SULTAN IDRIS EDUCATION UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SPORTS SCIENCE AND COACHING

35900 TANJONG MALIM, PERAK

COURSE :
QCU3053 BASIC SPORTS COACHING SCIENCE

WRITER NAME :
REBECCA A. ZAKRAJSEKᵃ, CHRISTIAAN G. ABILDSOᵃ, JENNIFER R. HURSTᵇ, AND
JACK C. WATSON IIᵃ

YEAR : 2007

TITLE:
THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG COACHES’ AND ATHELETES’ PERCEPTIONS OF
COACHING STAFF COHESION, TEAM COHESION, AND PERFORMANCE

BY :
NAME : SITI SARAH BINTI CHE OMAR
NO ID :D20101039389

LECTURER :
EN MOHD FADHIL ABDULLAH @ FEREDRICK JOSUE
Rebecca A. Zakrajsekᵃ, Christiaan G. Abildsoᵃ, Jennifer R. Hurstᵇ, and Jack C. Watson
IIᵃ(2007). The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, Issue 3.

Article by :
Rebecca A. Zakrajsekᵃ, Christiaan G. Abildsoᵃ, Jennifer R. Hurstᵇ, and Jack C. Watson IIᵃ.

Research Topic :
The research topic is The Relationships among Coaches’ and Athletes’ Perceptions of
Coaching Staff Cohesion, Team Cohesion, and Performance.

Study Area/Scope :
The study was to explore coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion (CSC)
and their relationships with team cohesion and performance. This study comprises of 18
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) teams from the mid-Athletic region of
United States. Division I (n=8), Division II ( n=5), and Division III (n=5). Coactive (n=7)
and interactive (n=11) teams, both in and out of season were included in the study. Sports
represented were baseball, wrestling, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s volleyball,
men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s swimming, softball, women’s gymnastics,
tennis, rowing, and track and field.

Both athletes and members of the coaching staff from each team participated in the study.
The majority of coaching staff had been working together for 1 to 2 years (73.1%). A total of
52 coaches (33 males and 19 females) and 355 athletes (154 males and 201 females)
participated in the study.

For measuring the coaching staff cohesion, The Coaching staff Cohesion Scale (CSCS) was
used. The Athlete Perception of Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale (APCSCS) was designed and
used to assess athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion. To measure the athletes’
perceptions of team cohesion, The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron,
Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) was used. Lastly, athletes’ perception of team performance
were measured by a single item, that is rated on scale from 1 to 10.
Study Finding :

The study finding in this journal was to explore coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of
coaching staff cohesion (CSC) and their relationships with team cohesion and performance.
Furthermore, this study was designed to determine :
 Athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion would be different than coaches’
perceptions of coaching staff cohesion.
 Are the coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion would be
positively correlated with team cohesion.
 Are the task dimensions of team cohesion would be positively correlated with
performance.

Study Summary :

The journal is about to explore coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion
(CSC) and their relationships with team cohesion and performance. To find the results for
this study, a few types of instruments was used. For measuring the coaching staff cohesion,
The Coaching staff Cohesion Scale (CSCS) was used. The Athlete Perception of Coaching
Staff Cohesion Scale (APCSCS) was designed and used to assess athletes’ perceptions of
coaching staff cohesion. To measure the athletes’ perceptions of team cohesion, The Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) was used. Lastly,
athletes’ perception of team performance were measured by a single item, that is rated on
scale from 1 to 10. This article findings shows that athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of
coaching staff cohesion are different. That is, coaches’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion
are higher, suggesting a discrepancy between coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions regarding the
interaction and decision making among coaching staff. When consulting with the athletic
teams, it is important to consider coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff
cohesion. If there is a discrepancy between the coaching staff and athletes’ perceptions of
coaching staff cohesion, communicating this discrepancy may help increase self-awareness
among the coaching staff and thus work to bridge the gap between differences in perceptions.

It also shows that both coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion were
positively related to team cohesion but athletes’ perceptions are more stronger than the
coaches’ perceptions. This is consistent with Shields et al.’s (1997) findings with coach
leadership behaviour and suggests that athletes’ perceptions of their coaches are more
strongly associated with team cohesion than coaches’ perceptions. The way in which athletes’
perceive the coaching staff’s unity, shared values, and attraction could impact teams on
several levels.

While, individual attraction to Group-Task and Group Integration-Task were both found to
have moderately strong positive relationships with teams’ performance ratings, providing
further support for a team cohesion-performance link (Carron et al., 2002). Neither of the
social scales of the GEQ was found to be significantly correlated with the team performance
ratings. As mentioned above, perceptions of coaching staff cohesion were related to team
cohesion. This implies that coaching staff cohesion may have an indirect relationship with
performance.

Your Conclusion/Comment :

As the conclusion, it is important for consultants to be sensitive to the perception of coaching

staff cohesion and how it may influence the team cohesion. This is because, athletes do play a
primary role in team cohesion, however coaches also influence in team cohesion. The
coaching staff can be viewed as a team within the team, which must be function together with
a shared purpose. Furthermore, the coaching staff should be considered as a moderating
variable of team cohesion because the athletes are likely behaving in a way that has been
modelled to them by the coaching staff. In order to improving coaching efficiency, the
incorporating coaching staff cohesion exercises in coaching training programs should be
done. A good communication between coaches’ and athletes’ can influence the athletes’
perceptions about the coaching staff cohesion. The perceptions then may positively impact
team functioning and performance. As an example, in order to build staff interest to the
athletes, the communication of the coaches to the staff should be really cleared as well as for
the staff to be one part of the coaching staff.