..‘JIII‘ NW1.” INFI'III‘LIIEW . . I 1':' ' -: «If 1: I I3 4 .11; II‘ 'Izl'n I.I'”‘"I.>"‘ W1 35', 'I” I}; .‘i' "M'I-[Mm II; ”‘1 I" I “I MI; .; - 3.3"}; It! .‘2 ‘I‘IHIIBWI ”rail; 1".“ I m“ vii” 4i 3 b; I‘ 2'" mt: . Ni}; -~ ',‘:."._:‘I'1J*-.' I'l-HII‘ 2?: 11.3.25“? ‘1 ““3. ‘4'! 1;.“ ”I; ;II..,I5M ’9‘ II? 3 51%.. .. . X: . Il‘ "'{- .Z§_. M’I‘t ‘ i flaw“, - 5.3.. ‘1 1" 1“ “A :4; “If?" 1&0 * ‘ , wild}? 1‘ I. . ; ,’t.’§".':g‘!=;~ 1‘ ‘ Xj I5" ”fig 1‘ z? .M'i‘ "-,={“‘T1L}:h‘1$; 5; f ' ‘ ih 4' “t, :13"!- Jl‘} luu‘ I'ltikliii :l. I; M. : ~‘ I I t ‘11! i :qilfl‘w 1.] l. '11 v . .._. ‘ S...” fie...- ..- 3:,— 4' ~' W". _ a...” I: 733‘...” . a..- ‘ -.r—oun a} LIV)- I .3324 2’. ._._.. “it“: .. -».:'-' ..-, 1 -T .53.??- I“... L’ 3:. .rr :3!’ ”:73: . 3‘“... .. ’0 1359.; ‘\ .r I. - . d “1125i “.Ei ; ' Ifléko‘sfi‘zis'a. . NI.” 1"’p'.§‘§, 21(3)”? .: :- 'I’IEIE, . l -- ... .._. AM..." I... v . ‘4 4.. I... “in? a. 2;... ca , . 7+7?“ . Ls-.- 1 .: 2:: . ,5. '-.. v?” 6-}; m I. ..._...“ . . .... A "- *2" .z' . —‘~".—§'4-— “ .— ‘ ..ra. :3; '12' .. .. :r . , - 1' ~“ _.:.:::" I. .—~ .1 ... _ .. .-.. _- "(Jar . ~ ’1’ 22.... i— ' «.53?! III 23:th i I ‘5‘" u . . i . ~ .~ . . .4 -.4... J."' .- . u. ‘0: . .._g . “...... . ~i mum-“..._. . ~ 4 .. ,‘ . I'._...... . v......» .. .....r.) .- I ,. .. tea-“ .. ... II ’I' all” Oh.“ ‘ X‘l'l's I?! I . #5.. ‘ a Ago-.- ““.- ..4 .- I‘RII'II '.I .51.”. ‘, ”1%: :i! "$1213! ,. II» ' EIIIIII V I , v 7.}. .5333}; ‘Q'yk‘ ..f 2an J :1’ ... 2532-3“ ; .. .,._.- ... -. ...... . 41!“ . lit-I‘lhég . F 1' '. ‘ J .15? “5.531 I: ILUI‘V‘IJII 2:”: ‘3... : .4. ......_ Illlllllllllllllllllllll‘llllllllllllll‘llnllllllllllllll 3 1293 01707 4257 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF A PROGRAM FOR ATHLETIC COACHES EDUCATION ON COACHING EFFICACY presented by Leapetswe MaIete has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MS degree in Physical Education and Exercise Science :DJMLQ My Major professor Date im— 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution '7 LIBRARY , Michigan State University 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 DEC 0 3 1999 {MAY 10 t 9055 IH6185QZPU‘ 1M c/CIRCJDMDUOpGS-a“ THE EFFECT OF A PROGRAM FOR ATHLETIC COACHES EDUCATION ON COACHING EFFICACY By Leapetswe Malete A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Physical Education & Exercise Science 1998 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF A PROGRAM FOR ATHLETIC COACHES EDUCATION ON COACHING EFFICACY By Leapetswe Malete The purpose of this study was to examine the efl‘ect of participation in the Program for Athletic Coaches Education (PACE) on coaches’ perceived coaching efficacy. PACE is sponsored by the Youth Sports Institute at Michigan State University in conjunction with the Michigan High School Athletic Association. The program consisted of two 6-hour sessions. The Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) was used to determine the impact of the program on perceived coaching efficacy. Sixty participants, comprising Michigan high school coaches and physical education students fi'om a Midwestern university, were recruited for the experimental (n = 36) and control groups (n =24) for this study. The participants were asked to respond to pretest and posttest CES questionnaires that examined how confident they were in influencing the learning and performance of their athletes in four dimensions: technique, strategy, motivation, and character building. Results showed a significant effect of PACE on the perceived efficacy levels of the coaches who were exposed to the program, while control coaches who did not receive PACE showed no significant change in efficacy levels between pre and posttest. Copyright by Leapetswe Malete 1 998 I dedicate this work to my Mother, Father, Brother and Sisters, whose love and moral support have always kept going throughout the years, not to forget Pako, who constantly reminds me to think about the fixture. I further dedicate this work to all those pe0ple who have made a tremendous contribution to the development of sport and physical activity, as well as to the emerging Physical Education profession in Botswana. Finally, I dedicate this work to all the high school coaches in the State of Michigan, whose enthusiasm to participate in this study made this study a possibility. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all the individuals whose contributions made this study a reality. A special thank you is given to Dr. Deborah Feltz, my major advisor, for guiding me through the research process. I am gratefirl to Dr. Feltz for the expertise and professional advice she provided from the inception of the study through its final stages. Deborah’s insightful comments and supervision have had a great impact on the development of my research skills. To Dr. Marty Ewing goes my appreciation for her scholarly criticisms and advice during the development of the study. Marty’s vast knowledge of coaching education, especially her involvement in the PACE program, became an important source of information in the design of this study. My appreciation goes to Mickey Melendez for his insightful comments and contribution during the inception stage of this study. I thank Dr. Mike Clark for his great assistance in the recruitment of subjects for the study and the administration of the instrument. I thank my colleagues, Philip Sullivan and Sandra Moritz, for their invaluable assistance in the data analysis. My appreciation goes to the Michigan High Schools Athletic Association and the Youth Sports Institute for making it possible to use their resources in the development of the study. Special thanks is given to my sponsor, the University of Botswana, for the invaluable support which made a dream come true. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1 Nature of the Problem ............................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ........................................................... 3 Hypotheses ............................................................................ 4 Delimitations .......................................................................... 4 Assumptions .......................................................................... 5 Limitations ............................................................................ 5 Definition of Terms .................................................................. 5 11. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................ 6 Self-efficacy theory .................................................................. 6 Teaching efficacy .................................................................... 9 Coaching efficacy .................................................................. 14 III. METHOD ............................................................................. 21 Participants ........................................................................ 21 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................. 22 Research design ................................................................... 23 Instrumentation .................................................................... 24 Program Description .............................................................. 25 Procedures .......................................................................... 26 Data analyses ....................................................................... 28 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................... 29 Results ................................................................................. 29 Preliminary analysis ................................................................ 29 Correlation Between Subscales ................................................ 30 Effects of Coaching Education on CBS ...................................... 31 Discussion ........................................................................... 39 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................... 42 Summary .................................................................... 42 Conclusions ................................................................. 44 Suggestions for Future Research ......................................... 44 LIST OF APPENDICES A. PACE: PROGRAM DESCRITPTION, SCHEDULE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................. 46 B. COACHING EFFICACY SCALE AND BACKGROUND INFROMATION QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................. 51 C. CONSENT FORM .................................................................... 54 D. APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE AT MICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITY ........................ 55 E. PRIMARY SPORT BEING COAHED BY THE COACHES ............................................................................. 56 F. PRETEST SUBSCALE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR MALE AND FEMALE COACHES ......................................... 57 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................. 58 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Intercorrelations Among the Subscales for the Entire Subject population ........................................................ 30 2. Pre and Posttest Subscale Means and Standard Deviations per group .................................................. 32 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Values for Experienced and Inexperienced Coaches ...................................................... 38 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Group by Time Interaction for Character Building Efficacy ..................... 34 2. Group by Time interaction for Motivation Efficacy ............................... 35 3. Group by Time interaction for Strategy Efficacy .................................. 36 4. Group by Time interaction for Technique Efficacy ................................ 37 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Nature of the Problem Coaching efiicacy has been defined as the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the leaming and performance of their athletes (F eltz, Chase, Hodge, Simensky, Lee, & Shi, 1994). Feltz et al. (1994) conceptualized a model of multidimensional coaching efficacy based on Bandura’s (1977) self-eflicacy theory and Denham and Michael’s (1981) multidimensional model of teacher efficacy. They proposed coaching efficacy to be a powerful variable in coaching effectiveness. Their concept of coaching efficacy comprised four dimensions: game strategy, motivation, technique, and character building efficacy. Game strategy efficacy was defined as the confidence coaches have in their ability to coach during competition and lead their team to a successful performance. Motivation efficacy was defined as the confidence coaches have in their ability to affect the psychological skills and states of their athletes. Technique efficacy was defined as the belief coaches have in their instructional/diagnostic skills. Lastly, character- building efficacy involved the confidence coaches have in their ability to influence a positive attitude towards sport in their athletes. In line with Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy, F eltz et al. (1994) proposed that the four dimensions of coaching efficacy are influenced by one’s past performance and experience (e.g., coaching experience, coaching preparation, previous won-lost record), the perceived ability of one’s athletes, and perceived social support (e. g., school, community, and parental support). In turn, they proposed that coaching efficacy has an influence on one’s coaching behavior, player satisfaction of the coach, the performance of one’s athletes (as measured by winning percentage in the study), and player efficacy levels. Feltz et al. (1994) found the psychometric properties of the CES to be sound. They also tested the proposed sources and outcomes of CES using high school basketball coaches. They found that past winning percentage, years in coaching, perceived team ability, community support, and parental support were important contributors to the relationship. They also found that higher efficacy coaches had significantly higher winning percentages, greater player satisfaction, used more praise and encouragement behaviors, and used fewer instructional and organizational behaviors than lower efficacy coaches. These results demonstrate preliminary support for the coaching efficacy model. The most important sources of coaching efficacy appear to be years of coaching experience and community support. Coaching efficacy also appears to be an important variable in the use of positive coaching behaviors, the winning of games, and player satisfaction. Although F eltz et al. (1994) assessed coaching experience in terms of years in coaching, they did not assess the extent of one’s coaching preparation. Coaching education/preparation is a source of efficacy information that is based on personal mastery experiences. According to Bandura (197 7), this category of efficacy information is the most dependable source on which to form an efficacy judgment. There is some support in the literature for the influence of education and training on instructional efficacy. In the teacher education literature, studies have found teacher efficacy to be influenced by training and experience (Ashton, 1984; Hoy & Woolfork, 1990; Spector, 1990). In addition, Corcoran and Feltz (1993) demonstrated that coaches who received educational information on a particular topic had higher levels of efficacy about using that information in their coaching than coaches who did not receive this training. Coaching preparation may not be as formal as teacher certification programs, but some coaches may prepare more for their coaching job than others by taking courses, going to workshops and clinics, reading coaching manuals, and assisting a head coach before taking their own head coaching position. An effective, well designed coaching education program should enhance the level of one’s coaching efficacy, especially at the novice level where one’s previous experience has been minimal. Ifan educational program does not enhance the sense of coaching efficacy among the participants, the program could be examined to see where changes could be made that would enhance participants’ coaching eficacy. Statement of the Problem The degree to which coaching education impacts coaches’ perception of how self-efficacious they are in executing all the rudiments of coaching and athlete development is merely speculative. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of successful completion of Program for Athletic Coaches’ Education (PACE) on coaching efficacy (Seefeldt & Brown, 1990). The aim of the investigator was to determine if the coaching education program could enhance coaches’ perceived efficacy in all the four dimensions of the coaching confidence scale: character building, motivation, strategy, and technique. Hypotheses This study aimed to examine if participants who successfully complete PACE, would display higher perceived coaching efficacy than comparative controls who were not exposed to a coaching program. Both experimental and control subjects in the study who had previous coaching experience were also expected to have higher perceived coaching efficacy than subjects who had none. Furthermore, the experimental group in the study was expected to significantly increase its coaching efficacy beliefs from pre to post program, while no significant pretest to posttest differences were expected in the case of control participants. Finally, this investigation aimed to examine the pre to posttest relationship between the four coaching efficacy subscales: character building, motivation, game strategy, and technique. Two hypotheses were therefore investigated: Hypothesis 1: Participants who successfirlly complete PACE courses would have significantly higher perceived coaching efiicacy compared to participants who were not exposed to any coaching program. Hypothesis 2: Coaches who had previous coaching experience would have higher pretest ratings of their confidence in all the four dimensions of the coaching confidence scale than coaches without previous coaching experience. Delimitation The study was delimited to Michigan high school coaches and college students either currently coaching or aspiring to coach. Both experimental and control coaches were asked to state if they were coaching or had any intentions to coach. Data from subjects who indicated no intentions to coach were eliminated from the analysis. The study was firrther delimited to examining the effects of PACE on coaching efficacy, and the possible varying effects of the courses on perceived efficacy levels of the participants. W The basic assumption was that coaches who attend PACE do so to improve their coaching skills and are therefore motivated to learn all the relevant material in the program. Limitation The study was limited in terms of random selection and assignment of subjects to groups. The number of participants in each of the PACE sessions invariably determined the sample size, therefore, limiting the study to the accessible population. Definition of Terms Coaching eflicag -- has been defined as the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the leaming and performance of their athletes (Feltz et al., 1994) _C_o_achirg experience -- the number of years coaches have spent in coaching. Feltz et a1. (1994) and Park (1992) found coaching experience to be an important source of coaching eflicacy. Self-efficacy -- sometimes used interchangeably with situationally specific self- confidence, has been defined as the conviction one has that (s)he can execute successfirlly the behavior required to produce a certain outcome (Bandura, 1977). Self- efiicacy is defined as basically concerned with the judgments that an individual has about what (s)he can do with his/her skills G3andura, 1986). CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Although a number of research studies have been published on self efficacy and sport performance, very little has been done to investigate coaching efficacy, despite its potential influence on the sport experience. Feltz et al. (1994) developed a model of coaching efficacy based on self-efficacy theory and the teaching efficacy literature. Coaching efficacy was defined as the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes. In the present chapter, an overview of the self—efficacy theory is presented, followed by a review of the teacher efficacy literature and a summary of Feltz, et al.’s (1994) conceptualization of coaching efficacy. Self-efficacy Theory Self -efficacy theory proposes that efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences (Bandura, 1977). Bandura further contends that expectations of personal mastery affect both initiation and coping behavior. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory has provided the framework for examining the effect of self-efficacy on sport performance and is therefore very usefiil in the investigation of how a coach’s perceived self—efficacy influences his or her performance. Bandura’s theory identifies four principal sources of efficacy information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal. The four principal sources of efficacy information have different influences on efficacy expectations and performance. Performflcefiaccomplishments According to self-efficacy theory, performance accomplishments provide the most dependable, source of efficacy information upon which to base self-efficacy judgments because they are based on personal mastery experiences. If the experiences are perceived repeatedly as successful, they will raise efficacy expectations. If they are perceived as failures, then efficacy expectations tend to decrease. Bandura (1986) argues that the influence that performance experiences have on perceived efficacy also depends on the perceived difficulty of the task, the efl‘ort expended, the amount of physical guidance received, and the temporal patterns of success and failure. Other research on self-efficacy and athletic performance support the finding that performance accomplishments is the most dependable source of efficacy expectations ( Feltz, 1988; Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). Vicarious experiences People’s efficacy expectations can also be influenced through their observation of similar others succeeding or failing. Although vicarious sources of efficacy are generally weaker than performance accomplishments, their influence on self-efficacy can be enhanced by various factors. Feltz (1988) argues that the less experience one has, the higher the tendency to rely on others to judge one’s own capabilities. Verbal Persuasion Verbal persuasion is widely used in learning environments, such as the classroom and the athletic field. The positive affirmations given by teachers, coaches, and peers increase one’s sense of efficacy. However, efficacy expectations based on verbal persuasion are likely to be weaker than those based on personal accomplishments and vicarious experiences (Bandura, 1977). The credibility, prestige, trustworthiness, and expertise of the persuader is critical to the persuasive influence on self-efiicacy (Feltz, 1988) Physiological arousal Physiological arousal is another source of information that can affect perceived self-efficacy in coping with threatening situations. Although physiological arousalis less clear and less well-established as a source of efficacy information, research has demonstrated how arousal reduction techniques, such as biofeedback and relaxation training could reduce arousal (Harris & Williams, 1993; Landers & Boutcher, 1993; Nideffer, 1993). Bandura (1977) states that physiological arousal changes behavior through the cognitive appraisal of the information conveyed by arousal. Bandura (197 7) firrther views arousal not only as a source of efficacy information but also as a co-effect of behavior. As observed by F eltz (1988) such a view establishes a reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and physiological arousal. In addition, physiological information can also come fiom one’s level of fitness, fatigue, and pain. This latter level of efficacy information has been shown to be important in forming efficacy judgments about sport and physical activity tasks ( F eltz & Riessinger, 1990). One’s efficacy beliefs are the product of cognitive processing of these sources of information which in turn, are hypothesized to be a major determinant of behavior. However, Bandura (1977) has provided some qualities to self-efficacy predictiveness. People must have sufficient incentives to act on their beliefs and should posses the requisite skills. Bandura (1978) postulates that expectations alone will not produce the desired performance in the absence of component capabilities. Much of the research on self-efficacy in sport has focused on establishing the relationship between self-efficacy and sport performance (F eltz, 1982; George & Feltz, 1995; Harter, 197 8; Vealey, 1986). Many of the self-eficacy studies have shown a significant relationship between self-efficacy and performance across a number of sport tasks and physical activities (F eltz, 1988). One also would expect that coaching effectiveness would influence the efficacy beliefs of athletes, and in turn, that coaching efficacy beliefs would influence coaching effectiveness. However, given that very little research existed on coaching eficacy, there is a need to develop a conceptual fiamework within which coaching efficacy could be studied. Feltz et al. (1994) developed such a model based heavily on the teacher efficacy paradigm. A brief review of the teacher efficacy literature is presented next before describing the coaching efficacy model. Teacher efficacy The concept of teaching efficacy, also based on Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory, offered the base from which previous studies investigated the coaching efficacy construct. Many of the studies in teacher efficacy have demonstrated the impact of a teacher’s efficacy on teaching effectiveness (Ashton, 1984; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Denham & Michael, 1981; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Teacher emcacy has been defined as the extent to which teachers believe they have the capacity to produce an efi‘ect on students’ learning. In order to measure the effect of teachers’ sense of eflicacy on teaching efi‘ectiveness, Denham and Michael (1981) and Ashton and Webb (1986) developed lO multidimensional models of teacher efficacy. The models were influenced by Bandura’s (1977) conceptualization of self-efficacy. Denham and Michael’s (1981) model comprises three components: the teacher’s sense of efficacy, the antecedents of self- efficacy, and consequence conditions. Sense of efiicacy is considered an intervening variable that mediates the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences. Among antecedent variables of a teacher’s sense of efficacy, proposed by Denham and Michael (1981), are (a) teacher training, (b) teaching experience, ( c) personal variables, (d) system variables, and (e) causal attributions. Teacher training may influence a teacher’s sense of efficacy in many ways. Trained teachers feel and act more like professionals because they are normally treated like professionals. Teacher training may also affect self-efficacy through the experience of shared ordeal which may contribute to collegial feelings. Teacher training also leads to improved effectiveness. Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) and Spector (1990) found teacher efficacy to be influenced by training and experience. In a related study, Corcoran and Feltz (1993) demonstrated the value of chemical health educational to levels of efficacy for teaching chemical health concepts. Corcoran and Feltz argued that coaches who received educational information on chemical health had higher levels of efficacy about using that information than those who did not receive the training. Teaching experience is another important predicator of teacher efficacy. Highly successful experienced teachers have been shown to be highly confident about their teaching abilities while teachers with unsuccessful teaching experiences have been hypothesized to have lower teaching expectations. Furthermore, less experienced teachers may be more susceptible to detrimental effects of failure, anxiety, and may make 11 more mistakes than teachers who are more experienced. Thus, it is logical to suggest that more successful teaching experiences will increase the sense of efficacy in teachers. Personal variables such as self-esteem and the need for achievement have been proposed by Denham and Michael (1981) to influence a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy. Higher teaching efficacy beliefs should be related to higher self-esteem and achievement needs. Causal attributions also have been shown to influence teachers’ sense of efficacy ( Denham & Michael, 1981). Teachers with high efiicacy beliefs attribute failure to lack of effort, whereas low self-efficacy teachers ascribe the failures to lack of ability. Students’ attributions have also been shown to influence teachers’ sense of efiicacy. Students who attribute failure to lack of effort tend to positively influence teachers’ sense of efficacy, whereas students who ascribe failures to lack of ability tend to be low achievers and may influence a decline in a teacher’s sense of efficacy. Therefore, Denham and Michael’s (1981) argument is that the relationship between students’ and teachers’ self-efficacy attributions is reciprocal. They pointed out that teachers of students with high sense of efficacy exert more effort, persist longer, and work harder with their students while the students of such teachers tend to perform better in academics than students of teachers who do not exhibit these behaviors. Teachers’ high sense of emcacy lead to students’ achievement, high self-concept, and good self conduct, which in turn have positive effect on teachers’ behaviors. Other variables that Denham and Michael (1981) proposed to influence self- efiicacy are system variables, comprising of career ladder of the professional educator, teacher participation in decision making, and social support from administration, peers, and society. Chances of promotion are important predictors of teacher retention or 12 dropout from the profession while they could also be related to teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teachers with a higher sense of efficacy have been reported to drop out of teaching less often than teachers with low sense of efficacy (Stinnet, 1970). Furthermore, teachers’ participation in decision making increases their sense of efficacy. Such participation increases teachers’ dignity and self-worth and gives them a “sense of ownership” of projects to which they contribute. Social support from peers, the school administration, and the general society may also have a major impact on teachers’ sense of efficacy. Social support serves as a form of feedback about teachers’ performance and could fiinction as an approval of their teaching abilities. Denham and Michael’s (1981) model also addresses consequent variables of teachers’ sense of efficacy. The model establishes a reciprocal relationship between teachers’ sense of efficacy, teacher behaviors, and student outcomes. The assumption is that teachers’ behaviors are influenced by their sense of efficacy and the consequences of their behaviors alter their efficacy beliefs. Furthermore, teachers’ sense of efficacy affect student outcomes and student outcomes affect teachers’ sense of efficacy. Thus, the relationship between teachers’ sense of efficacy and student outcomes is bi- directional. Similarly, the relationship between teacher behaviors and student outcomes are reciprocal. Teachers whose behaviors are characterized by longer persistence, exertion of more effort, and hard work, will have more students who are more successful academically than teachers who do not exhibit these behaviors. Colardarci (1992) suggests that highly self-efficacious teachers spend more time in teaching than low self- efficacious teachers. Other findings have shown teachers with a high sense of efficacy to be more committed to their profession than teachers with a low sense of efficacy (Gibson l3 & Dembo, 1984). High efficacy beliefs and high commitment to teaching may also influence the affective outcomes of students. Another model for identifying factors that may affect teachers’ efficacy beliefs was developed by Ashton and Webb (1986). Unlike Denham and Michael’s (1981) model, which proposed a cognitive and affective approach to teacher efficacy, Ashton and Webb chose an ecological framework for the understanding of teacher efficacy. Among the variables that affect teaching efficacy proposed by Ashton and Webb (1986) are (a) microsystems, (b) mesosytems, ( c) exosystems, and (d) macrosystems of the teaching environment. Characteristics of the microsystems are factors that make up the teachers’ immediate setting, such as the classroom, teacher and student characteristics, teacher ideology, role definitions, and class size, and activity structure. Mesosystem variables include school size, school norms, collegial relations, decision making structures, principal and teacher relations, and home-school relations. According to Ashton and Webb (1986), teachers’ sense of efficacy will be affected by the extent to which the teachers relate to any of the variables mentioned. The compatibility of school norms and teachers’ behaviors, teachers’ relations with the school administration and students, and the extent to which teachers participate in decision making is likely to affect teachers’ sense of efficacy. Ashton and Webb (1986) postulate that social structures external to the school (exosystem) exert powerful influences on teachers’ sense of efficacy. If; for example, external social policy leads to teachers’ loss of autonomy or increases the bureaucracy of the classroom, teachers’ sense of efficacy is likely to be negatively affected. l4 Macrosystem variables that Ashton and Webb (1986) found important to understanding teaching efficacy are cultural beliefs. The conceptions of a learner on constructs such as competence or strength of character and incompetence are likely to affect teachers’ sense of efficacy. If students attribute success to competence and failure to incompetence, such attributions could lower teachers’ sense of efficacy. Students’ belief systems and attributions could affect teachers’ fixture interactions with the students. Although the conceptual framework for studying teacher efficacy demonstrated promising evidence for the powerfiil influence of teacher efficacy on teaching effectiveness, F eltz, et al. (1994) argued that they were not suitable in their entirety for studying coaching efficacy. The next section describes the need for the concept of coaching efficacy and research evidence. Coaching Efficacy The preliminary work on coaching efficacy was done by Park (1992). Park developed a Coaching Confidence Scale, to measure coaching confidence. His Coaching Confidence Scale contained 10 items which measured three factors, namely: technique, interpersonal and competition confidence. Given the small number of items per factor, the reliability of the scale was in question. In addition, other dimensions of coaching efficacy may not have been tapped. Park recognized the limitations of the instrument and suggested the need to expand on it. Although Park’s work fell short of providing a comprehensive measure of coaching efficacy, he provided an initial framework for studying coaching efficacy. 15 In the development of a conceptual framework of a model of multidimensional coaching efficacy, Feltz et al. (1994) explained why teacher efficacy frameworks were not suitable in their entirety for studying coaching efficacy. They postulated that while there may be different dimensions to coaching efficacy than there are to teacher efficacy, coaching efficacy may also be influenced by different organizational variables than is teacher efficacy. They explained why models of leadership in sport and managerial efficacy also were inadequate for studying coaching efficacy. These models were shown to be concerned with the effects of self-efficacy on decision making and strategy formulation than on sources of self-efficacy for managing (Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990). Furthermore, teacher efficacy and managerial efficacy literature (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Denham & Michael, 1981; Horn, 1992) showed fewer dimensions to these constructs than were postulated in the coaching efficacy construct. Given the multiple roles in which coaches must perform, Feltz et al. (1994) considered a coach’s sense of efficacy in coaching to be multidimensional. It was upon this basis that they found the need to develop a sport-oriented framework which was adapted from existing psychological theories and literature on sport related issues. The conceptual framework of coaching efficacy by Feltz and colleagues was, therefore, based on Denham and Michael’s (1981) multidimensional model of teacher eflicacy, Badura’s (1977) conceptualization of self-efficacy, and Park’s (1992) initial concept of coaching confidence. The conceptualized coaching efficacy model is aimed at addressing specific sources of coaching efficacy information and effects or outcomes of coaching efficacy. In their conceptualization of a model of multidimensional coaching efficacy, Feltz, et al. 16 (1994) tested four proposed dimensions of coaching efficacy: character building efficacy, motivation efficacy, game strategy, and teaching technique. Character building efficacy involves the confidence coaches have in their ability to influence the personal development of their athletes, as well as the athletes’ positive attitude toward sport. Motivation efficacy involves the confidence coaches have in their ability to affect the psychological skills and states of their athletes. Game strategy efficacy is defined as the confidence coaches have in their ability to coach during competition and lead their team to a successfirl performance. Technique efficacy is the belief coaches have in their instruction and diagnostic skills. Findings from the self-efficacy and sport performance literature showed past winning percentage, previous experience, perceived ability, and community support as important sources of coaching efficacy ( Corcoran & Feltz, 1993; Park, 1992). Consistent with these findings, F eltz et a1. (1994) proposed past winning percentage, years in coaching, perceived team ability, and community support to be sources of coaching efficacy information. Coaching experience, education/ preparation, and prior success are sources of efficacy information that are based on personal mastery experiences. Similar findings were reported in the teacher efficacy literature. Teacher education and experience have been shown to have a profound influence on teacher efficacy ( Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Spector, 1990). The perceived ability of one’s athletes may also influence a coach’s efficacy for coaching. Coaches who have low- ability athletes may doubt their capacity to affect the performance of those athletes. School and community support could influence the efficacy levels of coaches. This type 17 of support could be emotional or in the form of attributional feedback and expectations by significant others (Bandura, 1986). Following the preliminary development of the CES, F eltz, et al. (1994), conducted a construct validation of the scale. Results fi'om an exploratory factor analysis ( EF A) revealed that the four factors in the CES accounted for 60% of the overall variability (Character Building Efficacy = 4 %, Motivation = 9%, Game strategy = 43%, and teaching technique = 4%,). The CES was therefore considered to have a robust factor structure with factors that make conceptual sense. In the analysis of gender differences on the CES, F eltz, et al. (1994) found gender differences only in the game strategy subscale. Men coaches had significantly higher game strategy efficacy than women coaches. Gender difference was explained in terms of the difference in years of coaching experience between men and women coaches who participated in the study. When the data were reanalyzed using coaching experience as a covariate, results showed a significant effect for coaching experience. Feltz, et al. (1994) argued that these findings reinforced their earlier contention that coaching experience is a critical component to efficacy beliefs in coaching ability. To evaluate the internal structural validity and construct validity of the CES, Feltz, Chase, Moritz, and Sullivan (1997) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results from the EF A revealed that the CES comprised four factors, although the correlations among the factors suggested that the CES may constitute a hierarchical factor model representing four first-order factors and a second order general factor representing coaching efficacy. A coefficient of determination (COD) of .96 was obtained in the first-order CFA, implying that the CES items jointly acted to measure the 18 latent variables. For the second-order CFA, a COD of .80 was obtained, which implies that the CES subscales also jointly acted together to measure a general coaching efficacy factor. F eltz and her colleagues observed that these relationships suggest that the first- order factors converge in a conceptually meaningful way onto a second-order factor of general coaching efficacy. A correlation of the CES with related psychological constructs, namely: the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965), the Rotter Internal-Extemal Locus of Control Scale (I-E; Rotter, 1966), and the Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale (GESS; Fibel & Hale, 1978) was conducted to demonstrate concurrent validity of the CES. As expected, all the three measures showed positive and significant correlations with total CES at the moderate level (RSE _r_ = .43; GESS r = .53; LE 1: = .37). Feltz et al. (1997) considered this pattern of correlations to be an indication that the CES factors are measuring different constructs. They found a positive linear relationship between coaching efficacy level and the level of coaches’ sense of esteem, expectancies for success, and internal locus of control. A construct validation was conducted for the CES through its relationship to a selected set of hypothesized predictor and outcome variables of coaching efficacy. The researchers found coaches who had more years of coaching experience, higher perceptions of their teams’ ability, perceived support fiom the community/parents, and who had more successful seasons the year before, to be more confident in their game strategizing, motivating abilities, and instructional techniques. However, the canonical loadings revealed no contribution for character building efficacy. An analysis of the outcomes of coaching efficacy showed that high efficacy coaches had higher winning 19 percentages during the current season than low efficacy coaches and their players were more satisfied with them than players of low efficacy coaches. High efficacy coaches provided more praise and encouragement than low efficacy coaches. Low efficacy coaches provided more instructional or organizational behaviors than coaches with a higher sense of efficacy. The findings fi'om the coaching efficacy literature (Corcoran & Feltz, 1993; F eltz et al., 1994; George & Feltz, 1995; Park, 1992) were a milestone in the investigation of sources of coaching efficacy as well as the impact of coaching efficacy on positive coaching behavior and success in athletic performance. Although the studies did not investigate the impact of coach training on coaching efficacy, they laid the basis for such an investigation. Other research on coaching efficacy, still in process is by Warners and Feltz (1995). Warners and Feltz set out to determine the relationship between coaching efficacy and player efficacy. Coaching efficacy was found to be a significant predictor of team efficacy. The Weiss, Barber, Ebbeck, and Sisley (1991) study of inexperienced female coaches reported that the coaches considered lack of coaching knowledge of strategies/tactics, and lack of experience as some of their weaknesses. Feltz et al., (1994) confirmed Weiss and colleagues’ findings in their development of a CES. The amount of research conducted on self-efficacy and sport performance as well as the findings from the teacher efficacy literature give reason for an in-depth look at coaching efiicacy as it relates to sport performance. There is a clear indication that despite being an important variable in overall athletic performance, coaching efficacy has not received the attention it deserves. The self-efficacy literature (F eltz, 1988; George & 20 Feltz, 1995; Weinberg et al., 1979) has demonstrated the importance of high-perceived self-efficacy in achieving maximum athletic performance. The role of coaching efficacy on athletic performance was not at the center of the investigation at the time. CHAPTER III METHOD The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of participation in PACE on coaching efficacy. The investigator aimed to examine the effect of successfirl completion of the coaching education program on participants’ own ratings on four dimensions of the CES. Coaches receiving their first exposure to PACE were compared to control coaches who did not receive any coaching program. Participants Sixty coaches (26 female and 34 male) participated in the study. The experimental group participants (p = 36) were drawn from current coaches in Mid- Michigan high schools. The coaches were drawn from participants of PACE offered at different cities in Mid-Michigan. Control group coaches (p = 24) were derived from an accessible population of high school coaches who have not attended any formal coaching education as well as from physical education classes at a Midwestern university. All physical education students included in the control group had indicated their intention to coach or pursue a coaching career. Criteria for selection of participants to the control group included an absence of any previous coaching education course or clinic. All participants were asked to provide informed consent for participation in the study (see Appendix C). 21 22 Descriptive Statistics A background questionnaire was used to collect demographic data on all subjects (N = 60). The demographic data collected included age, sex, previous coaching experience, previous coaching education, educational background, ethnic affiliation, primary coaching sport, in—season and off-season hours, and current coaching education courses. The same questionnaire was administered on both experimental and control coaches. Ages of the subjects were dispersed widely ranging from 17 to 60 with a mean age of 29.47 (S_D = 12.17). As for ethnic affiliation, the subject population was predominantly Caucasian American (76.7%) with the second biggest group being Afiican American (16.7%). Other ethnic categories comprised Native American (1 .7%), Asian American (3.3%), and other ethnic groups combined (1.7%). More males (56.7%) than females (43.3%) participated in the study. Educational background of the subjects ranged from high school graduate to doctorate level. Eighteen percent of the subjects were high school graduates, 16.7% had less than two years of college education, 26.7% had more than two college years, 15.0% had completed their Bachelors, 8.3% were doing some masters work, 11.7% had Masters degree, 1.7% were education specialists, and 1.7% had completed Doctorate degree. For coaches who were still attending college, the biggest percentage (30.0%) were physical education majors, followed by arts (8.0%), and education (8.0%). The remaining percentage was dispersed widely among numerous college programs. Of the 60 coaches in the study, 81.7% had some previous coaching experience, while 15.5% had no coaching experience and 3.3% did not specify their previous 23 coaching experience. Although 18.3% of the coaches had less than one year in their coaching career, the mean total number of years in coaching was 4.11, (_S_I_)_ = 3.83). The median was 3 years. Men had more years of experience (M = 4.94, SD = 3.91) than women (M = 3.04, SD = 3.50) but the difference was not statistically significant, p = .056. Approximately 47% of the coaches were head coaches, while 33.3% were assistant coaches. Others did not specify their coaching position. Thirty one percent of the coaches were in season at the time of the study. The coaches were firrther asked to indicate previous coaching courses they attended and whether they planned to coach, if they had never coached before. Data fiom Control group coaches who indicated that they had previously attended or are currently attending coaching courses and clinics were deleted from the analysis (p = 17). Coaches were also asked to indicate their primary coaching sport. The sport most indicated by the coaches was basketball (18.3%) followed by cheerleading (11.7%) and football (11.7%). The remaining percentage was dispersed virtually evenly among other sports. However, 13.3% of the participants did not indicate the primary sports they coached. A summary of the primary coaching sports is provided in Appendix E. Research Desigp Exposure to the PACE program was the independent variable in this study. The dependent measures consisted of the four dimensions of the CES -- character building, motivation, strategy, and technique. The study followed a quasi-experimental design, mainly because there was no random assignment of participants to groups. The research design for the study, therefore, involved a 2 x 2 (groups by pre/post) multivariate 24 analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with repeated measures on second factor, using coaching experience as a covariate. Instrumentgtion Coaching efficacy was assessed using the CES (F eltz et al., 1994). The CBS is a multidimensional scale that measures the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to effect the learning and performance of their athletes. The CBS is a 24-item measure that contains four subscales: game strategy, motivation, technique, and character building efficacy. The efficacy items are measured on a 10-point Likert scale in terms of efficacy strength, ranging from not at all confident to extremely confident. All items on the CES start with the same stem question, “How confident are you in your ability to and contain items such as . .detect skill errors?” (technique dimension); . .motivate your athletes?” (motivation dimension); . .recognize opposing team’s strengths during competition?” (game strategy dimension); and . . promote good sportsmanship?” (character building dimension). F eltz et al. (1994) reported internal reliabilities ranging fiom .87 to .90 for the CES subscales. Concurrent validity of the CES was assessed by correlating it with measures of related constructs of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), general expectancy for success (Fibel & Hale, 1978), and internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Results indicated that the CES subscales correlated moderately, as hypothesized, with self- esteem (.24 to .38), general expectancy for success (.30 to .56), and internal locus of control (.21 to .31). An examination of the internal consistency of the four subscales used in the present study also demonstrated high internal consistency of the scales. Using 25 Cronbach’s (1951) alpha analysis, the minimal level of intrascale reliability was set at .60. Character building subscale had an internal consistency of (alpha = .93), motivation (alpha = .92), technique (alpha = .82), and strategy (.88). The test-retest reliabilities for each subscale are the auto-correlations on the diagonal of Tablel. All the subscales had adequate test-retest reliability. A 22-item Background Information Questionnaire was adopted and modified by the investigator to collect demographic data on the participants in the study. The items were of the objective type, requiring the individual to check the appropriate answer fi'om a set of possible responses. Only 7 of the questionnaire items required either a one word response or giving more than one response. The instrument was designed to collect data on the following areas: gender, ethnic affiliation, age, educational background, coaching background, sport of interest, level of coaching, previous participation in coaches’ courses, plans to enroll in coaching education classes, and participants’ firture coaching interests. The Background Information Questionnaire and the CES are contained in Appendix A. Prpgpam Description PACE is a 12-hour program and is designed and endorsed by the Michigan High School Athletic Association, Michigan Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association, and the Youth Sports Institute of Michigan State University. The course provides interscholastic coaches with the latest information pertaining to their day-to-day coaching responsibilities. PACE is offered in two separate formats, (a) the evening programs ofl’ered over 2 or 4 weeks, 3 hours per night and (b) a 2 day program with 6 26 contact hours per day. Certification requirements for the program are attendance of all the sessions and passage of a mastery-model examination. Among the components of the PACE program are guidelines for interscholastic athletics; legal responsibilities of the interscholastic coach; emergency procedures for victims of accidents and injuries; prevention, care, and rehabilitation of sports injuries; role of the coach; planning, conducting, and evaluating effective instruction; motivating athletes; effective communication, personal and social skills; positive coaching; and maintaining discipline. Participants in this study were recruited from the two-day program. Participants attended two weekends sessions with a 1-week break between the sessions. Each session was in two parts offered on a Friday and a Saturday. A detailed description of the PACE program is provided in Appendix B. The physical education classes from which control coaches were recruited run for 15 weeks with a 3-hour contact per week. The classes covered material ranging from foundations of physical education, the philosophy of physical education, as well as socio- cultural bases of sport and physical activity. Pretest was administered to the classes within the first 2 weeks of the program and the posttest was administered during the final 2 weeks of the program. For other control coaches in the schools, there were at least 2 weeks between administration of the pretest and the posttest. The return of posttest questionnaires varied between 2 and 4 weeks because of the logistical problems associated with following-up individual coaches at their schools. Procedures The principal investigator visited each site for the PACE program and the college physical education classes to recruit participants in the study. The course instructors 27 normally introduced the principal investigator to the course participants. The first 20 minutes within the PACE programs’ schedule or in a class were devoted to obtaining informed consent, explaining of the procedures for completion of the CES and background questionnaire, as well completing the survey instrument. A similar procedure was followed in the administration of the posttest at the end of each program. The administration of the posttest was done at the end of the PACE program, before the program tests. This was done to reduce the influence of the program test on ratings of the coaching efficacy scale, while it also helped reduce subject loss. The principal investigator also visited some high schools and solicited the assistance of the athletic directors in the recruitment of coaches who had not attended coaching education courses. A packet of questionnaires and instructions were given to the athletic directors to administer. The principal investigator later collected completed questionnaires. Two weeks after the administration of the pretest, similar procedures were followed in the administration of the posttest. The posttest was administered to all the participants who completed the first survey. Anonymity of the subjects was guaranteed. Names were not used on the questionnaires. Participants were asked to use the initials of their first and last name and the first four digits of their social security number on both pre and post tests. Participants who completed the survey instrument at one setting were asked to read and sign the informed consent form and then tear it ofi‘ from the questionnaire. The investigator collected the informed consent form while the participants completed the rest of the survey. Some participants declined to participate in the study (p = 18). Approval to conduct this research had been obtained from the 28 Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University. A copy of the letter of approval is provided in Appendix D. Data collection was done by the principal investigator except in situations where it was practically impossible to administer the instruments in person. In such cases the survey instrument together with the instructions were mailed in an envelope to the participants (p = 25). Data Analyses Following an assessment of the internal consistency of all the four subscales, preliminary analyses were done using one-way ANOVAs to determine whether there were any significant differences among covariates of the groups, namely: gender and coaching experience. Correlations between the subscales were run to check for possible multicollinearity. Finally, a 2 x 2 (Group x Pre-post) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with coaching experience as a covariate was conducted using Wilks’ Lambda criterion to examine differences between the experimental and control groups. Post hoc ANOVAs were conducted in the event of a significant MANCOVA. In addition, post hoc analyses of simple effects in the event of a significant interaction from an ANOVA were conducted using a Tukey WSD procedure (Winer, 1971). Effect sizes were also examined to determine which one of the coaching efficacy measures accounted for the variance between PACE and control coaches. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Sixty subjects (36 enrolled in PACE and 24 college physical education students and uncertified coaches) were asked to complete a coaching efficacy questionnaire. Subjects rated themselves on how well they thought they could influence the learning and performance of their athletes on four dimensions of the coaching efiicacy scale: character building, motivation, strategy, and technique. Results Prelimina_ry Analyses The purpose of the preliminary analyses was to determine whether there were any significant differences among covariates of the two groups, namely gender and coaching experience. Preliminary analyses were also conducted to confirm the internal and test- retest reliabilities of the CES as recommended by F eltz and Chase (1997). Because F eltz et al. (1994) found gender differences in their coaching sample, pre-intervention means for the CES subscales were analyzed for gender differences. There were no gender differences for all the four subscales (p > .05). Pretest subscale means and standard deviations are provided in Appendix F. Therefore, males and females were combined for all fiirther analyses. A One-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if there were coaching experience differences between the treatment and control group. Results revealed a significant difi‘erence in coaching experience between the two groups, _E(1,58) = 35.64, p< .001. PACE coaches (M = 6.03, _S_D_ = 3.69) had more coaching experience than 29 3O uncertified coaches (M =1.25, SD = 1.59). Therefore, coaching experience was used as a covariate in tests of the first hypothesis. Correlations Between CES Subscafis A significant positive relationship between the four subscales (character building, motivation, strategy, and technique) was expected. Using pretest and posttest scores, correlations between the subscales and the CES totals were calculated for the entire sample, as well as for each group. Correlations between the subscales and CES totals for the entire sample were all significant at p < .001, but not correlated high enough with each other to cause multicollinearity. The correlations are illustrated in Table 1. litigiicifrelations Among the Subscales for the Entire Subject Population Scale 1 2 3 4 5 1. Character .78 .42 .52 .58 .69 2. Motivation .57 .74 .72 .75 .88 3. Strategy .59 .55 .75 .79 .91 4. Technique .58 .56 .81 .69 .92 5. CES Total .80 .83 .89 .86 .77 Note. CES = Coaching Efficacy Scale. For all correlations, p < .001. Correlations above the diagonal are from the posttest, correlations below the diagonal are from the pretest, and autocorrelations are on the diagonal. 31 Efi‘ects of Coaching Education on CES The means and standard deviations for pre and post means by group on each subscale and total CES are listed in Table 2. The first hypothesis stated that participants who successfirlly completed PACE would display significantly higher perceived coaching efficacy than comparative controls who were not exposed to a coaching program. This hypothesis was analyzed in a 2 x 2 (Group x Pre-post) MANCOVA with repeated measures on the second factor, using the four CES subscales as the dependent measures. The covariate was coaching experience. Of the original 60 coaches in the study, 9 were dropped from the analysis because of missing data. Fifty one coaches (29 PACE and 22 controls) were used in the MANCOVA analysis. The multivariate F test indicated no significant effect for the covariate, Wilks’ Lambda = .85, F (4,45) = 1.94, p = .12. The multivariate F for Group was also not significant, Wilks’ Lambda = .81, F (4, 45) = 2.48, p = .057. However, results indicated a significant group by time interaction effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .76, E (4, 46) = 3.70, p = .011. The results indicated no efiect for Time, E (4, 46) = .75, p > .05. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated significant interactions on all four subscales: character building (p = .014), motivation (p = .045), strategy (p = .002), and technique (p = .01), [_Es (1,49) = 6.55, 4.24, 11.09, 7.28 respectively]. Post hoc analysis of simple effects revealed significant differences between the PACE group and controls at posttest on all four dependent measures. The PACE participants had significantly higher beliefs than control coaches after receiving the coaching program, which supported the first hypothesis. PACE coaches showed significant improvements from pre— to posttest only on their strategy efficacy. Controls 32 showed a significant decline from pre- to posttest in character building and strategy efficacy. The interactions are illustrated in Figures 1 through 4. Table 2. Pre a_nd Posttreatment Subscale Means and Standard Deviations by Grog). Pretreatmgnt Posttreatmpnt Pngost CES Subscale M SD M SD ES CES Totals PACE 7.91 0.75 8.16 0.61 0.72 Controls 7.54 0.76 7.32 0.83 -0.63 Character Building PACE 8.35 0.76 8.50 0.57 0.38 Controls 7.84 1.03 7. 58 1.27 -0.64 Motivation PACE 7.75 1.08 8.02 0.79 0.57 Controls 7.58 0.83 7.53 0.91 -0.25 Strategy PACE 7.76 0.84 8.09 0.71 0.72 Controls 7.24 0.97 6.96 1.10 -0.61 Technique PACE 7.99 0.72 8.19 0.63 0.50 Controls 7.70 0.80 7.46 0.85 -0.58 Note. p = 29 for PACE, p = 22 for controls. In addition, to the MANCOVA, an ANOVA was run on the CES total scores because Feltz et al. (1997) found that the CES subscales also acted together to measure a general coaching efficacy factor. Results indicated a significant effect for the group by 33 time interaction, E (1, 49) = 11.26, p = .002. Post hoc analysis of simple effects revealed a significant difference between the PACE and control groups at posttest and a significant difference pre- to posttest for each group. PACE coaches significantly increased and control coaches significantly decreased in their total CES scores. The effect sizes of the four CES measures and total scores were examined to determine which measures showed the strongest effects in improving coaching efficacy for PACE coaches. The efi’ect sizes indicated moderate improvements on all four measures of the CES and total CES. However, character building showed the weakest effect for improvement. Efficacy Scores Figure 1. Group by Time Interacrion for Characrer Building 10-1 9.5 4 —I— PACE Coaches --O-- Control Coaches 9 cl 8.5 -' A 8 -r k 7.5 - f‘ *0 7 u 6.5 '- 6 Li T I Pre-Test Poet-Test TimeotAueurnent Efficacy Scores 35 Figure 2. Group by Time Interaction for Motivation 10 n 9.5 - 9 -r 8.5 -' 4 8 G F 7.5 - k 4 7 -l + PACE Coaches 6.5 -' --O-- Control Coaches 6 r I Pre-Tear Port-Test Time MW Efficacy Scores '56 Figure 3. Group by Time Interaction for Strategy 10 - 9.5 - 9 all 8.5 -. 8 F 7.5 - O—~ “-0 7 -r + PACE Coaches 6.5 - ---O--~ Control Coaches 6 I I Pre-Test Post-Test Tune of Assessment Efficacy Scores 37 Figure 4. Group by Time Interaction for Technique 10 '1 9.5 '1 9 -r 8.5 -‘ 8 -I /. 7.5 - $— “—0 7 A + PACE Coaches 6. ‘ 5 --O-- Control Coaches 6 r T Pre-Test Post-Test Time «Assessment 38 The second hypothesis stated that coaches who had previous coaching experience would have higher pretest ratings of their confidence on the four dimensions of the coaching efficacy scale than coaches without previous coaching experience. Coaches who had 1 year or more in coaching were classified as experienced, while those with less than 1 year in coaching were classified as inexperienced. Independent-sampler tests were performed using pretest CES scores for coaches with experience ( p = 49) versus coaches without coaching experience ( _n = 11). The means, standard deviations, and 1 values are listed in Table 3. Results showed that experienced coaches were not significantly different from inexperienced coaches on any of the dimensions of coaching efficacy. Table 3. Means. Standard Deviations. and t Values for Experienced and Inexperienced Coaches. Experienced Inexpgrienced CES Subscale M SD M SI; 1 value Character Building 8.23 0.81 7.57 1.29 1.64 Motivation 7.61 1.01 7.65 0.83 -.13 Strategy 7.59 0.91 7.39 1.01 .59 Technique 7.89 0.67 7.59 1.09 .86 Note: All t values were not significant, p> .05 39 Discussion The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a coaching education program (PACE) on coaches’ perceived efficacy. This relationship was examined within the context of the multidimensional coaching eflicacy model conceptualized by Feltz et al. (1994). The model put forth by Feltz and her colleagues links coaches’ perceived efficacy levels to one’s past performance, experience, the perceived ability of one’s athletes, and perceived social support. This study was, therefore, an attempt to determine if coaching preparation could have an efl’ect on the coaches’ beliefs in their capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes in the four dimensions of the CES: character building, motivation, game strategy, and technique. The results of this study showed a significant relationship between exposure to the PACE program and higher perceived coaching efficacy compared to controls. This study, therefore, supported the first hypothesis, which stated that coaches who received PACE would have higher perceived coaching efficacy than coaches who did not receive any coaching education. The current findings add to evidence of construct validity for CES. The findings also add to the validity of the PACE program in addressing the diverse coaching needs of the participants. The PACE program was developed specifically to meet the coaching needs of Michigan high school coaches. The content of the program comprised topics such as liability, injury prevention, injury care and rehabilitation, role of a coach, positive coaching, motivation, conditioning, planning, and instruction. The coaches’ total efficacy scores from pretreatment to post-treatment 40 significantly improved, suggesting the effectiveness of the program in addressing the current coaching needs of high school coaches. Although the results of this study indicated a relationship between attending PACE and improved coaching efficacy, the strength of the effect was only moderate, with total scores and game strategy having the strongest efiects. The moderate effect for coaching efficacy could be explained in terms of the program content and duration. It is highly likely that two 6-hour sessions extended over two weekends were not enough to lead to a highly improved coaching efficacy for the participants. Although differences occurred between PACE and control coaches, a longer program could have greater effects. A longer program could have components that emphasized such topics as, personality development and motivational techniques. A longer program could enhance coaches’ confidence in their ability to influence athlete’s cognitive and physiologic responses to potentially stressfirl situations during competition, as well as coping behaviors related to optimal performance. The program could also incorporate coaching skills for maximizing athletes’ resources needed to meet the demands of a competitive situation. The coaches who did not receive the program showed some decline in their efficacy perhaps because the CES focused their attention on their inadequacies. Or perhaps they made more realistic appraisals in completing the instrument a second time. In addition to these possibilities, history effects may have influenced the posttest scores. The control group consisted of current coaches and students taking physical education courses. Those taking physical education courses had five times the length between pre- and posttest as the current coaches. 41 The second hypothesis stated that coaches who had previous coaching experience would have higher pretest ratings of their coaching efficacy than coaches with less coaching experience. Although Feltz et al. (1994) found coaching experience to be one of the main sources of higher efficacy beliefs, the results from this study did not support this finding. A lack of a significant difl’erence between the experienced and inexperienced coaches could be explained in terms of the few number of years (M = 4.11, _S_I_)_ = 3.83) spent in coaching for the experienced coaches. Although 81% of the coaches had some coaching experience, this may not have been enough to bring about significant differences between the experienced coaches and inexperienced coaches’ efficacy ratings. A median of 3 years indicated that a majority of the coaches had fewer than 3 years in coaching. This, therefore, could serve as an explanation for lack of a significant difference between experienced and inexperienced coaches. In summary, PACE has proven to be an efi’ective program in increasing coaches’ overall perceived coaching efficacy. The program had a moderate effect on the coaches’ ratings of how efficacious they thought they were on four dimensions of the coaching efficacy scale» character building, motivation, game strategy, and technique. While the current study adds to the validity of the PACE program in meeting the coaching needs of high school coaches, it firrther points to the strengths and limitations of the program. It appears that, despite the existing strengths of the PACE program, there is a need to ensure that the program sufficiently addresses all the key components of a multidimensional coaching program. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the efi’ect of a coaching program on coaches’ perceived coaching efficacy. Precisely, the study examined the effect of exposure to the PACE program on high school coaches’ efficacy beliefs. The effect of PACE on four dimensions of the coaching efficacy scale were examined. Two hypotheses were examined in this study: Hypothesis 1: Participants who successfully complete PACE courses would have significantly higher coaching efficacy than participants who were not exposed to any coaching program. Hypothesis 2: Coaches who had previous coaching experience would have higher pretest ratings of their confidence in all the four dimensions of the coaching confidence scale, than coaches without previous coaching experience. Participants in the study were 60 Mid-Michigan high school athletic coaches, predominantly male, mostly college educated, and drawn from different cities. The coaches coached a wide range of sports. All experimental group coaches completed the pretest instrument, which was consisted of the background questionnaire and the CES. The coaches were then exposed to a 12-hour PACE program extended over two weekends. The posttreatment instrument was administered to all the coaches at the end of the program. The same procedures were followed for control coaches, except that they did not receive any training. Two weeks were allowed to elapse between the pretest and posttest. However, in some cases it took more than 9 weeks to recover the posttest 42 43 instrument from control coaches. The variation between the experimental and control coaches in the time taken to complete the survey instrument was mainly due to the fact that control coaches were not confined to one location during testing as was the case with the PACE coaches. Attempts were made to ensure that the duration between pretest and posttest were identical for both experimental and control group coaches. The first hypothesis was analyzed in a 2 x 2 (Group x Pre-post) MANCOVA, with the four coaching efficacy subscales as the dependent measures and coaching experience as a covariate. Results indicated a significant group by time interaction effect and no significant effect for the covariate. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated significant interactions on all four subscales. Post hoc analysis of simple effects revealed significant differences between the PACE coaches and controls at posttest on all four dependent measures. PACE participants had significantly higher efficacy beliefs than control coaches after receiving the PACE program. Therefore, the first hypothesis was supported. However, PACE coaches showed significant improvements fi'om pretreatment to posttreatment only on their strategy efficacy. A 2 x 2 ANOVA of total CES scores showed a significant group by pre-post interaction with post hoc tests showing significant improvement for PACE coaches as a result of the program. Effects sizes of the CES measures indicated moderate improvements for all the subscales and total CES. Character building showed the weakest effect for improvement. The second hypothesis was analyzed using independent-samples t tests. The analysis aimed to examine pretest perceived efficacy ratings between experienced and inexperienced coaches. None of the t tests were significant. Therefore, the second hypothesis was not supported. 44 Conclusion The results of this study lead the investigator to make specific conclusions concerning the proposed hypotheses. The current study demonstrated that the PACE program was effective in increasing coaches’ overall efficacy beliefs and strategy efficacy beliefs. In addition, contrary to findings fi'om previous research, experienced coaches did not have higher ratings of their eficacy beliefs compared to inexperienced coaches. However, this does not give enough credence to conclude that there is no relationship between coaching experience and coaching efiicacy expectations. Suggestions for Future Research It is evident that coaches who have not had some coaching education can benefit fiom coaching education programs in terms of developing a higher sense of perceived coaching efficacy. Although PACE participants had significantly higher efficacy beliefs than control coaches after receiving the program, the efi‘ect was moderate. It is not surprising that the program only had moderate efi‘ects because of its short duration. Findings from the current study suggests that in order for PACE to lead to highly improved coaching efficacy of the participants, there may be a need to restructure the program. A longer program could incorporate an in-depth teaching of coaching methods similar to pedagogical skills in which trainee teachers are exposed. The strategies, similar to those used by Smith, et al. (1979) in the Coach Effectiveness Training (CET) program could be incorporated in an expanded PACE program to significantly increase coaches’ efficacy beliefs on all coaching efficacy dimensions . In smaller groups, coaches could be asked to practice detecting and correcting players’ skill errors. Participants could review video tapes of somebody 45 making errors and suggest possible ways of correcting the errors. They could practice moral decision making and problem solving by simulating game or practice situations and acting on those situations. To assess the effects of the PACE program, follow up studies could be devoted to compiling behavioral profiles generated by individual PACE coaches and control coaches during the season. Such profiles could be used to determine the relationship between coaches’ efficacy beliefs, post season outcomes, and behavioral difi’erences. Players’ perceptions of their trained and untrained coaches could also be assessed and correlated with the coaching efficacy beliefs and the coaches’ behavioral profiles. Finally, a replication of this study is recommended using a larger sample and probably using similar PACE programs ofi‘ered elsewhere in the Midwest or across the United States. This same study should be conducted on all the coaches’ education programs and then determine what aspects of the program impact coaching emcacy beliefs. Finally, it would be interesting to examine the effect of a longer and more rigorous coaching education program on coaches’ perceived eflicacy. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PACE: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION, SCHEDULE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES What is PACE? PACE (Program for Athletic Coaches Education) is a comprehensive program designed to prepare people for success in interscholastic coaching. The authors combined their academic training with many years of experience as coaches. administrators. officials. athletes and parents to create a unique guide to the challenges facing professionals in the field. PACE has been used successfully in varied settings. Currently the program is used for in-service training of coaches in Michigan. Indiana. Wisconsin. Colorado. Hawaii. New Mexico and West Virginia. The program also is used by numerous two- and four-year colleges and universities in undergraduate courses for coaching hopefuls. To date. thousands of coaches have benefited from this quality instructional program—over 4.200 in Michigan alone. PACE also is proven outside the interscholastic arena. as the United States Judo Federation has adopted it as their standard for coaches education. ATypicalPACEProg-am Session 1: Legal responsibilites and the coach Insurance for athletes and coaches Pre-participation physical examination Essential medical records Session 2: Prevention. care and rehabilitation of injuries Weight training Principles of conditioning and inappropriate techniques Session 3: Role of the coach Planning for the season and planning practices Evaluating coaching effectiveness Chemical health and athletes Session 4: Motivating young athletes Effective communication Maintaining discipline Personal and social skills 46 ma oatmeal-6mm noisejooeey norm-rum my Wanna: Mm vases in ‘Ouiwri anus-w woos ma cases as ‘Burwn ma no We test rooms «6m Mm Mr pamuods sameness aw posps sa’sq nelsqm MW mums WV mo mods m ‘erz we 47 PROGRAM FOR ATHLETIC COACHES’ EDUCATION 1997-99 SCHEDULE Presentedby michigan high school athletic association Athletic Achninietratore Association Program of Athletic Coaches’ Education COURSE OBJECTIVES: Pace isaprogrun desranedandendorsedby the Michigan High School Athletic Association. Michigan Interscholastic Athletic Adrnuum Association and the Youth Sports Insults. of MiCI’il‘Ifl State University. Dre twelve-horn course wrll provrde interscholastic coaches first the latest information mm. to dseirday—lo- day coaching responsibilities. PACE is offered inn/0mm Coacheshaveanoppornsnrtytoellollindl traditional evening m which will he offeredoverrwoorforuweentheshosnpt ni'hl. Attendaneesrtheevenrngmd passageofamastery-modelopen-boot eununls'on wrll couple. PACEW sndmultrnacernficareofcompienoa. PACEisalsoofferedasatvo-Ieveim overtwosepamedays.LevellandLeveilLsu- horuptouanumilbapresenodavm locanons thmuahoruthessase. Complement borhigvelsandpasaepofdssum'ill allow coachestorecesveanfic‘of completion. Anenneeswiilreeeiveanf-eaesrnmalof supplemreadingromb informprwaaiaaclmssssiou. 48 COURSE CONTENT — 4-Week Program TOPICS Lerer I — (rumor l ’ ‘n-um Guidelines for interscholastic \thletscs from the Mania. Hllh School Athlenc Association Least Responsibilities or the Interscholastic Coach hurls-es for Coaches an AM Lew! I - )(H'mn O'.‘ lr-uru mmuvmdmuhm WWI-outlaw Athletes mmdeSMhn-m (In! II — germ." C .’ ‘wum Methane-awhile TWO oLEV'EL FORMAT Level Itfcmons 4 6 Ir a“ b 49 ENDORSEMENTS AND QUOTES Michigan Association of School Boards urges all local school boards to work as rapidly as possible to: - Provrde in-service training for all coaches including training in first aid. proper athletic conditioning. and recognition of athletic injuries. 0 Make coaches aware of pertinent school policies. rules and regulations and require compliance. - Require supervision and evaluation of coaches. ° Employ qualified persons as coaches of interscholastic teams. Robert M. Malina. Director. instinrte for the Study of Youth Sports. MSU: "The current PACE program meets or exceeds the competencies required of coaches in 34 of the 37 standards at levels I. 2 and 3.” And past-participants say: "PACErvas Great! (havebeen canchingjbr 22 yearsandlearnedalor. ltwosnicetolsearnerv ideasandpmcedunsplustllefimdnslws doingthr'ngsn'ghs.” “lrecllyenjbyedPACE'lleomedalotof valuebleinfonnott'on. Myoesomsschfor "rating it interesting. as well as enjoyable! I will mallofdseinfoma’onaslparsaecoachlng." LOCATIONS Jr DATES LEVEL 1 (One-day Seminars Unlas Otherwise Noted) 9:“ ears-4:“ pan. 1. Buchanan Middle School Friday. August 8. 1997 (3:00-10:00 pm.) 2. Port Huron High School Saturday. August 9. 1997 3. Troy High School Sansrday. August 16. 1997 4. Detroit Renaissance High School Saturday. September 13. 1997 5. BCAM.Lansing-Holidaylnn.s. Friday. October 3. 1997 6. Treason Hid: School Saturchy. lanuuy 17. 1998 7. MHSFCA - Battle Creek Friday. Janna-y 23. 1998 8. WISL-MHSAA-EastLansing Saturday. February 7. 1998 9. MIAAA - Traverse City - GrandTraverse Resort Saturday. March 21. 1998 10. Muskegon Catholic Central Sanuday. April 18. 1998 ii. Hangman-Hancock Sanrrday. April 25. 1998 LEVEL 11 (Cesium ”mu-«s pan. 12. Buchanan Middle School Saturday. August 9. 1997 13. PortHuronHiahSchool Sanlday.August16.1997 14. Troy High School Saturday. August 23. 1997 15. BCAM - Lansing - Holiday Inn. S Friday. October 3. 1997 16. Trenton High School Saturday. January 24. 1998 17. WISL - MHSAA - East Lansing Saturday. February 7. 1998 18. MIAAA - Traverse City - Grand Traverse Resort Saturday. March 21. 1998 19. Muskegon Catholic Central Saturday. May 2. 1998 LEVELS 1 Jr 11 (Fear Sedan Prey-a) 7&1“ p... 20. Grand Rapids Catholic Central Monday. September 29-October 20 21. GeneeeeCounty 150. (Level 0 Monday. Nov. 3 a Wednesday. Nov. 5. 1997 22. Genesee Country ISD. (Level II) Monday. Nov. 10. Weheaday. Nov. 12. 1997 Regulation [1. Section 3 of tin MHSAA HANDBOOK states: "The Representative Council URGES that all schools strive to the standard Manly W faculty members are used as headcoaches of interscholastic athletic learnt. and that all non- faculry coaches complete the MHSAA 's Progm for Athletic Coaches' Edrcation (mCE) or equivalent program." 50 ENROLLMENT FORM Please complete and mail to: Jerry Cvengros. Associate Director MHSAA — 1661 Ramblewood Dr. East Lansing. M148823 «house-rm) «schoollnel immense-cur (m m) Previous PACE workshop experience (if M) (WI—henna) (Lentil-location) 1. Fou-nreteouaaraSTSpuu-ivruorwtlhveorm enchant-Mm-ofluuum drauurwussopwum Mani-almanac. MPAQLevelllwismniafivflumeladaa inane-an mil-cannulepnanm-Mrcoqtu have”. N. “outflow v. “demeaning-n... APPENDIX B COACHING EFFICACY SCALE AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE Coaching Confidence Questionnaire Coaching confidence refers to the extent to which coaches believe they that they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their 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 in your ability to— Not at all Extremely confident confident I. maintainconfidenceinyourathletes? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. recognizeopposingtenmstrengthsduringcompetition? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. mentally prepare athletes for game/meet strategies? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. understandcompetitivestrategies? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. instillanattitudeofgoodmoralcharacter? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. buildtheself-esteemofyourteam? O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7. demonstratetheskillsofyoursport? O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8. adapttodifierentgame/meetsituations? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9. recognize opposing team’s weakness duringcompetition? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. motivateyourathletes? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11.makecriticaldecisionsduringcompetition? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12.buildtenmcohesion? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13.instillanattitudeoffairplayamong? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14. coachindividualathletesontechnique? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15.buildtheself-confidenceofyourathletes? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l6.developathletes’abilities? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l7.maximizeyourteam’sstrengthsduringcompetition? O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18.recognizetalentinathletes? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l9. promotegoodsportsmanship? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20.detectskilletrors? 0123456789 21. adjust your game/ meet strategy to fityourtenmstalent? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22. teachtheskillsofyoursport? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 23. buildteamconfidence? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24. instillanattitudeofrespectforothers? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 52 Background Information Questionnaire Please indicate the first initials of your first and last name, and the last four digits of your social security number ______ Please Check Only One Answer Per Question: 1. Gender: (1) Female (2) Male 2. Ethnic Affiliation: (1) African American (2) Caucasian American (3) Native American (4) Asian American (5) Hispanic/Latino American (6) Other 3. Age: 4. Educational Background: Check your highest level of education _ (1) High School Graduate __ (2) Less than two years of college __ (3) More than two years of college __ (4) Completed Bachelor’s degree but never finished degree __ (5) Some Master’s level work __ (6) Completed Master’s degree ____._____ (7) Some Doctoral level work __ (8) Education specialist __ (9) Completed Doctorate 5. Ifyou have attended or are presently attending college, what was/rs your undergraduate major? 6. Have you ever coached before? (1)___ Yes (2)___ No ( Ifno, skip to Q. 18) 7. If yes, at what level? __ youth __ junior high /middle school _ high school __ college __ adult recreation 8. Please check the sport that you consider to be the primary sport that you coach (Check Only One) __ (01) Baseball __ (02) Basketball _ (O3) Cheerleading __ (04) Cross Country __ (05) Football __ (06) Golf __ (07) Gymnastics __ (08) Hockey __ (09) Other __ (10) Soccer 53 _______ (11) Softball _ (12) Swimming __ (13) Tennis __ (14) Track and Field __ (15) Volleyball __ (16) Wrestling 9. Gender of athletes you coach: _ (1) Girls _ (2) Boys _ (3) Coed 10. Present Position: (Check one)__ (1) Head Coach __ (2) Assistant Coach 11. Years in present position: 12. Total number of years in coaching career: 13 What other sports have you coached? 14. Approximately how many hours per week do you spend fulfiflmg your coaching duties? In season Out of season 15. Have you attended coaching clinics for your sport?__ Yes _No 16. Have you received awards as a coach? __ Yes _____No 17 . Are you in season now?_ Yes __ No 18. Are you PACE certified? __Yes _No 19. Ifyou have not coached before, at what level do you aspire to coach? _ (1) Youth _ (2) Junior High / Middle school __ (3) High School ________ (4) Adult Recreation __ (5) College Division 3 _ (6) College Division 2 __ (7) College Division 1 _ (8) Professional __ (9) None, I do not wish to coach 20. What coaching courses are you currently enrolled in? 21. What coaching courses have you taken in the past? 22. Do you plan to coach? Yes No APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT FORM Consent Form Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science Michigan State University The Construction of a Coaching Confidence Scale I have freely consented to participate in this research conducted by Dr. Deborah Feltz. professor and chariperson in the Deparunent of Physical Edmtion and Exercise Science at Michigan State ruversrty. MMyhconcunedwimdevdopmemolavuidandmlhbhhsmrmentmmeamcouMng Iunderstandthatlamfreetorehrseto 'ci incertainproceduresmmcertainquesdons. ordiscontinuemyparticipationatanymwrpgttpenalty. ' Iunderstandthatiflchocsetoparticipatainthesmdy.itwilltakeabotttlSminutesorleasto ccmpletethesequestionnairee. ' gundersnndthuandanhomthhmdywinremainanonyminnyrepatofmeh 1341983- [agreempartieipatevoluntarilyinthisreaeareh Signature High School on. ucaiHs APPROVAL FOR THIS project express: FEB o 9 1998 SM RENEWALAPHJCATION ONE MONTH PRIOR TO ABOVE DAT! TO W 54 APPENDIX D APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ZFCICE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES uversrty Committee on Research Involving Human Subiects (UCRIHSI ‘.l,;n.gan 51818 Universily élac~rsuahcnaunmng Eas: _ansmq Michigan 48824-1046 517 355-2130 :rx 5274324171 '-- u:- gar Sta/e :, ' ve’SIIV -:'-' s “yucca! J ve'SI’v E rcr'vence '0 ‘ci-'0" 5194., s an ammamgqcpon *JJdI ‘CODO’IUWIV "Si'lllrlron MICHIGAN STATE UNIV ERSITY February 10, 1997 To; Deborah L. Feltz 138 IM Sports Circle RE: IRE”: 90-503 TITLE: VALIDATION OF A COACHING CONFIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: l-C APPROVAL DATE: 02/09/97 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘lUCRIHS) review of thls project is complete. I am pleased to advrse that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. therefore, above. RENEWAL : REVISIONS: PROBLEMS/ CHANGES : the UCRIHS approved this project and any revrsions listed UCRIRS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project be end one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a maximum of four such expedite renewals ossible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond tha time need to submit it again or complete revrew. . UCRIHS musc review any changes in Krocedures involving human subjects. rror to initiation of t a change. I: this IS done at the time o renewal. please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the. CRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencxng the project's IRB e and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. Should either ot the followin arise during the course of the work, investigators must not; DCRIHS promptly: 11) roblems (unexpected srde effects. comp arnts. e c ) involving uman subjects or l2)_changes 1n the research envrronment or new information indicating greater rrsk to the human sub ects than exrsted when the protocol was prevrously reviewed an approved. If we can be of any future helpé lease do not hesitate to contact us at (Sl7)355-2180 or FAX (517I4 Sincerely. 171. SS APPENDIX E APPENDIX E PRIMARY SPORT COACHED BY THE COACHES §p£r_t F uen Percent 1%} Baseball 4 6.7 Basketball 1 1 18.3 Cheerleading 7 1 1.7 Cross country 2 3.3 Football 7 11.7 Golf 1 1.7 Hockey 1 1.7 Other 1 1.7 Soccer 4 6.7 Softball 4 6.7 Tennis 1 1.7 Track and Field 3 5.0 Volleyball 3 5.0 Wrestling 3 5.0 Sport not listed 8 13.3 56 APPENDIX F APPENDIX F PRETEST SUBSCALE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR MALE AND FEMALE COACHES Male Female l3 Subscale S_D M _S_I_)_ Character Building 8.0 .86 8.2 1.05 Motivation 7.4 .98 7.8 .92 Strategy 7.6 .94 7.6 .91 Technique 7.8 .68 7.9 .86 57 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Ashton, P. T. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for efl‘ective teacher education. Joumyif teacher Education 35. 28 - 32. Ashton, P.T. & Webb, RB. (1986). Making a difl‘erence: Teaahers’ sense of efficag and student achievement. New York, NY: Longrnan. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. chhological Review. 84. 191-215. Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologifi, 31344-3 58. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-eficacy theory. Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 60(4), 323-337. Corcoran, J. & Feltz, D.L. (1993). Evaluation of chemical health education for high school athletic coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 298-308. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coeflicient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16. 297-333. Denham, C.G. & Michael, J .J . (1981). Teacher sense of eflicacy: A definition of the construct and a model for further research. Educational Research Quarterly, 6(1), 39-63. F eltz, D.L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura’s theory of self-efiicacy and an anxiety based model of avoidance behavior. Jouraal of Personalig and Socflmhology, 42, 764-781. Feltz, D.L. (1988). Self-confidence and sports performance. Exercise and Smrt Sciences Review; 16. 423-457. Feltz, D. L. & Chase, M. A. (1997). The measurement of self-efficacy and confidence in sport. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in Sport a_nd Exercise Psychology Measurement (pp.63-7 8). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information technology. Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Simensky, S.G., Hodge, C.N., Shi, J., & Lee, I. (1994). Development of the multidimensional coaching eflicacy scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 51. 58 S9 Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1997). The development apd validation of the coaching eflicag scale. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. ( 1979). Enhancing self-emcacy in high avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport Paychology, 1, 112-122. Feltz, D. L. & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Effects of In Vito emoting imagery and performance feedback on self-efiicacy and muscular endurance. Journal of Smrt and Exercise pflchology, 12, 132-143. Fibel, B. & Hale, D. W. (1978). The generalized expectancy for success scale. A new measure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 924-931. George, T.R., & Feltz, D.L. (1995). Motivation in sport from a collective efiicacy perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 98-116. Gibson, 8., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct Validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 565-582. Harris, D. V. & Williams, J. M. (1993). Relaxation and energizing techniques for regulation of arousal. In J. M. Williams (Ed), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance, (pp. 185-199). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Harter, S. (1978). Efi‘ectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development. 21. 34-64. Horn, T. S. (1992). Leadership efi‘ectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed), Advances in sport paychology. (pp. 181- 200). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, AE. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Research Journal. 27. 279-300. Landers, D. M. & Boutcher, S. H. (1993). Arousal- performance relationships. In J. M. Williams (Ed), Applied smrt pgchology: Personal ggowth to peak performance, (pp. 170-184). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Nideffer, R. M. (1993). Concentration and attention control training. In J. M. Williams (Ed), Applied sport paychology: Personal growth to peak performance, (pp. 170- 184). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Park, J .K. (1992). Construction of the Coaching Confidence Seal; Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. /_ 6O Rosenberg, M. (1965). Socim and adolescent self-hnagg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monoggaphs, 80, (1, Whole No. 609). Seefeldt, V. & Brown, E. W. (Eds) (1990). Program for athletic coaches education , Carmel, IN: Benchmark Press, Inc. Smith, R, H., Smoll, F. L. & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach Effectiveness Training: A cognitive- behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75. Spector, J .E. (1990, April). Emcag for teaching in preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Stinnet, T. M. (1970). The teacher dropout. Ithaca, IL: P. E. Peacock. Vealey, R. (1986). Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Smrt Paychology, 8, 221-246. Warners, A. L., & Feltz, D.L. (1995). The predictiveness of coaching efficacy on player and team efficacy. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura’s self-eflicacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 320-331. Weiss, M. R., Barker, H., Ebbeck, V., & Sisley, B. L. (1991). Developing competence and confidence in novice female coaches: II. Perceptions of ability and afl‘ective experiences following a season-long coaching internship. Journal of Spprt and Exercise Psychology, 13, 336-363. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental desigp. New York: McGrow-Hill. Wood, R E., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behaviorand Humap Decis_ion Processgea. 46. 181-201.