H567/03 Section B Option 4 - Smith et al. (1979) and effective coaching

Coaching background and aim

The prescribed study is Smith et al. (1979), Coach effectiveness training: a cognitive-behavioural approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Organised youth sport does not automatically benefit psychological development: supervision and relationships matter. The researchers focused on the coach within an athletic triangle of child, parent and coach.

An earlier investigation of 51 Little League coaches and 542 players related coaching behaviour to players' perceptions and attitudes. It informed behavioural guidelines for the new training programme. Those earlier numbers are background evidence, not the sample of the 1979 training experiment.

Coach Effectiveness Training (CET) combined cognitive and behavioural principles. Increasing awareness of behaviour and its consequences could change coaches' goals and decisions; modelling, feedback and self-monitoring could help them perform the desired actions. The aim was to enhance coaches' ability to relate effectively to players and assess effects on behaviour, perceptions, attitudes and self-esteem.

The researchers also predicted that differences in attitudes toward trained and untrained coaches would be strongest among children with low self-esteem. Self-esteem was examined as a moderator: a characteristic that may affect how strongly coaching relates to attitudes. It was not another randomly assigned treatment.

The topic belongs to the social area, because coach–player relationships shape experience. The intervention also connects cognitive awareness with behaviourist modelling and reinforcement. This gives a specific account of how changing a social situation might affect athletes.

Field design and sample

This was a field experiment in Seattle-area Little League Baseball. Coaches were randomly assigned to CET or a no-treatment control group, while the effects were assessed in ordinary games. The independent variable was training assignment. Dependent measures included observed coach behaviour, players' perceptions and attitudes, and self-esteem. The independent-groups treatment was allocated at coach level, not separately to every child.

Initially there were 34 male coaches: 18 assigned to training and 16 to control. Three control coaches were lost because of team mergers or residence changes. The final comparison involved 31 coaches: 18 trained and 13 control. Their mean age was 36.10 years, and mean coaching experience was 8.37 years. They coached major-level children aged 10–12 and senior-level children aged 13–15 in three leagues.

End-of-season interviews were completed with 325 boys, approximately 82% of the possible player sample. These were youth baseball participants, not adult professionals or a sample of all young athletes. Comparisons found no significant differences between coach groups in age or experience, but a nonsignificant result is not proof that every relevant characteristic was identical.

Random assignment strengthens the case that training contributed to differences. Ordinary games improve practical relevance. However, unequal coach attrition and missing player interviews can weaken comparability and generalisation. Players within the same team share a coach and environment: 325 interviews do not mean 325 independently assigned training units.

CET procedure and behaviour observation

The trained coaches attended an approximately two-hour evening session. Verbal and written guidelines emphasised rewarding effort and desirable performance, giving encouragement and technical instruction after mistakes, and reducing fear of failure. Researchers modelled desirable and undesirable responses. A brochure also addressed communication, relationships with parents, respect and individual differences.

Early in the season the coaches received a mailed behaviour profile based on two complete games, with comparison information. They completed self-monitoring forms after each of their first ten games, recording desired coaching behaviours, and received periodic reminders. CET was therefore a package of instruction, modelling, feedback and monitoring, not merely a single motivational speech.

The Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) coded twelve observable categories. Sixteen undergraduates were trained over four weeks. The final observed comparison included four game observations per coach.

Reinforcement follows a desirable action, while non-reinforcement means not responding to it. Mistake-contingent instruction follows an error; general instruction need not. Punitive instruction combines a correction with an aversive response. Those distinctions allow observers to investigate the content of coaching rather than just how often a coach speaks.

Clear categories and training support consistent coding, but observer agreement must still be checked to establish reliability. Because the intervention contained several techniques, a difference cannot identify which technique alone produced it.

Player measures and protection

At the season's end, trained interviewers visited players individually in their homes. They were blind to the coach's treatment condition, reducing the chance that knowing the assignment would shape their administration or interpretation.

Players heard descriptions and examples of each of the twelve CBAS behaviours and rated how often their coach showed them on seven-point scales from never to almost always. This assessed perceived/recalled behaviour, which can differ from an observer's record. Players then completed attitude ratings about the coach, teammates, baseball and perceived ability. They wrote responses on a clipboard so the interviewer could not see them.

An adapted Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory assessed global self-esteem using fourteen descriptive statements rated on five-point scales. Global self-esteem is broader than perceived baseball ability, so the measures must not be conflated. Previous-year self-esteem information was available for 112 trained-group children and 75 control-group children, allowing change analysis for this subset of 187, not all 325 interviewed boys.

Children and parents were assured that information was confidential and that coaches would not receive their team's individual interview data. These protections reduced the risk of embarrassment or adverse coach responses and may have encouraged honest reporting. The inspected sources do not provide a complete modern consent/approval account; assurance of confidentiality must not be relabelled as documented ethics approval.

Research with children should obtain appropriate informed agreement from adults and children, allow withdrawal and protect privacy. These are evaluation duties, not extra procedures invented for this paper. Home interviews may reduce public pressure but still depend on recall, item understanding and willingness to report negative experiences.