NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
Coaching Behaviours and the Motivation of Paralympic Athletes
Hailey Banack
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Kinesiology and Physical Education
In the Faculty of Education
McGill University, Montreal
February, 2009
Library and Archives Bibliothèque et Canada Archives Canada
Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l’édition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-56810-1 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-56810-1
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non- L’auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l’Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. . The author retains copyright L’auteur conserve la propriété du droit d’auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author’s permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n’y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
ii
Abstract
There are approximately 4.4 million Canadians (14%) with a physical disability, yet less than 1% of these individuals participate in organized sport programs (Sport Canada, 2006; Statistics Canada, 2007). Using Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a framework, the purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between Paralympic athletes‟ perceptions of coach behaviour, psychological needs satisfaction, and motivation. The participants in this study were 113 Canadian Paralympic athletes. Participants completed an online survey comprised of the Sport Climate Questionnaire (Deci & Ryan, 2006), measures of perceived autonomy (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005), competence (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005), relatedness (Richer & Vallerand, 1998) and the Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the measurement model. Path modeling was used to test the relationships among perceptions of coach behaviour, the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, and motivation. Findings from the path model partially supported the tenets of SDT. There was a significant relationship between perceptions of coach behaviour and perceived autonomy and relatedness. Autonomy and competence were significant correlates of motivation. Results revealed the presence of a relationship between perceptions of autonomy supportive coaching strategies, the three psychological needs, and athletes‟ intrinsic motivation towards sport. These findings hold theoretical and practical significance as they underscore the importance of using autonomy supportive coaching strategies to promote motivation in Paralympic athletes.
iii
Résumé
Environ 4.4 millions de canadiens souffrent d‟un handicap physique, par contre moins de 1% de ces individus prennent part à des programmes de sport organisé (Statistiques Canada, 2007). En utilisant le Self-Determination Theory (SDT) en tant que cadre, l'objectif de la présente étude était d'examiner la relation entre la perception du comportement de l'entraîneur par les athlètes paralympiques, la satisfaction des besoins psychologiques, et la motivation. Les participants sont 113 athlètes Paralympiques Canadiens. Ils ont complété un questionnaire en ligne, composé de Sport Climate Questionnaire (Deci & Ryan, 2006), une mesure de la perception de l‟autonomie (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005), des compétences (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005) et du sentiment d‟appartenance (Richer & Vallerand, 1998) ainsi que le Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al, 1995). La confirmation de l'analyse factorielle a été utilisée pour tester la validité factorielle de l'échelle. Le sentier de modélisation a été utilisé pour tester les relations entre la perception du comportement des entraineurs, les besoins psychologiques de base de la compétence, l'autonomie et la parenté, la motivation et le sport. L‟appréciation de la voie modèle appuie les principes du traitement spécial et différencié et a confirmé la présence d'une relation entre l'autonomie de soutien, le comportement, la satisfaction des besoins, et la motivation. Il existe une relation significative entre le comportement des entraîneurs et deux des besoins (autonomie et appartenance). En autre, l'autonomie et la compétence sont en corrélation significative avec la motivation. Ces résultats ont des implications théoriques et pratiques puisqu‟ils soulignent l‟importance de l‟autonomie et de l‟utilisation de stratégies d‟entraînements pour promouvoir la motivation chez les athlètes Paralympiques.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following individuals who helped me in the completion of this thesis:
Dr. Gordon Bloom, who has been my advisor throughout this entire process.
His guidance, support, and knowledge have been invaluable. You always
challenge me and push me to be the best I can be. Thank you for all of your
patience and honest feedback on the many drafts it took me to get this
document „just right‟.
My thesis co-supervisor, Dr. Cathi Sabiston, who played an instrumental role
in the completion of this project. Her statistical knowledge and thorough
knowledge of self-determination theory have been very helpful. Your constant
encouragement and insightful comments have allowed me to become the
student I am today. Thank you for everything.
Dr. Billy Harvey, who was on my colloquium committee. You brought a
wealth of knowledge about disability sport to the table. Thank you for your
many helpful suggestions and constant inquiries as to how I was holding up.
Helena Seymour and Dean Kozak of the Canadian Paralympic Committee,
who graciously assisted me in recruiting athletes to participate in the study.
Even though they were incredibly busy getting ready for the Beijing Games,
Helena and Dean found time to help and played an important role in the
completion of this study. v
Thank you to all of the Paralympians who participated in this study. I will
forever be a supporter of Paralymipic sport and look forward to celebrating
your many podium finishes in Vancouver.
Thank you to all of the sport and exercise psychology graduate students for
providing me with moral support and many, many laughs over the past few
years. Special thanks to Caitlin and Holly who spent many hours next to me in
“the cave” and helped me handle the ups and downs of my graduate school
experience.
To Emily, who hasn‟t left my side since the fifth grade, and still provides
advice and encouragement on a daily basis. Em, words can‟t even express
how important your support has been to me. Thank you for the many hugs,
laughs, and penny candy runs.
Matt, thank you for helping me make it to the finish line. Thank you for
picking me up after my falls and always, always having my back. I will be
forever grateful.
And finally, to my family, for being my number one fans and always standing
by my side. Mom and Dad, thank you for always being by my side. I know
(firsthand) that I can call you 24 hours a day for support. You two are my role
models for everything I do. Adam, if everyone could have a brother like you
the world would be a better place. You were my protector and shoulder to lean
on, thank you for your advice and guidance. And to Mara, the world‟s most
אין חברה כאחות ואין אחות כאחותי :responsible and mature younger sister
vi
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ...... ii
Résumé ...... iii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
Table of Contents ...... vi
List of Tables ...... x
List of Figures ...... xi
CHAPTER 1...... 1
Introduction ...... 1
Purpose of the Study ...... 9
Hypotheses...... 9
Significance of the Study . . . . . 10
Delimitations and Limitations . . . . . 11
Operational Definitions . . . . . 11
CHAPTER 2 ...... 13
Literature Review ...... 13
Self-Determination Theory . . . . . 13
Coaching Science ...... 19
Motivational Model of the Coach-Athlete Relationship . 22
Antecedents of Coach Behaviour . 23
Personal Orientation . . . . 23
Coaching Context . . . . 23 vii
Perception of Athletes‟ Behaviour and Motivation 24
Autonomy Supportive Coaching Behaviours . . 25
Outcomes of Coaching Behaviour . . . 26
Perceptions of Autonomy, Competence, and
Relatedness . . . . . 26
Motivational Outcomes . . . 27
Disability Sport ...... 27
A Brief History of the Paralympic Movement. . 27
Coaching Athletes with a Physical Disability . . 30
CHAPTER 3 ...... 33
Method . . . . . 33
Participants ...... 33
Procedure ...... 35
Measures ...... 36
Coaching Behaviour . . . . 37
Perceived Competence, Autonomy,
and Relatedness . . . . 38
Perceived Competence. . . 38
Perceived Autonomy . . . 38
Perceived Relatedness . . . 39
Motivational Regulation . . . 40
Data Analysis ...... 41
Independent and Dependent Variables. . 41 viii
Structural Equation Modeling. . . 41
CHAPTER 4 ...... 45
Results...... 45
Preliminary Analyses...... 45
Descriptive Statistics. . . . . 45
Participants . . . . . 45
Measurement Instruments . . . 46
Dependent Variables . . . . 47
Multivariate and Univariate Analyses. . . 47
Correlations...... 51
Main Analyses...... 53
Structural Equation Modeling . . . . 53
Structural Models. . . . . 58
Chapter 5 ...... 64
Discussion ...... 64
Perceptions of Coach Behaviour . . . . 64
Perceived Needs Satisfaction . . . . 68
Motivation...... 75
Chapter 6 ...... 80
Summary of the Study ...... 80
Conclusions ...... 82
Practical Implications ...... 84
Limitations...... 85 ix
Recommendations for Future Research . . . . 87
References ...... 88
Appendices ...... 108
Appendix A- Motivational Model of the Coach-Athlete Relationship 108
Appendix B- Paralympic Sport-Specific Classification . . 109
Appendix C- Informed Consent Form . . . . 114
Appendix D- Demographic Questionnaire . . . . 115
Appendix E- Sport Climate Questionnaire . . . . 116
Appendix F- Measures of Perceived Autonomy, Competence,
and Relatedness . . . . . 118
Appendix G- Sport Motivation Scale . . . . . 120
Appendix H- Certificate of Ethical Acceptability . . . 124
x
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 - Winter and Summer Paralympic Sports . . . . . 34
Table 2 - The Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum, Maximum, Skewness, Kurtosis, and Reliability Coefficient . . . . . 46
Table 3 - Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by gender. . . 48
Table 4 - Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by age group . . 49
Table 5 - Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by sport type . . 50
Table 6 - Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by disability type . 51
Table 7- Pearson Correlation Coefficients...... 52
Table 8 - Goodness of fit indices for the indirect and combined effects
models of the relationship between coach behaviour and
motivation ...... 61
Table 9- Goodness of fit indices for the indirect and combined effects
models of the relationship between coach behaviour and
intrinsic motivation ...... 63
xi
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1- Measurement Model 1 ...... 54
Figure 2- Measurement Model 2 ...... 56
Figure 3- Measurement Model 3 ...... 58
Figure 4- Combined effects structural model for motivation . . 60
Figure 5- Indirect effects model for motivation . . . . 61
Figure 6- Combined effects structural model for intrinsic motivation. . 62
Figure 7- Indirect effects model for intrinsic motivation . . . 63
Figure 8- Cyclical relationship between autonomy supportive
coaching strategies and perceptions of autonomy . . . . 73
Introduction 1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
An estimated 600 million people, or 10% of the world‟s population, have some degree of physical disability or impairment (Carvalho & Farkas, 2005; DePauw
& Gavron, 2005; World Health Organization, 1999, 2003). In Canada, approximately
4.4 million people have a physical disability (Statistics Canada, 2007). Sport Canada
(2006) reported that less than 1% of individuals with a physical disability (age 16+) are involved in organized sport or physical activity programs. To put this figure in context, approximately 31% of Canadians without a disability in the same age group engage in organized sport or physical activity on a regular basis (Statistics Canada,
2001).
There are numerous physical, social, and psychological benefits of regular physical activity involvement, including a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancer, as well as reduced anxiety, stress, and depression
(Biddle & Mutrie, 2001; Warburton, Nicol, & Bredin, 2006). For individuals with a disability, physical activity can help them come to terms with their disability by shifting the focus from impairment to accomplishment (Canadian Paralympic
Committee, 2006; Carvalho & Farkas, 2005). Sport can reduce isolation for people with disabilities by providing a means of positive social interaction and integration
(United Nations, 2005). It can also facilitate community integration by increasing peer interaction and socialization, especially for girls and women who are often stigmatized by sex as well as disability (Canadian Paralympic Committee, 2006;
Carvalho & Farkas, 2005; Krahe & Altwasser, 2006). Finally, while “sport has value Introduction 2 in everyone's life, it is even more important in the life of a person with a disability.
This is because of sport's rehabilitative influence and the fact that it is a means to integrate the person into society, [because] sport teaches independence” (Canadian
Paralympic Committee, 2006, p.2).
Prominent sport researchers have noted that the field of sport psychology has done a poor job of meeting the unique needs of athletes with a disability (Asken &
Goodling, 1986; Crocker, 1993; DePauw & Gavron, 2005). In 1986, the US Olympic
Committee formed the Committee on Sport for the Disabled (DePauw & Gavron,
2005; Reid & Prupas, 1998). The committee identified seven research priority areas, including coaching. More specifically, they were concerned with the selection of coaches, the effectiveness of coach training programs, and coaches‟ backgrounds
(DePauw & Gavron, 2005; Reid & Prupas, 1998). However, since 1986, when coaching was identified as a research priority area, there has been little growth in the field. In a review of literature from 1986 to 1996, Reid and Prupas found only five published research articles on coaching athletes with a disability. This number pales in comparison to the 339 articles Gilbert and Trudel (2004) found in the same time period (1986-1997). It is evident from the review that there is still a need for empirical, theory-driven research about coaches of elite athletes with a disability.
The Paralympic Games are the largest sporting event in the world for elite athletes with a physical disability, and are second in size only to the Olympic Games
(International Paralympic Committee, 2007). The Summer Paralympic Games consist of approximately 4000 athletes from 136 different countries competing in 20 sports
(Canadian Paralympic Committee, 2005). The Canadian team for the 2004 Introduction 3
Paralympic Games in Athens won 72 medals (28 gold, 19 silver, 25 bronze) and ranked third among countries in the medal standings (Canadian Paralympic
Committee, 2005). The Winter Games include a total of 600 athletes from 40 different countries competing in five sports (Canadian Paralympic Committee, 2005).
The Paralympic games are governed on a worldwide scale by the International
Paralympic Committee (IPC); on a national level, they are governed by the Canadian
Paralympic Committee (CPC). Through sport, “the IPC seeks the continuous global promotion of the Paralympic movement, with a vision of inspiration and empowerment” (International Paralympic Committee, 2007). The CPC furthers the goals of the IPC by delivering programs to develop, strengthen, and expand the
Paralympic movement across Canada (Canadian Paralympic Committee, 2005).
One significant impediment to the growth and global promotion of the
Paralympic movement is the lack of coaches trained to work with athletes with a disability. There are currently few resources and education programs available to train coaches to work with athletes with a disability. According to the Canadian Policy on
Sport for Persons with a Disability, in order for Canada to maintain or improve its current status in Paralympic sport, Sport Canada “must increase access to appropriately certified and qualified coaches” (2006, p.10). In 2004, the CPC implemented coaching certification requirements for the Paralympic Games to ensure the best possible coaching for Paralympic athletes (Canadian Paralympic Committee,
2005). These standards are currently being reviewed by the Paralympic Committee and the Coaching Association of Canada in preparation for future Paralympic Games
(Canadian Paralympic Committee, 2005). Introduction 4
The Coaching Association of Canada (CAC) is a national organization that endeavors to improve the effectiveness of coaching at all levels of sport. They strive to “enhance the experience of all Canadian athletes through quality coaching”
(Coaching Association of Canada, 2005). In 1974, the CAC launched the National
Coaching Certification Program (NCCP), a training and certification program based on the theory and practice of coaching. The program has expanded considerably since
1974, and coach education programs are offered in 65 sports for a range of levels of coach expertise. Currently there are 62,500 NCCP trained coaches, and by 2011, the organization hopes to increase this number to 100,000 (Coaching Association of
Canada, 2005). While the CAC oversees coaches of able-bodied athletes in Canada, it has fewer ties to coaches of athletes with a disability. The NCCP only offers one certification program for coaches of athletes with a disability, in the sport of wheelchair basketball.
In 2005, the CAC published a manual entitled Coaching Athletes with a
Disability (Abbott et al., 2005). It was written by a task force comprised of administrators and coaches who have had longstanding involvement in disability sport. In the Introduction, the authors stated the following:
The purpose of this manual is to provide grassroots coaches who have never
worked with athletes with a disability with basic information, guidelines, and
tips that will assist in creating conditions for effective participation and
inclusion. (Abbott et al., 2005, p.3)
Furthermore, it was noted that the document was a generic resource…which “focuses primarily on aspects that are likely to be encountered by all coaches, regardless of the Introduction 5 sport, or the disability” (Abbott et al., 2005, p.5). It is clear from the purpose of this manual that it was not intended for sport coaches at an elite level.
Throughout the past three decades the field of coaching science has expanded steadily, but most of the research has focused on coaching able-bodied athletes. Since
1970, over 50% of published coaching research has focused on coach behaviour, including the coach-athlete relationship (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). The dyadic interaction between coach and athlete has a significant impact on athletic performance and the quality of the sporting experience for both coaches and athletes
(Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Poczwardowski, Barott, & Jowett, 2006; Wyelleman,
2000). The relationship between a coach and his/her athletes‟ goes beyond teaching skills and tactics and is often characterized as a reciprocal relationship with mutual respect, trust, care, concern and shared understanding (Bloom, Durand-Bush,
Schinke, & Salmela, 1998; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003). Research has demonstrated that if an athlete‟s goals, personality, and beliefs are consistent with those of their coach, it will lead to a more positive sport atmosphere (Williams et al., 2003).
Furthermore, Bloom and Salmela (2000) noted that the majority of elements that facilitate coaching success at the elite level depend on the mutual trust and shared understanding between the coach and athlete.
While the coach is arguably the most important person in determining the success and quality of the sport experience of an able bodied athlete, research has documented that most coaches have limited awareness of their own coaching behaviours (Smith, Smoll, Curtis, & Hunt, 1978, Williams et al., 2003). As stated by
Williams and colleagues, “leader effectiveness resides in both the behaviour of the Introduction 6 leader and the eyes of the beholder” (p.31). The effect of any behaviour exhibited by a coach is mediated by the athletes‟ perception of that behaviour (Smith & Smoll,
1996). College athletes who perceive their coaches‟ decision making style as democratic (e.g., a coach who provides choices and listens to feedback) have significantly higher levels of intrinsic motivation and, by extension, positive sport experiences (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). In addition, a number of researchers have documented that a coaches‟ decision making style has a significant impact on the coach-athlete relationship, and the type of motivation experienced by an athlete
(Amorose & Horn, 2000, 2001; Black & Weiss, 1992; Gagné, Ryan, & Bargman,
2003; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere, 2002).
Ultimately, the effectiveness of a coach, and the outcome of the coach-athlete relationship, is determined by both the coaches‟ actual behaviour and the athletes‟ perception of that behaviour (Smoll & Smith, 1989; Williams et al., 2003).
Sport psychology researchers have paid particular attention to one type of coaching behaviour, called autonomy supportive behaviour (Gagné et al., 2003;
Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Mageau and Vallerand identified seven types of autonomy supportive behaviours of a coach: (a) provides athletes with choice, (b) opportunities for initiative-taking, (c) uses a democratic leadership style, (d) gives a rationale for their actions, (e) shows concern for the athlete both on and off the field, (f) gives constructive feedback, and (g) fosters a task-oriented sport environment (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Research has consistently demonstrated that athletes who perceive their coaches‟ behaviour to be autonomy supportive experience more self determined forms of motivation, as well as Introduction 7 increased enjoyment, performance, persistence, and concentration (Amorose & Horn,
2000, 2001; Black & Weiss, 1992; Gagné et al., 2003). On the other hand, research has demonstrated that individuals who perceive their coaches or teachers to use a controlling, coercive, or autocratic leadership style experienced lower levels of self- determined motivation (Black & Deci, 2000; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) found a negative relationship between coaches who were perceived to use autocratic strategies and athletes‟ intrinsic motivation
(Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). Additionally, college athletes who perceived their coaches to employ a controlling leadership style (i.e., making team decisions without consulting athletes on the team) reported lower levels of intrinsic motivation
(Amorose & Horn, 2001).
Moreover, autonomy support has been associated with athletes‟ perceptions of competence and connectedness to others (Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2005). The degree to which an athlete perceives their coach as meeting their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is a concept known as perceived need satisfaction
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Standage et al., 2005). Both Pelletier and colleagues
(2001) and Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) demonstrated that coaches‟ autonomy supportive behaviours were positively associated with athletes‟ self-determined motivation, while autocratic behaviours were negatively associated with self determined motivation. In a study of American college athletes, Amorose and Horn
(2001) found a link between athletes‟ perceptions of coach behaviour and intrinsic motivation. Athletes who perceived their coach to employ a coaching strategy Introduction 8 primarily focused on training and instruction experienced higher levels of intrinsic motivation over the course of the season (Amorose & Horn, 2001).
Mageau and Vallerand proposed a motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship that describes how coach behaviour influences athletes‟ motivation
(Appendix A). Based on Deci and Ryan‟s self-determination theory, the model suggests a motivational sequence whereby a coaches‟ behaviour is influenced by three factors: the coaching context, their personal orientation, and their perceptions of the athletes‟ motivation. The three antecedents directly influence whether a coach uses autonomy-supportive coaching behaviours. These behaviours, in turn, have a direct influence on the athletes‟ perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and by extension, their motivation. As well, Mageau and Vallerand suggest that the structure instilled by the coach influences athletes‟ perceived competence, and a coaches‟ level of involvement with the team influences their perceived relatedness. This model was developed following an extensive review of literature about the relationship between coaches and able-bodied athletes.
In contrast to the well-developed body of literature examining coaching able-bodied athletes, there is limited research specifically examining coaches of athletes with a physical disability. The majority of literature about coaching athletes with a disability is anecdotal or instructional in nature. While there are similarities between coaching able bodied athletes and athletes with a disability, Cregan, Bloom, and Reid (2007) highlighted the need for empirically-based coaching research specifically examining coaches of elite level athletes with a disability. The results of their study on coaches of elite level swimmers with a physical disability emphasized Introduction 9 the importance of fostering autonomy in athletes with a disability to improve their athletic skills, as well as their quality of life. As stated by one of the coaches interviewed:
If you can get a person [to] go from not swimming at all to swimming a
mile, you've given them that ability, then you‟ve successfully done what
you said you were going to do-- empowered them, taught them how to be
autonomous, and given them an improved lifestyle, because what they are
doing is only going to help in the end. (Cregan et al., p. 343)
In order to maximize the positive outcomes of the limited sport opportunities for athletes with a disability, it is important to conduct research to identify the coaching behaviours that foster athletes‟ autonomy, as well as competence and relatedness.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the current study is to examine the relationship between
Paralympic athletes‟ perceptions of autonomy-supportive coach behaviour, perceived needs satisfaction, and motivation.
Hypotheses
Four hypotheses were identified for this study:
1. Based on previous research with male and female adolescent and college age
athletes (Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1992; Coatsworth &
Conroy, 2006), and elite level athletes with a physical disability (Martin,
1999), perceptions of coach behaviour and needs satisfaction will differ
significantly by age, gender, sport type, and disability type. Introduction 10
2. There will be a significant positive relationship between athletes‟ perceptions
of coach behaviour, perceived needs support and self-determined motivation
(Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005).
3. Consistent with SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2001), perceptions of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness will fully mediate the relationship between
perceived coach behaviour and motivation for all athletes. The direct
relationship between perceived coach behaviour and motivation will not be
significant.
4. As suggested by Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000), optimal motivational
functioning is achieved by satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness. Social environments that support these three needs facilitate
the development of intrinsic motivation, thus perceptions of autonomy
supportive coach behaviour are expected to be significantly associated with
intrinsic motivation.
Significance of the Study
One of the most encompassing barriers to sport participation for athletes with a disability is the paucity of resources at their disposal, including organized sport programs, accessible facilities, and trained coaches. As the majority of coaching science research has focused on coaches of able bodied athletes, this study serves to augment the limited body of research examining athletes with a physical disability.
Furthermore, from a theoretical perspective, this study stands to add to the self- determination theory literature by exploring motivation in an understudied population
Introduction 11
Delimitations
For the purpose of this study, the following delimitations have been identified:
1. Participants must have competed in at least one competition at the Paralympic
level and/or have qualified for a Paralympic-level competition.
2. Participants may compete in any Paralympic team sport.
3. Participants must have worked with the same coach for at least 6 months.
4. Participants will be both male and female.
5. The questionnaires will be completed online.
Limitations
These delimitations may lead to the following limitations:
1. Participants must have access to a computer with an internet connection to
participate in the study.
2. The results are only generalizable to athletes with a disability
3. The results are only generalizable to coaches of Paralympic athletes.
4. The results cannot be generalized to athletes in different disability
classification groups; results are specific to athletes with similar types of
disability.
Operational Definitions
For the purpose of this study the following definitions will be used:
Paralympic athletes are those who have participated in at least one competition at the Paralympic level or have qualified for a Paralympic-level competition. This includes athletes from any disability class who compete in a Introduction 12
Paralympic team sport (i.e., archery, alpine skiing, athletics, basketball, boccia, football, goalball, rowing, sledge hockey, swimming, volleyball, wheelchair curling).
Paralympic Games are the largest multi-sport event in the world for athletes with a physical disability. Similar to the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games are held every two years, alternating between Winter games and Summer games. Athletes from 5 disability groups (amputee, cerebral palsy, visual impairment, spinal cord injuries,les autres) are eligible to compete.
Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC) is an organization that is sanctioned by the International Paralympic Committee to advance and promote the Paralympic movement in Canada. As well, the CPC is responsible for selecting and sending
Canadian teams to the Paralympic Games.
Autonomy supportive coaching behaviours are specific behaviours that a coach uses to support his/her athletes‟ core psychological needs (i.e., providing athletes with choice, creating a task oriented environment).
Perceived need satisfaction is the degree to which an athlete feels their need for autonomy, competence and relatedness are fulfilled.
Literature Review 13
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This chapter will consist of four sections. The first section will describe the theoretical framework for this study, Self-Determination Theory. Following this, the second and third sections will address coaching science literature, as well as an explanation of the motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship (Appendix A).
More specifically, the antecedents and outcomes of autonomy-supportive coach behaviour will be explained. The fourth section will present literature about disability sport, including a discussion of the Paralympic movement and coaching athletes with a disability.
Self-Determination Theory Motivation is the construct used to describe the internal and/or external forces that generate a particular behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Deci and Ryan‟s Self
Determination Theory (SDT; 1985, 1991, 2000a, 2000b) is a conceptual model that is well suited to study motivation in sport. SDT focuses on the degree to which human behaviours are self determined, and the social-contextual factors that facilitate the development of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000a, 2000b). Behaviours that are characterized by internal desire and free choice are described as self-determined, while behaviours that are initiated as a result of factors that lie outside the self are described as non-self determined (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The two main tenets of SDT suggest that (1) motivation is a multidimensional construct, and (2) the degree of self- determination a person experiences in a specific context is directly related to how well the situation meets their three core psychological needs (autonomy, competence, Literature Review 14 and relatedness; Deci & Ryan, 1991). These two concepts will be discussed in detail in the following section.
SDT specifies that motivated behaviour lies on a continuum of autonomy, ranging from least self-determined to most self-determined (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
1991, 2000a, 2000b; Gagné, Ryan, & Bargman, 2003). The least-self determined form of motivation is amotivation, which is characterized by a complete lack of motivation to engage in behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2000a). Amotivation stems from not valuing an activity, not feeling competent to complete the activity, or not expecting it to yield a desirable outcome (Ryan, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000a). In contrast, intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in an activity in the absence of external rewards because it is inherently satisfying, interesting, or enjoyable (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2000a, 2000b; Vallerand & Rousseau, 2001). Vallerand and colleagues
(Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995; Vallerand, 1997;
Vallerand & Losier, 1999) have indicated that there are three forms of intrinsic motivation: motivation to know, motivation toward accomplishment, and motivation for stimulation.
On the continuum of self-determined motivation, in between amotivation and intrinsic motivation, lies extrinsic forms of motivation. Extrinsically motivated behaviours are not undertaken for inherent enjoyment, but rather to achieve a specific outcome that lies outside of the behaviour itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2000a;
Vallerand & Rousseau, 2001). There are four types of extrinsic motivation. These forms of extrinsic motivation vary in the degree to which their regulation is self- determined (Deci & Ryan, 2000a). The least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation Literature Review 15 is external regulation, followed by introjected regulation, identified regulation, and finally, the most self-determined extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation. The explicit differentiation between these constructs is complex and lies outside the scope of this paper. Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991, 2000a, 2000b) and/or Vallerand and
Rousseau (2001) offer a complete description of these forms of extrinsic motivation.
SDT suggests that the type of motivation an individual experiences toward a specific activity is related to how well the context fulfils their core psychological needs. Individual perceptions of the three core needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness can explain variations in the degree of self-determination of motivated behaviours (Deci & Ryan, 2000a). The need for relatedness is met when an athlete feels connected to others and involved in the social context of the sport (Deci &
Ryan, 1991). The need for competence is met when an individual feels efficacious with respect to the challenge presented and is able to achieve a desired outcome
(Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). Finally, the need for autonomy is satisfied when athletes feel they have choices and are in control of their own behaviour (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). Pelletier and colleagues (2001) demonstrated that athletes experienced intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation (i.e., identified regulation and introjected regulation) when their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were fulfilled.
Sport psychology research has found that coaches who satisfied athletes‟ core psychological needs promoted the development of self-determined motivation (e.g.,
Vallerand & Losier, 1999). This relationship is important, as there is a link between self-determined motivation and success in sport (e.g., Gould, Dieffenbach, Moffett, Literature Review 16
2002; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; Vallerand, Deci & Ryan,
1987). Athletes who had input in the decision making process had significantly higher perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and therefore, self-determined motivation toward sport (Sarrazin et al., 2002).
In addition, Sarrazin and colleagues (2002) found that the motivational climate created by the coach had a significant influence on athlete motivation and dropout. The authors examined the effect of a task oriented motivational climate
(focused on skill mastery, progress, and problem solving) versus the effect of an ego oriented climate (focused on demonstrating high ability and competence). Female handball players who perceived their coach as being more task oriented had higher perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and were more likely to persist in the sport (Sarrazin et al., 2002). Conversely, handball players who perceived their coach as being ego oriented had lower perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and were more likely to drop out of the sport (Sarrazin et al., 2002). Sarrazin and colleagues concluded that the effect of coach behaviour on motivation was mediated by perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
In light of the strong empirical link between autonomy supportive coaching and positive outcomes, Mallet (2005) studied the effect of an autonomy supportive climate on a group of athletes preparing for the Olympic Games. As the coach of the
2004 Australian men‟s track and field team, and a sport psychology researcher,
Mallet had a unique opportunity to create a motivational climate intervention framed by SDT. He created a needs supportive motivational climate by following Mageau and Vallerand‟s (2003) seven guidelines for autonomy supportive coaching. Through Literature Review 17 objective measures of performance and a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention, Mallet concluded that the athletes‟ positive behavioural and affective outcomes (i.e., increased enthusiasm, cooperation, respect, and trust) were attributed to an autonomy supportive coaching style. Additionally, the relay teams ran faster than they had ever run and exceeded their expected performance outcome (i.e., the team was ranked 14th coming into competition and finished in sixth place).
However, these results should be viewed with caution, due to Mallet‟s unique position as a researcher and a coach. The use of a single-case study design raises questions about the reliability and generalizability of the results, since it was Mallet who performed the observations. Nonetheless, these findings are an important starting point for future qualitative research about needs supportive coaching and positive outcomes for athletes.
In addition to the link between an autonomy supportive sport environment and positive motivational outcomes, a similar relationship has been found in domains other than sport, such as the workplace and the classroom (e.g., Deci et al., 2001;
Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003, 2005; Cox & Williams, 2008). In a study comparing workplace environments in the United States and Bulgaria, Deci and colleagues explored whether the concept of needs satisfaction was generalizable across cultures. The researchers surveyed 676 employees of large corporations (548
Bulgarian, 128 American), and used the Work Climate Survey to measure the degree to which employees felt the company supported their autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Offering opportunities for choice and encouraging self-initiation were two examples of a company actively supporting their employees‟ autonomy. As well, Literature Review 18 the Need Satisfaction Scale was used to measure workers‟ perceived satisfaction of the three psychological needs (Deci et al., 2001). In both American and Bulgarian cultures, a significant link was found between an autonomy supportive work environment and self-determined motivation. Workers with increased perceptions of autonomy support and needs satisfaction reported more positive job attitudes, higher task engagement and self esteem, as well as lower anxiety (Deci et al., 2001).
The importance of autonomy support has also been documented in physical education settings. Taylor, Ntoumanis, and Standage (2008) studied 204 British physical education teachers and indicated that teachers experienced self-determined forms of motivation when they felt that the school environment satisfied their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (i.e., the principle and/or staff group created an autonomy supportive working environment for the teachers). Also, teachers who were high in self-determined motivation were more likely to use autonomy supportive teaching strategies (which fostered students‟ motivation; Taylor et al., 2008).
The findings of Cox and Williams (2008) complement the findings of Taylor and colleagues. While Taylor and colleagues studied the effect of an autonomy supportive environment on physical education teachers, Cox and Williams considered the effect of an autonomy supportive environment on students. They studied 518
American elementary physical education students and found that students‟ perceptions of autonomy support directly influenced their feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and self-determined motivation. Standage and colleagues (2005) revealed similar findings in a study of 950 British elementary Literature Review 19 school students. This study also indicated that students‟ self-determined motivation was predicted by overall needs satisfaction, and needs satisfaction was predicted by perceived need satisfaction (Standage et al., 2005). Fostering self-determined motivation in an elementary school physical education setting is important because it results in stronger intentions to participate in future physical education, and more physical activity during leisure time (Cox & Williams, 2008). These studies lay the groundwork for further research about the relationship between needs support, needs satisfaction and self-determined motivation in sport.
Coaching Science
This section will present three aspects of coaching science research. First, a general outline of coaching science literature will be presented. Following this, the coach-athlete relationship will be explored. A great deal of coaching science research has focused on coach behaviour and interaction style, thus the second portion of this section will examine the coach-athlete relationship. The third part of this section will describe specific coaching behaviours that influence an athletes‟ motivation.
Since the 1970‟s the field of coaching science has expanded steadily. Gilbert and Trudel (2004) conducted a comprehensive review of coaching science literature from 1970 to 2001. 610 articles met their inclusion criteria of being published from
1970-2001 in an English language academic journal. The authors divided coaching science research into four main categories: coach thoughts, coach characteristics, coach career development, and coach behaviour (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). While results indicated the presence of four categories of research, the predominant focus of coaching research over the past thirty years has been coach behaviour, defined as Literature Review 20
“what coaches do” (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004, p. 395). Coach behaviour includes themes such as coach effectiveness, leadership style, and the coach-athlete relationship (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). Recently, a number of publications in sport psychology have focused on the impact of coach behaviour on the coach-athlete relationship (Bloom, Crumpton, & Anderson, 1999; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll,
2006; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Poczwardowski, Barott, & Jowett, 2006).
Researchers have stressed the importance of the coach-athlete relationship at all levels of sport. In a study of 12 Olympic level athletes, Jowett and Cockerill
(2003) found that a coach-athlete relationship characterized by closeness, co- orientation, and complementarity contributed to an athlete‟s development. Healthy relationships between coaches and elite level athletes were predominately athlete- centered, and were characterized by mutual respect, trust, care, concern, support, open communication, and shared knowledge (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003).
Furthermore, athletes were more likely to seek support and advice from coaches they felt close or connected to, thus underscoring the significance of building a strong and positive coach-athlete relationship (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003, Jowett & Meek, 2000).
On the other hand, coaches who displayed a lack of interest or emotion, remoteness, or antagonism significantly undermined the coach-athlete relationship (Jowett &
Cockerill, 2003).
Coach behaviour is a particularly interesting aspect of coaching science, as the effect of any behaviour exhibited by a coach lies in athletes‟ perception of the behaviour. Smith and Smoll (1978) noted that “the ultimate effects of coaching behaviours are mediated by the meaning that players attribute to them” (p. 1527). Literature Review 21
Thus, it is not surprising that sport psychology researchers have emphasized the link between a coach‟s behaviour and an athlete‟s psychosocial responses, such as type of motivation or enjoyment (d‟Arripe-Longueville, Fournier, & Dubois, 1998; Jowett &
Meek, 2000; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Poczwardowski et al., 2006). A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the importance of one specific type of behaviour, called autonomy supportive behaviours (Amorose & Horn,
2000, 2001; Black & Weiss, 1992; Gagné et al., 2003; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003;
Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand & Briere, 2001). Mageau and Vallerand expanded on
Black and Deci‟s (2000) definition of autonomy support and applied it to sport:
Being autonomy supportive means that an individual in a position of authority
(e.g., an instructor or a coach) takes the other‟s (e.g., a student or an athlete)
perspective, acknowledges the other‟s feelings and provides the other with
pertinent information and opportunities for choice while minimizing the use of
pressures and demands (p. 886).
Gagné and colleagues found that perceptions of coach autonomy support and needs satisfaction during practice sessions had a significant influence on the self-determined motivation of young gymnasts (age 7-18, M=13 years). Furthermore, in a longitudinal study of adolescent competitive swimmers (age 13-22, M=15.6 years), Pelletier and colleagues concluded that perceptions of autonomy supportive coaching behaviours were positively associated with self-determined motivation. Also, in two separate studies of athletes from a variety of NCAA Division I sports (e.g., softball, swimming, track and field), Amorose and Horn (2000, 2001) found that athletes who perceived their coaches to be autocratic or controlling reported lower levels of Literature Review 22 intrinsic motivation. Research has demonstrated the link between autonomy supportive coaching and intrinsic motivation, and athletes who were intrinsically motivated invested more effort, reported higher levels of concentration, were more persistent and performed better (Beauchamp, Halliwell, Fournier, & Koestner, 1996;
Briere et al., 1995; Pelletier et al., 1995, 2001; Sarrazin et al., 2001)
To summarize, coaching science literature has demonstrated a relationship between coach behaviours, the coach-athlete relationship, and self-determined motivation. In order to link all of these concepts, and provide a framework for future research in the field of coaching science, Mageau and Vallerand (2003) created the motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship. This model elucidates the link between coach behaviour and motivation. An overview of this model will now be presented, followed by a discussion of its specific components.
Motivational Model of the Coach-Athlete Relationship
To further explore the coach-athlete relationship, Mageau and Vallerand
(2003) developed a motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship. Grounded in
Self-Determination Theory, this model describes a motivational sequence whereby coach behaviour influences athletes‟ perceived need satisfaction and motivation
(Appendix A; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000a, 2000b).
The model proposes that three antecedents affect coaches‟ behaviour: (1) their personal orientation (e.g., their interpersonal style), (2) the coaching context (e.g., coach salary, work environment), (3) and their perception of athletes‟ motivation.
These factors impact a coaches‟ use of autonomy supportive behaviours, which in turn, affects an athletes‟ perception of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Literature Review 23
Perceived needs satisfaction determines the type of motivation experienced by the athlete. A discussion of the specific components of the model is presented in the following sections of this chapter.
Antecedents of Coach Behaviour
Personal Orientation. A coach‟s personal orientation is conveyed through their actions, attitudes, and interpersonal style (Reeve, Bolt & Cai, 1999). The behaviour exhibited by a coach is largely determined by their interpersonal style
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). An autonomy supportive interpersonal style is defined as “an attitudinal standpoint where subordinates‟ need for autonomy is respected and valued” (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, p.894). Bloom (2002) suggested that a coaches‟ personal characteristics (e.g., philosophy, perceptions, beliefs, personal life) largely determined whether or not they sought opportunities for professional development
(i.e., clinics on how to support athletes autonomy). Therefore, even though it is theoretically possible to teach coaches how to be autonomy supportive, it is their personal characteristics and orientation that determine whether or not they seek out such information.
Coaching Context. Contextual factors are defined as situation-specific variables, or “unstable factors, aside from the athlete or the coach, such as working conditions, that need to be considered…” (Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell,
1995, p. 12). Contextual factors include available resources, family commitments, salary, relationship with management/administration, recruiting challenges, and job pressures (Bloom, 2007; Davies, Bloom, & Salmela, 2005; Salmela, 1996). Research on contextual factors has found that when job pressures create a high level of stress, Literature Review 24 coaches are more likely to use controlling coaching behaviours (Flink, Boggiano, &
Barrett, 1990; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Furthermore, Grolnick, Weiss, McKenzie, and Wrightman (1996) found a negative correlation between highly stressful environments and autonomy supportive behaviours: as stress increased so did controlling behaviours. Coaches are often pressured to perform, however this pressure likely only causes them to be more controlling (Grolnick & Apostoleris, 2002).
Perception of Athletes’ Behaviour and Motivation. Mageau and Vallerand
(2003) suggested that coaches behave differently with athletes based on their perceptions of that athlete‟s ability and motivation. Coaches who perceived their athletes to be intrinsically motivated are more likely to use autonomy supportive behaviours, whereas coaches who perceive their athletes to be amotivated are more likely to use controlling behaviours (Horn, 1984; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003;
Pelletier & Vallerand, 1996). As well, Grolnick and colleagues (1996) found that teachers used a more controlling style with children who were not motivated to learn.
Research has found that both teachers and coaches have a tendency to use controlling behaviours when interacting with less intrinsically motivated students or athletes
(Courneya & McAuley, 1991; Grolnick & Apostleris, 2002; Grolnick et al., 1996).
Controlling behaviours only serve to further decrease self-determined motivation, which creates a cycle between low motivation and controlling behaviours (Courneya
& McAuley, 1991). Further research is required to develop strategies to help coaches foster intrinsic motivation in unmotivated athletes and end the negative cycle between low motivation and controlling behaviours.
Literature Review 25
Autonomy Supportive Coaching Behaviours
This section will focus on autonomy supportive coach behaviours. The previously discussed antecedents of coach behaviour represent a key determinant of whether a coach chooses to use autonomy supportive behaviours (Mageau &
Vallerand, 2003).
Following an in depth review of the literature examining motivation and leadership behaviour, Mageau and Vallerand (2003) composed a list of 7 forms of autonomy supportive coaching behaviours, which included (1) providing choice within specific rules and limits; (2) providing a rationale for tasks and limits; (3) acknowledging the other person‟s feelings and perspectives; (4) providing athletes with opportunities for initiative taking and independent work; (5) providing non- controlling competence feedback; (6) avoiding controlling behaviours; and (7) preventing ego involvement in athletes. The majority of empirical work examining autonomy supportive behaviour has focused on a limited subset of these behaviours concurrently, rather than examining all autonomy supportive behaviours in one study
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). However, the studies examining various aspects of autonomy supportive behaviour found a consistent link between coaches‟ autonomy supportive behaviour and athletes perceived needs satisfaction (e.g. Amorose and
Horn, 2000, 2001; Gagné et al., 2003; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Pelletier et al.,
2001). For a full description and review of the research examining each of the 7 categories of behaviour, see Mageau and Vallerand.
Literature Review 26
Outcomes of Coaching Behaviour
The next section will focus on the outcomes of autonomy supportive coaching behaviours. Coach behaviour influences athletes‟ perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as well as the type of motivation experienced by the athlete (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
Perceptions of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness. The effect of any behaviour exhibited by a coach is mediated by the athlete‟s perceptions and interpretations of that behaviour (Smith & Smoll, 1989, 1996). As stated by Williams and colleagues (2003), “Leader effectiveness resides in both the behaviour of the leader and the eye of the beholder” (p. 31). The degree to which an athlete feels their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied mediates the relationship between coach behaviours and the type of motivation experienced by the athlete (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Research in academic and physical activity settings has demonstrated that personal and contextual variables, such as a needs supportive environment, contribute to the type of motivation experienced by a student or athlete (e.g., Cox & Williams, 2008; McDonough & Crocker, 2007; Standage, et al., 2003, 2005). There are a number of factors that influence individual perception, interpretation, and evaluation of coaching behaviours, such as developmental level, gender, anxiety level, self esteem, goal orientation, and overall motivational profile
(Amorose & Horne, 2001; Black & Weiss, 1992; Briere et al., 1995; Coatsworth &
Conroy, 2006; Henderlong & Leper, 2002; Kenow & Williams, 1992, 1999; Riemer
& Toon, 2001). Since individual perceptions are influenced by different factors, it is important to look at the impact of coaching behaviour from the athletes‟ point of view Literature Review 27 to fully understand the relationship between coaching behaviours, personal variables, contextual variables and athlete motivation.
Motivational Outcomes. Empirical evidence has revealed an association between autonomy supportive behaviour and self determined forms of motivation (cf.
Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). In sport, autonomy support has been repeatedly linked to self determined motivation, such as intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and, to a lesser degree, introjected regulation (Pelletier et al., 2002). As previously mentioned, research conducted in physical education classes and the workplace has also concluded that psychological need satisfaction is a strong predictor of intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 2001; Standage et al., 2003, 2005). Furthermore, in a study of
NCAA division I athletes, Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) revealed that coach behaviours (training and instruction, positive feedback, autocratic style, and democratic style) explained a significant amount of the variance in perceived need satisfaction. In turn, satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness explained 22% of the variance in athletes‟ self-determined motivation
(Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). The next section will provide an overview of
Paralympic sport, as well as research about coaching athletes with a disability.
Disability Sport
A Brief History of the Paralympic Movement
In 1944, Ludwig Guttman started the Paralympic movement in response to a dramatic increase in the number of people living with physical disabilities following the Second World War (Nadarajar, 2002). Guttman founded the Spinal Cord Injuries
Centre at the Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury, England because he felt that Literature Review 28 traditional methods were no longer sufficient to meet the rehabilitation needs of soldiers and civilians (Nadarajar, 2002). In 1952, he organized the first international sporting event for athletes in wheelchairs, called the Stoke Mandeville Games
(International Paralympic Committee, 2003). In 1960, the Stoke Mandeville Games were renamed the Paralympic Games. At the time, approximately 400 athletes from
23 countries participated in this competition, but participation was limited solely to athletes in wheelchairs. By 1976, athletes who were amputees as well as athletes with a visual impairment were invited to participate in the Paralympic Games in Toronto; in 1980, athletes with Cerebral Palsy were allowed to compete (Nadarajar, 2002). The games had grown to such a significant size that, in 1989, the International Paralympic
Committee was formed to “support and encourage educational, cultural, research and scientific activities that contribute to the development and promotion of the
Paralympic movement” (Nadarajar, 2002, p.12; International Paralympic Committee,
2007).
The word Paralympic was derived from two words; from the Greek word
“para”, meaning next to or alongside, and from the Greek word “Olympic”, referring to the Olympic Games (Nadarajar, 2002, p.12). The modern day Paralympic Games include athletes from six disability groups: amputee, cerebral palsy, visual impairment, spinal cord injuries, intellectual disability, and a group which includes all those that do not fit into the aforementioned groups (les autres; Canadian Paralympic
Committee, 2005). According to the Canadian Paralympic Committee classification system, examples of athletes who are classified as les autres are those with spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, or polio (2005). Literature Review 29
Although the Paralympic Games are held in the same location as the Olympics and use the same facilities, they receive far less attention than the traditional
Olympics (Nadarajar, 2002; Hardin & Hardin 2003). The American television network NBC paid millions of dollars for exclusive coverage of the Olympic 2002 games in Salt Lake City and aired live footage daily, while they aired only one single hour of the opening ceremonies of the Paralympic Games, two days after they occurred (Hardin & Hardin, 2003). Opportunities that are regularly afforded to able bodied athletes, such as sponsorship and endorsement deals, are not offered to athletes with a disability (Hardin & Hardin, 2003). There are a two principle implications of the media‟s skewed reporting and inaccurate portrayal of athletes with a disability (Schell & Duncan, 1999). First, it perpetuates the notion that disability sport is not legitimate sport and is inferior to sport for able bodied athletes (Schell &
Duncan, 1999). As the IPC states, “Paralympics means “parallel Olympics”, not
„special‟ or „separate‟ or „inferior‟” (Ustun, 2002, p.35). Opportunities that are regularly afforded to able bodied athletes, such as sponsorship and endorsement deals, are not offered to athletes with a disability (Hardin & Hardin, 2003). Second, by ignoring the world of disability sport, the media dramatically affects self- perceptions of individuals with disabilities, as it reaffirms their status as low value societal outsiders, separate from the normal people in society (Haller, 2000; Hardin &
Hardin, 2003; Iwakuma, 2003).
In response to society‟s misconceptions about athletes with a disability, both the IPC and CPC place significant emphasis on the importance of education and awareness programs about sport for people with disabilities. The purpose of these Literature Review 30 programs is three-fold: (a) to educate all people about the Paralympic Games and athletes with a disability, (b) to inform individuals with disabilities about the opportunities available to them, and (c) to provide physical education teachers and coaches with practical information about sport adaptations and how to create an inclusive sport environment (Canadian Paralympic Committee, 2005).
Coaching Athletes with a Physical Disability
As a result of the lack of research about coaches of athletes with a disability, there are few coach education programs in this area. Due to the lack of trained coaches, self-coaching is a major issue that has emerged in disability sport (Bradbury,
1999). Self-coaching occurs when an athlete must learn the techniques, tactics, and skills traditionally taught by a coach on their own (Bradbury, 1999). The predominant reason for the popularity of self-coaching among elite level athletes with a disability is the lack of qualified coaches (Bradbury, 1999). Coaches of athletes with a disability must be knowledgeable about both the disability and the sport (DePauw &
Gavron, 2005). This is especially true at the elite level, because coaching elite level sport requires a high degree of sport specific expertise (Vallée & Bloom, 2005).
Many coaches of athletes with a disability got involved with disability sport unintentionally, and have significantly more experience coaching able bodied athletes
(Cregan et al., 2007; DePauw & Gavron, 1991). While many of the core principles of coaching able bodied athletes apply to coaching athletes with a disability, it is important to investigate the different coaching techniques and strategies required for these two populations. Literature Review 31
Cregan and colleagues (2007) examined the career evolution and knowledge of coaches of elite level swimmers with a disability. They interviewed six coaches through unstructured, open-ended interviews using an interview guide based on Côté,
Salmela, Trudel, Baria and Russell‟s (1995) Coaching Model. Their findings identified differences between coaching able bodied athletes and athletes with a disability; and specifically, the importance of contextual factors. Their findings revealed that coaches were required to learn about accessibility (accessible hotels, facilities, and transportation), different types of disabilities, and how to communicate with the athletes‟ support workers or caregivers (Cregan et al., 2007).
Since there are few coaching resources (i.e., manuals, clinics, and seminars) available to coaches of athletes with a disability, parents, caregivers and the athletes themselves represent an important source of knowledge (Cregan et al., 2007). As well, this lack of resources may also partially explain why the coaches stressed the importance of creativity when coaching athletes with a disability. According to one coach, “there is no manual that teaches you how to coach a swimmer with no lower arm; you have to think of how to do it on your own” (Cregan et al., 2007, p. 343).
Although comparing athletes with and without disability has become a common practice in sport psychology research, there is a need for research specifically about coaches who work with elite level athletes with a disability (Cregan et al., 2007;
Perreault & Vallerand, 2007). While research has repeatedly supported the link between coaching behaviour and self-determined motivation in able bodied athletes, there is far less research about how perceptions of coaching behaviour effect motivation in special populations, such as athletes with a disability. In a study of Literature Review 32 recreational wheelchair basketball players, Perreault and Vallerand suggest that the theoretical tenets of SDT can be applied to athletes with a disability, yet there is clearly a need for further research exploring SDT in this population. A thorough examination of the relationship between perceived coach behaviour, needs satisfaction, and different types of motivational regulations would make practical and theoretical contributions to the field of sport psychology.
Method 33
CHAPTER 3
Method
This chapter will provide a detailed description of the methodology that was used in the current study. The participants, data collection techniques, and measures will be outlined in detail. Additionally, the data analysis procedure will be explained and related to the research questions.
Participants
Approximately 300 male and female Canadian Paralympic athletes were invited to participate in this study, of which 113 participants completed the questionnaire in its entirety. Each participant competed in at least one competition at the Paralympic level or qualified for the Canadian Paralympic team (see Table 1 for a complete list of Paralympic sports). In order to ensure that a relationship has formed between coaches and athletes, the participants must have worked with their current coach for at least 6 months. Although the International Paralympic Committee has a very complex system of classifying athletes by degree and type of disability, for the purpose of this study, all Paralympic athletes were invited to participate. No further criteria were required, as the researchers anticipated the availability of athletes who fit these criteria to be limited.
Method 34
Table 1
Winter and Summer Paralympic Sports
Winter Sports Summer Sports Alpine skiing Archery Goalball Powerlifting Swimming Nordic skiing Athletics Equestrian Rowing Table Tennis Biathlon Basketball Fencing Rugby Tennis Sledge hockey Boccia Football Sailing Volleyball Wheelchair curling Cycling Judo Shooting
Prior to competing in a Paralympic competition, athletes must be evaluated
and divided into sport classes according to the classification code outlined by the IPC
(2007). Athletes must undergo an evaluation that includes a physical assessment (i.e.,
range of motion), a technical assessment (i.e., evaluation of tasks in a non-sport
environment), and an observational assessment (i.e., evaluation of sport specific skills
during training and competition; IPC, 2007). The IPC‟s classification strategy was
developed to “support and coordinate the ongoing development of accurate, reliable,
consistent, and credible sport focused classification systems” (International
Paralympic Committee, 2007, p.6). The classification code provides a framework for
athlete evaluation, eligibility, and sport class allocation. Classification is sport-
specific; the international governing body of each sport is responsible for developing
a classification system that ensures equitable competition between athletes (IPC,
2007). The IPC recognizes broad five disability classes: (1) cerebral palsy, (2)
amputee, (3) spinal cord injury, (4) visual impairment, and (5) les autres. Athletes
from all of the disability classification groups were invited to participate in the
current study. See Appendix B for sport specific classification information.
Method 35
Procedure
The Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC) was contacted and informed of the purpose of the present study. The CPC sent a recruitment email to all Paralympic athletes who competed in the 2006 Paralympic Winter Games in Torino, and athletes who had qualified for the 2008 Paralympic Summer Games in Beijing. Coaches were also contacted by email and informed of the nature of the study. Privacy guidelines of the CPC prevented them from disclosing the contact information for athletes and coaches, thus the CPC initially facilitated all contact. In the recruitment email, athletes were presented with a detailed explanation of the nature and purpose of the study, the time commitment required, and the potential implications of this research.
This email emphasized that participation in the study was voluntary and that their confidentiality and anonymity would be protected. In accordance with the Tri-
Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, the athletes who chose to participate were asked to read a consent form before participating (Appendix C). This form outlined all potential risks and benefits of the research, how confidentiality would be maintained, and stated they were under no obligation to participate.
Participants were sent a link to a uniform resource locator (URL) for a website containing the questionnaires used in this study. The email also contained a password required for them to log on to the website designed for this study. Once they logged on to the website, they were asked to fill out a demographic questionnaire (Appendix
D) and multi-section inventory assessing the study variables. Studies that compare participant response of online questionnaires to traditional pen and paper Method 36 questionnaires have found that online questionnaires produce similar mean scores, reliability coefficients, and factor structures (Buchanan & Smith, 1999; Fouladi,
McCarthy, & Moller, 2002; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose, 2006; Miller et al., 2002).
Furthermore, online questionnaires increase response speed, decrease the likelihood of coding errors, and lower the administrative costs associated with traditional questionnaires (e.g., envelopes and postage) (Lonsdale et al., 2006). Another benefit of using online questionnaires in this project was that the athletes were able to complete the questionnaires in private, away from teammates or coaches and take as much time as needed.
Additionally, given that the proposed study examined athletes with a physical disability, the use of online questionnaires allowed athletes to use adaptive technology, such as voice recognition software, to assist them in completing the questionnaires. As well, since the athletes in the study were Paralympic level competitors, they all train and practice in different regions of the country. As such, it would take a significant amount of time to send the surveys by post mail, which would increase the amount of time to complete the project.
Measures
Three scales were used to assess the study variables. To measure coach behaviour, the Sport Climate Questionnaire was used (Appendix E; Deci & Ryan,
2006). To measure perceived autonomy and competence two scales developed by
Hollembeak and Amorose were used (Appendix F; 2005). To measure perceived relatedness, a modified version of Richer and Vallerand‟s (1998) feelings of relatedness scale was used. Finally, the Sport Motivation Scale was used to measure Method 37 self-determined motivation (Appendix G; Pelletier et al., 1995). In total, participants will be asked to respond to 62 items. To the best of our knowledge, none of these measures have been used with athletes with a physical disability, either independently or collectively. However, both Crocker (1993) and Perreault and Vallerand (2007) suggested that athletes with a physical disability undergo the same psychological processes as able-bodied athletes. Therefore, it is assumed that measures with demonstrated validity and reliability with able bodied athletes will also be applicable to athletes with a disability.
Coaching Behaviour
The Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ; Deci & Ryan, 2006) was used as a measure of coaching behaviour (Appendix E). The SCQ measures the degree to which athletes perceive their coach to be autonomy supportive (Deci & Ryan, 2006).
It contains 15-items scored on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Athletes were asked how they feel about their coach, such as, “I feel that my coach provides me choices and options” and “I feel that my coach cares about me as a person”. Each of the items was summed for a total score; and a higher score indicated greater perceptions of autonomy support. The scale has demonstrated high internal consistency in samples of adult athletes (Cronbach‟s alpha .97; Lavoi &
Power, 2006; Pietraszuk, 2006). In a study of 167 American college athletes, Lavoi and Power used the SCQ to measure the degree to which female athletes‟ needs were met as a result of the team climate created by a coach. As well, using the SCQ,
Pietraszuk explored the relationship between autonomy supportive coach behaviour and athlete burnout, and found that the social climate created by a coach had a Method 38 significant influence on burnout. In addition to research specifically in the domain of sport (e.g., Lavoi & Power, 2006; Pietraszuk, 2006), variations of the SCQ have been used to evaluate autonomy support in healthcare settings (e.g., Williams, Cox,
Kouides, & Deci, 1999), classroom (Black & Deci, 2000), and workplace (Baard,
Deci, & Ryan, 2004).
Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness
Perceived Competence. Three items developed by Amorose (2003) were used to assess athletes‟ perceived competence (Appendix F). Participants were asked to choose the response that “best reflects your ability in your current sport” (Amorose,
2003; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). The three items: (1) “How good do you think you are at your sport”, (2) “When it comes to your sport, how much ability do you think you have”, and (3) “How skilled do you think you are at your sport” were scored on a five point Likert scale. Response items ranged from not very good at all to very good, not much ability at all to a whole lot of ability, and not skilled at all to very skilled, respectively (Amorose, 2003). The scale has demonstrated validity and reliability with a sample of adult male and female athletes (Cronbach‟s alpha .74;
Amorose, 2003; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005).
Perceived Autonomy. Athletes‟ perceptions of autonomy were assessed using a six item scale developed by Hollembeak and Amorose (Appendix F; 2005). The scale was developed specifically for use with college-age athletes, and all of the items have demonstrated validity and internal consistency (Cronbach‟s alpha .78;
Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). Participants were asked to “Please mark the response that best reflects how you feel about the amount of choice or control you Method 39 have when it comes to participating in your sport” (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005).
Their responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (completely true for me). Examples of the six items are: (1) “I have a say in what
I do when participating in my sport”, (2) “I feel forced to do things in my sport, even when I don‟t really want to do them”, and (3) “I help decide what I do when participating in my sport” (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). Items two, five, and six were reverse scored. The average score of the six items will be used as an indicator of the degree to which an athlete feels their need for autonomy is satisfied, and a higher score the six items reflects greater perceived autonomy.
Perceived Relatedness. To assess perceived relatedness, a modified version of the Feelings of Relatedness Scale was used (Appendix F; Richer & Vallerand, 1998).
This 10-item scale assesses two dimensions of relatedness: feelings of acceptance and closeness with team members (Richer & Vallerand, 1998). The scale was originally developed by Richer and Vallerand to measure perceived relatedness in the workplace, however it was modified by Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) for use in a sport setting. The original scale contained the stem “In my relations with my work colleagues I feel…” but for use in a team sport settings it was changed to “In my relations with the members of my sports team I feel…” (Richer & Vallerand, 1998;
Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). The stem is followed by one of 10 descriptors (i.e., supported, listened to, affiliated, etc.; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Kowal &
Fortier, 1999; Richer &Vallerand, 1998). The descriptors were scored on a seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (very strongly agree). An athletes‟ perceived relatedness was measured by their score (from 1-7) on the 10 Method 40 descriptive items. The modified version of this scale has demonstrated high reliability
(Cronbach‟s alpha .96; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005).
Motivational Regulation
The Sport Motivation Scale was used to assess different types of motivational regulation (SMS; Appendix G; Pelletier et al., 1995). Research has confirmed that the
SMS scores accurately capture the continuum of self determination as reflected in self-determination theory (Li & Harmer, 1996). The SMS is composed of 28-items divided into seven subscales, three of which assess the different types of intrinsic motivation (motivation to know, experience, and accomplish; Li & Harmer, 1996).
Three subscales assess different types of extrinsic motivation (external regulation, introjected regulation, and identified regulation), and one subscale assesses amotivation (Li & Harmer, 1996). Consistent with motivation research in the sport domain, the SMS does not measure integrated regulation (Pelletier et al., 1995). Each of the 28-items were scored on seven-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly). The scale has satisfactory internal consistency and construct validity and Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients ranging from .70 to .87 (Briere, Vallerand, Blais & Pelletier, 1995; Li & Harmer, 1996; Pelletier et al.,
1995; Riemer, Fink, & Fitzgerald, 2002). Factor analysis has demonstrated that the majority of items in the three intrinsic motivation subscales of the SMS (8/12 items) load on a single factor, as such, a single score of intrinsic motivation can be obtained by averaging the three mean scores from each of the subscales (McNeill & Wang,
2005; Pelletier & Sarrazin, 2007; Pietraszuk, 2006). While some researchers (i.e.,
Gagné et al., 2003; Kowal & Fortier, 2000), have combined the subscales of the SMS Method 41 to obtain a composite score of relative autonomy, for the purpose of this study, all subscales were examined independently. In light of the limited research on the motivation of athletes with a disability, it is important to explore the link between perceived coach behaviours and different types of motivational regulation.
Furthermore, the research team is particularly interested in the three different forms of intrinsic motivation, and by creating an index of relative autonomy, the distinction between these forms is lost.
Data Analysis
The data collected was screened for accuracy and assumptions. Descriptive statistics, including Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations, and
Pearson product moment correlations were calculated. To address one of the research questions of this study, four multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)‟s were conducted to determine if there were significant mean level differences on any of the study constructs. Due to the number of tests performed, a conservative alpha of 0.01 was used.
Independent and Dependent Variables
The independent variables in this study were gender, age, sport type, and disability type. The dependent variables in the data analysis were the perceptions of coach behaviour, the athletes‟ perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as well as motivation.
Structural Equation Modelling
Following the preliminary analyses, item parcels were created in order to reduce the number of indicators per latent factor. Item parcels are defined as Method 42 aggregate-level indicators comprised of the sum of two or more items or responses that are assumed to be conceptually similar and unidimensional (Little, Cunningham,
Sahar, & Widaman, 2002; Nasser & Takahashi, 2003). Three indicators (items) were used to compose each of the parcels, and three parcels were used to represent each of the latent constructs in order to ensure the latent variables were just-identified (Little et al., 2002). Variables that are just-identified have only one unique solution that maximizes the goodness of fit between the observed data and the model (Little et al.,
2002). Item parcels were not created for perceived competence because the scale was only composed of three questions or any of the subscales of the SMS. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the mediational model (Kline, 1998,
McDonald & Ho, 2002). SEM is a method of factor analysis and path modeling appropriate for multivariate analysis of a structural theory (Marsh, 2007; Martens,
2005). It is well suited to theory testing as it takes a confirmatory rather than exploratory modeling approach. LISREL 8.8 statistical software was used to test the models in this study (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2007). To provide support for the measures used in the study, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the factorial validity of the scales. CFA is a confirmatory approach used to test (1) which variables are correlated with which factors, and (2) which factors are correlated with other factors (Stevens, 2002).
Following CFA, path analysis was used to test the relationship between the predictor variable (A; coach autonomy supportive behaviour), the hypothesized mediator variables (B; perceived autonomy, competence and relatedness) and the outcome variable (C; motivation; Holmbeck, 1997). In the first analysis, a combined Method 43 effects model was tested from ABC and AC. This model examined both the direct and indirect effect of perceived coach behaviour on motivation. Assuming the fit indices and structural path coefficients were significant, a mediational model, from
ABC, was tested to examine the path from coach behaviour to perceived needs satisfaction to motivation (Holmbeck, 1997; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). The model is recursive, and as such, all of the paths should be significant in the predicted direction (Holmbeck, 1997). According to the theoretical tenets of self-determination theory, the relationship between coach behaviour and motivation should be completely mediated by perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). However, research by Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) suggests that there may be some direct effect of perceived coach behaviour on motivation. As such, and considering the limited research about athletes with a physical disability, both the indirect and combined effects models were tested.
To determine how well the models fit the data, fit statistics were used to test all of the parameters in the study (Stevens, 2002). The goodness-of-fit indices that were used in this study were (a) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
<.05), (b) comparative fit index (CFI; >.90), (c) non-normed fit index (NNFI; .90), and (d) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; <.05; Hollembeak &
Amorose, 2005). As suggested by Sabiston and Crocker (2008), the chi-square difference will be used as an indicator of which model is a better fit for the data.
When two competing models are nested, “the difference between their chi-square test statistics is independent of the test statistics themselves” (Steiger, Shapiro, & Browne,
1985). Since the mediational model is nested within the combined effects model, a Method 44 chi-square difference (Δχ2) test was used to test the null hypothesis that there were no significant differences between the models. The difference in chi-square statistics for two nested models is calculated by subtracting the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of one model from the other model (e.g. model 1 χ2/df- model 2 χ2/df). A significant change in chi-square values relative to the change in degrees of freedom
(df) indicates that one model is a better fit for the data (Hollembeak & Amorose,
2005). In other words, the chi-square difference will be used to tell whether the direct or indirect (mediational) model is statistically a better fitting model.
Results 45
CHAPTER 4 Results This chapter presents the findings examining the relationship between coach behaviour, perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and motivation. The results are divided into three sections. The first section presents the participants in the study and descriptive statistics. The following section presents preliminary analyses, including Pearson correlation coefficients and analyses of variance. The final section presents the main analyses, which include confirmatory factor analysis and path modeling.
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Participants. The participants in this study were 139 male and female
Paralympic athletes. Twenty-five individuals were excluded from the study either because they did not meet the required inclusion criteria (n=6; i.e. they were not
Paralympic level athletes) or they failed to complete at least 50% of the study measures (n=19; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). These individuals were removed during the data screening procedure, prior to data analysis. Listwise deletions were used in these twenty five cases, resulting in a final sample size of N=113 (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). The final sample included 69 male (61.1%) and 44 female (38.9%) athletes. Within the final sample, a mean substitution was used to impute missing data points so long as the individual responded to over 50% of the scale items (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001). For the purpose of this study, participants were grouped into five age categories: Under 18 (15.0%, n=17), 18-25 (32.7%, n=37), 26-33 (16.8%, n=19), 34-
40 (10.6%, n=12), and above 40 (24.8%, n=28). The five age categories were chosen Results 46 arbitrarily by the researchers. Of the 113 participants, 10.4% reported participating in individual sports (n=12), 41.7% reported participating in team sports (n=48), and
46.1% reported participating in co-acting sports (i.e. swimming or track & field; n=53). A number of athletes indicated that they participate in both the Winter and
Summer Paralympic Games (n=9). Finally, there were athletes from each of the five disability classification groups recognized by the Canadian Paralympic Committee:
Cerebral Palsy (n= 26, 23.0%), Visual Impairment (n=9, 8.0%), Amputee (n=19,
16.8%), Spinal Cord Injury (n=50, 44.2%), and Les Autres (n=9, 8.0%).
Measurement instruments. As presented in Table 2, high means were reported on the Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ), perceived autonomy, relatedness, and competence, as well as the intrinsic subscales of the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS).
Moderate to low means were reported for identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation. All of the measures used in this study had acceptable reliability (=.70-.97) except for the amotivation subscale of the SMS
(=.51).
Table 2
The Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum, Maximum, Skewness, Kurtosis, and Reliability Coefficients for all measurement instruments (N=113)
Variable Mean SD Min Max Skewnessa Kurtosisb
Coach Behaviour
SCQ 5.71 1.22 1.00 7.00 -1.47 2.37 .97
Needs Satisfaction Autonomy 3.93 0.87 1.16 5.00 -0.86 0.66 .89
Competence 4.11 0.66 2.00 5.00 -0.67 0.76 .88 Results 47
Relatedness 5.33 1.16 2.00 7.00 -0.85 0.32 .92
Motivation
Intrinsic 5.46 1.06 1.17 7.00 -1.26 3.05 .91
Intrinsic to know 5.19 1.25 1.00 7.00 -0.85 0.99 .86
Intrinsic for stimulation 5.58 1.16 1.25 7.00 -1.27 2.32 .80
Intrinsic to accomplish 5.67 1.12 1.00 7.00 -1.44 3.37 .82
Identified 4.66 1.29 1.00 7.00 -0.33 -0.32 .72
Introjected 3.75 1.41 1.00 7.00 -0.06 -0.65 .70
External 3.80 1.50 1.00 7.00 -0.19 -0.77 .79
Amotivation 2.92 1.01 1.00 7.00 1.34 1.90 .51
Note. a Std Error Skewness= .227, b Std Error Kurtosis= .451
Dependent Variables. Mean and standard deviation values for each of the dependent variables (gender, age, sport type, and disability type) are presented in
Tables 3 through 6.
Multivariate and Univariate Analyses
It was hypothesized that perceptions of coach behaviour, needs satisfaction, and motivation would differ significantly by age, gender, sport type and disability type. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA), followed by analyses of variance (ANOVA), showed no significant (p > .05) main effects for age, sport type, or disability type on any of the variables. F-values and effect sizes are presented in tables 3-6.
Results 48
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by gender (N=113)
Male (n=69) Female (n=44) M SD M SD F Η
SCQ 5.80 1.16 5.56 1.22 1.05 0.01
Autonomy 4.05 0.83 3.76 0.89 3.01 0.03
Competence 4.19 0.59 4.00 0.75 2.01 0.02
Relatedness 5.55 1.04 4.98 1.27 6.57 0.06
IMKn 5.36 1.22 4.94 1.26 3.10 0.03
IMStim 5.62 1.16 5.52 1.16 0.19 <0.01
IMAcc 5.75 1.14 5.55 1.10 0.87 0.01
Intrinsic 5.56 1.07 5.31 1.04 1.46 0.01
Identified 4.74 1.26 4.54 1.29 0.66 0.01
Introjected 3.98 1.33 3.38 1.41 5.08 0.04
External 3.96 1.51 3.56 1.50 1.99 0.02
Amotivated 2.96 1.04 2.87 1.01 0.23 <0.01
Results 49
Table 4
Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by age group (N=113)
<18 18-25 26-33 33-40 >40 F Η (n=17) (n=37) (n=19) (n=12) (n=28) M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
SCQ 6.12 1.05 5.62 1.22 5.66 1.09 5.38 1.71 5.74 1.18 0.79 0.03
Autonomy 4.03 0.93 3.74 0.76 4.20 0.75 3.76 1.01 4.02 0.94 1.16 0.04
Competence 3.86 0.66 4.05 0.66 4.24 0.63 4.33 0.61 4.17 0.67 1.28 0.05
Relatedness 5.90 0.74 5.24 1.17 5.47 1.05 5.34 1.53 5.00 1.19 1.75 0.06
IMKn 5.14 1.62 5.10 1.25 5.36 1.20 5.06 1.06 5.28 1.15 0.21 0.01
IMStim 5.42 1.53 5.52 1.11 6.01 .94 5.33 1.24 5.57 1.07 0.89 0.03
IMAcc 5.66 1.31 5.62 1.23 5.90 1.04 5.52 1.01 5.66 0.99 0.27 0.01
Intrinsic 5.42 1.34 5.40 1.12 5.73 0.96 5.22 0.82 5.49 0.96 0.49 0.02
Identified 5.00 1.47 4.62 1.34 4.84 1.19 4.95 0.84 4.26 1.30 1.21 0.04
Introjected 3.54 1.34 3.87 1.44 3.98 1.57 3.79 0.90 3.52 1.52 0.47 0.02
External 4.22 1.26 4.02 1.41 3.96 1.75 3.83 1.64 3.15 1.39 1.96 0.07
Amotivated 2.44 0.71 2.86 1.02 3.09 1.15 3.43 1.11 2.97 0.94 1.96 0.07
Results 50
Table 5
Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by sport type (N=113)
Team Individual Co-Acting F Η (n=48) (n=12) (n=53) M SD M SD M SD SCQ 5.61 1.11 5.89 0.99 5.76 1.36 0.33 0.01
Autonomy 3.86 0.85 4.38 0.67 3.89 0.89 1.87 0.03
Competence 4.07 0.73 4.16 0.59 4.14 0.62 0.16 <0.01
Relatedness 5.34 1.23 5.41 0.87 5.29 1.17 0.06 <0.01
IMKn 5.26 1.26 5.33 1.15 5.10 1.27 0.28 0.01
IMStim 5.63 1.22 5.72 1.13 5.50 1.12 0.25 0.01
IMAcc 5.65 1.22 5.60 1.05 5.71 1.07 0.06 <0.01
Intrinsic 5.48 1.13 5.58 0.97 5.43 1.03 0.11 <0.01
Identified 4.80 1.25 5.08 1.26 4.44 1.31 1.69 0.03
Introjected 4.05 1.41 3.79 1.34 3.46 1.40 2.27 0.04
External 3.99 1.49 3.37 1.75 3.73 1.45 0.94 0.02
Amotivated 3.03 1.08 2.95 1.03 2.82 0.95 0.57 0.01
Results 51
Table 6
Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results by disability classification group (N=113)
CP VI Amputee SCI LA F Η
(n=26) (n=9) (n=19) (n=50) (n=9)
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
SCQ 5.80 1.24 5.35 1.51 5.43 1.53 5.82 1.06 5.71 1.03 0.57 0.02
Autonomy 4.07 0.93 3.92 1.03 3.60 0.79 3.94 0.84 4.18 0.71 1.06 0.04
Competence 4.02 0.70 3.96 0.42 4.19 0.53 4.18 0.69 4.03 0.84 0.44 0.02
Relatedness 5.42 1.24 5.12 1.34 5.22 1.20 5.40 1.15 5.05 0.86 0.32 0.01
IMKn 5.22 1.55 4.94 1.00 5.35 1.08 5.24 1.21 4.77 1.14 0.43 0.02
IMStim 5.42 1.45 5.75 0.81 5.84 0.76 5.64 1.19 4.97 0.85 1.07 0.03
IMAcc 5.61 1.23 5.61 0.99 5.59 0.94 5.79 1.18 5.41 1.08 0.30 0.01
Intrinsic 5.43 1.25 5.37 0.88 5.56 0.80 5.55 1.10 5.00 0.84 0.57 0.02
Identified 5.09 1.43 4.44 1.15 4.89 0.89 4.55 1.36 3.73 0.80 2.18 0.08
Introjected 3.50 1.50 3.41 1.42 3.98 1.08 3.93 1.48 3.27 1.39 0.89 0.03
External 3.97 1.33 3.16 1.62 4.36 1.40 3.74 1.56 3.11 1.43 1.69 0.06
Amotivated 2.70 0.97 3.00 0.98 3.10 1.05 2.97 1.02 2.86 1.15 0.50 0.02
Note. CP=Cerebral Palsy, VI=Visual Impairment, SCI= Spinal Cord Injury, LA=Les Autres
Correlations
Pearson correlation coefficients were examined for the relationships between perceptions of coach behaviours (SCQ), perceived needs support (autonomy, competence, relatedness), and all forms of motivation (intrinsic motivation to know, Results 52 intrinsic motivation for stimulation, intrinsic motivation for accomplishment, identified, introjected, external, amotivation). There were several significant correlations between perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness with the intrinsic subscales of the SMS ranging from .30 to .45. As well, there were high correlations among the intrinsic subscales themselves (see Table 7). Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients are reported along the diagonal.
Table 7
Pearson Correlation Coefficients (N=113)
Results 53
Main Analyses
Structural Equation Modeling
Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationship between perceptions of coach behaviour, perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and motivation. Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was used for all analyses.
First, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the factorial validity of the scales. For the measurement model analyses, item parcels (or manifest variables) were uniquely loaded on corresponding latent factors. The latent factors were free to correlate, and were considered independent and unique. For model identification purposes, the variance of each of the factors was set to 1.0.
In the first measurement model (Figure 1), all of the indicators loaded significantly on their respective latent factors except for the variable amotivation. In this model, the subscales for the five types of motivational regulation (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, amotivation) were loaded on the latent construct „motivation‟. The majority of the factor loadings (82%) were above 0.65 with standard errors ranging from 0.05-0.81.
Fit indices demonstrate that the model was a satisfactory, albeit weak, fit to the data,
χ2 (109)=263.37, RMSEA=0.11, CFI=.93, NNFI=.91, SRMR=.12. The standard error variances ranged from -4.72 to 5.16. Of the 136 fitted standardized residuals, 38.9% z
<|1.0|, 26.47% z |1.0 < 2.0|, and 34.55% >|2.0|. Visual inspection of the residuals indicates that amotivation made the greatest contribution to this misspecification. All of the standardized residuals for amotivation were above 2.0, and 68.8% were greater than 3.0. As well, part of the misspecification was accounted for by competence. Results 54
Figure 1. Factor loadings and correlation coefficients from the measurement model for the sample (N=113). Note: IP= item parcel; * indicates a statistically significant coefficient (t ≥ 1.96).
In the second measurement model, amotivation was excluded, and only intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external Results 55 regulation were loaded on the latent factor motivation. As with the first model, all of the indicators loaded significantly on their respective latent factors (see Figure 2).
Only two of the loadings in the model were below .70, and the standardized residuals suggest that there is less misspecification in this model than the previous model.
Standard errors ranged from 0.05-0.70. Of the 120 standardized residuals, 46.7% z
<|1.0|, 31.7% z |1.0 < 2.0|, and 21.7% >|2.0|. An examination of the standardized residuals demonstrates that autonomy item parcel 2 (IP2) and the intrinsic variable are the greatest contributors to the observed residuals. Overall, the model was a good fit for the data, χ2 (94) =171.97, RMSEA=.09, CFI=.95, NNFI=.94, SRMR= 0.09.
Autonomy was significantly correlated with motivation (r=.29), relatedness (r=.53) and coach behaviour (r=.57). Relatedness was significantly correlated with coach behaviour (r=.64) but not to motivation. Competence was not significantly related to the other two psychological needs or motivation, but there was a weak significant relationship between perceived coach behaviour and competence. Results 56
Figure 2. Factor loadings and correlation coefficients from the measurement model for the sample without the amotivation subscale (N=113). Note: IP= item parcel; * indicates a statistically significant relationship (t ≥ 1.96).
A third measurement model (Figure 3) was tested in which the three intrinsic subscales of the SMS (intrinsic motivation to know, intrinsic motivation for stimulation, intrinsic motivation for accomplishment) were loaded on an intrinsic motivation latent variable. The other forms of motivation (identified, introjected, external, amotivation) were omitted from the analyses. In the previous analyses, the Results 57 standardized residuals for the intrinsic variable were large and positive (residuals ranged from 0.5 to 5.62). All of the indicators loaded significantly on the latent factors and were above .60. The model was a good fit for the data (RMSEA=.05,
CFI=.98, NNFI=.97, SRMR=.07). There was a moderate significant correlation between autonomy and competence with intrinsic motivation; however relatedness was not significantly correlated with motivation. The 105 fitted residuals ranged from -2.44 to 4.50. An examination of the residuals demonstrated that 62.8% of the errors were below 1.0. As noted with the previous models, both competence and autonomy item parcel 2 were the greatest contributors to the observed residuals. Results 58
Figure 3. Factor loadings and correlation coefficients from the measurement model for the sample (N=113). Note: IP= item parcel; * indicates that the relationship is statistically significant.
Structural Models
Following CFA, the hypothesized relationships between perceptions of coach behaviour, perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and motivation
(excluding amotivation) were tested. In order to test hypothesis 3, two structural models were tested. The first model was a combined effects model, which examined Results 59 the direct relationship between perceptions of coach behaviour and motivation, as well as an indirect relationship that was mediated by perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness. The second model was an indirect effects model, where the relationship between perceptions of coach behaviour and motivation was fully mediated by perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness. In all of the path models in this study, the three psychological needs were considered independent and unique. Thus the needs were not correlated with each other. Similarly, the error covariances were not correlated for any of the models in the present study. For model specification purposes, the factor loadings of congeneric items were set to 1.0. An examination of the combined effects model indicates that coach behaviour was not a significant correlate of motivation (Figure 4). However, goodness of fit indices for this model is a good fit for the data, RMSEA= 0.08, CFI=.95, NNFI=.94, SRMR=.09.
The total effect of climate on autonomy, relatedness, and competence was 0.41, 0.53, and 0.03, respectively. The indirect effect of climate on motivation was 0.12.
Results 60
Figure 4. Combined effects structural model for all forms of motivation (N=113). Note. Dashed line indicates the relationship is not statistically significant
The indirect effects model was also a good fit for the data, and fit indices were identical to the previous model (see Table 7). As can be seen in Figure 5, perception of coach behaviour was a significant correlate of autonomy and relatedness.
Autonomy was a weak, albeit significant, correlate of motivation. The Δχ2 between the models was 1.49, below the critical χ2 value of 3.84 (p<.05). Therefore, the indirect effects model was not a better fit than the combined effects model. However, since the direct relationship between coach behaviour and motivation was not significant, and the indirect effects model supports the tenets of SDT, the indirect effects model was considered more theoretically sound.
Results 61
Table 8
Goodness of fit indices for the indirect and combined effects models of the relationship between coach behaviour and all forms of motivation
χ2 df Δχ2 P RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
Indirect Effects 173.31 96 --- 0.00 0.09 .95 .94 .09
Combined Effects 171.82 95 1.49 0.00 0.09 .95 .94 .09
Figure 5. Indirect effects model for all forms of motivation Note. Dashed line indicates the relationship is not statistically significant
A final path analysis of the structural relationships among coach behaviour, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and intrinsic motivation was conducted
(Figure 6). Similar to the structural analysis described above, both combined effect and indirect effects models were tested. The combined effects model a good fit for the data, RMSEA=0.05, CFI=.98, NNFI= .97, SRMR=.07. The direct relationship Results 62 between perceptions of coach behaviour and intrinsic motivation was not significant.
Perceived coach behaviour was not a significant correlate of competence, and relatedness was not a significant predictor of intrinsic motivation. The total effect of climate on motivation was 16.5%, of which 79.0% were direct effects.
Figure 6. Combined effects structural model for intrinsic motivation. Note. Dashed line indicates the relationship is not statistically significant
The fit of the indirect effect model was similar to the combined effects model
(see Table 8). In this model, autonomy and competence beliefs were significant correlates of intrinsic motivation (see Figure 7). Perception of coach behaviour was a significant correlate of perceptions of autonomy and relatedness. The difference in chi-square values between the two models was 0.48, which was below the critical Δχ2 Results 63 of 3.84. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the fit of the indirect effects model and the combined effects model. However, since the direct path between coach behaviour and intrinsic motivation was not significant, and in line with SDT perspectives, the indirect effects model is a better fit for the data.
Table 9
Goodness of fit indices for the indirect and combined effects models of the relationship between coach behaviour and intrinsic motivation
χ2 df Δχ2 p RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
Indirect Effects 102.38 82 --- 0.0634 0.047 0.98 0.97 0.068
Combined Effects 101.90 81 0. 48 0.0582 0.048 0.98 0.97 0.067
Figure 7. Indirect effects model for intrinsic motivation Note. Dashed line indicates the relationship is not statistically significant
Discussion 64
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between
Paralympic athletes‟ perceptions of coach behaviour and motivation as proposed by the Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Results supported SDT tenets indicating that perceptions of coach behaviour were indirectly linked to motivation, and directly associated with the needs of relatedness and autonomy. The psychological needs were uniquely associated with motivation.
Perceptions of Coach Behaviour
Research has consistently demonstrated that autonomy supportive coach behaviour is linked to positive sport outcomes, such as enjoyment, performance, persistence, and concentration (Amorose & Horn, 2000, 2001; Black & Weiss, 1992;
Gagné et al., 2003; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). The Paralympians in the current study reported high perceptions of autonomy supportive coach behaviour. The athletes reported greater perceptions of autonomy support than those reported by adolescent PE students (Lim & Wang 2009; Ommundsen 2007) or college level athletes (LaVoi & Power 2006). The high perceptions of autonomy support found in the present study are surprising in light of the stressful nature of the sporting environment prior to a major sporting event (i.e. World Championship,
Olympic/Paralympic Games; Greenleaf, Gould, & Dieffenbach, 2001). Gould,
Guinan, Greenleaf, Medbery and Peterson (1999) interviewed Olympic athletes leading up to the 1996 Games in Atlanta and found that the coach-athlete relationship was characterized by a lack of trust, support, communication, and respect. Similarly, Discussion 65 in a study of Norwegian athletes competing at the 1994 Winter Olympic Games in
Lillehammer, Pensgaard and colleagues identified the coach as a source of distress
(Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002; Pensgaard & Ursin, 1998). Norwegian athletes cited a lack of feedback, ignorance, and lack of respect as three reasons why coaches were considered to be a source of distress (Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002; Pensgaard & Ursin,
1998). However, the Paralympic athletes in the current study did not support the findings of Pensgaard and colleagues (2002; 1998), as they reported that their coaches were autonomy supportive.
One possible explanation for the disparity between Olympic and Paralympic athletes‟ perceptions of their coaches‟ behaviour is the influence of the social environment on the coach-athlete relationship (Poczwardowski, Barott, & Henschen,
2002). In Paralympic sport, athletes with various degrees of disability are permitted to participate on the same team, thus the coach must be familiar with the needs, abilities, and limitations of each individual athlete. Since Paralympic athletes have a wide range of degree and type of disability, research has demonstrated that Paralympic coaches must regularly take their athletes‟ needs and opinions into account (Cregan,
Bloom & Reid, 2007; Hanrahan, 2004). According to Mageau and Vallerand (2003),
“acknowledge[ing] the other person‟s feelings and perspectives” (p.887) is one of the key features of autonomy supportive coaching strategies. Since autonomy supportive strategies are linked to increased enjoyment, it is possible that by communicating and taking their athletes‟ specific needs into account, Paralympic coaches promote a symbiotic coach-athletes relationship. Discussion 66
Another possible explanation for the high perceptions of autonomy supportive coaching behaviours is that in Paralympic sport, coaches must learn from the athlete in order to coach effectively. Since each athlete is most familiar with their own disability and movement capabilities, the traditional roles of a coach-athlete relationship are sometimes reversed in Para-sport (Cregan, et al., 2007; Mageau &
Vallerand, 2003). This role reversal is critical for success, as each athletes‟ disability results in unique abilities and requires individualized coaching strategies (Cregan et al., 2007). This aspect of disability sport undoubtedly contributes to the experience of a shared coach-athlete relationship (Cregan et al., 2007). Since collaborating and acknowledging the others‟ perspective is a key feature of autonomy supportive coaching (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Thus, it is possible that an autonomy supportive coach-athlete relationship is inherent in Paralympic sport, and reflected in the high scores in the current study.
There is limited research focused on how the coaches influence the motivation of Paralympic athletes. Based on previous research with male and female athletes
(Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1992; Coatsworth & Conroy, 2006), and elite athletes with a physical disability (Martin, 1999), perceptions of coach behaviour and needs satisfaction were expected to differ significantly by age, sport type, disability type, and gender. The results of the current study found no significant difference on perceptions of coach behaviour as a function of any of the study variables. While these findings appear to contradict previous research, there is limited basis for comparison, as no study has specifically examined these variables (i.e. age, gender, sport type, disability type) in Paralympic athletes. Hollembeak and Amorose Discussion 67
(2005) found that gender influenced perceptions of coach behaviour in college athletes, however there was no significant main effect of gender differences in the current study. One explanation for this discrepancy is that Hollembeak and Amorose used the Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS; Chelladurai, 2007), while the Sport
Climate Questionnaire (SCQ) was used in the present study. The LSS is composed of five subscales, two of which assess a coach‟s decision making style (democratic and autocratic), two which assess motivational tendencies (social support and positive feedback), and one which measures instructional tendencies (training/instruction;
Chelladurai, 2007). Hollembeak and Amorose reported that male athletes perceived the coach as using more autocratic behaviour and a lower frequency of democratic behaviour, and the reverse was true for female athletes. However, the findings of the current study are based on the SCQ, which only measures democratic coaching behaviours, and does not include a measure of autocratic behaviour. Therefore, while male and female athletes may in fact differ in perceptions of autocratic coaching behaviour, it would not have been detected by the measures used in this study.
Another unexpected finding of the current study was that there were no significant differences in perceptions of coach behaviour as a function of athletes‟ disability type. Cregan and colleagues (2007) interviewed coaches of elite swimmers with a disability and found successful coaches were creative and able to individualize instruction. In spite of the need for individualized instruction for athletes with different types or degrees of disability, Paralympic coaches in the current study were perceived as autonomy supportive across all disability types. DePauw and Gavron
(2005) suggested that coaching athletes with a disability requires many of the same Discussion 68 skills as coaching able-bodied athletes. Coaches of athletes with a disability should use the same autonomy supportive strategies as coaches of able bodied athletes (i.e. providing athletes with choice, opportunities for initiative-taking, constructive feedback; Cregan, et al., 2007; DePauw & Gavron, 1995; Mageau & Vallerand,
2003). These findings support modern discourse in sport psychology and adapted physical activity which emphasizes the „athlete first‟ philosophy (DePauw &
Gavron,1991, 2005; Cregan et al., 2007; Hanrahan, 2004, 2007; Martin, 1999).
Regardless of their disability type, Paralympic athletes should be viewed as elite athletes who have a disability, rather than disabled people who participate in sport
(Hanrahan, 2007; Martin, 1999). Research has demonstrated that autonomy support is an effective coaching strategy with many different populations (Gagné et al., 2003;
Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere, 2001; Mageau
& Vallerand, 2003). Coaches of Paralympic athletes should always focus on supporting athletes‟ autonomy, regardless of disability type.
Perceived Needs Satisfaction
According to SDT, perceptions of autonomy support influence motivational outcomes by satisfying an individual‟s core psychological need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). The results of the current study provide partial support for this hypothesized relationship between perceptions of coaching behaviour and the psychological needs. Perceived coach behaviour was significantly related to perceived autonomy and relatedness.
There was no significant relationship between perceived coach behaviour and perceptions of competence. Interestingly, the relationship between perceived Discussion 69 autonomy support and perceived relatedness was stronger than the relationship between perceived autonomy support and perceived autonomy. This pattern of relationships is similar to the findings of Adie and colleagues (2008). However, there are no consistent findings about the relationship between perceived coaching behaviour and needs satisfaction. Standage, Duda, and Ntoumanis (2006) found that perceived teacher autonomy support was a strong predictor of competence, while Cox and Williams (2008), Reinboth and colleagues (2004, 2006) and Standage and colleagues (2003, 2005) found autonomy support was significantly linked to all three needs.
In light of the divergent findings on the strength of the relationships between autonomy support and each of the three psychological needs, there is a clear need for further research. One possible explanation for the equivocal findings is that the strength of the relationship between perceived coach autonomy support and needs satisfaction varies as a function of contextual factors such as the social environment or sport type (Adie et al., 2008; Standage et al., 2006). As suggested by Reinboth and colleagues (2004), the underlying process by which needs are satisfied is invariant across different contexts, but the relative importance of each need may vary as a function of the social environment. In a PE class environment, the teacher is most often the primary source of competence information (i.e., skill level and degree of success), thus feelings of competence are strongly linked to teacher behaviour
(Reinboth and Duda, 2006; Reinboth et al., 2004). Conversely, in an elite sport context, the principle sources of competence information are normative sources
(Duda & Hall, 2001; Reinboth & Duda, 2006). Duda and Hall (2001) defined a Discussion 70 normative source of competence information as a source of knowledge that an athlete uses to see how well they have done relative to an external standard, such as beating opponents or winning competitions. Perceptions of coach behaviour has a minimal influence over normative competence information, which may explain the weak link between Paralympic athletes‟ perceptions of autonomy support and competence satisfaction (Reinboth & Duda, 2006). Moreover, since the athletes in this study reported very high perceptions of competence, and there was no significant relationship to perceived coach autonomy support, it appears to indicate that
Paralympic athletes are successfully gaining competence information from sources other than the coach. It is possible the relationship between coach behaviour and competence was non-significant because athletes‟ competence levels were already high, thus coach behaviour had minimal impact on competence.
While coach behaviour had no significant influence on perceived competence, there was a strong relationship between perceptions of coach autonomy support and perceived relatedness. Adie and colleagues (2008) suggest that when coaches use autonomy supportive strategies, they create an empowering environment which allows athletes to feel a stronger connection with their teammates, thus increasing perceptions of relatedness. Autonomy support is associated with respect and mutual understanding, and coaches increase perceptions of relatedness by encouraging team members to “be an individual within the team” (Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002).While
Reinboth and Duda (2006) claimed that heightened inter-individual comparison and rivalry among teammates ultimately undermine perceptions of relatedness in competitive sport, the athletes in the present study reported high levels of relatedness. Discussion 71
The strong relationship between perceived coach behaviour and feelings of relatedness at the elite level could also be due to the fact that in an Olympic (or
Paralympic) year, athletes spend the vast majority of their time training with their coach and teammates with a common end goal in mind (Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002).
However, similar to the need for competence, it is possible that the importance of relatedness varies across different social environments (Hodge, Lonsdale, & Ng,
2008), thus further research is required to fully understand how coaches influence relatedness at the elite level.
The relationship between perceptions of coach behaviour and the need for autonomy was also significant. This finding was consistent with the second hypothesis and previous literature (i.e., Gagné et al., 2003; Mageau & Vallerand,
2003). According to the Canadian Paralympic Committee (2006), for people with disabilities, sport promotes independence, and feelings of independence are an important characteristic of autonomy (Reeve, 2002). Reeve further suggests that another important aspect of feeling autonomous is internal perceived locus of causality (IPLOC; i.e. feeling in control of ones‟ actions). Promoting an IPLOC is not one of the autonomy supportive coaching behaviours outlined by Mageau and
Vallerand (2003). Nonetheless, in order to help their athletes feel completely autonomous, it is important for coaches of athletes with a physical disability to encourage an IPLOC. Gagné and colleagues and Reinboth and Duda (2006) have both supported the presence of a strong link between an internal perceived locus of causality and psychological well-being. Future research should include a measure of athletes‟ IPLOC to gain a more complete understanding of the relationship between Discussion 72 coach behaviour and autonomy. It is especially important for coaches of athletes with a physical disability to support athletes‟ autonomy in order to promote feelings of empowerment and validation of their skill as athletes (Cregan et al., 2007; Pensgaard,
Roberts, & Ursin, 1999; Sherrill, 1998). Overall, the present findings indicate that the strategies used by Canadian Paralympic coaches are successfully fostering athletes‟ perceptions of autonomy.
Overall, the Paralympians in this study reported satisfaction of all three of the core psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). It is possible that the uniquely collaborative nature of the Paralympic coach-athlete relationship (Cregan et al., 2007) is responsible for the athletes‟ high perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Since the Paralympic coach-athlete relationship is characterized as a
“shared experience”, it possible that athletes contribute to their coaches‟ perceptions of autonomy, competence, relatedness (Cregan et al., 2007). Deci and colleagues
(2006) suggest that both giving and receiving autonomy support are key determinants of the quality of a relationship between two individuals. Coaches may use autonomy supportive coaching strategies in response to high perceptions of their own autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Research has demonstrated that perceptions of autonomy support are an antecedent for the use of autonomy supportive strategies
(Taylor et al., 2008). According to Deci and colleagues and Patrick, Knee, Canevello, and Lonsbary (2007), giving autonomy support is another avenue to experience need satisfaction. The cycle proposed in Figure 8 is supported by previous research in domains other than sport (Deci et al., 2006; Patrick et al., 2007; Taylor et al., 2008).
This pattern of relationships is different from the traditional coach-athlete relationship Discussion 73 at the elite level, whereby the coach is viewed as the instructor (d'arripe-Longueville,
Fournier, & Dubois, 1998). However, considering the dynamic and reciprocal nature of the coach-athlete relationship (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003), athletes‟ high perceptions of autonomy support and need satisfaction could contribute to coach need satisfaction.
Figure 8. Cyclical relationship between autonomy supportive coaching strategies and perceptions of autonomy for athletes and coaches.
One final and particularly salient finding regarding needs satisfaction is that the three needs were not significantly correlated with each other. Relatedness and autonomy were correlated, but competence was not significantly associated with either of the other two needs. Sarrazin and colleagues (2002), Hollembeak and
Amorose (2005), and Reinboth and Duda (2006) all found a similar pattern of relationships among the three needs. In all three studies, the correlation between relatedness and competence was the lowest, followed by autonomy and competence. Discussion 74
Hollembeak and Amorose reported the correlation between relatedness and competence as 0.08, and between autonomy and competence as 0.16. Deci and Ryan have suggested that theoretically the three needs should be correlated with each other, however research findings on this topic have been far from unanimous. Reis,
Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan (2000) indicated that each of the three needs has an empirically distinguishable effect, and the three needs represent distinct constructs.
Some researchers have demonstrated that the needs are correlated (e.g., Brunet &
Sabiston, 2008; Patrick et al., 2007) while others have reported low correlations between the needs (Reinboth & Duda, 2006; Reis et al., 2000). One possible explanation for these findings relates to how researchers conceptualize and measure autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In the literature, this is referred to as content validity, which is a subjective concept, and requires a degree of agreement about what a construct represents (Pennington, 2003). There is no consensus among researchers in the field of psychology about how to conceptualize the three needs, nor is there an instrument consistently used to measure needs satisfaction. All of the instruments used to measure the three needs in the current study have been used in previous research, and were found to be psychometrically sound. However, it is difficult to compare the correlations among the needs in the present study with studies that may have conceptualized autonomy, competence, and relatedness in a different way, and as a result, used different measures. Further research should attempt to clarify these relationships and develop a single instrument to measure all three needs.
Discussion 75
Motivation
Overall, the results of the current study indicated that perceived coach autonomy support had an indirect influence on self-determined motivation. Analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between (i) perceived coach behaviour, needs satisfaction, and a latent variable composed of both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation (IM-EM variable) and (ii) perceived coach behaviour, needs satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. In support of the hypotheses, results of the path analyses indicated that the direct path from perceived coach behaviour to motivation was not significant. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy was a significant correlate of IM-EM variable as well as intrinsic motivation. Perceived competence was a significant correlate of intrinsic motivation, but not the IM-EM variable. Finally, the need for relatedness was not a correlate of motivation.
Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) is a subtheory of SDT that attempts to explain variations in intrinsic motivation as a function of social and environmental factors (Deci & Ryan, 2000). According to CET, intrinsic motivation is an innate human emotion, and will thrive when an individual‟s needs for autonomy and competence are both satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The results of the current study support the principles of CET, as there was a significant relationship between both competence and autonomy and intrinsic motivation. When an environment fosters both autonomy and competence, it is considered optimal for the development of intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000b). However, researchers (i.e., Fortier,
Vallerand, Briere, & Provencher 1995; Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan, 1987) suggested that since elite sport environments were primarily focused on winning, they were not Discussion 76 conducive to the development of intrinsic motivation. This was not the case in the current study, as the athletes reported high levels of intrinsic motivation. One explanation for the high levels of intrinsic motivation in the present study was that perceptions of coach autonomy support could temper the negative impact of a competitive environment on intrinsic motivation (Reeve & Deci, 1996; Vallerand &
Reid, 1984). Vallerand and Losier (1999) suggest that social and environmental factors determine the type of motivation an athlete experiences. Although the
Paralympic athletes in this study were involved in a competitive, elite sport environment, autonomy supportive coaching was an important factor to promote the development of intrinsic motivation. In fact, the results of the current study indicate that the model linking coach behaviour, needs satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation was a better fit for the data than the model which included all forms of motivation as the outcome.
In the motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship, Mageau and
Vallerand (2003) suggest that there is a significant link between perceptions of autonomy support from the coach, satisfaction of the need for autonomy, and intrinsic motivation. The present study provided support for this claim, as perceived autonomy satisfaction emerged as the strongest predictor of motivation. Interestingly,
McDonough and Crocker (2008), Cox and Williams (2008), and Reinboth and colleagues (2004) found perceived autonomy satisfaction to be a weaker correlate of motivation than either of the other two needs. However, Reinboth and colleagues
(2004) contend that the relative influence of each need on motivational regulation may vary as a function of the social environment. Research has demonstrated the Discussion 77 importance of choice and an internal perceived locus of causality (IPLOC) to
Olympic athletes, while Deci and Ryan (2000) suggest that choice and IPLOC are two essential determinants of the need for autonomy (Mallett & Hanrahan, 2004).
Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone (1994) suggest that athletes who persist in sport find ways to re-evaluate the motivation for „unenjoyable‟ aspects of elite sport, such as repetitive training. Perhaps the need for autonomy is more important in a
Paralympic sport environment than in recreational sport settings (i.e. McDonough and
Crocker, 2007) or physical education class (Cox and Williams, 2008). Success at the elite level requires rigorous, and sometimes tedious, training regimes that are driven by feelings of autonomy (Mallett & Hanrahan, 2004).
Furthermore, for elite athletes, satisfaction in sport is tied to social recognition, self-enhancement and demonstrating competence through achievement
(Mallett & Hanrahan, 2004; Vallerand, 1997). A number of researchers (e.g., Guay,
Boggiano, & Vallerand, 2001; Vallerand, Fortier & Guay, 1997) have examined the relationship between perceived competence and self-determined motivation. Contrary to previous research (i.e., Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003), competence was only related to intrinsic motivation in the current study. Deci and
Ryan (2000, 2002) propose that the relative influence of each need on motivation may vary depending on the task and is influenced by environmental constraints, obstacles, and socio-cultural affordances. This proposition has been supported in a number of different contexts, including sport (Amorose & Horn, 2000, 2001; Hollembeak &
Amorose, 2005), physical activity (Brunet & Sabiston, 2008; Edmunds, Ntoumanis &
Duda, 2008; McDonough & Crocker, 2007) and physical education classes (Cox & Discussion 78
Williams, 2008; Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003). One explanation for the lack of association between competence and self-determined forms of motivation is related to the instrument used. The instrument used to measure competence in the current study was developed by Amorose (2003). The questions have been used in previous research with American college athletes (e.g. Amorose,
2003; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005), but have never been used in a study with elite athletes, nor any population of people with a physical disability. In Amorose‟s work, he only examined the relationship between needs satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Thus, it is possible that the questions do not accurately capture the dimensions of competence that are associated with forms of motivation other than intrinsic motivation. While the items were deemed reliable, further testing is warranted to establish the construct validity of this instrument.
Research has consistently documented the influence of autonomy and competence on motivation, but support for the link between relatedness and motivation has been less compelling (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2000b, 2002; Hollembeak
& Amorose, 2005; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, Cury, 2002). Both
Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) and Sarrazin and colleagues (2002) found significant support for the role of relatedness as a mediator between coach behaviour and motivation. However, in spite of these statistically significant relationships, the factor loadings were very low in both studies. In the current study, there was no significant association between relatedness and motivation. Standage, Duda, and
Ntoumanis (2003) and Reinboth, Duda, and Ntoumanis (2004) suggest that low perceptions of relatedness would result in fewer negative consequences than low Discussion 79 perceptions of competence (Reinboth et al., 2004; Standage et al., 2003). These findings support Deci and Ryan‟s contention that proximal relatedness support may not be necessary for intrinsic motivation.
In addition, Wilson, Rodgers, and Fraser (2002) suggested that feeling connected to others is an important catalyst for the internalization of extrinsically motivated behaviours, but feelings of relatedness are weak predictors of behaviours that have already been internalized (i.e., are intrinsically motivated; Wilson et al.,
2002; Wilson & Rodgers, 2007). Athletes in the current study reported high levels of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, which, based on the contentions by
Wilson and colleagues, could explain why relatedness was not a significant predictor of motivation. Vallerand (1997) suggests that the relative importance of the need for relatedness depends on three factors: (1) the nature of the task, (2) the conditions in which the activity is performed, and (3) the individual‟s needs. In line with this suggestion, the current results indicate that Paralympic athletes competing in a highly competitive and stressful environment do not need to feel connected to others in their social sphere to feel motivated towards elite sport. Mallett and Hanrahan reported that while Olympic track and field athletes perceived themselves as members of an exclusive group striving for the “holy grail” of sport (p. 193), ultimately their personal goals for achievement and strong sense of self belief were largely responsible for their motivation in sport. Therefore, although relatedness is recognized as a fundamental need according to self-determination theory, perhaps only a distal sense of relatedness is necessary for the development of intrinsic motivation in sport (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Summary_ 80
CHAPTER 6
Summary
The Canadian Paralympic team placed seventh out of 147 countries at the
2008 Paralympic Games in Beijing. Despite this, there has been limited research focused on Canadian Paralympic athletes or coaches. To the best of our knowledge, no study has examined the influence of autonomy supportive coaching strategies on the motivation of athletes with a disability. In able-bodied athletes, autonomy supportive coaching strategies have been linked to performance, persistence, concentration, and enjoyment (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Also, Hollembeak and
Amorose (2005) and Gagne, Ryan, and Bargmann (2003) demonstrated that there is a significant relationship between perceptions of autonomy support and intrinsic motivation towards sport. The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between Paralympic athletes‟ perceptions of coach autonomy support and motivation. According to self-determination theory, satisfaction of the three core needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness mediate the relationship between social/environmental factors and motivation. Thus another objective of the current research was to explore whether perceptions of these three needs mediate the relationship between coach behaviour and motivation.
The participants in this study were 113 male and female Canadian Paralympic athletes. The Canadian Paralympic Committee identified and contacted the athletes via email. Following the informed consent procedure, participants were asked to fill out an online survey which was comprised of a demographic questionnaire, the Sport
Climate Questionnaire, measures of perceived autonomy, competence, and Summary_ 81 relatedness, and the Sport Motivation Scale. Descriptive statistics indicated that the sample was comprised of male and female athletes (61% male, 39% female athletes from a wide range of age groups (18-40+) and sport types (10% individual sports,
42% team sports, 46% co-acting sports). As well, athletes from each of the disability classification groups recognized by the International Paralympic Committee were represented in the sample (Cerebral Palsy 23% Visual Impairment 8.0%, Amputee
17%, Spinal Cord Injury 44% and Les Autres 8%). Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that there were no significant differences on perceptions of coach behaviour, needs satisfaction, or motivation as a factor of gender, age, sport type, or disability type.
Following these preliminary analyses, structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized pattern of relationships between perceived coach behaviour, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and motivation. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the proposed model. CFA indicated that all of the variables loaded significantly on their respective latent factors, except the amotivation subscale of the SMS. Amotivation was subsequently eliminated from the analyses.
Global indices of model fit (χ2, RMSEA, CFI, NNFI, SRMR) indicated that the measurement models were a good fit for the data. Following CFA, path analysis was used to test the pattern of relationships. Two sets of structural models were tested to examine the influence of perceived coach behaviour and needs satisfaction on (i) intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and (ii) intrinsic motivation. Two structural models were tested for each set (indirect effects and combined effects), resulting in a total of four structural models. Results indicated that the direct path from coach behaviour to Summary_ 82 motivation was not significant for either model, and the indirect effects model was a better fit for both intrinsic and the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation variable. As well, indices of model fit demonstrated that the indirect intrinsic motivation model was a better fit for the data than the model with both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as the outcome measure.
A closer examination of the structural models revealed that there was no significant relationship between coach autonomy support and perceptions of competence, nor was there a significant relationship between perceived relatedness and motivation. The relationship between competence and motivation was only significant for intrinsic motivation. The relationship between autonomy support, perceptions of autonomy, and motivation was significant in both cases. In sum, the present findings suggested that perceptions of autonomy support influenced the type of motivation an athlete experienced. As suggested by SDT, the effect of autonomy supportive coaching strategies on motivation was mediated by perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Conclusions
Canadian Paralympic athletes perceived their coaches to be very autonomy
supportive.
There was no significant relationship between coach behaviour, needs
satisfaction, or self determined motivation as a factor of:
Age (<18, 18-25, 26-33, 33-40, >40)
Gender (male or female)
Sport type (individual, team, co-acting) Summary_ 83
Disability type (cerebral palsy, visual impairment, spinal cord injury,
amputee, les autres)
Perceptions of coach autonomy support were:
Significantly related to satisfaction of the need for autonomy
Significantly related to satisfaction of the need for relatedness
Not significantly related to satisfaction of the need for competence
There was a significant correlation between autonomy and relatedness,
however competence was not significantly correlated with either of the two
needs.
Confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the factorial validity of the
scales. An examination of goodness of fit indices for the measurement model
indicated the models were a good fit for the data.
Amotivation did not load significantly on the same factor as the other forms of
motivation, and thus was eliminated from analyses.
Satisfaction of the need for autonomy was significantly associated with
intrinsic motivation and the IM-EM variable.
Satisfaction of the need for relatedness was not significantly associated with
either intrinsic motivation or the IM-EM variable.
Satisfaction of the need for competence was significantly associated with
intrinsic motivation, but not the IM-EM variable.
Path analysis indicated that:
There was no direct relationship between coach behaviour and
motivation Summary_ 84
Autonomy, competence, and relatedness mediated the relationship
between perceived autonomy support and the IM-EM variable
Autonomy, competence, and relatedness mediated the relationship
between perceived autonomy support and intrinsic motivation
According to goodness of fit indices, the relationship between perceived
autonomy support needs satisfaction intrinsic motivation was a better fit
for the data than the relationship between autonomy support needs
satisfaction the IM-EM variable.
Practical Implications
The results of the current study demonstrate a relationship between perceptions of autonomy support and athletes‟ motivation. These findings may help current and future Paralympic coaches gain a greater understanding of how to foster self-determined motivation in their athletes. All Canadian Paralympic coaches should focus on using the autonomy supportive behaviours outlined by Mageau and
Vallerand (2003) to promote athletes‟ intrinsic motivation. The seven behaviours identified by Mageau and Vallerand are: (a) provides athletes with choice, (b) opportunities for initiative-taking, (c) uses a democratic leadership style, (d) gives a rationale for their actions, (e) shows concern for the athlete both on and off the field,
(f) gives constructive feedback, and (g) fosters a task-oriented sport environment. The present results indicated that the same autonomy supportive strategies should be used for male and female athletes of all ages with all types of disabilities. In addition, from a theoretical perspective, the current study adds to the self-determination theory literature by extending Deci and Ryan‟s work to a previously understudied Summary_ 85 population. As well, by examining both the indirect and direct effects models, the study contributes to the literature by strengthening the proposal that the three psychological needs act as a mediator between perceived social and environmental factors, and motivational outcomes.
Limitations
While the current study added to the literature by exploring the relationship between autonomy supportive coaching strategies and motivation in Paralympic athletes, there are a number of limitations that must be discussed. As all the participants in the current study were Paralympic athletes, one must be careful not to generalize the results to elite able-bodied athletes or athletes with a disability who participate in lower levels of sport. There was also a relatively small sample size
(N=113). As a result, it was not possible to examine whether the pattern of relationships supported by the path analysis were invariant by gender, age, disability classification group, or sport type. Also, the analyses in the current study were completely quantitative, thus the results only provide evidence of a significant relationship between perceived autonomy support, needs satisfaction, and motivation.
These results do not explain why the relationship was significant.
Another limitation of these findings is the timing and method of data collection. Data was collected immediately prior to the start of the Paralympic Games in Beijing. The months leading up to a major international competition must be extremely busy for elite athletes, and perhaps they did not want to take time away from their training routine to complete the survey. However, since the purpose of the study was to examine the coach-athlete relationship, it was important to collect data at Summary_ 86 a time where it was certain that coaches and athletes would be spending a great deal of time together.
According to the privacy rules of the Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC),
CPC administrators are prohibited from disclosing the contact information of
Paralympic athletes. Since the CPC supported the current research, they provided assistance by sending out a recruitment email to all Paralympic athletes from the study authors. Although this was extremely helpful on the part of the CPC, it is possible that some of the athletes chose not to participate in the study because they were not certain their answers would remain completely anonymous. Furthermore, as elite athletes preparing for an international competition, they must have been receiving many emails from the CPC (regarding logistics, visas etc.) and thus this request may not have appeared as important as others at the time.
One final limitation of the study concerns the theoretical underpinning of the study and measurement issues. As the study was grounded in self-determination theory (SDT), it only provides one perspective on the relationship between coach behaviour and motivation. There are many factors (e.g. the structure created by the coach, the coaches‟ level of involvement) that are related to the coach-athlete relationship and motivation that are not encompassed by SDT and could not be included in this study for the sake of brevity and simplicity. Furthermore, there is currently no single instrument to measure all of the components of SDT. This represents a limitation for the present research even though all of the scales have been used in previous research, and have satisfactory reliability coefficients.
Summary_ 87
Recommendations for Future Research
While the present study adds to the limited body of literature about coaching elite athletes with a physical disability, there are still many research questions that that have yet to be answered. There is a global need for greater research about disability sport in Canada, specifically at the elite level. The athletes in the current study reported very high levels of intrinsic motivation, higher than would be expected in a population of elite level athletes (Mallett & Hanrahan, 2004). This finding warrants further study of the motivation of these athletes. A qualitative methodology could be used to gain an in depth understanding of why these athletes participate in sport and what strategies their coaches use to maximize motivation. The current study focused on the athletes‟ perception of coach behaviour, but in order to fully understand how the coach influences the motivation of Paralympic athletes, it is important to look at the coaches‟ perspective as well. It has been suggested that the collaborative nature of the Paralympic coach-athlete relationship contributed to the use of autonomy supportive coaching strategies, yet there has been no empirical research to support this claim. Moreover, while the present study extended a part of
Mageau and Vallerand‟s motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship to
Paralympic sport, future research should test the model in its entirety with this population. The present results focused exclusively on the link between perceptions of coach behaviour, needs satisfaction, and motivation. However future research should investigate the other portions of the model, namely the antecedents of coach behaviour, the role of coach created structure and the coach‟s level of involvement with the team. References_ 88
References
Abbott, M., Bourne, C., Eriksson, P., Higgs, C., Lagace, G., Sawiki, O., & Marion, A.
(2005). Coaching athletes with a disability. Ottawa: Coaching Association of
Canada.
Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). Autonomy support, basic need
satisfaction and the optimal functioning of adult male and female sport
participants: A test of basic needs theory. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 189-
199.
Amorose, A. (2003). Reflected appraisals and perceived importance of significant
others‟ appraisals as predictors of college athletes‟ self-perceptions of
competence. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 60-70.
Amorose, A., & Horn, T. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate
athletes‟ gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches‟
behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84.
Amorose, A., & Horn, T. (2001). Pre- to post-season changes in the intrinsic
motivation of first year college athletes: Relationships with coaching behavior
and scholarship status. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 355-373.
Asken, M. J., & Goodling, M. (1986). Sport psychology: An undeveloped discipline
from among the sport sciences for disabled athletes. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 3, 312-319.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A
motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068. References_ 89
Beauchamp, P. H., Halliwell, W., Fournier, J., & Koestner, R. (1996). Effects of
cognitive-behavioral psychological skills training on the motivation,
preparation, and putting performance of novice golfers. The Sport
Psychologist, 10, 157-170.
Biddle, S., & Mutrie, N. (2001). Psychology of physical activity: Determinants, well-
being and interventions. London: Routledge.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and
students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-
determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.
Black, S. & Weiss, M. (1992). The relationship among perceived coaching behaviors,
perceptions of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 309-325.
Bloom, G. A. (2002). Coaching demands and responsibilities of expert coaches. In J.
M. Silva, & D. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 438-
465). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bloom, G. A. (2007). Coaching psychology. In P. R. Crocker (Ed.), Sport
psychology: A Canadian perspective. Toronto: Pearson.
Bloom, G. A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J. (1999). A systematic observation study
of the teaching behaviors of an expert basketball coach. The Sport
Psychologist, 13, 157-170.
Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1998). The
importance of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 267-281. References_ 90
Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J.H. (1997). Pre- and post-competition
routines of expert coaches of team sports. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 127-
141.
Bloom, G. A., & Salmela, J. H. (2000). Personal characteristics of expert sport
coaches. Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 6, 56-76.
Bradbury, T. (2001). Stepping up: Guidelines for self-coaching. Journal of
Excellence, 5, 78-88.
Briere, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1995). On the
development and validation of the French form of the sport motivation scale.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 465-489.
Brunet, J., & Sabiston, C. M. (2008). Social physique anxiety and physical activity: A
self-determination theory perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise.
Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Using the internet for psychology research:
Personality testing on the world wide web. British Journal of Psychology, 90,
125-144.
Canadian Paralympic Committee. (2006). Changing minds, changing lives:
Rehabilitation through sport. Retrieved from Canadian Paralympic
Committee: http://www.paralympic.ca/page?s=88&lang=en-CA
Canadian Paralympic Committee. (2005). In Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved
from http://www.paralympic.ca
Carvalho, J. & Farkas, A. (2005). Rehabilitation through sport-pilot project with
amputees in Angola. The Lancet , 366, S5-6. References_ 91
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),
Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 113-133). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Coaching Association of Canada. (2005). Overview of CAC. Retrieved November 25,
2007, from www.coach.ca/eng/about_cac/overview.cfm
Coatsworth, J. D. , & Conroy, D. E. (2006). Enhancing the self-esteem of youth
swimmers through coach training: Gender and age effects. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 7, 173-192.
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. J. (1995). The coaching
model: A grounded assessment for expert gymnastic coaches‟ knowledge.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 1-17.
Courneya, K. S., & McAuley, E. (1991). Perceived effectiveness of motivational
strategies to enhance children's intrinsic interest in sport and physical activity.
Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6, 125-136.
Cox, A., & Williams, L. (2008). The roles of perceived teacher support, motivational
climate, and psychological need satisfaction in students' physical education
motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 222-239.
Cregan, K., Bloom, G. A., & Reid, G. (2007). Career evolution and knowledge of
elite coaches of swimmers with a physical disability. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 78, 339-551.
Crocker, P. R. (1993). Sport and exercise psychology research with individuals with
physical disabilities: Using theory to advance knowledge. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 10, 324-335. References_ 92 d'Arripe-Longueville, F., Fournier, J. F., & Dubois, A. (1998). The perceived
effectiveness of interactions between expert French judo coaches and elite
female athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 317-332.
Davies, M. J., Bloom, G. A., & Salmela, J. H. (2005). Job satisfaction of
accomplished male university basketball coaches: The Canadian context.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36, 173-192.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006, October 27). Self-determination theory. Retrieved
May 9, 2008, from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/auton.html
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P.
(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organization
of a former Eastern Bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in
personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol.
38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Deci, R. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research.
Rochester: University of Rochester. References_ 93
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-
268.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of
Personality, 62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., LaGuardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006).
On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in
close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313-327.
Depauw, K., & Gavron, S. (1991). Coaches of athletes with disabilities. Physical
Educator, 48, 33-40.
DePauw, K., & Gavron, S. (2005). Disability sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport: Recent extensions
and future directions. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblaus, & C. M. Janelle
(Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 417-443). New York:
John Wiley.
Edmunds, Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Testing a self-determination theory
based teaching style in the exercise domain. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 38, 375-388.
Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies:
Undermining children's self-determined motivation and performance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916-924. References_ 94
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., & Provencher, P. J. (1995).
Competitive and recreational sport structures and gender: a test of their
relationship with sport motivation. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
26, 24-39.
Fouladi, R. T., McCarthy, C. J., & Moller, N. P. (2002). Paper and pencil or online?
Evaluating mode effects on measures of emotional functioning and
attachment. Assessment, 9, 204-215.
Gagné, M., Ryan, R., & Bargman, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need
satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology , 15, 372-390.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science research published
from 1970-2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 388-399.
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and
their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 14, 172-204.
Gould, D., & Eklund, R. C. (1993). Coping strategies used by U.S. Olympic
wrestlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.
Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, K., Medbery, R., & Peterson, K. (1999). Factors
Affecting Olympic Performance: Perceptions of Athletes and Coaches from
more and less successful teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13.
Greenleaf, C., Gould, D., & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Factors Influencing Olympic
Performance: Interviews with Atlanta and Nagano US Olympians. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 154-184. References_ 95
Grolnick, W. S., & Apostoleris, N. H. (2002). What makes parents controlling? In E.
L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp.
161-181). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An
experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.
Grolnick, W. S., Weiss, L., McKenzie, L., & Wrightman, K. (1996). Contextual,
cognitive, and adolescent factors associated with parenting in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 33-54.
Guay, F., Boggiano, A. K., & Vallerand, R. J. (2001). Autonomy support, motivation,
and perceived competence: Conceptual and empirical linkages. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 643-650.
Haller, B. (2000). If they limp, they lead? News representations and the hierarchy of
disability images. In D. Braithwaite & T. Thomson (Eds.), Handbook of
communication and people with disabilities (pp. 273-288). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hanrahan, S. J. (2004). Sport psychology and athletes with disabilities. In J. Summer
& T. Morris (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (pp.
572-583). Milton: John Wiley.
Hanrahan, S. J. (2007). Athletes with disabilities. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund
(Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 845-858). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley. References_ 96
Henderlong, J., & Leper, M.R. (2002). The effects of praise on children‟s intrinsic
motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 774-795.
Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C., & Ng, J. Y. (2008). Burnout in elite rugby: Relationships
with basic psychological needs fulfillment. Journal of Sport Sciences, 26,
835-844.
Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviors and college
athletes' intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 20-36.
Hollembeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity
in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical
and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65, 599-610.
Horn, T. S. (1984). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic setting: Methodological
considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 60-76.
International Paralympic Committee. (2003). Spirit in Motion. International
Paralympic Committee Press Release. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from
http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sections_Menu/IPC/IPC_Brochure.
pdfm
International Paralympic Committee. (2005, January). Promoting the health and
human rights of individuals with a disability through the Paralympic
movement. International Paralympic Committee Press Release. Retrieved
April 23, 2008, from http://www.toolkitsportdevelopment.org/html/resources/ References_ 97
International Paralympic Committee. (2007). Paralympic movement info sheets.
Retrieved December 1, 2007, from
www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sections_Menu/Media/Infosheets/
International Year of Sport and Physical Education. (2005). Retrieved December 4,
2007, from http://www.un.org/sport2005/a_year/s_disable.html
Iwakuma, M. (2003). Being disabled in modern Japan. In M.K. Kramer (Eds.) The
emerging monoculture: Assimilation and the “model minority” (pp125-159).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishers.
Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. (2003). Olympic medalists‟ perspective of the athlete–
coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313–331.
Jowett, S., & Meek, G. (2000). Coach–athlete relationships in married couples: An
exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157-175.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2007). LISREL (Version 8.8) [Computer software].
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software Inc.
Kenow, L.J., & Williams, J.M. (1992). Relationship between anxiety, self-
confidence, and evaluation of coaching behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 6,
344-357.
Kenow, L. M. , & Williams, J. M. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athletes'
perceptions of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 251-259.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Software review: Software programs for structural equation
modeling- Amos, EQS and LISREL. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 16, 343-364. References_ 98
Kowal, J. , & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions
from self-determination theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 355-368.
Lavoi, N. M., & Power, F. C. (2006). Pathways to fostering civic engagement in
collegiate female athletes: An exploratory study. Journal of College and
Character, 7, 1-12.
Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Testing the simplex assumption underlying the sport
motivation scale: A structural equation modeling analysis. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 67, 396-405.
Lim, B. S., & Wang, C. K. (2009). Perceived autonomy support, behavioural
regulations in physical education and physical activity intention. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 10, 52-60.
Little, T. D., Cunnigham, W. A., Sahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or
Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 151-173.
Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. A. (2006). Pixels vs. paper: Comparing online
and traditional survey methods in sport psychology. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 28, 100-108.
Mageau, G., & Vallerand, R. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 883-904.
Mallet, C. J. (2005). Self-determination theory: A case study of evidence-based
coaching. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 417-429.
Mallett, C., & Hanrahan, S. (2004). Elite athletes: Why does the fire burn so brightly?
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 183-200. References_ 99
Martin, J. J. (1999). A personal development model of sport psychology for athletes
with disabilities. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 183-191.
McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. (2007). Testing self-determined motivation as a
mediator of the relationship between psychological needs and affective and
behavioral outcomes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 645-663.
McNeill, M. C., & Wang, C. K. (2005). Psychological profiles of elite school sports
players in Singapore. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 117-128.
Nadarajar, B. (2002). The Paralympic Games: From 1960 to 2004. Athens 2004
Organising Committee for the Olympic Games.
Nasser, F., & Takahashi, T. (2003). The Effect of Using Item Parcels on Ad Hoc
Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: An Example Using
Sarason's Reactions to Tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 75-97.
Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school
physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of
Personality, 97, 444-453.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self-
determination theory in sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 19, 397-401.
Ommundsen, Y., & Kvalo, S. E. (2007). Autonomy-Mastery, Supportive or
Performance Focused? Different teacher behaviours and pupils' outcomes in
physical education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 385-
413.
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of need
fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination References_ 1 00
theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434-
457.
Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors' beliefs and subordinates'
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 331-
340.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations
among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence:
A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279-302.
Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Tuson, K., Briere, N., & Blais, N. (1995).
Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and
amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 17, 18-34.
Pelletier, L., & Sarrazin, P. (2007). Measurement issues in self-determination and
sport. In M. S. Hagger, & N. L. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 143-152). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Perreault, S., & Vallerand, R. (2007). A test of self determination theory with
wheelchair basketball players with and without disability. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 24, 305-316.
Pennington, D. (2003). Essential Personality. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Pensgaard, A. M., & Roberts, G. C. (2002). Elite athletes' experiences of the
motivational climate: The coach matters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 12, 54-59. References_ 101
Pensgaard, A. M., & Roberts, G. C. (2000). The relationship between motivational
climate, perceived ability and sources of distress among elite athletes. Journal
of Sport Sciences, 18, 191-200.
Pensgaard, A. M., & Ursin, H. (1998). Stress, control, and coping in elite athletes.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 8, 183-189.
Pensgaard, A. M., Roberts, G. C., & Ursin, H. (1999). Motivational factors and
coping strategies of Norwegian Paralympic and Olympic winter sport athletes.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16.
Pietraszuk, T. K. (2006). Burnout in athletics: A test of self-determination theory.
Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbok, Texas.
Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J., & Jowett, S. (2006). Diversifying approaches to
research on athlete-coach relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7,
125-142.
Poczwardowsi, A., Barott, J. E., & Henschen, K. P. (2002). The athlete and coach:
their relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretive study.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 98-113.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L.
Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination (pp. 183-203).
Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect
intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 24-33.
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy supportive teachers: How they teach
and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537-548. References_ 102
Reid, G., & Prupas, A. (1998). A documentary analysis of research priorities in
disability sport. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15, 168-178.
Reinboth, M., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction
and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 269-286.
Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching
behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of
young athletes. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 297-313.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily
well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.
Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Construction et validation de l‟ Echelle du
sentiment d‟appartenance sociale [Construction and validation of the
relatedness feeling scale]. Revue europeenne de psychologie applique, 48,
129-137.
Riemer, H. A., Fink, J. S., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (2002). External validity of the sport
motivation scale. Avante, 8, 57-66.
Riemer, H., & Toon, K. (2001). Leadership and satisfaction in tennis: Examination of
congruence, gender, and ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
72, 243-256.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427. References_ 103
Sabiston, C. M., & Crocker, P. R. (2008). Exploring self-perceptions and social
influences as correlates of adolescent leisure-time physical activity. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 3-22.
Salmela, J. H. (1996). Great job coach! Getting the edge from proven winners.
Ottawa, ON: Potentium.
Sarrazin, P. G., Guillet, E., & Cury, F. (2001). The effect of coach's task- and ego-
involving climate on the changes in perceived competence, relatedness, and
autonomy among girl handballers. European Journal of Sport Sciences, 1, 1-9.
Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation
and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European
Journal of Social Psychology , 32, 395-418.
Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1991). An In-depth study of former elite
figure skaters: III. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13.
Schell, L., & Duncan, M. (1999). A content analysis of CBS's coverage of the 1996
Paralympic Games. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16, 27-47.
Sherrill, C. (1998). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Cross-
disciplinary and lifespan. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1996). The coach as a focus of research and intervention
in youth sports. In F. L. Smoll, & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in
sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 125-141). Madison, WI: Brown &
Benchmark. References_ 104
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., Curtis, B, & Hunt, E. (1978).Towards a meditational
model of coach-player relationships. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 49, 528-541.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2006). Enhancing coach-athlete relationships:
Cognitive-behavioral principles and procedures. In J. Dosil (Ed.), The Sport
Psychology Handbook. (pp. 19-37). London: John Wiley.
Smoll, F.L., & Smith, R.E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model
and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.
Sport Canada. (2006). Policy on sport for persons with a disability (Publication No.
CH24-14/2006). Ottawa: Canadian Heritage.
Standage, M., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Students' motivational processes
and their relationship to teacher ratings in school physical education: a self-
determination theory approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
77, 100-110.
Standage, M., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory
in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
411-433.
Standage, M., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in
physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement
goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 97-110.
Statistics Canada. (2002, December 3). Participation and activity limitation survey: A
profile of disability in Canada. Statistics Canada Press Release. Retrieved References_ 105
April 23, 2008, from
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/sc/pol/pwad/3_e.cfm
Statistics Canada. (2007, December 3). Physical activity limitation survey. Statistics
Canada Press Release. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-628-XIE/2007003/series1-en.htm
Steiger, J. H., Shapiro, A., & Browne, M. W. (1985). On the multivariate asymptotic
distribution of sequential chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50, 253-264.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.).
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self- determination theory
approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers' motivational strategies
in physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 75-94.
Turman, P. D. (2001). The impact of success and athlete maturity level on coaches‟
leadership styles over time. Small Group Research, 32, 576-594.
United Nations: International Year of Sport and Physical Activity. (2005). Retrieved
April 23, 2008, from http://www.un.org/sport2005/a_year/s_disable.html
Ustun, T. (2002). Paralympic Games: From 1960 to 2004. Athens 2004 Organising
Committee for the Olympic Games.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 29, pp. 271-360). San Diego: Academic Press References_ 106
Vallerand, R., Deci, E., & Ryan, M. (1987). Intrinsic motivation in sport. In Pandolf,
K. (Ed.), Exercise and sport science review (pp. 389-425). New York:
Macmillian
Vallerand, R., Fortier, M., & Guay, F. (1997). Self determination and persistence in a
real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 72: 1161-1176.
Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrated analysis of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142-
169.
Vallerand, R. J., & Rousseau, F. (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport
and exercise. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblaus, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.),
Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 389-416). New York: John
Wiley.
Warburton, D., Nicol, C., & Bredin, S. (2006). Health benefits of physical activity:
The evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174, 801-809.
Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Kouides, R., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Presenting the facts
about smoking to adolescents. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine,
153, 959-963.
Williams, J. M., Jerome, G. J., Kenow, T., Sartain, T. A., & Darland, G. (2003).
Factor structure of the coaching behavior questionnaire and its relationship to
athlete variables. The Sport Psychologist, 17.
References_ 107
Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2007). Self-determination theory, exercise and
well-being. In M. S. Hager & N. L. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in exercise and sport. Champagne, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., & Fraser, S. N. (2002). Examining the psychometric
properties of the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire. Measurement
in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6, 1-21.
World Health Organization. (1999, December 3). WHO director-general urges
comprehensive agenda on disability. World Health Organization Press
Release. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://cdrwww.who.int/inf-pr-
1999/en/pr99-68.html
World Health Organization. (2003, December 3). Retrieved April 23, 2008, from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2003/np24/en/index.html
Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: Uncharted territory in sport
psychology research. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555–572.
Appendices_ 108
Appendix A
The Motivational Model of the Coach-Athlete Relationship
From:
Mageau, G., & Vallerand, R. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 883-904.
Appendices_ 109
Appendix B Paralympic Sport-Specific Classification
Sport International Sport Classification Federation Alpine Skiing International Visually impaired Paralympic Committee B1 Totally blind B2 Partially sighted with little remaining sight B3 Partially sighted with more remaining sight
Standing
LW1 double above-knee amputees LW2 outrigger skiers LW3 double below-knee amputees/ CP5, CP6 LW4 skiers with prosthesis LW5/7 skiers without poles (LW5/7-1, LW5/7-2, LW 5/7-3) LW6/8 skiers with one pole (LW6/8 -1, LW6/8 -2) LW9 disability of arm and leg (Amputation, CP, Hemiplegic), (LW9/1, LW9/2)
Sitting
LW10 mono skiers (high degree of paraplegia), (LW10/1, LW10/2) LW11 mono skiers (lower degree of paraplegia) LW12/1 mono skiers (lower degree of paraplegia, double AK Amputees), (LW12/1, LW 12/2)
Archery Fédération Archery Standing (ARST): Archers in the International de Tir à Standing Class have no disabilities in the arms. The legs show some degree of loss of muscle l‟Arc strength, co-ordination and/or joint mobility. Archers in this class may choose to compete sitting in an ordinary chair with their feet on the ground or standing.
Archery Wheelchair 1 (ARW1): Archers in the ARW1 class have a disability in their arms and legs (tetraplegia). They have limited range of movement, strength and control of their arms and Appendices_ 110
poor or non-existing control of the trunk. The legs are considered non-functional, due to amputation and/or similar limitations of movement, strength and control. They compete in a wheelchair.
Archery Wheelchair 2 (ARW2): Archers in the ARW2 class have paraplegia and limited mobility in the lower limbs. These athletes require a wheelchair for everyday use and compete in a wheelchair. Athletics International Classes 11, 12 and 13 cover the different levels of Paralympic visual impairment. Committee Class 20 covers athletes with an intellectually disability
Classes 32-38 cover athletes with different levels of cerebral palsy - both wheelchair (32 - 34) and ambulant (35 - 38).
Classes 40-46 cover ambulant athletes with different levels of amputations and other disabilities, including les Autres (eg. dwarfism).
Classes 51-58 cover wheelchair athletes with different levels of spinal cord injuries and amputations. Boccia Cerebral Palsy BC1: For both CP1 throwers and CP2 foot International Sport players. Athletes may compete with the help of an assistant, who must remain outside the athlete's and Recreation playing box. The assistant can only stabilize or Association adjust the playing chair and give a ball to the player on his request.
BC2: For CP2 throwing players. Players are not eligible for assistance.
BC3: For players with a very severe physical disability. Players use an assistive device and may be assisted by a person, who will remain in the player's box but who must keep his/her back to the court and eyes averted from play.
BC4: For players with other severe physical disabilities. Players are not eligible for assistance. Football International Blind B1: From no light perception in either eye to light Sport Association perception, but inability to recognise the shape of a hand at any distance or in any direction.
B2: From ability to recognise the shape of a hand to a visual acuity of 2/60 and/or visual field of less than 5 degrees.
B3: From visual acuity above 2/60 to visual acuity Appendices_ 111
of 6/60 and/or visual field of more than 5 degrees and less than 20 degrees.
Goalkeepers may be sighted Goalball International Blind B1: Total absence of perception of the light in Sport Association both eyes, or some perception of the light but with inability to recognize the form of a hand at any distance and in any direction.
B2: From the ability to recognize the form of a hand to a visual acuity of 2/60 and/or a visual field of less than 5 degrees.
B3: From a visual acuity of above 2/60 to a visual acuity of 6/60 and/or a visual field or more than 5 degrees and less than 20 degrees. Sledge Hockey International Athletes must have a permanent impairment of the Paralympic lower part of the body that makes ordinary skating impossible. Committee Amputation: Through the ankle Paresis: Loss of 10 muscle points in both legs Joint mobility: Ankylosis (fusion) of knee or ankle joint Cerebral Palsy: Spasticity/ dyscoordination at least CP class 7 Leg shortening: At least 7 cm Nordic Skiing International Standing locomotor disabled classes Paralympic Committee Class LW2: Athletes with disability in one lower limb skiing with two skis and two sticks.
Class LW3: Athletes eligible with disability in both lower limbs skiing with two skis and two sticks.
Class LW4: Athletes with disability in one lower limb, skiing with two skis and two sticks:
Sitting locomotor disabled classes
LW 10 : Athletes with disabilities in the lower limb(s) and the trunk. The athlete has no functional abdominals or extensors when sitting with proper strapping on the test table or when using his own equipment. The athlete will require arm support when sitting with proper strapping on the test table. No buttock sensibility.
LW 10,5: Athletes eligible for class LW 10.5 are those with disabilities in the lower limb(s) and the trunk. The athlete has some upper abdominal and Appendices_ 112
extensor muscles, or lower motor function with spinal fusion / scoliosis, or higher injury level with incomplete spinal cord injury meeting the criteria of the profile. The athlete will sit statically without arm support when sitting with proper strapping on the test table. No buttock sensibility.
LW11: Athletes eligible for class LW 11 are those with disabilities in the lower limb(s) and with abdominal and extensor trunk muscles with contact with the pelvic. No functional hip muscles and no buttock sensibility. The athlete will sit on the tilt table with proper strapping without arm support and perform some of the functional tests.
LW11,5: Athletes eligible for class LW 11.5 are those with disabilities in the lower limb(s) and near to normal trunk muscles, some functional hip flexion and loss of sensibility in buttock(s) and back of thigh(s).
LW12: Athletes eligible for class LW 12 are those with disabilities in the lower limbs and with normal trunk muscles, near to normal hip flexion and with normal buttock sensibility.
Visually impaired classes
Class B1: No light perception in either eye up to light perception, but inability to recognise the shape of a hand at any distance or in any direction.
Class B2: From ability to recognise the shape of a hand up to a visual acuity of 2/60 and/or visual field of less than 5 degrees.
Class B3: From visual acuity above 2/60 up to visual acuity of 6/60 and/or visual field of more than 5 degrees and less than 20 degrees. Rowing International Rowing Under review Federation Swimming International Swimmers with a physical disability are classified Paralympic based on several factors (i.e., muscle strength, movement co-ordination, and joint range of Committee movement and/or limb length). The higher the number of the class, the greater functional impairment (e.g., class 1 is for athletes with a severe disability and class 10 for athletes with a minimal disability).
-10 classes (S1-S10) in Freestyle, Backstroke and Butterfly Appendices_ 113
-10 classes (SM1-SM10) for Individual Medley, and
-9 classes (SB1-SB9) in Breaststroke.
Athletes with a visual impairment are classified into three classes, S11-S13.
S11: No sight in either eye
S12:From ability to recognize the shape of a hand up to visual acuity of 2/60 and/or visual field of less than 5 degrees.
S13: From a visual acuity of above 2/60 to a visual acuity of 6/60 and/or a visual field or more than 5 degrees and less than 20 degrees. Volleyball World Organization Amputee for Volleyball for AK = Above or through knee joint BK = Below knee, but through or above talo- Disabled crural joint AE = Above or through elbow joint BE = Below elbow, but through or above wrist joint
Class A1 = Double AK Class A2 = Single AK Class A3 = Double BK Class A4 = Single BK Class A5 = Double AE Class A6 = Single AE Class A7 = Double BE Class A8 = Single BE Class A9 = combined lower plus upper limb amputations Wheelchair International There are eight classifications based upon Basketball Wheelchair Basketball functional ability to play Wheelchair Basketball (Classes 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 and 4,5), Federation with higher classification numbers representing greater Basketball skills. Athletes are given a numerical point value based on their classification status with the maximum allowable points on the floor being 14.0. Wheelchair World Curling Under review Curling Federation
Appendices_ 114
Appendix C
MCGILL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF EDUCATION
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
McGill University requires that participants be informed of the details of any research study in which they participate. However, this does not imply that the participant is put at risk through their participation; the intention is simply to ensure the respect and confidentiality of individuals concerned. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts for Hailey Banack, a graduate student in sport psychology, in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at McGill University.
The purpose of this study is to gain information on coaches of elite level athletes with a physical disability. Specifically, the study aims to examine the relationship between coach behaviour and athlete motivation. If you participate in this study you will be requested, without payment, to complete a 45 minute online survey. Prior to publishing, you will receive copies of the results and the conclusions of the study. The information you provide here will remain confidential, and all the data will be destroyed 2 years after the study ends. The information gathered here will be used for publications in academic journals and conference presentations, but at no time will the researchers disclose names or identify any participants.
Your Participation In This Study Is Voluntary And Not Mandatory. You Are Free To Withdraw From Participating At Any Time For Any Reason Without Penalty.
I (please print), , have read the above statements and have had the directions verbally explained to me. I agree freely to participate in this research project based on terms outlined in this consent form. I recognize that I may refuse to continue participation at any time, without penalty, and that all the information gathered here will remain confidential.
Signature Date
Please feel free to contact us at any time: Hailey Banack Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. MA Candidate Associate Professor Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, QC McGill University, Montreal, QC (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 [email protected] [email protected]
Appendices_ 115
Appendix D
Demographic Questionnaire
Please indicate which sport(s) you Education: participate in at the Paralympic o I am in high school Games: o I am in university/college ______o I have completed college/university ______o Other ______Please indicate which classification group you belong to: I was born in o Cerebral Palsy City ______o Visual impairment o Amputee Country______o Spinal cord injury o Les autres I currently live in: ______Please indicate the sport class you My coach currently lives in: participate in: ______I have worked with my current Gender coach for: o Male o 6 months o Female o 1 year Age o 2 years o 18-25 o 3+ years o 26-33
o 33-40 Length of time (per year) I spend o 40+ training with my coach on a daily
basis: My first language is ______o 1-2 months
o 3-4 months I have competed in ___ previous o 4-5 months Paralympic Games: o 6+ months o 1
o 2 o 3 o 4+
Appendix E
Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ)
Appendices 116
This questionnaire contains items that are related to your experience with your coach. Coaches have different styles in dealing with athletes, and we would like to know more about how you have felt about your encounters with your coach. Your responses are confidential. Please be honest and candid.
1. I feel that my coach provides me choices and options. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
2. I feel understood by my coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
3. I am able to be open with my coach while engaged in athletics. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
4. My coach conveyed confidence in my ability to do well at athletics. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
5. I feel that my coach accepts me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
6. My coach made sure I really understood the goals of my athletic involvement and what I need to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
7. My coach encouraged me to ask questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
8. I feel a lot of trust in my coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree Appendices 117
9. My coach answers my questions fully and carefully. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
10. My coach listens to how I would like to do things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
11. My coach handles people's emotions very well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
12. I feel that my coach cares about me as a person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
13. I don't feel very good about the way my coach talks to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
14. My coach tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
15. I feel able to share my feelings with my coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree
Appendix F
Measures of Perceived Competence, Relatedness, and Autonomy
Appendices 118
Measure of Perceived Competence
Please choose the response that best reflects your ability in your current sport
1. How good do you think you are at your sport? 1 2 3 4 5 not very very good good at all
2. When it comes to your sport, how much ability do you think you have? 1 2 3 4 5 not much a lot of ability ability
3. How skilled do you think you are at your sport?. 1 2 3 4 5 not skilled very skilled at all
Measure of Perceived Relatedness
Listed below are a number of statements concerning your relations with you coach. Read each item and rate the extent to which you are in agreement by circling with most appropriate number.
Strongly Disagree Moderately Neither agree Moderately Agree Strongly disagree disagree nor disagree agree agree (SD) (D) (MD) (U) (MA) (A) (SA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In my relations with the members of my sports team (e.g. teammates, coaches) I feel...
SD D MD U MA A SA 4. ...supported. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. ...related. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. ...understood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. ...isolated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. ...attached. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. ...listened to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. ...united. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. ...alienated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. ...close. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. ...affiliated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Measure of Perceived Autonomy
Appendices 119
Please mark the response that best reflects how you feel about the amount of choice or control you have when it comes to participating in your sport:
14. I have a say in what I do when participating in my sport 1 2 3 4 5 not completely true at all true
15. I feel forced to do things in my sport, even when I don‟t really want to do them 1 2 3 4 5 not completely true at all true
16. I help decide what I do when participating in my sport 1 2 3 4 5 not completely true at all true
17. I get to do the things I want to do when participating in my sport 1 2 3 4 5 not completely true at all true
18. I do not have a say in what I do when participating in my sport 1 2 3 4 5 not completely true at all true
19. I do not get to make decisions about what I do when I am participating in my sport 1 2 3 4 5 not completely true at all true
Appendices 120
Appendix G
Sport Motivation Scale
Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to one of the reasons for which you are presently practicing your sport
Why do you practice your sport?
1. For the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
2. For the pleasure it gives me to know more about the sport that I practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
3. I used to have good reasons for doing sports, but now I am asking myself if I should continue doing it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
4. For the pleasure of discovering new training techniques 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
5. I don‟t know anymore; I have the impression that I am incapable of succeeding in this sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
6. Because it allows me to be well regarded by people that I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
Appendices 121
7. Because, in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to meet people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
8. Because I feel a lot of personal satisfaction while mastering certain difficult training techniques 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
9. Because it is absolutely necessary to do sports if one wants to be in shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
10. For the prestige of being an athlete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
11. Because it is one of the best ways I have chosen to develop other aspects of myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
12. For the pleasure I feel while improving some of my weak points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
13. For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
14. Because I must do sports to feel good about myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
Appendices 122
15. For the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
16. Because people around me think it is important to be in shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
17. Because it is a good way to learn lots of things which could be useful to me in other areas of my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
18. For the intense emotions that I feel while I am doing a sport that I like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
19. It is not clear to me anymore; I don‟t really think my place is in sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
20. For the pleasure that I feel while executing certain difficult movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
21. Because I would feel bad if was not taking time to do it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
22. To show others how good I am at my sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
Appendices 123
23. For the pleasure that I feel while learning training techniques that I have never tried before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
24. Because it is one of the best ways to maintain good relationships with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
25. Because I like the feeling of being totally immersed in the activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
26. Because I must do sports regularly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
27. For the pleasure of discovering new performance strategies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
28. I often ask myself; I can seem to achieve the goals that I set for myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 does not corresponds corresponds correspond moderately exactly at all
Appendices 125