coach's behavior (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998).
Inter-rater reliability is important in relation to the use of the CBAS, as the CBAS is not an objective instrument. Studies report reliability coefficients ranging from .62 to .98, with a mean of .86. Reliability also depends upon observation of a coach without her or his awareness of such observation (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998).
Chart 1 - Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) Structure
Positive, rewarding reaction, verbal or non-verbal, to good play or good effort
Mistake-Contingent Technical Instruction
Instructing or demonstration how to correct a mistake
Negative reaction, verbal or non-verbal, following a mistake
Adopting a hostile manner in providing technical instruction following a mistake
Responses designed to restore or maintain order
Spontaneous instruction on techniques & strategies unrelated to mistakes
Spontaneous encouragement unrelated to mistakes
Administrative behaviors (assigning duties, responsibilities, positions, & so forth)
Coach-athlete interactions unrelated to athletics
The validity of the CBAS (e.g., does the instrument measure what it purports to measure) is more problematic that is the instruments reliability. Results of studies of the instrument's validity vary greatly, although research established the content validity of the CBAS (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998).
The CBAS also provides a basis for the measurement of athletes' perceptions of coaching behaviors. Athletes rate coaching behaviors defined in the CBAS on a scale ranging from one through seven, with seven indicating "almost always" and one indicating "almost never" (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). This approach is simply another approach to measuring the frequency of coaching behaviors defined by the CBAS. Using athletes' perceptions of coaching behaviors measured through this approach provides a basis for relating such perceptions to both athlete per...