College Athletic Directors Perceptions of Sport Psychology Consulting

Transcription

1 professional practice The Sport Psychologist, 2009, 23, Human Kinetics, Inc. College Athletic Directors Perceptions of Sport Psychology Consulting Kelly A. Wilson 3D Soccer Jenelle N. Gilbert, Wade D. Gilbert, and Scott R. Sailor California State University Seventy-two college athletic directors (ADs) participated in a survey about (a) previous experience with sport psychology consultants (SPCs), (b) previous exposure to the field, and (c) attitudes toward sport psychology consulting. ADs were confused about appropriate training for SPCs, highlighted by the fact that 66.7% were unaware of any certification for SPCs. Although ADs attitudes toward SPCs did not differ based on previous experience with SPCs, there was a statistically significant difference between ADs who were aware of the Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP) and those who were unaware. Results demonstrate the need to educate potential employers regarding appropriate qualifications for SPCs. The discussion culminates with suggestions for future research and recommendations for enhancing effectiveness of outreach programs. Although sport psychology had its beginnings in the early 20th century, the field has experienced substantial growth in recent decades. This is evidenced by the creation of the Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP) and the American Psychological Association s addition of a 47th division for Exercise and Sport Psychology in The establishment of a variety of scientific journals such as International Journal of Sport Psychology, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, The Sport Psychologist, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, and Psychology of Sport and Exercise give further testimony to this trend (LeUnes & Hayward, 1990). The field s growth outside academia is evidenced by the cornucopia of internet websites devoted to sport psychology (e.g., Athletic Insight: The Official Online Journal of Sport Psychology and Sport-Psychology.com). Sport psychology has even infiltrated Fox Sports Network with the show Goin Deep, hosted by Chris Meyers, devoting several episodes to mental training and the increasing use of sport psychology consultants (SPCs) by professional athletes and teams (Martin, Kellmann, Lavallee, & Page, 2002). Despite increasing interest in the field, full-time consulting positions in applied sport psychology remain rare. One study of doctoral graduates found that Wilson is with 3D Soccer, Yorktown, VA J. Gilbert, W. Gilbert, and Sailor are with the Dept. of Kinesiology, California State University, Fresno, CA

2 406 Wilson et al. only 10% of their time was allocated to sport psychology consulting (Waite & Pettit, 1993). Anderson, Williams, Aldridge, and Taylor (1997) conducted a similar study and found that the majority of masters and doctoral graduates surveyed held academic positions following graduation with 76% receiving no income at all from consulting. A third study conducted by Williams and Scherzer (2003) was designed to follow-up on the study by Anderson and colleagues. This more recent study was purposed to be a progress report and compared changes in the field identified by the three studies (i.e., Waite & Pettit, Anderson et al., and Williams & Scherzer). Williams and Scherzer discovered that the majority (73%) of doctoral graduates continued to find positions in academia. The disconnect between the growing interest in sport psychology and the low availability of applied sport psychology positions creates frustration with the job market and is discouraging to students who plan to study applied sport psychology (Anderson et al., 1997; Silva, Conroy, & Zizzi, 1999; Williams & Scherzer, 2003). In an effort to better understand the SPC s employment context, researchers have studied the attitudes of athletes and coaches (at the recreational, amateur, Olympic, and professional levels) toward sport psychology consulting. Some researchers identified internal barriers that limit employment opportunities such as the need for establishing outreach programs to educate the public and potential employers about the field of sport psychology (Maniar, Curry, Sommers-Flanagan, & Walsh, 2001; Pain & Harwood, 2004; Petrie & Diehl, 1995; Silva et al., 1999; Van Raalte, Brewer, Matheson, & Brewer, 1996). Other researchers discovered external barriers such as insufficient funding (Gould, Tammen, Murphy, & May 1989; Kornspan & Duve, 2006; Kremer & Marchant, 2002; Pain & Harwood; Schell, Hunt, & Lloyd, 1984; Voight & Callaghan, 2001). Though these barriers may have contributed to limited employment for SPCs at the recreational, amateur, Olympic and professional levels, collegiate athletics represents another potential employment context. According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA; 2004a) there are 326 collegiate athletic departments at the Division I level alone. While a few athletic departments have made sport psychology consulting available to their student-athletes (e.g., University of Tennessee, University of Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Purdue) collegiate athletics remains a virtually untapped job market. In fact, a 2001 study found that only seven of over 300 NCAA Division I athletic departments employed a full-time SPC (Voight & Callaghan). Voight and Callaghan s study also revealed that only 10 part-time SPCs were hired by athletic departments and 19 part-time SPCs were hired by individual coaches. While 15 other NCAA Division I schools indicated that they relied upon sport psychology consulting services, this assistance came from a variety of outsourcing options including clinical psychologists from counseling centers, volunteer graduate students, and volunteer faculty from around campus (Voight & Callaghan). Considering the ongoing lag between the growing popularity of sport psychology and the availability of full-time consulting positions, learning about how sport psychology consulting might gain greater access to the collegiate job market has its own merit. One way to learn about existing barriers is to study the attitudes of individuals involved in sports. Research of attitudes is prevalent in the social sciences and sport psychology is no exception (Schell et al., 1984). Van Raalte and colleagues

3 Perceptions of Sport Psychology 407 point out that knowing how potential employers perceive sport psychology consulting can help in the development of outreach programs for these target audiences (1996). Unfortunately, few studies have examined the role that sport administrators play in the availability of sport psychology consulting positions. One of those studies asked various collegiate athletic department officials their reasons for not employing a SPC (Voight & Callaghan, 2001). Administrators surveyed stated that: (a) sport psychology services were not thought to be beneficial, (b) sport psychology services were not considered a top priority, and in cases where an existing SPC position was terminated, respondents stated that (c) the administration s philosophy toward sport psychology consulting had changed. In a more recent study of Division I, II, and III ADs, researchers found a link between a growing recognition of the need for SPCs with the increasing availability of sport psychology services to collegiate athletes (Kornspan & Duve, 2006). These studies lend credence to the argument that the attitudes of sport administrators affect the availability of sport psychology consulting positions at the collegiate level. In the microcosm of intercollegiate sports, athletic directors (ADs) are at the helm because they control the budget and make key hiring decisions. The term athletic director can refer to individuals at a variety of levels (e.g., high schools, sports clubs, and school districts). However, for the purpose of the current study the term athletic director refers only to those individuals who are employed as the head athletic director at colleges with teams competing at the Division I level. These ADs are charged with oversight of the entire athletic department and generally report directly to the school s president or chancellor. Job responsibilities vary by academic institution but generally include (a) budget management, (b) recruiting and hiring coaches, (c) fundraising, (d) public outreach and promotion of the athletic department s programs, and (e) management of personnel and athletic facilities (The NCAA News, 2005). In the past, ADs were frequently current or former football coaches; however, today it is more likely for ADs to have training in sports administration than a background in coaching (LaborLawTalk.com, n.d.). Learning about ADs attitudes toward sport psychology consulting can provide useful information in regard to two barriers that have been identified by past researchers: (a) lack of funding as a leading barrier to the employment of SPCs (Kremer & Marchant, 2002; Pain & Harwood, 2004; Voight & Callaghan, 2001) and (b) the need for organized outreach programs to promote the field (Pain & Harwood, 2004; Silva et al., 1999). More specifically, understanding how ADs attitudes affect the availability of sport psychology consulting within athletic departments can provide useful information to organizations and individuals promoting applied sport psychology at the collegiate level. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to explore possible relationships between ADs attitudes toward sport psychology and their exposure to sport psychology consulting. More specifically, the study investigated Division I ADs (a) attitudes toward sport psychology consulting, (b) previous experience with SPCs working in their departments, and (c) previous exposure to the field of sport psychology consulting. Though a few studies have included sport administrators, none have specifically focused on Division I Head ADs and SPCs working specifically within Division I athletic departments. In addition, previous studies regarding the use of sport psychology consultants at the Division I level had a much

4 408 Wilson et al. wider scope than the current study. For example, Voight and Callaghan (2001) reported that volunteer faculty members and graduate students as well as employees from University Counseling Offices were working as sport psychology consultants in the Division I schools they surveyed. Those individuals were outside of the scope of the current study which focused on SPCs employed directly through the athletic department. Sample and Procedure Method Because Division I is the highest level of collegiate competition in America and Division I schools generally have the largest budgets, ADs at all 376 U.S. colleges with at least one Division I sport were invited to participate in this study. The survey was not sent to any associate or assistant ADs; rather it was specifically addressed to the head AD at each institution. The list of ADs was compiled from the official NCAA website (NCAA, 2004b) as well as individual searches of each athletic department s website. Because ADs fall into a demographic category thought to perform very well on online surveys (i.e., upper-class professionals; Frost, Mathews, & Evans, 1999) the survey was administered online. Based on the lead researcher s previous experience as a Division I and II coach and the accompanying assumption that collegiate administrators have fewer demands on their time in the summer, the decision was made to conduct research during that time period. Data collection took place over a six-week period in June and July of The ADs were sent an requesting their participation in this study, which contained a link to the online survey. A unique code was assigned to each intended participant in the initial making it possible to know which ADs had declined participation versus those who had forgotten to respond. All participants were notified in the initial that by connecting to the online survey, they had provided informed consent. However, the ADs had the opportunity to decline participation at this point. ADs who did not respond received a maximum of two reminders at two-week intervals following the initial . Instrumentation The online survey included 50 items and took approximately 10 min to complete. Participants responded to questions and statements regarding: (a) ADs attitudes toward sport psychology consulting (24 items arranged on a 7-point Likert scale), (b) ADs previous experience with SPCs (6 items), and (c) ADs previous exposure to the field of sport psychology consulting (4 items). These items were followed by general demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity and educational background). At the conclusion of the survey participants were given the opportunity to provide additional comments ; this was the only open-ended item in the survey. A copy of the survey is included in the Appendix. The survey included many items from existing, validated scales as well as items developed specifically for this study. The largest portion of the survey, ADs attitudes toward sport psychology consulting, included 12 items from the Sport

5 Perceptions of Sport Psychology 409 Psychology Attitudes-Revised Form (SPA-R) developed by Martin et al. (2002) and two items from the Attitudes Toward Seeking Sport Psychology Consultation Questionnaire (ATSSPCQ; Martin, Wrisberg, Beitel, & Lounsbury 1997). The SPA-R was tested in two ways by Martin and colleagues to determine reliability. First, to establish internal consistency, Cronbach s coefficient alpha was calculated for the whole SPA-R form, as well as for each of the subscales. The coefficient alpha for the Recognition of Need subscale was.61. Second, test-retest interclass coefficients (ICC) were calculated. For this subscale, the test-retest interclass coefficient (ICC) was.71. All test-retest correlations were also considered acceptable with the overall correlation being.81 (Martin et al., 2002). The SPA-R is a revised version of the ATSSPCQ therefore all items from the SPA-R first appeared in the ATSSPCQ. ATSSPCQ s reliability was shown by an overall test-retest correlation of.89 (Martin et al., 2002). The other 10 items in the attitudes portion of the survey, as well as those regarding previous experience with SPCs and previous exposure to the field were developed specifically for this study. The creation of new items, as opposed to utilizing existing surveys, was necessitated by two main factors. First, while several studies have focused on Division I student-athletes, few have focused on Division I administrators and none were found that focused solely on Division I ADs. Second, previous studies regarding the use of sport psychology consultants at the Division I level had a much wider scope than the current study (e.g., Voight & Callaghan, 2001). The survey was initially reviewed for content validity and clarity of items by a committee comprised of (a) a former AD with in-depth knowledge of sport psychology, (b) a certified Athletic Trainer with in-depth knowledge of sport psychology, and (c) two sport psychology consultants. Following minor revisions, the survey was then pilot tested with three retired ADs who had varying levels of exposure to sport psychology. None of the pilot test participants indicated difficulty understanding the intent of the questions, or the survey s directions. No changes were made as the result of the pilot study. Data Analysis Excluding the demographic information, possible answers were either Likert scale responses ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree or Yes/ No. Because of the nature of the data, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were used. Descriptive statistics such as percentages, means, frequencies, and standard deviations were computed. Inferential statistics included a series of Independent Sample T-Tests. The Independent Sample T-Tests were used to look for statistically significant differences in the mean scores between groups of participants in relation to the four subscales in the Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology section of the survey. Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology Consulting. This section contained 24 items divided into four subscales. Participants responded using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Of the 24 items, 12 were adapted from the SPA-R (Martin et al., 2002) and two were adapted from the ATSSPCQ (Martin et al., 1997). Items from the SPA-R and the ATSSPCQ were grouped into the subscales created in those studies: Recognition of Need (RN) and Confidence in Sport Psychology Consulting (CSPC). RN was defined as the par-

6 410 Wilson et al. ticipant s recognition that individuals should seek help during difficult times or periods of adjustment (Martin et al., 1997). CSPC was defined as The reflected expression of faith in the abilities of a SPC to help (Martin et al., 1997, p. 204). Because both the SPA-R and the ATSSPCQ were created with athletes as the intended participants, many of the items were not appropriate for use with ADs. For this reason, 10 original items were developed specifically for the current study creating two new subscales: Relative Importance (RI) and Perceptions of Appropriate Qualifications (PAQ). The RI subscale examined the relative value placed on services provided to student-athletes (i.e., athletic trainers or strength and conditioning coaches versus SPCs). The PAQ subscale assessed ADs perceptions regarding the training and education needed to work with student-athletes as a SPC. Previous Experience With SPCs. As previously mentioned, no studies were found that focused solely on athletic directors; therefore, the questions in this section and the next were developed specifically for this study. This section inquired about ADs previous experience with SPCs employed directly through the athletic department. Possible responses were either Yes, No, or I don t know. Though in some cases participants given these types of choices (i.e., yes, no and I don t know ) can be influenced by the questions themselves, a Likert-type scale was not an appropriate response. The authors were trying to determine whether the ADs had previous experience with SPCs employed through their department. Because ADs control the budget and are privy to all hiring, they were in a position to know this information and a simple yes or no was an appropriate response that was not likely to be influenced by any wording of the question. In fact, only five (5) of the total number of ADs responded I don t know to any of these questions, (in this case indicating that five ADs did not know if their SPC was AASP certified, not that the participant did not know the answer to the question) which again supports the use of the dichotomous response choices. Previous Exposure to Sport Psychology Consulting. This section inquired about participants previous exposure to the field of sport psychology consulting. For example, ADs were asked about their awareness of SPCs working with professional athletes or organizations and whether they knew about AASP before entering the online survey. Because no studies were found that focused solely on Division I ADs, this section was also comprised of items developed specifically for the study. Possible responses included Yes, No, or I don t know. Demographics Results and Discussion A total of 110 of the 376 ADs responded (28.5% response rate), which resulted in 72 usable surveys (29 ADs declined participation and 9 surveys were incomplete). The response rate is comparable to a recent survey with collegiate ADs (response rate = 27.7%; Kornspan & Duve, 2006) as well as Walker and Eslinger s (2003) study of Division I coaches (response rate = 27%). The sample contained 10 females (13.9%) and 62 males (86.1%). One participant was His-

7 Perceptions of Sport Psychology 411 panic, 4 were African American, and 67 were White. This slant toward Caucasian males is consistent with demographics released in an NCAA self-study that confirmed nationwide under-representation of women and minorities in the AD position (Dehass, 2004). These comparable findings support the assumption that the participants represent an accurate sample of the Division I AD population. Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology Consulting Recognition of Need (RN). Responses to three of the six items fell within the neutral range giving no real indication of either positive or negative attitudes (see Table 1). Interestingly, participants showed recognition of the need for assistance in general but seemed to think that student-athletes should be able to work alone through difficult times. For example, participants generally disagreed that Emotional difficulties tend to work themselves out in time (M = 2.9) while they tended to agree that There is something respectable about athletes who are willing to cope with their conflicts (M = 5.5). These results suggest that ADs are uncertain about the need for sport psychology consulting among student-athletes. If ADs do in fact feel that student-athletes should be able to handle stressful situations on their own, it would reinforce a common misconception among coaches and administrators that sport psychology would only benefit problem players (Pain & Harwood, 2004). Confidence in Sport Psychology Consulting (CSPC). Participants agreed that a SPC could help athletes (a) perform better under pressure, (b) fine-tune performance, and (c) improve mental toughness (see Table 1). These positive responses indicated participants understanding of the types of services a SPC can provide as well as confidence in the ability of a SPC to enhance athletic performance. Interestingly, the lowest scoring items in this subscale were Athletes should seek help from a SPC if upset about their performance (M = 4.3) and If a coach asked my advice, I might recommend a SPC (M = 4.9). This contrasts with participants strong positive response (M = 5.8) to the statement I would feel secure with my coaches use of a SPC. While studies have shown that exposure to sport psychology consulting improves confidence in SPCs (Martin, 2005; Schell et al., 1984;), results of the current study reinforce the observations of Walker and Eslinger (2003) who noted that improving perceptions of the effectiveness of sport psychology often do not translate to the actual hiring of consultants. The fact that the means for the two items suggesting that individuals actually take action to seek consultants were the most moderately positive in the subscale may corroborate Walker and Eslinger s observation. A plausible explanation for why ADs recognition of the efficacy of SPCs does not lead to seeking or encouraging others to seek consultation, is that ADs call upon individuals within the infrastructure of collegiate athletics in lieu of hiring trained SPCs. One participant stated that Sport Psychologist assistance is available at most institutions through varying departments such as psychology or kinesiology or on an as need basis through community consulting agencies so there is probably no need for a full time person. Another participant volunteered this information: We do not hire a consultant, however we have someone on staff in our department of Student Athlete Services who handles a lot of our sport psy-

8 Table 1 Attitudes Scale Subscale Item M SD RN 1 Emotional difficulties tend to work themselves out in time RN Certain problems should not be discussed outside of one s family RN There are experiences in one s life that should not be discussed outside one s family RN Athletes with strong character can overcome mental conflicts RN A good way to avoid worries is to keep one s mind on a job RN There is something respectable about athletes who are willing to cope with their conflicts CSPC 2 I would feel secure with my coaches use of a SPC CSPC I do not have much respect for SPCs 5.8 a 1.2 CSPC A SPC would help athletes perform better under pressure CSPC A SPC could help athletes fine-tune their sport performance CSPC Hiring a SPC would be a last resort 5.3 a 1.2 CSPC A SPC can help improve mental toughness CSPC If a coach asked my advice, I might recommend a SPC CSPC Athletes should seek help from a SPC if upset about their performance RI 3 Athletic trainers are a vital part of any successful athletic program RI Strength and conditioning coaches are a vital part of any successful athletic program RI SPCs are a vital part of any successful athletic program RI Having a SPC available to coaches and athletes is less beneficial than providing them with a strength and conditioning coach RI If an athletic department employs a SPC, their salary should be higher than an athletic trainer or a strength & conditioning coach 3.4 a RI Having a SPC available to coaches and athletes is less important than providing them with an athletic trainer 2.7 a 1.5 PAQ 4 To work effectively with athletes, a clinical psychologist should have a background in sport psychology (continued) 412

9 Table 1 (continued) Subscale Item M SD PAQ A clinical psychologist could work effectively with athletes as a SPC 3.8 a 1.2 PAQ Only an individual specifically trained in sport psychology could work effectively with athletes as a SPC PAQ A SPC should have a background in clinical psychology 3.2 a Lower scores indicate a higher recognition of the need for mental training. 2. Higher scores indicated a general belief that a SPC would be helpful to athletes. 3. Higher scores indicated that participants placed high value on the referred service. 4. Higher scores indicated a better understanding of appropriate training for SPCs. a These items were reverse-scored. 413

10 414 Wilson et al. chology needs. Taking this trend a step further, several participants indicated that they expected their coaches to play the role of a sport psychology consultant. These qualitative comments provide additional insight into ADs thinking related to sport psychology consulting services. In other words, as ADs awareness of the advantages of providing sport psychology services to student athletes increases, many have been shown to draw upon resources immediately and easily available to them (e.g., coaches, counselors, faculty, etc.) rather than hiring a professional SPC. Relative Importance (RI). Responses for this subscale varied widely because several services were discussed (see Table 1). In short, ADs placed higher value on the services provided by athletic trainers and strength and conditioning coaches than those provided by SPCs. This was consistent with one study in which sport psychology consulting was seen by some academy directors and coaches as having a lower priority than fitness training or other more directly performancerelated specializations (Pain & Harwood, 2004, p. 822). Results from the current study indicate that Division I ADs may feel similarly. An AD s comment provided additional support: I think that most see Sports Psychology as beneficial, but an enhancement, rather than a basic requirement. In fact, when the services of athletic trainers and SPCs or strength and conditioning coaches and SPCs were compared directly, responses indicated that athletic trainers were viewed as indispensable and strength coaches were viewed as very important. However 11 ADs disagreed to some extent with the statement Having a SPC available to coaches and athletes is less important that providing them with an athletic trainer and 17 ADs disagreed with a similar statement regarding strength and conditioning coaches. These findings indicate that sport psychology has gained respect among some ADs. The majority of ADs (N = 44) strongly disagreed, disagreed, or moderately disagreed with the statement If an athletic department employs a SPC, their salary should be higher than a head athletic trainer or a head strength and conditioning coach. It is important to note that SPCs are generally expected to have earned their doctorate (Meyers, Coleman, Whelan, & Mehlenbeck, 2001), but that athletic trainers and strength and conditioning coaches often have only a master s degree. This response regarding salary further highlights the SPCs lower ranking in relation to other service providers, regardless of comparative levels of education and training. Perceptions of Appropriate Qualifications (PAQ). Results from this subscale were in the neutral range and exposed ADs indecision about appropriate education and training for SPCs (see Table 1). For example, participants average response (M = 3.8; SD = 1.5) was Neutral to an item stating Only an individual specifically trained in sport psychology could work effectively with athletes as a SPC. Additionally, 43% of ADs actually selected Neutral in response to the statement A SPC should have a background in clinical psychology and 32% selected Neutral in response to the statement A clinical psychologist could work effectively with athletes as a SPC. The fact that so many respondents selected neutral rather than agreeing or disagreeing with those statements may indicate that ADs are uncertain about what represents appropriate training for individuals who consult with athletes.

11 Perceptions of Sport Psychology 415 Almost a decade ago, Anderson and colleagues (1997), identified a primary issue retarding the proliferation of applied sport psychology. They noted that a lack of communication with external sources regarding the qualifications needed to become a SPC would be a continued barrier to the applied sport psychology field. In 2005, four AASP Certified Consultants stated in interviews that they felt the general public had little awareness of AASP and that most people do not know what a Certified Consultant is or what they do (Clemens, 2005). More recently, ADs in Kornspan and Duve s (2006) study indicated that 28 of the professionals providing SPC services to NCAA athletes were licensed psychologists, 16 were licensed counselors, and only 13 were AASP certified. Silva and colleagues (1999) put it best when they warned that the reputation of sport psychology as a practicing profession is at risk when untrained individuals are allowed to represent themselves to the public as competent SPCs (Silva et al., p. 305). The current study once again highlights this issue and indicates that there is still much to do in terms of educating potential employers regarding appropriate qualifications for SPCs. The tendency to assume that training in clinical psychology or counseling qualifies an individual to practice sport psychology has not been stymied despite the growing body of research testifying to the existence of the problem. In fact, at the 2005 AASP Conference the NCAA Education Director, David Klossner, announced that his office would continue to encourage ADs to hire only trained clinical psychologists to work with student-athletes (Klossner, 2005). Although Klossner did not expound on his reasoning, it is likely that the NCAA is concerned about reducing potential liability by providing assistance to athletes with clinical issues such as eating disorders, substance abuse, and depression. The results of the current study further demonstrate the need for organized outreach programs to help sport administrators understand the difference between the services provided by individuals trained in clinical psychology, counseling, or sport psychology. Previous Experience With SPCs Only 17 ADs (23.6%) had SPCs working directly for the athletic department at the time of the study (see Table 2 for details regarding the employment status, certification status, and funding provider for those SPCs). This employment rate was much lower than the 53% reported by Voight and Callaghan (2001). It is likely that this difference is due to the fact that the current study was not intended to give an overall picture of the availability of sport psychology consulting to Division I student-athletes, but rather a picture of the number of SPCs directly employed by Division I athletic departments. Therefore, this discrepancy is more likely to be reflective of a difference in the scope of the studies rather than a change in employment trends. The identification of 3 full-time and 14 part-time SPCs was consistent with previous studies that found the majority of individuals consulting with athletes were employed on a part-time basis (Anderson et al., 1997; Kornspan & Duve, 2006; Voight & Callaghan, 2001; Waite & Pettit, 1993; Williams & Scherzer, 2003). While the results likely indicate that ADs are still deciding about the importance of these services, another plausible explanation is that the costs of sport

12 Table 2 SPCs Employed Within NCAA D-I Athletic Departments AASP Certified Not Certified Certification Status Funding Provider Did Not Know Athletic Department The University Full-time SPCs 1 (4.2%) 0 2 (8.3%) 2 (100%) 0 0 Part-time SPCs 9 (37.5%) 2 (8.3%) 3 (12.5%) 10 (71.4%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%)* Totals Other Note. One AD indicated that the team/coach needs to secure the funding... and another simply stated that funding came from outside sources. 416

13 Perceptions of Sport Psychology 417 psychology consulting are perceived to be prohibitive. Funding has been identified as a leading barrier to the use of sport psychology consulting (Gould et al., 1989; Kornspan & Duve, 2006; Kremer & Marchant, 2002; Pain & Harwood, 2004; Voight & Callaghan). Lending credence to this conclusion it the fact that several ADs in the current study used the single open-ended questions to comment on the role that funding plays in the hiring of SPCs. One AD stated The only reason we don t use one [a SPC] on a regular basis is due to cost limitations. Therefore, it is possible that individuals who employ part-time SPCs value the services provided but lack the funding to employ them full-time. In addition to providing descriptive statistics, the data were used to look for statistically significant differences in ADs attitudes about sport psychology consulting based on their previous experience with SPCs. Independent Sample T-tests showed no significant differences in the mean scores of ADs who had experience with SPCs working in their athletic departments (N = 17) versus those who did not (N = 55). Similarly, no significant differences were found in the mean scores of ADs who supervised coaches who had hired SPCs (N = 40) versus those who had not (N = 32). These findings contradict two studies that surveyed sport administrators and correlated positive attitudes or perceptions of sport psychology consulting with higher levels of experience with SPCs (Pain & Harwood, 2004; Schell et al., 1984). A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that Division I ADs have less interaction with coaches and athletes than sport administrators in Canadian athletics (Schell et al.) or English soccer (Pain & Harwood). Organizations interested in promoting applied sport psychology should account for this disconnect when developing outreach programs aimed at collegiate sport administrators. Previous Exposure to the Field of Sport Psychology Consulting Participants exposure to the field varied widely depending on the type of exposure. Over half of respondents (N = 40; 55.6%) had supervised a coach who hired a SPC. However, when ADs were asked about their awareness of AASP, over half of the respondents (N = 41; 56.9%) had not heard of AASP before entering the online survey. When asked about awareness of certification for SPCs, 66.7% of participants (N = 48) were unaware of any certification. These low scores are especially alarming because ADs are key decision makers in the hiring process. Recognizing this potential problem, Silva et al., (1999) suggested that certification should be promoted and used as a tool to educate those in a position to hire SPCs (p. 316). Independent Sample T-Tests showed that the mean scores of ADs who were aware of SPCs working with professional athletes (N = 66; 91.7%) were not significantly different from the mean scores of ADs who were not aware. However, there were statistically significant differences in the mean scores of ADs who were aware of SPCs working in other athletic departments (N = 60, 83.3%) versus those who were unaware for two of the subscales: Confidence in Sport Psychology Consulting (CSPC; t = 3.97, p <.00) and Relative Importance (RI; t = 2.13, p <.04). It seems logical that ADs who were completely unaware of sport psychology consulting in collegiate athletics had lower mean scores on the subscales CPSC and RI because their response indicated a low level of general awareness

14 418 Wilson et al. regarding sport psychology consulting. It also serves as a reminder that SPCs interested in gaining access to collegiate athletics still have work to do in terms of raising awareness. The Independent Sample T-test showed no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of ADs who were aware of certification for SPCs and those who were not. However, there were statistically significant differences on the CSPC (t = 2.92, p <.01), RI (t = 2.67, p <.01), and Perceptions of Appropriate Qualifications (PAQ; t = 2.60, p <.01) subscales between the mean scores of ADs who were aware of AASP before taking the survey and those who were not. Although this finding could be interpreted to mean that AASP has done a thorough job of promoting the field of sport psychology consulting and effectively interacting with potential employers, the data are insufficient to draw such a conclusion. It is more likely that the ADs who were intrigued by sport psychology sought out information regarding this field on their own. However, it does reflect positively on AASP that ADs attempting to educate themselves about sport psychology consulting have discovered AASP and have become somewhat familiar with the organization. According to former AASP President, Damon Burton, the organization has taken steps toward increasing public awareness of sport psychology by significantly improving the AASP website (Burton, 2003). This suggests that AASP has made resources available to the public and that those resources are easy to discover and understand. An additional means of exposure to sport psychology came to light through the single open-ended question. Several ADs indicated that they had been involved in previous studies regarding sport psychology and 50 of the 72 participants indicated that they would like to see the results of the study. Perhaps in the future, research involving ADs and other sport administrators will continue to function as a type of outreach by raising questions, exposing gaps in their knowledge base, and most importantly, by getting them involved in the science of sport psychology. Conclusion A recurring theme throughout the findings of the current study is the need for outreach programs to promote the field of applied sport psychology. Although awareness of and interest in sport psychology is on the rise, this positive trend has yet to be manifested in the mass hiring of full-time consultants at the Division I level. Further research into ADs perceptions of student-athletes needs is suggested to find out how those perceptions may impact the availability of sport psychology consulting. Although this study did not survey ADs regarding stigmas or barriers to entry, perhaps future research should study Division I ADs to find out why confidence in sport psychology consulting does not often translate into the actual hiring of SPCs in this specific sport setting. Organizations and SPCs committed to improving the job market for applied sport psychology must continue to develop outreach programs aimed at the administrative level of sport. These programs should endeavor to further educate decision makers about SPCs ability to improve the experience and performance of student-athletes. Perhaps the most effective way to disseminate information

15 Perceptions of Sport Psychology 419 regarding sport psychology to ADs would be to form liaisons with the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) and the NCAA. The variety of other associations and organizations that cater to ADs and sport administrators should also be considered. Forming and maintaining relationships with these organizations would allow information regarding sport psychology to be communicated through channels that are already familiar to these administrators. The standing of these familiar organizations may increase receptiveness and add credibility to the information being disseminated. Research is needed on this topic to discover what form outreach programs should take and how these professional relationships might aid in the advancement of applied sport psychology. It falls upon SPCs and organizations committed to improving the job market for applied sport psychology to continue to show the value of services provided, not only to the athletes and coaches who use these services, but to sport administrators as well. Perhaps the reason that there was not a statistically significant difference in the attitudes of ADs who had experience with SPCs and those who did not was because Division I ADs are not in a position to personally experience or observe the direct effects of sport psychology. Because of this level of objectivity, they may rely on inappropriate measurements (i.e., win-loss records) to determine the effectiveness of a SPC. Therefore, SPCs need to make a concerted effort to evaluate and document their work with athletes in a measurable way. Future research should seek to discover how the work of SPCs could be evaluated in a manner that is understandable to employers who may not be intimately familiar with the concepts and skills taught by SPCs. Lastly, applied sport psychology consultants should make concerted efforts to share their unique strategies for creating job opportunities in the college environment. Clearly, there is much work to do in this area and published accounts of success stories would provide a welcome resource to share with ADs and other staff in athletic departments when trying to create paid positions for SPCs. References Anderson, M., Williams, J., Aldridge, T., & Taylor, J. (1997). Tracking the training and careers of graduates of advanced degree programs in sport psychology, The Sport Psychologist, 11, Burton, D. (2003). President s column. AAASP Newsletter, 18(3), 1 2. Clemens, D. (2005, Summer). The sport psychology consultant-then and now-but what s the difference? AAASP, 20(2), 25, 39. Dehass, D. (2004) race and gender demographics of NCAA member institutions athletics personnel: the NCAA opportunities and interests committee s biennial study. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Frost, F., Mathews, B., & Evans, M. (1999). Responses to general inquires via the Internet: Targeting the organizational decision makers. Journal of Targeting, Measurement, and Analysis for Marketing, 7, Gould, D., Tammen, V., Murphy, S., & May, J. (1989). An evaluation of the US Olympic sport psychology consultants and the services they provide. The Sport Psychologist, 3, Klossner, D. (2005, October). Sport psychology s role in the NCAA. Paper presented at the annual AASP meeting, Vancouver, Canada.

16 420 Wilson et al. Kornspan, A., & Duve, M. (2006). A niche and a need: A summary of the need for sport psychology consultants in collegiate sports. American Psychotherapy Association Annals, 9(1), Kremer, P.J., & Marchant, D.B. (2002). Reflections and consideration of providing sport psychology services with professional football players. In W. Spinks (Ed.), Science and football IV (pp ). London: Routledge. LaborLawTalk.com. (n.d.). Dictionary. Retrieved March 28, 2005 from laborlawtalk.com/index.php LeUnes, A., & Hayward, S.A. (1990). Sport psychology as viewed by chairpersons of APA-approved clinical psychology programs. The Sport Psychologist, 4, Maniar, S.D., Curry, L.A., Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Walsh, J.A. (2001). Student-athlete preferences in seeking help when confronted with sport performance problems. The Sport Psychologist, 15, Martin, S.B. (2005). High school and college athletes attitudes toward sport psychology consulting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, Martin, S.B., Kellmann, M., Lavallee, D., & Page, S.J. (2002). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Sport Psychology Attitudes-Revised Form: A multiple group investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 16, Martin, S.B., Wrisberg, C.A., Beitel, P.A., & Lounsbury, J. (1997). NCAA Division I athletes attitudes toward seeking sport psychology consultation: The development of an objective instrument. The Sport Psychologist, 11, Meyers, A.W., Coleman, J.K., Whelan, J.P., & Mehlenbeck, R.S. (2001). Examining careers in sport psychology: Who is working and who is making money? Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 32(1), National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2004a). Active NCAA member institutions. Retrieved February 13, 2005 from National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2004b). Composition of the NCAA. Retrieved March 9, 2005 from _breakdown.html Pain, M., & Harwood, C. (2004). Knowledge and perceptions of sport psychology within English soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, Petrie, T.A., & Diehl, N.S. (1995). Sport psychology in the profession of psychology. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 26, Schell, B., Hunt, J., & Lloyd, C. (1984). An investigation of future market opportunities for sport psychologists. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, Silva, J.M., III, Conroy, D.E., & Zizzi, S.J. (1999). Critical issues confronting the advancement of applied sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, The NCAA News. (2005). The market. Retrieved March 9, 2005 from com/market/jobs/athleticsdirector/index.html Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, D.D., Matheson, H., & Brewer, B. (1996). British athletes perceptions of sport and mental health practitioners. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (2001). The use of sport psychology services at NCAA Division I universities from The Sport Psychologist, 15, Waite, B.T., & Pettit, M.E. (1993). Work experiences of graduates from doctoral programs in sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, Walker, E.E., & Eslinger, O.W. (2003). Sport psychology consulting: Coaches attitudes toward seeking sport psychology consultation: The development of an objective measure. Retrieved January 6, 2005 from php?action=fullnews&id=5 Williams, J.M., & Scherzer, C.B. (2003). Tracking the training and careers of graduates of advanced degree programs in sport psychology, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15,

17 Perceptions of Sport Psychology 421 Appendix Sport Psychology Consulting Survey for D-I College Athletic Directors Section A: Online Consent 1. Consent: Whenever a research project relies upon human participants, the written consent of the participant must be obtained, regardless of whether there is any risk involved. By checking the box below, the participant signifies his or her Informed Consent and agrees to participate in this study. The participant also consents to have his or her data analyzed and published. I agree to participate and consent to having my data analyzed and published 2. For the purpose of this study, a sport psychology consultant (SPC) is defined as a professional who provides organized consultation with individual athletes, teams, and/or coaches specifically to enhance performance. For example, a SPC might be employed to help collegiate athletes improve performance, overcome the pressures of competition, or deal with the issues involved with injury and rehabilitation. SPCs are not necessarily trained to address clinical issues such as personality disorders, substance abuse, or eating disorders. Similarly, clinical psychologists are not necessarily trained to offer sport psychology consultation. Therefore, a clinical psychologist who works with athletes is not automatically a SPC unless they have supplemented their education and training with coursework and practical experience in the specific field of sport psychology. In addition, you might see references to AAASP Certification in several questions. AAASP (Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology) is the foremost professional organization for SPCs and its certification process is comprehensive. Certified SPCs have met a minimum standard of education and training in the sports sciences and psychology as well as undergoing an extensive review process. I have read and understand the above information. Section B: SPC Availability 3. Are sport psychology consulting services currently available to your student athletes DIRECTLY through the athletic department? ( Directly indicates that the SPC is available to student-athletes within the athletic department, similar to athletic trainers or strength coaches.) Yes No (selecting no skips the participant to item 8) I don t know Section C: SPC Availability-Details 4. Does your athletic department currently employ a FULL-TIME SPC?

18 422 Wilson et al. Yes, and the SPC is AAASP Certified Yes, but the SPC is NOT AAASP Certified Yes, but I do not know if the SPC is AAASP Certified No (selecting no skips the participant to item 6) 5. If you answered yes to the previous questions, please indicate where the funding for this individual comes from. The Athletic Department The University Other (please specify) 6. Does your athletic department currently employ a PART-TIME SPC? Yes, and the SPC is AAASP Certified Yes, but the SPC is NOT AAASP Certified Yes, but I do not know if the SPC is AAASP Certified No (selecting no skips the participant to item 8) 7. If you answered yes to the previous questions, please indicate where the funding for this individual comes from. The Athletic Department The University Other (please specify) Section D: Sport Psychology Background Information (Possible answers for this section are yes or no) 8. Have you ever supervised a coach who hired a SPC? 9. Are you aware of any professional athletes or organizations that employ a SPC? 10. Do you know of any other athletic departments that employ a SPC? 11. Before today, were you aware of AAASP (the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology)? 12. Before today, were you aware of any certification process for SPCs? Section E: Attitudes Questionnaire (Possible answers for this section are: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neutral, Moderately Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree) 13. A SPC would help athletes perform better under pressure 14. A good way to avoid worries is to keep one s mind on a job 15. Only an individual specifically trained in sport psychology could work effectively with athletes as a SPC 16. SPCs only help athletes who have serious mental problems 17. Athletic trainers are a vital part of any successful athletic program 18. I would respect a coach that used a SPC 19. Emotional difficulties tend to work themselves out in time

19 Perceptions of Sport Psychology Having a SPC available to coaches and athletes is less important than providing them with an athletic trainer 21. To work effectively with athletes, a clinical psychologist should have a background in sport psychology 22. There are experiences in one s life that should not be discussed outside one s family 23. Athletes should seek help from a SPC if upset about their performance 24. Strength and conditioning coaches are a vital part of any successful athletic program 25. I would like to hire a SPC but I do not have the funds 26. I would feel secure with my coaches use of a SPC 27. If an athletic department employs a SPC, their salary should be higher than an athletic trainer or a strength & conditioning coach 28. If a coach asked my advice, I might recommend a SPC 29. A SPC should have a background in clinical psychology 30. There is something respectable about athletes who are willing to cope with their conflicts 31. I do not have much respect for SPCs 32. Having a SPC available to coaches and athletes is less beneficial than providing them with a strength & conditioning coach 33. A SPC can help improve mental toughness 34. Athletes with strong character can overcome mental conflicts by themselves 35. Due to expense, a SPC would be of doubtful value to me 36. A clinical psychologist could work effectively with athletes as a SPC 37. Certain problems should not be discussed outside of one s family 38. A SPC could help athletes fine-tune their sport performance 39. Hiring a SPC would be a last resort 40. SPCs are a vital part of any successful athletic program Section F: Demographics & School Related Information 41. Gender 42. Ethnicity/Race 43. Age 44. Number of years experience as AD 45. Number of years in current position 46. Highest degree earned 47. NCAA Division Division I-A Division I-AA Division I-AAA (without football) Division II (with D-I sports) Division III (with D-I sports)

20 424 Wilson et al. 48. What state is your school in? Section G: Thank you 49. I would like to see the results of this study when it is completed. Yes No 50. Do you have any additional comments regarding sport psychology consulting? Text box for open-ended response