currentdirectionsinself-efficacyresearch … · cionadas com o desporto e a performance motora....

REVISTA DE IBEROAMERICANA DE PSICOLOGÍA DEL EJERCICIO Y EL DEPORTEVol. 6, nº 2, pp. 181-201 ISSN: 1886-8576

ABSTRACT: Self-efficacy and collective efficacy have been well studied in sport contexts. SinceBandura’s first publication (1977), of the self-efficacy construct, there have been over 300 rese-arch articles published on self- and collective efficacy related to sport and motor performance.This research has continued to grow in North America and elsewhere around the world. In thispaper, we describe new areas of research in sport self-efficacy: decision-making efficacy, prepa-ratory efficacy, relational concepts of efficacy beliefs (i.e., tripartite efficacy), emotional intelli-gence as a source of coaching efficacy, efficacy dispersion, referee self-efficacy, and new measu-rement advances. We describe examples of research in these areas and suggest where more rese-arch is needed.

KEYWORDS: self-efficacy; collective efficacy; coaching efficacy

TENDENCIAS ACTUALES EN LA INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LA AUTOEFICACIAEN EL DEPORTE

RESUMEN: La autoeficacia y la eficacia colectiva han sido ampliamente estudiadas en el ámbi-to del deporte. Desde la primera publicación de Bandura (1977) sobre el constructo de la autoe-ficacia, se han publicado más de 300 artículos sobre la autoeficacia y la eficacia colectiva relacio-nada con el deporte y la ejecución motora. Esta investigación ha continuado creciendo enNorteamérica y en el mundo entero. En este trabajo, se describen nuevas áreas de investigación

181

CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN SELF-EFFICACY RESEARCHIN SPORT

Alison Ede, Seunghyun Hwang, & Deborah L. FeltzMichigan State University

relacionadas con la autoeficacia en el deporte: eficacia en la toma de decisiones, eficacia prepa-ratoria, conceptos relacionados con las creencias de eficacia (es decir, eficacia tripartita), inteli-gencia emocional como una fuente de eficacia para el entrenamiento, dispersión en la eficacia,autoeficacia del árbitro y nuevos progresos en las medidas. Se describen ejemplos de investiga-ciones en estas áreas y se sugieren otras nuevas.

PALABRAS CLAVE: Autoeficacia; Eficacia colectiva; Eficacia del entrenamiento.

TENDÊNCIAS ACTUAIS NA INVESTIGAÇÃO SOBRE A AUTOEFICÁCIA NODESPORTO

RESUMO: A autoeficácia e a eficácia coletiva têm vindo a ser bem estudadas em contextos des-portivos. Desde a primeira publicação de Bandura (1977) sobre o constructo da autoeficácia,foram publicados mais de 300 artigos de investigação sobre autoeficácia e eficácia coletiva rela-cionadas com o desporto e a performance motora. Esta investigação tem continuado a crescerna América do Norte, bem como noutros lugares do mundo. Neste artigo, descrevemos novasáreas de investigação na autoeficácia desportiva: a eficácia na tomada de decisões, a eficácia napreparação, conceitos relacionados com ascrenças de eficácia (i.e., a eficácia tripartida), inteligên-cia emocional como fonte de eficácia do treinamento, a dispersão da eficácia, autoeficácia dosárbitros e novos avanços na sua avaliação. Descrevemos exemplos de investigações nessas árease sugerimos onde é necessária mais investigação.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Auto-eficácia; Eficacia coletiva; Eficácia de treinamento.

Alison Ede, Seunghyun Hwang, & Deborah L. Feltz

Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte. Vol. 6, nº 2 (2011)182

Within sport contexts, Bandura’s (1977,1997) theory of self-efficacy (and its col-lective efficacy extension) has been wellstudied as a cognitive explanation fordifferences in achievement strivings(Feltz, Short, & Sullivan (2008). SinceBandura’s first publication (1977), of theself-efficacy construct, there have beenover 300 research articles published onself- and collective efficacy related tosport and motor performance(Dithurbide & Feltz, in press). Feltz et al.summarized much of this research andits applications for athletes, teams, andcoaches. Since the Feltz et al. book waspublished, the field has continued to

grow in North America and elsewherearound the world. New areas of researchin sport self-efficacy in have been inves-tigated, including decision-making effi-cacy, preparatory efficacy, relational con-cepts of efficacy beliefs (i.e., tripartiteefficacy), emotional intelligence as asource of coaching efficacy, efficacy dis-persion, referee self-efficacy, and newmeasurement advances. This paper pro-vides a brief overview of self-efficacytheory, and then describes these newareas of research on self-efficacy withinthe athletic realm. We describe thisresearch in five major sections: individ-ual self-efficacy, coaching efficacy, col-

Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte. Vol. 6, nº 2 (2011)

Current directions in self-efficacy research in sport

183

lective efficacy, referee self-efficacy, andmeasurement issues.

OVERVIEW OF SELF-EFFICACYTHEORYBandura (1997) defined self-efficacy asthe “beliefs in one’s capabilities toorganize and execute the courses ofaction required to produce given attain-ments” (p. 3). The theory of self-effica-cy was developed within the frameworkof social cognitive theory, which viewsindividuals as proactive agents in theregulation of their cognition, motiva-tion, actions, and emotions (Bandura).According to Bandura, within this socialcognitive framework of human func-tioning, self-efficacy addresses the roleof self-referent beliefs as the core agen-tic factor that determines people’s goal-directed behavior. Thus, people’s effica-cy judgments are hypothesized to deter-mine the challenges they undertake, theeffort they expend in the activity, andtheir perseverance in the face of difficul-ties. People's self-efficacy judgments arealso hypothesized to influence certainthought patterns and emotional reac-tions (e.g., pride, shame, happiness, sad-ness) that also influence motivation(Bandura). However, researchers insport psychology typically examine thepredictive strength of efficacy beliefs onperformance because improving per-formance is of utmost importance toathletes and coaches alike (Feltz et al.,2008). Sport performance is a combina-tion of choice of challenges undertaken,effort expended, and persistence.

In turn, one’s efficacy judgments are

based on a complex process of self-per-suasion that relies on cognitive process-ing of diverse sources of confidenceinformation (Bandura, 1997). Banduracategorized these sources as past per-formance accomplishments, vicariousexperiences, verbal persuasion, andphysiological states. Performanceaccomplishments provide the mostdependable efficacy informationbecause they are based on one's ownmastery experiences. Vicarious sourcesof efficacy information are based ongaining efficacy information fromobserving others and comparing onesown capabilities to those observed.Persuasive information includes verbalpersuasion, evaluative feedback, expec-tations by others, self-talk, positiveimagery, and other cognitive strategies.Physiological information includes auto-nomic arousal that is associated with fearand self-doubt or with being psyched-upand ready for performance, as well asone's level of fitness, fatigue, and pain(Feltz & Chase, 1998). Various interven-tions, based on one or more sources ofefficacy information and experiences(e.g., success or failure), can alter self-efficacy beliefs.

The theory of self-efficacy extendsto the concept of collective efficacy andcoaching efficacy. For instance, whereasself-efficacy refers to people's judgmentsof individual capabilities and effort, col-lective efficacy is defined as a group'sjudgment of their conjoint capabilitiesto organize and execute the courses ofaction required to produce specified lev-els of performance (Bandura, 1997).

These concepts are described in subse-quent sections along with currentresearch.

Individual Self-EfficacyMuch of the research on self-efficacy insport continues to focus on individualathletes, primarily examining the rela-tionship between self-efficacy and per-formance (e.g., Beattie, Adamoulas, &Oliver, 2011; Coffee, Rees, & Haslam,2009; Heazlewood & Burke, 2011).However, current research also hasexpanded to examine the role of self-efficacy in contexts other than physicalperformance. The work discussed in thissection includes the relationshipsbetween self-efficacy and decision-mak-ing, the role of self-doubt in preparationstages (i.e., preparatory efficacy), and therole of self-efficacy in relationshipsbetween dyads of coaches and athletes,and athlete pairs.

Self-Efficacy and Decision-MakingAccording to Bandura (1997), self-effi-cacy influences cognitive as well as phys-ical aspects of performance. One typeof cognitive performance important in asport context is the ability to make deci-sions quickly and accurately, and currentresearch has begun to examine the rela-tionship between self-efficacy and deci-sion-making in tasks specific to sport. Ina study by Hepler and Feltz (in press),undergraduate college students watchedvideo clips of baseball scenarios andmade decisions about what playersshould do next in each given situation.Controlling for residualized past per-

formance, self-efficacy predicted deci-sion-making speed; individuals higher indecision-making self-efficacy made deci-sions faster than those with lower self-efficacy. Hepler and Feltz (in press) sug-gested that individuals who are confi-dent in their abilities to make a decisionhave less hesitation and doubt about theoptions they generate, which allowsthem to make decisions quickly. It ispossible that those with lower efficacyhad to exclude more options before set-tling on their final choice, increasingtime needed to make their decision.

The relationship between self-effica-cy and decision-making was also sup-ported in Hepler and Feltz’s (2011)research on self-efficacy, decision-mak-ing, and use of the take-the-first (TTF)heuristic in basketball tasks. The basis ofTTF is that individuals generate optionsin a meaningful order, and early deci-sions are often better choices than thosegenerated later. In Hepler and Feltz’s(2011) study, undergraduate studentscreated a list of decisions based on bas-ketball video clips in a specified amountof time. Decision-making self-efficacypositively predicted TTF, as individualswith higher levels of self-efficacy usedTTF more often, generated fewer choic-es, and made decisions faster than thosewith lower levels of self-efficacy. Thesefindings highlight the importance ofself-efficacy in athletes’ cognitive per-formance. Improving levels of athlete’sdecision-making self-efficacy would bebeneficial in allowing athletes to makequicker and better decisions in a sportcontext where speed and accuracy are



necessary for high levels of perform-ance.

Preparatory EfficacyBandura (1997) noted that self-efficacyplays different roles during the prepara-tion and performance phases of a task,or more specific to the sport context, anathlete’s season. The term, “preparatoryefficacy,” as used by Bandura (1997), hasthe same definition as performance effi-cacy (i.e., beliefs in one's capabilities tobe successful at an upcoming task), butis measured during the preparatory peri-od instead of just prior to performance(Wood & Feltz, 2009). In the prepara-tion phase, while skilled athletes arepreparing and training for a competition,Bandura (1997) suggested that the exis-tence of some self-doubt may help anathlete exert the required effort to fullyprepare for his or her upcoming per-formance. Thus, although doubt is detri-mental during the performance phase ofsport competition (Bandura, 1997; Feltzet al., 2008), it may be beneficial toeffortful practice during the preparationphase of competition as long as it is notoverwhelming doubt. When athletesbelieve a competition will be too easy, orhave overly high beliefs in their abilities,they may become complacent and putforth less preparatory effort than whenthey know they will be faced with atougher challenge (Feltz et al., 2008).Instead of a linear, positive relationshipbetween self-efficacy and effort duringpreparatory practice, it is likely that therelationship between preparatory effica-cy and effort is curvilinear, and better

described by an inverted-U (Feltz et al.,2008). Self-efficacy levels that are toohigh or too low can result in low levelsof effort, whereas moderate levels ofself-efficacy should result in the highestamount of preparatory effort (Feltz etal., 2008).

Research examining preparatory effi-cacy in sport is just beginning to emerge.As noted by Feltz and Wood (2009), themajority of research supporting the con-cept of preparatory efficacy has focusedon learning or decision-making tasksoutside of the sport domain. However,some research has started to focus onsport, as Feltz and Wood (in press) pro-vided preliminary results of a preparato-ry efficacy experiment using a golf-put-ting task. Individuals were given 30 prac-tice putts to distribute how they wishedacross targets of three difficulty levels:(a) low difficulty (high-efficacy condi-tion), (b) moderate difficulty (medium-efficacy condition), and (c) high difficul-ty (low-efficacy condition), and werethen asked to take five putts at each tar-get during the performance phase of theexperiment. Participants chose to usemore of their practice putts at the tar-gets in the low- and medium-efficacyconditions, and their lower levels ofpreparatory effort at the high-efficacycondition resulted in lower than expect-ed performance. While this providessome initial support for the concept ofpreparatory efficacy, Feltz and Wood (inpress) also proposed that more researchis needed in this area.

Bandura (1997) suggested thatcoaches already use the concept of



185

preparatory efficacy to motivate theirathletes to adequately prepare forupcoming performances. Coaches talkup the strength of their opponents, orfocus on their own teams’ weaknesses,in order to introduce a level of doubt tokeep their athletes from becoming com-placent in the face of a competitor orperformance that is thought to be lesschallenging (Bandura, 1997). Based onthese examples, more research onpreparatory efficacy in sport is neededto fully understand how athletes aremotivated to prepare for performancesituations, and find ways for coaches andathletes to put preparatory efficacy con-cepts into practice.

Tripartite EfficacyRelationships among dyads of athletesand coaches, or athletes and their team-mates are also an important considera-tion in the development of an athlete’sself-efficacy. Feltz and colleagues (2008)identified the tripartite model of effica-cy as an emerging area of research inself-efficacy in sport. Since then, a fewstudies have been published examiningthis concept through quantitative andqualitative methodologies (Jackson &Beauchamp, 2010; Jackson, Beauchamp,& Knapp, 2007; Jackson, Grove, &Beauchamp, 2010; Jackson, Gucciardi, &Dimmick, 2011; Jackson, Knapp, &Beauchamp, 2009). Originally proposedby Lent and Lopez (2002), the tripartitemodel includes self-efficacy, other-effi-cacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy(RISE). Other-efficacy includes an indi-vidual’s beliefs about a part-

ner’s/teammate’s abilities, and RISEbeliefs are an athlete’s perceptions of thepartner’s/teammate’s beliefs about theathlete’s capabilities (Lent & Lopez,2002). Lent and Lopez (2002) suggestedthat these three components are related,but each one can independently predictdifferent outcomes (e.g., relationship sat-isfaction, relationship commitment, per-formance, and effort).

Research is beginning to support thetripartite model. Among junior doublestennis players, Jackson et al. (2007)determined that athletes’ individual lev-els of self-efficacy were related to bothother-efficacy and RISE beliefs, self-effi-cacy was related to athletes’ commit-ment to keep playing with their partners,and other-efficacy was related to satis-faction with their partner relationships.

However, the tripartite efficacymodel may work differently in coach-athlete dyads than in paired-athletedyads. Again with junior tennis players,Jackson et al. (2010) found interactioneffects, in that the relationships betweenother-efficacy and outcomes variedbetween the coach and the athlete. Theysuggested that among coach-athletedyads, in which the coach has moreknowledge and power than the athlete,other-efficacy has more of an impact onthe athlete than the coach on outcomessuch as relationship closeness (e.g.,affection, respect, and trust) and com-plementarity (e.g., reciprocal behaviors,feeling prepared to do their best). Theeffects of RISE beliefs also varied forcoaches and athletes. When coaches per-ceived that their athletes had high beliefs



in their coaching abilities, it correspond-ed to high levels of commitment for thecoaches. Conversely, when athletes per-ceived that their coaches had high beliefsin an athlete’s abilities, it correspondedto low levels of commitment for theathletes, possibly allowing athletes tofeel complacent. Thus, the type of rela-tionship is extremely important whenexamining tripartite efficacy in dyads insport contexts.

One issue that Feltz et al. (2008)raised about the tripartite efficacy modelis that while other-efficacy is a percep-tion of an individual about his or herpartner’s abilities, it does not includeperceptions about the partner’s levels ofself-efficacy, which they described asconfidence-focused other efficacy.Jackson and Beauchamp (2010) termedthis concept “Estimations of the OtherPerson’s Self-Efficacy” (EOSE), whichrepresents how confident individualsthink their partners are in themselves,potentially providing an additional com-ponent to the original tripartite efficacymodel. Qualitatively examining EOSEbeliefs among coach-athlete and athlete-athlete dyads, Jackson and Beauchamp(2010) found that EOSE was influencedby verbal and non-verbal communica-tion, past performance, physiologicaland affective states, and success as adyad. EOSE beliefs also influenced indi-vidual self-efficacy, relationship satisfac-tion, other-efficacy, and relationship per-sistence.

While there has been a growing bodyof recent research on the role of self-efficacy in relationships between mem-

bers of coach-athlete and athlete-athletedyads, much more is needed to furtherexamine these relationships. As resultshave shown that the different efficacybeliefs in the tripartite model influencerelationship satisfaction, persistence,and commitment between partners, it isimportant to understand how those effi-cacy beliefs are shaped in order to helpathletes and coaches maintain positivelong-term relationships in different teamand individual sport environments.

Coaching EfficacyBesides athletes, coaches are anotherpopulation receiving attention in self-efficacy research. Originally proposed byFeltz, Chase, Moritz, and Sullivan(1999), the concept of coaching efficacyrepresents a coach’s belief in his or herability to effectively teach and enhancethe performance of their athletes. Whilethe concept is similar to self-efficacyamong athletes, coaching efficacy is lesssituation specific and includes beliefsabout one’s ability to influence athletesin the areas of motivation, game strate-gy, technique, and character building.These efficacy beliefs are influenced by anumber of factors, including previouscoaching experience, coaching prepara-tion, prior wins and losses, coaches’ per-ceived skill of athletes, and supportfrom schools, parents, community, andadministrators. Efficacy beliefs theninfluence coaching behaviors and athletesatisfaction and performance. Newerresearch is focusing on other relation-ships to this model, including (a) sourcesof coaching efficacy at the high school



187

level, (b) coaching efficacy and aggres-sion in youth sports, (c) emotional intel-ligence, and (d) leadership efficacy,which we discuss in this section.

Head Coaches of High SchoolTeamsMany studies have focused on examin-ing the four dimensions of coachingefficacy, guided by Feltz et al.’s (1999)Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES).Recently, however, Myers, Feltz, Chase,Reckase, and Hancock (2008) developedthe CES-II for High School Teams(CES-II HST), a coaching efficacy scalespecifically designed for use with headcoaches of high school team sports, not-ing that sources and dimensions ofcoaching efficacy may vary dependingon the level of the athletes coached.Myers et al. (2008) also added physicalconditioning as a fifth dimension ofcoaching efficacy to the model, andrefined the definitions of the characterbuilding and technique efficacy dimen-sions. Myers, Feltz, and Chase (2011)used the new scale to examine sourcesof coaching efficacy among male andfemale head coaches of high schoolteam sports. They found support for 35sources of coaching efficacy (see Myerset al., 2011 for a complete list). However,gender moderated the relationship forsome of the sources, as a few sourceswere related to specific dimensions forfemale coaches only (i.e., sources ofcareer winning percentage, team’s recordfrom the previous year, and perceptionsof team ability). Future research is need-ed to further examine the model of

coaching efficacy at different competi-tive levels in sport, and to investigatepotential reasons for gender differencesin sources of coaching efficacy.

Coaching Efficacy and AggressionResearch has examined the influence ofcoaching efficacy on the attitudes andbehaviors of athletes. One area that hasrecently received attention is the issue ofaggression in youth sports. Chow,Murray, and Feltz (2009) examined therelationship between specific dimen-sions of coaching efficacy and youthsoccer players’ likelihood to commitaggressive acts in a given scenario. Inthat study, game strategy efficacy signifi-cantly predicted likelihood to aggress, asplayers of coaches with high levels ofgame strategy efficacy were more likelyto report that they would trip an oppo-nent in a given situation than players ofcoaches with lower level of game strate-gy efficacy (Chow et al., 2009). Chow etal. (2009) suggested that the linkbetween game strategy efficacy andaggression may potentially be explainedby athletes’ perceptions that aggressionis a method to achieve the overall goal ofwinning, and athletes may view aggres-sive acts as strategic instead of unsports-manlike behavior. Surprisingly, however,character-building efficacy was not relat-ed to players’ likelihood to aggress in thestudy (Chow et al., 2009). The authorsexplained that this finding may be due tothe fact that aggressive tendenciesreflect a negative aspect of morality;whereas, character building efficacyfocuses on instilling an attitude of good



moral character, fair play among athletes,respect for others, and promoting goodsportsmanship, which reflect positiveaspects of morality. The authors suggestthat character building efficacy betterpredicts the positive aspects of moralitythat emphasize sportsmanship and fairplay than the negative aspects of moral-ity such as aggression. In a related studyon youth soccer players in Botswana,Malete, Chow, and Feltz (2011) discov-ered that players’ perceptions of theircoaches’ game strategy competency andtheir perceptions of coaches’ endorse-ment of cheating and aggressive behav-iors predicted players’ likelihood toaggress. However, unlike the study byChow et al. (2009), game strategy effica-cy was not related to players’ likelihoodto aggress. Both studies noted that actu-al coaching behaviors were not assessed.Thus, researchers do not know if coach-es who have high game strategy efficacyoutright teach unfair tactics, positivelyreinforce athletes who use them, and/orignore aggressive behavior when itoccurs. The influence of those behav-iors as part of the coaching efficacymodel requires further attention infuture research.

Emotional IntelligenceRecently, there has been an interest inexamining emotional intelligence andcoaching efficacy. Emotional intelligenceplays an important role in coaching, as itrefers to the ability of coaches to be ableto monitor and manage the emotions oftheir athletes and themselves. Thelwell,Lane, Weston, and Greenlees (2008)

provided support for the relationshipbetween components of emotionalintelligence and the coaching efficacydimensions among coaches of multiplesports. They determined that specificcomponents of emotional intelligenceacted as sources of different dimensionsof coaching efficacy. Motivation efficacywas predicted by regulation of emo-tions, character-building efficacy waspredicted by optimism, and techniqueefficacy was predicted by emotionalappraisal (Thelwell et al., 2008). Hwang,Feltz, and Lee (in press) built upon thework by Thelwell et al. (2008) and exam-ined leadership style (e.g., autocratic ordemocratic decision-making, providingsocial support and feedback) along withcoaching efficacy and emotional intelli-gence among high school basketballcoaches. Hwang et al. (in press) foundthat emotional intelligence predictedboth coaching efficacy and leadershipstyle, and coaching efficacy also mediat-ed the relationship between emotionalintelligence and leadership style. Thus,coaches’ beliefs in their ability to regu-late their own emotions may influencetheir perceptions of their abilities tocoach their athletes, and the ability tounderstand the emotions of their ath-letes may be beneficial in developingtheir leadership styles (e.g., providingpositive feedback, evaluating athletes,and planning appropriate training sched-ules). This result implies that emotionalintelligence is a source of self-efficacyinformation because trait emotionalintelligence includes dispositions as wellas self-perceptions related to emotional



189

functioning (Petrides & Furnham,2003). Also, regarding its relationship,Bandura (1997) noted that one way ofaltering efficacy belief is by reducing“negative emotional proclivities” (p.106). This also includes mood states,such as anger, fear, anxiety, and joy.Bandura explains that moods providesources of efficacy information“because they often accompany changesin quality of functioning” (p. 111).

Leadership EfficacyBesides coaching efficacy, the role ofefficacy and leadership development isbeginning to emerge. Although they didnot focus specifically on sport, Machidaand Schaubroeck (in press) reviewed theexisting literature on self-efficacy andleadership, and proposed that self-effica-cy has a multifaceted role in the develop-ment of individual leaders. The first roleinvolves the concept of preparatory effi-cacy discussed previously in this paper.Individuals preparing for a leadershiprole, with efficacy levels that are too highor low, may not put in the effort neededto develop leadership skills. Second, abaseline level of moderate self-efficacyis needed for self-correcting cycles tooccur. After experiencing improvementsor decreases in efficacy and perform-ance, leaders need to be able to readjustand make corrections to return to themoderate level of self-efficacy, insteadof continuing in an upward or down-ward cycle. Learning self-efficacy alsoplays an important role in leadershipdevelopment. If individuals do notbelieve they have the ability to learn the

skills needed to become effective lead-ers, they may not make attempts to learnthose skills. Lastly, learning self-efficacymust also be resilient and stable in orderfor leaders to face and overcome chal-lenges, which provide opportunities forfurther learning.

Machida and Schaubroeck (in press)also identified potential sources of lead-ership efficacy. These include learningorientation and development experi-ences in the form of challenges, sup-port, and feedback. In a sport context,Machida, Schaubroeck, and Feltz (2011)conducted preliminary work examiningthese sources of leadership efficacy tobetter understand why women areunderrepresented in athletic administra-tion positions. They examined the rolesof challenges, support, feedback, andresiliency on NCAA female athleticadministrators’ feelings of leader self-efficacy and their motivation to lead.Machida et al. (2011) determined thatleader self-efficacy is positively influ-enced by all four constructs, and leaderself-efficacy is also related to motivationto lead. Their findings suggest that inorder to help more women develop asleaders in sport, it is critical to createenvironments for women to experiencechallenges that push and expand theircomfort zones, foster resiliency forwomen to overcome future challenges,and it is also necessary for women toreceive proper feedback and social sup-port from supervisors or peers.

Besides leadership efficacy, coachingefficacy has been shown to influenceinterest in a coaching career. Moran-



Miller and Flores (2011) examined therelationship between coaching efficacyand interest in a coaching career amongfemale collegiate student-athletes. Theyfound that the quality of female coachesas role models (but not quantity) waspositively related to coaching efficacy,and coaching efficacy was related tointerest in coaching. However, longworking hours was perceived as a barri-er, and was negatively related to bothcoaching efficacy and coaching interest.

Although the roles of athletic admin-istrators and coaches differ in terms oftraining and development, both are lead-ership positions, and the findings fromthese studies that self-efficacy influencesthe interest and development of womenas leaders in sport can help address waysto promote women into these positions.Future research needs to continue toexamine the reasons that women areunderrepresented in leadership positionsin sport, and determine if there areother factors that influence the role ofself-efficacy in leadership and coachdevelopment among women.

Collective EfficacyAs with individual athletes and coaches,efficacy beliefs also influence behaviorsamong teams. Bandura (1997) definedcollective efficacy as “a group’s sharedbelief in its conjoint capabilities toorganize and execute the courses ofaction required to produce given levelsof attainment” (p. 477). Although otherdefinitions of collective efficacy exist,Feltz et al. (2008) noted that the otherdefinitions do share common themes.

Collective efficacy is a shared beliefamong members of team, it is specific totasks and situations, and it is not solelythe sum of the individual levels of teammembers’ self-efficacy, as long as there isinterdependence among members (Feltzet al., 2008). Sources of collective effica-cy include those that are similar to self-efficacy (e.g., previous performances,vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion,and physiological states), but Feltz et al.(2008) discussed other factors that mayalso influence collective efficacy (e.g.,team size, amount of time members of ateam have been together, and stage ofteam development).

Although there have been fewerstudies examining collective efficacythan individual self-efficacy (Feltz et al.,2008), research on collective efficacy hasbegun attracting more attention. A num-ber of recent book chapters andresearch studies have focused on thetopic (Chow & Feltz, 2007; Damato,Grove, Eklund, & Cresswell, 2008;Dithurbide & Feltz, in press; Edmonds,Tenenbaum, Kamata, & Johnson, 2009).Some of the current topics that we dis-cuss in this section include: (a) use ofcollective motivational self-talk state-ments, (b) team efficacy and attributions,and (c) dispersion of efficacy amongteam members.

Motivational Self-Talk StatementsSon, Jackson, Grove, and Feltz (2011)recently examined the effects of usingindividually-oriented, group-oriented, orneutral self-talk motivational statementson a dart-throwing task. Individuals who



191

used “we” statements regarding thegroup’s capabilities showed moreimprovement from their practice to per-formance throws and demonstratedhigher levels of self-efficacy and collec-tive efficacy than those in the individualor neutral conditions. This indicates thatthe feeling of being part of a team, evenan imagined one, can positively impactindividual performance. Son et al. (2011)suggested that group-oriented self-talkstatements could be beneficial whennew or inexperienced teams are formed,to foster a sense of unity among theteam members, and they also suggestedthat athletes can use pre-recorded self-talk statements during training or beforecompeting to help improve self-efficacyand performance.

AttributionsAfter experiencing a team success or afailure, self-efficacy can influence howathletes view their previous perform-ance. Athletes make attributions regard-ing the perceived causes, or reasons, thattheir team won or lost, and recentresearch has focused on the relationshipbetween collective efficacy and athletes’attributions on sports teams (Chow &Feltz, 2008; Hepler, Chow, & Feltz,2008). Chow and Feltz (2008) examinedthe relationships between pre-perform-ance collective efficacy and post-per-formance attributions among highschool girls and boys track relay teams.Using multi-level analysis, they deter-mined that individual perceptions ofcollective efficacy were related to con-trollable attributions, and this relation-

ship was stronger for girls than for boys.Individual athletes, especially girls, withhigh perceptions of their team’s collec-tive efficacy believed that their team hadcontrol over their performance.

Hepler, Chow, and Feltz (2008) alsoexamined collective efficacy and attribu-tions among golf, baseball, basketball,and softball teams. Similar to Chow andFeltz’s (2008) results, they determinedthat collective efficacy was related tocontrollable attributions, as well as inter-nal attributions. Additionally, Hepler etal. (2008) included the influence ofcoaching efficacy on team attributions.Athletes whose coaches had high levelsof coaching efficacy made internal andcontrollable team attributions. The find-ings of both of these studies suggestthat both collective efficacy and the effi-cacy of coaches are important factors toconsider as athletes create perceptionsabout the causes of their successes orfailures.

Collective Efficacy DispersionResearch on collective efficacy has pri-marily examined the construct as ashared belief and focused on common-alities between team members. However,individuals vary in their perceptions oftheir team’s abilities, and DeRue,Hollenbeck, Ilgen, and Feltz (2010) pro-posed that the variation of efficacybeliefs within a team, or the dispersionof efficacy beliefs among team mem-bers, is an important consideration inthe relationship between collective effi-cacy and team functioning. They sug-gested that dispersion can take several



different forms within a team: (a) sharedefficacy (consensus among team mem-bers), (b) minority belief (one teammember will either have higher or lowerperceptions of team efficacy than therest of the group), (c) bimodal (sub-groups will form with different efficacylevels), and (d) fragmented (all membershave different team efficacy beliefs;DeRue et al., 2010). Each of the differ-ent forms can result in their own poten-tial benefits or negative consequences inthe development of team functioning(DeRue et al., 2010).

Researchers are just beginning toexamine collective efficacy dispersion ina sport context. In a recent experiment,rugby players participated in a task usinga scrum sled that measured the group’slevels of exerted force (Dithurbide,Sullivan, Feltz, & Chow, 2010). For eachgroup, collective efficacy dispersion wasmanipulated into either a shared efficacybelief condition or a bimodal efficacybelief condition. By design, the bimodalteams demonstrated more efficacy dis-persion than the shared condition teams,while having similar aggregated collec-tive efficacy scores, yet there was no sig-nificant relationship between form ofdispersion and performance (Dithurbideet al., 2010). Similar results were foundin a group tug-of-war performance task,as manipulated efficacy dispersion con-ditions did not predict performance, butoverall collective efficacy did(Dithurbide, Chow, Feltz, & Sullivan,2011). The findings of both of thesestudies suggest that in terms of per-formance, the overall magnitude of a

team’s collective efficacy may be moreimportant than the amount of disper-sion, but more research is needed tounderstand the relationship between col-lective efficacy dispersion and teamfunctioning. DeRue et al. (2010) alsoproposed that efficacy dispersion playsan important role in the preparatoryphases of team development, and futureresearch should examine the influenceof collective efficacy dispersion duringtraining and preparation phases ofsports teams.

Referee EfficacyResearch in self-efficacy in sport is nowbeginning to include new populationsoutside of the realm of athletes andcoaches. An example of a group of indi-viduals who perform in a sport setting,but do not compete, are referees.Guillen and Feltz (2011) have proposedthe concept of referee efficacy, or reffi-cacy, as a framework to examine uniquefactors influencing referees’ perceptionsof their abilities and the resulting conse-quences. Using a focus group of malesoccer referees, Guillen and Feltz (2011)developed an initial model of refficacy.Similar to Bandura’s (1997) theory ofself-efficacy, potential sources of reffica-cy information include (a) mastery expe-riences (e.g., years of experience, previ-ous performances, knowledge of gamerules, and mentored experiences), (b)perceived levels of social support (e.g.,feedback from players, coaches, peers,and evaluators), (c) physical and mentalpreparation (e.g., goal-setting, visualiza-tions, and regulating arousal), and (d)



193

partner qualifications (e.g., partner’s abil-ities, feeling qualified for game assign-ments, and favorable environmentalconditions). Guillen and Feltz (2011)hypothesized that those sources influ-ence efficacy beliefs, which then influ-ence the following constructs: (a) deci-sion-making abilities, (b) rule violationsby athletes, (c) satisfaction with otherreferees, (d) behaviors of coaches, (e)stress, and (f) satisfaction levels of ath-letes and co-referees. As these con-structs have the potential to greatlyinfluence athletes’ behaviors as well asthe outcome of a game or competition,it is necessary to understand the factorsthat impact referee efficacy. A measureto examine referee efficacy, the RefficacyScale, is currently under development,and future research is needed to supportor change the hypothesized model, asGuillen and Feltz (2011) noted that thereare likely more constructs that willemerge as more work is conducted inthis area.

Measurement IssuesFeltz et al. (2008) recommended the useof Bandura’s (2006) guidelines for con-structing efficacy measures. Theseguidelines include: (a) domain specifica-tion, (b) gradations of challenge, (c)content relevance, (d) response scale, (e)validity, and (f) minimizing social evalua-tive concerns. For domain specification,measures that assess efficacy beliefsshould be specific to the context.Bandura advocates the use of efficacybelief measures specific to particulardomains of functioning rather than

those assessing global expectations ofperformance, devoid of context.Content relevance reflects that efficacybelief is about one’s judgment of capac-ity (i.e., “I can do”), not intention,potential, or future. Response scales aregenerally constructed using an 11-pointrating scale, ranging from 0 to 10 with1–unit increments, or from 0 to 100 with10-unit increments to obtain efficacystrength. The 0 indicates ‘completeuncertainty’ while the 10 or 100 indi-cates ‘complete certainty’. For validityissues of efficacy measures, Bandurarecommends a factor analysis to verifythe homogeneity of items for a con-struct. If the construct has multipledimensions supported by a factor analy-sis, the efficacy measures should be ana-lyzed with a multi-dimensional structurein order to prevent all items from col-lapsing into a composite score (Myers &Feltz, 2007). To minimize social evalua-tive concerns, Bandura suggests con-ducting a pilot study with a sampledemographically similar to those thatwill participate in the study, and using anondescript title (e.g., SkatingAppraisal). Current measurement issuesin efficacy beliefs in sport have focusedon optimal categorization, and in teamcontexts, multilevel confirmatory factoranalysis (MCFA) and multi-level model-ing (MLM) in collective efficacy.

Optimal CategorizationDespite a general consensus amongBandura’s (2006) guidelines, an optimalcategorization (i.e., rating scale) has beenan issue for psychometric investigation.



Determination of an optimal categoriza-tion is important because it increases thelikelihood of measure stability, measureaccuracy, and related inference for futuresamples (Linacre, 2002). Regarding the11 categories that Bandura advocated,he warned, “scales that use only a fewsteps should be avoided because they areless sensitive and less reliable. Peopleusually avoid the extreme positions so ascale with only a few steps may, in actu-al use, shrink to one or two points (p.312).” Pajares, Hartley, and Valiante(2001) supported his intention on thecategories by comparing the 11-pointscale to a 6-point Likert scale, and con-cluded that writing self-efficacy meas-ures with 11 categories produced greaterprediction of theoretically relevantexternal variables, along with greatersensitivity. However, Smith, Wakely,Kruif, and Swartz (2003) argued thatPajares et al.’s (2001) study had a limita-tion in their data analysis. Pajares et al.used ordinal data and methods (e.g., fac-tor analysis, internal consistency, andregression) that assumed interval leveldata. Due to unequal distances betweenratings, the ordinal data do not supportvalid mathematical operations (i.e., mul-tiplying scores), and analysis of suchdata may mask ineffective treatmentsand hide effective methods (Merbitz,Morriz, & Grip, 1989).

Smith et al. (2003) advocate Raschmodels as a specific method to optimizethe number of rating points for eachapplication of a self-efficacy measure ina given research context. Rasch modelsare mathematical models that require

unidimensionality and result in additivi-ty. A single latent construct (e.g., a spe-cific efficacy belief) is measured underunidimensionality, and same sized units,called logits (logarithm of odds), areobtained under additivity if the data fitthe model. These models provide a non-linear function of the probability ofobtaining a certain score or rating for aperson of a given ability over the entirecontinuum of a single construct. Smithet al. (2003) demonstrated disorderedthresholds (i.e., levels of a latent con-struct to change to a next rating) of a10-point scale. It implies that as onemoves up the self-efficacy continuum,these ordered categories from 10 to 100are never the most likely response to beobserved. Based on disordered thresh-old, they combined disordered cate-gories with a 5-point and 4-point scale.After unfitted items were removed, the4-point scale was more parsimoniouswith an inspection of category count,average measures, threshold, and outfitmean-square statistics based on Linacre(2002)’s guideline for optimizing ratingscale category effectiveness by the Raschrating scale model.

In sport, there is evidence that fewerresponse categories produce better psy-chometric properties of self-efficacyscales (Myers, Feltz, & Wolfe, 2008;Myers, Wolfe, & Feltz, 2005; Zhu &Kang, 1998; Zhu, Updyke, &Lewandowski 1997). For instance, Myerset al. (2005) reported that the function-ing of a 10-point coaching efficacy scalecould be improved if the structure wascollapsed to four categories, and Myers



195

et al. (2008) confirmed this four-catego-ry structure after comparing the originalfive-category structure (category-1, 2, 3,4, 5) to post-hoc four-category structure(category-2, 2, 3, 4, 5) because of theinfrequent use of category-1 in the five-category structure (i.e., ‘no confidence’).Also Myers et al. noted that becausecoaches rarely endorse categories repre-senting less than moderate confidence,there is unlikely a need for many cate-gories representing degrees for less thanmoderate confidence within coachingefficacy. This recommendation doesnot mean, however, that representativesof other populations (e.g., novice ath-letes or parents who never coachedbefore) would not endorse ‘no confi-dence’ or ‘little confidence’ categories.

Multilevel Confirmatory FactorAnalysisThere are a number of instances in sportwhere individual efficacy beliefs arereported within teams, such as in collec-tive efficacy beliefs. Multilevel confirma-tory factor analysis (MCFA) is an appro-priate methodology when data, such asthese, are meaningfully nested and eval-uation of the factor structure of a set ofindicators is desired (Muthén, 1989,1994). Myers, Feltz, Maier, Wolfe, &Reckase (2006) used this method todevelop a coaching competency scale forathletes to evaluate their coaches’ com-petency. Using a detailed four stepprocess in MCFA (Muthén , 1994),Myers et al. tested a unidimensional andmutidimensional model of the scalewithin teams, and compared model-data

fit indexes (e.g., comparative fit index,Tucker-Lewis index, and root meansquare error of approximation).Imposing the internal model on thewithin-group covariance matrix fit thedata better than imposing the model onthe total covariance matrix, whichignored the nesting of the data. Thus,instruments that are developed usingathletes within teams must account forthe nesting of athletes within thoseteams when determining a factor struc-ture at the athlete-level even if the factorstructure at the team level is not investi-gated.

Multilevel Modeling (MLM) inCollective EfficacyAs Myers and Feltz (2007) noted, speci-fying a single level of analysis in collec-tive efficacy research either ignores thegroupings of teams or ignores the with-in team variability by analyzing aggregat-ed data at the team level only. They sug-gested using MLM for studies in collec-tive efficacy because of the nesting ofathletes within teams. This type ofanalysis allows one to model variances ofefficacy beliefs at the individual andgroup levels, as well as the associationsacross levels. Using this methodology,the relationship between collective effi-cacy and performance (e.g., Myers, Feltz,& Short, 2004; Myers, Payment, & Feltz,2004), and dispersion of collective effi-cacy (e.g., Chow, et al., 2009; Dithurbide,et al., 2011; Dithurbide, et al., 2010) havebeen studied to examine the variabilityand predictors of collective efficacy atboth individual and group levels. The



degree of dependency of the aggregatedcollective efficacy was determined by theintraclass correlation coefficient, whichindicates the proportion of variance dueto both within- group and between-group. In addition to this, DeRue, et al.(2010) advocated the use of all fourcomponents of the distributions (mean,variance, skewness, and kurtosis) tomeasure dispersion. The mean providesinformation of the magnitude of collec-tive efficacy, and variance provides howmuch dispersion is present in the team.Kurtosis and skewness provide informa-tion regarding the form of this disper-sion. For example, a kurtosis value of -2indicates bimodal dispersion, whereas akurtosis value of -1.2 indicates a frag-mented form (see details in DeRue et al.,2010).

CONCLUSIONSSelf-efficacy research has continued togrow in the past several years, expandingbeyond individual athlete’s motivationand performance, to that of coaches,teams, and referees. We have providedan overview of some of the recentdirections in self-efficacy research insport, along with measurement recom-mendations to consider when conduct-ing research on this topic.

One area that may provide potentialfor future research is that of proxy effi-cacy. Proxy efficacy refers to an individ-ual’s belief in the capabilities of anotherperson or group (i.e., a proxy) to providehelp or function on behalf of that indi-vidual (Bray et al., 2001). While work inthis area has focused solely on physical

activity and exercise, Bray and Shields(2007) suggest that it may apply to coachand athlete relationships in a sport set-ting as well. Thus, there are areas in self-efficacy and sport that need to beexplored, along with the continuation ofresearch in the areas outlined in thispaper.

REFERENCESBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exerci-

se of control. New York, NY: W.H.Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (2006). Self-efficacy belief ofadolescents. Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.

Beattie, S., Lief, D., Adamoulas, M., &Oliver, E. (2011). Investigating thepossible negative effects of self-effi-cacy upon golf putting performance.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(4),434-441.

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., Harmon, L.W. (2006). Vocational confidence andpersonality in the prediction of occu-pational group membership. Journal ofCareer Assessment February, 14, 36-55.

Bray, S. R., Gyurcsik, N. C., Culos-Reed,S. N., Dawson, K. A., & Martin, K.A. (2001). An exploratory investiga-tion of the relationship betweenproxy efficacy, self-efficacy and exer-cise attendance. Journal of HealthPsychology, 6, 425-434.

Bray, S. R., & Shields, C. A. (2007).Proxy agency in physical activity. InM. Beauchamp & M. Eys (Eds.),Group dynamics advances in sport andexercise psychology: Contemporary themes,(pp. 79-95). New York: Routledge.



197

Chow, G. M., Dithurbide, L., & Feltz, D.L. (2009). Going beyond level ofanalysis: Examining dispersion as ateam-level construct. Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 31, S113.

Chow, G. M., & Feltz, D. L. (2007).Exploring new directions in collecti-ve efficacy and sport. In M.Beauchamp & M. Eys (Eds.), Groupdynamics advances in sport and exercisepsychology: Contemporary themes, (pp.221-248). New York: Routledge.

Chow, G. M., Murray, K. E., & Feltz, D.L. (2009). Individual, team, andcoach predictors of players’ likeliho-od to aggress in youth soccer. Journalof Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31,425-443.

Coffee, P., Rees, T., & Haslam, S. E.(2009). Bouncing back from failure:The interactive impact of perceivedcontrollability and stability on self-efficacy beliefs and future task per-formance. Journal of Sports Sciences,27(11), 1117-1124.

Damato, G. C., Grove, J. R., Eklund, R.C., & Cresswell, S. (2008). An explo-ratory examination into the effect ofabsence due to hypothetical injury oncollective efficacy. Sport Psychologist,22(3), 253-268.

DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., &Feltz, D. L. (2010). Efficacy disper-sion in teams: Moving beyond agree-ment and aggregation, PersonnelPsychology, 63, 1-40.

Dithurbide, L., Chow, G. M., Feltz, D. L.,& Sullivan, P. J. (2011). Collectiveefficacy magnitude and dispersion:The effects on tug-of-war group per-

formance. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 33, S142.

Dithurbide, L., & Feltz, D. L. (in press).Self and collective efficacy. In G.Tenenbaum, R. Edklund, & A.Kamata (Eds.), Handbook of measure-ment in sport and exercise psychology.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Dithurbide, L., Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D.L. (2010). Collective efficacy disper-sion: A preliminary rugby lab study.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,32, S156.

Edmonds, W. A., Tenenbaum, G.,Kamata, A., & Johnson, M. B. (2009).The role of collective efficacy inadventure racing teams, Small GroupResearch, 40(2), 163-180.

Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. A.,& Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptualmodel of coaching efficacy:Preliminary investigation and instru-ment development. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91, 765-776.

Feltz, D. L., Hepler, T. J., Roman, N., &Paiement, C. (2009). Coaching effi-cacy and volunteer youth sport coa-ches. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 24-41.

Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J.(2008). Self-efficacy in sport.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Feltz, D. L., & Wood, J. M. (in press).Preparatory self-efficacy: The role ofself-doubt in preparing for competi-tion. In Sport psychology: On the way tothe Olympic Games. Mokhoyova,Russia: Moscow State University.

Feltz, D. L., & Wood, J. M. (2009). Canself-doubt be beneficial to perfor-mance? Exploring the concept of



preparatory efficacy. The Open SportsSciences Journal, 2, 65-70.

Guillén, F., & Feltz, D. L. (2011). A con-ceptual model of referee efficacy.Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1-5.

Heazlewood, I., & Burke, S. (2011). Self-efficacy and its relationship to selec-ted sport psychological constructs inthe prediction of performance inironman triathlon. Journal of HumanSport and Exercise, 6(2), 328-350.

Hepler, T. J., & Chase, M. A. (2008).Relationship between decision-making self-efficacy, task self-effi-cacy, and the performance of a sportskill. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(6),603-610.

Hepler, T. J., Chow, G. M., & Feltz, D. L.(2008). The influence of team per-ceptions and leader efficacy on team-referent attributions. Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 30, S175.

Hepler, T. J., & Feltz, D. L. (in press).Path analysis examining self-efficacyand decision-making performanceon a simulated baseball task. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport.

Hepler, T. J. & Feltz, D. L. (2010). Takethe first heuristic, self-efficacy, and decision-making in sport. Manuscript submittedfor publication.

Hwang, S., Feltz, D. L., & Lee, J. D. (inpress). The predictive strength ofemotional intelligence on coachingefficacy and leadership style of highschool basketball head coaches.International Journal of Sport andExercise Psychology.

Jackson, B., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2010).Self-efficacy as a metaperception wit-

hin coach-athlete and athlete-athleterelationships, Psychology of Sport andExercise, 11(3), 188-196.

Jackson, B., Beauchamp, M. R., &Knapp, P. R. (2007). Relational effi-cacy beliefs in athlete dyads: Aninvestigation using actor-partnerinterdependence models. Journal ofSport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 170-189.

Jackson, B., Grove, J. R., Beauchamp, M.R. (2010). Relational efficacy beliefsand relationship quality withincoach-athlete dyads. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 27(8), 1035-1050.

Jackson, B., Gucciardi, D. F., Dimmock,J. A. (2011). Tripartite efficacy profi-les: A cluster analytic investigation ofathletes’ perceptions of their rela-tionship with their coach. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 33(3), 394-415.

Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp,M. R. (2009). The coach-athlete rela-tionship: A tripartite efficacy pers-pective. Sport Psychologist, 23(2), 203-232.

Lent, R. W., & Lopez, F. G. (2002).Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartiteview of efficacy beliefs in growth-promoting relationships. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 21, 256-286.

Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing ratingscale category effectiveness. Journal ofApplied Measurement, 3, 85-106.

Machida, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (inpress). The role of self-efficacybeliefs in leader development. Journal



199

of Leadership and Organizational Studies.Machida, M., Schaubroeck, J., & Feltz, D.

L. (2011). Examining the role of challen-ges, feedback, support, self-efficacy, and resi-liency on motivation to lead (MTL) ofwomen leaders. Manuscript in prepara-tion.

Malete, L., Chow, G. M., & Feltz, D. L.(2011). The influence of coaching efficacyand coaching competency on variables inBotswana youth soccer. Manuscript sub-mitted for publication.

Merbitz, C., Morriz, J., & Grip, J. C.(1989). Ordinal scales and founda-tions of misinference. Archives ofPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70,308-312.

Moran-Miller, K., & Flores, L. Y. (2011).Where are the women in women’ssports? Predictors of female athletes’interest in a coaching career. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(1),109-117.

Muthén, B. (1989). Latent variablemodeling in heterogeneous popula-tions: Presidential address to thePsychometric Society. Psychometrika,54, 557-585.

Muthén, B. (1994). Multilevel covariancestructure analysis. Sociological Methodsand Research, 22, 376-398.

Myers, N. D., & Feltz, D. L. (2007).From self-efficacy to collective effi-cacy in sport: Transitional methodo-logical issues. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.), The handbook ofsport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 799-819).New York: Wiley.

Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Chase, M.A. (2011). Proposed modifications to

the conceptual model of coachingefficacy and additional validity evi-dence for the Coaching EfficacyScale II – High School Teams.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,82(1), 79-88.

Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A.,Reckase, M. D., & Hancock, G. R.(2008). The Coaching Efficacy ScaleII – High School Teams. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 68(6),1059-1076.

Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Maier, K. S.,Wolfe, E. W., & Reckase, M. D.(2006). Athletes’ evaluations of theirhead coach’s coaching competency.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,77, 111-121.

Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Short, S. E.(2004). Collective efficacy and teamperformance: A longitudinal study ofcollegiate football teams. GroupDynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,8, 126-138.

Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Wolfe, E. W.(2008). A confirmatory study ofrating scale category effectiveness forthe coaching efficacy scale. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79,300-311.

Myers, N. D., Payment, C. A., & Feltz, D.L. (2004). Reciprocal relationshipsbetween collective efficacy and teamperformance in women’s ice hockey.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, andPractice, 8, 182-195.

Myers, N. D., Wolfe, E. W., & Feltz, D.L. (2005). An evaluation of the psy-chometric properties of the coachingefficacy scale for American coaches.



Measurement in Physical Education andExercise Science, 9, 135-160.

Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G.(2001). Response format in writingself-efficacy assessment: Greater dis-crimination increases prediction.Measurement and Evaluation inCounseling and Development, 33, 214-221.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applicationsand data analysis methods. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Smith, E. V., Wakely, M. V., Kruif, R. L.,& Swartz, C. W. (2003). Optimazingrating scales for self-efficacy (andother) research. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 63, 369-391.

Son, V., Jackson, B., Grove, J. R., & Feltz,D. L. (2011). “I am” versus “We are”:Effects of distinctive variants of self-talk on efficacy beliefs and motorperformance. Journal of Sports Science,29, 1417-1424.

Thelwell, R. C., Lane, A. M., West, N. J.V., Greenlees, I. A. (2008).Examining relationships betweenemotional intelligence and coachingefficacy. International Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 6(2), 224-235.

Zhu, W., & Kang, S. J. (1998). Cross-cul-tural stability of the optimal categori-zation of a self-efficacy scale: ARasch analysis. Measurement in PhysicalEducation and Exercise Science, 2, 225-241.

Zhu, W., Updyke, W. F., & Lewandowski,C. (1997). Post-hoc Rasch analysis ofoptimal categorization of an orde-red-response scale. Journal of OutcomeMeasurement, 1, 286-304.

Manuscrito recibido: 28/11/2011Manuscrito aceptado: 01/12/2011



201

currentdirectionsinself-efficacyresearch … · cionadas com o desporto e a performance motora....

Documents