TOOLS TO ENGINEER TOOLS TO ENGINEER BETTER SPORT EXPERIENCESBETTER SPORT EXPERIENCES

Damon BurtonDamon Burton

University of IdahoUniversity of Idaho

TALE OF 2 TOPICSTALE OF 2 TOPICS

Measuring Coaching Effectiveness Coaching Success

Questionnaire -2 (CSQ-2) research tool and coach development tool.

Competitive Engineering to create positive

motivational climates, promote prosocial

development, and make sport fun.

WHAT DO WE KNOW WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT COACHING ABOUT COACHING

EVALUATION?EVALUATION?1989 Coaching America’s Coaches Conference talkMinimal systematic coach evaluation occurs at high school or collegiate levels.

Evaluation typically based on won/loss record to hire and fire minimal use for coach

development

ORIGINAL COACHING ORIGINAL COACHING SUCCESS QUESTIONNAIRESUCCESS QUESTIONNAIRE

CSQ developed for 1992 study for American Coaching Effectiveness Program (ACEP) . . . comparing coaching success of

teacher- vs ACEP-trained coaches examining sources of coaching

competenceNeeded an objective measure of coaching success besides winning. 67 items, 15 subscales, & 5

dimensions (e.g., winning, enjoyment, and physical, social & psychological development ).

MEASURING COACHING MEASURING COACHING EFFECTIVENESSEFFECTIVENESS

Cote & Gilbert (2009) developed an integrated coaching effectiveness model.

Knowledge• professional• applied

Athletes’ Sport

Outcomes Context• sport skills * level• teamwork * sport type

MEASURING COACHING MEASURING COACHING EFFECTIVENESSEFFECTIVENESS

Mallett & Cote (2009) developed the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport to assess applied coach knowledge. Athlete outcomes provide a more direct measure of coaching effectiveness.

The Coaching Success Questionnaire-2 designed to measure athlete outcomes as a direct measure of coach effectiveness.

DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF CSQ-2CSQ-2

Conceptual foundations, Assessment model, and Stages of instrument development.

CONCEPTUAL CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONSFOUNDATIONS

Congruent with Cote & Gilbert’s (2009) coaching effectiveness model for measuring athlete outcomes, Designed to assess coaches’ development of athlete’ intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), Based on coaches’ development of athlete resilience (Dweck, 1999).

ASSESSMENT MODELASSESSMENT MODEL

hypothesized 5 dimensions and 18 subscales, confirmed 5 dimensions & 10 subscales,Some subscales focused on coach behaviors that athletes did not readily recognize, Motivation & communication subscales were not confirmed due to high correlations with most other subscales.

CSQ-2 DEVELOPMENTCSQ-2 DEVELOPMENTStage 1 – CSQ developed in 1992,67 items , 5 dimensions and 15 subscales,

Stage 2 – CSQ-2 developed as Andy Gillham’s dissertation,CSQ-2 Form A – 99 items, 5 dimensions &

18 subscales, CSQ-2 Form B – 76 items, 5 dimensions &

12 subscales, andCSQ-2 Form C – 40 items, 5 dimensions &

10 subscales. “Final Form” was confirmed.

CSQ-2 DIMENSIONS AND CSQ-2 DIMENSIONS AND SUBSCALESSUBSCALES

WinningAttitudes about

Winning, Winning,

Enjoyment,Physical DevelopmentPhysical

Conditioning,Skills & Strategies, Wellness.

CSQ-2 DIMENSIONS & CSQ-2 DIMENSIONS & SUBSCALESSUBSCALES

Psychological DevelopmentSelf-Confidence,

Emotional

Control.

Social DevelopmentTeamwork, Sportsmanship.

CSQ-2 USE 1: RESEARCH CSQ-2 USE 1: RESEARCH TOOLTOOL

Identify relationships between coach effectiveness and key antecedent and consequent variables such as . . . Coach background and training variables

(e.g., teacher training).Team variables (e.g., motivational

climate), Athlete resiliency and self-esteem.

Dependent measure to assess coaching education effectiveness.

CSQ-2 USE 2:CSQ-2 USE 2: COACH DEVELOPMENT COACH DEVELOPMENT

TOOLTOOLMinimal systematic coach evaluation and development at any level,Existing won/loss record evaluation used primarily to hire and fire coaches, Because of limited nature of coaching education in U.S., evaluation can be a valuable tool for creating motivation for coach development.

5 STEPS TO MAKING COACH 5 STEPS TO MAKING COACH DEVELOPMENT WORKDEVELOPMENT WORK

Step 1 -- Use CSQ-2 to assess coaches’ strengths and weaknesses,Step 2 -- After the season, the Athletic Director would use CSQ-2 data to identify 2-3 key areas for professional growth.Step 3 -- The AD and coach would agree on specific goals to work on for each growth area.

5 STEPS TO MAKING COACH 5 STEPS TO MAKING COACH DEVELOPMENT WORKDEVELOPMENT WORK

Step 4 -- Coaches would be provided with resources to enhance their knowledge.Coaches might read the communication

chapter in Sport Psychology for Coaches.Coaching development guided using a

workbook of exercises.Step 5 -- Learning communities may be developed where a group of coaches meet regularly to work collaboratively on growth areas (see Gilbert, Gallimore & Trudel, 2009).

ROLE OF CSQ-2 IN ROLE OF CSQ-2 IN COACH DEVELOPMENTCOACH DEVELOPMENT

It measures athlete outcomes, the most direct measure of coaching effectiveness. It’s a psychometrically-sound instrument that is quick for athletes to complete.It’s easy to score and interpret results.Supplemental materials can readily be developed to facilitate coach development.The CSQ-2 is a tool that facilitates systematic coaching education and development.

COMPETITIVE COMPETITIVE ENGINEERINGENGINEERING

The competitive engineering process in youth sports …modifies the structure, rules, facilities, and equipment of a particular sport to enhance athletes’ competitive experience.benefits include enhanced skill development, enjoyment, & attitudes toward physical activity while reducing attrition.has been used extensively, but in a haphazard fashion, with no model to guide implementation.

MOTIVATIONAL MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE CONCEPTUAL CLIMATE CONCEPTUAL

MODELMODELCompetitive engineering is a motivational climate strategy that attempts to enhance motivation through systematic change in the competitive environment.Motivational climate has its origins in achievement goal theory that has found players in mastery-oriented (i.e., process) climates have higher intrinsic motivation, greater enjoyment and satisfaction and less attrition than do outcome-oriented (i.e., product) teammates.

STRUCTURING A BETTER STRUCTURING A BETTER MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATEMOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE

CE attempts to enhance intrinsic motivation by creating positive changes in how youth sport is structured to enhance competence, increase personal

self-determination or autonomy, and

provide greater opportunities to be with friends (i.e., relatedness).

MASTERY CLIMATE MASTERY CLIMATE CORRELATESCORRELATES

Cote et al.’s (2008) Developmental Model of Sport Participation suggests the “sampling years” between 6-12 is a time to emphasize “deliberate play” that maximizes enjoyment for both future recreational and elite performers. Mastery climate also promotes prosocial development (First Tee, 2006; Petitpas et al., 2005).

COACHING EDUCATION COACHING EDUCATION VERSUS COMPETITIVE VERSUS COMPETITIVE

ENGINEERINGENGINEERINGYouth coaches don’t like to invest time in coaching education.Coaching is considered a short-term activity but improvement takes time and focus, Problem coaches don’t typically participate in coaching education programs. Competitive engineering only has to convince administrators to adopt CE modifications.Structural modifications create the opportunity for positive change.Existing research supports the value of competitive engineering.

WORKING WORKING COMPETITIVE COMPETITIVE

ENGINEERING MODEL ENGINEERING MODEL

6 goals, 4 strategies, 4 techniques.

COMPETITIVE COMPETITIVE ENGINEERING OVERALL ENGINEERING OVERALL

GOALGOALCompetitive engineering attempts to create programs that ensure consistent physical, psychological and social development is emphasized more than winning.However, when development is maximized, the chances of winning also increase.

COMPETITIVE COMPETITIVE ENGINEERING GOALS ENGINEERING GOALS

attract athletes to sport,increase process orientation and intrinsic motivation,enhance skill development, increase perceived competence, maximize fun and enjoyment, and minimize burnout and attrition.

TAKING A HINT FROM TAKING A HINT FROM SANDLOT GAMES …SANDLOT GAMES …

Coakley’s (1980) research In sandlot games, kids

modify games, maximizing enjoyment and keeping everyone involved so the game continues.

“Sandlot” games typically result in increased cooperation, decision making, creativity, and action…things stifled in rule-centered organized sport .

CE STRATEGIES: WHAT CE STRATEGIES: WHAT ATHLETES WANTATHLETES WANT

increase action and scoring,create high personal involvement, keep scores close, maintain positive social relationships with teammates and opponents (Coakley, 1980).

COMPETITIVE COMPETITIVE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING TECHNIQUESTECHNIQUES

modify rules,change facilities,adjust equipment, provide choices of competitive level.

CE TECHNIQUE CE TECHNIQUE EXAMPLESEXAMPLES

CE STRATEGY & TECHNIQUE CE STRATEGY & TECHNIQUE EXAMPLES EXAMPLES

1. increase action and scoring “kid-size” equipment & facilities and modify rules to advantage the offense

2. create high levels of personal involvementincrease playing time and opportunities to play “glamour” positions

3. keep scores closeequalize talent across teams and have “catch-up” rules

4. promote positive relationships between all participants

utilize joint practices, socialization rules, and social events

PYRAMID MODEL OF PYRAMID MODEL OF SPORT PROGRAMMINGSPORT PROGRAMMING

Level 5: Level 5: RegionalRegional

Travel TeamTravel Team

Level 4: LocalLevel 4: LocalTravel TeamTravel Team

Level 3: Competitive LeaguesLevel 3: Competitive Leagues

Level 2: Recreational ProgramLevel 2: Recreational Program

Level 1: Instructional ProgramLevel 1: Instructional Program

FLAG FOOTBALL CE STUDYFLAG FOOTBALL CE STUDY

1. Conceptual Focus Increase action and scoring, Enhance personal investment, Decrease excessive physical contact.

2. Research Protocol“Kid-size” football and field “Delayed rush” rule to prevent defensive line from crossing line-of-scrimmage for 3 seconds

3. Results Total points increased by 115%, Percentage of kids scoring increased by 50%, Enjoyment increased extensively, and Attrition was reduced 22% the following season.

FUTURE RESEARCH FUTURE RESEARCH QUESTIONSQUESTIONS

1. Is more CE better? Number of modifications overall, Number of modifications for each CE technique.

2. Does the type of modification impact effectiveness?

Which strategy modifications are most effective (e.g., close scores versus increased scoring)? Even within the same strategy category, which modifications have greater impact on athlete outcomes (e.g., position played versus playing time)? What implementation protocol (i.e., rationale) will best sell CE to administrators, coaches, & athletes?What implementation protocol will maximize athlete outcomes (e.g., explaining rationale and teaching implementation strategies)?

WANT MORE INFO?WANT MORE INFO?Powerpoint loaded on handout system,Email to dburton@uidaho.edu,Manuscripts will be loaded on our Practitioner Website when accepted for publication.

THE END