influence of perceived coach feedback on athletes perception these mcgill 2009
TRANSCRIPT
Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback on Athletes’ Perceptions
of the Team’s Motivational Climate
Jonathan Stein
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Kinesiology and Physical Education
in the Faculty of Education
McGill University
June 9, 2009
ii
Abstract
Team motivational climate has been identified as an important variable in the growth and development of youth sport athletes. Coaching behaviors such as determining the presence and extent of social comparison, rewarding and punishing players, and the quality of interpersonal relationships fostered within the team can create a predominantly task- or ego-oriented team climate. Research on motivation has clearly identified many of the positive outcomes associated with athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Since the motivational climate refers to the coach’s general behaviors in games and practices, it is traditionally assumed that players within a team perceive the same type of team climate. However, research has recently reported that athletes within the same team do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate. This has partly been attributed to players’ personal interactions with the coach. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback they received from their head coach during practices on their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. In addition, the present study examined the influence of the discrepancy between athletes’ preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns on athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. Participants (n = 70) were 13-14 year old elite male hockey players , who each completed the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000) and the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000). Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that perceptions of positive individual feedback from the coach (B=.44) led to perceptions of a task-oriented climate, whereas perceptions of negative individual feedback from the coach (B=.51) led to perceptions of an ego-oriented climate. Moreover, the discrepancy between athletes’ perceived and preferred coach feedback patterns (B=.23) was positively correlated with athletes’ perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. In general, these findings highlighted the importance of individual coach feedback for creating an effective team atmosphere. In particular, when athletes perceived their coach’s behaviors as positive, informative, and supportive, they were more likely to perceive a task-oriented team climate. In addition, the current study identified antecedents (i.e., informative feedback, discrepancy between athletes’ preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns) of the motivational climate that were not previously reported. More specifically, this study revealed that a difference between the type of coach feedback that athletes preferred and the type of coach feedback that athletes perceived was likely to result in athletes’ perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Consequently, youth sport coaches should know their athletes’ preferred coach feedback patterns and try to provide them with individualized strategies in order to create an effective motivational climate for every athlete within the team.
iii
Résumé
Chez les jeunes athlètes sportifs, le climat motivationnel de l’équipe a été identifié comme un des facteurs qui influencent leur croissance et développement. Les actions des entraîneurs telle l’identification de la présence des comparaisons sociales et le degré auquel elles existent, les récompenses et punitions données aux joueurs, ainsi que le degré d’encouragement à former des liens interpersonnels de qualité au sein d’une équipe peuvent créer un climat qui tende soit vers la valorisation de l’accomplissement des tâches, soit à celle de l’égo des joueurs. Les résultats des récentes recherches sur la motivation indiquent clairement les aspects positifs qui découlent de la perception des joueurs appartenant à une équipe où règne un climat motivationnel axé sur l’accomplissement des tâches. Traditionnellement l’on a supposé que puisque le climat motivationnel dépend du comportement de l’entraîneur lors des matchs et pratiques, que tous les joueurs devaient donc percevoir un même climat motivationnel. Cependant, de récentes recherches dans ce domaine ont révélé que tous les membres d’une équipe n’ont pas forcément la même perception du climat motivationnel de leur équipe, car cette perception est fondée tout au moins en partie sur les liens qui unissent ces joueurs à leur entraîneur. Utilisant ces données comme point de départ, le but de cette étude est d’analyser l’influence qu’opère la perception d’un athlète selon les commentaires et critiques de son entraîneur en chef sur le type de climat motivationnel de leur équipe. De plus, la présente étude a analysé l’influence de la différence entre les commentaires et critiques préférés des joueurs et ceux reçus par les joueurs sur les perceptions des athlètes du climat motivationnel de l’équipe. Les participants de l’étude (n=70) étaient des joueurs de hockey masculins de calibre élite de 13 et 14 ans, qui avaient tous complété le questionnaire 2 sur la perception du climat motivationnel en sport (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda & Yin, 2000), ainsi que celui des commentaires et critiques des entraîneurs (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000). L’analyse de la régression hiérarchique a révélé qu’une perception individuelle positive des commentaires de l’entraîneur (B=.44) entraînait alors une perception d’un climat motivationnel valorisant l’accomplissement des tâches, contrairement à une perception individuelle négative des commentaires de l’entraîneur (B=.51), qui elle favorisait un climat motivationnel valorisant l’égo des joueurs. De plus, une différence significative et proportionnellement liée à la perception des commentaires préférés par rapport à ceux perçus par le joueur (B=.23) existe, engendrant alors un climat motivationnel favorisant l’égo des joueurs. De façon générale, les résultats de cette étude démontrent l’importance du rôle des commentaires individuels fournis par l’entraîneur pour la création d’un climat d’équipe efficace. Il ressort aussi que lorsque les athlètes perçoivent les commentaires de leur entraîneur comme positifs, informatifs et les appuyant, dans la majorité des cas cela mène a un climat motivationnel qui encourage la valorisation de l’accomplissement de tâches. Cette étude a aussi permis de découvrir certains facteurs des climats motivationnels qui n’avaient pas été analysés auparavant. De plus, cette étude fait ressortir que lorsqu’il y a une différence entre les commentaires préférés des joueurs et ceux perçus cela résulte le plu souvent dans un climat motivationnel qui favorise l’égo des joueurs. Conséquemment, il est de la plus haute importance que les entraîneurs connaissent le type de commentaires préférés des joueurs, et ainsi d’aligner les stratégies employées sur ces préférences afin de créer un climat motivationnel axé sur l’accomplissement des tâches et par ailleurs créé un climat motivationnel efficace pour chacun des joueurs de l’équipe.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people who helped me complete my thesis:
• Dr. Gordon Bloom, my advisor who gave me the opportunity to explore my
research interests in coaching and youth sport. You have been one of my mentors
for the past 6 years and I want to thank you for introducing me to this great world
of sport psychology. Your feedback was always honest and you were always
available when I needed guidance. Most of all, you always challenged me to be
better, I am a stronger person because of it.
• Dr. Catherine Sabiston, co-author who provided great insight and guidance during
the completion of my thesis. Whether it was helping with statistics, providing
constructive feedback or helping me see things from a different perspective, your
support over the last two years has been instrumental in my learning and
development as a graduate student.
• Dr. Billy Harvey, who was on my colloquium committee and who always brought
a wealth of knowledge to our meetings. Thank you for all of your suggestions and
insight.
• The eight coaches who allowed me to meet with their teams.
• The 70 hockey players who participated in our study.
• Will Falcao, my friend, lab partner, and conference partner. We shared the ups
and downs of graduate life together. I’ll never forget those trips to Sudbury, St.
Louis and Toronto. So many stories and good times…You are truly a gentlemen
and a scholar.
v
• My parents who have provided me with endless support. Thank you for always
being there and believing in me. Your values and belief in the importance of
education are big reasons why I have succeeded as a graduate student.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . ii
Résumé . . . . . . . . . iii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . iv
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . vi
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . 3
Significance of the Study . . . . . 4
Delimitations . . . . . . . 4
Limitations . . . . . . . 4
Operational Definitions . . . . . 5
Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . 6
Literature Review . . . . . . . 6
Motivation . . . . . . . 6
Achievement Goal Theory . . . . 7
Motivational Climate . . . . . 8
Coach Feedback . . . . . . 15
Effects of Coach Feedback . . . 15
Variation in Coach Feedback . . . . 19
Teacher-Student Interactions . . . . 21
vii
Influence of Teacher’s Expectations . . . 22
Influence of Student’s Gender . . . 23
Hypotheses . . . . . . 25
Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . 26
Method . . . . . . . . 26
Participants . . . . . . . 26
Procedures . . . . . . . 26
Measures . . . . . . . 28
Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 28
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire . . . 31
Data Analysis . . . . . . 34
Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . 36
Results . . . . . . . . 36
Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . 36
Correlation Analysis . . . . . . 37
Hierarchical Regression Analysis . . . . 39
Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . 42
Discussion . . . . . . . . 42
Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback . . . 42
Influence of the Discrepancy between Preferred and Perceived Coach
Feedback . . . . . . . 46
Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . 50
Summary . . . . . . . . 50
Limitations . . . . . . . 53
viii
Practical Implications . . . . . . 55
References . . . . . . . . . 57
Appendices . . . . . . . . . 70
Appendix A- Ethics Certificate . . . . . 70
Appendix B- Sport Organization Consent Form . . . 72
Appendix C- Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 73
Appendix D- Coaching Feedback Questionnaire . . . 76
Appendix E- Demographic Questionnaire . . . . 79
Appendix F- Player Agreement Forms . . . . 80
Appendix G- Parental Consent Forms . . . . 83
ix
List of Tables Page
Table 1 – The Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum, Maximum, Skewness, and Kurtosis for all measurement instruments (N=70) . . . . . . . 36
Table 2 – Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the team’s motivational climate . . 38
Table 3 – Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability, perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of an ego-oriented motivational climate . . . 40
Table 4 – Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability,
perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of a task-oriented motivational climate . . . 41
Introduction
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
It has been estimated that the majority (69%) of Canadian youth between the ages
of 12 and 21 are involved in organized sport on a yearly basis (Sport Canada, 2008).
Given its popularity in Canada, the study of youth sport has been a key area of interest for
sport psychology researchers in the last two decades. To date, much of this research has
focused on the psychological benefits of youth athletic involvement, including increased
self-esteem and competence and lowered anxiety levels in optimal sport environments
(e.g., Duda, 2001; Smith & Smoll, 1990; Weiss, 1991). One individual who plays an
important role in creating a positive youth sport experience is the coach (Smith & Smoll,
2002). Several studies by Smith, Smoll, and colleagues (Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995;
Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett, 1993; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978, 1979) identified
some of the key aspects of coaching that impacted the quality of the child’s sport
environment. It is the quality of this environment that affects a child’s motivation in sport
(Ames, 1992).
One of the primary coaching variables that can impact an athlete’s motivation is
the motivational climate created by the coach. The motivational climate in sport refers to
the type (ego-oriented or task-oriented) of climate created by coaches in practices and
games (Ames, 1992; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). Certain coaching behaviors such as
rewarding/punishing players, the presence and extent of comparing teammates to one
another, and the quality of interpersonal relationships fostered within the team can
promote a predominantly task- or ego-oriented team climate (McArdle & Duda, 2002;
Smoll & Smith, 2006). More specifically, coaches can create a task-oriented climate by
Introduction 2
reducing the importance of winning and focusing on other participation motives such as
skill development, effort, and affiliation with teammates. In contrast, an ego-involving
climate occurs when the coach promotes intra-team rivalries, favors the most talented
players, and punishes players for making mistakes (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). In
general, research on motivational climate has clearly identified many positive outcomes
associated with a task-oriented motivational climate, especially in youth sport (Horn,
2007).
Consistent with the literature on motivation, many sport psychology researchers
have encouraged coaches to create a more task-involving team climate (Horn, 2007).
Since motivational climate represents the coach’s general behaviors, it is traditionally
believed that players within a team have the same perceptions of their team’s climate
(Duda, 2001). Despite this, some studies have recently concluded that players within a
team do not always share the same perceptions of the team’s motivational climate (e.g.,
Cumming, Smoll, Smith, & Grossbard, 2007; Duda, Newton, & Yin, 1999; Magyar,
Feltz, & Simpson, 2004). More specifically, Cumming et al. found that variability in
athletes’ (aged 10-15 years) perceptions of the team’s climate indicated players were
more likely to evaluate coach behaviors on the basis of their own personal interactions
with the coach rather than interactions between the coach and the group as a whole.
Personal interactions with the coach are more impressionable, meaningful, and easier to
remember. Furthermore, athletes may also be less aware of how the coach interacts with
other team members, thus limiting their perceptions of the motivational climate to their
own personal exchanges with the coach (Cumming et al., 2007). Recently, several studies
(Olympiou, Jowett, & Duda, 2008; Smith, Fry, Ethington, & Li, 2005) have reported that
Introduction 3
coach-athlete interactions were associated with athletes’ perceptions of their team’s
motivational climate. Thus, coaching behaviors such as the individual feedback coaches
provide in response to athletes’ performances may be important antecedents that
influence athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate.
Variation in how the coach interacts individually with different team members
may further explain why athletes within a team do not have the same perceptions of the
motivational climate. For example, Horn (1985) observed the individual feedback of
junior high school softball coaches during games and practices and reported that coaches
reacted differently to players of varying ability. Specifically, coaches communicated
more frequently with high-ability athletes, were more likely to ignore the mistakes
committed by low-ability athletes, and administered more punishment to high-ability
athletes (Horn, 1985). All these coaching behaviors are represented in measures of the
motivational climate (Cumming et al., 2007). Therefore, differences in athletes’
perceptions of the team’s climate may arise.
In conclusion, previous research on motivation has suggested that players within a
team share different perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. However, to date, it
is unclear what individual factors may contribute to the variability in athletes’ perceptions
(Horn, 2007). Although the literature on coach-player interactions suggests within-team
variability in the individual feedback from the coach as a plausible factor, empirical
evidence is lacking to support such a claim.
Purpose of the Study
The general purpose of the current study was to examine the influence of the
athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback they received from the head coach in
Introduction 4
practices on their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. In addition, the present
study examined the influence of the discrepancy between athletes’ perceived and
preferred individual coach feedback patterns in practices on their perceptions of the
motivational climate.
Significance of the Study Research on motivational climate in youth sport has clearly demonstrated the
positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented team climate. Thus, identifying the
specific coaching behaviors that influence such an environment would provide youth
sport coaches with valuable practical information. Specifically, coaches would have a
clearer understanding on how the individual feedback they provide to their athletes
affects the type of motivational climate perceived within the team. Therefore, instructors
would be more inclined to focus on the feedback they provide to athletes individually in
order to create an effective learning environment for every player within the team.
Moreover, coaches would be better prepared to meet the goals of youth sport which are
centered on enhancing the growth and development of young athletes.
Delimitations
For the purpose of this study, the following delimitations have been identified:
1. Participants were hockey players aged 13-14 years old.
2. Participants were males.
3. Participants were from Bantam AA and BB hockey teams.
Limitations
For the purpose of this study the following limitations have been identified:
1. Results may only be indicative of elite youth hockey participants.
Introduction 5
2. Results may only pertain to hockey.
3. Since this study is examining male athletes’ perceptions, the results may only
apply to that specific sex.
4. The questionnaires are self-reported.
Operational Definitions
For the current study, the following operational definitions were used:
The motivational climate: the athlete’s perception of the type (ego-oriented or
task-oriented) of motivational climate created by coaches in practice and game contexts
by assessing the presence and extent of social comparison, the rewards and punishments
distributed, and the quality of interpersonal relationships (Horn, 2007).
Perceptions of coach feedback: the athlete’s perceptions regarding the type of
individual feedback provided by their head coach in response to their successes and
failures during performance. The feedback can be perceived as positive in nature which
includes praise, encouragement, information, and corrective information, or as negative
in nature which includes criticism, criticism combined with corrective information, and
ignoring an athlete’s performance.
Literature Review 6
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This chapter will consist of three main sections. To begin, a major theory of
achievement motivation, achievement goal theory and an extension of it, the motivational
climate, will be outlined. The second section will identify the influences of coach
feedback on athletes’ perceptions of self-competence and motivation. While the current
study will focus on coach-player interactions in elite youth sport, a third section will
examine teacher-student interactions and its relationship to youth sport.
Motivation
The study of motivation has been a primary area of interest for sport psychology
researchers in the last two decades. Much of the enthusiasm originated from the work of
educational psychologists in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Harwood & Biddle, 2002).
A major focus of this early research was to develop a better understanding of the factors
that influenced a child’s motivation in achievement settings. According to Harter’s
(1981) competence motivation theory, motivation increases when a person successfully
masters a task. Consequently, a successful performance encourages the person to master
more tasks. Moreover, an athlete’s perceptions of self-competence and control are
influenced by the outcome of mastery attempts and feedback from significant others (e.g.,
parents, teachers, and coaches). While Harter’s competence theory allows one to explore
the importance of an individual’s perceptions of their performance, Maehr and Nicholls
(1980) suggested that perceptions of success and failure depended on the individual’s
goal orientation. In other words, Maehr and Nicholls argued that success and failure were
Literature Review 7
not concrete events but rather psychological states influenced by the individual’s
perception of reaching or not reaching his/her goals.
Achievement Goal Theory
Nicholls (1989) noted further that the main goal orientations, task and ego, were
based on how people defined competence. For example, those who were more ego-
oriented perceived ability as performing at a high level but exerting minimal effort. Thus,
when a person was more ego-involved, they judged their performance in relation to
others and had to demonstrate superior talent or outperform others to be satisfied. In
contrast, individuals who were more task-oriented believed that a high level of
performance required significant effort and that the harder you tried, the more able you
felt. Moreover, a performer who was more task-involved was satisfied if they performed
at a level that reflected how they had mastered a task or made personal improvements. In
other words, achievement goal orientations represented the individual’s ‘‘orientation’’ to
the task or situation, and their general focus or purpose for achievement (Pintrich,
Conley, & Kempler, 2003). Academically, achievement goal theory has received
significant empirical attention. More specifically, it clarified how students thought about
themselves and others around them regarding the task they were performing and how
they evaluated their performances (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Nicholls, 1989). In addition,
sport psychology researchers have also used this framework to develop a better
understanding of how athletes’ goal orientations motivated and directed their behavior in
sport.
Research examining achievement goal theory in sport found that ego-involved
individuals were more inclined to engage in strategies or behaviors, whether appropriate
Literature Review 8
or inappropriate (e.g., cheating), designed to increase the chance of winning (McArdle &
Duda, 2002). In contrast, task-involved individuals were more likely to foster adaptive
achievement behaviors, such as persistence in the face of failure, exerting effort, and
selecting challenging goals, regardless of one’s level of perceived competence (Chi,
2004; Duda & Hall, 2001; Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussanu, 1997). Thus, the extensive
work on achievement goal theory has established that a predominately task and/or ego-
involvement has implications for an individual’s attitudes, affective responses, and
behaviors in sport (Gano, Guivernau, Magyar, Waldron, & Ewing, 2005). Moreover,
Nicholls (1989) predicted that an individual’s goal involvement for a particular task was
influenced by his/her dispositional goal orientation, namely the person’s general degree
of task and ego involvement. According to Nicholls (1989, p. 95), dispositional goal
orientations reflect “individual differences in proneness to the different types of
involvement” and tendencies in terms of how success is defined in particular achievement
settings. While an athlete’s dispositional goal orientation influences his/her goals for a
particular situation or task in sport, achievement goal theory also addresses situational
factors that promote task or ego involvement within the athlete. The next section of the
literature will examine one of these situational factors, the motivational climate created
by the coach.
Motivational Climate
The motivational climate refers to a team’s goal structure (e.g., task or ego-
oriented) which is a result of the coach’s personal goal orientation and behaviors.
Depending on the type of climate the coach creates, his/her athletes will be inclined to
adopt a similar goal orientation. Coaches can form a mastery-oriented climate by
Literature Review 9
promoting skill development, effort, and cooperation with teammates, along with
emphasizing the important contributions that all players make to the team (McArdle &
Duda, 2002; Smoll & Smith, 2006). In contrast, a performance-oriented climate occurs
when the coach focuses on outcomes of athletic performance, punishes players for
making mistakes, supports intra-team rivalries, and works more with the top athletes
within the team (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). Therefore, a mastery-oriented climate
offers more of a cooperative learning environment whereas a performance-oriented
climate offers a competitive learning environment. Consequently, athletes’ perceptions of
their team’s motivational climate have been identified as a major factor influencing their
motivation in sport.
The literature examining athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate has
provided consistent support for a task-involving team climate, especially in youth sport
where the focus should be on athletes’ growth and development (Cumming et al., 2007).
Particularly, a task-involving climate has been linked to a variety of outcome variables
such as athletes’ level of intrinsic or self-determined motivation, sport enjoyment,
satisfaction, personal effort, persistence, a more task-oriented goal perspective, and
perceptions of sport competence (Chi, 2004; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992). Moreover,
some support has been found for the negative effects of an ego-involving (performance-
oriented) motivational climate (Treasure & Roberts, 1998; Treasure, Standage, &
Lochbaum, 1999). Specifically, this type of climate has been linked to higher levels of
athletes’ anxiety, worry, and tension, perceived performance pressure, maladaptive
coping strategies, and a more ego-oriented goal perspective.
Literature Review 10
More recently, researchers have expanded the research base on motivational
climate to study other outcome variables that were important in youth sport. For example,
several researchers have found that athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational
climate were associated with sources of sport competence (Halliburton & Weiss, 2002)
and sources of self-confidence in regard to their sport (Magyar & Feltz, 2003). More
specifically, perceptions of a mastery-oriented climate were positively associated with
adaptive or self-referenced sources of sport confidence whereas perceptions of an ego-
oriented climate were positively associated with maladaptive or normative sources of
sport confidence. Additional research has reported that a task-involving motivational
climate was positively related to several team variables, including team cohesion (Heuze,
Sarrazin, Masiero, Raimbault, & Thomas, 2006), perceptions of team improvement in
regards to the technical, tactical, physical, and psychological aspects of the sport
(Balaguer, Duda, Atienza, & Mayo, 2002), and collective efficacy (Heuze et al., 2006;
Magyar, Feltz, & Simpson, 2004). Moreover, Sarrazin and colleagues (2002) reported a
predictive and causal relationship between young athletes’ perceptions of a task-
involving motivational climate, their perceptions of competence, autonomy, and
relatedness, and their level of self-determined motivation. Furthermore, with time,
athletes’ self-determined motivation was predictive of both their intention to drop out and
their actual drop out behavior. This is an important contribution to the literature since it
identifies some of the coaching variables that may influence attrition in youth sport. The
onset of adolescence (ages 11 -12) is a period when discontinuation of sport participation
is at its highest level (Hedstrom & Gould, 2004). Thus, youth sport coaches must
Literature Review 11
understand some of the different coaching factors, such as motivational climate, that
influence drop-out rates among young athletes.
In addition to attrition, team motivational climate has been identified as a
potential factor affecting athletes’ moral judgments, sportspersonship values and beliefs,
and fair play attitudes (Boixados, Cruz, Torregrosa, & Valiente, 2004; Fry & Newton,
2003; Gano et al., 2005; Kavussanu & Spray, 2006; Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, &
Treasure, 2003). In general, these studies have found a positive relationship between a
task-involving team climate and athletes’ sportspersonship orientations, and a positive
relationship between an ego-involving team climate and players’ tendencies to engage in
amoral sport behaviors (e.g., cheating, aggression). Therefore, it is important for youth
sport coaches to create a more task-oriented team climate in order to develop effective
social skills among their athletes.
Despite the considerable amount of research documenting the effects of the
perceived motivational climate, some questions regarding its measurement have recently
been raised. More specifically, some researchers (e.g., Cumming et al., 2007; Duda,
2001; Gano et al., 2005) have questioned whether athletes within a team share similar
perceptions of the motivational climate, and as such, they have recommended measuring
these perceptions as a group level variable. Since motivational climate refers to some of
the coach’s general behaviors in games and practices, these researchers have argued that
players within a team should perceive a similar type of climate created by the coach.
To assess motivational climate at the group level, Papaioannou and colleagues
(2004) recommended aggregating the individual perceived motivational climate scores of
the team members. Motivational climate scores at the level of the individual would then
Literature Review 12
be represented as displacement scores from the group mean (i.e., individuals score minus
group mean). Although Papaioannou et al. recommendations have merit, Cumming et al.
(2007) noted that there are a number of methodological problems associated with the use
of aggregate scores as measures of motivational climate at the group level. More
specifically, Cumming et al. argued that the modest intra-class correlations associated
with the measures of ego and mastery climate suggested team members in their study
only showed modest agreement in how they perceived their coach’s behaviors. An intra-
class correlation of greater than .80 is typically required to ensure inter-rater reliability
among groups of coders in behavioral assessment studies (Hersen, 2006). The intra-class
correlations reported by Papaioannou et al. and Cumming et al. were well below this
reliability criterion. Moreover, they were similar in magnitude to those typically observed
in individual-level variables, such as achievement goals (Smoll, Smith, & Cumming,
2007), and competitive trait anxiety (Smith, Smoll, & Cumming, 2007). In a similar
study, Gano et al. (2005) investigated potential team level effects of the motivational
climate and found that most members of each girl’s volleyball team shared similar
perceptions about the motivational climate. Examination of within-team agreement on the
perceived motivational climate was found to be high for both the task-involving climate
and the ego-involving climate, meaning that individuals on the same team had similar
perceptions of the climate. Consequently, these results suggested that it was appropriate
to aggregate the individual scores to the group level in order to determine the relationship
to aspects of sportspersonship. However the authors also noted that although consensus
was quite high, variance in perceptions did exist.
Literature Review 13
While some of the literature supports measuring the team climate at the group
level, a small group of studies (Cumming, et al., 2007; Duda, Newton, & Yin, 1999;
Magyar et al., 2004) have shown that players within a team do not always share the same
perceptions of the motivational climate. Specifically, Duda et al. found that female
volleyball players within a team were more likely to agree on the presence and extent of a
task-oriented team climate rather than on the aspects of an ego-oriented team climate.
Furthermore, when the mean score of a particular climate (task or ego) on the PMCSQ-2
was higher, the athletes were more consistent in their evaluations of the team’s climate.
Also, when the volleyball players were more satisfied with their team as a whole, there
was a stronger agreement on the mastery involving dimensions of the team climate.
Consistent with these results, when the volleyball players were less satisfied with their
team as a whole, there was more disagreement on the performance involving dimensions
of the team climate. Similarly, Magyar et al. found that competitive junior rowers within
the same boat demonstrated stronger agreement on the dimensions of a mastery-oriented
motivational climate but less consensus on the presence of a performance-oriented
motivational climate. More specifically, individual scores on the PMCSQ-2 indicated that
certain boat members perceived the coach as having favorites and encouraging
comparison among teammates, while other members in the same boat did not perceive
these performance involving dimensions of the climate to be pervasive. Recently,
Cumming et al. argued that it seemed inappropriate to assess the motivational climate at
the group level since members of each youth basketball team in their study only showed
modest agreement on how they perceived their coach’s behaviors. Moreover, the authors
suggested that players were more likely to assess the team’s motivational climate based
Literature Review 14
on their personal interactions with the coach rather than the coach’s general interactions
with the team.
Similarly, Olympiou, Jowett, and Duda (2008) reported that collegiate athletes’
perceptions of their interpersonal relationship with their coach were associated with their
perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. Specifically, their study found that
athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented team climate were associated with athletes’
perceptions of feeling close, being committed, and interacting in a complementary
fashion with their coach. While the perceived ego-oriented team climate features of
punishment for making mistakes and intra-team member rivalry were unrelated to coach-
athlete relationships, athletes’ perceptions of unequal recognition were associated with
their perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship. More specifically, when players
perceived that the coach favored the most talented players within the team, they were
more likely to view their relationship with the coach as lacking in closeness,
commitment, and complementarity. Recently, Smith, Fry, Ethington, and Li (2005) found
that athletes’ perceptions of individual coach feedback were associated with their
perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. When athletes perceived that their
coaches were providing them with praise and encouragement in response to successful
and unsuccessful performances as well as not ignoring mistakes, athletes were more
likely to perceive a task-oriented team climate. In contrast, when athletes perceived that
their coaches were providing them with criticism in response to mistakes, they were more
likely to perceive an ego-oriented team climate. While these results provided some
insight into the relationship between coach-athlete interactions and athletes’ perceptions
of their team’s motivational climate, the Smith et al. study only included female high
Literature Review 15
school athletes and only examined certain aspects of coach feedback (i.e., praise,
encouragement, criticism, ignoring mistakes) so further research is warranted. Although
coach-player interactions may be a potential factor, Horn (2007) indicated that, to date, it
is unclear what individual differences may contribute to such discrepancy in athletes’
perceptions of the team’s climate. While limited research has examined the effects of
coach-player interactions on athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate, the next
section will identify some of the key findings regarding coach feedback in youth sport.
Coach Feedback
According to Harter's (1981) competence motivation theory, adults’ evaluation of
a child's performance affects the child's feelings of competence in that activity (i.e., the
degree to which the child feels capable of achieving mastery). Over time, and with
prerequisite cognitive maturation, the child internalizes the feedback he or she has been
given by significant adults. This cognitive internalization is reflected in the degree to
which the child perceives that he or she has control of performance outcomes. Thus,
coach feedback serves as a source of information that children use to evaluate both their
competence and their ability to control the outcome of their performance. Consequently,
Harter’s competence motivation theory has provided sport psychology researchers with a
framework for examining the effects of coach feedback on athletes’ attitudes and
perceptions of self-competence.
Effects of Coach Feedback
Much of the research on coach feedback was stimulated by a series of studies
conducted by Smith and Smoll and their colleagues at the University of Washington (e.g.,
Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978, 1979; Smith, Smoll, & Hunt, 1977; Smith, Zane, Smoll, &
Literature Review 16
Coppel, 1983). Their work began by developing the Coaching Behavior Assessment
System (CBAS), an observational instrument designed to assess the frequency with
which individual coaches exhibited twelve behavioral dimensions such as informative
and corrective feedback, encouragement, praise, and punishment. Following the
development and testing of the CBAS, Smith and Smoll and their colleagues conducted a
series of research studies designed to examine the link between coaches' behaviors and
young athletes' psychosocial development. Some of these studies (e.g., Smith et al., 1978;
Smith et al., 1983) examined the correlation between observed coaching behaviors and
athletes’ self-esteem and post-season attitudes. Consistent support was found for the
value of an encouraging, supportive, and instructionally-based coaching feedback style.
In contrast, high levels of punishment-oriented feedback were negatively related to
players’ attitudes. In addition to observational studies, other researchers have recently
examined the effects of coach feedback by assessing athletes’ perceptions of the feedback
they received from their coaches (Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black &
Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll, 2006).
Questionnaire versions of the CBAS, such as the Coaching Feedback
Questionnaire (Amorose & Horn, 2000), were therefore developed to measure athletes’
perceptions of their coach’s feedback in games and practices. Participants in these studies
have included intercollegiate athletes (Amorose & Horn, 2000) as well as youth and
adolescent athletes (Allen & Howe, 1998; Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, &
Smoll, 2006). In general, these studies have shown that athletes’ perceptions of
encouraging, supportive, and information-based feedback in response to both player
successes and performance errors positively influenced athletes’ attitudes and perceptions
Literature Review 17
of self-competence. In contrast, athletes’ perceptions of punishment-oriented feedback
and coaches’ tendencies to ignore players’ performance errors as well as their successes
were found to be detrimental to athletes’ psychosocial well-being. Thus, research on the
effects of coaches’ feedback patterns (or verbal behaviors) has revealed the importance of
coach-player interactions in the psychosocial development of young athletes. However
this line of research has primarily focused on the frequency with which coaches provided
particular types of feedback or on the total amount of particular types of feedback
coaches provided their athletes. Moreover, Horn (2007) suggested that there are
alternative, and perhaps more critical, aspects of coaches’ feedback that may be important
to assess.
Horn and colleagues (1985, 1987, 2002, 2006) found that the appropriateness and
contingency of coaches’ feedback might be more critical than the frequency or amount.
Appropriate and performance-contingent feedback from significant others has received
empirical support as a facilitator of children's perceptions of competence and control
(Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978; Kennelly & Kinley, 1975; Lenney, 1977).
Nonreinforcement (i.e., giving players no response after a successful performance) may
clearly be seen as a non-contingent response (Horn, 1985). However, considerable
evidence has suggested that reinforcement or praise, exhibited as an instructional
behavior in academic settings, may not be given contingently. In other words, classroom
teachers have been observed to use praise for motivational or disciplinary purposes and
not as a performance-contingent or appropriate evaluation of the child's performance
(Brophy, 1980). Thus, praise has often been found to be unrelated to or even negatively
correlated with students' academic achievement (Brophy, 1980; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974).
Literature Review 18
In a sport setting, Horn (1985) concluded that high frequencies of both reinforcement and
non-reinforcement may be negatively associated with increased players' perceptions of
self-competence since these coaching responses carried little or no informational
feedback. In addition, coaches' use of inappropriate praise might have established or set
lower expectations for players' performance, resulting in negative self-perceptions
regarding their skill competence (Horn, 1985).
Recently, in a review and synthesis of the empirical and theoretical literature on
the effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation, Henderlong and Lepper (2002)
concluded that praise (as given by adults to children in response to their performance
attempts in an achievement context) undermined, enhanced, or had no effect on
children’s intrinsic motivation for the achievement task at hand. Furthermore,
Henderlong and Lepper suggested that the effects of praise depended on five factors: the
perceived sincerity of the praise, the performance attributions contained in the praise, the
degree to which the praise contributed to the child’s perception of autonomy, the degree
to which the praise conveyed positive information regarding the child’s competence
without relying on social comparisons, and the level or standard of performance and
future expectancies that was contained in the praise. Similarly, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan,
(1999), as well as Mageau and Vallerand (2003) have recently distinguished between
positive feedback (praise) that was administered in an informational or in a controlling
style. For example, positive feedback delivered by adults (teachers, parents, coaches,
laboratory experimenters) in a controlling way generally contained the word “should”
(e.g., “Excellent! You should keep up that level.”). Thus, controlling feedback carried
the implication that the future performance of the learner/performer should conform to
Literature Review 19
the wishes of the person giving the praise (e.g., “Keep it up! I would like you to do even
better in the next game.”). Such feedback, although positive in nature, may be perceived
by athletes as a form of control. This perception of external control or external pressure
may have lowered the athletes’ perceptions of autonomy, and did nothing to increase
perceptions of competence. Therefore, the praise received from the coach may have
resulted in a decrease in the athletes’ level of intrinsic or self-determined motivation.
While extensive research has provided support for certain types of evaluative
feedback such as praise, encouragement, and information regarding performance, some
studies have revealed that athletes’ perceptions of praise and encouragement are not
always perceived as positive coaching behaviors. Therefore, perhaps a more critical
aspect of coach feedback is assessing what type of coaching responses athletes prefer or
need rather than simply examining the type of coaching responses athletes receive.
Consequently, the literature needs to measure the discrepancy between athletes’
perceptions of coach feedback and athletes’ preferred coach feedback to determine if
particular feedback patterns are actually perceived by athletes as positive coaching
behaviors. Although the literature on coach feedback has primarily focused on the effects
of specific feedback styles, several studies have also revealed that coaches were generally
inconsistent with the feedback they provided their athletes.
Variation in Coach Feedback
Smith (2006) recently re-analyzed data collected with the CBAS in earlier
baseball studies (e.g., Smith et al., 1978; Smith & Smoll, 1990). In both these cases, the
data obtained from individual coaches had been aggregated in each coding category and
then expressed as percentages of total behaviors (i.e., 62% of Coach A’s emitted
Literature Review 20
behaviors were praise). In the re-analysis of this data, Smith examined the stability (or
instability) of three forms of coaching behavior (supportive, instructional, and punitive)
across three types of game situations (coach’s team was winning, teams were tied,
coach’s team was losing). Examination of these results revealed that one coach showed a
reasonable level of stability in the three forms of behavior across all three game
situations. For example, the coach demonstrated relatively high levels of supportive and
instructional behavior and relatively low punitive behaviors across all three game
situations. In contrast, the other coach’s profile was much more unstable. More
specifically, his instructional behavior was relatively high when his team was winning
but much lower when his team was tied or losing. When their overall percentages of the
three behaviors were summed across the three game-situation categories, the two coaches
looked very similar in their coaching styles. However when the data was re-analyzed to
examine coaching feedback across game situations, the stability of their profiles differed
considerably. Therefore, certain coaches may be more likely to provide their players with
positive feedback depending on the situation of the game.
Although the results of the Smith and Smoll et al. research project contributed
valuable information concerning the relationship between coaches' behavior and athletes'
self-perceptions, the focus in these studies was on the team as a group (Horn, 1985).
Coaches' behavior was measured by recording the communications that they delivered to
their team during game situations. However, the use of the team or group as the primary
unit of observation and analysis ignored how coaches interacted individually with their
athletes. Moreover, research has demonstrated that there is considerable variation in the
Literature Review 21
frequency and quality of coaches' communications directed to individual players within a
team (Horn, 1984; Rejeski, Darracott, & Hutslar, 1979).
Horn (1985) discovered significant variation in coach feedback when she
observed how junior high softball coaches interacted individually with their players.
Although previous research found discriminatory teaching behaviors toward low ability
students, this study reported that it was the low expectancy players who received more
positive feedback from their coach during performance. More specifically, the low
expectancy players were given more technical instruction and feedback in general and
following mistakes. Moreover, the low expectancy athletes also received more
reinforcement in response to successful performances whereas the high expectancy
players received more criticism following errors and were more often ignored after a
successful performance. Therefore, coaches tended to put more pressure on the high
expectancy athletes. While Horn’s study reported variation in coach-athlete interactions
within a team, this line of research in sport psychology is limited (Horn, 1985). Thus, the
next section will explore variation in teacher-student interactions. Although the context is
different from sport, the literature revealed similar findings regarding the feedback
students received from their teachers.
Teacher-Student Interactions
Extensive research has investigated the communication patterns of classroom and
physical education teachers. The results of these studies have consistently demonstrated
that there was significant variability in teacher-student interactions. This section will
discuss some of the factors that influenced the individual feedback students received from
their teachers.
Literature Review 22
Influence of Teacher’s Expectations
Early research examining interactions in the classroom found that teachers
exhibited preferential behavior toward students as a result of their expectations (Brophy,
& Good, 1974; Chaikin, Sigler, & Derlega, 1974; Crowe, 1977; Kester & Letchworth,
1972; Martinek, 1981). This preferential behavior was either negative or positive and was
communicated in several different ways (Martinek, 1981). For example, positive forms of
communication were expressed non-verbally such as a nod, wink, or a pat on the back. In
addition, verbal forms of reinforcement included teacher’s use of the student’s idea in
class, selecting a student as group captain, or simply allowing a student to respond to a
specific question asked by the teacher (Chaikin et al., 1974). In contrast, negative
teaching behaviors included ignoring the student’s efforts or failing to provide a student
with useful feedback (Crowe, 1977). For example, Chaikin et al. videotaped simulated
tutorial sessions and observed teachers’ non-verbal forms of communication. The results
indicated that teachers who thought they were interacting with the bright students smiled
and nodded their heads more frequently than the teachers who thought they were
interacting with the slow students. Consistent with these results, Kester and Letchworth
provided teachers with designated expectations of certain students and observed that
instructors were more supportive and accepting toward the selected “brighter” students
class.
In addition to interactions within the academic classroom, some researchers (e.g.,
Crowe, 1977; Martinek, & Johnson, 1979) observed teacher-student interactions in
physical education. Once again, a link was found between teacher expectations and
teacher-student interactions. Crowe’s study reported that (a) designated high achievers
Literature Review 23
were found to be treated more warmly by their teachers than the designated low
achievers; (b) designated high achievers were given more opportunities to respond to the
teacher’s questions than the low achievers; (c) designated high achievers received more
attention than the low achievers. Similarly, Martinek and Johnson asked elementary
physical education teachers to rate their students according to how they expected each to
perform in terms of physical achievement. The results of this study showed that the high
expectancy groups received significantly more encouragement, acceptance of ideas and
analytic-type questions than the low expectancy groups. Recently, Drudy and Uí
Chatháin (2002) reported that student–teacher interactions were affected by four key
variables: the gender of the teacher, the class size, the gender-typed subject being taught
(i.e., feminine traditional versus masculine traditional) and the gender composition of the
class.
Influence of Student’s Gender
Teachers may treat students differently according to the gender-typed subject of
a class. It has been proposed that teachers hold higher expectations of males in the
sciences and females in languages (Worrall & Tsarna, 1987). Moreover, certain tasks and
activities have traditionally been assigned to males and others to females. These
categorizations are social constructions based on societal expectations regarding
beliefs about gender (Nicaise, Cogérino, Fairclough, Bois, & Davis, 2007). Gender
differences are often found on expectancy measures, particularly for sports stereotyped
by gender role (Eccles & Harold, 1991). Unfortunately, extensive evidence has indicated
that females are stereotyped as less physically competent than males (e.g. Davis, 2000;
Literature Review 24
Eccles, Barber, & Jocefowicz, 1999), while many physical activities in the past have
generally been labelled as masculine (Messner, 1992).
Research in physical education (PE) has often focused on teachers who displayed
gender biased behavior when interacting with their students. More specifically, PE
teachers asked male students more questions, praised male students for good performance
and female students for their effort, and provided male students with more corrective
feedback in regard to physical skills (e.g., Dunbar & O’Sullivan, 1986; Griffin, 1981;
MacDonald, 1990; Mitchell, Blunker, Kluka, & Sullivan, 1995; Napper-Owen, Kovar,
Ermler, & Mehrhof, 1999; Solomon, 1977). There are only a few recent exceptions to the
considerable amount of research over the past 30 years (e.g., McBride, 1990; Placek,
Silverman, Shute, Dodds, & Rife, 1982). For example, McBride studied gender-role
stereotyping by physical educators and found little evidence that students were treated
differently because of their gender. Similarly, Placek and colleagues reported that
elementary teachers provided remarkably equal opportunities for both sexes to participate
and interact.
In conclusion, research on coach-athlete and teacher-student interactions has
revealed variation in the way instructors communicated individually with different
students and players. This variation may partly explain why athletes within a team do not
always perceive the same type of motivational climate created by the coach. To date, it is
unclear what individual factors may contribute to within-team differences in athletes’
perceptions of the motivational climate. However this aspect of the motivational climate
needs to be clarified so that coaches and educators have a better understanding of how to
create a more task-oriented motivational climate for all of their athletes and students.
Literature Review 25
Since many youth sport programs have focused on the growth and development of
athletes, perceptions of a task-oriented team climate would be beneficial due to the
positive psychological and social outcomes that have been associated with this particular
type of climate. Therefore, the current study attempted to answer the following questions:
1. Is there a relationship between perceptions of coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions
of the team’s motivational climate?
Hypothesis: Athlete’s perceptions of positive individual coach feedback will be positively
correlated with perceptions of a task-oriented team climate whereas athlete’s perceptions
of negative individual coach feedback will be positively correlated with perceptions of an
ego-oriented team climate.
2. Is there a relationship between the discrepancy of athletes’ perceived and preferred
coach feedback patterns and athletes’ perceptions of the team’s motivational climate?
Hypothesis: Scores on the discrepancy variable will be positively correlated with
perceptions of an ego-oriented climate and negatively correlated with perceptions of a
task-oriented climate.
3. Is the discrepancy between athletes’ perceived and preferred individual coach feedback
patterns a better predictor of the perceived motivational climate than athletes’ perceptions
of the individual feedback they receive from their head coach.
Hypohesis: Independent of team winning percentage and perceived ability, the
discrepancy variable will result in a stronger correlate of the motivational climate than
athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback they receive from their head coaches.
Method 26
CHAPTER 3
Method
The current study examined the influence of coach feedback on athletes’
perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. This chapter will describe the
participants and the measurement instruments (Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport
Questionnaire-2 and Coaching Feedback Questionnaire) used in this study. In addition,
the data collection and data analysis procedures will be outlined, as well as the
hypotheses.
Participants
The participants were male hockey players (n = 70) from the Bantam AA and BB
divisions (13-14 years old) in the West Island minor hockey region. More players came
from the BB level (n = 58, 82.9%) than to the AA level (n = 12, 17.1%). According to
Hockey Canada (2005), AA and BB are labeled as competitive levels, whereas A and B
are labeled as recreational or community. Although no formal definition exists for each
level of competition, AA and BB are the highest levels and are thus structured and geared
for the most skilled and elite hockey players. Thirty of the players spoke English, ten of
the players spoke French, and thirty players reported that they spoke multiple languages.
A total of 8 teams participated in the study.
Procedures
Prior to collecting data, ethical approval for human subject research was acquired
(Appendix A).. Once each hockey association had agreed to participate in the current
study and had completed the sport organization consent form (Appendix B), the head
coaches of their Bantam AA and BB teams were contacted in order to schedule a time to
Method 27
gather data. This included the completion of 3 items: the Perceived Motivational Climate
for Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000) (Appendix C), the
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000) (Appendix D) and a
demographic questionnaire (Appendix E). All of the questionnaires were administered to
the players approximately one third into their regular season, which gave them suitable
time to become familiar with their coaches’ behaviors and their team’s motivational
climate. When a session was scheduled, players and their respective parents/guardians
were asked to fill out consent and agreement forms (Appendices F & G) prior to the
session. These forms were available in English and in French. Six of the eight teams
scheduled their sessions before practice and two teams scheduled their sessions after
practice. Coaches were not present when the questionnaires were administered. Before
players began completing the PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ, they were asked to fill out a
demographic questionnaire. Since the PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ were only created in
English by other researchers, these questionnaires were not translated into French for the
current study due to validity and reliability issues that may have arisen. In order to ensure
that the players could read English well enough to respond to the questionnaires, both the
player agreement form and the parental consent form asked if players were able to
complete the questionnaires in English. If players were unable to complete any of the
questionnaires in English, they did not participate in the current study. However these
players received reading material since they were obliged to remain with the rest of their
team until all participants completed the questionnaires and one of their coaches returned.
Although ten players reported speaking French, they were able to read and complete all
three questionnaires in English.
Method 28
Measures
Instrumentation for this study consisted of two questionnaires: The PMCSQ-2
and the CFQ. The two instruments will be explained with respect to their development,
scoring, and psychometric properties.
Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2
Early efforts to assess situational goal structures (also referred to as the
motivational climate) were undertaken in the educational setting. Ames and Archer
(1988) identified theoretical distinctions between what they termed a “mastery” and a
“performance” climate in the classroom. The distinctions were based on differential
evaluative classroom practices, the presence and extent of social comparison, the rewards
and punishments distributed, and the quality of the interpersonal relationships being
fostered in each motivational climate. Research in coaching drew upon the theoretical
distinctions developed by Ames and colleagues (Ames, 1984, 1992; Ames & Archer,
1988) to determine its utility in delineating similar dimensions of the motivational
climate in the sport domain. Thus, Seifriz, Duda, and Chi (1992) developed the Perceived
Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire (PMCSQ) to measure the athletes’
perceptions of the type of motivational climate coaches created in practices and in games.
Congruent with classroom-based research, exploratory factor analysis of the PMCSQ
revealed two major facets of the motivational climate operating on adolescent male
basketball teams: a perceived performance (or Ego-Involving) climate and a perceived
mastery (Task-Involving) climate.
Although initial testing of the PMCSQ had supported its psychometric and
concurrent validity (Duda & Whitehead, 1998), Seifriz et al. (1992) and Walling, Duda,
Method 29
and Chi (1993) indicated that the measure could be improved. In particular, it was
proposed that the PMCSQ might be strengthened by conceptualizing the motivational
climate in a hierarchical manner with subscales underlying the higher-order Task
Involving and Ego-Involving scales. This suggestion was in line with Ames’ initial
conceptual framework that viewed task-involving and ego-involving motivational
climates as composites of several underlying dimensions or characteristics of the larger
environment (Ames, 1984, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988).
Based on the conceptual framework of Ames (Ames, 1984, 1992; Ames &
Archer, 1988) and the content of the PMCSQ items, the objectives of the Perceived
Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire – 2 (PMCSQ-2) (Newton, Duda, & Yin,
2000) (see Appendix C) were to expand the original questionnaire and to develop a
hierarchical measure of the motivational climate in sport. The PMCSQ-2 consisted of 33
items which asked athletes to indicate the degree to which their team climate was
characterized by a task-involving or an ego-involving goal perspective. More specifically,
each item asked athletes to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to
strongly agree) the extent to which that particular statement was characteristic of their
team’s climate. The items in the scale were hierarchically ordered into two first-order
factors (a task-involving/mastery-oriented team climate and an ego-
involving/performance-oriented team climate) and six subscales (three subsumed under
each of the two first-order factors) (Newton et al., 2000). A task-involving (mastery-
oriented) team climate was characterized by perceptions among athletes that trying hard
was rewarded and that all players had an important role to fulfill and thus were all
encouraged by the coach. In contrast, in an ego-involving (performance-oriented)
Method 30
climate, athletes perceived that teammates tried to outperform each other, players were
punished for their mistakes, and individual recognition was limited to only a few stars
within the team.
The internal consistency of the two higher-order scales and six subscales proved
to be acceptably high (Newton et al., 2000). Specifically, Cronbach’ s alphas were
calculated for both the second-order factors and each subscale (Cronbach, 1951). The
second-order Task-Involving (a= 0.88) and Ego- Involving (a= 0.87) scales proved to be
internally consistent. Moreover, most of the subscales demonstrated coefficients greater
than .70, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). For
example, all three Task-Involving subscales; Cooperative Learning (a= 0.74), Important
Role (a= 0.79) and Effort/Improvement (a= 0.77) exhibited internal consistency. In terms
of the Ego-Involving subscales; Unequal Recognition (a= 0.86) and Punishment for
Mistakes (a= 0.82) were similarly internally consistent however the Intra-Team Member
Rivalry subscale exhibited low internal consistency (a= 0.54). However, Newton and
colleagues argued that the sex of the participants may have influenced this finding. More
specifically, coaches and the female athletes themselves may have been less likely to
provide and participate fully in competitive training drills and rivalrous interactions in
practices.
The concurrent validity of the PMCSQ-2 was also supported (Newton et al.,
2000). In line with previous research, enjoyment of, and interest in, volleyball correlated
positively with a task-involving climate and all of its subscales. In addition, however,
enjoyment/interest was inversely related to the perception of an ego-involving
motivational climate and all of its subscales, particularly the unequal recognition
Method 31
component. Previous research reported that a major source of satisfaction and enjoyment
in sport is the opportunity to master skills and improve performance (Smith et al., 1983,
1995; Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza, 1989). Furthermore, athletes who perceived a more
ego-involving motivational climate (and the three underlying facets of such a climate)
reported greater feelings of pressure/tension while playing their sport. Based on the
motivational climate literature, an ego-involving motivational climate was conducive to
athletes feeling they must continuously prove their athletic ability in relation to other
players within the team. Moreover, an ego-involving climate appeared to be an
environment in which poor performance and errors led to reprimand by the coach. Such a
team climate produced stress, perhaps in particular among individuals with low perceived
ability (Newton et al., 2000).
The PMCSQ-2 has been used to a great extent in the coaching literature (e.g.,
Boixados, et al., 2004; Chi, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003; Gano et al., 2005; Heuze et al.,
2006; Kavussanu & Spray, 2006; Ommundsen et al., 2003; Sarrazin et al., 2002). These
studies have featured youth (e.g., 10 to 15 years of age), collegiate, and professional
athletes. Moreover, the PMCSQ-2 has been used in a wide range of sports including
handball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, rowing, and gymnastics.
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire
The Coaching Behavioral Assessment System, which has been extensively used
to observe a variety of coaching behaviors, was modified by several researchers to
measure athletes’ perceptions and preferences in regards to their coaches’ feedback
(Allen & Howe, 2000; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1998; Horn & Glenn,
1988). One modified version is the Perceived Coaching Behavior Scale (PCBS; Horn &
Method 32
Glenn, 1988) which included 8 categories of coaching behaviors in response to athletes’
performance successes and failures, with one question for each category. Specifically,
three categories represented coaching responses to athletes’ successes (praise, no
response, praise combined with information about the performance) and five categories
represented coaching responses to athletes’ performance errors (encouragement, no
response, criticism, corrective information about the performance, and criticism
combined with corrective information). Following the development of the PCBS, Black
and Weiss modified this scale in a study that examined young swimmers’ perceptions of
their coaches’ behaviors. The modified scale added two behavioral categories:
information only, in response to a successful performance, and encouragement combined
with corrective information, in response to an unsuccessful performance. In order to
increase measurement reliability of the scale, each of the 10 categories was represented
by three items instead of only one. Swimmers were asked to indicate the frequency with
which their coaches displayed specific feedback patterns. They responded to the 30 items
by rating each item on a Likert scale from always (5) to never (1). In addition, an open-
ended questionnaire was included to determine whether the coach’s responses were based
on practices, swim meets, or both. The majority of swimmers indicated that their answers
were based on both practices and swim meets. While the Black and Weiss version of the
CBAS included 10 categories of coach feedback, one of its limitations was that it did not
assess non-verbal communication from the coach. Therefore, Allen and Howe expanded
the scale by adding two non-verbal feedback categories: nonverbal praise in response to a
successful performance or effort and non-verbal criticism in response to an unsuccessful
performance or mistake. Since their study included adolescent field hockey players, some
Method 33
of the items on the scale were modified so that the questionnaire was appropriate for field
hockey.
Similar to the previous scales, the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (Amorose &
Horn, 2000) (Appendix D) was developed to assess athletes’ perceptions and preferences
regarding the type of individual feedback their coaches provided them in response to their
performance successes and failures. The CFQ consists of 16 items representing eight
different types of feedback responses. These eight categories include three that are given
by coaches in response to athletes’ performance successes (praise/reinforcement, non-
reinforcement, reinforcement combined with technical instruction) and five that are given
in response to athletes’ performance errors (mistake-contingent encouragement, ignoring
mistakes, corrective instruction, punishment and corrective instruction combined with
punishment). These feedback categories correspond to those categories identified in the
original CBAS, in addition to reinforcement combined with technical instruction. For
each of the 16 items, athletes are asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (very typical
to not at all typical) how typical it is for their coach to give them that particular type of
feedback during practices and games. In addition to athletes’ perceptions of their
coaches’ feedback, athletes are also asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (prefer very much
to do not prefer at all) how much they prefer each type of feedback.
Amorose and Horn (2000) used the CFQ in a study examining collegiate athletes’
perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors. Participants represented a variety of sports such
as football, field hockey, gymnastics, ice hockey, swimming, and wrestling. The internal
consistency of the measure was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. All of the subscales
demonstrated coefficients greater than .70, indicating an acceptable level of internal
Method 34
consistency (Nunnally, 1978). Recently, the CFQ was modified for use in physical
education (Nicaise, Cogérino, Bois, & Amorose, 2006). More specifically, these
researchers measured students’ perceptions of the feedback their teachers provided them
in response to their performance successes and failures in physical education activities.
Although the current study used the CFQ (Amorose & Horn, 2000) to measure
athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ feedback, some of the items were modified. More
specifically, all of the items that represented informative feedback in response to a
successful (e.g., items 3, 4) or unsuccessful (e.g., items 4, 5, 8, 10) performance were
more ice hockey specific in order to make the questionnaire more appropriate for the
current study. These items were modified based on the ice hockey experiences of the
present investigators and the head coach of the McGill’s men’s ice hockey team.
Following these changes, the questionnaire was pilot tested with a Bantam AA ice
hockey team to ensure that the modifications were appropriate and concise. Moreover,
the pilot study assessed whether the players in this age cohort were able to complete and
comprehend the CFQ. .
Data Analysis
In order to test the first three hypotheses, correlation analysis was used to measure
the degree of the relationships between athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback, the
discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions of
their team’s motivational climate. Factors (e.g., perceived ability, team’s winning
percentage) that may have influenced these relationships were controlled for when
correlation analysis was used. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the fourth
Method 35
hypothesis which examined the strength of the coach feedback and discrepancy variables
as predictors of the motivational climate.
Results 36
CHAPTER 4
Results
This chapter presents the findings examining the relationship between individual
coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. To begin,
descriptive statistics for the measurement instruments are presented. The following
section presents the results of a correlation analysis which includes Pearson correlation
coefficients, followed by the results of a hierarchical regression analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, and additional descriptive statistics are presented
in Table 1. A higher mean was reported for a task-oriented climate than an ego-oriented
climate. Similarly, a higher mean was reported for perceived positive feedback than
perceived negative feedback. All scales had adequate internal consistencies (PMCSQ-2,
α=.87-.89; CFQ, α=.77-.78) except for perceived and preferred negative coach feedback
(α=.49-.65).
Table 1
The Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum, Maximum, Skewness, and Kurtosis for all measurement instruments (N=70)
Variable Min Max Mean SD Skewnessa Kurtosisb
Task-oriented climate (PMCSQ-2) 26.00 85.00 60.91 12.06 -.63 .59 Ego-oriented climate (PMCSQ-2) 20.00 68.00 40.56 11.64 .49 -.29 Perceived positive feedback (CFQ) 9.00 37.00 23.56 6.02 -.07 -.17 Perceived negative feedback (CFQ) 11.00 31.00 19.89 4.77 .33 -.45 Preferred positive feedback (CFQ) 18.00 40.00 30.33 5.67 -.38 -.64 Preferred negative feedback (CFQ) 8.00 33.00 16.47 5.24 .70 .75 Discrepancy (CFQ) .00 20.00 6.84 4.70 .62 -.16 Discrepancy between positive feedback .00 27.00 7.91 6.25 .82 .49 Discrepancy between negative feedback .00 18.00 5.21 4.21 1.13 1.16 Perceived ability 1.00 5.00 4.00 .70 -1.12 3.78 Team win percentage .25 .86 .60 .18 -1.09 -.20 Note. a Std Error Skewness= .287, b Std Error Kurtosis= .566
Results 37
Correlation Analysis
Pearson correlation coefficients were examined for the relationships between
perceptions of individual coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and
preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. Significant
correlations were reported for the relationship between perceptions of positive coach
feedback and perceptions of a task-oriented climate and for the relationship between
perceptions of negative coach feedback and an ego-oriented climate. Moreover, a positive
relationship was found between the discrepancy variable and perceptions of an ego-
oriented climate whereas a negative relationship was found between the discrepancy
variable and perceptions of a task-oriented climate (see Table 2).
Results 38
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Task -- .80** .83** .91** -.44** -33** -.46** -.04 .48** -.31** -.03 -.15 -.36** -.44** -.36** -.13 .12 2. Cooperative learning -- .52** .62** -.20 -.18 -.22 .05 .31** -.16 .04 -.10 -.18 -.25* -.22 -.14 -.13
3. Important role -- .61** -.43** -.29** -.45** -.14 .39** -.35** -.06 -.10 -.37** -.40** -.40** -.19 -.11 4. Effort -- -.43** -.33** -.46** -.01 .49** -.27* -.03 -.16 -.33** -.44** -.30* -.03 -.08 5. Ego -- .71** .92** .56** -.25* -.50** -.01 .26* .36** .28* .35** .22 -.05 6. Punishment -- .46** .12 -.24* .49** .02 .07 .15 .21 .42** .16 -.03 7. Unequal recognition -- .42** -.23 .39** -.05 .31** .42** .26* .28* .24 -.11
8. Rivalry -- -.05 .25* .06 .12 .11 .14 .05 .03 .13 9. Perceived positive feedback -- -.20 -.18 .13 -.26* -.63** -.32** .02 -.21
10. Perceived negative feedback -- .03 .34** .18 .23 .63** .21 .31**
11. Preferred positive feedback -- -.17 .14 .49** .11 .02 -.02
12. Preferred negative feedback -- .17 -.22 -.22 .04 .18
13. Discrepancy -- .44** .22 .25* .08 14. Discrepancy positive
Table 2
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the team’s motivational climate
-- 30* .02 .09
-- 2** .15
-- .02
--
.
15. Discrepancy negative .3
16. Average ability - 17. Team win percentage
p < .05; ** p < .01
Results 39
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
To test the strength of the coach feedback and discrepancy variables as predictors
of the motivational climate, and after controlling for team winning percentage and
perceived athletic ability, negative feedback from the coach (B=.51) was a significant
(p≤.05) correlate of an ego-oriented team climate (see Table 3). The perceived-preferred
discrepancy (B=.23) was also a significant (p≤.05) correlate, with the final model
accounting for 36.9% of the variance in an ego-oriented climate. In contrast, when
predicting a task-oriented team climate (see Table 4), positive coach feedback (B=.44)
was a significant (p≤.05) correlate and the discrepancy did not emerge as a significant
correlate. The final model accounted for 31% of the variance in a task-oriented climate.
Results 40
Table 3
Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability, perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of an ego-oriented motivational climate
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig. Correlations
B Std. Error
Beta Zero-order
Partial Part
(Constant) 26.67 9.34 2.86 .01 Perceived ability 3.61 1.96 .22 1.84 .07 .22 .22 .22
1
Team win percentage -.419 7.90 -.01 -.05 .96 -.01 -.01 -.01 (Constant) 26.88 10.18 2.64 .01 Perceived ability 1.83 1.73 .11 1.06 .29 .22 .13 .11 Team win percentage -14.82 7.32 -.23 -2.02 .05 -.01 -.25 -.21 Perceived positive feedback -.37 .20 -.20 -1.84 .07 -.24 -.23 -.19
2
Perceived negative feedback 1.22 .27 .51 4.49 .00 .49 .49 .46 (Constant) 25.29 9.95 2.54 .01 Perceived ability .93 1.74 .06 .54 .59 .22 .07 .05 Team win percentage -15.50 7.15 -.24 -2.17 .03 -.01 -.26 -.22 Perceived positive feedback -.27 .20 -.15 -1.36 .18 -.24 -.17 -.14 Perceived negative feedback 1.19 .27 .50 4.49 .00 .49 .49 .45
3
Discrepancy .55 .26 .23 2.10 .04 .33 .26 .21
Results 41
Table 4
Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability, perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of a task-oriented motivational climate
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig. Correlations
B Std. Error
Beta Zero-order
Partial Part
(Constant) 76.51 9.65 7.93 .00 Perceived ability -2.21 2.02 -.13 -1.09 .28 -.13 -.13 -.13
1
Team win percentage -11.82 8.16 -.17 -1.45 .15 -.17 -.18 -.17 (Constant) 56.53 10.86 5.21 .00 Perceived ability -1.60 1.84 -.10 -.87 .39 -.13 -.11 -.09 Team win percentage -.58 7.81 -.10 -.07 .94 -.17 -.01 -.01 Perceived positive feedback .86 .22 .44 4.00 .00 .48 .45 .42
2
Perceived negative feedback -.47 .29 -.19 -1.63 .11 -.30 -.20 -.17 (Constant) 57.93 10.73 5.40 .00 Perceived ability -.82 1.87 -.05 -.44 .66 -.13 -.06 -.05 Team win percentage .01 7.70 .00 .00 1.00 -.17 .00 .00 Perceived positive feedback .77 .22 .40 3.55 .00 .48 .41 .37 Perceived negative feedback -.45 .29 -.18 -1.57 .12 -.30 -.19 -.16
3
Discrepancy -.48 .29 -.19 -1.70 .09 -.33 -.21 -.18
Discussion 42
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of the athletes’
perceptions of the individual feedback received from the head coach in practices on their
perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. The current study also examined the
influence of the discrepancy between perceived and preferred individual coach feedback
patterns on athletes’ perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. Overall, the findings
suggested that the individual feedback provided by the head coach influenced athletes’
perceptions of their team’s climate. Moreover, the results indicated that the discrepancy
between preferred and perceived coach feedback was a significant correlate of the
motivational climate. This chapter will discuss these findings as they pertain to previous
research, the theoretical implications of the current study, and recommendations for
future research.
Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback
As hypothesized, athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback and their
perceptions of a task-oriented climate were significantly correlated. Positive coach
feedback included praise in response to successful performances as well as
encouragement and technical instruction in response to mistakes. This finding is
consistent with previous research. Specifically, a task-oriented climate was associated
with female high school athletes’ perceptions of their coaches providing them with
praise, encouragement, and not ignoring their mistakes (Smith, Fry, Ethington, & Li,
2005). Similarly, Olympiou, Jowett, and Duda (2008) reported that collegiate athletes’
perceptions of a task-oriented team climate were associated with athletes’ perceptions of
Discussion 43
feeling close, being committed, and interacting in a complementary fashion with their
coach. Likewise, the current study reported that young male hockey players’ perceptions
of praise, encouragement, and technical instruction from the head coach were positively
correlated with their perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Based on the present
results, athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback in response to successful and
unsuccessful performances were more likely to make athletes feel that the coach valued
their effort, and that the coach believed their hard work would help them improve their
skills over time (Smith et al., 2005). These are all aspects of a task-oriented team climate
(Newton & Duda, 1999). According to Achievement Goal Theory, coaches can create a
task-oriented climate by reducing the importance of winning and focusing on other
participation motives such as skill development, effort, and affiliation with teammates.
Therefore, the current findings were in line with the tenets of Achievement Goal Theory.
Based on these results, youth sport coaches need to demonstrate such behaviors in
practice in order to create an effective team climate.
Outcomes associated with positive feedback and a task-oriented climate are well-
documented. Encouraging, supportive, and information-based feedback given in response
to athletes’ performances in sport are related to increased perceptions of competence and
an increase in intrinsic motivation (e.g., Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn, 2000;
Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll, 2006). Similarly, several recent studies
have reported that athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented climate were positively
associated with adaptive or self-referenced sources of sport confidence (e.g., Chi, 2004;
Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Magyar & Feltz, 2003; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992).
Therefore, strategies to improve both perceptions of positive feedback and subsequent
Discussion 44
task motivational climates need to be targeted in coaching programs and in practice.
Since the current findings demonstrated that athletes’ perceptions of positive coach
feedback was a significant predictor of a task-oriented team climate, encouraging,
supportive, and information-based feedback may partly explain why a task-oriented team
climate has been linked to sources of sport competence and intrinsic motivation.
In addition to positive coach feedback, this study also examined the relationship
between negative coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions of the team climate. As
hypothesized, a significant relationship was observed between perceptions of negative
coach feedback and an ego-oriented climate. More specifically, perceptions of negative
coaching behaviors such as criticism and ignoring performance were positively correlated
with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Similarly, Smith et al. (2005) reported
that athletes’ perceptions of criticism from their coach in response to mistakes were more
likely to be associated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Likewise,
Olympiou et al. (2008) reported that negative coach-athlete interactions were associated
with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. In particular, when players felt that the
coach favored the most talented players within the team, they were more likely to view
their relationship with the coach as lacking in closeness, commitment, and
complementarity. Based on the current findings, hockey players’ perceptions of negative
coach feedback in response to successful and unsuccessful performances was associated
with their perceptions that players would be punished for poor performances, would not
receive positive feedback unless they were the best players, and that they had to focus on
the outcome of their performance (Smith et al., 2005). Thus, the current findings are
consistent with Achievement Goal Theory, which suggests that an ego-oriented climate
Discussion 45
occurs when the coach promotes intra-team rivalries, favors the most talented players,
and punishes players for making mistakes (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). Consequently,
coaches should avoid using such behaviors in practice if their goal is to create a task-
oriented team climate.
Several studies on coach feedback reported that athletes’ perceptions of negative
coaching behaviors such as punishment-oriented feedback and tendencies to ignore
players’ performance undermined their intrinsic motivation (e.g., Allen & Howe, 1998;
Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming et al., 2006). Likewise,
extensive research on motivational climate has demonstrated that athletes’ perceptions of
an ego-oriented team climate were linked to higher levels of athletes’ anxiety, worry, and
tension, perceived performance pressure, and maladaptive coping strategies (Treasure &
Roberts, 1998; Treasure, Standage, & Lochbaum, 1999). The current findings indicated a
significant relationship between athletes’ perceptions of negative coach feedback and
their perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Therefore, coaching behaviors such as
criticism and ignoring players’ individual performances may partly explain why an ego-
oriented team climate can be detrimental to athletes’ psychosocial well-being.
Based on these current findings, the individual feedback received from the coach
is likely to be an important source of information that athletes use to assess their team’s
motivational climate. That being said, the current study examined athletes’ general
perceptions of positive and negative individual coach feedback. Therefore, it would be
interesting for future research to examine specific aspects of positive and negative coach
feedback patterns (i.e., praise, encouragement, technical instruction, criticism, and
ignoring mistakes) and to determine if certain coach feedback patterns are stronger
Discussion 46
correlates of the motivational climate than others. This type of research would provide
youth sport coaches with valuable practical information by identifying which specific
coaching behaviors help foster a task-oriented and an ego-oriented team climate.
Influence of the Discrepancy between Preferred and Perceived Coach Feedback
As hypothesized, the discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach
feedback was significantly correlated with athletes’ perceptions of the motivational
climate. Specifically, a discrepancy in preferred and perceived feedback was positively
correlated with an ego-oriented climate and negatively correlated with a task-oriented
climate. This relationship between discrepancy and an ego-oriented climate remained
significant when team winning percentage and perceived ability were taken into account.
Based on these results, players who felt that their coach did not provide them with
individual feedback that they desired were more likely to believe that their coach was
more concerned with the outcome of their performance than their development as a
player. For example, if players preferred technical instruction from their coach in
response to performance errors in practice but received more criticism, they were more
likely to feel that their coach punished players for making mistakes instead of
encouraging them to improve their skills. Therefore, these findings support Achievement
Goal Theory, which proposes that coaches are more likely to create an ego-oriented team
climate when they focus on participation motives such as winning rather than skill
development. Consequently, the discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback
impacts an athlete’s motivation. Thus, the current findings can be further explained by
Self-Determined Motivation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). More specifically, the
Discussion 47
discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback may be linked to athletes’
perceptions of autonomy supportive and controlling coaching behaviors.
According to Self-Determined Motivation Theory, athletes perceive their
coaches’ behaviors as autonomy-supportive or as autocratic and controlling. Autonomy
supportive means that an individual in a position of authority (e.g., an instructor or a
coach) takes the other’s (e.g., a student or an athlete) perspective, acknowledges the
other’s feelings, and provides the other with pertinent information and opportunities for
choice while minimizing the use of pressures and demands (Deci & Black, 2000). All
these coaching behaviors are aspects of a task-oriented climate. In contrast, coaching
behaviors that are perceived by athletes as autocratic and controlling are more likely to
create an ego-oriented climate (Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002). In
the present study, when players received coach feedback that they felt they did not need
or want, they were more likely to feel that the coach did not support their individual
needs and that future performances had to conform to the wishes of the coach. Therefore,
a discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback may have been perceived by
athletes as a form of control. Consequently, athletes that reported a higher discrepancy
between preferred and perceived coach feedback were more likely to view their head
coach’s behaviors as ego-oriented. Future research would be warranted to better examine
the association between autonomy-supportive and controlling coach behaviors and the
links to coach feedback.
While no research has examined the influence of the discrepancy between
preferred and perceived coach feedback on athletes’ motivation, several researchers have
suggested that positive coaching behaviors such as praise and encouragement do not
Discussion 48
always enhance athletes’ intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;
Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Thus, there are alternative and
perhaps more critical aspects of coach feedback such as the discrepancy in preferred and
perceived coach feedback than simply examining the type of feedback athletes’ perceive
from their coach. Similarly, teachers’ use of praise or encouragement has been unrelated
to or even negatively correlated with students' academic achievement (Brophy, 1980;
Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Thus, some studies (e.g., Deci et al., 1999; Mageau &
Vallerand, 2003) have recently distinguished between positive coach feedback (praise)
that was administered in an informational or in a controlling style. In other words, the use
of praise for motivational or disciplinary purposes was more likely to be perceived by
athletes as a form of control and thus decreased their levels of intrinsic motivation. In
contrast, coaches who used praise as an appropriate evaluation of their athletes’
performances were more likely to increase athletes’ levels of self-competence and
intrinsic motivation. Similarly, the current results reported that the discrepancy variable
was related to athletes’ perceptions of autonomy supportive and controlling coaching
behaviors. Together, the findings suggest that the appropriateness and effectiveness of
individual coach feedback may be influenced by whether athletes view the feedback as
autonomy supportive or as controlling..
Contrary to what was hypothesized in the present study, athletes’ perceptions of
coach feedback were a stronger predictor of the motivational climate than the discrepancy
variable. Since no research has examined the influence of the discrepancy variable on
athletes’ perceptions of their team’s climate, the current findings revealed an antecedent
of the motivational climate that was not previously identified.. Therefore, the discrepancy
Discussion 49
between preferred and perceived coaching behaviors is likely to be an important aspect of
coaching that requires further investigation. Depending on the level of competition and
the athlete’s perceived ability, these coaching preferences are likely to vary significantly
from athlete to athlete, and therefore, may represent important individual factors when
evaluating specific coaching behaviors. In the present study, participants were elite
Bantam aged hockey players. Thus, the current results demonstrated that the discrepancy
between skilled teenage hockey players’ preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns
was associated with their perceptions of the motivational climate created by the coach.
However, athletes participating at a recreational level (i.e., less competitive level of play)
are likely to have very different preferences and needs in regards to coaching. Thus, it
would be worthwhile for future studies to investigate if athletes’ level of competition and
their perceived ability influence their preferred coaching behaviors. That being said, the
current results suggested that youth sport coaches should become familiar with their
athletes’ personal preferences regarding coach feedback patterns in order to help foster a
task-oriented team climate and avoid creating an ego-oriented team climate.
Summary 50
CHAPTER 6
This chapter presents a summary of the current study followed by its limitations.
The final section discusses practical recommendations for coaching and youth sport.
Summary
The motivational climate created by the coach has been identified as one of the
primary variables that can impact an athlete’s motivation in sport (Ames, 1992; Newton,
Duda, & Yin, 2000). Research on motivational climate has clearly demonstrated many of
the positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented climate, especially in youth sport
(Boixados, Cruz, Torregrosa, & Valiente, 2004; Chi, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003;
Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Magyar & Feltz, 2003; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992). Since
the motivational climate refers to the coach’s general behaviors in games and practices, it
is traditionally assumed that players within a team perceive the same type of team
climate. However several recent studies have reported that athletes within the same team
do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate (Cumming, Smoll,
Smith, & Grossbard, 2007; Duda, Newton, & Yin, 1999; Magyar, Feltz, & Simpson,
2004). To date, it is unclear what individual differences may contribute to such
discrepancy in athletes’ perceptions of the team’s climate. Several sport psychology
researchers (i.e., Cumming et al., 2007; Horn, 2007; Olympiou, Jowett, & Duda, 2008;
Smith, Fry, Ethington, & Li, 2005) have suggested coach-athlete interactions as a
potential factor. Therefore, one goal of the present study was to examine the influence of
the athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback received from the head coach on their
perceptions of the team’s motivational climate.
Summary 51
While several studies (i.e., Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black
& Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll, 2006) have provided support for certain
types of evaluative feedback such as praise, encouragement, and information regarding
performance, some studies (i.e., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Henderlong & Lepper,
2002; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) have revealed that athletes’ perceptions of praise and
encouragement do not always result in positive outcomes. Therefore, perhaps a
significant aspect of coach feedback is assessing what type of coaching responses athletes
prefer or need rather than simply examining the type of coaching responses athletes
perceive. Thus, a second goal of the current study was to examine the influence of the
discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback on athletes’ perceptions of
the motivational climate.
The participants in this study were 70 male hockey players from the Bantam AA
and BB divisions (13-14 years old) in the West Island minor hockey region. Once each
hockey association had agreed to participate in the current study and had completed the
sport organization consent form, the head coaches of their Bantam AA and BB teams
were contacted in order to schedule a time to gather data. This included the completion of
3 items: the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2, the Coaching
Feedback Questionnaire, and a demographic questionnaire.
Correlation analysis was used to measure the degree of the relationships between
athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred
coach feedback, and athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. As
hypothesized, athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback were positively correlated
with perceptions of a task-oriented team climate whereas athletes’ perceptions of
Summary 52
negative coach feedback were positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented
team climate. In addition, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach
feedback was a negative correlate of a task-oriented climate and a positive correlate of an
ego-oriented climate.
When team winning percentage and perceived ability were controlled for in the
regression analysis, perceptions of coach feedback emerged as a significant predictor of
the motivational climate. In particular, athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback
were significantly correlated with a task-oriented climate whereas perceptions of negative
coach feedback were significantly correlated with an ego-oriented climate. The
discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback only significantly predicted
an ego-oriented team climate.
In sum, the present findings suggested that the individual feedback received from
the coach was likely to be an important source of information that athletes used to assess
their team’s motivational climate. As suggested by Achievement Goal Theory (Newton &
Duda, 1999), coaching behaviors that reduce the importance of winning and that focus on
other participation motives such as skill development, effort, and affiliation with
teammates are more likely to create a task-oriented climate. In contrast, coaching
behaviors that make athletes feel that they would be punished for poor performances,
would not receive positive feedback unless they were the best, and that they had to focus
on the outcome of their performance were more likely to create an ego-oriented climate.
Moreover, the current findings also indicated that the discrepancy between perceived and
preferred coach feedback influenced athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. In
line with the tenets of Self-Determined Motivation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985),
Summary 53
coaching behaviors that were perceived by athletes as needs supportive were more likely
to create a task-oriented team climate whereas coaching behaviors that were perceived as
controlling were more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate.
Limitations
While the current study identified antecedents of the motivational climate that
were not previously reported, there are several limitations that must be discussed. To
begin, all of the items on the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire that measured
informative feedback were modified for the sport of ice hockey. Prior to collecting data,
the questionnaire was pilot tested with a Bantam AA ice hockey team to ensure that the
modifications were appropriate and concise. Although the pilot test was successful, the
internal consistency of these items was not calculated. Moreover, this may explain why
items pertaining to perceived and preferred negative feedback did not indicate adequate
alpha coefficients (α=.49-.65) in the data analysis of the current study. Another limitation
regarding the CFQ was the validity of the items measuring coach feedback patterns. The
instructions on the questionnaire asked participants to rate each statement in terms of how
typical their coach gave them a specific type of feedback pattern (i.e., encouragement,
praise, technical instruction, criticism, and ignoring performance) after a successful or
unsuccessful performance. Despite this, if the feedback statement was not similar to the
specific feedback provided by the coach, participants may have reported that statement as
not typical at all even though the statement was designed to represent a general feedback
pattern. For example, players may have reported lower levels of criticism because the
specific statements measuring this type of feedback were not similar to the typical
criticism received from their coach. In contrast, the present study assumed that players
Summary 54
who reported lower levels of criticism from their coach did so because they felt that it
was not typical of their coaches to provide them with such feedback. Consequently,
players’ ratings of the feedback statements on the questionnaire may not necessarily
reflect their actual perceptions of their coach’s typical feedback patterns.
The present research reported a significant relationship between athletes’
perceptions of the individual feedback provided by the coach and their perceptions of the
motivational climate. Despite the current findings, it should be noted that only certain
dimensions of coach feedback were measured, thus limiting the generalizability of these
results. To begin, participants were instructed to report the typical individual feedback
provided by their head coach. However, team sports like hockey include several assistant
coaches who also provide players with feedback in response to their performances. Thus,
the individual feedback provided by the assistant coach(es) is likely to be an important
aspect of coach feedback that future research may want to consider exploring.
Consequently, the current results on coach feedback can not be generalized to all
members of the coaching staff. In addition, the present study only measured the typical
feedback provided by head coaches in practices. However, players receive a significant
amount of individual feedback from their head coach in games as well. While the
feedback provided by coaches in games is also likely to influence athletes’ perceptions of
the motivational climate, the current results are limited to the feedback players received
in practices. Furthermore, the CFQ only measured different types of verbal coach
feedback patterns. However, the scale that Allen and Howe (2000) used in their study to
assess athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback included items that measured non-verbal
forms of coach feedback. Thus, non-verbal coach feedback such as a nod, wink, or a pat
Summary 55
on the back may also influence athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate.
Consequently, this represents another limitation for the present research. It should also be
noted that the current study did not account for potential clustering within teams. Lastly,
the present study only included elite male hockey players, thus limiting its
generalizability.
Practical Implications
The results of this study have identified specific coaching behaviors (i.e., praise,
encouragement, technical instruction, and preferred feedback) that influenced athletes’
perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Previous research (Boixados et al., 2004;
Chi, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003; Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Magyar & Feltz, 2003;
Seifriz et al., 1992) on motivational climate in youth sport has demonstrated the positive
outcomes (i.e., self-determined motivation, sport enjoyment, satisfaction, personal effort,
persistence, a more task-oriented goal perspective, perceptions of sport competence, and
sportspersonship attitudes) associated with a task-oriented team climate. In addition,
researchers (i.e., Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002) have found that
with time, athletes’ self-determined motivation was predictive of both their intention to
drop out and their actual drop out behavior. Therefore, understanding some of the
coaching behaviors that help foster such an environment provides youth sport coaches
with valuable practical information. Based on the current results, coaches are encouraged
to provide athletes with praise and technical instruction in response to a successful
performance during practice. However, when a player makes a mistake in practice,
coaches should provide their athletes with encouragement and information on how to
correct their performance. Coaching behaviors such as ignoring a player’s performance
Summary 56
and criticism are more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate. Furthermore,
coaches need to be aware of the athlete’s individual preferences regarding coach
feedback in order to create more of a task-oriented team climate. More specifically,
providing players with feedback that is not in line with their coaching preferences is more
likely to result in athletes’ perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. By developing a
clearer understanding on how the individual feedback coaches provide to their athletes
affects the type of motivational climate perceived within the team, coaches are better
prepared to meet the goals of youth sport which are centered on enhancing the growth
and development of young athletes.
In addition to the quality of individual feedback, coaches also need to be more
consistent with the quality of individual feedback they provide to different players within
the team. Some studies (i.e., Horn, 1984; Rejeski, Darracott, & Hutslar, 1979) have
reported variation in how the coach interacts individually with different team members.
Consequently, some of the literature (e.g., Cumming, et al., 2007; Duda et al., 1999;
Magyar et al., 2004) on motivational climate has reported that athletes within the same
team do not always perceive the same type of climate created by the coach. Moreover,
Cumming et al. found that variability in athletes’ perceptions of the team’s climate
indicated that players were more likely to evaluate coach behaviors on the basis of their
own personal interactions with the coach rather than interactions between the coach and
the group as a whole. Based on these findings, coaches should focus on the feedback they
provide to athletes individually in order to create an effective learning environment for
every player within the team.
References 57
References
Allen, J. B., & Howe, B. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent
athletes' perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 20, 280-299.
Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A
cognitive motivational analysis. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education: student motivation (pp. 177-208). New York: Academic
Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and adaptive motivational patterns: The role of the
environment. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161–
176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260- 267.
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate
athletes' gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84.
Balaguer, I., Duda, J. L., Atienza, F. L., & Mayo, C. (2002). Situational and dispositional
goals as predictors of perceptions of individual and team improvement,
satisfaction and coach ratings among elite female handball teams. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 3, 292-308.
References 58
Boixados, M., Cruz, J., Torregrosa, M., & Valiente, L. (2004). Relationships among
motivational climate, satisfaction, perceived ability, and fair play attitudes in
young soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 301-317.
Brophy, J. (1980). Teacher praise: A functional analysis (Occasional Paper No. 28). East
Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and
consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brown, S., Brown, D., & Hussey, K. (1996). Promote equality in the classroom.
Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 9, 19–22.
Chaikin, A., Sigler, E., & Derlega, V. (1974). Non-verbal mediators of teacher
expectancy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 144-149.
Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.),
Handbook on research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York:
Macmillan.
Chi, L. (2004). Achievement goal theory. In T. Morris, & J. Summers (Eds.), Sport
psychology: Theory, applications, and issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 152–174). Sydney,
Australia: Wiley.
Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation
communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49,
389-410.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coeý cient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 296-334.
References 59
Crowe, P. (1977). An observational study of expectancy effects and their mediating
mechanisms on students of physical education activity classes. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. (2007). Is winning everything?
The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in
youth sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 322-336.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, R. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68-78.
Drudy, S., & Uí Chatháin, M. (2002). Gender effects in classroom interaction: Data
collection, self-analysis, and reflection. Evaluation and Research in Education 16,
34–50.
Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and
clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.) Advances in
motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129-182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
References 60
Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport. Recent extensions and
future directions. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.),
Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 417–443). New York: Wiley.
Duda, J., & Nicholls, J. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork
and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299.
Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical
domain. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology
measurement (pp. 21-48). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Dunbar, R. R., & O’Sullivan, M. M. (1986). Effects of intervention on differential
treatment of boys and girls in elementary physical education lessons. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 166–175.
Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned
helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom, and
III. An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268-276.
Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. and Jocefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational,
occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of
achievement-related choices. In W. Swann, B. J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert
(Eds) Sexism and Stereotypes in Modern Society, (pp. 153–192). Washington,
DC: APA.
References 61
Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying
the Eccles Expectancy-Value Model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–
35.
Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38, 1025-1034.
Fry, M. D. & Newton, M. (2003). Application of achievement goal theory in an urban
youth tennis setting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 50-66.
Gano-Overway, L. A.,Guivernau, M., Magyar, T. M., Waldron, J. J., & Ewing, M. E.
(2005). Achievement goal perspectives, perceptions of the motivational climate,
and sportspersonship: Individual and team effects. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 6, 215–232.
Good, T. (1981). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research.
Educational Leadership, 38, 415-422.
Griffin, P. S. (1981). One small step for personkind: Observations and suggestions for
sex equity in coeducational physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 1, 12–17.
Halliburton, A. L. & Weiss, M. R. (2002). Sources of competence information and
perceived motivational climate among adolescent female gymnasts varying in
skill level. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 396-419.
Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual
differences and developmental change. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota
symposium on child psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 215-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
References 62
Harwood, C., & Biddle, S. (2002). The application of achievement goal theory in
youth sport. In I. Cockerill (Ed.) Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 58-73).
London: Thomson.
Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic
motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 774-795.
Hedstrom, R. & Gould, D. (2004). Research in youth sports: Critical issues status.
Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, pp. 21-25. Michigan State University.
Hersen, M. (2006). Clinician’s handbook of adult behavioral assessment. New York:
Academic Press.
Heuze, J., Sarrazin, P., Masiero, M., Raimbault, N., & Thomas, J. (2006). The
relationships of perceived motivational climate to cohesion and collective efficacy
in elite female teams. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 201-218.
Hockey Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2005, from
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/e/develop/index.html
Horn, T. S. (1985). Coaches' feedback and changes in children's perceptions of their
physical competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 174-186.
Horn, T. S. (1987). The influence of teacher-coach behavior on the psychological
development of children. In D. Gould & M.R. Weiss (Eds.), Advances in pediatric
sport sciences. Vol. 2: Behavioral issues (pp. 121-142). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Horn, T. S. (Ed.) (2007). Advances in sport psychology (3rd. ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
References 63
Horn, T. S., & Glenn, S. (1988). The relationship between athletes’ psychological
characteristics and their preference for particular coaching behaviors. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for the
Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Knoxville, TN.
Horn, T. S., & Harris, A. (2002). Perceived competence in young athletes: Research
findings and recommendations for coaches and parents. In F. L. Smoll & R. E.
Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (2nd
ed, pp. 435-464). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Horn, T. S., Lox, C. L., & Labrador, F. (2006). The self-fulfilling prophecy theory:
When coaches' expectations become reality. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed., pp. 82-108). NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2006). Contextual influences on moral functioning of
male youth footballers. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 1-23.
Kennelly, K., & Kinley, S. (1975). Perceived contingency of teacher-administered
reinforcements and academic performance of boys. Psychology in the Schools, 12,
449-453.
Kester, S., & Letchworth, G. (1972). Communication of teacher expectations and their
effects on achievement and attitudes of secondary school students. Journal of
Educational Research, 66, 51-55.
Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement situations. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 1-13.
References 64
Mageau, G., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883-904.
Koester, M. C. (2000). Youth sports: A pediatrician's perspective on coaching and injury
prevention. Journal of Athletic Training, 35, 466-470.
McBride, R. E. (1990). Sex-role stereotyping behaviors among elementary, junior
high, and senior high school physical education specialists. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 9, 249–261.
MacDonald, D. (1990). The relationship between the sex composition of physical
education classes and teacher–pupil verbal interaction. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 9, 152–163.
Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second
look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 221-
267). New York: Academic Press.
Magyar, T. M., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The influence of dispositional and situational
tendencies on adolescent girls’ sport confidence sources. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 4, 175-190.
Magyar, T. M., Feltz, D. L., & Simpson, I. P. (2004). Individual and crew level
determinants of collective efficacy in rowing. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 26, 136-153.
Martinek, T. (1981). Pygmalion in the gym: A model for the communication of teacher
expectations in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
52, 58-67.
References 65
Martinek, T., & Johnson, S. (1979). Teacher expectations: Effects on dyadic interaction
and self-concept in elementary age children. Research Quarterly, 50, 60-70.
McArdle, S., & Duda, J. K. (2002). Implications of the motivational climate in youth
sports. In F. L. Smoll, & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A
biopsychosocial perspective (pp.409–434). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Mitchell, C. B., Bunker, L. K., Kluka, D. A., & Sullivan, P. A. (1995). Gender equity
through physical education and sport. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Napper-Owen, G. E., Kovar, S. K., Ermler, K. L., & Mehrhof, J. H. (1999). Curricula
equity in required ninth-grade physical education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 19, 2–21.
Newton, M. L., Duda, J. L., & Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric
properties of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a
sample of female athletes. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18, 275-290.
Nicaise, V., Cogerino, G., Bois, J., & Amorose, A.J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of
teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes: Gender
effects. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 36–57.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conception of ability, subjective
experience, mastery choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–
346.
References 66
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Olympiou, A., Jowett, S., & Duda, J. L. (2008). The psychological interface between the
coach-created motivational climate and the coach-athlete relationship in team
sports. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 423-438.
Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G. C., Lemyre, P. N., & Treasure, D. C. (2003). Perceived
motivational climate in male youth soccer: Relations to social-moral functioning,
sportspersonship, and team norm perceptions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
4, 397-413.
Papaioannou, A., Marsh, H. W., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). A multilevel approach to
motivational climate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or a
group level construct? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 90–118.
Pintrich, P., Conley, A.M., & Kempler, T. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal
theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319-337.
Placek, J., Silverman, S., Shute, S., Dodds, P., & Rife, F. (1982). Academic learning
time (ALT-PE) in a traditional elementary physical education setting: A
descriptive analysis. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17, 41–47.
Rejeski, W., Darracott, C, & Hutslar, S. (1979). Pygmalion in youth sports: A field study.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 311-319.
References 67
Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Kavussanu, M. (1997). Motivation in physical activity
contexts: An achievement goal perspective. In P. R. Pintrich, & M. L. Maehr
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 413–447).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and
dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.
Scanlan, T., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure
skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2,
65-83.
Seifriz, J. J., Duda, J. L., & Chi, L. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational
climate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 375-391.
Smith, R. E. (2006). Understanding sport behavior: A cognitive-affective processing
systems approach. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 1-27.
Smith, S.L., Fry, M.D., Ethington, C.A., Li, Y. (2005). The effect of female athletes’
perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors on their perceptions of the motivational
climate. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 170-177.
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1990). Self-esteem and children’s reactions to youth sport
coaching behaviors: A field study of self-enhancement processes. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 987-993.
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1997). Coach-mediated team building in youth sports.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 114-132.
References 68
Smith, R. E, & Smoll, F. L. (2002). Way to go coach!: A scientifically-proven approach
to youth sports coaching effectiveness (2nd ed). California: Warde Publishers.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of children’s sport
performance anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for
coaches. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 125-142.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League
baseball. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on
youth sports (pp. 173-201). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive
behavioral approach to enhance relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75.
Smith, R., Smoll, F., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of
athletic coaches. Research Quarterly, 48, 401-407.
Smith, R., Zane, N., Smoll, F., & Coppel, D. (1983). Behavioral assessment in youth
sports: Coaching behaviors and children's attitudes. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 15, 208-214.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2006). Development and implementation of coach-training
programs: Cognitive-behavioral principles and techniques. In J. M.Williams
(Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed.)
(pp. 458–480). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N. P., & Everett, J. J. (1993). Enhancement of
coaches’ self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 602-610.
References 69
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate
intervention for coaches on changes in young athletes’ achievement goal
orientations. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 1, 23–46.
Solomons, H. (1977). Sex role mediated achievement behaviors and interpersonal
dynamics of fifth grade co-educational physical education classes. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 37: 5445A (University Microfilms No. DBJ77–06538).
Sport Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2008,
from http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/sc/info-fact/youth_e.cfm
Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1998). Relationship between female adolescents’
achievement goal orientations, perceptions of the motivational climate, beliefs
about success, and sources of satisfaction in basketball. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 29, 211–230.
Walling, M.L., Duda, J.L., & Chi, L. (1993). The perceived motivational climate in
sport questionnaire: Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 15, 172-183.
Weiss, M. (1991). Psychological skill development in children and adolescents. The
Sport Psychologist, 5, 335-354.
Worrall, N., & Tsarna, H. (1987). Teachers’ reported practices towards girls and boys
in science and languages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 300–
312.
Appendices 70
Appendix A
Ethics Certificate
Appendices 71
Appendices 72
Appendix B
SPORT ORGANIZATION CONSENT FORM McGill University requires that organizations be informed of the details of any research study in which they participate. However, this does not imply that the organization or its participants are put at risk through their participation; the intention is simply to ensure the respect and confidentiality of individuals concerned. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts for Jonathan Stein, a graduate student in sport psychology, in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at McGill University. The purpose of this study is to assess youth ice hockey players’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors in games and in practices. In particular, this study will ask players to fill out three separate questionnaires regarding this topic. We would like to invite your Bantam AA or BB hockey teams to participate in this study. When a team is filling out the questionnaires, the only adult that will be present will be the researcher. As well, copies of the results and conclusions of the study will be sent to the organization prior to the publishing of this data. All information retrieved in this study will remain confidential and will be used for publication purposes in scholarly journals or for presentations at conferences. The researchers will not disclose names or identity of the participants at any time. The participation of your hockey organization in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. The organization is free to withdraw from participation at any time, for any reason, without penalty or prejudice. I (please print your name/s), __________________________________________________________________, have carefully studied the above statements and have had the directions verbally explained to me. My organization freely consents and voluntarily agrees to participate in this research project based on the terms outlined in this consent form. I understand that my organization may refuse to continue participation at any time, without penalty, and that all information gathered will remain confidential. __________________________________ ___________________________ Signature Date Please feel free to contact us at any time: Jonathan Stein Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Master’s Candidate, Sport Psychology Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec McGill University, Montreal, Quebec [email protected] (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 (514) 952-4619 [email protected]
Appendices 73
Appendix C
Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2
Appendices 74
Directions: Please think about how it has felt to play on your team throughout this season. What is it usually like on your team? Read the following statements carefully and respond to each in terms of how you view the typical atmosphere on your team. Perceptions naturally vary from person to person, so be certain to take your time and answer as honestly as possible. Circle the number that best represents how you feel. Note: Each item is responded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). 1. On this team, the coach wants us to try new skills. 1 2 3 4 5 2. On this team, the coach gets mad when a player makes 1 2 3 4 5 a mistake. 3. On this team, the coach gives most of his or her 1 2 3 4 5 attention to the stars. 4. On this team, each player contributes in some 1 2 3 4 5 important way. 5. On this team, the coach believes that all of us 1 2 3 4 5 are crucial to the success of the team. 6. On this team, the coach praises players 1 2 3 4 5 only when they outplay team-mates. 7. On this team, the coach thinks only the starters 1 2 3 4 5 contribute to the success of the team. 8. On this team, players feel good when they try their 1 2 3 4 5 best. 9. On this team, players are taken out of a game for 1 2 3 4 5 mistakes. 10. On this team, players at all skill levels have 1 2 3 4 5 an important role on the team. 11. On this team, players help each other learn. 1 2 3 4 5 12. On this team, players are encouraged to outplay 1 2 3 4 5 the other players. 13. On this team, the coach has his or her 1 2 3 4 5 own favorites. 14. On this team, the coach makes sure players improve 1 2 3 4 5 on skills they are not good at. 15. On this team, the coach yells at players 1 2 3 4 5 for messing up.
Appendices 75
16. On this team, players feel successful when 1 2 3 4 5 they improve. 17. On this team, only the players with the best “stats” 1 2 3 4 5 get praise. 18. On this team, players are punished when they make 1 2 3 4 5 a mistake. 19. On this team, each player has an important role. 1 2 3 4 5 20. On this team, trying hard is rewarded. 1 2 3 4 5 21. On this team, the coach encourages players to 1 2 3 4 5 help each other. 22. On this team, the coach makes it clear who he 1 2 3 4 5 or she thinks are the best players. 23. On this team, players are “psyched” when 1 2 3 4 5 they do better than their team-mates in a game. 24. On this team, if you want to play in a game 1 2 3 4 5 you must be one of the best players. 25. On this team, the coach emphasizes always trying 1 2 3 4 5 your best. 26. On this team, only the top players “get noticed” 1 2 3 4 5 by the coach. 27. On this team, players are afraid to make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 28. On this team, players are encouraged to work 1 2 3 4 5 on their weaknesses. 29. On this team, the coach favours some players 1 2 3 4 5 more than others. 30. On this team, the focus is to improve each 1 2 3 4 5 game/practice. 31. On this team, the players really “work together” 1 2 3 4 5 32. On this team, each player feels as if they are an 1 2 3 4 5 important team member. 33. On this team, the players help each other to get 1 2 3 4 5 better and excel.
Appendices 76
Appendix D
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire
Appendices 77
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire As you perhaps already know, coaches really differ from each other in the type of feedback they give in response to their athletes’ performances. This questionnaire is designed to find out what type of coaching feedback your coach gives you in practices. Coaching Responses to Player’s Successes Listed below are six examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had a successful performance in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE. Not Typical
At All Very
Typical 1. “Good play!”
1 2 3 4 5
2. Coach ignores your good performance.
1 2 3 4 5
3. “Way to go! You really went to the net this time.”
1 2 3 4 5
4. “Great play. Now you're keeping your head up.”
1 2 3 4 5
5. “Excellent work in practice today.”
1 2 3 4 5
6. Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your good performance.
1 2 3 4 5
Coaching Responses to Player’s Errors Listed below are ten examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had made a mistake or committed an error in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE ERROR OR POOR PLAY. Not Typical
At All Very
Typical 1. “That’s O.K. Keep working at it!”
1 2 3 4 5
2. Coach ignores your error or poor performance.
1 2 3 4 5
3. “That was a really stupid play!”
1 2 3 4 5
4. “You were on the wrong side of him. Next time stay on the defensive side.”
1 2 3 4 5
5. “How many times have I told you to keep your head up.”
1 2 3 4 5
6. “Hang in there! You will do better next time.”
1 2 3 4 5
7. Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your error or poor performance.
1 2 3 4 5
8. “Your technique looks lousy! Keep you head up.”
1 2 3 4 5
9. “That play sucked!”
1 2 3 4 5
10. “You need to work on having quicker feet.”
1 2 3 4 5
Appendices 78
Preferred Coaching Feedback Questionnaire This questionnaire is designed to find out what type of coaching feedback you would like your coach to give you in practices. Coaching Responses to Player’s Successes Listed below are six examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had a successful performance in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK FROM YOUR COACH AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE. Do Not Like
At All Like
Very Much
1. “Good play!”
1 2 3 4 5
2. Coach ignores your good performance.
1 2 3 4 5
3. “Way to go! You really went to the net this time.”
1 2 3 4 5
4. “Great play. Now you're keeping your head-up.”
1 2 3 4 5
5. “Excellent work in practice today.”
1 2 3 4 5
6. Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your good performance.
1 2 3 4 5
Coaching Responses to Player’s Errors Listed below are ten examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had made a mistake or committed an error in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK FROM YOUR COACH AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE ERROR OR POOR PLAY. Do Not Like
At All Like
Very Much
1. “That’s O.K. Keep working at it!”
1 2 3 4 5
2. Coach ignores your error or poor performance.
1 2 3 4 5
3. “That was a really stupid play!”
1 2 3 4 5
4. “You were on the wrong side of him. Next time stay on the defensive side.”
1 2 3 4 5
5. “How many times have I told you to keep your head up.”
1 2 3 4 5
6. “Hang in there! You will do better next time.”
1 2 3 4 5
7. Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your error or poor performance.
1 2 3 4 5
8. “Your technique looks lousy! Keep you head up.”
1 2 3 4 5
9. “That play sucked!”
1 2 3 4 5
10. “You need to work on having quicker feet.”
1 2 3 4 5
Appendices 79
Appendix E
Demographic Questionnaire
1. Language (s) spoken: ________________ 2. Birthdate: ______________ 3. Level this season (AA or BB): ________________ 4. Position: _________________ 5. How many assistant coaches are on your current hockey team: _____ 6. a) Are there any parents that are coaches on this team (please circle one) : Yes No b) If yes, head coach: Yes No Assistant coach: Yes No 7. Is your parent a coach on this team (please circle one): Yes No 8. What language does the head coach speak to you in: ______________ 9. a) Have you played for this head coach before (please circle one): Yes No b) If yes, how many seasons has this person coached you : _________ 10. What is your team’s current record: _____________ 11. How many games and practices have you missed since the beginning of the season (please circle one): 0 1-5 6-10 more than 10 12. Please choose the response that best reflects your ability in hockey: a) How good do you think you are at hockey? (1=not at all good to 5=very good)
1 2 3 4 5 b) Compared to your teammates, how would you rate your ability as a hockey player? (1=a lot worse than my teammates to 5= a lot better than teammates)
1 2 3 4 5
Appendices 80
Appendix F
Player Agreement Forms English and French
Appendices 81
PLAYER AGREEMENT FORM - ENGLISH
McGill University requires that participants be informed of the details of any research study in which they participate. However, this does not imply that the participant is put at risk through their participation; the intention is simply to ensure the respect and confidentiality of individuals concerned. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts for Jonathan Stein, a graduate student in sport psychology, in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at McGill University. The purpose of this study is to assess young athletes’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors in games and in practices. In particular, you will be asked to fill out three separate questionnaires. We believe that this study will provide minor hockey coaches with valuable practical information. The researchers will not disclose your name or identity at any time. In addition, your names will not be on the questionnaires so nobody will know which questionnaire you filled out. Your coaches will not be present while you complete the questionnaires. Your participation in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. You are free to withdraw from participation at any time, for any reason, without penalty or prejudice. Please be aware that the questionnaires are only available in English. If you choose not to participate, you will be provided with bilingual reading material until all of the participants in this study complete the questionnaires. I (please print your name), ____________________________, have carefully studied the above statements and have had the directions verbally explained to me. I freely assent and voluntarily agree to participate in this research project based on the terms outlined in this agreement form. I understand that I may refuse to continue participation at any time, without penalty, and that all information gathered will remain confidential. __________________________________ ___________________________ Signature Date If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in this study, please contact the McGill Research Ethics Officer at 514-398-6831. Please feel free to contact us at any time: Jonathan Stein Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Master’s Candidate, Sport Psychology Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec McGill University, Montreal, Quebec [email protected] (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 (514) 952-4619 [email protected]
Appendices 82
FORMULAIRE D’ENTENTE DU JOUEUR - FRANÇAIS
Durant une étude, l’Université de McGill demande à ce que chaque participant soit informé de tous les détails reliés à la recherche dont il fera part. Toutefois, ceci ne sous-entend pas que les sujets seront mis à risque en participant à l’étude ; l’intention de ce document est d’assurer le respect et la confidentialité des individus impliqués dans l’étude. Pour Jonathan Stein, un étudiant cherchant à compléter sa maîtrise en psychologie du sport, cette étude est nécessaire pour atteindre les exigences du département de kinésiologie et d’éducation physique de l’Université de McGill Le but de cette étude est d’analyser votre perception du comportement de votre entraîneur en chef durant les matchs, ainsi que durant les pratiques. Ceci se fera plus précisément en remplissant trois questionnaires différents. De plus, l’équipe de recherche s’assurera que votre identité ne sera dévoilée à aucun moment. Les questionnaires seront anonymes alors personne ne pourra savoir lequel vous avez completé. Il est aussi important de noter que vos entraîneurs ne seront pas présents lors de cette période d’évaluation. Votre participation à cette recherche est volontaire et non obligatoire. Vous êtes libre de vous soutirer de cette étude n’importe quand, pour n’importe quelle raison, sans punition ou préjuger. Soyez informez que les questionnaires seront disponibles seulement en Anglais. Si vous ne participerez pas a l’étude, nous vous procurerons avec du matériel bilingue de lecture jusqu'à ce que tous les participants finissent de compléter les questionnaires. Je, (en lettres imprimées), ____________________________, ai étudié avec attention les déclarations ci-dessus et reçus des explications orales concernant ce même sujet. J’acceptes librement et volontairement à participer à ce projet de recherche basé sur les conditions discutées dans ce formulaire d’ entente. Je comprends que je peux refuser de continuer à participer à cette étude en tout temps, sans punition, et que toute information recueillie restera confidentiel. __________________________________ ___________________________ Signature Date Si vous avez des questions concernat vos droits en tant que participant à cette étude, veuillez contacter le bureau d’ éthiques concernat les recherches à McGill au 514-398-6831. Vous pouvez nous contactez en tout temps: Jonathan Stein Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Candidat de maîtrise, Psychologie du sport Programme d’hautes études en psy. du sport Dept. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Dept. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Université de McGill, Montréal, Québec Université de McGill, Montréal, [email protected] (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 (514) 952-4619 [email protected]
Appendices 83
Appendix G
Parental Consent Forms
English and French
Appendices 84
PARENT CONSENT FORM - ENGLISH
I am a current graduate student in sport psychology at McGill University. Part of my
studies involves writing a thesis. I have chosen to study young athletes’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors and I would like to invite your son to participate in my study. Your hockey association has approved this study and your coach has agreed to participate. McGill requires a letter of consent whenever research is conducted on human beings, stating the purpose, procedures, and conditions of the research. This does not imply that the project involves any risk; the intention is simply to assure the respect and confidentiality of the individuals concerned. The purpose of this study is to assess young athletes’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors in games and in practices. In particular, your son will be asked to fill out three anonymous questionnaires. Jonathan Stein will be the only adult present during this time. As well, the researchers will not disclose names or identity of a child at any time. We believe that this study will provide minor hockey coaches with valuable practical information. Since the questionnaires were only created in English by other researchers, we are unable to translate them into French without affecting their validity and reliability. If you believe your son is unable to complete the questionnaires in English, he should not participate in the study. Players who do not participate in the current study will be with the team when the other players fill out the questionnaires. At this time, they will receive bilingual reading material on mental training and hockey. Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. He is free to withdraw from participating at any time, for any reason without penalty. I (parent/legal tutor), ____________________________ , have read and understood the above statements and I agree to have my child participate in this study. I have been informed that my child’s participation in this study is voluntary and that he may withdraw from participating at any time. I have been told that the information collected will remain confidential. Child’s Name (print): ________________________________ ________________________ __________________________ (Parent’s signature) (Date) If you have questions or concerns about your child’s rights as a research participant in this study, please contact the McGill Research Ethics Officer at 514-398-6831. Please feel free to contact me or my supervisor at any time: Jonathan Stein Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Master’s Candidate, Sport Psychology Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec McGill University, Montreal, Quebec [email protected] (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 (514) 952-4619 [email protected]
Appendices 85
FORMULAIRE DE CONSENTEMENT DU PARENT - FRANÇAIS Je suis un étudiant cherchant à compléter sa maitrise en psychologie du sport à
l’Université de McGill. Ainsi, écrire une thèse fait partie des tâches que je dois accomplir afin de compléter mes études. J’ai décidé de concentrer ma thèse sur la perception que des jeunes athlètes ont de leurs entraîneurs en chef. Pour ce faire, j’aimerais poser quelques questions à votre fils. De plus, votre entraîneur en chef a consentit à participer a cette étude, qui a aussi été approuver par votre association de hockey. L’Université de McGill nécessite, cependant, une lettre de consentement pour toute étude faite sur des êtres humains. McGill requière que ce formulaire indique le but, les procédures ainsi que les conditions dans laquelle ce déroulera chaque étude. Toutefois, il est important de noter que ceci ne sous entend pas que le projet lui-même implique des risques ; l’intention de cette lettre est simplement d’assurer le respect et la confidentialité des individus concernés. Le but de cette étude est d’évaluer la perception que les jeunes joueurs d’hockey ont des comportements de leurs entraîneurs en chef. Plus spécifiquement, votre fils complètera trois questionnaires différents. De plus, Jonathan Stein sera l’unique adulte présent lors de la durée de l’évaluation. Enfin, il est important de noter que l’équipe de recherche s’assurera que l’identité de votre fils ne sera dévoilée à aucun moment. Puisque les rechercheurs précédents ont seulement utiliser ces questionnaires en Anglais, nous sommes malheureusement incapables de les traduire en Français sans affecter la validité et l’authenticité des instruments utiliser pour l’étude. Si vous croyez que votre fils sera incapable de compléter le questionnaire en Anglais, il ne devrait pas participer dans cette étude. Si votre fils ne participera pas à ce project, il restera avec son équipe quand les autres joueurs compléteront les questionnaires. Durant cette période, il recevra des textes bilingues sur l’hockey. La participation de votre enfant est volontaire et non obligatoire. Il est libre de se retirer de l’étude en tout temps, pour n’importe quelle raison, sans punition ou préjudice. Je (parent/tuteur), ____________________________ , ai étudié avec attention les déclarations ci-dessus et j’acceptes que mon fils participe à ce projet. On m’a informé que mon jeune peut participer librement et volontairement à ce projet de recherche basé sur les conditions discutées dans ce formulaire de consentement. On m’a informé que mon jeune peut refuser de continuer à participer à cette étude en tout temps, sans punition, et que toute information recueillie restera confidentiel. Nom du jeune (en letter imprint): ________________________________ ________________________ __________________________ (signature du parent) (Date) Si vous avez des questions concernat les droits de votre enfant en tant que participant à cette étude, veuillez contacter le bureau d’ éthiques concernat les recherches à McGill au 514-398-6831. Vous pouvez nous contactez en tout temps: Jonathan Stein Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Candidat de maîtrise, Psychologie du sport Programme d’hautes études en psy. du sport Dept. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Dept. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Université de McGill, Montréal, Québec Université de McGill, Montréal, [email protected] (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 (514) 952-4619 [email protected]