Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ)

Abstract

The Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ) is a psychometric instrument designed to assess athletes’ perceptions of the type of feedback their coach typically provides during practice sessions. This scale is crucial for understanding how athletes interpret and internalize coaching behaviors, distinguishing between responses given following successful performances versus those following errors or mistakes. The CFQ provides insight into the dimensions of positive reinforcement, informational instruction, punishment, and non-reinforcement behaviors exhibited by coaches.

Keywords

Coaching Feedback Questionnaire, CFQ, Coaching behavior, athlete perception, sport psychology, motivation, reinforcement, punishment, instructional feedback

Authors

A. J. Amorose, T. S. Horn

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CFQ is to systematically quantify the variability in coaching feedback styles. Coaches often differ significantly in their approach to responding to athlete performance, and this instrument allows researchers and practitioners to understand these differences from the athlete’s perspective.

Specifically, the questionnaire aims to delineate the frequency with which a coach uses various types of feedback, including general praise, specific technical instruction, punitive comments, and non-verbal or passive responses (ignoring performance). This differentiation is critical because distinct feedback types have been linked to differential impacts on athlete self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation.

Construct

The CFQ measures the psychological construct of perceived coaching feedback behavior, which is generally understood to be multidimensional. It operationalizes this construct by separating feedback based on the outcome of the athlete’s action (success or error) and the nature of the coach’s response (positive/informational, punitive, or passive/non-reinforcing).

The scale is structured around two main scenarios: 1) Coaching Responses to Player’s Successes, and 2) Coaching Responses to Player’s Errors. The resulting factors reflect specific dimensions of coach-athlete interaction, which are foundational to motivational climate research in sport.

Validity

The CFQ demonstrates content validity through its item construction, which directly reflects common verbal and non-verbal coaching responses observed in practice settings. Construct validity is supported by its consistent use in research linking perceived coach behavior to critical psychological outcomes, such as intrinsic motivation, competence perceptions, and achievement goals, as evidenced in the cited literature (e.g., Amorose & Horn, 2000).

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was calculated for the derived factors. The reliability scores suggest adequate to good consistency for most subscales, though caution is advised regarding the punishment factor.

• Positive and Informational Feedback: Alpha = .72
• Punishment-Oriented Feedback: Alpha = .33
• Nonreinforcement/Ignoring Mistakes: Alpha = .78

The low alpha coefficient (.33) for the Punishment-Oriented Feedback subscale suggests that items loading onto this factor may not consistently measure a singular underlying punitive construct, or the specific wording may be interpreted inconsistently by respondents.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis of the CFQ items typically yields three primary factors representing distinct feedback categories perceived by athletes:

1. Positive and Informational Feedback: This factor includes praise and specific instruction following both successes and errors, aiming to reinforce correct technique or guide future performance.
2. Punishment-Oriented Feedback: This factor captures harsh, critical, or derogatory comments directed at the athlete following an error.
3. Nonreinforcement/Ignoring Mistakes: This factor measures the coach’s passive response, where they ignore either a successful performance or an error, thereby withholding both positive and negative feedback.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire

Format: The instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale, where respondents rate how typical each statement is of their coach’s behavior. The anchors are 1 = Not at all typical and 5 = Very typical.

Language Available: Primarily English (original development context).

Population Group: Athletes (collegiate and physical education students).

Age Group: Adolescent and adult athletes (typically collegiate level and above).

Population Details: The scale has been validated and utilized extensively in competitive and educational sport settings, including collegiate athletics and physical education classes, examining relationships with gender, scholarship status, and motivational climate.

Test Methodology: Respondents are asked to reflect on their coach’s behavior during practice sessions and rate the frequency of specific feedback examples. The total instrument consists of 16 items.

The original instrument can be found via this stream link: http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1489389717424ha‎ving402

Keywords

Sport psychology, coach-athlete relationship, athlete development, perceived competence, self-determination theory, intrinsic motivation

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was utilized and referenced prominently in research dating back to 2000 (Amorose & Horn, 2000). Given its academic origins and inclusion in graduate theses (Stein, 2009), it is often used in non-commercial academic research contexts. Specific permission and fee requirements should be confirmed by contacting the primary author, T. S. Horn, or A. J. Amorose.

Reference’s

The CFQ is often referenced in the following key publications:

• Amorose‚ A. J.‚ & Horn‚ T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes’ gender‚ scholarship status‚ and perceptions of their coaches’ behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology‚ 22‚ 63-84.
• Nicaise‚ V.‚ Cogerino‚ G.‚ Bois‚ J.‚ & Amorose‚ A.J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes: Gender effects. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education‚ 25‚ 36–57.
• Stein‚ Jonathan. (2009). Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback on Athletes’ Perceptions of the Team’s Motivational Climate. McGill University. Master of Arts thesis.

Items of the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

As you perhaps already know‚ coaches really differ from each other in the type of feedback they give in response to their athletes’ performances. This questionnaire is designed to find out what type of coaching feedback your coach gives you in practices.

Coaching Responses to Player’s Successes

Listed below are six examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had a successful performance in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE.

1. “Good play!”
2. Coach ignores your good performance.
3. Way to go! You really went to the net this time.”
4. “Great play. Now you’re keeping your head up.”
5. “Excellent work in practice today.”
6. Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your good performance.

Coaching Responses to Player’s Errors

Listed below are ten examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had made a mistake or committed an error in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE ERROR OR POOR PLAY.

1. “That’s O.K. Keep working at it!”
2. Coach ignores your error or poor performance.
3. “That was a really stupid play!”
4. “You were on the wrong side of him. Next time stay on the defensive side.”
5. How many times have I told you to keep your head up.”
6. “Hang in there! You will do better next time.”
7. Coach doesn’t say anything to you about your error or poor performance.
8. “Your technique looks lousy! Keep you head up.”
9. “That play sucked!”
10. “You need to work on having quicker feet.”