International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 Number 1 2010

37

The Assessment of Athletic Ability at the Junior College Level

Gloria B. Solomon Department of Kinesiology, TCU Box 297730, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA E-mail: g.solomon@tcu.edu
ABSTRACT The means by which coaches select, develop, and evaluate their athletes is a topic of interest among sport scholars. Expectancy theory is one framework implemented to further understand the leadership behaviors of coaches. Results from previous research suggest that coaches use a wide variety of sources to develop and evaluate their players. Unfortunately, junior (also called community) college coaches have been omitted from this important work. The purpose of the present study was to query junior college coaches and their athletes regarding impression cues utilized to judge athlete ability. Thirty-four coaches and 210 athletes completed the Solomon Expectancy Sources Scale (SESS). Results determined that head and assistant coaches are consistent in their prioritization of expectancy sources. Coaches and athletes are also congruent; however, coaches rated Coachability significantly higher than athletes. These results are discussed in light of the unique position of the junior college coach. Key words: Coachability, Community College, Expectancy Theory, Impression Cues

INTRODUCTION In the world of competitive sport, athletic achievement is largely dependent on the quality of leadership. Sport scholars have created various models, which offer insight into the influence of coaching quality and style on athletic performance [1, 2]. One line of inquiry explores the quality of coach leadership through the lens of expectancy theory [3, 4]. According to expectancy theorists, coaches directly and indirectly impact athlete development via a four-step cyclical process [3-5]. In step one, coaches utilize various impression cues (personal, performance, psychological) to evaluate athlete ability. During the early stages of meeting potential and current athletes (scouting, pre-season practice, etc.) coaches begin the evaluation process. While early research suggested that coaches rely predominantly on performance cues (e.g., skills tests, performance statistics) [6-8], recent evidence demonstrates that psychological cues (e.g., confidence, concentration) are commonly utilized by coaches to judge athletic ability [3, 4, 9, 10].
Reviewers: Sean Cumming (University of Bath, UK) Emerson Franchini (University of So Paulo, Brazil)

38

Assessment of Athletic Ability

In step two, coaches interact with athletes according to their initial impressions. These interactions include both verbal and nonverbal behaviors issued by the coach according to his/her perceptions of athlete ability. Within the sport literature, this is the most widely researched step in this cycle. Rosenthal identified four specific areas in which the coachathlete dynamic may be affected at this stage: feedback, climate, input, and output [11]. Specifically, high-expectancy athletes are afforded more feedback and better quality feedback than their lower-expectancy teammates at the high school [12, 13], college [8, 14] and elite [15] levels. However, patterns among youth sport coaches are inconsistent. Some early research contends that high-expectancy child athletes receive more reinforcement [6], while Horn found that low-expectancy children were issued more instructional feedback [7]. More recently, Solomon found that in a league of six basketball teams, Youth sport coaches did not offer different praise or instruction feedback to their high and low expectancy athletes [16, p. 169]. The sport context appears to influence feedback patterns. In her study, Horn found that high-expectancy youth athletes are afforded better feedback in competition whereas in practice feedback patterns appear to be more equitable [7]. Furthermore, athletes reported that coach behavior in practice is more influential than behaviors exhibited during games [17]. Step three asserts that athletes respond to coach feedback and subsequently their performance behaviors are affected. Athletes are acutely aware of the treatment issued by their coaches [8, 18]. It is theorized that high-expectancy athletes perceive coach feedback as instrumental to development and therefore experience improvement; low expectancy athletes recognize the lack of attention meted out by the coach and, consequently, their performance suffers. While this step in the expectancy cycle has yet to be empirically tested, recent research demonstrates that instructional behaviors have the capacity to influence athletes self-perceptions and, subsequently, performance [19]. Further evidence suggests that athletes who possess the physical qualities necessary to be successful in a specific sport perceive better quality feedback from their coaches [20]. Finally, step four purports that athletes performance conforms to the coachs initial expectation. Those who were originally deemed high ability show the greatest gains in improvement. This reinforces to the coach that s/he is a good judge of athlete ability and thus, completes the expectancy cycle. In order to fully test the applicability of this model in competitive sport, an examination of measurement procedures must be conducted. In the 30 years of expectancy effects research, the lack of psychometrically sound instrumentation has plagued the literature and subsequently challenges the utility of this theory. Initially, it was common for researchers to operationalize expectancy level by simply asking coaches to rank order their athletes from most to least skilled [7, 8, 21]. However, it was left to the coaches to define skill. Solomon made the first attempt to create a tool to scientifically define skill level for coaches [22]. The Expectancy Rating Scale (ERS) is comprised of five items that operationalize skill as physical ability and has been utilized in several studies [4, 23, 24]. Content validity and reliability via internal consistency have been ascertained for the ERS [4]. More recently, Becker and Wrisberg adapted the ERS by adding three items, which evaluate an athletes psychological qualities. The Modified Expectancy Rating Scale (MERS) provides a valid and reliable tool to assess coaches evaluation of athlete ability in a more comprehensive manner [25]. Another troublesome measurement issue in the expectancy literature relates to the assumptions associated with step one of the four-step cycle. Originally, expectancy theorists posited that in step one, coaches rely on performance (i.e., past performance, skill tests) and personal (i.e., height, body type, age) impression cues to evaluate athlete ability. In a study

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 Number 1 2010

39

of intercollegiate coaches, Solomon [4, 25] found that head coaches rely predominantly on psychological cues to judge athletic ability. She concluded that in order to utilize the fourstep cycle to comprehend coach-athlete dynamics, the sources of information coaches use in step one need to be further explored. Solomon conducted a four-phase investigation to create a psychometrically sound instrument which researchers could adopt to study expectancy effects in competitive sport [26]. In study one, 18 Division I intercollegiate coaches were interviewed regarding the means by which they judge athlete ability [10]. From this qualitative inquiry, a questionnaire was developed which was subjected to three rounds of analyses. The culmination of this series of studies, including over 300 coaches, resulted in the creation of the Solomon Expectancy Sources Scale (SESS). The SESS is a valid and reliable tool containing 30 items housed into four factors: Coachability, Team Player, Physical Ability, and Maturity [26]. Two studies have utilized the SESS to discover the qualities coaches are using in the first step of the expectancy cycle. Both successful (win % > 50%) and less successful (win % < 40%) intercollegiate head basketball coaches prioritized similar expectancy sources [9]. Specifically, this sample of basketball coaches prioritized psychological factors when evaluating athletes. Interestingly, athletes of more successful coaches were aware of how they were being evaluated; the athletes of less successful coaches were not cognizant of the sources used by their head coaches. An expansive cross-cultural investigation determined that intercollegiate head and assistant intercollegiate coaches in the USA rated all four factors significantly higher than elite German coaches [27]. Clearly the utility of this instrument for coaches outside of the USA is in need of further inquiry. The role of the coach in an educational setting has undergone significant inquiry. In their comprehensive analysis of the coaching science literature from 1970 2001, Gilbert and Trudel identified over 1,100 articles published in English language journals [28]. They noted that the majority of articles focused on coaching behaviors in team sport settings. Participants were labeled according to their context; coaches at the college level accounted for 37% of the articles. However, junior or community college coaches were not identified. Neglecting to sufficiently distinguish between the various competitive levels in college athletics is common and the junior-college coach is oftentimes marginalized or even excluded from the sport science literature. Furthermore, there is no research to date on how junior-college coaches evaluate their athletes. Considering that there are approximately 1,500 junior colleges in the USA, this represents a vast population of coaches whose evaluative principles have yet to be explored. The position of junior-college coaching is a unique one. Oftentimes these coaches are serving in a part-time capacity despite the fact that quality college-level coaching demands a full-time commitment. Another distinct feature of coaching at this level is that there is only a two-year window to work with the athletes. Oftentimes, athletes perceive their juniorcollege experience as a stepping stone to pursue an athletic scholarship at a four-year institution [29]. Thus, it is even more critical to evaluate and develop athletes to meet the needs of the team as accurately and rapidly as possible. Therefore, it is essential to begin to investigate how junior college coaches assess athletic ability and subsequently use this information to develop athletes. The purpose of the current investigation is three-fold. One, the researcher sought to examine the primary sources of expectancy information utilized by head and assistant junior college track and field coaches. Due to the distinct differences in responsibilities by coaching role (head and assistant), the research question posed asked whether there is a significant difference between the evaluative sources of information used by head and assistant coaches.

40

Assessment of Athletic Ability

Two, building off of the work by Becker and Solomon [9], the researcher queried both coaches and their athletes regarding their perceptions of qualities coaches use to assess athletic ability. Do coaches and athletes hold congruent perceptions of the evaluative sources of information used to judge athlete ability? Three, considering that the sport of track and field is really a compilation of multiple sports housed under one term, the researcher sought to distinguish patterns between track athletes (emphasis on speed) versus field athletes (emphasis on power). Specifically, is there a significant difference in perceptions of coach evaluation criteria between athletes competing in track events versus those who are field athletes? Due to the exploratory nature of this study, no directed hypotheses were proffered. METHOD PARTICIPANTS Track and field coaching staffs from 17 junior colleges (JC) in northern California were invited to partake in this study. Nine schools agreed to participate for an acceptance rate of 53%. A total of 34 coaches and their athletes (n = 210) served as the subject pool. The coaches ranged in age from 25 to 79 years (M = 46.26, s = 13.17). The athletes were 17 to 27 years of age (M = 19.39, s = 1.51). MEASURES Demographic Questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire was administered to gather background information from the coaches and athletes. For the coaches, data obtained included age, gender, ethnicity, team gender, coach status (head, assistant), primary event coached, years as JC coach, and years experience as a college athlete. See Table 1 for the complete demographic profile for coaches. For athletes, data collected included age, gender, ethnicity, year in school, years experience as a junior college athlete, and primary and secondary events. Table 2 contains the athletes demographic information. Table 1. Coach Demographic Information n Gender Male Female Coach Status Head Assistant Ethnicity African American Asian American European American Hispanic Mixed Ethnicity Gender Coached Male Female Both Coaching Experience College Athlete Experience 26 8 19 13 6 1 22 3 1 7 6 21 Mean 10.74 4.00

SD 10.89 .82

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 Number 1 2010

41

Table 2. Athlete Demographic Information n Gender Male Female Year in School 1st 2nd 3rd Ethnicity African American Asian American European American Hispanic Mixed Ethnicity High School Experience Junior College Experience 84 125 105 76 13 70 9 92 22 7 Mean 3.35 1.30

SD 1.12 .64

Solomon Expectancy Sources Scale. The SESS is a 30-item questionnaire designed to elicit information regarding coachs assessment of athlete ability. The 30 items are housed in one of four factors: Coachability (11 items), Team Player (8 items), Physical Ability (6 items), and Maturity (5 items). Each item is framed within the sentence below. When evaluating athlete ability, _________________ is a component which I use a majority of the time. In order to respond, a 7-point Likert scale was developed. Each point along the scale is labeled from Very Strongly Disagree (1) to Very Strongly Agree (7). The SESS was subjected to psychometric procedures to ensure adequate reliability and validity [26]. PROCEDURE Permission was sought and granted from the University Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. All junior colleges in northern California with track and field programs were identified (n = 17). Of the 17 junior colleges, nine programs agreed to participate. A convenient date and time were arranged with each of the nine teams via the head coaches. Data were collected on-site immediately prior to, or following, a regularly scheduled practice session. Coaches and athletes were verbally issued detailed administration procedures and the informed consent form prior to completing the questionnaires. Then the coaches and athletes completed the Demographic Questionnaire and the SESS. All coaches who agreed to participate were provided with a summary report detailing the key findings. RESULTS The first research question sought to determine whether head and assistant coaches hold congruent perceptions of qualities used to assess athlete ability. In order to address this question, four independent sample t-tests were performed [30]. The independent variable was coach status (head, assistant) and the dependent variables were the four SESS factors: Coachability, Team Player, Physical Ability, and Maturity. Results indicated that there were no significant differences between head (n = 19) and assistant (n = 13) coaches on the four

42

Assessment of Athletic Ability

SESS factors. A further examination of the data showed that regardless of coach status, all coaches rated Coachability as the most important factor when evaluating athletic ability; Maturity was rated lowest. Table 3 contains the relevant statistics for this series of analyses. Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations Associated with the Series of Four Independent t-Tests Comparing Head and Assistant Coaches on the Four SESS Factors Head Coaches Mean (SD) 5.85 (.596) 5.33 (.862) 5.74 (.824) 5.26 (.745) Assistant Coaches Mean (SD) 6.13 (.597) 5.78 (.650) 5.57 (1.019) 5.45 (.683) Cohens d .469 .589 .183 .261 t-value 1.283 1.594 .466 .709

Variable Coachability Team Player Physical Ability Maturity

The second research question sought to compare coaches and athletes on expectancy sources. For this analysis, both coaches and athletes completed the SESS. The athletes received slightly different directions; they completed the questionnaire by reporting how they think their primary event coach evaluates athletic ability. To test this research question, a series of independent t-tests were conducted. The grouping variable was status (coach, athlete) and the dependent variables were the four factors contained in the SESS. Results revealed that athletes perceptions were congruent with their coaches preferences for evaluation sources on three of the four factors: Team Player, Physical Ability, and Maturity. However, coaches reported a significantly higher rating of Coachability than their athletes, t(1, 201) = 2.23, p <.05. This finding is interesting in light of the fact that both coaches and athletes rated Coachability as the most critical factor in evaluating athlete ability. Refer to Table 4 for an overview of the statistics resulting from these analyses. Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations Associated with the Series of Four Independent t-Tests Comparing Coaches and Athletes on the Four SESS Factors Coaches Mean (SD) 6.02 (.589) 5.56 (.748) 5.60 (.880) 5.37 (.665) Athletes Mean (SD) 5.75 (.947) 5.51 (.877) 5.74 (.993) 5.57 (.920) Cohens d .342 .061 .149 .249 t-value 2.234* .246 .377 1.062

Variable Coachability Team Player Physical Ability Maturity

* p < .05

For the third research question, the athlete sample was isolated and subjected to a series of independent sample t-tests to determine if track athletes perceived different sources of coach evaluation than field athletes. The independent variable was primary event type (track, field) and the dependent variables were the four SESS factors. Those athletes who did not report a primary event were excluded from this analysis. Results demonstrated that track athletes (n = 124) and field athletes (n = 61) are quite similar in their perceptions of coach evaluation; there were no significant difference on three of the four factors. However, track

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 Number 1 2010

43

athletes rated Maturity significantly higher than field athletes, t(1, 183) = 2.00, p <.05. Table 5 contains the statistical findings from this analysis. Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations Associated with the Series of Four Independent t-Tests Comparing Track Athletes and Field Athletes on the Four SESS Factors Track Mean (SD) 5.80 (.941) 5.58 (.849) 5.77 (.974) 5.65 (.933) Field Mean 5.61 5.33 5.62 5.36 (SD) (.996) (.951) (1.085) (.875) Cohens d .196 .277 .145 .320 t-value 1.175 1.698 .938 2.000*

Variable Coachability Team Player Physical Ability Maturity

* p < .05

DISCUSSION This study represents a starting point for the scientific examination of expectancy effects in competitive sport. The first research question compared head and assistant track and field coaches on qualities utilized to assess athlete ability. Results demonstrated that there were no differences in impression cue sources between head and assistant coaches. This finding is consonant with a previous study that found no differences in SESS factors between more and less successful basketball coaches [9]. In a study of junior-college coaches, Coffman determined that male and female coaches were quite similar in their leadership practices [31]. The sample of 225 full-time head coaches of team sports was congruent in their leadership behaviors as measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory [32]. Thus, the congruency among head and assistant junior-college coaches regarding expectancy sources utilized to judge athlete ability parallels the consistency between male and female juniorcollege coaches and successful and less successful intercollegiate head basketball coaches. Further comparisons showed that both head and assistant coaches rated Coachability highest among the four factors, which parallels the individual item analysis conducted by Becker and Solomon [9]. Specifically, seven of the top 10 SESS items rated by intercollegiate basketball coaches fall under the Coachability factor. Interestingly, items related to Physical Ability were not in the top third of SESS items. In the current study, head coaches rated Physical Ability items as second highest of the four factors; assistant coaches rated Physical Ability as third highest of the four factors. While US coaches rated all four SESS factors higher than German coaches [27], all coaches in this cross-cultural sample ranked the four factors in the same order: Coachability, Team Player, Physical Ability, and Maturity. Therefore, this finding supports the contention by Solomon and Rhea that it is indeed a misperception to assume that coaches rely predominantly on physical qualities to assess athletic ability [10]. The second research question included the current athletes of the coaching sample. Both coaches and athletes completed the SESS. Coaches rated the qualities they utilize when evaluating athletic ability; athletes rated the qualities they perceived their coaches used when evaluating athlete ability. Three of the four factors were perceived similarly including Team Player, Physical Ability, and Maturity. Like the athletes of successful coaches, the juniorcollege athletes rated these three factors the same as their coaches [9]. However, the Coachability factor was rated higher by coaches.

44

Assessment of Athletic Ability

Clearly athletes have an understanding of how important being coachable is; however, the magnitude is more pronounced for the coaches. Perhaps it requires actually serving in the coaching role to fully comprehend how important it is to have athletes on the team who are malleable and receptive to coach feedback. The Coachability factor included the following 11 items: integrity, trust, willingness to listen, willingness to learn, receptivity to coaching, handling pressure, concentration, mental maturity, honesty, respect, and competitiveness. A new Model of Great Coaching asserts that the coach-athlete relationship is a central ingredient to coaching excellence [1]. Perhaps the Coachability factor is mediated by the coach-athlete relationship that is developed in the sport setting. Considering the relatively short duration of the junior-college experience, the development of the coach-athlete dynamic may be structurally limited. Athletes were further divided into two groups: track and field. Track included the running events; field included the throwing and jumping events. The third exploratory question sought to determine if there were different perceptions among athletes competing in track versus field events. These two major event categories typically have different coaching staffs. The statistical analyses revealed that track athletes rate Maturity significantly higher than field athletes. The factor of Maturity encompassed five qualities: courage, confidence, athletic experience, ability to use good strategy, and making complete assessments. Research at the four-year college setting found that head coaches perceptions of athlete confidence predicted athlete performance [4, 25]. Evidently, confidence is a key psychological quality that coaches use as a source of evaluation. Further exploration of why track athletes believe their coaches prioritize Maturity items must be examined. The practical implications from this study may provide the coach, athlete, and sport psychologist with valuable information. It appears that coaches in varied college settings prioritize similar impression cues when evaluating athlete ability. Regardless of gender, sport type, or coaching role, coaches in two and four-year colleges in the USA utilize similar qualities when judging their athletes ability. Therefore, what is most essential is that athletes become aware of the criteria their coaches are using to evaluate ability. Becker and Solomon found that successful and unsuccessful coaches prioritized expectancy sources in a similar manner [9]. What differed is that successful coaches were more astute at communicating this information to their athletes; athletes on less successful teams were not aware of how they were being evaluated. Junior-college track and field athletes were fairly accurate in recognizing the factors their coaches used to judge their athletic ability. In order to maximize athlete development in the short period of time that junior-college coaches have, clear communication of expectations will only enhance the coach-athlete dynamic. Emphasizing the need for coaches to convey this information directly to their athletes should be addressed in coach education and training programs. CONCLUSION The knowledge base in this area will be improved by conducting future studies on the juniorcollege population. Only one sport was selected for this investigation; querying coaches and athletes from a variety of junior-college sport programs would serve to enhance our understanding. Further research distinguishing part- and full-time coaches would also be insightful. It would be informational to determine if part-time coaches who have other sources of employment, evaluate and develop athletes in similar ways as their full-time colleagues. The short time (2 years) that coaches have to work with athletes at the juniorcollege level and the possibility that coaches must divide their time between coaching and other jobs might lend insight into the most effective methods for educating junior-college coaches in the future.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 Number 1 2010

45

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. Becker, A.J., Its Not What They Do, Its How they Do It: Athlete Experiences of Great Coaching, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2009, 4, 93-119. Ct, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A. and Russell, S., The Coaching Model: A Grounded Assessment of Expert Gymnastic Coaches Knowledge, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 1995, 17, 1-17. Horn, T.S., Lox, C. and Labrador, F., The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Theory: When Coaches Expectations Become Reality, in: Williams, J., ed., Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance, 4th edn., Mayfield, Mountain View, CA, 2006, 82-108. Solomon, G.B., Performance and Personality Impression Cues as Predictors of Athletic Performance: An Extension of Expectancy Theory, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 2001, 32, 88-100. Martinek, T.J., Pygmalion in the Gym: A Model for the Communication of Teacher Expectations in Physical Education, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1981, 52, 58-67. Rejeski, W. Darracott, C. and Hutslar, S., Pygmalion in Youth Sport: A Field Study, Journal of Sport Psychology, 1979, 1, 311-319. Horn, T.S., Expectancy Effects in the Interscholastic Athletic Setting: Methodological Considerations, Journal of Sport Psychology, 1984, 6, 60-76. Solomon, G.B., Striegel, D.A., Eliot, J.F., Heon, S.N., Maas, J.L. and Wayda, V.K., The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in College Basketball: Implications for Effective Coaching, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1996, 8, 44-59. Becker, A.J., and Solomon, G.B., Expectancy Information and Coach Effectiveness in Intercollegiate Basketball, The Sport Psychologist, 2005, 19, 251-266. Solomon, G.B. and Rhea, D.J., Sources of Expectancy Information among College Coaches: A Qualitative Test of Expectancy Theory, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2008, 3, 251-268. Rosenthal, R., On the Social Psychology of the Self-fulfilling Prophecy: Further Evidence for Pygmalion Effects and their Mediating Mechanisms, MSS Modular Publications, New York, 1974. Solomon, G.B., DiMarco, A.M., Ohlson, C.J. and Reece, S.D., Expectations and Coaching Experience: Is More Better?, Journal of Sport Behavior, 1998, 21, 444-455. Solomon, G.B., Golden, A.J., Ciapponi, T.M. and Martin, A.D., Coach Expectations and Differential Feedback: Perceptual Flexibility Revisited, Journal of Sport Behavior, 1998, 21, 298-310. Solomon, G.B. and Kosmitzki, C., Perceptual Flexibility and Differential Feedback among Intercollegiate Basketball Coaches, Journal of Sport Behavior, 1996, 19, 163-177. Sinclair, D.A. and Vealey, R.S., Effects of Coaches Expectations and Feedback on the Self-perceptions of Athletes, Journal of Sport Behavior, 1989, 12, 77-91. Solomon, G.B., Expectations and Perceptions as Predictors of Coaches Feedback in Three Competitive Contexts, Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletics in Education, 2008, 2, 161-179. Horn, T.S., Coaches Feedback and Changes in Childrens Perceptions of their Physical Competence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1985, 77, 174-186. Wandzilak, T., Ansorge, C.J. and Potter, G., Comparison between Selected Practice and Game Behaviors of Youth Sport Soccer Coaches, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 1988, 11, 78-88. Duda, J.L. and Balaguer, I., Coach-Created Motivational Climate, in: Jowett, S., and Lavalee, D., eds., Social Psychology in Sport, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2007, 117-130. Cumming, S.P., Eisenmann, J.C., Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E. and Malina, R.M., Body Size and Perceptions of Coaching Behaviors in Female Adolescent Athletes, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2006, 6, 693-705 Solomon, G.B., Wiegardt, P.A., Yusuf, F.R., Kosmitzki, C., Wayda, V.K., Williams, J. and Stevens, C.E., Expectancies and Ethnicity: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in College Basketball, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 1996, 18, 83-88. Solomon, G.B., The Expectancy Rating Scale, Unpublished Paper, University of Virginia, 1993. Solomon, G.B., Sources of Expectancy Information Among Assistant Coaches: The Influence Of Performance and Psychological Cues, Journal of Sport Behavior, 2002, 25, 279-286.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

46

Assessment of Athletic Ability

24. 25. 26. 27.

Solomon, G.B., Confidence as a Source of Expectancy Information: A Follow-Up Investigation, International Sports Journal, 2002, 6, 119-127. Becker, A.J. and Wrisberg, C.A., Effective Coaching in Action: Observations of Legendary Collegiate Basketball Coach Pat Summitt, The Sport Psychologist, 2008, 22, 197-211. Solomon, G.B., The Assessment of Athletic Ability in Intercollegiate Sport: Instrument Construction and Validation, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2008, 3, 513-525. Solomon, G.B., Lobinger, B.H., Mollet, A. and Roberts, M., Sources of Expectancy Information Among Coaches: A Cross-Cultural Investigation, Poster Presented at the Association for Applied Sport Psychology conference, Salt Lake City, UT, September 2009. Gilbert, W.D. and Trudel, P., Analysis of Coaching Science Research Published from 1970-2001, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2004, 75, 388-399. Lattman, M., The Role of Junior College Coaches: More Than the Sport, Coach and Athletic Director, 2008, 110-112. Marascuilo, L.A. and Serlin, R.C., Statistical Methods for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, W.H. Freeman, New York, 1988. Coffman, J.P., The Community College Coach: Leadership Practices and Athlete Satisfaction, Kinesiology Publications, University of Oregon, 1999. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z., The Leadership Challenge, Wiley, New York, 2002.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Copyright of International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching is the property of Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.