TOOLS TO ENGINEER
BETTER SPORT EXPERIENCES
Damon Burton
University of Idaho
TALE OF 2 TOPICS
Measuring Coaching
Effectiveness



Coaching Success
Questionnaire -2 (CSQ-2)
research tool and
coach development tool.
Competitive Engineering



to create positive motivational
climates,
promote prosocial
development, and
make sport fun.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT
COACHING EVALUATION?
1989 Coaching America’s
Coaches Conference talk
Minimal systematic coach
evaluation occurs at


high school or
collegiate levels.
Evaluation typically based
on won/loss record


to hire and fire
minimal use for coach
development
ORIGINAL COACHING
SUCCESS QUESTIONNAIRE
CSQ developed for 1992 study for
American Coaching Effectiveness
Program (ACEP) . . .


comparing coaching success of
teacher- vs ACEP-trained coaches
examining sources of coaching
competence
Needed an objective measure of
coaching success besides winning.

67 items, 15 subscales, & 5
dimensions (e.g., winning,
enjoyment, and physical, social &
psychological development ).
MEASURING COACHING
EFFECTIVENESS
Cote &
Gilbert (2009)
developed an
integrated
coaching
effectiveness
model.
Knowledge
•
professional
• applied
•
•
Athletes’
Outcomes
Sport
Context
sport skills
teamwork
* level
* sport type
MEASURING COACHING
EFFECTIVENESS
Mallett & Cote (2009) developed the
Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport to
assess applied coach knowledge.
Athlete outcomes provide a more direct
measure of coaching effectiveness.
The Coaching Success Questionnaire-2
designed to measure athlete outcomes as
a direct measure of coach effectiveness.
DEVELOPMENT OF CSQ-2
Conceptual
foundations,
Assessment
model, and
Stages of
instrument
development.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
Congruent with Cote & Gilbert’s (2009)
coaching effectiveness model for
measuring athlete outcomes,
Designed to assess coaches’
development of athlete’ intrinsic
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000),
Based on coaches’ development of
athlete resilience (Dweck, 1999).
ASSESSMENT MODEL
hypothesized 5 dimensions and 18
subscales,
confirmed 5 dimensions & 10 subscales,
Some subscales focused on coach
behaviors that athletes did not readily
recognize,
Motivation & communication subscales
were not confirmed due to high
correlations with most other subscales.
CSQ-2 DEVELOPMENT
Stage 1 – CSQ developed in 1992,

67 items , 5 dimensions and 15 subscales,
Stage 2 – CSQ-2 developed as Andy
Gillham’s dissertation,
 CSQ-2
Form A – 99 items, 5 dimensions & 18
subscales,
 CSQ-2 Form B – 76 items, 5 dimensions & 12
subscales, and
 CSQ-2 Form C – 40 items, 5 dimensions & 10
subscales. “Final Form” was confirmed.
CSQ-2 DIMENSIONS AND
SUBSCALES
Winning


Attitudes about
Winning,
Winning,
Enjoyment,
Physical
Development



Physical Conditioning,
Skills & Strategies,
Wellness.
CSQ-2 DIMENSIONS &
SUBSCALES
Psychological
Development
 Self-Confidence,
 Emotional
Control.
Social
Development
 Teamwork,
 Sportsmanship.
CSQ-2 USE 1: RESEARCH TOOL
Identify relationships between coach
effectiveness and key antecedent and
consequent variables such as . . .
Coach background and training variables
(e.g., teacher training).
 Team variables (e.g., motivational climate),
 Athlete resiliency and self-esteem.

Dependent measure to assess coaching
education effectiveness.
CSQ-2 USE 2:
COACH DEVELOPMENT TOOL
Minimal systematic coach evaluation and
development at any level,
Existing won/loss record evaluation used
primarily to hire and fire coaches,
Because of limited nature of coaching
education in U.S., evaluation can be a
valuable tool for creating motivation for
coach development.
5 STEPS TO MAKING COACH
DEVELOPMENT WORK
Step 1 -- Use CSQ-2 to assess coaches’
strengths and weaknesses,
Step 2 -- After the season, the Athletic
Director would use CSQ-2 data to identify
2-3 key areas for professional growth.
Step 3 -- The AD and coach would agree
on specific goals to work on for each
growth area.
5 STEPS TO MAKING COACH
DEVELOPMENT WORK
Step 4 -- Coaches would be provided with
resources to enhance their knowledge.
 Coaches might read the communication
chapter in Sport Psychology for Coaches.
 Coaching development guided using a
workbook of exercises.
Step 5 -- Learning communities may be
developed where a group of coaches meet
regularly to work collaboratively on growth
areas (see Gilbert, Gallimore & Trudel, 2009).
ROLE OF CSQ-2 IN
COACH DEVELOPMENT
It measures athlete outcomes, the most direct
measure of coaching effectiveness.
It’s a psychometrically-sound instrument that
is quick for athletes to complete.
It’s easy to score and interpret results.
Supplemental materials can readily be
developed to facilitate coach development.
The CSQ-2 is a tool that facilitates systematic
coaching education and development.
COMPETITIVE ENGINEERING
The competitive engineering
process in youth sports …
modifies the structure, rules,
facilities, and equipment of a
particular sport to enhance
athletes’ competitive experience.
benefits include enhanced skill
development, enjoyment, &
attitudes toward physical activity
while reducing attrition.
has been used extensively, but in
a haphazard fashion, with no
model to guide implementation.
MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Competitive engineering is a motivational
climate strategy that attempts to enhance
motivation through systematic change in the
competitive environment.
Motivational climate has its origins in
achievement goal theory that has found
players in mastery-oriented (i.e., process)
climates have higher intrinsic motivation,
greater enjoyment and satisfaction and less
attrition than do outcome-oriented (i.e.,
product) teammates.
STRUCTURING A BETTER
MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE
CE attempts to enhance
intrinsic motivation by
creating positive changes
in how youth sport is
structured to
 enhance competence,
 increase personal selfdetermination or
autonomy, and
 provide greater
opportunities to be with
friends (i.e.,
relatedness).
MASTERY CLIMATE
CORRELATES
Cote et al.’s (2008)
Developmental Model of
Sport Participation
suggests the “sampling
years” between 6-12 is a
time to emphasize
“deliberate play” that
maximizes enjoyment for
both future recreational and
elite performers.
Mastery climate also
promotes prosocial
development (First Tee,
2006; Petitpas et al., 2005).
COACHING EDUCATION VERSUS
COMPETITIVE ENGINEERING
Youth coaches don’t like to invest time in
coaching education.
Coaching is considered a short-term activity
but improvement takes time and focus,
Problem coaches don’t typically participate
in coaching education programs.
Competitive engineering only has to convince
administrators to adopt CE modifications.
Structural modifications create the
opportunity for positive change.
Existing research supports the value of
competitive engineering.
WORKING COMPETITIVE
ENGINEERING MODEL
6 goals,
4 strategies,
4 techniques.
COMPETITIVE ENGINEERING
OVERALL GOAL
Competitive engineering
attempts to create
programs that ensure
consistent physical,
psychological and social
development is
emphasized more than
winning.
However, when
development is
maximized, the chances
of winning also increase.
COMPETITIVE
ENGINEERING GOALS
attract athletes to sport,
increase process orientation and
intrinsic motivation,
enhance skill development,
increase perceived competence,
maximize fun and enjoyment, and
minimize burnout and attrition.
TAKING A HINT FROM
SANDLOT GAMES …
Coakley’s (1980) research


In sandlot games, kids modify
games, maximizing
enjoyment and keeping
everyone involved so the
game continues.
“Sandlot” games typically
result in increased
cooperation, decision
making, creativity, and
action…things stifled in rulecentered organized sport .
CE STRATEGIES: WHAT
ATHLETES WANT
increase action and
scoring,
create high personal
involvement,
keep scores close,
maintain positive
social relationships
with teammates and
opponents (Coakley,
1980).
COMPETITIVE ENGINEERING
TECHNIQUES
modify rules,
change facilities,
adjust
equipment,
provide choices
of competitive
level.
CE TECHNIQUE EXAMPLES
CE STRATEGY & TECHNIQUE
EXAMPLES
1.
increase action and scoring
“kid-size” equipment & facilities and modify rules to
advantage the offense
2.
create high levels of personal involvement
increase playing time and opportunities to play “glamour”
positions
3.
keep scores close
equalize talent across teams and have “catch-up” rules
4.
promote positive relationships between all
participants
utilize joint practices, socialization rules, and social events
PYRAMID MODEL OF
SPORT PROGRAMMING
Level 5:
Regional
Travel Team
Level 4: Local
Travel Team
Level 3: Competitive Leagues
Level 2: Recreational Program
Level 1: Instructional Program
FLAG FOOTBALL CE STUDY
Conceptual Focus
1.



Increase action and scoring,
Enhance personal investment,
Decrease excessive physical contact.
Research Protocol
2.
“Kid-size” football and field
“Delayed rush” rule to prevent defensive line from crossing
line-of-scrimmage for 3 seconds
Results
3.




Total points increased by 115%,
Percentage of kids scoring increased by 50%,
Enjoyment increased extensively, and
Attrition was reduced 22% the following season.
FUTURE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Is more CE better?
1.


2.
Number of modifications overall,
Number of modifications for each CE technique.
Does the type of modification impact effectiveness?
Which strategy modifications are most effective (e.g.,
close scores versus increased scoring)?
Even within the same strategy category, which
modifications have greater impact on athlete outcomes
(e.g., position played versus playing time)?
What implementation protocol (i.e., rationale) will best sell
CE to administrators, coaches, & athletes?
What implementation protocol will maximize athlete
outcomes (e.g., explaining rationale and teaching
implementation strategies)?
WANT MORE INFO?
Powerpoint loaded on
handout system,
Email to
dburton@uidaho.edu,
Manuscripts will be
loaded on our
Practitioner Website
when accepted for
publication.
THE END