This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 06 October 2014, At: 15:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

The relationship of task self-efficacy and role efficacybeliefs to role performance in Spanish youth soccerSteven R Bray a , Isabel Balaguer b & Joan L Duda ca Department of Kinesiology , University of Lethbridge , Lethbridge, Alberta, T1K 3M4,Canadab Faculty of Psychology , University of Valencia , 46010, Valencia, Spainc School of Sport and Exercise Sciences , University of Birmingham , Edgbaston, Birmingham,B15 2TT, UKE-mail:Published online: 18 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Steven R Bray , Isabel Balaguer & Joan L Duda (2004) The relationship of task self-efficacy androle efficacy beliefs to role performance in Spanish youth soccer, Journal of Sports Sciences, 22:5, 429-437, DOI:10.1080/02640410410001675333

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410410001675333

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The relationship of task self-efficacy and role efficacybeliefs to role performance in Spanish youth soccer

STEVEN R. BRAY,1* ISABEL BALAGUER2 and JOAN L. DUDA3

1Department of Kinesiology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4, Canada, 2Faculty of Psychology,

University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain and 3School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham,

Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

Accepted 13 November 2003

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between role efficacy and role performance after controlling

for the effects of task self-efficacy. Two hundred and ninety-five Spanish youth soccer players from 20 teams

completed self-report measures of task self-efficacy, role efficacy and role performance at the mid-point of a

competitive season. The 20 team coaches also provided ratings of each of their players’ role performances at mid-

season. Consistent with hypotheses, bivariate correlations showed task self-efficacy and role efficacy were

positively related to role performance ratings. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that role efficacy

contributed significantly to the prediction of athletes’ ratings of role performance after controlling for task self-

efficacy. Role efficacy also explained significant variation in the prediction of coach ratings; however, the effects

were less dramatic and inconsistent. Our results support self-efficacy theory and reinforce the value of assessing

efficacy beliefs representing behaviours carried out both independently and interdependently for the prediction of

role performance within team environments. Future research directions are proposed.

Keywords: interdependence, roles, team sport.

Introduction

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his or her

capabilities to organize and execute courses of action

that are required to produce given attainments (Ban-

dura, 1986, 1997). Determinants of self-efficacy beliefs

include personal mastery experience, imaginal experi-

ence, vicarious experience, physiological and emotional

states, and verbal persuasion (Maddux, 1995; Bandura,

1997). According to Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive

theory, self-efficacy plays an important role in people’s

choice of activities (i.e. how easy/how difficult) and how

much effort and persistence they apply. For example,

individuals who have higher self-efficacy have been

found to exert more effort and be more persistent in the

presence of obstacles and when faced with failure,

whereas the less efficacious demonstrate little tenacity

(Wood and Bandura, 1989; Bandura, 1997). The

positive relationships between self-efficacy and effort,

persistence and performance have been consistently

documented across a wide variety of behavioural

contexts, including sport (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Feltz,

1988; Schunk, 1995; Feltz and Chase, 1998; Moritz et

al., 2000).

While the study of the relationship between self-

efficacy and behaviours such as performance has been

extensive (cf. Bandura, 1997), it has been largely

restricted to individuals’ beliefs regarding tasks that

are performed independently. Thus, this research pro-

vides only a limited representation of the scope of

behaviours in which people are often engaged. A great

deal of human interaction takes place in the context of

interdependent groups, such as work groups (e.g.

managerial teams) and sport teams (e.g. basketball,

hockey, soccer), where individuals seldom act indepen-

dently but more frequently function interdependently with

one or several team-mates as dictated by specific and

often assigned roles. It is the aspect of interdependence

among individuals within a group that clearly distin-

guishes members’ role-related behaviours from those

that can be carried out on one’s own.

Roles are important elements in the structure and

performance of small groups. According to Katz and

Kahn (1978), roles within groups represent a set of

prescriptions that define the behaviours required of an

individual member who occupies a certain position.

Mabry and Barnes (1980) have pointed out that* Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.e-mail: steven.bray@uleth.ca

Journal of Sports Sciences, 2004, 22, 429–437

Journal of Sports Sciences ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online # 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/02640410410001675333

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

members of teams may have both informal roles that

evolve as a function of group development, as well as

assigned formal roles that specifically concern group

performance. Informal roles develop through a process

of interpersonal interaction within the group and

include such roles as unofficial leader, social director

and ‘team clown’. In contrast, formal roles are

prescribed to members by the organizational leadership

(i.e. coaches) of a team. Formal roles are closely tied to

performance within highly structured performing

groups such as theatrical groups, orchestras and sport

teams. Examples of formal roles in sport teams are the

play-making guard and shooting guard in basketball

and the rushing and ‘stay-at-home’ defenceman in ice

hockey. Although informal roles are undoubtedly

important features of team membership, the general

focus in the present study was on assigned formal roles

directly linked to performance within competitive sport

teams.

Bandura (1997) asserts that efficacy beliefs form

around the behaviours one must enact to bring about

desired outcomes. However, Bray et al. (2002) recently

argued that for athletes performing within an inter-

dependent team environment, behaviour is associated

with levels of interdependence. Thus, interdependent

team athletes should develop (at least) three levels of

efficacy beliefs. The foundation level consists of

fundamental skills that are exclusively carried out

independently (e.g. ball handling or dribbling in

basketball and soccer), and the athlete acquires task

self-efficacy beliefs in this regard. At an intermediate

level, the athlete carries out interdependent tasks

related to their role responsibilities (e.g. in basketball,

a ‘give and go’ play), and the athlete acquires role

efficacy beliefs in this regard. Finally, at the highest

level, the athlete develops collective efficacy beliefs

related to the team behaviour as a totality (e.g. full

court presses or zone defences).

The delineation between types of efficacy beliefs

associated with interdependent, independent and col-

lective behaviours has been supported empirically in

recent research. Bray et al. (2002) demonstrated that

team members’ beliefs about their capabilities to carry

out interdependent formal role functions (role efficacy)

were related to, but distinct from, their self-efficacy

beliefs about skills they performed independently. Role

efficacy beliefs were also found to be distinct from team

members’ shared beliefs about their team’s collective

efficacy, with role efficacy showing evidence of statis-

tical independence across individuals while collective

efficacy showed non-independence.

As discussed above, a substantial body of research has

shown a positive relationship between self-efficacy and

various indices of individual sport performance. How-

ever, as Bandura (1999) recently proposed, ‘if people

are to work together successfully, the members of a

group have to perform their roles with a high sense of

efficacy’ (p. 227). In other words, when performance

involves interdependence, success can greatly depend

on team members’ role efficacy beliefs. Consistent with

Bandura’s prediction, role efficacy has also been shown

to correlate positively with role performance. Bray and

Brawley (2002) found that role efficacy beliefs predicted

coaches’ ratings of role performance in a sample of

intercollegiate basketball players. In another study,

Beauchamp et al. (2002) also showed that role efficacy

was positively associated with role performance in a

sample of high school rugby players.

Considered together, the results of these studies lend

support to the construct validity of role efficacy. That is,

role efficacy is distinct from other forms of domain-

specific efficacy beliefs and is related to role perfor-

mance in a manner consistent with the predictions of

self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). However, the

extent to which role efficacy accounted for variance in

role performance beyond that which could be predicted

by task self-efficacy was not established in those studies.

Given the consistent and moderate association between

task self-efficacy and sport performance that has been

determined in other research (cf. Moritz et al., 2000),

there is little doubt that task self-efficacy could also be a

potent factor in the prediction of role performance.

Indeed, it is unclear from the research carried out thus

far whether role efficacy has predictive utility beyond

that of task self-efficacy.

Determining the extent to which role efficacy

accounts for variance (if any) in role performance

beyond that explained by task self-efficacy is important

for both theoretical and applied reasons. The concep-

tual uniqueness of role efficacy focuses on the

interdependence characteristic of team member beha-

viours within groups. Role performance should depend

on one’s capabilities to effectively carry out basic skills

that are required to play competitively at one’s sport.

Thus, task self-efficacy should predict role perfor-

mance. However, according to self-efficacy theory

(Bandura, 1997), in situational contexts that require

interdependence, variations in efficacy beliefs that

develop around such interdependence should also be

reflected in the performance of role-related behaviours.

Therefore, evidence to illustrate the unique contribu-

tion of interdependent role efficacy beliefs to the

prediction of role performance would support the

tenets of self-efficacy theory in the sport domain. From

an applied perspective, coaches and sport psychology

practitioners concerned with improving role perfor-

mance would be better informed to structure efficacy-

building interventions in team sports by attending to

individual skills, role functions that feature interdepen-

dence, or both. For example, if role efficacy beliefs

430 Bray et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

show no association with role performance after

controlling for task self-efficacy, there may be little

reason to utilize interventions aimed at interdepen-

dence.

The aim of the present study was to examine the

relationship between role efficacy and role perfor-

mance after controlling for the effects of task self-

efficacy. On the basis of past research, we hypothe-

sized that task self-efficacy would be positively related

to role performance. However, as Bandura (1997) has

suggested, ‘in testing theoretical propositions about

the processes through which efficacy beliefs affect

particular courses of action, one must examine

microrelations at the level of particular activities’ (p.

49). Therefore, to examine team member perfor-

mance it is necessary to identify and specify the level

of action at which the behaviour occurs (i.e. inter-

dependence). Specifically, within interdependent

teams, members may be capable of performing a

wide variety of basic task-related skills independently.

However, when the team performs as a concerted

unit, each member’s role functions take the form of

complex interdependent capabilities that go beyond

the level of basic individual physical skills. The

efficacy perceptions that form around basic task-

related skills would be expected to have limited

prediction for role performance because they are

performed independently and do not reflect the

interdependence with the other specific team members

that is essential for role performance. Because role

efficacy perceptions represent beliefs about an in-

dividual’s capabilities to successfully carry out the

interdependent behaviours that make up their formal

role on the team, we hypothesized that role efficacy

would account for significant variance in role perfor-

mance after controlling for the effect of task self-

efficacy.

Methods

Participants

The participants were 295 volunteer male youth

soccer players representing 20 league teams (given

the specialized role of goalkeepers relative to outfield

players, goalkeepers were not included in the study).

They were aged 14.8+1.1 years (mean+s). Within

the overall sample, 10 teams participated in each of

the Infantil (ages 13–14 years, n=138) and Cadete

(age 15–16 years, n=157) divisions of the Valencian

Community Youth Soccer League in Valencia, Spain.

Teams in the Cadete division also competed in the

Spanish Youth Soccer League. Participants had

considerable competitive soccer experience, most

(n=268) having played competitively with their

respective club development programmes for 3 years

or more.

Measures

Self-efficacy

Players reported their confidence in their ability to

perform 12 independent (i.e. no interaction with others

was involved) soccer skills during competition. Con-

sistent with Bandura’s (1997, 2001) recommendations

for the measurement of self-efficacy, items contained in

the measure referred to individual soccer behaviours

identified by expert coaches who worked with athletes

at the same level of competition as the current sample.

Therefore, the measure was assumed to have strong

face validity. The items from the scale were prefaced

with the generic statement: ‘My confidence in my

ability to . . . is: ____ %’. Item content included the

following independent skills: dribble past an opponent,

pass the ball accurately, challenge an opponent for the

ball, trick an opponent, protect the ball, head the ball

accurately, recover the ball, provide support under

pressure, drive (strike) the ball, instigate a foul and take

a foul. Each item was rated on a scale of 0% (‘not at all

confident’) to 100% (‘extremely confident’). The mean

of the 12 items formed the self-efficacy score and this

measure exhibited adequate internal consistency

(a=0.86; Nunnally, 1978).

Role efficacy

Consistent with the protocol used by Bray (1998),

Beauchamp et al. (2002) and Bray et al. (2002), the

assessment of role efficacy involved a four-stage

process: (a) introducing the specific definition of roles

and focusing players on their overall role on their team;

(b) preparing the players to differentiate specific

interdependent role functions on offence and defence

within their overall team role; (c) having the players list

their specific interdependent role functions; and (d)

having the players indicate their efficacy for performing

each of the personally listed functions during competi-

tion.

To orient the participants to their role on their team

and control for a common understanding of the

construct being investigated, the questionnaire was

introduced with the following description of a role:

‘Each player on a competitive soccer team has a specific

role to carry out. Your role is combined with your team-

mates’ roles to create effective team systems. Your role

is your job(s) within your team and is associated with

your position, but may be more than the usual functions

of that position’. Players were asked to use their soccer

team during competition as a frame of reference and

431Efficacy and soccer performance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

describe their overall role by completing (i.e. writing

down) an open-ended statement in response to the

question: ‘What is your overall role on your team?’

Once players had identified their overall role, they were

instructed to think of this role in terms of the various

specific, interdependent functions they carried out when

playing on offence and defence. Two examples of

interdependent functions for each of offensive and

defensive play previously solicited from expert coaches

were provided on the questionnaire to assist in player

comprehension.

Players were instructed to list their four primary

interdependent role functions for offence and for

defence in order of descending importance to their

team’s play. It was emphasized that the description of

each role function should involve language that would

be clearly understood by players and coaches at their

competitive level. Finally, players rated their confidence

in their ability to perform each offensive and each

defensive function using a scale of 0% (‘not at all

confident’) to 100% (‘extremely confident’). The mean

efficacy for each player’s specific and personalized four-

item defensive role function scale and four-item

offensive role function scale were calculated to provide

defensive and offensive role efficacy scores. Examples of

interdependent role efficacy functions for defence

identified by players included abilities to: ‘help team-

mates put opponents under pressure so they cannot

bring the ball out under control’, ‘work together to get

the ball to the wing positions’, and ‘work with team-

mates to put the opposing central midfielders under

pressure’. Offensive role efficacy functions included

abilities such as: ‘move the ball to the wings to bring the

ball and the game upfield’, ‘dribble down the wing and

then cross the ball to my team-mates in midfield’, ‘link

the defence with the midfield with precise passes’, ‘pass

the ball to my team-mates who are in a better position’,

and ‘organize my team-mates on the pitch’. Intraclass

correlation coefficients of 0.79 and 0.68 were obtained

for the offensive and defensive role efficacy scales,

respectively. These correlations indicate a moderate to

high degree of within-participant consistency and

between-participant variability and justify item aggrega-

tion.

Role performance

Similar to procedures commonly used in organizational

psychology research (e.g. Taber and Alliger, 1995), two

measures of role performance were obtained – one

rating from coaches (i.e. expert observers) and one

rating from the players. Players rated role performance

during competition by first considering the primary role

functions they had listed for offence and defence and

then rating their overall performance of those offensive

and defensive functions using a single-item measure for

each [anchors were: I am not at all effective in executing

these functions (0%) and I am tremendously effective in

executing these functions (100%)]. Coaches rated the role

performance of each player during competition with

reference to a list of primary role functions for that

player on offence and defence. That is, coaches

identified each player’s primary role functions on

offence and defence and then provided an overall

performance rating using a single-item scale for each set

of offensive and defensive functions [anchors were:

Player is not at all effective in executing these functions (0%)

and Player is tremendously effective in executing these

functions (100%)].

Procedure

The self-efficacy measure specific to soccer was devel-

oped in Spanish. However, the role efficacy and role

performance measures were originally developed by

Bray (1998) in English. A method of back-translation

described by Brislin et al. (1973) was used to adapt the

latter two measures to the Spanish language (Castilian).

The process involved initially translating the instruction

protocol and questionnaire content from English to

Spanish by a bilingual researcher. The Spanish version

was then translated back to English by an independent

bilingual translator. The back-translated English version

was compared with the original English version by the

author of the role efficacy measures who acknowledged

their conformity to the original instructions and items.

American Psychological Association (1992) ethical

standards guidelines were followed throughout the

study. The informed consent of the parents and

participants was obtained before data collection. Ques-

tionnaires were administered to athletes and coaches by

a team of graduate research assistants trained by the

second author. Questionnaires were completed at

approximately the mid-point of each team’s competitive

league season at a team meeting or practice that was

neither immediately before nor after a competition to

avoid potential competition-specific effects on re-

sponses. The elapsed time prior to the assessment was

assumed to allow individual roles and functions for

team competitive play to be well established with

respect to the current season. McAuley and Mihalko

(1998) have cautioned that assessments of initial levels

of efficacy are often biased until experience is gained.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Descriptive statistics and bivariate (Pearson) correlation

coefficients for the study variables are presented in

432 Bray et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1. In general, the descriptive statistics show

moderate to high scores (i.e. between the conceptual

mid-point and ceiling) on the three efficacy variables,

which is indicative of the high standard of play and level

of experience of the present sample of athletes. For

example, scores for self-efficacy reflective of indepen-

dent soccer skill capabilities ranged from 23 to 100%

confidence with a mean of 74%. Mean role efficacy

scores representing interdependent role function cap-

abilities were slightly higher at 76% and 78% for

defensive and offensive roles, respectively. Players’ self-

ratings and coaches’ ratings of role performance were

also above the scale mid-points on those measures.

Although coaches rated player performance at higher

than 65% for both offence and defence, these scores

were over 10 percentage points lower than the athletes’

own ratings of their performance.

Correlations between the different efficacy scale

scores were moderately high. As expected, self-efficacy

was positively correlated with both measures of role

efficacy. In both cases, the correlations were moderate

at r295� 0.50. As hypothesized, the observed associa-

tions between self-efficacy and role performance mea-

sures were positive with the exception of the correlation

between self-efficacy and coach ratings of defensive role

performance, which was not significant. Role efficacy

was also positively related to role performance, ranging

from r295 = 0.51 between offensive role efficacy and self-

ratings of offensive role performance to r295 = 0.18

between defensive role efficacy and coaches’ ratings of

defensive role performance. Two non-significant role

efficacy–role performance correlations in Table 1 reflect

a lack of correspondence between offensive and

defensive contexts with regards to role efficacy and

coaches’ performance ratings.

Predicting role performance

The extent to which role efficacy predicted variance in

role performance beyond that accounted for by task

self-efficacy was examined using hierarchical multiple

regression analyses. Four regression models were

computed designating self-ratings of role performance

(offence and defence) and coach ratings of role

performance (offence and defence) as the dependent

variables. Because there was a marked division between

the two age groups within the sample (i.e. Infantil and

Cadete), we dummy coded that variable and included

‘division’ as a predictor in each analysis. For each

model, division was entered first, then self-efficacy,

followed by either the offensive or defensive role

efficacy variable corresponding to each dependent

variable. The results of the hierarchical analyses are

presented in Table 2.

Consistent with the hypotheses and bivariate correla-

tional results, self-efficacy was a significant predictor of

self-ratings, accounting for 15% (P50.01) and 12%

(P50.01) of the variance in role performance for

offence and defence, respectively. As predicted, how-

ever, role efficacy also accounted for significant variance

in both offensive (R2 change =0.13, P50.01) and

defensive (R2 change =0.06, P50.01) models, after

controlling for the contribution of self-efficacy. Division

did not account for significant variance in either model.

With respect to the analyses of coach ratings of role

performance, task self-efficacy was a significant pre-

dictor of offensive role performance (R2 change= 0.06,

P50.01). However, role efficacy also contributed a

small amount of explained variance in the model (R2

change = 0.01, P=0.05). Consistent with the results

from the self-ratings of performance analyses, division

did not account for significant variance in coaches’

ratings of offensive role performance. In the model

predicting defensive role performance, division was a

significant predictor, accounting for 2% of the variance.

Although self-efficacy did not contribute significantly to

the model predicting coaches’ ratings of defensive role

performance, role efficacy did account for a small

amount of explained variance (R2 change= 0.03,

P50.01).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics (percentages) and correlations among study variables for Cadete and Infantil Spanish soccer players

(n=295)

Measure Mean+s 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Role efficacy, defence 75.90+14.44 0.53** 0.40** 0.37** 0.26** 0.18** 0.11

2. Role efficacy, offence 77.81+14.08 — 0.50** 0.37** 0.51** 0.11 0.22**

3. Self-efficacy 73.95+12.80 — 0.35** 0.39** 0.09 0.25**4. Self-ratings role performance, defence 72.71+18.28 — 0.29** 0.18** 0.13*5. Self-ratings role performance, offence 75.69+20.85 — 70.03 0.32**

6. Coach ratings role performance, defence 65.66+19.57 — 0.34**7. Coach ratings role performance, offence 66.85+20.03 —

*P50.05, **P5 0.01.

433Efficacy and soccer performance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the

relationship between role efficacy and role performance

(athlete self-rated and coach rated) after controlling for

the effect of task self-efficacy. The results were generally

consistent with the hypotheses in that task self-efficacy

was positively associated with three of the four measures

of role performance. The results also showed that after

controlling for task self-efficacy, role efficacy accounted

for unique explained variance in role performance.

The finding that task self-efficacy was generally

predictive of role performance supports a great deal of

research in physical activity contexts. A recent meta-

analysis by Moritz et al. (2000) examined 102 effect

sizes from 45 studies. The results of that analysis

showed an average positive effect of r=0.38 for the

relation between self-efficacy and performance in sport.

However, none of the studies in Moritz and co-workers’

analysis had examined interdependent role perfor-

mance within interdependent team contexts.

The contribution of task self-efficacy to the predic-

tion of interdependent role performance is not entirely

surprising. Indeed, at a highly competitive develop-

mental level of play such as that epitomized in the

present sample, considerable practice time is devoted to

the refinement of basic skills required to play the sport

proficiently. That is, at this standard, the extent to

which players are effective at carrying out their main

role functions may depend largely on how good they are

at executing foundation skills such as ball handling and

kicking. An interesting avenue for future research

would be an examination of task self-efficacy for

predicting role performance among more highly skilled

players for whom basic skills are perfected and highly

automated. Although players competing at more elite

levels might show a ceiling effect for self-efficacy

relating to basic sport skills, it could be hypothesized

that for them, role performance should relate more

strongly to their beliefs about their capabilities to

integrate basic skills into more complex functions

carried out interdependently with one or more of their

team-mates (i.e. their role efficacy).

The positive correlations between role efficacy and

role performance found in the present study are

generally consistent with previous research in inter-

dependent sport contexts. Bray and Brawley (2002)

also found a positive association between role efficacy

and coaches’ ratings of role performance for offence

(r=0.24) for a sample of intercollegiate athletes, while

there was no effect for role efficacy on defensive role

performance. However, it should be pointed out that

Bray and Brawley examined the prospective relation-

ship between role efficacy early in a competitive season

and role performance later in the season for a sample of

older (i.e. intercollegiate) athletes. An important

extension of the present study would be to incorporate

a longitudinal analysis of the role efficacy–role perfor-

mance relationship.

In a study of athletes similar in age to those in the

present study, Beauchamp et al. (2002) found that high

school rugby players’ role efficacy beliefs were pre-

dictive of their coaches’ ratings of their role perfor-

mance on both offence (R2 = 0.15) and defence

(R2 = 0.13). However, the results of that study showed

a much stronger effect than the current study. One

explanation for the discrepancy in results between

studies is the method of assessment of coach perfor-

Table 2. Results of hierarchical multiple regression of age (division), self-efficacy and role efficacy predicting self-rated and coach-

rated role performance for Spanish youth soccer players (n=295)

Performance criterion Predictor B Standard error

of B

b R2 change F change

Self-ratings, offence Division 71.90 2.46 70.05 0.00 0.60

Self-efficacy 0.64 0.09 0.39 0.15 51.65**

Role efficacy 0.62 0.09 0.42 0.13 53.49**Self-ratings, defence Division 70.25 2.14 70.01 0.00 0.01

Self-efficacy 0.50 0.08 0.35 0.12 40.35**

Role efficacy 0.34 0.07 0.27 0.06 22.10**Coach ratings, offence Division 2.56 2.38 0.07 0.00 1.19

Self-efficacy 0.41 0.09 0.26 0.07 20.14**Role efficacy 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.01 3.74*

Coach ratings, defence Division 5.01 2.30 0.13 0.02 4.75*Self-efficacy 0.16 0.09 0.10 0.01 3.02

Role efficacy 0.24 0.09 0.18 0.03 8.10**

Note: The variable ‘Division’ represents separate age groupings of Infantil (13–14) and Cadete (15–16) in the sample. B= standardized regression

coefficient, b=unstandardized regression coefficient. *P5 0.05, **P50.01.

434 Bray et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

mance ratings. In the present study, coaches provided a

single-item rating of player performance on offence and

defence across multiple role functions. In contrast,

Beauchamp et al. requested the coaches to list players’

offensive and defensive functions and rate performance

of each function; the researchers then created an

aggregate performance score for each player. Although

our method imposes less of a response burden on the

participant, their method may be a more accurate gauge

of role performance and should be considered for use in

future research.

One finding that clearly stands out in the present

study is the overshadowing effect of self-efficacy over

role efficacy in the prediction of coaches’ ratings of role

performance on offence. That is, self-efficacy accounted

for 6% of the variance in offensive performance while

role efficacy accounted for 1%. This finding is

consistent with an interpretation that, at the standards

of competition exemplified in the present sample,

coaches’ performance ratings of players may be more

tied to their players’ effective execution of independent

soccer skills rather than their abilities to work together

interdependently. Future research should examine this

possibility and perhaps contrast findings for develop-

mental athletes with those of a more elite standard, at

which interdependent skill execution may be more the

focus of coaches’ performance evaluations.

The independent relationships between role perfor-

mance and both task self-efficacy and role efficacy

observed in this study add to the growing literature on

efficacy and performance in sport. However, the main

contribution of the current research was the demon-

stration of additional variance in role performance

accounted for by role efficacy after controlling for task

self-efficacy. As pointed out earlier, the determination

of the unique effect of role efficacy has both theoretical

and applied significance. Foremost, the finding that role

efficacy contributes to the prediction of role perfor-

mance illustrates the importance of the situational

context specificity of efficacy beliefs.

Self-efficacy representing skills that are carried out

independently has been shown to predict performance in

individual sports such as wrestling (Kane et al., 1996;

Treasure et al., 1996) as well as in interdependent team

sports such as basketball, field hockey and soccer

(Haney and Long, 1995). However, in the example of

the latter study, performance was operationalized as

independently executed tasks (i.e. either shooting

baskets or goals) in a contrived setting. Although the

independent task of scoring could reflect one aspect of

each player’s role on his or her team, during team play

many players have more clearly focused defensive roles

or responsibilities to create scoring opportunities for

team-mates rather than scoring themselves. Thus,

results of some studies examining self-efficacy and

independent skill performance in team contexts may

have questionable external validity when it comes to

player performance during actual competition.

The present study of task self-efficacy, role efficacy

and role performance attempted to draw out the feature

of interdependence that characterizes players’ perfor-

mance in their natural performance setting – that is,

team competition. The finding that role efficacy beliefs

representing interdependent tasks contribute to the

prediction of role performance supports Bandura’s

(1997) reasoning that ‘perceived self-efficacy is an

integrated emergent judgment rather than simply the

sum of microcomponent functions. In complex activ-

ities requiring a variety of capabilities, including more

facets of personal efficacy in the assessment increases

predictive power’ (p. 62). Clearly, the present results

indicate that task self-efficacy alone provides an under-

representation of efficacy beliefs and that both task self-

efficacy and role efficacy, in combination, predict more

variance in role performance in the interdependent

team context than either perception alone.

The present findings also have implications for

practice in applied settings. Practitioners (e.g. Zinsser

et al., 2000) encourage the development of self-efficacy

and self-confidence using a variety of techniques, such

as imagery and self-talk, with the view that such

interventions should have a positive impact on perfor-

mance. Bandura (1997) also offers clear guidelines on

how to structure interventions to develop self-efficacy.

We suggest that coaches and sport psychology practi-

tioners would be wise to identify the level of action or

type of performance capabilities for which they want to

develop efficacy beliefs. For interdependent team

athletes, efficacy-enhancing interventions should focus

on task self-efficacy as well as role efficacy. Our results

are consistent with an interpretation that increasing task

self-efficacy could lead to enhanced role performance,

at least in players’ judgements of their role performance

and coaches’ performance ratings for offence. However,

interventions targeting both foundation task efficacy

beliefs as well as those associated with interdependent

functions may have greater potential to impact on

performance. Controlled field experiments of inte-

grated task self-efficacy and role efficacy enhancing

interventions should be a future consideration for

applied researchers.

Although the present study makes a contribution to

the body of knowledge centred on efficacy perceptions

and their relationships to performance in sport, it is not

without limitations. The homogeneous sample of

competitive, non-elite male athletes from one sport

limits generalizability of the findings. However, con-

sidered in concert with other research (Beauchamp et

al., 2002; Bray and Brawley, 2002) involving male and

female athletes as well as elite intercollegiate partici-

435Efficacy and soccer performance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

pants from other interdependent sports (i.e. rugby and

basketball), the current results reinforce a fairly

consistent pattern of relationships attesting to the

predictive value of role efficacy with regards to role

performance.

The use of subjective, self-report measures of role

performance could be considered another limitation of

the study. Such athlete-centred assessments may be

prone to bias. For example, although the athlete self-

ratings and coach ratings aimed to capture players’

offensive and defensive role performances, these ratings

differed by more than 10 percentage points (with the

player ratings being more positive) and were weakly to

moderately correlated (r=0.18 for defence and r=0.32

for offence). These results, which are in line with those

of Ebbeck and Weiss (1988) in a study of adolescent

track and field athletes, suggest that players and coaches

may pick up on slightly different aspects of performance

in their ratings and players tend to hold a more

optimistic view of how they are doing. With respect to

this possible limitation, though, it should be re-

emphasized that all of the analyses showed role efficacy

to contribute significantly to the prediction of both

coaches’ and players’ ratings of role performance.

Given the complexity of role functions and their

characteristic interdependence within team sports, it

could also be suggested that subjective assessments of

performance are among the most valid indicators of

actual performance in this context. In other words, the

fact that two sources of subjective performance ratings

were utilized could be seen as a strength of the study. In

terms of the consideration of athlete self-ratings of

performance, contemporary approaches to sport moti-

vation underscore the salience of subjective success to

athletes’ ensuing cognitive, affective and behavioural

responses (e.g. Duda, 1992, 2001). With respect to the

inclusion of coaches’ ratings in this study, it could be

argued that such ratings also have motivational sig-

nificance. It is reasonable to assume that the coach uses

his or her personal assessments of the role performance

of particular athletes when providing reinforcement and

instructional feedback, making decisions regarding

starting status, playing time, and so on. With these

points in mind, however, we propose that future

research should also make use of independent trained

observers and consider relevant game statistics as more

objective measures of role performance, together with

subjective ratings provided by the athlete and coach.

In summary, we found support for the relationship

between role efficacy and role performance after

controlling for the effects of task self-efficacy. These

results carry some weight in supporting the construct

validity of role efficacy and predictions of self-efficacy

theory (Bandura, 1997). We believe that the current

findings and future work in this area might have

implications for practitioners concerned with enhancing

the performance of team sport athletes.

References

American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical princi-

ples of psychologists and code of conduct. American

Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and

Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.

New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In

The Coherence of Personality: Social-Cognitive Bases of

Consistency, Variability, and Organization (edited by D.

Cervone and Y. Shoda), pp. 185–241. New York:

Guilford.

Bandura, A. (2001). Guidelines for Constructing Self-Efficacy

Scales. Available at http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/

mfp/effguide.PDF (accessed 5 September 2002).

Beauchamp, M.R., Bray, S.R., Eys, M.A. and Carron, A.V.

(2002). Role ambiguity, role efficacy and role performance

effectiveness: multidimensional and mediational relation-

ships within interdependent sport teams. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 229–242.

Bray, S.R. (1998). Role efficacy within interdependent

teams: measurement development and tests of theory.

Doctoral thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.

Bray, S.R. and Brawley, L.R. (2002). Role efficacy, role

clarity and role performance effectiveness. Small Group

Research, 33, 233–253.

Bray, S.R., Brawley, L.R. and Carron, A.V. (2002). Efficacy

for interdependent role functions: evidence from the sport

domain. Small Group Research, 33, 644–666.

Brislin, R.W., Lonner, W.J. and Thorndike, R.M. (1973).

Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York: Wiley.

Duda, J.L. (1992). Sport and exercise motivation: a goal

perspective analysis. In Motivation in Sport and Exercise

(edited by G. Roberts), pp. 57–91. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Duda, J.L. (2001). Goal perspectives research in sport:

pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunder-

standings. In Advances in Motivation in Sport and Exercise

(edited by G.C. Roberts), pp.129–182. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Ebbeck, V. and Weiss, M.R. (1988). The arousal–perfor-

mance relationship: task characteristics and performance

measures in track and field athletes. The Sport Psychologist,

2, 13–27.

Feltz, D.L. (1988). Self-confidence and sports performance.

In Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (edited by K.B.

Pandolf), Vol. 16, pp. 423–457. New York: Macmillan.

Feltz, D.L. and Chase, M.A. (1998). The measurement of

self-efficacy and confidence in sport. In Advances in Sport

and Exercise Psychology Measurement (edited by J.L. Duda),

pp. 65–80. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Tech-

nology.

436 Bray et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Haney, C.J. and Long, B.C. (1995). Coping effectiveness: a

path analysis of self-efficacy, control, coping, and perfor-

mance in sport competitions. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 25, 1726–1746.

Kane, T.D., Marks, M.A., Zaccaro, S.J. and Blair, V.

(1996). Self-efficacy, personal goals, and wrestlers’ self-

regulation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 36–

48.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of

Organizations, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.

Mabry, E.A. and Barnes, R.E. (1980). The Dynamics of Small

Group Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Maddux, J.E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: an introduction.

In Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Re-

search, and Application (edited by J.E. Maddux), pp. 3–33.

New York: Plenum Press.

McAuley, E. and Mihalko, S.L. (1998). Measuring exercise-

related self-efficacy. In Advances in Sport and Exercise

Psychology Measurement (edited by J.L. Duda), pp. 371–

390. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Moritz, S.E., Feltz, D.L., Fahrbach, K.R. and Mack, D.E.

(2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport

performance: a meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport, 71, 280–294.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Schunk, D.H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and perfor-

mance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 112–137.

Taber, T.D. and Alliger, G.M. (1995). A task-level

assessment of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 16, 101–121.

Treasure, D.C., Monson, J. and Lox, C.L. (1996). Relation-

ship between self-efficacy, wrestling performance, and

affect prior to competition. The Sport Psychologist, 10,

73–83.

Wood, R.E. and Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions

of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex

decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 56, 407–415.

Zinsser, N., Bunker, L. and Williams, J.M. (2000).

Cognitive techniques for building confidence and enhan-

cing performance. In Applied Sport Psychology: Personal

Growth to Peak Performance (edited by J.M. Williams),

pp. 284–311. New York: Mayfair.

437Efficacy and soccer performance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:48

06

Oct

ober

201

4