2004•The Sport PsychologistRequires access

Coaches’ and Athletes’ Perceptions of Efficacy-Enhancing Techniques

Tiffanye M. Vargas‐Tonsing, Nicholas D. Myers, Deborah L. Feltz

Open publisher page 91 citations

Abstract

Previous research has offered insight into coaches’ perceptions of various efficacy-enhancing techniques but not athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ techniques. The purpose of the present research was to compare coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of efficacy enhancing techniques. Male (n = 29) and female (n = 49) baseball, basketball, softball, and soccer coaches and teams were surveyed from Division II and III collegiate programs. Results found that the strategies that coaches perceived they used most, as well as were the most effective, were instruction-drilling, acting confident themselves, and encouraging positive talk. Athletes had similar perceptions to their coaches regarding coaches’ use and effectiveness of efficacy techniques. However, closer examination revealed coaches’ and athletes’ mean perceptions of these techniques to vary among levels of congruence and incongruence. Exploratory analyses were also conducted on coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions by gender.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Previous research has offered insight into coaches’ perceptions of various efficacy-enhancing techniques but not athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ techniques. The purpose of the present research was to compare coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of efficacy enhancing techniques. Male (n = 29) and female (n = 49) baseball, basketball, softball, and soccer coaches and teams were surveyed from Division II and III collegiate programs. Results found that the strategies that coaches perceived they used most, as well as were the most effective, were instruction-drilling, acting confident themselves, and encouraging positive talk. Athletes had similar perceptions to their coaches regarding coaches’ use and effectiveness of efficacy techniques. However, closer examination revealed coaches’ and athletes’ mean perceptions of these techniques to vary among levels of congruence and incongruence. Exploratory analyses were also conducted on coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions by gender.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 91 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Previous research has offered insight into coaches’ perceptions of various efficacy-enhancing techniques but not athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ techniques. The purpose of the present research was to compare coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of efficacy enhancing techniques. Male (n = 29) and female (n = 49) baseball, basketball, softball, and soccer coaches and teams were surveyed from Division II and III collegiate programs. Results found that the strategies that coaches perceived they used most, as well as were the most effective, were instruction-drilling, acting confident themselves, and encouraging positive talk. Athletes had similar perceptions to their coaches regarding coaches’ use and effectiveness of efficacy techniques. However, closer examination revealed coaches’ and athletes’ mean perceptions of these techniques to vary among levels of congruence and incongruence. Exploratory analyses were also conducted on coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions by gender.

Key concepts: Psychology, Athletes, Perception, Basketball, Applied psychology, Exploratory research, Medical education, Physical therapy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Coaches’ and Athletes’ Perceptions of Efficacy-Enhancing Techniques — Research Paper | ScholarLens