Literature Review

Sport and Performance (S&P) Psychology reaches beyond amateur and professional athletes. While S&P psychologists help athletes achieve optimal performance by encouraging participation and utilizing psychological principles to facilitate peak sport performance, the same principles may be applied to many different disciplines. From a physician who loses a patient then loses his confidence to the sales person whose difficult quarter causes doubt in her abilities to cloud her mind, performance psychologists strive to re-instill the confidence lost and enhance performance. Because professional athletes are under such pressure to perform and they are revered by so many, sessions with a performance coach/psychologist may be needed to ensure their mental game matches their physical game. Beyond the court, field, or diamond, the playing field in the workplace can be equally intense as employers look to achieve more with fewer employees. Peak performance becomes the name of the game.

The Psychometric Properties of the Short and Long Versions of the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

This research continues on the focus since the 1970s to understand the interpersonal dynamics of coach and athlete since the implementation of two influential coach leadership models. There has not been, however, a conceptual, theoretical, or measurement basis to understand the relationship. This study sets out to examine the psychometric properties of the only instrument that assesses the quality and content of the relationship between coach and athlete, a tool known as the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) to determine which of the three versions of the questionnaire best suits the Chinese sporting community. The researchers began with a group of 400 coaches and 400 athletes from both individual and team sports. Each group, coaches and athletes, were administered a separate version of the questionnaire with the data collected over a three-month period. The results supported no significant differences between the three versions of the questionnaire and all versions produced scores with acceptable internal consistency (Yang & Jowett, 2013). These questionnaires measure closeness, commitment, and complementarity (or “the three C’s”) in the relationship between coach and athlete. The three C’s are identified as the most influential positive outcomes of the coach-athlete relationship.

This study adds relevance to the questionnaires used as measurement for the efficacy of the coach-athlete relationship. Additionally, it supports that none of the three versions, (11-item, 13-item, or 29-item) are superior in results.
Sport Psychology Consulting at Elite Sport Competitions

This research study aimed to investigate from the perspective of Sport Psychology Consultants (SPCs) the components believed to be essential to the efficacy of consulting athletes at “elite sport competitions” such as the Olympics, the World Cup, etc. Researchers gathered ten SPCs with current sport psychology accreditation/certification who had attended at least five elite sporting events and provided psychological support to athletes while at the events.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the SPCs utilizing the same basic format of questions but allowing for the conversations to expound beyond the researcher’s questions. The aim was to gain perspective from the SPCs regarding their individual definition of what is successful consulting, which philosophies they most often use in consulting, and their individual experiences while consulting at elite events (Sharp, Hodge & Danish, 2014). Each interview lasted 70 to 90 minutes and was audio-recorded then transcribed verbatim. Coding of the information in this qualitative study collected the data in a way to allow researchers to ensure the information was meaningful and more measureable. This also allowed for ease in evaluation and determination of styles or philosophies of consulting at elite events. Participants shared that most of their consulting fell into Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as a method to reinforce the desired positive behavior (“I can jump higher/run faster”) and weaken negative behavior (“I’ll never be able to compete with these other athletes”) affecting the outcome of reaching the goal (Sharp, Hodge, & Danish, 2014).

This study is important not only because of the very specialized group of athletes being considered but also because researchers learned that the SPCs own behavior delivered impact. For example, SPCs learned that listening to the client was critical to success. Because they listened to what the athlete was identifying as factors impeding performance, the consultation became very client-centered which aided in building the trust between SPC and athlete. SPCs also learned the importance of fitting in without getting in the way of the athletes. Their behavior had to be consistent and it was important to maintain a good working relationship with coaches as both the coach and SPC had a common goal. This group of SPCs also pointed out the importance of measuring their own effectiveness through personal reflection and client feedback.

Motivational Differences in Athletes Trained by Coaches of Different Motivational and Leadership Profiles

It is no secret that motivational and leadership styles among coaches can greatly vary. But what is the impact to the athlete? Is there a model that delivers a more desirable result? Baric and Busik () looked at the differences among coach styles and the effects on the athletes’ motivation for the sport. This study utilized the self-evaluation of goal orientation and intrinsic motivation from the coaches as well as the athletes’ evaluation of coaching style resulting in two primary types of coaches being identified.

Considered in the study were the coach’s social interactions with the athletes measuring instructiveness, supportiveness, and rewarding behavior. Instructiveness is the coach’s behavior indicates the purpose is to improve the athlete’s performance through instruction, training, and structuring activities with that goal in mind. Supportiveness is defined as the coach’s readiness to provide social support creating a positive team connection and warm interpersonal relationships. Rewarding behaviors comes in the form of recognition and praise for hard work and strong performance.

This study was conducted in Croatia among 577 athletes and 51 coaches over a one year period. The resulting two types of coaches identified in the study were based on ego-orientation, supportiveness and instructiveness, and willingness to give praise. The first group was less ego-oriented, more supportive and instructive, and more willing to readily give praise. The second group of coaches was the opposite. Though both groups enjoyed their roles as coaches, saw themselves as highly competent and shared that much effort was given to their coaching jobs, there were stark differences in the athletes’ perception of the two groups. Those athletes trained by less athlete-centric, high ego-oriented, less supportive coaches felt their teams were less motivated, the athletes enjoyed their training and the competitions less, put less effort in their tasks, and had lower intrinsic motivation than the other group.

This study is important as it lends support to not only the situation a Sports Psychologist may walk into when brought in for consultation or counseling, but can also serve as a key to which approaches to include in their sessions with the athlete. It provides a better understanding of that which is important to the athlete with regards to their personal success and offers insight into what athletes feel they need in the way of support and guidance.

References

Barić, R., &Bucik, V. (2009). MOTIVATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ATHLETES TRAINED BY COACHES OF DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONAL AND

LEADERSHIP PROFILES. Kinesiology, 41(2), 181-194.

Sharp, L., Hodge, K., & Danish, S. (2014). Sport psychology consulting at elite sport competitions. Sport, Exercise, And Performance

Psychology,3(2), 75-88.doi:10.1037/spy0000011

Yang, S., & Jowett, S. (2013). The Psychometric Properties of the Short and Long Versions of the Coach–Athlete Relationship

Questionnaire.Measurement In Physical Education & Exercise Science, 17(4), 281-294. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2013.831763

Date Submitted June 16th,2014