In the current study pregame speech is defined as communication used by coaches prior to competition that can be characterized by four factors: one general factor (pregame speech) and three grouping factors (tactical content, emotional content, and delivery). The Coach Precompetitive Communication Questionnaire-Helpfulness (CPCQ-H) was developed to assess the extent to which collegiate athletes find the four factors of pregame speech helpful. The purpose of this study was to investigate initial evidence of validity for the responses to the CPCQ-H under an exploratory bifactor approach specifically to explore the existence of one general factor and three grouping factors measured by CPCQ-H items. Participants were 269 NCAA student-athletes involved in interactive team sports who were asked to complete a cross-sectional survey. The survey included a demographic questionnaire and the CPCQ-H. Results of an exploratory bifactor analysis found evidence to support the retention of a four-factor model, with a general factor of pregame speech and three grouping factors. Observed responses indicated meaningful factor loadings (e.g., λ ≥ .30, p < .05), providing evidence for the validity of CPCQ-H responses. The findings of this study contribute to the psychometric and practical understanding of pregame speech.
Vargas-TonsingTMGuanJ. Athletes’ preferences for informational and emotional pre-game speech content. Int J Sports Sci Coach2007; 2: 171–180.
2.
ZachSAvugosSBakalo-KufflerL, et al.Winning the second half: the perceived and actual impact of the coach’s half-time speech on basketball players’ performance. Int J Sports Sci Coach2022; 17: 953–963.
3.
American Educational Research Association (ed). Report and recommendations for the reauthorization of the institute of education sciences. Washington, D.C: American Educational Research Association, 2011.
4.
BloomGADurand-BushNSalmelaJH. Pre- and postcompetition routines of expert coaches of team sports. Sport Psychol1997; 11: 127–141.
5.
HaviraPBrewerBWVan RaalteJL, et al.Not much “I” in “Team”: content analysis of pregame speeches in American football. Int J Sports Sci Coach2024; 19: 620–627.
6.
Vargas-TonsingTMBartholomewJB. An exploratory study of the effects of pregame speeches on team efficacy beliefs. J Appl Soc Psychol2006; 36: 918–933.
7.
EricksonKCôtéJ. The intervention tone of coaches’ behaviour: development of the assessment of coaching tone (ACT) observational coding system. Int J Sports Sci Coach2015; 10: 699–716.
8.
Vargas-TonsingTMShortSE. Athletes’ perceptions of the psychological, emotional, and performance effects of coaches’ pre-game speeches. Int J Coach Sci2011; 5: 27–44.
9.
BreakeyCJonesMCunninghamC, et al.Female athletes’ perceptions of a coach’s speeches. Int J Sports Sci Coach2011; 4: 489–504.
10.
van KleefGACheshinAKoningLF, et al.Emotional games: how coaches’ emotional expressions shape players’ emotions, inferences, and team performance. Psychol Sport Exerc2019; 41: 1–11.
11.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev1977; 84: 191–215.
12.
Vargas-TonsingTMMyersNDFeltzDL. Coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of efficacy-enhancing techniques. Sport Psychol2004; 18: 397–414.
13.
FeltzDLLirggCD. Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey. J Appl Psychol1998; 83: 557–564.
14.
MyersNDFeltzDLShortSE. Collective efficacy and team performance: a longitudinal study of collegiate football teams. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract2004; 8: 126–138.
15.
WeightELewisMHarryM. Self-efficacy belief and the influential coach: an examination of collegiate athletes. J Athlete Dev Exp2020; 2: 198–216.
16.
AvugosSZachSDvir MalcaA, et al.An intimate glance into “The Holiest of Holies”: an exploratory study of the half-time talk. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2020; 18: 129–142.
17.
ChaseMAFeltzDLLirggCD. Sources of collective and individual efficacy of collegiate athletes. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2003; 1: 180–191.
18.
BuningMThompsonMA. Coaching behaviors and athlete motivation: female softball athletes’ perspectives. Sport Sci Rev2015; XXIV: 345–370.
19.
RyanRMDeciEL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp Educ Psychol2020; 61: 101860.
20.
ReyndersBVansteenkisteMVan PuyenbroeckS, et al.Coaching the coach: intervention effects on need-supportive coaching behavior and athlete motivation and engagement. Psychol Sport Exerc2019; 43: 288–300.
21.
GencerE. Psychological aspect of pre-competition warm-up: motivational process and outcomes. J Educ Issues2021; 7: 431.
22.
SmithMFigginsSSellarsC. Antecedents and impacts of effective and inspirational coach communication. In: ThelwellRHarwoodCGreenleesIA (eds) The psychology of sports coaching: research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016, pp.218–234.
23.
WolfSAEysMASadlerP, et al.Appraisal in a team context: perceptions of cohesion predict competition importance and prospects for coping. J Sport Exerc Psychol2015; 37: 489–499.
24.
SandellRClintonDFrövenholtJ, et al.Credibility clusters, preferences, and helpfulness beliefs for specific forms of psychotherapy. Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract2011; 84: 425–441.
25.
SullivanPJGeeCJ. The relationship between athletic satisfaction and intrateam communication. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract2007; 11: 107–116.
26.
RubioDMBerg-WegerMTebbSS, et al.Objectifying content validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res2003; 27: 94–104.
MyersNDMartinJJNtoumanisN, et al.Exploratory bifactor analysis in sport, exercise, and performance psychology: a substantive-methodological synergy. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol2014; 3: 258–272.
MuthénB. A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered catergorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika1984; 49: 115–132.
31.
MyersNDLeeSBatemanAG, et al.Initial validity evidence for responses to the newly developed well-being actions self-efficacy scale from adults with obesity under an exploratory latent variable approach. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci2023; 27: 151–170.
32.
MuthénBO. Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations: presidential address to the psychometric society. Psychometrika1989; 54: 557–585.
33.
RubinDB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
34.
PatelPLeeSMyersND, et al.Missing data reporting and analyzing practices in motor learning and development: a systematic review of past and present practices. J Mot Learn Dev2021; 9: 109–128.
35.
MorinAJSArensAKMarshHW. A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J2016; 23: 116–139.
36.
MorinAJSMyersNDLeeS. Modern factor analytic techniques: bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor-ESEM. In: TenenbaumGEcklundRC (eds) Handbook of sport psychology. London, UK: Wiley, 2020, pp.1044–1073.
37.
ReiseSP. The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models.Multivar Behav Res2012; 47: 667–696.
38.
MyersNDJinYAhnS, et al.Rotation to a partially specified target matrix in exploratory factor analysis in practice. Behav Res Methods2015; 47: 494–505.
39.
BrowneMW. An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivar Behav Res2001; 36: 111–150.
40.
MyersNDAhnSJinY. Rotation to a partially specified target matrix in exploratory factor analysis: how many targets?Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J2013; 20: 131–147.
41.
HuLBentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model1999; 6: 1–55.
42.
HancockGMuellerRO. Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In: R Cudeck, S du Toit and D Sörbom D (eds) Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, 2001, pp.195–216.
43.
GrahamJMGuthrieACThompsonB. Consequences of not interpreting structure coefficients in published CFA research: a reminder. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J2003; 10: 142–153.
44.
NunnallyJC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
45.
MyersNDCelimliSMartinJJ, et al.Sample size determination and power estimation in structural equation modeling. In: NtoumanisNMyersND (eds) An introduction to intermediate and advanced statistical analyses for sport and exercise scientists. West Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2016, pp.267–284.
46.
MyersNDNtoumanisNGunnellKE, et al.A review of some emergent quantitative analyses in sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol2018; 11: 70–100.
47.
PreacherKJCoffmanDL. Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [Computer software], https://www.quantpsy.org/rmsea/rmsea.htm (2006, accessed 20 April 2025).
48.
SteigerJHLindJC. Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In Psychometric Society Annual Meeting in Iowa City, IA, 1980.
49.
CarronAVWidmeyerWNBrawleyLR. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: the Group Environment Questionnaire. J Sport Psychol1985; 7: 244–266.
50.
CraftLLMagyarTMBeckerBJ, et al.The relationship between the competitive state anxiety inventory-2 and sport performance: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol2003; 25: 44–65.
WolfSAHarenbergSTamminenK, et al.“'Cause you can’t play this by yourself”: athletes’ perceptions of team influence on their precompetitive psychological states. J Appl Sport Psychol2018; 30: 185–203.
53.
SullivanPJCallowN. A cross-cultural examination of the factor structure of the scale for effective communication in team sports. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract2005; 9: 87–92.
54.
EysMSuryaMBensonA. Communicating within sport teams. In: JacksonBDimmockJComptonJ (eds) Persuasion and communication in sport, exercise, and physical activity. Abington, UK: Routledge, 2017, pp.217–233.
55.
LausicDTennebaumGEcclesD, et al.Intrateam communication and performance in doubles tennis. Res Q Exerc Sport2009; 80: 281–290.
56.
RyanKGannon-SlaterNCulbertsonMJ. Improving survey methods with cognitive interviews in small- and medium-scale evaluations. Am J Eval2012; 33: 414–430.
57.
PetersonCHPetersonNAPowellKG. Cognitive interviewing for item development: validity evidence based on content and response processes. Meas Eval Couns Dev2017; 50: 217–223.
58.
BellAWardPTamalM, et al.Assessing recall bias and measurement error in high-frequency social data collection for human-environment research. Popul Environ2019; 40: 325–345.
59.
Van de MortelT. Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Aust J Adv Nurs2008; 25: 40–48.
60.
DavisLJowettSTafvelinS. Communication strategies: the fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction. Front Psychol2019; 10: 1–12.
