The authors present a conceptual model of coaching efficacy and develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure the concept and to examine its hypothesized sources and outcomes. Coaching efficacy is defined as the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes. Using high school coaches, confirmatory factor analysis supported 4 dimensions of the Coaching Efficacy Scale: game strategy, motivation, teaching technique, and character building. Marginal support was also found for 1 general coaching efficacy factor that explained the correlations among the 4 first-order factors. Using a separate sample of high school basketball coaches, coaching efficacy was predicted by a coach's past success, coaching experience, perceived player talent, and social support. In turn, coaching efficacy predicted coaching behavior, player satisfaction, and current success. Results establish preliminary support for the conceptual model of coaching efficacy.Self-efficacy for classroom teaching has been studied extensively and shown to be an important aspect of teaching effectiveness (see, e.g.,

Research examining imagery use by athletes is reviewed within the context of an applied model for sport. The model conceptualizes the sport situation, the type of imagery used, and imagery ability as factors that influence how imagery use can affect an athlete. Three broad categories of imagery effects are examined: (a) skill and strategy learning and performance, (b) cognitive modification, and (c) arousal and anxiety regulation. Recommendations are offered for the operationalization and measurement of constructs within the model, and suggestions are provided for how the model may guide future research and application.

This meta-analysis examined the relationship between self-efficacy and performance in sport. Based on 45 studies (102 correlations), the average correlation between self-efficacy and sport performance was .38. Given the heterogeneity of findings, follow-up univariate and multivariate moderator analyses were conducted. Results indicated that the most important moderator was concordance, thereby highlighting the importance of matching the self-efficacy and performance measures. Additional moderators we examined included the types of self-efficacy measures, the types of performance measures, the nature of the task, and the time of assessments. These variables accounted for approximately 44% of the variance in the self-efficacy-performance relationship. Practical implications of the findings are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract