The Development of Professional Judgment and Decision Making Expertise in Applied Sport Psychology

Abstract

This paper establishes current theoretical understanding on the development of professional judgment and decision-making (PJDM) expertise within applied sport psychology (ASP). Traditional and naturalistic paradigms of decision making are contrasted and the resulting blending of systematic analysis and intuition most appropriate for applied practice is explained through the concept of skilled intuition (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). Conditions for the development of skilled intuition are considered alongside recognition of the fragility of human judgment and the subtleties of the ASP environment. Key messages from cognitive psychology literature on the development of PJDM expertise are offered and recommendations made to facilitate the acquisition of decision-making expertise in ASP.

Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches

“…Indeed, the lack of such structures (declarative knowledge against which both the veracity and appropriateness of procedures may be evaluated) has already been highlighted in other support professions (Cesna & Mosier, 2005;Martindale & Collins, 2013). Similarly, internal learning situations, that is, specific moments when coaches reflect on and reorganize what they already know (Werthner & Trudel, 2006), were very rarely mentioned as a source of (1.96%, see Table 2), or preference for (1.79%, see Table 3), learning.…”

The Illusion of Competency Versus the Desirability of Expertise: Seeking a Common Standard for Support Professions in Sport

“…From a sports perspective, expertise and professional judgment and decision making have already been well-examined in sport psychology [53,54], coaching [26], and strength and conditioning [55], and therefore provide a strong base from which these approaches can be exploited. There are also, notably, training and evaluation methods already available in the public domain [27]. As a consequence, we hope that bodies responsible for professional development and evaluation recognise and harness this evidence base and lead the long-overdue, widespread shift from competency-driven to expert practice across the spectrum of science, medicine and coaching in sport.…”

“…The problem, we argue, resides with the competency approach's preoccupation with a set of job performance measures which (presumably) represent the desired standard across environments. Thus, even when a Likert scale is employed for measurement, the use of competencies implies that there is a right and wrong way to perform; obviously a situation that is sometimes correct but usually not so in the more complex challenges which typify the interpersonal elements of coaching and science support [26,27]. In effect, the emphasis on whether or not an individual is competent patently neglects the essential subtleties of executional decision making, and emphasis on the 'what' instead of the 'why' represents satisfaction of a minimum rather than the far more desirable expert standard.…”

“…what jargon terms were and were not essential and why, or the need for declarative knowledge in certain kinds of learner) would be required, further increasing the candidate's ability to make judgments and adapt in different situations to that presented as the test environment Competency Versus Expertise in Support Professions in Sport 5 [4,27]. Such approaches would seem essential if trainees are to go beyond clear knowledge that X means Y towards the more subtle blending and elaboration necessary for professional practice [51].…”

Accomplishments of Naturalistic Decision Making Research and Applications to Emerging Defense Challenges

“…However, as pointed out by Martindale and Collins (2013), not all occupations, are defined by such high-pressure, short time frame environments. Sport professions such as coaching and sport psychology (Abraham, Collins, & Martindale, 2006;Martindale & Collins, 2012) would still be identified as "naturalistic' yet may well benefit from spending more analytical time (Yates & Tschirhart, 2006) on problems as opposed to simply satisficing.…”