PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE The Sport Psychologist, 2009, 23, 93-117 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc. Revisiting the Performance Profile Technique: Theoretical Underpinnings and Application Daniel F. Gucciardi and Sandy Gordon University of Western Australia The performance profile technique (Butler, 1989, 1991), which stems from a personal construct psychology (PCP; Kelly, 1955/1991) framework, has become a useful methodology for identifying and understanding an athlete s perceived need for areas of improvement. Despite the popularity of this technique, current descriptions and practices fail to appreciate key tenets of PCP which offer a greater insight into one s perspective. Accordingly, the purposes of this paper are to revisit the performance profile technique and describe an extension of its current form by drawing on these key PCP tenets as well as providing an example of the revised methodology in practice. Following a brief overview of PCP, we outline two key tenets of this theoretical framework that have guided the revised version of the performance profile technique presented here. We conclude with a case example of the new methodology in practice using an Australian footballer s perception of mental toughness. It has been nearly 20 years since the performance profile technique was originally conceived and introduced to the sport and exercise psychology community (Butler, 1989, 1991). Stemming from a personal construct psychology (PCP; Kelly, 1955/1991) framework, which emphasizes the importance of understanding the ways in which individuals perceive the world, the performance profile encourages researchers and practitioners to regard an individual s perception or meaning of his or her performance as an essential source of information for identifying and understanding areas requiring improvement and maintenance. Specifically, it enables one to elicit an individual s personal constructs (e.g., qualities, skills) on those aspects of performance which s/he considers essential for athletic success. Unlike traditional psychometric assessments that impose these desirable constructs on the athlete (e.g., questionnaires), the performance profile technique charges an athlete with a more active role in the decision-making process. Since its conception, the performance profile technique has been successfully implemented in a number of empirical (e.g., Doyle & Parfitt, 1999; D Urso, Petrosso, & Robazza, 2002; Mellalieu & Juniper, 2006; Robazza, Bortoli, & Hanin, 2004) and applied investigations (e.g., Doyle, Gleeson, & Rees, 1998; Jones, Gucciardi and Gordon are with the School of Sport Science, Exercise, and Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, 6009, Australia. 93
94 Gucciardi and Gordon 1993) with several positive implications being identified for the athlete, coach, and practitioner. For example, it is effective in raising an individual s self-awareness about his or her current state and enhancing adherence to intervention programs (Butler, Smith, & Irwin, 1993; Jones, 1993). It also allows the coach and other personnel to better understand the individual s self-perception of what aspects constitute performance excellence and his or her own rating of how they currently perceive themselves to be on those aspects (Jones, 1993). Reciprocally, the coach s rating of the individual on a profile enables the performer to learn more about how the coach construes them (Butler et al., 1993). Qualitative and quantitative research has also indicated that group profiling is useful in increasing athlete self awareness; evaluating performance; as a basis for goal setting; enhancing communication and interaction both within teams and between athlete and coach; and as a means for increasing intrinsic motivation (Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Weston, 2005). Moderate support for this method s reliability and validity has also been demonstrated (Doyle & Parfitt, 1996, 1997; Gleeson, Parfitt, Doyle, & Rees, 2005). Despite the popularity of the performance profile technique, the available descriptions and applications of the technique (e.g., Butler & Hardy, 1992; Butler et al., 1993; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996) fail to appreciate several key tenets of PCP which offer a greater understanding of one s perspective and can help maximize the information generated from the performance profiling process. Both the dichotomy and range corollaries, for example, which are extremely pertinent to an understanding of the content and structure of an individual s personal construct system, are largely ignored in the original version of the technique. A performance profile that takes these corollaries into consideration has yet to be explored. Even personal construct psychologists have failed to highlight this in their discussions of the implementation and elaboration of PCP in sport (e.g., Gordon, Gucciardi, & Chambers, 2007; Savage, 2003). Consequently, the purposes of this paper are to revisit the performance profile technique and describe an extension of its current form by drawing more fully on PCP as well as providing an example of the revised technique in practice. Although reviews of PCP and its usefulness for sport and exercise psychology research and practice are available elsewhere (see Gordon et al., 2007; Gucciardi & Gordon, in press), we begin with a brief overview of PCP to provide a context for our discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of both the original and revised performance profile technique. Personal Construct Psychology Kelly s (1955/1991) fundamental postulate states that, a person s processes are psychologically channelized by the way in which he [sic] anticipates events (p. 46). Construing is the term Kelly coined to represent this interpretive and anticipatory process whereby individuals seek to reveal meaning from the succession of events they experience. The fundamental postulate is elaborated by 11 corollaries presented in Table 1 that stipulate and describe the process of construing (i.e., construction, choice, modulation, and experience), the social context of construing (i.e., individuality, commonality, and sociality), and the content and structure of personal construct systems (i.e., dichotomy, organization, fragmentation, and
Table 1 An Overview of PCP s Fundamental Postulate and 11 Corollaries Including a Sporting Example PCP Tenet Kelly s (1955/1991) Words Fundamental Postulate Construction Corollary Choice Corollary Process of Construing A person s processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which he [sic] anticipates events (p. 46/32). A person anticipates events by construing their replications (p. 50/35). A person chooses for himself [sic] that alternative in a dichotomized construct through which he [sic] anticipates the greatest possibility for elaboration of his [sic] system (p. 64/45). Our Description of the PCP Tenet Sporting Examples A person s processes, which include experiences, cognitions, affect, and behaviors, are determined by his or her efforts to make sense out of and anticipate his or her world of events, people, and themselves. We identify recurring or consistent themes and their contrasts, which enable us to anticipate their replications and recognize them when they do occur. When we make use of a personal construct to anticipate a future event we choose the pole that we believe will provide us with greater meaning and possibilities for anticipating future events. As the source of all phenomena, anticipatory processes guided by those personal constructs located within Brendan s construct system dictate how he approaches, appraises, and responds to the succession of events he experiences; the event itself does not guide or dictate his behavior. After overcoming two hamstring injuries during the season, Alice generates the construct solution-focused (recurring theme) vs. problem-focusing coping (contrast) to anticipate future injuries. Erika chooses the similarity pole (self-belief) over the contrast pole (self-doubt) when dealing with performance pressure during a match because it provides her with greater opportunities to thrive through such pressure. (continued) 95
Table 1 (continued) PCP Tenet Kelly s (1955/1991) Words Modulation Corollary Experience Corollary The variation in a person s construction system is limited by the permeability of the constructs within whose ranges of convenience the variants lie (p. 77/54). A person s construction system varies as he [sic[ successively construes the replication of events (p. 72/50). Individuality Corollary Persons differ from each other in their construction of events (p. 55/38). Our Description of the PCP Tenet Sporting Examples Some personal constructs are permeable in that they can accommodate new ideas and events, whereas those that are impermeable are impenetrable and are not open to change. Although James finds both self-belief vs. self-doubt and emotional control vs. emotional instability useful in anticipating events related to competition pressure, when confronted with a season-ending injury the latter construct is not accommodating of this novel event. The external and internal events of our lives play a central role in the application, development, and modification of personal constructs within the cycle of experience whereby personal construct systems undergo a progressive evolution as people continually attempt to make sense of their world. Each person is different not because they experience different events but because of the idiosyncratic and unique manner in which they make sense of their experiences. Over the course of a competitive season, Karen experiences a variety of on- and off-field events which results in the development of new constructs and modification of existing ones. Although Jon and Matt experience the same event (e.g., losing a doubles tennis match), they generate different constructs to make sense of this event (persistence vs. giving up and game awareness vs. poor decision-making). (continued) 96
Table 1 (continued) PCP Tenet Kelly s (1955/1991) Words Commonality Corollary Sociality Corollary Organization Corollary Social Context of Construing Structure & Content of Construct Systems The extent that one person employs a construction of experience which is similar to that employed by another, his [sic] processes are psychologically similar to those of the other person (p. 90/63). To the extent that one person construes the construction process of another he [sic] may play a role in a social process involving the other person (p. 95/66). Each person characteristically evolves, for his [sic] convenience in anticipating events, a construction system embracing ordinal relationships between constructs (p. 56/39). Our Description of the PCP Tenet Sporting Examples Despite personal construct systems being idiosyncratic and unique, both in the nature and content of the personal construct as well as the way in which personal constructs systems are organized, individuals may share similarities in the ways in which they make sense of events. Despite experiencing two different injuries (e.g., broken bone and dislocated shoulder), Paul and Phil both develop the construct solution-focused vs. problemfocused coping to anticipate future injuries. We go beyon;d simple observation of another s behavior and interpret what that behavior means to them by construing another person s construction of events. Having watched her mentor Emma overcome the pressures associated with a month of outstanding performances, Natalie construes her construction of events as encompassing the construct strive for excellence vs. accepting mediocrity. We develop a hierarchical system of interrelated constructs where some constructs are more important (i.e., superordinate) than others (i.e., subordinate) in an attempt to make our worlds more manageable. The construct self-belief vs. self-doubt is more personally important to Sarah for performance excellence than both physical toughness vs. pain intolerance and emotional control vs. emotional instability. (continued) 97
Table 1 (continued) PCP Tenet Kelly s (1955/1991) Words Dichotomy Corollary A person s construct system is composed of a finite number of dichotomous constructs (p. 59/41). Range Corollary A construct is convenient for the anticipation of a finite range of events only (p. 68/48). Fragmentation Corollary A person may successively employ a variety of constructions subsystems which are inferentially incompatible with each other (p. 83/58). Our Description of the PCP Tenet Sporting Examples The result of our attempts to make sense of the world results is the development of bipolar constructs where there is an emergent pole about the similarities and a contrast pole that represents distinction or inconsistency. Each personal construct within our hierarchical system has a specific range of convenience in that it applies only to a specific set of events. Constructs within our construct system may appear incompatible or inconsistent with each other, as so far as their superordinate constructs are permeable enough to tolerate these inconsistencies. Ray notices that his teammates Shane and Aaron are both similar in that they maintain perspective during performance slumps, whereas another teammate David is a forward thinker. Kane s construct self-belief vs. self-doubt is useful for anticipating a greater range and number of events than physical toughness vs. pain intolerance, which is largely restricted to anticipating events occurring during competition and training. In a succession of challenges experienced during a match, Kym can move from an act of persistence (vs. giving up) to an act of concentration (vs. distracted), and from there on to an act of resilience (vs. problem-focused), even though resilience is not something that would normally be inferred from persistence. 98
Performance Profile Technique 99 range). Taken together, the fundamental postulate and its 11 corollaries propose that we actively seek to make sense of our world through our experiences (both internal and external) by developing, maintaining, and modifying hierarchically organized, internal representations to make predictions that we test for their predictive efficiency. The Original Performance Profile The original performance profile technique is essentially an extension of the repertory grid technique (see Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004) in which an athlete (a) generates personal constructs pertaining to self-perceived qualities of an elite performer in his or her sport and (b) provides a self-assessment of his or her current self, which is displayed on a visual profile such as that presented in Figure 1. The profile generally focuses on the psychological, physical, technical, and tactical qualities of an elite performer. Although not specifically explicated by Butler (1989, 1991), those corollaries pertaining to the social context of construing as well as the organization corollary are central to the application of the original technique. Attempting to understand an individual s unique perspective (individuality corollary), identifying commonalities among groups of individuals (commonality corollary; e.g., Dale & Wrisberg, 1996), comparing self-ratings with Figure 1 Psychological performance profile including self and coach assessments.
100 Gucciardi and Gordon other-ratings (sociality corollary; e.g., Butler et al., 1993), and generating importance scores (organization corollary; e.g., Jones, 1993) are all examples of this. Unfortunately however, several key tenets which provide greater information on the structure and content of construct systems (e.g., dichotomy, fragmentation, and range corollaries) and the process of construing (construction, choice, modulation, and experience corollaries) are not used in the original version. The Revised Performance Profile In addition to the four key corollaries of PCP inherent within the original performance profile technique, the revised version presented here builds upon the original version by integrating additional processes that are drawn from both the dichotomy and range corollaries which are not used in the original technique. Such information becomes extremely important for researchers and practitioners when planning, implementing, and evaluating interventions designed to improve athlete performance and well-being. First, the generation of bipolar personal constructs where there is an emergent pole describing the similarities and a contrast pole that implies some distinction (inconsistency) provides us with a clearer picture of an individual s psychological processes. Given that meanings are personal, one person may have, as his or her opposite understanding of the emergent pole solution-focused coping, the contrast pole problem-focused coping while another individual may have emotion-focused coping as his or her contrast. Accordingly, the construct solutionfocused coping vs. problem-focused coping can represent a completely different set of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors when compared with the construct solution-focused coping vs. emotion-focused coping. Table 1 provides a sporting example of the dichotomy corollary. Second, the range corollary highlights one of the limits of our construct systems in which our personal constructs are limited to a particular range of convenience describing their applicability as well as a focus of convenience where the construct fits or works best. Some ranges and foci are broad and more encompassing, while other ranges and foci are narrow and less encompassing (Kelly, 1955/1991). It follows then that personal constructs, or by extension, any system or subsystem of interrelated constructs, are not useful for anticipating all kinds of events or situations. The personal constructs within such ranges and foci are important because they impose boundaries on their scope and limit the possible anticipations (hypotheses). Identifying those situations or events for which elicited personal constructs are considered useful will assist endeavors to better understand the nature and structure of such constructs. When a construct has a higher range of convenience (a greater perceived utility), for example, more inferences can be made allowing it to be applied to a greater variety of events. The implication is that a construct with a higher range of convenience should be considered more superordinate (i.e., toward the top of the construct system hierarchy and include other constructs within their context) than a construct which has a lower range of convenience. Table 1 provides a sporting example of the range corollary. The revised performance profile draws heavily on the cycle of experience and seeks to understand how the content and structure of an individual s construct
Performance Profile Technique 101 system influences an individual s process of construing. Although not directly implicated in the revised performance profile technique, those key corollaries providing information on the process of construing become appropriate after the revised profile has been completed. Methodologies derived from these key corollaries, in particular, are extremely useful when designing interventions or during 1 1 consultations with clients. As will be described in our discussion of the implications of the revised performance profile for practice, the information gleaned from this process provides a foundation upon which to approach such endeavors. Application of the Revised Performance Profile The implementation of the revised performance profile technique follows a similar path as the original version (cf. Butler & Hardy, 1992) with the exception of three independent but related steps involved in the construct elicitation phase. These three additional steps have a conceptual basis from the dichotomy, organization, and range corollaries in which we attempt to gain a better understanding of the content and structure of the athlete s personal constructs. Unlike the original performance profile technique, the revised version offers a greater scope of information being generated and includes a more thorough evaluation of the content and structure of construct systems which guide efforts to positively impact the process of one s meaning-making endeavors. Stage 1 Introducing the Technique As with the original version (Butler, 1989, 1991) and most psychological interventions or techniques we begin by introducing the performance profile technique to the athlete. Central to this first stage is ensuring that the athlete is made aware of each stage involved and its overall purpose in directing attention to areas of strengths (cf. Gordon, 2008) and those requiring improvement. Perhaps most importantly, it should be highlighted that there are no right or wrong answers. Examples of completed performance profiles become appropriate at this stage to provide a visual display of the processes involved (Butler & Hardy, 1992) and the types of data that can be generated. Some of the positive implications of the technique (e.g., self-awareness, motivation, goal setting, and monitoring progress) can also be highlighted to enhance the individual s enthusiasm for investing time in the process. Stage 2 Construct Elicitation It is at this stage in the performance profile technique where the athlete becomes actively involved. Of fundamental importance to this stage in the performance profile process is eliciting an individual s personal constructs constituting the fundamental qualities of an elite performer in his or her sport. However, in the revised version of the technique presented here this process receives considerably greater attention than the original version through the addition of three important steps. The first two of these three steps can be aided by a worksheet containing a table like that illustrated in Table 2. Subsequently, the data generated in this worksheet can be employed to facilitate step three described later.
Table 2 Worksheet Template for Steps One and Two of the Revised Performance Profile Technique: John s Perceptions of Mental Toughness in Australian Football Rank Order of Importance 1 (Most Important) Emergent Pole 2 Strive for excellence 3 Strong work ethic 4 Attentional control What does this quality or characteristic mean to you? Self-belief Believing in my physical and mental ability in reaching my goals. 5 Enjoy pressure and adversity 6 Emotional control Asking myself every day if I am guilty of being the best I can be. Being determined and committed to working hard to achieve my goals. Maintaining focus and concentration when performing and not losing sight of your goals. Accepting pressure and adversity as challenges to test my ability and enjoying these situations. Controlling my emotions when under pressure or during critical toughness moments. Contrast Pole Someone who is not [emergent pole] would be? What does this quality or characteristic mean to you? Self-doubt/uncertainty Lacking confidence and belief in my abilities to reach my goals. Accepting mediocrity Being content with my current mental and physical abilities. Giving less than 100% Lacking motivation and drive to do over and above what is required of me. Easily distracted and unclear vision Nervousness and apprehension Allowing distractions to affect my performances and disrupting my vision of success. Mental tension and unease about competitive performances and dealing with other pressures and adversities. Emotional instability Not being able to control my emotions when performing. General Importance 10 10 10 8 9 9 (continued) 102
Table 2 (continued) Rank Order of Importance Emergent Pole 7 Resilient attitude 8 Handling success and failure 9 Physical toughness 10 (Least Important) What does this quality or characteristic mean to you? Belief in my ability to overcome obstacles and pressures; bending not breaking. Recognizing success and failure and using these performances as a foundation for further improvements. Pushing through fatigue and niggly injuries as well as enjoying physically demanding contests. Footy smarts Understanding what you and your teammates need to do to perform to your best. Contrast Pole Someone who is not [emergent pole] would be? Negative and problemfocused Absorbed in previous performances Fearing physical fatigue and risky contests What does this quality or characteristic mean to you? Succumbing to negative thoughts and being overcome by problems. Failing to move on from past performances. Negatively affected by fatigue, minor injuries, and being scared of risky contests. Lack sport knowledge Lacking imitative to make your own decisions and relying solely on the coach s direction. General Importance 9 9 8 8 Note. Rank order of importance includes 1 = most important and 10 = least important; General importance ratings include 1 = not important at all and 10 = of crucial importance. 103
104 Gucciardi and Gordon Step 1. Eliciting a group of bipolar personal constructs is the first step in the revised performance profile technique (cf. dichotomy corollary). As with the original version, the focus of the revised version of the performance profile technique is on generating those personal constructs or qualities of an elite performer for the athlete s sport. Traditionally, this involves asking the athlete to consider, What in your opinion are the qualities or characteristics of an elite athlete in your sport? (Butler & Hardy, 1992, p. 256). It has been suggested that prompts from the practitioner can assist the process of bringing personal constructs into consciousness (Butler & Hardy, 1992). Accordingly, drawing on the theoretical underpinnings of PCP the use of elements (i.e., people, contexts, events, objects, etc) in eliciting such constructs becomes an extremely powerful resource for the practitioner. Using three elite performers from the athlete s sport, for example, the practitioner may ask the client to identify some important way in which two of the performers are alike and thereby different from the third? Indeed, this is consistent with PCP s key methodology of a personal construct inquiry, the repertory grid technique (cf. Fransella et al., 2004). This word or phrase represents the emergent pole of that construct. The labels generated by the athlete to describe the emergent pole should be retained to avoid imposing the practitioner or researcher s construction of events (Bannister & Fransella, 1986). This process is repeated until the athlete is unable to generate new emergent poles or his or her response is a simple rewording of those emergent poles previously described. This pool of emergent poles provides a foundation upon which the practitioner can generate bipolar constructs in which the contrast pole is elicited for each. Before doing this, however, it is important that the practitioner obtains an understanding of what each of the emergent poles means to the athlete (Jones, 1993). This becomes another important task in the revised performance profile process, especially when attempting to access an individual s interpretation of the personal constructs within his or her system (Kelly, 1955/1991). Construct descriptions become extremely useful also when having an athlete perform self-assessments over a season, as they provide a reminder of what the athlete was referring to when they originally completed the profile. Moreover, evolutions in the meaning of each construct provide a wealth of information for the athlete, coach, and practitioner. When the practitioner chooses to have other key individuals in the client s socialization network (e.g., coach, teammate, parent) rate the individual on the elicited constructs during the construct assessment stage, construct descriptions can also help alleviate some of the concerns associated with differing interpretations of words and phrases between individuals. Having assisted the athlete in generating a pool of emergent poles and a description of the meaning of each, the final task to perform in this first step of the construct elicitation stage is to have the athlete generate the contrast pole for each of the emergent poles previously generated. Bipolar personal constructs are at the core of PCP as they describe both the similarities and distinctions encompassed by each construct and enable others to access an understanding of how an individual uses that construct to interpret his or her experiences (Kelly, 1955/1991). Our preference is to ask the athlete the following question: Someone who is not [emergent pole] would be...? Other variations include asking, How does someone differ from someone who is [emergent pole]? or [emergent pole] would contrast with someone who is? Just like the emergent pole, it is also
Performance Profile Technique 105 important to obtain a short description of each contrast pole. What results from this first step is a pool of bipolar personal constructs that provide an insight into the individual s perspective on those qualities or characteristics which are most representative of an elite performer in his or her sport. Step 2. Kelly (1955/1991) emphasized that individuals differ not only in the way in which they anticipate events but also in the way in which the personal constructs used to inform such meaning are organized within an individual s construct system (cf. organization corollary). The purpose of this hierarchical organization is to provide the individual with clear avenues of anticipation and inference. One way in which we can attempt to access information about the organizational properties of a pool of personal constructs is by having an athlete organize these constructs in order of importance. Our approach to this is asking the athlete, Which distinction [bipolar construct] do you consider to be the most important for an elite performer in your sport? A rank of 1 is assigned next to this construct. The athlete is next asked, Which of the remaining distinctions do you consider to be the most important for an elite performer. A rank of 2 is assigned next to this construct. This entire procedure is repeated until the athlete has rankordered the entire pool of bipolar constructs generated in the previous step. The outcome of this is illustrated under the rank order of importance column of Table 2. One variation of this procedure involves asking the athlete, How important is each of these constructs to the [elite performer in your sport] on a scale from 1 (not important at all) to 10 (of crucial importance) (Jones, 1993, p. 164). In this way, those constructs of equal perceived importance can be associated and differentiated from those constructs with lesser importance. The outcome of this is illustrated under the general importance column of Table 2. Step 3. Another means by which we can explore the structure of an individual s personal construct system is in terms of each construct s range of convenience (cf. range corollary; Chiari, Mancini, Nicolò, & Nuzzo, 1990). The range of convenience of any particular bipolar construct can differ from one individual to another with some constructs being used to construe characteristics of a narrow range of elements and others for a more inclusive range. It is through our internal and external experiences with these elements (e.g., people, situations, events) that we develop and modify constructions of the world, which are not evaluated in terms of their truth or correctness but rather the usefulness of each construct for that individual. Essentially, the usefulness and validity of an interpretation is evaluated in terms of its utility for one s behavior; that is, how well that construction of events allows that individual to best anticipate what will happen in the immediate and long-term future (Kelly, 1955/1991). This tenet of PCP can be integrated with the revised performance profile technique in a number of ways but generally involves having the athlete link each bipolar construct with those elements for which s/he would find its application useful. Given that elite sport imposes a unique mix of challenges, pressures, and adversities on performers our approach involves having an athlete compose a list of events or situations that s/he finds most pertinent to being an elite performer in his or her sport. The athlete is then asked to consider when each bipolar construct can be applied in relation to those challenges, adversities, and pressures s/he listed. Such an approach parallels the repertory grid technique in which constructs
106 Gucciardi and Gordon are compared with particular elements (cf. Fransella et al., 2004). With regard to the organizational properties of one s construct system, a necessary condition for the anticipation of an event is the degree of overlap (intersection) between the respective ranges of convenience between related constructs (Adams-Webber, 1970). Practitioners can draw on these findings, together with the data generated through the previous step, to identify which constructs have a greater perceived usefulness and, therefore, when the application of certain constructs is maximally useful. Figure 2 provides an illustration of how the information generated from this step can be presented. Stage 3 Construct Assessment The final stage in the revised performance profile technique involves obtaining assessments on each of the bipolar constructs generated in the previous two stages. Each bipolar construct can be likened to the adjectival opposites employed in the semantic differential methodology to describe the connotative meaning of words (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). As such, Likert ratings using the bipolar construct as the adjectival opposite, which conceptualize each personal construct as a continuum ranging from the emergent pole to the contrast pole, can be obtained to gain an insight into an athlete s perception of his or her current position on this continuum. It has been suggested that the number of rating positions should be between five and nine with seven positions being the optimal number (Isaac & Michael, 1995). Essentially, the athlete is asked to mark the place on the scale which best represents his or her current self for each of the bipolar constructs included in the performance profile. Figure 2 Conceptual overview of John s elicited personal constructs and situations demanding mental toughness within their range of convenience designated by constructsituation connectors (Note: This list includes a thematic grouping of situations listed by John; number of situations within each construct s range of convenience is provided in parentheses).
Performance Profile Technique 107 The athlete s self-assessment can then be compared with assessments from individuals within his or her socialization network such as a coach, teammate, or parent (cf. Butler et al., 1993). Although not originally explicated by Butler and his colleagues (Butler, 1989, 1991; Butler & Hardy, 1992; Butler et al., 1993), a comparison of the athlete s self-evaluations against another individual s assessment is consistent with Kelly s (1955/1991) sociality corollary. This corollary is concerned with interpersonal understanding and interaction by which people go beyond simple observation of another s behavior and interpret what that behavior means to them; that is, construing another person s construction of events. As implied by the sociality corollary, therefore, understanding others views better equips an individual to extend their own personal construct system (Kelly, 1955/1991). Variations in the assessment procedures which can facilitate the process of revealing self-perceptions of gaps for areas of improvement and maintenance to both the athlete and coach which may need to be closed for better performance include obtaining assessments on: current self vs. best ever performance; current self vs. ideal self; self vs. other (coach, parent, teammate); and precompetition vs. training. The type of variation(s) that is employed will depend on the practitioner s consultation style and the kinds of information that the practitioner wishes to generate. For example, self vs. other (coach, parent, teammate) ratings can be employed to identify differences in opinions which are particularly useful for helping an individual realize that his or her own perception of events is not the only one available to them. Alternatively, they can also be a very powerful form of construct validation when ratings are similar across sources because the person receiving the feedback can be surer of the accuracy of the reports than if the feedback comes from one person. Performance profile ratings obtained pre- and postintervention (e.g., psychological skills training, life skills coaching, mentoring, etc.) with or without ratings throughout the course of a consultation or program (e.g., every 4 weeks) also provide a simple tool for evaluating the effectiveness of consultations or intervention programs. Case Example of the Revised Performance Profile As a first line of evidence, case examples provide a rich description of a newly developed methodology and a commentary regarding its implementation and efficacy (Gerring, 2006). A systematic description of a methodology s application can play a crucial role in gathering evidence for more effective practice, especially in a sporting context where it is common to find interventions that are contextdependent and multifaceted. Importantly, a case example approach is congruent with the general nature of PCP (Kelly, 1955/1991). Our purpose in providing a case example here, therefore, is to provide a basis for the application of the aforementioned ideas for extending the performance profile technique and a demonstration of the kinds of data that can be generated. Although the performance profile technique is commonly employed to elicit an athlete s perception of those qualities that constitute the fundamental qualities of an elite performer in his or her sport (e.g., Butler, 1989; Butler & Hardy, 1992; Butler et al., 1993; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Jones, 1993), the illustrative example
108 Gucciardi and Gordon presented here focuses solely on the psychological aspect of performance through an exploration of the mental toughness construct. The case study is taken from a larger program of work currently being undertaken by the authors addressing conceptual, measurement, and development issues pertaining to mental toughness in Australian football. We use mental toughness to explore such psychological qualities because it is a term commonly used to describe the superior psychological qualities of those athletes who thrive through positive and negative pressures, adversities, and challenges (Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2008). Given that research on mental toughness has been limited to semistructured interviews and focus group methodologies, some of which have been guided by PCP (e.g., Gucciardi et al., 2008; Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002, 2007), we were also interested in determining whether the keys to mental toughness identified previously can be replicated using a different methodology, namely the revised performance profile. The following definition of mental toughness was employed to select a participant for the current case example: Mental toughness in Australian football is a collection of values, attitudes, behaviors, and emotions that enable you to persevere and overcome any obstacle, adversity, or pressure experience, but also to maintain concentration and motivation when things are going well to consistently achieve your goals (Gucciardi et al., 2008, p. 278). Coaches who were interviewed in our original study (Gucciardi et al., 2008) were asked to nominate three players who encompassed this definition and conceptualization of mental toughness. At 30 years of age and having played Australian football for over 20 years, 10 of which have been at the highest level (i.e., Australian Football League), John (pseudonym) had experienced a variety of challenges and adversities (e.g., poor form, major injuries, dropped from the league team, etc) over the course of his career. Despite these negative experiences, John had achieved many individual (e.g., best and fairest) and team successes (e.g., premierships). Accordingly, we invited John to be involved in a performance profile session focused on revealing his perception of mental toughness in Australian football. Following the general introductory procedures described previously and elsewhere (Butler & Hardy, 1992), we initiated the construct elicitation stage of the revised performance profile technique by providing John with a worksheet containing a blank version of Table 2. Given our focus on mental toughness, we informed John that we were focusing on identifying those qualities or characteristics he believed constituted mental toughness in Australian football. At this stage in the process we were particularly interested in assisting John in generating a pool of key characteristics describing the similarities between mentally tough footballers. Drawing on the theoretical underpinnings of PCP we used elements (e.g., athletes John considered mentally tough) to trigger responses. Specifically, we had John list three teammates he considered to be mentally tough and three that he considered not to be mentally tough. Using these players as examples we had John describe some of the key qualities or attributes that distinguished the mentally tough footballers from the others. For each of the 10 qualities generated,
Performance Profile Technique 109 John provided a short description of each quality to enhance our ability to arrive at a precise understanding of what John meant by each phrase (see Table 2). Having established 10 qualities that represented similarities between mentally tough footballers, we were next interested in having John identify the contrast pole for each. To the right of each emergent pole and its description in Table 2 is a column which can facilitate this process. We generally ask the athlete to consider the following contrast question: Someone who is not [emergent pole] would be...? For each of the 10 emergent qualities listed by John, however, it was necessary to slightly reword the contrast question to ensure that we retained the exact label or phrase he elicited (cf. Bannister & Fransella, 1986). For example, with the emergent pole strive for excellence we framed the question as, Someone who does not strive for excellence would be...? Once John had generated the contrast pole for each emergent pole we again asked him to write down the meaning of each word or phrase. This process was repeated for each of the 10 qualities. From a conceptual standpoint, it is interesting to note that the mental toughness constructs generated by John parallel several keys to mental toughness identified previously by athletes from various team and individual sports (e.g., Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005; Fourie & Potgieter, 2001; Jones et al., 2002, 2007; Thelwell, Weston, & Greenlees, 2005) including Australian football (Gucciardi et al., 2008). The construct elicitation stage of the revised performance profile technique concludes with the generation of information pertaining to the organizational properties of the personal constructs elicited. The first piece of information we sought to gather from John is related to the perceived importance of each of the 10 bipolar constructs for mental toughness in Australian football. After having John rank the entire group of 10 constructs in order from most important (1) to least important (10) for mental toughness in Australian football, we next asked John to rate the general importance of each individual construct for mental toughness (1 = not important at all; 10 = of crucial importance). As illustrated in Table 2, those constructs with a higher importance ranking were generally rated as being of greater importance for mental toughness, although as a group all the 10 constructs were of high importance for mental toughness in Australian football (M = 9; SD =.82). We also sought to supplement this information on perceived importance by having John link each of the bipolar constructs with situations and events that demand mental toughness and he identified training, competition, and lifestyle issues. As is illustrated in Figure 2, those constructs ranked as being more important for mental toughness were perceived as having greater usefulness (i.e., associated with more situations and events) than those constructs ranked as being less important providing further support for the rankings and ratings data. Construct assessment is the final stage in the revised performance profile technique. Although there are several variations in the types of assessments that can be obtained, we chose to obtain four assessments in the present example largely because of how effective we have found these assessments to be with previous clients but also due to their ability to compliment the data generated in the first two stages of the revised performance profile. Table 3 shows John s ratings of his current self and ideal self as well as his coach s rating of John s current self. The second assessment procedure parallels the repertory grid technique in
Table 3 John s Performance Profile of Mental Toughness Including Current Self-Assessment, Ideal Self- Assessment, and Coach Assessment of Current Self 110 Construct Rating Contrast Pole Discrepancy Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ranking GI Emergent Pole 0 Self-belief + Self-doubt x /uncertainty 1 10 0 Accepting mediocrity 2 10 Strive for excellence x + 0 Giving le ss than 100% 32 4 8 Attentional control x + Easily distracted and unclear vision 3 10 Strong work ethic x + Personal Constructs 9 5 9 Enjoy pressure and adversity x + Nervousness a nd apprehension 36 6 9 Emotional control x + Emotional instability 0 Negative/pr oblem-focused 7 9 Resilient attitude x + 45 8 9 Handling success and failure x Absorbed in pre + vious performances 0 Fearing physical fati gue and risky contests 9 8 Physical toughness x + 8 10 8 Footy smarts x Lack spor + t knowledge Note. = current self; x = ideal self; + = coach assessment; discrepancy score = general importance [GI] rating x [ideal current]).
Performance Profile Technique 111 which bipolar constructs are evaluated in relation to elements (e.g., situations, people, objects) within a construct s range of convenience. As illustrated in Table 4, we had John assess each personal construct in relation to several situations identified previously as demanding mental toughness using Likert scores anchored on construct poles. A discrepancy score using Jones (1993) method was also generated. Implications of the Revised Performance Profile for Practice It becomes apparent from our discussion thus far that the revised version presented here generates a greater variety of information (see Tables 2, 3, and 4; Figure 2) than the original version (see Figure 1). This is not to say that the information obtained via the original version is not useful; rather, we are suggesting that the revised version affords researchers and practitioners with information that can be used for developing a greater variety of interventions or guiding novel 1 1 consultations. Here we illustrate how we used this information to guide John s development in the hope that others will see the benefit of undertaking these additional steps as well as to stimulate ideas as to how such information can be applied. Inherent within our discussion is the notion that performance profiling is just one step in the process of athlete development. An inspection of John s construct rating profile (see Table 3) reveals that he and his coach share similar viewpoints in that John is currently toward the contrast (and in this case nonpreferred) pole for the following bipolar constructs: attentional control vs. easily distracted and unclear vision; emotional control vs. emotional instability; and handling success and failure vs. absorbed in previous performances. However, there is considerable overlap between he and his coach s rating of his current self and ideal self on the remaining seven constructs being toward the emergent pole. The discrepancy scores support this general trend. So although John was originally selected for the case example here because his coach identified him as being one of the most mentally tough footballers he has coached, it seemed that currently John was experiencing concerns in three areas of his mental toughness profile. This finding was clearly evident in John s discourse during the performance profiling process: I have had some pretty exceptional [individual] performances in recent weeks... I would even go as far to say that I am in career best form. Even though I have been through similar periods of form when I have been performing well when the team is also performing well, our team performances aren t currently up to scratch. I reckon that I am too immersed in some of my previous performances... and getting caught up in the emotions of all the attention I am receiving because usually that attention would be spread across the entire team when things are going well. But this has [negatively] affected my performances in the past two matches. It seemed that the low ratings provided by John and his coach for attentional and emotional control as well as handling pressure and success was due to John becoming too absorbed in some recent exceptional performances. As a result,
112 Table 4 John s Self-Assessment of Personal Constructs in Relation to Situations Perceived as Demanding Mental Toughness Using Likert Scores Anchored on Construct Poles Situations Demanding Mental Toughness Contrast Pole Losing Streak Winning Streak Poor Form (Individual) Good Form (Individual) Injury (Major) Injury (Minor) Football & Life Balance Ranking Emergent Pole 1 Self-belief (1) 3 2 3 1 5 1 6 (7) Self-doubt/ uncertainty 2 Strive for excellence (1) 2 3 4 1 2 2 4 (7) Accepting mediocrity 3 Strong work ethic (1) 3 1 1 1 5 2 7 (7) Giving Personal less than 100% 4 Con- Attentional control (1) 4 3 2 1 5 1 6 (7) Easily distracted structs and unclear vision 1 1 1 1 6 1 5 (7) Nervousness and apprehension 5 Enjoy pressure and adversity (1) 6 Emotional control (1) 4 2 1 2 4 3 5 (7) Emotional instability 7 Resilient attitude (1) 2 2 1 2 3 2 7 (7) Negative/ problem-focused 1 4 4 2 6 1 7 (7) Absorbed in previous performances 8 Handling success and failure (1) 9 Physical toughness (1) 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 (7) Fearing physical fatigue and risky contests 10 Footy smarts (1) 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 (7) Lack sport knowledge