Journal of Coaching Education

Transcription

1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Comparative Analysis of Coaches Self-Efficacy and Parents Perception of Coaches Efficacy Christopher L. Kowalski and Wade P. Kooiman University of Northern Iowa, USA ABSTRACT Coaches influence children s experiences in sports and have a significant impact on the psychosocial development of young athletes. It is important to understand the coaching-related components of youth sports, including game strategy, motivation, teaching technique, and character building. Coaching efficacy is multidimensional, has a number of sources, and highlights relationships that exist between the coach, athlete, and team. In the present study, parents and coaches perceptions of coaching efficacy were examined to see what variables may affect their responses. Coaches character-building efficacy was influenced by previous playing experience. Parents perceptions of coaches efficacy were collectively influenced by parents previous playing and coaching experience, attendance at sport-specific educational sessions, and the perceived ability of their child s team. Key words: Coaching Confidence, Motivation, Game Strategy Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 4 of 125

2 Comparative Analysis of Coaches Self-Efficacy and Parents Perception of Coaches Efficacy Youths who participate in organized sport programs depend heavily on coaches who possess effective instructional techniques, background education, and previous coaching experience. Organized sports are growing at a rapid pace; according to the Physical Activity Council s 2012 Participation Report, nearly 70 million youths participated in team and individual sports. In high school sports and activities, boys participation has increased 23.5%, and girls participation has increased 42.2% since 1991 (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2010). Opportunities in youth sports exist in almost any activity, including 38 different organized sports and six adapted sports. This growth indicates a desire to provide a wide variety of competitive events and activities for youths in the United States. Adult leadership in youth sports has a significant impact on the lives of millions of youths every year. Quality youth sport experiences depend largely on the atmosphere shaped by the coach (Conroy, 2006; Smith, Smoll & Cumming, 2007). Coaches play many roles that set standards for attitude, behavior, and effort. Athletes are influenced in many aspects of life outside of sports by their coach (Hill, 2007; Smoll & Smith, 2002). Presumably, the coach needs a set of skills and knowledge of the sport in order to provide an experience that would minimize attrition and maximize benefit for youth sport participants. Parents and athletes have their preference in coaching ability, style, skills, and techniques. Martin, Dale, and Jackson (2001) found that parents preferred coaches who could demonstrate the skills to athletes, plan effective practices, and provide ample learning opportunities for the athletes. McCullagh, Matzkanin, Shaw, and Maldonado (1993) found that youths motivation paralleled their parents perception of motivation for participation and that intrinsic motives were superior to extrinsic motives. Martin, Jackson, Richardson, and Weiller (1999) evaluated the preferred coaching behaviors of athletes and parents using the Leadership for Sport Scale established by Chelladurai and Saleh (1980), uncovering positive feedback, training, and instruction as key coaching behaviors preferred by athletes and parents. Athletes favored a supportive and compassionate coach more than parents, and females preferred a democratic coaching style more than males (Martin et al., 1999). Martin et al. (2001) revealed that parents coaching preferences were comparable to athletes in that the ideal coach is one who can implement effective instructional practices, perform the skills required of the sport, and provide opportunities for the athletes to compete and achieve their goals. It is important to understand these parental preferences and the related components of coaching youth sports so that coaches may work in concert with parents to provide the most effective learning opportunities for youths. A rich theoretical framework exists encompassing the coaching components that directly affect youth sport participants. Bandura (1977, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1997) provided the foundation of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. This broad-based explanation of human motivations, behaviors, and attitudes within a collection of contexts and environments is the source for selfefficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as the conviction to successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome (Bandura, 1997, p. 193). Analyzing one s own ability to master Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 5 of 125

3 behavior through adversity and occasional failure puts in place the groundwork for competence, effectiveness, productivity, and achievement in life among many other public, private, and social ways of interaction. Monitoring, scrutinizing, and inspecting other people s behavior molds many different aspects of personal social behavior. Self-efficacy has been studied in a variety of sport environments. Coaching efficacy (CE) is broadly defined as a coach s belief in his or her ability to affect the learning and performance of his or her athletes (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999). Most notably, Feltz et al. (1999) developed a conceptual model theoretically proposing four components of coaching efficacy and constructed the original 24-item Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) to measure the components. These components are game strategy, motivation, teaching technique, and character building. Game strategy efficacy (GSE) is a coach s confidence in his or her ability to lead and coach a team to a successful performance during competition. Motivation efficacy (ME) is a coach s confidence in his or her ability to affect the psychological condition of his or her athletes. Technique efficacy (TE) is a coach s confidence in his or her instructional and diagnostic proficiencies. Character-building efficacy (CBE) is a coach s confidence in his or her ability to guide his or her athletes personal growth. A fifth dimension, physical conditioning, was added by Myers, Feltz, Chase, Reckase, and Hancock (2008). This coaching competency dimension is associated with a coach s confidence in his or her ability to physically condition his or her athletes. Coaching experience, perceived skill of the athletes, prior success, and perceived social support of the school, community, parents, and players are variables believed to influence CE (Feltz et al., 1999). Independent variables such as age, gender, previous coaching/playing experience, and coaching education training sessions (e.g., licensure, certifications) have been shown to influence CE differently at the youth, high school, and collegiate levels, but used collectively have not predicted CE in youth coaches (Feltz et al., 1999). Coaches with high CE were more committed to coaching, used more effective motivation techniques, and had better win-loss records (Feltz et al., 1999). Players who played for coaches with high CE were more satisfied with their athletic experience, more confident in their coaches leadership abilities, and had a greater motivation to perform (Feltz et al., 1999; Kent & Sullivan, 2003; Sullivan & Kent, 2003). Evidence exists for several of these sources hypothesized to predict CE and their intended outcomes. Major research findings in CE show that (a) coaching education increases CE (Lee, Malete, & Feltz, 2002); (b) CE is a significant predictor of team-efficacy but not player-efficacy (Vargas-Tonsing, Warners, & Feltz, 2003); (c) coaches and players perceive the coaches efficacy in similar ways (Short & Short, 2004); (d) coaching experience is a predictor of CE, and coaches evaluate their own CE levels higher than athletes (Kavussanu, Boardley, Jutkiewicz, Vincent, & Ring, 2008); and (e) volunteer youth coaches with more extensive playing and coaching background have higher levels of CE (Feltz, Hepler, Roman, & Paiement, 2009). Bandura (1986, 1997) highlighted the important role a coach has in influencing individual and team efficacy perceptions. Research has shown that the coach s behavior, feedback to the players, and perceived CE are significant sources of efficacy information for athletes (Feltz & Lirgg, 2001; Vargas-Tonsing, Warners et al., 2003; Vealey, Hayashi, Garner-Holman, & Giacobbi, 1998). Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 6 of 125

4 Journal of Coaching Education Lent and Lopez (2002) believed that self-efficacy relationships that involve complex social interaction (similar to the relationship formed between a youth sport coach and an athlete s parent) have unique features that influence the process used to develop personal beliefs associated with the relationship. Suggested in their research is a preliminary model extending self-efficacy theory to interpersonal contexts of relevance to counseling, clinical, educational, school, organizational, and health psychologists (Lent & Lopez, 2002, p. 257). Relational efficacy refers to a set of interpersonal or interactive efficacy connections we have about ourselves and the other within any given relationship (Bandura, 1986). Other-efficacy beliefs occur between individuals and involve the views formed by one person about another in a relationship. The relationship formed between the coach and the athlete has been explored on a number of different platforms (Boardley, Kavussanu, & Ring, 2008; Feltz et al., 1999; Kavussanu et al., 2008; Myers, Vargas-Tonsing, & Feltz, 2005; Short & Short, 2004; Vargas- Tonsing, 2009; Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, & Feltz, 2004), but relationships formed between coaches and parents remain relatively uninvestigated. Choi, Cho, and Kim (2005) attempted to identify the crucial qualities that coaches perceive as needed for successful youth-sport coaching. Results indicated that displaying enthusiasm, the ability to motivate athletes, sports management, a bachelor s degree in exercise or sport, providing instruction to athletes without discrimination, establishing open and harmonious relationships with parents, and risk management skills received the most attention by youth sport coaches (Choi et al.). Choi et al. cautioned that the results of their study only scratched the surface of the qualities needed to be a successful youth sport coach. Their suggestions for future research included studies exploring differences in the views of parents, administrators, and coaches. The purpose of the current study was to examine the coach-parent dyad, as recommended by Choi et al. (2005) and to compare the individual coaches assessments of their coaching efficacy with the parents perceptions of the coaches efficacy. The current study differs from previous research on CE due to the examination of parents perceptions of the coaches level of CE in conjunction with coaches perceptions of their own CE. For this reason and for the purpose of statistical analysis, the research hypotheses of this study were (a) the coaches perceptions of their own CE will be higher than parents perceptions of the coaches CE; (b) the independent variables for parents and coaches (age, gender, previous playing experience, previous coaching experience, previous attendance at a soccer coaching clinic, educational session or licensing/certification session, perception of the overall ability of the current team, other sports coached, and most recent win/loss record), when analyzed individually, will significantly influence parents and coaches CE perceptions; and (c) the independent variables, when analyzed collectively, will not significantly influence parents and coaches perceptions of CE. Method An electronic cover letter explaining the study, identifying the researchers, and explaining the study purpose was distributed via to parents and coaches associated with two competitive soccer clubs. Both competitive soccer clubs serve boys and girls years Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 7 of 125

5 old and have boys and girls soccer teams at all levels. Youth players join the club through a tryout process and participate on a yearly basis. One club had five girls teams and the other club had a combined total of 10 boys and girls teams. All of the teams participate in travel leagues and usually participate in out-of-state tournaments each year. Both clubs stress the importance of learning age-appropriate skills and strategies, as well as developing players who are successful on and off the field. The parents and coaches completed electronic surveys anonymously, and the data were collected via a web-based survey distribution center. The survey instrument used to collect information from parents consisted of two parts. The first part gathered demographic information such as (a) age; (b) gender; (c) previous coaching experience; (d) previous playing experience; (e) attendance at a soccer coaching clinic, educational session, or licensing/certification session; and (f) the perception of the overall ability of their child s current team (1 = poor, 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 = above average, 5 = excellent). The researchers asked about attendance at a soccer coaching clinic, educational session, or licensing/certification session in order to further understand the parents knowledge of soccer. The second part of the instrument was the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) developed by Feltz et al. (1999). The 24-item scale consisted of questions examining four indices associated with CE: (a) motivation; (b) character building; (c) game strategy; and (d) technique. The CES used a Likert-scale format, with 1 = not at all confident and 5 = extremely confident. Parents taking the CES were asked to respond by indicating their perception of the coaches efficacy; this explanation was included at the beginning of the CES. The survey instrument used to collect information from the coaches was also broken into two parts. The first part included demographic questions addressing (a) age; (b) gender; (c) previous coaching experience; (d) previous playing experience; (e) attendance at a soccer coaching clinic, educational session, or licensing/certification session; (f) other sports coached; (g) most recent win/loss record; and (h) the perception of the overall ability of the team he or she currently coaches (1 = poor, 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 = above average, 5 = excellent). The second part of the instrument was also the CES; coaches were asked to indicate their efficacy levels associated with the questions. Statistical analysis associated with the parents responses included frequencies, percentages, and mean scores derived from the demographic information. Cronbach s alpha coefficients were calculated to determine the reliability of the ME, CBE, GSE, and TE indices. Pearson s correlation coefficients were calculated for age, previous playing experience, coaching experience, perception of the team s ability level and attendance at an educational/licensing/certification session to examine relationships between these variables and the perceptions of the coaches ME, CBE, GSE, TE, and overall coaching efficacy (OCE). Independent t-tests were conducted using (a) gender, (b) whether the parent did or did not have previous playing experience, and (c) whether the parent did or did not have previous coaching experience to see whether these variables influenced the perceptions of the coaches ME, CBE, GSE, TE, and OCE. Stepwise multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to see whether the independent variables, when analyzed collectively, significantly influenced the perceptions of the coaches ME, CBE, GSE, TE, and OCE. Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 8 of 125

6 For the coaches responses, a similar statistical analysis was conducted. Demographic information was gathered and analyzed and the same statistical tests were conducted. Two more independent variables were incorporated into the statistical analysis of the coaches responses previous win-loss record of the team and experience coaching other sports. Results Parents (n = 76) and coaches (n = 20) from two different competitive soccer clubs in a Midwestern state participated in the study. Initially, 174 parents in the clubs were contacted, resulting in a 44% return rate. All of the coaches from both clubs participated in the study. Half of the coaches (n = 10) indicated experience coaching other sports besides soccer. Those sports were basketball (n = 8), baseball (n = 6), football (n = 2), gymnastics/tumbling (n = 2), cross country (n = 1), swimming (n = 1), and volleyball (n = 1). When coaches were asked for the winloss record of their team s previous season, they responded in four different ways: (a) more wins than losses (n = 9), (b) more losses than wins (n = 3), (c) equal number of wins and losses (n = 4), and (d) first season coaching, so no previous win-loss record (n = 4). The remaining demographic statistics for parents and coaches associated with the study are included in Table 1. Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 9 of 125

7 Table 1 Demographic Profile of Parents and Coaches Variable Parents (n = 76) Coaches (n = 20) Age Under % (1) % (5) % (24) 20.0% (4) % (45) 30.0% (6) % (5) 15.0% (3) % (2) 5.0% (1) Gender Male 25.0% (19) 80.0% (16) Female 75.0% (57) 15.0% (3) Declined Response % (1) Previous Coaching Experience No 64.0% (46) Yes 36.0% (30) 100.0% (20) Recreational 97.0% (29) 85.0% (17) Competitive 27.0% (8) 100.0% (20) High School 7.0% (2) 55.0% (11) College 3.0% (1) 60.0% (12) Professional % (4) Previous Playing Experience No 82.0% (62) 20.0% (4) Yes 18.0% (14) 80.0% (16) Recreational 57.0% (8) 67.0% (10) Competitive 50.0% (7) 73.0% (11) High School 36.0% (5) 61.0% (9) College 14.0% (2) 46.7% (7) Professional % (5) Declined Response % (5) Coaching Education/Training/Licensing No 72.0% (55) 20.0% (4) Yes 28.0% (21) 80.0% (16) Local Youth Association 81.0% (17) 25.0% (4) National Soccer Coaches Association 28.6% (6) 68.8% (11) College/University Program 19.0% (4) 31.3% (5) State Soccer Association 14.3% (3) 31.3% (5) United States Soccer Federation 9.5% (2) 68.8% (11) State High School Association 4.8% (1) 18.8% (3) Perception of Team Ability Excellent 8.2% (6) 20.0% (4) Above Average 49.3% (36) 40.0% (8) Average 32.8% (24) 31.3% (5) Below Average 8.2% (6) 10.0% (2) Poor 1.3% (1) Declined Response 4.1% (3) 5.0% (1) Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 10 of 125

8 To establish the reliability of the questionnaire for parents and coaches, the Cronbach s alpha level was determined by measuring the internal consistency for each of the indices (Table 2). Strong internal consistency was established, with alpha levels over.70 for all four indices (Mitra & Lankford, 1999). The results of the reliability statistics are included in Table 2. Table 2 Reliability Statistics Subscale (Parents) Cronbach s alpha level Range of Responses Number of Questions M SD Motivation Efficacy Character-Building Efficacy Game Strategy Efficacy Technique Efficacy Subscale (Coaches) Motivation Efficacy Character Building Efficacy Game Strategy Efficacy Technique Efficacy Pearson s correlation coefficients were used to examine whether there was a relationship between the independent variables and the CES indices, including OCE. Examination of the results associated with parent responses showed several significant relationships. Negative correlations were found between parents previous playing experience and all four of the CES indices, as well as OCE. As the parents perception of coaches efficacy levels related to motivation, character building, game strategy, technique, and overall efficacy increased, their previous playing experience levels decreased. Positive correlations were also found between the parents perception of the team s ability and all four indices, including OCE. As the parents perceptions of the team s ability increased, so did the perception of the coaches efficacy levels. The results of the Pearson s correlations are in Table 3. Examination of the coaches responses showed no significant correlations between the independent and dependent variables. Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 11 of 125

9 Table 3 Correlations of Independent Variables (Parents) Age Previous Playing Experience Previous Coaching Experience Attendance at a Coaching Education Session Perception of Team s Ability ME ** ** CBE * * GSE ** ** TE ** ** OCE ** ** Note: * p <.05, ** p <.01 Independent t-tests were conducted to measure the influence that gender, previous coaching experience, previous playing experience, and attendance at a coaching educational session have on the four indices of CE as well as OCE. Of the four independent variables, parents previous playing experience appeared to significantly influence their perception of certain levels of the coaches efficacy. Significant relationships existed between ME, t(60) =.001, p <.05; CBE, t(60) =.012, p <.05; GSE, t(60) =.000, p <.05; TE, t(60) =.001, p <.05; and OCE, t(60) =.000, p<.05, suggesting that parents playing experience influences their perception of coaches efficacy levels. The significant results of the independent t-tests are included in Table 4. Table 4 Significant Independent t-test Results (Parents) Previous Playing Experience Yes No P df ME 2.47 (1.02) 3.61 (1.07).001* 60 CBE 3.25 (1.05) 4.01 (.94).012* 60 GSE 2.57 (.86) 3.70 (.91).000* 60 TE 2.78 (.88) 3.80 (.92).001* 60 OCE 2.71 (.86) 3.75 (.90).000* 60 Note: p <.05. Standard deviations appear in parentheses after means. Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 12 of 125

10 Independent t-tests associated with the coaches responses identified one significant relationship. The comparison of coaches with and without playing experience indicated a significant difference related to CBE, t(17) =.043, p <.05. This suggests that coaches previous playing experience influences their confidence to instill positive character traits in their players. A stepwise multiple linear regression analysis using the parents responses yielded four significant results. Collectively, the combination of the independent variables (gender, age, previous coaching experience, previous playing experience, and previous attendance at a coaching educational session) were found to significantly influence the parents perceptions of the coaches ME, GSE, TE, and OCE (Table 5). Table 5 Significant Multiple Linear Regression Results (Parents) Component of R 2 Df F p Coaching Efficacy ME GSE TE OCE Note: p <.05 A stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was also used to analyze the coaches responses. The impact of the independent variables on the four indices of coaching efficacy, as well as the OCE, did not yield significant results. Discussion The results of the study provide a number of important discussion points. Kavussanu et al. (2008) and Kenow and Williams (1992) found that coaches responses about their own CE was higher than the evaluations of others. The results of the current study align with their findings coaches responses about their own CE were higher than parents perceptions of the coaches CE. Feltz et al. (2009) found that youth coaches with a more extensive playing and coaching background had higher levels of CE; the current study supports this finding as well. Previous studies demonstrated that a combination of personality variables did not significantly influence collegiate, high school, and volunteer youth sport coaches efficacy (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998; Feltz et al., 1999; Fung, 2002; Kowalski et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2002; Lirgg, Dibrezzo, & Smith, 1994; Malete & Feltz, 2002; Marback, Short, Short, & Sullivan, 2005). This result was also true in the current study. There was a significant difference in CBE between coaches with and without playing experience. Coaches with playing experience may recognize that in order to be successful, there are nonskill components of the sport that can compound the success rate of the individual athlete Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 13 of 125

11 and the team. Sportsmanship (i.e., upholding the spirit of the game through competition), providing support and working effectively with others, and regulating one s emotions are just a few of the important traits associated with character development that may be considered as integral to individual and team success (Danish, Petitpas, & Hale, 1993). Coaches may have experienced playing situations when these traits were present or absent and can vividly recall the results. It may be difficult for coaches who have not played the sport to understand the challenge associated with fostering camaraderie, balancing egos, or managing playing time while trying to orchestrate success for the athletes and the team. After analysis of the parents responses, the results of the correlations showed significant inverse relationships between parents previous playing experience and their perceptions of coaches ME, CBE, GSE, TE, and OCE. As the perception of coaches efficacy levels increased, the parents previous playing experience decreased. This result may be related to the parents assumption of how the coach leads the team. Coaches who focus on sustained effort during competition, athlete self-improvement and enjoyment, problem-solving, and intrinsic motivation create a task-oriented or mastery climate (Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, 2002). Within this environment, athletes are more likely to demonstrate a strong work ethic, perseverance when confronted with challenges or disappointment, happiness regarding personal accomplishment, the commitment needed to foster intrinsic motivation and positive life skills, and sustained participation (Fry & Newton, 2003; Larson, 2000). Parents who have little or no previous playing experience in a sport may believe the positive growth seen in their child during participation in the same sport may be due to the coach s leadership skills rendering a perception that the coach is highly efficacious. The perception of the team s ability may also be connected to the parents assumption of coaching efficacy. If the perception of the team s ability is based on wins and losses, and the team is winning, then the parents may perceive the coach as effective, leading to the perception of the coach as highly efficacious. Asking the parents for the most recent win-loss record of their child s team and including that in a statistical analysis may expand the understanding associated with the parents responses of the team s ability and perception of the coaches efficacy levels. Another approach to analyzing previous playing experience as a source of coaching efficacy may be rooted in Martin s (2012) article assessing whether good players make good coaches. Martin highlighted that at a recent U-18 and U-20 United States Soccer Camp, several former United States National Team players who were hired to coach collegiate and professional teams led training sessions for the players. Feedback from observational staff indicated that the coaches leadership during those sessions was generally subpar technically and professionally. Bielock (2010) indicated that because players are highly skilled in an area does not mean they are able to communicate effectively how to carry out that skill if they become coaches. Skills may come easily for talented players; however, talented players may lack kinesthetic awareness, or they may be ineffective in teaching and communicating with players. A talented player may transition to coaching, yet be unable to articulate how to perform a skill, leading to frustrated, confused athletes who are unable to grasp what the coach is communicating. Having a wealth of playing experience, even at the highest professional levels, may not be as important to others perceptions of a coach s efficacy as the effectiveness of a coach s communication with athletes. Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 14 of 125

12 Journal of Coaching Education Researchers suggest that effective communication is a vital component of adult leadership in youth sports (Conroy, 2006; Hill, 2007; Martin, 2012; Martin et al., 2001; Martin et al., 1999; Petitpas, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Jones, 2005; Smith et al., 2007; Smoll & Smith, 2002). Harwood (2008) and Vargas-Tonsing et al. (2003) emphasized this point through their findings: effective technical instructors and communicators positively affect athletes perceptions of the coaches efficacy levels. Demonstration of a skill at a pace the players can follow, constructive feedback to players, and carefully planning a practice or training session are effective communication tools when working with youths. The pitch, tone, and speed of verbal directions, as well as nonverbal communication such as body language and proximity to players, are also ways to effectively guide youths (Jordan, 2007). Parents may see coaches effectively communicating with players using the methods listed above and feel the coach knows what to do with the team. Parents see coaches working with players, helping them learn about themselves as individuals how to set and achieve goals, work with others, and act maturely when dealing with success or failure. Parents who witness coaches at work may evaluate CE from the standpoint of is the coach effectively preparing my son/daughter for life during and after athletics? Previous soccer playing experience may be unimportant from the parent s perspective; rather, significant variables affecting their perceptions of CE may include (a) challenges the parent has endured already in life outside of athletics; (b) how those challenges were dealt with and whether a coach aided in overcoming those challenges; (c) the parent s experiences with coaches when he or she was young; (d) how those personal experiences shaped the parent; and (e) the psychological, personal, physical, and social benefits from participation in sports. The parents involved with the current study may see a coach effectively communicating and guiding athletes, resulting in individual development and team success. Although parents may have little playing experience, they may perceive the coach as highly efficacious due to the coach s leadership skills and positive results with individual athletes and the team. Understanding parents expectations associated with CE may help trainers, clinicians, and licensing organizations craft components of educational sessions that allow coaches to develop techniques that are deemed important by parents and coaches. For example, US Soccer Coaching Education has a curriculum in place that includes a lengthy discussion on age group organization, inclusive of the principles associated with age-appropriate development (Reyna & Perez, 2011). Training topics associated with US Soccer Coaching Education include adult leadership in youth sports, youth and human development, and effective verbal and nonverbal communication. A few of the key content points associated with coaching athletes that are covered in the training topics include (a) fostering intrinsic motivation, (b) developing effective decision-making processes, (c) engaging in effective communication with teammates, and (d) positively supporting others. These key content points align with the dimensions of coaching efficacy outlined by Feltz et al. (1999) and lead to benefits the parents see their children learning through youth sport participation (Holt, Kingsley, Tink & Scherer, 2011; Martin et al., 2001; Schwab, Wells, & Arthur-Banning, 2010; Strean & Holt, 2000). The training topics help coaches fill their toolbox with techniques for guiding youths in the athletic setting. Parents may witness healthy development in their child due to a coach using his or her toolbox effectively. The results of the stepwise multiple linear regression analysis associated with the coaches responses supported the hypothesis related to coaches perception of their own CE. The Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 15 of 125

13 Journal of Coaching Education researchers speculate that a different combination of independent variables or a larger coaching population sample may yield different results. The results of the same analysis did lead to a rejection of the hypothesis regarding parents perceptions. Parents perceptions of the coaches ME, GSE, TE, and OCE were significantly influenced by the combination of age, gender, previous coaching experience, previous playing experience, and previous attendance at an educational training session. These results are different from previous research associated with the collective measure of these variables and the impact on CE (Feltz et al., 1999). Even though the aforementioned independent variables did significantly influence parents perceptions of a coaches efficacy, demographic information shows that nearly 75% of the parents had no playing experience and no prior attendance at a coaching education/licensing/certification session; more than 50% had no coaching experience, and over half of the parents rated their child s team as excellent or above average. The result of the regression associated with parents responses may exist due to the relationship between the coach and parent (which was not measured in the current study). The prior discussion of other-efficacy beliefs may help explain the parents responses in this study (Lent & Lopez, 2002). In the current study, parents were asked to give their perception, or feeling, related to the coaches efficacy levels on the CES. If a parent does not have an extensive coaching or playing background, has not attended an education/licensing/certification session on the sport, and solely judges the team s ability by wins and losses, the only way he or she may be able to provide thoughts on the coaches efficacy is through the relationship constructed with the coach. Parental sources of information that may influence their other-efficacy beliefs in this setting include (a) efficacy beliefs about coaches in other sports; (b) information, via verbal persuasion, conveyed by third parties about the coaches capabilities; and (c) perceptions of coaches accomplishments in past situations (Lent & Lopez, 2002). Parents may seek a certain coach for their child due to other parents feedback or because they learned that the coach won a lot of games. The coach-parent relationship may include conversations about the child s disposition at practice, which of the child s friends are on the team, or how the child handles conflict (Lent & Lopez, 2002). These are all items that are not specifically related to soccer, but may influence parents in their response about the coach. Parents who perceive that a coach is providing personally desired responses for their child, such as constructive feedback or a fun, challenging environment may display satisfaction, potentially affecting their interpretation of the coaches efficacy (Lopez & Lent, 1991). The explanation for the parents responses may stem from the beliefs held about the coach regardless of the parents background. If the parents view is that the coach is meeting the needs of their children both on and off the field, the impression may be that the coach is highly efficacious. As Lent and Lopez (2002) pointed out, other-efficacy beliefs have important implications for persons in growth-promoting, educational, or helping relationships (p. 267). The coach-parent dyad can fulfill all three types of relationships. This may shed light on why the combination of the independent variables led to significant results associated with the parents perceptions of the coaches ME, GSE, TE, and OCE. Simply put, the independent variables in the present study may not be as important as other unexplored variables. One direction for future research would be to incorporate the CES-II and evaluate parents perceptions of coaches, as well as coaches own perceptions, of CE at the high school level. The CES-II may garner a different response set from parents and coaches involved due to Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 16 of 125

14 the revised indices included in CE. A second direction for future research may be to examine parents perception of the benefits their child gains from participation in youth sports and how much of that gain is attributed to the coach. As mentioned earlier, there are a number of benefits that exist from participation in youth sports. Coaches may create an environment that leads to the benefits many parents feel their children gain through sport participation (Holt et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2001; Schwab et al., 2010; Strean & Holt, 2000). Delving into whether parents perceptions of a coach s efficacy level is related to the benefits they believe their child gains through involvement in youth sports may provide further insight on this topic. Lastly, further exploration into other-efficacy beliefs between parents and coaches may reveal the reasoning behind parent perceptions of coaches efficacy levels. Questions associated with future studies examining parents perceptions of coaches efficacy may need to measure the following items: (a) the length of time a parent has known a coach; (b) how many years or seasons the child has played for the same coach; (c) parent interaction with the coach outside of the athletic setting; (d) parent prior knowledge of the coach; and (e) the type of relationship the parent has developed with the coach (Jordan, 2007). These questions may get to the heart of why parents respond in the manner they do about a coaches efficacy. Conclusion As research moves forward on this topic, traditional variables such as playing or coaching experience may provide direct connections to coaches feelings regarding their own efficacy, but not parents perceptions of coaches efficacy levels. Examining other variables (such as perceived benefits of participation) may shed light on parental feelings associated with coaching efficacy and broaden the body of knowledge on coaching efficacy. The current study also found an inverse relationship between parents playing experience and their perception of coaches efficacy levels. This inverse correlation may correspond with (a) the parent s past experiences while being coached; (b) the parent s perception regarding team ability in association with wins and losses; and/or (c) the benefits that parents perceive their child receives through sport participation. Future studies should explore parental expectations associated with CE and participation in team sports. The parent population in the current study had relatively little playing experience, coaching experience, or previous formal coaching education, yet still rated the skill level of their child s team comparatively high. The assumption could be made that parents perception of a coach s efficacy levels may (a) have corresponded with the team s win-loss record; (b) have developed through the relationship built between the coach and the parent; (c) been affected by external sources of other-efficacy beliefs; and (d) have developed through other unexplored independent variables not included in the current study. Further inquiry into variables affecting the perceptions and other-efficacy beliefs that parents and coaches form of one another in complex sports settings may help to explain how perceptions are formed within sports relationships. Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 17 of 125

15 References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), Bandura, A. (1990). Some reflections on reflections. Psychological Inquiry, 1, Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. New York: Freeman. Bielock, S. (2010). Choke: What the secrets of the brain reveal about getting it right when you have to. New York: Simon & Schuster. Boardley, I., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2008). Athletes perceptions of coaching effectiveness and athlete-related outcomes in rugby union: An investigation based on the coaching efficacy model. The Sport Psychologist, 22(3), Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, Choi, D. W., Cho, M. H., & Kim, Y. K. (2005). Youth sport coaches qualities for successful coaching. World Leisure, 47(2), Conroy, D. E. (2006, February). Enhancing motivation in sport. Retrieved April 12, 2012 from Danish, S., Petitpas, A., & Hale, B. (1993). Life development interventions with athletes: Life skills development through sports. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, Everhart, C. B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self-efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(2), Feltz, D., Chase, M., Moritz, S., & Sullivan, P. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, Feltz, D. L., Hepler, T. J., Roman, N., & Paiement, C. (2009). Coaching efficacy and volunteer youth sport coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 23, Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 18 of 125

16 Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams and coaches. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp ). New York: John Wiley. Fry, M. D. & Newton, M. (2003). Application of achievement goal theory in an urban youth tennis setting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, Fung, L. (2002). Task familiarity and task efficacy: A study of sports coaches. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, Harwood, C. (2008). Developmental consulting in a professional football academy: The 5Cs coaching efficacy program. The Sport Psychologist, 22(1), Hill, M. (2007). Achievement and athletics: Issues & concerns for State Boards of Education. The State Education Standard, 8(1), Holt, N. L., Kingsley, B. C., Tink, L. N., & Scherer, J. (2011). Benefits and challenges associated with sport participation by children and parents from low-income families. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, Jordan, D. (2007). Leadership in leisure services: Making a difference (3rd ed.). State College, PA: Venture. Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I. D., Jutkiewicz, N., Vincent, S., & Ring, C. (2008). Coaching efficacy and coaching effectiveness: Examining their predictors and comparing coaches and athletes reports. The Sport Psychologist, 22, Kenow, L. J., & Williams, J. M. (1992). Relationship between anxiety, self-confidence, and evaluation of coaching behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 6, Kent, A., & Sullivan, P. J. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of university coaches commitment. International Sports Journal, 7, Kowalski, C. L., Edginton, C. R., Lankford, S. V., Waldron, J. J., Roberts-Dobie, S. R., & Nielsen, L. (2007). Coaching efficacy and volunteer youth soccer coaches. Asian Journal of Exercise & Sport Science, 4(1), Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, Lee, K. S., Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2002). The strength of coaching efficacy between certified and non-certified Singapore coaches. International Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 14, Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 19 of 125

17 Lent, R.W., & Lopez, F. G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in growth-promoting relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21(3), Lirgg, C. D., Dibrezzo, R., & Smith, A. N. (1994). Influence of gender of coach on perceptions of basketball and coaching self-efficacy and aspirations of high school female basketball players. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 3(1), Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Efficacy-based predictors of relationship adjustment and persistence among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2002). The effect of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14, Marback, T. L., Short, S. E., Short, M. W., & Sullivan, P. J. (2005). Coaching confidence: An exploratory investigation of sources and gender differences. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28(1), Martin, J. (2012). Do good players make good coaches? Soccer Journal, 57(2), 4 5. Martin, S. B., Dale, G. A., & Jackson, A. W. (2001). Youth coaching preferences of adolescent athletes and their parents. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(2), Martin, S. B., Jackson, A. W., Richardson, P. A., & Weiller, K. (1999). Coaching preferences of adolescent children and their parents. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, McCullagh, P., Matzkanin, K. T., Shaw, S. D., & Maldonado, M. (1993). Motivation for participation in physical activity: A comparison of parent-child perceived competencies and participation motives. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, Mitra, A., & Lankford, S. (1999). Research methods in park, recreation, and leisure services. Champaign, IL: Sagamore. Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Reckase, M. D., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). The coaching efficacy scale II-high school teams. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(6), Myers, N. D., Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6(1), National Federation of State High School Associations. (2010). Rate of participation in high school sports. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 20 of 125

18 Petipas, A. J., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for planning youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sports Psychologist, 19, Physical Activity Council. (2012) participation report: The Physical Activity Council s annual study tracking sports, fitness and recreation participation in the USA. Retrieved December 29, 2012, from Reyna, C., & Perez, J. (2011). Age group organization. In US Soccer Curriculum (pp ). Chicago: US Soccer Federation. Schwab, K. A., Wells, M. S., & Arthur-Banning, S. (2010). Experiences in youth sports: A comparison between players and parents perspectives. Journal of Sport Administration and Supervision, 2(1), Short, S. E., & Short, M. W. (2004). Coaches assessment of their coaching efficacy compared to athletes perceptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Cummings, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on young athletes sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29(1), Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2002). Coaching behavior research and intervention in youth sport. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychological perspective (2nd ed.; pp ). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Strean, W. B., & Holt, N. L. (2000). Coaches, athletes, and parents perceptions of fun in youth sports: Assumptions about learning and implications for practice. Avante, 6(3), Sullivan, P. J., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, Vargas-Tonsing, T. M. (2009). An exploratory examination of the effects of coaches pre-game speeches on athletes perceptions of self-efficacy and emotion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32(1), Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Myers, N., & Feltz, D. (2004). Coaches efficacy-enhancing techniques. The Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(4), and athletes perceptions of Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Warners, A. L., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The predictability of coaching efficacy on team efficacy and player efficacy in volleyball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 21 of 125

19 Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Garner-Holman, M., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sportconfidence: Conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, Weiss, M. R., & Ferrer-Caja, E. (2002). Motivational orientations and sport behavior. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed.; pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Authors Note Christopher L. Kowalski and Wade P. Kooiman are with the Division of Leisure, Youth & Human Services at the University of Northern Iowa. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris Kowalski, Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2013 Page 22 of 125