Stakeholders' Views of Coaching Efficacy

Background/Purpose: The study grounded in self-efficacy theory sought to investigate varsity coaches’ self-efficacy, including investigation of stakeholders’ perceptions of coaches’ efficacy using parallel items. The three research questions guiding this study were: (a) How efficacious are coaches? (b) What are student athletes’ and parents’ perceptions of their coaches’ efficacy? (c) How does coach efficacy relate to stakeholders’ perceptions of coach efficacy? 

Method: Coaches, athletes, and parents were recruited from school districts in the Western U.S.A.  Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from the University and school district. All participants provided informed consent or assent.  A total of 516 coaches, 115 athletes, and 103 parents were recruited. Coaching efficacy was assessed using the Coaching Efficacy Scale (Feltz et al., 1999). Specific factors in the CES include: (a) instructional techniques, (b) motivation, (c) character building, and (d) game strategy. The scale includes 24 multi-dimensional self-report survey items were scored on a 10-point scale. A modified version of the CES was used for the athlete/parent survey.

Analysis/Results: Confirmatory Factor Analyses was performed using the CES data for both Athletes and Parents. Cronbach’s α showed excellent internal consistency reliability for the original four-factor structure of the instrument for both athlete and parents (Athlete: IT= .94; M= .94; CB= .89; GS=.90; and Overall= .97 and Parent: IT= .95; M= .97; CB= .95; GS= .97; and Overall= .99).  CFA was also performed using the CES data using the factor structure identified by experts as representing eight factors of NASPE Coaching Standards. The findings regarding perceived coaching efficacy and stakeholders views are consistent with previous reports (Kavussanu et al, 2008). Coaches Efficacy rated high on all 4 CES Subscales.  However, stakeholders’ views showed athletes were low in motivation and ability to coach individual athletes on techniques and in good sportsperson-ship and the parent showed low ratings for coaching effectiveness related to motivation and perceived efficacy in game strategy.  

Conclusions: The current study identified coaching experience and background knowledge (education) as two key components of coaching efficacy as it relates to the CES.  The CFA with all 3 groups showed a good fit of the data with the original four-factor model. Thus, these results provided additional support for the CES model with these three groups (Feltz et al, 1999). Athletes who are more experienced may be hypercritical of their coach and the compatibility between instructional technique and game strategy. Finally, coaches appear to evaluate themselves more positively than stakeholders.