Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2002, 16(3), 456–460
q 2002 National Strength & Conditioning Association
An Analysis of Teaching and Coaching Behaviors
of Elite Strength and Conditioning Coaches
C. DWAYNE MASSEY ,1 MARK W. MANEVAL,2 JERRY PHILLIPS,2
JOHN VINCENT,3 GEORGE WHITE4, AND BOB ZOELLER5,
1
The University of West Alabama, Livingston, Alabama 35470; 2Pedagogy Laboratory, University of Southern
Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406; 3University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487; 4Montana
State University at Billings, Montana 59101; 5Florida Atlantic University, Davie, Florida 33314.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to analyze the coaching be-
haviors of 6 elite strength and conditioning coaches from the
southern region of the United States. The Arizona State Uni-
versity Coaching Observation Instrument, consisting of 16
behavioral categories, was used for the collection of data.
Each coach was observed and filmed on 3 occasions. All ob-
servations occurred in the respective team’s weight training
facility. The data collected in this study consisted of a per-
centage analysis of the observed coaching behaviors. The
most frequently observed behaviors were silent monitoring
(21.99%), management (14.62%), and hustle (11.12%). These
results indicate that this population of strength and condi-
tioning coaches was predominantly engaged in observation
of their athletes (silent monitoring), organization of the
weight training activity (management), and verbal state-
ments to intensify effort (hustle). The results are similar to
other studies with coaches who were also involved in indi-
vidual rather than team sports.
Key Words: systematic observation, weight training,
coaching behavior, strength coaches
Reference Data: Massey, C.D., M.W. Maneval, J. Phil-
lips, J. Vincent, G. White, and B. Zoeller. An analysis
of teaching and coaching behaviors of elite strength
and conditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16(3):
456–460. 2002.
Introduction
. . . to me, our profession is one of the noblest and perhaps the most
far reaching in building up the youth of our country. As I view it,
no one is too good to be the athletic coach of our youth. . . [Amos
Alonzo Stagg, 1927] (2)
A significant amount of systematic observational re-
search (SOR) concerning the behavior of coaches
has been done over the past 30 years. SOR studies on
coaching behavior have been conducted in different
settings and in different sports such as football, bas-
456
ketball, gymnastics, tennis, and other sports. As sports
have evolved, one group that has not been scrutinized
is the coaches in the relatively new field of strength
and conditioning. Only in the past 10 years has this
position become a fixture on major college Division I-
A athletic staffs. In fact, before 30 years ago, the po-
sition did not even exist (10). Over this short span of
time, the strength and conditioning coach has become
an indispensable person in the process of preparing
athletes to play (1). However, because the strength and
conditioning population has never been observed
through systematic observation, this study will high-
light the behaviors of 6 elite strength coaches in the
weight room when working with college athletes.
Tharp and Gallimore (23) were the first researchers
to study coaches through systematic observation. They
designed a 10-category instrument to specifically con-
duct research in the coaching setting. They used this
instrument to investigate the coaching behaviors of
John Wooden, the extremely successful basketball
coach at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Wooden won 10 National Collegiate Athletic Associa-
tion Basketball Championships in 12 years. The re-
searchers studied Coach Wooden in his final season of
1974–75. The outcome of the study indicated that
50.3% of Coach Wooden’s coaching behaviors were
from the instruction category.
Langsdorf (9), using an instrument similar to that
of Tharp and Gallimore (23), studied the coaching be-
havior of the legendary coach Frank Kush. Kush, a
highly successful football coach at the Arizona State
University, was well known for his hard-nosed, no-
nonsense approach to the game. Langsdorf (9) then
compared the coaching behaviors of Frank Kush with
those of John Wooden from the study of Tharp and
Gallimore (23). It was found that the coaching styles
of these 2 coaches were similar in many ways. How-
ever, some differences were noted. Coach Kush had a
higher percentage of behaviors in both the praise and
 Systematic Observation of Strength Coaches 457

scold categories, although the ratio of praise to scolds Table 1. Subjects’ descriptive data.
for the 2 coaches were approximately equal. On the
other hand, the percentage of instruction for Coach Years at
Wooden was approximately 15 points higher than for Total years present
Coach Kush. Subject* Age (y) coaching position
From the pioneering work of Tharp and Gallimore
1 (SEC) 45 20 1
(23), several other coaching observation instruments 2 (CUSA) 28 6 2
were developed to study coaching behavior. One, in 3 (CUSA) 34 11 3
particular, is the coaching behavioral assessment sys- 4 (SEC) 42 10 3
tem (CBAS). Developed by Smith et al. (21), this in- 5 (SEC) 40 16 3
strument is also an excellent tool to assess coaching 6 (CUSA) 36 14 3
behavior. It has primarily been used in youth sport Mean 37.5 12.8 2.5
settings (5, 16, 20–22). Building on the work of these
and other researchers, Lacy and Darst (6) introduced * SEC 5 Southeastern Conference; CUSA 5 Conference
the Arizona State University coaching observation in- USA.
strument (ASUOI). The researchers divided the in-
structional category into separate categories of prein-
struction, concurrent instruction, and postinstruction. planations about how to execute the lift, strategy,
The ASUOI also contained 7 categories that could be etc., associated with weight training.
related directly to coaching behavior. This allowed the 2. Concurrent instruction: Cues or reminders given
instrument to be more sensitive to the behavior of the during the actual lift.
coaches being studied and was a factor in its selection 3. Postinstruction: Correction, re-explanation, or in-
for this investigation. structional feedback given after the actual execu-
Lacy and Darst (7) and other researchers have used tion of the skill.
the ASUOI to study numerous different coaching pop- 4. Questioning: Any question to athletes concerning
ulations (3, 4, 8, 11–15, 17). An additional factor in the strategies, lifting techniques, assignments, or per-
selection of the ASUOI is its proven utility in assessing sonal issues involving the athlete.
the behavior of collegiate coaches. The ASUOI or one 5. Manual manipulation: Physically moving an ath-
of the other instruments to which it is closely related lete to the proper position or though the correct
has been used in a variety of research at this level (3, range of motion of a lift.
9, 15, 17, 23). It should be noted, however, that no prior 6. Positive modeling: A demonstration of correct per-
SOR studies involving strength and conditioning formance of a skill or lift.
coaches have been done. This study serves as a begin- 7. Negative modeling: A demonstration of incorrect
ning database as well as a reference point for coaches performance or technique.
involved in the strength and conditioning profession. 8. Hustle: Verbal statements intended to intensify the
efforts of the athletes.
Methods 9. Praise: Verbal or nonverbal expressions of accep-
tance.
Subjects
10. Scolds: Verbal or nonverbal expressions of displea-
The population used in this study consisted of 6 male sure.
strength and conditioning coaches from 6 elite Divi- 11. Management: Verbal statements related to organi-
sion I-A football programs in the southern part of the zational details of training sessions not referring
United States. These coaches and programs were se- to strategies or fundamentals of the sport.
lected because of the annual success of their institu- 12. Silence: Periods of time when the strength coach
tion’s football programs. All schools reported a 0.600 is not talking and not engaged with the athletes
winning percentage over the past 3 years. Three under their supervision.
strength and conditioning coaches were from the 13. Silent monitoring: Periods of time in which the
Southeastern Conference, and 3 coaches were selected strength coach is silent, but engaged in monitoring
from Conference USA. Descriptive data of the subjects the activities of the athletes under his supervision.
are presented in Table 1. 14. Other: Any behavior that cannot be heard or does
Observational Instrument not fit into the other described categories.
15. Coach participation: Physical involvement by the
The instrument used to conduct this study was a mod-
coach in any practice-related activity.
ified form of the ASUOI (6). The categories used in this
16. Coach interaction: Conversation with an assistant
study were as follows:
coach regarding an aspect of practice, usually di-
1. Preinstruction: Initial information given to athletes rected at coaching of a playing technique, man-
preceding the desired action to be performed. Ex- agement of practice, performance of a player, etc.
458 Massey, Maneval, Phillips, Vincent, and White

The silent monitoring and coach interaction cate- Table 2. Arizona State University Coaching Observation
gories were added to the ASUOI for the purposes of Instrument categorical percentage analysis.*
this study. Although the coach interaction category
had not been used previously with the ASUOI, it was Mini- Maxi- Rank
used in a similar instrument by Langsdorf (9). Because n mum mum Mean SD order
the ASUOI and Langsdorf’s (9) instrument are very Preinstruction 6 0.28 15.21 4.76 5.42 10
similar, each interaction was easily assimilated into the Concurrent
ASUOI. The coach interaction category has also been instruction 6 3.13 9.03 5.04 2.25 9
used by other researchers using Langsdorf’s instru- Postinstruction 6 0.83 4.72 1.84 1.53 12
ment (18). The silent monitoring category was devel- Questioning 6 3.13 9.31 6.20 2.78 7
oped for this study on the basis of a recommendation Manual
by Phillips (15). manipulation 6 0.00 0.28 0.08 0.12 16
Positive modeling 6 0.00 2.50 0.54 0.96 13
Data Collection Negative modeling 6 0.00 0.56 0.10 0.22 15
Hustle 6 4.31 21.18 11.12 6.09 3
The 6 coaches were observed on 3 occasions. Before Praise 6 0.63 9.38 5.53 3.22 8
filming, the investigator(s) visited each site and col- Scold 6 0.00 1.39 0.37 0.60 14
lected permission signatures from the subjects and ob- Management 6 6.04 34.72 14.62 10.53 2
served a weight training session to familiarize them- Silence 6 3.96 8.54 6.50 1.97 6
selves with the coaches’ styles and teaching manner- Silent monitoring 6 13.89 34.72 21.99 8.27 1
isms. This was done to detect noticeable changes in Other 6 3.54 18.54 10.99 5.37 4
performance once the data-gathering process com- Coach participation 6 0.14 6.39 3.33 2.58 11
menced. No obtuse behavioral changes were noted by Coach interaction 6 1.88 13.40 6.39 4.98 5
the investigator(s). Observations were conducted dur-
* Numbers are reported in percentages.
ing regularly scheduled team training sessions and oc-
curred in the respective team’s weight training facility.
These sessions were videotaped for more accurate cod- Results
ing of behavior. Interval recording was used for this
During observational sessions, 8,640 individual behav-
study. An interval of 5 seconds was used for the cod-
iors were recorded. Individually, each coach was ob-
ing of behavior (17).
served for a total of 120 minutes for a total of 1,440
Each observation session was 40 minutes in length.
behaviors. The average coefficient of variation (stan-
The time of observation sessions was based on the
dard deviation divided by the mean) for the 3 most
work of Phillips (15) and Rupert (17), who used this
observed behaviors (silent monitoring, management,
period of time in their studies. Lacy and Darst (6) con- and hustle) was 0.55. This would appear to indicate
curred with this procedure when they stated that ob- that there was a relatively wide variety of coaching
servations could be made for the entire practice session styles employed by the participants observed in this
or for predetermined portions of the practice. For this study. This finding is consistent with this population
study, the observation period began after the initial of coaches who employ individual philosophies when
warm-up. conducting their strength workouts (10). Table 2 pre-
The accuracy of behavioral coding was established sents the percentage analysis of the total behaviors of
by 2 methods. Method 1 included the investigator tak- all coaches in each category of the ASUOI. The most
ing a course in systematic observational research tech- frequently observed behavior in the study was silent
niques, which included familiarization and actual monitoring at 21.99%. Management was the second
practice sessions with this research technique. Method most often observed behavior at 14.62%. Hustle was
2 incorporated checking interobserver agreement the third most often observed behavior at 11.12%, and
(IOA) between independent observers before data col- the fourth most often observed behavior was other at
lection. Additional IOA checks were conducted on 3 10.99%. The findings of the study indicated that
occasions during the course of the investigation. All 58.72% of the total observed behaviors for this study
IOA checks were above 80%. This is the level of agree- occurred in the 4 categories of silent monitoring, man-
ment deemed acceptable in observational research (19). agement, hustle, and other. Silent monitoring and
management were the 2 most frequently observed be-
Statistical Analyses havioral categories and comprised 36.61% of the total
The data collected in this study were descriptive in behaviors observed. This finding indicated that the
nature. Percentages for the behavior of each individual coaches in this study spent more than a third of their
coach in each category were tabulated. The total per- time monitoring and managing the activities of the
centages for each behavioral category were also cal- athletes under their supervision.
culated. In the past, the first 7 categories of the ASUOI were

considered to be compartmentalized into instructional
categories (3, 4, 8, 11–15, 17). The categories that com-
prise the instructional area are preinstruction, concur-
rent instruction, postinstruction, questioning, manual
manipulation, positive modeling, and negative mod-
eling. The categories of hustle, praise, and scold are
compartmentalized into the feedback component of
the ASUOI (15). When the means of the instructional
component were examined, it was found that 18.56%
of the coaches’ total behaviors occurred in the instruc-
tional area.
When the feedback categories were examined, it
was found that 17.02% of the coaches’ total behaviors
occurred in that area. As previously cited, scold was
used infrequently by the coaches in this study. When
the categories of hustle and praise were combined, it
was found that they accounted for 16.65% of the be-
haviors observed.
Discussion
Before this study, no research had systematically ob-
served the coaching behaviors of strength and condi-
tioning coaches. The results of this study contribute to
the growing database of information concerning the
behaviors of athletic coaches. The finding that 58.72%
of the total observed behaviors in this study occurred
in the silent monitoring, management, hustle, and oth-
er categories is in sharp contrast with the majority of
studies using this instrument. Early studies in system-
atic observation of coaching behavior reported the
highest incidences of observed behavior in the instruc-
tional area.
A few studies have gone against this trend, with
different percentages within the coaching categories
being found. The findings of the studies by Campbell
(3) and Claxton (4) more closely resemble the results
of the current investigation. A possible explanation for
discrepancies related to the level of instruction in these
various studies may have to do with the nature of the
sport being coached. The majority of studies that have
been done using the ASUOI have been conducted with
coaches involved in team sports.
What the team sports have in common is that they
are dynamic activities that involve primarily open-
ended types of skills. An open skill can be defined as
a skill that is performed in an environment that is var-
iable and characterized by frequent change. Open
skills are opposed to closed skills, which occur in en-
vironments that are more stable and predictable.
Closed skills predominate in sports environments that
have fewer competing forces that can influence the out-
come of the skill (e.g., golf, diving, shot put, weight
training). Consequently, one should expect to find ma-
jor differences between sports involving primarily
open skills and those involving primarily closed skills.
The population of strength and conditioning coach-
Systematic Observation of Strength Coaches 459
es used in this study was predominantly engaged in
observation of their athletes (21.99%), organization of
the weight training activity (14.62%), and verbal state-
ments to intensify athletic effort (11.12%). These totals
approximate almost one-half of the observed behaviors
for the elite strength coaches used in this study. Con-
sidering the nature of the environment surrounding
the strength and conditioning discipline, these find-
ings are a natural consequence. An enlightening aspect
of this study was the use of verbal encouragement
(hustle and praise) by this population. Motivation
plays a significant role in the weight training room.
This finding suggests that these coaches recognized
the contribution this behavior makes in their field and
actively engaged in this behavior when working with
their athletes.
These are several limitations of this study for SOR
with strength and conditioning coaches. The first re-
volves around the limited time spent monitoring and
recording the coaches’ behaviors. This study was lim-
ited to 3 observation periods by the researchers with
1 initial visit before the collection of data. Although
this technique is documented as acceptable in past re-
search (17), more observation periods may be war-
ranted to offset any possible Hawthorne effect. Vari-
ability coefficients within this study indicate a wide
variety of coaching styles. It is suggested that future
studies employ larger sample sizes to reduce this dis-
crepancy. It should, however, be noted that the major-
ity of past SOR studies in this area have consistently
used small populations of 12 or fewer subjects (3, 4, 7,
9, 12, 15, 17, 23). As more SOR investigators scrutinize
the population of strength and conditioning coaches,
there is little doubt that the perceived limitations of
this study will be addressed in future investigations.
Practical Applications
It is hoped that the results of this study can serve as
a foundation for future research into how strength and
conditioning coaches do their job. The information
provided by this study is specific to the population
used in this investigation and is designed to stimulate
further research into this emerging profession. It is
only through continued research that we can make the
discipline stronger and more respected within the
coaching and scientific communities.
References
1. ARTHUR, M., AND B. BAILEY. Complete Conditioning for Football.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.
2. BENNETT, G., G. WHITE, AND M. MANEVAL. Strike while the
iron is hot! The importance of meeting NASPE coaching stan-
dards within the human performance curriculum. Tenn. J.
Health Phys. Educ. Rec. Dance 36(2):4–10. 1998.
3. CAMPBELL, H. Comparisons of male collegiate tennis coaches
who coach male tennis players, and male coaches who coach
460 Massey, Maneval, Phillips, Vincent, and White
female tennis players. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1993.
4. CLAXTON, D.B. A systematic observation of more or less suc-
cessful high school coaches. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 7:302–310.
1988.
5. HORN, T. Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic set-
ting: Methodological considerations. J. Sports Psychol. 6:60–76.
1984.
6. LACY, A.C., AND P.W. DARST. Evolution of a systematic obser-
vation system: The ASU coaching observation instrument. J.
Teaching Phys. Educ. 3:59–66. 1984.
7. LACY, A.C., AND P.W. DARST. Systematic observation of behav-
iors of winning high school head football coaches. J. Teaching
Phys. Educ. 4:256–270. 1985.
8. LACY, A.C., AND P. GOLDSTON. Behavior analysis of male and
female coaches in high school girl’s basketball. J. Sports Behav.
13:29–39. 1990.
9. LANGSDORF, E.V. A systematic observation of football coaching
behavior in a major university environment. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1979.
10. LAYTON, T. Power play. Sports Illustrated 89(4):61–64. 1998.
11. MILLER, A. Systematic observation behavior similarities of var-
ious youth sports coaches. Phys. Educator 49:136–143. 1992.
12. MODEL, R.L. Coaching behaviors of nonwinning high school
football coaches in Arizona. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Arizona State University, Tempe, 1983.
13. MOULTON, M. An analysis of teaching behaviors of youth
sports gymnastics coaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1986.
14. PERKINS, G. Comparison of the male high school basketball
coaches of male and female programs through systematic ob-
servation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1989.
15. PHILLIPS, T.M. An analysis of teaching behaviors through sys-
tematic observation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, 1991.
16. RESJESKI, W., C. DARRACOTT, AND S. HUTSLAR. Pygmalion in
youth sport: A field study. J. Sports Psychol. 1:311–319. 1979.
17. RUPERT, T., AND C. BUSCHNER. Teaching and coaching: A com-
parison of instructional behaviors. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 9:49–
57. 1989.
18. SEGRAVE, J., AND C. CIANCIO. An observation study of a suc-
cessful Pop Warner football coach. J. Teaching Phys. Educ. 9:294–
306. 1990.
19. SIEDENTOP, D. Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education
(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1983.
20. SMITH, R., AND F. SMOLL. Self-esteem and children’s reactions
to youth sport coaching behavior: A field study of self-enhance-
ment process. Dev. Psychol. 26:987–993. 1990.
21. SMITH, R., F. SMOLL, AND B. CURTIS. Coach effectiveness train-
ing: A cognitive-behavioral approach to enhancing relationship
skills in youth sport coaches. J. Sport Psychol. 1:59–75. 1979.
22. SMITH, R., F. SMOLL, AND E. HUNT. A system for the behavioral
assessment of athletic coaches. Res. Q. 48:401–407. 1977.
23. THARP, R.G., AND R. GALLIMORE. What a coach can teach a
teacher. Psychol. Today 9:75–78. 1976.
Address correspondence to Mark Maneval, mark.
maneval@usm.edu.