35,~ =.000. At the graduate level, similar results emerged. Sport psychology courses were more likely to be housed in an E/SS department (84.6%) than in a CP program (7.3%), x2(1) = 48.25,~ =.000. For those academic areas currently not offering a sport psychology course, over 85% of the EISS departments and 100% of the CP programs reported no plans to introduce such a course within the next 2 years at either the undergraduate or graduate level. Even though neither of the academic areas in this subsample had formal plans to introduce a sport psychology course, the faculty of the E/SS departments (M = 5.75, SD = 1.29) and CP programs (M = 4.82, SD = 1.87) were perceived to be similarly accepting of a colleague developing such a course in the future, F(l, 48) = 2.58, p =.11. With respect to having interests in the area of sport psychology, a higher percentage of E/SS departments than CP programs reported faculty members (92.7% vs. 41.5%), x2(1) = 24.35, p =.000, and graduate students (92.7% vs. 70.1%), x2(1) = 6.61, p <.01, with such interests, respectively. Although more E/SS departments than CP programs had faculty with sport psychology interests, the E/SS department chairs and CP program directors reported that their faculties would have equally high levels of acceptance for colleagues pursuing sport psychology research, F(1, 80) = 4.68, p =.03 (EISS M = 6.63, SD =.77; CP M =6.17,SD = 1.14). For graduate students in the two academic areas, the E/SS department chairs and CP program directors indicated that it would be very acceptable to their respective faculties for graduate students to (a) have interests or want to specialize in sport psychology, F(1, 79) = 0.78, p =.38 (E/SS M = 6.07, SD = 1.54; CP M = 5.78, SD = 1.49); (b) propose sport psychology research projects for their master's theses, F(1, 76) = 0.38, p =.54 (E/SS M = 6.12, SD = 1.82; CP M = 6.32, SD =.85), or doctoral dissertations, F(l, 73) = 0.48, p =.49 (E/SS M = 5.76, SD = 2.16; CP M = 6.04, SD = 1.38); and (c) take classes in

5 32 Pefrie and Watkins the other academic area (e.g., counseling psychology students taking kinesiology) in addition to their own graduate program's requirements, F(1, 80) = 0.00, p = 1.00 (E/SS M = 6.36, SD = 1.37; CP M = 6.36, SD = 1.11). Although E/SS departments (68.3%) were more likely than the CP programs (43.9%) to have practica experiences with a sport psychology focus (e.g., consulting with athletic teams on performance enhancement issues) available to their graduate students, x2(1) = 4.95, p <.05, the E/SS chairs and CP program directors indicated that it would be equally acceptable to their faculties for students to participate in such practica if they came into existence, F(l, 56) = 0.62, p =.53 (E/SS M 5.65, SD = 1.74; CP M = 5.27, SD = 1.91). This type of practicum experience would be acceptable to counseling psychology programs particularly if supervision was provided on-site by a licensed psychologist. See Table 1 for a summary of these results. In terms of professional issues, the E/SS department chairs and CP program directors, respectively, indicated that a primary affiliation with an interdisciplinary program (68.3% vs. 75.6%) (i.e., combined psychology and exercise/sport science), as opposed to an exercise/sport science (31.7% vs. 9.8%) or psychology (0% vs. 14.6%) program, would offer the best and most comprehensive training for individuals interested in sport psychology, x2(2) = 10.92, p <.005. Although they were in basic agreement regarding the importance of interdisciplinary training, the E/SS department chairs and CP program directors were less so concerning the academic area in which sport psychology was a specialty area. More E/SS chairs than CP directors, respectively, viewed sport psychology as a specialty area in exercise/sport science (53.7% vs. 15.0%), whereas more CP directors than E/SS chairs, respectively, indicated it was a specialty area in psychology Table 1 Mean Scores of Counseling Psychology (CP) Programs' and ExerciseISport Science (EISS) Departments' Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology Issues Sport psychology issue Faculty member developing a sport psych class Faculty member pursuing sport psych research Graduate students having interests or wanting to specialize in sport psych Graduate students proposing sport psych research for: Masters theses Doctoral dissertations Graduate students taking classes across disciplines (e.g., CP students taking E/SS courses) Graduate students participating in sport psychology practica Note. The rating scale for each item ranged from 1 (not at all acceptable) to 7 (totally acceptable). No statistical differences emerged between the mean scores of the two academic areas on any item.

6 A Survey of Programs 33 (25.0% vs. 0%) or an interdisciplinary department (60.0% vs. 46.3%), ~'(2) = 19.72, p =.000. More disagreement emerged concerning the professional issue of restricting or limiting the use of the term sport psychologist to those who are licensed to practice psychology. Barely 30% of the E/SS department chairs agreed with the idea of limiting the use of the term, whereas the majority of the CP program directors (65.9%) expressed such an opinion, x2(2) = 11.09,~ <.005. Interestingly, 26.8% and 14.6% of the E/SS chairs and CP directors, respectively, indicated they did not know whether any restrictions or limitations should exist. Discussion We recognize the general limitations associated with survey research and the specific biases that may result from single individuals (i.e., program directors or department chairs) responding for groups of people (i.e., program or department faculty), and that certain North American E/SS departments with prominent sport psychology programs may not have been included in this study due to the criterion set for determining the sample pool. The high return rates for the survey questionnaire and relatively consistent responses on individual items, however, suggest that the data may be representative of the general attitudes and perceptions present in these academic areas and, thus, may be useful for professionals and students interested in sport psychology. Undergraduate and graduate courses in sport psychology were offered predominantly by E/SS departments, with less than 8% of the counseling psychology programs sponsoring such a course. In addition, none of the CP programs intended to offer a sport psychology class in the proceeding 2 years. These findings are consistent with the status of sport psychology course offerings in clinical psychology programs (LeUnes & Hayward, 1990), and they suggest that Feltz's (1987) prediction concerning the absorption of sport psychology into psychology programs, at least for counseling and clinical, has not come to fruition. The E/SS departments had a statistically higher percentage of faculty and graduate students with interests in sport psychology, yet a majority (70%) of the CP programs were able to identify students who had these interests as well. Although level or degree of students' interest in sport psychology was not assessed, it may be that certain students have heeded Nideffer's (1984) advice and have chosen a course of sport psychology training that ultimately would allow for licensure as a psychologist. Given the counseling psychology programs' reported acceptance of sport psychology research and training experiences, the above observation has merit. The two academic areas' faculties were perceived as having equally high levels of acceptance concerning their graduate students being interested in sport psychology, pursuing masters or doctoral-level research on the topic, and taking classes in the other academic area to fulfill any deficiencies related to their sport psychology training (e.g., E/SS student taking psychology course work). In addition, although E/SS departments were more likely to have sport psychology practica in place, the academic programs were equally accepting of their students pursuing such experiences. These findings suggest that although a larger number of E/SS departments have graduate students and faculty interested in sport psychology, the environments of the two academic areas appear to be similarly open

7 34 Petrie and Watkins to and supportive of students pursuing sport psychology research and training opportunities. These findings are particularly important given that the predicted trend toward increased interest in applied or practitioner sport psychology (Alderman, 1984) will necessitate training in or even primary affiliation with applied psychology programs (e.g., counseling). Consistent with the reported openness for students pursuing coursework or training across academic disciplines, the majority of the E/SS chairs and CP directors indicated that an interdisciplinary program (i.e., one integrating coursework from both academic areas) would provide the best and most comprehensive training for students interested in sport psychology. As one E/SS and one CP respondent noted, "The interdisciplinary approach would be best, but sport psychology is presently more 'comfortable' in Physical Education1 Kinesiology/Exercise and Sport Science Depts."; "Best bet would equal an interdisciplinary approach." Over 30% of the E/SS chairs, however, indicated that the best training could be obtained through E/SS departments. As an E/SS chair stated, "It is very appropriate and necessary that Sport Psychology is housed in physical education and that any professional in the area be trained in the three performance areas [physiology, biomechanics, and sport psychology]." Given that significantly more E/SS departments had faculty with sport psychology interests and offered sport psychology courses than did CP programs, E/SS chairs may have believed that their faculty were or should be able to provide the best training. CP program directors, however, having fewer faculty with such interests and generally not offering a sport psychology course, may have recognized the necessity of their students receiving training from other academic areas. Whatever the case, we are pleased that a large number of individuals in influential positions concerning graduate curricula and training generally recognize the interdisciplinary nature of sport psychology training. We believe this recognition is essential if interdisciplinary training programs are ever going to become formally integrated into university cumcula. In addition to improving students' training opportunities, we believe such structured and integrated programs would be catalysts for the type of interdisciplinary research that has been encouraged (e.g., Feltz, 1987; Lutz, 1990). Concerning whether the title sport psychologist should be limited or restricted to those who are licensed to practice psychology, the two academic areas disagreed in the expected directions. The majority of the CP program directors supported such a restriction, which is generally consistent with clinical psychology chairs' opinions (LeUnes & Hayward, 1990), and the majority of the E/SS department chairs believed that no restrictions should exist. As licensed psychologists, we believe that the title psychologist needs to be respected and restricted, as is indicated by the laws of the state in which professionals reside (currently all states have license restrictions on who may identify themselves as psychologists, though several states lack limits on the practice of psychology itself; see Freiberg, 1992, for a complete listing). More importantly, however, may be the perspective cogently presented by Dishman (1983). Regardless of the title, there needs to be a body of research demonstrating the validity of intervention programs and techniques. Sports psychology appears to be an area of interest for exerciselsport science and counseling psychology. E/SS departments, as might be expected, offered more courses and showed more faculty activity in the area; CP programs, however,

8 A Survey of Programs 35 contained faculty and students with sport psychology interests and showed an overall receptivity to the sport area. If interdisciplinary training is the best option for educating applied sport psychologists, EISS departments and CP programs may be good partners in providing such training. As this survey suggests that such an approach may be viable in the United States, it will be important to determine if such collaboration might occur in other countries as well. References Alderman, R. (1984). The future of sport psychology. In J. Silva & R. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Danish, S., &Hale, B. (1981). Toward an understanding of the practice of sport psychology. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, Dishrnan, R. (1983). Identity crises in North American sport psychology: Academics in professional issues. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, Feltz, D. (1987). The future of graduate education in sport and exercise science: A sport psychology perspective. Quest, 39, Freiberg, P. (1992, April). Title protection laws in nearly 30 states could be challenged. APA Monitor, p. 25. Heyman, S. (1982). A reaction to Danish and Hale: A minority report. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 7-9. Howard, G. (1993). Sport psychology: An emerging domain for counseling psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, LeUnes, A., & Hayward, S. (1990). Sport psychology as viewed by chairpersons of APAapproved clinical psychology programs. The Sport Psychologist, 4, Lutz, D. (1990). An overview of training models in sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 4, Nideffer, R. (1984). Current concerns in sport psychology. In J. Silva & R. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Nideffer, R., Feltz, D., & Salmela, J. (1982). A rebuttal to Danish and Hale: A committee report. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 3-6. Petrie, T.A., & Watkins, C.E., Jr. (in press). Sport psychology training in counseling psychology programs: Is there room at the inn? The Counseling Psychologist. Weinberg, R. (1989). Applied sport psychology: Issues and challenges. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1, Wiggins, D. (1984). The history of sport psychology in North America. In J. Silva & R. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 9-22). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Note 'The 41 CP programs were housed in either departments of psychology (8) or colleges of education (33). Nine E/SS departments reported having only master's level sport psychology programs. There were no within-group differences in CP program directors' or

9 .apm alam (luauaf\?dap S S/~ 'sn m.e801d 63) suosqdwo3 dno.e8-uaa~]aq L~uo pw 'pau!quio3 a1am 'L1any13adsa~ 'sluawwdap SS/~ $0 pw sun?.e801d d3 $0 sdno18 om1 ayl 'snya.aquuopsanb ayl 01 sasuodsa~,s1~y3 SS/~