Working with coaches and their teams in youth and collegiate sport in the USA: An interview with Dr Andy Gillham

Jenkins, Simon

doi:10.1177/1747954118771132

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One possible reason for this result may be related to pressure to win in older athletes, which may decrease coaches' tolerance to error. In fact, some research suggests that pressure to win increases along the sport process of athletes' development (Francka & Stambulovaa, 2019;Jenkins, 2018;Mallett & Côté, 2006). Although our data offers promising results for the communication system divided into positive and negative behaviors versus spontaneous and reactive behaviors, two aspects limit the interpretation of conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Coach-Athletes Communication: Data from the Communication Behaviors Evaluation System

Gomes

Almeida²,

Resende

et al. 2020

Journal of Sport Pedagogy &Amp; Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzes coach-athletes’ communication using the Communication Behaviors Evaluation System (CBES). This system provides a broad and complete perspective regarding the interactions between coaches and athletes by including data from coaches, athletes and from an observer. The CBES was used to monitor the communication between coaches and athletes from four different teams, during one game (observation). Athletes and coaches evaluated their communication behaviors using the Communication Behaviors Questionnaire (CBQ). The study included sixty-four futsal male athletes aged between 13 and 43 years-old (M = 18.98, SD = 7.05) and their coaches, all male and aged between 29 and 43 years-old (M = 35.75, SD = 5.26). Results revealed six important aspects: (1) the CBQ assumed a two-factor structure of positive and negative behaviors but one item has deleted; (2) coaches assumed positive behaviors more frequently than negative behaviors; (3) positive spontaneous behaviors were slightly more frequent than positive reactive behaviors; (4) coaches perceived themselves as displaying more negative reactive behaviors than negative spontaneous behaviors; (5) positive feedback and encouragement after failure were the most frequent positive behaviors; and (6) negative feedback was the most frequent negative behavior. In sum, CBES assumed to be a useful tool to evaluate coaches-athletes’ communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Coach-Athletes Communication: Data from the Communication Behaviors Evaluation System

Gomes

Almeida²,

Resende

et al. 2020

Journal of Sport Pedagogy &Amp; Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In working with coaches in a variety of contexts, Gillham stated, “…one of the things I find with coaches is that they often don’t really know why they’re doing something…” (Jenkins, 1 p. XX).…”

Section: Maintaining Focus On Athlete-centered Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simon Jenkins’ 1 interview with Dr. Andy Gillham provides key insight into the role of a coach consultant in coach development and coach education in the United States. The term coaching consultant describes an individual that works directly with coaches to improve coaching practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the interview, Jenkins 1 captures how Gillham establishes initial trust, builds credibility, and operates among coaches and players in a manner that keeps the focus on the goals of the sport program. Gillham’s experience as a coaching consultant touches keenly on the nuances of working with coaches and highlights the following three considerations for those involved in the education of coaches: (a) entering the inner circle, (b) maintaining focus on athlete-centered outcomes, and (c) finding a niche.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation