Content uploaded by Richard C Thelwell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard C Thelwell on Dec 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston]
On: 23 April 2012, At: 03:03
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rirs20
A review of Butler and Hardy's (1992)
performance profiling procedure within
sport
Neil Weston
a
, Iain Greenlees
b
& Richard Thelwell
a
a
Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of
Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
b
School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, University of
Chichester, Chichester, UK
Available online: 05 Apr 2012
To cite this article: Neil Weston, Iain Greenlees & Richard Thelwell (2012): A review of Butler and
Hardy's (1992) performance profiling procedure within sport, International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, DOI:10.1080/1750984X.2012.674543
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.674543
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
A review of Butler and Hardy’s (1992) performance profiling procedure
within sport
Neil Weston
a
*, Iain Greenlees
b
and Richard Thelwell
a
a
Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK;
b
School
of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Chichester, Chichester, UK
(Received 12 July 2011; final version received 6 March 2012)
Butler and Hardy’s (1992) performance profile has received considerable support
and use within applied settings since its inception 20 years ago. Developed as a
natural application of Kelly’s (1955) personal construct theory, the autonomy
supportive assessment tool has been proposed to benefit its athlete consumers in
a variety of ways, including increasing their self-awareness, intrinsic motivation
and confidence, in addition to providing a useful template to set goals, structure
training and facilitate communication within teams. Early research into the
technique centred on descriptive accounts from practitioners utilizing the strategy
with specific client populations. More recently, detailed evaluative research has
examined consultant and client opinions as to the usefulness of the technique.
Such research has highlighted the range of beneficial impacts that can be gained
through profiling, but it has also put into perspective the distinct lack of
rigorous, empirical research examining the efficacy of the procedure. Hence the
present review seeks to provide an impetus for such research by critically evalua-
ting the profile’s procedure, theoretical underpinning, validity, benefits and
limitations. It also seeks to highlight several important future research priorities
that warrant attention.
Keywords: assessment; personal construct theory; profile
Introduction
The performance profiling procedure (Butler & Hardy, 1992) is an assessment
strategy which aims to put the athlete at the heart of their performance develop-
ment. Drawing upon elements of Kelly’s (1955) Personal Construct Theory (PCT),
performance profiling encourages athletes to identify, and reflect upon, the qualities
that are needed to be successful in their sport, and then rate their ability in those
attributes. Butler (1997) asserts that this process helps athletes to become more
self-aware as to their performance strengths and weaknesses, in addition to providing
a useful platform for athlete-focused goal setting and the development of future
training interventions. Furthermore, central to the rationale for the client-centred
profiling approach was Butler and Hardy’s desire to overcome the damaging effect
that traditional, externally controlled assessment approaches (i.e., via coach or
psychologist) could have on athlete motivation.
Despite Butler’s (1989) profiling procedure being in existence for over 20 years,
little research has evaluated the efficacy of the technique within applied settings.
*Corresponding author. Email: neil.weston@port.ac.uk
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology
2012, 121, iFirst article
ISSN 1750-984X print/ISSN 1750-9858 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.674543
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
Whilst providing unique insights into the practical applications of the technique,
early research into profiling (e.g., Butler, 1997; Butler & Hardy, 1992; Butler, Smith,
& Irwin, 1993; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Jones, 1993; Potter & Anderson, 1998)
was limited by the use of descriptive case study methodologies. The descriptive
weaknesses of these studies have in part been overcome by a few empirical papers
examining the predictive (Doyle & Parfitt, 1996) and construct (Doyle & Parfitt,
1997) validity of the technique, in addition to its motivational properties (Weston,
Greenlees, & Thelwell, 2011b). Furthermore, the case study limitations of the
early research have to some extent been overcome with the recent broad systematic
client (Weston, Greenlees, & Thelwell, 2011a) and consultant (Weston, Greenlees, &
Thelwell, 2010) evaluations of the usefulness and impacts of the strategy. Whilst
these studies have proposed a number of possible uses and benefits of profiling, there
is a distinct lack of an empirical research evidence base to verify these findings.
Furthermore, given the apparent frequent use of profiling within applied sport
settings (Weston, 2008), it appears timely that a detailed review of the literature is
provided in order to stimulate further experimental research.
The present paper thus aims to provide a comprehensive review of the literature
examining the use of Butler and Hardy’s (1992) performance profiling procedure.
The paper will begin by summarizing the traditional profiling approach and
providing an overview of the theoretical basis for its use. Adaptations to the original
procedure will then be presented, followed by a critical evaluation of the research
that has examined the technique’s validity. The review will then progress to examine
the benefits and impacts of profiling in addition to discussing specific avenues for
future research. The final sections will examine the limitations of the procedure, in
addition to providing more general areas for further research.
The traditional performance profiling procedure
The traditional performance profiling procedure follows three simple steps that
can be employed with both individuals and groups (Butler & Hardy, 1992). The first
step involves the deliverer introducing the technique as a way of raising athlete
awareness as to the qualities important for successful performance in their sport/
position, in addition to their perceived strengths and weaknesses. Typically a
completed performance profile, either in the form of a circular target (see Figure 1)
or column chart (see Figure 2), is presented to athletes to reinforce the basic
procedure in addition to emphasizing what they will gain from the process. The final
phase of this step involves instructing athletes that there are no right or wrong
answers and that their completed profile could provide a useful basis for structuring
future training programmes when discussed with their coach.
Step two involves the generation (by an athlete or group of athletes, depending on
whether the session is delivered on a one-to-one or group basis) of qualities that
underpin athletic performance in the sport/position in question. In a group setting,
athletes are split into small groups which are typically based on positions within the
team (i.e., soccer goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and attackers). Each group is
then asked to discuss the answer to the following question: ‘What in your opinion are
the qualities or characteristics of an elite athlete in your sport/position?’ (Butler &
Hardy, 1992, p. 256). Following a period of reflection (typically 2030 minutes) to
2 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
generate a list of qualities across technical, physical, psychological and tactical
attributes, each group then briefly presents their findings back to the whole squad.
Each athlete is then provided with a blank performance profile (see Figure 3) and
asked to identify up to 20 attributes (from those presented by the groups) that they
believe are essential for their position, taking into consideration their style of play.
Importantly at this stage athletes must define each quality on a separate, attached
sheet to minimize any differences in the interpretation of each quality phrase that
may emerge should the athlete want to re-rate themselves at a later date or
alternatively if they ask their coach to rate them.
Figure 1. Example of a circular target performance profile in golf.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 3
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
This procedure differs in a one-to-one setting, where the athlete and psychologist
(and/or coach) discuss the attributes together to produce an appropriate list.
In individual profiling consultations, Weston (2008) suggests that it may be useful
to introduce the profiling procedure a week before the actual session to allow
the athlete time to develop their list of attributes which can then be discussed with the
psychologist. He also suggests that presenting and discussing video footage of the
athlete themselves (or an elite athlete within their sport) performing successfully
could help to facilitate the discussion of key performance attributes.
The third and final performance profiling step involves the athlete’s self-
assessment of their ability in each of their chosen performance attributes. Athletes
typically rate their current perception of their ability in each quality via a scale of
1(‘lowest possible ability’)to10(‘ideal level of performance’). However, other
rating scales have been employed in the literature and the key issues when facilitating
the rating of an athlete’s profile are that the scale is meaningful to the athlete, the
athlete has a good understanding for what constitutes a 1 and a 10 rating and that
the rating scales are clear and specific. The resultant completed profile provides a
useful visual display as to the athlete’s perceived strengths and weaknesses, from
which the athlete and their coach can discuss and prioritize future training
interventions.
Theoretical roots of performance profiling
Personal Construct Theory (PCT)
In defining performance profiling, Butler and Hardy (1992) stated that their new
approach to performance assessment had evolved as a ‘natural application’ (p. 254)
of Kelly’s (1955) PCT. Kelly’s theory of personality attempts to explain the way in
which people interpret, and thus behave in, the world. Essentially, Kelly believed that
Figure 2. Example of a chart performance profile for a soccer midfielder.
4 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
people attempt to understand the world by continually developing personal theories.
These theories, or constructs as he later termed them, help individuals to anticipate
events in their life and can be revised based on their experience of those events
over time (what Kelly refers to as the experience corollary). Relating this to a sport
setting, the theory suggests that athletes will develop, over the course of their athletic
career, a number of assumptions (theories) regarding their sport and their ability in
Figure 3. Blank performance profile.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 5
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
various sporting situations or environments, and that these will be revised as they
continue to experience these situations over time.
A key rationale for the client-centred performance profiling approach evolved
from Kelly’s (1955) assertion that whilst individuals may share a similar interpreta-
tion of some events in their lives (i.e., Kelly’s commonality corollary), individuals are
fundamentally idiosyncratic and unique in construing life experiences (i.e., Kelly’s
individuality corollary). Therefore, in the context of performance assessment and
subsequent athlete development, Butler and Hardy (1992) proposed that assessment
procedures that fail to take into account athlete perceptions will result in valuable
information being lost and might explain an athlete’s lack of commitment to adhere
to training interventions solely determined by the coach. Kelly further theorizes that
in order for one to play a role in the ‘social process’ with another, one must attempt
to understand the perceptions of that other person (i.e., sociality corollary). Thus, by
employing the profiling procedure sport psychologists (and/or coaches) are able,
firstly, to understand the athlete’s perception of performance, secondly to discuss
such issues more effectively as a result of the increased understanding, and finally to
tailor training more closely to the athlete’s perceived needs.
One further theoretical justification for the profiling approach emerged from
Thomas’s (1979) extension of PCT. He asserts that individuals will become more self-
aware as a consequence of actively reflecting on how they construe certain events
(i.e., his self-awareness corollary). Thus, the profiling approach which encourages
self-reflection on a performer’s current performance attributes will, according to
Thomas, result in greater athlete self-awareness.
In summary, the performance profiling procedure provides a natural application
of PCT into sport. The procedure acknowledges the individual nature of interpreta-
tion (i.e., individuality corollary) and actively encourages athletes to reflect upon,
and thus become more self-aware of, the performance qualities necessary for
successful performance in addition to their perceived strengths and weaknesses (i.e.,
self-awareness corollary). Furthermore, in enabling their coach/psychologist to view
their interpretations, athletes can improve the social interaction between themselves
and their performance specialists (i.e., sociality corollary). Finally, given that an
athlete’s interpretation is likely to be revised over time (i.e., experience corollary), the
profile can provide a useful monitoring tool to record these alternative constructions
(see Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009, for a more detailed description of the fundamental
postulate and related corollaries of PCT).
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)
In addition to PCT, Butler and Hardy (1992) stressed the importance of Deci and
Ryan’s (1985) CET in helping to justify the use of performance profiling. The
fundamental postulate of CET is that social and environmental factors or events
(e.g., feedback, coach behaviour, etc.) will influence an individual’s motivation
through three essential human desires (mediators) that people will attempt to
satisfy: relatedness (i.e., feeling connected to significant others within the particular
context), autonomy (i.e., having internal control over one’s choices) and perceived
competence (i.e., having confidence in one’s ability to perform in that context). The
theory further asserts that social factors which reinforce these mediators will
6 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
facilitate more self-determined motivation and thus bring about more positive
cognitive, affective and behavioural responses (see Deci & Ryan, 2002, for a review).
The very nature of the client-centred performance profiling procedure provides
a strong rationale that an athlete engaging in the profiling would enhance
their perceptions of autonomy. Furthermore, the technique delivered within a group
setting encourages team mates to interact and discuss performance-related issues
and thus could help to facilitate higher perceptions of relatedness. Finally, employing
the profile to monitor progress could improve perceived competence as athletes see
their profile ratings increase over time. Research that has examined these proposi-
tions will be discussed in a later section.
Adaptations to the performance profiling procedure
Whilst the majority of performance profiling research has adopted Butler and
Hardy’s (1992) original approach, some variations to that procedure have been
published, each of which will now be discussed.
Butler (1997) provided a unique approach to the generation of profile qualities to
meet new scoring regulations enforced by the governing body of amateur boxing.
Previously three judges subjectively assessed a boxer’s ability to attack and defend
over the course of the contest to determine the outcome of a bout. However, with
the introduction of a new computerized scoring system, the importance of a certain
style of boxing determined that it was more important to identify the critical
attributes that would scores points, than to determine the athlete’s individual
perception regarding performance. Hence, a ‘Scoring Machine Profile’ was produced
in which the opinions of boxers, coaches and sports scientists determined a set
number of qualities that they agreed would meet the demands of the new scoring
system. This template or fixed profile was then rated by the boxers and used as a
basis for setting goals to improve areas of perceived weakness and monitor progress
in the lead-up to competitions. A similar approach to the identification of profile
attributes has also been adopted by D’Urso, Petrosso, and Robazza (2002) with
Italian rugby union players. Differing slightly from Butler’s approach, D’Urso
et al. utilized a combination of qualities provided to the athletes (as a result of
consultation between coaches, a former player and sports scientists) and those
personally chosen by the athletes themselves in determining the profile qualities
within their study.
Adaptations of the original athlete performance profile have come in the form
of coach and team profiles (see Dale & Wrisberg, 1996, for more information).
However, recently Gucciardi and Gordon (2009) have proposed the most radical
alteration of Butler and Hardy’s (1992) profiling approach. The authors assert that
the original profiling procedure failed to draw upon several of the key tenets of
Kelly’s PCT and thus did not maximize the potential information that could be
derived from an athlete via the performance profile process. Hence, the authors
proposed an extended version of the original procedure to incorporate additional
elements of Kelly’s (1955) PCT and thus argue that in doing so a more detailed
understanding of the athlete’s perspective is obtained. Drawing upon the dichotomy
corollary of PCT, the authors adapted the profile construct generation procedure to
encompass a bi-polar classification of each profile attribute. Hence, rather than
utilizing a singular term (e.g., self-belief) to define a profile attribute (as with the
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 7
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
traditional procedure), the authors argued that a bi-polar categorization (e.g., self-
belief to self-doubt) would enable a greater and clearer understanding as to the
athlete’s ‘psychological processes’ (p. 100).
The second adaptation to the traditional profiling procedure incorporated within
Gucciardi and Gordon’s (2009) extended profile drew upon PCT’s range corollary
where the authors encouraged athletes to identify the contexts in which each profile
attribute was most applicable (e.g., in preparation for competition, during training,
etc.). The authors propose that each profile attribute that an individual identified
would be restricted to a specific range of convenience (i.e., a certain number of
situations by which it is applicable) and that the higher the number of situations in
which the construct can be applied, the more important that construct is to the
athlete’s performance development.
The final extension to Butler and Hardy’s (1992) profiling procedure encom-
passed the use of a scale to determine the relative importance of each quality.
Athletes are asked to rank their profile attributes in order of importance for an
elite performer in their sport. This is achieved on a scale beginning with 1 (‘most
important’) and ending with the least important quality which obtained the number
associated with the total number of attributes contained within the profile. For
example, if there were 20 profile attributes the least important would receive a score
of 20, the second least important 19 and so on. The authors assert that this rating
would help to display the hierarchical order of importance that each athlete attached
to their profile attributes and thus tap into the organizational structure of the
athlete’s interpretation system (i.e., the organizational corollary of PCT).
Linking in with Gucciardi and Gordon’s (2009) theme of identifying the relative
importance of attributes contained within an athlete’s profile, Jones (1993) adapted
the original scoring procedure to categorize which profile attributes require more
urgent attention. In addition to asking his athletes to rate their current and ideal
rating for each quality on the usual 1 (‘couldn’t be any worse’)to10(‘couldn’tbe
any better’) scale, he also requested that they rate each quality on an importance
scale of 1 (‘not important at all’)to10(‘of crucial importance’). He then took
the current rating (CR) away from the ideal (I) and multiplied it by the impor-
tance rating (IR) to produce a discrepancy score (D): D(I CR) x IR. This then
provided an indication of the areas requiring the most improvement (e.g., a quality
such as ‘strength’ where CR 7, I10, IR7, resulting in D21 versus ‘speed’
where CR7, I10, IR10, resulting in D30). In adopting this procedure, Jones
was able to identify not only those areas of weakness but also the most important
areas that required immediate attention. This quantification of the profiling
procedure has also been employed by Doyle and Parfitt (1996, 1997) in their
examination of the profile’s predictive and construct validity.
Validity of the performance profiling procedure
In their first study examining the validity of the performance profile procedure,
Doyle and Parfitt (1996) examined the strength of the predictive relationship between
profile ratings and performance in 39 track and field athletes. The athletes produced
and rated their own individual performance profile and then re-rated their profile
immediately prior to their participation in three track and field events. After each
event athletes were asked to record a performance time or distance (depending
8 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
upon their chosen sport), in addition to their perception of performance on a scale
of 1 (‘could not have done any worse’)to10(‘could not have done any better’).
Coach perceptions of their performance were also recorded on the same scale.
The dependent measure for each athlete’s profile rating was a discrepancy score
between the athlete’s current attribute rating (recorded prior to each event) taken
away from their ideal score for each profile attribute. A mean of all profile attribute
discrepancy scores for an athlete was then correlated with the athlete’s and coach’s
perception of performance scores in addition to the actual performance (represented
as a percentage of their personal best performance in order to account for inter-
individual skill level variation).
The authors concluded that the predictive validity of the performance profile
was demonstrated as a higher mean profile discrepancy score (i.e., athlete rating
themselves further from their ideal score) was correlated with a poorer performance.
This was evident in all three competitions when examining the coach’s perception
of performance and only in the final competition for the athlete’s perception of
performance and their actual performance. Further linear regression analysis
indicated that the profile discrepancy scores were unable to predict the three
performance-dependent variables in the first competition but were able to signifi-
cantly predict them in the third and final competition. The findings provide
moderate support for the performance profile’s predictive validity (Doyle & Parfitt,
1997) and indicate that athletes may require some learning time in order to hone
their ability to accurately rate their profile. On the basis of these findings it is
advisable that athletes are afforded the opportunity to practice rating their profile
before it is used to predict competitive performance.
Doyle and Parfitt’s (1997) second study examined the profile’s construct validity,
hypothesizing that such validity would be displayed if ‘a greater area of perceived
need, identified by the profile, was reflected by a lower performance score’ (p. 413).
Twelve track and field athletes firstly devised, and then completed, their perfor-
mance profile five times over the course of a winter training and competitive indoor
season. The athletes completed their profile immediately prior to the training session
or competition, with their actual performance score (time or distance) and the
athlete’s and coach’s perceptions of performance recorded afterwards.
The findings revealed a significant decrease in mean profile discrepancy scores
and a concomitant significant increase in actual performance scores as athletes
progressed across the five testing points throughout the winter training and
competitive indoor season. However, such significant findings were not observed
for either the athlete’s or the coach’s perception of performance scores and thus
only partial support for the profile’s construct validity can be assumed. Closer
inspection of the findings revealed that during the competitive indoor season where
smaller changes in performance were more likely (in comparison to the sustained
winter training period), the profile was not sensitive enough to detect subtle
performance changes. Thus the authors concluded that employing the profile to
monitor changes in performance may only be valid during heavy periods of training
or rehabilitation from injury where large changes in performance and profile ratings
are likely.
Each of Doyle and Parfitt’s studies examining the predictive (1996) and
construct (1997) validity of the performance profile provides a useful preliminary
insight into the technique’s validity. However, further empirical research is needed
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 9
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
across a variety of sports before more substantive conclusions can be drawn as to the
validity of the performance profile procedure.
Benefits of performance profiling
Despite PCT and CET providing a strong theoretical justification for the profile’s
use, the research evaluating the benefits of the technique is rather limited (Weston,
2008). This is surprising given the apparent frequent applied use of the technique
(Doyle & Parfitt, 1999; Weston, 2008) and suggestions as to the wide ranging benefits
that can accrue from its use (Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009). Early research examining
the use of performance profiling within sport settings drew primarily from the
reflections of a few sport psychologists employing the strategy in their applied work
(Butler, 1989; Butler & Hardy, 1992; Butler et al., 1993; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996;
Jones, 1993). Doyle and Parfitt then proceeded to investigate the predictive (1996)
and construct (1997) validity of the technique in addition to examining the impact
of athlete mood on profile ratings (1999).
The last decade has seen articles employing the technique to evaluate the
day-to-day reproducibility of profile ratings (Gleeson, Parfitt, Doyle, & Rees, 2005),
and facilitate an understanding of role episode in sport (Mellalieu & Juniper,
2006), in addition to developing a revised version of the procedure (Gucciardi &
Gordon, 2009). In a series of studies, Weston and colleagues have recently provided
a systematic evaluation of the original technique from athlete (Weston et al., 2011a)
and psychologist (Weston et al., 2010) perspectives, in addition to experimentally
testing the impact of a repeat profiling intervention on athlete intrinsic motivation
(Weston et al., 2011b).
This section will attempt to critically evaluate the main benefits of employing
the technique within applied sport settings and outline specific avenues for future
research.
Self-awareness
Raising athlete self-awareness as to the qualities necessary for successful perfor-
mance and the athlete’s perceived strengths and weaknesses has been proposed
as one of the primary benefits of performance profiling (Butler, 1997; Butler &
Hardy, 1992; Butler et al., 1993; Jones, 1993). Recent research suggests that British
Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) accredited sport psychologists
(n56) believe performance profiling is useful in raising athlete self-awareness
(Weston et al., 2010). These findings mirror those of collegiate team sport athletes
(n191) who, following participation in a performance profiling session, perceived
the procedure had helped them to highlight the demands of their position in
addition to helping to clarify their performance strengths and weaknesses (Weston
et al., 2011a). The procedure has also been suggested as useful in raising the
coach/sport psychologist’s awareness as to what the athlete believes to be the
qualities that can facilitate elite performance in their sport/position, in addition to
helping them understand their athlete’s perceived strengths and weaknesses (Butler,
1997). Furthermore, both athletes (Weston et al., 2011a) and sport psychologists
(Weston et al., 2010) have suggested that the brainstorming and subsequent
presentation of performance qualities within a group environment is useful in
10 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
raising each team member’s awareness as to the demands of other positions within
their team.
Thus, experiential evidence suggests that profiling helps to raise athlete self-
awareness, the awareness of coaches and psychologists as to the athlete’s perception
of performance and, finally, the awareness of athletes as to the demands of their
fellow team players. Whilst the development of sporting self-awareness is an
important applied issue, little research has been conducted examining this topic
area (Ravizza, 2010). As the existing literature appears to reinforce the profile’s
usefulness in enhancing sporting self-awareness, further experimental research
is needed to examine the characteristics of a performance profiling intervention
(i.e., type, frequency, etc.) that would ensure significant improvements in this
psychological attribute.
Intrinsic motivation
A fundamental benefit hypothesized by Butler and Hardy (1992) when they first
proposed performance profiling was that the procedure would facilitate more self-
determined athlete motivation. Drawing on Deci and Ryan’s (1985) CET, Butler and
Hardy proposed that their client-centred procedure would facilitate athlete autonomy
and thus instil greater intrinsic motivation to adhere to future training interventions.
Until recently there has been limited research evidence to substantiate the
profile’s motivational properties. Anecdotal evidence from Jones (1993) and D’Urso
et al. (2002) has suggested that their profiling interventions helped to enhance athlete
adherence to a performance intervention and achievement motivation respectively.
More systematic research evaluations of the profiling procedure’s usefulness have
found that BASES accredited consultants believe the strategy would enhance athlete
intrinsic motivation, autonomy and self-determination (Weston et al., 2010).
Furthermore, British collegiate team sport athletes have suggested that the procedure
would motivate them to train and improve as well as encourage them to take
more control and responsibility for their development (Weston et al., 2011a).
Despite such evidence, Weston et al. (2011b) provide the only experimental study to
examine the impact of repeated profiling sessions on athlete intrinsic motivation.
Forty collegiate soccer players were randomly assigned to a performance profiling
group (who produced individual performance profiles within a group setting as
per Butler and Hardy’s 1992 guidelines), a sports science educational group (who
received interactive sports science educational presentations) and a control group
(who received no intervention). Three sessions were performed for each condition,
three weeks apart and lasting approximately one hour each time. Participants
completed the Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) on four occasions (pre-
intervention and following each session) to monitor the impact of the conditions
on athlete intrinsic motivation.
The findings revealed that a single profiling session failed to significantly improve
athlete intrinsic motivation, but three repeat sessions over a six-week time frame
during the competitive season did. These results support the existing descriptive
findings and the propositions of Butler and Hardy (1992), suggesting that repeatedly
profiling athletes within a competitive season could facilitate improvements in
athlete intrinsic motivation. However, further research is needed to verify these
findings across various athlete populations (i.e., different sports, ages and skill
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
levels). Furthermore, the authors failed to monitor the impact of the intervention
across other aspects of Deci and Ryan’s (1985) CET, such as the motivational
mediators and consequences. Hence, future research would benefit from also
examining these variables in order to establish a detailed understanding of the
motivational properties of profiling.
Task involvement
Athletes displaying task-involved goal perspectives have also been linked to more self-
determined and intrinsically motivated behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Individuals
experiencing such goal perspectives tend to evaluate their performance in relation to
self-referent standards (Nicholls, 1984, 1989), in addition to orientating themselves
towards skill mastery, learning and performance development (Pensgaard & Roberts,
2003). In contrast, individuals displaying ego-oriented goals focus more on evaluating
performance in comparison to others (Duda & Hall, 2001). Such individuals, in
situations where they perceive their competence to be greater than others, will display
similar adaptive behaviour to task-oriented individuals. However, in situations where
individuals have low perceived competence, ego-oriented people are likely to avoid
challenges, exert little effort, lack persistence in the face of failure and may in some
instances drop out of their sport (Duda & Hall, 2001).
Nicholls (1989) points out the important role situational factors have in
influencing the relative strength of task and ego involvement in achievement
situations. Evaluation of the performance profiling procedure suggests it could be
a useful strategy in helping athletes to develop a more task-involved goal perspective
(Greenlees, 2009). Not only does the procedure encourage athletes to think about the
skills and qualities that are required to perform successfully in their sport, but it also
gets athletes to rate their ability on each of those qualities in a self-referent way.
Descriptive support for the above proposition has been found in the form of
British sport psychologists who supported the role of profiling in promoting athlete
task involvement (Weston et al., 2010). If profiling is able to encourage a greater
task-oriented focus, then theoretically more adaptive psychological and behavioural
outcomes are likely, irrespective of whether the individual finds themselves in success
or failure situations. Hence, future empirical research needs to identify whether
profiling interventions can significantly improve athlete task involvement, in
addition to monitoring any related changes in psychological and/or behavioural
states.
Basis for goal setting
Despite overwhelming evidence reinforcing the effectiveness of goal setting as a
performance-enhancing tool (Burton, Naylor, & Holliday, 2001; Gould, 2010; Kyllo
& Landers, 1995), the availability of effective strategies to facilitate the use of goals is
lacking. The self-referent and specific performance attribute focus of performance
profiling has led sport psychologists to recommend it as a useful procedure on which
to base performance-related goal setting (Butler, 1997; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Doyle
& Parfitt, 1997; D’Urso et al., 2002; Weston et al., 2010). Indeed, O’Brien, Mellalieu,
and Hanton (2009), in examining the efficacy of a goal-setting intervention on elite
and non-elite boxers’ performance, employed performance profiling prior to goal
12 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
setting in order to determine the key areas from which to base their goal-setting
intervention on. The use of profiling in this way was supported by the boxers in the
post-intervention social validation, where they felt the profiling had helped identify
appropriate goals to which they felt committed. Further recent support for this
combined approach has come from a range of team sport athletes who, following
participation in a profiling session, believed the strategy would be useful to help them
set goals in the future (Weston et al., 2011a). Given that research has found that
athletes prefer to set their own goals (Weinberg, Burton, Yukelson, & Weigand, 1993)
and that athlete-centred goal setting has been shown to be effective (Kyllo &
Landers, 1995), the client-centred performance profiling strategy appears to be an
ideal foundation from which athlete-involved goal setting can begin. Practitioners
adopting this athlete-centred approach must, however, ensure that their athletes are
setting appropriate goals, as failure to do so may negatively impact on an athlete’s
future motivation (Butler, 1997).
There is general agreement within the literature that goal setting has useful
motivational properties (Vidic & Burton, 2010). Similarly, empirical evidence (Weston
et al., 2011b) and a strong theoretical justification (via CET) suggest performance
profiling could be useful in motivating athletes (Butler & Hardy, 1992). Therefore,
given that there is a general consensus that the two strategies are well suited to
one another, it would be worthwhile to examine whether a combined performance
profiling and goal-setting intervention can significantly improve athlete intrinsic
motivation over and above interventions on their own, or in comparison to a
standard control group. Indeed, given the applied nature of such an intervention,
employing a multiple baseline across individuals design (as employed by O’Brien
et al., 2009) may be a more appropriate methodological approach to examine this
area. Such research would provide practitioners with greater evidence, and thus
confidence, to justify the combined use of the techniques to motivate their athlete
clients.
Team-related benefit
Butler and Hardy (1992), in introducing the possible benefits of performance
profiling, suggested that the strategy ‘may have some potential’ (p. 261) in positively
influencing team cohesion. This proposition seems intuitively appealing as research
has shown cohesive sports teams to exhibit greater collective efficacy (Paskevich,
1995, cited in Paskevich, Estabrooks, Brawley, & Carron, 2001) and work output
(Prapavessis & Carron, 1997), in addition to performing more successfully (Carron,
Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002; Mullen & Copper, 1994).
Cohesive teams are characterized by team members having a clear understanding
and acceptance of their roles (Eys, Burke, Carron, & Dennis, 2010) and opportunities
to interact and communicate within the team (Carron & Hausenblas, 2005). Further-
more, athlete-directed techniques or certainly strategies which facilitate more
participative, democratic team decisions are linked to more cohesive teams (Carron,
Shapcott, & Burke, 2008). A review of the profiling literature provides some
descriptive evidence that profiling could indeed positively influence some of these
team cohesion variables. For instance, research has shown the procedure to be useful
in facilitating communication and discussion within teams (Dale & Wrisberg, 1996;
Weston et al., 2010) and between athletes and their coaches (Butler & Hardy, 1992;
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 13
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
Butler et al., 1993; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Weston et al., 2011a). Furthermore,
British-based applied sport psychologists have suggested profiling could be useful
in identifying roles within the team and in generally improving team dynamics
(Weston et al., 2010). Such suggestions are supported by Mellalieu and Juniper
(2006) who utilized the performance profile to help examine role episode in soccer.
The authors found profiling to be beneficial in helping players reflect upon, and
evaluate, their roles within a team. Furthermore, they found the procedure helped
to provide a basis from which the role sender (i.e., the coach) and role occupant
(i.e., the player) could discuss and agree upon the athlete’s role within the team.
Given the predominantly descriptive nature of the existing research in this
area, future empirical research is needed to ascertain the characteristics of profiling
interventions (i.e., type of profiles employed, frequency and length of profiling
intervention, etc.) that can lead to enhanced team cohesion and performance
(Weston et al., 2010). Furthermore, given the lack of research examining coach
opinions of the profiling technique, it would be worthwhile to evaluate their
perceptions as to whether they believe profiling to be useful in facilitating a more
cohesive team and if so, what procedural characteristics would help to maximize
this effect.
Monitoring progress
Descriptive research has proposed performance profiling to be useful in monitoring
progress in the lead-up to competition (Butler & Hardy, 1992), and over the course
of a training camp (Butler et al., 1993), competitive season (Dale & Wrisberg, 1996)
and psychological skills intervention (Jones, 1993). More generally, research
examining the perceptions of sport psychologists who have experience delivering
profiling (Weston et al., 2010) and team sport athletes who have participated in a
profiling session (Weston et al., 2011a) found that both groups believe the strategy
could be useful in helping to monitor athlete progress over time.
Experimental research conducted by Doyle and Parfitt (1997) in track and
field athletes found profiling over the course of a winter training and competitive
season to be useful in monitoring performance, though only during periods where
large performance changes occurred (i.e., pre-season training, or when recovering
from injury). Given the lack of empirical research in this area, future research
is needed to examine the impact of repeat profiling interventions over longer
durations and across different sporting populations. Furthermore, Doyle and
Parfitt’s study was limited due the amalgamation of athlete responses (i.e., via
mean data) which directly goes against the individual philosophy of performance
profiling. Thus, future research may wish to adopt a multiple baseline across
individuals design that captures the idiosyncratic impact of the profiling intervention
on each athlete.
Evaluating performance
Profiling has been proposed as a useful strategy from which athletes can evaluate
their performances (Butler & Hardy, 1992; Butler et al., 1993; Weston et al., 2010,
2011a). Inspection of the literature on athlete-centred performance evaluation
suggests much of the research has centred on Weiner’s (1986) model of achievement
14 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
attributions. Attributions are the reasons or causes that athletes give for perfor-
mances and Weiner proposes that they can be defined along three complementary
dimensions: locus of causality refers to the attribution as either an internal reason
(e.g., ability) or external reason (e.g., weather) for the outcome of the event; stability
pertains to whether the attribution given is likely to remain relatively stable over
time (e.g., ability) or is likely to change (e.g., luck); and controllability refers to
whether the attribution is under the control of the individual (e.g., effort) or not
(e.g., an opponent).
Literature evidence has indicated that the attributions athletes give for perfor-
mances will influence their expectations (Grove & Pargman, 1986; Le Foll, Rascle,
& Higgins, 2008), affective reactions (Allen, Jones, & Sheffield, 2009; Robinson
& Howe, 1989), self-efficacy beliefs (Coffee & Rees, 2008; Coffee, Rees, & Haslam,
2009) and behaviours in similar events in the future (Biddle, Hanrahan, & Sellars,
2001; Coffee et al., 2009). The influence of an athlete’s attributions on these variables
is dictated by whether the attribution is perceived functionally or not. Attributions
following success that are external, unstable and uncontrollable in nature (e.g.,
opposition ability) are likely to negatively impact on future thoughts and behaviours.
Alternatively, attributions in success situations that are internal and controllable
(e.g., technique) are likely to maintain/enhance an individual’s future expectations,
emotions and behaviours towards similar situations in the future (Biddle et al., 2001).
In failure situations internal, stable and uncontrollable attributions (e.g., ability) are
likely to negatively influence such consequences, whereas internal, unstable and
controllable attributions (e.g., effort) are more likely to preserve future expectations,
emotions and behaviours.
Considerable time has passed since Hardy and Jones (1994) reinforced the need
for further research examining the topic of attribution retraining. Despite a few
studies in the area (for example Orbach, Singer, & Price, 1999; Rascle, Le Foll,
& Higgins, 2008), there is a general lack of evidence on which sport psychologists
can base their applied practice. Inspection of the profiling procedure suggests that
the strategy could provide a useful basis from which coaches and psychologists
can move athletes towards the choice of more functional attributions. Inherent
within the procedure is the identification of a number of controllable, unstable and
internal attributes that the athlete believes are integral to their performance. Thus,
although tentative, it could be proposed that employing profiling in a performance
evaluation capacity may help athletes to choose more functional attributions. In
doing so, Weiner (1986) suggests that more positive affects, expectations and
behaviours are likely to result. Hence, it would be worthwhile for future research to
examine the efficacy of profiling interventions in facilitating more functional
attributions in addition to improving athlete thought processes and behavioural
responses.
Limitations of performance profiling
Although the existing literature has highlighted several potential benefits of
performance profiling, it cannot be employed unreservedly. In a series of studies
conducted by Weston (2005), athletes and sport psychologists identified a number of
potential limitations in the technique that practitioners should consider before using
the procedure. Firstly, whilst acknowledged as an important strength of the
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 15
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
procedure, the client-centred nature of profiling does present some potential
problems when working with certain populations. For instance, young or novice
sport performers may lack sufficient sporting awareness or knowledge to identify
appropriate qualities for their sport/position, thus resulting in profiles that lack the
required depth and/or attribute accuracy that would be expected of their position/
sport. Hence, practitioners must be wary in such situations and may benefit from
asking athletes to choose from a pre-prepared list of qualities (D’Urso et al., 2002) or
simply providing a fixed profile from which the athletes can then rate themselves
(Butler, 1997). An alternative approach would be to ask the athlete and coach
jointly to produce the profile attributes and thus not only ensure a more accurate
profile but also facilitate communication between these individuals regarding the
athlete’s performance development.
A secondary problem with the autonomous nature of profiling could emerge
when athletes rate their profile attributes. Again, this may be particularly evident
with novice or young athletes who may find it difficult to interpret what a 1 and 10
rating actually constitutes. In such instances it may be useful to start by employing
the bi-polar quality classification as proposed by Gucciardi and Gordon (2009)
within their extended profiling approach, in order to provide clear and divergently
contrasting definitions at each end of the rating continuum (i.e., fully focused; totally
distracted). It may also be useful to assign the extremes of the general rating scales
(i.e., the 1 and the 10; see Figure 1) to fellow performers that the athlete is familiar
with (e.g., 1player x on team a;10player y on team b). In adopting this
approach, athletes would rate their attributes against a criterion that they can
identify with more closely than a generic rating scale classification. A final possible
method of overcoming this issue would be to ask the athlete’s coach to rate the
profile qualities separately to the athlete and then discuss the rating differences
together. However, caution must be taken in circumstances where large discrepancies
between the athlete and coach ratings emerge, particularly if the coach’s ratings are
lower than the athlete’s. In such situations the practitioner must make sure that the
athlete’s confidence is not negatively affected when they observe their coach’slower
perceptions of their capabilities.
Contrary to the athlete-centred approach promoted by profiling, anecdotal
evidence provided by athletes within Weston’s (2005) programme of research suggests
that athletes may prefer that their coaches determine their profile attributes in
addition to rating them in order to identify critical performance priorities. Whilst this
requires further examination to identify the extent to which athletes support this
approach, evaluation of Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Causality Orientations Theory might
provide some explanation for this perspective. Deci and Ryan assert that an
individual’s motivation will be influenced not only by the environment (as theorized
in CET) but also by the athlete’s own personality (causality) orientation. Causality
orientations refer to an individual’s predisposition to construe events in a particular
way which will then influence how that individual initiates and thus regulates their
future behaviour. The authors propose that there are principally three orientations:
autonomy orientation, where individuals use information to enable them to make
choices, a disposition closely aligned to more self-determined motivation; control
orientation, where individuals allow their behaviours to be dictated by external
events/factors, a disposition more aligned to extrinsic motivation; and impersonal
orientation, where individuals believe that outcomes in their life are determined by
16 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
external forces which are uncontrollable and independent of them and thus are
more aligned to amotivation.
Using Deci and Ryan’s (1985) propositions, we argue that athletes who have a
predominantly control causality orientation would be more comfortable with their
coach providing them with their profile qualities and/or solely rating these attributes.
In other words, theoretically these individuals might prefer to have no involvement in
the performance assessment phase and may indeed prefer to be told what they need
to work on. Clearly further research is needed to examine the efficacy of these
suggestions before more valid advice can be provided to practitioners employing
profiling in the field. Moreover, although an Exercise Causality Orientation Scale has
been developed (Rose, Markland, & Parfitt, 2001), no such scale exists to measure
these orientations within sporting contexts. Hence the development of a sport-
specific scale may be required before any of the above proposals can be fully tested.
Finally, Doyle and Parfitt (1999) in their study examining the impact of athlete
mood state on profile ratings found that positive mood states (and not neutral or
negative moods) are likely to influence profile ratings. The authors found that the
more positive the mood state, the higher the profile ratings were likely to be, thus
suggesting that practitioners should not use the technique unreservedly and that
they need to be wary of the potential impact of an athlete’s mood state on profile
ratings.
Given the artificial and rather detached (from the competitive setting) mani-
pulation of athlete mood states induced in Doyle and Parfitt’s study, further
empirical research is needed to substantiate their findings in a more ecologically
valid competitive setting. In such settings, the emotions expressed will be more
representative of the athlete’s actual emotional response to performance and thus will
provide a more accurate insight into the role emotions play in influencing profile
ratings. Furthermore, given the important influence that a performer’s attributions
have on their subsequent emotional state (Weiner, 1986), it would be useful to
examine the interplay between an athlete’s attributions, emotions and the subjective
ratings of their performance capabilities via the performance profile.
Future research directions
Several specific further research suggestions have been provided above. However,
there are a number of important general areas for future research that require
attention in order to fully evaluate the usefulness of the performance profiling
procedure. Firstly, more research is needed to examine the efficacy of the profiling
strategy from the athlete, psychologist and coach perspectives. Whilst Weston and
colleagues (2010) have evaluated psychologist opinions of the profiling procedure,
their investigation into athlete perceptions of the technique (Weston et al., 2011a)
was limited to evaluating the efficacy of the procedure after just a single session.
Given that the procedure has been advocated as a multiple use intervention (Butler
& Hardy, 1992; Doyle & Parfitt, 1997), more athlete-focused evaluative research is
required following their participation in longer duration profiling interventions,
possibly across a competitive season. Furthermore, the coach is often seen as an
integral partner in the construction, rating and subsequent discussion of an athlete’s
profile (Butler & Hardy, 1992; Butler et al., 1993; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Weston
et al., 2010, 2011a), but no research has specifically evaluated coach perceptions of
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 17
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
the technique’s usefulness. Hence, further research examining coach opinions as
to the most effective ways of employing the profile in team and individual sports
would be a valuable avenue for future research.
Weston et al. (2010, 2011a) have provided useful evaluative research into
Butler and Hardy’s (1992) traditional profiling procedure. However, these studies
have focused on examining the production of individual profiles within a team
setting. Further research examining the efficacy of the one-to-one profiling procedure
is needed in order to inform its applied use. Innovative single-case research
methodologies (see Barker, McCarthy, Jones, & Moran, 2011, for an overview) could
provide an ecologically sensitive and practical means to conduct such research.
In addition, several variations to the traditional profiling procedure have been
utilized within applied settings (e.g., team, coach and unit profiles, fixed profiles) but
have received limited evaluation as to their usefulness. Further applied research
examining the worth of these approaches to the athlete, coach and psychologist is
therefore needed in order to justify their use. In particular, the extended profiling
procedure developed by Gucciardi and Gordon (2009) requires further evaluation to
determine its usefulness within applied settings. Indeed, comparing its usefulness in
comparison to Butler and Hardy’s (1992) traditional profiling procedure would help
to clarify the most effective profiling approach to adopt with client populations.
Finally, a rigorous and detailed initial assessment is acknowledged as funda-
mental in accurately identifying performance areas that require improvement and in
facilitating effective clientconsultant interactions (Beckmann & Kellmann, 2003).
An integral element of this process is the need for practitioners to triangulate their
assessment findings from a variety of sources in order to enhance the confidence in
the overall conclusions reached (Anderson, Miles, Mahoney, & Robinson, 2002;
Beckmann & Kellmann, 2003). Such information sources may come in the form of
various people (e.g., athlete, coach, sports scientist, parent, etc.) or assessment types
(e.g., interview, questionnaire, behavioural observation, diary, profile, etc.) informing
an athlete’s assessment. However, examination of the profiling literature indicates
that practitioners have tended to focus on evaluating just the performance profile
procedure and not how the technique may be most effectively employed in
combination with other assessment tools. Hence, further research should examine
the use of profiling in combination with other forms of assessment. Such research
would be a welcome addition to the existing literature, helping to bolster the
relatively few articles that discuss the use of a multimodal approach to sport
psychological initial assessment (see Hemmings & Holder, 2009, for case study
examples).
Summary
The present review provides a comprehensive scientific critique of Butler and Hardy’s
(1992) performance profiling approach. Whilst the strategy does have some
limitations, the literature clearly supports the usefulness of the technique, outlining
a number of benefits to athletes, coaches and sport psychologists alike. Further
research examining the efficacy of the traditional and recently extended profiling
procedures is warranted to ensure that a rigorous and detailed knowledge base exists
to inform the use of the technique within applied sport settings.
18 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
References
Allen, M.S., Jones, M.V., & Sheffield, D. (2009). Causal attribution and emotion in the days
following competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 461468.
Anderson, A.G., Miles, A., Mahoney, C., & Robinson, P. (2002). Evaluating the effectiveness
of applied sport psychology practice: Making the case for a case study approach. The Sport
Psychologist, 16, 432453.
Barker, J., McCarthy, P., Jones, M., & Moran, A. (2011). Single-case research methods in sport
and exercise psychology. London: Routledge.
Beckmann, J., & Kellmann, M. (2003). Procedures and principles of sport psychological
assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 338350.
Biddle, S.J.H., Hanrahan, S.J., & Sellars, C.N. (2001). Attributions: Past, present and future.
In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology
(pp. 444471). New York: Wiley.
Burton, D., Naylor, S., & Holliday, B. (2001). Goal setting in sport: Investigating the goal
effectiveness paradox. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (pp. 497528). New York: Wiley.
Butler, R.J. (1989). Psychological preparation of Olympic boxers. In J. Kremer & W. Crawford
(Eds.), The psychology of sport: Theory and practice (pp. 7484). Belfast: BPS Northern
Ireland Branch.
Butler, R. (1997). Performance profiling: Assessing the way forward. In R.J. Butler (Ed.),
Sports psychology in performance (pp. 3348). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Butler, R.J., & Hardy, L. (1992). The performance profile: Theory and application. The Sport
Psychologist, 6, 253264.
Butler, R.J., Smith, M., & Irwin, I. (1993). The performance profile in practice. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 5,48 63.
Carron, A.V., Colman, M.M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in
sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168188.
Carron, A.V., & Hausenblas, H.A. (2005). Group dynamics in sport. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A.V., Shapcott, K.M., & Burke, S.M. (2008). Group cohesion in sport and exercise:
Past, present and future. In M.R. Beauchamp & M.A. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics in
exercise and sport psychology: Contemporary themes (pp. 117139). London: Routledge.
Coffee, P., & Rees, T. (2008). Main and interactive effects of controllability and generalisability
attributions upon self-efficacy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 775785.
Coffee, P., Rees, T., & Haslam, S.A. (2009). Bouncing back from failure: The interactive
impact of perceived controllability and stability on self-efficacy beliefs and future task
performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 11171124.
Dale, G.A., & Wrisberg, C.A. (1996). The use of a performance profile technique in a team
setting: Getting the athletes and coach on the ‘same page’. The Sport Psychologist, 10,
261277.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Doyle, J., & Parfitt, G. (1996). Performance profiling and predictive validity. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 8, 160170.
Doyle, J., & Parfitt, G. (1997). Performance profiling and construct validity. The Sport
Psychologist, 11, 411425.
Doyle, J., & Parfitt, G. (1999). The effect of induced mood states on performance profile areas
of perceived need. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 115127.
Duda, J.L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport: Recent extensions and future
development. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (pp. 417443). New York: Wiley.
D’Urso, V., Petrosso, A., & Robazza, C. (2002). Emotions, perceived qualities, and
performance of rugby players. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 173199.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
Eys, M.A., Burke, M., Carron, A.V., & Dennis, P.W. (2010). The sport team as an effective
group. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak
performance (pp. 132148). California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Gleeson, N.P., Parfitt, G., Doyle, J., & Rees, D. (2005). Reproducibility and efficacy of the
performance profile technique. Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness, 3,6673.
Gould, D. (2010). Goal setting for peak performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (6th ed., pp. 201 220). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Greenlees, I. (2009). Enhancing confidence in a youth golfer. In B. Hemmings & T. Holder
(Eds.), Applied sport psychology: A case study approach (pp. 89105). New York: Wiley.
Grove, J.R., & Pargman, D. (1986). Relationships among success/failure, attributions, and
performance expectations in competitive situations. In L.V. Velden & J.H. Humphrey (Eds.),
Psychology and sociology of sport: Current selected research I (pp. 8595). New York: AMS
Press.
Gucciardi, D.F., & Gordon, S. (2009). Revisiting the performance profile technique:
Theoretical underpinnings and application. The Sport Psychologist, 23,93117.
Hardy, L., & Jones, G. (1994). Current issues and future directions for performance-related
research in sport psychology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12,6192.
Hemmings, B., & Holder, T. (Eds.) (2009). Applied sport psychology: A case study approach.
New York: Wiley.
Jones, G. (1993). The role of performance profiling in cognitive behavioral interventions in
sport. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 160172.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1 & 2). New York: Norton.
Kyllo, L.B., & Landers, D.M. (1995). Goal setting in sport and exercise: A research synthesis
to resolve the controversy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 117137.
Le Foll, D., Rascle, O., & Higgins, N.C. (2008). Attributional feedback-induced changes in
functional and dysfunctional attributions, expectations of success, hopefulness, and short-
term persistence in a novel sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9,77101.
Mellalieu, S.D., & Juniper, S.W. (2006). A qualitative investigation into experiences of the role
episode in soccer. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 399418.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance:
An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210227.
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328346.
Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
O’Brien, M., Mellalieu, S., & Hanton, S. (2009). Goal-setting effects in elite and nonelite
boxers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 293306.
Orbach, I., Singer, R.N., & Price, S. (1999). An attribution training program and achievement
in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 13,69 82.
Paskevich, D.M., Estabrooks, P.A., Brawley, L.R., & Carron, A.V. (2001). Group cohesion in
sport and exercise. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of
sport psychology (pp. 472494). New York: Wiley.
Pelletier, L.G., Fortier, M.S., Vallerand, R.J., Tuson, K.M., Brie`re, N.M., & Blais, M.R.
(1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 17,3553.
Pensgaard, A.M., & Roberts, G.C. (2003). Achievement goal orientations and the use of
coping strategies among Winter Olympians. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 101116.
Potter, C.L., & Anderson, A.G. (1998). Using performance profiles with a regional junior table
tennis squad. In A. Lees, I. Maynard, M. Hughes, & T. Reilly (Eds.), Science and racket
sports II (pp. 142147). London: E & FN Spon.
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A.V. (1997). Cohesion and work output. Small Group Research, 28,
294301.
Rascle, O., Le Foll, D., & Higgins, N.C. (2008). Attributional retraining alters novice golfers’
free practice behavior. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 157164.
20 N. Weston et al.
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
Ravizza, K. (2010). Increasing awareness for sport performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.),
Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (6th ed., pp. 189200).
California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Robinson, D.W., & Howe, B.L. (1989). Appraisal variable/affect relationships in youth sport:
A test of Weiner’s attributional model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11,
431443.
Rose, E.A., Markland, D., & Parfitt, G. (2001). The development and initial validation of the
Exercise Causality Orientations Scale. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 445462.
Thomas, L.F. (1979). Construct, reflect and converse: The conventional reconstruction of
social realities. In P. Stringer & D. Bannister (Eds.), Constructs of sociality and individuality
(pp. 4972). London: Academic Press.
Vidic, Z., & Burton, D. (2010). The roadmap: Examining the impact of a systematic goal-
setting program for collegiate women’s tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 427447.
Weinberg, R., Burton, D., Yukelson, D., & Weigand, D. (1993). Goal setting in competitive
sport: An exploratory investigation of practices of collegiate athletes. The Sport
Psychologist, 7, 275289.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Weston, N.J.V. (2005). The impact of Butler and Hardy’s (1992) performance profiling technique
in sport (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton, UK.
Weston, N.J.V. (2008). Performance profiling. In A.M. Lane (Ed.), Topics in applied
psychology: Sport and exercise psychology (pp. 91108). London: Hodder Education.
Weston, N.J.V., Greenlees, I.A., & Thelwell, R.C. (2010). Applied sport psychology consultant
perceptions of the usefulness and impacts of performance profiling. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 41, 360368.
Weston, N.J.V., Greenlees, I.A., & Thelwell, R.C. (2011a). Athlete perceptions of the impacts
of performance profiling. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9,
173188.
Weston, N.J.V., Greenlees, I.A., & Thelwell, R.C. (2011b). The impact of a performance
profiling intervention on athlete intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 82, 151155.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 21
Downloaded by [University of Portsmouth], [Neil Weston] at 03:03 23 April 2012
