Coaching Efficacy And Effectiveness Flashcards
How was coaching efficacy defined by Feltz?
‘The extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of there athletes’
What is coaching efficacy based upon?
Banduras self-efficacy theory and concerned with coaches beliefs rather than their actual skills
What are the sources (antecedents) of the coaching efficacy model?
Coaching experience
Win/loss record
Community support
Perceived skill of athletes
All these go to ‘dimensions’
What are the dimensions of the coaching efficacy model?
Motivation
Game strategy
Technique
Character building
These go to ‘outcomes’
What are the outcomes of the coaching efficacy model?
Player/team performance
Coaching behaviour
Player/team satisfaction
Player/team confidence
What are the 4 coaching efficacy dimensions?
Motivation efficacy (ability to influence states)
Game strategy efficacy
Technique efficacy (confidence in their own instructional/diagnostic skills)
Character building efficacy
What did Feltz (1999) find when looking at coaching efficacy?
High coaching efficacy coaches displayed more praise/encouragement but less instruction and organization
High efficacy coaching - players scored higher on the satisfaction rating of the coach and also higher on performance ratings
Why are athletes perceptions important?
3/4 of the proposed outcomes in the coaching efficacy are athlete outcomes
Also the coaches efficacy has positive effect on athletes
Coach behaviour -> athlete perceptions -> athlete outcomes
What did Boardley et al (2008) find?
Motivation effectiveness was positively associated with effort (0.47), commitment (0.51) and enjoyment (0.52)
Technique effectiveness was post ice related (0.29) with rugby self-efficacy
Character building effectiveness was positively related (0.27)with pro-social behaviour
What did Kavussanu et al (2008) find?
Found gender differences in game strategy (males higher)
A high correlation between coaching experience and coaching efficacy (0.46)
A negative relationship between athletes sporting experience and perceived coaching effectiveness (-0.22) possible because they are more critical
Furthermore a mismatch of coach/athlete sex had a negative relationship for perceived coaching effectiveness (-0.18)
