1
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs,
Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players
by
Andrew Stephen Ling
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
FACULTY OF KINESIOLOGY
CALGARY, ALBERTA
SEPTEMBER, 2008
© Andrew Stephen Ling 2008 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-44271-5 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-44271-5
NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada 3
Abstract
The constructs of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997) and coping (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) are important in regard to sport performance; however, little work has been done in the sport of tennis. The first part of this study was to develop a tennis-specific self- efficacy questionnaire. The second part examined the direct relationships between a) self- efficacy beliefs and performance outcome, and b) coping strategies and performance outcome. Also, there was an interest to see the effect of coping on performance outcome in the presence of self-efficacy. Competitive junior tennis players in Alberta, Nova
Scotia, and New Brunswick completed the tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire and the Modified-COPE (MCOPE) before their respective tournament. Self-efficacy was a significant predictor of winning percentage. There were also positive relationships between self-efficacy and winning percentage on backhand counterattack, technical anticipation, performance motivation, and outcome motivation. Finally, there was a negative relationship between winning percentage and behavioural disengagement, self- blame, and humor. Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge and thank a number of people for their support and encouragement through the completion of this thesis:
• Dr. Dave Paskevich, my supervisor for his guidance through this challenging but
rewarding process. It has been a privilege to work with you and I have learned a
lot.
• To members of my committee, Dr. Nicole Culos-Reed for your support, Dr. Tak
Fung for your countless hours helping me with statistical analysis. Tak, I
appreciate your patience and keeping me at ease when faced with confusing
statistical procedures!
• To Rosalie Kolstad for all your hard work and great advice!
• Dr. Helen Massfeller in the Faculty of Education for her encouragement during
my Masters experience and who I had the privilege to learn from.
• Dr. Carolyn Savoy for her constant support through the last few years and giving
me the opportunity to share my thesis project, as well as my graduate school
experience to her class at Dalhousie University.
• Jon Stoochnoff and Eva Wolicki from Tennis Alberta, Roger Keating and Peter
Smith from Tennis Nova Scotia, and Michael Downey from Tennis Canada, who
all approved and allowed me to conduct my study.
• The staff and coaches at the Saville Centre, University of Alberta Outdoor Centre,
Calgary Winter Club, Tennis Academy, Glencoe Club, and Red Deer Tennis Club
for allowing me to conduct my research at their respective tournaments. 5
• My tennis staff at the Waegwoltic Club in Halifax: Sherif El-Dewary, Nick
Ritcey, Brent Keough, Stacey Power, Sarah Mclnnes, and Carla George for pilot
testing my questionnaire. Thanks for putting up with me that year!
• Special thanks to Dr. Don Voaklander and Mike & Cathy Bennett for welcoming
me into the tennis community and assisting me through my data collection in
Alberta.
• Ryan Schroffel at the Royal Glenora Club, Carson Bell and Corey Stewart at the
Saville Centre for their continued assistance in recruiting participants in
Edmonton.
• To those that helped me edit my final drafts of my thesis. I appreciate your time
and your suggestions!
• To my Mom and Dad for believing in me and showing support the last three
years! Your constant words of encouragement are invaluable to me and I will
always be grateful for that! To my Grandma and my sisters for all the supportive
emails! 6
Table of Contents
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS, COPING STRATEGIES, AND PERFORMANCE OUTCOME IN JUNIOR TENNIS PLAYERS
Page CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13
Self-Efficacy 13
Self-Efficacy Theory 13
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Performance 15
Coping 17
Relationship between Coping and Performance 20
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Coping 21
Overview of Research Questions and Hypotheses 23
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY 25
Participants 25
Research Instruments 25
Tennis-specific Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 25
Modified-COPE 27
Procedures 28
Operational Definitions 29
Statistical Analysis 30
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 31
Testing for Gender Differences 31
Descriptive Statistics 32 7
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Performance Outcome 35
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome 41
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome in the Presence of Self-Efficacy 49
High Self-Efficacy vs. Low Self-Efficacy 54
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 58
Measurement of Self-Efficacy 58
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Performance Outcome 59
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome 61
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome in the Presence of Self-Efficacy 65
High Self-Efficacy vs. Low Self-Efficacy 66
Limitations & Future Directions 67
REFERENCES 72
APPENDIX A: LETTERS OF SUPPORT 81
APPENDIX B: ETHICS APPLICATIONS 85
APPENDIX C: LETTERS OF INTEREST 88
APPENDIX D: PARENTAL CONSENT FORMS 91
APPENDIX E: PARTICIPATION CONSENT FORMS 98
APPENDIX F: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 105
APPENDIX G: TENNIS-SPECIFIC SELF-EFFICACY QUESTIONNAIRE 107
APPENDIX H: MODIFIED-COPE (MCOPE) QUESTIONNAIRE Ill 8
List of Tables
Table 1- Independent Samples T-Test for Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping: Testing for Gender Differences 32
Table 2- Descriptive Statistics for the Tennis-Specific Self-Efficacy
Questionnaire 33
Table 3- Descriptive Statistics for the Modified-COPE Subscales 34
Table 4- Results of Linear Regression Analysis: Self-Efficacy (SEtotal) Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players 35 Table 5- Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between Self-Efficacy in each Tennis Skill and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players 37
Table 6- Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between SEtec, SEtac, and SEmot and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players 38
Table 7- Results of Linear Regression Analysis: Self-Efficacy Subscales Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players 39
Table 8- Results of Multiple Regression Analysis: Self-Efficacy Subscales Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players 40
Table 9- Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between Coping Strategies and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players 42
Table 10- Results of Linear Regression Analysis: MCOPE Subscales Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players 44
Table 11- Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between Problem-Focused Coping, Emotion-Focused Coping, and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players 46
Table 12- Linear Regression Analysis on the Relationship between Problem-Focused Coping and Winning Percentage and Emotion-Focused Coping and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players 47
Table 13- Results of Multiple Regression Analysis: Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping as Significant Predictors of Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players 48 9
Table 14- Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Effect of Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping on Winning Percentage in the Presence of Self-Efficacy 50
Table 15- Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Effect of Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping on Winning Percentage in the Presence of Self-Efficacy (SEtec, SEtac, SEmot) 51
Table 16- Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Effect of Emotion-Focused Coping on Winning Percentage in the Presence of Self-Efficacy (SEtec, SEtac, SEmot) 53
Table 17- Independent Samples T-Test for MCOPE Subscales: Testing for High vs. Low Self-Efficacy 55
Table 18 - Sample Size Calculation per Group: High Self-Efficacy and Low Self-Efficacy (at an alpha level of 0.05) 57 10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
How many hours do high performance athletes practice their physical skills per week? Tiger Woods' typical workday begins with a long run at 7:00 a.m., lifts weights for 90 minutes, hits balls for two hours, putts for 30 minutes, and plays nine holes. After lunch, Tiger spends more time on the practice range, his short-game work, and finally another weight session (Nichols, 2008).
Do high performance athletes believe that sport psychology/mental training are important? In June 2008, Tiger Woods won his 14th Major Championship at the U.S.
Open. He was battling effects from arthroscopic surgery to repair a meniscus and it was reported that whatever Tiger lost physically, he gained mentally. His competitor, Rocco
Mediate, commented that "He (Tiger) was pretty good. Obviously he's hurt. But where he's his best (is mentally)" (Wetzel, 2008).
During the 2003 French Open, Andy Roddick was asked, "What went wrong?" after losing the tennis match. Roddick replied, "It's between the ears, man" (Garber,
2003). After reflecting on the previous two questions, how many hours do high performance athletes practice their mental skills per week? Why do some athletes not practice these skills?
There might be a number of reasons, but one of them might be the lack of education or instruction they received in sport psychology. An athlete is faced with many stressful situations due to intense training schedules and competition. The ability to have confidence in one's skills and to cope effectively during a match should lead to successful performances. 11
Self-Efficacy
How are individuals capable of performing a skill confidently after making an error? This question can be asked in both everyday life and athletics. One of the reasons could be that these individuals have high self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has to do with individuals' beliefs about their own skills and abilities to perform the behavior required to produce the desired outcome (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy beliefs determine one's choice of activities, the amount of effort that will be exerted, and how long this effort will be sustained in stressful situations. An individual still needs to be equipped with the appropriate skills, knowledge, and have the motivation to perform well.
Coping
How do individuals deal with potential adversity or stressful situations? The ability to have strategies to cope with these situations is very important for successful performance. Coping is "a process of constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands or conflicts appraised as taxing or exceeding one's resources" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Coping strategies involve dealing with and managing emotions to allow one to perform effectively in different situations.
The Current Study
The primary purpose of the current study was to address the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players.
To evaluate self-efficacy, a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire was created for the purposes of this study. Three research questions were proposed: 1) Is there a direct relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and performance outcome in junior tennis 12 players? 2) Is there a direct relationship between coping strategies and performance outcome in junior tennis players? 3) Is the relationship between coping strategies and performance outcome affected in the presence of self-efficacy?
Overview
Chapter 1 contains a brief introduction to self-efficacy and coping, providing a segue to the current study. Chapter 2 contains the literature review, including theories and research findings related to self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies, as well as their relationships to performance outcome. Chapter 3 contains the research design and methodology, description of the participants, research instruments, procedures, and statistics used in the present study. Chapter 4 contains the results of the study and
Chapter 5 includes discussions about the research findings, including limitations and future directions. 13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of the literature surrounding self-efficacy, coping, and their relationship to performance. In the first section, self-efficacy theory and the relationships between self-efficacy beliefs and performance are discussed. The second section examines the relationship between coping and performance, which leads into the research findings linking self-efficacy and coping. This chapter concludes with a summary of the three research questions and hypotheses that this study plans to test.
Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy Theory
Albert Bandura (1977) developed the self-efficacy theory, which is based on the assumption that the level and strength of self-efficacy depends on various sources of information and therefore influences behaviour. Bandura coined the terms efficacy and outcome expectations. An efficacy expectation was an individual's belief that he/she could execute the behaviour required to produce the desired outcome. An outcome expectancy was defined as an individual's belief that a certain behaviour would lead to a certain outcome.
Individuals' cognitive appraisal and expectations of their self-efficacy are based on various sources of information, which include performance accomplishments, vicarious (observational) experiences, verbal persuasion, imaginal experiences, physiological reactions, and emotional states (Bandura, 1977; Feltz, 1984 (as cited in
Weinberg & Gould, 2003)). Successful performances strengthen self-efficacy, and after continued success, strong efficacy expectations are formed. If an individual has high 14 self-efficacy and experiences periodic failure, the impact of that failure is reduced. Some individuals watch others perform stressful activities without negative consequences and generate expectations that they themselves will improve if they maintain their effort.
These efficacy expectations are influenced by social comparison and modeling. Efficacy expectations are also formed by verbal persuasion where an individual suggests to another that he/she can cope successfully (e.g., "You can do it"). The impact of verbal persuasion depends on the perceived credibility, prestige, trustworthiness, and expertise of the persuaders. Emotional arousal and physiological reactions (e.g., sweating, increased heart rate) are sources of information to an individual that can affect perceived self-efficacy in coping with stressful situations (Bandura, 1977). An individual who manages his/her arousal level leads to enhanced performance.
According to Bandura (1977), the level of efficacy expectations affects what behaviour is expressed, determines the choice of activities, how much effort will be exerted, and how long this effort will last in stressful situations. Those with high self- efficacy participate more, have a higher effort level, persist longer, and are higher achievers.
Efficacy expectations differ on three dimensions that affect performance: magnitude, generality, and strength (Bandura, 1977). The magnitude or level of efficacy expectations differs depending on the difficulty of the task. If the task is considered to be simple, one would report a high self-efficacy. An individual's efficacy expectations can differ in generality; therefore one can perceive his/her efficacy as high in both a great and small number of tasks. Finally, the strength of efficacy expectations is more likely to increase following successful performances based on skill rather than external help. Poor 15 performances are more likely to decrease self-efficacy if it was due to skill rather than a specific situation. A successful performance where the task was very challenging leads to an increased self-efficacy. People who experience setbacks, but also achieve performance gains will increase their perceived self-efficacy more than people who have success but realize their performances are leveling off. Weak expectations are easily disrupted by discontinuing experiences, but those individuals who have strong expectations will increase their coping efforts during these events (Bandura, 1977).
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Performance
Performance is reliant on concentration, perseverance, dedication, and believing in oneself (Watkins, Garcia, & Turek, 1994). Sport psychologists and athletes often search for the edge that will enhance performance above previous ones or above competitors' performances. Individuals with high self-efficacy for a task often try harder and experience more positive feelings related to the task (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy has been considered to be one of the most influential psychological variables affecting sport performance (Bond, Biddle, & Ntoumanis, 2001) and has been referred to as the guardian angel of successful performance (Terry, 1989).
Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, and Mack (2000) conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance in sport. There was a significant average correlation (r= 0.38) between self-efficacy and sport performance based on 45 studies that included performance in both individual and team sports, as well as exercise.
This value suggests that there is a positive and moderate relationship between self- efficacy beliefs and sport performance. 16
Of the 45 studies in the meta-analysis, one included an earlier tennis study that demonstrated a positive and significant relationship between self-efficacy and performance (Barling & Abel, 1983). Other research has shown moderate to strong correlations between self-efficacy and sport performance in gymnastics (Lee, 1982), and field hockey (Lee, 1988). Other researchers have also shown that self-efficacy was a significant predictor of performance in gymnastics (Weiss, Wiese, & Klint, 1989), on basketball, field hockey and soccer skills (Haney & Long, 1995), in a tennis service task
(Theodorakis, 1996), and in golf performance (Beauchamp, Bray, & Albinson, 2002).
Although most research has shown a positive relationship (Moritz et al., 2000), there have been studies suggesting the contrary. Watkins and colleagues (1994) studied the relationship between self-efficacy and performance on a specific baseball task and found that self-efficacy is often not as predictive of performance as is previous performance. This finding is not unusual because if one refers back to Bandura's (1977) theory, performance accomplishments is one source of information that affects the strength of self-efficacy.
When studying the relationship between self-efficacy and performance, it is important that it is in the context of athletes participating in familiar sports. A study has higher generalizability when athletes are participating in their sport and performing in familiar situations (Watkins et al., 1994). In this way, one can examine skill development and/or a competitive situation which can be of value to those specific athletes.
From reviewing the literature, there is evidence that a positive relationship exists between self-efficacy and sport performance. There also seems to be a connection between self-efficacy and coping. 17
Coping
In the past 20 years, research regarding stress in sport has shown the importance of coping (Hoar, Kowalski, Gaudreau, & Crocker, 2006). The literature has covered topics such as how athletes cope with competitive stress (Crocker, 1992; Gould, Eklund,
& Jackson, 1993), measurement development (Crocker & Graham, 1995; Gaudreau &
Blondin, 2002), and studies that have linked coping to performance (Dugdale, Eklund, &
Gordon, 2002). In competitive sports, both the physically and psychologically demanding training schedules and the intense competitive atmosphere place athletes in highly stressful situations. Stress occurs at all ages and levels of sport (Anshel, 1996;
Anshel, 2001; Bjorkly, 2007; Dugdale et al., 2002; Holt & Hogg, 2002; Kim & Duda,
2003; Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Puente-Diaz & Anshel, 2005). Competitive stress can be positive when it is needed to reach optimal arousal prior to an event and to maintain during an event. However, competitive stress can also be negative when there is pressure to meet the expectations of coaches, teammates, fans, and personal goals. In addition, anxiety also surrounds performance outcome (i.e., winning and losing) (Anshel &
Gregory, 1990). Research has suggested that coping ability can contribute to why some athletes achieve their goals and others fail to perform to their potential (Cerin, Szabo,
Hunt, & Williams, 2000; Gaudreau, Blondin, & Lapierre, 2002).
Coping is "a process of constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands or conflicts appraised as taxing or exceeding one's resources" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). In other words, coping is a psychological and behavioral process where an individual employs strategies to manage psychological stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping at its most basic level 18 involves dealing with and managing emotions (i.e., emotional regulation), which allows one to perform effectively. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) stated that coping is an ever- changing process where one must use different strategies depending on the situation.
Furthermore, coping is not an automatic behaviour that masters the situation, but one that involves effort to manage the stressful situation.
Researchers dealing with coping in sport analyze either coping strategies or coping styles. A coping strategy is a state measure that reflects an athlete's coping response after a specific situation or stressor (Holahan & Moos, 1987). A coping style is a trait measure that reflects an athlete's preference or tendency to use a certain type of coping strategy in response to stress (Anshel, 1996).
Different types of stressors (e.g., pre-competition stress, making a performance error, dealing with a poor line call from an opponent or umpire, and receiving criticism from coaches or spectators) require the use of different types of coping strategies. In tennis competition, some stressors include: critical points in a match, poor performance, opponent distractions, and crowd distractions. Coping strategies are used in different situations and successful athletes are the ones who have a variety of coping strategies for any situation (Weinberg & Gould, 2003).
Coping with a situation can be done by changing the environment, changing the meaning of the situation, and/or dealing with one's emotions and behaviours (Hoar et al.,
2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Athletes mostly use two higher-order coping dimensions: problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping involves athletes who manage the problem that causes the stress, by either altering the environment, or by changing one's situation within it. Seeking social support for 19 instrumental reasons, planning, suppression of competing activities, effort expenditure, and active coping are all types of problem-focused coping strategies (Crocker & Graham,
1995). Emotion-focused coping involves athletes who regulate their emotional responses to the stressor, or in other words, alter what is in the mind of the athlete. This might include relaxation techniques used during the third-set tie-breaker to lower anxiety (Hoar et al., 2006; Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Other emotion-focused coping strategies include: seeking social support for emotional reasons, behavioral disengagement, self-blame, venting of emotions, humor, wishful thinking, and denial (Crocker & Graham, 1995).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) believed that coping changes as a situation unfolds; problem-focused coping is used when the situation can be changed or controlled and emotion-focused coping is used when the situation cannot be changed or is beyond the control of the individual. A third higher-order dimension is avoidance coping, also known as rejection or disengagement coping. This involves avoiding the stressor, either physically or psychologically (Hoar et al., 2006). The purpose of cognitive coping processes like avoidance and denial is to help an individual avoid emotional reactions of an event. The full emotional experience includes thought, action impulses, and somatic disturbances (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Some athletes might cope by avoiding thoughts about the competition until game time approaches. They might also use physical avoidance by limiting contact with an opponent, coach, or spectators. One strategy would be maintaining attentional focus on the task at hand and focusing immediately on the next point in tennis (Anshel, Williams, & Hodge, 1997). The benefits of avoidance coping are to protect against interfering thoughts and to reduce state anxiety after making errors in a game or match. 20
Relationship between Coping and Performance
During competition, an integral part of successful performance is the ability to cope with stressful events (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). On days of important competitions of the season, athletes report the most stressors (Nicholls, Holt, Polman, &
James, 2005). Athletes often have to cope with making mental or physical errors, errors by teammates, being injured, and bad line calls. The inability to cope with stress is a significant factor in the failure of athletes to effectively use their skills in athletic performance (Lazarus, 2000). With respect to motor performance, poor coping skills may heighten muscular tension and distract the athlete from focusing attention on the task at hand, thus adversely affecting sport performance (Anshel, Brown, & Brown, 1993).
Athletes at the 1998 Commonwealth Games who experienced unexpected stressors (e.g., injury, poor warm-up prior to competition, and bad calls from the game officials) viewed them as more threatening and held back from their desired plan of action compared to those who experienced expected stressors (Dugdale et al., 2002). The failure to cope with these stressors can have a negative effect on concentration, attentional focus, and arousal, which are all related to performance (Anshel, 1990).
Anshel and Anderson's (2002) study showed that approach coping was a better predictor of performance on a table tennis task and was associated with higher performance scores than avoidance coping. In another study, engagement coping
(approach) was positively related to performance and disengagement coping (avoidance) was negatively related to performance (Haney & Long, 1995). Gaudreau and colleagues
(2002) also found that golfers who achieved their performance goal for their round of golf had stable coping strategies from pre- to post-competition. 21
Gould and colleagues (1993) interviewed 20 members of the 1988 U.S. Olympic wrestling team about how they coped with the stress they encountered during the
Olympics. Four general dimensions of coping strategies were used: thought control, task focus, emotional control, and behavioral-based strategies (i.e., changing or controlling the environment).
In sport competition, the ability to cope with failure is essential for performance enhancement. The interaction between self-efficacy and coping has shown to be an avenue of interest when dealing with failure.
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Coping
As early as 1977, Bandura had examined the relationship between self-efficacy and coping, and it seems to be bi-directional. Some researchers believe that having effective coping skills contributes to one's self-efficacy (Lane, Jones, & Stevens, 2002).
Others believe that individuals who demonstrate a stronger perceived self-efficacy will exert more effort even in fearful or difficult situations and will utilize a greater number of coping strategies (Bandura, 1997).
Bandura (1977) stated that people become involved in activities that they are capable of handling, but fear and avoid situations they believe exceed their coping skills.
Unfortunately, the avoidance of stressful situations will result in slow development of approach coping skills. Consistent with the self-efficacy theory, findings show that self- efficacy scores reduced significantly following defeat (Bandura, 1997). Lane and colleagues (2002) examined the relationship between changes in self-efficacy, self- esteem, and coping strategies after defeat in a tennis tiebreaker competition. The failure to succeed in an important competition could have detrimental effects on an athlete's self- 22 efficacy. It is suggested that an athlete should focus on effective coping strategies that will maintain self-efficacy even after failure (Lane et al., 2002).
Athletes may perceive their anxiety as facilitative or debilitative. Each specific situation could determine different anxiety responses. Jones and Hanton (2001) proposed the term confident coping, referring to elite or high challenge athletes that have higher levels of self-confidence, perceive their somatic anxiety as more facilitative, and perceive their worry as less debilitative. Baltzell (1999) studied coping experiences in elite rowers related to pressure and expectations to perform. The rowers were asked to provide their most and least effective coping experience in elite sport. Results showed that before the rowers' most effective coping experience, they had high levels of self-efficacy. Before the rowers' least effective coping experience, they had low levels of self-efficacy.
Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy appraisals as beliefs that one can successfully execute specific behaviours that will lead to successful coping. Anshel and
Anderson (2002) stated that approach coping was preferred when the athlete had relatively high confidence. Athletes who either have high self-efficacy or low self- efficacy are focused on the task and use engagement coping. However, only the low self- efficacy athletes are also distracted from the task and use more disengagement coping
(Haney& Long, 1995).
The study by Lane and colleagues (2002) showed support for the concept that self-efficacy is malleable, and performance accomplishments affect self-efficacy. When performance is unsuccessful and results in failure, there are self-efficacy interventions to help individuals cope with sport-competition loss such as focusing on or imagining certain thoughts (e.g., "Think about something you did really well during the game", 23
"Think about a time when your teammates or coach praised you", and "Think about a great athlete who failed at first and then succeeded") (Brown, Malouff, & Schutte, 2005).
It can be concluded that both high self-efficacy and effective coping strategies protect athletes and have allowed them to rebound from the negative effects of poor performance (Jones & Hanton, 2001). Haney and Long (1995) stated that in sport competition, self-efficacy directly affects coping efforts and performance. They also suggested that coping may influence the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. It is recommended that future interventions in sport psychology should target two areas: self-efficacy enhancement and coping strategies.
Overview of Research Questions and Hypotheses
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self- efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players.
Three research questions and hypotheses were considered:
Ql: Is there a direct relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and performance
outcome in junior tennis players?
Hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy beliefs will be positively related to
performance outcome.
Q2: Is there a direct relationship between coping strategies and performance
outcome in junior tennis players?
Hypothesis 2. Coping strategies will be positively related to performance
outcome.
Q3: Is the relationship between coping strategies and performance outcome
affected in the presence of self-efficacy? 24
Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between coping strategies and
performance outcome is stronger in the presence of self-
efficacy. 25
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter contains a thorough description of the methodology used in the present research. First, there is a description of the participants. Then the research instruments are introduced, including the development of a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire. Thereafter, research procedures for data collection and operational definitions used are provided. Finally, this section ends with the statistical analysis used for this study.
Participants
A total of sixty-eight (n = 68) athletes participated in the study. Out of these 68 participants, 56 (82.4%) were male and 12 (17.6%) were female. All participants were competitive junior tennis players from Alberta, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia that competed between the 12 and under category and 18 and under category. The ages of the athletes ranged from 10 to 18 years (M= 14.44, SD = 1.99 years).
Research Instruments
Tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire: Instrument development. A general sport self-efficacy questionnaire was not sufficient for this study and the sport psychology literature was lacking a tennis-specific self-efficacy instrument. Therefore, a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire was created. The purpose of this questionnaire was to target self-efficacy beliefs about individual tennis skills in junior tennis players competing in tournaments. Instrument development required extensive research on items to be included. Several coaches in Nova Scotia were contacted about what skills should be included in the questionnaire. The initial list of questions was compiled and submitted to additional tennis coaches for their comments and suggestions on the following: 1) completeness of all the tennis skills and behaviours, 2) items clearly phrased, and 3) easily comprehensible for junior tennis players. The feedback from the coaches resulted in selected changes to the wording of instructions and item content. Finally, the revised list of questions was given to a sample of tennis players (n = 4) of a similar cohort to those who participated in the study and also coaches who teach junior players (n = 6).
Further minor adjustments were made to improve clarity for the athletes resulting in the final version of the questionnaire.
The finished product had 66 questions on specific tennis skills. These specific skills included: (a) technical skills (n= 46 skills; forehand, backhand, forehand volley, backhand volley, forehand half-volley, backhand half-volley, overhead, lob, 1st serve, 2nd serve, forehand return of serve, and backhand return of serve), (b) tactical skills (n= 14 skills; forehand counterattack, backhand counterattack, technical anticipation, and tactical anticipation), and (c) motivational skills (n= 6 skills; performance motivation and outcome motivation). Technical skills involved consistency, direction, depth, and body position (e.g., consistently hit a forehand crosscourt within 3 feet from the baseline is -
'technical-forehand'). Tactical skills involved consistency, direction, strategy, and anticipation (e.g., consistently counterattack against an opponent hitting an attacking shot
(hard or wide ball) is - 'tactical-forehand counterattack'). Motivational skills involved motivation during the point, and motivation to win (e.g., motivate oneself to hold every service game is - 'motivational-outcome motivation').
Bandura (1986) recommended that efficacy should be measured on a 0 to 100 percent scale to capture efficacy strength appropriately. All athletes were asked to rate 27 the confidence in their own skills and abilities using a 0-100 percent scale from no confidence (0%) to complete confidence (100%).
Modified-COPE. The Modified-COPE (MCOPE; 48 items) (Crocker & Graham,
1995), a coping strategies questionnaire, is comprised of nine scales from the original
COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) which include: active coping, planning, seeking instrumental social support, seeking emotional social support, suppression of competing activities, denial, humor, venting of emotion, and behavioral disengagement.
Three other scales that include wishful thinking, self-blame, and increased effort were added (Crocker, 1992; Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990). There are four questions for each scale. Athletes were asked to indicate how much they use particular coping strategies during a stressful performance situation on a 5-point scale from used very little
(1) to used very much (5). Thus, there is a total of 12 scores on the MCOPE, one for each strategy. Individual subscale scores range from 4 to 20 while the range for the entire
MCOPE is between 48 and 240. Lower scores indicate a lower usage of a specific coping strategy and higher scores indicate a higher usage. For the purpose of this research study, the stressful performance situation was a match in a tennis tournament. Results of both exploratory (Ntoumanis, Biddle, & Haddock, 1999) and confirmatory factor analyses
(Eklund, Grove, & Heard, 1998) provided reasonable support for the factorial structure of the MCOPE. There is extensive evidence for the reliability of the MCOPE scales
(Crocker & Graham, 1995; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002) and the validity of the MCOPE is proposed to hold true for both trait and state versions (Giacobbi Jr. & Weinberg, 2000).
The COPE and MCOPE are among the most commonly used measures in sport coping research (Hoar et al., 2006). 28
Performance outcome. The performance outcome measure was assessed by the athletes' winning percentages that were calculated using the results from the tournaments, which were freely available on the Tennis Alberta (www.tennisalberta.com) and Tennis
Nova Scotia (www.tennisnovascotia.ca) websites. For clarification, the athlete from New
Brunswick was playing in a Nova Scotia-sanctioned tournament.
Procedures
A letter of support was sent out to the Executive Director of Tennis Alberta (see
Appendix A). Ethics approval was attained (see Appendix B). The Executive Director and Technical Director of Tennis Alberta sent out an email to 354 junior members and coaches about the research study. Initial contact of participation with athletes, parents, and coaches was made through this mass email. Coaches had to be interested in the research in order for them to encourage their athletes to participate. Coaches from
Calgary and Edmonton recruited their athletes to participate and passed out consent forms and questionnaires so that they could fill them out before their match and return them to the investigator. Emails were also sent out to coaches in Nova Scotia for support (see
Appendix A) and so that they could recruit their athletes to participate. The data collection procedure was the same in Nova Scotia as it was in Alberta.
The investigator attended each tournament with several tournament packages, pencils, draw sheets, provincial and/or national rankings, seedings (specific tournament ranking), and the daily playing schedule. Each participant was given a research package to complete between approximately two days, and two hours prior to the first match of his/her respective tournament, which included an information letter (see Appendix C), parental consent form (see Appendix D), participation consent form (see Appendix E), demographic information sheet (see Appendix F), the tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire (see Appendix G), and the Modified-COPE (see Appendix H). Data were collected for only one tournament in which an athlete competed.
The questionnaires were administered individually by the investigator; however, athletes who obtained the consent form and questionnaires before the tournament were able to complete them at home approximately one day before competition and bring them to their first match of the tournament. Confidentiality of athletes' responses was enforced by immediately putting the questionnaires in a large sealed envelope. Questionnaires were completed by participants in approximately 30 minutes. For those athletes who forgot to bring the questionnaires to the tournament, they were contacted via email and asked to send the package in the mail in a sealed envelope.
Operational Definitions
This section focuses on the operational definitions of the two main themes in this study:
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy has to do with individuals' beliefs about their own skills and
abilities to perform the behavior required to produce the desired outcome
(Bandura, 1977,1986, 1997).
Coping
Coping is "constantly changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to
manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as
taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984, p. 141). 30
Statistical Analysis
Data were collected from a total of seven tournaments (six from Alberta, one from
Nova Scotia). All data analyses were conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences, v. 16.0 for Windows). Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were reported for all the subscales in the tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire and the MCOPE. Linear and multiple regression analyses and Pearson correlations were used to predict the direct relationships between a) self-efficacy beliefs and performance outcome, and b) coping strategies and performance outcome, in junior tennis players. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to examine the effect of coping on performance outcome in the presence of self-efficacy (i.e., entered self- efficacy subscales as the first block, then entered coping subscales as the second block and examined the significance of the F change with the associated degrees of freedom).
When examining the development of the tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire, the intention was to study three types of validity: content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity. More information about the validity and reliability of the tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire will be discussed in the limitations section.
Other analyses used in this study will be discussed in the Chapter 4 Results section. 31
CHAPTER4
RESULTS
This chapter begins with an independent samples t-test that was calculated to explore gender differences in problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. The purpose was to see whether or not the researchers should combine males and females in the same pool of data. The next sections provide the descriptive statistics and the results for the relationship between self-efficacy and performance outcome (i.e., winning percentage), and coping strategies and winning percentage using linear and multiple regression analyses and Pearson correlations. The following section provides a summary of the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses for the relationship between coping strategies and winning percentage in the presence of self-efficacy. Finally, an independent samples t-test was conducted to compare a high self-efficacy and low self- efficacy group on the responses to the MCOPE subscales.
Testing for Gender Differences
Given that the sport psychology literature focuses on the use of problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping in both males and females, an independent samples t- test was calculated to determine whether gender differences were present in this study.
There were no gender differences seen between the use of problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping (see Table 1). 32
Table 1 Independent Samples T-Test for Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping: Testing for Gender Differences Descriptive T-test Coping Gender N M SD t df P
Problem- Male 55 3.50 .52 -.700 65 .486 Focused Coping Female 12 3.62 .64
Emotion- Male 55 2.65 .60 1.716 65 .091 Focused Coping Female 12 2.33 .47
Note. N= 67. M (mean), SD (standard deviation).
There were no significant differences found between males and females in the use of problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping, therefore the data were collapsed and males and females were combined in the overall participant pool.
Descriptive Statistics
The study attracted a total of 68 participants. Table 2 illustrates the mean and standard deviation for the self-efficacy in each tennis skill provided by the tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire. SEtotal was defined as the total mean of all the self-efficacy scores on the tennis-specific skills. The mean and standard deviation for overall self- efficacy (SEtotal) was M= 70.37 (SD- 10.02). 33
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for the Tennis-Specific Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Measure M SD
SEtec Forehand 75.56 10.06
Backhand 69.34 12.00
Forehand Volley 75.89 10.24
Backhand Volley 71.40 12.68
Forehand Half-Volley 59.80 17.08
Backhand Half-Volley 56.14 17.74
Overhead 74.37 10.87
Lob 74.37 11.21
1st Serve 69.89 15.23
2nd Serve 72.16 14.26
Forehand Return of Serve 72.73 12.15
Backhand Return of Serve 68.74 13.20
SEtac Forehand Counterattack 70.68 12.90
Backhand Counterattack 64.76 15.08
Technical Anticipation 64.69 15.32
Tactical Anticipation 60.57 21.38
SEmot Performance Motivation 78.85 12.30
Outcome Motivation 79.18 14.41
SEtotal 70.37 10.02
Note. N= 68 athletes. SEtotal= Overall mean of Self-Efficacy; SEtec= Self-Efficacy Technical; SEtac= Self-Efficacy Tactical; SEmot= Self-Efficacy Motivational. Scores range from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). 34
The MCOPE consisted of 12 subscales with 4 items in each subscale. Each item was scored on a 5-point scale. Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation for each subscale of the MCOPE.
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the Modified-COPE Subscales MCOPE Subscales M SD
Seeking social support for instrumental reasons 3.13 0.85
Seeking social support for emotional reasons 3.01 0.94
Behavioural disengagement 1.61 0.75
Self-blame 3.29 0.71
Planning 3.52 0.74
Suppression of competing activities 3.20 0.66
Venting of emotions 2.62 1.10
Humor 2.17 0.98
Effort 4.12 0.63
Wishful thinking 3.16 0.95
Active coping 3.62 0.59
Denial 2.28 0.77
Note. N= 68 athletes. MCOPE= Modified-COPE questionnaire. MCOPE scores range from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). 35
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Performance Outcome
Ql: Is there a direct relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and performance
outcome in junior tennis players?
Hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy beliefs will be positively related to
performance outcome.
A total self-efficacy score (SEtotal) was calculated for each participant. SEtotal was the total mean of all the self-efficacy scores on the tennis-specific skills. A linear regression was conducted and 6.2% of the variance of winning percentage was explained by SEtotal (see Table 4). SEtotal was a significant predictor of winning percentage (b=
.811, t= 2.076, R2= .062, Adjusted R2= .048; AF (1, 65) = 4.31, p= .042: Y= -9.478 +
0.811 (SEtotal), where Y is winning percentage) (see Table 4).
Table 4 Results of Linear Regression Analysis: Self-Efficacy (SEtotal) Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players B SEofB P t P
SEtotal .811 .391 .249 2.076 .042*
Constant -9.478 27.757 -.341 .734
Note. SEtotal stands for total self-efficacy. SE of B stands for standard error of B. All efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). * p<.05
Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationship between self-efficacy in each skill and winning percentage. It was hypothesized that self-efficacy subscales would be positively related to winning percentage (Hypothesis 1). Colton (1974) stated that correlations from 0 to .25 (or -.25) indicate little or no relationship; those from .25 to
.50 (or -.25 to -.50) indicate a fair degree of relationship; those from .50 to .75 (or -.50 to 36
-.75) a moderate to good relationship; and those greater than .75 (or -.75) a very good to excellent relationship.
There was a relationship between winning percentage and self-efficacy on the backhand counterattack, technical anticipation, performance motivation, and outcome motivation. Only 4 subscales out of 18 supported Hypothesis 1 (see Table 5).
Correlations showed that there was little to no relationship between winning percentage and self-efficacy on the forehand, backhand, forehand volley, backhand volley, forehand half-volley, backhand half-volley, overhead, lob, 1st serve , 2nd serve, forehand return of serve, backhand return of serve, forehand counterattack, and tactical anticipation (see Table 5). 37
Table 5 Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between Self-Efficacy in each Tennis Skill and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players Measure r N P
Backhand Counterattack .284 66 .021*
Technical Anticipation .260 67 .033*
Performance Motivation .309 67 .011*
Outcome Motivation .286 67 .019*
Forehand .176 67 .155
Backhand .241 67 .050
Forehand Volley .202 67 .101
Backhand Volley .162 67 .189
Forehand Half-Volley .168 65 .180
Backhand Half-Volley .164 64 .196
Overhead .154 66 .216
Lob .072 66 .567
1st Serve .002 66 .988
2nd Serve .100 66 .425
arehand Return of Serve .228 66 .066
Backhand Return of Serve .186 66 .134
Forehand Counterattack .207 66 .095
Tactical Anticipation .217 67 .078
Note. All self-efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). *p<.05 38
The tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire was divided into three variables:
self-efficacy technical (SEtec), self-efficacy tactical (SEtac), and self-efficacy motivational (SEmot). The calculation of SEtec was the mean of all the self-efficacy
scores on the forehand, backhand, forehand volley, backhand volley, forehand half- volley, backhand half-volley, overhead, lob, 1st serve, 2" serve, forehand return of serve, and backhand return of serve. SEtac was the mean of all the self-efficacy scores on the forehand counterattack, backhand counterattack, technical anticipation, and tactical anticipation. SEmot was the mean of all the self-efficacy scores on performance motivation and outcome motivation. Pearson correlations showed relationships between
SEtac and winning percentage, and SEmot and winning percentage. There was no relationship between SEtec and winning percentage (see Table 6).
Table 6 Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between SEtec, SEtac, and SEmot and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players Measure r N p
SEtac 290 67 XH7*
SEmot .327 67 .007**
SEtec .182 67 .140
Note. SE stands for Self-Efficacy. SEtec = Self-Efficacy in technical skills, SEtac = Self- Efficacy in tactical skills, and SEmot = Self-Efficacy in motivational skills. All self- efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). *p<.05 **p<.01
Additional findings
Linear regression analysis showed that 8.4% of the variance of winning percentage was explained by SEtac. SEtac was a significant predictor of winning 39
percentage (b= .714, t= 2.439, R2- .084, Adjusted R2= .070; AF (1, 65) = 5.95, p= .017:
Y= 1.000 + .714(SEtac), where Y is winning percentage). 10.7% of the variance of
winning percentage was explained by SEmot. SEmot was a significant predictor of
winning percentage (b= .881, t= 2.789, R2= .107, Adjusted R2= .093; AF (1, 65) = 7.78,
p= .007: Y= -22.166 + .881 (SEmot), where Y is winning percentage). Finally, SEtec was
not a significant predictor of winning percentage (b= .595, t= 1.494, R = .033, Adjusted
R2= .018; AF (1, 65) = 2.23, p= .140: Y= 5.835 + .595(SEtec), where Y is winning
percentage) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Results of Linear Regression Analysis: Self-Efficacy Subscales Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players B SEofB P t P
SEtac .714 .293 .290 2.439 .017*
Constant 1.000 19.477 .051 .959
SEmot .881 .316 .327 2.789 .007**
Constant -22.166 25.293 -.876 .384
SEtec .595 .398 .182 1.494 .140
Constant 5.835 28.217 .207 .837
Note. SEtec = Self-Efficacy in technical skills, SEtac - Self-Efficacy in tactical skills, and SEmot = Self-Efficacy in motivational skills. SE of B stands for standard error of B. All efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). * p<.05 ** p<.01
Multiple regression analyses showed that 14.6% of the variance of winning percentage was explained by SEtec, SEtac, and SEmot, collectively. SEtec, SEtac, and
SEmot were significant predictors of winning percentage (R = .146, Adjusted R = .105; 40
AF (3, 63) = 3.58, p= .019: Y= .116 + (-1.105)(SEtec) + .904(SEtac) + .835 (SEmot)).
Individually, none of these variables were significant predictors of winning percentage
(see Table 8).
Table 8 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis: Self-Efficacy Subscales Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players Subscale B SEofB p t p
SEtec -1.105 J41 ^339 -1.492 J41
SEtac .904 .556 .366 1.625 .109
SEmot .835 .443 .310 1.883 .064
Constant .116 30.091 .004 .997
Note. SEtec = Self-Efficacy in technical skills, SEtac = Self-Efficacy in tactical skills, and SEmot = Self-Efficacy in motivational skills. SE of B stands for standard error of B. All efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). * p<.05 (R2= .146, Adjusted R2= .105; AF (3, 63) = 3.582, p= .019)
In summary, there was sufficient support for Hypothesis 1. The total self-efficacy
score (SEtotal) was a significant predictor of winning percentage. When SEtotal was
divided into three variables, SEtac and SEmot were positively related to winning percentage. When these three variables were broken up into the individual skills, only 4 out of 18 tennis-specific skills supported Hypothesis 1. 41
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome
Q2: Is there a direct relationship between coping strategies and performance
outcome in junior tennis players?
Hypothesis 2. Coping strategies will be positively related to performance
outcome.
Pearson correlations were also used to examine the relationship between different
coping strategies and winning percentage. It was hypothesized that coping strategies would be positively related to winning percentage (Hypothesis 2). There was a negative
correlation between winning percentage and behavioural disengagement, self-blame, and
humor. There was little to no relationship between winning percentage and seeking
social support for instrumental reasons, seeking social support for emotional reasons, planning, suppression of competing activities, venting of emotions, effort, wishful thinking, active coping, and denial (see Table 9). 42
Table 9 Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between Coping Strategies and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players MCOPE Subscales r N p
Behavioural disengagement -.337 66 .006**
Self-blame -.298 66 .015*
Humor -.361 66 .003**
Seeking social support for instrumental reasons -.053 66 .670
Seeking social support for emotional reasons -.187 66 .133
Planning .053 66 .674
Suppression of competing activities -.064 66 .611
Venting of emotions -.230 66 .063
Effort -.020 66 .872
Wishful thinking -.054 66 .669
Active coping .114 66 .360
Denial -.196 66 .114
Note. Scores were on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). *p<.05 **p<.01
A linear regression analysis on all the MCOPE subscales and winning percentage was conducted and found that 11.3% of the variance of winning percentage was
explained by behavioural disengagement. Behavioural disengagement was a negative predictor of winning percentage (b= -14.431, t= -2.860, R2= .113, Adjusted R2= .099; AF
(1, 64) = 8.18, p=.006: Y= 69.798 + (-14.43 l)(Behavioural disengagement), where Y is winning percentage). 8.9% of the variance of winning percentage was explained by self- 43 blame. Self-blame was a negative predictor of winning percentage (b= -13.571, t= -
2.496, R2= .089, Adjusted R2= .074; AF (1, 64) = 6.23, p= .015: Y= 91.405 + (-
13.571)(Self-blame), where Y is winning percentage). 13% of the variance of winning percentage was explained by humor. Humor was a negative predictor of winning percentage (b= -11.794, t= -3.092, R2= .130, Adjusted R2= .116; AF (1, 64) = 9.56, p=
.003: Y= 72.321 + (-11.794)(Humor), where Y is winning percentage) (see Table 10). 44
Table 10 Results of Linear Regression Analysis: MCOPE Subscales Predicting Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players MCOPE B SEof 0 t p R2 AF df Subscales B Behavioural - 5.045 -.337 -2.860 .006** .113 8.181 1,64 disengagement 14.431
Constant 69.798 8.898 7.844 .000**
Self-blame - 5.436 -.298 -2.496 .015* .089 6.232 1,64 13.571
Constant 91.405 18.288 4.998 .000**
Humor - 3.814 -.361 -3.092 .003** .130 9.561 1,64 11.794
Constant 72.321 9.075 7.969 .000**
Seeking social -2.033 4.754 -.053 -.428 .670 .003 .183 1,64 support for instrumental reasons
Constant 53.111 15.367 3.456 .001**
Seeking social -6.403 4.208 -.187 -1.521 .133 .035 2.315 1,64 support for emotional reasons
Constant 65.935 13.203 4.994 .000**
Planning 2.310 5.460 .053 .423 .674 .003 .179 1,64
Constant 38.657 19.589 1.973 .053 45
Suppression of -3.089 6.044 -.064 -.511 .611 .004 .261 1,64 competing activities
Constant 56.657 19.764 2.867 .006**
Venting of -6.748 3.570 -.230 -1.890 .063 .053 3.573 1,64 emotions
Constant 64.481 10.155 6.350 .000**
Effort -1.031 6.370 -.020 -.162 .872 .000 .026 1,64
Constant 51.021 26.581 1.919 .059
Wishful -1.817 4.235 -.054 -.429 .669 .003 .184 1,64 thinking
Constant 52.506 13.969 3.759 .000**
Active coping 6.253 6.789 .114 .921 .360 .013 .848 1,64
Constant 24.165 24.863 .972 .335
Denial -8.212 5.129 -.196 -1.601 .114 .039 2.564 1,64
Constant 65.492 12.341 5.307 .000**
Note. MCOPE stands for the Modified-COPE questionnaire. All MCOPE scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). *p<.05 **p<.01
Additional findings
According to Lane and colleagues (2002), the subscales in the MCOPE could be
broken up into problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. The problem- 46
focused coping group included: seeking social support for instrumental reasons, planning,
suppression of competing activities, effort, and active coping. The emotion-focused
coping group included: seeking social support for emotional reasons, behavioral
disengagement, self-blame, venting of emotions, humor, wishful thinking, and denial.
In this current study, there was a significant negative correlation found between the emotion-focused coping group and winning percentage and no significant correlation
found between the problem-focused coping group and winning percentage (see Table 11).
Table 11 Pearson Correlations to Examine the Relationship between Problem-Focused Coping, Emotion-Focused Coping, and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players Measure R N p
Emotion-Focused -.349 66 .004** Coping
Problem-Focused .002 66 .986 Coping
Note. Problem-focused coping group included 5 subscales; Emotion-focused coping group included 7 subscales. All MCOPE scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). *p<.05 **p<.01 A linear regression was conducted on emotion-focused coping and winning percentage and problem-focused coping and winning percentage. 12.2 % of the variance of winning percentage was explained by emotion-focused coping. Emotion-focused coping was a negative predictor of winning percentage (b= -18.952, t= -2.979, R2= .122,
Adjusted R2= .108; AF (1, 64) = 8.872, p= .004: Y= 95.800 + (-18.952)(Emotion-focused coping), where Y is winning percentage). Problem-focused coping was not a significant predictor of winning percentage (b= .134, t= .018, R2= .000, Adjusted R2= -.016; AF (1, 64) = .000, p= .986: Y= 46.295 + . 134(Problem-focused coping), where Y is winning
percentage) (see Table 12).
Table 12 Linear Regression Analysis on the Relationship between Problem-Focused Coping and Winning Percentage and Emotion-Focused Coping and Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players MCOPE Subscales B SEofB p t p
Emotion-Focused -18.952 6.363 -.349 -2.979 .004** Coping 95.800 16.887 5.673 .000** Constant
Problem-Focused .134 7.530 .002 .018 .986 Coping 46.295 26.770 1.729 .089 Constant
Note. Problem-focused coping group included 5 subscales, Emotion-focused coping group included 7 subscales. All MCOPE scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). *p<.05 **p<.01
A multiple regression analysis was conducted on problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and winning percentage, which showed that 12.2 % of the variance of winning percentage was explained by problem-focused coping and emotion- focused coping (R2= .122, Adjusted R2= .094; AF (2, 63) = 4.371, p= .017: Y= 93.778 +
.584(Problem-focused coping) + (-18.964)(Emotion-focused coping), where Y is winning percentage). When you compare the results from the multiple regression analysis and the linear regression analysis earlier, emotion-focused coping is found to be a negative predictor of winning percentage (b= -18.964, t= -2.956, p= .004), whereas problem- focused coping had no affect on winning percentage (see Table 13). 48
Table 13 Results of Multiple Regression Analysis: Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping as Significant Predictors of Winning Percentage in Junior Tennis Players Subscale B SEofB p t p
Emotion-Focused -18.964 6.414 -.349 -2.956 .004** Coping
Problem-Focused .584 7.114 .010 .082 .935 Coping
Constant 93.778 29.954 3.131 .003**
Note. Problem-focused coping group included 5 subscales, Emotion-focused coping group included 7 subscales. All MCOPE scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). *p<.05 **p<01 (R*= .122, Adjusted R2= .094; AF (2, 63) = 4.371, p= .017)
In summary, there was not enough evidence to support Hypothesis 2. None of the coping strategies were positively related to winning percentage. There were some coping strategies that were negatively correlated with winning percentage. These coping strategies all fit in the category of emotion-focused coping. From the results above, emotion-focused coping is a negative predictor of winning percentage. This will be discussed later in the next chapter. 49
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome in the presence of
Self-Efficacy
Q3: Is the relationship between coping strategies and performance outcome
affected in the presence of self-efficacy?
Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between coping strategies and
performance outcome is stronger in the presence of self-
efficacy.
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to see the effect of coping on winning percentage in the presence of self-efficacy (i.e., entered SEtotal as the first block, then entered problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping as the second block and examined the significance of the F change with the associated degrees of freedom).
9.6% of the variance of winning percentage was explained by emotion-focused and problem-focused coping. Emotion-focused and problem-focused coping were negative predictors of winning percentage, in the presence of self-efficacy (AR = .096; AF (2, 62)
= 3.450, p= .038: Y= 64.064 + (.491)(SEtotal) + (-2.200)(Problem-Focused Coping) + (-
16.983)(Emotion-Focused Coping), where Y is winning percentage). Individually, only emotion-focused coping was a negative predictor of winning percentage (b- -16.983, t= -
2.567, p= .013), therefore it is the variable that is affecting the change in winning percentage. SEtotal and problem-focused coping were not significant predictors of winning percentage (see Table 14). 50
Table 14 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Effect of Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping on Winning Percentage in the Presence of Self-Efficacy. Block Variable B SEofB P t P
I SEtotal .697 .401 .213 1.741 .087
Constant -2.098 28.343 -.074 .941
AR'= .045, Adjusted R2= .030; AF (1,64)= 3.031l,p=.08 7
II SEtotal .491 .419 .150 1.170 .246
Problem-Focused -2.200 7.481 -.037 -.294 .770 Coping
Emotion-Focused -16.983 6.616 -.313 -2.567 .013* Coping
Constant 64.064 39.200 1.634 .107
AR2= .096; AF (2, 62)= 3.450, p= .038
Note. All efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). All MCOPE scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). SE of B stands for standard error of B * p<.05
A second hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to see the effect of coping on winning percentage in the presence of self-efficacy (i.e., entered SEtec, SEtac, and SEmot as the first block, then entered problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping as the second block and examined the significance of the F change with the associated degrees of freedom). Emotion-focused and problem-focused coping were not significant predictors of winning percentage, in the presence of self-efficacy (AR2- .078;
AF (2, 60) = 2.971, p= .059: Y= 78.547 + (-1.255)(SEtec) + (.990)(SEtac) +
(.612)(SEmot) + (-5.156)(Problem-Focused Coping) + (-14.875)(Emotion-Focused
Coping), where Y is winning percentage). However, individually emotion-focused 51
coping was a negative predictor of winning percentage (b= -14.875, t= -2.161, p= .035).
SEtec, SEtac, SEmot, and problem-focused coping were not significant predictors of
winning percentage (see Table 15).
Table 15 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Effect of Problem-Focused Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping on Winning Percentage in the Presence of Self-Efficacy (SEtec, SEtac, SEmot) Block Variable B SEofB 0 t p
1 SEtec -1.215 ?740 7369 -1.641 .106
SEtac .870 .553 .351 1.573 .121
SEmot .858 .441 .321 1.947 .056
Constant 7.545 30.373 .248 .805
ARi= .137, Adjusted R*= .095; AF (3, 62)= 3.278, p= .027
1 SEtec -1.255 J19 381 -1.746 .086
SEtac .990 .539 .399 1.837 .071
SEmot .612 .480 .229 1.276 .207
Problem-Focused -5.156 7.686 -.086 -.671 .505 Coping
Emotion-Focused -14.875 6.884 -.274 -2.161 .035*
Coping
Constant 78.547 41.478 1.894 .063
AR2= .078; AF (2, 60)= 2.971, p= .059 Note. All efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). All MCOPE scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). SE of B stands for standard error of B. * p<.05 52
From the two previous hierarchical regression analyses, emotion-focused coping,
in the presence of self-efficacy was a negative predictor of winning percentage. One final
analysis was performed (i.e., entered SEtec, SEtac, and SEmot as the first block, then
entered emotion-focused coping as the second block and examined the significance of the
F change with the associated degrees of freedom). 7.2% of the variance of winning
percentage was explained by emotion-focused coping in the presence of self-efficacy
(SEtec, SEtac, SEmot). Again, emotion-focused coping was a negative predictor to winning percentage in the presence of self-efficacy (AR2= .072; AF (1, 61) = 5.542, p=
.022: Y= 71.773 + (-1.271)(SEtec) + (.998)(SEtac) + (.506)(SEmot) + (-
15.804)(Emotion-Focused Coping), where Y is winning percentage) (see Table 16). 53
Table 16 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Effect of Emotion-Focused Coping on Winning Percentage in the Presence of Self-Efficacy (SEtec, SEtac, SEmot)
Block Variable B SEofB (3 t p
I SEtec -1.215 J40 369 -1.641 .106
SEtac .870 .553 .351 1.573 .121
SEmot .858 .441 .321 1.947 .056
Constant 7.545 30.373 .248 .805
AR2= .137, Adjusted R2= .095; AF (3, 62)= 3.278, p= .027
II SEtec -1.271 .715 -.385 -1.777 Ml
SEtac .998 .537 .403 1.860 .068
SEmot .506 .451 .190 1.122 .266
Emotion- -15.804 6.713 -.291 -2.354 .022* Focused
Coping
Constant 71.773 40.048 1.792 .078
AR^= .072; AF (1, 61)= 5.542, p= .022 Note. All efficacy scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence). All MCOPE scores were obtained on a scale ranging from 1 (used very little) to 5 (used very much). SE of B stands for standard error of B. * p<.05
In summary, the results show partial support for Hypothesis 3. In the presence of self-efficacy, emotion-focused coping was a negative predictor of winning percentage, whereas problem-focused coping was not found to be a predictor of winning percentage. Supplementary Analyses and Research Findings
High Self-Efficacy vs. Low Self-Efficacy
The overall self-efficacy score (SEtotal) was calculated previously and there was an interest to examine the differences between athletes that had a high SEtotal versus a
low SEtotal. Based on the frequency distributions of the scores on SEtotal, there was a
subjective criteria formed to distinguish the low self-efficacy group from the high self- efficacy group. High self-efficacy and low self-efficacy were based on a tertile split
(Preacher, Rucker, MacCallum, & Nicewander, 2005). If SEtotal was less than or equal to 60, this group was the low SEtotal group (gpl). If SEtotal was greater than or equal to
75 and less than or equal to 100, this group was the high SEtotal group (gp2). The athletes that had a SEtotal between 61-74 were not included in this specific statistical analysis because it was difficult to differentiate between high self-efficacy and low self- efficacy with scores that were so close together.
An independent samples t-test was performed to see if there were any significant differences between high SEtotal and low SEtotal on the different coping strategy subscales. There was a significant difference between high self-efficacy athletes and low self-efficacy athletes with respect to effort and wishful thinking. High self-efficacy athletes increased effort significantly more and used wishful thinking significantly less than low self-efficacy athletes. The use of active coping was almost statistically significant between high and low self-efficacy athletes (see Table 17). 55
Table 17 Independent Samples T-Test for MCOPE Subscales: Testing for High vs. Low Self- Efficacy^ Descriptive T-test MCOPE Subscales Self- N M SD t df p Efficacy Effort Low 12 3.81 .59 -3.058 32 .004**
High 22 4.41 .51
Wishful Thinking Low 12 3.54 .77 3.344 32 .002**
High 22 2.63 .76
Seeking Social Support Low 12 2.78 .76 -1.781 32 .084 for Instrumental Reasons High 22 3.33 .90
Seeking Social Support Low 12 2.86 .95 -.736 32 .467 for Emotional Reasons High 22 3.13 1.02
Behavioural Low 12 1.69 .83 1.513 32 .140 Disengagement High 22 1.31 .65
Self-blame Low 12 3.53 .81 1.852 32 .073
High 22 3.01 .76
Planning Low 12 3.23 .89 -1.701 32 .099
High 22 3.72 .74
Suppression of Low 12 3.10 .85 -.127 32 .899 Competing Activities High 22 3.14 .75
Venting of Emotions Low 12 2.31 1.27 -.352 32 .727
High 22 2.47 1.19
Humor Low 12 2.52 1.26 1.522 32 .138
High 22 1.95 .90 56
Active Coping Low 12 3.44 .67 -2.025 32 .051
High 22 3.90 .60
Denial Low 12 2.43 .80 .881 32 .385
High 22 2.18 .78
Note. N= 34. M (mean), SD (standard deviation). Low Self-Efficacy = SEtotal less than or equal to 60. High Self-Efficacy = SEtotal greater than or equal to 75 and less than or equal to 100. *p< .05 **p< .01
A corresponding non-parametric procedure (Mann-Whitney U test) was also performed and the statistical conclusions were consistent with the results from the
Independent Samples T-Test.
Based on Tabachnick and Fidell (1989), the minimum number of subjects for each predictor in a regression analysis should be 5-to-l. In this exploratory study, 68 participants was sufficient to come to the conclusions, but should still be interpreted with caution. However, it may provide excellent information to do effect size estimation for the larger and similar study in the future.
A power analysis (Lachin, 1981) was conducted to see, in the future, how many participants would be needed in each group (high self-efficacy and low self-efficacy) to find a difference of 1 in the means on each of the coping subscales (see Table 18). 57
Table 18 Sample Size Calculation per Group: High Self-Efficacy and Low Self-Efficacy (at an alpha level of 0.05) Power Dependent True Variables Difference 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 to detect Effort 1 6 7 8 10
Wishful 1 10 11 13 16 Thinking
Seeking Social 1 13 15 18 22 Support for Instrumental Reasons
Seeking Social 1 17 19 22 28 Support for Emotional Reasons
Behavioural 1 11 13 15 18 Disengagement
Self-Blame 1 11 12 14 18
Planning 1 13 15 17 21
Suppression of 1 12 13 16 19 Competing Activities
Venting of 1 26 29 34 42 Emotions
Humor 1 25 29 34 42
Active Coping 1 8 9 10 12
Denial 1 11 12 14 17 58
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study was twofold: First, the researcher created a tennis-
specific self-efficacy questionnaire. This questionnaire was developed to target confidence levels on tennis-specific skills. The second part of this study answered three research questions. The first research question examined the relationship between self- efficacy beliefs and performance outcome (i.e., winning percentage). Secondly, the relationship between different coping strategies and winning percentage was examined.
Finally, the third question determined if a relationship between coping strategies and winning percentage was affected in the presence of self-efficacy.
Measurement of Self-Efficacy
One of the main purposes of this study was to create a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire that could be used when examining the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and winning percentage. Another intention was to use this questionnaire for future research and to circulate the questionnaire as a coaching tool.
Tennis coaches can use this self-efficacy questionnaire to evaluate an athlete's self-confidence in technical, tactical, and motivational skills (i.e., his/her strengths and weaknesses in these skills). The expectations and feedback from the coaches can have a crucial impact on a player's confidence and on his/her future performance. Both the coach and athlete can set a goal and plan a six-week training schedule to increase self- efficacy in certain skills. At the end of the six weeks, the athlete can complete the self- efficacy questionnaire again and the coach and athlete can re-evaluate the athlete's confidence levels. This provides a subjective evaluation of an athlete's self-confidence 59
and can quantify the level of improvement as well as determining what areas still need
work. This can be done in conjunction with self-modeling tapes, where an athlete watches his/her own performance on a video tape to observe and make improvements.
Watching tapes with a coach who can review and analyze all aspects of the game can be very beneficial and the progress shown on the tapes can increase an athlete's self- efficacy. Both these coaching tools can be used on beginner, intermediate, and advanced players. Unfortunately, a number of athletes shy away from working on their weaknesses in practice and tend to focus on their strengths. With the guidance of the self-efficacy questionnaire, training schedules can be structured and altered depending on what needs to be improved to assist in the development of junior tennis players.
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Performance Outcome
Hypothesis 1 stated that self-efficacy beliefs would be positively related to performance outcome. More specifically, the confidence scores on each of the tennis- specific skills would be directly related to winning percentage in junior tennis players.
There was some support for this hypothesis. The total self-efficacy score (SEtotal) was a significant predictor of winning percentage and self-efficacy tactical (SEtac) and self- efficacy motivational (SEmot) were both positively correlated with winning percentage.
Only four tennis-specific skills (i.e., backhand counterattack, technical anticipation, performance motivation, and outcome motivation) were positively correlated with winning percentage.
Bandura (1977, 1982) considered performance accomplishments as the most powerful source of efficacy expectations. In tennis, practicing the skills and strategies and successfully executing them can help build confidence to use them during an actual match. The confidence in a certain skill and/or strategy at a critical time in the match
comes from the confidence already gained in practice and in practice matches. Weinberg,
Grove, and Jackson (1992) reiterated that previous research showed that confidence is an
important variable in competitive performance, with successful athletes being
distinguished by their belief in themselves and their abilities.
Both backhand counterattack and technical anticipation (see Appendix G) fall under the SEtac category. For the majority of junior tennis players, the backhand is weaker than the forehand. During practice, coaches incorporate tactical suggestions to attack the backhand in hope that the athlete executes this shot at a critical time during a match. When counterattacking, the athlete is on the defensive and the goal is to neutralize the advantage of the opponent. Therefore, when the athlete is faced with this situation he/she needs an effective response. The ability to be confident and successful in a backhand counterattack is an advanced skill that is crucial in tennis. The backhand counterattack also relies on the ability to anticipate shots well. Technical anticipation is the ability to read and react to an opponent's body position and racket tendencies.
Having confidence and accuracy in this skill allows one to get to the ball faster and thus, have more time to set up for the next shot.
Both performance and outcome motivation (see Appendix G) fall under the
SEmot category. The positive correlation between motivation and winning percentage is expected because the ability to stay motivated throughout a match even after a mistake or a call against the athlete is a prerequisite for success. Motivation has been defined as the direction and intensity of effort (Weinberg & Gould, 2003) and once an athlete develops this motivation, the focus becomes positive, goal oriented, and anxiety reducing. 61
Bandura (1986, 1997) stated that self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for human motivation, i.e., unless one believes his/her actions can produce the desired outcomes, he/she will have little incentive to continue when faced with obstacles. Bob Brett, a high performance consultant with Tennis Canada and a renowned coach of athletes that included Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic, Andrei Medvedev, Mario Ancic, and currently
Marin Cilic revealed that a lack of motivation was more of a reason for losing matches than physical disadvantages when working with the top men's tennis player from China in 2007 (Rui, 2007).
Coaching will be an important factor in self-efficacy enhancement because mastery of a skill and success in a sport builds self-efficacy (Haney & Long, 1995).
During a tennis match, self-efficacy fluctuates repeatedly so coaches and sport psychologists should work together to limit the decrease in self-efficacy and incorporate skills to increase or maintain self-efficacy.
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome
Hypothesis 2 stated that coping strategies would be positively related to performance outcome. The results showed that there were no coping strategies positively related to performance outcome, but behavioural disengagement, self-blame, and humor were negatively correlated with winning percentage in junior tennis players. Therefore, not all coping strategies are beneficial and some actually impede on winning.
Giacobbi Jr. and Weinberg (2000) examined the relationship between anxiety and coping strategies and found similar results as the current findings above. They showed that in response to stress, athletes with high trait anxiety used behavioural disengagement, self-blame, humor, denial, and wishful thinking significantly more than athletes with low 62 trait anxiety. Giacobbi Jr. and Weinberg (2000) continued that in theoretical and practical thinking, negative performances due to high levels of anxiety could potentially be explained by the maladaptive coping strategies.
Behavioural disengagement (e.g., I could not deal with my performance and stopped trying) is the act of giving up, losing interest, and having a lack of motivation.
Tennis is unique because athletes are alone on the court (for singles) with no assistance from their coaches, there are approximately 15 seconds in between each point, and matches are the best 2 out of 3 sets (in juniors). Tennis players need to have the ability to cope with a poor performance in a certain point, game, or set and be able to regroup and refocus. With the negativity that revolves around a lack of effort and showing defeat, it is no surprise that behavioural disengagement is negatively correlated with winning percentage.
Past and present professional tennis players have had on-court outbursts that have become notorious in sports. John McEnroe is a classic example of a tennis player who often found someone, including himself, to blame for an unforced error. He would prolong this outburst by criticizing and belittling himself or others, especially the umpires
(Schwartz, 2007). Just recently, Mikhail Youzhny made an unforced error during a match and then proceeded to hit himself in the head with his racket three times, which led to him cutting his head open and needing medical assistance (Wyett, 2008). What follows these outbursts? The answer to that question is probably more related to winning percentage. Does the athlete regain his/her composure? Does the athlete let his/her emotions get out of control? An athlete who can cope with the loss of a crucial point, game, and set still has the ability to compete in the match, but this does not necessarily 63
mean that he/she will win the match. An athlete who proceeds to blame oneself for
mistakes and loses all his/her match focus may not only show this body language to
his/her opponent, but at this point, the athlete may feel helpless and that the match is
quickly unraveling, which will often lead to defeat.
After reviewing the items of the self-blame subscale, some are not necessarily poor characteristics. Two out of the four items show the ability of an athlete to take ownership of his/her performance and not make excuses for poor performance (e.g., I decided I was at fault for my performance; I took responsibility for what had happened).
The other two items are perceived as more negative (e.g., I blamed myself for the
situation; I criticized or lectured myself). Therefore, the self-blame subscale is constructed of two positive items and two negative items and there is a possibility that the participants responded differently to these four items.
The use of humor as a coping mechanism raises some debate. One theory states that positive humor acts as a coping strategy by moderating the effects of stress through more positive appraisals (Kuiper & Martin, 1998). In this situation positive humor was considered to be a form of approach coping. Erickson and Feldstein (2007) expected that negative humor would be associated with avoidance coping, although currently not addressed in the research literature.
Dale (2000) examined different coping strategies elite decathletes used during their most memorable performances. One athlete described the camaraderie he had with his friends and how "joking around with the other guys" between events helped him refocus on his next event. "I was joking around and having fun. It helped me relax some. At the World
Championships having fun with the team and having fun in.. .which goes hand in
hand with doing well.
I was like, 'Oh #$%*&, you blew it here.' So I went back and joked around with
the guys and tried to stay relaxed and I took my second jump and made it. Those
guys really help me keep things in perspective sometimes.
So I joked around with everybody and when I saw that it was close to being time
for me to go, I grabbed my headphones, put my headphones on, and just kind of
started getting fired up. They helped me take my mind off the pressure." (Dale,
2000, p. 36)
In this situation, joking around seemed to have a positive outcome. If humor is used to release a past mistake, there is still time to regroup and refocus.
Laughter is the physical release that is associated with a humorous event, but laughter is not always a response to humor. Other reasons for laughter might include nervousness, feeling embarrassed, inadequate knowledge and skill, and release of tension.
If humor is used with a negative connotation after a point, the athlete might have difficulty refocusing for the next point. There are other negative aspects of humor in sport where the intention is to enhance the self-esteem of one person or group at the disparagement of others (Snyder, 1991). The limited research done on humor and coping with younger samples suggests that the use of humor may increase with age and differ by gender (Erickson & Feldstein, 2007). Future studies should initiate the use of humor as long as humor is serving a positive purpose. 65
The amount of stress experienced by an athlete is thought to be a function of the perceived situational demands, mediated by the coping strategies used by the athlete
(Kowalski, Crocker, Hoar, & Niefer, 2005). Aside from the situational demands on the
court in the current study, the beginning of the tournament season coincided with the end
of the school year for most of the athletes (end of May - beginning of June). Some of them were competing in the tournaments in the middle of their exam timetable. On top of that, some older athletes were studying for their SAT's (Scholastic Aptitude Test), a standardized test for college admissions in the United States. This is a stressful time for these athletes both on and off the court and their performance results are sometimes affected.
Due to the individual differences between the athletes, the 12 different coping strategies used in the MCOPE were not inclusive of all the coping strategies an athlete could use in competition (e.g., self-talk). Similarly, the intra-individual nature of the coping process was displayed by the wide range of coping strategies reported by the sample of golfers in the study by Giacobbi Jr., Foore, & Weinberg (2004). Also, the idea that individual athletes are ultimately responsible for their own actions and performance and cannot attribute performance to teammates could explain the use of more coping strategies (Nicholls & Polman, 2007).
Relationship between Coping Strategies and Performance Outcome in the presence of
Self-Efficacy
Hypothesis 3 stated that the positive relationship between coping strategies and performance outcome would be stronger in the presence of self-efficacy. There was not enough evidence to show support for Hypothesis 3. In the presence of self-efficacy, emotion-focused coping was a negative predictor of winning percentage. Problem-
focused coping was not found to be a predictor of winning percentage in the presence of
self-efficacy.
Problem-focused strategies are more effective in promoting positive adaptational outcomes in controllable situations, versus emotion-focused strategies are more effective in uncontrollable situations (Aldwin, 2000; Folkman, 1984). There can be an assumption that in sports, a controllable situation is more positive than an uncontrollable situation.
Situations where an athlete feels in control gives him/her confidence in the skills necessary for performance. As discussed above, confidence can lead to enhanced performance and therefore, a higher winning percentage.
After a loss, some athletes say "I am so bad" or "I quit". These are phrases that resemble self-blame and behavioural disengagement, respectively, and are also grouped under emotion-focused coping. They are also examples of low self-efficacy which lead to a lowered positive affect. It is important to find a method of building, managing, and preserving self-efficacy because this is very important for tennis players (Weinberg et al.,
1992).
Supplementary Findings
In this research study, there was an interest in the comparison between high self- efficacy and low self-efficacy athletes. The results revealed that high self-efficacy athletes used more effort (problem-focused coping strategy) than low self-efficacy athletes. Also, low self-efficacy athletes used more wishful thinking (emotion-focused coping strategy) than high self-efficacy athletes. Those athletes that use more effort (e.g., I tried to increase the quality of my performance; I put more effort into my play) already have a high self-efficacy because they are striving for success versus fearing failure. An athlete who possesses the ability to cope with a situation by working harder will put oneself in a winning situation more often than if an athlete gives up.
Lane and colleagues (2002) suggested that self-esteem influences the appraisal process, which is an important component of the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997).
Although self-efficacy and self-esteem are not synonymous, Lane and colleagues (2002)
stated that individuals high in self-esteem protect self-efficacy more than individuals low in self-esteem, and in their study coded self-esteem scores as either a high self-esteem group or a low self-esteem group based on a median split. Lane and colleagues (2002) found that high self-esteem individuals reported high scores on seeking social support for instrumental reasons, planning, and increasing effort, which are problem-focused coping strategies, whereas low self-esteem was associated with a tendency to use behavioral disengagement, self-blame, and humor, and wishful thinking which are emotion-focused coping strategies. Lane and colleagues (2002) also stated that the individuals that used more wishful thinking doubted their positive abilities and focused on their negative ones and lacked the belief that they could overcome the challenge or achieve a certain goal.
Limitations and Future Directions
There is limited empirical literature related to self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in junior tennis players and there is no standardized tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire for this population. Thus, this study involved the development of a tennis- 68 specific self-efficacy questionnaire with junior tennis players and subsequently, the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome.
The following limitations are discussed with regard to the present study. First, the number of participants (n= 68) only included three provinces in Canada. An advantage of the sample collected is that junior tournaments in Alberta are sometimes composed of top-ranked junior tennis players in Canada along with less experienced players. At
National events, Team Alberta usually places in the top four. The disparity in the level of play in Alberta should be representative of the disparity in Canada. Unfortunately, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick only have a select few that are competitive at the National level. Therefore, it would be recommended that future studies have a larger sample size with participants from all the Canadian provinces.
Obtaining participants was a challenge because some parents believed that their child needed more physical instruction before he/she needed to improve mentally. This was a situation that could have been resolved by talking to more coaches to encourage, and recommend their athletes to participate and stress the importance of mental training.
Questionnaire Approach
The present investigation raises some limitations to the questionnaire approach.
The tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire was not subjected to an intense validation procedure, but content validity and face validity were present. At the beginning of the study, the researcher piloted the self-efficacy questionnaire to coaches and athletes of all age categories. They were able to examine the items in the questionnaire to establish that they represent relevant information and skills in tennis. The researcher received feedback to improve the items to make it more comprehensible for all ages. This tennis-specific 69 self-efficacy questionnaire is the first of its kind, therefore, this research study was exploratory in nature and researchers should be encouraged to conduct further analyses on the tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire and use this instrument for future studies so that this instrument can become psychometrically valid and reliable.
Younger and/or less experienced participants might have had more difficulty answering the items in the two questionnaires than the older and/or more experienced participants. An assumption was made that the participants who compete in the larger junior tournaments are higher caliber players and will be representative of a competitive pool that comprehends the items in the questionnaires. Future research could compare self-efficacy and coping strategies in different age groups (e.g., Under-12 versus Under-
18). Based on Baron and Kenny's (1986) definition of moderators, age, sex, skill level, and experience level could potentially be moderators in this situation. In future studies where there is a larger sample size, variables created by tertile splits should have an equal number of participants based on the above sample size calculations performed on the high self-efficacy group and low self-efficacy group.
During the tournaments, there were many uncontrollable factors that could have affected the results of this study, including the tournament draw, weather conditions, court surface, and scoring format. An athlete's prediction of where he/she will finish in the tournament all depends on the draw and what kind of matchup one has with his/her opponent, e.g., if an athlete is the 5th ranked player in the province and they only seed 4 players, it is possible that this 5th ranked player might have to play the 1st seed in the first or second round. If so, his/her outcome prediction would be different than if he/she had to play an unranked player. Also, the measure of success in a tournament can be interpreted differently. The
score of a match against a more dominant player can measure one's success at the tournament. Depending on past encounters, it could be considered a successful performance if the 5th ranked player took the 1st seed to 3 sets.
There were a couple of outdoor tournaments that were delayed due to rain and were moved indoors. The court surface (e.g., clay court to an indoor hard court or indoor carpet court) and scoring format (e.g., 2 out of 3 sets with short sets going to 4) changed because of time constraints and access to a limited amount of indoor courts.
Conclusions
The mental aspect of tennis is evident, whether one is playing the sport or watching it on television. Stress during sport performance occurs in a physically and psychologically demanding context, where an athlete may only have a couple of seconds to utilize a coping strategy. Conducting a study on the relationship between performance outcome and each of self-efficacy and coping allowed for significant progress in the sport psychology literature on tennis.
Self-efficacy was a significant predictor of winning percentage and positive relationships were found between self-efficacy and winning percentage on backhand counterattack, technical anticipation, performance motivation, and outcome motivation.
There was also a negative relationship between winning percentage and behavioural disengagement, self-blame, and humor. From these results, there needs to be more awareness of the importance of confidence in tennis-specific skills and coping strategies in order to develop a more complete athlete. The physiological differences between high performance athletes may be minimal, but the area where differences in athletic 71 performance occur may be a product of psychological resources. The results of this study will hopefully spark the interest of coaches and sport psychologists to improve athletes' self-efficacy and develop coping strategies that may be implemented in training and competition. 72
CHAPTER 6
REFERENCES
Aldwin, CM. (2000). Stress, coping and development: An integrative perspective. New
York: Guilford Press.
Anshel, M.H. (1990). Toward validation of a model for coping with acute stress in sport.
International Journal of 'Sport Psychology, 21, 58-83.
Anshel, M.H. (1996). Coping styles among adolescent competitive athletes. Journal of
Social Psychology, 136,311-324.
Anshel, M.H. (2001). Qualitative validation of a model for coping with acute stress in
sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 223-246.
Anshel, M.H., & Anderson, D.I. (2002). Coping with acute stress in sport: Linking
athletes' coping style, coping strategies, affect, and motor performance. Anxiety,
Stress, and Coping, 15, 193-209.
Anshel, M.H., Brown, D.F., & Brown, J.M. (1993). Effectiveness of an acute stress
coping program on motor performance, muscle tension, and affect. Australian
Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, 25, 7-16.
Anshel, M.H., & Gregory, W.L. (1990). The effectiveness of a stress training program in
coping with criticism in sport: A test of the COPE model. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 13, 194-217.
Anshel, M.H., Williams, L.R.T., & Hodge, K.P. (1997). Cross-cultural and gender
differences on coping style in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
28, 141-156. 73
Baltzell, A. (1999). Psychological factors and resources related to rowers' coping in elite
competition. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 60, 1877.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barling, J., & Abel, M. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and tennis performance. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 7, 265-272.
Beauchamp, M.R., Bray, S.R., & Albinson, J.G. (2002). Pre-competition imagery, self-
efficacy and performance in collegiate golfers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20,
697-705.
Bjorkly, S. (2007). Soccer players' perceptions of their coping strategies: A screening
evaluation before and after a sport Psychology Service Delivery. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 207-226.
Bond, K. A., Biddle, S. J. H., & Ntoumanis, N. (2001). Self-efficacy and causal
attribution in female golfers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 243-
256.
Brown, L. J., Malouff, J. M., & Schutte, N. S. (2005). The effectiveness of a self-efficacy intervention for helping adolescents cope with sport-competition loss. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 28, 136-150.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
267-283.
Cerin, E., Szabo, A., Hunt, N., & Williams, C. (2000). Temporal patterning of
competitive emotions: A critical review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 605-626.
Colton, T. (1974). Statistics in medicine. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Crocker, P.R.E. (1992). Managing stress by competitive athletes: Ways of coping.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 161-175.
Crocker, P.R.E., & Graham, T.R. (1995). Coping by competitive athletes with
performance stress: Gender differences and relationships with affect. The Sport
Psychologist, 9, 325-338.
Dale, G.A. (2000). Distractions and coping strategies of elite decathletes during their
most memorable performances. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 17-41.
Dugdale, J.R., Eklund, R.C., & Gordon, S. (2002). Expected and unexpected stressors in
major international competition: Appraisal, coping, and performance. Sport
Psychologist, 16, 20-33.
Eklund, R.C., Grove, J.R., & Heard, N.P. (1998). The measurement of slump-related
coping: Factorial validity of the COPE and modified-COPE inventories. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 157-175.
Erickson, S.J., & Feldstein, S.W. (2007) Adolescent humor and its relationship to coping, 75
defense strategies, psychological distress, and well-being. Child Psychiatry and
Human Development, 37, 255-271.
Feltz, D.L. (1984). Self-efficacy as a cognitive mediator of athletic performance. In W.F.
Straub & J.M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology (pp. 191-198).
Lansing, NY: Sport Science Associates.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.
Garber, G. (2003). Young American men struggle on clay. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from
http://espn.go.eom/tennis/french03/s/2003/0527/1559658.html
Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J.P. (2002). Development of a questionnaire for the assessment
of coping strategies employed by athletes in competitive sport settings.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 1-34.
Gaudreau, P., Blondin, J.P., & Lapierre, A.M. (2002). Athletes' coping during a
competition: Relationship of coping strategies with positive affect, negative
affect, and performance-goal discrepancy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3,
125-150.
Giacobbi Jr., P.R., Foore, B., & Weinberg, R.S. (2004). Broken clubs and expletives: The
sources of stress and coping responses of skilled and moderately skilled golfers.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16,166-182.
Giacobbi Jr., P.R., & Weinberg, R.S. (2000). An examination of coping in sport:
Individual trait anxiety differences and situational consistency. The Sport
Psychologist, 14, 42-62.
Gould, D., Eklund, R., & Jackson, S. (1993). Coping strategies used by U.S. Olympic 76
wrestlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.
Haney, C. J., & Long, B. C. (1995). Coping effectiveness: A path analysis of self-
efficacy, control, coping, and performance in sport competitions. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25,1726-1746.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for
sport: Theory and practice for elite performers. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Hoar, S.D., Kowalski, K.C., Gaudreau, P., & Crocker, P.R.E. (2006). A review of coping
in sport. In S. Hanton, & S.D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport
psychology (pp. 47-90). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Holahan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 946-955.
Holt, N.L., & Dunn, J.G.H. (2004). Toward a grounded theory of the psychosocial
competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 199-219.
Holt, N.L., & Hogg, J.M. (2002). Perceptions of stress and coping during preparations for
the 1999 women's soccer world cup finals. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 251-271.
Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and directional anxiety
interpretations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 385-395.
Kim, M., & Duda, J.L. (2003). The coping process: Cognitive appraisals of stress, coping
strategies, and coping effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 406-425.
Kowalski, K.C., Crocker, P.R.E., Hoar, S.D., & Niefer, C.B. (2005). Adolescents' control
beliefs and coping with stress in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
36, 257-272. 77
Kuiper, N., & Martin, R. (1998). Laughter and stress in daily life: Relation to positive
and negative affect. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 133-153.
Lachin, J.M. (1981). Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for
clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2, 93-113.
Lane, A. M., Jones, L., & Stevens, M. J. (2002). Coping with failure: The effects of self-
esteem and coping on changes in self-efficacy. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25,
331-345.
Lazarus, R.S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The
Sport Psychologist, 74,229-252.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Lee, C. (1982). Self-efficacy as a predictor of performance in competitive gymnastics.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 405-409.
Lee, C. (1988). The relationship between goal setting, self-efficacy, and female field
hockey team performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 147-
161.
Loehr, J. (1989). Mental toughness training for tennis: "The 16 second cure" [Motion
picture]. (Available from FTM Sports, 14500 S.W. 119 Ave., Miami, FL 33186)
Madden, C.C., Summers, J.J., & Brown, D.F. (1990). The influence of perceived stress
on coping with competitive basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
27,21-35.
Moore, B. (1990). Mental toughness training for tennis: "The 16 second cure" [Review of
the video Mental toughness training for tennis: "The 16 second cure "]. The Sport 78
Psychologist, 4,431-432.
Moritz, S.E., Feltz, D.L., Fahrbach, K.R., & Mack, D.E. (2000). The relation of self-
efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 280-294.
Nicholls, A.R., Holt, N.L., Polman, R.C.J., & James, D.W.G. (2005). Stress and coping
among international adolescent golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17,
333-340.
Nicholls, A.R., & Polman, R.C.J. (2007). Coping in sport: A systematic review. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 25, 11-31.
Nichols, B. (2008, June 12). Logic versus love. National Post, p. S5.
Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S.J.H., & Haddock, G. (1999). The mediating role of coping
strategies on the relationship between achievement motivation and affect in sport.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 299-327.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., MacCallum, R.C., & Nicewander, W.A. (2005). Use of the
extreme groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 10, 178-192.
Puente-Diaz, R., Anshel, M.H. (2005). Sources of acute stress, cognitive appraisal, and
coping strategies among highly skilled Mexican and U.S. competitive tennis
players. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145,429-446.
Rui, Z. (2007). Players just need more motivation: Coach. China Daily. Retrieved July
22, 2008, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2007-
09/19/content_6116974.htm.
Schwartz, L. (2007). McEnroe was McNasty on and off the court. Retrieved July 24, 2008, fromhttp://espn.goxom/classic/biography/s/McEnroe_John.html.
Snyder, E.E. (1991). Sociology of sport and humor. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport, 26, 119-131.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row.
Terry, P. C. (1989). The winning mind. Wellingborough, Northants: Thomsons.
Theodorakis, Y. (1996). The influence of goals, commitment, self-efficacy and self-
satisfaction on motor performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8,171-
182.
Watkins, B., Garcia, A. W., & Turek, E. (1994). The relation between self-efficacy and
sport performance: Evidence from a sample of youth baseball players. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 21 -31.
Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport & exercise psychology (3rd
ed.). Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Weinberg, R., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in
tennis players: A comparative analysis of Australian and American coaches. The
Sport Psychologist, 6,3-13.
Weiss, M.R., Wiese, D.M., & Klint, K.A. (1989). Head over heels with success: The
relationship between self-efficacy and performance in competitive youth
gymnastics. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 444-451.
Wetzel, D. (2008). Woods refuses to let pain win. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from
http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news?slug=dw-
tigerwin061608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns. 80
Wyett, C. (2008). Madcap Mikhail is a right nutter. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/tennis/articlel320852.ece. 81
APPENDIX A: LETTERS OF SUPPORT 82
February 1,2007
Jon Stoochnoff Executive Director, Tennis Alberta 11759 Groat Rd. Edmonton, AB T5M 3K6 Phone:(780)415-1695 Fax:(780)415-1693 director@tennisalberta. com
To Jon:
My name is Andrew Ling and I am a second year Masters student in Sport psychology at the University of Calgary working under Dr. Dave Paskevich. As part of my degree, I will be conducting research specifically looking at the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players. This letter asks for support from Tennis Alberta to allow me to conduct research on tennis players at Tennis Alberta-sanctioned tournaments. The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board wants to see that tennis organizations like Tennis Alberta show support for this project.
By taking part in this study, Tennis Alberta will benefit from participating in that: - At the end of the research period, you will receive a summary of the overall results of the study - You will receive suggestions about what you can do as an association to enhance self- efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in tennis players.
The study involves the completion of two questionnaires at the tournament site before competition begins and obtaining the tournament results on paper or on the Tennis Alberta website. The completion time for the questionnaires is approximately 30 minutes. You will be contacted well in advance to inform you of which tournaments I will be attending.
If you are interested in supporting and participating in this study, please call/email me (403-968-6067 or [email protected]), or Dr. Dave Paskevich (403-220-3434 or [email protected]).
Sincerely yours,
Andrew Ling M.Sc. Candidate Sport Psychology Faculty of Kinesiology University of Calgary 83
June 11,2007
Peter Smith President, Tennis Nova Scotia 5516 Spring Garden Road 4th Floor Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1G6 Phone: (902)-425-5450 ext 318
To Peter:
As part of my degree, I will be conducting research specifically looking at the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players. This letter asks for support from Tennis Nova Scotia to allow me to conduct research on tennis players at Tennis Nova Scotia-sanctioned tournaments. The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board wants to see that tennis organizations like Tennis Nova Scotia show support for this project.
By taking part in this study, Tennis Nova Scotia will benefit from participating in that: - At the end of the research period, you will receive a summary of the overall results of the study - You will receive suggestions about what you can do as an association to enhance self- efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in tennis players.
The study involves the completion of two questionnaires anywhere between 2 days and 2 hours before competition begins and obtaining the tournament results on paper or on the Tennis Nova Scotia website. The completion time for the questionnaires is approximately 20 minutes.
If you are interested in supporting and participating in this study, please call/email me (403-968-6067 or [email protected]), or Dr. Dave Paskevich (403-220-3434 or dpaskevi@ucalgary. ca).
Sincerely yours,
Andrew Ling M.Sc. Candidate Sport Psychology Faculty of Kinesiology University of Calgary 84
June 11,2007
Roger Keating Executive Director, Tennis Nova Scotia 5516 Spring Garden Road 4th Floor Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1G6 Phone: (902)-425-5450 ext 318 Fax: (902)-425-5606 tennisns@sportno vascotia. ca
To Roger:
As part of my degree, I will be conducting research specifically looking at the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players. This letter asks for support from Tennis Nova Scotia to allow me to conduct research on tennis players at Tennis Nova Scotia-sanctioned tournaments. The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board wants to see that tennis organizations like Tennis Nova Scotia show support for this project.
By taking part in this study, Tennis Nova Scotia will benefit from participating in that: - At the end of the research period, you will receive a summary of the overall results of the study - You will receive suggestions about what you can do as an association to enhance self- efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in tennis players.
The study involves the completion of two questionnaires anywhere between 2 days and 2 hours before competition begins and obtaining the tournament results on paper or on the Tennis Nova Scotia website. The completion time for the questionnaires is approximately 20 minutes.
If you are interested in supporting and participating in this study, please call/email me (403-968-6067 or [email protected]), or Dr. Dave Paskevich (403-220-3434 or [email protected]).
Sincerely yours,
Andrew Ling M.Sc. Candidate Sport Psychology Faculty of Kinesiology University of Calgary 85
APPENDIX B: ETHICS APPLICATIONS 86
March 1, 2007
To: Dr. Glenys Godlovitch
From: Dr. Dave Paskevich c/o Andrew Ling
RE: Consent review; The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players
Dr. Godlovitch,
The participants in this research study will be competitive male and female junior tennis players from Alberta between the ages of 12 and 18. Two questionnaires will be given out at different tournaments in Alberta. Parental consent or consent from a legal guardian (or participant consent if 18 years of age) will be required to participate in the study.
For those athletes that travel with their parent(s) to the tournaments, parental consent can be obtained at the tournament site. One consideration is that not all the athletes travel with their parent(s) to these tournaments so obtaining parental consent is more difficult. We are proposing to send out a one (1) page letter of interest (attached) with the assistance of Tennis Alberta indicating initial background information of the study and what participation will involve. We are not planning to use this one page letter as our formal consent letter.
This letter of interest will include the co-investigator's contact information for those interested in participating in the study.
This cover letter requests expedited review and indicates that carrying out this research study is not contingent on any external funding.
If there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Dave Paskevich or myself, Andrew Ling.
Thank you,
Andrew Ling Phone: 968-6067 Email: [email protected] Dr. Dave Paskevich Phone: 220-3434 Email: [email protected] 87
July 16, 2007
To: Dr. Glenys Godlovitch
From: Dr. Dave Paskevich c/o Andrew Ling
RE: Consent review; The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players
Dr. Godlovitch,
This letter is requesting a modification to my ethics application. The research study is in the data collection process and the amount of participants is less than predicted. The co- investigator is making a trip home to Nova Scotia and plans on collecting data from junior tennis players in Nova Scotia. It has to be apparent to the ethics committee that the research study is not doing anything different and that it is only a modification to expand the participant pool.
The participants in this research study will be competitive male and female junior tennis players from Alberta and Nova Scotia competing between the Under-12 and Under-18 categories. Two questionnaires will be given out at different tournaments in Alberta and Nova Scotia. Parental consent or consent from a legal guardian (or participant consent if 18 years of age) will be required to participate in the study.
For those athletes that travel with their parent(s) to the tournaments, parental consent can be obtained at the tournament site. The co-investigator will be sending out a one (1) page letter of interest (attached) with the assistance of Tennis Nova Scotia (similar to the one previously sent out by Tennis Alberta) indicating initial background information of the study and what participation will involve. We are not planning to use this one page letter as our formal consent letter.
This letter of interest will include the co-investigator's contact information for those interested in participating in the study.
This cover letter requests expedited review and indicates that carrying out this research study is not contingent on any external funding.
If there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Dave Paskevich or myself, Andrew Ling.
Thank you,
Andrew Ling Phone: 968-6067 Email: [email protected] Dr. Dave Paskevich Phone: 220-3434 Email: [email protected] 88
APPENDIX C: LETTERS OF INTEREST 89 The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Covins Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players.
Investigators from the University of Calgary have initiated a research study to look at the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players. There have been few studies on self-efficacy and coping in the sport psychology literature. There has been even less research on the self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in the sport of tennis. The study involves the completion of two questionnaires at the tournament site before competition begins and obtaining the tournament results on the Tennis Alberta website. One of the questionnaires is a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire which will be developed by the investigators. The questionnaire will evaluate an athlete's confidence in their technical, tactical, and motivational skills using a 0 to 100 percent rating scale. The second questionnaire will be the Modified-COPE which evaluates an athlete's coping strategies.
What will it involve? Volunteer subjects will be asked to complete two questionnaires approximately 1-2 hours before the first match of their respective tournaments. It will take approximately 30 minutes to complete both questionnaires. The study will be conducted in a designated area at each tennis club away from any distractions. Once all the questionnaires and the tournament are completed, they will be sent for statistical analysis.
This study has been ****granted ethical approval by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board and the Faculty of Kinesiology****. All subject information including results will remain confidential, exposed only to the research team, and will be managed and stored according to the policies outlined by the University of Calgary Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP).
*Note: Tennis Alberta has agreed to facilitate this research study; however, they would like to advise all applicants that your decision regarding participation in this research study will in no way affect your tournament results.
Please indicate if you are interested in participating in this research study: Yes • No D
*If you are interested in participating in this study please complete the following information and download, read and sign the entire consent form. The consent form is located here (embedded link). You will be contacted in regards to your acceptance.
Name: Email Address: Mailing Address: Home Phone: ( ) Alternate Phone: ( )
Any questions regarding this project please contact: Andrew Ling BSc, MSc. Candidate Sport Psychology Faculty of Kinesiology UNIVERSITY OF University of Calgary CALGARY 2500 University Dr. N.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 Phone: (403) 968-6067 Email: [email protected] 90 The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players.
Investigators from the University of Calgary have initiated a research study to look at the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players. There have been few studies on self-efficacy and coping in the sport psychology literature. There has been even less research on the self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in the sport of tennis. The study involves the completion of two questionnaires anywhere between 2 days and 2 hours before competition begins and obtaining the tournament results on the Tennis Nova Scotia website. One of the questionnaires is a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire which will be developed by the investigators. The questionnaire will evaluate an athlete's confidence in their technical, tactical, and motivational skills using a 0 to 100 percent rating scale. The second questionnaire will be the Modified-COPE which evaluates an athlete's coping strategies.
What will it involve? Volunteer subjects will be asked to complete two questionnaires anywhere between 2 days and 2 hours before the first match of their respective tournaments. It will take approximately 30 minutes to complete both questionnaires. The study will be conducted in a designated area at each tennis club away from any distractions. Once all the questionnaires and the tournament are completed, they will be sent for statistical analysis.
This study has been ****granted ethical approval by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board and the Faculty of Kinesiology****. All subject information including results will remain confidential, exposed only to the research team, and will be managed and stored according to the policies outlined by the University of Calgary Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP).
*Note: Tennis Nova Scotia has agreed to facilitate this research study; however, they would like to advise all applicants that your decision regarding participation in this research study will in no way affect your tournament results.
Please indicate if you are interested in participating in this research study: Yes • No •
*If you are interested in participating in this study please complete the following information and download, read and sign the entire consent form. The consent form is located here (embedded link). You will be contacted in regards to your acceptance.
Name: Email Address: Mailing Address: Home Phone: ( ) Alternate Phone: ( )
Any questions regarding this project please contact: Andrew Ling BSc, MSc. Candidate Sport Psychology Faculty of Kinesiology UNIVERSITY OF University of Calgary CALGARY 2500 University Dr. N.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 Phone: (403) 968-6067 Email: [email protected] 91
APPENDIX D: PARENTAL CONSENT FORMS SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS AND COPING STRATEGIES STUDY PARENTAL CONSENT FORM
TITLE: The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players
SPONSOR: This study is not sponsored.
INVESTIGATORS: Dr. Dave Paskevich, and Andrew Ling, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information. You will receive a copy of this form.
Background Self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies are two important factors in sport performance. This study will investigate the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players.
What is the purpose of this study?
The first purpose is to examine the direct relationships between a) self-efficacy beliefs and performance outcome, and b) coping strategies and performance outcome. The second purpose is to examine the interaction between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome. That is, to see the effect of coping on performance in the presence of self-efficacy.
What would my child have to do? Your child's participation in this study will involve the completion of two questionnaires approximately 1-2 hours prior to the first match of their respective tournaments: a tennis- specific self-efficacy questionnaire and the Modified-COPE (MCOPE). The two questionnaires should not take longer than approximately 30 minutes to complete.
What are the risks? A possible risk associated with participation in this study is that it may cause anxiety for the upcoming matches. To minimize this risk there will be no interference with the athlete after the questionnaire is complete.
Are there any benefits for my family? Participation in this study will advance the sport psychology research in tennis. Your child may benefit in the future from the findings of this study and the understanding of 93 some psychological factors that affect sport performance. You will get a copy of this research if you wish.
Does our family have to participate? Participation in this study is completely voluntary and your child may withdraw at any time. The researcher may also withdraw your child from the study if they feel that it is causing undue stress.
Will we be paid for participating, or do we have to pay for anything? Participants will not be paid for participating in this study. However, there will not be any additional fees associated with taking part in this study either.
Will the records be kept private? Your data will be kept by the primary investigator and the co-investigator. Only these individuals will have access to it. Questionnaires will be kept in secure storage for three years and then destroyed.
If my child suffers a research-related injury will he/she be compensated? In the event that your child suffers an injury as a result of participating in this research, no compensation will be provided to you by the University of Calgary, the Calgary Health Region or by the Researchers. However, you still have all of your legal rights. Nothing said in this consent form alters your right to seek damages. 94
Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding your child's participation in the research project and agree to his/her participation as a subject. In no way does this waive his/her legal rights nor release the investigators, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification to new information throughout your participation. Your child is free to withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardizing his/her health care. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact:
Dr. Dave Paskevich (403-220-3434 or [email protected]), or Andrew Ling at (403- 968-6067 or [email protected]).
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a possible participant in this research, please contact Associate Director, Internal Awards, Research Services, University of Calgary, at 220-3782.
Parent's Name Signature and Date
Investigator and/or Delegate's Name Signature and Date
Witness' Name Signature and Date
The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.
A signed copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. 95
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS AND COPING STRATEGIES STUDY PARENTAL CONSENT FORM
TITLE: The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players
SPONSOR: This study is not sponsored.
INVESTIGATORS: Dr. Dave Paskevich, and Andrew Ling, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information. You will receive a copy of this form.
Background Self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies are two important factors in sport performance. This study will investigate the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players.
What is the purpose of this study?
The first purpose is to examine the direct relationships between a) self-efficacy beliefs and performance outcome, and b) coping strategies and performance outcome. The second purpose is to examine the interaction between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome. That is, to see the effect of coping on performance in the presence of self-efficacy.
What would my child have to do? Your child's participation in this study will involve the completion of two questionnaires anywhere between 2 days and 2 hours prior to the first match of their respective tournaments: a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire and the Modified-COPE (MCOPE). The two questionnaires should not take longer than approximately 30 minutes to complete.
What are the risks? A possible risk associated with participation in this study is that it may cause anxiety for the upcoming matches. To minimize this risk there will be no interference with the athlete after the questionnaire is complete.
Are there any benefits for my family? Participation in this study will advance the sport psychology research in tennis. Your child may benefit in the future from the findings of this study and the understanding of 96
some psychological factors that affect sport performance. You will get a copy of this research if you wish.
Does our family have to participate? Participation in this study is completely voluntary and your child may withdraw at any time. The researcher may also withdraw your child from the study if they feel that it is causing undue stress.
Will we be paid for participating, or do we have to pay for anything? Participants will not be paid for participating in this study. However, there will not be any additional fees associated with taking part in this study either.
Will the records be kept private? Your data will be kept by the primary investigator and the co-investigator. Only these individuals will have access to it. Questionnaires will be kept in secure storage for three years and then destroyed.
If my child suffers a research-related injury will he/she be compensated? In the event that your child suffers an injury as a result of participating in this research, no compensation will be provided to you by the University of Calgary, the Calgary Health Region or by the Researchers. However, you still have all of your legal rights. Nothing said in this consent form alters your right to seek damages. 97
Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding your child's participation in the research project and agree to his/her participation as a subject. In no way does this waive his/her legal rights nor release the investigators, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification to new information throughout your participation. Your child is free to withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardizing his/her health care. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact:
Dr. Dave Paskevich (403-220-3434 or [email protected]), or Andrew Ling at (403- 968-6067 or [email protected]).
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a possible participant in this research, please contact Associate Director, Internal Awards, Research Services, University of Calgary, at 220-3782.
Parent's Name Signature and Date
Investigator and/or Delegate's Name Signature and Date
Witness' Name Signature and Date
The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.
A signed copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. 98
APPENDIX E: PARTICIPATION CONSENT FORMS 99
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS AND COPING STRATEGIES STUDY PARTICIPATION CONSENT FORM
TITLE: The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players
SPONSOR: This study is not sponsored.
INVESTIGATORS: Dr. Dave Paskevich, and Andrew Ling, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information. You will receive a copy of this form.
Background Self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies are two important factors in sport performance. This study will investigate the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players.
What is the purpose of this study?
The first purpose is to examine the direct relationships between a) self-efficacy beliefs and performance outcome, and b) coping strategies and performance outcome. The second purpose is to examine the interaction between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome. That is, to see the effect of coping on performance in the presence of self-efficacy.
What would I have to do? All participants will complete two questionnaires approximately 1 -2 hours prior to the first match of their respective tournaments: a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire and the Modified-COPE (MCOPE). The two questionnaires should not take longer than approximately 30 minutes to complete.
What are the risks? A possible risk associated with participation in this study is that it may cause anxiety for the upcoming matches. To minimize this risk there will be no interference with the athlete after the questionnaire is complete.
Will I benefit if I take part? Your participation in this study will advance the sport psychology research in tennis. You may benefit in the future from the findings of this study and the understanding of 100 some psychological factors that affect sport performance. You will get a copy of this research if you wish.
Do I have to participate? Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. The researcher may also withdraw you from the study if they feel that it is causing undue stress.
Will I be paid to participate or do I have to pay to participate? You will not be paid for participating in this study. However, there will not be any additional fees associated with taking part in this study either.
Will my records be kept private? Your data will be kept by the primary investigator and the co-investigator. Only these individuals will have access to it. Questionnaires will be kept in secure storage for three years and then destroyed.
If I suffer a research-related injury will I be compensated? In the event that you suffer an injury as a result of participating in this research, no compensation will be provided to you by the University of Calgary, the Calgary Health Region or by the Researchers. However, you still have all of your legal rights. Nothing said in this consent form alters your right to seek damages. 101
Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate as a subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification to new information throughout your participation. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardizing your health care. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact:
Dr. Dave Paskevich (403-220-3434 or [email protected]), or Andrew Ling at (403- 968-6067 or [email protected]).
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a possible participant in this research, please contact Associate Director, Internal Awards, Research Services, University of Calgary, at 220-3782.
Participant's Name Signature and Date
Investigator and/or Delegate's Name Signature and Date
Witness' Name Signature and Date
The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.
A signed copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. 102
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS AND COPING STRATEGIES STUDY PARTICIPATION CONSENT FORM
TITLE: The Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Coping Strategies, and Performance Outcome in Junior Tennis Players
SPONSOR: This study is not sponsored.
INVESTIGATORS: Dr. Dave Paskevich, and Andrew Ling, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information. You will receive a copy of this form.
Background Self-efficacy beliefs and coping strategies are two important factors in sport performance. This study will investigate the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome in junior tennis players.
What is the purpose of this study?
The first purpose is to examine the direct relationships between a) self-efficacy beliefs and performance outcome, and b) coping strategies and performance outcome. The second purpose is to examine the interaction between self-efficacy beliefs, coping strategies, and performance outcome. That is, to see the effect of coping on performance in the presence of self-efficacy.
What would I have to do? All participants will complete two questionnaires anywhere between 2 days and 2 hours prior to the first match of their respective tournaments: a tennis-specific self-efficacy questionnaire and the Modified-COPE (MCOPE). The two questionnaires should not take longer than approximately 30 minutes to complete.
What are the risks? A possible risk associated with participation in this study is that it may cause anxiety for the upcoming matches. To minimize this risk there will be no interference with the athlete after the questionnaire is complete.
Will I benefit if I take part? Your participation in this study will advance the sport psychology research in tennis. You may benefit in the future from the findings of this study and the understanding of 103
some psychological factors that affect sport performance. You will get a copy of this research if you wish.
Do I have to participate? Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. The researcher may also withdraw you from the study if they feel that it is causing undue stress.
Will I be paid to participate or do I have to pay to participate? You will not be paid for participating in this study. However, there will not be any additional fees associated with taking part in this study either.
Will my records be kept private? Your data will be kept by the primary investigator and the co-investigator. Only these individuals will have access to it. Questionnaires will be kept in secure storage for three years and then destroyed.
If I suffer a research-related injury will I be compensated? In the event that you suffer an injury as a result of participating in this research, no compensation will be provided to you by the University of Calgary, the Calgary Health Region or by the Researchers. However, you still have all of your legal rights. Nothing said in this consent form alters your right to seek damages. 104
Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate as a subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification to new information throughout your participation. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardizing your health care. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact:
Dr. Dave Paskevich (403-220-3434 or [email protected]), or Andrew Ling at (403- 968-6067 or [email protected]).
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a possible participant in this research, please contact Associate Director, Internal Awards, Research Services, University of Calgary, at 220-3782.
Participant's Name Signature and Date
Investigator and/or Delegate's Name Signature and Date
Witness' Name Signature and Date
The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.
A signed copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. 105
APPENDIX F: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Demographic Information
Name:
Age:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Sex (please circle): M F
Hometown:
Nationality:
Provincial or National or World Ranking:
Where do you predict to finish in this tournament? 107
APPENDIX G: TENNIS-SPECIFIC SELF-EFFICACY QUESTIONNAIRE 108
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
Please answer about YOUR CONFIDENCE in YOUR OWN skills and abilities with respect to the following questions. Use the 100 percent scale to estimate your answer with respect to the current tournament.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No Complete Confidence Confidence
EXAMPLE: MY CONFIDENCE in MY ability to consistently hit a backhand crosscourt within 3 feet from the baseline is 85%
Generally speaking: With regards to matches, MY confidence in MY ability to... Confidence Technical skills: Forehand consistently hit a forehand crosscourt within 3 feet from the baseline is consistently hit a forehand down the line within 3 feet from the baseline is maintain a 10-ball rally on faster balls using the forehand is * consistently hit a forehand approach shot down the line is * consistently hit a forehand approach shot followed by a volley is ______* = Tactical skills
Backhand consistently hit a backhand crosscourt within 3 feet from the baseline is consistently hit a backhand down the line within 3 feet from the baseline is maintain a 10-ball rally on faster balls using the backhand is Consistently hit a slice (underspin) backhand approach shot crosscourt is Consistently hit a backhand approach shot down the line is Consistently hit a backhand approach shot followed by a volley is
Forehand Volley consistently hit a forehand volley crosscourt from above the level of the net is consistently hit a forehand volley down the line from above the level of the net is consistently hit a forehand volley crosscourt from below the level of the net is consistently hit a forehand volley down the line from below the level of the net is
Backhand Volley consistently hit a backhand volley crosscourt from above the level of the net is consistently hit a backhand volley down the line from above the level of the net is consistently hit a backhand volley crosscourt from below the level of the net is consistently hit a backhand volley down the line from below the level of the net is
Forehand Half-Volley consistently hit a forehand half-volley crosscourt within 3 feet from the baseline is consistently hit a forehand half-volley down the line within 3 feet from the baseline is consistently hit a forehand half-volley as a drop shot is
Backhand Half-Volley consistently hit a backhand half-volley crosscourt within 3 feet from the baseline is consistently hit a backhand half-volley down the line within 3 feet from the baseline is consistently hit a backhand half-volley as a drop shot is
Overhead get body and feet set behind the ball when retrieving an overhead is move forward while making contact with the overhead is reach to the highest point when hitting an overhead is consistently hit an overhead from anywhere on the court is
Lob consistently hit a forehand lob beyond 3A court is consistently hit a backhand lob beyond 3A court is consistently hit a defensive lob in order to get back into position is
1st Serve consistently hit a serve out wide is consistently hit a serve down the centre line ("down the T") is consistently hit a serve into the body is
2nd Serve consistently hit a serve out wide is consistently hit a serve down the centre line ("down the T") is consistently hit a serve into the body is
Forehand return of serve consistently hit a forehand return of serve crosscourt is consistently hit a forehand return of serve down the line is consistently block the serve back within 3 feet of the baseline using a forehand is consistently hit a forehand return of serve to an opponent's feet when they come into the net is
Backhand return of serve consistently hit a backhand return of serve crosscourt is consistently hit a backhand return of serve down the line is consistently block the serve back within 3 feet of the baseline using a backhand is consistently hit a backhand return of serve to an opponent's feet when they come into the net is 110
With regards to matches, MY confidence in MY ability to... Confidence Tactical skills: Forehand counterattack consistently counterattack against an opponent hitting an attacking shot (hard or wide ball) is consistently hit a forehand passing shot crosscourt is consistently hit a forehand passing shot down the line is consistently hit a two-time passing shot (first shot hit low to opponent's feet, then passing them on the second shot) with a forehand is
Backhand counterattack consistently counterattack against an opponent hitting an attacking shot (hard or wide ball) is ______consistently hit a backhand passing shot crosscourt is consistently hit a backhand passing shot down the line is consistently hit a two-time passing shot (first shot hit low to opponent's feet, then passing them on the second shot) with a backhand is
Technical Anticipation read the toss on opponent's serve is read the body position on opponent's forehand and backhand is read the opponent's racket position on a volley is read the opponent's racket position on a groundstroke is
Tactical Anticipation read opponent's shot selection and placement in specific game situations (e.g., which shot is used and where does opponent hit most often at 30-40) is ______read opponent's serving habits in specific game situations (e.g., what type of serve and the direction used most often at 30-40 is
With regards to matches, MY confidence in MY ability to... Confidence Motivation: Performance motivate oneself to run for every ball is motivate oneself to rebound from a lost point is motivate oneself to focus throughout the match is
Outcome motivate oneself to hold every service game is motivate oneself to break opponent's service game is motivate oneself to win the match is
Thank You for Your Assistance! Ill
APPENDIX H: MODIFIED-COPE (MCOPE) QUESTIONNAIRE 112
Modified-COPE (MCOPE)
We want to know what you did to try and handle the stressful situation you have described when you were actually faced with it
Take a minute to think about the types of things you did to try to handle the situation, and then continue with the following questions using the following instructions*
Instructions: Following each of the statements please indicate by circling the appropriate number how much you used the strategy provided in the statement to handle the stressful situation you have described above. Then please move on to the next statement.
USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO ANSWER EACH STATEMENT: 12 3 4 5
Used very little Used a little Used somewhat Used much Used very much
1) I asked team-mates what they did or would do I maintain emotional control no matter how things are going for me.
12 3 4 5
2) I talked to someone about how I felt
12 3 4 5
3)1 could not deal with my performance and stopped trying
12 3 4 5
4) I blamed myself for the situation
12 3 4 5
5) I made a plan of action
12 3 4 5
6) I dealt only with my performance difficulties, even if I had to forget other things a little
12 3 4 5 113
7) I felt a lot of upset feelings and I showed those feelings a lot
12 3 4 5
8) I kidded around about my performance
12 3 4 5
9) I tried to increase the quality of my performance
12 3 4 5
10) I daydreamed about a better performance
12 3 4 5
11)1 tried real hard to do something about my performance
12 3 4 5
12) I acted as though I was not having performance difficulties
12 3 4 5
13) I talked to my coaches or team-mates to find out more about my performance
12 3 4 5
14) I got support and understanding from someone
12 3 4 5
15) I decreased the amount of time and effort I put into my performance
12 3 4 5
16) I criticised or lectured myself
12 3 4 5
17) I thought hard about what steps to take to manage this situation
12 3 4 5 18) I didn't let myself think about anything except my performance
12 3 4 5
19) I got upset and let my feelings out
12 3 4 5
20) I made fun of my performance
12 3 4 5
21)1 put more effort into my play
12 3 4 5
22) I had fantasies or wishes about how things might turn out
12 3 4 5
23) I did what had to be done, one step at a time
12 3 4 5
24) I didn't believe I was performing like I was
12 3 4 5
25) I tried to get help from someone about what to do
12 3 4 5
26) I talked about my feelings with someone
12 3 4 5
27) I gave up trying to get what I want out of my performance
12 3 4 5
28) I decided I was at fault for my performance
12 3 4 5 115
29) I thought about how I could best handle my performance
12 3 4 5
30) I stopped doing other things in order to concentrate on my performance
12 3 4 5
31)1 lost my cool and got upset
12 3 4 5
32) I made jokes about my performance
12 3 4 5
33) I tried to improve my effort
12 3 4 5
34) I wished the situation would go away or somehow be over
12 3 4 5
35) I took direct action to overcome the performance challenge
12 3 4 5
36) I pretended it was not happening or hadn't really happened
12 3 4 5
37) I talked to someone who could do something about my performance
12 3 4 5
38) I tried to get help from my coach or team-mates to deal with my feelings
12 3 4 5
39) I stopped trying to perform my best
12 3 4 5 116
40) I took responsibility for what had happened
12 3 4 5
41) t tried to think about a plan about what to do
12 3 4 5
42) I tried hard not to let other things get in my way of dealing with my performance
12 3 4 5
43) I let negative feelings out
12 3 4 5
44) I laughed about me performance
12 3 4 5
45) I worked harder
12 3 4 5
46) I wished I could change what was happening or had happened
12 3 4 5
47) I tried different things to improve
12 3 4 5
48) I told myself "this performance isn't real"
12 3 4 5