On TermsBehavioral Coaching

Holly A. Seniuk, Benjamin N. Witts, W. Larry Williams, andPatrick M. Ghezzi

University of Nevada, Reno

The term behavioral coaching has been used inconsistently in and outside the field of behavioranalysis. In the sports literature, the term has been used to describe various interventionstrategies, and in the organizational behavior management literature it has been used to describean approach to training management personnel and staff. This inconsistency is problematic interms of the replication of behavioral coaching across studies and aligning with Baer, Wolf, andRisley’s (1968) technological dimension of applied behavior analysis. The current paper willoutline and critique the discrepancies in the use of the term and suggest how Martin andHrycaiko’s (1983) characteristics of behavioral coaching in sports may be used to bring us closerto establishing a consistent definition of the term. In addition, we will suggest how thesecharacteristics can also be applicable to the use of the term behavioral coaching in other domainsof behavior analysis.

Key words: behavioral coaching, on terms, technology, replication

The term coaching refers to ‘‘theprocess of training somebody to playa sport, to do a job better or toimprove a skill’’ (Oxford AdvancedLearner’s Dictionary, 2011). Al-though there is no clear definitionof behavioral coaching, the termsuggests a behavioral approach toaccomplishing the goals of coaching(e.g., Komaki & Barnett, 1977; Sha-piro & Shapiro, 1985). In recentyears, this term has gained popularityin the behavior-analytic literature.However, given the lack of a cleardefinition, it has been and is current-ly being used inconsistently. In thebehavioral sports literature, the termhas been used as a general procedurefor training athletes as well as a typeof intervention (e.g., Stokes, Luiselli,& Reed, 2010; Stokes, Luiselli, Reed,& Fleming, 2010, respectively). In thebusiness world, the term is frequentlyused to describe an approach tomanaging employees within an orga-nization (see Continuous Learning

Group, 2013a; Daniels, 2013). Theinconsistent use of the term presentsa problem for the science of behavior.From a behavior-analytic viewpoint,when there are multiple interpreta-tions of definitions and procedureswe lose the technological dimension(Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968), whichin turn presents difficulties for repli-cation and consistency both in re-search and in practice.

Sports

The concept of a behavioral ap-proach to coaching athletes was firstintroduced to the behavioral sportsliterature in Komaki and Barnett(1977). Their intervention was de-signed for coaches to improve theexecution of three specific plays byproviding players a description ofeach play, feedback on the accuracyof the play during practice, andmodeling correct performance thatwas faded contingent on success. Theauthors found that this method ofcoaching was superior to traditionalmethods (e.g., verbal description andfeedback that focused primarily onincorrect responses). Since then, the

Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Holly A. Seniuk,Department of Psychology, Mail Stop 296,University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada89557 (e-mail: holly.seniuk@gmail.com).

The Behavior Analyst 2013, 36, 167–172 No. 1 (Spring)

167

term behavioral coaching has beenused to describe this sort of approach.

Of all the articles pertaining tosports in behavior-analytic journals,only four directly refer to behavioralcoaching as a type of intervention. Forexample, the term behavioral coachingas an intervention strategy was firstused by Allison and Ayllon (1980) ina study on football, gymnastics, andtennis. Their behavioral coaching in-tervention package, building on theconcept used by Komaki and Barnett(1977), consisted of five components:(a) instruction, (b) judging the re-sponse, (c) feedback, (d) modeling,and (e) imitation. This multicompo-nent intervention package was dem-onstrated to be effective in increasingthe correct execution of skills forparticipants in all three sports.

Fitterling and Ayllon (1983) andShapiro and Shapiro (1985) used thesame components outlined by Allisonand Ayllon (1980) to compare thebehavioral coaching approach to stan-dard coaching in ballet and track,respectively. These studies found thatbehavioral coaching was superior tostandard coaching in teaching targetskills to athletes. Both Fitterling andAyllon and Shapiro and Shapiro useda multiple baseline design (reversalincluded in Fitterling & Ayllon) acrossthree skills to demonstrate that indi-viduals performed more trials correctlyin the behavioral coaching conditions.

Although these three studies (Alli-son & Ayllon, 1980; Fitterling &Ayllon, 1983; Shapiro & Shapiro,1985) used the same components intheir behavioral coaching interven-tion, other studies have effectivelyused different strategies in what theycall a behavioral coaching interven-tion. For example, Stokes, Luiselli,Reed, and Fleming (2010) compareddescriptive feedback with and with-out video and teaching with acousti-cal guidance (TAG). The authorsfound that descriptive feedback withvideo as well as TAG were moreeffective than descriptive feedbackalone in improving offensive line

pass-blocking skills with high schooland varsity football players.

Furthermore, Stokes and Luiselli(2010) found that a functional anal-ysis was an important componentin the development of a behavioralcoaching technique to improve tack-ling that involved delayed writtenfeedback on performance. They con-ducted a functional analysis with ahigh school football player to deter-mine that escape from coach feed-back was capable of maintainingcorrect responding. These resultswere then used in the developmentof an intervention in which the coachprovided written feedback after thepractice. This intervention resulted inimproved tackling in both practiceand game settings.

A review of the articles using abehavioral approach to improvingathlete behavior revealed that numer-ous studies either used some compo-nents of the behavioral coachingintervention described above (e.g.,feedback, modeling, and imitation)or other coaching methods of abehavioral nature, but did not referto the intervention as behavioralcoaching. For example, Stokes, Lui-selli, and Reed (2010) used a behav-ioral intervention to teach tacklingskills to high school football players.Coaches were trained to refrain frommaking negative comments for incor-rect performance and to providepositive reinforcement for correctperformance in the form of stickerson the players’ helmets. The authorsfound this coaching approach to beeffective in improving tackling skills.

Still other studies used componentsof the behavioral coaching interven-tion package described by Allisonand Ayllon (1980) and Fitterling andAyllon (1983). For example, in thebehavioral literature on interventionsin sport behavior, 13 articles includedfeedback as a component of theintervention, and others cited instruc-tion (n 5 1), modeling (n 5 2), orprompting (n 5 1) as part of theintervention. For example, Boyer,

168 HOLLY A. SENIUK et al.

Miltenberger, Batsche, and Fogel(2009) used a combination of videomodeling and feedback to improvethe execution of skills of four femalegymnasts.

Overall, the behavior-analytic lit-erature pertaining to sports indicatesthat a behavioral approach to teach-ing athletic skills can be effective.However, the review also suggests theneed for a consensus on what behav-ioral coaching is and how it can beused to improve athletic behavior.

Organizational BehaviorManagement (OBM)

The term coaching was first used inOBM in the 1980s as a metaphor forthe behavior of team leaders, execu-tives, and managers, with respect tohow they interacted with their employ-ees or subordinates (Brown, 2001).Brown identified language as an im-portant factor in connecting behavioranalysis with businesses. Thus, heexplains how early in his career hebegan using the term coaching tobreak the cultural barrier betweenthese two institutions (Brown, 2001).

Stern (2004) provides a definitionof an executive coach as someonewho provides individualized consul-tation to help a leader achieve long-and short-term goals in organization-al settings. Goldsmith (2000) suggeststhat the process of behavioral coach-ing involves the ongoing collectionof feedback regarding the manager’sbehavior, analyzing it, and developingappropriate behavior-change plansfor managers to improve interactionswith their staff. In addition, numer-ous books (e.g., Skiffington & Zeus,2003) and companies (e.g., BehavioralCoaching Institute) have provided in-formation and strategies for behavioralcoaching in organizational settings.

Aubrey Daniels International, aleader in research and practice inOBM, offers a program titled Coach-ing for Rapid Change in which abehavior specialist guides managersthrough learning to use tools such as

planning, touchpoints (e.g., contactwith a consumer), and data collectionto improve staff performance (Da-niels, 2013). The Continuous Learn-ing Group provides another exampleof an organization that uses thescience of behavior in OBM. Thisorganization considers applied be-havioral science to be a teaching andcoaching approach used by managersand other leaders in organizations.Consultants within this organizationcoach leaders of other organizationsin the use of applied behavioralscience to improve employee perfor-mance (Continuous Learning Group,2013a).

For example, a case study from theContinuous Learning Group report-ed that their coaches were able toassist the business unit of a major oilcompany in both reducing costs aswell as increasing revenue throughincreased production. In this exam-ple, coaching referred to the processof training leaders to set clear expec-tations, hold people accountable fortheir commitments, and provide feed-back that is both positive and fre-quent (Continuous Learning Group,2013b).

Although the term is frequentlyused in OBM by organizations andconsultants, it is scarce within thescientific literature, although numer-ous studies report the use of coachingstrategies similar to those used in thesports literature. For example, feed-back is arguably one of the mostprominently used intervention strate-gies in OBM (e.g., Emmert, 1978;Goomas, Smith, & Ludwig, 2011;Wittkopp, Rowan, & Poling, 1991).The use of behavioral coaching inpractice and not in the literature canbe problematic, in that various orga-nizations may promote variations ofbehavioral coaching. Although thevarious strategies that fall under theumbrella of behavioral coaching havebeen examined in the OBM literature,the concept of behavioral coaching asan intervention strategy has not

ON TERMS 169

enjoyed the investigative resourceshere that it did in the sport literature.

Defining Behavioral Coaching

A review of the literature in bothsports and OBM suggests that thereis an inconsistent use of the termbehavioral coaching. It appears to bethe case that in some instances theterm is used to describe a type ofintervention package, in others it isused to describe any guidance orteaching that is provided a by a leader;there are also many instances in whichan intervention package is not de-scribed as behavioral coaching butvery closely resembles other interven-tion packages with that name.

Although many of the studiesreviewed here incorporate the termbehavioral coaching in their work, thequestion remains: ‘‘What exactly isbehavioral coaching?’’ It could beargued from these articles that any-thing that a coach, broadly defined,does that has a behavior-analyticorientation could be classified asbehavioral coaching. This poses aproblem with respect to teachingothers what behavioral coaching isand how to effectively execute it. Inaddition, if we as a field continue todescribe behavioral coaching in idio-syncratic ways, the empirical valida-tion of behavioral coaching as aneffective strategy is nearly impossible,especially when one considers thatone of the most important aspects ofscience is replication (Cooper, Heron,& Heward, 2007, p. 6; see also Baer,Wolf, & Risley, 1987).

As an alternative to the above-mentioned formulations of behavior-al coaching, Martin and Hrycaiko(1983) outlined what they thought tobe the characteristics of effectivebehavioral coaching with respect toathletic performance. Martin andHrycaiko developed these character-istics based on the dimensions ofapplied behavior analysis as de-scribed by Baer et al. (1968). Accord-ing to Martin and Hrycaiko, there

are six characteristics of effectivebehavioral coaching.

The first characteristic is that thecoaching involves the emphasis onmeasurement of athletic performancethat it is specific, detailed, andfrequent. Second, there is a cleardistinction between the developmentand maintenance of behavior, andpositive procedures are emphasizedfor accomplishing both. The thirdcharacteristic suggests that the inter-vention be focused on athletes’ im-provement is measured against theirown performance. Thus, behavioralcoaching does not compare athletesto each other but rather compareseach individual to him- or herself.The fourth characteristic is that thecoaching utilizes specific behavioralprocedures that have been experi-mentally demonstrated to be effec-tive. In being specific, Martin andHrycaiko (1983) mean that the pro-cedures can be replicated and effec-tiveness can be evaluated throughdata monitoring. This characteristicsubsumes the previous sport researchand aligns them under a generalframework. The fifth characteristicplaces emphasis on the behavior ofthe coach. Not only are behaviortechniques used to improve the per-formance of the players but of thecoach as well. For example, video canbe used to provide feedback toplayers on their behavior as well asfor coaches to evaluate their ownbehavior toward the players. Thefinal characteristic deals with socialvalidity, in which measures are takento ensure that the techniques usedtarget behaviors that are importantto the players, parents, and othersinvolved in the program, that theseindividuals find the intervention tech-niques acceptable, and that they aresatisfied with the results.

Martin and Hrycaiko (1983) pres-ent a sound, encompassing definitionof behavioral coaching. If we as afield are going to promote behavioralcoaching as a performance improve-ment strategy, we must first verify its

170 HOLLY A. SENIUK et al.

effectiveness. Much like the dimen-sions of applied behavior analysisoutlined by Baer et al. (1968), thecharacteristics developed by Martinand Hrycaiko are precise enough toallow identification of whether whatis being evaluated is behavioralcoaching or not, as well as to allowreplication. In addition, the charac-teristics are appropriately broadenough to include a variety of vali-dated behavioral techniques.

The characteristics outlined byMartin and Hrycaiko (1983) providea method by which to evaluatebehavioral coaching across the liter-atures. Should it be found thatmultiple studies meet these criteria,it could be argued that the definitionpermits replication and, thus, empir-ical analysis of behavioral coaching.These characteristics also allow tech-nology to be used within and acrosssubdivisions of the field of behavioranalysis in a consistent manner, thusenabling behavior analysts to moveforward with research on behavioralcoaching. Specifically, if one removesthe term athlete from Martin andHrycaiko’s six characteristics, thentheir behavioral coaching strategycan encompass both the sports liter-ature and the improved performanceof managers. That is, in all cases, ageneral framework that focuses onfrequent measurement of target be-haviors of participants, developmentand maintenance of target behaviors,comparison of an individual’s im-provement to the individual’s previousperformance, the consistent use ofbehavioral procedures for which effec-tiveness has been experimentally dem-onstrated, self-monitoring and self-evaluation by the coach, and a vigilantassessment of social validity should beapplicable and useful in any subdo-main of behavior analysis. Statedsimply, there is no aspect of Martinand Hrycaiko’s six characteristics thatbelong exclusively to athletics, andthus can be used effectively in otherareas of research and application. Ourargument, then, is one that enables

more effective analysis within andacross domains when these strategiesare employed in a single packagedintervention.

Furthermore, the characteristicsoutlined by Martin and Hrycaiko(1983) allow better packaging anddissemination of behavioral coach-ing. Having a packaged frameworkenables practitioners to implementeffective guidelines that address sev-eral areas of concern. The results ofthese interventions, if shared amongresearchers, is more readily con-sumed and integrated into the grow-ing body of literature on this ap-proach to performance improvement.

Behavioral Coaching versusAlternative Strategies

Given the current lack of a con-sensus on the term behavioral coach-ing and what is encompassed by thatterm, we suggest that a clear defini-tion of the term be determined. Wesuggest the use of the characteristicsof Martin and Hrycaiko (1983) as astarting point. As mentioned above,this would create a term that is broadenough to encompass both sportsand OBM, yet be specific enough toallow replication in each domain.

We recognize that a great amountof work is being conducted thatinvolves guidance provided by abehavior specialist, leader, or coachin both sports and OBM. However,this work does not always meet thecriteria set out by Martin and Hry-caiko (1983) and therefore should notbe called behavioral coaching. Thiswork is valuable and should contin-ue; however, it is recommended thatthis sort of work be labeled some-thing more appropriate, such asbehavior consultation (see Williams,2000), or be analyzed based on thecomponents used (e.g., public postingin sports). Maintaining a distinctionbetween behavioral coaching andother intervention strategies is neces-sary to advance our science. Asmentioned previously, for further

ON TERMS 171

research to be conducted on behav-ioral coaching, the first step is todetermine a clear definition to permitreplication. From there we can ex-amine the effectiveness of behavioralcoaching in various settings. To datethe best conclusion that we can makeis that behavioral approaches insports and organizations are effec-tive. However, the right to makeclaims about the effectiveness ofbehavioral coaching is not yet ours.

REFERENCES

Allison, M. G., & Ayllon, T. (1980). Behav-ioral coaching in the development of skillsin football, gymnastics, and tennis. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 297–314.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R.(1968). Some current dimensions of appliedbehavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behav-ior Analysis, 1, 91–97.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R.(1987). Some still-current dimensions ofapplied behavior analysis. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 20, 313–327.

Boyer, E., Miltenberger, R. G., Batsche, C., &Fogel, V. (2009). Video modeling by expertswith video feedback to enhance gymnasticsskills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,42, 855–860.

Brown, P. L. (2001). Communicating thebenefits of the behavioral approach to thebusiness community. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 20(3–4), 59–72.

Continuous Learning Group. (2013a). CLGmethodology. In The Science of Behavior.Retrieved from http://www.clg.com/Science-Of-Success/CLG-Methodology.aspx

Continuous Learning Group. (2013b). Execu-tive coaching helps business unit achievedramatic turnaround in sales, cost andprofitability. In Case studies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.clg.com/Measurable-Results/Resources/Case-Studies/Executive-Coaching-Process.aspx

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L.(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educa-tion.

Daniels, A. (2013). Coaching for rapid change.In Aubrey Daniels International. Retrievedfrom http://aubreydaniels.com/Coaching-for-Rapid-Change

Emmert, G. D. (1978). Measuring the impactof group performance feedback versusindividual performance feedback in anindustrial setting. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 1(2), 134–141.

Fitterling, J. M., & Ayllon, T. (1983). Behav-ioral coaching in classical ballet: Enhancingskill development. Behavior Modification, 7,345–368.

Goldsmith, M. (2000). Coaching for behav-ioral change. In M. Goldsmith, L. Lyons, A.Freas, & R. Witherspoon (Eds.), Coachingfor leadership: How the world’s greatestcoaches help leaders learn (pp. 21–26). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goomas, D. T., Smith, S. M., & Ludwig, T.D. (2011). Business activity monitoring:Real-time goals and feedback using anoverhead scoreboard in a distribution cen-ter. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 31(3), 196–209.

Komaki, J., & Barnett, F. T. (1977). Abehavioral approach to coaching football:Improving the play execution of the offen-sive backfield on a youth football team.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10,657–664.

Martin, G., & Hrycaiko, D. (1983). Effectivebehavioral coaching: What’s it all about?Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5,8–20.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.(2011). Sport. Retrieved from http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/sport

Shapiro, E. S., & Shapiro, S. (1985). Behav-ioral coaching in the development of skillsin track. Behavior Modification, 9, 211–224.

Skiffington, S., & Zeus, P. (2003). Behavioralcoaching. North Ryde, Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive coaching: Aworking definition. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 56, 154–162.

Stokes, J. V., & Luiselli, J. K. (2010).Functional analysis and behavioral coach-ing intervention to improve tackling skills ofa high school football athlete. Journal ofClinical Sport Psychology, 4, 150–157.

Stokes, J. V., Luiselli, J. K., & Reed, D. D.(2010). A behavioral intervention for teach-ing tackling skills to high school footballathletes. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 43, 509–512.

Stokes, J. V., Luiselli, J. K., Reed, D. D., &Fleming, R. K. (2010). Behavioral coachingto improve offensive line pass-blockingskills of high school football athletes.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43,463–472.

Williams, W. L. (2000). Behavioral consulta-tion. In J. Carr & J. Austin (Eds.), Handbookof applied behavior analysis (pp. 375–398).Reno, NV: Context Press.

Wittkopp, C. J., Rowan, J. F., & Poling, A.(1991). Use of a feedback package to reducemachine set-up time in a manufacturingsetting. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 11(2), 7–22.

172 HOLLY A. SENIUK et al.