of the most widely studied conceptual frameworks in sport and exercise psychology ( Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008 ). The conceptual model of coaching efficacy was proposed approximately two decades ago by Feltz, Chase, Moritz, and Sullivan ( 1999 ) and was guided by self-efficacy theory, a
Proposed Sources of Coaching Efficacy: A Meta-Analysis
Nicholas D. Myers, Sung Eun Park, Soyeon Ahn, Seungmin Lee, Philip J. Sullivan, and Deborah L. Feltz
The Importance of Positive Relationships for Coaches’ Effectiveness and Well-Being
Louise Davis, Sophia Jowett, and Daniel Sörman
, 2004 ), an influential resource of information and expertise among others (e.g., reward) that coaches can use to bring about change in their athletes (see, e.g., Cote & Gilbert, 2009 ; Jowett & Slade, 2021 ). The coaching efficacy model ( Feltz et al., 1999 ) encapsulates the degree to which coaches
College Soccer Players’ Perceptions of Coach and Team Efficacy
Frazer Atkinson, Sandra E. Short, and Jeffrey Martin
In sport psychology research, efficacy beliefs are considered critical psychological factors that influence performance ( Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008 ). In the current study, the relationship between athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ efficacy and perceptions of their team’s efficacy were
Athlete Perceptions of Coaching Effectiveness and Athlete-Level Outcomes in Team and Individual Sports: A Cross-Cultural Investigation
Ahmad F. Mohd Kassim and Ian D. Boardley
multifaceted nature of sport coaching and the highly variable roles sport coaches adopt. The Coaching Efficacy Model A framework that has proved useful in guiding research on coaching effectiveness is the coaching efficacy model introduced by Feltz, Chase, Moritz, and Sullivan ( 1999 ). Researchers applying
Coaching Efficacy and Volunteer Youth Sport Coaches
Deborah L. Feltz, Teri J. Hepler, Nathan Roman, and Craig Paiement
The Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) measures beliefs coaches have to affect the learning and performance of their athletes. While previous research has provided support for the model of coaching efficacy and the CES as an adequate measure of the construct, these studies have used paid high-school and college coaches. It is possible that the factor structure of the CES may not replicate for volunteer youth sport coaches. The purpose of this study was to explore coaching efficacy sources used by volunteer youth sport coaches. In addition, the validity of the CES was examined, using a 5-point condensed rating scale, among volunteer youth sport coaches before exploring the sources. The study involved 492 volunteer youth sport coaches from various team sports. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the CES had an acceptable fit to the data. The sources of coaching efficacy were examined via multivariate multiple regression and canonical correlation. Results indicated that more confident coaches had more extensive playing and coaching backgrounds, felt their players improved more throughout the season, and perceived more support than did less confident coaches, particularly in regard to technique and game strategy efficacy.
Do Coaches’ Efficacy Expectations for Their Teams Predict Team Performance?
Melissa A. Chase, Deborah L. Feltz, and Cathy D. Lirgg
This study examined the relationship between coaches’ efficacy expectations for their teams, ratings of opponents’ ability, perceived control over outcome, perceived importance of success, and basketball performance. A second purpose was to identify sources of coaches’ team efficacy. Four collegiate women’s basketball coaches completed questionnaires prior to 10 basketball games (N = 40). Results indicated that coaches’ efficacy was significantly correlated with perceived control over the outcome (the higher their efficacy, the higher their perceived control). Regression analysis found that coaches’ efficacy was a significant predictor of making free throws and committing few turnovers and that perceived opponent ability was a significant predictor of coaches’ efficacy. An inductive content analysis of the sources of coaches’ efficacy beliefs identified sources of high and low efficacy for coaches (e.g., previous game performance, practice performance, comparison with opponent).
The Effect of a Coaching Education Program on Coaching Efficacy
Leapetswe Malete and Deborah L. Feltz
This study examined the effect of participation in a coaching education program compared to a control group on coaches’ perceived coaching efficacy. The program consisted of two 6-hour sessions. The Coaching Efficacy Scale was used to determine the impact of the program on perceived coaching efficacy. Forty-six Michigan high school coaches and 14 coaching preparation students 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 of coaching: character building, motivation, strategy, and technique. Results showed a significant effect for a coaching education program on the perceived efficacy levels of the trained coaches compared to control coaches.
Coaching Efficacy and Coaching Effectiveness: Examining Their Predictors and Comparing Coaches’ and Athletes’ Reports
Maria Kavussanu, Ian D. Boardley, Natalia Jutkiewicz, Samantha Vincent, and Christopher Ring
Research on the conceptual model of coaching efficacy (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999) has increased dramatically over the past few years. Utilizing this model as the guiding framework, the current study examined: (a) coaching experience and sex as predictors of coaches’ coaching efficacy; (b) sport experience, sex, and the match/mismatch in sex between coach and athlete as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s effectiveness on the four coaching efficacy domains; and (c) whether coaches’ reports of coaching efficacy and athletes’ perceptions of coaching effectiveness differed. Coaches (N = 26) and their athletes (N = 291) from 8 individual and 7 team sports drawn from British university teams (N = 26) participated in the study. Coaches completed the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES), while athletes evaluated their coach’s effectiveness using an adapted version of the CES; coaches and athletes also responded to demographic questions. Results indicated that, in coaches, years of coaching experience positively predicted technique coaching efficacy, and males reported higher game strategy efficacy than females. In athletes, sport experience negatively predicted all perceived coaching effectiveness dimensions, and the mismatch in sex between athletes and their coach negatively predicted perceived motivation and character building coaching effectiveness. Finally, on average, coaches’ ratings of coaching efficacy were significantly higher than their athletes’ ratings of coaching effectiveness on all dimensions. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for coaching effectiveness.
The Relation of Coaching Context and Coach Education to Coaching Efficacy and Perceived Leadership Behaviors in Youth Sport
Philip Sullivan, Kyle J. Paquette, Nicholas L. Holt, and Gordon A. Bloom
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
The purposes of this study were to examine how coaching context and level of coaching education were related to coaching efficacy and, subsequently, how coaching efficacy was related to perceived leadership behaviors in youth sports. One hundred and seventy-two youth sport coaches completed the Coaching Efficacy Scale and Revised Leadership Scale for Sports. Structural equation modeling revealed that coach education significantly affected the multidimensional construct of coaching efficacy whereas coaching context did not. Coaching efficacy predicted perceived leadership behaviors comprising training and instruction, positive feedback, social support, and situational consideration. These findings question the issue of coaching efficacy as a factor that may distinguish between coaches at different organizational contexts but highlight the importance of coach education training for improving coaching efficacy in youth sport.
The United States Soccer Federation’s National Youth License (NYL): A Measure of Coaching Efficacy
Ronald W. Quinn
The licensing of soccer coaches to coach at the teenage and adult levels have been in existence since the early 1970’s through the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) Coaching Schools. However, it has only been since 1995 that US Youth Soccer, an affiliate of the USSF created a child-centered curriculum to address the needs of children 12 and younger and the individuals who coach them, namely the parent-coach. To date over 5000 coaches have attended this five-day course. However, no such analysis has occurred to determine the impact and influence of this program on coaching efficacy. Coaching efficacy as defined by Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, (1999) “is the extent which coaches believe that they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes.” The Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) developed by Feltz, et al was used as the primary date survey instrument.