Development and Validation of the Coach Autonomy Support Beliefs Scale.
Multiple researchers have indicated that athletes who evaluated their coaches to be autonomy-supportive as opposed to controlling experienced higher satisfaction of their basic psychological needs of competence (the need to interact effectively with the environment), autonomy (the need to be the director of one's actions that are in accordance with one's values), and relatedness (the need to be a valued and accepted member of a group; Deci & Ryan, 2000). For example, in a longitudinal study, Adie, Duda, and Ntoumanis (2012) found that the degree to which youth soccer players perceived their head coach to be autonomy-supportive predicted both within- and between-person changes in athletes' perceptions of the three basic psychological needs. In a similar study, Amorose and Anderson-Butcher (2007) explored the conceptual link between coaching style and athletes' need fulfillment. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with data from 246 collegiate and 335 high school athletes from a variety of sports show ed that perceived autonomy support from their respective coach was a statistically significant predictor for athletes' perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), this need fulfillment nurtures higher qualities of motivation (i.e., self-determined extrinsic and intrinsic motivation) within individuals, which, in turn, has been found to positively affect cognition, affect, and behavior. Amongst others, self-determined athletes are more likely to exhibit high levels of intensity and effort (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000), indicate higher daily vitality scores (e.g., Gagne, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003), experience less burnout (e.g., Iosard-Gautheur, Guillet-Descas, & Lemyre, 2012), and cope better with adversity (e.g., injury; Podlog & Dionig, 2010).
Despite the various benefits of providing autonomy support, Mageau and Vallerand (2003) argue that there are still coaches who do not adopt such an interpersonal style adequately or effectively. In fact, many coaches--willingly or unwillingly--engage in controlling motivational strategies which actively undermine athletes' need fulfillment (see Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thogersen-Ntoumani, 2009). Nevertheless, Reeve (1998) highlighted that autonomy support can be taught as a motivating style. Therefore, it appears valuable for researchers, sport psychology professionals, and coach educators to facilitate coaches' understanding of the impact of their relationships with athletes and help them nurture optimal, autonomy-supportive interactions. According to behavior change theorists, in order to enhance coaches' behaviors, it is essential to first understand, and if necessary change, their perceptions toward the behavior of interest (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). The reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) offers a framework that explains the antecedents for such behavioral modifications. It is based on the assumption that behavioral intention, which is "the person's estimate of likelihood or perceived probability of performing a given behavior" (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 39) predominately determines behavior. In turn, intentions are influenced by attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms. For example. Sagas, Cunningham, and Pastore (2006) surveyed 710 collegiate assistant coaches and found that participants' attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms significantly predicted their plans to seek head coaching positions. Attitudes are considered to be the evaluation or appraisal of a behavior. Perceived behavioral control is the belief in the ability to perform a behavior and overcome possible barriers or obstacles. Perceived norms are the perceived pressures from others to engage in the behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).
In the context of this study, coaches' attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms towards autonomy support can, therefore, determine their likelihood of engaging in need fulfilling behaviors when interacting with athletes. Thus, an understanding of coaches' beliefs about autonomy support can provide researchers, sport psychology professionals, and coach educators with valuable information that allows them to more effectively develop programs and interventions aimed at nurturing autonomy-supportive coaching styles. Explicitly, by having insight into coaches' perceptions toward autonomy support, educational measures can be specifically tailored to target the particular beliefs that may prevent coaches from engaging in this more democratic coaching style. For example, if coaches hold negative attitudes toward autonomy support, educational programs and interventions may focus more on helping them make subtle changes (i.e., in their evaluation of the behavior) before more obvious ones (i.e., in their actual behavior). If coaches already have positive attitudes toward autonomy support it may be more beneficial to, instead, teach them practical approaches they might use to adopt this style in practice. In addition, gaining an understanding of coaches' beliefs about autonomy support can help to assess the immediate effectiveness of educational programs and interventions. While possible through the use of longitudinal designs and observer ratings, it is challenging to directly gauge changes in behavior as coaches have not yet interacted with their athletes. However, changes in behavioral antecedents (i.e., attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms) from pre- to post-intervention can be measured to indicate potential improvements in coaches' beliefs, which may later translate to changes in behavior. Yet, there is currently no instrument assessing coaches' beliefs about autonomy support. Consequently, the primary purpose of the present study was to develop a survey instrument that offers valid and reliable measurements for coaches' attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms toward autonomy support.
A total of 497 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) head coaches participated in the current study, which included 52.1% from Division I and 47.9% from Division II. Thirty-five percent of those individuals were female and 65% were male. Participants self-identified as White/Caucasian (87.7%), African-American (4.6%), Hispanic/ Latino (2.2%), Asian/Pacific Islander (.4%), Native American/Eskimo/Aleut (.6%), and Other (2.8%). Eight coaches preferred not to self-identify in regard to their race. Participants were between 23 and 78 years old (M= 45.2; SD = 11.53) and had an average of 20.39 (SD = 10.67) years of total experience, 16.12 (SD = 9.69) years of experience coaching at the collegiate level, and 8.87 (SD = 8.8) years of experience in their current job. Participants coached in a variety of sports, including Baseball (7.6%), Basketball (8.7%), Bowling (.2%), Cheerleading (.4%), Cross Country/Track and Field (9.5%), Cycling (.2%), Dance (.4%), Equestrian (.2%), Field Hockey (1%), Football (1%), Golf (13.7%), Gymnastics (1.6%), Hockey (.8%), Lacrosse (3.6%), Rifle (.8%), Rowing (1.8%), Soccer (11.7%), Softball (9.7%), Swimming (3.8%), Tennis (8%), Volleyball (13.5%), Water Polo (.2%), and Wrestling (1.6%). In those sports 57.1% of all individuals primarily coached female athletes, 24.9% primarily coached male athletes, and 17.7% primarily coached both female and male athletes. At the time of the study, head coaches were working with an average of 24.67 (SD = 19.2) athletes. Most participants had received a university degree (98.8%), which included a Bachelor's (41.2%), Master's (53.9%), and Doctoral degree (3.6%). Finally, 65% of the head coaches indicated that they had received formal training in coaching.
Following approval by the university's Institutional Review Board, contact information for head coaches of all NCAA Division I and II athletic teams across all sports was gathered from their athletic programs' website. Subsequently, all head coaches with publicly available email addresses (i.e., 4465 from NCAA Division 1 and 3296 from NCAA Division II) were contacted by the first author via email. This initial email described the purpose of the study, invited them to participate, and provided the online link for the survey. Coaches were also informed that their participation was voluntary and anonymous. Individuals who accessed the survey link were again provided with the same information. Coaches were also informed that by completing the survey they indicated their consent to participate in the research. Two follow-up emails that included the same information as the initial email were sent to all NCAA Division I and II head coaches approximately one and two weeks later in an effort to increase participation.
The online survey consisted of a set of: (a) belief items, (b) behavior items, and (c) demographic items.
Beliefs about Autonomy Support. The set of belief items measured NCAA Division I and II head coaches' attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms towards autonomy support. Items were generated in three phases according to the recommendations of DeVellis (2012). First, an initial item pool (N= 52) was created, which included multiple items for each of the three latent variables of interest (i.e., attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms towards autonomy support). This development was based on an in-depth review of the literature regarding self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), and autonomy-supportive coaching (e.g., Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). In addition, while no items were directly copied, existing scales regarding autonomy support were reviewed (e.g.. Motivators' Orientations Questionnaire; Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981; Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire; Walling, Duda, & Chi, 1993). Second, the initial list of items was sent to a panel of nine people with know ledge and previous research experience in coaching, motivation, behavior change, and/or scale development. These individuals included three faculty members in Sport and Exercise Psychology, two faculty members in Statistics and Measurement, one faculty members in Sport Management, two doctoral students in Sport Psychology, and one master's student in Sport Psychology. Third, once the panel's feedback had been incorporated the items were sent to one NCAA Division I assistant coach and two NCAA Division II assistant coaches, who provided a practical perspective and feedback about the clarity of the survey (i.e., whether the items are suitable for the given population). Data from these three assistant coaches was not analyzed as part of this study. Once these coaches' suggestions had been incorporated, an initial scale with 24 items was created, which included six items for attitudes (e.g., "Asking for athletes' input enhances their motivation"), six items for perceived behavioral control (e.g., "I can provide athletes with opportunities to make meaningful choices"), and 12 items for perceived norms (e.g., "People who are important to me think coaches should provide athletes with opportunities to take initiative and practice independently" or "Coaches I respect do not make athletes feel guilty"). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement on a Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).
Behavior. There were six behavior items that were included for the purpose of further validating the newly developed instrument. These behavior items corresponded with the belief items (e.g., "I offer athletes explanations for why tasks are done") and asked participants to indicate their perceived frequency of use of autonomy support when interacting with athletes on a Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always).
Demographics. Demographic items instructed participants to identify their sex, age, race, competitive level, sport they coach, sex of athletes they coach, number of athletes they coach, years of coaching experience (i.e., at any level, the collegiate level, and in their current job), highest level of academic achievement, and formal training in coaching.
With a total of 497 NCAA Division 1 and II head coaches participating in the current research the response rate for the study was 6.4%. This low response rate was not surprising given the time constraints of individuals within the population.
Development of the Coach Autonomy Support Beliefs Scale
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using MPlus (Version 7.2) to examine the underlying structure of the items. This further helped to eliminate redundant items and identify underlying factors. EFA was deemed appropriate because the initial item pool consisted of novel items that had not previously been tested for their validity and reliability. The WLSMV estimation (a robust weighted least squares estimator) and Geomin rotation were used for the EFA because items were measured on an ordinal scale. Four criteria were implemented to determine factors and their related items: (a) examination of the Scree plot, (b) retention of items with standardized factor loadings [greater than or equal to] .50, (c) deletion of items with cross-loadings (difference [less than or equal to] .20), and (d) retention of items that were conceptually related to the factor with the highest factor loading (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2012).
After an initial examination of the Scree plot and factor loadings for one through nine factors no adequate solution was found that satisfied all four criteria. Frequency distributions indicated that this was likely due to the negatively skewed distributions of the items. That is, an average of only 23.16% of all participants responded with numbers below six on the 7-point Likert-type scale across all items. Therefore, due to extremely low sample sizes for responses below 6, all items were re-coded (i.e., responses [less than or equal to] 6 were coded as 0 and responses = 7 were coded as 1). Subsequent examination of the Scree plot for one through nine factors for the 24 dichotomous items indicated a two-factor solution. The two-factor solution was confirmed through multiple EFAs in which items that did not meet the above-mentioned criteria w ere eliminated. The final solution included eight of the initial 24 items and demonstrated good model fit ([chi square] = 35.86,p = 0.01 ; RMSEA = .04, 95% CI [.020; .063],p = .703; CFI= .99; TLI = .98). Five items had statistically significant loadings on Factor 1 ([greater than or equal to] .50; p < .05) which was characterized by items related to NCAA Division I and II head coaches' attitudes and perceived behavioral control toward autonomy support (i.e., their personal belief, see Table 1). Three items had statistically significant loadings on Factor 2 ([greater than or equal to] .50; p < .05) which was characterized by items that represented NCAA Division I and II head coaches 'perceived norms toward autonomy support (see Table 1). Thus, the Coach Autonomy Support Beliefs Scale (CASBS) is an eight-item measure with two subscales: personal belief (five items) and perceived norms (three items; r = .68,p < .001). Reliability estimates for the entire sample revealed acceptable levels for participants' ratings of their personal beliefs (Cronbach's [alpha] = .77) and perceived norms (Cronbach's [alpha] = .77). Overall, NCAA Division 1 and II head coaches primarily reported positive personal belief and perceived norms toward autonomy support (see Table 2).
Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) suggest that individuals' attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms toward a behavior influence their actual behavior. Thus, the six behavior items related to autonomy support that were assessed as part of this study (see Table 3) were used to further validate the new instrument. MPlus (Version 7.2) was utilized for SEM in which a factor comprising the six behavior items (i.e., behavior) was regressed on the two factors from the CASBS (i.e.. personal belief and perceived norms). SEM revealed acceptable model fit ([chi square] p < .001 : RMSEA = .084, 95% CI [.074; .093], p < .001; CFI = .95; TL1 = .93) and personal belief and perceived norms significantly predicted coaches' autonomy-supportive behavior (p < .001 ; see Figure 1), accounting for 62% of the variance. Thus, the more positive NCAA Division I and II head coaches' personal belief and perceived norms, the higher they perceived their frequency of using autonomy support w hen interacting with the athletes they work with.
The primary purpose of the current study was to develop an instrument that offers valid and reliable measurements for coaches' beliefs toward autonomy support. The final two-factor solution for the CASBS revealed good model fit for a scale comprising eight total items. Furthermore, SEM provided support for convergent validity; personal belief and perceived norms were both found to be statistically significant predictors for coaches' self-reported autonomy support. The following discussion will be dedicated to a more in-depth exploration of the development and future directions of the CASBS.
In the current research, an adequate model fit for NCAA Division I and II coaches' personal belief and perceived norms toward autonomy support was found. Yet, 16 of the initial 24 items entered into the EFA were not retained in the final two-factor solution. Thus, in an attempt to further strengthen and refine the CASBS, it appears warranted to re-examine all items that were deleted as part of the EFA. More specifically, the items might have to be reworded to more adequately represent the constructs of interest. For example, all four items related to asking for athletes' input--an important behavior according to Mageau and Vallerand (2003)--were eliminated, which proposes that this form of autonomy support might not have been represented adequately. It is possible that by using the generic term input in the items coaches were not provided with sufficient information about the specific aspects they can potentially discuss with their athletes. Thus, when revising the CASBS items should be worded with more specific and tangible language (e.g., "Asking athletes' for input regarding practice content enhances their motivation). Simultaneously, four out of eight items in the final two factor solution are specifically concerned with athletes' feelings. This supports Mageau and Vallerand's (2003) call for additional research to gain a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of autonomy support, which previous researchers have frequently operationalized simply as providing choice (e.g., Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). Due to the explorative nature of such efforts it would be valuable to investigate both coaches' and athletes' conceptualization of autonomy-supportive behaviors through qualitative study designs.
Factor 2 represents the perceived norms that NCAA Division I and II head coaches recognize about autonomy support. Initially, Fishbein and Ajzen limited perceived environmental pressures to the awareness of w hat important others expected or wanted the person to do (i.e., injunctive norms). However, in their revised reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), they suggested that while such injunctive norms have an important influence on individuals' intentions, they do not suffice in providing a more comprehensive understanding of why people ultimately decide to behave a certain way. They, instead, argued that seeing others actually perform the behavior of interest themselves (i.e., descriptive norms) can also have a meaningful effect on people's intentions to do so as well. Findings from the current study offer support for Fishbein and Ajzen's (2010) revised theory in that all items related to injunctive norms were eliminated and only items associated with descriptive norms were retained. In the context of coaching, this proposes that seeing important others perform a behavior likely has an important influence on a coach's beliefs about said behavior. However, it should also be noted that the stem that was used for all items related to injunctive norms (i.e., "People who are important to me think coaches should ...") may be too broad for participants to make accurate assessments. That is, they may evaluate the opinions of various valued people differently and it may be more effective to ask about particular individuals (e.g., mentors, colleagues, assistant coaches) instead.
In addition, it is noteworthy to highlight that all retained perceived norms items were constructed to specifically ask participants about the impact of coaches they respect. Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) proposed that, "knowing what a referent prescribes may put little or no pressure on a person to carry out that behavior unless that person is motivated to comply with the referent in question" (p. 137). While some researchers have found that this impulse actually adds little to nothing to the prediction of perceived norms (e.g., Sayeed, Fishbein, Hornik, Cappella, & Ahern, 2005) the current study revealed contradictory findings. That is, the influence of respected individuals had a meaningful influence on NCAA Division I and II head coaches' beliefs toward autonomy support.
Participants in the present research reported predominantly positive personal beliefs and perceived norms toward autonomy support. However, it seems justified to at least cautiously question whether these almost exclusively positive responses accurately represent NCAA Division I and II head coaches' perceptions. There are several possible explanations for the current findings. First, personal belief and perceived norms are part of individuals' self-concept and cannot be objectively observed. Instead, the variables were measured using self-reports which requires people to engage in a reflexive process (i.e., individuals evaluate how they perceive their own characteristics; Butler & Gasson, 2005). Such assessments are not free of issues and personal biases. For example, when asked to judge their own characteristics, people tend to evaluate themselves as better than the average person (i.e., better-than-average effect; see Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak, & Vredenburg, 1995). It is possible that NCAA Division I and II coaches in the current study might have consciously --or unconsciously--evaluated themselves as better (i.e., having more positive beliefs) than the average individual.
Second, Wiman, Salmoni, and Hall (2010) suggested that coaching experts are individuals who have 10 or more years of experience, are recognized by other coaches and athletes as experts, and have successful athletes/teams at any level of competition. Participants in this study probably possessed some, if not all, of these characteristics (e.g., individuals had an average of 20.39 years of total experience). Consequently, it appears likely that many of them might be considered--or at the very least perceive themselves to be--coaching experts. If that is the case, they might have the knowledge to recognize an autonomy-supportive style as beneficial in enhancing motivation and perceive they have the ability to incorporate the respective behavior if they chose to do so (i.e., personal belief). Furthermore, given that NCAA Division I and II head coaches are surrounded by other coaches within the athletic department, and that many attend conferences with colleagues at the same competitive level, it is likely that participants have been around other expert coaches who might engage in autonomy support (i.e., perceived norms). Therefore, it seems justified to explore the personal belief and perceived norms toward autonomy support of coaches in other competitive levels (e.g., youth or high school) or coaching roles (e.g., assistant coaches). Such research might help to provide a more normal distribution of beliefs about autonomy support, which can help to explore whether the positive perceptions in the current findings can be generalized to the overall coaching profession.
Third, the majority of scale items used for the current research were positively worded (e.g., "Acknowledging athletes' feelings enhances their motivation"), which might have motivated participants to respond positively (i.e., potential response bias). While four items were negatively worded (e.g., "Making athletes feel guilty diminishes their motivation"), these were also developed in a way that did not require reversed scoring. Negatively worded items--requiring reversed scoring--may potentially diminish acquiescence, affirmation, or agreement bias (DeVellis, 2012) and could be included in efforts to further develop the CASBS. However, it should be noted that researchers have also argued that these advantages generally do not outweigh the disadvantages as participants may be unnecessarily confused (e.g., DeVellis, 2012).
The negatively skewed distribution of the present findings also has implications for the continued development of the CASBS. That is, a Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) might not provide the best response format for an exploration of NCAA Division I and II head coaches' beliefs toward autonomy support. Since most participants did not indicate low agreement with statements, there might have been recency effects (i.e., response choices presented late were most likely to be selected; Chan, 1991). Therefore, it appears justified to explore whether listing positive choices first might decrease individuals' tendency to respond positively. Furthermore, while 7-point Likert-type scales have been shown to give participants optimal flexibility to correctly rate the intensity of agreement (Colton & Covert, 2007), it might be beneficial to explore coaches' beliefs toward autonomy support using Likert-type scales with less response options (e.g., 5-point Likert-type scale). Lastly, lower response options (i.e., closer to 1 on the Likert-type scale) might have to be worded more positively (e.g., agree less instead of completely disagree) to gain a more in-depth understanding of the nuanced differences in coaches' persona! belief and perceived norms.
The final two-factor solution for the CASBS revealed good model fit for a scale comprising eight total items (i.e., five items for personal belief and three items for perceived norms). Thus, the newly developed instrument provides a good starting point to measure coaches' beliefs toward autonomy support, ft is important to note that it would be valuable to further replicate and extend the current research due to the measurement issues described above. Nevertheless, the CASBS can likely help researchers, sport psychology professionals, and coach educators develop and evaluate educational programs and interventions for coaches. Having a short measure (i.e., only eight items) is extremely valuable in this endeavor as it minimizes the time it takes coaches to respond, which likely increases response rate and feasibility; especially when working with a population that is as constrained by time as NCAA Division I and II coaches.
Penn State Altoona
Rebecca A. Zakrajsek
University of Tennessee
John G. Orme
University of Tennessee
Address correspondence to: Johannes Raabe, Department of Kinesiology, Penn State Altoona, 3000 Ivyside Park, 203 Adler Athletic Complex, Altoona, PA 16601, Phone: +1 (814) 949-5016, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L, & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A longitudinal investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 13, 51-59.
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individualization, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68, 804-825.
Amorose, J. A., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-determined motivation in high school and college-athletes: A test of self-determination theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 8, 654-670.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2009). A review of controlling motivational strategies from a self-determination theory perspective: Implications for sports coaches. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 215-233.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education. 84. 740-756.
Butler, R. J., & Gasson, S. L. (2005). Self esteem / self concept scales for children and adolescents: A review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 10, 190-201.
Chan, J. C. (1991). Response-order effects in Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 531-540.
Colton, D., & Covert, R. W. (2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "w hat" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults'orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73, 642-650.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting change: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Gagne, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372-390.
Iosard-Gautheur, S., Guillet-Descas, E., Lemyre, P.-N. (2012). A prospective study of the influence of perceived coaching style on burnout in high level young athletes: Using a self-determination theory perspective. The Sport Psychologist. 26, 282-298.
Jowett, S. (2003). When the "honeymoon" is over: A case study of a coach-athlete dyad in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 77,444-460.
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Science, 21, 883-904.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceiv ed autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279-306.
Poczwardowski, A., Barrot, J. E., & Henschen, K. P. (2002). The athlete and coach: Their relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretative study. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 116-140.
Podlog, L., & Dionigi, R. (2010). Coach strategies for addressing psychological challenges during the return to sport from injury. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1-12.
Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating style: Is it teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 312-330.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G. B., & Pastore, D. (2006). Predicting head coaches intentions of male and female assistant coaches: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Sex Roles. 54, 695-705.
Sayeed, S., Fishbein, M., Hornik, R., Cappella, J., & Ahern. R. K. (2005). Adolescent marijuana use intentions: Using theory to plan an intervention. Drugs: Education. Prevention & Policy, 12, 19-34.
Walling, M. D., Duda, J. & Chi, L. (1993). The Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire--Construct and predictive-validity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 172-183.
Wiman, M., Salmoni, A. W., & Hall, C. R. (2010). An examination of the definition and development of expert coaching. International Journal of Coaching Science, 4, 37-60.
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 4, 443-446.
Caption: Figure 1. Results Structural Equation Modeling with Personal Belief, Perceived Norms, and Behavior
Table 1 Rotated Factor Loadings of Final Solution for Exploratory Factor Analysis (N = 497) Factor 1 2 Factor 1 : Personal Belief (PB) PB1 : Providing athletes with opportunities to .67 * .09 make meaningful choices enhances their motivation. PB2: Offering athletes explanations for why tasks .73 * .01 are done enhances their motivation. PB3: Acknowledging athletes' feelings enhances .90 * -.12 their motivation. PB4: I can offer athletes explanations for why .81 * .00 tasks are done. PB5: I can acknowledge athletes' feelings. .66 * .19 Factor 2: Perceived Norms (PN) PN1: Coaches I respect acknowledge athletes' .29 * .60 * feelings. PN2: Coaches I respect provide athletes with .89 * opportunities-.01 to take initiative and practice independently. PN3: Coaches 1 respect do not make .14 .69 * athletes feel guilty. * p < .05 Table 2 Responses on Likert-type Scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) for Final Items (N = 497) Responses (n) 1 2 3 4 Factor 1: Personal Belief (PB) PB1 1 (.2%) 3 (.6%) -- 20 (4%) PB2 1 (.2%) 1 (.2%) -- 18 (3.6%) PB3 1 (.2%) -- -- 47 (9.5%) PB4 2 (.4%) -- -- -- PB5 -- 6(1.2%) -- 43 (8.7%) Factor 2: Perceived Norms (PN) PN1 3 (1.6%) 7 (1.4%) -- 81 (16.3%) PN2 5 (1%) 5 (1%) -- 61 (12.3%) PN3 5 (1%) 20 (4%) -- 119 (22.1%) Responses (n) 5 6 7 Factor 1: Personal Belief (PB) PB1 77 (15.5%) 247 (49.7%) 149 (30%) PB2 81 (16.3%) 227 (45.7%) 169 (34%) PB3 117 (23.5%) 216 (43.5%) 116 (23.3%) PB4 42 (8.5%) 233 (46.9%) 206 (41.4%) PB5 99 (19.9%) 204 (41%) 145 (29.2%) Factor 2: Perceived Norms (PN) PN1 106 (21.3%) 173 (34.8%) 127 (25.6%) PN2 97 (19.5%) 211 (42.5%) 118 (23.7%) PN3 92 (18.5%) 158 (31.8%) 112 (22.5%) Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Behavior Items (N = 497) M (SD) B1: I provide athletes with opportunities 5.33 (.97) to make meaningful choices. B2: I offer athletes explanations 5.75 (.91) for why tasks are done. B3: I acknowledge athletes' feelings. 5.18 (1.08) B4: I ask for athletes' input. 5.10 (1.06) B5: I provide athletes with opportunities 5.32 (1.19) to take initiative and practice independently. B6: I avoid making athletes feel guilty. 5.27 (1.07) Note. Response on Likert-type scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Raabe, Johannes; Zakrajsek, Rebecca A.; Orme, John G.|
|Publication:||Journal of Sport Behavior|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2019|
|Previous Article:||Athletic and Pain Coping Skills of Competitive Female Equestrian Athletes.|
|Next Article:||The Emergence of a New Type of Sport Fan: Comparing the Fandom, Motivational "Profiles, and Identification of Electronic and Traditional Sport Fans.|