An Exploratory Investigation of NCAA Division-I Coaches Support of Sport Psychology Consultants and Willingness to Seek Mental Training Services

The Sport Psychologist, 2010, 24, 489-503 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc. An Exploratory Investigation of NCAA Division-I Coaches Support of Sport Psychology Consultants and Willingness to Seek Mental Training Services Craig A. Wrisberg and Lauren A. Loberg University of Tennessee Duncan Simpson Barry University Jenny L. Withycombe and Ann Reed University of Tennessee In this study NCAA Division I coaches (n = 815) completed a Web-based survey assessing their willingness to encourage athletes to see a sport psychology consultant (SPC), their support of possible roles for a SPC at their institution and, for coaches with current access to a SPC at their institutions, their willingness to seek mental training services for a variety of purposes. The results indicated that coaches were more willing to encourage their athletes to see a SPC for performance issues than for personal concerns and were more supportive of making mental training services available to athletes and including a SPC among athletic department staff than allowing a SPC to be present at practices and competitions. Coaches with current access to a SPC were primarily interested in mental training for performance enhancement purposes and were more willing to seek the services if they had more frequent contact with the SPC and perceived the SPC to be effective. These findings extend previous research on athletes and coaches receptivity to mental training and provide several important insights for SPCs working with athletic personnel at the NCAA Division I level. Recent studies indicate that a growing number of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division-I (NCAA D-I) programs are employing sport psychology consultants (SPCs) to provide mental skills training for their athletes and teams (Kornspan & Duve, 2006; Voight & Callaghan, 2001; Wilson, Gilbert, Sailor, & Wrisberg, Loberg, and Withycombe are with the Dept. of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Reed is with the Statistical Consulting Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Simpson is with the School of Human Performance and Leisure Sciences, Barry University, Miami Shores, FL. 489

490 Wrisberg et al. Gilbert, 2006). According to this research, approximately 30 50% of NCAA D-I athletic departments have contractual arrangements with SPCs in either a full-time or part-time capacity. In spite of this apparent trend, relatively little is known about the receptivity of student-athletes and coaches to a role for a SPC at their institutions and their willingness to use mental training services. An exception is a recent study examining NCAA D-I student-athletes willingness to seek mental skills training, their perceptions of the potential benefits of mental training for their team, and their support of possible roles for a SPC at their institution (Wrisberg, Simpson, Loberg, Withycombe, & Reed, 2009). The results revealed that females were generally more receptive than males, individual and team sport athletes were interested in different types of mental skills, athletes with prior experience with a SPC were more open to mental training than those with no experience, and athletes with a highly effective prior experience were more receptive than those who rated the effectiveness of their experience as low. These findings extended the results of earlier studies showing that collegiate athletes attitudes toward sport psychology are generally more positive for females than for males and for athletes having previous experience with sport psychology than for those with no experience (Lubker, Visek, Geer, & Watson II, 2008; Martin, 2005). The results were also consistent with research showing a greater interest in mental training among Olympic athletes who had an effective experience with a SPC than for those who did not (Gould, Tammen, Murphy, & May 1991; Orlick & Partington, 1987). Previous studies examining coaches evaluations of SPCs and mental training services have primarily been conducted with Olympic and national-level coaches. Research on members of both Canadian (Partington & Orlick, 1987) and United States (Gould et al., 1991) Olympic teams revealed that coaches were primarily interested in SPCs who fitted in with their teams and provided useful knowledge and strategies for their athletes. The coaches in both studies considered mental preparation to be an important contributor to successful athletic performance and were generally receptive to the assistance of effective SPCs. However, the results of one study (Partington & Orlick, 1987) clearly indicated that coaches were unwilling to tolerate ineffective SPCs. As a result of their postcompetition evaluations seven of the 21 consultants working with various teams were dismissed. Based on the previous research it is clear that coaches expect SPCs to be able to individualize mental training by identifying the demands of various sports and then assisting athletes in developing the mental skills necessary to meet those demands (Gould et al. 1991; Partington & Orlick, 1987). A review of the sport psychology literature suggests that mental training can serve a number of purposes in preparing athletes for competition and improving the quality of their lives (Greenspan & Feltz, 1989; Kimball & Freysinger, 2003; Martin, Vause, & Schwartzman, 2005; Murphy, 2005; Orlick, 2008). These include improving focus (Orlick & Partington, 1988), managing anxiety (Mamassis & Doganis, 2004), managing emotions (Lazarus, 2000), dealing with pressure (Beilock & Carr, 2001), building confidence (Myers, Payment, & Feltz, 2004), communicating with coaches (Sullivan, 1993), communicating with teammates (Yukelson, 1997), performing as well in competition as in practice (Frey, Laguna, & Ravizza, 2003), dealing with injury and rehabilitation (Wiese & Weiss, 1987), dealing with personal issues (Papacharisis, Goudas, Danish, & Theodorakis, 2005), improving skills for coping with stressful

Collegiate Coaches and Sport Psychology Consultants 491 events (Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2005), preventing burnout (Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996a, 1996b), and increasing the enjoyment of sport participation (Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza, 1989). At the elite sport levels, it is usually the head coach who decides whether to allow a SPC to work with his or her team and encourage athletes to seek the SPC s services (Partington & Orlick, 1987; Ravizza, 1988; Voight & Callaghan, 2001). In their popular guide for SPCs, Halliwell, Orlick, Ravizza, and Rotella (2003) state that their best-ever consulting experiences were those in which the coaches were very responsive to my input and the head coach was open-minded about the usefulness of mental training and made every effort to cooperate with suggested programs (p. 77 78). Given the importance of head coaches to the work of SPCs, the main purpose of the current study was to obtain a global assessment of NCAA D-I head coaches ratings of (a) willingness to encourage their athletes to see a SPC, (b) support of possible roles for a SPC at their university, and (c) willingness to seek mental training services for a variety of purposes. Since the findings of some studies suggest that coaches who have been exposed to sport psychology concepts or who have worked with a SPC are more knowledgeable of the purposes of mental skills training (Rice, 1996; Sullivan & Hodge, 1991; but see Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007, for a possible exception), only those coaches in the current study with current access to a SPC were asked to rate their willingness to seek mental training for various purposes. To extend the results of previous research examining athletes and coaches attitudes toward sport psychology (Lubker et al., 2008; Maniar, Curry, Sommers-Flanagan, & Walsh, 2001; Martin, 2005; Martin, Kellmann, Lavallee, & Page, 2002; Martin, Wrisberg, Beitel, & Lounsbury, 1997; Wrisberg & Martin, 1994; Wrisberg et al., 2009), an additional purpose of this study was to determine whether coaches ratings differed with respect to gender, ethnicity, and type of sport. Questionnaire Method The questionnaire used in this study was designed to assess coaches willingness to encourage their athletes to see a SPC, their support of three possible roles for a SPC at their institution and, for those with current access to a SPC, their willingness to seek mental training for a variety purposes. Content and face validity of the questionnaire was obtained by developing the list of possible roles for a SPC and possible purposes of mental training from the existing sport psychology literature and with the input of two sport psychology faculty members, three graduate students in sport psychology, and two practicing SPCs at the researchers university. The definition of a SPC specified on the questionnaire was a person with training in sport psychology that is capable of assisting athletes in developing the psychological and emotional skills necessary for achieving peak performance and enhancing life quality (Donohue et al., 2004). The questionnaire consisted of the following demographic items: gender, ethnicity, highest terminal academic degree, highest level of previous competitive experience as an athlete, sport coached, current availability of a SPC at the coach s institution, and for those with access to a SPC, the terms of the SPC s employment, frequency of meetings with the SPC, and perceived effectiveness of the SPC.

492 Wrisberg et al. All coaches were asked to rate their willingness to encourage one of their athletes to see a SPC for personal concerns and for performance-related issues and then rate how beneficial they thought it would be to (a) have the services of a SPC available to athletes and coaches at their institutions, (b) include a SPC among full-time athletic department staff, and (c) have a SPC available at practices and competitions. Coaches ratings for each of these items were based on a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (never or not at all) to 5 (definitely or extremely). Coaches were also asked to indicate whether they would support the use of a SPC at their institutions if (a) other schools in their conference were doing so, and (b) other NCAA institutions were doing so. Possible responses for these two items were yes, maybe, and no. Finally, those coaches with current access to a SPC at their institutions were asked to rate their willingness (on a 5-point scale from not at all to extremely) to seek their SPC s assistance for the following purposes of mental training: dealing with pressure, dealing with injury/rehabilitation, building confidence, improving focus, preventing burnout, communicating with coaches, communicating with teammates, dealing with personal issues, managing anxiety, increasing enjoyment of sport, enhancing performance, performing as well in competition as in practice, managing emotions during competition, and building team cohesion. Since this study represented an exploratory attempt to examine NCAA D-1 coaches willingness to encourage athletes to seek the assistance of SPCs at their institutions and their support for various roles for a SPC in their athletic department, an optional item was included on the questionnaire that gave coaches the opportunity to provide any additional comments they might have about SPCs and mental training services. Participants The participants were 815 NCAA D-I coaches or their designated representatives (n = 447 males and 368 females). The majority classified themselves as Caucasian (n = 710) and the remainder (n = 105) as African American (n = 46), Hispanic (n = 10), Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 16), Native American (n = 3), or Other (n = 10). Twenty of the respondents checked prefer not to answer for the ethnicity item. Participants highest terminal academic degrees included high school diploma (n = 4), bachelor of arts/bachelor of science (n = 400), master of arts/master of science (n = 336), master of business administration (n = 37), and doctorate (n = 22). Sixteen respondents checked other for this item. The majority had competed as athletes at the collegiate level (n = 704) while some had participated in professional sports (n = 234), on a national team (n = 136), or on an Olympic team (n = 33). Only two respondents indicated they had never competed as athletes in their sport. At the time of this study the majority of participants (n = 575) coached the following NCAA D-1 sports: basketball (n = 74), cross country (n = 55), golf (n = 86), soccer (n = 124), softball (n = 52), swimming (n = 50), tennis (n = 59), and volleyball (n = 75). For the purpose of this study, type of sport was defined as either an individual sport or a team sport, as in a recent study of NCAA D-I athletes (Wrisberg et al., 2009). Individual sports were defined as those that require athletes to compete alone either alongside other opponents, as do runners and swimmers in a race, or in direct opposition to the opponent, as do tennis players and team sports were

Collegiate Coaches and Sport Psychology Consultants 493 defined as those that involve the collective efforts of one group of athletes directed against those of another group. Examples include soccer, basketball, and volleyball (Wrisberg, 2007, p. 67). With respect to these definitions, 341 participants in this study coached individual sports and 464 coached team sports. A total of 366 coaches indicated that they had the services of a SPC currently available at their institution. However, the terms of the SPCs employment varied considerably across institutions. Over one third were contract employees (n = 131), while the others were full-time athletic department staff (n = 69), part-time staff (n = 61), volunteers (n = 43), and graduate students (n = 23). Thirty-nine coaches indicated that they were not sure of their SPC s employment status. Coaches with an available SPC also differed with respect to the number of times their team had met with the SPC. The primary frequency categories included never (n = 124), 1-5 times (n = 90), and more than 5 times (n = 152). Of the coaches whose teams had met at least once with the SPC, the majority (n = 124) perceived the SPC s effectiveness to be high. The remainder perceived effectiveness to be moderate (n = 52), low (n = 11), or did not provide a rating of effectiveness (n = 55). Procedure After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, the questionnaire was pilot tested for content and clarity of items, ease of responding, and time required for completion. The pilot sample consisted of coaches from NCAA D-II and D-III universities (n = 5), assistant coaches from NCAA D-I universities (n = 7), and SPCs (n = 4). Based on the feedback obtained from these individuals minor modifications in the wording of three items were made. An online version of the questionnaire was then developed in hypertext markup language (HTML) format and uploaded to a university server. Access to the questionnaire was limited to the researchers, computing staff, and the study participants. The e-mail addresses of NCAA D-I head coaches (n = 4684) were obtained from their respective athletic department websites. An e-mail was then sent to the coaches apprising them of the purpose of the study, encouraging their participation, and notifying them of the Web site link containing the questionnaire. Those who accessed the link were reminded that their participation was voluntary, assured that their responses would remain confidential, and informed that the completion and return of the questionnaire would signify their consent to participate. Three weeks later a second e-mail was sent in an effort to increase the response rate and determine the similarity of coaches responses to the first and second invitations (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2005). All returned questionnaires were stored on the server and automatically entered into an SPSS data file. Final sorting of the data set revealed no duplicate cases. Statistical Analysis While multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is the standard approach to analyzing ordinal-scaled dependent variables which constituted the majority of dependent variables examined in the current study Box s M test revealed that, with few exceptions, the equality of variance assumption for MANOVA for these variables was not met (p <.001). Therefore, all analyses of the dependence between two ordinal-scaled variables, such as coaches perceptions of the effectiveness of

494 Wrisberg et al. their consultant s services and coaches willingness to seek mental training for various purposes were conducted using nonparametric chi-square tests. In addition, dependence between coaches ratings and all categorical variables (i.e., gender, ethnicity, type of sport) was evaluated using a chi-square procedure identical to the one employed in a recent study of NCAA D-I student-athletes (Wrisberg et al., 2009) and described in the following paragraph. For each analysis, expected cell values were calculated on the basis of marginal totals for the rows and columns. According to the null hypothesis participants ratings should be independent of the categorical characteristic (i.e., the conditional distribution of the characteristic should be the same across all rating categories). A significant chi-square would indicate that participants ratings were dependent at some level on the characteristic. When significant dependence was obtained, adjusted standardized residual values were examined to determine where in the chi-square table the dependency existed. The adjusted standardized residual is the equivalent of a z score for each cell and indicates the number of standardized units the obtained value lies above or below the expected value for that cell (Haberman, 1973). For example, an adjusted residual value of -4.6 would indicate that the obtained value for that cell is 4.6 standard deviations below the standardized expected value. Due to the large number of separate chi-square analyses performed in this study, a conservative alpha (p <.001) was adopted to determine significant dependence and a minimum adjusted standardized residual value of 3.0 was used to evaluate deviations from expected cell values (Bakeman & Robinson, 1994). Analysis of Optional Comments The first four authors examined all optional comments provided by the coaches (n = 181). They then met to discuss and achieve consensus on the general themes that characterized the comments. The authors agreed that the majority of comments (n = 155, 85.6%) could be classified as supportive, opposed, or unsure. The remaining comments were classified as tangential to the purposes of the study. The authors then independently classified each comment according to one of the four categories and achieved an acceptable level of interobserver agreement (IOA = 91.7%). Subsequent discussion ensued until complete consensus was achieved on all comments (Thomas et al., 2005). Reliability Estimates Results A total of 815 questionnaires containing complete information were returned following the first (n = 647) and second (n = 168) e-mail postings. This total represented a return rate of 17.4%. Separate chi-square analyses on the two data sets revealed a similar pattern of responding. Therefore, the two sets were combined for all analyses. Acceptable reliability estimates for the entire sample were obtained for coaches willingness to encourage their athletes to see a SPC for either personal concerns or performance-related issues (2 items, Cronbach s α =.64), coaches support for various roles for a consultant at their institution (3 items, Cronbach s α

Collegiate Coaches and Sport Psychology Consultants 495 =.83), and coaches support for a consultant at their institution if other schools in their conference or other NCAA D-I schools were doing so (2 items, Cronbach s α =.94). The reliability estimate for the subsample of coaches who rated their willingness to seek mental training assistance for various purposes was high as well (14 items, Cronbach s α =.95). Modifications to Ordinal Scale Ratings Inspection of the frequency distributions of coaches ordinal ratings revealed that in all but two cases, responses were highly skewed toward the highest value of the 5-point scale, with relatively sparse frequencies for the lower two categories (i.e., not at all and slightly). Therefore, to provide a more accurate representation of the overall pattern of responding and create more balanced cell sizes for analysis purposes Likert ratings for the higher two categories and lower two categories (i.e., extremely and highly) were combined (To, Agha, Pinfold, Llewellyn-Thomas, Sawka, & O Connor, 1996). The resulting three rating categories were labeled favorable, moderate, and low. Since the majority (i.e., > 90%) of all significant chi-squares (p <.001) were accompanied by significant adjusted residual values (i.e., > 3.0) for the favorable rating category and relatively few (< 25%) for the low and moderate categories, obtained frequencies and percentages for favorable ratings are, with only a few notable exceptions, emphasized in the following sections. Results From the Total Sample of Coaches Encouragement of Athletes to See a SPC. A higher percentage of coaches rated as favorable their willingness to encourage their athletes to see a consultant for performance-related issues (88.8%) than for personal concerns (77.5%). Moreover chi-square tests revealed no significant dependence of coaches ratings of willingness on gender, ethnicity, or type of sport. Support of Possible Roles for a SPC. The majority of coaches rated as favorable their support for making SPC services available to athletes (84.5%) and for including a SPC as a full-time employee of the athletic department (77.8%). However, only 42.9% of the coaches rated their support for having a SPC present at practices and competitions as favorable. Chi-square tests revealed no significant dependence of coaches ratings of support on ethnicity or type of sport. However, one significant effect was obtained for gender. Specifically, compared with male coaches (79.4%), a significantly higher percentage of female coaches (90.8%) rated as favorable their support for having SPC services available to athletes, χ 2 (2, N = 815) = 19.87, p <.001, adj. res. = 4.5. Support for SPC If Other Conference and NCAA Institutions Were Doing So. A high percentage of all coaches rated as favorable their support for having a SPC at their institution if other schools in their conference were doing so (88.8%) or if other NCAA D-I athletic programs were doing so (89.0%). Moreover, chisquare tests indicated no significant dependence of coaches ratings on gender, ethnicity, or type of sport.

496 Wrisberg et al. Results From the Sub-Sample: Willingness to Seek Mental Training for Various Purposes Frequency of Meetings With SPC. As indicated earlier, only those coaches who indicated that they currently had a SPC available at their institutions (n = 366) provided ratings of their willingness to seek the assistance of their SPC for the various purposes of mental training. Analyses of the association of coaches ratings and the frequency of meetings with their SPC revealed significant dependence (p <.001) for the following purposes of mental training: dealing with pressure, building confidence, improving focus, managing emotions during competition, communicating with coaches, and communicating with teammates. Inspection of the adjusted residual values revealed that dependence was due, in all cases, to a significantly higher than expected percentage of favorable ratings for coaches whose teams had met with a consultant more than 5 times (see Table 1). Table 1 Percentages of Favorable Coaches Ratings of Willingness to Seek Assistance for Various Mental Training Purposes Depending on the Frequency of Team Meetings with a SPC Frequency of Meetings Purpose None (n = 124) 1 5 (n = 90) > 5 (n = 152) Dealing with pressure a 71.0 66.7 88.8 *b Dealing with injury/rehabilitation 59.7 55.6 70.4 Building confidence a 76.6 70.0 89.5 *b Improving focus a 71.0 73.3 88.8 *b Preventing burnout 50.8 44.4 65.8 Communicating with coaches a 54.0 50.0 78.9 *b Communicating with teammates 60.5 60.0 82.9 *b a Dealing with personal issues 69.4 67.8 75.7 Managing anxiety 75.0 66.7 88.8 Increasing enjoyment of sport 46.8 47.8 65.8 Enhancing performance 80.6 72.2 89.5 Performing as well in competition 77.4 71.1 86.8 as in practice Managing emotions during 72.6 66.7 89.5 *b competition a Building team cohesion 66.9 70.0 85.5 a df = 4, N = 366. b Adjusted residual > 3.0. *p <.001.

Collegiate Coaches and Sport Psychology Consultants 497 Effectiveness of SPC s Services. Analyses of the association of coaches ratings and coaches perceptions of the effectiveness of their consultant s services were restricted to those coaches whose teams had met at least once with a SPC (n = 187). Although, some cell sizes were quite small (see Table 2), significant dependence (p <.001) was obtained for the mental training purposes of dealing with pressure, building confidence, improving focus, managing anxiety, enhancing performance, performing as well in competition as in practice, and managing emotions during competition. For each of these purposes, coaches willingness to seek assistance was an increasing function of their perceptions of their SPC s effectiveness. For the most part, adjusted residual values accompanying significant effects revealed higher than expected percentages of favorable ratings for coaches who perceived their SPC s effectiveness to be high and lower than expected percentages for those who perceived effectiveness to be low. For two of the mental training purposes (i.e., performing as well in competition as in practice and managing emotions during competition), a lower than expected percentage of favorable ratings was also obtained for coaches who rated their SPC s effectiveness as moderate. Analyses of the possible association of these coaches ratings of interest in the various mental training purposes with gender, ethnicity, and type of sport revealed no significant effects (p >.05). Table 2 Percentages of Favorable Coaches Ratings of Willingness to Seek Assistance for Various Mental Training Purposes Depending on Coaches Perceptions of SPC Effectiveness Perceived Effectiveness Purpose Low (n = 11) Moderate (n = 52) High (n = 124) Dealing with pressure 36.4 c 82.7 91.9 *ab Dealing with injury/ 27.3 63.5 73.4 rehabilitation Building confidence 54.5 c 82.7 92.7 *a Improving focus 36.4 c 75.0 96.0 *ab Preventing burnout 18.2 c 53.8 70.2 *a Communicating with coaches 36.4 c 63.5 83.9 *ab Communicating with teammates 36.4 c 73.1 87.1 *ab Dealing with personal issues 45.5 63.5 79.8 Managing anxiety 54.5 76.9 90.3 Increasing enjoyment of sport 18.2 c 53.8 71.0 *ab Enhancing performance 54.5 c 78.8 96.8 *ab Performing as well in 54.5 c 69.2 c 96.0 *ab competition as in practice Managing emotions 45.5 c 75.0 c 96.8 *ab during competition Building team cohesion 63.6 76.9 89.5 a df = 4, N = 187. b Adjusted residual > 3.0. c Adjusted residual < -3.0. *p <.001

498 Wrisberg et al. Open-Ended Comments The majority of additional comments provided by coaches were classified as supportive (n = 129), while the others were classified as unsure (n = 20), opposed (n = 7), or tangential to the purposes of the study (n = 25). A relatively high frequency of supportive comments (n = 78) came from coaches who felt that the time had come to add sport psychology services to the other support services provided for NCAA D-I student-athletes. The following comment came from a coach who did not have current access to a SPC Mental training is absolutely the missing link in providing our dedicated student-athletes with the most comprehensive performance support system. We provide the best physical health support, academic support, equipment, and coaches. What about mental and emotional support? It needs to be addressed. Some coaches with access to services qualified their support according to their perception of the effectiveness of the SPC. For example, one coach stated, Access to our team has a lot to do with the individual consultant. Not all are the same or as good as others. A good one is invaluable. Comments classified as unsure reflected some coaches lack of experience with a SPC or lack of understanding as to what SPCs do. For example, one coach stated, I have never really been around a sport psychologist in the past and am not aware of all the positives and negatives that it could bring. Coaches who expressed opposition to mental training or a role for a SPC had either had a previous negative experience with a SPC (e.g., I have used a sport psychologist from our university and my read is that he always made things worse ), felt mental training was the coach s job (e.g., Nobody knows my team better than I do. If the head coach is good enough at his/ her job, they shouldn t need help with this kind of stuff ), or believed that studentathletes were already pampered enough and didn t need any additional support (e.g., Unless the student-athlete has real deep-seated issues he needs to man up and rise to the challenge. I feel that most of the student-athletes today have become soft because of the soft way we are required to treat them ). Comments classified as tangential either failed to deal with the concept of systematic mental training (e.g., Coach education is a key ) or were difficult to interpret (e.g., Approachability ). Finally, a number of coaches without current access to a SPC (n = 24) commented about the role of funding or lack of such needed to support a SPC. Some merely stated that sufficient funds were unavailable at their schools (e.g., I strongly support anything that can enhance the experience of our student-athletes. At our institution there is certainly a need for mental training but there isn t adequate funding ) while others worried that their teams would be put at a competitive disadvantage if only the big budget athletic programs had mental training (e.g., The big problem with any of this is the money to pay for it! If the big time schools have the money for mental training and the rest of us don t, it just increases the disparity ). Discussion The purpose of this exploratory investigation was to assess NCAA D-I coaches willingness to encourage student-athletes to see a SPC, their support of various roles for a SPC at their university and, for those with current access to a SPC, their

Collegiate Coaches and Sport Psychology Consultants 499 willingness to seek mental training for a variety of purposes. The results revealed rather broad based interest in SPCs and mental training services. The majority of coaches indicated that they were willing to encourage their athletes to see a SPC for both personal concerns and performance-related issues. However, it should be noted that a higher percentage of favorable ratings were obtained from the total sample of coaches for the purpose of performance consulting (88.8%) than for personal counseling (77.5%). This pattern was also observed in the ratings of willingness to seek mental training services obtained from the subsample of coaches with current access to an effective SPC (n = 124). Specifically 96.8% of those coaches rated as favorable their interest in seeking mental training for the purpose of enhancing performance compared with 79.8% for the purpose of dealing with personal issues. Taken together, these findings are consistent with the results of earlier studies of Olympic coaches who indicated a preference for SPCs that are able to provide useful knowledge and performance-relevant strategies for athletes (Gould et al., 1991; Partington & Orlick, 1987). Given the importance of winning at both the Olympic and NCAA D-I levels of sport, a preference among coaches for SPCs that assist athletes in enhancing their performance is not surprising. With respect to coaches ratings of support for various roles for a SPC at their university, uniformly high percentages of favorable ratings were obtained for making the services of a SPC available for athletes and teams (84.5%) and for adding a SPC to full-time athletic department staff (77.8%). Even higher levels of support were found for using a SPC if other conference (88.8%) and NCAA (89.0%) schools were doing so. In addition, the majority of open-ended comments (71.2%) indicated advocacy for adding mental training to the other support services currently available to NCAA D-I athletes and coaches (e.g., athletic training, strength and conditioning). The only exception to these findings was the relatively low percentage of coaches expressing support for having a SPC present at practices and competitions (42.9%). One possible explanation for this result is that collegiate coaches at the D-I level of competition are aware of current NCAA rules and staff interpretations restricting, to various degrees, the presence of SPCs during practices and competitions (2007 08 NCAA Division I Manual, 2007). However, previous research examining athletes and coaches attitudes toward sport psychology (e.g., Martin, 2005; Martin et al., 2002, 1997) has identified other possible barriers to participants use of SPCs (e.g., the concern that others will think SPCs only work with coaches and athletes with psychological problems ) that may have contributed to the present finding. Contrary to the results of earlier research with collegiate student-athletes, the current study revealed no dependence of coaches ratings of support for a SPC on ethnicity (cf. Martin et al., 1997; Wrisberg & Martin, 1994), type of sport (cf. Wrisberg et al., 2009) and, with only one exception, gender (cf. Martin, 2005; Martin et al., 2002; Wrisberg & Martin, 1994; Wrisberg et al., 2009). The only significant effect was obtained for gender, with a higher than expected frequency of females and lower than expected frequency of males expressing strong support for making SPCs services available to athletes. This finding is consistent with the results of another recent study of collegiate track and swimming coaches in which female coaches were found to be significantly more open to working with a SPC than were males (Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007); although it should be noted that the effect size associated with that difference was small and the responses of coaches

500 Wrisberg et al. representing the NCAA D-I level were combined with those of coaches from the D-II and D-III levels for analysis purposes. Nevertheless, it appears that further examination of possible differences in male and female NCAA D-I coaches openness to the work of SPCs is warranted. Previous studies have suggested that student-athletes and coaches openness to mental training may be increased with more frequent exposure to sport psychology concepts or a SPC (Lubker et al., 2008; Martin, 2005; Rice, 1996; Sullivan & Hodge, 1991; Wrisberg et al., 2009). An exception is a recent investigation (Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007) in which previous exposure to sport psychology was found to have no significant impact on collegiate track and swimming coaches future intentions to use mental training services. In the current study, a significantly higher than expected percentage of coaches whose teams had met with a SPC more than five times rated as favorable their interest in mental training for the purposes of dealing with pressure, building confidence, improving focus, communicating with coaches, communicating with teammates, and managing emotions during competition. No significant effects were obtained for coaches whose teams had met with a SPC one to five times or not at all. Thus, the present findings appear to be consistent with the larger body of existing evidence suggesting that some critical level of exposure to sport psychology concepts or a SPC may be needed to increase NCAA D-I coaches openness to mental training services. Consistent with the results of a recent study of NCAA D-I student-athletes (Wrisberg et al., 2009) and the findings of earlier research on Olympic athletes and coaches (Gould et al., 1991; Orlick & Partington, 1987; Partington & Orlick, 1987), the present investigation revealed that coaches ratings of willingness to seek mental training were significantly dependent on their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SPC. While this finding was based only on the responses of coaches who (a) had a SPC available at their university and (b) had used the services of the SPC at least one time (n = 187), significant effects (p <.001) were obtained for 10 of 14 purposes. In all but one instance (i.e., building confidence), adjusted residual values revealed that a significantly higher than expected frequency of coaches who perceived SPC effectiveness to be high rated their willingness to seek assistance as favorable. Taken together, these results strongly suggest that participants receptivity to mental training at the highest levels of competitive sport is determined by their perceptions of the effectiveness of SPCs. Two aspects of the current study should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the total sample of respondents constituted less than 20% of the total population of NCAA D-I coaches. Moreover, relatively few coaches (n = 18) represented the sport of football, which comprises the highest number of collegiate student-athletes. On a positive note, there were no significant differences in the pattern of coaches ratings following the two waves of emails; suggesting that their responses were generally representative of coaches at this competitive level. Second, the current study did not examine the willingness to seek mental training services of coaches that did not have current access to a SPC or the reasons why coaches with current access had not met with the SPC. While some studies have shown that collegiate coaches that work with a SPC are more knowledgeable of the purposes of sport psychology than those who do not (Rice, 1996; Sullivan & Hodge, 1991) others have identified possible barriers to seeking the assistance of a SPC (e.g., Martin, 2005; Martin et al., 2002, 1997), including athletes and

Collegiate Coaches and Sport Psychology Consultants 501 coaches confidence in sport psychology consulting. Thus, it is recommended that future research assess the receptivity to mental training of NCAA D-I coaches who have not used the services of a SPC either because the services are not available or because the coach has chosen not to use them. In conclusion, the results of this exploratory study suggest that head coaches at the NCAA D-I level are generally willing to encourage their athletes to seek the assistance of a SPC and supportive of roles for a SPC that include making mental training services available for athletes and holding a full-time position in the athletic department. In addition, the findings indicate that the receptivity to mental training of coaches with access to a SPC is greater for purposes that contribute to enhancing the performance of athletes (e.g., dealing with pressure, improving focus) rather than dealing with personal concerns and is increased if the coach has had more frequent contact with the SPC (i.e., more than 5 meetings) and perceives the SPC s services to be effective. Acknowledgments The authors thank Eric Bell, Ashley Dawes, Carlton Hill, and Takahiro Sato for technical assistance, Cary Springer for assistance with questionnaire development, and Joe Whitney for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the paper. References Bakeman, R., & Robinson, B.F. (1994). Understanding log-linear analysis with ILOG: An interactive approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Beilock, S.L., & Carr, T.H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130, 701 725. Frey, M., Laguna, P.L., & Ravizza, K. (2003). Collegiate athletes mental skill use and perceptions of success: An exploration of the practice and competition settings. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 115 128. Gould, D., Tammen, V., Murphy, S., & May, J. (1991). An evaluation of U.S. Olympic sport psychology consultant effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 111 127. Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996a). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322 340. Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996b). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341 366. Greenspan, M.J., & Feltz, D.L. (1989). Psychological interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219 236. Haberman, S.J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29, 205 220. Halliwell, W., Orlick, T., Ravizza, K., & Rotella, B. (2003). Consultant s guide to excellence. Chelsea, QC: Zone of Excellence. Kimball, A., & Freysinger, V.J. (2003). Leisure, stress, and coping: The sport participation of collegiate student-athletes. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 115 141. Kornspan, A.S., & Duve, M.A. (2006). A niche and a need: A summary of the need for sport psychology consultants in collegiate sports. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 19(7), 1 12. Lazarus, R.S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229 252. Lubker, J.R., Visek, A.J., Geer, J.R., & Watson, J.C., II. (2008). Characteristics of an effective sport psychology consultant: Perspectives from athletes and consultants. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31, 147 165.

502 Wrisberg et al. Mamassis, G., & Doganis, G. (2004). The effects of a mental training program on juniors pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and tennis performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 118 137. Maniar, S.D., Curry, L.A., Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Walsh, J.A. (2001). Student athlete preferences in seeking help when confronted with performance problems. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 205 223. Martin, G.L., Vause, T., & Schwartzman, L. (2005). Experimental studies of psychological interventions with athletes in competitions: Why so few? Behavior Modification, 29, 616 641. Martin, S.B. (2005). High school and college athletes attitudes toward sport psychology consulting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 127 139. Martin, S.B., Kellmann, M., Lavallee, D., & Page, S. (2002). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Sport Psychology Attitudes-Revised form: A multiple group investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 272 290. Martin, S.B., Wrisberg, C.A., Beitel, P.A., & Lounsbury, J. (1997). NCAA Division I athletes attitudes toward seeking sport psychology consultation: The development of an objective instrument. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 201 218. Murphy, S.M. (2005). The sport psych handbook. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Myers, N.D., Payment, C.A., & Feltz, D.L. (2004). Reciprocal relationships between collective efficacy and team performance in women s ice hockey. Group Dynamics, 8, 182 195. NCAA Division I Manual (2007-2008). (2007, July). Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Orlick, T. (2008). In pursuit of excellence (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1987). The sport psychology consultant: Analysis of critical components as viewed by Canadian Olympic athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 4 17. Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 105 130. Papacharisis, V., Goudas, M., Danish, S.J., & Theodorakis, Y. (2005). The effectiveness of teaching a life skills program in a sport context. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 247 254. Partington, J., & Orlick, T. (1987). The sport psychology consultant: Olympic coaches view. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 95 102. Ravizza, K. (1988). Gaining entry with athletic personnel for season-long consulting. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 243 254. Rice, T.S. (1996). Should coaches administer psychological interventions to their athletes? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown. Scanlan, T.K., Stein, G.L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 65 83. Sullivan, J., & Hodge, K.P. (1991). A survey of coaches and athletes about sport psychology in New Zealand. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 140 151. Sullivan, P.A. (1993). Communication skills training for interactive sports. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 79 91. Thomas, J.R., Nelson, J.K., & Silverman, S.J. (2005). Research methods in physical activity (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. To, T., Agha, M., Pinfold, S.P., Llewellyn-Thomas, H.A., Sawka, C., & O Connor, A.M. (1996, August). Methods in analyzing data from a physician attitude survey. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Chicago, IL. Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (2001). The use of sport psychology services at NCAA Division I universities from 1998-1999. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 91 102. Wiese, D.M., & Weiss, M.R. (1987). Psychological rehabilitation and physical injury: Implications for the sportsmedicine team. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 318 330.

Collegiate Coaches and Sport Psychology Consultants 503 Wilson, K.A., Gilbert, J.N., Sailor, S.R., & Gilbert, W. (2006, September). National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletic directors perceptions of sport psychology consulting. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Miami, FL. Wrisberg, C.A. (2007). Sport skill instruction for coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wrisberg, C.A., & Martin, S.B. (1994, October). Attitudes of African-American and Caucasian athletes towards sport psychology consultants. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Incline Village, NV. Wrisberg, C.A., Simpson, D., Loberg, L.A., Withycombe, J.L., & Reed, A. (2009). NCAA Division-I student-athletes receptivity to mental skills training by sport psychology consultants. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 470 486. Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A direct services approach at Penn State University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 73 96. Zakrajsek, R.A., & Zizzi, S.J. (2007). Factors influencing track and swimming coaches intentions to use sport psychology services. Athlete Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 9(2). Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://www.athleticinsight. com/vol9iss2/coachesintentions.htm Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J.M. (2005). Cognitive techniques for building confidence and enhancing performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed., pp. 349 381). New York: McGraw-Hill.