PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 1. Coaching Behavior in Professional Basketball. Discrepancies Between Players and Coaches Perceptions.

Transcription

1 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 Coaching Behavior in Professional Basketball. Discrepancies Between Players and Coaches Perceptions. Neoklis Lemonidis Democritus University of Thrace Yannis Tzioumakis University of Thessaly Alekos Karypidis, Maria Michalopoulou, Vassilios Gourgoulis Democritus University of Thrace Nikolaos Zourbanos University of Thessaly 0 Author note Neoklis Lemonidis, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece; Yannis Tzioumakis, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thessaly, Trikala, Greece; Alekos Karypidis, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece; Maria Michalopoulou, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece; Vassilios Gourgoulis, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece; Nikolaos Zourbanos, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thessaly, Trikala, Greece. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Neoklis Lemonidis, 0 Ikoniou str, Komotini, P.O. 00, Greece. nlemonid@phyed.duth.gr

2 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Abstract The aims of the present investigation were firstly, to elicit the views of professional basketball players on the behavior of their coach and secondly, to examine whether there are differences in perceptions of coaching behavior between players and coaches. The Coaching Behavior Assessment System - Perceived Behavior Scale (CBAS-PBS; Smith, Smoll & Curtis, ) was used for the assessment of the perceptions of players and eight head coaches in professional first division in Greece. The reliability of the instrument was within acceptable levels. A comparison between coaches and players perceptions of coaching behaviors revealed significant differences in all CBAS-PBS behavioral categories. Coaches reported that they often used behaviors expressing support, encouragement and corrective instructions after a mistake, and rarely exhibit punitive behaviors, ignored mistakes and fail to provide reinforcement after desired behaviors. However, the players did not perceive their coaches behaviors as encouraging and supportive as their coaches did. The main differences between coaches and their athletes perceptions were in the behavioral categories of corrective instructions after turnovers, positive reinforcement, ignoring mistakes, keeping control, organization, general technical instructions and general encouragement. Results from the present study provide evidence that elite level basketball coaches should develop selfawareness of the coaching behaviors they exhibit. Furthermore, it is suggested that results from the present study should be taken into consideration for designing effective coach education programs and interventions. Keywords: professional basketball, coaching behavior assessment system, coaching behavior, feedback

3 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Coaching Behavior in Professional Basketball: Discrepancies Between Players and Coaches Perceptions. Organized sport participation has long been regarded as a major determinant of physical health, also acting as a pivotal socializing agent influencing athletes behaviors, cognitions and affective responses (Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 00; Amorose, 00). This includes, the way that coaches structure the sport environment by adopting specific leadership styles, provide performance related information and determine whether their behavior has a positive or a negative impact on athletes at all levels of sport participation (Côté, 00; Ewing, Seefeldt & Brown, ; Martens, ; Smith & Smoll, 00). Given the overarching role that coaches have in creating an environment that supports athletes salutary psychosocial development, researchers have focused on the examination of the effects that particular coaching practices and behaviors have on athletes (Smoll & Smith, 00). As Chelladurai () states, there is no grant leadership theory to improve the efficacy of a leader. High level of commitment and stable relationships between coach-athlete are the key characteristics of high performance coaches (Lyle, 00). In the multidimensional model of leadership (Chelladurai & Carron, ) it is hypothesized that the closer the coach s perception and the players perceptions of coaching behavior are, the higher the performance and satisfaction of the players will be. Chelladurai (0) further proposed that three antecedents (situational characteristics, leader characteristics, and member characteristics) influence the actual behaviors of a coach, the required behaviors of a coach, and the preferred behaviors of a coach. Markland & Martinek (, p. ) supported that there is no stereotypic coaching personality or set of behaviours which lead to success in coaching. Everyone has their own characteristic behavior and their own style. If a coach imitates the behavior of a successful

4 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 coach, it does not mean that they will succeed. Also, Horn (00) clearly stated that it can be no longer assumed that a single set of coaching behaviors or practice can be characterized as effective for all athletes and in all situations. Results obtained by research can not be generalized to all contexts or to all participants, coaches and athletes (Horn, 00). Certain coaching practices, behaviors and feedback patterns are described as effective in light of specific contexts, participants and purposes of sport participation. The effectiveness of such behaviors and feedback patterns is mainly contextual and coaches need to adjust according to the sport environment, the athletes level (Horn) and the purpose of sport participation (Chelladurai, 00). According to Côté, Young, North, & Duffy (00) participative coaching and performance coaching are the two types of coaching models; the first type targets satisfaction and effort, while the second involves high commitment to performance. Chelladurai (00) described participation in sports, as either the pursuit of pleasure or the pursuit of excellence. Every coach has different demands, pressures and goals (Cushion & Jones, 00). It is important although, from an applied research standpoint, to examine whether coaching practices, behaviors and feedback patterns are interpreted, evaluated or perceived similarly by coaches and players. As coaching behavior is one of the most important factors to determine the quality of participation in sport (Weiss, 00), it is imperative to conduct further research on what coaches actually do in the field (Gilbert & Trudel, 00; Potrac, Jones & Cushion, 00). Dating back in the 0s, sport leadership scholars suggested the need for a framework for the examination of leadership in the sport domain. Smith and colleagues, in their mediational model of leadership (MML), (Smith, Smoll, Curtis & Hunt, ; Smoll & Smith, ), suggested that athletes responses to certain coaching behaviors are mediated by their perception and recall of those behaviors. Simply put, each athlete attributes different

5 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 meanings to certain coach behaviors in a very personal manner. Therefore, athletes reflection on their coaches behaviors has a central role in MML. To assess athletes perceptions of the behaviors that their coach exhibited, Smoll et al. () developed a scale that provides a verbal description of behavioral dimensions. The Coaching Behavior Assessment System Perceived Behavior Scale (CBAS PBS) contributed to a more holistic approach to understanding the impact coaching behaviors have on their athletes athletic experience and personal development. Previous research findings support the view that coaches are, to a great extend, unaware of the types of behaviors that they exhibit on the training field (DeMarco, Mancini & West, ; Krane, Eklund, & McDermott, ; Wandzilak, Ansorge & Potter ). Quite surprisingly, there is still limited research on the competition strategies of coaches in general (Bloom, Durand-Bush, & Salmela, ), which explains why there has been a strong call for studies on professional coaching behaviors since the 0 s (Côté, Salmela, Baria, & Russell, ). In this respect, the purpose of the present study is two-fold: firstly, to examine the perceptions of head basketball coaches regarding their behaviors as well as the perceptions of professional players about their coaches behavior and secondly, to examine whether there are differences in perceptions of coaching behavior between players and coaches. At the same time, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to discover the factors that emerge. While previous research has largely examined coaching behavior through systematic observation, in the present study coaching behavior was examined through the lens of both players and coaches perceptions, which also corresponds to Jones (00) claim that there has been scant research examining the interaction between athletes and coaches. Although, there is abundance of research being carried out on coaching behavior, the field of professional sports in this regard has been until recently unexplored (Gilbert & Trudel, 00; Lyle, 00).

6 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Indeed, there is a considerable gap in the literature on interpersonal relationships in professional sport and, additionally, further research is needed to discover whether findings from a professional context are similar to ones from studies conducted in college and schoolbased sports settings, which are environments that have received considerable attention over time (Bennie & O Connor, 0; Gilbert & Trudel). Method Participants The sample consisted of athletes and coaches from eight teams in professional basketball first division males in Greece. Eight male head coaches (M age =, SD =.0, age range: - ), one from each team, participated in this study, as well as male athletes (M age =, SD =., age range: 0 - ). Fifty-eight (%) of the athletes were Greeks and of various other nationalities (%), (U.S.A, Serbia, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Sweden). The athletes who provided data represented.% of those who played on the eight teams. Seven of the coaches were Greeks and one Israeli. Their coaching experience was. years, SD =., experience year range: - ). Both the coaches and the athletes volunteered to participate. Instrument The Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS; Smith, Smoll & Hunt, a) contains categories of reactive and spontaneous coaching behaviors. Reactive behaviors are responses to immediately preceding athlete or team behaviors. They are responses to desirable performances, mistakes, or misbehaviors of the athletes. Spontaneous behaviors are initiated (emitted) by the coach and are not a response to a discernible preceding event. They can be practice-related and practice-irrelevant behaviors initiated by the coach. The system involves categories of basic interactions between situational factors and coaches behavior

7 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 that are quite discriminable, contributing to high interrater reliability (Smith, et al., a). The behavior categories (along with their observational codes) are described in Table Insert Table here A. Responses to desirable performance/effort.. Positive Reinforcement (R). Reward or praise athletes when they do something well or try really hard. Could be verbal or non-verbal reaction to a desirable performance.. Non-reinforcement (NR). A coach does not reward or praise an athlete after he makes a good play or tries hard. In other words, the coach ignores it. B. Reactions to mistakes.. Mistake-contingent Encouragement (EM). Encouragement of a player or the giving of reassurance after a mistake is made (e.g., that s ok, don't worry about it. You ll get it next time. ).. Mistake-contingent Technical Instruction (TIM). Tell or show an athlete who has made a mistake, how to do it right. For example, a coach might tell or show a player the right way to pass, after a bad pass.. Punishment (P). Yell at an athlete who has made a mistake. Punishment is also saying or doing something that hurts an athlete's feelings, or embarrass him.. Punitive Technical Instruction (PTIM). A coach shows how to correct a mistake, but in an unpleasant, punishing way. This is a combination of TIM and P. For example, a coach might angrily say, "Pass the ball; don't dribble so much, Dummy!. Ignoring Mistakes (IM). When a player makes a mistake and the coach has clearly seen it, but say or do nothing. He simple ignores mistakes. C. Response to misbehaviors

8 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0. Keeping Control (KC). Coaches do this when their athletes are misbehaving or not paying attention. For example, if athletes are fooling around, the coach might say, "Knock it off and pay attention". In addition to the eight reactive categories, the CBAS contains four spontaneous behavior categories:. General Technical Instruction (TIG). A coach might give instructions relevant to techniques and strategies of the sport, not because a mistake has been made, but just to show athletes how to do things correctly. Basketball examples include telling or showing a player how to pass the ball to the low post. 0. General Encouragement (EG). Coaches may encouragement any time, even when things are going well. For example, a coach may clap his hands and shout encouragement at any time during practices and games.. Organization (O). Keeping practices running smoothly, making sure the equipment is in the right place, announcing substitutions -- in other words, keeping things organized.. General Communication (GC). Some coaches talk or joke with their athletes a lot. They might talk about school, professional sports, vacations, or about when they used to be an athlete. The CBAS-PBS uses a definitional approach by providing a description of each of the original CBAS categories as a separate question. The athlete indicates the frequency with which the coach exhibited a specific behavior. A sample definitional item (e.g.: TIM) taken from the CBAS training manual (Smith, Smoll, & Hunt b) is: Sometimes players goof and make mistakes. Some coaches provide their players with support and encouragement following a mistake. For example, they may say, That s okay, don t worry about it, you ll get them next time. Other coaches provide you with encouragement after you make mistakes. Athletes indicate how frequently their coaches engage in each class of

9 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 behavior on a -point Likert scale ( - never - to - almost always -). For the present study, the CBAS-PBS was used to assess the athletes perceptions of their coaches behaviors, but also assessed the coaches perceptions about their own behavior. Procedures The players completed the CBAS-PBS in the absence of their coach. Similarly, the coaches completed the CBAS-PBS version. The CBAS-PBS was developed as a paper and pencil measure to assess athletes perceptions of their coach s behaviors. The study was conducted during mid-season, so the athletes were acquainted with their coaches, as they had been working with them for several months. During the assessment, the athletes were assured that their data were confidential and that coaches would be unaware of how their players responded to the questions. The athletes indicated their responses in such a way that no one could view their responses. All the CBAS PBS questionnaires were anonymous so that the players would not be discouraged from responding to the items on them. Similarly, each coach, at the same time, completed a corresponding anonymous questionnaire rating their own coaching behavior. This was measured by describing and giving examples of the CBAS behaviors and asking coaches to rate on a -point scale, how often they exhibited the behaviors in the situations illustrated. At the end of the session, the questionnaires, from both players and coaches, were collected into a sealed cardboard box. Eight such boxes were used, one for each team, so that we could compare the responses of players and their coach for each team. To confirm the reliability of PBS, the players of two teams, completed the scale for a second time, after one-month lapse. For the purposes of the present study, the CBAS and CBAS-PBS were double translated (English-Greek). More specifically, a bilingual translator, familiar with the

10 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 theoretical concepts of coaching behaviors, translated the instruments. A back-translation was carried out by two other translators. One of them completed a blind back-translation, which means that the blind translator was not familiar with the theoretical concepts of coaching behaviors in contrast to the other translator who was. Discrepancies were finally agreed upon by the three translators. Therefore, the Greek players completed the PBS in the Greek language and accordingly the non-greek players completed the original version of the instrument. This project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Physical Education and Sport Science. 0 0 Statistical analysis An Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) has been employed to assess the reliability of the scales. Coefficients were calculated to assess reliability, based on a two-way analysis of variance, along with % confidence intervals (CI), (Chelladurai & Riemer, ). Results from a previous study using the Greek version of PBS on adult wrestlers (Tzioumakis, Michalopoulou, Barbas & Karamanis, 0) revealed adequate reliability coefficients. One sample t-tests were conducted, in each team, to compare coaches perceptions regarding their own behavior and players perceptions in each behavior category. Since the size of the sample was relatively small, effect size was calculated with Cohen s d for all dependent variables. Cohen s d evaluates the degree of the difference between two means. If the absolute value of Cohen s d was less than 0., it was considered as small effect size. If it was between 0. and 0. it was considered as medium and if it was greater than 0. it was considered as large. A factor analysis was conducted to examine the perceptions of professional basketball players regarding coaching behaviors at an elite level. Results

11 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Preliminary Results Frequencies of players perceptions are reported in Table. Athletes indicated how frequently their coaches engaged in each class of behavior Insert Table here A quite interesting finding is that players responses cover the entire range of the seven-point Likert scale except for TIM ( = never) and O ( = never and = almost never). Thus, it is evident that there are great discrepancies between players and coaches regarding how overt coaching behaviors are perceived. The results from reliability examination (Table ) revealed that no significant differences emerged for any of the categories behavior in both teams ( players). The reliability of the instrument was within acceptable levels (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC(,)) = Insert Table here Comparing the perceptions of coaches about their own behavior, with the perceptions of their players (Table ), the results from the one sample t-tests indicated the following values for the t index; Insert Table here The comparison between players and their coaches revealed interesting findings. In six teams the players had differences with their coach in TIM and O, while in five teams the differences were in R, IM, KC and in four teams in EG and TIG. In NR and PTIM significant differences were found in three teams. Exploratory Factor Analysis An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine player s perceptions. The results revealed that the CBAS-PBS behaviors loaded on four orthogonal factors (Table ) that interpreted cumulatively % of the total variance. The first factor, which interpreted

12 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0.% of the total variance, was labeled as supportiveness-instruction (SI). The second factor interpreted % of the total variance and was labeled as punitiveness (P). The third factor interpreting.% of the total variance and was labeled as communication (C). Finally, the fourth factor was labeled as nonsupport (NS) and interpreted.% of the total variance Insert Table here In summary, in a sample consisting of elite basketball players, results demonstrated that coaches perceived their coaching behavior as more supportive (R, EM, TIM, TIG, EG) compared to players perceptions. On the other hand, players perceive coaching behaviors more negative in general (NR, PTIM, IM) compared to coaches answers, with the exception of P. At the team level TIM, EG, R and TIG were the most frequent behaviors exhibited according to coaches perceptions (contrary to what players perceived), while coaches ignored mistakes more frequently compared to players perceptions. Discussion The purposes of this study were to elicit the views of professional players on the behavior of their coach and to examine whether there were statistically significant differences in terms of coaching behavior perception between players and coaches. Also, a four factor structure emerged from the exploratory factor analysis. In a similar context, Smith et al. (), used systematic observation techniques and analyzed coaching behaviors from a sample of youth baseball coaches, found that the CBAS behaviors categories loaded onto three factors. These factors were termed supportiveness (on which R and EM loaded. and., respectively), instruction (on which TIG and TIM loaded. and.), and punitiveness (on which P and PTIM both loaded.). Cruz et al. () reported a similar factor structure in a sample of Spanish basketball coaches.

13 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 While previous researchers have examined coaching behaviors using systematic observation with CBAS, in the present study, coaching behavior was examined through the players and coaches perspective, using CBAS-PBS. Two new emerging factors (communication (C) and non-support (NS)) added to the factor structure of previous studies (supportiveness-instruction (SI) and punitiveness (P)). The comparison between players and their coaches perceptions revealed that in all elite teams there were differences at least in four of the behavioral categories (table ). In most teams, head coaches claimed that they provided very often technical instructions after mistakes, rewarded players for good plays or effort and organized training, but their players considered that these behaviors did not appear as often as the coaches believed. In addition, the coaches recalled that hardly ever did they ignore mistakes, while the players reported that this behavior occurred more often that the coaches indicated. There was a considerable amount of discrepancies between coaches and players views. Players perceived coaching behavior quite differently compared to coaches perceptions. In general, as shown in Table, the coaches reported that they often used behaviors expressing support, encouragement and corrective instructions after a mistake, and rarely exhibited punitive behaviors, ignored mistakes and failed to provide reinforcement after desired behaviors. These findings are in agreement with previous sport psychology studies which have found that coaches tend to perceive their own behaviors as more encouraging and supportive than either actual practice and game behaviors would indicate or what their athletes recall of coaching behaviors would suggest (Salminen, Luillonen, & Telama, ; Wandzilak et al., ). Also, Bauer (00) found that players were more sensitive to negatively communicated instruction compared to other CBAS categories. Consistent with previous findings, coaches were generally unaware of the behaviors they exhibited. Coaching literature suggests that adjusting coaching practices, behaviors and

14 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 communication according to context and purpose of sport participation, is of pivotal importance for effective coaching (Horn, 00; Chelladurai, 00). Of course, developing coaches self-awareness of their own behavior is the first step for effective coaching. The present findings were also in line with Smith and Smoll s () results. They reported that coaches are unaware of how they behaved. Also, they suggested that coach intervention programs should further focus on the development of coaches awareness of how they behave on the field and urged coaches to consider the implications their behavior has on youth athletes. Kenow & Williams () suggested that if an athlete s goals, personality and beliefs are consistent with those of their coach, the interaction between the individuals will likely produce a positive interpersonal atmosphere. Conversely, if they have an incompatibility, then certain psychological needs for the athlete probably are not being met, and the athlete is more likely to evaluate the coach s behavior negatively. Perhaps this occurred because some players were incompatible with their coaches and, as Kenow & Williams reported, basketball players who reported greater compatibility with their coach perceived and evaluated their coach s behavior as having less negative activation and more supportiveness and emotional composure, compared to players who reported lower coach/athlete compatibility. Additionally, another reason could be that the players perceived coaching behaviors more negatively when the coach failed to provide for individualized treatment of athletes (Anshel &Straub, ). The ages of the sample of professional players were between 0 to years old. The age difference could be a potential factor that will affect behavior perception. Perhaps coaches behave differently with younger players than older ones. Moreover, findings from a recent study in Greece demonstrated that basketball male head coaches were more supportive

15 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 with the most experienced players (Lemonidis et al., in press). Players in the same team may have a different perception of coaching behavior. Zourbanos et al. (00) found that supportive coaching behavior was positively related to positive self-talk in one sample, but in another sample negative coaching behavior was positively related to positive self-talk. Their interpretation lies in the different age and kind of sport that influences the perception of behavior. Shaver () and more recently Smith, Smoll, and Cumming (00) suggested that the way a person perceives a behavior is probably most important than the actual behavior. Also Smith et al. reported that the feedback and coaching behavior can affect athletic performance and perceptions of the players. In addition, coaching behavior has a significant impact not only on athletic performance but also on the psychological and emotional state of the athletes (Horn, 00). This study yielded some evidence confirming prior findings, suggesting that the largest amount of differences in terms of the perception of coaching behavior between players and coaches were in technical instructions after mistakes, reward for good plays or efforts, training organization and ignoring mistakes. Coaches should not assume that given behaviors in specific situations have the same effect on all athletes. Coaches also need to be aware of the anxiety and confidence levels of their individual athletes and of their degree of compatibility with individual athletes (Kenow & Williams, ). Coach behaviors need to be responsive to individual differences in the needs of learners with an appropriately diverse range of approaches. If the practice and behaviour style of the coach is perceived by the athlete as imposing on the coach s way of thinking, feeling or acting and is not aligned with their own needs, then it will be seen as controlling and will be negatively received (Cushion, 00).

16 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 In line with previous research findings (Smith et al., ; Wandzilak et al., ), the results from the present study indicated that coaches who participated in this study had limited self-awareness in terms of their behavior, which in turn made them unable to realize the effect that their behavior had on athletes cognitions, emotions and potentially on their performance. Such coaches were unable to adapt their coaching behavior and leadership styles to effective coaching practices. Therefore, the present findings are important because a) provide evidence for coach effectiveness from an elite level standpoint and b) provide directions and guidelines for designing effective interventions and coach education programs, which in turn may lead to creating more effective coaches and potentially to increased performance in elite sports. 0 The results of the present study also indicated the view that coaches should discuss with their athletes questions of their perception of coaching behavior, and that of the coaches assistants, in order to develop self-awareness. It is acknowledged that additional work is required before a complete understanding of the above results occurs. Further studies that will assess coaching behavior also with observational measures will assist us further in drawing definite conclusions about how coach-initiated environments affect athletes performance, perceptions, cognitions, and affective reactions. It should be noted that a limitation of this study is the fact that the sample consisted exclusively of men s professional teams. It is possible that the assessment of perceptions of coaching behavior in female teams would produce different results. Correlating coaching behaviors between teams of different sex as well as comparing professional and amateur teams would extend the knowledge in sport pedagogy domain. In summary, the findings of the present research will hopefully add to the improvement of coaches interpersonal effectiveness when working with athletes and contribute further to the design and evaluation of coach education interventions.

17 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 References Allen, J. B., & Howe, B. (). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 0, 0-. Amorose, A. J. (00). Coaching effectiveness. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 0-). Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. Anshel, M. H., & Straub, W. F. (). Congruence between players and coaches perceptions of coaching behaviors. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, -. Bauer, J. C. (00). The effects of coaching behaviors on motivation in handball players. Unpublished Thesis, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht. Becker, A. J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (00). Effective coaching in action: Observations of legendary collegiate basketball coach Pat Summitt. Sport Psychologist, (), -. Bennie, A., & O Connor, D. (0). Coach-athlete relationships: A qualitative study of professional sport teams in Australia. International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol. 0, -. Bloom, G. A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J. E. (). A systematic observation study of the teaching behaviors of an expert basketball coach. The Sport Psychologist,, -0. Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (). Pre- and post-competition routines of expert coaches of team sports. The Sport Psychologist,, -. Chelladurai, P. (). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology,, -.

18 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Chelladurai, P. (0). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology,, -. Chelladurai, P. (). Human Resource Management in Sport and Recreation. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Chelladurai, P. (00). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. -). New York: Wiley. Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A. V. (). Leadership. Ottawa: Sociology of Sport Monograph Series, Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. A. (). Measurement of leadership in sport. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement (pp. -). Morgantown, W.V: Fitness Information Technology. Côté, J. (00). Coach and peer influence on children s development through sport. In J.M. Silva & D.E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Sport (pp. 0-0). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Côté, J. & Fraser-Thomas, J. (00). Youth involvement in sport. In P.R.E. Crocker (Ed.), Introduction to Sport Psychology: A Canadian perspective (pp. -). Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall. Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (). Organising and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Psychologist,,. Côté, J., Young, B., North, J., & Duffy, P. (00). Towards a definition of excellence in coaching. International Journal of Coaching Science,, -. Cruz, J., Bou, A., Ferrandez, J. M., Martin, M., Mondras, J., Monfort, N., & Ruiz, A. (). Avaluacio conductual de les interacciones entre entrenadors j jugadors de basquet escolar. Apunts Medicina de l Esport,,.

19 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (00). A systematic observation of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behaviour,,. Cushion, C. J. (00). Coach behaviour. In. J. Lyle & C. J. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching professionalization and practice (pp. -). London: Elsevier. DeMarco, G. M. P., Mancini, V. H., & West, D. A. (). Reflections on change: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of a baseball coach s behavior. Journal of Sport Behavior, 0(), -. Dwyer, J. M., & Fisher, D. G. (0). Wrestlers perceptions of coaches leadership as predictors of satisfaction with leadership. Journal of Perceptual and Motor Skills,, -. Ewing, M.E., Seefeldt, V.D., & Brown, T.P. (). Role of organized sport in the education and health of American children and youth. In A. Poinsett (Ed.), The Role of Sports in Youth Development (pp. -). New York: Carnegie Corporation. Gilbert, W. D. (00). An annotated bibliography and analysis of coaching science. Fresno: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Gilbert, W. D. & Trudel, P. (00). Analysis of coaching science research published from Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, (), -. Gilbert, W. D., Trudel, P. & Haughian, L. P. (). Interactive decision making factors considered by coaches of youth ice-hockey during games. Journals of Teaching in Physical Education,, 0-. Horn, T. S. (00). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport Psychology (rd ed., pp. -). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jones, R. (00). Coach interactions. In R. Jones, K. Armour, and P. Potrac. (Eds.). Sports coaching cultures. (p. -). London: Routledge.

20 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL Kenow, L. J. & Williams, J. M. (). Relationship between anxiety, self-confidence, and evaluation of coaching behaviours. The Sport Psychologist,, -. Kenow, L. J. & Williams, J. M. (). Coach-athlete compatibility and athletes perceptions of coaching behaviours. Journal of Sport Behavior,, -0. Krane, V., Eklund, R. C., & McDermott, M. (). Collaborative action research and behavior coaching intervention: a case study. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, -. Lacy, A. C. & Goldston, P. D. (0). Behavior analysis of male and female coaches in high school girls basketball. Journal of Sport Behavior,, -0. Lemonidis, N., Bebetsos, E., Tzioumakis, I., Michalopoulou, M., Karypidis, A. & Gourgoulis, V. (in press). Perceptions of coaching behaviors of male and female basketball players. Sport & Society. Lyle, J. (00). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches behaviour. London: Routledge. Markland, R., & Martinek, T. J. (). Descriptive Analysis of coach augmented feedback given to high school varsity female volleyball players. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,, -. Martens, R. (). Successful coaching (nd ed.), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Potrac, P., Jones, R. L., & Cushion, C., J. (00). Understanding power and the coach s role in professional English soccer. A preliminary investigation of coach behaviour. Soccer and Society,, -. doi: 0.00/00000 Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (). Leadership and satisfaction in athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,, -. Salminen, S., Luikkonen, J., & Telama, R. (). The differences in coaches and athletes perception of leader behaviour of Finnish coaches. In T. Williams, L. Almond, & A.

21 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Sparkes (Eds.), Sport and physical activity: Moving towards excellence (pp. -). London: E. & F.N. Spoon. Shaver, K.J. (). An introduction to attribution processes. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Smith E.R., Shoda Y., Cumming P.S., & Smoll L.F. (00). Behavioral signatures at the ballpark: Intraindividual consistency of adults situation behavior patterns and their interpersonal consequences. Journal of Research in Personality,,. doi:0.0/j.jrp Smith, R.E. & Smoll, F.L. (). Coaching the coaches: Youth sports as a scientific and applied behavioral setting. Current Directions in Psychological Science, (), -. Smith, R.E. & Smoll, F.L. (00). Way to Go, Coach! A Scientifically-Proven Approach to Coaching Effectiveness (nd ed.). Portola Valley, CA: Warde. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F.L. & Cumming, S., P. (00). Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on young athletes sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,, -. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (). Coaching behaviours in little league baseball. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives in Youth Sport Washington DC: Hemisphere. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (b). Training manual for the coaching behavior assessment system. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology :. (Ms. No 0). Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (a). A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Research quarterly, (), 0-0. Smoll, F. L. & Smith, R. E. (). Leadership behaviors in Sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, (), -. doi: 0./j.-..tb0.x

22 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL 0 0 Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E. (00). Enhancing coach athlete relationships: cognitivebehavioral principles and procedures. In J. Dosil (Ed.), The Sport Psychologist s Handbook: A Guide for Sport-Specific Performance Enhancement (pp. -). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Curtis, B & Hunt, E. (). Towards a mediational model of coach-player relationships. Research Quarterly,, -. Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (). What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today,, -. Thompson, J. (00). The double-goal coach. New York: Harper-Collins. Tzioumakis, Y., Michalopoulou, M., Barbas, I., & Karamanis, E. (0). Perceived coaching behaviors in Wrestling. International Journal of Wrestling Science, (), -. Wandzilak, T., Ansorge, C. J., & Potter, G. (). Comparison between selected practice and game behaviors of youth sport soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology,, -. Weiss M. (00). Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology. Wrisberg, C. A. (0). An interview with Pat Head Summitt. The Sport Psychologist, 0-. Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Tsiakaras, N., Chroni, S., & Theodorakis Y. (00). A multimethod examination of the relationship between coaching behavior and athletes inherent self-talk. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,, -.

23 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL Table. Behavioral categories of CBAS A. Responses to desirable performance/effort Positive Reinforcement (R) Non-reinforcement (NR) B. Reactions to mistakes Mistake-contingent Encouragement (EM) Mistake-contingent Technical Instruction (TIM) Punishment (P) Punitive Technical Instruction (PTIM) Ignoring Mistakes (IM) C. Response to misbehaviors Keeping Control (KC) D. Spontaneous behaviors General Technical Instruction (TIG) 0 General Encouragement (EG) Organization (O) General Communication (GC)

24 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL Table. Frequencies of players about Coaching Behaviors P.B.Scale Behaviors R freq %.%.%.%,%.%.%.% NR freq 0 %.%.%.%.%.%.%.% EM freq 0 %.%.%.%.%.%.%.% TIM freq 0 % 0%.%.%.%.% %.% P freq %.%.%.% 0.%.%.%.% PTIM freq %.%.% 0.%.%.%.%.% IM freq 0 0 %.%.%.%.%.%.%.% KC freq %.%.% %.%.%.%.% TIG freq 0 % 0%.% 0.%.%.% %.% EG freq 0 %.%.%.%.% %.%.% O freq 0 0 % 0% 0%.%.%.%.%.% GC freq 0 0 %.%.%.%.%.% %.% Note. R=Positive Reinforcement; NR=Non-reinforcement; EM=Mistake-contingent Encouragement; TIM=Mistake-contingent; Technical Instruction; P=Punishment; PTIM= Punitive Technical Instruction; IM=Ignoring Mistakes; KC=Keeping Control; TIG=General Technical Instruction; EG=General Encouragement; O=Organization; GC=General Communication. = never, = hardly ever, = seldom, = sometime, = quite often, = very often, = almost always. 0

25 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL Table. Test-retest reliability using a two-way random (fixed effects) variable absolute agreement intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC(, )) with % confidence intervals (CI). BEHAVIORS R(, ) p R..000 NR..000 EM TIM..000 P..000 PTIM..000 IM KC..000 TIG.0.00 EG..0 O GC..00 Overall agreement. Note. R=Positive Reinforcement; NR=Non-reinforcement; EM=Mistake-contingent Encouragement; TIM=Mistake-contingent; Technical Instruction; P=Punishment; PTIM= Punitive Technical Instruction; IM=Ignoring Mistakes; KC=Keeping Control; TIG=General Technical Instruction; EG=General Encouragement; O=Organization; GC=General Communication. 0

26 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL Table. Differences in Perceived Behavior Scale, between players and their coaches Behaviors R NR EM TIM P PTIM IM KC TIG EG O C Coaches -.** ** -, -.** -,.* -** -.** -.** -** -.** t / df = CV AM ES -.**.** -** -..**. 0 ** * -. t / df = CV AM ES.** -.** -..** 0. -.*..** 0.. t / df = CV AM ES. -..**.**..**.**....** 0 t / df = CV AM ES -.**.. -.** -.**. -.** -. -.** -.** -.** -.** t / df = CV AM ES **..* **.* t / df = CV AM ES

27 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL -**...* -..**. -.**.* -.** -.. t / df = CV AM ES 0 -.**. -..**.*. -.** -.** -. t / df = CV AM ES Note. R=Positive Reinforcement; NR=Non-reinforcement; EM=Mistake-contingent Encouragement; TIM=Mistake-contingent; Technical Instruction; P=Punishment; PTIM= Punitive Technical Instruction; IM=Ignoring Mistakes; KC=Keeping Control; TIG=General Technical Instruction; EG=General Encouragement; O=Organization; GC=General Communication t = value of the t-test statistic, CV = coach value, AM = athletes mean, df = degrees of freedom, ES = Cohen s d effect size * p<0,0, ** p<0,0 0

28 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS IN BASKETBALL Table. Loadings of the behaviors on the four factors Factors Behavioral categories SI P C NS Positive Reinforcement (R). Non-reinforcement (NR). Mistake-contingent Encouragement (EM). Mistake-contingent Technical Instruction (TIM).0 Punishment (P).0 Punitive Technical Instruction (PTIM).0 Ignoring Mistakes (IM). Keeping Control (KC) General Technical Instruction (TIG). 0 General Encouragement (EG). Organization (O) General Communication (GC). 0