Attitudes and behaviours of Canadian National Team coaches regarding the use of technology in their coaching practice
Keywords:
Technology, Coaching, Adoption, Implementation, High-Performance sportAbstract
Previous literature has proposed that successful adoption measures involve positive attitudes regarding using technology, high levels of technological self-efficacy beliefs, low levels of perceived complexity, and high levels of perceived relative advantage. The purpose of this study is to investigate these antecedents of technology adoption among national team Canadian coaches. Twenty-five current and retired Summer and Winter Canadian national team coaches participated in this investigation. They completed four questionnaires: a general information form, the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale (ATI), the Computer Self-Efficacy Measure (CSEM), and the Perceived Relative Advantage and Perceived Complexity Scales (PRA/PCo). Canadian national team coaches who responded were found to have a moderate affinity for technology when engaging with technology in their coaching practice. They also reported to have very high self-efficacy when it comes to using technology. They were shown to have a moderately high conviction in their ability to use technology. Coaches also viewed technology as giving them a high relative advantage over not using technology. Finally, they generally viewed technology as not very complex to operate. Most Canadian national team coaches who responded showed favourable views regarding using technology, had belief in their ability, and seemed capable of overcoming challenges in using technology. Future investigations should also identify elite coaches who do not use innovations and focus on sport specific challenges in adopting or implementing technology, as well as identifying barriers coaches face when acquiring or using new technology.
Downloads
References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision sciences, 28(3), 557-582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x
Ahmadi, A., Rowlands, D., & James, D. A. (2009). Towards a wearable device for skill assessment and skill acquisition of a tennis player during the first serve. Sports Technology, 2(3–4), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/19346182.2009.9648510
Attig, C., Wessel, D., & Franke, T. (2017). Assessing Personality Differences in Human-Technology Interaction: An Overview of Key Self-report Scales to Predict Successful Interaction BT - HCI International 2017 – Posters’ Extended Abstracts. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.) (pp. 19–29). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58750-9_3
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(3), 125. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.35.3.125
Barling J. , Beattie R. (1983) Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 5, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1300/j075v05n01_05
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148693
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1987). Concept of agency in educational and career development. Journal of counseling Psychology, 34(3), 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.3.299
Brown I. , Inouye D. K. (1978) Learned helplessness through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36, 900–908. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.36.8.900
Burkett, B. (2010). Technology in Paralympic sport: performance enhancement or essential for performance? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(3), 215 LP – 220. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.067249
Chen, S., Westman, M., & Eden, D. (2009). Impact of enhanced resources on anticipatory stress and adjustment to new information technology: A field-experimental test of conservation of resources theory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Chen, Shoshi: Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 69978, shos@post.tau.ac.il: Educational Publishing Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015282
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
Collins J. (1982) Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1993). Age differences in the performance of computer-based work. Psychology and Aging. US: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.8.1.59
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Duggal, M. (n.d.). Hawk Eye Technology.
Ellapen, T. J., & Paul, Y. (2016). Innovative Sport Technology Through Cross-Disciplinary Research: Future of Sport Science. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 38(383), 219–228.
Ellen, P. S., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726504
Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(00)00152-1
Franke, T., Attig, C., & Wessel, D. (2018). A Personal Resource for Technology Interaction: Development and Validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x
Guskiewicz, K. M. (2008). Sports Medicine and Athletic Training in the 21st Century: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Clinical Practice. Quest, 60(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483572
Hartzel, K. (2003). How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1145/903893.903933
Hawk, S. R. (1989). Locus of control and computer attitude: The effect of user involvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 5(3), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(89)90014-9
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1986). Communicating innovations: Convincing computer phobics to adopt innovative technologies. ACR North American Advances.
Holt, Nicholas L., Pankow, Kurtis., Camire, Martin., Cote, Jean., Frasier-Thomas, Jessica., Macdonald, Dany., Strachan, Leisha., Tamminen, K. (2017). Holt 2017 J Sports Sci[1].pdf. Journal of Sport Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1357830
Katz, L., Parker, J., Tyreman, H. & Levy, R. (2008). Virtual reality in Sport. In A. Baca & Dabnichi, P. (eds.), Computers in sport, 3-41. Southampton: WIT. https://doi.org/10.2495/978-1-84564-064-4/01
Katz , L. , Vincent, J., Stergiou, P. And Sheehan, D. (2009) Coaching and innovation: Factors in adoption of new technologies. Petro Canada Sport Leadership Conference, November 2-4, Vancouver B.C.
Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. L. (2018). The impact of personality on the subjective assessment of usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1336317
Leslie, L. L., Mcclure, G. T., & Oaxaca, R. L. (1998). Women and minorities in science and engineering: A life sequence analysis. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 239–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1998.11775134
Liebermann, D. G., Katz, L., Hughes, M. D., Bartlett, R. M., Mcclements, J., & Franks, I. M. (2002). Advances in the application of information technology to sport performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(10), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404102320675611
Locke E. A. , Latham G. P. (1984) Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 126–163. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.126
Mckinney Jr, E. H., & Yoos, C. J. (2019). Information as a difference: toward a subjective theory of information. European Journal of Information Systems, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2019.1581441
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192
Omoregie, P. O. (N.D.). The Impact of Technology on Sport Performance.
Parthasarathy, A., Wong, N. H., Weiss, A. N., Tian, S., Ali, S. E., Cavanaugh, N. T., ... & Johnson, L. K. (2019). SELfies and CELLfies: Whole Genome Sequencing and Annotation of Five Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Isolated from the Surfaces of Smartphones, An Inquiry Based Laboratory Exercise in a Genomics Undergraduate Course at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Journal of genomics, 7, 26. https://doi.org/10.7150/jgen.31911
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & Crum, M. (1997). Determinants of EDI adoption in the transportation industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 6(2), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000260
Rahman, A., Akhtar, P., Hamdani, S. U., Atif, N., Nazir, H., Uddin, I., ... & Zafar, S. (2019). Using technology to scale-up training and supervision of community health workers in the psychosocial management of perinatal depression: a non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Global Mental Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2019.7
Ringuet-Riot, C., Carter, S., & James, D. A. (2014). Programmed Innovation in Team Sport Using Needs Driven Innovation. Procedia Engineering, 72, 817–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.139
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Free Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=9U1K5LjUOwEC
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Macmillian Publishing Co. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:126680
Saxena, A., & Granot, A. (2011). Use of an Anti-gravity Treadmill in the Rehabilitation of the Operated Achilles Tendon: A Pilot Study. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 50(5), 558–561. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2011.04.045
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 73(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.73.1.93
Stephanidis, C. (2019). New Perspectives into Human–Computer Interaction. User Interfaces for All-Concepts, Methods and Tools, 3-20.
Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(1), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90037-6
Tanner, R., & Gore, C. (2012). Physiological tests for elite athletes 2nd edition. Human Kinetics.
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). The episodic process of learning by using. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7–8), 790–798.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 201–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/249576
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Zheng, Y., Wang, J., Doll, W., Deng, X., & Williams, M. (2018). The impact of organisational support, technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management system. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(4), 311-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2018.1436590
Downloads
Statistics
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Each author warrants that his or her submission to the Work is original and that he or she has full power to enter into this agreement. Neither this Work nor a similar work has been published elsewhere in any language nor shall be submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration by JHSE. Each author also accepts that the JHSE will not be held legally responsible for any claims of compensation.
Authors wishing to include figures or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright holder(s) and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.
Please include at the end of the acknowledgements a declaration that the experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the abovementioned requirements. The author(s) will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
This title is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
You are free to share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
Transfer of Copyright
In consideration of JHSE’s publication of the Work, the authors hereby transfer, assign, and otherwise convey all copyright ownership worldwide, in all languages, and in all forms of media now or hereafter known, including electronic media such as CD-ROM, Internet, and Intranet, to JHSE. If JHSE should decide for any reason not to publish an author’s submission to the Work, JHSE shall give prompt notice of its decision to the corresponding author, this agreement shall terminate, and neither the author nor JHSE shall be under any further liability or obligation.
Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article, except as disclosed on a separate attachment. All funding sources supporting the Work and all institutional or corporate affiliations of the authors are acknowledged in a footnote in the Work.
Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the protocol for any investigation involving humans or animals and that all experimentation was conducted in conformity with ethical and humane principles of research.
Competing Interests
Biomedical journals typically require authors and reviewers to declare if they have any competing interests with regard to their research.
JHSE require authors to agree to Copyright Notice as part of the submission process.
