ERIC EJ899094: Behavioral Coaching to Improve Offensive Line Pass-Blocking Skills of High School Football Athletes

2010·0.36 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2010, 43, 463–472 NUMBER3 (FALL2010)
BEHAVIORAL COACHING TO IMPROVE OFFENSIVE LINE PASS-
BLOCKING SKILLS OF HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL ATHLETES
JOHN V. STOKES AND JAMES K. LUISELLI
MAYINSTITUTE
DEREK D. REED
MELMARKNEWENGLAND
RICHARD K. FLEMING
UNIVERSITYOFMASSACHUSETTSMEDICALSCHOOL
Weevaluatedseveralbehavioralcoachingproceduresforimprovingoffensivelinepass-blocking
skills with 5 high school varsity football players. Pass blocking was measured during practice
drills and games, and our intervention included descriptive feedback with and without video
feedback and teaching with acoustical guidance (TAG). Intervention components and pass
blocking were evaluated in a multiple baseline design, which showed that video feedback and
TAG were the most effective procedures. For all players, improved pass blocking matched a
standardderivedbyobservingmoreexperiencedlinemenandwasevidentingames.Additional
intervention was required to maintain pass-blocking proficiency. Issues pertinent to behavioral
coachingandsport psychology research arediscussed.
Key words: behavioral coaching, football, performance feedback, teaching with acoustical
guidance
_______________________________________________________________________________
Consistent with the cornerstones of applied effective with sports such as swimming (Hazen,
behavior analysis, behavioral coaching involves Johnstone, Martin, & Srikameswaran, 1990;
selecting measurable behaviors, implementing Koop & Martin, 1983), track (Shapiro &
operant-based procedures, and evaluating be- Shapiro, 1985), figure skating (Hume, Martin,
havior change as a function of intervention Gonzalez, Cracklen, & Genthon, 1985), tennis
(Martin & Hrycaiko, 1983). Furthermore, (Buzas & Ayllon, 1981), and gymnastics
cognitive and motor control researchers have (Wolko, Hrycaiko, & Martin, 1983).
identified behavioral coaching as a critical Relative to football, which was the focus of
element in developing expert and elite-level the present study, Ward and Carnes (2002)
performance in sports (Starkes & Ericsson, foundthathavingfivelinebackersonaNational
2003). Behavioral coaching programs typically Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA)
combine several procedures, such as verbal Division II football team set performance goals
instruction, prompting, goal setting, perfor- and receive publicly posted feedback improved
mance feedback, and positive reinforcement. their correct execution of reads, drops, and
Research has shown behavioral coaching to be tackles during practice sessions and games. In
another study, Smith and Ward (2006) report-
We thank Peter Flynn for his contributions to the ed that a combination of public posting with
study.
verbal feedback and goal setting improved
AddresscorrespondencetoJohnV.Stokes,5CherylDrive,
Milton, Massachusetts 02186 (e-mail: johnvictorstokes@ blocking, route running, and releases of three
yahoo.com) or James K. Luiselli, May Institute,41 Pacella wide receivers who also played on an NAIA
Park Drive, Randolph, Massachusetts 02368 (e-mail:
Division II football team. Although the inter-
[email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-463 ventions evaluated by Ward and Carnes and
463
464 JOHN V. STOKES et al.
Smith and Ward included several components, coach during practice pass-blocking drills. The
providing behavior-contingent feedback to en- performance of several of the athletes was also
hance performance was common to both. measured during game conditions and a
Allison and Ayllon (1980) also used behav- maintenance phase when they returned for a
ioral coaching with five younger boys (ages 11 second season.Additionalevaluationincludeda
and 12 years) on a citywide football team. The social validity assessment in which the athletes
dependent measure was the percentage of rated the relative value of each of the interven-
correctblocksexecutedcorrectlyduringpractice tion procedures.
drills. Under baseline conditions, the football
coach implemented typical procedures (praise, METHOD
encouragement, correction), but blocking did
Participants and Setting
not improve. The behavioral intervention
The participants were five students who
involved the coach yelling ‘‘freeze’’ when a
attendedapublichighschool.Theywereselected
player blocked incorrectly, demonstrating how
for the study because the coaching staff had
the block should have been executed, and
identified them as having the poorest pass-
instructing the player to imitate what he had
blocking skills from a pool of 15 offensive
been shown. These procedures were effective in
linemen on the varsity football team. Linemen
improvingblockingwithalloftheboys.Similar
who had started at least one game during the
totheresearchbyWardandCarnes(2002)and
previousseasonwereexcludedfromthestudy,as
SmithandWard(2006),theAllisonandAyllon
were two other linemen who had played
study relied on performance feedback as a
extensively at the varsity level. Our rationale for
primary component of intervention.
this selection process was to evaluate procedures
Becauseitisnotlikelythatallprocedureswill
withtheleastcompetentandexperiencedplayers.
improve athletic performance of all athletes,
Noneoftheparticipantshadmorethan5years
different intervention methods should be in-
offootballplayingexperience.Mattwasasenior,
corporated in behavioral coaching research
DanandLoganwerejuniors,andSteveandRuss
(Martin, Vause, & Schwartzman, 2005). More-
were sophomores. The mean age of the partic-
over, few studies have assessed athletes’ prefer-
ipants was 16.2 years (range, 15 to 17 years),
ences for the various behavioral interventions
with a mean height of 183 cm (range, 174 to
that are available to coaches (Smith & Ward,
201cm)andmeanbodyweightof89kg(range,
2006). As noted by Kazdin (1977) and Wolf
79 to 100 kg). Other than being told that they
(1978), consumer preference for different
wouldbereceivingcoachinginpassblocking,the
interventions is a useful social validity outcome
participants were not informed about the
measure.Finally,despitenearlythreedecadesof
purpose of the study. The parents of each
behavior-analytic applications in sport psychol-
participant provided written informed consent.
ogy, research has measured performance during
The offensive line coach implemented the
actual competitive athletic events infrequently
measurement and intervention procedures (de-
(Martin et al.).
scribedbelow).Hewasabachelors-levelteacher
The purpose of the present study was to with 2 years coaching experience at the high
evaluate the effects of several behavioral coach- school level. His involvement in the study was
ing intervention procedures on offensive line voluntary.
pass-blocking skills of high school football
athletes. The procedures included different Measurement
methods for providing performance feedback Blocking was defined according to the 10-
and were implemented by the offensive line steptaskanalysisshowninTable 1.Fivecollege
BEHAVIORAL COACHING IN FOOTBALL 465
Table 1
Ten-Step Blocking TaskAnalysis
Step Description
1 Stance Feetshoulder-widthapart,50%bendattheknees,buttocksdownoverheels,center-sidehand
touchingtheground
2 Split Sidelinefootbackslightlywithtoetoheelofcenter-sidefoot
3 Firststep Makeplay-sidebucketstepwhilemaintainingbalance
4 Helmetcontact Helmetfacemaskmakescontactwithopponentatthetopofjerseynumber
5 Handplacement Pointerfingersat11:00o’clockand1:00o’clockwiththumbspointedtowardsopponent’s
Adam’sapple
6 Handposition Handsmaintainedinsideopponent’sshoulderpadsandtorsoframe
7 Armextension Armsextendedoutwardbeyond45degrees
8 Hipfollowthrough Hipsrolledtowardsopponent’sbellybutton
9 Legdrive Maintaincontinuousrunninglegpumpuntilwhistlesounds
10 Handcontact Handsincontactwithopponent’sbodyuntilwhistlesounds
offensive line coaches (acquaintances of the coach to record data by watching videotaped
seniorauthor)weresurveyedbeforethestudyto pass-blocking drills from the previous season’s
validate the steps selected in the task analysis. practices. Training continued until the senior
Each step was listed in sequence on a recording author and the coach achieved 90% or greater
form. The dependent measure was the percent- interobserver agreement for three consecutive
age of steps executed correctly during a practice drills. Additional training consisted of the
pass-blocking drill and league football games. senior author and coach observing offensive
Measurement during the pass-blocking drill linemen perform pass-blocking drills during
was conducted at weekly practice sessions. The actual practice sessions. This training was
drill began with a participant assuming a three- completed when we achieved 90% or greater
point stance (one hand and two feet in contact agreement for three consecutive drills.
with the ground) at the 5-yard field stripe. An Observers measured pass blocking during
orange traffic cone was placed approximately 5 games from videotapes using the previously
yards behind the participant, with one member described task analysis form. A single game was
of the coaching staff standing behind the cone. videotaped for Dan and Matt during the first
A defensive lineman in a four-pointstance (two season and for Dan, Steve, and Russ during the
hands and two feet in contact with the ground) second season. The offensive line coach record-
waspositionedapproximately1 yardin front of ed the initial three (Dan, Matt, and Russ) or
the participant. In response to the correct four (Steve) pass-blocking sequences from the
offensive cadence, a participant had to block videotapes for each of these participants.
the rushing defensive lineman within a 3-yard
lateralboundary,preventinghimfromtouching Interobserver Agreement
the orange cone. The pass-blocking drill During the study, 50% of the practice pass-
continued until either 10 s elapsed or the blocking drills were videotaped for all partici-
defensive lineman touched the orange cone, pants. We assessed interobserver agreement by
whichever came first. having the senior author record pass-blocking
The offensive line coach observed each execution on the 10-step task analysis form.
participant during a single pass-blocking drill, These results were compared with the real-time
recording a plus or a minus on the task analysis data that had been scored by the offensive line
form next to each step that the participant coach. An agreement was tallied if both
executed correctly and incorrectly, respectively. observers rated each step identically (correct
Before the study, the senior author trained the execution or incorrect execution). Interobserver
466 JOHN V. STOKES et al.
agreement was computed by dividing the during the pass-blocking drill, emphasizing
number of agreements by the number of proper execution by reminding them about
agreements plus disagreements and converting positional technique and staying focused. He
the ratio to a percentage. Mean agreement was usually praised the participants when they
90% (range, 50% to 100%). We also assessed blocked correctly, for example, making a
interobserver agreement during 50% of the statement such as ‘‘good work’’ or ‘‘That’s the
videotaped games using the same method of waytohit!’’Occasionally,hedeliveredaslapon
calculationdescribedforthepass-blockingdrill. the back of the helmet to acknowledge good
Mean game agreement assessments were 88% performance.Inresponsetopoorexecution,the
(range, 70% to 100%). Note that the two low coach typically responded negatively with a
percentages of 50% and 70% were the only remark such as, ‘‘That stinks, you didn’t take a
scores below 85% and were associated with one drop step,’’ sometimes followed by modeling
participant (Russ). the desired pass-blocking behaviors. During the
baseline phase, no other programmed conse-
Normative Assessment
quences were delivered.
Before the study, the senior author and the
Descriptive feedback. Baseline conditions re-
offensive line coach recorded pass blocking of
mained in effect except that the coach showed
the three highest rated starting offensive
the completed 10-step task analysis form to
linemenfrom thepreviousseason. Werecorded
each participant following the pass-blocking
data on the 10-step task analysis form for the
drill. He reviewed steps that participants
initial pass-blocking opportunity by each line-
executed correctly and incorrectly through a
man during three videotaped games with high
combination of instruction, modeling, and
school opponents (interobserver agreement was
physical prompting. Correct steps received
assessed during 100% of the pass-blocking
praise(e.g.,‘‘Great,keepitup!’’)andnonverbal
sequences, and mean agreement was 87%, with
approval (e.g., slapping a high five). The coach
a range of 70% to 100%). Mean correct pass-
responded to incorrect steps by explaining how
blocking accuracy for the three linemen was
they should have been executed, having a
80% (range, 70% to 90%). Therefore, we
participantperformthestepsonetimecorrectly,
adopted a range of 70% to 90% as our
and giving verbal feedback for those steps (e.g.,
acceptable performance criterion.
‘‘That’s it, now you’ve got it!’’). Participants
Intervention and Research Design were allowed to question the coach about how
Intervention components were evaluated in a to further refine their performances.
multiple baseline design across participants. Descriptive feedback plus video feedback. In
Baseline, descriptive feedback, and descriptive addition to descriptive feedback, each partici-
feedback plus video feedback phases were pantwatchedavideotapeofthepracticedrillhe
implemented with all of the participants. Four had just completed. The videotape was shown
of the participants also received teaching with to each participant immediately following the
acoustical guidance (TAG). Procedures during drill. Together, the coach and participant rated
baseline and intervention phases were imple- performance on the task analysis form during
mented at a Wednesday practice session each their videotape observation. Praise and correc-
week because that was the day typically tion from the coach, as described above, were
scheduled for individual offensive skills drills. contingentoncorrectlyexecutedandincorrectly
Baseline. Baseline procedures were those in executed steps, respectively. The video feedback
effect before the study. Specifically, the offen- concluded by having each participant perform
sive line coach instructed the participants the pass-blocking sequence by himself, one
BEHAVIORAL COACHING IN FOOTBALL 467
time, without a rushing defensive lineman and When they achieved an acceptable level of
without the coach’s praise or correction. performance during practice pass-blocking
Teachingwithacousticalguidance.Fourofthe drills, we conducted measurement from video-
five participants received the TAG condition tapes of a scheduled league game with a high
following the descriptive plus video feedback school opponent. A different game was video-
phase.One participantwasexcluded becausehe taped and measured with each participant (one
started playing regularly in league games after game for Dan and Steve and two games for
thedescriptiveplusvideofeedbackphasedueto Russ).
aninjurysustainedbyoneoftheteam’sstarting
Social Validity Assessment
offensive linemen. With TAG, an audible
At the conclusion of the first football season,
stimulus such as a click or chirp is sounded to
the participants were asked to rate their
signify that a desired behavior has occurred
satisfaction with the four phases they experi-
(Pryor, 1999). TAG is similar to concurrent
enced during the study (baseline, descriptive
auditory feedback, an intervention used in
feedback, descriptive feedback plus video feed-
motor-skills learning (Konttinen, Mononen,
back, and TAG). On a 1-page form, they
Viitasalo, & Mets, 2004). During the TAG
entered one of four numerical ratings for each
phase, the coach informed each participant
phase: 1 5 poor, 2 5 fair, 3 5 good, 4 5
about specific steps from the task analysis that
excellent. Before presenting the form to the
would be ‘‘tagged.’’ The coach selected steps
participants, the senior author reminded them
that each participant had failed to execute
abouttheproceduresthatcomprisedeachphase
consistently; these were Step 7 for Dan and
of the study.
Steve, Step 5 for Logan, and Steps 5, 6, and 7
for Russ. Immediately after observing a partic-
ipant perform the step correctly, the coach RESULTS
sounded a bullhorn that produced a siren
Figure 1 shows the percentage of pass-
lasting 1 s. All participants reported that they
blocking steps executed correctly by each
could hear the siren without difficulty. No
participant during practice drills and games.
additional feedback was given to the partici-
Mean correct pass blocking was 40% and 50%
pantsfollowingtheTAGpass-blockingdrillnor for Dan during the baseline and descriptive
were putative positive (e.g., praise) or negative feedback phases, respectively. His performance
backupreinforcers(e.g.,avoidanceofpracticing improved under the video feedback condition
the drill again) associated with the TAG (M 5 82%). Targeting Step 7 of the task
procedure. analysiswiththeTAGprocedurewasassociated
Game performance. None of the intervention with 100% correct pass blocking during drills.
procedures were implemented during the Mean blocking proficiency was 85% in game
games. conditions. During the baseline at the start of
Follow-up.Wemeasured thepass blockingof the second season, his mean correct pass
Dan, Steve, and Russ when they returned for a blocking returned to low levels (M 5 45%).
second football season. Each participant was Descriptive plus video feedback was effective in
evaluated under baseline conditions, followed improving his pass blocking (M 5 80%), and
by intervention procedures that had been this high proficiency was maintained during
effective during the preceding season. Dan actual game observations (M 5 87%).
and Steve received descriptive feedback plus Mean correct pass blocking was 47% and
video feedback only, and Russ received descrip- 50% for Steve during the baseline and
tive feedback plus video feedback and TAG. descriptive feedback conditions, respectively.
468 JOHN V. STOKES et al.
Figure1. Percentageofpass-blockingstepsexecutedcorrectlyduringpracticedrillsandgamesacrosstwoseasonsof
high school football. The shaded horizontal lines represent the normative pass-blocking performance range of starting
varsitylinemen.
Correct performance increased with the provi- quent in-game performance was strong (M 5
sion of video feedback (M 5 87%). Effects of 85%).
the TAG procedure targeting Step 7 of the task Mean correct pass blocking was 43% for
analysis are unclear; nevertheless, he achieved Logan during the baseline phase. His perfor-
100%correctin three ofsix pass-blocking drills mance improved initially with descriptive
during the TAG phase. When assessed at the feedback but then decreased (M 5 62%).
start of the second season, correct pass blocking Adding video feedback increased correct pass
returned to low levels during baseline (M 5 blocking to a mean of 90%. Mean correct pass
55%). Reimplementing video feedback im- blocking was 95% with the TAG procedure in
proved his performance (M 5 83%); subse- place for Step 5 of the task analysis.
BEHAVIORAL COACHING IN FOOTBALL 469
Table 2
Social Validity Ratings ofBehavioral Coaching Tactics
Participant
Condition Dan Steve Logan Matt Russ M(SD)
Baseline 1 1 1 1 1 1.0(0)
Descriptivefeedback 2 2 3 2 2 2.2(0.45)
Descriptivefeedbackplusvideofeedback 4 4 4 4 3 3.8(0.45)
TAG 3 3 2 4 3.0(0.82)
Mean correct pass blocking was 59% for ed for all of the participants who were assessed
Matt during the baseline phase. Pass blocking during games.
appeared to improve with both descriptive (M Table 2presentsthesocialvalidityresults.All
571%)andvideo(M584%)feedback.Mean five participants rated the baseline coaching
blocking proficiency was 83% under game procedures as poor. They rated descriptive
conditions. feedback as fair (80%) and good (20%),
Russ demonstrated the most variability in descriptive feedback plus video feedback as
pass-blocking execution during the initial good (20%) and excellent (80%), and TAG as
baseline phase, ranging from 20% to 60% (M fair (25%), good (50%), and excellent (25%).
5 38%). His performance did not improve
with descriptive feedback (M 5 41%), but did DISCUSSION
improve with video feedback (M 5 66%).
Descriptive feedback alone did not improve
Further improvement occurred when the TAG
pass blocking. The descriptive and video
procedure was implemented for Step 5 (M 5
feedback condition was demonstrated to be
80%), Step 6 (M 5 82%), and Step 7 (M 5
effective in improving correct pass blocking for
88%) of the task analysis. The second season
all five participants. When four of the five
baseline assessment showed a return to low
participants received TAG, their correct block-
levels of correct pass blocking (M 5 27%).
ing increased further, but the short assessment
Descriptive and video feedback were associated
phases, the increasing trends in the data in
withimprovedperformance(M567%),which
preceding conditions, and the aggregation of
was maintained during games (M 5 65%).
the data make it difficult to isolate the specific
Because performance fell below the perfor-
effects of TAG. For all of the participants,
mance criterion, additional intervention was improved pass blocking matched a normative
implemented (TAG of Step 7), yieldinga mean standard for more experienced linemen, and
performance of 78%. His correct pass blocking this strong performance was evident in games.
persistedduringasecondin-gamemeasurement Finally, participants rated the coaching condi-
(M 5 77%). tion involving descriptive and video feedback
At the close of our intervention, each most favorably.
participant was able to pass block consistently Video feedback combined with descriptive
within our normative criterion that was estab- feedbackwasconsistentlysuperiortodescriptive
lished for starting offensive linemen. All feedbackaloneinimprovingpassblocking.This
participants achieved this criterion during the outcome is consistent with similar research
descriptive and video feedback phase; however, conducted with swimmers (Hazen et al., 1990).
TAG allowed participants to exceed (Dan, One possible reason for the superiority of video
Steve, Logan) or consistently stay within the feedback in the current study is that this
criterion (Russ). Criterion performance persist- condition included model prompts in addition
470 JOHN V. STOKES et al.
tothevocalpromptsinthedescriptivefeedback recommended as an effective training method
condition, and these model prompts may be in football as well as in other sports.
instrumental in developing proficient pass- We concentrated on pass blocking during
blocking performances. Note, however, that weeklypracticedrillsinthisstudy.Performance
the video feedback condition also required that during actual games was assessed with two
the participants practice the entire 10-step participants during the first season and three
blocking sequence one time after seeing them- participants who returned for a second season.
selves on videotape. Therefore, the question These results demonstrated that the pass-
remains as to whether video feedback without blocking proficiency achieved during practice
this practice step would have had the same was maintained under game conditions. Obser-
effect. vation of effective performance during actual
TAG involves the behavior-contingent pre- game situations is a strength of the study.
sentation of an audible marker (Pryor, 1999). However, conclusions about practice-to-game
As noted previously,TAG is formally similar to performance must be tempered because the
concurrent feedback by which an auditory gamesampleswerelimitedtothreetofourplays
stimulus follows a target behavior that is during one to two games and because we did
demonstrated under real-time conditions not conduct preintervention game assessments
(Konttinen et al., 2004). In the present study, for any of the participants (Smith & Ward,
the effects of TAG may have influenced 2006; Ward & Carnes, 2002). Furthermore,
performance via different stimulus functions, not all of the participants’ pass-blocking
such as (a) increasing the discriminative control performancewasmeasuredduringgames.These
of antecedent stimuli (e.g., movements of the limitations should be addressed in future
rushing lineman’s or the blocker’s own behav- behavioral coaching research concerned with
ior) or (b) strengthening precursor behaviors in the effects of practice-based interventions on
the blocking sequence (e.g., feet position or performance during competitive events.
body angle). Furthermore, the auditory stimu- Using a behavioral consultation model (Kra-
lus in our study, a siren, may have become a tochwill & Bergan, 1990), the senior author
conditioned reinforcer by virtue of its pairing trained and monitored the coach’s implemen-
with successful blocking and unprogrammed tation of intervention procedures and his
positive attention from teammates and the measurement of their relative effectiveness
coach. One advantage of TAG in behavioral throughout regularly scheduled football prac-
coaching is that it can be implemented at the tices during this study. Interobserver agreement
precise moment in practice situations that assessments revealed that the coach reliably
require fluent execution of chained responses. recorded data throughout the evaluation. Un-
For example, vocal prompting and feedback derstandingtherelationbetweencomponentsof
from the coach may not influence behavior behavioral coaching and proficient pass-block-
during the actual blocking sequence due to the ing performance under these authentic condi-
noisy and physically challenging pass-blocking tions is another strength of our study. Future
drill conditions. By contrast, coaches can research should measure intervention integrity
effectively mark participant-specific behaviors of coaches to ensure that procedures are
with the TAG procedure. Because strong implemented as described (Gresham, 1989)
inferences regarding the efficacy of TAG are and to determine if different components are
not possible in this study, further evaluations moreorlessdifficulttoimplementunderactual
are needed to determine whether TAG can be coaching conditions.
BEHAVIORAL COACHING IN FOOTBALL 471
The dependent measure in our study was the ments should incorporate dimensions of proce-
percentage of pass-blocking steps executed dures used to improve performance that may
correctly. However, our measurement system influence preference. These variables may
did not show whether acquiring these steps include whether procedures build on existing
corresponded with successful pass-blocking skillsor attempttoteachnovelskills,aresimple
outcomes. For example, a successful or unsuc- orrelativelycomplex,ormakeplayersstandout
cessful block could be defined as a participant in the presence of teammates rather than being
preventing the rushing defensive lineman from taught more discreetly. In addition to deter-
contacting the orange cone in practice or the mining the players’ values for behavioral
quarterback in games. Or, another measure of coaching tactics, social validity assessment
successful pass blocking could be the distance a should be conducted with the coaches who
participant kept the rushing defensive lineman implementthemtoidentifythemostacceptable
from the orange cone and the quarterback. training and practice procedures.
Ultimately, improved pass blocking can be It is not uncommon to find poor postinter-
measured against game indexes such as the vention maintenance associated with behavioral
percentage of passes completed, total offensive intervention in sports. As an illustration,
yards,pointsscored,andwins.Ourtaskanalysis Anderson and Kirkpatrick (2002) used several
was selected to document whether intervention behavioral procedures to increase correct relay
effectively taught young football athletes the tags by three members of a competitive inline
basic skills necessary for proper pass-blocking roller speed skating team. Six months following
execution (cf. Allison & Ayllon, 1980) but intervention, all of the skaters required addi-
additional measures of successful blocking tional training because they did not perform
outcomes should be incorporated in future relay tags at the frequency achieved with
behavioral coaching research. intervention. Similarly, improved pass blocking
Although few behavioral coaching studies was notmaintained forthethree participantsin
have reported social validity outcomes (Roger- ourstudywhoreturnedforasecondseason.Itis
son & Hrycaiko, 2002; Smith & Ward, 2006; likely that each participant’spass-blocking skills
Swain & Jones, 1995), the social acceptability deteriorated without routine practice and
of the various behavioral coaching tactics may ongoing behavioral coaching. Their perfor-
be important to consider in addition to the mance improved immediately when descriptive
efficacy of such tactics. Four of the five plus video feedback and TAG procedures were
participantsinthecurrentstudypreferredvideo reimplemented. These results suggest that one
feedback over the other procedures, and the way to promote maintenance is for coaches to
fifth participant rated TAG most highly. conduct booster training sessions at the start of
Consistent with other social validity research a new season.
in which direct consumers’ values of interven- In summary, we found that a behavioral
tions are assessed, our participants preferred the coaching intervention that incorporated vocal,
conditionsunderwhichtheyweremosteffective visual,andinsomecasesacousticalperformance
(e.g., Hanley, Piazza, Fisher, & Maglieri, 2005; feedback improved offensive line pass-blocking
Heal, Hanley, & Layer, 2009). Of future skills of high school football athletes. The
interest is whether the most effective coaching participants were able to perform at a level
methods are those judged most favorably by comparabletomoreexperiencedteammatesand
athletes and whether successful outcomes are did so proficiently outside the practice sessions.
consistent with or independent of players’ They also rated most highly the intervention
preferences. In addition, social validity assess- procedures that were effective for them. The
472 JOHN V. STOKES et al.
resultsofthestudysupportpreviousfindingson Koop, S., & Martin, G. L. (1983). Evaluation of a
coachingstrategytoreduceswimmingstrokeerrorsin
the benefits of behavioral coaching in football
beginning age-group swimmers. Journal of Applied
(Allison&Ayllon,1980;Smith&Ward,2006; BehaviorAnalysis,16,447–460.
Ward & Carnes, 2002) and an applied Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral
consultation in applied settings: An individual guide.
behavior-analytic approach to athletic perfor-
NewYork: Plenum.
mance enhancement (Martin, Thompson, &
Martin, G. L., & Hrycaiko, D. (Eds.). (1983). Behavior
Regehr, 2004; Martin et al., 2005). modification and coaching: Principles, procedures, and
research. Springfield, IL: CharlesCThomas.
Martin, G. L., Thompson, K., & Regehr, K. (2004).
REFERENCES Studies using single-subject designs in sport psychol-
ogy: 30 years of research. The Behavior Analyst, 27,
Allison,M.G.,&Ayllon,T.(1980).Behavioralcoaching 263–280.
in the development of skills in football, gymnastics, Martin, G. L., Vause, T., & Schwartzman, L. (2005).
and tennis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, Experimental studies of psychological interventions
297–314. with athletes in competitions: Why so few? Behavior
Anderson, G., & Kirkpatrick, M. A. (2002). Variable Modification,29,616–641.
effects of a behavioral treatment package on the Pryor, K. (1999). Don’t shoot the dog: The new art of
performance of inline roller speed skaters. Journal of teachingandtraining.New York: Bantam.
AppliedBehavior Analysis, 35,195–198. Rogerson, L. J., & Hrycaiko, D. W. (2002). Enhancing
Buzas, H. P., & Ayllon, T. (1981). Differential competitive performance of ice hockey goaltenders
reinforcement in coaching tennis skills. Behavior usingcenteringandself-talk.JournalofAppliedSport
Modification,5, 372–385. Psychology,14,14–26.
Gresham,F.(1989).Assessment oftreatment integrity in Shapiro,E.S.,&Shapiro,S.(1985).Behavioralcoaching
school consultation and prereferral intervention. in the development of skills in track. Behavior
SchoolPsychology Review,18, 37–50. Modification,9,211–224.
Hanley,G.P.,Piazza,C.C.,Fisher,W.W.,&Maglieri, Smith,S.L.,&Ward,P.(2006).Behavioralinterventions
K.M.(2005).Ontheeffectivenessofandpreference toimproveperformanceincollegiatefootball.Journal
for punishment and extinction components of ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 39,385–391.
function-based interventions. Journal of Applied Starkes,J.L.,&Ericsson,K.A.(2003).Expertperformance
BehaviorAnalysis,38, 51–66. in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise.
Hazen, A., Johnstone, C., Martin, G. L., & Srikames- Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
waran,S.(1990).Avideotapingfeedbackpackagefor Swain, A., & Jones, G. (1995). Effects of goal-setting
improvingskillsofyouthcompetitiveswimmers.The interventions on selected basketball skills: A single-
Sport Psychologist,4,213–227. subject design. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Heal, N. A., Hanley, G. P., & Layer, S. A. (2009). An Sports,66,51–63.
evaluation of the relative efficacy of and child Ward,P.,&Carnes,M.(2002).Effectsofpostingself-set
preferenceforteachingstrategiesthatdifferinamount goals on collegiate football players’ skill execution
of teacher directedness. Journal of Applied Behavior duringpracticeandgames.JournalofAppliedBehavior
Analysis,42,123–143. Analysis, 35,1–12.
Hume,K.M.,Martin,G.L.,Gonzalez,P.,Cracklen,C., Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for
& Genthon, S. (1985). A self-monitoring feed- subjective measurement or how applied behavior
back package for improving freestyle figure skat- analysisisfindingitsheart.JournalofAppliedBehavior
ing practice. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 333– Analysis, 11,203–214.
345. Wolko,K.L.,Hrycaiko,D.W.,&Martin,G.L.(1993).
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied A comparison of two self-management packages to
importance of behavior change through social standard coaching for improving practice perfor-
validation.Behavior Modification,1, 427–451. mance of gymnasts. Behavior Modification, 17,
Konttinen, N., Mononen, K., Viitasalo, J., & Mets, 209–223.
T. (2004). The effects of augmented auditory
feedback on psychomotor skill learning in precision Received October 22,2008
shooting.JournalofSportandExercisePsychology,26, Final acceptance May18,2009
306–316. Action Editor,Gregory P. Hanley