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

Participants37 coaches

20 trained; 17 untrained33 males and 4 malesMean age = 45.0 yearsMean number of years of basketball coaching experience = 6.1 years

216 basketball players117 boys, 99 girls; 10-14 yearsMean 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 instructionConception 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 TreatmentThere were only two real sport settings: in practice and in competitionNot a threat because the study addresses the logical settings coaching would take place in

External Validity

History and TreatmentThe 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

MortalityData from two boys in the intervention was discarded because of random responses that contradicted each other on the second anxiety measure.

Compensatory RivalryCoaches 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 DemoralizatonThe 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 TreatmentCoaches 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 ThreatsThe 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.