 |
Chapter 1 - History and Development It was anticipated that these instruments would generate significant insight for athletes seeking to free themselves from psychological blocks that were limiting goal attainment. The instruments chosen first were those designed to measure attributes that we inferred could have relevance to performance issues. Each was considered the best standardized instrument for the population we were investigating. The early quest was that of seeking to determine if general personality traits could be identified. We had hoped to apply our findings to provide an empirical foundation for identifying the underlying personality traits that could be contributing to less than desired athletic performances. Our goal was to develop a battery of assessment tools that would generate valuable findings to provide understanding and guidance for potential treatment approaches. We will not devote time to review the numerous publications in which we sought to distinguish sample differences comparing athletes with the general population for a number of standardized instruments. In terms of trait discriminations, significant differences appeared to distinguish only those athletes who would be described as elite performers, such as National team members and professional football, basketball and baseball players. The differences were most apparent in terms of achievement needs, emotional integration and self-assertion. Such traits as autonomy and independence were found to be high for those participating in individual sports but low in team sports. It was not possible, however, to generalize the findings with regard to common traits assessed during that period. As our consultation experience broadened, it became readily apparent that sports teams from high school through professional sport found the utilization of psychological inventories to require an investment of too much time and to be of questionable relevance to sport. The initial battery that was used was based upon non-sport-specific inventories and required an administration time of between four and six hours. The first inventory dropped from our consultation battery was the MMPI. This particular instrument was not contributing to our desired goal of providing athletes and coaches with data relevant to athletic performance. After several unpublished studies, it became apparent that it would be necessary to frame questions within the domains of sport behaviors, that is, to design questionnaires that were sport-specific so they could provide information within the athletic performance domain. The traits that we selected for development were based upon two criteria: first, did the trait chosen appear to have relevance to performance success, and second, would such a trait, once defined, lend itself to counseling effectiveness? Possibly the best known of these early designs of sport-specific inventories was the Athletic Motivation Inventory (Tutko, Lyon and Ogilvie, 1969). The AMI was designed to meet administration time restrictions, while at the same time providing the most relevant data, information that could be communicated to both player and coach, that would provide a reliable foundation for both understanding and coaching. The attributes that were retained in the AMI after a number of investigations were: Drive, Aggression, Determination, Guilt Proneness, Leadership, Self Confidence, Emotional Control, Mental Toughness, Coachability, Conscientiousness and Trust. In the years that followed, our interest has been directed toward designing instruments that can provide the most valuable insights with regard to sport-specific behaviors. What became increasingly apparent over the years was that the attributes that would form the basis for more effective counseling and intervention had to be designed not only as sport-specific measures but also to reflect unique individual styles of performing and learning. These would be questions that lead the athlete to engage in self-reflection and illuminate propensities, habits and beliefs that influence their performance and learning behavior. A number of early validity studies employing the AMI (e.g., Ogilvie, 1968; Ogilvie, 1974) did present findings that were of inestimable value as we were designing the CSP and LSP. In those studies asking coaches to independently rank their athletes on the eleven traits measured by the AMI, consistent findings emerged. Coaches in these studies could reliably rank their players only for the more overt dimensions such as Drive, Aggression, Leadership and Coachability, but not for the more covert attributes, such as Mental Toughness, Emotional Control and Conscientiousness (Ogilvie, 1968; Ogilvie, 1974; Ogilvie, 1979). This should not have been an unexpected finding because the trained counselor often must employ diagnostic inventories in order to make discriminations with regard to such human characteristics. These studies convinced us as to the need to include questions that would provide reliable data with regard to the more covert human propensities. As always, our goal was that of applying valid insights for the benefit of every athlete. In the past 40 years of working with athletes, the first author has been confronted with trying to answer a number of important questions. The questions of most interest have been those that focused upon performance and learning issues. Coaches expressed most concern about athletes who had the physical potential but were rarely able to sustain the effort necessary to perfect their motor skills. Also high on their concern list were athletes who became stymied by becoming stuck on a performance or learning plateau. When the coach or teacher is unable to discern the underlying cause, some form of psychological intervention becomes necessary and a reliable means for examining covert personal factors must be utilized. Though a performance or training plateau may exhibit common external features, the causes may be complex and multiple in nature. Over the last seven
years, the first two authors have sought to standardize the CSP and LSP
based upon data for over 4800 athletes. Since the domains of inquiry for
both the CSP and LSP are specific to sport participation, we wished to
collect data only for those individuals who had demonstrated a significant
commitment to sport activities. As is evident from our demographics, the
initial sample of 2400 subjects were highly committed male and female
athletes who had achieved status within their sport. We focused our attention
upon select NCAA, Division I, male and female competitors. These athletes
represent only approximately 2% of the general athletic population, as
only 5% of high school athletes ever meet the performance criteria for
participating at Division I level (Ogilvie and Howe, 1981). In our second
study of 1280 athletes, we were also able to gather data for age group,
high school and Masters level athletes. Our third study of 1057 amateur,
olympic and recreational athletes also includes heterogeneous groups of
male and female professional golfers. The strongest support we have to offer for the utility of these inventories has been the positive response of both athletes and coaches during our feedback sessions. We also have encouraging feedback from a number of our colleagues who have put the instruments on trial. As previously stated, the prime motivation for designing the CSP and the LSP was to provide an opportunity for athletes to engage in serious self-reflection. Every question was designed to invite self-examination of the most significant characteristics that contribute to and support human performance and learning goals. It is our belief that the current versions of the CSP and the LSP have achieved the objectives that prompted their initial development, and that guided our refinement of them. CONTENTS
| INTRODUCTION |
CHAPTERS:
|
 |
|
he
derivation of the CSP and LSP evolve from the first author's extensive
attempts to provide psychological services to both athletes and coaches.
As early as 1955, athletes were being referred or volunteering for counseling
because they were experiencing a variety of performance crises or conflicts.
Often coaches would seek answers to performance issues that appeared to
them as having some unknown psychological origin. In spite of intelligent
and skilled coaching strategies, certain team members seemed unable to
free themselves from various performance inhibitions. This situation resulted
in a quest to employ clinical skills that would identify the psychological
nature of the problems that were being presented. Based upon accurate
problem identification, specific treatment programs could be designed.
