Kenow, L., & Williams, J. M. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athlete's perception of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 251-260.

The purpose of this study was to explore whether: (a) coach-athlete compatibility is significantly related to athletes' perceptions and evaluations of coaching behaviors, (b) whether compatibility mediates the relationships of anxiety and self-confidence with athletes' perceptions of coaching behaviors, and (c) compatibility, trait anxiety, state anxiety, and/or state self-confidence can significantly predict athletes' perceptions of coaching behaviors.

Non-scholarship collegiate basketball players (N = 68) completed the Coach Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ). The CBQ consists of 28 items of which 20 yield important information. Anxiety was measured with the Sport Competition Anxiety Test and the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Compatibility was measured on a specially devised, scaled checklist.

Trait anxiety, state cognitive and somatic anxiety, state self-confidence, and compatibility were significantly related to athletes' evaluations of coaching behaviors. Compatibility and state cognitive anxiety significantly predicated athletes' evaluations of coaching behaviors. A stepwise multiple-regression analysis showed that coach-athlete compatibility and athlete's cognitive anxiety were the best predictors of how an athlete perceives coaching behaviors.

Implication. An athlete's appraisal of coaching behaviors is associated with positive compatibility between the coach and athlete and a reduction in an athlete's cognitive anxiety. The relationship is important because a worsening of these two factors will reduce an athlete's responsiveness to a coach's program.

This study investigated factors of team cohesion strategies as well as patterns of use in coaches from Australia (N = 196) and the USA (N = 162). Ss reported the frequency of use, relative effectiveness, and perceived control of their behaviors and attempts to develop team cohesion.

A common concept of team cohesion was revealed. The most frequently used strategies were accepting individual differences between team members, praising team cooperation regardless of outcome, and setting team goals. When the two samples of coaches were compared, Australian coaches reported significantly greater use than their USA counterparts in accepting individual differences among team members, learning personal information about each athlete, praising team cooperation despite defeat, disbanding intrateam cliques, and striving to maintain a tranquil team climate. USA coaches reported a higher incidence of promoting team cooperation through team drills, the frequency for Australians being very low for that strategy.

Implication. It is possible that there is a cultural "norm" of behavior for developing team cohesion. It appears that USA coaches stress one strategy over all others. However, the concept is complex and it would appear that the Australian approach to involving multiple strategies might be a better model.

Return to Table of Contents for this issue.