![Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: sources, coaching behavior, and team variables [An article from: Psychology of Sport & Exercise]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/B00/0RR/bigB000RR36HU.jpg)
Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: sources, coaching behavior, and team variables [An article from: Psychology of Sport & Exercise]
Book Details
PublisherElsevier
ISBN / ASINB000RR36HU
ISBN-13978B000RR36H7
AvailabilityAvailable for download now
Sales Rank10,187,767
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Psychology of Sport & Exercise, published by Elsevier in 2005. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
Objectives: To examine the influence of (a) proposed sources of efficacy information on dimensions of coaching efficacy and (b) coaching efficacy on coaching behavior and team variables. Design: A field correlational design tested relationships at two time points: near the beginning and at three-fourths of the way through a season of competition. Method: At Time 1, head coaches (n=135) completed a questionnaire containing the Coaching Efficacy Scale, measures of sources, and demographic items. At Time 2, participants were a subset of coaches from Time 1 (n=101) and 1618 athletes. Coaches completed questionnaires on their perceived frequency of their efficacy-enhancing behaviors with their athletes. Athletes provided information on their satisfaction with their head coach. Results: For female coaches, social support was a stronger source of efficacy information compared to male coaches. Total coaching efficacy predicted coaching behavior, team satisfaction, and winning percentage for men's teams. Total coaching efficacy predicted only coaching behavior across women's teams. Within women's teams, gender of the coach moderated the relationship between character building efficacy and team satisfaction. Character building efficacy was negatively related to team satisfaction in women's teams with male coaches. Motivation efficacy was positively related to team satisfaction in women's teams with female coaches. Conclusion: Findings provide novel corroborations to the coaching efficacy model proposed by Feltz, Chase, Moritz and Sullivan (1999: Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776) and offer some support to broader models of coaching effectiveness.
Description:
Objectives: To examine the influence of (a) proposed sources of efficacy information on dimensions of coaching efficacy and (b) coaching efficacy on coaching behavior and team variables. Design: A field correlational design tested relationships at two time points: near the beginning and at three-fourths of the way through a season of competition. Method: At Time 1, head coaches (n=135) completed a questionnaire containing the Coaching Efficacy Scale, measures of sources, and demographic items. At Time 2, participants were a subset of coaches from Time 1 (n=101) and 1618 athletes. Coaches completed questionnaires on their perceived frequency of their efficacy-enhancing behaviors with their athletes. Athletes provided information on their satisfaction with their head coach. Results: For female coaches, social support was a stronger source of efficacy information compared to male coaches. Total coaching efficacy predicted coaching behavior, team satisfaction, and winning percentage for men's teams. Total coaching efficacy predicted only coaching behavior across women's teams. Within women's teams, gender of the coach moderated the relationship between character building efficacy and team satisfaction. Character building efficacy was negatively related to team satisfaction in women's teams with male coaches. Motivation efficacy was positively related to team satisfaction in women's teams with female coaches. Conclusion: Findings provide novel corroborations to the coaching efficacy model proposed by Feltz, Chase, Moritz and Sullivan (1999: Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776) and offer some support to broader models of coaching effectiveness.
