{"id":414,"date":"2011-05-25T09:31:32","date_gmt":"2011-05-25T09:31:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-11-25T16:26:52","modified_gmt":"2013-11-25T16:26:52","slug":"a-study-on-the-self-efficacy-of-elite-coaches-working-at-the-turkish-coca-cola-academy-league","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-study-on-the-self-efficacy-of-elite-coaches-working-at-the-turkish-coca-cola-academy-league\/","title":{"rendered":"A Study on the Self-Efficacy of Elite Coaches Working at the Turkish Coca-Cola Academy League"},"content":{"rendered":"
R. Timucin Gencer<\/div>\n

### Abstract<\/p>\n

As defined by Bandura, self-efficacy is an individual\u2019s belief about her\/his ability to perform well in a given situation. The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of self-efficacy amongst elite professional Turkish soccer coaches. One-hundred twenty-three coaches from 41 professional soccer clubs in four different regions of Turkey, training U14 and U15 age groups voluntarily participated in this study. This study used the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) comprising four specific efficacies (motivation (ME), game strategy (GSE), teaching technique (TTE) and character building (CBE). According to the total coaching efficacy scale, results suggested that participating coaches\u2019 self-belief in efficacy was at highest levels (M=8.26, SD=.49). Coaches\u2019 self-belief in the sub-scale of character development efficacy was at highest (M=8.60, SD=.54), whereas self-belief in game strategy was at lowest levels (M=8.03, SD=.61). One of the most important findings of the study was that coaches\u2019 self belief in the sub-scale of motivation efficacy differed according to the category in which they work (t=2.049, p<.05). Game strategy efficacy differed significantly according to marital status (t=2.417, p<.05); and type of coaching certificate (t= 2.186, p<.05). A higher degree of self-belief regarding motivation efficacy amongst coaches training young teams compared to professional-level coaches\u00a0was\u00a0due to the athletes they worked\u00a0with. In many cases, it\u00a0is easier to motivate young players rather than professionals. Coaches\u2019 self-improvement in motivation will definitely have a decisive impact on their success in professional sports.<\/p>\n

**Key words:** coaching efficacy, elite coaches, professional sport, soccer<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

### Introduction<\/p>\n

Extensive research about the behavior exhibited by individuals throughout their lives suggests the existence of many factors influencing human behavior. One of these factors is self-efficacy (4,5). The social cognitive theory focuses on how the individual learns new information and behaviors by observing, imitating an individual or by taking the individual as a model (1). This theory suggests that one of the most important roles in the individual expression of personal behavior is the individual\u2019s level of self-efficacy.<\/p>\n

First mentioned by Bandura (4), the concept of self-efficacy is defined as one\u2019s belief in his or her own ability to perform a certain type of task. Self-efficacy is specific to a certain task and is dynamic (10,14). In other words, it is open to change over time with new information, experience and learning (14). The individual makes a comparison between expected performance and his or her own capacity (12). In the scope of the concept of self-efficacy, the need for a high degree of self-belief to be successful in a specific behavior stands out as one of the most important factors in exhibiting that behavior.<\/p>\n

Sometimes knowledge and skill might not be adequate for successful behavior. On most occasions people may know the correct course of action, yet be unable to act accordingly. Self-efficacy stands out as an important bridge between knowledge and behavior. Personal level of self-efficacy influences an individual\u2019s perspective and behavior toward the action. Positive or negative feedback received by the individual in response to his or her abilities and competence results in the strengthening or weakening of the individual\u2019s own belief in his or her self-efficacy (18). Studies suggest that individuals with high self-efficacy tend to be more resilient in the face of obstacles to accessing sports activities (6). They also have heightened levels of social skills (2) and are more eager to take bigger risks (16,17).<\/p>\n

Performance build-up in soccer requires long periods of time. What constitutes the fundamental elements required by soccer training throughout this long process is a topic of enduring discussion (3). The most important issues in this context are accurate organizational structures; correct training models; adequate club facilities; environmental conditions and, maybe more than anything, coaching efficacy. It is stated that the athlete\u2019s learning process becomes much more rapid, efficient and thorough, if the format of competitions and training participated in by children are developed with consideration to their mental, psychological and motor abilities (24). At this point, while it is fundamental for a coach to believe in his or her self-efficacy in the context of building up athlete performance (20), this characteristic demands constant enhancement (19).<\/p>\n

Based on the notion that coaches can be perceived as teachers, the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES), developed by Feltz, Chase, Moritz & Sullivan (8), is the only published scale to date that is used frequently in studies on coaching efficacy (11,16,17). D.L. Feltz, et al., (8) define coaching efficacy as coaches\u2019 self-belief in their capacity to influence an athlete\u2019s level of performance and learning. Consisting of 24 items and four sub-scales, the psychometric characteristics of the scale are supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (8).<\/p>\n

The majority of studies on the topic have been conducted on individuals in the United States. Others include Tsorbatzoudis, Daroglou, Zahariadis & Grouios\u2019s study (22) on professional team coaches in Greece and Gencer, Kiremitci & Boyacioglu\u2019s study (9) on Turkish coaches in the disciplines of basketball, soccer, tennis and handball. This latter concludes validity and reliability findings coherent with Feltz et al.\u2019s study (8). The present study addresses significance in terms of CES examining the self-efficacy levels of Turkish elite professional soccer coaches.<\/p>\n

### Method
\n#### Participants<\/p>\n

The study group consisted of 123 coaches working for the U14 and U15 age groups within the Turkish Coca-Cola Academy Leagues, founded in the 2008-2009 soccer season. Coaches actively work for 41 professional soccer clubs distributed amongst five regions established for this league; all participated voluntarily in the study. The sample group participating in the study consisted of males only, with ages varying between 22 and 60 (M=38.6, SD=7.9).<\/p>\n

#### Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES)<\/p>\n

Data for the study was collected using the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) developed by Feltz et.al. (8). Total Coaching Efficacy (TCE) consists of 24 items within four sub-scales including: (a) Motivation Efficacy (ME \u2013 7 items), (b) Game Strategy Efficacy (GSE \u2013 7 items), (c) Teaching Technique Efficacy (TTE \u2013 6 items), and (d) Character Building Efficacy (CBE \u2013 4 items). Items were scored on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all confident) to 9 (extremely confident), and each item was preceded with a prefix, \u201cHow confident are you in your ability to \u2026\u201d The scale contains items such as \u201cHow confident are you in your ability to motivate your athletes?\u201d identified by ME; \u201cHow confident are you in your ability to understand competitive strategies?\u201d identified by GSE; \u201cHow confident are you in your ability to detect skill errors?\u201d identified by TTE; and \u201cHow confident are you in your ability to instill an attitude of fair play among your athletes?\u201d identified by CBE.<\/p>\n

Scale validity and reliability for the sample of Turkish coaches has been conducted by Gencer et. al. (9). Exactly identical to the original, the Turkish adaptation of the scale, grouped under four sub-scales, reached significantly similar results to the original scale (8) with a variance rate of 59.8%. Although the Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficients for factors creating the scale were relatively coherent (between .80 and .87) with original scale values, the Cronbach\u2019s coefficient for the entire scale was exactly identical. Values (x2<\/sup>=468,21, df=238, normed chi-square (NC, x2<\/sup>\/df)=1.97, p<.05; RMSEA=0.069, S-RMR=0.062, GFI=0.84, AGFI=0.80, CFI=0.91, NNFI=0.89) obtained from confirmatory factor analysis of the scale indicate that the model adapts to data at admissible levels.<\/p>\n

### Procedure<\/p>\n

Using a face-to-face interview method, researchers personally presented coaches with AY\u00d6, the Turkish version of the Coaching Efficacy Scale and the scale forms containing questions collecting information on coaches. Researchers provided detailed information to participating coaches about the purpose of the study and how the questionnaire should be completed, although this information was delivered in writing on the documents. Researchers distributed questionnaires on the third day of a training seminar and collected them the same day.<\/p>\n

### Data Analysis<\/p>\n

Obtained data was subject to t-test using the SPSS 15.0 program in order to clarify whether there was a statistically significant difference between the Total Coaching Efficacy (TCE) and its sub-scales: Motivation Efficacy (ME), Game Strategy Efficacy (GSE), Teaching Technique Efficacy (TTE), and Character Building Efficacy (CBE), or differences among it and age groups, marital status, education level, athletic career, coaching certificate, coaching level and years in coaching. Coaches\u2019 ages, sporting backgrounds and coaching backgrounds were divided in to two groups after taking sample group averages.<\/p>\n

### Results<\/p>\n

Sample group average age was considered for data analysis and samples were gathered under two age groups, age 39 and less, and age 40 and over. Pursuant to this grouping, 78 (63.4%) of participant soccer coaches were age 39 and under and 45 (36.6%) were age 40 and over. A total of 100 (81.3%) soccer coaches were married and 23 (18.7%) were single. An investigation on coaches\u2019 levels of education indicated that the majority of participating coaches were university graduates (n=77, 62.6%). (Table 1)<\/p>\n

All coaches participating in the study played soccer as licensed athletes in their past sports careers. While 47 (38.2%) of the coaches played at an amateur level, 76 (61.8%) of them played at a professional level. An investigation on coaching certificates showed that 87 (70.7%) of the coaches hold UEFA B Licenses while 36 (29.3%) hold UEFA A Licenses. A majority of coaches work for the youth teams of professional soccer clubs (n=95, 77.2%).<\/p>\n

Coaches participating in the study had been working in this profession between 1 and 23 years (M=7.87, SD=5.88). The sample group\u2019s average years in the career were considered for data analysis and samples were gathered under two groups; eight years and fewer, and nine years and more. According to this grouping 78 coaches (63.4%) with less than eight years experience, and 45 (36.6%) with more than nine years experience, participated in the study (Table 1).<\/p>\n

Coaches\u2019 average belief in self-efficacy was determined to be M= 8.26, SD=.49. The level of Character Building, one of the sub-scales rendering beliefs on self-efficacy, was found to be at highest levels (M=8.6, SD=.54). The Character Building sub-scale was respectively followed by Teaching Technique (M= 8.22, SD= .58), Motivation (M= 8.17, SD= .57) and Game Strategy (M= 8.03, SD= .61) (Table 1).<\/p>\n

The t-test results obtained from the study reveal that the efficacy and efficacy-related sub-scales of coaches participating in the study did not differ by age group, level of education, athletic career or years in soccer coaching. However, coaches\u2019 belief in efficacy, when related to the strategy sub-scale, revealed significant difference by marital status (t= 2.417, p=.021) and coaching license (t=2.186, p=.032). Similarly, belief in efficacy when related to the motivation sub-scale differed significantly as well by the category coaches worked in (t= 2.049, p=.046) (Table 1).<\/p>\n

Table 2 presents the correlations between total coaching efficacy (TCE) and coaching efficacy sub-scales. Correlations among dimensions of coaching efficacy ranged from 0.46 to 0.80, and correlations of TCE with dimensions of coaching efficacy ranged from 0.75 to 0.92 (Table 2). These relationships are coherent with the hierarchical structure suggested by previous studies (8,16).<\/p>\n

### Discussion<\/p>\n

Studies have shown that there is a positive relation between individuals\u2019 increasing level of education and occupational efficiency, and that an individual\u2019s contribution to the society was directly proportionate to the level of education. Based on population, Turkey ranked 15th in the world for level of education (7). Approximately 62.6% of coaches participating in our study were university graduates, suggesting that the education levels of these coaches were considerably above the national average.<\/p>\n

Besides the high level of education among coaches participating in the study, the fact that most of them (61.8%) had previously played soccer at a professional level, along with the fact that 70.7% held a UEFA B License and 29.3% held a UEFA A License, was perceived as the reason for a considerably high degree of self-efficacy (M=8.26, SD=.49). In 2008, the Turkish Soccer Federation started an initiative to update certificates in accordance with UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) criteria and with this objective gave priority to developing the competence of coaches joining the Turkish Coca-Cola Academy League. Being informed on latest updates and receiving relevant training has contributed positively to the self-efficacy of coaches comprising our study group, and, in comparison with other studies (8,15,23), they presented a higher level of self-efficacy.<\/p>\n

When compared to other sub-scales that constitute coaches\u2019 belief in self-efficacy, Character Building was found to be at the highest levels (M=8.6, SD=.54). This finding is supportive of findings from other studies (8, 11, 15, 16, 23) conducted on coaching efficacy. One of the fundamental purposes of establishing the Coca-Cola League was exemplified by the slogan \u201cGood Individual, Good Citizen, Good Athlete.\u201d Bearing this slogan in mind, and considering the group coaches work for, highest levels of perceived self-efficacy in this sub-scale was highly significant. As a matter of fact, Lidor (13) underlined the necessity for ensuring the execution of plans and procedures directed at character-building within sports activities. Considered from a social perspective, character-building is undoubtedly very significant.<\/p>\n

The Character Building sub-scale was respectively followed by Teaching Technique (M=8.22, SD=.58), Motivation (M=8.17, SD= .57), and Game Strategy (M=8.03, SD=.61). Mean values determined for these three sub-scales were calculated to be higher than those given in other related studies (8, 11, 15, 16, 23). The positive values, classified under these four sub-scales as the positive values which successful coaches are expected to have, were valuable in terms of their contribution to athletes. Game Strategy-related self-efficacy perception of coaches was identified to be lower than other sub-scales, which is important in regard to game strategy, being a decisive factor in game results.<\/p>\n

Obtained t-test results revealed that the efficacy and efficacy-related sub-scales of coaches participating in the study did not differ by age group, level of education, sports career or years in soccer coaching. These findings are unsupportive of Tsorbatzoudis et al.\u2019s finding (22) that, unlike inexperienced coaches, experienced coaches perceive themselves to be technically more competent in terms of coaching experience. However, this condition could be explained by the fact that coaches participating in our study had a higher level of experience. Teams joining the Turkish Coca-Cola League are some of the most elite clubs in Turkey, and these clubs are rigorous in choosing coaches. These two factors were considered to be the reason for such a result.<\/p>\n

Coaches\u2019 belief in efficacy related to the GSE revealed significant differences by marital status (t=2.417, p=.021) and coaching certificate ownership (t=2.186, p=.032) (Table 1). Familial responsibilities of married coaches might lead them to believe that they are more competent than do single coaches in the strategy sub-scale. In fact, strategy is very closely related to experience. That coaches with UEFA A License have further experience in the game of soccer than UEFA B License holders might help explain the difference emerging once again in the strategy development sub-scale.<\/p>\n

It is interesting to note that belief in efficacy related to the motivation sub-scale differed significantly by the category coaches worked in (t=2.049, p=.046) (Table 1). Youth team coaches having more self-efficacy than professional team coaches in the motivation sub-scale is completely relative to experiences coaches have with soccer players. It is perhaps easier to motivate youth team players aspiring to become professionals for upcoming games than it is to motivate those who have already reached the professional level. Concepts of fame and money that engage in professional sports, after a while, cause a gradual sense of fulfillment, and this presents itself as coaches having difficulty in motivating players. More so, compared with youth team coaches, professional team coaches face further difficulties due to various other responsibilities and diversifying interests of older players. Therefore, considering experiences, it appears logical that youth team coaches perceive themselves to be more competent in terms of motivation than do professional team coaches.<\/p>\n

### Conclusion<\/p>\n

Besides being well educated, elite soccer coaches participating in the study also had good careers as athletes and coaches, explaining the high degree of self-efficacy among them. It was interesting to see that the degree of GSE, the capacity of directing the team during a game, was higher amongst married coaches than those who were single. It was logical to see a higher degree of GSE in coaches holding a UEFA A certificate compared to UEFA B certificate holders. The most interesting result from the study was the varying degree of motivation among coaches depending on their position. This suggests coaches\u2019 need for knowledge and experience about the concept of motivation increased parallel to the significance of the league they worked for.<\/p>\n

### Applications in Sport<\/p>\n

Self-efficacy is an effective structure demanding improvement for efficiency from the coach. The fact that this effective structure transforms over time in light of newly acquired information and experiences demonstrates the need for meticulously organized coach training programs and even coach appointments. Respective federations and\/or organizations have a great deal of responsibility in this matter.<\/p>\n

### Acknowledgments<\/p>\n

The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Assistant Professor Dr. Melih Balyan for his support and cooperation in this study.<\/p>\n

### References<\/p>\n

1. Ar\u0131c\u0131, R. (2005). Gelisim \u00d6\u011frenme. Ankara: Nobel Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k<\/p>\n

2. Balyan, M. (2009). The comparison of primary school 2nd level and elementary school students\u2019 attitudes towards physical education, social skills and self efficiency levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ege, \u0130zmir.<\/p>\n

3. Balyan, M., Vural, F., Ar\u0131kan, N., Tun\u00e7er, Y. (2009, January). Analysis of some technical and tactical data of the U13 \u2013 U14 matches which are played in different field sizes. Poster Session Presented At The Third Soccer and Science National Congress, Antalya.<\/p>\n

4. Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.<\/p>\n

5. Bandura A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. NJ: Prentice Hall.<\/p>\n

6. Barnett, F. & Spinks, W.L. (2007). Exercise self-efficacy of postmenopausal women resident in the tropics. Maturitas, 58, 1-6.<\/p>\n

7. Eres, F. (2005). E\u011fitimin sosyal faydalari: T\u00fcrkiye – AB kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131. Milli E\u011fitim Dergisi, 167. Retrieved from <http:\/\/yayim.meb.gov.tr\/dergiler\/167\/index3-eres.htm>.<\/p>\n

8. Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Moritz, S.E. & Sullivan, P.J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 765-776.<\/p>\n

9. Gencer, R.T., Kiremitci, O. & Boyacioglu, H. (2009). Psychometric properties of coaching efficacy scale (CES): a study on Turkish coaches. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, Sport Sciences, 4 (2), 143-153.<\/p>\n

10. Haverback, H.R. & Parault, S.J. (2008). Pre-service reading teacher efficacy and tutoring: a review. Educational Psychology Review. 20, 237-255.<\/p>\n

11. Kent, A. & Sullivan, P.J. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of university coaches\u2019 commitment. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 78-88.<\/p>\n

12. Korkmaz, \u0130. (2002). Sosyal \u00f6\u011frenme kuram\u0131. In B. Ye\u015filyaprak (Ed.), Geli\u015fim ve \u00f6\u011frenme psikolojisi (pp 197-220).Ankara: Pegem Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k.<\/p>\n

13. Lidor, R. (1998). Development of character through sport activities. International Journal of Physical Education, 35 (3), 91-99.<\/p>\n

14. Luthans, F. & Peterson, J.J. (2001). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy-Implications for managerial effectiveness and development. Journal of Management Development. 21, (5), 376-387.<\/p>\n

15. Marback, T.C., Short, S.E., Short, M.W. & Sullivan, P.J. (2005). Coaching confidence: an exploratory investigation of sources and gender differences. Journal of Sport Behavior. 28 (1), 18-34.<\/p>\n

16. Myers, N.D., Vargas-Tonsing, T.M. & Feltz, D.L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in \u0131ntercollegiate coaches: sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 6, 129-143.<\/p>\n

17. Myers, N.D., Wolfe, E.W. & Feltz D.L. (2005). An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the coaching efficacy scale for coaches from the United States of America. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9 (3), 135-160.<\/p>\n

18. Ors, E., Koru\u00e7 Z. & Kocaek\u015fi S. (2006). Tak\u0131m Sporlar\u0131nda \u00d6z-Yeterlik ve Kayg\u0131n\u0131n Cinsiyet \u0130le \u0130li\u015fkisinin Belirlenmesi. Proceeding of The International Sport Science Congress, Turkey, 944-949.<\/p>\n

19. Popper, M. & Lipshitz, R. (1992). Coaching on leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13(7), 15-18.<\/p>\n

20. Tams, S. (2008). Constructing Self-efficacy at work: a person-centered perspective. Personnel Review, 37 (2), 165-183.<\/p>\n

21. Toker, H. & Helvac\u0131o\u011flu, E. (2000). Futbolun s\u0131rr\u0131. Bilim ve \u00dctopya 72, 14-30.<\/p>\n

22. Tsorbatzoudis, H., Daroglou, G., Zahariadis, P. & Grouios, G. (2003). Examination of coaches\u2019 self efficacy: preliminary analysis of the coaching efficacy scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 1297-1306.<\/p>\n

23. Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., Warners, A.L. & Feltz, D.L. (2003). The predictability of coaching efficacy on team efficacy and player efficacy in volleyball. Journal of Sport Behavior. 26 (4), 396-407.<\/p>\n

24. Wein, H. (2001). Developing youth soccer, Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.<\/p>\n

### Tables<\/p>\n

#### Table 1. Descriptive statistics of coaches and t-test results related to the Coaching Efficacy Scale<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\n<\/th>\n<\/th>\nMotivation Efficacy<\/th>\nGame Strategy Efficacy<\/th>\nTeaching Technique Efficacy<\/th>\nCharacter Building Efficacy<\/th>\nTotal Coaching Efficacy<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/th>\nn<\/th>\n%<\/th>\nM<\/th>\nSD<\/th>\nM<\/th>\nSD<\/th>\nM<\/th>\nSD<\/th>\nM<\/th>\nSD<\/th>\nM<\/th>\nSD<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Age<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
39 & less<\/td>\n78<\/td>\n63.4<\/td>\n8.19<\/td>\n.58<\/td>\n8.01<\/td>\n.62<\/td>\n8.28<\/td>\n.60<\/td>\n8.57<\/td>\n.54<\/td>\n8.26<\/td>\n.50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40 & over<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n36.6<\/td>\n8.15<\/td>\n.56<\/td>\n8.06<\/td>\n.60<\/td>\n8.13<\/td>\n.53<\/td>\n8.64<\/td>\n.54<\/td>\n8.24<\/td>\n.48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
t-value<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n.420<\/td>\n-.480<\/td>\n1.439<\/td>\n-.763<\/td>\n.171<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Marital Status<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Married<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n81.3<\/td>\n8.21<\/td>\n.56<\/td>\n8.1<\/td>\n.6<\/td>\n8.26<\/td>\n.54<\/td>\n8.61<\/td>\n.55<\/td>\n8.29<\/td>\n.48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Single<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n18.7<\/td>\n8.03<\/td>\n.61<\/td>\n7.76<\/td>\n.6<\/td>\n8.08<\/td>\n.72<\/td>\n8.52<\/td>\n.51<\/td>\n8.1<\/td>\n.53<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
t-value<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1.264<\/td>\n2.417*<\/sup><\/td>\n1.121<\/td>\n.759<\/td>\n1.627<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Education Level<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
High school & lower<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n37.4<\/td>\n8.17<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8.1<\/td>\n.58<\/td>\n8.23<\/td>\n.56<\/td>\n8.63<\/td>\n.54<\/td>\n8.28<\/td>\n.49<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
University & higher<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n62.6<\/td>\n8.17<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n.62<\/td>\n8.22<\/td>\n.59<\/td>\n8.58<\/td>\n.54<\/td>\n8.24<\/td>\n.49<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sporting Background<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Amateur<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n38.2<\/td>\n8.17<\/td>\n.56<\/td>\n7.98<\/td>\n.58<\/td>\n8.18<\/td>\n.62<\/td>\n8.63<\/td>\n.49<\/td>\n8.24<\/td>\n.47<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Professional<\/td>\n76<\/td>\n61.8<\/td>\n8.18<\/td>\n.58<\/td>\n8.07<\/td>\n.63<\/td>\n8.25<\/td>\n.55<\/td>\n8.58<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8.27<\/td>\n.50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
t-value<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n-.062<\/td>\n-.777<\/td>\n-.593<\/td>\n.537<\/td>\n-.295<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Coaching Certificate<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
UEFA B<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n70.7<\/td>\n8.15<\/td>\n.59<\/td>\n7.96<\/td>\n.62<\/td>\n8.19<\/td>\n.61<\/td>\n8.57<\/td>\n.55<\/td>\n8.21<\/td>\n.50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
UEFA A<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n29.3<\/td>\n8.23<\/td>\n53<\/td>\n8.21<\/td>\n.55<\/td>\n8.31<\/td>\n.48<\/td>\n8.66<\/td>\n.50<\/td>\n8.35<\/td>\n.45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
t-value<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n-.731<\/td>\n2.186*<\/sup><\/td>\n-1.171<\/td>\n-.883<\/td>\n-1.451<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Coaching Level<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Youth<\/td>\n95<\/td>\n77.2<\/td>\n8.23<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8.03<\/td>\n.61<\/td>\n8.26<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8.64<\/td>\n.51<\/td>\n8.29<\/td>\n.48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Professional<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n22.8<\/td>\n7.98<\/td>\n.55<\/td>\n8.04<\/td>\n.61<\/td>\n8.1<\/td>\n.60<\/td>\n8.45<\/td>\n.60<\/td>\n8.14<\/td>\n.50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
t-value<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2.049*<\/sup><\/td>\n-.009<\/td>\n1.258<\/td>\n1.540<\/td>\n1.389<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Coaching Background<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
8 years & less<\/td>\n78<\/td>\n63.4<\/td>\n8.18<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n.62<\/td>\n8.24<\/td>\n.60<\/td>\n8.57<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8.25<\/td>\n.50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9 years & more<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n36.6<\/td>\n8.17<\/td>\n.58<\/td>\n8.1<\/td>\n.58<\/td>\n8.19<\/td>\n.54<\/td>\n8.64<\/td>\n.49<\/td>\n8.28<\/td>\n.47<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
t-value<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n.087<\/td>\n-.944<\/td>\n.484<\/td>\n-.796<\/td>\n-.337<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/th>\n123<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n8.17<\/td>\n.57<\/td>\n8.03<\/td>\n.61<\/td>\n8.22<\/td>\n.58<\/td>\n8.6<\/td>\n.54<\/td>\n8.26<\/td>\n.49<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

*<\/sup> p < .05<\/p>\n

#### Table 2. Pearson correlations between dimensions of coaching efficacy and total coaching efficacy<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nGame Strategy Efficacy<\/th>\nTeaching Technique Efficacy<\/th>\nCharacter Building Efficacy<\/th>\nTotal Coaching Efficacy<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Motivation Efficacy<\/td>\n0.80<\/td>\n0.74<\/td>\n0.60<\/td>\n0.92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Game Strategy Efficacy<\/td>\n<\/td>\n0.71<\/td>\n0.46<\/td>\n0.88<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Teaching Technique Efficacy<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n0.75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Character Building Efficacy<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n0.75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total Coaching Efficacy<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

p < .001<\/p>\n

### Corresponding Author<\/p>\n

**R.Timucin Gencer, PhD**
\nUniversity of Ege
\nSchool of Physical Education and Sports
\nBornova, Izmir, Turkey, 35100
\n<timucin.gencer@ege.edu.tr>
\n+90 232 3425714 (office)
\n+90 532 3030610 (mobile)<\/p>\n

### Author Bio<\/p>\n

R.Timucin Gencer, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Sport Management at the University of Ege. He played basketball as a professional from 1990-1997. He was also the assistant coach of the Turkish National Basketball Team U-16 men who won the European Championship Title in 2005.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

R. Timucin Gencer<\/div>\n

### Abstract<\/p>\n

As defined by Bandura, self-efficacy is an individual\u2019s belief about her\/his ability to perform well in a given situation. The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of self-efficacy amongst elite professional Turkish soccer coaches. One-hundred twenty-three coaches from 41 professional soccer clubs in four different regions of Turkey, training U14 and U15 age groups voluntarily participated in this study. This study used the Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES) comprising four specific efficacies (motivation (ME), game strategy (GSE), teaching technique (TTE) and character building (CBE). According to the total coaching efficacy scale, results suggested that participating coaches\u2019 self-belief in efficacy was at highest levels (M=8.26, SD=.49). Coaches\u2019 self-belief in the sub-scale of character development efficacy was at highest (M=8.60, SD=.54), whereas self-belief in game strategy was at lowest levels (M=8.03, SD=.61). One of the most important findings of the study was that coaches\u2019 self belief in the sub-scale of motivation efficacy differed according to the category in which they work (t=2.049, p<.05). Game strategy efficacy differed significantly according to marital status (t=2.417, p<.05); and type of coaching certificate (t= 2.186, p<.05). A higher degree of self-belief regarding motivation efficacy amongst coaches training young teams compared to professional-level coaches\u00a0was\u00a0due to the athletes they worked\u00a0with. In many cases, it\u00a0is easier to motivate young players rather than professionals. Coaches\u2019 self-improvement in motivation will definitely have a decisive impact on their success in professional sports.\n\n**Key words:** coaching efficacy, elite coaches, professional sport, soccer\n\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[295,293,291,296],"tags":[151,150],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-6G","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2051,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/examining-the-relationships-between-task-cohesion-self-efficacy-and-competitive-trait-anxiety-in-college-team-sports\/","url_meta":{"origin":414,"position":0},"title":"Examining the Relationships between Task Cohesion, Self-Efficacy, and Competitive Trait Anxiety in College Team Sports","date":"September 5, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by\u00a0Ali Aycan Ph.D. Ali Aycan, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Sport Management at the Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between task cohesion, self-efficacy, and competitive\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"table1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/table1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2866,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/high-school-coaches-continuing-education-delivery-preferences\/","url_meta":{"origin":414,"position":1},"title":"High School Coaches\u2019 Continuing Education Delivery Preferences","date":"July 15, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by\u00a0Brooke E. Forester, Ph.D.1*;\u00a0Shelley L. Holden, Ed.D.2*;\u00a0Christopher M. Keshock, Ph.D.3* 1*\u00a0Assistant Professor of Health, Physical Education and Leisure Studies, University of South Alabama 2*\u00a0Associate\u00a0Professor of Health, Physical Education and Leisure Studies, University of South Alabama 3*\u00a0Associate\u00a0Professor of Health, Physical Education and Leisure Studies, University of South Alabama Dr. Forester\u2019s\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6503,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-association-between-high-school-coachs-leadership-behaviors-and-athletes-self-efficacy-and-grit\/","url_meta":{"origin":414,"position":2},"title":"The Association Between High School Coach\u2019s Leadership Behaviors and Athletes\u2019 Self-Efficacy and Grit","date":"July 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Dr. Katarii U. Donald, Dr. Stephen R. Marvin, Dr. Aarek W. Farmer and Dr. Karen Cypress Corresponding Author:Katarii U. Donald, Ed. D3144 Knight lane 101Memphis, TN, 38115donaldk@scsk12.org901-281-9010 Dr. Katarii Donald is the Athletic Director at a T-Stem High School in Memphis and is also a Head Football Coach. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":404,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/coping-skills-and-self-efficacy-as-predictors-of-gymnastic-performance\/","url_meta":{"origin":414,"position":3},"title":"Coping Skills and Self-efficacy as Predictors of Gymnastic Performance","date":"January 19, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Garifallia Daroglou ### Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the way that gymnastic performance can be discriminated based on psychological skills and self-efficacy. The sample of the study was 101 gymnasts (Mage = 11.8 \u00b1\u00ad.74 years, 22 male and 79 female), who competed at the Hellenic Championship\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Exercise Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6912,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/mental-toughness-in-coaching-a-functional-definition-determined-by-elite-coaches\/","url_meta":{"origin":414,"position":4},"title":"Mental Toughness in Coaching: A Functional Definition Determined by Elite Coaches","date":"March 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: William Steffen1, Conrad Woolsey2, Ronald Quinn3, Brandon Spradley4 \u00a0 Affiliations: 1Wingate University, 2University of Western States, 3Xavier University, 4United States Sports Academy \u00a0 Corresponding Author: Dr. Brandon SpradleyChair of Sports Management United States Sports Academy One Academy DriveDaphne, Alabama 36526bspradley@ussa.edu 251-626-3303 Dr. Bill Steffen is an Assistant Professor of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":436,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/using-team-efficacy-surveys-to-help-promote-self-and-team-efficacy-among-college-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":414,"position":5},"title":"Using Team Efficacy Surveys to Help Promote Self-and-Team-Efficacy among College Athletes","date":"December 2, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Nathan DeRohan, Christopher Nagy, Helen Meisenhelder, Andrew D. Katayama ### Abstract The purpose of this study was to track and understand attitudinal changes and trends among 3 NCAA Division I intercollegiate teams at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). We wanted to see if surveys of team efficacy would\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/414"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=414"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/414\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":658,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/414\/revisions\/658"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}