See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232491505
Reflections and Directions: The Profession of Sport Psychology Past, Present,
and Future
Article in Professional Psychology Research and Practice · February 2012
DOI: 10.1037/a0025676
CITATIONS
READS
58
4,530
5 authors, including:
Mark W Aoyagi
Steven T. Portenga
University of Denver
iPerformance Consultants
22 PUBLICATIONS 401 CITATIONS
9 PUBLICATIONS 190 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Artur Poczwardowski
Alexander B Cohen
University of Denver
United States Olympic Committee
48 PUBLICATIONS 1,457 CITATIONS
5 PUBLICATIONS 168 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Consulting in applied sport psychology View project
The Psychology of High Performance: Developing Human Potential into Domain-Specific Talent View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark W Aoyagi on 26 February 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
2012, Vol. 43, No. 1, 32–38
© 2011 American Psychological Association
0735-7028/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025676
Reflections and Directions:
The Profession of Sport Psychology Past, Present, and Future
Mark W. Aoyagi, Steven T. Portenga, and
Artur Poczwardowski
Alexander B. Cohen
United States Olympic Committee, Colorado Springs, Colorado
University of Denver
Traci Statler
California State University, Fullerton
The authors review the historical context of sport psychology to explore the present state of sport
psychology and make suggestions for the future of the field. The origins of sport psychology are rooted
in efforts to improve athletic performance. However, the label “sport psychology” has been used to
describe two different service delivery models: performance enhancement and therapy with athletes.
Presently, advancements have been made in terms of organizational structure, but there has been little
impact on the applied profession. In order to advance the profession, protect the public, and resolve
confusion, sport psychology is examined. The authors identify performance excellence as the unique
aspect of sport psychology and propose the field be identified as “performance psychology.” In order to
practice performance psychology competently, four areas of training are identified: (a) performance
excellence, (b) mental health counseling, (c) consulting psychology, and (d) performance specialty
domain(s). Finally, the authors recommend that a licensure specific to performance psychology be
developed.
Keywords: sport psychology, performance psychology, profession, practice
In many significant ways sport psychology has been ahead of its
time. When psychology was largely focused on pathology, sport
psychology identified growth and psychological enhancement as
worthy goals. When physical education was trying to isolate motor
patterns, sport psychology expanded to mind– body connections.
When academic departments were becoming increasingly specialized and segregated, sport psychology established interdisciplinary
collaborations.
Yet, in many significant ways sport psychology has lagged
behind the times. While psychology distinguished itself from the
medical field and established its own licensure and accreditation,
sport psychology is still searching for its own unique identity.
While physical education evolved into sport science and created
applied professions, such as certified strength and conditioning
coach and certified athletic trainer; sport psychology is struggling
to identify and gain widespread acceptance in its target markets.
This article was published Online First October 31, 2011.
Editor’s Note. This is one of 8 accepted articles received in response to
an open call for submissions on Opportunities Arising Out of Challenges in
Professional Psychology.—MCR
ARTUR POCZWARDOWSKI received his PhD in exercise and sport science
with specialization in psychosocial aspects of sport from University of Utah,
Salt Lake City. He is an Associate Professor at the University of Denver and
an adjunct professor at School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Sopot,
Poland. His publications and professional presentations focus on sport psychology practice for performance enhancement and psychological well-being,
coach-athlete relationships, and coping strategies in elite performers.
ALEXANDER B. COHEN received his PhD in counseling psychology and
MS in sport/performance psychology from Florida State University. He is
a Sr. Sport Psychologist with the U.S. Olympic Committee in Colorado
Springs, CO. His areas of professional interest include performance excellence and competency-based education, training, supervision, and mentorship.
TRACI STATLER received her PhD in Exercise and Sport Science with a
specialization in Psychosocial Aspects of Sport from the University of
Utah in Salt Lake City. She is an Assistant Professor at California State
University, Fullerton and also serves as the Vice President of the International Society of Sport Psychology. Her publications center on elite performance and the psychology of excellence in a variety of domains.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to
Mark W. Aoyagi, Graduate School of Professional Psychology, 2460 S
Vine Street, Denver, CO 80208-4101. E-mail: maoyagi@du.edu
MARK W. AOYAGI received his PhD in counseling psychology with an
emphasis in sport psychology from the University of Missouri. He is
director of the Sport & Performance Psychology program at the University
of Denver. His areas of professional interest include theories of performance excellence; professional issues, training, and ethics in sport psychology; individual growth, development, and fulfillment through sport;
and sport as a mechanism for social change.
STEVEN T. PORTENGA received his PhD in counseling psychology with an
emphasis in sport psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia.
He is Director of Sport Psychology in the Division of Athletics & Recreation and an adjunct professor in the Sport & Performance Psychology
program at the University of Denver, along with being the Chair of the
Psychological Services Subcommittee for USA Track & Field. His areas of
professional interest include the ethical practice and training of applied
sport psychologists, leadership and team dynamics, and the theoretical
foundations of human performance.
32
REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS
While many academic departments have established strong specialized research agendas, sport psychology often finds itself in
limbo: at times perhaps guilty of trying to reinvent the wheel and
at other times simplistically transferring knowledge and theory
from its parent disciplines without creating its own unique theories.
Our goal is to confront these realities, understand how they
came to be, and suggest resolutions with the best interests of future
generations in mind. Thus, we will review the historical context of
sport psychology, examine the present state of the field, and make
recommendations for the future. Three specific recommendations
are returning the focus of the field to performance, labeling the
work as “performance psychology,” and reorganizing graduate
training to ensure competent and ethical practice, while facilitating
a more unified training path for future graduate students. We hope
in so doing to provide both perspective and guidance so that the
field may best be integrated into a coherent and meaningful profession.
Historical Context of Sport Psychology
One of the challenges of accurately compiling the history of
sport psychology is the overrepresentation in the literature of
academics that exemplify the discipline (rather than the profession) of sport psychology. Thus, several excellent reviews of the
history of sport psychology from an academic and organizational
perspective have been written (e.g., Williams & Straub, 2010).
However, our focus in this article is on the development of sport
psychology as an applied profession, and in this regard the written
record is much less comprehensive.
As there is a clear and essential link between professional
practice and the training programs that are designed to develop
competent practitioners, a brief review of the development of sport
psychology training programs is necessary to understand the progression of the practice of sport psychology. The 1970s and 1980s
were a time of tremendous growth of academic programs in sport
psychology, though none of these programs were housed in psychology departments (Singer, 1989). Sport psychology training
programs in this era resided in departments such as physical
education, kinesiology, and exercise/sport science (consistent with
Newell, 1990, we will refer to these collectively as kinesiology).
These programs addressed topics such as motivation, attention,
emotion, mood, cognitive and behavioral interventions, and social
psychology as related to sport performance (Cox, 2012). Hence,
the scientific basis for the practice of sport psychology was developed in kinesiology, and the defining characteristics of the field
were performance and satisfaction with sport (Singer, 1995).
Prior to structured training programs, Coleman Griffith was the
first known practitioner to serve athletes specifically, and for this
he was acknowledged as the father of sport psychology in North
America (Singer, 1989). It is apparent from a biographical sketch
of Griffith that he considered his focus on the performance of
athletes as it related to psychological factors to be the unique
aspect of his work (Kroll & Lewis, 1970). Thus, the defining
characteristic of the profession that was later to be known as sport
psychology was performance. This theme will be a central point of
our understanding of the past, explanation of the present, and
suggestions for the future. Griffith practiced during the 1920s and
1930s, but his efforts were not systematically built upon and the
33
profession of sport psychology was largely dormant until the
1960s. Bruce Ogilvie, known as the father of applied sport psychology in North America, began practicing in the 1960s (Williams & Straub, 2010). Although Ogilvie’s work had therapeutic
foundations, similar to Griffith, the uniqueness was its application
in the context of performance (Baillie, in press).
It is at this point that the beginnings of the academic study of
sport psychology were forming, and during the latter 1970s and
1980s faculty housed in kinesiology departments were also delving
into the practice of sport psychology (Murphy, 1995). Building
from Griffith’s and Ogilvie’s work, the sport psychology practiced
by this group was primarily focused on performance enhancement
and helping athletes gain more enjoyment and satisfaction from
the sport experience. As these practitioners were also part of the
formation of the academic discipline for the field, all of the
scientific literature (e.g., Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, The Sport Psychologist) for
the field has performance and enjoyment in sport as its focus.
However, the history of the term sport psychology also includes
practitioners with a different focus than the performance focus of
Griffith, Ogilvie, and the kinesiology-trained practitioners. During
the 1960s and 1970s, psychology-trained practitioners were being
hired to work with athletes’ “psychological problems” (Murphy,
1995, p. 3). Following the pattern of other psychology subspecialties defined by setting (e.g., school psychology, industrial–
organizational psychology), this work was referred to as sport
psychology, and the practitioners referred to themselves as sport
psychologists (Murphy, 1995). Thus, the historical precedent was
set for two groups of practitioners trained through two different
academic models and doing two different things, yet both referring
to their work as sport psychology.
In 1985, the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport
Psychology (AAASP; renamed Association for Applied Sport Psychology [AASP] in 2006) was formed to bring these two groups
together to define and improve the profession of sport psychology.
Although AAASP successfully brought practitioners together to
begin the professional dialogue, unfortunately, 25 years later there
has been little change in the profession. Similarly, in 1986 Division 47 (Exercise and Sport Psychology) of the American Psychological Association (APA) was founded. The goals of Division 47
were broader than AASP’s focus on the profession and included
both research and practice with the unifying force being sport and
exercise. As will be discussed in the next section, there have been
some seemingly meaningful advancements, yet pragmatically the
overall impact on the profession has been insignificant.
The Present State of Sport Psychology
In this section we will discuss two major issues facing the
profession of sport psychology: certification (and the corresponding training standards to be eligible for certification) and title
usage. Before describing the current state of the profession, it is
first necessary to understand the current state of training programs.
Current State of Training Programs
Many of the issues and limitations in the profession stem from
the state of graduate training, particularly the lack of interdisciplinary programs. Several professionals have argued that only a
34
AOYAGI ET AL.
multidimensional understanding has the potential to adequately
reflect the nature of the client needs and issues, barriers, and
problems in performance (e.g., Poczwardowski, Sherman, & Henschen, 1998; Silva, Conroy, & Zizzi, 1999). Thankfully, the need
for interdisciplinary professional preparation is rarely questioned
in the field. Thus, a positive trend in designing curricula that
reflect the interdisciplinary nature of applied sport psychology has
surfaced in recent years (Aoyagi, Czech, Portenga, Metzler, &
Poczwardowski, 2009).
Still, although programs are moving toward interdisciplinary
training, it is exceptionally rare to find a program that prepares
graduates along all necessary dimensions. Typically, programs
will competently prepare students in the discipline in which they
are housed, but only provide cursory exposure to the “other”
discipline. Thus, for students to acquire competency in both
kinesiology-based training and psychology-based training requires
degrees from both fields, which presents an unnecessarily cumbersome path. Within the current configuration of training programs, this necessitates a master’s degree in sport psychology (to
obtain competency in performance enhancement; typically offered
by kinesiology departments) and a doctorate in clinical/counseling
psychology (to obtain competency in counseling). A complication
to this path is that many doctoral programs in psychology do not
recognize master’s degrees from kinesiology departments, thereby
placing applicants with kinesiology master’s degrees at a significant disadvantage in the already competitive process of gaining
admission.
In sum, training programs are moving toward an interdisciplinary curriculum, which is positive; yet, the vast majority of programs do not adequately prepare students in all necessary competencies. In the next section, we will propose a vision for future
training that will organize these complex and interrelated issues
into a coherent curriculum. This background understanding of
training programs now allows us to switch to the major issues
facing the profession of sport psychology.
nizations: AASP and Division 47. Both organizations acknowledge the importance of performance in their definitions of sport
psychology. According to AASP, “A primary goal of professionals
in applied sport and exercise psychology is to facilitate optimal
involvement, performance, and enjoyment in sport and exercise”
(“About Applied Sport and Exercise Psychology,” n.d.). Similarly,
the APA Proficiency in Sport Psychology (explained below) focuses on “training in the development and use of psychological
skills for optimal performance of athletes, in the well-being of
athletes, in the systemic issues associated with sports settings and
organizations, and in developmental and social aspects of sports
participation” (“Public Description of Sport Psychology,” n.d.).
In 1992, AASP developed and instituted a curriculum-based
method of certification to designate a minimum standard of education and training in both kinesiology and psychology. Those who
earn the designation “Certified Consultant, AASP” (CC, AASP)
are deemed by AASP to be competent to provide a range of
services depending on their training. These services commonly
include: (a) educating individuals, groups, and organizations about
the role of psychological factors in sport (e.g., assisting with
communication or teamwork); and (b) teaching participants mental
and emotional control skills for sport (e.g., relaxation, concentration, imagery; “About Certified Consultants,” n.d.).
Although not resulting in a tangible certification, APA, as a
result of efforts from Division 47, recognized sport psychology as
a proficiency (the proficiency may be accessed at http://
www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/sports.aspx). According to
the Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies
in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP), a proficiency refers to a specialization within the general practice of psychology that is distinct
with respect to at least one of three parameters: population served,
problem addressed, or procedure and techniques implemented (see
http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/specialties.aspx for more
information). The APA proficiency in sport psychology identified
distinctions in all three of these areas that are nearly identical to the
populations and services identified by AASP as appropriate for CC,
AASP (see Table 1 for a summary of CC, AASP and APA proficiency requirements).
Current State of the Profession
At present, the discipline and practice of sport psychology in
North America is represented by two primary professional orgaTable 1
CC, AASP, and APA Proficiency in Sport Psychology Requirements
CC, AASP requirements!
Sport and exercise psychology (3 courses)
Professional ethics
Biomechanical/physiological bases of sport
Historical, philosophical, social, or motor bases
Psychopathology
Counseling skills
Research design/statistics
Biological bases of behavior
Cognitive–affective bases of behavior
Individual behavior
Demonstrated competence in techniques of sport
400 hours of supervised experience in sport and exercise psychology
APA proficiency requirements!!
Knowledge of theory and research in social, historical, cultural, and
developmental foundations of sport psychology
Principles and practices of applied sport psychology, including issues and
techniques of sport-specific psychological assessment and mental skills
training
Clinical/counseling issues with athletes
Organizational and systemic aspects of sport consulting
Understanding of the developmental and social issues related to sport
participation
Knowledge of the biobehavioral bases of sport and exercise
!,!!
The proficiency does not address supervised experience or ethics as it is
intended for psychologists whom are already licensed.
Note. CC, AASP ! Certified Consultant, Association for Applied Sport Psychology; APA ! American Psychological Association.
!
See http://www.appliedsportpsych.org/Consultants/become-certified for full AASP, CC requirements. !! See http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/
sports.aspx for full description of sport psychology proficiency.
REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS
On the surface CC, AASP and the APA proficiency seem to
serve a critical need for the profession of sport psychology: identifying the minimum qualifications, education, and experiences
necessary to deliver sport psychology services. However, although
each was developed to serve the public good and provide some
insight into the competencies needed to effectively and ethically
practice sport psychology, pragmatically, both leave significant
gaps. Of note, the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA; 2005) does not recognize a curriculum-based certification like AASP’s as adequate for professional certification; and
the APA proficiency was intended to educate psychologists about
a unique subfield rather than identify to the public individuals
qualified to practice sport psychology. Perhaps most problematically, although CC, AASP and the APA proficiency both include
performance as a defining factor, neither has taken a position on
distinguishing performance-based work from therapeutically based
work with athletes. Thus, practitioners, and more important, clients, remain confused over what defines and delimits the practice
of sport psychology.
Therefore, neither AASP nor Division 47 has been able to create
and enforce an adequate regulation of the sport psychology profession. The lack of a gatekeeper to the profession has increased
the confusion surrounding who is qualified to practice and what
they are competent to do. Further complicating the issue is the
legal protection of the title of “psychologist.” This has led many
kinesiology-trained practitioners to create alternative titles (e.g.,
mental skills coach, performance enhancement specialist), whereas
many psychology-trained practitioners refer to themselves as sport
psychologists whether or not they have the training or specialization in the population, issues, or interventions as outlined in the
APA proficiency.
The lack of a consistent title, compounded by the divergent
services offered (i.e., performance-based interventions vs. therapeutically based interventions), is a problematic combination. Specifically, the lack of a consistent, regulated title downplays professional training by allowing for easy circumvention of
appropriate preparation to use the title. More important, the lack of
regulation of the services being offered is dangerous to the public,
as they have no way of knowing what constitutes best practices (let
alone what services they will be getting: performance enhancement or therapy). Therefore, they have no protection from charlatanism, inappropriate practice, or even blatant misrepresentation
and intentionally harmful behavior. Finally, in a developing profession such as sport psychology, when consumers receive poor
services, they often denigrate the field rather than limit their
criticism to the individual practitioner (Wrisberg, Simpson,
Loberg, Withycombe, & Reed, 2009).
Future Directions in Sport Psychology
In considering the future of sport psychology, it is apparent that
the first issue to be resolved is defining the practice and profession
of sport psychology. As illustrated in this article, throughout
history and into the present day, sport psychology has not confronted the fact that it has consisted of two very different foci:
performance excellence and therapy. In considering resolutions,
we attempted to maintain consideration for the best interests of the
future of the field foremost in our discussions, as opposed to
assigning fault or blame as has often happened in the past. We
35
quickly discovered in examining the historical record that both
sides are “right” in how they came to label what they were doing.
Psychologists followed in the tradition of their discipline by naming therapeutically focused work with athletes as sport psychology.
Similarly, it is reasonable and logical that kinesiologists interested
in the effects of the mind on athletes’ performance would label this
study sport psychology. However, both sides being “right” does
not provide guidance for the future.
In reviewing the field’s development, it is evident that the
performance aspect of sport psychology is what makes it truly
unique. To illustrate this unique quality, we will utilize three of the
criteria identified in CRSPPP’s definition of a proficiency: (a)
distinctiveness, (b) acquisition of knowledge and skills, and (c)
parameters of practice.
Distinctiveness refers to the body of knowledge and its professional application. Understanding and enhancing performance
from a psychological perspective is a distinct knowledge base, as
evidenced by the voluminous sport psychology literature attempting to understand and explain human performance. On the other
hand, performing therapy with a person who happens to be an
athlete does not require a distinct knowledge base, as evidenced by
the dearth of a unique sport-focused literature within clinical/
counseling psychology. Rather, therapy with athletes requires the
use of the existing clinical/counseling psychology knowledge base
with a distinct population. A key distinction with this body of
knowledge is the goal of its use. Performance psychology is
specifically focused on understanding and improving the experience and outcomes of human endeavors in performance domains
(Practice Committee, Division 47, Exercise and Sport Psychology,
American Psychological Association, 2011). This is a much more
targeted goal than general well-being or happiness.
Acquisition of knowledge and skills refers to the training to
become competent. Intervening with athletes to improve performance requires unique knowledge and skills as evidenced by
the multitude of sport psychology training programs developed
in the tradition of enhancing performance. Conversely, psychology programs do not typically identify athletes as a population
requiring unique knowledge and skills when training students in
psychotherapy.
Parameters of practice involves populations, psychological, biological, and/or social problems, and procedures and techniques.
Although the athletic population would be a unique parameter for
both performance and therapy work, as noted earlier, there is not
a distinct problem or set of procedures utilized in therapy with
athletes. On the other hand, performance excellence is a distinct
issue with specifically developed procedures and techniques
(Aoyagi & Portenga, 2010).
These three criteria clearly illustrate that the aspect of sport
psychology that makes it a distinct area of practice is the performance focus. Still, this logic does not alleviate the confusion of the
label sport psychology being used to describe two different service
delivery models. The Division 47 Practice Committee has described the unique field focused on performance excellence and
labeled it performance psychology. In this manner, there is no need
to rebrand sport psychology as performance focused. Rather, the
focus is clearly stated in the name/title. The Division 47 Practice
Committee defined performance psychology as:
36
AOYAGI ET AL.
the study and application of psychological principles of human performance in helping people consistently perform in the upper range of
their capabilities and more thoroughly enjoy the performance process.
Performance psychologists are uniquely trained and specialized to
engage in a broad range of activities including the identification,
development, and execution of the mental and emotional knowledge,
skills, and abilities required for excellence in performance domains;
the understanding, diagnosing, and preventing of the psychological,
cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and psychophysiological inhibitors
of consistent, excellent performance; and the improvement of performance contexts to facilitate more efficient development, consistent
execution, and positive experiences in individual performers. (Practice Committee, Division 47, Exercise and Sport Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2011, p. 9)
This definition highlights the unique aspects of performance
psychology, and differentiates it from the confusion surrounding
the term sport psychology. A full discussion of the definition is
beyond the scope of the current paper, and interested readers are
encouraged to read the Division 47 Practice Committee’s article.
With performance psychology as an accepted nomenclature,
practitioners with the appropriate training (outlined below) would
be able to refer to themselves as “performance psychologists.”
Certainly the label sport psychology will not immediately disappear, and in fact, we would foresee its continued use as a specialty
domain under the field of performance psychology. This nomenclature would be consistent with the common belief that sport
psychology is a misnomer because the psychoemotional skills for
performance excellence are applicable to people across domains
and are not unique to sport. Furthermore, performance psychology
has already generated momentum. For example, articles have been
written on the ethics involved with this area of practice (Aoyagi &
Portenga, 2010; Hays, 2006) and many practitioners already identify their work as performance psychology (e.g., Hays, 2009).
In order for performance psychology to continue to build on the
foundation provided by sport psychology, two related advancements must occur: (a) strengthening the unique knowledge base,
specifically in regard to performance excellence, and (b) clearly
delineating ethical and competent practice. As a discipline, the
field we will now refer to as performance psychology rests on a
strong research foundation in regard to models of service delivery,
techniques, and interventions. For examples of techniques and
interventions demonstrating applied performance psychology (i.e.,
consulting services designed to facilitate performance excellence
in domains beyond the world of sport), the interested reader is
referred to Special Issues of the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (2002, Vol. 14, No. 4) and Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice (2006, Vol. 37, No. 3). However, with the exception
of a few models such as Newburg, Kimieckik, Durand–Bush, and
Doell’s (2002) resonance performance model (RPM), performance
psychology as a discipline has largely relied on theories of personality and models of behavioral processes developed in the
parent discipline of psychology. These theories and models have
generally been created to explain and understand pathology, and to
assist practitioners in preventing, eliminating, or assessing, symptomatic, maladaptive, or undesired behavior.
Although there have been a few excellent models developed
within sport psychology (for a recent review of models of sport
psychology see Aoyagi & Poczwardowski, in press b), and some
general models have been adapted to encompass sport psychology
constructs (e.g., the Cognitive–Affective Processing System;
Smith, 2006), what is needed for the discipline and profession of
performance psychology are overarching theories of performance
excellence developed specifically to understand and explain performance from a psychoemotional perspective. These theories
should be empirically testable and attempt to integrate the psychological and emotional underpinnings and determinants of performance (within the sociocultural context) with physical and technical aspects of performance. For example, Newburg et al., (2002)
developed the RPM, “based on research interviews and consulting
practice with high-caliber performers from all walks of life” (p.
249). In the future, models of optimal performance, such as the
RPM, will be needed to guide issue conceptualization, intervention
planning and implementation, and outcome evaluation in performance psychology, rather than theories adapted from general psychology or atheoretical models of performance enhancement. A
theoretical foundation of performance excellence will more appropriately support the ethical and competent practice of evaluating,
assessing, and facilitating the enhancement of individual, group,
and organizational performance.
This leads to the second advancement necessary for the future of
performance psychology—the issue of ethical and competent practice. To ensure professional viability for the field, we encourage
the continued establishment of graduate training programs that
meet the following broad criteria for performance psychology
training:
1. Competence in the psychology of performance (including
theories of performance excellence) and performance enhancement;
2. Competence in mental health counseling, including training
and experience that results in eligibility for state licensure;
3. Competence in consulting psychology; and,
4. Competence in a performance specialty domain (e.g., sport,
performing arts, business, high-risk occupations).
Graduates from these training programs will have a solid foundation for ethical, competent practice, be eligible for mental health
licensure, and will understand how to add demonstrable value for
individuals and organizations.
The necessity for an understanding of performance within performance psychology is self-evident: it is the defining characteristic of the field. It is surprising that a field purporting to enhance
performance has survived and thrived for more than 25 years
without overarching theories of performance. This gap in the
literature is beginning to be addressed (e.g., Aoyagi & Poczwardowski, in press a; Newburg et al., 2002), and should be a required
component of performance psychology curriculums in the future.
Competence in mental health counseling is a bit more controversial in the present context of performance psychology; however, when considering the future of the field, it also is clearly a
necessity. Protection of the public is paramount, and due to the
historical confusion over what services sport psychology provided,
it is essential that performance psychology practitioners be able to
competently assess, diagnose, and address mental health issues.
Additionally, counseling training will provide a better understanding of the change process and help consultants be more effective.
Furthermore, many performance psychology positions within organizations (e.g., National Collegiate Athletic Association, United
States Olympic Committee) require licensure, and we owe it to
future generations of students to properly prepare them for these
REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS
positions. Because performance and clinical issues can occur together, professionals trained in both can address both fluidly. It is
often the case that performance enhancement interventions do not
reach full effectiveness without including performance restoration
interventions as a foundation (Practice Committee, Division 47,
Exercise and Sport Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2011).
Consulting is the term that best captures what performance
psychologists do (McCann, 2005), and this is the practitioner title
that has been adopted by AASP (i.e., Certified Consultant). However, it is rare to find performance psychology training programs
that actually offer education in consulting. We believe future
training and preparation in performance psychology must include
both classroom education and supervised practica designed to
develop competence in consulting methods, procedures, and skills.
Finally, as our proposed future training programs in performance psychology will be preparing students in the general understanding of performance excellence, it will also be essential for
trainees to specialize in at least one domain of performance. For
example, a future practitioner interested in working with athletes
might take cognate coursework in motor control, biomechanics,
and exercise physiology. A student interested in working with
businesspeople might take cognate courses in management, accounting, and economics. Additionally, students would complete
supervised practica working within the specialty domain.
Building onto this last point, when considering the professional
application of performance psychology, one aspect of training that
deserves specific attention is supervision. Recently, there has been
greater attention given to understanding the role of supervision and
implementing it into the training curricula of performance psychology programs. This is consistent with counseling psychology,
where supervision has been recognized as an essential part of
training (Gelso & Fretz, 1992). The practice of performance psychology requires more than the ability to comprehend information;
it requires the ability to apply that knowledge to a particular person
and issue. Whether for students in graduate school or experienced
professionals looking to respecialize, supervision is a necessary
experience for ethical practice. As Welfel (2006) states,
the codes indicate that competence ordinarily results from formal
education, supervised practice, and continuing education. They imply
that informal, unstructured approaches to developing new competencies are likely to be insufficient. Professionals seeking to extend their
competence to a new area should have a plan consistent with existing
standards and committed to a comprehensive understanding of the
new area (p. 51).
Our recommendations for the education and training of future
performance psychologists developed from the need to teach more
fully the psychological underpinnings of human performance, as
well as the need to address client welfare effectively (e.g., effective
counseling and consulting skills, supervision) and the need to
attend to the public perception of the credibility of the profession
(e.g., title, licensure, one clearly defined field). As such, we
believe the future training of graduate students will be best served
either within psychology departments or within kinesiology departments strongly enough aligned with psychology departments
that their graduates are eligible for mental health licensure. Understanding the historical, emotional, and pragmatic repercussions
of this recommendation, we offer four reasons we have found
37
compelling: (a) protection of clients, (b) clarity for future trainees,
(c) issues of title, and (d) issues of licensure.
The welfare of the performance psychology clientele was foremost in our consideration of mental health licensure. As mentioned
earlier, the historical confusion over what services are delivered by
“sport psychologists” continues into the present day, leaving clients with no way to know if their sport psychology service provider is competent in therapy, performance enhancement, both, or
neither.
Second, if all training in performance psychology prepares
students for mental health licensure there will be less duplication
of effort and students will be able to more effectively transfer
master’s work into a doctoral program. Furthermore, undergraduate students will have the option to enter a performance psychology doctoral tract directly. As mentioned earlier, the current training path is unnecessarily long and in our experience has often
dissuaded prospective students interested in performance psychology. Certainly we are not advocating for incomplete training or for
creating an “easy” path to performance psychology. Rather, we are
calling for a training model that provides the necessary experiences in a way that is accessible, clearly identifiable, and efficient.
Third, training resulting in mental health licensure will allow
those who practice performance psychology in the future to use the
title of performance psychologist or performance psychology consultant without legal repercussions as at the present time. This
clarity and consistency of title will be of great benefit to both the
profession and the public.
Last, this educational model will lead to licensure, which offers
greater accountability and protection of the public than does certification. One of the issues with the present certification system is
the inability to enforce ethical standards. Requiring licensure for
all future performance psychology practitioners will ensure a more
uniform profession and allow for better regulation. Moreover, all
performance psychologists would then be qualified to assess and
diagnose mental health issues, so the public would not have to be
put in the position of determining for themselves if they had a
performance issue or a personal issue. Finally, we have intentionally used the language of mental health licensure to broaden the
options for licensure beyond licensed psychologist. We are focused on competencies, and as long as states recognize master’s
level mental health licenses (e.g., licensed professional counselor;
LPC) then performance psychology should not be an exception.
Still, we would advocate for licensed psychologists as the gold
standard, simply due to the more extensive training that accompanies this designation.
To assuage the historical, emotional, and pragmatic concerns, it
must be stated that we appreciate the historical roots of sport
psychology in kinesiology departments, we share the emotional
attachments to these departments, and we also acknowledge psychology departments’ historical lack of interest and investment in
performance excellence. Pragmatically, we recognize the implications of requiring performance psychology training to include
mental health licensure and the burden this places on programs and
faculty housed in kinesiology and any other nonpsychology departments. We feel that for the future growth and viability of the
field, it is worth it. Though we acknowledge there will be stress,
transition, and adaptation, we hope these will be viewed less as
threat and more as temporary inconveniences necessary for the
field to thrive in the future.
38
AOYAGI ET AL.
Our final recommendation for the future of performance psychology is that an exam-based licensing process specifically for
performance psychology be developed that meets the NOCA
(2005) standards for competency. This level of regulatory rigor
will hold both training programs (in conjunction with accreditation) and individual practitioners accountable for developing the
competencies listed above. Furthermore, it will add protection for
the public and allow the field of performance psychology to attain
a consistent level of professionalism that until now has been
dependent on the actions of individual practitioners.
Conclusions
The development of the practice of sport psychology has
been hindered by the lack of a clear understanding of what the
field encapsulates. The unique aspect of sport psychology is its
focus on performance excellence, and thus we propose the field
be identified as performance psychology. Future training in
sport psychology should address four competency areas: performance excellence, mental health counseling, consulting psychology, and performance specialty domain(s). Each of these is
a critical competency for the profession of performance psychology. Finally, we call for an exam-based licensure specific
to performance psychology.
References
About Applied Sport and Exercise Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.appliedsportpsych.org/about/about-applied-sport-psych
About Certified Consultants. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
www.appliedsportpsych.org/Consultants/About-Certified-Consultants
Aoyagi, M., Czech, D., Portenga, S., Metzler, J., & Poczwardowski, A.
(2009). Current issues and working solutions in designing and delivering
master’s programs: What might the future bring? In Association for
Applied Sport Psychology 24th annual convention proceedings (p. 30).
Salt Lake City, Utah: AASP.
Aoyagi, M. W., & Poczwardowski, A. (Eds.). (in press a). The chronicle of
expert approaches to sport & performance psychology: Applied theories
of performance excellence. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Aoyagi, M. W., & Poczwardowski, A. (in press b). Models of sport
psychology practice and delivery: A review. In S. D. Mellalieu & S.
Hanton (Eds.), Professional practice issues in sport psychology: Critical
reviews. London, U. K.: Routledge.
Aoyagi, M. W., & Portenga, S. T. (2010). The role of positive ethics and
virtues in the context of sport & performance psychology service delivery. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41, 253–259.
doi:10.1037/a0019483
Baillie, P. (in press). Bruce C. Ogilvie. In M. W. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski (Eds.), The chronicle of expert approaches to sport & performance psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Cox, R. H. (2012). Sport psychology concepts and applications (7th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.
Gelso, C. J., & Fretz, B. R. (1992). Counseling psychology. San Diego,
CA: Harcourt, Brace, & Javanovich, Inc.
View publication stats
Hays, K. F. (2006). Being fit: The ethics of practice diversification in
performance psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 223–232. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.3.223
Hays, K. F. (Ed.). (2009). Performance psychology in action: A casebook
for working with athletes, performing artists, business leaders, and
professionals in high-risk occupations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11876-000
Kroll, W., & Lewis, G. (1970). America’s first sport psychologist. Quest,
13, 1– 4.
McCann, S. (2005). Roles: The sport psychologist. In S. Murphy (Ed.), The
sport psych handbook (pp. 279 –291). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Murphy, S. M. (1995). Introduction to sport psychology interventions. In
S. M. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 1–15). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
National Organization for Competency Assurance. (2005). The NOCA
guide to understanding credentialing concepts. Washington DC: Author.
Newburg, D., Kimiecik, J., Durand–Bush, N., & Doell, K. (2002). The
role of resonance in performance excellence and life engagement.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 249 –267. doi:10.1080/
10413200290103545
Newell, K. M. (1990). Kinesiology: The label for the study of physical
activity in higher education. Quest, 42, 269 –278.
Poczwardowski, A., Sherman, C. P., & Henschen, K. P. (1998). A sport
psychology service delivery heuristic: Building on theory and practice.
The Sport Psychologist, 12, 191–207.
Practice Committee, Division 47, Exercise and Sport Psychology, American Psychological Association. (2011). Defining the practice of sport
and performance psychology. Retrieved from http://www.apa47
.org/pdfs/Defining%20the%20practice%20of%20sport%20and%20
performance%20psychology-Final.pdf
Public Description of Sport Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
www.apa.org/Ed./graduate/specialize/sports.aspx
Silva, J. M., Conroy, D. E., & Zizzi, S. J. (1999). Critical issues confronting the advancement of applied sport psychology. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 11, 298 –320.
Singer, R. N. (1989). Applied sport psychology in the United States.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1, 61– 80.
Singer, R. N. (1995). Sport psychology: An overview. In K. P. Henschen
& W. F. Straub (Eds.), Sport psychology an analysis of athlete behavior
(3rd ed., pp. 3–22). Longmeadow, MA: Mouvement Publications.
Smith, R. (2006). Understanding sport behavior: A cognitive–affective
processing systems approach. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18,
1–27.
Welfel, E. R. (2006). Ethics in counseling and psychotherapy: Standards,
research, and emerging issues (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Williams, J. M., & Straub, W. F. (2010). Sport psychology: Past, present,
future. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal
growth to peak performance (pp. 1–17). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Wrisberg, C. A., Simpson, D., Loberg, L. A., Withycombe, J. L., & Reed,
A. (2009). NCAA Division-I student-athletes’ receptivity to mental
skills training by sport psychology consultants. The Sport Psychologist,
23, 470 – 486.
Received March 7, 2011
Revision received August 12, 2011
Accepted August 15, 2011 !