Developing Psycho-Behavioural Skills: The Talent Development Coach Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good morning.

I would like to congratulate the authors for the review presented. It is a high quality work, with an excellent methodology, and very interesting results. Therefore, it should be published. In order to improve its final presentation, I propose a series of modifications.

I believe that it is necessary to improve the abstract, to provide more information on results and conclusions. It also needs to improve the conclusions section of the study.

Conduct a review of the study's citations and references (e.g., Page 2. Line 52: Collins, MacNamara and Cruickshank).

Author Response

Thank you to both reviewers for their time reviewing the manuscript and their comments, which significantly enhance our work. Please see the attachment where each point is addressed

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to commend the authors on an interesting and well written manuscript. This is an important topic, as psychological skills are regularly overlooked in coach education settings. More understanding of how coaches can teach these to athletes (especially young developing athletes) is essential. I am generally in favour of the manuscript however, I believe that there are some developments that can help improve the quality.

Is it possible to provide some detail as to how coaches are taught about these psycho-behavioural skills and approaches during their coach education (or at least a brief overview of the coach ed programs)? I recognise this may be difficult as different sports may have different approaches, but it will provide useful background. It may also be that nothing is provided in the NGB coach education program, but this could also be stated.

I appreciate the need to keep some confidentiality in the participants but can the authors comment on each person's educational background. For example, have they completed a sports science / sport psychology bachelor or master degree? Again, this will provide greater overview of why and how the coach has been trained and their applicability to teach these skills to others.

The interview development and data analysis are well presented. It is nice to see good consideration given to this.

My biggest issue is with Table 2 Analysis themes and subthemes. In the current format it does not add to the manuscript or clearly identify what the results of the analysis are. I would like to see a developed figure, which clearly differentiates between the themes and subthemes. I believe there is also a need to add further raw data exemplars or raw data themes that demonstrate the deepness of each subtheme. This will help the reader understand the findings easier and better.

It is similar in the written results section also. I would like to see a greater critical engagement of the findings, where the authors have delved deeper to make it clearer for the reader as to why the coaches take these approaches and act in this way.

Likewise, the discussions currently read like more of a description or summary of the results rather than critically engaging in the literature, identifying the meaning and how other coaches can utilise this knowledge. How can coach educators use this to develop TD specialist coaches?

The conclusion could also be harder hitting. Potentially the inclusion of recommendations of how other coaches can use this information would be of benefit.

Author Response

I would like to commend the authors on an interesting and well written manuscript. This is an important topic, as psychological skills are regularly overlooked in coach education settings. More understanding of how coaches can teach these to athletes (especially young developing athletes) is essential. I am generally in favour of the manuscript however, I believe that there are some developments that can help improve the quality.

We thank the reviewer for their generous comments and hope that the below addresses these concerns.

Is it possible to provide some detail as to how coaches are taught about these psycho-behavioural skills and approaches during their coach education (or at least a brief overview of the coach ed programs)? I recognise this may be difficult as different sports may have different approaches, but it will provide useful background. It may also be that nothing is provided in the NGB coach education program, but this could also be stated.

Thank you, this is a good suggestion. The sample represents a range of different coaches and backgrounds, it would not be possible to present an outline of all of their experiences. We also didn’t ask the participants for this information and wouldn’t want to speculate beyond our dataset. Recognising the value of the point that you raise, we have made additions to the introduction from L122 that we hope address this concern:

In recognition of the need for this type of approach, coaching is increasingly recognised as an interdisciplinary endeavour [e.g., 51, 52]. Yet, historically coach education has been critiqued for a lack of depth and failing to meet the needs of practice [e.g., 53]. The latter perhaps a consequence of the misalignment of the needs of research and practice [54]. Similarly, that the ‘ologies’, fields such as psychology, social psychology, physiology and skill acquisition [51, 55] have received limited attention and this may have limited coach’s capacity to act in an interdisciplinary fashion [cf. 56]. In addition, beyond formal education, there is increasing recognition of the role of informal and unmediated learning for the coach [57]. Thus, the need to equip coaches to engage in critical thinking beyond the qualification setting [58]. In response to these concerns, it does appear that some coach education curricula are viewing psychology as a more prominent knowledge base to coaches to draw from. For example, the English Football Association’s use of psychological theory as a central feature of their coach education curricula [59]. Despite this, there is limited research that directly informs how the development of psycho-behavioural skills can be embedded into the coaching process alongside other elements of performance.

I appreciate the need to keep some confidentiality in the participants but can the authors comment on each person's educational background. For example, have they completed a sports science / sport psychology bachelor or master degree? Again, this will provide greater overview of why and how the coach has been trained and their applicability to teach these skills to others.

Thank you, we appreciate the value of this and have now added the academic qualifications of these coaches, to add further context (see table 1)

The interview development and data analysis are well presented. It is nice to see good consideration given to this.

Thank you

My biggest issue is with Table 2 Analysis themes and subthemes. In the current format it does not add to the manuscript or clearly identify what the results of the analysis are. I would like to see a developed figure, which clearly differentiates between the themes and subthemes. I believe there is also a need to add further raw data exemplars or raw data themes that demonstrate the deepness of each subtheme. This will help the reader understand the findings easier and better.

Thank you for this comment. We would agree that the formatting of the table makes it a little difficult to read – however, this is the journal format. We have adjusted the table and we think this addresses your main concern. We hope that the editors allow this change. We have also added substantially to the table with additional raw data exemplars that double the number of exemplars.

We are unsure what changes might be appropriate beyond this given the stylistic norms of a Reflexive Thematic Analysis

It is similar in the written results section also. I would like to see a greater critical engagement of the findings, where the authors have delved deeper to make it clearer for the reader as to why the coaches take these approaches and act in this way.

Thank you for this comment, it again enhances the manuscript. We have added significantly to the results section.

To be clear, our research question was specifically “to explore the pedagogic intentions of expert coach practitioners for the psychological development of TD athletes as a part of their broader practice”. We do not present any behavioural/observational data. Given the span of data collection necessary, something not feasible across a sample of coaches this large. As such, we cannot comment on their actions.

Likewise, the discussions currently read like more of a description or summary of the results rather than critically engaging in the literature, identifying the meaning and how other coaches can utilise this knowledge. How can coach educators use this to develop TD specialist coaches?

This is a good point, thank you. Please see changes to the discussion as follows that we believe address this concern:

L590: Notably, this seemed to contrast with coach’s perceptions of a progressive building of complexity in their teaching of skills. On the one hand, they seemed to discuss a more linear approach, one that required athletes to be taught skills from a base level and gradually made more complex. This seemingly reflected the perception that athletes arriving in their environments lacked the neccesary psycho-behavioural skillset, something not neccesarily supported in the literature [91]. Yet, the coaches also reflected on the use of explicit and implicit teaching being used in conjunction to coherently reinforce [85]. This may reflect a difference between the notion of espoused theories and those in use [92]; or, despite coaches reflecting on the neccesity of needs analysis, the lack of valid tools to do so beyond the intution of the coach [e.g., 84].

Building on the notion of coach’s pedagogic theories informing practice, matching previous findings, coaches put significant value on the teaching of skills within the context that athletes needed to deploy them. Whilst not explicitly stating so, coaches seemed to draw on the notion of situated cognition [93] as a means of briding the abstract nature of the psycho-behavioural skill as defined and it’s use in practice. This ‘bridging’ approach could also be framed in terms of near transfer from the conditions of practice to deployment [94]. Regardless of theoretical framing, coaches strongly perceived the need for skill development to be embedding in the life of the athlete, being actively prompted and tested [95].

And L639: Finally, in full recognition that the data collected in this study in no way is representative of ‘best practice’ [98], there appear to be a number of implications for coach development practice. Firstly, by highlighting that the problems coaches face are truly interdisciplinary in nature and that the abstract categories that surround academic disciplines are not those presented to coaches in the real world [51]. As such, coach development should aim more towards expertise in coaching practice, rather than a more narrow focus on competence. This neccesitates a coaches acquiring knowledge across a domains and have the adaptive skill to operate under uncertain conditions, making sense of problems and acting flexibly to find solutions [99].

Whilst positive steps are being taken to approach the need for coaches to have the requisite declarative knowledge [59], the data presented here supports the conclusions of others in coach education research pointing to the need for coaches to not only acquire knowledge, but know how to use it [100]. This only points to the need for more attention to be paid to the development of expertise in coaching practice and how various bases of knowledge might underpin coach decisions and actions [70]. This study only further highlights the need for coaches to not see their role as being confined to the technical and tactical elements of performance. This would seem to especially be the case in the TD domain where coaches are unable to draw on the knowledge of a variety of specialists. We would also point to the need for coach development to pay attention to the ability of coaches to forecast the needs of athletes over time, especially for those working with younger athletes [101].

The conclusion could also be harder hitting. Potentially the inclusion of recommendations of how other coaches can use this information would be of benefit.

We again agree and have remodelled the conclusion (below), though we feel that use of the information is better placed in the discussion:

“By exploring the intentions of high-level TD coaches in relation to the development of psycho-behavioural skills, this paper highlights the complex and interconnected nature of the coaching process. Coaches in this sample discussed a range of approaches and methods that went beyond didactic notions of teaching, representing a breadth of pedagogic approaches to their practice. In doing so, discussing the intent to draw on a range of strategies affected towards the development of psycho-behavioural skills. These methods went beyond notions of individual coaching input, considering the role of the environment and wider TD system. Importantly, the nature of these approaches meant that their intentions drew on multiple objectives against performance categories. In essence, rather than working on a psychological factor in one session and a technical element in another, coaches seemed to nest their intentions, promoting different elements according to circumstance. The methods were supportive of the notion of a ‘teach-test-tweak-repeat’ approach to developing psychological skills, though highlighted the complexity and non-linearity of the process in practice. In doing so, presented data supportive of coaches’ perceptions that challenge was deemed central to the process of TD, so long as athletes were sufficiently prepared and that subsequent review processes supported further development. We suggest that coaches and talent systems might draw on the notion of the teach, test, tweak, repeat model to enhance practice.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for addressing the main points raised. The revisions have developed the text further and I believe that there is real value in the publication of this manuscript.