Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :

  • Author: Sandra E. Short x
  • Psychology and Behavior in Sport/Exercise x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

The Champion’s Mind: How Great Athletes Think, Train, and Thrive

Sandra E. Short and Frazer Atkinson

Restricted access

The Mental Athlete

Sandra E. Short and Michael S. Silbernagel

Restricted access

Is What You See Really What You Get? Athletes’ Perceptions of Imagery’s Functions

Sandra E. Short, Eva V. Monsma, and Martin W. Short

Restricted access

College Soccer Players’ Perceptions of Coach and Team Efficacy

Frazer Atkinson, Sandra E. Short, and Jeffrey Martin

The authors examined the relationships among athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ and their team’s efficacy in a sample of 271 college soccer players (M = 19.84 years, SD = 1.42). Athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ efficacy were assessed using a modified version of the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES), and perceptions of team efficacy were assessed using the Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Sport (CEQS). A canonical correlation analysis between the variants formed by the CES subscales and the CEQS subscales was statistically significant, Wilks’s criterion λ = .440, F(20, 883.17) = 12.40, p < .001. Significant canonical loadings indicated that athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ being confident in their ability to motivate (β = −.78) and provide successful game strategies (β = −.49) to the team were the most predictive of the athletes’ confidence in their team’s ability to prepare (β = −.58), persist (β = −.13), and unite (β = −.36) during competition. The authors provide practical implications for coaches looking to enhance coaching and team efficacy that are linked directly to their findings.

Restricted access

The Relationship between Efficacy Beliefs and Imagery Use in Coaches

Sandra E. Short, Matthew Smiley, and Lindsay Ross-Stewart

This study examined the relationship between coaching efficacy and imagery use. Eighty-nine coaches completed the Coaching Efficacy Scale and a modified version of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire. Results showed significant positive correlations among the coaching efficacy subscales and imagery functions. Regression analyses showed that the significant predictor for game strategy efficacy was CG imagery. Predictors for motivation efficacy included career record and MG-M imagery. MG-M imagery and total years of coaching were the significant predictors for total efficacy scores and character building efficacy. The only significant predictor for teaching technique efficacy was CS. The results replicate and extend the relationships found between efficacy and imagery for athletes and show that imagery also may be an effective strategy to build and maintain coaching efficacy.

Restricted access

The Effect of Imagery Function and Imagery Direction on Self-Efficacy and Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

Sandra E. Short, Jared M. Bruggeman, Scott G. Engel, Tracy L. Marback, Lori J. Wang, Anders Willadsen, and Martin W. Short

This experiment examined the interaction between two imagery functions (Cognitive Specific, CS; and Motivation - General Mastery, MG-M) and two imagery directions (facilitative, debilitative) on self-efficacy and performance in golf putting. Eighty-three participants were randomly assigned to one of 7 conditions: (a) CS + facilitative imagery, (b) CS + debilitative imagery, (c) MG-M + facilitative imagery, (d) MG-M + debilitative imagery, (e) CS imagery only, (f) MG-M imagery only, (g) no imagery (stretching) control group. A 3 (imagery direction) X 3 (imagery function) X 2 (gender) ANCOVA with pretest scores used as the covariate was used. Results showed a main effect for performance; means were higher for the facilitative group compared to the debilitative group. For self-efficacy, there was a significant imagery direction by imagery function by gender interaction. These findings suggest imagery direction and imagery function can affect self-efficacy and performance and that males and females respond differently to imagery interventions.