SOURCES OF COACHING EFFICACY: THE COACHES PERSPECTIVE

ISJEP, 2005, 1, 7-25 2005 West Virginia University Sources of Coaching Efficacy SOURCES OF COACHING EFFICACY: THE COACHES PERSPECTIVE MELISSA A. CHASE 1, DEBORAH L. FELTZ 2,SUSAN W. HAYASHI 2, AND TERI J. HEPLER 1 1 Miami University, Ohio, USA 2 Michigan State University, USA ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to identify sources of coaching-efficacy information to compare with those presented in the Coaching-Efficacy model (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999). Using a structured interview format with 12 of the coaches of high- school boys basketball used in the Feltz et al. study, the coaches were asked to identify the information they select to form their coaching efficacy beliefs. An inductive content analysis of the sources of coaching efficacy indicated that coaches selected Player Development most often, followed by Coaches Development, Knowledge/Preparation, Leadership Skills, Player Support, and Past Experience. These sources were found to be similar to the proposed sources in the Coaching-Efficacy model (Feltz, et al.) and previous work in self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Key Words: determinants, basketball, self-efficacy In sport psychology, a considerable amount of research has been aimed at discovering the various factors that influence an athlete s performance. There is overwhelming support for self-efficacy theory, which suggests an athlete s level of self-efficacy creates a positive relationship with her/his performance in many athletic settings (Feltz & Lirgg, 2001). However, like athletes, coaches also play a central role in sport and can influence performance outcome through their own behavior and interactions with athletes. It seems logical that the same positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance in athletes would also occur in coaching efficacy and coaching performance. Despite the coaches significance, very little is understood about what determines coaches efficacy beliefs. Coaching efficacy, defined as the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes, may play an integral role in influencing coaching behaviors, coaching enjoyment, and athlete development (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melissa A. Chase, Department of Physical Education, Health, and Sport Studies, 120 Phillips Hall, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. Phone # (513)- 529-1951. Fax # (513)-529-5006. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to chasema@muohio.edu. 27

M. A. Chase, D. L. Feltz, S. W. Hayashi, and T. J. Hepler Feltz and her colleagues (1999) conceptualized a multidimensional model of coaching efficacy to guide research in this area (see Figure 1). According to their model, coaching efficacy consists of four dimensions: game strategy efficacy (belief in ability to coach during competition), motivation efficacy (belief in ability to affect the psychological skills and states of one s athletes), technique efficacy (belief in ability to instruct skills and diagnose skill problems), and character building efficacy (belief in ability to influence a positive attitude towards sports and good sportsmanship). These four dimensions were based on the National Standards for Athletic Coaches (National Association of Sport and Physical Education, 1995). Feltz et al. developed the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) to measure these four dimensions and promote research in coaching efficacy. S o u rc e s o f C o a c h in g E f f ic a c y In f o r m a tio n C o a c h in g E ffic a c y F a c to rs O u tc o m e s E x te n t o f C o a c h in g E x p e rie n c e / P re p a ra tio n P rio r S u c c e s s (w in /lo s s re c o rd ) P e rc e iv e d S k ill o f A th le te s S c h o o l/c o m m u n ity S u p p o rt G a m e S tra te g y M o tiv a tio n T e a c h in g T e c h n iq u e C h a ra c te r B u ild in g C o a c h in g B e h a v io r P la y e r/te a m S a tis fa c tio n P la y e r/te a m S a tis fa c tio n P la y e r/te a m E ffic a c y 28 Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Coaching Efficacy. The model of coaching efficacy is heavily rooted in Bandura s self-efficacy theory (1986). According to Bandura, self-efficacy beliefs are derived from four sources of efficacy information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Performance accomplishments represent personal mastery experiences and are considered to be the most powerful sources of efficacy information. As a general rule, previous success experiences tend to enhance efficacy beliefs, while failures may decrease self-efficacy. A second source of efficacy information, vicarious experience, is based upon observing the performance of others. Vicarious experience often influences self-efficacy through social comparisons where a person compares his or her performance capabilities with the performance of others, such as competitors. Verbal persuasion conveys efficacy information through verbal suggestions and cues. While the influence of verbal persuasion tends to be weaker than other sources, its impact often depends upon the knowledge and credibility of the person providing the feedback. Finally, one s physiological states also provide efficacy information. A person who feels efficacious at a task often perceives arousal as facilitative to performance. Conversely, a person with low self-efficacy tends to view arousal as a negative state that reflects personal inadequacies (Bandura).

Sources of Coaching Efficacy When developing the Coaching-Efficacy model, Feltz et al (1999) integrated information from the original sources from Bandura s self-efficacy theory with practical knowledge from 11 coaches who participated in a five-week graduate seminar in sport psychology, and from review of the teacher-efficacy literature (Fuller, Wood, Rapport, & Dornbusch, 1982; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996; Smylie, 1988). Feltz et al. (1 identified four sources of coaching-efficacy information: extent of coaching experience/preparation, prior success, perceived skill of athletes, and school/community support. The first two sources, coaching experience/preparation and prior success, are based on previous experiences, thus they are directly related to Bandura s conception of performance accomplishments. The source of perceived skill of athletes was based on research results from teacher education that found that teacher efficacy was based, in part, on teachers perceptions of their students academic ability (Smylie, 1988). The final source of coaching-efficacy information comes from school/community support. This source is similar to verbal persuasion. Members of the school and community can show support for their coach and their team in many ways, but one major way is through direct verbal communication. The coaching-efficacy model also illustrates predicted outcomes associated with high and low coaching efficacy beliefs. The model predicts that coaching efficacy will influence coaching behavior, player/team satisfaction, player/team performance, and player/team efficacy. For example, higher efficacy coaches have been shown to use more praise and encouragement in their coaching than lower efficacy coaches (Feltz et al., 1999). While the outcome or consequence of coaching efficacy is an important line of research, this study focuses on the sources of information coaches select for their coaching efficacy beliefs. Feltz and her colleagues have found support for the coaching-efficacy model and the factorial validity of the CES (Feltz et al., 1999; Lee, Malete, & Feltz, 2002). Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, a four-factor solution structure was supported with a second-order solution supporting one overall coaching efficacy construct. Support also has been found for aspects of the conceptual model of coaching efficacy. Using high school basketball coaches, Feltz et al. found that coaching experience and perceived support from parents, community, and athletic directors were the strongest sources of coaching efficacy. They also found that higher efficacy coaches had significantly higher winning percentages, greater player satisfaction, and used more praise and encouragement than lower efficacy coaches. In addition, Malete and Feltz (2000) found that a training program for coaches could significantly increase coaches efficacy beliefs, especially in the areas of game strategy and technique efficacy. Lee et al. also found support with Singapore coaches for the influence of coaching preparation, in terms of certification programs, as a source of strategy and technique efficacy, even when coaching experience was statistically controlled. Although support has been found for the sources of coaching efficacy that are proposed in the Feltz et al. (1999) model, the sources that they tested in their study accounted for only 13% of the variance in coaching efficacy scores. Thus, further exploration is warranted to identify additional sources of coaching efficacy. We believe 29

M. A. Chase, D. L. Feltz, S. W. Hayashi, and T. J. Hepler that coaches themselves, when given an opportunity to elaborate on the bases of their confidence in their coaching effectiveness, might identify additional sources of coaching efficacy beyond those included in the Feltz et al. model. The primary purpose of our study, therefore, was to follow-up with a sub-sample of the coaches who participated in the Feltz et al. study to try to identify additional sources of coaching efficacy that those coaches may use to form their beliefs. METHOD 30 PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURES The 12 participants who were interviewed in this study were selected from the subject pool in the Phase 2 portion of Feltz et al. (1999) study. A purposeful sampling technique of typical cases was used to select these participants because they were determined to be information-rich cases (Patton, 2002, p. 230). The Feltz et al, subject pool started with 125 high-school boys basketball head coaches, who coached within the mid- Michigan area and who had at least one year of coaching experience with the team they were currently coaching. Of the 125 male coaches, who were sent questionnaires, 70 returned them to yield a response rate of 56%. From this pool of coaches, 12 were asked if they would be willing to participate in a 45-minute telephone interview. All 12 coaches agreed to participate. Completing the CES in a previous study was not viewed as a problem because coaches had approximately one year between the time they completed the CES in the Feltz et al. study and the time they were interviewed. The 12 male participants in this study were all high school varsity basketball coaches. Ninety two percent were Caucasian and 8% were African American. All had completed at least a bachelor s degree. They ranged in age from 35 to 65 years and in years of coaching from 5 to 37 years. Informed consent was obtained from the participants. The participants were interviewed individually over the telephone by one of two investigators. They were informed that they could end the interview at any time and were encouraged to give honest responses. The interviews were structured and followed an interview guide in which all the coaches were asked the same questions. These questions were derived from the literature (Bandura, 1986) and previous research involving the development of the CES (Feltz et al., 1999). The coaches were told that the purpose of the interview was to learn about their coaching experiences and that the interviews would be tape-recorded. The interviewer received permission to record the interview and clarified any questions. The interviews varied in length from 30 to 60 minutes. To develop a friendly atmosphere and establish a rapport with the coaches, general questions about their coaching and team were asked. For example, the coaches were asked how long they had been coaching and how they got involved in coaching. In terms of the sources of self-efficacy, we began by asking each coach to explain the meaning of self-confidence. Self-confidence was utilized instead of self-efficacy because we believed that self-confidence was a term with which the coaches would be more

Sources of Coaching Efficacy familiar and likely to have a clearer understanding than self-efficacy. For this study, self-confidence in coaching was defined as the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes. The coaches were then asked about their sources of coaching confidence. These questions included how did you develop your confidence in coaching, what makes you more confident in your coaching, what are some qualities of a confident coach, how were these qualities determined, and what advice would you give a new coach who wanted to improve his confidence. For all sections of the interview, general probes were used to encourage the coaches to identify all possible responses to the questions. Specific probes were also used to encourage coaches to expand on their responses. As recommended by Scanlan and her colleagues (Scanlan, Ravizza, & Stein, 1989), special care was given to ask all questions and probes in a similar manner, by both investigators, for all interviews. Audio tapes of all interviews were reviewed by both investigators, with a special consideration to the questions and probes that were asked, to reduce the variability in the interviews. DATA ANALYSIS All interviews were tape-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Inductive content analysis was utilized to analyze the data, thus allowing themes to emerge from the interviews rather than forcing the data into preset classifications (Patton, 2002). The analysis was conducted using methods suggested by Patton and Weiss and colleagues (Weiss, Barber, Sisley, & Ebbeck, 1991) in their research on sources of competence in novice coaches and Scanlan et al. (1989) in their research on sources of enjoyment. The two interviewers read and reread the transcripts to become familiar with the data. Independently, they began the content analysis by identifying raw data themes (e.g. quotes from each coach) from the transcripts. These quotes served as the basic unit of analysis, which was defined by Weiss et al. as the smallest meaningful unit of information that can stand by itself. The lower order themes then emerged from the basic units of analysis (Scanlan et al.). This inductive process continued with the clustering of themes until general dimensions were formed in which there were no longer any common clusters. Consensus between the two researchers was required at each level of theme development (Scanlan, et al.; Weiss, et al.). A third researcher, familiar with the transcripts but not involved in the content analysis, served as a reliability check on the inductive analysis. Independently, this individual replicated the analysis from selected raw-data themes to general dimensions. A reliability of 90% was calculated between the original researchers and the external checker by comparing the selected raw-data themes to general dimensions analysis for each investigator. Similarities and differences in the analysis were discussed and triangular consensus between all three researchers was obtained. 31

M. A. Chase, D. L. Feltz, S. W. Hayashi, and T. J. Hepler Table 1: Raw-Data Themes, General Dimensions, and Frequency Percentage. Quote Lower Order Theme General Dimension You need to develop what you feel are the skills necessary to be successful in the game. What skills do you feel the kids need to have. Develop those skills to the fullest and then mold them together as a team. Individual skills are the absolute bottom building block. I think I m a good motivator because I do always get the kids to play hard, I don t have a magic formula I think another thing is teaching your team roles. I think if your players know their roles, you can be confident that they re going to execute what you re trying to teach them. I think you can get them to see the good in things that maybe weren t so good. develop player s skills getting players to play hard teaching team roles Little changes in how they played better. little changes in team play Player Development (27%) I think you have to have confidence in your team too. have confidence in team If you can be a coach and yet have the guys respect you. And, not that you re the player s best friend or anything, but, if they can just respect you and you give them proper respect. Some player being able to do something that they couldn t do before, that excitement of their face and realizing that they ve accomplished something. You get a feeling each year: did they do as well as I think they re capable of doing, or did they go higher than that? I like to get the ultimate out of each individual that s playing. I suppose that each individual, as far as in my mind, should perform to a level that I think they re capable of playing. mutual respect between coaches and players player improvement in performance personal development of players Well it s easy, it gets easer every year I guess because you ve been around kids so much you can pick things up if a kid is doing something wrong, we sit down and talk with him, spend time trying to get his game better. you have to go to clinics and keep yourself updated, keep yourself looking for new ideas. I think you take a little of everybody I ve always been associated with, things that I liked about people I ve played for, been assistants to and exclude some of the things I didn t like about the way they handled things. There s a little bit of me, or, all the former coaches and people I ve been associated with in our development, I think. communication with players coaching education program coaching development Be somebody who is comfortable withyourself and what you know. feel comfortable with yourself I think it s important to go to clinics and those kind of things and do some reading to really be confident in your ability to teach parts of the game. confidence from within Coaches Development (23%) 32

Sources of Coaching Efficacy Quote Lower Order Theme General Dimension It s important for them to have some things outside of the game of basketball for balance. Not to make it their entire life. Do everything that you can do and if you ask questions, if you need help, do anything you can to make yourself a better coach and to make your kids better. I think confidence comes from preparing your team. So my confidence comes in when we take the floor I know the kids can win every game because we prepare them to do the things they have to do. I m pretty comfortable with every aspect of the game. I guess strategy, game kinds of situations, I understand the game of basketball. You have to be able to teach some parts of the game. I don t think you can just bring kids in and say this is the talent and you put the talent forth. I think there s something you can teach them to be better I think a confident coach is one that uses practice time really well and is able to teach the game. finding a personal balance preparation to be a better coach knowledge of the game and coaching responsibilities understand the game Knowledge/ Preparation (22%) understand teaching aspects of the game I think being organized helps your confidence tremendously. organizational skills You need to be adaptable so you can work with young people. Be patient with players so they believe in your leadership. Well, as simple as it may seem, I think you have to have some kind of philosophy. You should have some philosophy that you believe in on the way the game is supposed to be played and then you need to somehow decide how you re going to go about, you know, teaching that to the people you re in charge of, until you develop that philosophy or until you get comfortable with your philosophy then you re not gonna be confident. learn how to work with people develop a coaching philosophy I think I deal with the kids well. You know they enjoy playing for me. players enjoy playing for you By the kids believing in you. I think that s the easiest thing So the belief that the kids have in you in crucial situations. That is where I think you can tell if you re the, you know, effective. One is feedback from your players. When you re getting positive feedback I saw progress with the kids the first year. The kids seemed to enjoy it. They seemed to pull together as a team and I felt very positive about all that I knew enough about basketball, I didn t know anywhere near enough about people. I think I know the game better now, you know the mistakes that I made, again when I was a freshmen and a JV coach. You re ready because you ve probably been through it a number of times. So that makes you more confident So the confidence factor is only in that you ve probably been there before. I think experience. Down through the years, myself at one time, it s important. player s confidence in you positive relationship with players past experience past playing experience Leadership Skills (15%) Past Experience (05%) 33

M. A. Chase, D. L. Feltz, S. W. Hayashi, and T. J. Hepler RESULTS The results identify the sources of coaching-efficacy information selected by the coaches. A listing of raw-data themes to general dimensions are contained in Table 1, with a frequency of response for each general dimension. 34 SOURCES OF COACHING EFFICACY FOR COACHES Player Development was the most frequently cited source of coaching efficacy for coaches (see Table 1). This general dimension was developed from the lower order themes of develop player s skills, getting players to play hard, teaching team roles, little changes in team play, have confidence in team, mutual respect between coaches and players, player improvement in performance, personal development of players, and communication with players. An example of two quotes from this dimension were, You need to develop what you feel are the skills necessary to be successful in the game. What skills do you feel the kids need to have? Develop those skills to the fullest and then mold them together as a team. Individual skills are the absolute bottom building block. And, another coach said, You get a feeling each year: Did they do as well as I think they re capable of doing, or did they go higher than that? I like to get the ultimate out of each individual that s playing. I suppose that each individual, as far as in my mind, should perform to a level that I think they re capable of playing. So when these coaches see improvements in their players performance it is a source of confidence for them in their coaching. Coaches Development was the second most frequently cited source. This general dimension stemmed from lower order themes such as, coaching education program, coaching development, feel comfortable with yourself, confidence from within, and finding a personal balance. An example of a quote from this dimension was, I think it s important to go to clinics and those kind of things and do some reading to really be confident in your ability to teach parts of the game. Another coach said this about coaches development, I think you take a little of everybody I ve always been associated with, things that I liked about people I ve played for, been assistants to and exclude some of the things I didn t like about the way they handled things. There s a little bit of me, or, all the former coaches and people I ve been associated with in our development, I think. This finding reinforces the importance of continuing education for coaches as a source of efficacy information. Knowledge/Preparation was also viewed as a source of coaching efficacy and was developed from the lower order themes of preparation to be a better coach, knowledge of the game and coaching responsibilities, understand the game, and understand teaching aspects of the game. An example of a quote from this dimension was, I think confidence comes from preparing your team. So my confidence comes in when we take the floor I know the kids can win every game because we prepare them to do the things they have to do. Another coach added, You have to be able to teach some parts of the game. I don t think you can just bring kids in and say this is the talent

Sources of Coaching Efficacy and you put the talent forth. I think there s something you can teach them to be better... I think a confident coach is one that uses practice time really well and is able to teach the game. This theme also relates to the confidence that comes from experiential knowledge and pedagogical background of the game. Leadership Skills were also viewed as a source of coaching efficacy and was developed from the lower order themes of organizational skills, learn how to work with people, and develop a coaching philosophy. An example quote was, Well... as simple as it may seem, I think you have to have some kind of philosophy. You should have some philosophy that you believe in on the way the game is supposed to be played and then you need to somehow decide how you re going to go about, you know, teaching that to the people you re in charge of, until you develop that philosophy or until you get comfortable with your philosophy then you re not gonna be confident. Another coach added, You need to be adaptable so you can work with young people. Be patient with players so they believe in your leadership. So when coaches believe that they are organized, have good personnel skills, and have enough reflective experience to form a philosophy of coaching, it is a source of confidence for them in their coaching. Player Support was derived from the lower order themes of players enjoy playing for you, player s confidence in you, feedback from players, and positive relationship with players. One coach said this about his interactions with his players, I saw progress with the kids the first year. The kids seemed to enjoy it. They seemed to pull together as a team and I felt very positive about all that... I knew enough about basketball, I didn t know anywhere near enough about people. Another coach said, One is feedback from your players. When you re getting positive feedback from your players, that makes you feel better. It is both verbal and the way they re playing. Past Experience was derived from the lower order themes of past experience and past playing experience. An example quote was, I think experience. Down through the years, all the coaching I ve done and being a player myself at one time, it s important. Another coach said, I think I know the game better now, you know the mistakes that I made, again when I was a freshmen and a JV coach. You re ready because you ve probably been through it a number of times. So that makes you more confident.... So the confidence factor is only in that you ve probably been there before. DISCUSSION The primary purpose of this study was to identify additional sources of coaching efficacy that coaches may use to form their beliefs beyond those recognized by the coaching-efficacy model and self-efficacy theory. However, based on the small sample limited to male high-school basketball coaches, implications should be viewed as possible sources for further explanation rather than definitive directions for coaching efficacy. Nevertheless, the sources of coaching-efficacy information identified by the coaches in this study were similar to those sources outlined in the Feltz et al. (1999) model and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). The interviews yielded six distinct themes as sources of coaching efficacy: Player development, coaches development, knowledge/preparation, leadership 35

M. A. Chase, D. L. Feltz, S. W. Hayashi, and T. J. Hepler skills, player support, and past experience. From the coaching-efficacy model, the extent of coaching experience/ preparation has a similar meaning to knowledge/preparation, coaches development, leadership skills, and past experience, found in our study. Perceived skill of athletes, from Feltz et al. has a similar meaning to player development. School/community support was not mentioned in these general terms but was more specific in terms of player support in our study. The only source from the coaching-efficacy model not accounted for in the new analysis was prior success (win/loss record). None of the 12 coaches mentioned winning or losing games as important to their feelings of coaching efficacy. This may suggest that the final outcome is not as important as the process and preparation to play. The findings of this study suggest that the sources of coaching efficacy from the coaching-efficacy model by Feltz et al (1999) may need to be more specific (see Figure 2). Four of the six themes represented various aspects related to the coaches themselves: past experience, leadership skills, knowledge/preparation, and coaches development. These findings suggest that it may be useful to consider them more specifically as sources within coaching experience. Although coaches development appears to be related to more formal educational programs, past experience appears to be more related to informal learning from events, such as, experiences from games themselves and from novel situations. This confidence source supports what Gould and his colleagues found with elite coaches in the United States (Gould, Giannini, Krane, & Hodge, 1990). They found that one of the most important themes for coaches was the need for experiential knowledge and informal education. As Gilbert and Trudel (2001) imply, experiential learning will not build confidence unless coaches also engage in reflection on their experience. Sources of C oaching-efficacy Information Original M odel Extended for F urther Research Extent of Coaching Experience/ Preparation Prior Success (win/loss record) P erceived Skill of Athletes School/Comm unity Support Extent of Coaching Experience/ Preparation Knowledge to prepare team Past experience in coaching Leadership skills Coachesʼ development Prior Success (win/loss record) P erceived Skill of Athletes Player Improvement Figure 2: Sources of Coaching Efficacy for Further Explanation. Support from School Students/Teachers Community Parents 36

Sources of Coaching Efficacy The raw-data quotes suggest that these coaches have used reflection to learning through past experiences. Knowledge/Preparation may also be a unique source of efficacy information that is separate from general coaching experience and deals mainly with the knowledge to prepare teams. Although some knowledge of the game is taught in most coaching education programs and learned by experience, it may be that knowledge gained from preparation for games and practices is also valuable. Leadership skills emerged as another factor relevant to the coach. Effective leadership skills pertained to drawing on one s perceived organizational and people skills and having a well-developed coaching philosophy. It takes time and experience to develop a well-thought out coaching philosophy and once it is established a coach can use it with confidence to make leadership decisions. This confidence source also relates to the importance of reflection in learning through experience (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001). One has to reflect on one s coaching philosophy, apply it, and evaluate its usefulness in order to develop it. Two of the perceived sources of coaching efficacy that emerged came from player development and player support. Player development may be more important than the perceived skill of athletes that was predicted in the Feltz et al. (1999) model. In future investigations, player development might be differentiated into player technical development and player personal development. It is possible that coaches gain confidence by seeing their players develop as skilled athletes but also as individuals. Perceived skill of athletes may be helpful in coaches predictions of the success of their overall seasons, but in terms of the confidence coaches have in their ability to affect the learning and performance of their athletes, the perception of player improvement (in skills, teamwork, and personal development) has more salience. Similar results have been found in classroom teaching, where personal teaching efficacy beliefs are based, in part, on perceptions of students academic improvements and not overall ability. Player support maybe better categorized with the social support source in the Feltz et al. (1999) model. Parents, teachers, students, athletic directors, and the community were listed as specific sources of support for a coach in the model. The players may actually be the closest source of support for a coach because they have the most contact with the coach and are most directly involved. Future research will need to consider how to quantify these sources of coaching efficacy if they are to be used to make predictions in the Feltz et al. (1999) coachingefficacy model. Although years of coaching experience has been shown to be strongly related to coaching efficacy (Feltz et al.; Lee et al., 2002; Malete & Feltz, 2000), the measure does not define what aspects of the experience help develop one s coaching efficacy. The source themes of coaches development, past experience, leadership skills, and knowledge/preparation all developed with the experience of being a coach. Coaching education within coaches development and past playing experience within past experience are more easily quantified than player development and knowledge/ preparation for games. New self-report instruments may need to be developed to measure some of these sources. 37

M. A. Chase, D. L. Feltz, S. W. Hayashi, and T. J. Hepler 38 In terms of how these source themes relate to self-efficacy theory, five of the six sources described by the coaches in this study were related to Bandura s (1986) past performance accomplishments source of efficacy information: Player development, coaches development, knowledge/preparation, leadership skills, and past experience. Performance accomplishments, as used in self-efficacy theory, do not always refer to objective measures of success, such as winning a game, but rather to subjective experiences of personal mastery. Therefore, a coach s sense of performance accomplishments may not be based on season records, but rather on perceived player development throughout the season. Coaches development directly relates to the past coaching education and self-development through reading and self-reflection. Another source, knowledge/preparation, is also related to performance accomplishments. A great deal of a coach s knowledge of the game often comes from previous playing or coaching experiences in the sport. In addition, a coach often gauges team preparation through performances in recent practices and competitions. Leadership skills is another source that is similar to performance accomplishments. Coaches can gather information regarding their leadership skills by assessing their success in developing, organizing, and implementing a coaching philosophy to previous teams. The fifth source of coaching- efficacy information that emerged from our data that was related to past performance was past experience. Past experience can be related to previous playing or coaching experiences and directly represents Bandura s conception of performance accomplishments. Although Feltz et al. (1999) did not propose their sources to predict specific coaching efficacy dimensions, the sources that we uncovered may differentially predict the separate factors of coaching efficacy in the Feltz et al. model. For instance, knowledge of the game may be more predictive of game strategy efficacy than of the other coaching efficacy factors. Because the leadership skills theme had such a strong coaching philosophy basis, it may be the efficacy source that most strongly predicts characterbuilding efficacy. In addition, a coach s perceived player development may be more predictive of his or her technique efficacy beliefs. Our study interviewed only male high-school coaches. Some previous research suggests that sources of coaching efficacy may be different for men and women coaches. Myers, Tonsing, and Feltz (in-press) examined the influence of sources of efficacy information on dimensions of coaching efficacy for intercollegiate coaches, as part of a study to determine the influence of coaching efficacy on coaching behavior and team variables in men s and women s intercollegiate teams. They found for female coaches social support was a stronger source of efficacy information compared to male coaches. Across coaches, perception of support from the athletes parents predicted character building efficacy, technique efficacy, and motivation efficacy. However, the significance of these relationships was mostly attributable to moderate associations for female coaches. Similarly, the influence of perceived social support from the community on character-building efficacy was significantly greater for female coaches than male coaches. Barber found, in her research with interscholastic coaches, that some sources of coaching competence information were unique to female coaches (Barber, 1998). Female coaches placed greater importance than male coaches on athlete s improvement

Sources of Coaching Efficacy and improvement of their own coaching skills. Future research should examine whether female and male coaches differ in sources of coaching efficacy, if so, what the differences are and why they occur. In conclusion, our study identified additional sources of information that may influence coaching efficacy. Coaches and coach educators can use this information to help increase coaching efficacy. For example, coaches development and knowledge of the game can be improved by going to coaching clinics, reading books, and watching instructional videos. In turn, this type of information could be used by coaching clinics to provide experiences and information for coaches to increase coaching efficacy. Programs could start to focus on how coaches might target and work to improve player and community support or leadership skills. The coach is an important element in the relationship between athlete and performance. Certainly, the coaches efficacy or belief that he or she can positively affect the learning and performance of his or her athletes must be taken into account when conducting research or planning interventions, whether it is with athletes or coaches. Future research should continue to expand and refine the sources of coaching-efficacy information. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. (pp. 19-39, 391-453). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barber, H. (1998). Examining gender differences in sources and levels of perceived competence in interscholastic coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 237-252. Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776. Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams, and coaches. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology, (2nd Ed., pp. 340-361). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapport, T., & Dornbusch, S. (1982). The organizational context of individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52, 7-30. Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 16-34. Gould, D., Giannini, J., Krane, V., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite U.S. national team, Pan American, and Olympic coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 332-344. Lee, K. S., Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2002). The strength of coaching efficacy between certified and non-certified Singapore coaches. International Journal of Applied Sport Science, 14, 55-67. Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 410-417. Myers, N. D., Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., & Feltz, D. L. (in-press). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). Quality coaches, quality sports: National standards for athletic coaches. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 39

M. A. Chase, D. L. Feltz, S. W. Hayashi, and T. J. Hepler Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M.G., & Staver. J.R. (1996). A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80, 283-315. Scanlan, T. K., Ravizza, K., & Stein, G. L. (1989). An in-depth study of former figure skaters: II. Sources of stress. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 103-120. Smylie, M.A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30. Weiss, M. R., Barber, H., Sisley, B. L., & Ebbeck, V. (1991). Developing competence and confidence in novice female coaches: II. Perceptions of ability and affective experiences following a season-long coaching internship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 336-363. AUTHOR NOTES Melissa A. Chase is with the Department of Physical Education, Health, and Sport Studies, at Miami University. Deborah L. Feltz is with the Department of Kinesiology, at Michigan State University. Susan W. Hayashi is now with Johnson, Bassin & Shaw, Inc. in Silver Spring, MD. Teri J. Hepler is now with Upper Iowa University. 40