Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback on Athletes’ Perceptions of the Team’s Motivational Climate

Jonathan Stein

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Kinesiology and Physical Education in the Faculty of Education McGill University June 9, 2009

ii Abstract Team motivational climate has been identified as an important variable in the growth and development of youth sport athletes. Coaching behaviors such as determining the presence and extent of social comparison, rewarding and punishing players, and the quality of interpersonal relationships fostered within the team can create a predominantly task- or ego-oriented team climate. Research on motivation has clearly identified many of the positive outcomes associated with athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Since the motivational climate refers to the coach’s general behaviors in games and practices, it is traditionally assumed that players within a team perceive the same type of team climate. However, research has recently reported that athletes within the same team do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate. This has partly been attributed to players’ personal interactions with the coach. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback they received from their head coach during practices on their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. In addition, the present study examined the influence of the discrepancy between athletes’ preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns on athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. Participants (n = 70) were 13-14 year old elite male hockey players , who each completed the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000) and the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000). Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that perceptions of positive individual feedback from the coach (B=.44) led to perceptions of a task-oriented climate, whereas perceptions of negative individual feedback from the coach (B=.51) led to perceptions of an egooriented climate. Moreover, the discrepancy between athletes’ perceived and preferred coach feedback patterns (B=.23) was positively correlated with athletes’ perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. In general, these findings highlighted the importance of individual coach feedback for creating an effective team atmosphere. In particular, when athletes perceived their coach’s behaviors as positive, informative, and supportive, they were more likely to perceive a task-oriented team climate. In addition, the current study identified antecedents (i.e., informative feedback, discrepancy between athletes’ preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns) of the motivational climate that were not previously reported. More specifically, this study revealed that a difference between the type of coach feedback that athletes preferred and the type of coach feedback that athletes perceived was likely to result in athletes’ perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Consequently, youth sport coaches should know their athletes’ preferred coach feedback patterns and try to provide them with individualized strategies in order to create an effective motivational climate for every athlete within the team.

iii Résumé Chez les jeunes athlètes sportifs, le climat motivationnel de l’équipe a été identifié comme un des facteurs qui influencent leur croissance et développement. Les actions des entraîneurs telle l’identification de la présence des comparaisons sociales et le degré auquel elles existent, les récompenses et punitions données aux joueurs, ainsi que le degré d’encouragement à former des liens interpersonnels de qualité au sein d’une équipe peuvent créer un climat qui tende soit vers la valorisation de l’accomplissement des tâches, soit à celle de l’égo des joueurs. Les résultats des récentes recherches sur la motivation indiquent clairement les aspects positifs qui découlent de la perception des joueurs appartenant à une équipe où règne un climat motivationnel axé sur l’accomplissement des tâches. Traditionnellement l’on a supposé que puisque le climat motivationnel dépend du comportement de l’entraîneur lors des matchs et pratiques, que tous les joueurs devaient donc percevoir un même climat motivationnel. Cependant, de récentes recherches dans ce domaine ont révélé que tous les membres d’une équipe n’ont pas forcément la même perception du climat motivationnel de leur équipe, car cette perception est fondée tout au moins en partie sur les liens qui unissent ces joueurs à leur entraîneur. Utilisant ces données comme point de départ, le but de cette étude est d’analyser l’influence qu’opère la perception d’un athlète selon les commentaires et critiques de son entraîneur en chef sur le type de climat motivationnel de leur équipe. De plus, la présente étude a analysé l’influence de la différence entre les commentaires et critiques préférés des joueurs et ceux reçus par les joueurs sur les perceptions des athlètes du climat motivationnel de l’équipe. Les participants de l’étude (n=70) étaient des joueurs de hockey masculins de calibre élite de 13 et 14 ans, qui avaient tous complété le questionnaire 2 sur la perception du climat motivationnel en sport (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda & Yin, 2000), ainsi que celui des commentaires et critiques des entraîneurs (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000). L’analyse de la régression hiérarchique a révélé qu’une perception individuelle positive des commentaires de l’entraîneur (B=.44) entraînait alors une perception d’un climat motivationnel valorisant l’accomplissement des tâches, contrairement à une perception individuelle négative des commentaires de l’entraîneur (B=.51), qui elle favorisait un climat motivationnel valorisant l’égo des joueurs. De plus, une différence significative et proportionnellement liée à la perception des commentaires préférés par rapport à ceux perçus par le joueur (B=.23) existe, engendrant alors un climat motivationnel favorisant l’égo des joueurs. De façon générale, les résultats de cette étude démontrent l’importance du rôle des commentaires individuels fournis par l’entraîneur pour la création d’un climat d’équipe efficace. Il ressort aussi que lorsque les athlètes perçoivent les commentaires de leur entraîneur comme positifs, informatifs et les appuyant, dans la majorité des cas cela mène a un climat motivationnel qui encourage la valorisation de l’accomplissement de tâches. Cette étude a aussi permis de découvrir certains facteurs des climats motivationnels qui n’avaient pas été analysés auparavant. De plus, cette étude fait ressortir que lorsqu’il y a une différence entre les commentaires préférés des joueurs et ceux perçus cela résulte le plu souvent dans un climat motivationnel qui favorise l’égo des joueurs. Conséquemment, il est de la plus haute importance que les entraîneurs connaissent le type de commentaires préférés des joueurs, et ainsi d’aligner les stratégies employées sur ces préférences afin de créer un climat motivationnel axé sur l’accomplissement des tâches et par ailleurs créé un climat motivationnel efficace pour chacun des joueurs de l’équipe.

I’ll never forget those trips to Sudbury. and conference partner. my friend. Catherine Sabiston. The 70 hockey players who participated in our study. Your feedback was always honest and you were always available when I needed guidance. you always challenged me to be better. St. We shared the ups and downs of graduate life together. providing constructive feedback or helping me see things from a different perspective. Louis and Toronto. Whether it was helping with statistics. . Billy Harvey. Will Falcao. who was on my colloquium committee and who always brought a wealth of knowledge to our meetings.iv Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people who helped me complete my thesis: • Dr. lab partner. • Dr. Gordon Bloom. You have been one of my mentors for the past 6 years and I want to thank you for introducing me to this great world of sport psychology. Thank you for all of your suggestions and insight. So many stories and good times…You are truly a gentlemen and a scholar. • Dr. my advisor who gave me the opportunity to explore my research interests in coaching and youth sport. Most of all. co-author who provided great insight and guidance during the completion of my thesis. • • • The eight coaches who allowed me to meet with their teams. I am a stronger person because of it. your support over the last two years has been instrumental in my learning and development as a graduate student.

v • My parents who have provided me with endless support. . Your values and belief in the importance of education are big reasons why I have succeeded as a graduate student. Thank you for always being there and believing in me.

. . . . . . . . . . Coach Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational Definitions Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi Table of Contents Abstract Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . Teacher-Student Interactions . . Limitations . . ii iii iv vi ix 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 8 15 15 19 21 Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review Motivation Achievement Goal Theory Motivational Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of Coach Feedback Variation in Coach Feedback . . . . .

. . . . . . . .vii Influence of Teacher’s Expectations . . . . . . Discussion Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback Influence of the Discrepancy between Preferred and Perceived Coach Feedback Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 50 50 53 Summary Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 23 25 26 26 26 26 28 Method Participants Procedures Measures Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 28 Coaching Feedback Questionnaire Data Analysis Chapter 4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hierarchical Regression Analysis Chapter 5 . . . . Influence of Student’s Gender Hypotheses Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 34 36 36 36 37 39 42 42 42 Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Analysis . . . . . . .

Sport Organization Consent Form Appendix C. . . . .Player Agreement Forms Appendix G. .Ethics Certificate Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 Appendix D.Demographic Questionnaire Appendix F.Parental Consent Forms . . References Appendices .Coaching Feedback Questionnaire Appendix E. . 55 57 70 70 72 73 76 79 80 83 Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii Practical Implications . . . . . . . .

perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of a task-oriented motivational climate . Table 4 – Regression Analysis testing team win percentage. . and Kurtosis for all measurement instruments (N=70) . . . . Standard Deviations. . Table 3 – Regression Analysis testing team win percentage. Minimum. . . Skewness. .ix List of Tables Page Table 1 – The Means. perceived ability. 36 Table 2 – Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback. 38 40 41 . the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the team’s motivational climate . perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of an ego-oriented motivational climate . perceived ability. . . Maximum. .

2002). Smoll & Smith. and the quality of interpersonal relationships fostered within the team can promote a predominantly task. including increased self-esteem and competence and lowered anxiety levels in optimal sport environments (e. One individual who plays an important role in creating a positive youth sport experience is the coach (Smith & Smoll. and colleagues (Smith. One of the primary coaching variables that can impact an athlete’s motivation is the motivational climate created by the coach. Smith. Duda. 1979) identified some of the key aspects of coaching that impacted the quality of the child’s sport environment. the presence and extent of comparing teammates to one another. Barnett. 1995. coaches can create a task-oriented climate by . It is the quality of this environment that affects a child’s motivation in sport (Ames.g. 1991). Newton. 1992). 2006). 2001. 1992. Certain coaching behaviors such as rewarding/punishing players. 1990.or ego-oriented team climate (McArdle & Duda. 2002. Smith & Smoll.. the study of youth sport has been a key area of interest for sport psychology researchers in the last two decades. much of this research has focused on the psychological benefits of youth athletic involvement. 2000). & Barnett. Smoll. Smith. & Yin. To date. 2008). Smoll. 1993. Smoll. & Everett. Weiss. Duda. Given its popularity in Canada. More specifically.Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction It has been estimated that the majority (69%) of Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 21 are involved in organized sport on a yearly basis (Sport Canada. Smoll. Several studies by Smith. The motivational climate in sport refers to the type (ego-oriented or task-oriented) of climate created by coaches in practices and games (Ames. 1978. & Curtis.

thus limiting their perceptions of the motivational climate to their own personal exchanges with the coach (Cumming et al. In general. 2008. 2004). 2000). it is traditionally believed that players within a team have the same perceptions of their team’s climate (Duda. found that variability in athletes’ (aged 10-15 years) perceptions of the team’s climate indicated players were more likely to evaluate coach behaviors on the basis of their own personal interactions with the coach rather than interactions between the coach and the group as a whole.g. meaningful. especially in youth sport (Horn. Smith.. Fry. & Simpson. Cumming et al. and easier to remember. & Yin. 2007).Introduction 2 reducing the importance of winning and focusing on other participation motives such as skill development. Recently. Smith. and punishes players for making mistakes (Newton. many sport psychology researchers have encouraged coaches to create a more task-involving team climate (Horn. Duda. Since motivational climate represents the coach’s general behaviors. Smoll. Feltz. Despite this. 2005) have reported that . 2007). Furthermore. More specifically. and affiliation with teammates.. Personal interactions with the coach are more impressionable. 2001). Newton. 2007. Cumming. & Yin. & Li. Duda. In contrast. 1999. & Duda. Ethington. & Grossbard. several studies (Olympiou. some studies have recently concluded that players within a team do not always share the same perceptions of the team’s motivational climate (e. Magyar. an ego-involving climate occurs when the coach promotes intra-team rivalries. favors the most talented players. 2007). athletes may also be less aware of how the coach interacts with other team members. research on motivational climate has clearly identified many positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented motivational climate. effort. Jowett. Consistent with the literature on motivation.

and administered more punishment to high-ability athletes (Horn. it is unclear what individual factors may contribute to the variability in athletes’ perceptions (Horn. to date.Introduction 3 coach-athlete interactions were associated with athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. differences in athletes’ perceptions of the team’s climate may arise. All these coaching behaviors are represented in measures of the motivational climate (Cumming et al. empirical evidence is lacking to support such a claim. However.. previous research on motivation has suggested that players within a team share different perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. were more likely to ignore the mistakes committed by low-ability athletes. For example. 1985). In conclusion. coaches communicated more frequently with high-ability athletes. Although the literature on coach-player interactions suggests within-team variability in the individual feedback from the coach as a plausible factor. 2007). Purpose of the Study The general purpose of the current study was to examine the influence of the athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback they received from the head coach in . coaching behaviors such as the individual feedback coaches provide in response to athletes’ performances may be important antecedents that influence athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. 2007). Thus. Variation in how the coach interacts individually with different team members may further explain why athletes within a team do not have the same perceptions of the motivational climate. Therefore. Specifically. Horn (1985) observed the individual feedback of junior high school softball coaches during games and practices and reported that coaches reacted differently to players of varying ability.

Results may only be indicative of elite youth hockey participants. Moreover. the following delimitations have been identified: 1. the present study examined the influence of the discrepancy between athletes’ perceived and preferred individual coach feedback patterns in practices on their perceptions of the motivational climate.Introduction 4 practices on their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. Limitations For the purpose of this study the following limitations have been identified: 1. identifying the specific coaching behaviors that influence such an environment would provide youth sport coaches with valuable practical information. coaches would have a clearer understanding on how the individual feedback they provide to their athletes affects the type of motivational climate perceived within the team. Specifically. 3. Significance of the Study Research on motivational climate in youth sport has clearly demonstrated the positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented team climate. 2. . instructors would be more inclined to focus on the feedback they provide to athletes individually in order to create an effective learning environment for every player within the team. In addition. Participants were from Bantam AA and BB hockey teams. coaches would be better prepared to meet the goals of youth sport which are centered on enhancing the growth and development of young athletes. Thus. Participants were hockey players aged 13-14 years old. Participants were males. Therefore. Delimitations For the purpose of this study.

3. 4. and the quality of interpersonal relationships (Horn. Operational Definitions For the current study.Introduction 5 2. Perceptions of coach feedback: the athlete’s perceptions regarding the type of individual feedback provided by their head coach in response to their successes and failures during performance. and ignoring an athlete’s performance. the rewards and punishments distributed. Since this study is examining male athletes’ perceptions. The questionnaires are self-reported. the following operational definitions were used: The motivational climate: the athlete’s perception of the type (ego-oriented or task-oriented) of motivational climate created by coaches in practice and game contexts by assessing the presence and extent of social comparison. 2007). The feedback can be perceived as positive in nature which includes praise. criticism combined with corrective information. the results may only apply to that specific sex. or as negative in nature which includes criticism. information. Results may only pertain to hockey. . and corrective information. encouragement.

A major focus of this early research was to develop a better understanding of the factors that influenced a child’s motivation in achievement settings. Consequently. While Harter’s competence theory allows one to explore the importance of an individual’s perceptions of their performance. Maehr and Nicholls argued that success and failure were . motivation increases when a person successfully masters a task. Much of the enthusiasm originated from the work of educational psychologists in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Harwood & Biddle. an athlete’s perceptions of self-competence and control are influenced by the outcome of mastery attempts and feedback from significant others (e. a third section will examine teacher-student interactions and its relationship to youth sport. 2002). Moreover. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) suggested that perceptions of success and failure depended on the individual’s goal orientation. Motivation The study of motivation has been a primary area of interest for sport psychology researchers in the last two decades. The second section will identify the influences of coach feedback on athletes’ perceptions of self-competence and motivation. and coaches). To begin. a major theory of achievement motivation.Literature Review 6 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review This chapter will consist of three main sections. will be outlined. According to Harter’s (1981) competence motivation theory. achievement goal theory and an extension of it.g. teachers. the motivational climate. While the current study will focus on coach-player interactions in elite youth sport.. In other words. parents. a successful performance encourages the person to master more tasks.

In other words. they judged their performance in relation to others and had to demonstrate superior talent or outperform others to be satisfied. & Kempler. Moreover. 2003). when a person was more ego-involved. those who were more egooriented perceived ability as performing at a high level but exerting minimal effort. 1989). Nicholls. the more able you felt. and their general focus or purpose for achievement (Pintrich. For example. sport psychology researchers have also used this framework to develop a better understanding of how athletes’ goal orientations motivated and directed their behavior in sport. whether appropriate . Achievement Goal Theory Nicholls (1989) noted further that the main goal orientations. achievement goal theory has received significant empirical attention. Research examining achievement goal theory in sport found that ego-involved individuals were more inclined to engage in strategies or behaviors.Literature Review 7 not concrete events but rather psychological states influenced by the individual’s perception of reaching or not reaching his/her goals. In addition. Academically. Conley. a performer who was more task-involved was satisfied if they performed at a level that reflected how they had mastered a task or made personal improvements. In contrast. 1992. individuals who were more task-oriented believed that a high level of performance required significant effort and that the harder you tried. task and ego. More specifically. it clarified how students thought about themselves and others around them regarding the task they were performing and how they evaluated their performances (Duda & Nicholls. Thus. were based on how people defined competence. achievement goal orientations represented the individual’s ‘‘orientation’’ to the task or situation.

exerting effort. designed to increase the chance of winning (McArdle & Duda. Coaches can form a mastery-oriented climate by . the extensive work on achievement goal theory has established that a predominately task and/or egoinvolvement has implications for an individual’s attitudes. 2002). 2004. the motivational climate created by the coach. his/her athletes will be inclined to adopt a similar goal orientation. While an athlete’s dispositional goal orientation influences his/her goals for a particular situation or task in sport. Waldron. cheating). affective responses. Depending on the type of climate the coach creates. The next section of the literature will examine one of these situational factors. 2005). 1997). Treasure. Duda & Hall.. Roberts.Literature Review 8 or inappropriate (e. Motivational Climate The motivational climate refers to a team’s goal structure (e. task or egooriented) which is a result of the coach’s personal goal orientation and behaviors. namely the person’s general degree of task and ego involvement. Nicholls (1989) predicted that an individual’s goal involvement for a particular task was influenced by his/her dispositional goal orientation. and selecting challenging goals.g. In contrast. dispositional goal orientations reflect “individual differences in proneness to the different types of involvement” and tendencies in terms of how success is defined in particular achievement settings. & Ewing. 95). According to Nicholls (1989. Magyar. p. achievement goal theory also addresses situational factors that promote task or ego involvement within the athlete. & Kavussanu. Moreover.g. and behaviors in sport (Gano. 2001. Guivernau. such as persistence in the face of failure. task-involved individuals were more likely to foster adaptive achievement behaviors. Thus. regardless of one’s level of perceived competence (Chi..

Literature Review 9 promoting skill development. Duda. this type of climate has been linked to higher levels of athletes’ anxiety. Consequently. worry. persistence. Treasure. and works more with the top athletes within the team (Newton. a task-involving climate has been linked to a variety of outcome variables such as athletes’ level of intrinsic or self-determined motivation. Specifically. & Chi. Therefore. Smoll & Smith. a mastery-oriented climate offers more of a cooperative learning environment whereas a performance-oriented climate offers a competitive learning environment. & Lochbaum. a performance-oriented climate occurs when the coach focuses on outcomes of athletic performance.. athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate have been identified as a major factor influencing their motivation in sport. and cooperation with teammates. Particularly. supports intra-team rivalries. Duda. 1992). punishes players for making mistakes. 2004. The literature examining athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate has provided consistent support for a task-involving team climate. along with emphasizing the important contributions that all players make to the team (McArdle & Duda. . 2000). and perceptions of sport competence (Chi. personal effort. maladaptive coping strategies. and tension. 1999). & Yin. In contrast. perceived performance pressure. satisfaction. 1998. 2007). and a more ego-oriented goal perspective. effort. a more task-oriented goal perspective. some support has been found for the negative effects of an ego-involving (performanceoriented) motivational climate (Treasure & Roberts. Seifriz. 2006). Moreover. Standage. especially in youth sport where the focus should be on athletes’ growth and development (Cumming et al. sport enjoyment. 2002.

2006). Feltz. For example. and their level of self-determined motivation. tactical. several researchers have found that athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate were associated with sources of sport competence (Halliburton & Weiss.Literature Review 10 More recently. Atienza. Duda. and relatedness. 2002). Additional research has reported that a task-involving motivational climate was positively related to several team variables. 2004). perceptions of a mastery-oriented climate were positively associated with adaptive or self-referenced sources of sport confidence whereas perceptions of an egooriented climate were positively associated with maladaptive or normative sources of sport confidence. Magyar. researchers have expanded the research base on motivational climate to study other outcome variables that were important in youth sport. and collective efficacy (Heuze et al. Thus. physical. 2003). perceptions of team improvement in regards to the technical. Moreover. Sarrazin and colleagues (2002) reported a predictive and causal relationship between young athletes’ perceptions of a taskinvolving motivational climate. 2002) and sources of self-confidence in regard to their sport (Magyar & Feltz. their perceptions of competence. including team cohesion (Heuze. and psychological aspects of the sport (Balaguer. autonomy.. More specifically. The onset of adolescence (ages 11 -12) is a period when discontinuation of sport participation is at its highest level (Hedstrom & Gould. youth sport coaches must . & Thomas. 2006. athletes’ self-determined motivation was predictive of both their intention to drop out and their actual drop out behavior. This is an important contribution to the literature since it identifies some of the coaching variables that may influence attrition in youth sport. Sarrazin. 2004). & Simpson. & Mayo. Raimbault. Furthermore. Masiero. with time.

2007. these researchers have argued that players within a team should perceive a similar type of climate created by the coach. Ommundsen. Gano et al. sportspersonship values and beliefs. that influence drop-out rates among young athletes. and as such. 2006.. Motivational climate scores at the level of the individual would then .Literature Review 11 understand some of the different coaching factors. Duda. and a positive relationship between an ego-involving team climate and players’ tendencies to engage in amoral sport behaviors (e. Fry & Newton. & Treasure. some researchers (e. some questions regarding its measurement have recently been raised. & Valiente. these studies have found a positive relationship between a task-involving team climate and athletes’ sportspersonship orientations. In addition to attrition.g. cheating. Cumming et al. Gano et al. Cruz. aggression). and fair play attitudes (Boixados. Kavussanu & Spray. Roberts. Papaioannou and colleagues (2004) recommended aggregating the individual perceived motivational climate scores of the team members. Despite the considerable amount of research documenting the effects of the perceived motivational climate. 2001. they have recommended measuring these perceptions as a group level variable. More specifically. 2004. 2005. Lemyre. 2003. such as motivational climate. 2005) have questioned whether athletes within a team share similar perceptions of the motivational climate... Since motivational climate refers to some of the coach’s general behaviors in games and practices. 2003).. Torregrosa. team motivational climate has been identified as a potential factor affecting athletes’ moral judgments.g. Therefore. it is important for youth sport coaches to create a more task-oriented team climate in order to develop effective social skills among their athletes. In general. To assess motivational climate at the group level..

variance in perceptions did exist. recommendations have merit. & Cumming. Consequently. The intra-class correlations reported by Papaioannou et al. these results suggested that it was appropriate to aggregate the individual scores to the group level in order to determine the relationship to aspects of sportspersonship. 2007). they were similar in magnitude to those typically observed in individual-level variables. individuals score minus group mean). (2005) investigated potential team level effects of the motivational climate and found that most members of each girl’s volleyball team shared similar perceptions about the motivational climate. Cumming et al. In a similar study. However the authors also noted that although consensus was quite high. (2007) noted that there are a number of methodological problems associated with the use of aggregate scores as measures of motivational climate at the group level. Moreover. Although Papaioannou et al. meaning that individuals on the same team had similar perceptions of the climate. 2007). Smoll. 2006). Examination of within-team agreement on the perceived motivational climate was found to be high for both the task-involving climate and the ego-involving climate. Cumming et al. Smith. and Cumming et al. Gano et al. An intraclass correlation of greater than . were well below this reliability criterion.Literature Review 12 be represented as displacement scores from the group mean (i. such as achievement goals (Smoll. ..80 is typically required to ensure inter-rater reliability among groups of coders in behavioral assessment studies (Hersen.e. & Cumming. More specifically. argued that the modest intra-class correlations associated with the measures of ego and mastery climate suggested team members in their study only showed modest agreement in how they perceived their coach’s behaviors. and competitive trait anxiety (Smith.

Magyar et al. there was a stronger agreement on the mastery involving dimensions of the team climate. et al. Cumming et al. found that competitive junior rowers within the same boat demonstrated stronger agreement on the dimensions of a mastery-oriented motivational climate but less consensus on the presence of a performance-oriented motivational climate. there was more disagreement on the performance involving dimensions of the team climate. Moreover. Newton. when the volleyball players were less satisfied with their team as a whole. Consistent with these results. a small group of studies (Cumming.. the authors suggested that players were more likely to assess the team’s motivational climate based . 2007.. argued that it seemed inappropriate to assess the motivational climate at the group level since members of each youth basketball team in their study only showed modest agreement on how they perceived their coach’s behaviors. Also. More specifically. Magyar et al. 1999. & Yin. individual scores on the PMCSQ-2 indicated that certain boat members perceived the coach as having favorites and encouraging comparison among teammates. Duda et al. when the mean score of a particular climate (task or ego) on the PMCSQ-2 was higher. found that female volleyball players within a team were more likely to agree on the presence and extent of a task-oriented team climate rather than on the aspects of an ego-oriented team climate. Recently. the athletes were more consistent in their evaluations of the team’s climate. while other members in the same boat did not perceive these performance involving dimensions of the climate to be pervasive. 2004) have shown that players within a team do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate. Furthermore. Duda. when the volleyball players were more satisfied with their team as a whole. Similarly. Specifically.Literature Review 13 While some of the literature supports measuring the team climate at the group level.

being committed. When athletes perceived that their coaches were providing them with praise and encouragement in response to successful and unsuccessful performances as well as not ignoring mistakes. and Li (2005) found that athletes’ perceptions of individual coach feedback were associated with their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. Smith. when athletes perceived that their coaches were providing them with criticism in response to mistakes. athletes were more likely to perceive a task-oriented team climate. While these results provided some insight into the relationship between coach-athlete interactions and athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. they were more likely to perceive an ego-oriented team climate. Recently. they were more likely to view their relationship with the coach as lacking in closeness. Similarly. and Duda (2008) reported that collegiate athletes’ perceptions of their interpersonal relationship with their coach were associated with their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. athletes’ perceptions of unequal recognition were associated with their perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship. More specifically. While the perceived ego-oriented team climate features of punishment for making mistakes and intra-team member rivalry were unrelated to coachathlete relationships. Ethington. commitment. Fry.Literature Review 14 on their personal interactions with the coach rather than the coach’s general interactions with the team. and complementarity. study only included female high . when players perceived that the coach favored the most talented players within the team. their study found that athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented team climate were associated with athletes’ perceptions of feeling close. Olympiou. and interacting in a complementary fashion with their coach. In contrast. the Smith et al. Specifically. Jowett.

1979. the degree to which the child feels capable of achieving mastery). the next section will identify some of the key findings regarding coach feedback in youth sport. Smoll. Thus. Horn (2007) indicated that. Smoll. Zane.Literature Review 15 school athletes and only examined certain aspects of coach feedback (i. Smith. Consequently. praise. & . Harter’s competence motivation theory has provided sport psychology researchers with a framework for examining the effects of coach feedback on athletes’ attitudes and perceptions of self-competence. Over time. and with prerequisite cognitive maturation. While limited research has examined the effects of coach-player interactions on athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. 1978.. to date. encouragement. Smith. & Hunt. Effects of Coach Feedback Much of the research on coach feedback was stimulated by a series of studies conducted by Smith and Smoll and their colleagues at the University of Washington (e. Smith. & Curtis. This cognitive internalization is reflected in the degree to which the child perceives that he or she has control of performance outcomes.g. ignoring mistakes) so further research is warranted. Although coach-player interactions may be a potential factor. Coach Feedback According to Harter's (1981) competence motivation theory. criticism. it is unclear what individual differences may contribute to such discrepancy in athletes’ perceptions of the team’s climate. 1977. coach feedback serves as a source of information that children use to evaluate both their competence and their ability to control the outcome of their performance. the child internalizes the feedback he or she has been given by significant adults.e.e.. adults’ evaluation of a child's performance affects the child's feelings of competence in that activity (i. Smoll..

& Smoll. & Smoll. Smith. 1992. Following the development and testing of the CBAS. an observational instrument designed to assess the frequency with which individual coaches exhibited twelve behavioral dimensions such as informative and corrective feedback. supportive. these studies have shown that athletes’ perceptions of encouraging. and punishment. other researchers have recently examined the effects of coach feedback by assessing athletes’ perceptions of the feedback they received from their coaches (Allen & Howe. Questionnaire versions of the CBAS. and information-based feedback in response to both player successes and performance errors positively influenced athletes’ attitudes and perceptions . In addition to observational studies. 2006). 2006). Smith et al. supportive. Consistent support was found for the value of an encouraging. 2000.g.. 1983) examined the correlation between observed coaching behaviors and athletes’ self-esteem and post-season attitudes.. 2000) as well as youth and adolescent athletes (Allen & Howe. Smith et al. 1998. Their work began by developing the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS). In general. Smith. Cumming. 1992. high levels of punishment-oriented feedback were negatively related to players’ attitudes. were therefore developed to measure athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s feedback in games and practices. 2000). Smith and Smoll and their colleagues conducted a series of research studies designed to examine the link between coaches' behaviors and young athletes' psychosocial development. such as the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (Amorose & Horn. Some of these studies (e. encouragement. Black & Weiss. 1998. In contrast. and instructionally-based coaching feedback style. 1983). praise.Literature Review 16 Coppel.. Black & Weiss. Amorose & Horn. Cumming. 1978. Participants in these studies have included intercollegiate athletes (Amorose & Horn.

Nonreinforcement (i. considerable evidence has suggested that reinforcement or praise. Horn and colleagues (1985. may not be given contingently. 1975. Horn (2007) suggested that there are alternative. aspects of coaches’ feedback that may be important to assess. 2002. . Dunkin & Biddle. praise has often been found to be unrelated to or even negatively correlated with students' academic achievement (Brophy. Thus. and perhaps more critical. Thus. giving players no response after a successful performance) may clearly be seen as a non-contingent response (Horn. Kennelly & Kinley. In contrast. However.e. Nelson. However this line of research has primarily focused on the frequency with which coaches provided particular types of feedback or on the total amount of particular types of feedback coaches provided their athletes. 1977). 1980). 1987. 1985). Lenney. & Enna. athletes’ perceptions of punishment-oriented feedback and coaches’ tendencies to ignore players’ performance errors as well as their successes were found to be detrimental to athletes’ psychosocial well-being. Davidson. 2006) found that the appropriateness and contingency of coaches’ feedback might be more critical than the frequency or amount.Literature Review 17 of self-competence. exhibited as an instructional behavior in academic settings. In other words. 1974). Appropriate and performance-contingent feedback from significant others has received empirical support as a facilitator of children's perceptions of competence and control (Dweck. classroom teachers have been observed to use praise for motivational or disciplinary purposes and not as a performance-contingent or appropriate evaluation of the child's performance (Brophy. research on the effects of coaches’ feedback patterns (or verbal behaviors) has revealed the importance of coach-player interactions in the psychosocial development of young athletes.. Moreover. 1978. 1980.

Deci. and Ryan. “Excellent! You should keep up that level.Literature Review 18 In a sport setting. Koestner. 1985). coaches. In addition. Thus. the degree to which the praise conveyed positive information regarding the child’s competence without relying on social comparisons. Recently. the degree to which the praise contributed to the child’s perception of autonomy. and the level or standard of performance and future expectancies that was contained in the praise.g. Horn (1985) concluded that high frequencies of both reinforcement and non-reinforcement may be negatively associated with increased players' perceptions of self-competence since these coaching responses carried little or no informational feedback. resulting in negative self-perceptions regarding their skill competence (Horn. coaches' use of inappropriate praise might have established or set lower expectations for players' performance. laboratory experimenters) in a controlling way generally contained the word “should” (e. For example. Henderlong and Lepper suggested that the effects of praise depended on five factors: the perceived sincerity of the praise. Henderlong and Lepper (2002) concluded that praise (as given by adults to children in response to their performance attempts in an achievement context) undermined. in a review and synthesis of the empirical and theoretical literature on the effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. (1999). parents. the performance attributions contained in the praise. controlling feedback carried the implication that the future performance of the learner/performer should conform to . or had no effect on children’s intrinsic motivation for the achievement task at hand. Furthermore.”). enhanced. Similarly. as well as Mageau and Vallerand (2003) have recently distinguished between positive feedback (praise) that was administered in an informational or in a controlling style.. positive feedback delivered by adults (teachers.

Such feedback. Therefore. In both these cases.. some studies have revealed that athletes’ perceptions of praise and encouragement are not always perceived as positive coaching behaviors. 62% of Coach A’s emitted .Literature Review 19 the wishes of the person giving the praise (e. 1978. Variation in Coach Feedback Smith (2006) recently re-analyzed data collected with the CBAS in earlier baseball studies (e. and did nothing to increase perceptions of competence.g. Smith et al. the literature needs to measure the discrepancy between athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback and athletes’ preferred coach feedback to determine if particular feedback patterns are actually perceived by athletes as positive coaching behaviors.g. although positive in nature. Smith & Smoll.. may be perceived by athletes as a form of control. This perception of external control or external pressure may have lowered the athletes’ perceptions of autonomy. several studies have also revealed that coaches were generally inconsistent with the feedback they provided their athletes. Although the literature on coach feedback has primarily focused on the effects of specific feedback styles. and information regarding performance. Therefore. While extensive research has provided support for certain types of evaluative feedback such as praise. 1990). encouragement.”)..e. the praise received from the coach may have resulted in a decrease in the athletes’ level of intrinsic or self-determined motivation.. Consequently. perhaps a more critical aspect of coach feedback is assessing what type of coaching responses athletes prefer or need rather than simply examining the type of coaching responses athletes receive. the data obtained from individual coaches had been aggregated in each coding category and then expressed as percentages of total behaviors (i. “Keep it up! I would like you to do even better in the next game.

In contrast. instructional. Therefore. coach’s team was losing). the stability of their profiles differed considerably. his instructional behavior was relatively high when his team was winning but much lower when his team was tied or losing. the use of the team or group as the primary unit of observation and analysis ignored how coaches interacted individually with their athletes. research project contributed valuable information concerning the relationship between coaches' behavior and athletes' self-perceptions. certain coaches may be more likely to provide their players with positive feedback depending on the situation of the game. More specifically. and punitive) across three types of game situations (coach’s team was winning. When their overall percentages of the three behaviors were summed across the three game-situation categories. Coaches' behavior was measured by recording the communications that they delivered to their team during game situations.Literature Review 20 behaviors were praise). In the re-analysis of this data. However when the data was re-analyzed to examine coaching feedback across game situations. research has demonstrated that there is considerable variation in the . 1985). the focus in these studies was on the team as a group (Horn. Moreover. the coach demonstrated relatively high levels of supportive and instructional behavior and relatively low punitive behaviors across all three game situations. Examination of these results revealed that one coach showed a reasonable level of stability in the three forms of behavior across all three game situations. the two coaches looked very similar in their coaching styles. Although the results of the Smith and Smoll et al. However. the other coach’s profile was much more unstable. teams were tied. Smith examined the stability (or instability) of three forms of coaching behavior (supportive. For example.

Thus. 1984. the literature revealed similar findings regarding the feedback students received from their teachers. coaches tended to put more pressure on the high expectancy athletes. While Horn’s study reported variation in coach-athlete interactions within a team. & Hutslar. Horn (1985) discovered significant variation in coach feedback when she observed how junior high softball coaches interacted individually with their players. Although previous research found discriminatory teaching behaviors toward low ability students. The results of these studies have consistently demonstrated that there was significant variability in teacher-student interactions. 1979). . Rejeski. this study reported that it was the low expectancy players who received more positive feedback from their coach during performance. Teacher-Student Interactions Extensive research has investigated the communication patterns of classroom and physical education teachers. Although the context is different from sport.Literature Review 21 frequency and quality of coaches' communications directed to individual players within a team (Horn. the low expectancy players were given more technical instruction and feedback in general and following mistakes. Therefore. the low expectancy athletes also received more reinforcement in response to successful performances whereas the high expectancy players received more criticism following errors and were more often ignored after a successful performance. This section will discuss some of the factors that influenced the individual feedback students received from their teachers. 1985). Moreover. the next section will explore variation in teacher-student interactions. More specifically. this line of research in sport psychology is limited (Horn. Darracott.

Chaikin. In addition to interactions within the academic classroom. 1974. In contrast. For example. 1974. The results indicated that teachers who thought they were interacting with the bright students smiled and nodded their heads more frequently than the teachers who thought they were interacting with the slow students. wink. Sigler.. Martinek. In addition. Crowe. positive forms of communication were expressed non-verbally such as a nod. a link was found between teacher expectations and teacher-student interactions. Chaikin et al.Literature Review 22 Influence of Teacher’s Expectations Early research examining interactions in the classroom found that teachers exhibited preferential behavior toward students as a result of their expectations (Brophy. For example. 1977. & Good. & Johnson. or simply allowing a student to respond to a specific question asked by the teacher (Chaikin et al. verbal forms of reinforcement included teacher’s use of the student’s idea in class. 1972. 1974).. Kester & Letchworth. 1979) observed teacher-student interactions in physical education. negative teaching behaviors included ignoring the student’s efforts or failing to provide a student with useful feedback (Crowe. Kester and Letchworth provided teachers with designated expectations of certain students and observed that instructors were more supportive and accepting toward the selected “brighter” students class. Once again. 1977). 1981).g. Crowe’s study reported that (a) designated high achievers . selecting a student as group captain. Martinek. 1981). & Derlega. Crowe. videotaped simulated tutorial sessions and observed teachers’ non-verbal forms of communication. This preferential behavior was either negative or positive and was communicated in several different ways (Martinek. 1977. Consistent with these results. some researchers (e. or a pat on the back.

2000. Fairclough. Recently. Davis.g. particularly for sports stereotyped by gender role (Eccles & Harold.. Unfortunately.e. (b) designated high achievers were given more opportunities to respond to the teacher’s questions than the low achievers. Martinek and Johnson asked elementary physical education teachers to rate their students according to how they expected each to perform in terms of physical achievement. extensive evidence has indicated that females are stereotyped as less physically competent than males (e. 1987). Drudy and Uí Chatháin (2002) reported that student–teacher interactions were affected by four key variables: the gender of the teacher. These categorizations are social constructions based on societal expectations regarding beliefs about gender (Nicaise. It has been proposed that teachers hold higher expectations of males in the sciences and females in languages (Worrall & Tsarna. the gender-typed subject being taught (i. acceptance of ideas and analytic-type questions than the low expectancy groups.Literature Review 23 were found to be treated more warmly by their teachers than the designated low achievers. Gender differences are often found on expectancy measures. 1991). certain tasks and activities have traditionally been assigned to males and others to females. Moreover. Similarly. Bois. feminine traditional versus masculine traditional) and the gender composition of the class. (c) designated high achievers received more attention than the low achievers. the class size. Influence of Student’s Gender Teachers may treat students differently according to the gender-typed subject of a class. 2007). Cogérino. . The results of this study showed that the high expectancy groups received significantly more encouragement. & Davis.

However this aspect of the motivational climate needs to be clarified so that coaches and educators have a better understanding of how to create a more task-oriented motivational climate for all of their athletes and students. praised male students for good performance and female students for their effort. & Rife.. & Jocefowicz. More specifically. 1999. McBride studied gender-role stereotyping by physical educators and found little evidence that students were treated differently because of their gender. 1982). In conclusion. it is unclear what individual factors may contribute to within-team differences in athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. Placek.Literature Review 24 Eccles. & Mehrhof.g. Placek and colleagues reported that elementary teachers provided remarkably equal opportunities for both sexes to participate and interact. Solomon. . Similarly. PE teachers asked male students more questions. 1995. research on coach-athlete and teacher-student interactions has revealed variation in the way instructors communicated individually with different students and players. Dunbar & O’Sullivan. This variation may partly explain why athletes within a team do not always perceive the same type of motivational climate created by the coach. Mitchell. and provided male students with more corrective feedback in regard to physical skills (e. MacDonald. 1990. 1981. Silverman. For example. Shute. 1977). There are only a few recent exceptions to the considerable amount of research over the past 30 years (e. Kluka. Ermler. Griffin. Blunker. To date. 1990. Research in physical education (PE) has often focused on teachers who displayed gender biased behavior when interacting with their students. 1999). Dodds. Napper-Owen. while many physical activities in the past have generally been labelled as masculine (Messner.g. Barber. Kovar. 1986.. 1992). & Sullivan. McBride.

Is the discrepancy between athletes’ perceived and preferred individual coach feedback patterns a better predictor of the perceived motivational climate than athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback they receive from their head coach. Is there a relationship between the discrepancy of athletes’ perceived and preferred coach feedback patterns and athletes’ perceptions of the team’s motivational climate? Hypothesis: Scores on the discrepancy variable will be positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented climate and negatively correlated with perceptions of a task-oriented climate. . the current study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. the discrepancy variable will result in a stronger correlate of the motivational climate than athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback they receive from their head coaches.Literature Review 25 Since many youth sport programs have focused on the growth and development of athletes. Is there a relationship between perceptions of coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions of the team’s motivational climate? Hypothesis: Athlete’s perceptions of positive individual coach feedback will be positively correlated with perceptions of a task-oriented team climate whereas athlete’s perceptions of negative individual coach feedback will be positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Hypohesis: Independent of team winning percentage and perceived ability. Therefore. 2. 3. perceptions of a task-oriented team climate would be beneficial due to the positive psychological and social outcomes that have been associated with this particular type of climate.

Thirty of the players spoke English. ten of the players spoke French. the data collection and data analysis procedures will be outlined. Although no formal definition exists for each level of competition. AA and BB are the highest levels and are thus structured and geared for the most skilled and elite hockey players. Once each hockey association had agreed to participate in the current study and had completed the sport organization consent form (Appendix B). Participants The participants were male hockey players (n = 70) from the Bantam AA and BB divisions (13-14 years old) in the West Island minor hockey region. ethical approval for human subject research was acquired (Appendix A). the head coaches of their Bantam AA and BB teams were contacted in order to schedule a time to . and thirty players reported that they spoke multiple languages. 17.Method 26 CHAPTER 3 Method The current study examined the influence of coach feedback on athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. More players came from the BB level (n = 58.1%). whereas A and B are labeled as recreational or community. as well as the hypotheses.9%) than to the AA level (n = 12.. This chapter will describe the participants and the measurement instruments (Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 and Coaching Feedback Questionnaire) used in this study. 82. In addition. According to Hockey Canada (2005). A total of 8 teams participated in the study. Procedures Prior to collecting data. AA and BB are labeled as competitive levels.

. Coaches were not present when the questionnaires were administered. players and their respective parents/guardians were asked to fill out consent and agreement forms (Appendices F & G) prior to the session. Although ten players reported speaking French. If players were unable to complete any of the questionnaires in English. Before players began completing the PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ. However these players received reading material since they were obliged to remain with the rest of their team until all participants completed the questionnaires and one of their coaches returned. In order to ensure that the players could read English well enough to respond to the questionnaires. 2000) (Appendix C). 2000) (Appendix D) and a demographic questionnaire (Appendix E). these questionnaires were not translated into French for the current study due to validity and reliability issues that may have arisen. both the player agreement form and the parental consent form asked if players were able to complete the questionnaires in English. All of the questionnaires were administered to the players approximately one third into their regular season. they were asked to fill out a demographic questionnaire. When a session was scheduled. Duda. Newton. This included the completion of 3 items: the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2. Since the PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ were only created in English by other researchers. which gave them suitable time to become familiar with their coaches’ behaviors and their team’s motivational climate. & Yin. These forms were available in English and in French. they were able to read and complete all three questionnaires in English. Six of the eight teams scheduled their sessions before practice and two teams scheduled their sessions after practice. the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ. Amorose & Horn. they did not participate in the current study.Method 27 gather data.

Although initial testing of the PMCSQ had supported its psychometric and concurrent validity (Duda & Whitehead. The two instruments will be explained with respect to their development. Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 Early efforts to assess situational goal structures (also referred to as the motivational climate) were undertaken in the educational setting. 1988) to determine its utility in delineating similar dimensions of the motivational climate in the sport domain. (1992) and Walling. scoring. Research in coaching drew upon the theoretical distinctions developed by Ames and colleagues (Ames. The distinctions were based on differential evaluative classroom practices. 1998). Duda. 1984. the rewards and punishments distributed. the presence and extent of social comparison. exploratory factor analysis of the PMCSQ revealed two major facets of the motivational climate operating on adolescent male basketball teams: a perceived performance (or Ego-Involving) climate and a perceived mastery (Task-Involving) climate. Duda. 1992. Congruent with classroom-based research. Seifriz et al. and the quality of the interpersonal relationships being fostered in each motivational climate. Ames and Archer (1988) identified theoretical distinctions between what they termed a “mastery” and a “performance” climate in the classroom. Thus. and Chi (1992) developed the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire (PMCSQ) to measure the athletes’ perceptions of the type of motivational climate coaches created in practices and in games. Seifriz.Method 28 Measures Instrumentation for this study consisted of two questionnaires: The PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ. and psychometric properties. Ames & Archer. .

Method 29 and Chi (1993) indicated that the measure could be improved.. each item asked athletes to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) the extent to which that particular statement was characteristic of their team’s climate. Based on the conceptual framework of Ames (Ames. in an ego-involving (performance-oriented) . The items in the scale were hierarchically ordered into two first-order factors (a task-involving/mastery-oriented team climate and an egoinvolving/performance-oriented team climate) and six subscales (three subsumed under each of the two first-order factors) (Newton et al. More specifically. & Yin. 2000) (see Appendix C) were to expand the original questionnaire and to develop a hierarchical measure of the motivational climate in sport. 1992. Duda. the objectives of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire – 2 (PMCSQ-2) (Newton. it was proposed that the PMCSQ might be strengthened by conceptualizing the motivational climate in a hierarchical manner with subscales underlying the higher-order Task Involving and Ego-Involving scales. 1984. This suggestion was in line with Ames’ initial conceptual framework that viewed task-involving and ego-involving motivational climates as composites of several underlying dimensions or characteristics of the larger environment (Ames. In contrast. In particular. 1988). A task-involving (masteryoriented) team climate was characterized by perceptions among athletes that trying hard was rewarded and that all players had an important role to fulfill and thus were all encouraged by the coach. 2000). Ames & Archer. 1984. 1988) and the content of the PMCSQ items. 1992. The PMCSQ-2 consisted of 33 items which asked athletes to indicate the degree to which their team climate was characterized by a task-involving or an ego-involving goal perspective. Ames & Archer.

77) exhibited internal consistency. most of the subscales demonstrated coefficients greater than .Method 30 climate. More specifically. 2000).. Cooperative Learning (a= 0. Moreover. In line with previous research.. The concurrent validity of the PMCSQ-2 was also supported (Newton et al. athletes perceived that teammates tried to outperform each other. In terms of the Ego-Involving subscales. For example. coaches and the female athletes themselves may have been less likely to provide and participate fully in competitive training drills and rivalrous interactions in practices. The second-order Task-Involving (a= 0.74). players were punished for their mistakes. Specifically. In addition.Involving (a= 0.79) and Effort/Improvement (a= 0. 1978).87) scales proved to be internally consistent. and individual recognition was limited to only a few stars within the team. however.86) and Punishment for Mistakes (a= 0. enjoyment of.54). 1951). However. enjoyment/interest was inversely related to the perception of an ego-involving motivational climate and all of its subscales. all three Task-Involving subscales. Newton and colleagues argued that the sex of the participants may have influenced this finding. 2000).70. volleyball correlated positively with a task-involving climate and all of its subscales.82) were similarly internally consistent however the Intra-Team Member Rivalry subscale exhibited low internal consistency (a= 0. and interest in. Unequal Recognition (a= 0. indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency (Nunnally. particularly the unequal recognition . Important Role (a= 0. The internal consistency of the two higher-order scales and six subscales proved to be acceptably high (Newton et al.88) and Ego. Cronbach’ s alphas were calculated for both the second-order factors and each subscale (Cronbach.

. Boixados. The PMCSQ-2 has been used to a great extent in the coaching literature (e. 2006. 2005. 2000. 2004. 2000. 2000). and professional athletes. 1988).. Scanlan.. These studies have featured youth (e.g. which has been extensively used to observe a variety of coaching behaviors. Moreover. Horn & .. Such a team climate produced stress. et al. Fry & Newton. Horn & Glenn. Gano et al. One modified version is the Perceived Coaching Behavior Scale (PCBS. and gymnastics. 1995. 2004. an ego-involving motivational climate was conducive to athletes feeling they must continuously prove their athletic ability in relation to other players within the team. volleyball. Sarrazin et al. 1998. Moreover. Furthermore.. Chi.. & Ravizza. athletes who perceived a more ego-involving motivational climate (and the three underlying facets of such a climate) reported greater feelings of pressure/tension while playing their sport.. 2003. Heuze et al. 1989). 2002).. was modified by several researchers to measure athletes’ perceptions and preferences in regards to their coaches’ feedback (Allen & Howe.Method 31 component. Coaching Feedback Questionnaire The Coaching Behavioral Assessment System. 10 to 15 years of age).g. Kavussanu & Spray. perhaps in particular among individuals with low perceived ability (Newton et al. an ego-involving climate appeared to be an environment in which poor performance and errors led to reprimand by the coach. basketball. Stein. Based on the motivational climate literature. Previous research reported that a major source of satisfaction and enjoyment in sport is the opportunity to master skills and improve performance (Smith et al.. 2003. 2006. rowing. Ommundsen et al. soccer. the PMCSQ-2 has been used in a wide range of sports including handball. Black & Weiss. collegiate. Amorose & Horn. 1983.

Therefore. Specifically. Following the development of the PCBS. The majority of swimmers indicated that their answers were based on both practices and swim meets. criticism. In addition. swim meets. and criticism combined with corrective information). no response. or both. no response. three categories represented coaching responses to athletes’ successes (praise. The modified scale added two behavioral categories: information only. in response to an unsuccessful performance. Since their study included adolescent field hockey players.Method 32 Glenn. and encouragement combined with corrective information. in response to a successful performance. an openended questionnaire was included to determine whether the coach’s responses were based on practices. one of its limitations was that it did not assess non-verbal communication from the coach. corrective information about the performance. They responded to the 30 items by rating each item on a Likert scale from always (5) to never (1). While the Black and Weiss version of the CBAS included 10 categories of coach feedback. 1988) which included 8 categories of coaching behaviors in response to athletes’ performance successes and failures. Black and Weiss modified this scale in a study that examined young swimmers’ perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors. with one question for each category. Swimmers were asked to indicate the frequency with which their coaches displayed specific feedback patterns. praise combined with information about the performance) and five categories represented coaching responses to athletes’ performance errors (encouragement. each of the 10 categories was represented by three items instead of only one. In order to increase measurement reliability of the scale. Allen and Howe expanded the scale by adding two non-verbal feedback categories: nonverbal praise in response to a successful performance or effort and non-verbal criticism in response to an unsuccessful performance or mistake. some .

gymnastics. In addition to athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ feedback. punishment and corrective instruction combined with punishment). Amorose and Horn (2000) used the CFQ in a study examining collegiate athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors. Similar to the previous scales. These eight categories include three that are given by coaches in response to athletes’ performance successes (praise/reinforcement. the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (Amorose & Horn. athletes are asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (very typical to not at all typical) how typical it is for their coach to give them that particular type of feedback during practices and games.Method 33 of the items on the scale were modified so that the questionnaire was appropriate for field hockey. ice hockey. reinforcement combined with technical instruction) and five that are given in response to athletes’ performance errors (mistake-contingent encouragement.70. For each of the 16 items. indicating an acceptable level of internal . ignoring mistakes. swimming. and wrestling. All of the subscales demonstrated coefficients greater than . field hockey. These feedback categories correspond to those categories identified in the original CBAS. The CFQ consists of 16 items representing eight different types of feedback responses. corrective instruction. athletes are also asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (prefer very much to do not prefer at all) how much they prefer each type of feedback. The internal consistency of the measure was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. in addition to reinforcement combined with technical instruction. Participants represented a variety of sports such as football. 2000) (Appendix D) was developed to assess athletes’ perceptions and preferences regarding the type of individual feedback their coaches provided them in response to their performance successes and failures. nonreinforcement.

& Amorose. 1978). Cogérino. perceived ability. the CFQ was modified for use in physical education (Nicaise. More specifically.g. 8. .. correlation analysis was used to measure the degree of the relationships between athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback. Factors (e.g. Recently. 2000) to measure athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ feedback. These items were modified based on the ice hockey experiences of the present investigators and the head coach of the McGill’s men’s ice hockey team. items 3. Although the current study used the CFQ (Amorose & Horn. Data Analysis In order to test the first three hypotheses. the questionnaire was pilot tested with a Bantam AA ice hockey team to ensure that the modifications were appropriate and concise. 5. Following these changes. some of the items were modified.Method 34 consistency (Nunnally. 10) performance were more ice hockey specific in order to make the questionnaire more appropriate for the current study. items 4. the pilot study assessed whether the players in this age cohort were able to complete and comprehend the CFQ. Moreover. these researchers measured students’ perceptions of the feedback their teachers provided them in response to their performance successes and failures in physical education activities..g.. 2006). More specifically. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the fourth . 4) or unsuccessful (e. all of the items that represented informative feedback in response to a successful (e. the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. team’s winning percentage) that may have influenced these relationships were controlled for when correlation analysis was used. Bois.

.Method 35 hypothesis which examined the strength of the coach feedback and discrepancy variables as predictors of the motivational climate.

21 1.84 Discrepancy between positive feedback .70 .49 4.70 .00 60. α=.86 . followed by the results of a hierarchical regression analysis.60 a b Note.16 6.89.00 40. Descriptive Statistics The means.00 6.07 -.00 68.78 .82 . Standard Deviations.00 37.56 Perceived negative feedback (CFQ) 11.91 Ego-oriented climate (PMCSQ-2) 20. To begin.24 .00 5. Similarly.49-.00 23. Minimum.287.17 4.09 -.67 -.Results 36 CHAPTER 4 Results This chapter presents the findings examining the relationship between individual coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate.00 20. Std Error Kurtosis= .78) except for perceived and preferred negative coach feedback (α=.06 -.33 Preferred negative feedback (CFQ) 8.12 3.56 Perceived positive feedback (CFQ) 9.59 11.00 7. standard deviations.64 .00 19.21 Perceived ability 1.00 30.00 40.87-. descriptive statistics for the measurement instruments are presented. Std Error Skewness= . Maximum. Table 1 The Means.00 Team win percentage .00 27.29 6. and additional descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.25 .00 33.16 .38 -.91 Discrepancy between negative feedback .18 -1. The following section presents the results of a correlation analysis which includes Pearson correlation coefficients.62 -. α=.63 .02 -. a higher mean was reported for perceived positive feedback than perceived negative feedback. Skewness.00 5.25 .75 4.65). A higher mean was reported for a task-oriented climate than an ego-oriented climate. and Kurtosis for all measurement instruments (N=70) Variable Min Max Mean Task-oriented climate (PMCSQ-2) 26.00 31. CFQ.49 -.00 85.00 18.77 .33 -.77-.00 4.89 Preferred positive feedback (CFQ) 18.70 -1.20 .45 5.47 Discrepancy (CFQ) .13 1.566 SD Skewnessa Kurtosisb 12.00 16.64 5. All scales had adequate internal consistencies (PMCSQ-2.

Moreover. . the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. Significant correlations were reported for the relationship between perceptions of positive coach feedback and perceptions of a task-oriented climate and for the relationship between perceptions of negative coach feedback and an ego-oriented climate. a positive relationship was found between the discrepancy variable and perceptions of an egooriented climate whereas a negative relationship was found between the discrepancy variable and perceptions of a task-oriented climate (see Table 2).Results 37 Correlation Analysis Pearson correlation coefficients were examined for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback.

35** -. ** p < .22 .18 .36** -.44** .10 -.11 .11 -.02 -- p < .44** -.04 .37** -.31** .26* .17 -14 -. Unequal recognition 8. Discrepancy 14.28* .12 .40** -. Perceived positive feedback 10.22 .40** -.18 -.01 .03 -.39** .05 -10 -.32** .62** .42** . Punishment 7.46** .01 . Discrepancy negative 16.06 -.44** -.03 .04 -. Important role 4.43** -6 -33** -.20 -.02 .16 .Results 38 Table 2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback.20 -11 -.22 .49** .34** -.12 .19 -.63** .05 -.25* -.25* -.83** .30* .03 . Preferred negative feedback 13.03 -12 -.42** -9 .02 -. Rivalry 9.05 .02 .14 .44** -15 -.11 -.50** .14 -.18 .02 .03 -.92** .08 -.14 -.56** .01 .18 .22 -. Average ability 17. Team win percentage 1 -2 .15 -.30* -16 -.22 .16 -.17 -13 -.02 .09 .31** .05.24* -.46** -.42** .49** -. Ego 6. Discrepancy positive 15.36** .26* .21 . Perceived negative feedback 11.07 . Cooperative learning 3.13 -.08 .24 .28* .71** -7 -.91** .10 -.18 -. Preferred positive feedback 12.13 .16 .04 .25* .32** -17 .27* -.13 -.46** -8 -. Effort 5.15 . Task 2.36** -.33** .49** -.13 -.63** .33** .45** -.31** -.21 .06 -.35** .11 -.12 -.29** -.05 -.14 -.25* -.39** .22 -.03 .15 -.21 . the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the team’s motivational climate Variable 1.26* .52** -4 .05 -.31** -.23 .23 -.61** -5 -.80** -3 .48** .43** -.

The final model accounted for 31% of the variance in a task-oriented climate. positive coach feedback (B=.23) was also a significant (p≤.05) correlate of an ego-oriented team climate (see Table 3). and after controlling for team winning percentage and perceived athletic ability. In contrast.9% of the variance in an ego-oriented climate. when predicting a task-oriented team climate (see Table 4). .05) correlate and the discrepancy did not emerge as a significant correlate. with the final model accounting for 36.05) correlate.Results 39 Hierarchical Regression Analysis To test the strength of the coach feedback and discrepancy variables as predictors of the motivational climate.44) was a significant (p≤.51) was a significant (p≤. The perceived-preferred discrepancy (B=. negative feedback from the coach (B=.

22 -.61 1.26 Part .51 .11 -.93 1.84 -.01 .07 -.27 .59 .01 .01 .13 -.19 .27 .00 .23 .83 1.49 .29 .73 -14.46 .20 1.05 2.67 9.22 -.21 -.04 .55 .88 10.49 .90 26.10 .Results 40 Table 3 Regression Analysis testing team win percentage.06 -.01 .01 .25 -.01 -.86 1.15 -.26 Standardized Coefficients Beta .27 25.419 7. Error 26.24 .15 .24 .50 .03 .18 .21 1 2 3 (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback Discrepancy .01 .32 -.84 4.96 -.45 .18 1.34 3.49 2.29 9.01 . perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of an ego-oriented motivational climate Model Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.26 -.11 -.19 .23 -.54 -2.95 .17 -1.22 .22 -.50 7.22 -.54 .49 2.02 -1.07 .22 -. perceived ability.06 -2.33 Correlations Partial .49 .64 1.05 -.05 .82 7.14 .22 -.74 -15.36 4.01 -.00 .07 .96 .20 .20 1.24 -.22 -.37 .17 . Zeroorder 2.23 t Sig.49 .

29 57.29 -.01 .37 -.13 -.45 5.42 -.00 .01 7.19 -.Results 41 Table 4 Regression Analysis testing team win percentage. perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of a task-oriented motivational climate Model Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.63 5.65 -2.00 .18 1 2 3 (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback Discrepancy .60 1.66 1.09 -1.33 Correlations Partial -.16 56.13 -.22 -.18 -.81 .53 10.44 .17 -.82 8.18 -.41 -.13 -.00 .44 -.58 7.87 -.55 -1.00 .00 .86 .73 -.77 .21 2.93 10.20 -.87 .86 -1.17 -.48 .57 -1.00 .48 -.13 -.45 .40 -.17 .06 .45 -.10 -.84 -.12 .17 .09 -.39 .00 3.02 -11. Zeroorder 7.11 .00 .17 -.13 -.00 -1.16 -.70 .94 .21 -.30 -.22 -.09 -.19 t Sig.82 1.05 . Error 76. perceived ability.17 -.70 .29 Standardized Coefficients Beta -.11 -.93 -1.13 -.21 Part -.51 9.47 .00 .28 .01 .05 .00 .40 -.10 .15 .30 -.48 -.07 4.19 -.

Positive coach feedback included praise in response to successful performances as well as encouragement and technical instruction in response to mistakes. a task-oriented climate was associated with female high school athletes’ perceptions of their coaches providing them with praise. and not ignoring their mistakes (Smith. This chapter will discuss these findings as they pertain to previous research. the theoretical implications of the current study. Moreover. and recommendations for future research. Specifically. This finding is consistent with previous research. and Duda (2008) reported that collegiate athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented team climate were associated with athletes’ perceptions of . Overall. Ethington. Fry. athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback and their perceptions of a task-oriented climate were significantly correlated. 2005). Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback As hypothesized.Discussion 42 CHAPTER 5 Discussion The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of the athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback received from the head coach in practices on their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. The current study also examined the influence of the discrepancy between perceived and preferred individual coach feedback patterns on athletes’ perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. Jowett. & Li. the results indicated that the discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback was a significant correlate of the motivational climate. Similarly. encouragement. Olympiou. the findings suggested that the individual feedback provided by the head coach influenced athletes’ perceptions of their team’s climate.

. & Chi. Chi. 2000. Black & Weiss. Duda. Cumming. Encouraging. Halliburton & Weiss. According to Achievement Goal Theory. & Smoll. being committed.g. Based on these results. and affiliation with teammates. and interacting in a complementary fashion with their coach. Smith. Amorose & Horn. the current findings were in line with the tenets of Achievement Goal Theory..Discussion 43 feeling close. the current study reported that young male hockey players’ perceptions of praise. coaches can create a task-oriented climate by reducing the importance of winning and focusing on other participation motives such as skill development. and that the coach believed their hard work would help them improve their skills over time (Smith et al.. Therefore. and technical instruction from the head coach were positively correlated with their perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. 1992). Therefore. Seifriz. athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback in response to successful and unsuccessful performances were more likely to make athletes feel that the coach valued their effort. 2006). 2002. 1998. effort. 1999). several recent studies have reported that athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented climate were positively associated with adaptive or self-referenced sources of sport confidence (e. supportive. 2005). These are all aspects of a task-oriented team climate (Newton & Duda. 2003. Similarly. Outcomes associated with positive feedback and a task-oriented climate are welldocumented. youth sport coaches need to demonstrate such behaviors in practice in order to create an effective team climate. encouragement. Based on the present results.g. strategies to improve both perceptions of positive feedback and subsequent . Allen & Howe. 2004. 1992. Likewise. Magyar & Feltz. and information-based feedback given in response to athletes’ performances in sport are related to increased perceptions of competence and an increase in intrinsic motivation (e.

Similarly. More specifically. a significant relationship was observed between perceptions of negative coach feedback and an ego-oriented climate. the current findings are consistent with Achievement Goal Theory. and complementarity. this study also examined the relationship between negative coach feedback and athletes’ perceptions of the team climate. supportive. and information-based feedback may partly explain why a task-oriented team climate has been linked to sources of sport competence and intrinsic motivation. perceptions of negative coaching behaviors such as criticism and ignoring performance were positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Thus. Olympiou et al. encouraging. Since the current findings demonstrated that athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback was a significant predictor of a task-oriented team climate. Based on the current findings. In particular. (2008) reported that negative coach-athlete interactions were associated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate.Discussion 44 task motivational climates need to be targeted in coaching programs and in practice. As hypothesized.. would not receive positive feedback unless they were the best players. and that they had to focus on the outcome of their performance (Smith et al. they were more likely to view their relationship with the coach as lacking in closeness. commitment. (2005) reported that athletes’ perceptions of criticism from their coach in response to mistakes were more likely to be associated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. 2005). Likewise. which suggests that an ego-oriented climate . Smith et al. when players felt that the coach favored the most talented players within the team. hockey players’ perceptions of negative coach feedback in response to successful and unsuccessful performances was associated with their perceptions that players would be punished for poor performances. In addition to positive coach feedback.

. and ignoring mistakes) and to determine if certain coach feedback patterns are stronger . The current findings indicated a significant relationship between athletes’ perceptions of negative coach feedback and their perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. 1999). Consequently.e. extensive research on motivational climate has demonstrated that athletes’ perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate were linked to higher levels of athletes’ anxiety. and maladaptive coping strategies (Treasure & Roberts. Treasure. Black & Weiss. Likewise. worry. and punishes players for making mistakes (Newton. Based on these current findings. coaching behaviors such as criticism and ignoring players’ individual performances may partly explain why an egooriented team climate can be detrimental to athletes’ psychosocial well-being. and tension. 1998. criticism. the individual feedback received from the coach is likely to be an important source of information that athletes use to assess their team’s motivational climate. Therefore.. it would be interesting for future research to examine specific aspects of positive and negative coach feedback patterns (i. 2000). perceived performance pressure. praise. technical instruction. Standage. Therefore. encouragement.. Several studies on coach feedback reported that athletes’ perceptions of negative coaching behaviors such as punishment-oriented feedback and tendencies to ignore players’ performance undermined their intrinsic motivation (e. Cumming et al. & Yin. Duda. 1998. the current study examined athletes’ general perceptions of positive and negative individual coach feedback. 2006). Amorose & Horn. favors the most talented players.g. 1992.Discussion 45 occurs when the coach promotes intra-team rivalries. Allen & Howe. 2000. coaches should avoid using such behaviors in practice if their goal is to create a taskoriented team climate. & Lochbaum. That being said.

these findings support Achievement Goal Theory. More specifically. 1985). Based on these results. the . This type of research would provide youth sport coaches with valuable practical information by identifying which specific coaching behaviors help foster a task-oriented and an ego-oriented team climate. Consequently. the current findings can be further explained by Self-Determined Motivation Theory (Deci & Ryan. players who felt that their coach did not provide them with individual feedback that they desired were more likely to believe that their coach was more concerned with the outcome of their performance than their development as a player. Thus. This relationship between discrepancy and an ego-oriented climate remained significant when team winning percentage and perceived ability were taken into account. the discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback impacts an athlete’s motivation.Discussion 46 correlates of the motivational climate than others. which proposes that coaches are more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate when they focus on participation motives such as winning rather than skill development. For example. Influence of the Discrepancy between Preferred and Perceived Coach Feedback As hypothesized. Therefore. if players preferred technical instruction from their coach in response to performance errors in practice but received more criticism. they were more likely to feel that their coach punished players for making mistakes instead of encouraging them to improve their skills. the discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback was significantly correlated with athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. Specifically. a discrepancy in preferred and perceived feedback was positively correlated with an ego-oriented climate and negatively correlated with a task-oriented climate.

In contrast. a discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback may have been perceived by athletes as a form of control. an instructor or a coach) takes the other’s (e. Therefore.. While no research has examined the influence of the discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback on athletes’ motivation. they were more likely to feel that the coach did not support their individual needs and that future performances had to conform to the wishes of the coach. Autonomy supportive means that an individual in a position of authority (e. Vallerand. In the present study. acknowledges the other’s feelings. a student or an athlete) perspective. Future research would be warranted to better examine the association between autonomy-supportive and controlling coach behaviors and the links to coach feedback.Discussion 47 discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback may be linked to athletes’ perceptions of autonomy supportive and controlling coaching behaviors. All these coaching behaviors are aspects of a task-oriented climate.. Consequently. athletes that reported a higher discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback were more likely to view their head coach’s behaviors as ego-oriented. several researchers have suggested that positive coaching behaviors such as praise and encouragement do not . & Cury. 2002).g. and provides the other with pertinent information and opportunities for choice while minimizing the use of pressures and demands (Deci & Black. when players received coach feedback that they felt they did not need or want. Guillet. athletes perceive their coaches’ behaviors as autonomy-supportive or as autocratic and controlling. 2000).g. coaching behaviors that are perceived by athletes as autocratic and controlling are more likely to create an ego-oriented climate (Sarrazin. Pelletier. According to Self-Determined Motivation Theory.

Henderlong & Lepper. athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback were a stronger predictor of the motivational climate than the discrepancy variable. Koestner. Similarly.Discussion 48 always enhance athletes’ intrinsic motivation (Deci. 2003). In contrast. Deci et al. 1980. Together. 2003) have recently distinguished between positive coach feedback (praise) that was administered in an informational or in a controlling style.. 1974). the current results reported that the discrepancy variable was related to athletes’ perceptions of autonomy supportive and controlling coaching behaviors. Contrary to what was hypothesized in the present study. the current findings revealed an antecedent of the motivational climate that was not previously identified. Dunkin & Biddle... coaches who used praise as an appropriate evaluation of their athletes’ performances were more likely to increase athletes’ levels of self-competence and intrinsic motivation. Similarly. Therefore. 1999. 2002. In other words. the findings suggest that the appropriateness and effectiveness of individual coach feedback may be influenced by whether athletes view the feedback as autonomy supportive or as controlling. 1999. the discrepancy . some studies (e. the use of praise for motivational or disciplinary purposes was more likely to be perceived by athletes as a form of control and thus decreased their levels of intrinsic motivation. Mageau & Vallerand.. there are alternative and perhaps more critical aspects of coach feedback such as the discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback than simply examining the type of feedback athletes’ perceive from their coach. & Ryan. Thus. teachers’ use of praise or encouragement has been unrelated to or even negatively correlated with students' academic achievement (Brophy. Thus. Since no research has examined the influence of the discrepancy variable on athletes’ perceptions of their team’s climate. Mageau & Vallerand.g.

participants were elite Bantam aged hockey players. these coaching preferences are likely to vary significantly from athlete to athlete.Discussion 49 between preferred and perceived coaching behaviors is likely to be an important aspect of coaching that requires further investigation. athletes participating at a recreational level (i. and therefore.e. In the present study. less competitive level of play) are likely to have very different preferences and needs in regards to coaching. may represent important individual factors when evaluating specific coaching behaviors. Thus.. the current results demonstrated that the discrepancy between skilled teenage hockey players’ preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns was associated with their perceptions of the motivational climate created by the coach. Depending on the level of competition and the athlete’s perceived ability. However. it would be worthwhile for future studies to investigate if athletes’ level of competition and their perceived ability influence their preferred coaching behaviors. . Thus. the current results suggested that youth sport coaches should become familiar with their athletes’ personal preferences regarding coach feedback patterns in order to help foster a task-oriented team climate and avoid creating an ego-oriented team climate. That being said.

2005) have suggested coach-athlete interactions as a potential factor. 2004). 1992. & Simpson. & Yin. Feltz. Horn.e. & Yin. 2003. 2008. Summary The motivational climate created by the coach has been identified as one of the primary variables that can impact an athlete’s motivation in sport (Ames. Newton. it is traditionally assumed that players within a team perceive the same type of team climate.. . 2007. Halliburton & Weiss. 2003. Chi. one goal of the present study was to examine the influence of the athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback received from the head coach on their perceptions of the team’s motivational climate. 2004. Newton. 2000). & Duda. Smith. especially in youth sport (Boixados. & Grossbard.. Magyar & Feltz. Research on motivational climate has clearly demonstrated many of the positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented climate. Magyar. Duda. Cruz. 2002. Since the motivational climate refers to the coach’s general behaviors in games and practices. & Valiente. 2004. Seifriz. To date. Jowett. Duda. Fry & Newton. Cumming et al. Several sport psychology researchers (i. 1999. & Chi. Torregrosa. & Li. Therefore. 2007. Fry. 1992). However several recent studies have reported that athletes within the same team do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate (Cumming. Smith. Smoll. Olympiou. The final section discusses practical recommendations for coaching and youth sport. 2007.Summary 50 CHAPTER 6 This chapter presents a summary of the current study followed by its limitations. Ethington. it is unclear what individual differences may contribute to such discrepancy in athletes’ perceptions of the team’s climate. Duda.

Therefore. & Ryan. athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback were positively correlated with perceptions of a task-oriented team climate whereas athletes’ perceptions of . Cumming. Mageau & Vallerand. Once each hockey association had agreed to participate in the current study and had completed the sport organization consent form. & Smoll. the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire. 2000.e. and information regarding performance. 1992. 1999. As hypothesized. Black & Weiss. Allen & Howe. the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback..Summary 51 While several studies (i. and athletes’ perceptions of their team’s motivational climate. Amorose & Horn. Deci. 1998. the head coaches of their Bantam AA and BB teams were contacted in order to schedule a time to gather data. encouragement. a second goal of the current study was to examine the influence of the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback on athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. Thus. This included the completion of 3 items: the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2. and a demographic questionnaire.e. The participants in this study were 70 male hockey players from the Bantam AA and BB divisions (13-14 years old) in the West Island minor hockey region. 2002. Correlation analysis was used to measure the degree of the relationships between athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback. Henderlong & Lepper. Smith.. perhaps a significant aspect of coach feedback is assessing what type of coaching responses athletes prefer or need rather than simply examining the type of coaching responses athletes perceive. 2006) have provided support for certain types of evaluative feedback such as praise. 2003) have revealed that athletes’ perceptions of praise and encouragement do not always result in positive outcomes. Koestner. some studies (i.

In contrast. As suggested by Achievement Goal Theory (Newton & Duda. The discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback only significantly predicted an ego-oriented team climate.Summary 52 negative coach feedback were positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. In sum. In addition. 1985). and that they had to focus on the outcome of their performance were more likely to create an ego-oriented climate. When team winning percentage and perceived ability were controlled for in the regression analysis. . effort. the current findings also indicated that the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback influenced athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. coaching behaviors that reduce the importance of winning and that focus on other participation motives such as skill development. coaching behaviors that make athletes feel that they would be punished for poor performances. would not receive positive feedback unless they were the best. perceptions of coach feedback emerged as a significant predictor of the motivational climate. Moreover. the present findings suggested that the individual feedback received from the coach was likely to be an important source of information that athletes used to assess their team’s motivational climate. the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback was a negative correlate of a task-oriented climate and a positive correlate of an ego-oriented climate. In line with the tenets of Self-Determined Motivation Theory (Deci & Ryan. athletes’ perceptions of positive coach feedback were significantly correlated with a task-oriented climate whereas perceptions of negative coach feedback were significantly correlated with an ego-oriented climate. and affiliation with teammates are more likely to create a task-oriented climate. In particular. 1999).

Limitations While the current study identified antecedents of the motivational climate that were not previously reported. technical instruction. and ignoring performance) after a successful or unsuccessful performance. Although the pilot test was successful. all of the items on the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire that measured informative feedback were modified for the sport of ice hockey. the internal consistency of these items was not calculated. criticism.. players may have reported lower levels of criticism because the specific statements measuring this type of feedback were not similar to the typical criticism received from their coach. Despite this. Prior to collecting data. encouragement. if the feedback statement was not similar to the specific feedback provided by the coach. participants may have reported that statement as not typical at all even though the statement was designed to represent a general feedback pattern.65) in the data analysis of the current study. praise.49-. Moreover. this may explain why items pertaining to perceived and preferred negative feedback did not indicate adequate alpha coefficients (α=. The instructions on the questionnaire asked participants to rate each statement in terms of how typical their coach gave them a specific type of feedback pattern (i. the questionnaire was pilot tested with a Bantam AA ice hockey team to ensure that the modifications were appropriate and concise. Another limitation regarding the CFQ was the validity of the items measuring coach feedback patterns.e. In contrast. For example. To begin. the present study assumed that players .Summary 53 coaching behaviors that were perceived by athletes as needs supportive were more likely to create a task-oriented team climate whereas coaching behaviors that were perceived as controlling were more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate. there are several limitations that must be discussed.

Summary 54 who reported lower levels of criticism from their coach did so because they felt that it was not typical of their coaches to provide them with such feedback. Consequently, players’ ratings of the feedback statements on the questionnaire may not necessarily reflect their actual perceptions of their coach’s typical feedback patterns. The present research reported a significant relationship between athletes’ perceptions of the individual feedback provided by the coach and their perceptions of the motivational climate. Despite the current findings, it should be noted that only certain dimensions of coach feedback were measured, thus limiting the generalizability of these results. To begin, participants were instructed to report the typical individual feedback provided by their head coach. However, team sports like hockey include several assistant coaches who also provide players with feedback in response to their performances. Thus, the individual feedback provided by the assistant coach(es) is likely to be an important aspect of coach feedback that future research may want to consider exploring. Consequently, the current results on coach feedback can not be generalized to all members of the coaching staff. In addition, the present study only measured the typical feedback provided by head coaches in practices. However, players receive a significant amount of individual feedback from their head coach in games as well. While the feedback provided by coaches in games is also likely to influence athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate, the current results are limited to the feedback players received in practices. Furthermore, the CFQ only measured different types of verbal coach feedback patterns. However, the scale that Allen and Howe (2000) used in their study to assess athletes’ perceptions of coach feedback included items that measured non-verbal forms of coach feedback. Thus, non-verbal coach feedback such as a nod, wink, or a pat

Summary 55 on the back may also influence athletes’ perceptions of the motivational climate. Consequently, this represents another limitation for the present research. It should also be noted that the current study did not account for potential clustering within teams. Lastly, the present study only included elite male hockey players, thus limiting its generalizability. Practical Implications The results of this study have identified specific coaching behaviors (i.e., praise, encouragement, technical instruction, and preferred feedback) that influenced athletes’ perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Previous research (Boixados et al., 2004; Chi, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003; Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Magyar & Feltz, 2003; Seifriz et al., 1992) on motivational climate in youth sport has demonstrated the positive outcomes (i.e., self-determined motivation, sport enjoyment, satisfaction, personal effort, persistence, a more task-oriented goal perspective, perceptions of sport competence, and sportspersonship attitudes) associated with a task-oriented team climate. In addition, researchers (i.e., Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002) have found that with time, athletes’ self-determined motivation was predictive of both their intention to drop out and their actual drop out behavior. Therefore, understanding some of the coaching behaviors that help foster such an environment provides youth sport coaches with valuable practical information. Based on the current results, coaches are encouraged to provide athletes with praise and technical instruction in response to a successful performance during practice. However, when a player makes a mistake in practice, coaches should provide their athletes with encouragement and information on how to correct their performance. Coaching behaviors such as ignoring a player’s performance

Summary 56 and criticism are more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate. Furthermore, coaches need to be aware of the athlete’s individual preferences regarding coach feedback in order to create more of a task-oriented team climate. More specifically, providing players with feedback that is not in line with their coaching preferences is more likely to result in athletes’ perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. By developing a clearer understanding on how the individual feedback coaches provide to their athletes affects the type of motivational climate perceived within the team, coaches are better prepared to meet the goals of youth sport which are centered on enhancing the growth and development of young athletes. In addition to the quality of individual feedback, coaches also need to be more consistent with the quality of individual feedback they provide to different players within the team. Some studies (i.e., Horn, 1984; Rejeski, Darracott, & Hutslar, 1979) have reported variation in how the coach interacts individually with different team members. Consequently, some of the literature (e.g., Cumming, et al., 2007; Duda et al., 1999; Magyar et al., 2004) on motivational climate has reported that athletes within the same team do not always perceive the same type of climate created by the coach. Moreover, Cumming et al. found that variability in athletes’ perceptions of the team’s climate indicated that players were more likely to evaluate coach behaviors on the basis of their own personal interactions with the coach rather than interactions between the coach and the group as a whole. Based on these findings, coaches should focus on the feedback they provide to athletes individually in order to create an effective learning environment for every player within the team.

& Mayo. Achievement goals and adaptive motivational patterns: The role of the environment. Journal of Educational Psychology.. (1992). Ames & C. 161– 176). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation. T. C. (1984). J.). scholarship status. (1998). 292-308. J. 63-84. (2002). (1988). Player ability. Situational and dispositional goals as predictors of perceptions of individual and team improvement. Research on motivation in education: student motivation (pp. F. 260. cooperative. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. B. B. 177-208). .). Balaguer.267. Amorose. L.. satisfaction and coach ratings among elite female handball teams. Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes' gender. Competitive. 20. J. and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive motivational analysis. In R. Champaign. I. Ames. Ames.. S.. and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. New York: Academic Press.. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Roberts (Ed. C. L. C. & Howe. C. Motivation in sport and exercise (pp.References 57 References Allen. and female adolescent athletes' perceived competence and satisfaction. 22. 80. In G. IL: Human Kinetics. Ames. Duda. 280-299. coach feedback. & Archer.. (2000). & Horn. J. 3. A. C. Ames (Eds. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Atienza.

. E. J. A. J. Achievement goal theory. E. Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and performance influence. East Lansing: Michigan State University. 9. & Hussey. Institute for Research on Teaching. & Good.. perceived ability. Summers (Eds. Singer. & Valiente. Chaikin. Morris. L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. J. Torregrosa.. 301-317. 296-334. Cruz. (1993). J.. 152–174).) (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan. M. 389-410. & Derlega.References 58 Boixados. L. Brophy.. Teacher praise: A functional analysis (Occasional Paper No. Leadership. Rinehart & Winston. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators. 16.. Chelladurai. In T. applications. and fair play attitudes in young soccer players. Brophy. Non-verbal mediators of teacher expectancy effects. Chi. 49. D. N. (2004). Cooper. Brown.. Promote equality in the classroom. T. Relationships among motivational climate. Psychological Bulletin. S. P. Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. Australia: Wiley. Handbook on research on sport psychology (pp. and issues (2nd ed. Murphey.). Sport psychology: Theory. L. M.K. M. Sydney. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. & L.. Sigler. Brown. Tennant (Eds. V. (1974). In R. New York: Holt. (1951). 144-149. 28). Coeý cient alpha and the internal structure of tests. 88. (1974). (1979). satisfaction. M. . Review of Educational Research. Cronbach.). (1980). K. (2004). H. 30. & J. 19–22. (1996).

An observational study of expectancy effects and their mediating mechanisms on students of physical education activity classes. M. & Ryan. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. R. In G... 68-78. R. P. social development.) Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 19.. Evaluation and Research in Education 16. (2001). E. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Roberts (Ed. (2000). S. Champaign. & Ryan. . E... Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. F. P. self-analysis. (2007).. Koestner. C. Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. New York: Plenum. S. Deci. (2002). Deci. R. (1977). R. Gender effects in classroom interaction: Data collection. Drudy. Smoll. & Uí Chatháin. Deci. L. J. E. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. & Grossbard. Cumming. and well-being.References 59 Crowe. R. Duda. J. 322-336. 627-668. M. R. L. Psychological Bulletin. and reflection. 125. M. L. (1985). American Psychologist. M. (1999). 55. Is winning everything? The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in youth sports. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. & Ryan. 129-182). 34–50.. IL: Human Kinetics.. L. Smith.

S. occupational. W.References 60 Duda. M. S. J. Langlois. 5. A. L. 14. B. In W. J. Eccles. Linking gender to educational. & Biddle. B. model of achievement-related choices. & Whitehead. (1999). J. and III. J. Hausenblas. Recent extensions and future directions. and Jocefowicz. 417–443). Developmental Psychology. Dunbar. 153–192). (1992). & Enna. The study of teaching. Barber. (1974). B. & L. and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. H. & O’Sullivan... A. Achievement goal theory in sport. WV: Fitness Information Technology. J. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. (2001).. Morgantown. Swann.). 21-48).L. M. New York: Wiley. In R. Journal of Educational Psychology.. (1986). Janelle (Eds. N. C. Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. H. 290–299. Dweck. New York: Holt. Sex differences in learned helplessness: II. J. Gilbert (Eds) Sexism and Stereotypes in Modern Society. 84. 166–175. An experimental analysis. (1998). M. B. J. Singer. D. . R.. R. M. Effects of intervention on differential treatment of boys and girls in elementary physical education lessons. 268-276. S. Nelson. Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom. H..). Washington. (1978). Handbook of sport psychology (pp.. DC: APA. Duda. (pp. Duda (Ed. Davidson. Duda. Rinehart & Winston. Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.. & Nicholls. & Hall. & C. In J.. Dunkin. L.

L. Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. Application of achievement goal theory in an urban youth tennis setting. NJ: Erlbaum. (1981). 215-255). In W. A. (2005). J.. Elkind. S. One small step for personkind: Observations and suggestions for sex equity in coeducational physical education classes. M. 12–17. R. and sportspersonship: Individual and team effects.. M. Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research. Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles Expectancy-Value Model. M. (2002). 396-419..). 215–232. 15. 1025-1034. 38. 38. & Harold. A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. Educational Leadership. D. Achievement goal perspectives. & Newton. 6. Gano-Overway.. pp. Griffin. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. Harter. M. perceptions of the motivational climate.A. Egocentrism in adolescence. Collins (Ed. 415-422. T. Halliburton. R. & Ewing. Magyar.Guivernau. 7– 35. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. J. (1967). J. Good. . E. 1. (1981). 14. (1981). 3. M. Sources of competence information and perceived motivational climate among adolescent female gymnasts varying in skill level. 24. Fry. (2003).References 61 Eccles. M. Child Development. S. S. L. 50-66. (1991). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Waldron. P. & Weiss. T. A. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. D. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Hillsdale.

Sarrazin. Retrieved June 3. The relationships of perceived motivational climate to cohesion and collective efficacy in elite female teams. 77.). (2002). P. (1987). M. S.). ed. Journal of Educational Psychology. (2006). Champaign. 174-186. 774-795. New York: Academic Press. Michigan State University.hockeycanada. Heuze.. J. Advances in sport psychology (3rd.. (Ed. IL: Human Kinetics. R. Horn. pp. Hersen. (2006).html Horn.d. T. (2002). Hockey Canada. 2005. In I. S. The influence of teacher-coach behavior on the psychological development of children. & Thomas. (2004). & Gould. J. N. Gould & M.. D.). The application of achievement goal theory in youth sport. (1985). 201-218. Vol.. T. 128. Psychological Bulletin. J. Clinician’s handbook of adult behavioral assessment.R. C. Champaign.. Research in youth sports: Critical issues status. London: Thomson. Institute for the Study of Youth Sports. M. In D. 58-73). Advances in pediatric sport sciences. & Biddle. S. The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. (n. Horn. Cockerill (Ed.) Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 2: Behavioral issues (pp. R.ca/e/develop/index. Weiss (Eds. S. 18. IL: Human Kinetics.) (2007).. Raimbault. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 21-25. Masiero. T. Hedstrom. Coaches' feedback and changes in children's perceptions of their physical competence. Henderlong. M. . 121-142). from http://www.References 62 Harwood. & Lepper.

In J. Lox. Psychological Bulletin. Smoll & R. TN. NY: McGraw-Hill.M. Kavussanu.. S. C.References 63 Horn. & Letchworth. Dubuque. S. 66. G. (1975). . T. (1977). L. S. S. 12. Perceived contingency of teacher-administered reinforcements and academic performance of boys. C. Kennelly. 82-108). 449-453. pp. 51-55. 435-464). Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (2nd ed. Smith (Eds. The self-fulfilling prophecy theory: When coaches' expectations become reality. T. Kester. IA: Kendall/Hunt. & Kinley.). In F. E. (1972). E. (1988). & Harris. T. 84.. 1-13. M. S. Journal of Educational Research. Women's self-confidence in achievement situations. & Glenn.). Communication of teacher expectations and their effects on achievement and attitudes of secondary school students. F. S. Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed. (2002). pp. Lenney.. Psychology in the Schools. The Sport Psychologist. K. 20. Paper presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. L. & Labrador. (2006). Horn. Contextual influences on moral functioning of male youth footballers.. 1-23. A.. Knoxville.. (2006). Horn. The relationship between athletes’ psychological characteristics and their preference for particular coaching behaviors.. & Spray.. M. Perceived competence in young athletes: Research findings and recommendations for coaches and parents. Williams (Ed.

and senior high school physical education specialists. Koester. Individual and crew level determinants of collective efficacy in rowing. pp. L. 21. 466-470.. M. (1980). R.. & Nicholls. 9. G.References 64 Mageau. (2004). Youth sports: A pediatrician's perspective on coaching and injury prevention. Martinek. Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. Journal of Athletic Training. (2003). Maehr. 35. . (1990). junior high. 26. T. (1981). 9. Sex-role stereotyping behaviors among elementary. M. (2003). D. Magyar. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 221267). D. G. E. The relationship between the sex composition of physical education classes and teacher–pupil verbal interaction. J. 2. Journal of Sports Sciences. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. R. In N. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. MacDonald. Pygmalion in the gym: A model for the communication of teacher expectations in physical education. Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. J. (2000). 175-190. & Vallerand. C. 4.. & Feltz. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 883-904. The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. P. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education.. The influence of dispositional and situational tendencies on adolescent girls’ sport confidence sources. M. T. L. Magyar. 58-67. 52. D. Warren (Ed. T.). 136-153. & Simpson. M. L. 152–163. Feltz. New York: Academic Press. 249–261. McBride. (1990).. I.

18. & Sullivan. Z. Curricula equity in required ninth-grade physical education. & Mehrhof. Ermler. Implications of the motivational climate in youth sports. G..). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity.. Kovar. 328– 346. D. J. (1995).References 65 Martinek. K. Duda.. P. L. Smith (Eds. A.. & Johnson. Examination of the psychometric properties of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes.409–434). Teacher expectations: Effects on dyadic interaction and self-concept in elementary age children. Boston: Beacon Press. & R. In F. Recreation. J. & Amorose. G. IA: Kendall/Hunt. J. 91. S. Nicholls. A. B. Achievement motivation: Conception of ability. Physical Education. E. mastery choice. subjective experience. and Dance. Reston. Dubuque. K. M. (1999). C. J. L... (1979).J. L. Nicaise. Bois. 25. 2–21.. (2002). and performance. McArdle. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 50. V. & Duda. Bunker. J. M. H. & Yin. Smoll. (2006). Psychological Review. A.. Cogerino. 36–57. Gender equity through physical education and sport. S. K. VA: American Alliance for Health. Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. Newton. 60-70. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. L. (1984). Journal of Sport Sciences. 19... G. Research Quarterly. 275-290. K. Messner. Napper-Owen. S. Students’ perceptions of teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes: Gender effects. Kluka. T. L. (2000). (1992). A. E. Mitchell.... .

F. Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.. P. & Hutslar.). & Duda. 39. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1989). S... Conley. A. Pygmalion in youth sports: A field study. 397-413. & Kempler. S. H. (1982). 4. A. (1979). 1. 311-319.. Ommundsen. (2003). J. Jowett. A multilevel approach to motivational climate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or a group level construct? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.. Nunnally. The competitive ethos and democratic education. S.M. & Treasure. Journal of Classroom Interaction. G.. Journal of Sport Psychology. Y. & Theodorakis. C. International Journal of Educational Research.. S. Perceived motivational climate in male youth soccer: Relations to social-moral functioning.. W. Pintrich. 90–118. C.. Roberts. The Sport Psychologist. L. Darracott. 22.References 66 Nicholls.. Shute. A. 17. Papaioannou. (2003). P. Y. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Dodds. Marsh.. 26.. W. 423-438.. J. N. Lemyre. D. (1978). 41–47. & Rife. J. Olympiou. Rejeski. C. The psychological interface between the coach-created motivational climate and the coach-athlete relationship in team sports. . (2008). and team norm perceptions. T. Placek.. Silverman. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 319-337. P. (2004). Academic learning time (ALT-PE) in a traditional elementary physical education setting: A descriptive analysis. J. G. sportspersonship.

F. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. (2005). 395-418. L. 987-993. & M. (1992). F.. Stein. . L. R. E. & Smoll. The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball.. & Chi. 2.. (2002). Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. Pintrich. R. In P. (1990). C. 26. M. C. Pelletier. Ethington.References 67 Roberts. Developmental Psychology. J. 65-83. Greenwich. Sarrazin...D. R. Scanlan. L. Self-esteem and children’s reactions to youth sport coaching behaviors: A field study of self-enhancement processes. & Smoll. & Ravizza. L.. L.. Smith. (2006). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: II. J. 375-391. European Journal of Social Psychology. Motivation in physical activity contexts: An achievement goal perspective.. Understanding sport behavior: A cognitive-affective processing systems approach. Coach-mediated team building in youth sports. C. 413–447). G. D. J. Guillet. T. Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. L. 114-132. 14. M. 9. Li. Maehr (Eds. E. 18. Smith. Smith. 1-27. S.. Seifriz. (1997).. The effect of female athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors on their perceptions of the motivational climate. R. 10. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Duda. & Kavussanu. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.. (1997). & Cury. Y..L. Fry. E. P.A. Smith. 17.. G. (1989). E. 170-177. Treasure.). pp.. F.. CT: JAI Press. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 32. L. Vallerand. K. Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. R.

D. & Coppel. 48. 59-75. Smoll. 173-201).. Smoll. R. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.. J. Coaching behaviors in Little League baseball. L. R. & Smith. Smoll. DC: Hemisphere. F. A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Smoll. 15. In J.).. F. R. (1983). Zane.. (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology. F. . 125-142.. L. Smith. F.. California: Warde Publishers. R. Psychological perspectives on youth sports (pp. L. (1978). (1977). M. E. Smith.. & Curtis. E. & Smoll. Research Quarterly. Reduction of children’s sport performance anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. 1. R. Smith.References 68 Smith. F. L. Smith (Eds. E.). F. E.. E. In F. Enhancement of coaches’ self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches.. N.Williams (Ed. L.. F. J. 208-214. Smith. Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed.. 602-610. & Barnett. Smoll. Journal of Sport Psychology. E. Smoll. (2002). 16. Smith. Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive behavioral approach to enhance relationship skills in youth sport coaches. R. N. P. E..) (pp.. Behavioral assessment in youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children's attitudes. F. 458–480). B. L. R. (1995). (1979). & Curtis. E. Boston: McGraw-Hill. & Hunt. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 401-407. Way to go coach!: A scientifically-proven approach to youth sports coaching effectiveness (2nd ed). Smith. Barnett. Smoll & R. (1993). Washington. P. R.. & Everett. Development and implementation of coach-training programs: Cognitive-behavioral principles and techniques. L. Smoll. N. B.. 78.

Smith. Relationship between female adolescents’ achievement goal orientations. & Chi.ca/progs/sc/info-fact/youth_e. C. 57. 2008. Solomons. 23–46. N. C. 172-183. 15. (2007).References 69 Smoll.pch.). Sex role mediated achievement behaviors and interpersonal dynamics of fifth grade co-educational physical education classes. from http://www.. (1991).. H. & Tsarna. Duda. (1993). Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology. G.. J. F.L. H. L. The Sport Psychologist. 300– 312. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 335-354.. & Roberts. E. (1998). . Walling. DBJ77–06538). (1987). The perceived motivational climate in sport questionnaire: Construct and predictive validity. 37: 5445A (University Microfilms No. M. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 29. M. (n. 211–230.. Dissertation Abstracts International. D. Worrall.gc. S. Sport Canada. L. Weiss. and sources of satisfaction in basketball. Psychological skill development in children and adolescents. & Cumming.d. Teachers’ reported practices towards girls and boys in science and languages. P..cfm Treasure.L. (1977). Retrieved April 14. 1. Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on changes in young athletes’ achievement goal orientations. 5. R. perceptions of the motivational climate. beliefs about success. British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Appendices 70 Appendix A Ethics Certificate .

Appendices 71 .

We would like to invite your Bantam AA or BB hockey teams to participate in this study. 0516 gordon. All information retrieved in this study will remain confidential and will be used for publication purposes in scholarly journals or for presentations at conferences.ca . of Kinesiology & Phys.mcgill.ca (514) 952-4619 ___________________________ Date Gordon Bloom. Quebec jonathan. The participation of your hockey organization in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. the intention is simply to ensure the respect and confidentiality of individuals concerned. Montreal. In particular. Quebec (514) 398-4184 ext. of Kinesiology & Phys. have carefully studied the above statements and have had the directions verbally explained to me. The purpose of this study is to assess youth ice hockey players’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors in games and in practices. and that all information gathered will remain confidential. copies of the results and conclusions of the study will be sent to the organization prior to the publishing of this data. Education McGill University. I (please print your name/s). for any reason. a graduate student in sport psychology. The researchers will not disclose names or identity of the participants at any time. As well. without penalty. Ph. __________________________________________________________________. __________________________________ Signature Please feel free to contact us at any time: Jonathan Stein Master’s Candidate.D.stein1@mail. in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at McGill University. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts for Jonathan Stein. Sport Psychology Dept. Education McGill University. Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. this study will ask players to fill out three separate questionnaires regarding this topic. this does not imply that the organization or its participants are put at risk through their participation. Montreal. The organization is free to withdraw from participation at any time. without penalty or prejudice.bloom@mcgill. When a team is filling out the questionnaires. the only adult that will be present will be the researcher. I understand that my organization may refuse to continue participation at any time.Appendices 72 Appendix B SPORT ORGANIZATION CONSENT FORM McGill University requires that organizations be informed of the details of any research study in which they participate. My organization freely consents and voluntarily agrees to participate in this research project based on the terms outlined in this consent form. However.

Appendices 73 Appendix C Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 .

Appendices 74 Directions: Please think about how it has felt to play on your team throughout this season. the coach has his or her own favorites. the coach believes that all of us are crucial to the success of the team. Perceptions naturally vary from person to person. On this team. 6. On this team. 5 = strongly agree). so be certain to take your time and answer as honestly as possible. 1. 4. On this team. On this team. 12. On this team. On this team. On this team. On this team. the coach yells at players for messing up. 7. players are encouraged to outplay the other players. players at all skill levels have an important role on the team. the coach makes sure players improve on skills they are not good at. 15. the coach gives most of his or her attention to the stars. 5. On this team. On this team. 13. 3. Circle the number that best represents how you feel. players feel good when they try their best. 11. players help each other learn. the coach thinks only the starters contribute to the success of the team. What is it usually like on your team? Read the following statements carefully and respond to each in terms of how you view the typical atmosphere on your team. the coach wants us to try new skills. 9. the coach gets mad when a player makes a mistake. On this team. On this team. Note: Each item is responded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree. 8. players are taken out of a game for mistakes. On this team. 10. On this team. 2. each player contributes in some important way. 14. the coach praises players only when they outplay team-mates. On this team. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .

players feel successful when they improve. On this team. On this team. the focus is to improve each game/practice. trying hard is rewarded. On this team. On this team. On this team. 29. 19. the players really “work together” 32. the coach encourages players to help each other. the coach makes it clear who he or she thinks are the best players. players are encouraged to work on their weaknesses. On this team. 21. On this team. 25. On this team. 31. only the top players “get noticed” by the coach. On this team. On this team. players are punished when they make a mistake. On this team. 17. if you want to play in a game you must be one of the best players. On this team. On this team. each player has an important role. 24. 20. only the players with the best “stats” get praise. 27.Appendices 75 16. players are afraid to make mistakes. the coach favours some players more than others. 33. 22. each player feels as if they are an important team member. 23. On this team. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 . On this team. the coach emphasizes always trying your best. On this team. On this team. 28. 30. the players help each other to get better and excel. On this team. 26. players are “psyched” when they do better than their team-mates in a game. 18.

Appendices 76 Appendix D Coaching Feedback Questionnaire .

Appendices 77
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire As you perhaps already know, coaches really differ from each other in the type of feedback they give in response to their athletes’ performances. This questionnaire is designed to find out what type of coaching feedback your coach gives you in practices. Coaching Responses to Player’s Successes Listed below are six examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had a successful performance in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE. Not Typical At All 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very Typical 5 5 5 5 5 5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

“Good play!” Coach ignores your good performance. “Way to go! You really went to the net this time.” “Great play. Now you're keeping your head up.” “Excellent work in practice today.” Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your good performance.

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

Coaching Responses to Player’s Errors Listed below are ten examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had made a mistake or committed an error in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE ERROR OR POOR PLAY. Not Typical At All 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very Typical 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

“That’s O.K. Keep working at it!” Coach ignores your error or poor performance. “That was a really stupid play!” “You were on the wrong side of him. Next time stay on the defensive side.” “How many times have I told you to keep your head up.” “Hang in there! You will do better next time.” Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your error or poor performance. “Your technique looks lousy! Keep you head up.” “That play sucked!” “You need to work on having quicker feet.”

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Appendices 78
Preferred Coaching Feedback Questionnaire This questionnaire is designed to find out what type of coaching feedback you would like your coach to give you in practices. Coaching Responses to Player’s Successes Listed below are six examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had a successful performance in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK FROM YOUR COACH AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE. Do Not Like At All 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. “Good play!” Coach ignores your good performance. “Way to go! You really went to the net this time.” “Great play. Now you're keeping your head-up.” “Excellent work in practice today.” Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your good performance. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Like Very Much 5 5 5 5 5 5

Coaching Responses to Player’s Errors Listed below are ten examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had made a mistake or committed an error in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK FROM YOUR COACH AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE ERROR OR POOR PLAY. Do Not Like At All 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. “That’s O.K. Keep working at it!” Coach ignores your error or poor performance. “That was a really stupid play!” “You were on the wrong side of him. Next time stay on the defensive side.” “How many times have I told you to keep your head up.” “Hang in there! You will do better next time.” Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your error or poor performance. “Your technique looks lousy! Keep you head up.” “That play sucked!” “You need to work on having quicker feet.” 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Like Very Much 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Appendices 79 Appendix E Demographic Questionnaire

1. Language (s) spoken: ________________ 2. Birthdate: ______________ 3. Level this season (AA or BB): ________________ 4. Position: _________________ 5. How many assistant coaches are on your current hockey team: _____ 6. a) Are there any parents that are coaches on this team (please circle one) : Yes b) If yes, head coach: Yes No Assistant coach: Yes No 7. Is your parent a coach on this team (please circle one): Yes No No

8. What language does the head coach speak to you in: ______________ 9. a) Have you played for this head coach before (please circle one): Yes b) If yes, how many seasons has this person coached you : _________ 10. What is your team’s current record: _____________ 11. How many games and practices have you missed since the beginning of the season (please circle one): 0 1-5 6-10 more than 10 12. Please choose the response that best reflects your ability in hockey: a) How good do you think you are at hockey? (1=not at all good to 5=very good) 1 2 3 4 5 b) Compared to your teammates, how would you rate your ability as a hockey player? (1=a lot worse than my teammates to 5= a lot better than teammates) 1 2 3 4 5 No

Appendices 80 Appendix F Player Agreement Forms English and French .

Appendices 81 PLAYER AGREEMENT FORM . You are free to withdraw from participation at any time. Your coaches will not be present while you complete the questionnaires. Quebec (514) 398-4184 ext. We believe that this study will provide minor hockey coaches with valuable practical information. the intention is simply to ensure the respect and confidentiality of individuals concerned. without penalty or prejudice. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts for Jonathan Stein. this does not imply that the participant is put at risk through their participation. Education McGill University. and that all information gathered will remain confidential.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom. __________________________________ Signature ___________________________ Date If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in this study.mcgill. a graduate student in sport psychology. ____________________________. Ph. Quebec jonathan. Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept.D. Your participation in this study is voluntary and not mandatory.ca . you will be asked to fill out three separate questionnaires. of Kinesiology & Phys. In addition. I freely assent and voluntarily agree to participate in this research project based on the terms outlined in this agreement form. In particular. The purpose of this study is to assess young athletes’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors in games and in practices. please contact the McGill Research Ethics Officer at 514-398-6831. I (please print your name). The researchers will not disclose your name or identity at any time. However.bloom@mcgill. If you choose not to participate. Montreal. 0516 gordon. have carefully studied the above statements and have had the directions verbally explained to me. Please feel free to contact us at any time: Jonathan Stein Master’s Candidate. your names will not be on the questionnaires so nobody will know which questionnaire you filled out. without penalty.stein1@mail. Montreal. Please be aware that the questionnaires are only available in English. of Kinesiology & Phys. Sport Psychology Dept.ENGLISH McGill University requires that participants be informed of the details of any research study in which they participate. in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at McGill University. for any reason. Education McGill University. I understand that I may refuse to continue participation at any time. you will be provided with bilingual reading material until all of the participants in this study complete the questionnaires.

Montréal. pour n’importe quelle raison. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Université de McGill.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom.bloom@mcgill.stein1@mail. Toutefois. Vous pouvez nous contactez en tout temps: Jonathan Stein Candidat de maîtrise. Soyez informez que les questionnaires seront disponibles seulement en Anglais. (514) 398-4184 ext. veuillez contacter le bureau d’ éthiques concernat les recherches à McGill au 514-398-6831.FRANÇAIS Durant une étude. Pour Jonathan Stein. Psychologie du sport Dept. ai étudié avec attention les déclarations ci-dessus et reçus des explications orales concernant ce même sujet. Les questionnaires seront anonymes alors personne ne pourra savoir lequel vous avez completé. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Université de McGill. ceci ne sous-entend pas que les sujets seront mis à risque en participant à l’étude . un étudiant cherchant à compléter sa maîtrise en psychologie du sport. l’équipe de recherche s’assurera que votre identité ne sera dévoilée à aucun moment.mcgill. sans punition ou préjuger. Si vous ne participerez pas a l’étude.D. ainsi que durant les pratiques. Votre participation à cette recherche est volontaire et non obligatoire. nous vous procurerons avec du matériel bilingue de lecture jusqu'à ce que tous les participants finissent de compléter les questionnaires. Québec jonathan. __________________________________ Signature ___________________________ Date Si vous avez des questions concernat vos droits en tant que participant à cette étude. De plus. Ceci se fera plus précisément en remplissant trois questionnaires différents. (en lettres imprimées). ____________________________. cette étude est nécessaire pour atteindre les exigences du département de kinésiologie et d’éducation physique de l’Université de McGill Le but de cette étude est d’analyser votre perception du comportement de votre entraîneur en chef durant les matchs.Appendices 82 FORMULAIRE D’ENTENTE DU JOUEUR . J’acceptes librement et volontairement à participer à ce projet de recherche basé sur les conditions discutées dans ce formulaire d’ entente. sans punition. Je.ca . 0516 gordon. Vous êtes libre de vous soutirer de cette étude n’importe quand. l’Université de McGill demande à ce que chaque participant soit informé de tous les détails reliés à la recherche dont il fera part. l’intention de ce document est d’assurer le respect et la confidentialité des individus impliqués dans l’étude. et que toute information recueillie restera confidentiel. Montréal. Programme d’hautes études en psy. Ph. Il est aussi important de noter que vos entraîneurs ne seront pas présents lors de cette période d’évaluation. du sport Dept. Je comprends que je peux refuser de continuer à participer à cette étude en tout temps.

Appendices 83 Appendix G Parental Consent Forms English and French .

Ph. Players who do not participate in the current study will be with the team when the other players fill out the questionnaires. Child’s Name (print): ________________________________ ________________________ (Parent’s signature) __________________________ (Date) If you have questions or concerns about your child’s rights as a research participant in this study. of Kinesiology & Phys. He is free to withdraw from participating at any time.D. we are unable to translate them into French without affecting their validity and reliability. the researchers will not disclose names or identity of a child at any time.bloom@mcgill. I have chosen to study young athletes’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors and I would like to invite your son to participate in my study. Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. McGill requires a letter of consent whenever research is conducted on human beings.mcgill. and conditions of the research. The purpose of this study is to assess young athletes’ perceptions of their head coaches’ behaviors in games and in practices. In particular. Montreal.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom. they will receive bilingual reading material on mental training and hockey. Montreal. Part of my studies involves writing a thesis. As well.ENGLISH I am a current graduate student in sport psychology at McGill University. Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. I (parent/legal tutor). Quebec jonathan. your son will be asked to fill out three anonymous questionnaires. I have been informed that my child’s participation in this study is voluntary and that he may withdraw from participating at any time. Jonathan Stein will be the only adult present during this time. If you believe your son is unable to complete the questionnaires in English. please contact the McGill Research Ethics Officer at 514-398-6831. for any reason without penalty. 0516 gordon. At this time. stating the purpose. procedures.Appendices 84 PARENT CONSENT FORM . the intention is simply to assure the respect and confidentiality of the individuals concerned. ____________________________ . This does not imply that the project involves any risk.ca . Since the questionnaires were only created in English by other researchers. We believe that this study will provide minor hockey coaches with valuable practical information. Education McGill University. have read and understood the above statements and I agree to have my child participate in this study. Please feel free to contact me or my supervisor at any time: Jonathan Stein Master’s Candidate. Sport Psychology Dept. Education McGill University. I have been told that the information collected will remain confidential.stein1@mail. Quebec (514) 398-4184 ext. of Kinesiology & Phys. he should not participate in the study. Your hockey association has approved this study and your coach has agreed to participate.

sans punition ou préjudice. Montréal. Pour ce faire.stein1@mail. j’aimerais poser quelques questions à votre fils.Appendices 85 FORMULAIRE DE CONSENTEMENT DU PARENT . nous sommes malheureusement incapables de les traduire en Français sans affecter la validité et l’authenticité des instruments utiliser pour l’étude. McGill requière que ce formulaire indique le but. On m’a informé que mon jeune peut participer librement et volontairement à ce projet de recherche basé sur les conditions discutées dans ce formulaire de consentement. Psychologie du sport Dept. il est important de noter que l’équipe de recherche s’assurera que l’identité de votre fils ne sera dévoilée à aucun moment. les procédures ainsi que les conditions dans laquelle ce déroulera chaque étude. 0516 gordon. cependant. Vous pouvez nous contactez en tout temps: Jonathan Stein Candidat de maîtrise. Plus spécifiquement. il ne devrait pas participer dans cette étude. qui a aussi été approuver par votre association de hockey.ca . On m’a informé que mon jeune peut refuser de continuer à participer à cette étude en tout temps.FRANÇAIS Je suis un étudiant cherchant à compléter sa maitrise en psychologie du sport à l’Université de McGill.D. Je (parent/tuteur). Si vous croyez que votre fils sera incapable de compléter le questionnaire en Anglais. sans punition. du sport Dept. il recevra des textes bilingues sur l’hockey.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom. Jonathan Stein sera l’unique adulte présent lors de la durée de l’évaluation. J’ai décidé de concentrer ma thèse sur la perception que des jeunes athlètes ont de leurs entraîneurs en chef. Enfin. L’Université de McGill nécessite. ai étudié avec attention les déclarations cidessus et j’acceptes que mon fils participe à ce projet. Ainsi. votre entraîneur en chef a consentit à participer a cette étude. Si votre fils ne participera pas à ce project.bloom@mcgill. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Université de McGill. Le but de cette étude est d’évaluer la perception que les jeunes joueurs d’hockey ont des comportements de leurs entraîneurs en chef. Ph. La participation de votre enfant est volontaire et non obligatoire. Il est libre de se retirer de l’étude en tout temps. Toutefois. il est important de noter que ceci ne sous entend pas que le projet luimême implique des risques . une lettre de consentement pour toute étude faite sur des êtres humains. veuillez contacter le bureau d’ éthiques concernat les recherches à McGill au 514-3986831. ____________________________ . De plus. pour n’importe quelle raison. Puisque les rechercheurs précédents ont seulement utiliser ces questionnaires en Anglais. (514) 398-4184 ext. Nom du jeune (en letter imprint): ________________________________ ________________________ (signature du parent) __________________________ (Date) Si vous avez des questions concernat les droits de votre enfant en tant que participant à cette étude. Montréal.mcgill. de kinésiologie & éducation physique Université de McGill. écrire une thèse fait partie des tâches que je dois accomplir afin de compléter mes études. Québec jonathan. l’intention de cette lettre est simplement d’assurer le respect et la confidentialité des individus concernés. De plus. et que toute information recueillie restera confidentiel. votre fils complètera trois questionnaires différents. Durant cette période. Programme d’hautes études en psy. il restera avec son équipe quand les autres joueurs compléteront les questionnaires.