The Coaching Issues Survey (CIS) was developed to measure sport/coaching-specific issues that may produce stress within the coaching role and situation. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure with a sample of collegiate basketball coaches. The four separate, but related subscales of Win-Loss, Time-Role, Program-Success, and Athlete-Concerns demonstrated high internal consistency and good stability over time. The CIS was sensitive to gender differences and paralleled differences noted with stress and burnout measures. The CIS was quite predictive of stress appraisal and slightly predictive of burnout, providing evidence for construct validity as a personal/situational variable within the current theoretical conceptualizations of the stress and burnout process. The initial reliability and validity evidence suggests that the CIS can be a valuable measure of potentially problematic issues for coaches, facilitating the investigation of stress and burnout in coaching.
Betty C. Kelley and Timothy Baghurst
Robert C. Eklund, Betty Kelley and Philip Wilson
Betty C. Kelley, Robert C. Eklund and Michelle Ritter-Taylor
The purpose of this investigation was to examine stress and burnout among collegiate tennis coaches. Three alternative models of stress-mediated relationships between personal/situational variables (hardiness, coaching issues, competitive level, gender, trait anxiety, initiating and consideration leadership styles) and burnout among men (n = 163) and women (n = 98) collegiate head tennis coaches were examined. Preliminary analysis revealed that the tennis coaches in this investigation were suffering from levels of burnout similar to those of other helping professionals working in higher education (Maslach & Jackson, 1986). A gender-by-competition-level (2 × 2) MANOVA on study variables revealed a significant main effect for gender but not for competition level. The women had a higher tendency than the men did to find coaching issues stressful. Structural equation modeling revealed that the stress-mediation model, also featuring direct effects of personality/dispositional variables on burnout, accounted for observed relationships in data more adequately than the other alternative models did.
Jeffrey J. Martin, Betty Kelley and Robert C. Eklund
The purpose of this investigation was to examine stress and burnout in athletic directors. Using Kelley’s (1994) original model we hypothesized that stress mediated the influence of social support, hardiness, and career issues on burnout. A second model, based on Smith’s (1986) contentions, allowed stress predictors to directly influence burnout in addition to influencing burnout through stress. Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses supported the respecified model over Kelley’s (1994) original model. Athletic directors with a tendency to find career issues stressful, and who were low in hardiness, experienced elevated stress and burnout. Specifically, stress predictors had a direct influence on burnout, as well as an indirect influence through stress. Descriptive data classified athletic directors as enduring greater levels of emotional exhaustion than depersonalization and personal accomplishment.
Diane L. Gill, Betty C. Kelley, Jeffrey J. Martin and Christina M. Caruso
We compared two sport-specific measures of competitive orientation, the Sport Orientation Questionnaire (SOQ; Gill & Deeter, 1988) and the Competitive Orientation Inventory (COI; Vealey, 1986), and an alternative 4-item version of the COL Male and female athletes and nonathletes at two small colleges completed questionnaire packets. Competitive-orientation scores were similar to those reported in previous research. The 4-item measure correlated with the COI, and neither of those measures correlated with the SOQ. As in previous studies, males scored higher than females on SOQ competitiveness and win orientation, and athletes scored higher than nonathletes on all SOQ scores. Our results suggest that the SOQ and COI do not assess the same competitive-orientation constructs. The SOQ assesses sport-specific achievement orientation; the COI assesses the relative importance of performance versus outcome. Our 4-item measure is comparable and provides a reasonable substitute for the more complex COI.