27...}. x a! L .5 It; I. nil t . la. a to If .l ‘.v..:.' . .1)..r- . t (I 3 . . ”fa-I’ll; .. Habit}, 351:- :8 ' IM‘ . .3 r: .v .3 ’w . A ll! \ :V....". I1. I. fitnwfl1v l c $1». .1. 1.. :15»! Y z . ‘ . Sufiui$no€n$nlvhphdfl ‘ ‘ . ».Prh.l.1.1.zv!. luntl.‘ Ia . '21. ‘ A , , ‘.A..J.r v I . : m ‘ H: :7: I .3» a... I. . - .. . .4?» .xflqmz. . §.§wnh€§ .3; :mm. It r5332? . ... . . .. .2. 27:}.-. . 3 . I. I "It'llll I ' I :.ii. v . r. 2 .‘ . . . . figmggéfitgafi III. I} t...’.n3|} f .i ‘ MIC CIGH ANSTATEU NEW RSITYL INIIHHIII ll I'll! Ii lilllllllllllllllll 1293 00899 0859 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled O « CONSTRUCTION OF THE COACHING CONFIDENCE SCALE presented by Jeong-Keun Park has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Physical Education and Exercise Science Mam Major professor Date lD/JLl/C/l MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 F LIBRARY 7 Michigan State University \_ J PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE l MSU lc An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution cWWt CONSTRUCTION OF THE COACHING CONFIDENCE SCALE 3! Jeong-xeun Park A DISSERTATION Bunnitted to Michigan state University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree or DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Physical Education and Bxerciae Science 1992 ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTION OF THE COACHING CONFIDENCE SCALE ny Jeong-xeun Park The purpose of this study was to develop and examine a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. The coaching confidence model was developed from multiple sources: self-efficacy theory and models of teacher efficacy in an educational context. The process for developing a reliable and valid Coaching Confidence Scale (CCS) contained three stages: preliminary scale development and instrument reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity. Preliminary scale development involved instrument design and scoring procedures. In Phase 1 (nsl30), the study assessed (a) individual item characteristics, (b) the internal structure of the inventory, (c) the internal consistency of the inventory, and (d) social desirability response bias. Phase 1 of this study supported a multidimensional construct of coaching confidence. The CCS was found to have three factors: technique confidence, interpersonal confidence, and competition confidence. Each factor had strong internal consistency and provided adequate control of the social desirability response bias. The second phase assessed the concurrent validity of the CC8 by correlating it with measures of related psychological constructs. Results supported the concurrent validity of the CC8 for the self- esteem construct. In addition, a significant positive relationship emerged between internal locus of control and technique confidence and a significant negative relationship emerged between interpersonal confidence and anxiety. The purpose of Phase 3 (N???) was to measure the construct validity of the CCS. Using L tests, Pearson correlations, and multiple regression analysis, the results of Phase 3 provided partial support for the relationships between coaching confidence and its antecedent and consequent variables as represented in the coaching confidence model, thus providing some evidence of construct validity for the CC8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deepest thanks are extended to my dissertation committee chairperson and distinguished professor Dr. Deborah Feltz for her knowledge, keen advice, guidance, and patient reading of numerous drafts of my dissertation. Her professional expertise will long be remembered. For this, I am forever grateful. I also express my appreciation to the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Martha Ewing, Dr. Vern Seefeldt, and Dr. William Mehrens for their knowledge, guidance, and many helpful suggestions. Lastly, I want to express heartfelt thanks to my wife, Kyung-Ja, for her sacrifices to help me reach this goal. Her never-failing encouragement and understanding, incredible support, invaluable assistance, and suffering made this research a reality. I thank her for the patience that she has shown in my pursuit of this degree. I owe a very special thanks to my daughter Suzie for tolerating a father who disappeared day after long day into a world of books. W TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ... ..... ................................ vii List of Figures ........................................viii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCION ...................... ...... .... 1 Nature of the problem.............................. 1 Purpose of the Study............................... 13 Hypotheses......................................... l4 Delimitations...................................... l6 Assumptions........................................ 16 Definitions........................................ 17 Limitations........................................ 18 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................... 19 Confidence and Self-Efficacy Theory................ 19 Models of Teacher Efficacy......................... 26 The Need for a Coaching Confidence Construct....... 40 Summary............................................ 46 CHAPTER III: DEVELOPMENT OF THE COACHING CONFIDENCE SCALE (CCS) ......OOO0.000000000000000...O 48 Preliminary Scale Development...... ............ .... 48 Phase 1: Instrument Reliability................... 50 Purpose.................................. 50 Subjects................................. 50 Questionnaires........................... 52 Procedure................................ 53 Data Analysis............................ 53 Results.................................. 54 Phase 2: Concurrent Validity.......... ..... . ...... 62 Purpose.................................. 62 Subjects................................. 63 Questionnaires........................... 63 Procedures............................... 65 Data Analysis... ...... ................... 65 Results.................................. 65 Phase 3: Construct Validity....................... 67 PurposeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....... ....... O... 67 Subjects. ............ ....... ............ . 67 Chapter IV: CHAPTER V: List Questionnaires........................... Procedures............................... Data Analysis............................ Results.................................. DISCUSSIONOO......OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.... Predicting Coaching Confidence..................... Relationship Between Coaching Confidence, Team Performance, and Coaching Behaviors................ Discussion of Exploratory Findings.................. 98 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................... smarYe O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O conCIqu-OIIB O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Suggestions for Future Research.................... at ReferenceSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A Nut-1:130"! Item Development of the CCS............ Human Subjects Approval, Cover Letter to Coaches, and Questionnaires for Phase1..0.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... Fallow-up letterOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000...... Human Subjects Approval, Cover Letter to Coaches, and Questionnaires for Phase ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Human Subjects Approval, Cover Letter to Coaches, and Questionnaires for Phase 3......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. Data Coding Sheet for Phase 1.......... Phase1DataOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...... Data Coding Sheet for Phase 2. ........ PhasezDataOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... Data Coding Sheet for Phase 3.......... Phase 3 Data........................... 68 70 71 71 90 92 97 101 101 103 104 107 113 115 122 123 134 143 145 148 150 155 158 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Item Characteristics for the CCS.................... 56 2. Factor Analysis for the CCS......................... 58 3. Internal Consistency Estimates of Reliability for the CCSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 60 4. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the CCS and Three Other Constructs.......................... 66 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Demographics...... 73 6. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Coaching Confidence and Personal Variables.......... 75 7. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Coaching Confidence and Situational Variables....... 77 8. Multiple Regression Analyses for the Technique Confidence with Selected Antecedent Variables....... 78 9. Multiple Regression Analyses for the Interpersonal Confidence with Selected Antecedent Variables....... 79 10. Multiple Regression Analyses for the Competition Confidence with Selected Antecedent Variables....... 80 11. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Coaching Confidence and the Consequent Variables: Coaching Behaviors and Team Performance............. 82 12. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Personal Variables and Team Performance............. 84 13. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Situational Variables and Team Performance.......... 85 14. Multiple Regression Analysis for Team Performance with Selected Antecedent Variables.................. 86 15. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Personal Variables and Coaching Behaviors........... 87 16. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Situational Variables and Coaching Behaviors........ 88 hi LI ST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Model of Coaching Confidence....................... 5 2. Relationship Between Major Sources of Efficacy Information, Efficacy Expectations, and Performance as Predicted By Bandura's(1977) theory............... 23 3. Denham and Michael's (1981) Model of Teachers' Sense of efficacy.................................... 29 viii INTRODUCTION W Coaches and athletes have emphasized the importance of confidence for maximizing sports performance. Although coaches and athletes know confidence is an important factor of athletic performance, psychologists and sport psychologists have only recently begun to study this topic systematically and empirically. Bandura (1977, 1986) has provided a theory of self-efficacy with which to test the relationship between self-confidence beliefs and performance. Self-efficacy is defined as the strength of an individual's conviction that he or she can successfully execute a behavior required to achieve a certain outcome. Expectations of personal efficacy determine what kind of activities people will choose initially, how much effort they will expend, and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles. However, self-efficacy predicts performance only when proper incentives and the necessary skills are present. If the incentives and skills are lacking, the individual's efficacy expectations alone will not produce the desired performance (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Self-confidence and self-efficacy have been used synonymously in sport psychology literature and have been topics of much research interest (Feltz, 1982, 1988; Could & l 2 Weiss, 1981; Highlen & Bennett, 1979; Mahoney 5 Avener, 1977; Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, & Liles, 1979; Vealey, 1986; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). These studies have generally found positive relationships between an individual's efficacy expectations and performance and have shown that more successful performances exhibit higher efficacy expectations than less successful ones. Although the research on self-efficacy/confidence concerning athletes has been discussed frequently, to date there has been no research in the study of coaches' self- efficacy/confidence in sport. We research has been conducted specifically to assess coaches' self-efficacy to affect athletic performance, to define the construct, and to explore the relationships between coaches' self-efficacy and other variables. However, there has been some research in a related area on teachers' self-efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1982; Denham & Michael, 1981). Teachers' perceived sense of efficacy has been identified by educational researchers as a powerful variable in teaching effectiveness. Denham and Michael (1981) provided a multidimensional model of teacher efficacy that was influenced by Bandura's (1977) conceptualization of self-efficacy. The model contains three components: the teacher's sense of efficacy, the antecedents of self- efficacy (teacher training, teaching experience, system variables, personal variables, and causal attributions), and consequence conditions (teacher behaviors and student 3 outcomes). In this model, sense of efficacy is an intervening variable that mediates the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences. In terms of the antecedent variables in Denham and Michael's model, teacher training may affect sense of efficacy through the experience of a shared ordeal which may contribute to collegial feelings. Also, teacher training increases actual effectiveness. One researcher indicated that poor training left workers feeling ill-prepared and resulted in a high turnover rate (Carnell, 1978). Successful teaching experiences may also increase a teachers' sense of efficacy. Jersild (1966) reported that beginning teachers showed more anxiety than experienced teachers. Beginning teachers may also make more mistakes which lead to feelings of failure than teachers who are more experienced. Other variables that Denham and Michael (1981) proposed to influence a teacher's sense of efficacy are system variables and personal variables. System variables include the career ladder of the professional educator, teacher participation in decision making, and support from the administration, peers, and society. Personal characteristics of the teacher include self-esteem, gender, and need for achievement. For example, teachers with higher self-esteem should have higher beliefs of efficacy for teaching than teachers with lower self-esteem. Lastly, attributions are thought to mediate the effects 4 of other antecedent variables. For example, failure experiences in teaching that are attributed to external causes may not be as debilitating as failure experiences that are attributed to internal causes, such as lack of ability. As well, teachers who perceive the cause of their experiences to be under their own control are more likely to put forth more effort and increase their expectations than are teachers who perceive the cause of their achievements to be uncontrollable. The antecedent variables in this model all influence a teacher's sense of efficacy regarding teaching, which in turn, influences the teacher's behavior and students' outcomes. Self-efficacy can influence a teacher's behavior within the classroom as well as in terms of remaining in the teaching profession. Barfield and Burlingame (1974) reported that teachers with a lower sense of efficacy used custodial control in the classroom more than teachers with a higher sense of efficacy. In addition, Stinnet (1970) reported that teachers with a higher sense of efficacy dropped out of teaching less often than teachers with a lower sense of efficacy. In terms of student outcome, Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, and Zellman (1977) reported that a teacher's sense of efficacy has a strong relationship to students' achievement. A teacher's sense of efficacy may also influence the affective outcomes of students. Teachers who have a high sense of efficacy are more likely to raise students' self- 5 concepts and self-satisfaction than are teachers who have a low sense of efficacy. Furthermore, teachers with a low sense of efficacy may control students more custodially than humanistically. Many of the same variables that are associated with teacher efficacy can be applied to coaching. Therefore, using Denham and Michael's (1981) model, a model of coaching confidence, presented in Figure 1, was developed by the author. As in teacher efficacy, the three components in A MODEL OF COACHING CONFIDENCE inuaduuVmumhc CbmumuuuVuumu. , Puum: smmmmnmcmmmmg gfitrmo Playlng experience e m (Rndmmeuanma cmmmtmnmrmmHmnnmmu * fl summm: ‘ TbmwsmwwmeMSHmmd T Skill level of athletes Pam sawdsmmmn two _______7r___, lnhmnanVhdflWe -————__4 Cmmmmngmmmwe l , HEELS—l- A model of coaching confidence. 6 this model are coaching confidence, its antecedents, and consequences. In the present model, coaching confidence is the intervening variable that mediates the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences. I . : ! . : 1. i E'i In this study the term, coaching confidence, is used to describe a coach's self-efficacy. Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect the performance of their athletes. According to the model, the greater the coaching confidence, the more athletes advance in their performance. Two categories of antecedent variables are personal and situational variables. Personal variables include education in coaching, playing experience, coaching experience, and coach's prior won-lost record. Situational variables encompass a team's prior won-lost record, skill level of athletes, and school support. Certain personal factors and current situational factors may affect coaching confidence. In other words, coaching confidence may be changed depending on the personal factors of the coach and the situation. For example, in terms of personal factors, coaches may feel more confident when they have had prior successful coaching experiences, but feel less confidence and may even feel pessimistic when they have had prior unsuccessful coaching experiences. 7 Also, according to the model, coaching confidence is dependent upon the specific coaching situation. For example, coaches may feel more confident when they have a tremendous amount of school support, but feel less confident when they have little school support. These situational factors may tend to influence coaching confidence. These variables were investigated to determine their effect on coaching confidence of high school coaches for the 1991-1992 athletic seasons. Specifically, the influence of education in coaching, playing experience, coaching experience, and coach's prior won-lost record were examined. Also the influence of three other situational variables on coaching confidence were studied, i.e., team's won-lost record, skill level of athletes, and school support. The following constructs are explained. E513.xg;a3;j‘5,2n_5.n_g;g2§5.:h_;i,ng,L Education in coaching may have a significant effect on coaching confidence. It may influence coaching confidence by providing coaches with the knowledge and skills necessary for coaching. Corcoran (1990) demonstrated that coaches who received an educational program on chemical health had higher levels of confidence about influencing the chemical health of their athletes than coaches who did not receive the program. (Playigg_gxpg;igngg+ One might expect that a coach's own playing experience will predict coaching confidence because the skills and knowledge gained from playing experience provide a data base which can be drawn upon when coaching. Playing experience should develop the reflective thinking process necessary for effective planning in a coaching job. Therefore, one's playing experience may have some impact on coaching confidence. g:52a5;1::j.ng_gzmexiens;g_L Bandura and his associates (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Bandura & Schunk, 1981) have maintained that strong perceived self-efficacy is based upon the gradual acquisition of cognitive skills through personal mediated experiences. Therefore, the number of years that a person has coached may influence coaching confidence. Successful coaching experiences should increase coaching confidence, and it is probably safe to assume that the more experienced the coach, the more successful he or she is at coaching. W A coach's personal success at coaching in terms of won-lost record should also affect his or her coaching confidence. A coach who had a previous winning season should be more confident about coaching than a coach who had a previous losing season. IgamLs_p;ig;_ugn;lgs§_;§ggrd‘ Independent of the coach, a team who has had a consistent tradition of winning, can also affect coaching confidence through cognitive processing. According to the model, coaches whose teams have had a tradition of winning will have higher coaching confidence than coaches whose teams have had a tradition of losing. 9 Igam_abili;y*, Team ability should have some influence on coaching confidence. A more talented team would be expected to perform well and a less talented team might be expected to perform poorly. Consistency in positive performance outcome of a more talented team might generally increase coaching confidence. If coaches have teams with low ability, they may have lower coaching confidence. On the other hand, if coaches have teams with high ability, they may have higher coaching confidence. Sghggl_§npngzt‘ School support may also have an impact on coaching confidence. This includes support from the school principal, athletic director, student body, community, and parents. Trump and Georgiades (1978) suggested that the school principal is a very important person in determining the excellence of a school. The principal has some power to provide equipment and other support services to the coach. Therefore, the way the principal chooses to allocate resources is likely to have a significant effect on coaching confidence. As well, an athletic program needs the enthusiastic support from the athletic director, student body, community, and parents. Support from these individuals and groups is essential to the success of the athletic program. Therefore these are key factors in influencing a coach's confidence in leading the team to success. 10 H E J 3 5. . J I . 11 Many of the antecedents in this model may interact with each other. The effect of training on coaching confidence ‘may depend on other personal variables, whereas the effect of coaching experiences may be influenced by situational variables. For example, a coach's prior won-lost record may influence school support and school support may also influence a coach's prior won-lost record. : M . l] E : 1. : E'i Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect the athletes' performance. Denham and Michael (1981) assumed that "teacher sense of efficacy has an effect upon student outcomes and student outcomes in turn influence teacher sense of efficacy" (p 41). It seems logical to assume that coaching confidence has an effect upon team performance and that team performance, in turn, influences coaching confidence. It is also assumed that coaching confidence has an effect upon a coach's behavior and certain coaching behaviors influence team performance. For example, coaches who have confidence in their own coaching abilities should exhibit different types of feedback, create appropriate coaching strategies and methods, and develop greater responsibility towards ensuring the performance of their athletes than coaches who have less confidence in their ability to influence their athletes' performances. According to the model, coaches with high coaching 11 confidence should believe athletic performance can be influenced by effective coaching (e.g., techniques, methods, etc.). The consequences of coaching confidence in the model are coaching behaviors and team performance. The following constructs are explained. Coaching_hehayigrs. The model predicts that coaching confidence will be related to coaching behaviors. As in teacher efficacy, it seems logical that coaches high or low in coaching confidence will have different behavioral patterns of coaching. This study examined how well coaching confidence predicts coaching behaviors. Coaches with a high coaching confidence will tend to choose challenging activities and be motivated to try harder when obstacles confront them. In a similar fashion, coaches with a low coaching confidence will tend to avoid activities they believe to be beyond their capabilities. These coaches have low expectations of success, do not work as hard to motivate and coach their athletes, and reduce their efforts or give up entirely when confronted with difficulties. As a consequence, the athletes of coaches with a low coaching confidence perform poorly on team performance, and their failure reinforces their coaches' low coaching confidence. The proposed model assumes that the relationship between coaching confidence and coaching behavior is reciprocal. Coaching confidence influences behavior, and the consequences of that behavior alter coaching confidence. In addition, coaching behavior could influence some of the 12 antecedent variables, such as skill level of the athletes and school support. I:am_ngr£gzmangg‘ Many researchers (Could & Weiss, 1981; Weinberg, Yukelson, 8 Jackson, 1980) indicated that the individual's efficacy expectations have positive relationships with performance. It is assumed that coaching confidence has an effect upon team performance and that team performance, in turn, influences coaching confidence. Therefore, the relationship between coaching confidence and team performance is reciprocal. It is assumed that the athletes of coaches with a high coaching confidence perform better for their teams. The team's success then has a positive effect on their coaching confidence, and the process of reciprocal determinism continues in a mutually reinforcing cycle. Team performance will be measured by win-loss percentage across a season. H : 1. E l . i I E E I Coaching behaviors interact with team performance. The relationship between coaching behaviors and team performance is reciprocal. It is assumed that coaching behaviors have an effect on team performance and that team performance, in turn, influences coaching behaviors. For example, coaches who exert more effort, persist longer, and work harder with their athletes perform better for their teams than coaches who exert less effort, persist less, and do not work as hard with their athletes. Also, coaches who have successful team performance exert more effort, persist longer, and work l3 harder with their athletes than coaches who have unsuccessful team performance. W The purpose of this study is to develop and examine a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. The research was conducted in three phases: preliminary scale development and instrument reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity. Preliminary scale development involved design and scoring procedures of the instruments. Also, the preliminary scale development established content validity. In terms of instrument reliability, Phase 1 of the study assessed (a) individual item characteristics, (b) the internal structure of the inventory, (c) the internal consistency of the inventory, and (d) social desirability response bias. The second phase assessed the concurrent validity of the CCS by correlating measures of related psychological constructs with the CCS. Based on Vealey's (1986) tests of the concurrent validity of the Sport Confidence Inventory, the related constructs to be compared to the CC8 were the Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Spielberger, Gursuch, & Lushene, 1970), and the Internal and External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966). During Phase 3, the research involved testing the construct validity of the CCS. The relationship between the CC8 and the antecedent and consequence variables of coaching 14 confidence were examined in high school basketball coaches. In terms of antecedent variables, the present study investigated the relationships of coaching confidence with education in coaching, playing experience, coaching experience, coach's prior won-lost record, team's prior won- lost record, skill level of athletes, and school support. In terms of consequent variables, the present study investigated the relationships of coaching confidence with team performance and coaching behaviors. We Hypotheses were proposed for the second and third phases of this study. For the second phase of this study, the following hypotheses were proposed, based on Vealey's (1986) tests of the concurrent validity of the Sport Confidence Inventory: H1: There is a moderately positive relationship between coaching confidence and self-esteem. H2: There is a moderately positive relationship between coaching confidence and internal control. H3: There is a moderately negative relationship between coaching confidence and anxiety. For the third phase of this study, the following hypotheses were proposed based on Bandura's (1977) theory of 15 self-efficacy, Vealey's (1986) model of sport confidence, and Denham and Michael's (1981) model of teacher efficacy. H4: Coaches who have participated in a coaching educational program will have higher coaching confidence than coaches who have not participated in a program. H5: The greater the previous playing experience of coaches the higher their coaching confidence will be. H6: The greater the coaching experience of coaches the higher their coaching confidence will be. H7: The higher the ratio of winning to losing basketball games across the 1990-1991 season for coaches the higher their coaching confidence will be. 3. . 1 E 1' 1' E'i H8: The higher the team's ratio of winning to losing for the past 4 years the higher a coach's coaching confidence will be. H9: The greater the team's ability the higher a coach's coaching confidence will be. l6 H10: The greater the school support the higher a coach's coaching confidence will be. : 1° E'i 3° 1' 1 l . H11: The higher the coaching confidence the greater will be the coach's the effort and persistence. : 1° E'i 3' E H12: The higher the coaching confidence the higher the coach's winning percentage across the current season will be. I J' '! l° Phases 1 and 2 were delimited to high school coaches throughout the State of Michigan. Phase 3 was delimited to head high school basketball coaches throughout the State of Michigan. Assumptions This study was based on the following assumptions: 1. Coaches' responses to the items on each of the selected instruments are honest and accurate. 2. The questionnaires are effective tools for investigating the coaches' views. 3. The variables of the model are measurable. 4. The dependent measure of team performance as measured by won-lost percentage is a true indication of the team's performance. 17 The following definitions are provided. The terms were classified as conceptual or operational definitions. : J E E' . . 1. Coaching confidence: The extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect an athlete's performance. 2. Self-efficacy: The strength of an individual's conviction that she or he can successfully execute a behavior required to achieve a certain outcome (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy denotes a situationally specific self- confidence. : . 1 E' . . 1. Coaching behaviors: Behaviors that were assessed concerning the coaches' effort and persistence in coaching their teams. Specifically, how hard and how much time coaches spent coaching and how long coaches wanted to stay in coaching were behaviors that were assessed. 2. Coaching Confidence Scale (CCS) score: A score that was derived from a summation of the 10 items on the CC8. 3. Coaching experience: The number of years of experience serving as a head coach at the high school level. 4. Coach's prior won-lost record: The coach's percentage of wins for the previous season for the team he or she is currently coaching. 5. Education in coaching: Coaching instruction received from coaching educational programs such as coaching 18 certification programs, courses, workshops, and clinics. 6. Head coach: The individual appointed with a contract by a school to the head coaching position of the high school varsity team. 7. Playing experience: The number of years of a coach's prior experience as a competitive basketball player at the high school, college, and professional level. 8. School support: The extent to which a school supports its varsity team as measured by the School Support Questionnaire, which examines coaches' perceptions of how their programs compare to the ideal school sport program. 9. Skill level of athletes: The ability of a coach's athletes as measured by the number of seniors on the team, the number of varsity letter winners, the total heights of the starting five, and the coach's perception of the team's overall ability. 10.Team Performance: The percentage of a team's winning record for the 1991-1992 season. 11.Team's prior won-lost record: The percentage of a team's won-lost record for the last four years, 1987-1991 seasons. 1' 'l l' The study may be affected by the impossibility to control every activity and event of each coach, which may, in turn, affect team performance. In addition, the study was limited by using won-lost records as the measure of team performance because of the number of extraneous factors that affected wins and losses. CHAPTER II REVIEI OF LITERATURE Self-confidence is one of the most frequently cited psychological factors thought to affect people's behaviors. Bandura (1977) has provided a theory of self-efficacy with which to test the relationship between self-confidence beliefs and performance. A theory of self-efficacy is defined as the strength of an individual's conviction that s/he can successfully execute a behavior required to achieve a certain outcome. This theory has been the most extensively used theory for investigating self-confidence in psychology and sport psychology. This chapter discusses (a) confidence and self-efficacy theory, (b) models of teacher efficacy in an educational context, and (c) the need for a construct of coaching confidence. 2 E'i i 5 JE-EEE' I! Self-confidence and self-efficacy have been used synonymously in sport psychology literature. Both are terms implying one's perceived capability to achieve a certain outcome. Self-confidence has been viewed generally as a global trait that accounts for overall performance. Bandura (1977), however, uses the term "self-efficacy" to refer to the strength of an individual's conviction that s/he can successfully execute a specific behavior required to achieve l9 20 a certain outcome. Self-efficacy denotes a situationally specific self-confidence, not a global personality trait, and is not concerned with the skills one possesses per se, but rather with an individual's judgments of the skills one possesses. Self-efficacy is a critical construct in understanding motivation and behavior, because expectations of personal efficacy determine what kind of activities people will choose initially, how much effort they will expend, and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles. Research has shown that when difficulties arise, highly efficacious individuals will exert greater effort and maintain that effort longer to overcome those difficulties than those low in self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). However, self-efficacy predicts performance only when proper incentives and the necessary skills are present. If the incentives and skills are lacking, the individual's efficacy expectations alone will not produce the desired performance (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy varies in magnitude, generality, and strength, according to Bandura (1977). Magnitude refers to the difficulty for which the person feels competent. Self- efficacy may be limited to the simpler tasks and extended to the moderately difficult ones. Generality refers to the extent to which people's sense of efficacy is pertinent to various situations. The more similar the situations and tasks a person faces, the greater the probability that self- efficacy will generalize across these situations and tasks. 21 Strength refers to the ease or difficulty with which people's efficacy attitudes can be changed. A person who possesses a strong sense of efficacy will persevere in spite of difficulty. A person who possesses a weak sense of efficacy can easily be discouraged by an unsuccessful performance. According to Bandura's theory (1977, 1981, 1982), individuals acquire knowledge about expectations of personal efficacy from four principle sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Bandura proposed that self-efficacy, as a cognitive mechanism, mediates the effects of information on performance. Four categories of efficacy information are shown in the diagram of Figure 2. Perionnance Achievements Vicarious experiences \ Verbal persuasion |/ Emotional arousal Emdmmw expectations memnmmwl — — l _ — (Eignze_2, Relationship between major sources of efficacy information, efficacy expectations, and performance as predicted by Bandura's (1977) theory. 22 These four principal sources of efficacy information have different influences on efficacy expectations and performance. For example, performance accomplishments have more powerful information to influence psychological and behavioral changes than do other methods. Although vicarious experiences are generally weaker than performance achievements, people may influence their own efficacy expectations by observing or imaging similar others succeed or fail. Verbal persuasion is less powerful than performance achievements and vicarious experience, but one's own efficacy expectations are influenced through another person's talk or one's own self-talk. Emotional arousal is less clear and less well-established as efficacy information, but the level and quality of physiological arousal influence self-efficacy. Wt: The strongest durable determinant of efficacy information is that of performance accomplishments because they are based on personal mastery experiences. If these experiences have been repeatedly perceived as successful, they will influence higher efficacy expectations. If they are perceived as failures, then the efficacy expectations will decrease. Bandura (1977) emphasized that the relationship between efficacy expectations and performance accomplishments is reciprocal. Previous performance accomplishments influence one's efficacy expectations which, 23 in turn, influence one's future performance. Feltz and her colleagues (Feltz, Lenders, 8 Raeder, 1979) have shown that performance accomplishments provide higher efficacy expectations and greater behavioral change than other sources of efficacy information. Research in clinical psychology (Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977) and sport psychology (Feltz et al., 1979; MCAuley, 1983; Weinberg, Sinardi, & Jackson, 1982) support the influence of performance accomplishments on self-efficacy. N. . E . Although vicarious experiences are generally weaker than performance achievements, people may influence their own efficacy expectations by watching similar others succeed or fail. Therefore, modeling is a very important means of modifying self-efficacy and performance. Seeing others perform in various situations conveys information about the observer's own performance. A similar model seems to instill the attitude that "If s/he can do it, so can I." Kazdin (1974, 1975, 1976) indicated that the use of multiple models (or diversified models) enhance modeling effect to a greater extent than a single model. Weinberg et al. (1979) manipulated subjects' self- efficacy about competing against their competitor (a confederate) on a muscular leg-endurance task where the competitor was said to be either a varsity track athlete who performed well on a related task (low self-efficacy), or an 24 individual who had a knee injury and exhibited poor performance on a related task (high self-efficacy). The results indicated that the high self-efficacy subjects extended their legs significantly longer than low self- efficacy subjects. Wu Verbal persuasion is less powerful than performance achievements and vicarious experience, but one's own efficacy expectations are influenced through another person's talk or one's own self-talk. Teachers and coaches often encourage performance with statements such as ”I can do it" and " You've got the talent." These positive affirmations increase a person's sense of efficacy. Persuasive techniques such as verbal persuasion and performance deception are widely used by teachers and coaches to influence the behaviors of students and athletes. However, these persuasive techniques influence performance only if the heightened appraisal is within realistic bounds. Hess and Patton (1977) manipulated subjects' perceptions of how much weight was being lifted. Subjects either believed the weight to be less than the actual weight or believed the weight to be greater than the actual weight. The results indicated that the subjects lift significantly more weight when they believed weight to be less than the actual weight. Emotionaurouaal Emotional arousal is less clear and less well- established as efficacy information. Arousal reduction techniques, such as relaxation training, biofeedback, and other arousal reduction techniques, reduce the arousal. However, Bandura (1978) postulated that physiological arousal changes behavior through the cognitive appraisal of the information conveyed by arousal. Interpreting a person's arousal level may give clues as to how efficacious one really feels. Therefore, the individual's cognitive interpretation of arousal is an important key to influence one's sense of efficacy and behavior. Two people can perceive the same physiological arousal differently. Some individuals may interpret an increasing heart-rate as a cue to 'psyche-up' and some individuals may interpret an increasing heart-rate as a cue that s/he is too nervous to perform. Self-efficacy beliefs have been shown to predict behavior in a variety of settings. These have included sport performance (Feltz, 1982), health behavior (O'Leary, 1985), and academic achievement (Schunk, 1984). Although no research, to date, has examined the relationship between the efficacy beliefs of coaches and coaching behavior, some research has examined the relationship between teacher efficacy and teacher behavior. 26 W Teachers' perceived sense of efficacy has been identified by educational researchers as a powerful variable in teaching effectiveness (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Denham & Michael, 1981). Teachers' sense of efficacy is defined as the extent to which teachers believe they have the capacity to produce an effect on students' learning. Denham and Michael (1981) and Ashton and Webb (1986) provided multidimensional models of teacher efficacy that were influenced by Bandura's (1977) conceptualization of self- efficacy. Denham and Michael (1981) provided one model for the study of ”teacher sense of efficacy,” presented in Figure 3. The model contains three components: the teacher's sense of efficacy, the antecedents of self-efficacy, and consequence conditions. In this model, sense of efficacy is an intervening variable that mediates the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences. E 1 M . 1] E I l . S E EEE' Antecedent variables that Denham and Michael (1981) proposed to influence a teacher's sense of efficacy are teacher training, teaching experience, personal variables, system variables, and causal attributions. Tadgher_training‘ A teacher's training may have a significant effect on his or her sense of efficacy. There 27 nmuunuxoameo umuuumm .nnuaoancouxnmn tansaxemus TEACHER mourns ‘____, mouse mums EXPERIENCES sewn s til ‘7 e——+ SNNHEM STUDENT VARMELES VARMfllES OUTCOMES NYPOWHESUHHIIHEINENINICONSTRUCT: TEACHERSENOEOFEHHCACY COGNflhflE MAGNNUDE ‘51::::=_ GENERAUTY STRENGTH AFFECHME Eign:§_3, Denham and Michael's (1981) model of teachers' sense of efficacy. are several suggestions for ways in which teacher training may influence teachers' sense of efficacy. First, teacher training may affect self-efficacy through the experience of a shared ordeal which may contribute to collegial feelings. Secondly, teacher training increases actual effectiveness. Poor training has been shown to leave teachers feeling ill- prepared and has resulted in a high turnover rate (Carnell, 1978). Thirdly, teacher training may influence a teacher's sense of efficacy by convincing teachers that they possess 28 special knowledge. Finally, training may influence sense of efficacy by treating teachers as professionals in order to make them feel more like professionals. If teachers are treated like professionals, they will increase their self- efficacy and act more like professionals. Therefore, a teacher's sense of efficacy may be changed by workshops and training. jIgag;h.i.ng1_g2512,ez:_:i._eng;e_L Teaching experiences may influence teachers' self-efficacy. If teachers have successful teaching experiences, they are hypothesized to raise their efficacy expectations regarding their ability to teach. If teachers have unsuccessful teaching experiences, they are hypothesized to lower expectations. Likewise, the number of years that a teacher has taught should also influence a teacher's self-efficacy because with more years of teaching, teachers should have had more opportunities to be successful. A beginning teacher may be susceptible to the detrimental effects of failure, whereas the experienced teacher may be less affected. Jersild (1966) reported that beginning teachers showed more anxiety than experienced teachers. Beginning teachers may also make more mistakes which lead to feelings of failure than teachers who are more experienced. Therefore, successful teaching experiences should increase the sense of efficacy in teachers, and it is probably safe to assume that the more experienced the teacher, the more successful s/he is. 29 Personal_yaziab1§s‘ Other variables that Denham and Michael (1981) proposed to influence a teacher's sense of efficacy are personal variables such as self-esteem and the need for achievement because of their influence on a person's causal attributions. Teachers with higher self- esteem and achievement needs should have higher beliefs of efficacy for teaching than teachers with lower self-esteem and lower achievement needs. Denhem and Michael reasoned that teachers with higher self-esteem and achievement needs perceive failure as caused by lack of effort. Teachers with lower self-esteem and lower achievement needs tend to attribute failure to lack of ability. Based on Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory of self-efficacy, Denham and Michael further proposed that causal attributions influence teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. Indeed, those who hold high self-beliefs of efficacy have been shown to attribute failure to lack of effort, whereas those who hold low self- beliefs of efficacy ascribe the failures to lack of ability (Collins, 1982). syfiggm_yg;i§hlg§‘ System variables in this model include the career ladder of the professional educator, teacher participation in decision making, and support from the administration, peers, and society. Lortie (1975) pointed out that the career ladder of the professions influence teachers' sense of efficacy for teaching. If there is little chance of promotion or there are no steps to climb, teachers may drop out of their professions, and 30 subsequently lose their sense of efficacy to teach. Participation in decision making is very important to teachers (vavrus, 1978). McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) argued that teacher's participation in decision making about projects increased a teacher's ”sense of ownership" of a project. Therefore decision making gives teachers a sense of dignity and self-worth (Stimbert, 1970). Support from the school administration, peers, and society may have an impact on teachers' sense of efficacy. Trump and Georgiades (1978) pointed out that the school principal is a very important individual in determining the excellence of a school. Perhaps peers and society are key factors in influencing teachers' sense of efficacy, as well. Many teachers may increase their confidence in their value as teachers because the people with whom they interact provide them with the reassurance that they are doing their jobs well. Attributignsfi The explanations teachers give for success and failure of their behavior can affect their sense of efficacy. The attribution variable in the model is related to all of the other antecedents of self-efficacy. Causal attributions are thought to mediate the effects of other antecedent variables. However, this relationship does not imply that all effects of the antecedents are mediated by attributions. For example, failure experiences that are attributed to external factors or lack of effort may not be as debilitating as failure experiences that are attributed 31 to internal factors or lack of ability. Attributions to internal factors may increase or decrease teachers' sense of efficacy. MW According to the model of Denham and Michael (1981), a teacher's sense of efficacy is a cognitive mediator that contributes to the relationship between teacher behavior and students' achievement. The teacher's sense of efficacy in this model is composed of a cognitive component and an affective component. The cognitive aspective of teacher efficacy is the extent to which teachers can bring about positive changes in students. The affective aspect is the pride or shame associated with the teacher's sense of efficacy. The three dimensions of both the cognitive and affective components were magnitude, generality, and strength. Magnitude refers to the range of task difficulty for which the teacher demonstrates a sense of efficacy. Teachers may limit their sense of efficacy to the simpler tasks and increase their sense of efficacy at the moderately difficult ones. Generality refers to the extent to which a teacher's sense of efficacy is related to various teaching situations. Teacher efficacy is thought to apply to certain students under certain conditions. The more similar the situations and tasks a teacher faces, the greater the probability that self-efficacy will generalize across these situations and tasks. Strength refers to the ease or 32 difficulty with which teachers' efficacy attitudes can be modified. Teachers who possess strong expectations of mastery will persevere in spite of difficulty. According to the model, the greater the teachers' sense of efficacy, the more students advance in their academic performance. : H . l] E I l , 5 E EEE' The antecedent variables in this model all influence a teacher's sense of efficacy regarding teaching, which in turn, influences the teacher's behavior and students' outcomes (e.g., achievement, self-concept, and misconduct). The model assumes that the relationship between teachers' sense of efficacy and teacher behaviors and student outcomes are reciprocal. Teachers' sense of efficacy influences behavior, and the consequences of that behavior alter teachers' efficacy belief. Also teachers' sense of efficacy has an effect upon student outcomes and student outcomes, in turn, influence teachers' sense of efficacy through a continual bidirectional determinism. Iggghgz_hghayigzs‘ Teacher behaviors in this model include classroom behaviors and remaining in the teaching profession. It seems logical that teachers with a high or low sense of efficacy will have different behavioral patterns of teaching. Teachers with a high sense of efficacy will tend to choose challenging activities and be motivated to try harder when obstacles confront them. In contrast, teachers with a low sense of efficacy will tend to avoid activities, not work as hard to motivate and teach 33 students, and reduce their efforts or give up entirely when confronted with difficulties. Teachers who have a high sense of efficacy are more likely to control students more humanistically than are teachers who have a low sense of efficacy. Barfield and Burlingame (1974) reported that teachers with a lower sense of efficacy used custodial control in the classroom more than teachers with a higher sense of efficacy. Brophy (1979) suggested that more effective teachers focus on academic goals, provide academically oriented feedback, and allocate more time for teaching than less effective teachers. Self-efficacy can influence a teacher's behavior in terms of remaining in the teaching profession. Stinnet (1970) reported that teachers with a higher sense of efficacy dropped out of teaching less often than teachers with a lower sense of efficacy. Therefore, the teachers' efficacy beliefs are one of the variables related to the dropout of teachers. Teacher behaviors should also interact with student outcomes. The relationship between teacher behaviors and student outcomes is reciprocal. Teachers who exert more effort, persist longer, and work harder with their students, in turn, will have students who perform better in academics than teachers who do not exhibit this behavior. Additionally, students' successes have positive effects on their teacher's behaviors. 34 Student_gnnggmes‘ Student outcomes include achievement outcomes, affective outcomes, and behavioral outcomes. Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, and Zellman (1977) reported that a teacher's sense of efficacy has a strong relationship to students' achievement. Teachers who have a high sense of self-efficacy are likely to show greater improvements in their students' achievement than are teachers who have a low sense of self-efficacy. A teacher's sense of efficacy may also influence the affective outcomes of students. Furthermore, teachers who have a high sense of efficacy are more likely to raise students' self-concepts and self- satisfaction than are teachers who have a low sense of efficacy. Ashton and Webb (1986) provided a model similar to Denham and Michael's (1981) model for identifying many of the variables that may affect a teachers' sense of efficacy. However, they chose an ecological framework in which to structure a contextual analysis of teacher efficacy. Variables that Ashton and Webb (1986) proposed to influence teachers' sense of efficacy were organized according to a microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem of the teaching environment. These variables are helpful in identifying factors that influence teachers' sense of efficacy. 35 Hindustan The microsystem comprises the teachers' immediate setting, typically the classroom and includes both individual and situational characteristics. The microsystem characteristics that are proposed to influence teachers' self-efficacy are student characteristics, teacher characteristics, teacher ideology, role definitions, class size, and activity structure. In terms of students' personal characteristics, factors such as socioeconomic class, race, attractiveness, gender, and ability are related to the expectations and behaviors of teachers (Persell, 1977; Dusek 8 Joseph, 1983). Students' ability appears to be the most significant student characteristic affecting teachers' self-efficacy. If teachers have low expectations of their students' ability to learn, these low expectations will influence teachers' efficacy expectations in their own beliefs to teach and will reduce their effort in teaching the students. Teachers' ideologies influence their interactions with students, administrators, and parents. Ideological differences among teachers are likely to influence teachers' behavior through the mediating process of teachers' efficacy beliefs. If teachers have different ideologies from other teachers, these ideological differences will influence teachers' efficacy expectations in their own belief to teach. 36 Class size is still another variable likely to influence the teachers' abilities to be effective instructors. Teachers have known that class size is an important factor in their ability to be effective motivators. Glass and Smith (1979) indicated that achievement gains are detectable only when class size is reduced to 15 and below. However, achievement gains may have resulted more from teachers' beliefs that they can be more effective with smaller classes than from the actual small class. In terms of activity structure, teachers' efficacy beliefs may vary with the activity. Some teachers perceive themselves to be more effective in large-group than small- group instruction. These assessments should influence the teachers' choice of future activities. MSSQEXELSE The mesosystem consists of the relationships that take place within the teachers' major setting. A variety of mesosystem variables may influence students' achievement through the mediating influence of teachers' self-efficacy. Mesosystem variables include school size and demographic characteristics, school norms, collegial relations, principal-teacher relationships, decision-making structures, and home-school relations. Demographic characteristics of schools are likely to influence teachers' sense of efficacy. Teachers' efficacy 37 beliefs are likely to mediate the relationship between minority student population and teachers' authoritarian behavior. Larkin (1973) found that teachers in schools with a majority of minority students tended to be more authoritarian than teachers in schools with a large middle— class student population. School norms can be an important influence in determining teachers' sense of efficacy. Prevailing attitudes of teachers toward certain students tend to coalesce into school norms. Leacock (1969) reported that when teachers agree that certain students are unable to be educated, a low sense of efficacy can become a school pattern, an organizational norm: "There is nothing we can do, these students cannot learn," In such schools, new teachers are pressured to accept the dominant culture of the school. In terms of collegial relations, the isolation from colleagues may be a significant contributor to teachers' dissatisfaction in their profession. However, a number of studies have indicated that school structures that enhance teachers' opportunities for collegial interaction have a positive effect on teachers' attitudes and students' performance (Ellett & Masters, 1977; Meyer & Cohen, 1971). Therefore, strong collegial relations may increase teachers' sense of efficacy, enabling teachers to be more effective in teaching situations. 38 In terms of the principal-teacher relationship, the role of the principal in influencing teachers' sense of efficacy is the principal's recognition and support of the teachers. These affect the effectiveness of schools through the moderating influence of teachers' sense of efficacy. Teachers' satisfaction may be related to participation in decision-making. The greater the involvement in school decision-making the greater the job satisfaction. Duke, Showers, and Imber (1980) found that teachers increased their self-efficacy beliefs when they participated in school decision-making. Therefore, teacher decision-making is likely to be an important factor influencing teachers' sense of efficacy. The school and the home can be positive influences on student achievement. However, factors contributing to school failure are cultural discontinuities from racial and socioeconomic differences between teachers and parents. In such schools, teachers develop a low sense of efficacy in dealing with students and parents from backgrounds different from their own. When teachers are unable to cope with these cultural discontinuities, they may lessen their sense of efficacy. EKQSXELSE Many social structures external to the school environment exert powerful influences on teachers' sense of efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Two of the most likely 39 influences are the nature of the school district and legislative mandates. The nature of the school district is the community's location, size, socioeconomic composition, and parental involvement in school district decisions. These school district characteristics are likely to influence teachers' sense of efficacy. For example, teachers may have high levels of stress during a strike in a school district. This stress may have an impact on teachers' sense of efficacy. Responding to the role of legislation in education at both the federal and state levels, educational policy will increase the bureaucracy of the classroom. In other words, when teachers lose their autonomy, it affects their sense of efficacy. Efiuuzunuuuan The macrosystem variables that appear to affect teachers' sense of efficacy are cultural beliefs. These beliefs are the conception of the learner and the role of education. Attributions help us understand the thought process and behavior of teachers. Ashton and Webb (1986) suggest that in western cultures, success is indicative of competence or strength of character, whereas failure is taken as evidence of incompetence or weakness of character. When teachers confront low-achieving children, teachers attribute the students' problems to the students' lack of ability. This attribution gives teachers a low expectation 40 for students' success and a low sense of teaching efficacy. This belief affects the teachers' future interactions with the students. It is assumed that education offers success for all individuals with the necessary ability and motivation. When individuals fail, Ashton and Webb (1986) suggest that people from western cultures conclude that they either lack ability or motivation, or both. In these failure situations, teachers may decrease their sense of efficacy. Therefore, teachers have to understand the role of education in society. I] H i E 2 1' 2 E'l 2 I I Self-confidence and self-efficacy have been used synonymously in sport psychology literature and have been topics of much research interest (Feltz, 1982, 1988; Could & Weiss, 1981; Vealey, 1986; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). Although the research on self-efficacy/confidence concerning athletes has been discussed frequently, to date there has been no research in the study of coaches' self- efficacy/confidence in sport. No research has been conducted specifically to assess coaching confidence, to define the construct, and to explore the relationships between coaching confidence and other variables. Using Denham and Michael's (1981) model of teacher efficacy, a model of coaching confidence was developed by the author. As in teacher efficacy, the three components in this model 41 are coaching confidence, its antecedents, and consequences. In the present model, coaching confidence is the intervening variable that mediates the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences. 3 l' : {.1 Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect the performance of their athletes. According to the model, the greater the coaching confidence, the more athletes advance in their performance. E i M . 1] E : l' : E'i Two categories of antecedent variables are personal and situational variables. Personal variables include education in coaching, playing experience, coaching experience, and coach's prior won-lost record. Situational variables encompass a team's prior won-lost record, skill level of athletes, and school support. The following constructs chosen as antecedent variables are explained. EdugaLign_in_ggaghing‘ Education in coaching may have a significant effect on coaching confidence. It may influence coaching confidence by providing coaches with the knowledge and skills necessary for coaching. Corcoran (1990) demonstrated that coaches who received an educational program on chemical health had higher levels of confidence about influencing the chemical health of their athletes than coaches who did not receive the program. 42 Playing_exnexienge+ One might expect that a coach's own playing experience will predict coaching confidence because the skills and knowledge gained from playing experience provide a data base which can be drawn upon when coaching. Playing experience should develop the reflective thinking process necessary for effective planning in a coaching job. Therefore, one's playing experience may have some impact on coaching confidence. spanning_gxnexienge‘ Bandura and his associates (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Bandura & Schunk, 1981) have maintained that strong perceived self-efficacy is based upon the gradual acquisition of cognitive skills through personal mediated experiences. Therefore, the number of years that a person has coached may influence coaching confidence. Successful coaching experiences should increase coaching confidence, and it is probably safe to assume that the more experienced the coach, the more successful he or she is. W A coach's personal success at coaching in terms of won-lost record should also affect his or her coaching confidence. A coach who had a previous winning season should be more confident about coaching than a coach who had a previous losing season. Igam;s_p;igz_mgn;lg§;_;§ggrdL Independent of the coach, a team who has had a consistent tradition of winning, can also affect coaching confidence through cognitive processing. According to the model, coaches whose teams 43 have had a tradition of winning will have higher coaching confidence than coaches whose teams have had a tradition of losing. Isam_ability+ Team ability should have some influence on coaching confidence. If coaches have teams with low ability, they may have lower coaching confidence. On the other hand, if coaches have teams with high ability, they may have higher coaching confidence. fighggl_snnpgz§‘ School support may also have an impact on coaching confidence. This includes support from the school principal, athletic director, student body, community, and parents. Trump and Georgiades (1978) suggested that the school principal is a very important person in determining the excellence of a school. The principal has some power to provide equipment and other support services to the coach. Therefore, the way the principal chooses to allocate resources is likely to have a significant effect on coaching confidence. An athletic program needs the enthusiastic support from the athletic director, student body, community, and parents. Support from these individuals and groups is essential to the success of the athletic program. Therefore these are key factors in influencing a coach's confidence in leading the team to success. : I . 1] E : 1' 2 §.: Denham and Michael (1981) assumed that "teacher sense of efficacy has an effect upon student outcomes, and student 44 outcomes in turn influence teacher sense of efficacy" (p.41). It seems logical to assume that coaching confidence has an effect upon team performance and that team performance, in turn, influences coaching confidence. It is also assumed that coaching confidence has an effect upon a coach's behavior and certain coaching behaviors influence team performance. The consequences of coaching confidence in the model are coaching behaviors and team performance. The following constructs are explained. Cg;ghing_heh§yigzs+ The model predicts that coaching confidence will be related to coaching behaviors. As in teacher efficacy, it seems logical that coaches high or low in coaching confidence will have different behavioral patterns of coaching. This study examined how well coaching confidence predicts coaching behaviors. Coaches with a high coaching confidence will tend to choose challenging activities and be motivated to try harder when obstacles confront them. In a similar fashion, coaches with a low coaching confidence will tend to avoid activities they believe to be beyond their capabilities. These coaches have low expectations of success, do not work as hard to motivate and coach them, and reduce their efforts or give up entirely when confronted with difficulties. The proposed model assumes that the relationship between coaching confidence and coaching behavior is reciprocal. Coaching confidence influences behavior, and the consequences of that behavior alter coaching confidence. 45 W Many researchers (Gould r. Weiss, 1981; Weinberg, Yukelson, & Jackson, 1980) indicated that the individual's efficacy expectations have positive relationships with performance. It is assumed that coaching confidence has an effect upon team performance and that team performance, in turn, influences coaching confidence. The athletes of coaches with a high coaching confidence perform better for their teams. The team's success than has a positive effect on their coaching confidence. The athletes of coaches with a low coaching confidence perform poorly on team performance, and their failure reinforces their coaches' low coaching confidence, and the process of reciprocal determinism continues in a mutually reinforcing cycle. E J . 1 . 1 E 1 1° hehayigrs. Coaching behaviors will interact with team performance. The relationship between coaching behaviors and team performance is reciprocal. It is assumed that coaching behaviors have an effect on team performance and that team performance, in turn, influences coaching behaviors. For example, coaches who exert more effort, persist longer, and work harder with their athletes perform better for their teams than coaches who exert less effort, persist less, and do not work as hard with their athletes. Also, coaches who have successful team performance exert more effort, persist longer, and work harder with their 46 athletes than coaches who have unsuccessful team performance. SHENAI! Self-efficacy (self-confidence) is a critical construct in understanding motivation and behavior because expectations of personal efficacy determine the kind of activities people choose, their effort expenditure, and their persistence at the activity in the face of obstacles. In turn, self-percepts of efficacy are acquired, according to Bandura's theory (1977, 1986), from four principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Of these four principal sources, performance accomplishments have been shown to be the most powerful and dependable source of information on which to base one's confidence judgments (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy beliefs have been shown to predict behavior in a variety of contexts, including sport performance (Feltz, 1982), health behavior (O'Leary, 1985), and academic achievement (Schunk, 1984). Past research in the area of sport has focused on the performer (i.e., the athlete) rather than on the coach. Although no research, to date, has examined the relationship between the efficacy beliefs of coaches and coaching behavior, some research has examined the relationship between teacher efficacy and teacher behavior. This literature was reviewed and used as 47 a basis for developing a model of coaching confidence. No measure currently exists, however, to assess coaching confidence. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop and examine a valid and reliable instrument with which to assess the coaching confidence construct. CHAPTER III DEVELOPMENT OF THE COACHING CONFIDENCE SCALE (CCS) E 1. . 5 1 I 1 I 01' I' There were two objectives for the development of the Coaching Confidence Scale (CCS). First, a theoretical framework was needed in which coaching confidence could be conceptualized as an intervening construct in the model. Second, the CC8 had to meet the scientific standards of reliability and validity. 1W Items for the coaching confidence scale were logically derived by (a) modifying items found in the Sport Confidence Instrument developed by Vealey (1986); (b) reviewing the literature in education and sport psychology, and; (c) discussing the perceptions of coaching confidence with coaches and sport psychologists. The format for the CC8 is a 10-point Likert scale. The scale ranges from 9 (extremely confident) to 0 (not at all confident). Because the CC8 is a "trait-like" measure, coaches respond according to how they generally feel in several coaching situations. 48 49 The CCS is an additive scale. The total score is the sum of all items. The higher the score, the higher the coaching confidence. All 18 items were reviewed by six judges who had extensive backgrounds in sport psychology and in coaching. Judges evaluated the content validity of each item on a rating scale that ranged from one (essential) to three (not necessary). The items in "not necessary" category were deleted. From the judges' evaluations, 15 items were retained in the coaching confidence scale. Items 10, 16, and 18 were deleted. The original 18 items are contained in Appendix A with checkmarks alongside the three items that were deleted. 50 EHIRQEE There are several well-designed instruments to measure teacher efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984; Rose & Medway, 1981). However, no instrument exists for measuring coaching efficacy/confidence. The purpose of Phase 1 was to develop a reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. From the evaluations of expert sport psychologists, 15 items were retained in the Coaching Confidence Scale. In order to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence, Phase 1 of the study assessed (a) individual item characteristics to determine which items were contributing positively to the measure of coaching confidence; (b) the internal structure of the inventory to determine if the CC8 measured unidimensional or multidimensional constructs; (c) the internal consistency of the inventory which is an estimate of reliability, and; (d) social desirability, examining the degree to which the C08 was responded to in a socially desirable manner. 5111713912: The sample consisted of high school coaches (N=130) throughout the Michigan area. Samples were selected by using the WWW colleges (Wade, 1991), which provides an alphabetical 51 listing of the 717 high schools. Each school was assigned a number from 1 to 717 by using the alphabetical listing; that was, the first school in the listing received the number 1 and the last school in the listing received the number 717. One hundred and ninety-eight numbers were selected from 1 to 717 from the table of random numbers through a stratified random sampling prcedure.. From the list of 717 schools, 99 schools that had male- coached teams and 99 schools that had female-coached teams were selected in the following three respective categories: individual, dual, and team sports. The samples were selected until 33 male and 33 female coaches were obtained in each sporting category. Of the 198 subjects that were sampled according to the previously described selection process, 130 actually participated in this study, providing a return rate of 66%. The sample size included 130 coaches, of which 73 were male, and the other 57 were female. 0f the 73 male subjects, 18 were from swimming, 30 were from tennis, 20 were from baseball, 2 were from softball, 2 were from basketball, and 1 was from football. 0f the 57 female subjects, 19 were from swimming, 13 were from tennis, 21 were from softball, 1 each was from volleyball and basketball, and 2 were not identified by sporting category. 52 We A cover letter and an informed consent form were used to explain the study and request the coach's participation (see Appendix B). The CCS developed by the investigator (see Appendix B), was used to determine the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect athletic performance. Subjects rated their confidence generally as coaches. The scale consisted of 10 items, with responses on a scale of 0 (not at all confidence) to 9 (extremely confidence) and the higher scores indicated greater coaching confidence. The short form of the Marlowe-Crowns Social Desirability Scale (see Appendix B) developed by Reynolds (1982) was used to assess the honesty of responses from each of the subjects. It was assumed that some coaches would attempt to distort their responses of coaching confidence. The short form of the Marlowe-Crowns Social Desirability Scale consisted of 13 items and utilized a true and false response format. It was entitled The_§eeiel_£e;eenell§g Seele to disguise the purposes of this test. Reynolds reported that the internal consistency reliability for the short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was .76. The Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire was used to assess the background and personal history of each coach (see Appendix B). This questionnaire included demographic data pertaining to gender, race, age, educational 53 background, present position, years in present position, various sports coached, and total number of years spent as a coach. Emedure A letter and an informed consent form explaining the study and requesting the coach's participation, the CCS, the short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale, and the Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire were mailed to all selected coaches. These questionnaires were completed by the subjects and returned to the investigator by using one of the enclosed stamped envelopes. In order to ensure anonymity, a second stamped envelope was used to return the informed consent form. When the informed consent forms were not returned within 3 weeks, the investigator mailed a follow-up letter (see Appendix C) to those coaches. Participation in the study was voluntary. The subjects remained anonymous in any report of research findings, and all data from this study were treated with the strictest confidence. W Descriptive statistics were provided for item characteristics and social desirability. The item means as well as standard deviations were calculated. Range of each item, the item-total correlation coefficients, and the item- social desirability correlation coefficients were also 54 computed. The principal axis factor was used to examine the internal structure of the inventory. Cronbach's coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) was computed for the internal consistency of the CCS and subscales. Results W Seventy-three coaches ( 56-21:) were male and 57 (43.8%) were female. Five coaches were black (3.8%), 120 were white (92.3%), one was Hispanic (0.8%), and four were not identified by race (3.1%). The age groups of the coaches ranged from 20 to 64 years. The largest age category was 40-44 years (23.1%) and the lowest age category was 60-64 (3.1%). Fifty-two coaches (40%) had received a Master's degree, 38 entered a Master's degree program (29.2%), and 16 received a Bachelor's degree (12.3%). All coaches had at least a high school diploma. One hundred and twenty-eight coaches (98.5%) were head coaches, one (0.8%) was an assistant coach, and one (0.8%) was not identified by coach's position. Forty-five coaches (34.6%) coached male teams, 44 (33.8%) coached female teams, 38 (29.2%) coached both male and female teams, and three coaches (2.3%) did not identify whether they coached male or female teams. The total number of years of coaching experience ranged from one to 39 years. 55 W Several descriptive statistics for each item in the CC8 are illustrated in Table 1. The mean, standard deviation, the range of each item, the corrected item-scale total correlation coefficients, and the item-social desirability correlation coefficients were computed. All means were between 7.13 and 8.09 indicating that item distributions were a skewed toward the upper end of the 10 point Likert Scale. All standard deviations except for Item 11 (How confident are you in your ability to interact effectively with your coaching staff?) were greater than 1.0. The majority of items showed a range of 6 points. The corrected item-total correlation coefficients represent the relationship between each item and the total of the other items in the CC8. All items except Item 14 (How confident are you in your ability to settle team conflicts?) demonstrated an item-total correlation coefficient above the .45 criterion set by the investigator. Therefore, Item 14 was deleted based on the item-total correlations. Reliability of the entire scale was increased when Item 14 was deleted. SQCidl_d§SiIehilitxi A low correlation existed between the CC8 and social desirability scale (Is.08). This means that social desirability response bias was not indicated for the CC8. Only two items (Items 1 and 2) were minimamlly significantly related to social desirability, suggesting 56 Table 1 I :1 . . E 1 iii ITEM- ITEM-SOCIAL ITEM M SD BAKER TOTAL DESIRABILITY I I CCSl 7.68 1.17 4-9 .64 .20* CCSZ 7.13 1.43 3-9 .62 .18* CCS3 7.67 1.20 3-9 .72 .08 CCS4 7.75 1.17 4-9 .62 .04 CCSS 7.97 1.04 4-9 .60 .08 CCS6 7.69 1.18 3-9 .56 .04 CCS7 7.49 1.27 3-9 .46 .10 CCSS 7.62 1.31 1-9 .67 .04 CCS9 7.68 1.24 3-9 .68 .01 CCSlO 7.59 1.21 3-9 .69 .05 CCS11 8.09 .97 5-9 .52 .02 CC812 7.59 1.08 4-9 .65 .10 CCSl3 7.49 1.35 2-9 .57 .02 CCS14 7.46 1.27 2-9 .37 .00 CCSIS 7.85 1.02 5-9 .55 .00 *n<. 05 57 that the format of the CC8 is appropriate to decrease social desirability response bias to an acceptable level. MW Factor analysis was used to examine the internal structure of the inventory. The method of principal factors with oblique rotation produced three factors with eigenvalues of more than 1.0. All factors with an eigenvalue of less than 1.0 were deleted. Using a factor loading of .50 or higher as the criterion, Items 1, 2,3, and 13 loaded on Factor 1. Using the same criterion, Items 6,7, and 15 loaded on Factor 2. Items 8,9, and 10 loaded on Factor 3. However, Items 4,5,11, and 12 did not load on any factor. The three factors that emerged for the CC8 explained 67.1% of the variance. Factor 1 had an eigenvalue of 6.44 and accounted for 46% of the total variance. Factor 2 had an eigenvalue of 1.85 and accounted for 13.2% of the total variance. Factor 3 had an eigenvalue of 1.10 and accounted for 7.9% of the total variance. Because the CC8 items (except for Items 4,5,11, and 12) loaded on three factors, the construct of coaching confidence measured by the CC8 was considered multidimensional. The factor loadings for each of the items across the three dimensions are presented in Table 2. The three factor loadings represented a Technique Confidence (TC) dimension, an Interpersonal Confidence (IC) dimension, and a Competition Confidence (CC) dimension. The correlations between the three dimensions were reasonably 58 Table 2 WW SHBEQALE ITEM FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR .l. .2. .1 Technique 1. Teach skills .87 Confidence 2. Error detection .79 3. Evaluation of .58 player's ability 13. Organize effective .71 practices Interpersonal 6. Communication .82 Confidence with players 7. Motivate player .64 15. Interpersonal relation .80 skills with players Competition 8. Make critical .57 Confidence decisions in competitions 9. Coach under pressure .93 10. Adopt to different .75 games situations Eigenvalue 6.44 1.85 1.10 % variance 46.0 13.2 7.9 Cum. % variance 46.0 59.2 67.1 Note. Factor loadings below .5 were eliminated. 59 independent. Specifically, the correlation between technique and interpersonal confidence (3:.35) and interpersonal and competition confidence (rs-.44) suggested that these dimensions were relatively independent. However, the correlation between technique and competition confidence (;--.53) suggested that these dimensions may not be independent. These results suggest that three dimensions may be adequate to explain the underlying structure of coaching confidence. WW one of the most commonly used reliability coefficients is Cronbach's Alpha (1951). For this analysis, Cronbach's alpha was computed to determine the internal consistency of the CC8. It is based on correlations of items on a single scale. That means it is based on the average correlation of items within a test. The internal consistencies of three underlying dimensions were also assessed via coefficient alpha. These values were all very satisfactory. Estimates of inter-item consistency for each subscale are summarized in Table 3. An alpha coefficient was calculated twice for the overall scale. The first computation included all 15 items and yielded an alpha coefficient of .90. The second computation included 10 items, after deleting Items 4,5,11,12, and 14 and yielded a coefficient of .87. The rationale for this deletion was provided in the section on item characteristics and internal structure of the CCS. 60 Both alpha coefficients were greater than the criterion of .70, which was recommended by Nunnelly (1978). Coefficient alpha for the 4 items of the Technique Confidence had a value of .84, suggesting that this factor was being reliably assessed. The second factor, Interpersonal Confidence, had an internal consistency value Table 3 Q 99' 0! 0.1 ‘ u- ’ 0 ‘ .0 0 !‘ SCALB.and.SHESCALES N ITEMS CQEEEICIENI.ALEHA Coaching_£onfidenge *116 15 .90 130 10 .87 Technique.92nfidence 130 4 .84 In:erneraonal.§onfidence 130 3 .83 Competinign_§9nfidenge 130 3 .87 * Fourteen subjects did not to respond Item 11. of .83 over 3 items and appears reliable. The last factor, Competition Confidence, had an internal consistency value of .87 over 3 items. The results indicated that the CC8 was reliable based on an internal consistency analysis. 61 En:§hgr_analyag§‘ A few comparisons of interest were made on the data based on characteristic of the coaches. Specifically, CCS scores were compared by the gender of coaches, type of sport (individual, dual, and team), age group of coaches (20-39 and 40-64), educational background (bachelor degree and beyond bachelor degree), and coaching experience (1-10 and 15-39 years). Using L tests, results indicated that gender, type of sport, and educational background had no significant relationship to coaching confidence. The age group of coaches and coaching experience had significant positive relationships to coaching confidence. Results showed that older coaches had higher coaching confidence (uF80.82; SD=6.73) than younger coaches (M-76.51; 52-8.44), L(74)-2.47, p<.02. Furthermore, coaches with more coaching experience had higher coaching confidence (Ms78.31; sn-7.46) than coaches with less coaching experience (M-73.17; $299.41), L (97)-3.15, p<.002. 62 Burmese The purpose of Phase 2 was to demonstrate concurrent validity of the CCS. Concurrent validity is concerned with the effectiveness of a test in predicting responses to related constructs (Anastasi, 1982). Concurrent validity for the CC8 in this study was established by predicting relationships between the CC8 and other related psychological constructs. Several related constructs were used for the concurrent validity of the CC8 based on Vealey's (1986) tests of the concurrent validity of the Sport Confidence Inventory. Vealey used the Sport Competition Anxiety Test (Martens, 1977) to measure competitive trait anxiety; the CSAI-z (Martens, Burton, Vealey, & Bump, 1982) to measure competitive state anxiety; the Physical Self-Efficacy Scale (Ryckman, Robbins, Thornton, 6 Cantrell 1982) to measure perceived physical ability and physical self-presentation confidence; Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (1965) to measure general self-esteem; and the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) to measure locus of control. From these, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (1979), State- Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), and the Internal Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) were used to test the concurrent validity of the CC8. 63 Subjects The sample consisted of high school coaches (mess) throughout the Michigan area. As in Phase 1, samples were selected by using the MiQhigan_99e9hes.direst9zx.9f.high aghgg1§_§nd_ggllggg§ (Wade, 1991). As before, each school was assigned a number from 1 to 717. One hundred forty-four numbers were selected from the table of random numbers. Samples were selected until 24 male and 24 female coaches were obtained in each sport category. Eighty-eight out of 144 subjects participated in Phase 2 of this study, providing a return rate of 61%. The sample size included 88 coaches, of which 52 were male and 36 were female. 0f the 52 male coaches, 11 were from swimming, 22 were from tennis, 15 were from baseball, 2 were from softball, and 1 each was from basketball and football. 0f the 36 female coaches, 12 were from swimming, 7 were from tennis, 15 were from softball, 1 coached basketball, and 1 was not identified by sport category. C I. . Rosenberg's (1979) Self-Esteem Scale (see Appendix D) was used to measure global self-esteem. This scale is one of the most commonly used self-esteem instruments. Coopersmith (1967) defined self-esteem as ”the evaluation which an individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself; it expresses an attitude of approval or 64 disapproval" (P.4-5). Generalized feelings of self-efficacy have been shown to correlate highly with self-esteem (Smith, 1989), therefore, specific feelings of coaching confidence should correlate more moderately with self-esteem. The self-esteem scale consisted of 10 items, 5 positively and 5 negatively worded items and employed a 4-point Likert Scale, with responses on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The positively stated items were reverse-scored so that the higher scores would reflect higher self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale showed a two-week test-retest reliability of .85 and .88, with small college samples. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (see Appendix D) was used to measure coaches' general feelings of anxiety and has been shown to correlate negatively with self-confidence (Vealey, 1986). This scale consisted of 20 items, 10 positively and 10 negatively worded items and employed a 4- point Likert Scale, with responses on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). The positively stated items were reverse-scored so that the higher scores would indicate higher anxiety. Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control (LOC) Scale (See Appendix D) was used to measure a coach's locus of control. Locus of control has some degree of conceptual overlap with self-efficacy beliefs and a subset of the items on the LOC refer directly to a subject's behavioral capabilities (Smith, 1989). This scale consisted 65 of 29 forced-choice items. Each item consisted of a pair of alternatives choices: one external and one internal. Scoring was reversed so that the higher scores would reflect an internal locus of control. We: An informed consent form, the CCS, the revised version of the Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire, the Rosenberg (1979) Self-Esteem Scale, the STAI, and the Internal- External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) were mailed to selected coaches. The procedures of Phase 2 were the same as was used in Phase 1. mm Simple correlation coefficients were used to test the relationships between the coaching confidence subscales and other related psychological constructs. Results Concurrent validity was tested by correlating measures of related psychological constructs with the CCS. Therefore, simple correlation coefficients were used to test the relationships between coaching confidence and the other three related psychological constructs. The correlation coefficients between the CCS subscales and other constructs are seen in Table 4. Two subjects on the Self-Esteem Scale, six on the STAI, and 12 on the Locus of Control Scale did 66 not respond in this phase of the study. The results indicated that self-esteem was significantly related to coaching confidence for all three subscales, thus supporting the first hypothesis. However, internal locus of control was correlated only with technique confidence (r-.36) and STAI was correlated only with interpersonal confidence (rs-.22), thus only partially supporting the second and third hypotheses. As expected, these correlations were significant in the appropriate direction and were moderate as predicted by the hypothesis. Table 4 "o to e ‘ - on 0‘ ‘1 e 9‘ oo- 01‘ .0 0 ‘ IQQL‘ Q ‘19‘ 9". 1". '11]..- . 9! Coaching Confidence 90115180521 N Technique W Wen Self-esteem 86 .33** .28** .20* STAI 82 -.12 -.22* -.06 Internal locus ' of control 76 .36*** -.00 .12 *** p<.001 ** p<.01 * n<.05 67 Phase 3 3 Construct validity 2322989 The final psychometric property to be established for the CCS was construct validity. Construct validity is the most important psychometric characteristic of a test. Mehrens and Lehmann (1984) defined construct validity as "the degree to which one can infer certain constructs in a psychological theory from the test scores" (p. 294). In this study, it was necessary to demonstrate that the CCS predicts coaching confidence in accordance with the theoretical expectations proposed in Chapter 1. Even though no one study is sufficient to demonstrate the construct validity of a test, this study attempted to start to seek construct validity for the CCS through its relationship with antecedent and consequent variables. m Subjects consisted of 77 head high school basketball coaches throughout the State of Michigan who had at least 1 year of coaching experience with the team they were currently coaching. Subjects were selected by using the g. QQ.Q o. 9- a. - o. 0 Q... goo ..q o -q- (Wade, 1992). Using a random sampling procedure, each school was assigned a number from 1 to 717 by using the alphabetical listing in the directory; that was, the first school in the listing received the number 1 and the last 68 school in the listing received the number 717. Ninety-five numbers were selected from the table of random numbers. Each school that was randomly selected was contacted to determine if their boys' basketball coach had been in the position of head coach for at least one year. If the coach did not meet the criteria, another school was randomly selected. If the coach met the criteria, he was then contacted and asked to participate in the study. If the coach refused, another school was randomly selected. This procedure continued until 95 coaches who fit the criteria had agreed to participate. Each coach was asked to complete all questionnaires before the basketball season started (February 10, 1992). Of the 95 subjects sampled, according to the previously described selection process, 77 actually participated in this study, providing a return rate of 81%. Eighteen subjects did not participate in this study even though they had verbally consented to participate. D l' . A cover letter, the Consent form, the Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire, the final version of the CCS, the Team Ability Questionnaire, the School Support Questionnaire, and the Coaching Behavior Scale were used for data collection in Phase 3. The Team Ability Questionnaire, the School Support Questionnaire, and the Coaching Behavior Scale are contained in Appendix E. 69 Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire included demographic data pertaining to gender, race, age, educational background, coaching education, present position, years in present position, total number of years in coaching career, sports that they have coached and played, won-lost record for the last four years, and won- lost record for the previous season. For analysis purposes, coaching education was dichotomized into coaches who participated in a coaching educational program (n-53) and coaches who had not (n324). Total number of years coaches had played basketball was used as the measure of playing experience. Total number of years in a coaching career was used as the measure of coaching experience. The won-lost record for the previous season was used as the measure of a coach's prior won-lost record. The won-lost record for the last four years was used as the measure of a team's prior won-lost record. The Team Ability Questionnaire developed by the author was used to assess the ability of the athletes on a coach's team. This questionnaire contained four questions regarding the number of seniors on the team, the number of varsity letter winners, the total heights of the starters, and the coach's perception of the team's overall ability on the 10- point Likert Scale, with responses ranging from 0 (very poor) to 9 (excellent). For analysis purposes, each item was correlated separately with coaching confidence to test the relevant hypotheses because the items were on different 70 scales. The School Support Questionnaire developed by the author was used to assess the extent to which a school supported the varsity team. The School Support Questionnaire contained six questions on the 10-point Likert Scale, with responses ranging from 0 (not at all supportive) to 9 (extremely supportive) that determined the coach's perceptions of how his program compares to the ideal school sport program. The six questions were added together to obtain a school support score. The higher the score, the greater the school support. The Coaching Behavior Scale also developed by the author was used to assess coaching behaviors. The scale consisted of six questions regarding the coaches' effort and persistence for their teams. Three questions pertained to effort and three pertained to persistence. The effort questions dealt with how hard and how much time coaches spent coaching. The persistence questions dealt with how long coaches wanted to stay in coaching. For analysis purposes, each item was correlated separately with coaching confidence to test the relevant hypotheses because items were on different scales and could not be summed together. 21933511129 After the 95 coaches verbally consented to participate in this study, the Consent form, the Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire, the final version of the CCS, the Team 7] Ability Questionnaire, the School Support Questionnaire, and the Coaching Behavior Scale were mailed to them. To get each team's performance, the winning records for 44 schools for the 1991-92 season were acquired from newspapers and 29 were acquired from telephone interviews. However, four schools' records were not reported in newspapers and/or telephone interviews. We For the analysis of this phase of the study, simple correlations were conducted to study the relationships between variables in the conceptual model of the CCS. I tests were performed to check for differences between coaches who participated in a coaching educational program and those who had not. If there was more than one significant relationship between the variables and coaching confidence, multiple regression analyses were used to determine the strongest predictors of coaching confidence. Results The results of this study have been organized into five sections. The first section presents the results of the demographic analyses. The second and third sections present the results of the personal and situational variables to predict coaching confidence. The fourth section presents the results of relationships between coaching confidence and consequences. The last section presents the further 72 analyses of other relationships in the model of coaching confidence. W All basketball coaches (n-77) were male. Five coaches were black (7%), 71 were white (92%), and one (1%) was not identified by race. The age groups of the basketball coaches ranged from 20 to 59 years. The largest age category was 35-39 years (30%) and the lowest age categories were 20-24 years (2.6%) and 50-54 years (2.6%). Twenty-nine (37.7%) of the coaches had received a Master's degree and 33 (42.9%) entered a Master's degree program. All basketball coaches had at least a high school diploma. Coaches who had participated in coaching clinics, workshops, and college courses (n-53) versus those who had not (n-24) were identified. Total workshop participation hours ranged from 6 hours to 1000 hours, with a mean of 154 hours. Means and standard deviations for demographic analyses are shown in Table 5. E J M . 1] F 1° : 1. : E'i The first set of analyses was used to examine the relationships between personal variables and coaching confidence. Hypotheses 4 through 7 were used to assess the construct validity of the CCS in terms of the degree to which four personal variables - coaching education, playing 73 Table 5 Variables M SD RANGE Coaching experience (years) 16.08 7.81 2-35 Basketball playing experience (years) 5.31 2.28 1-12 Coach's prior won-lost record (%) 52.93 24.33 5-96 Team's prior won-lost record (%) 57.03 18.59 10-90 Team Ability Number of Seniors 4.93 1.85 0-9 Number of Varsity Letter Winners 5.55 1.83 2-10 Total Height of Starting Five in Inches 365.09 7.31 346-379 Rating of Overall Ability 5.97 1.35 0-8 School support 30.45 7.41 13-45 Coaching confidence (total score) 78.38 7.99 43-90 Effort Hours/Week in Season 24.65 7.17 10-50 Hours/Week out of Season 8.11 4.84 1-25 Persistence (years) 10.38 7.97 1-30 Team Performance (%) 50.89 23.60 0-100 74 experience, coaching experience, and coach's prior won-lost record - could predict coaching confidence. These hypotheses were stated as follows: H4: Coaches who have participated in a coaching educational program will have higher coaching confidence than coaches who have not participated in a program. H5: The greater the previous playing experience of coaches the higher their coaching confidence will be. H6: The greater the coaching experience of coaches the higher their coaching confidence will be. H7: The higher the ratio of winning to losing basketball games across the 1990-1991 season for coaches the higher their coaching confidence will be. I tests were used to analyze Hypothesis 4 because coaching education was dichotomized as a variable. The results of these analyses indicated that coaching education was not significantly related to any of the coaching confidence subscales, technique confidence L (75):.03, 9-.98; interpersonal confidence L (75)=-.04, n-.97; competition confidence L (74)=.26, n-.80. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. 75 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to test the hypotheses regarding relationships between coaching confidence and the other three personal variables. The Pearson correlation coefficients between these variables are shown in Table 6. Table 6 ". ‘0. o a . o. o- ‘9 2‘ “Q o. 9 go o, 0" ‘ Wigs Personal Variables Coaching Confidence Playing Experience .14 .02 .08 Coaching Experience .33** .09 .25* Coach's Prior Won-Lost .13 .19 .15 **n<.01 * p<.05. Results indicated that only coaching experience was significantly related to technique confidence and competition confidence. The greater the coaching experience the higher were technique and competition confidence, which partially supports the sixth hypothesis. Positive low relationships emerged between coaching confidence and 76 playing experience and positive low relationships emerged between coaching confidence and coach's prior won-lost record. 3. . 1 M . 1] E i' : 1. : E'i The second set of analyses was used to examine the relationships between situational variables and coaching confidence. Hypotheses 8 through 10 were tested in order to examine the construct validity of the CCS in terms of the degree to which situational variables could predict coaching confidence. The variables analyzed in this phase of the study included the team's prior won-lost record, team ability, and school support. These hypotheses were stated as follows: H8: The higher the team's ratio of winning to losing for the past 4 years the higher a coach's coaching confidence will be. H9: The greater the team's ability the higher a coach's coaching confidence will be. H10: The greater the school support the higher a coach's coaching confidence will be. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to study the relationships between the CCS and situational variables. 77 All correlations and significance levels are shown in Table 7. School support and team's prior won-lost record were significantly related to coaching confidence. Overall ability was significantly related to technique confidence, and number of varsity letter winners was significantly related to competition confidence. These results support the eighth and tenth hypotheses. However, some of the team Table 7 . s, e . s. s. ‘Q 3‘ --. e. 3 .0 e. 0‘, ‘ i 5. . J H . l] Situational Variables Coaching Confidence Tashnigne Internersgnal Cgmnetition Team's Prior Won-Lost .25* .22* .28* Team Ability Number of Seniors -.04 .01 -.04 Number of Varsity Letter Winners .16 .18 .22* Total Height of Starting Five .04 -.10 -.05 Rating of Overall Ability .2o* .11 .19 School Support .28** .32** .25* * p<.01 **n<.05 78 ability measures were not significantly related to coaching confidence; therefore, Hypothesis 9 was only partially supported. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the strongest predictors of coaching confidence. The four variables that were significantly related to technique confidence (coaching experience, team's prior won-lost record, overall ability, and school support) were used as predictor variables and technique confidence was used as a criterion variable in the analysis. The results of this analysis, shown in Table 8, indicated that coaching Table 8. 0 0 0 O I g e ‘ {‘9 “‘ e. ;..A “: s 9‘ ‘ sq ._ .0 ‘ e Standardized Regression W Coefficient T Emhahilm Coaching Experience .14 2.72 .01 Team's prior Won-Lost .01 .33 .74 Overall Ability .21 .72 .48 School Support .11 1.98 .05 Multiple R = .46; F(4,65) l=4.26; p<.00; R Square = .21 79 experience (B-.14, L32.72, p-.01) and school support (B-.11, Lp1.98, pp.05) were significant predictors of technique confidence. The two variables that were significantly related to interpersonal confidence (team's prior won-lost record and school support) were used as predictor variable and interpersonal confidence was used as a criterion variable in the analysis. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 9. The results indicated that school support (B-.12, L-2.62, 9-.01) was a significant predictor of interpersonal confidence. Table 9. Standardized Regression Eredigngr Coefficisni T Brebabilitx Team's prior Won-Lost .02 .80 .43 School Support .12 2.62 .01 Multiple R = .37; F(2,67) =5.35; p<.o1; R Square = .14 80 The four variables that were significantly related to competition confidence (coaching experience, team's prior won-lost record, varsity letter winners, and school support) were used as predictor variables and competition confidence was used as a criterion variables in the analysis. The results of this analysis, shown in Table 10, indicated that coaching experience (B-.10, L-2.08, 29.04) was the strongest predictor of competition confidence. Table 10. y . O 9m." 0! 9! 9‘! ‘ . I ‘ ‘ ‘9 4! ‘ ‘9‘! v '9 “ Standardized . Regression W W I Embebilifx Coaching Experience .10 2.08 .04 Team's prior Won-Lost .02 .87 .39 Varsity letter winners .20 1.03 .31 School Support .09 1.85 .07 Multiple R = .44; F(4,64) ==3.88; p<.01; R Square = .20 81 ;- . eQ Qe :- ,°-Q e._ QQe eQ e-Q - .Qe ..“‘O“. The third set of analyses was conducted to assess the relationships between coaching confidence and consequent variables. Hypotheses 11 and 12 tested the relationship of coaching confidence to coaching behaviors and team performance. These hypotheses were stated as follows: H11: The higher the coaching confidence the greater will be the coach's effort and persistence at coaching. H12: The higher the coaching confidence the higher will be the coach's winning percentage across the current season will be. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to study the relationship between coaching confidence and coaching behaviors and team performance. Coaching behavior was defined as effort and persistence in coaching. The Coaching Behavior Scale contained three effort and three persistence items. However, one effort item (Item 6: Work hard compared to most coaches) and two persistence items (Item 1: Choose to coach next season and Item 5: Ability to improve worst athletes) were deleted from the analysis because they were on ordinal scales in which coaches selected three of the top choices, making Pearson correlations inappropriate. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the variables of 82 effort, persistence and coaching confidence are shown in Table 11. Significant positive correlations emerged between coaching confidence and hours per week a coach spends on fulfilling the duties of the coach in season. The higher the coaching confidence the greater the effort in terms of time spent coaching. The relationship between coaching Table 11 - eQ e ‘ . eQ e‘ ‘Q e‘ “’ e. Q Qe eQ e‘Q v.0 0‘ 0! ‘Ol'Q . .e ‘ e. I O. :‘Q- 0 '00 ‘vH Perfermanee Consequent Coaching Confidence Variables Technique Internereenal Cemnetitien Effert Hours/week coaching in season .29** .29** .20* Hours/week coaching out of season .15 .19 .05 Persistence Years want to continue coaching -.03 -.05 .06 Perfermanee .12 .07 .09 **n<.01 * p<.05 83 confidence and team performance is bidirectional to emphasize reciprocity. However, low relationships existed between coaching confidence and team performance in this study. Also, no relationships existed between team performance and effort variables, and the persistence variable. Further analyses were conducted to test additional relationships posed by the model. These relationships do not involve coaching confidence and thus were not included in the hypotheses to test the construct validity of the CCS. J . l] 3' E A L test was used to test whether participating in a coaching educational program influenced team performance. The results of this analysis indicated that coaching education was not significantly related to team performance L (71)-- 1.26, n>.21). Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationships between the other three personal variables and team performance. The correlation coefficients between these variables are contained in Table 12. Only coach's prior won-lost record was significantly related to the team performance. Playing experience and coaching experience showed a low correlation to team performance. Table 12 ' eQ e ‘ . eQ e ‘Q 2‘ “. " ‘eQ. . .e W Personal Variables Team Performance Playing Experience .02 Coaching Experience .10 Coach's Prior Won-Lost Record .54** ***p_<.001 5. . J . 1] 3' E Pearson correlation coefficients were used to study the relationships between situational variables and team performance. The Pearson correlation coefficients between these variables are shown in Table 13. All six variables, team's prior won-lost record, number of seniors, number of varsity letter winners, height of starting five, overall ability, and school support were significantly related to team performance. 85 Table 13 : 1 . : EE' . 5. . 1 WW Situational Variables Team Performance Team's Prior Won-Lost Record .46*** Team Ability Number of Seniors .32** Number of Varsity Letter Winners .33** Total Height of Starting Five .27* Rating of Overall Ability .49*** School Support .35** ***p<.001 ** p<.01 A multiple regression analysis was used to assess the differential effects of the significant antecedent variables on team performance. The seven variables that were significantly related to team performance (coach's prior won-lost record, team's prior won-lost record, seniors, varsity letter winners, height of players, overall ability, and school support were used as predictor variables and team performance was used as a criterion variable in the analysis. The results of this analysis are summarized in 86 Table 14. The results indicated that overall ability was the only significant predictor of team performance. Table 14 y o ‘ : o “ ‘ e o 4 1o ‘ e ‘ on: ' ‘ - 91L: ! - 9 Wm : . . M . 1] . I E E Standardized Regression E i. : EE' . I i l 1.]. Coach's prior Won-Lost .20 1.48 .14 Team's Prior Won-Lost .15 .88 .38 Team Ability Seniors .55 .38 .70 Varsity Letters .89 .62 .54 Height .13 .44 .66 Overall Ability 6.78 3.37 .00 School Support .32 .98 .33 Multiple R = .67; F(7,59)=6.87; p<.00; R Square =.45 E 1 . 1] 1' 1' 1 1 . A L test was used to test whether participation in a coaching educational program influenced coaching behavior (effort) L (74)=.51, p<.61. Pearson correlation coefficients were used 87 to study the relationship between personal variables and effort and persistence variables. The correlation coefficients between these variables are contained in Table 15. The results of this analysis indicated that only coaching experience was negatively related to persistence, and no other personal variables were significantly related to coaching behaviors. Table 15 ‘. eQ e ‘ . eQ e‘ Q :- -‘Q eQ. . .e - i : l' E l . W Coaching Behaviors Playing Coaching Coach's Experience W-L Record Effect. Hours/Week in Season -.19 .18 .05 Hours/Week out of Season -.08 .07 .14 Persietenee Desired Years to Continue Coaching -.19 -.27* .13 * p<.05 88 5. . J . l] ! i' ! 1. l l . The Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationships between situational variables and coaching behaviors. These variables are shown in Table 16. School Table 16 E J J I' : EE' . ! E 5.! !° 1 M . 1] i : 1. E l . Coaching Behaviors situational Variables In_eeeeen fo_seasen Eeraietenee Team's Won-Lost Record .10 .11 .02 Team Ability Number of Seniors .01 .06 -.23* Number of Varsity Letter Winners .10 .19 -.05 Total Height of - Starting Five .09 -.11 .12 Rating of Overall Ability -.os .05 .03 School Support .13 .22* -.06 p<.05 support was significantly related to hours per week out of season and number of seniors was significantly related to 89 persistence, and no other situational variables were significantly correlated with coaching behaviors. E J !' 1° 1 J i . . J gaziahlgaL The Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationships between personal and situational variables. In this study, a significant positive relationship (r-.39) emerged between team's prior won-lost record and school support. Also, a significant positive relationship (rp.70) emerged between a coach's prior won-lost record and a team's prior won-lost record. E J . 1' l 1. l l . i ngxfigxmanggL The Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the last relationships between coaching behaviors and team performance. In this study, no significant relationships emerged between coaching behaviors and team performance (in Season, {2.03; out-of-Season, LP.17;_persistance ;--.00). DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to develop and examine the reliability and validity of the Coaching Confidence Scale. The CCS was constructed with the expectation that it would be unidimensional. Phase 1 of this study, however, supported a multidimensional construct of the CCS with three subscales. The multidimensional CCS had strong internal consistencies and provided adequate control of the social desirability response bias. The three factors comprised a total of 10 items from an original pool of 15 items administered to a sample of 130 subjects. Some items were deleted based on the CCS item characteristics and internal structure of the CCS in Phase 1. Unfortunately, the subscales were comprised of only three or four items each. If the CCS had been originally conceptualized as multidimensional, additional items would have been constructed to strengthen the factors. Even so, individual items in the CCS are appropriate items to measure coaching confidence based on the appropriate standard deviations, high item-total correlation coefficients, and a non- significant relationship with social desirability. Concurrent validity for the CCS was examined by predicting relationships between coaching confidence and three other constructs: self-esteem, internal control, and 90 91 anxiety. Results supported the concurrent validity of the CCS for self-esteem for the three subscales. As indicated in Chapter 1, coaches with higher self-esteem should have higher beliefs of efficacy for coaching than coaches with lower self-esteem because self-esteem influences one's attributions for success and failure, which in turn, influence self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986, Collins, 1982). A significant positive relationship also emerged between technique confidence and internal locus of control. Perhaps technique confidence is perceived as being more under the coaches' control than are the variables termed interpersonal and competition, which also involve competencies on the part of others. A significant negative relationship emerged between interpersonal confidence and STAI. Martens et a1. (1982) indicated that self-confidence may be thought of as the conceptual opposite of anxiety. It is not clear as to why STAI correlated only with interpersonal confidence and not with technique or competition confidence. Taken together, these results provide partial support for the concurrent validity of coaching confidence. Data of Phase 3 were collected from 77 high school basketball coaches. Phase 3 of this study sought to determine construct validity for the CCS through its relationship with the antecedent and consequent variables of coaching confidence. The results of Phase 3 provide partial 92 support for the relationships between coaching confidence and its antecedent and consequent variables as represented in the Coaching Confidence model, thus providing some preliminary evidence of construct validity for the CCS as a measure of coaching confidence. Specifically, the results in Phase 3 indicated that team's prior won-lost record and the support of the school were significantly related to all three dimensions of coaching confidence. A coach's previous coaching experience was significantly related to technique and competition confidence. The number of varsity letter winners was significantly related to competition confidence. In addition, overall ability was significantly related to technique confidence. In terms of consequent variables, coaching confidence was significantly related to the effort that a coach put into coaching in terms of hours spent per week at coaching in season. E i' I' : l' : E'i In terms of the antecedent variables, coaching experience and school support emerged as the most consistent significant predictors of coaching confidence as measured through multiple regression analyses of the three subscales. These results make sense from the perspective of Bandura's (1977) theory of self-efficacy. As Bandura has indicated, previous experience at a task provides the most dependable source of efficacy (confidence) information. The more experience a coach has in coaching, the greater are the 93 chances of teaching the skills, detecting skill errors, evaluating players' abilities, and organizing effective practices. And the more experience a coach has in coaching, the greater are the chances of making critical decisions during competition, coaching under pressure, and adapting to different game situations. Experience at coaching provides more information about a coach's capacity to affect one's athletic performance than his/her own playing experience or his/her won-lost record for the previous year because it is more directly related to the skills needed for competent coaching. Likewise, school support is similar to Bandura's (1977) concept of persuasive efficacy information. Bandura posited that self-efficacy judgments about one's capabilities are partly based on the opinions, attitudes or suggestions of others. A coach gains this information from the active support of many people: the faculty and administrators, the community, the student body, and the parents. In this study, school support was a particularly strong predictor of interpersonal confidence, which was somewhat surprising and contrary to Bandura's hypothesis that persuasive information is likely to be a weaker predictor of confidence than one's own previous experience. However, in some sport situations, persuasive information may be a more pertinent source of interpersonal confidence information than past coaching experience. 94 A possible reason for this finding is that the persuasive information was provided through support by many different people rather than just one individual or a single group of individuals. If coaches have the support of an athletic director, community, parents, students, faculty, and administrators, they have a tremendous amount of support. As Bandura (1986) has indicated, the more people who are credible sources of persuasive information, the more influence it has on one's confidence. The eighth hypothesis stated that independent of the coach, a team who has had a consistent tradition of winning could affect coaching confidence. Although a team's prior won-lost record did not emerge as a significant predictor of coaching confidence through a multiple regression analysis, the team's prior won-lost record was significantly related to all three dimensions of coaching confidence, thus supporting Hypothesis 8. This finding suggests that a coach's belief in his ability to coach is based partially on having a team that has a consistent tradition of winning. There are a number of reasons for a lack of significant relationships between coaching confidence and the other antecedent variables. Although a hypothesis was put forth that coaching education should have a significant effect on coaching confidence, it was not confirmed. Based on the teacher education literature, there are legitimate reasons that a linear relationship was not found between coaching education and coaching confidence (Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 95 1982). Teacher education does not necessarily prepare teachers to teach and confront the realities of the classroom. Nor does coaching education prepare coaches to confront the realities of the athletic field. Experience in teaching or coaching seems to be the most important factor in building confidence in one's ability to teach or coach. The fifth hypothesis predicted that a coach's playing experience should have some impact on coaching confidence. This finding did not support the hypothesis, which at first glance may seem contrary to Bandura's hypothesis that past experience should be a strong predictor of confidence. However, as stated previously, playing experience is not directly related to the skills needed for competent coaching. Just because individuals are proficient or have experience at playing a sport does not mean they can teach those skills to others. Research from teacher education has indicated that expert teachers have more pedagogical knowledge than novice teachers even though they may not differ on their content knowledge (Berliner, 1986). Therefore, coaches need to know not only the techniques and tactics of their particular sport, but also how to teach techniques and tactics to their athletes. The seventh hypothesis stated that the higher the ratio of winning to losing across the 1990-1991 season for coaches the higher their coaching confidence would be. However, results did not support this hypothesis, which may seem 96 contrary to Bandura's hypothesis that past performance experience should be a strong predictor of confidence. Because coaching expertise is developed over long periods of time, one year's prior won-lost record may not have been enough to influence coaching confidence. In addition, a won-lost record is not totally within a coach's control. Therefore, a coach could attribute one season's loss to a number of factors other than his ability in coaching. Finally, the ninth hypothesis predicted that the greater the team's ability, the higher a coach's coaching confidence would be. The results did not support the hypothesis. Using four measures of team ability to predict three measures of coaching confidence resulted in only two significant correlations. A possible reason for the lack of relationships between team ability and coaching confidence is similar to the previous one for prior won-lost record. That is, the abilities of the athletes are only partially within a coach's control and, therefore, have only a partial influence on a coach's confidence. Although most of the measures of team ability were not significantly related to coaching confidence, they were significantly related to team performance. The explanation for the lack of a relationship between team ability and coaching confidence may be found by examining the items on the CCS. None of the items dealt with a coach's confidence in being able to win games, but rather they dealt with a coach's confidence to teach, detect errors, and evaluate 97 ability. On the other hand, team ability was significantly related to team performance, as measured by won-lost record. {‘ . 00‘! e 1‘ .“9 .v, I 90 e! 0‘9 ‘ ‘Hq ‘ ecu}! Bandura (1977) views self-efficacy as a cognitive mechanism mediating behavioral change. One form of behavioral change that Bandura describes is effort and persistence. In addition, Denham and Michael's Model of Teacher Efficacy (1981) predicts that self-confidence will be related to teacher's behaviors. In this study, effort, as measured by hours per week spent coaching in season, had a significantly positive correlation with all three dimensions of coaching confidence. This finding supports research on the relationship between teaching efficacy and the devotion to classroom time spent on academic learning (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The hypothesis, however, predicted that coaching confidence would also be significantly related to persistence by coaches. Persistence and effort out of season were not significantly correlated with coaching confidence. This result may have had more to do with this measure of effort and persistence than problems with the CCS. The Coaching Behavior Scale which measured effort and persistence was constructed by the author and was not pilot tested. Except for hours per week spent coaching in season, the items on the Coaching Behavior Scale may not have really captured the effort and persistence of coaches. 98 The last hypothesis predicted that the higher the coaching confidence the higher the coach's winning percentage across the current season would be; however, this hypothesis was not confirmed. The reasons for the lack of a relationship between coaching confidence and team performance may be found by examining the CCS items. None of the CCS items dealt with a coach's confidence in being able to win games. Furthermore, as stated previously, a team's performance is not totally within a coach's control. Other factors besides the coach's confidence level will influence performance. These may include team ability, a team's prior record, the team's confidence level, and the school's support. Future studies on coaching confidence may be more informative if they examined other indices of team performance that correspond more closely to the CCS items such as skill improvement, team motivation, and aggregated player statistics during games. . . E 1 . i' In terms of the antecedent variables, coach's prior won-lost record, team's prior won-lost record, team ability (including seniors, varsity letter winners, height of starters, and overall ability), and school support were significantly related to team performance. Specifically, basketball teams with greater won-lost records, with many seniors, many varsity letter winners, many tall players, and athletes who have better overall ability, and teams with 99 great school support were associated with higher winning percentages across the current season. Specifically, overall ability was found to be a significant predictor of team performance. Basketball teams with better overall ability were associated with higher winning percentages across the current season. However, coaching experience and number of seniors were significantly negatively related to persistence. The explanation for the negative relationship between coaching experience and persistence may be found by examining the items on the Coaching Behavior Scale. Item 4 on the Coaching Behavior Scale "How many years do you want to continue in coaching this sport team?" may not have been an appropriate measure of coaches' persistence without controlling for previous years of coaching experience. In this case, coaches who have more coaching experience may be nearing the end of their careers compared to those who have less coaching experience. In terms of the relationships between personal and situational variables, team's prior won-lost record influenced school support and school support influenced the team's prior won-lost record. Coaches work with an unbelievable number of people. If coaches have good won- lost records for several years, the people with whom they work will support the athletic program. The better the performance records, the greater the school support. As was also expected, teams with greater prior won-lost records um were associated with higher winning percentages across the current season. In summary, the results of this study should be viewed as exploratory and preliminary. Although this study supports the reliability of a three dimensional CCS and to some extent the concurrent validity, more items for each subscale would help to strengthen these factors. The generation of more items, with the thought of all possible confidence dimensions in mind, may uncover other factors as well. The evidence for construct validity should also be viewed as preliminary because of the number of measures used for testing it that were new and not piloted. These results, taken together however, indicate some support for a concept of coaching confidence and warrant further development. SUHlARY IND CONCLUSIONS SHENEIX The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. There were two objectives for the development of the Coaching Confidence Scale (CCS). First, a theoretical framework was needed in which coaching confidence could be conceptualized as an intervening construct in the model. Second, the CCS had to meet the scientific standards of reliability and validity. This chapter will attempt to draw final conclusions based on the overall results. In Chapter 1, the coaching confidence model was developed and hypotheses of coaching confidence were generated, based on related research. Chapter 2 presented the confidence and self-efficacy theory, models of teacher efficacy in an educational context, and the need for a coaching confidence construct. Chapter 3 presented the process for developing the CCS and demonstrated its reliability and validity. Chapter 3 contained three phases: preliminary scale development and instrument reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity. Preliminary scale development involved instrument design and scoring procedures. The initial item pool of 18 items was based on the literature review and discussion with 101 NH coaches and sport psychologists. The pool of items was developed with the expectation that the CCS would be unidimensional. The preliminary scale development established content validity by having six knowledgeable judges evaluate each item with regard to content and clarity. Judges were asked to respond for each of the items. The items in the "not necessary” category were deleted. From the judges evaluations, 15 items were retained in the CCS. Phase 1 constituted analyses of item characteristics as well as internal consistency, and susceptibility to socially desirable responses. Phase 1 of this study supported a multidimensional construct of the CCS instead of an unidimensional one. Even so, the multidimensional CCS had strong internal consistency and provided adequate control of the social desirability response bias. Item 14, however, had a rather low alpha coefficient (13.37) and was deleted. Items 4,5,11, and 12 were also eliminated, based on low factor loadings. Additional criteria for item elimination for these items included dual factor loadings. Concurrent validity for the CCS was tested by examining the relationships between the CCS and three other psychological constructs: self-esteem, internal control, and anxiety. The results of Phase 2 partially supported the concurrent validity of the CCS through its significant correlation with self-esteem for all three subscales. A significant negative relationship emerged between NB interpersonal confidence and the STAI and a significant positive relationship emerged between technique confidence and internal locus of control. Among the three constructs, self-esteem correlated most strongly with the coaching confidence subscales measured by the CCS. Phase 3 provided partial support for the relationships between coaching confidence and its antecedent and consequent variables as represented in the Coaching Confidence model, thus providing some preliminary evidence of construct validity for the CCS. Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the data collection established internal consistency reliability, and provided some evidence of concurrent and construct validity for the CCS. The inventory appeared to be sufficiently reliable and valid to warrant further development. Further efforts are needed to add more items to the instrument in order to strengthen the subscales and, hopefully, the concurrent and construct validity of the CCS. Cenelneiene Based upon the findings and within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions were reached: 1. In general, the CCS is a multidimensional construct that has high internal consistency reliability and some evidence of concurrent validity. 2. This study provided partial support for the relationships between coaching confidence and its antecedent HM and consequent variables, thus providing some evidence of construct validity for the CCS. 3. Among antecedent variables, coaching experience and the support of the school are the most significant predictors of coaching confidence. 4. Coaching confidence is significantly related to the effort that a coach puts into coaching in terms of hours spent coaching. W This study has attempted to conceptualize and measure coaching confidence. The conceptual model in this study provided some evidence of the construct validity for the CCS. Therefore, additional research is needed to replicate, modify, and extend the findings of this study in order to build upon the basics established thus far. This study suggests several other directions for future research. The present study did not attempt to measure coaching confidence as a multidimensional construct. Items were not developed according to technical, interpersonal, and competition confidence categories. Future research needs to consider whether there are additional coaching confidence categories for which questionnaire items need to be developed. As well, further research is needed to add to the items in each subscale already established. Once the questionnaire subscale categories are constructed, then confirmatory factor analysis should be conducted to test the NH factor structure of the questionnaire. After the factor structure of the CCS is confirmed, future research should be directed toward identifying other antecedents of coaching confidence. The antecedents or sources of coaching confidence may have several more variables which influence coaching confidence. Attributions are additional variables which could influence coaching confidence. For example, coaching experiences of failure attributed to external factors or lack of effort may not be as debilitating as failure experiences that are attributed to internal factors or lack of ability. Attributions to internal factors may be more influential in changing coaching confidence in a positive or negative fashion than attributions to external factors. Further research is also needed to identify other ways of measuring the consequences of coaching confidence. For instance, future studies on coaching confidence might be more informative if they examined the actual coaching behaviors of persistence and effort. The specific coaching behaviors in sport settings are needed to effectively examine the relationship between coaching confidence and coaching behaviors. The current measures of effort and persistence are not sufficient to explain coaching behaviors in sports settings. Coaching behaviors should also be examined over a longer period of time to examine the influence of coaching confidence. As well, team performance should also be examined in terms of the skill improvement, 106 motivation, and performance indices during competition (e.g., shooting percentage, turnovers, etc.) in addition to won-lost records. In addition, statistical tools such as path analysis and linear structural equations analysis could be implemented to determine the direction and strength of coaching confidence. For example, a causal model could be tested with antecedent variables predicting coaching confidence which in turn, causally influence coaching behaviors and team performance. In this study, coaching confidence is postulated as an intervening variable that mediates the relationship between coaching experience and effort. In summary, this study supports the reliability of the CCS and provides partial support for the concurrent and construct validity of the conceptual model. The validation procedures in this study attempted to establish a basis upon which validity for the CCS can continue to be built. The CCS is worthy of further development and use. LIST or REFERENCES Anaetaei.A-(1982)- Rexebelegieal_ieeiine. New York: Macmillan. Ashton,P., & Webb,R.(1982, March). Teaghgr§_§en§e_gfi efficaQXi_Teuard_en_eeelegieal_medel. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Ashton P-. & Webb R (1986). Making_a_differenee..Teaehere; eenae_ef.effieaex_and_stndent.aehiexement. New York: Longman. Ashton ,P., Webb ,R., & Doda, N. (1982). A_§Lufi¥_gfi_1§aghez§; Sen§g_g£_fififiigaggL University of Florida, Gainesville. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Rexehelegieal.3exieu..84. 191-215. Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American.£exehelegiet. 11. 344-358. Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds ). seeial_eeenitixe_deyelenment. Frontiers and possible future (pp. 200-239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. 11, 122- 147. Bandure.A-(1986)- Seeial_fenndaLien_ef_thengbt_and_aetienl_e eeeiel_eeenitixe_iheerx. Englewood cliffe.N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Bandura ,A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. QggniLiye_Iherany_and Research. 1. 287-310 Bandura ,A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. anrnal_gfi 2ereenaliLx.end.$eeial_£exehelegx. 15. 129-139- Bandura ,A., Adams, N. E., Hardy,A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. ceeniLi1e_Therenx.end_Beeeereh. A. 39- 66. NW um Bandura ,A., 8 Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. aenrnal_ef.£ereenaliix.and.§eeial Eexehelegx. 41. 586-598- Barfield ,V., 8 Burlingame, M.(1974). The pupil control ideology of teachers in selected schools. Jgnrn31_gfi Exeerimental.Edneetien..42. 6-11. Berliner, D. (1986, August-September). In pursuit of the expert pedaqoque- Educatienal_3eeeareher. 5-13. Berman,P., McLaughlin,M., Bass,G., Pauly,E., 8 Zellman,G. (1977L Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII: LgnLinuaLignL Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation. Brophy,J.(1979, March). .zeseazgh. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, Illinois. Carnell, R. A. (1978). Training from the trainees' point of view. Training..15. 93-95- Collins, J.(1982, March). - ' ' Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Coopersmith.S-(1967). The_anteeedente.ei_eelf;esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Corcoran.J-P-(1990)- Chemieal_Health_Edneatien_and_Ceaehine (snag). In Seefeldt,V., Brown,E.W.(EDs.). Program for Athletic Coaches' Education (PACE). Indiana: Benchmark Press, Inc.(pp.23-1 to 23-74). Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Bayghgmngika,1§, 297-334. Denham, C., 8 Michael, J. (1981L Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model for further research. EeneaLienel.Beeeareh.QnarLerlx..5. 39-61- Duke ,D., Showers ,B., 8 Imber, M. (1980L Teachers and shared decision making: The costs and benefits of involvement. 16, 93- 106. ND Dusek ,J., 8 Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies. W 15. 327-346. Ellett.C.D.. & Masters.J.A.(1977). The_etrnetnre_ef.teaeher . . . . . aLtitnde_tesardEd1menslenf_ef_th%irrmefikingJ 3 i ite_lmplieetlene_fer_inetrnment_xeliditx. Paper presented at the meeting of the Georgia Educational Research Association, Atlanta. Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Ieurnal_ef_£ereenalitx_end Seeial_£exehelegx. 42. 764-781. Feltz, D. L. (1988). Self-confidence and sports performance. In K.B B.Pandolf (Ed. ). Lexieus (pp. 423-457L New York: MacMillan. Feltz,D., Landers,D., 8 Raeder,U.(1979). Enhancing self- efficacy in a high-avoidance motor task: A comparison of modeling techniques. 1eurnal.ef_snert_pexeheleex..1. 112-122. Gibson, 8., 8 Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Jenrnal_ef_Edneatienal_fiexeheleex. 15. 569 - 582. Glass ,G., 8 Smith, M. (1979L Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. EdngLLLQna1_£yalnaLLQn_and Beliex_Analxeie. 1. 2- ~16. Gould,D., 8 Weiss,M.(1981). The effects of model similarity and model talk on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. Jenrnel_ef_$nert.£exehelegx. 1. 17-29. Highlen,P.S., 8 Bennett,B.B.(1979). Psychological characteristics of successful and unsuccessful elite wrestles: An exploratory study. figurnal gf spQIL Eexehelegz. 1. 123-137. -Jersild A T (1966). Beheld_the_beeinner._In_Lhe_real_uerld ef.§he_beginning_teeeher. Report of the nineteenth national TEPS Conference, Washington, D. C.: National Education Association. lKazdin, A. E. (1974). Covert modeling, model similarity, and reduction of avoidance behavior. Behayig:_1heranx. i, 325- -340. U0 Kazdin, A. E. (1975). Covert modeling, imagery assessment, and assertive behavior. W Esxehelm. $3.. 716-724. Kazin, A. E. (1976). Effects of covert modeling, multiple models, and model reinforcement on assertive behavior. W 1. 211-222. Larkin, R. W. (1973L Contextual influences on teacher leadership styles. W 4.6. 471-479. Leacock.E. (1969) . W W . New York: Basic Books. Lortie. D C (1975). W. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mahoney,M. J., Avener M. (1977L Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory study. Ceenitixe.Therepx_end Research. 1. 135-141. Martens.R. (1977) . West. Chanpaiqn. IL:Human Kinetics. Martens ,R., Burton, D., Vealey,R. S., Bump,L. A., 8 Smith, D. (1982). W anxLeLgL Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, University of Maryland, College Park. McAuleYJ. (1993) . W WWW. Paper presented at the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity Annual meeting. East Lansing, MI. McLaughlin,M.W. 8 Marsh,D.D.(1978). Staff development and school change. W 3.0. 69-94. IMedway,F., 8 Baron, R. (1977L Locus of control and tutor's instructional style as determinants of cross-age tutoring. WW 2.. 298- 310. I°Iehrens .W.. & Lehmann 1- (1984) WWW 1W Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Inc., Orlando, Florida. 111 Meyer. 3.. 2 Cohen. 13. (1971). W ’90 ...! ‘1 I- 0!. v. .0911!’ U!’ ’ ’ Weigh. stanford. CA: stanford University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 062 291). Meyers, A.W., Cooke, C. J., Cullen ,J., 8 Liles, L (1979). Psychological aspects of athletic competitors: A replication across sports. QggnLLLxe_Ihe:anx_§nd Research. 1. 361-366. Ness.R.G.. 8 and Patton.R.W.(l977)- WW . . . _ . . Paper presented at the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Seattle. WA. Nunnally,J.C.(1978). RsyghgmeLzLL_Lhegzx (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Leary,A.(1985). Self-efficacy and health. fiehang; Researetherapx. 2.3.. 437-451. Persell,C.(1977). EdnLaLLgn_§nd_Lnggn§LLLy, New York: Free Press. Reynolds, W. M. (1982L Development of reliable and valid forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. WWW. 3.8. 119- 1-25. Rose, J. S., 8 Medway,F. J. (1981L Measurement of teachers' beliefs in their control over student outcome. anznal eLEdheeeienelJeseerm. 2.4. 185- -190. Rosenberg,M.(1965). ' -' Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg,M.(1979). anLeLyLng_Lhe_sglfiL New York: Basic Books. Rotter, L B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. EfiyghglgnggL Monographs. 8.51. (1. Whole No 609). Ryckman, R. M., Robbins, M. A., Thornton, 8., 8 Cantrell, P. (1982) Development and validation of a physical self-efficacy scale. WWW. 42, 891-900. Schunk, D. N. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. W. 19.. 48-58. “2 Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and locus of control. fignxnal Wham. 5.5. 228-233. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, L L., 8 Lushene, R. F. (1970L Manual W Palo AltO. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Stimbert,E.C.(1970). The effect of personnel policies on the holding power of teachers. In T.M. Stinnet, The Leaghe;_d;gpgnL. Itaca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock. Stinnet,T.M.(1970). Ihg_Lgathx_d:gngnLL Itaca, Illinois: F.E.Peacock. Trump,J.L. 8 Georgiades,W.(1978). Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vavrns. H J (1978). TereletlenshlmeeeeheLalienatien e ‘ Qee ,e ,e ._ ‘ . ‘ .qe . ;e_- L: Leagheza. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Vealey,R.S.(1986). Conceptualization of Sport-Confidence and Competitive Orientation: Preliminary Investigation and Instrument Development. anznal_gfi_§nQLL Esxehelem. a. 221-246. Wade. C- (1991). WWW seheelundmlleees. Cassville. H0. Wade.C.(1992). W W. Cassville. 110- Weinberg,R.S., Gould,D., 8 Jackson,A.(1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self- efficacy theory. W l. 320 -331. ‘Weinberg. R. S., Sinardi ,M., 8 Jackson, A. ( 1982L Effect of bar height and modeling on anxiety, self-confidence and gymnastic performance. W 2. 11-13. Weinberg,LS., Yukelson,D., 8 Jackson,A. (1980) . Effects of public and private efficacy expectations on competitive Performance. W 2.. 340-349. APPENDIX A Item Development of the CC8 “3 APPENDIX 8 Original 18 Items of the Coaching Efficacy Scale ror High School And Youth Coaches Think about how confident you are as a coach. be kept completely confidential. How confident are you--- Not at all 1.in your skill instruction confident ability 0 1 2 3 4 2.in your ability to detect skill errors 0 1 2 3 4 3.in your ability to evaluate your players' abilities 0 1 2 3 4 4.in your knowledge of game strategies 0 1 2 3 4 5.in your knowledge of rules 0 1 2 3 4 6.in your ability to communi- cate effectively with your players 0 1 2 3 4 7.in your ability to motivate your players 0 1 2 3 4 8.in your ability to make critical decisions during competition 0 1 2 3 4 9.in your ability to coach under pressure 0 1 2 3 4 v10.in your ability to execute successful strategies in competition 0 1 2 3 4 11.in your ability to adapt to different game situations 0 1 2 3 4 12.in your ability to interact with coaching staff 0 1 2 3 4 13.in your ability to create high performance expecta- tion in your athletes 0 1 2 3 4 Rate your confidence for each of the items below. Your answers will 5 Extremely confident 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 H4 14.in your ability to organize effective practices 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15.in your ability to settle team conflicts O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 V16.in your knowledge to deal with almost any problem on your team 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 17.in your human relations skills with players 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 V18.in outthinking other coaches O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Note: The items marked with a ”V" were the ones that were deleted by the judges. APPENDIX E Euman Subjects Approval, Cover Letter to Coaches, and Questionnaires for Phase 1 115 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mammmmao: ”Womomuu mmunucumnsoooo: December 4, 1990 Jeong-Keun Park 15330 Spartan Village East Lansing, HI 48823 RE: THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COACHING CONFIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE, IRS! 90-503 Dear Mr. Park: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research protocol and find that the rights and welfare of-human subjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIES approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year. please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIES approval one month prior to December 3. 1991. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIES prior to initiation of the change. UCRIRS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention.- If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely. MOI. "3}. David E. Hrigh ’r n. ' - - .6 Chair. “CRIBS -'» DEUY deo cc: Dr. Deborah L. Pelt: MSU in as Min-aim Anise/Equal Opponent, Inuit-vies “6 APPENDIX E GOV“ DUDE“ Park Jeong-Keun 1533D Spartan Village E.Lansing, MI 48823 (517)355-2911 December 8, 1990 Dear Coach : I am writing to you to enlist your help. My name is Jeong-Keun Park and I am a doctoral student in the Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science at Michigan State University. I am working on my degree in sport psychology under the direction of Dr.Deborah L. Feltz. I am presently working on my dissertation. Part of my dissertation topic will be the construction of a Coaching Confidence Scale. The purpose of the study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to effect athlete performance. I realize how busy you are. But your cooperation would enable me to better understand coaching confidence. Enclosed are a Coaching Confidence Scale, a Consent Form, and two other self-report measures that I hope you will complete and return to me by using the stamped envelope enclosed. If you agree to participate by completing the enclosed forms, please sign the consent form and return in a separate stamped envelope that has been enclosed.. You will not be required to write your name on any of the questionnaires. All data from this study will be treated with strictest confidence and your answers will remain anonymous. Of course, your participation is completely voluntary. It will take about twenty minutes or less to complete these questionnaires. I would appreciate receiving your response by December 31, 1990. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely Yours, Park Jeong-Keun “7 APPENDIX 8 Consent Porn Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science Michigan State University TITLE OF RESEARCH: THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COACHING CONFIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE I have freely consented to participate in this research conducted by Mr.Jeong-Keun Park, doctoral student in the Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science at Michigan State University. The study is concerned with development of a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. I understand that I am free to refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue my participation at any time without penalty. I understand that my participation in this research does not guarantee any beneficial effects. I understand that if I choose to participate in the study, it will take about twenty minutes or less to complete these questionnaires. I understand that all data from this study will be treated with strictest confidence. I understand that all data from this study will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. I agree to participate voluntarily in this research. SIGNED: DATE: “8 APPENDIX E Coaching Confidence Scale tor Sigh School Coaches Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect the performance of young athletes. Think about how confident you are as a coach. Rate your confidence for each of the items below. Your answers will be kept completely confidential. How confident are you--- Not at all Extremely 1. in your ability to teach confident confident the skills of your sport? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. in your ability to detect skill errors? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. in your ability to evaluate your players' abilities? O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. in your knowledge of game strategies? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. in your knowledge of rules? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. in your ability to communi- cate effectively with your players? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7. in your ability to motivate your players? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8. in your ability to make critical decisions during competition? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9. in your ability to coach under pressure? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. in your ability to adapt to different game situations? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11. in your ability to interact effectively with your coaching staff? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12. in your ability to create appropriate performance expectation in your players?o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 119 13. in your ability to organize effective practices? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14. in your ability to settle team conflicts? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15. in your interpersonal relations skills with your players? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 um APPENDIX E The Social Personality Scale Please check True or False 1. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. True False 2. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. True False 3. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. True False 4. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. True False 5. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. True False 6. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. True False 7. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. True False 8. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. True False 9. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. True False 10. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. True False 11. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. True False 12. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. True False 13. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. True False 121 APPENDIX E Coach's Personal Data Information about you --- 1. Gender: (Please check one) (1) Male (2) Female 2. Ethnic Affiliation: (Please Check one) (1) African American (2) Asian American (3) Caucasian (4) Hispanic (5) Native American Indian “)0umr 3. Age Group: (Please check one) (1) 20-24 (6) 45-49 (2) 25-29 (7) 50-54 (3) 30—34 (a) 55-59 (4) 35-39 (9) 60-64 (5) 40-44 (10) 65 and over 4. Educational Background: (Please check one) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (3) (9) . Present (1) 0| 0) 7. What sports have you coached: male or 9. Total number of years in coaching career: 10. Name of high school: . Years in present position: High school graduate Less than two years of college More than two years but never completed a bachelor's degree Completed a bachelor's degree Some master's level work Completed master's degree Some doctoral level work Education specialist Completed doctorate Position: (Please check one) Head coach (2) Assistant coach . What sport team are you currently coaching (identify if female team): 11. What was your undergraduate major? minor? 12. Approximately how many hours per week do you spend on fulfilling the duties of coach? Hours/week APPENDIX C Follow-Up Letter ”2 APPENDIX C Follow-up Letter Park Jeong-Keun 1533D Spartan Village E.Lansing, MI 48823 (517)355-2911 January 9, 1991 Dear Coach On December 8, 1990 I sent you a Coaching Confidence Questionnaire, Social Personality Scale, Consent form, and Coach's Personal Data, along with my cover letter. I had hoped that the questionnaires would be returned to me by December 31, 1990. However, the questionnaires have not been returned to me. If you have forgotten to mail in yours, please mail as soon as possible. I realize how busy you are. However, your response is crucial for the successful completion of my study. I would appreciate receiving your response by January 22, 1991. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely Yours, Park Jeong-Keun APPENDIX D Human Subjects Approval, Cover Letter to Coaches, and Questionnaires for Phase 2 123 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICEOFVICEPIESIDENTPOEIESEARCH ”WOMAN-WI.“ ANDDEANOf'fl-IEGMDUA‘IESCHOOI. November 22, 1991 Jeong-Keun Park 1533 D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 68823 RE: CONSTRUCTION OF A COACHING CONFIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE, IRE #90-503 Dear Mr. Park: UCRIHS' review of your project is now complete. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project with your revision of November 6, 1991. You are reminded that UCRIHS :‘aroval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this projec: beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to November 14, 1992. This may be accomplished by writing UCRIHS to stipulate that: The human subjects protocol is the same as in previous studies There have been no ill effects suffered by the subjects There have been no complaints by the subjects or their representatives There has not been a change in the research environment for new information which would indicate greater risk to human subjects than that assumed when the protocol was intitially reviewed and approved. «I-‘wNH There will be a maximum of four renewals possible. If you wish to continue a project beyond that time, it must again be submitted for complete review. Meanwhile, any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, University Committee 0 Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DEW/deo cc: Dr. Deborah Feltz MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution HM APPENDIX D Cover Letter Park Jeong-Keun 1533D Spartan Village E.Lansing, HI 48823 (517)355-2911 November 6, 1991 Dear Coach : I am writing to you to enlist your help. My name is Jeong-Keun Park and I am a doctoral student in the Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science at Michigan State University. I am working on my degree in sport psychology under the direction of Dr.Deborah L. Feltz. I am presently working on my dissertation. My dissertation topic is the construction of a Coaching Confidence Scale. The purpose of the study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to influence an athlete's performance. I realize how busy you are. But your cooperation would enable me to better understand coaching confidence. Enclosed are a Consent Form, the Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire, a Coaching Confidence Scale, the Social Personality Scale, the Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale, the STAI, and the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. I hope you will complete all questionnaires and return them to me by using the stamped envelope enclosed. If you agree to participate, please sign the consent form and return in a separate stamped envelope that has been enclosed. You will not be required to write your name on any of the questionnaires. All data from this study will be treated with strictest confidence and your answers will remain anonymous. Of course, your participation is completely voluntary. It will take about thirty minutes to complete these questionnaires. I would appreciate receiving your response by November 21, 1991. Thank you very much for your assistance. Deborah L. Feltz, Ph.D. Sincerely Yours, Advisor (517)355-4732 Park Jeong-Keun E5 APPENDIX D Revised version of the Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire Information about you --- 1. N U 0| 0) 11. 12. Gender: (Please check one) (1) Male (2) Female Ethnic Affiliation: (Please Check one) (1) African American (2) Asian American (3) Caucasian (4) Hispanic (5) Native American IndIan “)0umr Age Group: (Please check one) (1) 20-24 (6) 45-49 (2) 25-29 (7) 50-54 (3) 30-34 (a) 55-59 (4) 35-39 (9) 60-64 (5) 40-44 (10) 65 and over Educational Background: (Please check one) (1) High school graduate (2) Less than two years of college (3) More than two years but never completed a bachelor's degree (4) Completed a bachelor's degree (5) Some master's level work (6) Completed master's degree (7) Some doctoral level work (8) Education specialist (9) Completed doctorate Present Position: (Please check one) (1) Head coach (2) Assistant coach Years in present position: What sports have you coached: What sport team are you currently coaching (identify if male or female team): Total number of years in coaching career: Total number of years as a player: (Check below) High school College ProfessIonal team Name of high school: What was the percentage of your team's wins for the last four years, 1987-1991 seasons: 13. 14. EM What was the coach's percentage of wins for the previous season (1990-1991) for the team you are currently coaching: What was the coach's percentage of wins for this season (1991-1992): H7 APPENDIX D Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale Please circle 1 if you are strongly agree, circle 2 if you are agree, circle 3 if you are disagree, or circle 4 if you are strongly disagree with the following items: SA AGREE DA SD 1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4 2. At times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4 3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 1 2 3 4 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4 6. I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4 7. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 1 2 3 4 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4 9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4 10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 1 2 3 4 128 APPENDIX D The STAI DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and then circle one of the responses to the right of the statement to indicate how you generally feel. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement but give the answer which seems to describe how you generally feel. Not- Some- Moderate- Very- at all what 1y so much so 1. I feel calm 1 2 3 4 2. I feel secure 1 2 3 4 3. I am tense 1 2 3 4 4. I am regretful 1 2 3 4 5. I feel at ease 1 2 3 4 6. I feel upset 1 2 3 4 7. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes 1 2 3 4 8. I feel rested 1 2 3 4 9. I feel anxious 1 2 3 4 10. I feel comfortable 1 2 3 4 11. I feel self-confident 1 2 3 4 12. I feel nervous 1 2 3 4 13. I am jittery 1 2 3 4 14. I feel "high strung" 1 2 3 4 15. I am relaxed 1 2 3 4 16. I feel content 1 2 3 4 17. I am worried 1 2 3 4 18. I feel over-excited and rattled 19. I feel joyful 20. I feel pleasant B0 APPENDIX D Internal-External Locus of Control Scale This is a questionnaire to find out the way in which certain important events in our society affect different people. Each item consists of a pair of alternatives lettered a or b. Please select the one statement of each pair (and only one) which you more strongly believe to the ease as far as you're concerned. Be sure to select the one you actually believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should choose or the one you would like to be true. This is a measure of personal belief: obviously there are no right or wrong answers. Please answer these items carefully but do not spend too much time on any one item. Be sure to find an answer for every choice. Please circle a or b which you choose as the statement more true. In some instances you may discover than you believe both statements or neither one. In such eases, be sure to select the one you more strongly believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. Also try to respond to each item independently when making your choice; do not be influenced by your previous choices. 1. a.Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much. b.The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them. 2. a.Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. b.People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. 3. a.One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in polities. b.There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. 4. a.In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. b.Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. 5. a.The idea that teachers are unfair to students is non- sense. b.Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 6. a.Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. I31 b.Capab1e people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. a.No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you. b.People who can't get others to like them don't under- stand how to get along with others. a.Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality. b.It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like. a.I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. b.trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action. a.In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test. b.Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless. a.Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. b.Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. a.The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. b.This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. a.When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. b.It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. a.There are certain people who are just no good. b.There is some good in everybody. a.In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. b.Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. a.Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. b.Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it. a.As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. U2 the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor control. b.Sy taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events. a.Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. b.There really is no such thing as "luck". a.One should always be willing to admit mistakes. b.It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. a.It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. b.How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are. a.In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. b.Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. a.With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption. b.It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. a.Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. b.There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get. a.A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. b.A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. a.Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. b.It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. a.People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. b.There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you. a.There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school. b.Team sports are an excellent way to build character. a.What happens to me is my own doing. b.Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. B3 29. a.Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. b.In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a notional as well as on a local level. I34 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OI'I'ICEOEVICEPIESDENTPOIIESEAICH EASILANSINGONICHIGAN'Cfld-I“ ANDDEANOEflIEGIADUATESCHOOI. December 2, 1991 Jeong-Heun Park 1533D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 RE: CONSTRUCTION OF A COACHING CONFIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE, IRE I90- 503 Dear Mr. Park: UCRIHS' review of your project is now complete. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved your additional Phase IV of the project, subject to the same conditions as were stipulated in the letter of November 22, 1991. Sincerely, /Daniel{Z:é:ronstein, S. J. D. Vice Chair University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DAS:pjm cc: Dr. Deborah Feltz MSU it an . V/imstive Action/Equal Opportunity lnrtitutwn APPENDIX E Human Subjects Approval, Cover Letter to Coaches, and Questionnaires for Phase 3 B6 APPENDIX E COVOE LOEEOX Park Jeong-Keun 1533D Spartan Village E.Lansing, MI 48823 (517)355-2911 December 2, 1991 Dear Coach : I am writing to you to enlist your help. My name is Jeong-Keun Park and I am a doctoral student in the Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science at Michigan State University. I am working on my degree in sport psychology under the direction of Dr.Deborah L. Feltz. I am presently working on my dissertation. My dissertation topic is the construction of a Coaching Confidence Scale. The purpose of the study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to influence an athlete's performance. I realize how busy you are. But your cooperation would enable me to better understand coaching confidence. Enclosed are a Consent Form, the Coach's Personal Data Questionnaire, a Coaching Confidence Scale, the Team Ability Questionnaire, the School Support Questionnaire, and the Coaching Behavior Scale. I hope you will complete all questionnaires and return them to me by using the stamped envelope enclosed. If you agree to participate, please sign the consent form and return in a separate stamped envelope that has been enclosed. You will not be required to write your name on any of the questionnaires. All data from this study will be treated with strictest confidence and your answers will remain anonymous. Of course, your participation is completely voluntary. It will take about ten minutes to complete these questionnaires. J E']] 1 . . l E ha5kstball_tsam_plaxs_their_first_gamsi I would appreciate receiving your response by December 12, 1991. Thank you very much for your assistance. Deborah L. Feltz, Ph.D. Sincerely Yours, Advisor (517)355-4732 Park Jeong-Keun 86 APPENDIX E Consent Form Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science Michigan State University TITLE OF RESEARCH: THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COACHING CONFIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE I have received and understand the following information concerning the study: I have freely consented to participate in this research conducted by Mr.Jeong-Keun Park, doctoral student in the Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science at Michigan State University. The study is concerned with development of a valid and reliable instrument to measure coaching confidence. I understand that I am free to refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or to discontinue my participation at any time without penalty. I understand that my participation in this research does not guarantee any beneficial effects. I understand that if I choose to participate in the study, it will take about thirty minutes to complete these questionnaires. ' I understand that all data from this study will be treated with strictest confidence. I understand that all data from this study will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. I agree to participate voluntarily in this research. SIGNED: DATE: H” APPENDIX E The Coach's Personal Data Questionnair. Information about you --- 1. Gender: (Please check one) (1) Male (2) Female 2. Ethnic Affiliation: (Please check one) (1) African American (2) Asian American (3) Caucasian (4) Hispanic (5) Native American IndIan (6) Other 3. Age Group: (Please check one) (1) 20-24 (6) 45-49 (2) 25-29 (7) 50-54 (3) 30-34 (8) 55-59 (4) 35-39 (9) 60-64 (5) 40-44 (10) 65 and over h . Educational Background: (Please check one) (1) High school graduate (2) Less than two years of college (3) More than two years but never completed a bachelor's degree (4) Completed a bachelor's degree (5) Some master's level work (6) Completed master's degree (7) Some doctoral level work (8) Education specialist (9) Completed doctorate 5. Coaching Education: Do you have coaching certification? (Please check) (1) ACEP ____ (2) pace Identify any coaching courses or workshops that you have taken How many hours did you participate in these courses or workshops in total? m Present Position: (Please check one) (1) Head coach (2) Assistant coach 7. Years in present position: 8. What sports have you coached: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. B8 What sport team are you currently coaching (identify if male or female team): Total number of years in coaching career: List the sports that you have played Sport Number of Level (circle all that years played apply) High School College Professional High School College Professional High School College Professional High School College Professional Name of high school in which you presently coach: What was the percentage of your team's wins for the last four years, 1987-1991 seasons: What was the percentage of wins for the previous season (1990-1991) for the team you are currently coaching: B9 APPENDIX E Coaching Confidence Scale For High School Coaches Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe that they have the capacity to effect the performance of your athletes. Think about how confident you are as a coach. Rate your confidence for each of the items below. Your answers will be kept completely confidential. How confident are you--- Not at all Extremely 1. in your ability to teach confident confident the skills of your sport? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. in your ability to detect skill errors? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. in your ability to evaluate your players' abilities? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. in your ability to communi- cate effectively with your players? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. in your ability to motivate your players? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. in your ability to make critical decisions during competition? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7. in your ability to coach under pressure? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8. in your ability to adapt to different game situations? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9. in your ability to organize effective practices? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. in your interpersonal relations skills with your players? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 pm APPENDIX E Team.Ability Questionnaire How many seniors do you have on your team this year? How many varsity letter winners do you have on your team this year? How tall are your starting players? 1. 2. 3. ‘0 5. How would you rate the overall ability of the athletes on your team this year? Very Excellent poor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 141 APPENDIX E School Support Questionnaire Please indicate your degree of support with each of the following statements. 1. In comparison with your perception of the ideal school sports programs, how would you rate the support given to your varsity team by your athletic director? Not at Extremely all supportive supportive O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In comparison with your perception of the ideal school sports programs, how would you rate the community support to your varsity team by interest in and attendance at games? Not at Extremely all supportive supportive O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In comparison with your perception of the ideal school sports programs, how would you rate the support given to your varsity team by the student body of your school? Not at Extremely all supportive supportive O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In comparison with your perception of the ideal school sports programs, how would you rate the support given to your varsity team by your school faculty members and administrators? Not at Extremely all supportive supportive O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In comparison with your perception of the ideal school sports programs, how would you rate the support given to your varsity team by the parents of your athletes? Not at Extremely all supportive supportive O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wrist (Persistence) 1. (Effort) 2. (Effort) 3. (Persistence) 4. (Persistence) 5. (Effort) 6. us APPENDIX E Coaching Behavior Scale Would you choose to coach your team again next season, if you were given the opportunity? (circle one) 1. Definitely no 2. Probably no 3. I don't know 4. Probably yes 5. Definitely yes Approximately how many hours per week do you spend on fulfilling the duties of coach in season? Hours/week Approximately how many hours per week do you spend on fulfilling the duties of coach out of season? Hours/week How many years do you want to continue in coaching this sport team? Respond to this question in terms of your agreement or disagreement to the statement. If I really try hard, I can improve the performance of even the most unskilled or unmotivated athletes. (circle one) 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree Do you feel you work harder, about the same or a little less than most coaches? (circle one) 1. Harder 2. About the same 3. A little less APPENDIX P Data Coding Sheet for Phase 1 BB APPENDIX P Data Coding Sheet for Phase 1 EABIAELE CARD .CQLHMN MBLHEE Subject number 1 1-2 Gender 1 3 1-Male, 2-Female Race 1 4 l-African American 2-Asian American 3-Caucasian 4-Hispanic 5-Native American Indian 6-Other Age 1 5 1820-24, 6345-49 2-25-29, 7=50-54 3-30-34, 8-55-59 4=35-39, 9=60-64 5-40-44, 10-65 and over Education 1 6 1=High school graduate 2-Less than two years of college 3-More than two years but never completed a bachelor's degree 4-Completed a bachelor's degree 5=Some master's level work 6=Completed master's degree 7=Some doctoral level work 8=Education specialist 9=Completed doctorate Present position 1 7 1=Head coach 2=Assistant coach Team gender 1 8 1=Male-team 2=Female-team 3=Both-teams Sport 1 9 1=Swimming, 4=Softball 2=Tennis, 5=Volleyball 3=Baseball, 6=Basketball Coaching experience 1 10 1= 1-5yrs, 5=21-25yrs 2= 6-10yrs, 6=26-30yrs 3=11-15yrs, 7=31-35yrs 144 4816-20yrs, Coaching confidence scale 1 11-25 Social desirability scale 1 26-38 8=36-over APPENDIX G Phase 1 Data h” APPENDIX G Phase 1 Data 0012355124198998889998788881111211122122 0022352124105577799777997991121111212121 0032325127027666765656978881222111212211 0042346124159999955553899952122121112221 0052315124027875688656878892222212222112 0062345124147778897887989891111211221211 0071346113149779887999968771122212112112 0081335115036555488665877782222111211221 0091356113198888988888987892222221212112 0101396113399999999999889882112121122211 0111356113159978884889884782112212212212 0121355113208899978888888882222211122112 0131165132209998898999988992222121212221 0141366132129799978766977481222111122122 0151387132318799978999789782222121212221 0161376132056676777666776772111212222221 0171386132326687997687977872221111212211 0181396132307777888888 77882222112211121 0192345122099999977999988991111212111111 0202366132127677879776979891111211222112 0211358111239899879668989672122212122222 0221366131238878878888888881122121112222 0231325111048778887777 79682221111211121 0241314111039768565778877862222211221122 0251347131146566676556667671112212222111 0262335131159999976858879472222121211121 0272356121207576653777777762212221112221 0282321131055477699685754882121121212121 0291377112227778974666 78852222112111121 0302353122058887979677 88791121121221112 O311333111128698898877698982121111212211 0322324121057576986767887772221121221111 O331356132199899998999998882222121212111 03413541 1179999999999999992222121211121 0352655131238888998888999982222121212211 0362353122138897789888997891111221212111 0372315121034334436333542551222221211221 0382356122069788898888989882122121212211 0392344131118879875777889782112121211111 0402325124058787787778987872 22121212211 0412366132158888768888999781122221212222 04223951 288888999998989892222121212211 O431366112239998797999899772222121212221 0441376132178589868899985452122211222121 0452324124038886898666986792122121212122 0461356111186337599774 69992122111212222 0471376113149989987888987782212221212211 0482355124148778879888678871111211212122 BK O491376112276666998767898982211122212221 0502351121079897899989999992222121212221 0511354113067886878898665771112211222112 0521364113269889988998886882122121212212 0532665131238888877888888872221111222212 0542335122108898877888999882222211122121 0551367132166676887788 66882111211112111 0561324113089888888999988882111111222222 0572341124097786887777776772212121212111 0581396111328798999889998892221121212121 0591333131099889976977888271222111112222 O601346116167778987998877681111211122112 0612346124118677979887878892122121121121 0621366112247789899999888992122212122212 0632314124079799899898998892122121111121 O641356113158777767666679871111212122122 0651345132148889988998898882222121222212 0661355112206599888888988891112111212211 0671336113139999888888887792122122222111 0681366132249999999988999992121111222221 0692321131075447889798964881222121212121 0702356111187569986599977792222121211112 0712315121056464866858862661111211112122 O722326124087776667767878772121222212112 O731345121188889988887998682222221212121 0741376132066776777677 76672211121212221 0751334111109989977888998881111211222222 0761356132108888866778 88662222222212211 0771366112057686865877 77772212121121221 0781356113147688788888887882122112122222 0792356122217676888877787892222121212111 0801376113267678877677888782222121211221 0811366113239999977999977792221121212121 0822376132317778977999 88982121111122211 0831356131228879789999888772122212122112 0841142113047688986887877972121111211122 0851356132058688887988 88882121211221212 0862325122067788886888967782222121212211 0871313112049879987667757992222211212222 0881383232046888866888757671211221212112 0892435124089999899997968982222121221222 0901366113168799987899887782122121112221 0912342124117777798777977772122211122112 O921376122208797999999997992222121212221 O931386113239998898999888992222121212221 O941383124058859758887777672222111212211 0951335115129568877886869571222211112111 0961346132136667776666666671122221111112 0972357131219999998899889881112122222111 0982365124228788987888779672222111211121 0991366112239998889999799682222121211222 1001356113158778877777877772222122222212 1012325124037796788556876792222112212121 1022385132158888987888898782122221212121 PW 1032314121028776898777778892121121211221 1042321121074377798198994991222211212122 1051155133099898999999899892222121222222 1061366121267787778887788782121211212111 1072325124067778777666757672222111222221 1082334124118898999888899992222121221122 1092165131118888898888988881221121212211 1101386132267788987677 77782122221212221 1112345111146587788766677781122221222211 1122614125017667766776666662222122211221 1131375124309899899999889992222111212121 1142335124048789789998977792121222122121 1151365111249789978888998972122211222121 1162314111039979999999 97991222112222112 1172355111077985766998876681121221222221 1181355112239888898898998992222222222221 1191322111089799979999987792122121212121 1201375132237788876777877872122111122111 1212341122055678999888877992222121112111 1221366122218888888888788872121221122112 1231366131257478855888 66561122211211111 1242326132098887898888988882221211212221 1252336124017788797887989682122121211221 1261377111339999899999999991121212112122 1271366132278968856879879972121212112112 1281364113108889987999988882122111111211 1292614124017667766776666662222122211221 1302135 067677777666777772222121211222 APPENDIX E Data Coding Sheet for Phase 2 h“ APPENDIX E Data Coding Sheet for Phase 2 MABIAELE Subject number Gender Race Age Education Position Years in present position Team gender Sport Coaching Experience Sport of Playing Experience CARD CQLHMN MALHEE 1 1-2 3 4 8-9 10 11 12-13 14-15 1-Male, 2-Female l-African American 2-Asian American 3-Caucasian 4-Hispanic 5-Native American Indian 6-Other 6345-49 7-50-54 1-20-24, 2-25-29, 3-30-34, 9-55-59 4-35-39, 9-60-54 5-40-44,1o=65 over 1=High school graduate 2=Less than two years of college 3=Incomplete bachelor 4=Bachelor 5-Some master 6=Master 7=Some doctoral 8=Specialist 9=Completed doctorate 1=Head coach 2=Assistant coach 1=Male-team 2=Female-team 3=Both-teams 1=Swimming, 5=Basketball 2=Tennis, =Football 3=Baseball, 7=Wrestling 4=Softball, 8=Track 1=Swimming, 10=Volleyball Level 1 Percentage of Last Four Years 2 Percentage of Previous Season 2 CCS 1 to CCS 15 2 The STAI 2 The social personality scale 2 Rosenberg's self- esteem scale 3 The internal-external locus of control scale 3 h” 16 6-20 21-40 41-53 2=Tennis, 11-Golf 3=Baseball, 12-Bowling 4-Softball, 13-Archery 5-Basketball,14-Lacrosse 6=Football, 15-Racketball 7-Wrestling,16-Ice Hockey 8=Track, 17-Cross country 9-Field Hockey l-High school 2-College 3-Professional APPENDIX I Phase 2 Data um APPENDIX I Phase 2 Data 0113661071223022052000000 54066999879799989977341131241441114411332222121212221 141144144122121222211112122212212221212 0213761173217032052000000 79091858986889998545341141141441123411232122211222121 141244144121222221211212121212112221112 0323241042403043052000000 46045888689866698679332332122332112311332122121212122 241144124221221212111212121112112211211 0413561021118063072082000 000826337599774 6999242131231442222421442122111212222 141243144121212222221111122112222211212 0513761141314034063052000 68070998998788898778442143341431114411442212221212211 141244134122211212211211121212212221112 0623551122414044093053000 70060877887988867887233223322332224441111111211212122 412232311422211222212222111112122211211 0713761271227033000000000 25033666699876789898342141131431124141442211122212221 121142134122122212211212121121212221212 0823341112411022102082000 70060889899988889999432141332332214413432222121221122 241244144122111212211112122212122222212 0923511012107000000000000 20000989789998999999441141141441114411342222121212221 1411441441221212 2211112122212112221212 1013541031306063053033000 20025788687889866577223332133232333322331112211222112 232134124222212212211212122111212121211 1113641251326034062052000 60040988998899888688342231132441123311332122121212212 142233234122111222211112122212112221112 1226651063123023013083000 80092888887788888887441141332441113431332221111222212 242242144122121212211212122212112221212 1323351102210022102043000 80080889887788899988342232134442114411442222211122121 141144144112212222111112122112212211212 1413671153216023000000000 500506676887788 6688342342432331113322332111211112111 141243144111212121221211122111122212212 1513241011308033052062000 120229888888999988883431321424411232 1442111111222222 341144144122211222221112121112122122212 1623411072409000000000000 60050778688777777677333232233332213311332212121212111 232233233222211221211112122112222221211 1713961191132062052032000 151 55022879899988999889441141131442114311332221121212121 141144144122112212212112122111222121212 1813331033109112013000000 81063988997697788827233232223343112331441222111112222 231142144221121212212212221111122212221 1913461091616052062032000 52041777898799887768243231122332113321341111211122112 331243124222211221211112121212122221212 2023461052411052102042123 50025867797988787889333233112442112231232122121121121 122342133222211212112112122112222221211 2113661171224062032012000 80080778989999988899332231131341113311432122212122212 242243134222111212211112122112122221212 2223141032407043093102052 80075979989989899889342132133341222311332122121111121 141144144122211212111112121211112222211 2313561091315000000000000 00000877776766667987322323433333233232231111212122122 231242224322221112211112122211212122212 2413451063214052000000000 66050888998899889888333121122341132311332222121222212 141144144121221212212211111111112212212 2513551201220063053023000 95100659988888898889342142121441114411341112111212211 141144144122212122212211121111222221212 2613361081313033062000000 65039999988888888779332232222241122222222122122222111 241144124222221112211112121112222222212 2713661243224024052062000 00000999999998899999441111121241114311242121111222221 141144144122211222211111122212222221212 2823211053107052042102012 55000544788979896488332132134333213421341222121212121 241143234221222212111112112111122212212 2923561151118013052043000 10015756998659997779342132142331122312132222121211112 131143144121211212112212121112122211222 3023151012105012022102000 00022646486685886266224122123233132232221111211112122 241244234222211212211111121111112221111 3123261052408052103043000 73060777666776787877331111121111121111112121222212112 141144144122221212211212121111122212211 3213451162118013112000000 95100888998888799868331141132443113421442222221212121 141243144122111212211112121212212221212 3313761063206062000000000 600606776777677 7667442141141441114411332211121212221 232233233222111222111112122212112222212 3413341021110013000000000 69038998997788899888332232132332223311331111211222222 241144144222211212211112122212212121212 3513561103210052000000000 U3 600808888866778 886644224213 332113321332222222212211 14114 144122212222211112122212212221212 3613661051205062000000000 350307686865877 7777433142242431114412342212121121221 141243134222221221211112122212212121112 3713561111314032062162000 62081768878888888788332232222332113321332122112122222 241242134122221211211111122112122222212 3823561132221092000000000 78075767688887778789441144131441414414332222121212111 14114413412211 1221111212221 112221212 3913761261326062052033043 71078767887767788878342131132332223311442222121211221 242243234122211221212212111112222211211 4013661181323033052000000 60058999997799997779333131143342113311442221121212121 241144134121 11 1 1 1 2 2 4123761143231022132042052 700607778977999 8898441141131441114311342121111122211 24124314412122 12212212121 11122222111 4213561173122013023143000 84091887978999988877244224434343342231332122212122112 241134134122221222212212121221222222211 4311421031304032012082000 06011768898688787797322133134341243322442121111211122 241143144122221221111212121212122212112 4413561053205022000000000 200208688887988 8888332242132332113321332121211221212 141143144121211112211112122112112121212 4523251062206022052082153 70050778888688896778341141131441213411442222121212211 131143144121221112212212111112122222211 4613131031204022000000000 30025987998766775799333132234443223422442222211212222 141144144112211222221211121212122221212 4713832043204053112023000 30000688886688875767223131222331113111221211221212112 332232222322111211212121121112112211212 4824351052408053103173043 00080999989999796898443441143443314413442222121221222 141144144122221212112111122112122222212 4913661241316032000000000 4506287999878998877833213231234211332133212212111222l 141144144122221222211112122112112221212 5023421052411103000000000 50040777779877797777342242132442113421442122211122112 141144144121222122111212121112222221212 5113761112220022000000000 8509587979999999979934213113 341123311332222121212221 141144144122111122212112122 12112221212 5213861231323034053000000 80075999889899988899441241121441114411342222121212221 142244134222221222111112122112112221212 5313831052405000000000000 Efl 65064885975888777767342241143431113411432222111212211 242243234222211212211112122212212221212 5413351071512053032082000 70059956887788686957332232232331123322441222211112111 131142134122222222121112122112212221212 5513461103213052062000000 90090666777666666667432232232322223322231122221111112 232233223222222222111112122212212121222 5623571133121012000000000 27010999999889988988334223312132221232221112122222111 231133124222221212121112122111112212222 5723651222422000000000000 00000878898788877967441141131441114411442222111211121 141144144122212212211212122112212212212 5813661041223052022000000 67054999888999979968441131122331113311342222121211222 141234144122122222211112122112212111222 5913561071315032000000000 33020877887777787777332232142341113311332222122222212 141144144122211222211112122212212221212 6023251022403053043000000 50040779678855687679441141241441114411442222112212121 14124414412122 2222 112 1211 1 22 121 6123851153215000000000000 60050888898788889878332131121331113321232122221212121 23214323422 22 222211112122 12112222212 6223141012102013102000000 00043877689877777889322233232332123222232121121211221 221143233222221212211212121112212121211 6323211042107012000000000 40045437779819899499332132111342212221441222211212122 321233212221222211222212121112122111221 6411551093309033000000000 6004098989999998998934113 124441134431432222121222222 241144244122212221121112122212212111211 6513661242126062082013000 98100778777888778878333233423343223332332121211212111 131243134121121222211212122112112221212 6623251052406043052102093 60050777877766675767342232132341113311332222111222221 242244234222211222211212121211122221211 6721651273111092000000000 00067888889888898888331131332331111111231221121212211 242243244221222212121212121111122212212 6813861213226023012062000 700557788987677 7778341141241331114 21332122221212221 241144144122211221111111122212212221212 6923451041114012082000000 70060658778876667778333121232332222222331122221222211 232234234222221222211112121211122212222 7026141012501053042000000 00015766776677666666 2222122211221 7113751112430083173000000 HM 52047989989999988999441141222342213411332222111212121 141144144122212212211211121112112221212 7223351032404043123022012 80073878978999897779342131113341123421342121222122121 14114314412222 112211212121212122222211 7313651021124063013000000 60070978997888899897332232142331113321332122211222121 242243234222211212222212122111212221222 7423141021103013042000000 330339979999999 9799222221121331113221221222112222112 232143134122211222212112122111212121212 7523551031107013000000000 80090798576699887668322321433232232331331121221222221 221121212222222212212212211111212211112 7613551141223022062032000 66066988889889899899441141141441114411332222222222221 141144144122222222222112122121112112212 7713221031108012000000000 65055979997999998779432232233342314321342122121212121 142244224222221211122212122111222221211 7813751283223023172052043 60055778887677787787332232312232223322232122111122111 232233134222221222211212121111122211222 7923411052205022000000000 00000567899988887799332241222331114411442222121112111 222233224222211212112111111111122212211 8013661052221023053063000 69093888888888878887233222232342123331232121221122112 221143134122111212212112112111112121212 8113661203125062053073083 600607478855888 6656332231332341113321331122211211111 232234134222212222212112121111112211212 8223261023209023102082000 75025888789888898888232122122332122321332221211212221 242244244222211112212112122112212221212 8323361012401102043052000 80085778879788798968342142112442223411442122121211221 141144144122211222211112122212222221212 8413771011133062033053013 80054999989999999999332132322342123321331121212112122 14114322422221 222211112122212122221212 8513661273227062052082023 58020896885687987997332432121231122211222121212112112 24224424422211122222111212221122222 112 8613641101310032062052000 73074888998799998888333122323233222332222122111111211 241124144122111222211112122112112 11212 8726141012401053043000000 00015766776677666666323333232332223222332222122211221 232233223221222221112122122121122221222 882135 06022102012000 00000767777766677777441111142441114411342222121211222 141244244122222212211112222211112212212 APPENDIX J Data Coding Sheet for Phase 3 Hfi APPENDIX J Data Coding Sheet for Phase 3 MARIADLE CARD. COLUMN IALDES Subject number 1 1-2 Gender 1 3 1-Nale, 2-Female Race 1 4 l-Black, 4=Hispanic 2-Asian, 5-Indian 3-White, 6-Other Age 1 5 1-20-24, 6-45-49 2825-29, 7-50-54 3-30-34, 8855-59 4-35-39, 9-60-64 5-40-44,10=65 over Education - 6 1-High school graduate 2=Less than two years of college 3-Incomplete bachelor 4=Bachelor 5-Some master 6-Master 7=Some doctoral 8-Specialist 9-Completed doctorate Coaching education 1 7 1-ACEP, 3-Other 2=PACE, 4=Both Coaching workshops 1 8 1-P.E major 2-Clinics and workshops 3-Coaching seminar 4-Course and workshops 5-College classes 6=Clinics and college classes Total hours of coaching workshop 1 9-11 Present position 1 12 =Head coach 2=Assistant coach Years in present position 1 13-14 Coaching experience 1 15-16 Sport of playing experience Years playing Level Percentage of last four years Percentage of previous season CCS 1 to CCS 10 Number of seniors Number of letter winners Height 1 Height 2 Height 3 Height 4 Height 5 Team overall ability SSQ 1 to SSQ 5 Coaching next season Hours per week in season Hours per week off season Number of years Coaching this sport Responsibility for athletes ”6 17 18-19 20 3-5 6-15 16 17-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31-33 34 35-39 40 41-42 43-44 45-46 47 5-Basketball 1-High school 2-College 3-Professional 1=Definitely no 2=Probably no 3=I don't know 4=Probably yes 5=Definitely yes 1=Very 4=Not very Agree Effort ”U 48 49 2=Response 5-Not at all 3=Somewhat 1-Strongly agree 2=Agree 3-Neither 4-disagree 5-Strongly disagree 1-Harder 2-Same 3-Less APPENDIX E Phase 3 Data ”3 APPENDIX X Phase 3 Data 011345 6400107185071060510361 7408086699999886065105106026005116456395200711322024 021325 2100102025142 09689888888986056086076005115106886874151010321096 031356 112155082 6007068998999994066046036046026026655675 07 142065 041335 510010713505102051 54057668778888740660760460351060476556743012 112065 051335 512010210504160520862 01767678879885045106006026036057942385271010142033 061346 10412506206021032108011 7008098977988988086066046046025107988595280530221067 071346 114145122060810881 8909399866778763076066046046016007964485150420221046 081326 215010107504103041 033766566568770651060L4026026085777685200905212060 091344 60151031550210602-112103021 7508888877987888076076046015105107565574250507322050 101333 103105092060810261 560389897967696806510510601604605784566516 03321073 111355 2040108155072030410641 4505599988999985055105105106036066956775300316121033 121345 11015505260310811 800927866655576606511511604604605796578520 321042 131376 225011329 3 106 108 2 7106799998898986066076056036005107776595250510331067 141345 2 10413504130410641 5002588887888984066056036035105086322244291325231035 151366 699911825508230720631 7403098889999985085096036036046067788885350907221043 161336 10510504160820382 7206686798788686046046026005105105874485221305221035 171355 3100101125082 7504088887888974026026006006006005533345200510111050 181346 1 10615504160410331 7907977989799999096046036036015107966994202005321091 191324 202010209504102031 033778898888830460360160051050857663642002 122019 201314 702010106504160410331 3002576788667881036056026005105107888885201005322045 2113252701010206504106310341 3706277878887885046036016005105086545535150520222029 2211454 06011313501180410662 82084888999988970760460460551060278885652804 111074 231355 10416503132531721 4504877874887974046036036025056036945565200502433070 241365 2500113275062 7005685756786953036036026026016007875565211015332058 U” 2513551250012020510211062064103011 2503399897887978066046036036086005753495501013211033 261 242 050103035021 5306176778566875066016035116016006789875402005132065 271366 2500108225072 7408187687999886075116036046056068976395220703121045 281386 109011328 6072030220831 6207299998999985065095086006006018999895302505131074 291366 6060120235082030311731 8107089877998667066096036026015107988795210705222086 301336 505010209504203042062108021 2402444645544344026056025095096006323325180130122033 31138926 10131508203082064108041 7403699999999996066066046046026025777775341009311033 321345 503011117504160310321 7304187877787964056076046035115106766785301005331071 3313461201711317504130420641 64085898898889991060160160360460379999952405 122065 341366 230012724504160410331 5605098899899985066055055086015106976795351507121050 351355 2130114195031030620621 90080999798899820760860-3026005087996575351030131081 361376 2 13030507203021 6306198888777987056046036045105116756675200805222 371345 2 10618508260820841 5004079776787887106035106025106006864584180503122064 3813662220011517504103041061108011 440149998878997305508600511602604462225330 1132015 391335 410010210505203021 4504578888888874055095096026026022867665301525122019 40134622 1051450526092038208031 2801989978999982035115115116036054477895230120112019 411365 21751171850216041 6706098999888995066016005085075068786595400820211071 421367 23001031750310602103410802 1101568665765985066046016035115106524235241005211029 4313681 020116275042 7506499999999985055075085106026036875575301004111033 4413352220010409503103042062 5407687979899864085106056016006006436665191020112071 451355 218010821504108021031110021 3902178886877775055115105106005117566384200202221045 461346 501011517504260310342 7908688886886994046036026066036056722344350505331068 471156 104055123 1000867788 66773066056026005115096813245150205242029 4813432 10405506203021 62083888988788960460460151060060078779953009 211091 491356 203011519508203141 5105797977777992026006006026026034943465271303231035 501366 203010218 5000598898877993036036036016016008977885130305222025 511325 101075 208 217 2 98899998883066046045086026016856365250730122 um 521385 2050114335072 4003077856777766066046016015105094667463250202222020 531345 2200101165041060410841 7507588898999989066036026006005097887785250510121100 541336 112125012604103041 2502097877998973036026026016006006622473180315332045 5511561 1051651220614303 2 7406087787777874055076016046036077866585271320221095 561385 5 12835508260720872 8107887878789887066036026026005106366185180205122073 571345 107155041030720652 4503367888787886066066036016005116743265301015211044 581366 4 10825502160410882 44048888887787750460360351151150967453452006 332029 591356 10616504103041 6006488999888885056056046036016026866485300513211029 6013661 105255062060410382 4006099978997982056005115115115075134285251504121025 611145 114175082 77088988998989840651151060460360366785641907 121070 621366 1122350416 1084116153 700349897799988404601511510600600698679520 06132086 631325 401810106 811-170720681 63010889999989900260051151050850846568652503 111000 6413463404010612506206031081102011 4804877795778786056026016016005073743485200305333033 651345 21001031750416031084117041 5006087978787865056066035085086006656665190308241030 661355 11320525203302 3604398899998972066066036026005088277265350610211086 671345 103075041060210341 0388887788888 6977785270723212033 681324 10202508203041084106041 200208888788788406601601600600602687788514 10322029 6913442215710715504160410382 5006777989888884046006016036056064876865210613322077 7013551200610318 302106021 6507077889888876066056046006005107756454100805222057 711344 2 112175041030410621 5007554578755975046036016005115100856525301010152 721325 2050102075 203 211 117 2 56037878879989860660360260051151066 2 343317 12 011 731186 4 10931535202472 4003599999999995096006025045095117856265231803122052 741362 330012030502 604 032 7008597899999994106046026026005037744495320815211075 751345 220011318 66 88967776976066056066005116015943243201005321 761334 1090105115011816302024 6206599999999995056036026026026005999995301005321040 771314 10202508218011 5002677677777676106036005105095085926585180602222056 "mannaES