Effects of a Motivational Climate Intervention for Coaches on Young Athletes’ Sport Performance Anxiety

Brandi Tillman Jaclyn Medel Manny Ozoa

Purpose

To examine coach-initiated mastery climate techniques and the influence mastery climate techniques have on young athletes’ anxiety levels.

Definition of mastery climate: One in which coaches define success in terms of self improvement, task mastery and exhibiting maximum effort and persistence.

Athletes are reinforced for selecting challenging risks, giving maximum effort, persisting in the face of setbacks, encouraging and supporting teammates, and demonstrating personal improvement.

Mistakes are viewed as a potentially valuable source of feedback that can facilitate improvement. (not completely negative) The mastery climate was chosen as the appropriate environment to involve the athletes in because it addressed both the positive and negative aspects of coaching.

Hypothesis

The predicted that the MAC intervention would promote the development of a mastery-involving motivational climate and would result in lower levels of cognitive and somatic performance study anxiety over the course of the season in athletes who played for trained coaches.

Variables

Independent Variable MAC Workshop Intervention Dependent Variable Changes in cognitive and somatic performance anxiety Relationship Being Examined The effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for coaches on performance anxiety changes in young athletes.

Sampling

Participants 37 coaches 20 trained; 17 untrained 33 males and 4 males Mean age = 45.0 years Mean number of years of basketball coaching experience = 6.1 years 216 basketball players 117 boys, 99 girls; 10-14 years Mean age = 11.5 years Study did specify assignment of coaches to experimental group and control group

Procedure

20 coaches were selected and participated in a 75 minute MAC (Mastery Approach to Coaching) Workshop.

Study did not specific how the coaches were selected The MAC focused on two important themes: Encouraging positive reinforcement, encouragement and correction of athletes during instruction Conception that success is giving maximum effort and becoming the best one can be, rather than an emphasis on winning or outperforming others.

Both groups held two hour practices and one game per week.

Procedure

SAS 2 (Sports Anxiety Scale) measured the athletes’ anxiety in pre season and near the end of the season in a five-item subscale format.

Ex. Sample question = “I worry that I will not play well.” Each item is answered on a 4-point scale ranging from

not at all

to

very much.

The MCSYS (Motivational Scale) consists of six items indexing a mastery climate and six items assessing an ego climate. It was only assessed at the end to prevent different biases of students who had played/not played for a certain coach.

Ex. Sample question = “The Coach made players feel good when they improved a skill.” Answers ranged from

very false

to

very true.

These assessments lasted approximately 20 minutes.

Athletes were told during preseason session that if they answered the questionnaire items carefully and accurately, they would be given a $4 Baskin-Robbins ice cream gift certificate redeemable at local franchise stores at the end of the season.

Results

Players who played for trained coaches showed: Decreases in somatic anxiety and worry Players who played for untrained coaches showed: Increases in somatic anxiety and concentration disruption 11% of player who played for trained coaches and 26% of players who played for untrained coaches were not attending practice regularly at the end of the season.

Trained coach players reported higher levels of mastery climate behaviors.

External Validity

Generalized to athletes and coaches of one institution Sample group consisted of 20 trained coaches and 17 untrained coaches, athletes between the ages of 10-14 years old. The athletes were male and female.

Testing only one sport does not mean you are truly testing for anxiety for all athletes in general.

Age groups could have an effect on the results. (10 year olds have less responsibility than 14 year olds).

Interaction of Setting and Treatment There were only two real sport settings: in practice and in competition Not a threat because the study addresses the logical settings coaching would take place in

External Validity

History and Treatment The study did not specify what times of the week they had competition and practice, just that they had practice twice a week and a game once a week.

There could have been different results in anxiety depending if they had practices/games in the morning or at night. Athletes could have different anxiety levels if the season and practice schedule conflicted with their school work. Overall, the external validity was moderate. There were no threats for the sampling of coaches and the setting but there could have been improvements on selecting the age groups that define young athletes and specifying the time of day practice and competition took place.

Internal Validity Study Design O X1 O O X2 O

Internal Validity

Mortality Data from two boys in the intervention was discarded because of random responses that contradicted each other on the second anxiety measure. Compensatory Rivalry Coaches that were untrained could have become more competitive to show how well they could coach. The coaches could’ve influenced the students to compete with each other. This causes the participants to work against the ability to see the effects of the intervention. If rivalry affects post-test performance it will be more difficult to detect the effects of the intervention.

Resentful Demoralizaton The untrained coaches may become discouraged or angry and might give up. This effect may cause inaccurate results because the intervention may look more effective than it really is.

Overall, the internal validity was good. Mortality did not play a significant factor within the intervention and the perception of the coaches did not affect the anxiety levels.

Construct Validity

Mono-method Bias: The study only focused on basketball. The study should have test other sports such as, baseball, softball, football, volleyball, etc. Testing only one sport does not mean you are truly testing for anxiety for all athletes overall.

Interaction of Testing and Treatment Coaches did not retain their self-monitoring forms and keep track of what they were doing over time. Few forms were completed so they could not be used at the end of the season. This could have had an effect on the final results because the coaches could have written down anything on how they “think” they did, not how they truly coached.

Construct Validity

Social Threats The age groups pose a different level of maturity and responsibility.

The teen athletes (13-14) may have higher levels of anxiety due to the pressure they feel to win a sport or make an impression on a teammate. The athletes that are 10-12 years old may not have as much pressure, they could just be playing for fun and not have responsibilities like the older athletes.

High anxiety children worried more frequently about making mistakes, not playing well, and losing than their low-anxiety counterparts.

Coaches strongly influence the nature and quality of a sport experience.

Incentives may have influenced the way the athletes or the coaches performed in the study. (e.g. Baskin and Robbins gift cards and the book given to coaches).

Overall, the construct validity needs improvement in every aspect. The study should have tested more than one sport and made sure the coaches kept track on their coaching and there are too many social threats.