ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF COACHING BEHAVIOR, SEASONAL PERFORMANCE SUCCESS, AND QUALITY OF LIFE: ASSESSING RELATIONSHIPS OVER THE COURSE OF A SEASON

Transcription

1 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF COACHING BEHAVIOR, SEASONAL PERFORMANCE SUCCESS, AND QUALITY OF LIFE: ASSESSING RELATIONSHIPS OVER THE COURSE OF A SEASON By George D. Pappas The primary purpose of this study was to determine if athletes perceptions of their coaches behaviors are related to athletes seasonal performance outcomes, as well as changes that occur over the season in athletes perceived quality of life (QOL) scores. A secondary purpose was to determine if athletes seasonal performance success would be related to changes that occur over the season in their QOL scores. Results showed that changes in male athletes perceived QOL were significantly affected by both coaching behaviors and seasonal performance success measures. No significant relationship was found affecting females perceived QOL. For all athletes, however, perceptions of coaching behavior significantly affected multiple measures of seasonal performance success, including both objective and subjective measures. The current study addresses gender differences and adds a new knowledge base to the previously unexplored area of coaching behavior, performance, and QOL of athletes outside of sport.

2 PERCEPTIONS OF COACHING BEHAVIOR, SEASONAL PERFORMANCE SUCCESS, AND QUALITY OF LIFE: ASSESSING RELATIONSHIPS OVER THE COURSE OF A SEASON A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Physical Education, Health and Sport Studies by George D. Pappas Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2004 Advisor Dr. Thelma Horn Reader Dr. Melissa Chase Reader Dr. Keith Zullig

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...1 Definition of Terms...3 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE...4 Leadership Effectiveness...4 Sport Specific Models of Leadership Effectiveness....7 Multidimensional Model of Leadership....7 Cognitive-Mediational Model of Leadership....8 Working Model of Coaching Effectiveness....8 Research on Coaching Effectiveness...10 Measuring Coaching Behavior in Sport...10 Linking Coaches Behavior to Athletes Psychosocial Status and Behavior Age and the Effects of Coaching Behavior...14 Gender and the Effects of Coaching Behavior...15 Psychological Aspects and the Effects of Coaching Behavior Linking Coaching Behavior to Individual and Team Performance Success...17 Linking Coaches Behavior to Athletes Life Skill Development...20 Quality of Life...20 Measuring Quality of Life...21 Linking Physical Activity and Sport Participation to Quality of Life Overview of Current Study...25 CHAPTER III METHODS...28 Overview of Study Design...28 Participants...28 Data Collection Procedures...28 Instrumentation...29 Brief Multidimensional Students Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS)...29 Health-Related Quality of Life Scale (HRQOL-14)...30 Demographic and Performance Evaluation Information...30 Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS)...31 Coaching Feedback Questionnaire...31 Coaches Assessment...32 Data Analysis...32 CHAPTER IV RESULTS...34 Descriptive Statistics...35 Preliminary Analyses...36 Main Analyses...38 Main Analysis I: Perceived Coaching Behavior and QOL ii

4 Perceived Coaching Behavior and QOL: Females Only...38 Perceived Coaching Behavior and QOL: Males Only...39 Main Analysis II: Perceived Coaching Behavior and Seasonal Performance Success...39 Main Analysis III: Seasonal Performance Success and Perceived QOL...41 Seasonal Performance Success and Perceived QOL: Females Only...42 Seasonal Performance Success and Perceived QOL: Males Only...42 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Perceived Coaching Behavior and QOL...43 Perceived Coaching Behavior and Seasonal Performance Success...45 Seasonal Performance Success and Perceived QOL...47 Overview of Results...48 Study Limitations...49 Future Research...49 Practical Implications...50 LIST OF REFERENCES...51 APPENDICES...75 A. Oral and Written Scripts for Athletes and Coaches...75 B. Athletes Study Questionnaires...80 C. Coaches End-of-the-Season Questionnaire...89 iii

5 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS): Subscales and Content Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS): Categories and Examples Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ): Categories and Examples List of Seasonal Performance Success Measures Breakdown of Subjects by Gender and Year in School Descriptive Data for Early Season (Wave 1) Perceived QOL Description Data for Late Season (Wave 2) Perceived QOL Descriptive Data for Changes in Perceived QOL over the Season (Late minus Early Season Scores) Descriptive Data for Perceived Coaching Behaviors Descriptive Data for Seasonal Performance Success Measures Dependent T-Test Results for Early and Late Season Perceived QOL Scores Alpha Coefficients for Perceived Coaching Behavior Variables Changes in Perceived QOL and Coaching Behaviors in Males: Canonical Loadings Seasonal Performance Success and Perceived Coaching Behavior: Canonical Loadings Changes in Perceived QOL and Seasonal Performance Success in Males: Canonical Loadings...71 iv

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1: Chelladurai s (1978) Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML)...72 Figure 2: Smoll and Smith s (1989) Cognitive-Mediational Model...73 Figure 3: Horn s (2002) Model of Coaching Effectiveness...74 v

7 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In the world of sport, we constantly see a premium placed on winning. Winning coaches are most typically allowed to keep their coaching positions while coaches with losing records are often asked to leave. This emphasis on performance outcomes can lead people to believe that quality coaches are those who exhibit effective behaviors and win while poor coaches are those who exhibit less effective behaviors and lose. But is it really that simple or are more factors involved in identifying the effective versus the ineffective coaches? Do coaches of winning teams exhibit different behaviors in practice and competitive contexts than do coaches of losing teams? Do the athletes themselves have an effect on the coaches leadership style and behaviors? Do the events that happen outside of the sport context have a significant effect on a team s sport performance? Do the coaches leadership styles and behaviors have an effect on the athletes lives outside of the sport context? These are all issues of current interest to researchers in the field of sport psychology. A considerable amount of research has been conducted within the past two decades to examine the effects of coaches behavior on the performance and psychosocial responses of their athletes. Research in this area began with attempts by investigators to identify the personality traits, characteristics, and/or behaviors exhibited by successful coaches. More recently, however, a variety of factors (e.g. situational characteristics, organizational climate, and a coach s personal characteristics and values) have been recognized as factors that may affect the types of coaching behaviors that will be most successful in any particular context. It has also been hypothesized that a coach s behavior can ultimately have both a direct and an indirect effect on an athlete s behavior. The indirect effect begins with an athlete making an assessment and interpretation of a coach s behavior, and then relating those interpretations to his/her own self-perceptions and beliefs, which, in turn, may affect that athlete s motivation, and, ultimately, his/her performance. Athletes personal characteristics that may affect their interpretations and perceptions of the coach s behavior include age, gender, and skill level. A fairly wide variety of studies have been conducted to examine the link between coaches leadership styles and behaviors and their athletes psychosocial growth and development (e.g. Amorose & Horn, 2000; Horn, Lox, & Labrador, 1998). However, relatively little research has examined the link between coaches leadership styles and behaviors and athletes seasonal performance success. Researchers that have studied this link have typically used only one measure of performance (most often season win-loss records). Several other assessments, including the team s win-loss percentage as compared to last year, the team s league finish as compared to last year, the team s performance over the season as compared to preseason expectations, and individual player assessments of their own performance over the season can also be used to measure the seasonal performance success or non-success of athletic teams over the course of a season. In addition, seasonal performance success can be measured either via coaches assessment or via player assessments. As the review of literature contained in the next chapter will show, there are a number of issues still to be investigated in regard to coaching behavior effectiveness. One area that has been minimally researched is the effects of coaches behavior on athletes assessment of their personal well-being outside of the immediate sport context. 1

8 Specifically, the concept of quality of life (QOL) as it pertains to life satisfaction and perceived physical and mental well-being, might be of special interest in relation to college athletes since they appear to invest high amounts of personal self-identity into their sport activity. Thus, their level of seasonal performance success may ultimately affect (or be related to) their perceptions of their QOL (outside of the immediate sport environment). In addition, collegiate athletes personal and interpersonal development has been hypothesized to be affected by their coaches help and assistance with players non-athletic concerns (Royal & Rossi, 1993). Thus, the types of behaviors exhibited by coaches may not only affect the players actual on-court or on-field sport performance success but also their perceptions of their QOL outside of the sport context as well. Currently, research to investigate these links has not yet been conducted. The primary purpose of the proposed research project was to examine the degree to which the leadership styles and behaviors that college male and female athletes perceive their coaches to exhibit in practices and competitive contexts are related to athletes level of sport seasonal performance success and to the athletes perceptions of their QOL outside of sport. To complete this project, college male and female athletes were asked to complete two self-report questionnaires designed to assess their perceived QOL level at two time points during their competitive season (early and late season). Athletes perceptions of their coaches leadership style and behavior, as well as a variety of measures of seasonal individual and team performance success, were assessed at the end of the season. The intent of the present study was to determine if coaches behavior could be linked to both the team and the athletes perceptions of their seasonal performance success and to the changes that occurred over the season in athletes perceived QOL. Furthermore, additional statistical analyses were conducted to determine if there is a link between athletes perceptions of their seasonal performance success and the changes that may have occurred over the season in their QOL. Given the previous research indicating possible (but not consistent) gender differences in the correlates of coaching effectiveness (see review by Horn, 2002) as well as in athletic identity (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993), all main analyses for this study were run separately for male and female athletes. To provide a basis for this proposed research project, the relevant research literature on the topics of leadership effectiveness and QOL was reviewed. The results of this literature review are presented in the following chapter. 2

9 Definition of Terms Coaching behavior: Defined in this study as coaches verbal and non-verbal interactions with their athletes. Two measures will be used to assess coaching behavior through athletes perceptions leadership style and feedback patterns. Seasonal performance success: Measuring the functional effectiveness of skills, actions, outcomes, and/or processes in sport experienced by players and coaches over the course of a season. Multiple measures of performance will be used in the current study. These include objective measures of team seasonal success, coaches perceptions of the team s success, and athletes individual self-perceptions and perceptions of their team s success. Quality of life: A person s physical, mental, and/or emotional well-being. Perceptions of life satisfaction and health-oriented measures will be used in this study to characterize quality of life. Thus, the focus will be on perceived quality of life. 3

10 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE The theoretical and empirical literature pertaining to the study of sport leadership, athletes performance, and quality of life is reviewed in some depth in this chapter. This review is divided into three major sections. The first section explores theoretical models of leadership effectiveness and then presents the results of the research conducted to examine the effects of various types of coaching behavior on athletes performance and psychosocial responses. The second section of this chapter reviews the literature on quality of life and its relationship to individuals participation in physical activity and sport. In the third section of this chapter, the results of the theoretical and empirical research explored in the previous two sections are used to provide an overview and outline of the current proposed research project. Leadership Effectiveness The study of coaching behavior and its effect on athletes performance and psychosocial responses was originally modeled after the research and theory on leadership effectiveness in non-sport settings such as industrial and educational contexts. The early research in these settings was typically based on the trait or behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness. That is, researchers began with the assumption that the most effective leaders or teachers possess certain traits or behaviors that cause them to be effective in producing successful performances in their workers or students. Example studies in this area included one by Hammond (1967) who studied teachers preferences for particular types of leadership behavior in ideal or hypothetical principals. On a questionnaire created by Hammond, teachers rated preferences on characteristics such as educational beliefs, age, teaching experience, formal training, sex, teaching level, and an authoritarian-equalitarian dimension. A jury of faculty members and practicing administrators also evaluated the principals of the respective schools to compare the teachers subjective ideal preferences with the actual and objective characteristics of each teacher s principal. Hammond s results indicated that authoritarianism (higher levels) and sex (males) accounted for approximately threefourths of the total variance in teachers preference of leaders. Authoritarianism accounted for one-half of the total variance alone. In addition, teachers that worked with nomothetic principals preferred that type of behavior and were more authoritarian teachers themselves than those that worked with idiographic principals. In another study, Winborn and Jansen (1967) attempted to determine common personality characteristics exhibited by leaders of a social-political action group compared with those of different college campus groups (religious organizations, university residence halls, activities leaders, and fraternal leaders) by assessing political stance, school involvement, gender, and other characteristics and traits. In order to assess the personalities of students, Cattell s 16 Personality Factor (PF) Inventory was used (Cattell & Stice, 1957). This inventory measures characteristics such as sociability, intelligence, emotional control, dominance, shrewdness, and willingness to accept change. Statistical analyses and descriptions from the PF manual revealed that the socialpolitical action group leaders are significantly more interested in being well-informed on campus or world issues, more inclined to experiment with problematic solutions, more critical of custom traditions, and less concerned with the maintenance of moral or other rigid internal standards when compared to the leaders of other groups. The social- 4

11 political group differed most with the religious leaders on traits such as ego strength, frustration tolerance, enthusiasm, and aggression. As illustrated by these two studies, researchers were basing their procedures on conceptual models that assumed that leadership effectiveness was a function of the leader s dominant behavior or the leader s personality. In studying the behaviors and personalities of leaders, researchers hoped to identify the characteristics or traits that would separate successful from non-successful leaders in order to create a list of traits deemed as effective leadership factors. The trait and behavioral approaches were also used by early researchers to study leadership effectiveness in sport. Penman, Hastad, and Cords (1974), for example, tested the degree of correlation between the extent of authoritarianism (personality characteristic) and coaching success in interscholastic male football and basketball head coaches. Sixty-four coaches were administered a test of authoritarianism and their winloss records were compiled. Results showed that the more successful coaches (those with the highest win-percentages) were more authoritarian in leadership style (stresses absolute obedience, conformity to the coach) than were less successful coaches. Other researchers have also attempted to determine the most effective leadership characteristics of coaches by examining coaches personality or behavior. Hendry (1969) conducted a personality study comparing highly successful swim coaches with their less successful swim coach peers. Participants in this study included highly successful coaches, less successful coaches, and international-caliber junior swimmers. Personality profiles of the coaches were assessed using Cattell s 16 Personality Factor Inventory. The results of this study did reveal personality trait differences between the less successful and the more successful coaches. That is, coaches and swimmers generally agreed that an ideal coach is outgoing, dominating, stable, highly intelligent, contentious, realistic, practical, and self-sufficient. In discussing these results, however, Hendry points out that coaches and swimmers differed in their perceptions or preferences regarding the ways in which ideal coaches would actually use these specific characteristics. This notion, then, leads to the idea that the personality characteristics may not be as important as the role (or behaviors and cognitions) employed by the coach. Continuing through the 1970s and into the 1980s, researchers continued to examine the traits and characteristics of coaches. In a study conducted in 1977, Lenk looked at several groups of high-level rowers over the period of two decades. Lenk s questions and inquiries to rowers were directed toward identifying athletes preferences for different types of coaching styles (authoritarian versus democratic) and for determining if these differing leadership styles would ultimately have an effect on athletes performance. The results of this study indicated that most rowers, even ones who had trained with autocratic coaches for most of their lives, preferred democratic coaches. Further, when comparing successful with less successful teams (as based on number of medals won at international competitions), no performance differences emerged between teams that were coached by autocratic and democratic coaches. In discussing these results, Lenk speculated that under a democratic style of coaching, athletes, teams, and crews may be able to mobilize psychic reserves not accessible otherwise. However, Lenk also noted that this concept has not been well tested but is based on many reliable coaching experiences, (pp. 88). 5

12 Finally, Pratt & Eitzen (1989) examined coaching styles among high school basketball coaches. Study participants included over 500 boys and girls high school basketball coaches. These coaches were administered questionnaires that measured the number of rules on the team and the coaches tolerance for insubordination (to assess authoritarianism), the amount of work coaches demanded from their athletes (to measure rigor), and lifetime win-percentage. Insubordination was measured by asking coaches to respond to eight rules, such as athletes should never criticize teammates or the coach, and always accept your role. Rigor was assessed by asking coaches to evaluate themselves through the tightness, duration, intensity, and frequency of their practices. Although the results of this study yielded mixed results, Pratt and Eitzen were able to conclude that boys basketball coaches who are high in authoritarianism and rigor and low in tolerance for insubordination appear to be no more effective than boys coaches who exhibit a democratic leadership style. In contrast, coaches of girls high school basketball teams who exhibited a rigorous coaching style were found to have more organizational effectiveness (higher lifetime win-percentage). Pratt and Eitzen also noted in their discussion, however, that the results of their research, as well as that of others in this area, have not been successful in identifying leadership characteristics or behaviors which are consistent across sports and/or across different types of sport settings. In summary, then, the research conducted in the general (e.g., industrial and education settings) and the sport arenas revealed a number of problems with the trait and behavioral approaches to the study of leadership effectiveness. Specifically, the inconsistencies in the extant research led to the idea that leadership effectiveness is not just a function of specific traits or behaviors on the part of the leader. Rather, an effective leader may be one who employs different behaviors depending on the situation. Under this conceptual model, leadership effectiveness is believed to be context or situation specific. New theories illustrating this situational approach were developed in the general leadership literature. Eventually, these themes were also applied to the sport setting. Example studies from the sport literature using this approach are described in the following paragraph. Terry and Howe (1984) assessed the application of the Life-cycle theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) and the Path-goal theory (House, 1971) in sport. The Life-cycle theory states that a leader s behavior should be adjusted as the maturity of the group changes. Specifically, this theory hypothesizes that the effectiveness of different types of coaches behavior will vary as a function of the athletes age or level of maturity. Furthermore, this theory identifies a specific progression. That is, as the maturity of a group moves from (1) low, to (2) moderately low, to (3) moderately high, to (4) high, the orientation of a leader s behavior should change from (1) high task/low relationship, to (2) high task/high relationship, to (3) low task/high relationship, to (4) low task/low relationship. The Path-goal theory stipulates that the leader will act as a supplemental aid whose role will depend upon the clarity of tasks and goals set forth by the group. A group that has varied and interdependent roles will desire a highly-structured leadership style to help guide it toward its goals, while a group whose goals and task are clearly defined may find this type of leadership unnecessary. To assess the applicability of these theories to the sport setting, Terry and Howe (1984) examined the coaching preferences of 160 male and female athletes using the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS). Statistical analyses showed that athletes who 6

13 participated in independent sports preferred a more democratic style of coaching and less of an autocratic style than did athletes who were engaged in more interdependent sports. Terry and Howe found no differences in coaching preferences that could be attributed to the age or gender of the athlete, or the variability of the sport task. As a result, the researchers did not find complete support for either the Life-cycle theory or the Path-goal theory in the context of sport. Other researchers (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978; Vos Strache, 1979) also did not find support for these more situationally-based theories of leadership effectiveness that had been borrowed from the general leadership literature. As a result of this growing dissatisfaction with theories and conceptual models obtained from the general leadership literature, researchers in the sport literature began developing models which were specific to the sport domain. Three of these more sport-specific models are explained in the following section. Sport Specific Models of Leadership Effectiveness Over the past two decades, three conceptual models of leadership effectiveness have been published. The three models, which share some common characteristics and features, were each developed specific to the sport domain. These three models include Chelladurai s (1978, 1990, 1993) Multidimensional Model of Leadership, the cognitivemediational model developed by Smoll and Smith (1989), and Horn s (2002) working model of coaching effectiveness. Each of these models is reviewed in the following sections. Multidimensional Model of Leadership In developing a theory that was sport-oriented, Chelladurai (1978, 1990, 1993) began with the assumption that leadership effectiveness in sport would depend on a combination of situational factors and characteristics of group/team members. Thus, Chelladurai (1978, 1990, 1993) developed the Multidimensional Model of Leadership that proposes that leadership effectiveness can be measured multidimensionally, ultimately providing a general framework that leads to the positive outcomes of athlete satisfaction and greater performance (see Figure 1). The actual behavior exhibited by the coach/leader, the type of leader behavior preferred by the athletes, and the type of leader behavior required in the specific situational context all interact to form desired outcomes. The antecedents of the types of leader behaviors are situational characteristics, leader characteristics, and member characteristics, while the three types of leadership behavior lead to the consequences of performance and satisfaction. Each type of leadership behavior has its own unique characteristics and demands. First, Chelladurai (1978, 1990, 1993) explains that required leader behavior can differ depending on the demands of the situational context, such as the environment or structure of the organization. Factors including the organizational structure and goals (e.g. a high school team versus a professional team), type of sport (individual versus team sport), and social norms or cultural values may influence the leader s behavior. In addition, member characteristics, such as experience, may require a leader to play a larger role in decision making in new situations. The required behavior of a leader, therefore, is a function of both situational factors and member characteristics. Second, the type of leader behavior preferred by members is often greatly determined by the individual characteristics of the group members. Psychological variables such as trait or state anxiety, confidence, selfefficacy, motivation, and other factors such as experience, age, and gender all influence a member s preferences for different types of coaching, feedback, and social support 7

14 (Chelladurai, 1990). In addition, situational characteristics can affect the coaching behaviors that are preferred by team members. For example, a team may prefer a more autocratic style of coaching during tight competition but prefer a more democratic style during practice. Thus, like required behavior, preferred coaching behavior by the members is affected by both situational and member characteristics. Finally, the actual behavior of a leader is affected not only by his/her own personal characteristics (e.g. personality, experience, age) but also by the required and preferred behavioral components. The ultimate consequences of this model, performance and satisfaction, are a function of the degree of congruence between the three types of leadership behavior (Chelladurai & Caron, 1978). That is, Chelladurai hypothesizes that athletes performance and satisfaction will be highest when a coach s actual behavior conforms or parallels the types of behaviors that he or she needs to exhibit (required behavior) and the behaviors that her or his athletes prefer their coach to exhibit (preferred behavior). Chelladurai (1993) recently added a feedback loop to his model that hypothesizes that the satisfaction of a team may serve as an additional factor affecting the coach s actual behavior. This work reinforces the idea of a reciprocal relationship between the types of behaviors the coaches actually exhibit in practice or game situations and the consequences of the coaches behavior (Horn, 2002). Cognitive-Mediational Model of Leadership A second sport-specific model of coaching effectiveness was developed by Smoll and Smith (1989) (see Figure 2). These researchers adopted a different approach from Chelladurai in that their model emphasizes relationships among situational, cognitive, behavioral, and individual difference variables as they interact to affect coaching behaviors. While Smoll and Smith agreed with Chelladurai that the coaching behaviors that are most effective will depend upon the context, they also realized the importance of the cognitive meanings attributed to coaching behaviors by the athletes. Through their cognitive-mediational model, Smoll and Smith (1989) (see Figure 2) emphasize that coaches behavior is a result of their own personal characteristics as well as situational factors, while highlighting the fact that each player individualizes a coach s behavior in his/her own way through a combination of his/her own personal characteristics and situational factors. Thus, Smoll and Smith's model incorporates many of the characteristics and features of Chelladurai s (1978, 1990, 1993) Multidimensional Model of Leadership but also adds new dimensions which recognize the importance of cognitive, behavioral, and individual difference factors. Working Model of Coaching Effectiveness The third model of coaching effectiveness has been labeled as a working model and was presented by Horn in 2002 (see Figure 3). This model can be summarized in three points. First, the working model agrees with the models of Chelladurai (1978, 1990, 1993) and Smoll and Smith (1989) in hypothesizing that coaching behavior does not occur on its own. Rather, there are factors that affect or determine the type of behavior the coaches will exhibit. These antecedent factors include the sociocultural context (Box 1), the organizational climate (Box 2), and the coaches personal characteristics (Box 3). However, an addition made by Horn s model over the other models is illustrated in Box 4 where the coaches expectancies, values, beliefs, and goals can ultimately mediate the coaches behaviors. For example, if a coach believes that an 8

15 11 and 12 age group of athletes has a great deal of technical skills to learn (Box 4), practices and feedback may often be heavily focused on instructional information (Box 5) geared toward meeting that goal. Secondly, Horn s working model highlights the fact that coaches behavior (Box 5) both directly and indirectly affects the athletes performance and behavior (Box 6). The right side of the model (Boxes 7-10) illustrates this indirect effect on the athlete. The mediating factor lies in athletes interpretation of, and the meanings they attach to, the coaches behavior, an idea consistent with the model of Smoll and Smith (1989). This idea further emphasizes the importance of understanding the perspective of the athlete, not just that of the coach. The athletes perceptions (Box 8) of the coaches behaviors can affect their own self-perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes (Box 9), which can ultimately affect a player s level and type of motivation (Box 10), as well as the athlete s performance and behavior (Box 6). For example, if an athlete believes that a coach is not providing enough attention to him/her during practice (Box 5), the athlete may attribute this lack of attention from the coach to the fact that the coach believes the athlete is not worthy of a great deal of attention (Box 8). In turn, the athlete may begin to feel s/he is not a good athlete and undeserving of attention (Box 9). This may result in a decrease in motivation to perform and a corresponding decrease in effort (Box 10), leading to poor performance (Box 6). These links are further illustrated in the research on the selffulfilling prophecy, a concept discussed in a later section of this chapter. The third point illustrated in Horn s (2002) working model focuses on the idea that situational (Box 1) and individual difference variables (Boxes 3 & 4) will be mediating factors of coaching behavior. Contextual variables (e.g., type of sport, age, and skill level) mediate the link between the coaches behavior and athletes performance and behavior. For instance, in the example used earlier about the coach who believes that an 11 and 12 years old age group needs a great deal of technical instruction, his/her belief may have been formed by a combination of factors including a context supporting a coach as teacher mentality (Box 1), playing in a beginner youth league (Box 2), and a coach s desire to teach youth developmental skills (Box 3). Additionally, athletes interpretations of their coaches behavior will be affected by their own personal characteristics along with the effects of the situational context. This model then leads us to an understanding that we can no longer expect to find one set of coaching methods or behaviors that will be effective across all sport contexts. It is important to understand that Horn s (2002) model was created to serve as a framework to understand the complex interactions of leadership and coaching in sport. The model was not designed to identify effective coaching behaviors, but rather as an attempt to explain how a number of various factors can influence behavior in any particular sport setting. This framework provides a detailed map of the process involved in coaching behaviors and serves as a structure for research that attempts to determine exactly what the effective coaching behaviors are for any particular sport context. Thus, we must understand that effective coaching behaviors will depend on a combination of the coach, the athlete, and the sport context. The development and publication of the three sport-specific theoretical models of coaching effectiveness described in this section generated a significant amount of research conducted to identify the correlates of effective coaching behavior in a number 9

16 of different settings. The studies relevant to the current research project are reviewed in the next section of this chapter. Research on Coaching Effectiveness In her recent review of research on coaching effectiveness, Horn (2002) has noted that most of the research in this area has been generated in an attempt to identify the most effective coaching behaviors. Thus, coaching effectiveness is defined or operationalized as those behaviors (exhibited by coaches) that are most effective in facilitating positive psychological responses on the part of the athletes (e.g., high self-esteem, high selfconfidence, intrinsic motivation) and/or in stimulating high levels of performance in athletes. Because the current research project focuses on coaching behaviors that may be related to athletes performance as well as their perceived quality of life, the research studies pertaining to, or mostly relevant to, these aspects are reviewed in the following sections. This review begins with an overview of the instruments that have been developed and used to measure coaches behavior in sport settings. Then, the relevant research studies conducted to examine the link between coaches behavior and athletes performance, psychological responses, and life skill development are reviewed. Measuring Coaching Behavior in Sport To conduct research studies designed to identify the coaching behaviors that will be most effective in facilitating athletes performance and psychological responses, it has been necessary for researchers to develop instruments that measure coaches behavior in practice and competitive settings. The two instruments that are typically used in the sport psychology research literature are the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) and the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS). The LSS was developed by Chelladurai and Saleh (1978) to measure general leadership styles. The LSS (see Table 1) is a questionnaire that is typically administered to athletes to measure their perceptions of coaches behavior. The LSS contains 40 items representing five dimensions of leadership behavior (a) training and instruction, (b) democratic behavior, (c) autocratic behavior, (d) social support, and (e) positive feedback (or rewarding behavior). Coaches who score high on the training and instruction dimension are perceived to exhibit high frequencies of behaviors which are directed to improving athletes skill development and performance. Specifically, the coach s behavior focuses on: (a) emphasizing and facilitating hard and strenuous training, (b) instructing them in the techniques, tactics, and skills of the sport, (c) clarifying the working relationships among the team members, and (d) coordinating and structuring the team members activities (Chelladurai, 1990). Coaches who score high on the democratic dimension display coaching behaviors that encourage greater participation by the athletes in decisions pertaining to the group (e.g. team goals, practice methods, and game tactics and strategies). Conversely, those coaches who score higher on the autocratic behavior dimension make decisions independently from the team (i.e., do not involve athletes in the decision-making process) and tend to stress their own personal authority as a coach. Coaches who exhibit concern for the welfare of their athletes, value the development of strong interpersonal relationships with their athletes, and desire a positive group atmosphere score high on the fourth dimension of the LSS, social support. Finally, the positive feedback subscale describes coaches who exhibit high frequencies of praise and reinforcement in response to their athletes good performance. 10

17 In developing the LSS, Chelladurai and Saleh (1978) actually created three versions of the scale in order to assess different perspectives of the coaches leadership style. These three versions of the LSS measure: (a) athletes perceptions of their coach s behavior, (b) athletes preferences for specific coach behaviors, and (c) coaches perceptions of their own behavior (Chelladurai, 1990). In order to obtain an evaluation of coaching behavior from an observational perspective, the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) was developed by Smith, Smoll, & Hunt (1977). The CBAS is a classification system which categorizes the type of feedback that coaches give to individual players or to a group of players (see Table 2). There are two main feedback categories: (a) coaches feedback which is given to individual players or groups of players after successful or unsuccessful performances, and (b) coaches feedback which is given in a spontaneous manner (i.e., given without reference to players performance). After a successful performance by an individual or group, a coach may respond with reinforcement (R) or non-reinforcement (NR). After an unsuccessful performance by an individual or a group, a coach may respond with ignoring the mistake (IM), or by giving mistake-contingent encouragement (EM), mistake-contingent technical or corrective instruction (TIM), punishment (P), or mistakecontingent technical or corrective instruction combined with punishment (TIMP). Coaches spontaneous or general communications are categorized as general technical instruction (TIG), general encouragement (EG), or organization (O). While the original CBAS (Smith et al., 1977) was developed as an observational method of assessing or measuring the actual behaviors exhibited by coaches in practice or game situations, a questionnaire version of the CBAS called the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ) has been developed to specifically assess the athletes perceptions of their coaches feedback patterns. The CFQ contains 16 items and assesses eight different types of feedback responses, seven of which correspond with the original CBAS (Smith et al., 1977) and one additional item termed reinforcement combined with technical instruction (RTI) (see Table 3). This RTI category was suggested based on an observational study conducted by Horn (1985). The categories assessed in the CFQ that are consistent with the CBAS are as follows: reinforcement (R), nonreinforcement (NR), mistake-contingent encouragement (EM), ignoring mistakes (IM), corrective instruction (TIM), punishment (P), or corrective instruction combined with punishment (TIMP). All three categories involving reinforcement are related to coaches responses to players performance successes, while the last five categories are responses to players performance errors. This questionnaire form of the CBAS assesses the individualized perspective of each athlete, as emphasized in Smoll and Smith s (1989) cognitive behavioral model as well as in Horn s (2002) model of coaching effectiveness. This questionnaire form, along with the LSS perceived version, will be used in the current study to examine the link between coaches behavior and athletes performance and quality of life. Most of the coaching effectiveness research studies conducted in the past two decades have used one or both the LSS and/or the CBAS/CFQ to assess coaches behaviors. The relevant results of this group of research studies are presented in the following sections. 11

18 Linking Coaches Behavior to Athletes Psychosocial Status and Behavior Horn s (2002) model suggests that there is a direct link between coaches behavior (Box 5) and athletes performance and behavior (Box 6). This link essentially says that an athlete s ability to learn, master, or execute a skill will be affected by the behaviors exhibited by the coach during a game or in practice. Research in the motor learning and sport pedagogical literature (e.g., Metzler, 1989) has shown that the way coaches organize practice sessions, the way they use skill demonstrations, the amount of time they assign to learning or teaching skills, the types of skill progressions and learning activities they use, the strategic decisions that are made in competition, and the type, frequency, and quality of feedback that they give to individual athletes can affect the skill learning and performance of the athletes. Within competitive game situations, a coach s ability to change the offensive and defensive schemes during a game, identify skill errors, and explain proper corrective instruction can greatly affect the outcome of individual athletes performance as well as the overall performance of the team. A number of research studies can support the link illustrated in the model between coaching behavior and the athletes performance and will be further discussed throughout this paper. As stated earlier, Horn s (2002) working model of coaching effectiveness proposes that different situational contexts (Box 1) can ultimately affect coaching behavior and, in turn, the performance of the athletes as well. While there are often questions about the different levels of performance exhibited by athletes in games versus practice, research shows that there are actually differences in coaching behaviors from practice to game situations (Horn, 1985; Wandzilak, Ansorge, & Potter, 1988). Horn (1985) used the observational version of the CBAS to assess coaches feedback to their middle-school aged female softball players in practice and game situations. She also measured players perceptions of competence and success expectancy at pre and post season. Statistical analyses were conducted to test whether coaches feedback patterns could be linked to changes in the athletes perception of competence and expectancy for success over the season. The results of these statistical analyses showed that the feedback patterns exhibited by coaches in practice were significantly associated with changes that occurred in the self-perceptions of athletes, including success expectancy, skill mastery, and physical, social, general, and cognitive competence. Similar statistically significant results were not found for the hypothesized link between coaches game behaviors and changes in athletes self-perceptions over the season. Coaches did, however, provide players with more reinforcement and less tendency to ignore successful performances in games than in practices. Responses to unsuccessful skill performances were slightly different. During competitive game situations, coaches showed greater tendencies to ignore skill errors. Coaches also provided greater technical or corrective instruction during practices than in games. The results of this study show, then, that the types of feedback coaches provide their athletes in practice situations are correlated with, or predictive of, changes in athletes self-perceptions over the season. In addition, the results show that coaches feedback patterns differ from practice to game contexts. In a 1988 study, Wandzilak, Ansorge and Potter also investigated the extent to which coaches behavior might differ from practice to game situations. The coaching behaviors of 17 volunteer youth sport soccer coaches of male and female teams were coded using the Coaching Behavior Assessment Inventory (CBAI). Four areas of the CBAI were of particular interest: encouraging remarks, instructional/organizational 12

19 comments, positive reactions to participants actions, and negative reactions. A total of 60 games and 69 practices were observed, and the coaches behaviors in each context were coded. Post-season questionnaires asked coaches to rate their knowledge of the sport, their ability as a coach, and their perceptions of the behaviors they exhibited in practice and games. The post-season questionnaire for players examined their evaluation of the coach and their level of satisfaction with their participation and their team s solidarity. Statistical analyses revealed that the majority of coaches behaviors were encouraging or instructional/organizational in nature, no matter the setting. Coaches were also found to be only partially effective in self-evaluation when perceiving their own feedback patterns, a result that stresses the importance of additional assessment of the coaches behavior from the athletes themselves. The results of this study supported those found by Horn (1985) in showing that while coaches may use similar types of positive feedback in practice and game situations, the rate of feedback is proportionately faster in games. This research study further emphasizes the importance of understanding that a coach s behavior is context-specific and that the coaching behaviors that are most effective may vary from practice to game contexts. The indirect link between coaching behavior and the performance of athletes proposed by Horn s (2002) working model is further exemplified by research on the selffulfilling prophecy, a concept originally suggested in Rosenthal and Jacobson s (1968) study with elementary school children. In this study, Rosenthal and Jacobson informed teachers that specific children in their classes had been identified, through academic testing, as late bloomers. These children, teachers were told, could be expected to experience great intellectual gains by the end of the school year. In reality, the students who were identified as late bloomers were selected at random, meaning that there should have been no reason to expect any difference in their academic progress over the course of the school year from that of other students who had not been identified as late bloomers. However, results of academic testing at the end of the academic year showed that students that were identified as late bloomers did achieve greater academic success than those who were not identified. Rosenthal and Jacobson concluded that the false information given to teachers led them to develop greater expectations for these randomly selected students and then to act in ways which encouraged greater academic success in these students. Horn, Lox, and Labrador (1998) applied the findings of previous educationallybased studies to a more sport specific context to address the self-fulfilling prophecy in coaches. Horn et al. s (1998) four step model includes: (a) coaches forming expectations, (b) coaches expectations affecting their behaviors, (c) coaches behavior affecting athletes performance and behavior, and (d) the athlete s performance conforming to the coaches expectation. Horn s (2002) working model incorporates the potential steps within the self-fulfilling prophecy. When a coach develops expectations (Box 4) of a specific athlete or team, s/he may draw on information obtained from a number of sources, including personal cues (Box 7 socioeconomic status, racial or ethnic group, body size, etc.) or performance information (Box 7 athlete past performance, statistics, teachers and coaches comments, etc.). As previously mentioned, the sociocultural context (e.g., the sport is not respected in the community), organizational climate (e.g., little league vs. major league), and the coaches personal characteristics can affect expectancies and values as well. Step two in Horn et al. s (1998) sport specific self- 13

20 fulfilling prophecy model specifies that coaches expectancies can affect their behavior. This connection is seen in the working model in the link between Boxes 4 and 5. Depending on whether a coach possesses high or low expectancies for his/her athletes will affect the frequency and quality of coach-athlete interactions, quantity and quality of instruction, and type and frequency of feedback (Horn et al., 1998). The attention, instruction, and feedback given by a coach to an athlete will then either have a direct (less instruction leads to poor skill execution) or indirect effect (less attention leads to a perception by the athlete that the coach does not care about him/her, which in turn makes the athletes feel that s/he has little self-worth as an athlete resulting in low motivation to perform) as Horn s (2002) model predicts. The athletes performance, in turn, conforms to the coach s original expectations. While not all athletes fall prey to the self-fulfilling prophecy, these steps have been shown to play a large role in both educational and sport settings. Age and the effects of coaching behavior. As noted earlier, both the athlete and the situational context mediate the most effective coaching behaviors. That is, the coaching behaviors which are identified as most effective will vary as a function of the particular sport context. In a recent review of the research on effective feedback patterns, Magill (1994) showed that the effectiveness of a coach s feedback varies depending not only on the age and skill level of the athletes but also the particular sport that they are practicing. Magill concluded that augmented feedback can either be necessary or unnecessary for skill development and either enhance or hinder skill learning, depending on the context and the characteristics of the athlete, such as age or skill level. For instance, a tennis coach who simply tells a young beginner that his/her feet are pointed in the wrong direction can often be providing useless information if the athlete is not aware of how to correct the mistake. However, this same type of descriptive information can be very useful to an older, more experienced player who possesses greater knowledge that would allow him or her to correct the error. The Horn (2002) model emphasizes the fact that individual athletes interpret a coach s behavior in different ways. One individual factor which may cause athletes to interpret a coach s behavior in different ways is athletes age or development level. This idea is also illustrated in Smoll and Smith s (1989) cognitive-mediational model. Smoll and Smith (1989) state that, The ultimate effects of coaching behaviors are mediated by the meaning that players attribute to them (p. 1527). However, the athletes perceptions (Box 8) are mediated by a series of preexisting personal characteristics (Box 7). Smith, Smoll, and Curtis (1978) found that children at the age of 10 used such coaching behaviors as punishment and penalizing technical instruction as the basis for evaluating their coach. In contrast, children from the ages of years primarily used the degree to which coaches provided positive reinforcement and encouragement to evaluate their coaches, while adolescents ages years used the amount of technical instruction as the basis to evaluate their coaches effectiveness. Developmental differences in regard to children s perceptions of adult feedback originate from the work of Nicholls (1984) who established goal orientation theory. Conception of ability is the important aspect of the theory which is relevant here. Children under the age of 12 will often view ability and effort as undifferentiated. In this undifferentiated view, children perceive that athletes who are high in ability also exhibit a high amount of effort. On the other hand, those children who exhibit less effort on the 14