Factors Considered Important for Evaluating Canadian University Athletic Coaches

Abstract

Evaluating coaching performance based on the use of job-specific assessment criteria has been particularly problematic for college athletic departments. The purpose of this study was to assess the importance attached to six dimensions of criteria rated by administrators (n = 87) and coaches (n = 532) in the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union. The six dimensions were team products, personal products, direct task behaviors, indirect task behaviors, administrative maintenance behaviors, and public relation behaviors. The results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MÁNOVA) and repeated measures ANOVA showed that, in general, administrators and coaches held similar beliefs about the criteria important for coaching evaluation, but they had some differences in the order of importance of the dimensions. Both groups rated direct task behaviors—that is, the specific abilities or skills used directly in the day-today practice of coaching—as the most important dimension of grouped evaluation criteria.

Untitled

“…The results are not so strong to claim that demographic characteristics have a decisive role in the evaluation of coaching performance by coaches. Results came into agreement with Perrea et al (2013) and with MacLean & Zakrajsek (1996). Specifically, MacLean & Zakrajsek (1996) applied the SCP to Canadian college coaches and they also did not find significant differences regarding gender, sport, employment status or coaching experience regarding coaches' perspectives.…”

“…Results came into agreement with Perrea et al (2013) and with MacLean & Zakrajsek (1996). Specifically, MacLean & Zakrajsek (1996) applied the SCP to Canadian college coaches and they also did not find significant differences regarding gender, sport, employment status or coaching experience regarding coaches' perspectives. Similarly, Chen, Jensen and Mann (2004) did not find divisional differences among NCAA coaches in their beliefs on coaching performance.…”

“…Similarly, Chen, Jensen and Mann (2004) did not find divisional differences among NCAA coaches in their beliefs on coaching performance. MacLean and Zakrajsek (1996) also refer to older studies of performance evaluation that showed minimum effects of gender but also a positive effect of experience. Finally, the agreement of coaches with or without teaching experience, confirms the bibliography which highlights the common characteristics between coaching and teaching physical education (Hammond & Perry, 2005), regarding evaluation methods and the effect of the social-cultural frame in which they are evolving (Bakker et al, 2011).…”

“…The adapted version of the specific model in Greece was used in the present study, to examine possible differences in the coaches' perspectives based on their demographic characteristics. Previous studies have shown no differences in the perspectives of the participants due to their gender, years of coaching experience (MacLean & Zakrajsek, 1996) and level of coaching experience. (Chen, Jensen, & Mann, 2004).…”

“…Τhe Scale of Coaching Performance (SCP) (MacLean & Chelladurai, 1995) is an evaluation model of coaching performance, that was constructed in Canada for college basketball coaches and has been tested in several countries and populations ever since (Chen, 2003;MacLean & Zakrajsek, 1996;Papailiou, Kipreos, Travlos, & Strigas, 2015a;Surujlal, Singh, & MacLean, 2009). The adapted version of the specific model in Greece was used in the present study, to examine possible differences in the coaches' perspectives based on their demographic characteristics.…”