Emotional intelligence (EI) is recognized as an indicator of success, yet little research has examined the role of EI in coaching success. This cross-sectional study assessed the power of EI in predicting coaches’ career winning percentage in 277 head collegiate coaches including 51 basketball and 226 volleyball coaches. Coaches were on average 41.47 years old (SD = 9.68), had 12.17 years of head coach experience (SD = 9.40), and a career winning percentage of 50.67% (SD = 16.5). Coaches completed an online questionnaire including the Assessing Emotions Scale, which was used to assess their EI. Career winning percentage was calculated by extracting data from institutional websites and NCAA databases. Regression analyses revealed EI was not a significant predictor of coaching success when all coaches were analyzed together, F(4, 272) = 0.7504, p = .5585. However, when examined separately, EI was a significant predictor of basketball coaches’ success, F(4, 46) = 2.678, p = .0433, but not volleyball coaches’ success, F(4, 221) = 0.363, p = .0835. Thus, the current body of evidence indicates EI has a nonuniform impact on coaching success. While acknowledging sample size limitations, these novel findings nevertheless indicate that EI may disproportionally influence the coaching process and downstream success by sport.
Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for
- Author: Mika Manninen x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Examining the Predictive Power of Emotional Intelligence on Coaching Success
Eric D. Magrum, Mika Manninen, and Paul G. Schempp
Assessing the Fundamental Movement Skills of Children With Intellectual Disabilities in the Special Olympics Young Athletes Program
Hayley Kavanagh, Mika Manninen, Sarah Meegan, and Johann Issartel
Mastering the ability to move proficiently from a young age is an important contributor to lifelong physical activity participation. This study examined fundamental movement skill (FMS) proficiency in children with intellectual disabilities (n = 96, 60% boys, age 5–12 years) and typically developing children (n = 96, 60% boys, age 5–12 years). Participants were assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development–3rd edition and balance subtest from the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency 2. The FMS proficiency of typically developing children including mastery/near mastery level (combined variable representing mastery, which is achieving all criteria for the skill, over both trials and near mastery, wherein a participant performs all but one of the components of the skill correctly) was significantly higher than for children with intellectual disabilities. A similar observation was made with multiple linear regression analysis testing the interaction effect of participant group and age/gender on all three FMS subcomponents. The results presented will help establish a baseline of FMS proficiency and guidelines for future intervention for children with intellectual disabilities.
Student Motivation Associated With Fitness Testing in the Physical Education Context
Timo Tapio Jaakkola, Arja Sääkslahti, Sami Yli-Piipari, Mika Manninen, Anthony Watt, and Jarmo Liukkonen
The purpose of the study was to analyze students’ motivation in relation to their participation in fitness testing classes. Participants were 134 Finnish Grade 5 and 8 students. Students completed the contextual motivation and perceived physical competence scales before the fitness testing class and the situational motivation questionnaire immediately after the class. During the fitness test class, abdominal muscle endurance was measured by curl-up test, lower body explosive strength and locomotor skills by the five leaps test, and speed and agility by the Figure 8 running test. For the fitness testing class, students reported higher scores for intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, and amotivation than in their general physical education program. The result of the path analysis showed physical fitness was positively related to perceived physical competence. In addition, perceived competence was found to be a positive predictor of situational intrinsic motivation, but not of other forms of situational motivation. Significant path coefficients in the model ranged from −.15 to .26.