Content uploaded by Benjamin N Witts
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benjamin N Witts on Feb 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
On Terms
Behavioral Coaching
Holly A. Seniuk, Benjamin N. Witts, W. Larry Williams, and
Patrick M. Ghezzi
University of Nevada, Reno
The term behavioral coaching has been used inconsistently in and outside the field of behavior
analysis. In the sports literature, the term has been used to describe various intervention
strategies, and in the organizational behavior management literature it has been used to describe
an approach to training management personnel and staff. This inconsistency is problematic in
terms of the replication of behavioral coaching across studies and aligning with Baer, Wolf, and
Risley’s (1968) technological dimension of applied behavior analysis. The current paper will
outline and critique the discrepancies in the use of the term and suggest how Martin and
Hrycaiko’s (1983) characteristics of behavioral coaching in sports may be used to bring us closer
to establishing a consistent definition of the term. In addition, we will suggest how these
characteristics can also be applicable to the use of the term behavioral coaching in other domains
of behavior analysis.
Key words: behavioral coaching, on terms, technology, replication
The term coaching refers to ‘‘the
process of training somebody to play
a sport, to do a job better or to
improve a skill’’ (Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary, 2011). Al-
though there is no clear definition
of behavioral coaching, the term
suggests a behavioral approach to
accomplishing the goals of coaching
(e.g., Komaki & Barnett, 1977; Sha-
piro & Shapiro, 1985). In recent
years, this term has gained popularity
in the behavior-analytic literature.
However, given the lack of a clear
definition, it has been and is current-
ly being used inconsistently. In the
behavioral sports literature, the term
has been used as a general procedure
for training athletes as well as a type
of intervention (e.g., Stokes, Luiselli,
& Reed, 2010; Stokes, Luiselli, Reed,
& Fleming, 2010, respectively). In the
business world, the term is frequently
used to describe an approach to
managing employees within an orga-
nization (see Continuous Learning
Group, 2013a; Daniels, 2013). The
inconsistent use of the term presents
a problem for the science of behavior.
From a behavior-analytic viewpoint,
when there are multiple interpreta-
tions of definitions and procedures
we lose the technological dimension
(Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968), which
in turn presents difficulties for repli-
cation and consistency both in re-
search and in practice.
Sports
The concept of a behavioral ap-
proach to coaching athletes was first
introduced to the behavioral sports
literature in Komaki and Barnett
(1977). Their intervention was de-
signed for coaches to improve the
execution of three specific plays by
providing players a description of
each play, feedback on the accuracy
of the play during practice, and
modeling correct performance that
was faded contingent on success. The
authors found that this method of
coaching was superior to traditional
methods (e.g., verbal description and
feedback that focused primarily on
incorrect responses). Since then, the
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Holly A. Seniuk,
Department of Psychology, Mail Stop 296,
University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada
89557 (e-mail: holly.seniuk@gmail.com).
The Behavior Analyst 2013, 36, 167–172 No. 1 (Spring)
167
term behavioral coaching has been
used to describe this sort of approach.
Of all the articles pertaining to
sports in behavior-analytic journals,
only four directly refer to behavioral
coaching as a type of intervention. For
example, the term behavioral coaching
as an intervention strategy was first
used by Allison and Ayllon (1980) in
a study on football, gymnastics, and
tennis. Their behavioral coaching in-
tervention package, building on the
concept used by Komaki and Barnett
(1977), consisted of five components:
(a) instruction, (b) judging the re-
sponse, (c) feedback, (d) modeling,
and (e) imitation. This multicompo-
nent intervention package was dem-
onstratedtobeeffectiveinincreasing
the correct execution of skills for
participants in all three sports.
Fitterling and Ayllon (1983) and
Shapiro and Shapiro (1985) used the
same components outlined by Allison
and Ayllon (1980) to compare the
behavioral coaching approach to stan-
dard coaching in ballet and track,
respectively. These studies found that
behavioral coaching was superior to
standard coaching in teaching target
skills to athletes. Both Fitterling and
Ayllon and Shapiro and Shapiro used
amultiplebaselinedesign(reversal
included in Fitterling & Ayllon) across
three skills to demonstrate that indi-
viduals performed more trials correctly
in the behavioral coaching conditions.
Although these three studies (Alli-
son & Ayllon, 1980; Fitterling &
Ayllon, 1983; Shapiro & Shapiro,
1985) used the same components in
their behavioral coaching interven-
tion, other studies have effectively
used different strategies in what they
call a behavioral coaching interven-
tion. For example, Stokes, Luiselli,
Reed, and Fleming (2010) compared
descriptive feedback with and with-
out video and teaching with acousti-
cal guidance (TAG). The authors
found that descriptive feedback with
video as well as TAG were more
effective than descriptive feedback
alone in improving offensive line
pass-blocking skills with high school
and varsity football players.
Furthermore, Stokes and Luiselli
(2010) found that a functional anal-
ysis was an important component
in the development of a behavioral
coaching technique to improve tack-
ling that involved delayed written
feedback on performance. They con-
ducted a functional analysis with a
high school football player to deter-
mine that escape from coach feed-
back was capable of maintaining
correct responding. These results
were then used in the development
of an intervention in which the coach
provided written feedback after the
practice. This intervention resulted in
improved tackling in both practice
and game settings.
A review of the articles using a
behavioral approach to improving
athlete behavior revealed that numer-
ous studies either used some compo-
nents of the behavioral coaching
intervention described above (e.g.,
feedback, modeling, and imitation)
or other coaching methods of a
behavioral nature, but did not refer
to the intervention as behavioral
coaching. For example, Stokes, Lui-
selli, and Reed (2010) used a behav-
ioral intervention to teach tackling
skills to high school football players.
Coaches were trained to refrain from
making negative comments for incor-
rect performance and to provide
positive reinforcement for correct
performance in the form of stickers
on the players’ helmets. The authors
found this coaching approach to be
effective in improving tackling skills.
Still other studies used components
of the behavioral coaching interven-
tion package described by Allison
and Ayllon (1980) and Fitterling and
Ayllon (1983). For example, in the
behavioral literature on interventions
in sport behavior, 13 articles included
feedback as a component of the
intervention, and others cited instruc-
tion (n51), modeling (n52), or
prompting (n51) as part of the
intervention. For example, Boyer,
168 HOLLY A. SENIUK et al.
Miltenberger, Batsche, and Fogel
(2009) used a combination of video
modeling and feedback to improve
the execution of skills of four female
gymnasts.
Overall, the behavior-analytic lit-
erature pertaining to sports indicates
that a behavioral approach to teach-
ing athletic skills can be effective.
However, the review also suggests the
need for a consensus on what behav-
ioral coaching is and how it can be
used to improve athletic behavior.
Organizational Behavior
Management (OBM)
The term coaching was first used in
OBM in the 1980s as a metaphor for
the behavior of team leaders, execu-
tives, and managers, with respect to
how they interacted with their employ-
ees or subordinates (Brown, 2001).
Brown identified language as an im-
portant factor in connecting behavior
analysis with businesses. Thus, he
explains how early in his career he
began using the term coaching to
break the cultural barrier between
these two institutions (Brown, 2001).
Stern (2004) provides a definition
of an executive coach as someone
who provides individualized consul-
tation to help a leader achieve long-
and short-term goals in organization-
al settings. Goldsmith (2000) suggests
that the process of behavioral coach-
ing involves the ongoing collection
of feedback regarding the manager’s
behavior, analyzing it, and developing
appropriate behavior-change plans
for managers to improve interactions
with their staff. In addition, numer-
ous books (e.g., Skiffington & Zeus,
2003) and companies (e.g., Behavioral
Coaching Institute) have provided in-
formation and strategies for behavioral
coaching in organizational settings.
Aubrey Daniels International, a
leader in research and practice in
OBM, offers a program titled Coach-
ing for Rapid Change in which a
behavior specialist guides managers
through learning to use tools such as
planning, touchpoints (e.g., contact
with a consumer), and data collection
to improve staff performance (Da-
niels, 2013). The Continuous Learn-
ing Group provides another example
of an organization that uses the
science of behavior in OBM. This
organization considers applied be-
havioral science to be a teaching and
coaching approach used by managers
and other leaders in organizations.
Consultants within this organization
coach leaders of other organizations
in the use of applied behavioral
science to improve employee perfor-
mance (Continuous Learning Group,
2013a).
For example, a case study from the
Continuous Learning Group report-
ed that their coaches were able to
assist the business unit of a major oil
company in both reducing costs as
well as increasing revenue through
increased production. In this exam-
ple, coaching referred to the process
of training leaders to set clear expec-
tations, hold people accountable for
their commitments, and provide feed-
back that is both positive and fre-
quent (Continuous Learning Group,
2013b).
Although the term is frequently
used in OBM by organizations and
consultants, it is scarce within the
scientific literature, although numer-
ous studies report the use of coaching
strategies similar to those used in the
sports literature. For example, feed-
back is arguably one of the most
prominently used intervention strate-
gies in OBM (e.g., Emmert, 1978;
Goomas, Smith, & Ludwig, 2011;
Wittkopp, Rowan, & Poling, 1991).
The use of behavioral coaching in
practice and not in the literature can
be problematic, in that various orga-
nizations may promote variations of
behavioral coaching. Although the
various strategies that fall under the
umbrella of behavioral coaching have
been examined in the OBM literature,
the concept of behavioral coaching as
an intervention strategy has not
ON TERMS 169
enjoyed the investigative resources
here that it did in the sport literature.
Defining Behavioral Coaching
A review of the literature in both
sports and OBM suggests that there
is an inconsistent use of the term
behavioral coaching. It appears to be
the case that in some instances the
term is used to describe a type of
intervention package, in others it is
used to describe any guidance or
teaching that is provided a by a leader;
there are also many instances in which
an intervention package is not de-
scribed as behavioral coaching but
very closely resembles other interven-
tion packages with that name.
Although many of the studies
reviewed here incorporate the term
behavioral coaching in their work, the
question remains: ‘‘What exactly is
behavioral coaching?’’ It could be
argued from these articles that any-
thing that a coach, broadly defined,
does that has a behavior-analytic
orientation could be classified as
behavioral coaching. This poses a
problem with respect to teaching
others what behavioral coaching is
and how to effectively execute it. In
addition, if we as a field continue to
describe behavioral coaching in idio-
syncratic ways, the empirical valida-
tion of behavioral coaching as an
effective strategy is nearly impossible,
especially when one considers that
one of the most important aspects of
science is replication (Cooper, Heron,
& Heward, 2007, p. 6; see also Baer,
Wolf, & Risley, 1987).
As an alternative to the above-
mentioned formulations of behavior-
al coaching, Martin and Hrycaiko
(1983) outlined what they thought to
be the characteristics of effective
behavioral coaching with respect to
athletic performance. Martin and
Hrycaiko developed these character-
istics based on the dimensions of
applied behavior analysis as de-
scribed by Baer et al. (1968). Accord-
ing to Martin and Hrycaiko, there
are six characteristics of effective
behavioral coaching.
The first characteristic is that the
coaching involves the emphasis on
measurement of athletic performance
that it is specific, detailed, and
frequent. Second, there is a clear
distinction between the development
and maintenance of behavior, and
positive procedures are emphasized
for accomplishing both. The third
characteristic suggests that the inter-
vention be focused on athletes’ im-
provement is measured against their
own performance. Thus, behavioral
coaching does not compare athletes
to each other but rather compares
each individual to him- or herself.
The fourth characteristic is that the
coaching utilizes specific behavioral
procedures that have been experi-
mentally demonstrated to be effec-
tive. In being specific, Martin and
Hrycaiko (1983) mean that the pro-
cedures can be replicated and effec-
tiveness can be evaluated through
data monitoring. This characteristic
subsumes the previous sport research
and aligns them under a general
framework. The fifth characteristic
places emphasis on the behavior of
the coach. Not only are behavior
techniques used to improve the per-
formance of the players but of the
coach as well. For example, video can
be used to provide feedback to
players on their behavior as well as
for coaches to evaluate their own
behavior toward the players. The
final characteristic deals with social
validity, in which measures are taken
to ensure that the techniques used
target behaviors that are important
to the players, parents, and others
involved in the program, that these
individuals find the intervention tech-
niques acceptable, and that they are
satisfied with the results.
Martin and Hrycaiko (1983) pres-
ent a sound, encompassing definition
of behavioral coaching. If we as a
field are going to promote behavioral
coaching as a performance improve-
ment strategy, we must first verify its
170 HOLLY A. SENIUK et al.
effectiveness. Much like the dimen-
sions of applied behavior analysis
outlined by Baer et al. (1968), the
characteristics developed by Martin
and Hrycaiko are precise enough to
allow identification of whether what
is being evaluated is behavioral
coaching or not, as well as to allow
replication. In addition, the charac-
teristics are appropriately broad
enough to include a variety of vali-
dated behavioral techniques.
The characteristics outlined by
Martin and Hrycaiko (1983) provide
a method by which to evaluate
behavioral coaching across the liter-
atures. Should it be found that
multiple studies meet these criteria,
it could be argued that the definition
permits replication and, thus, empir-
ical analysis of behavioral coaching.
These characteristics also allow tech-
nology to be used within and across
subdivisions of the field of behavior
analysis in a consistent manner, thus
enabling behavior analysts to move
forward with research on behavioral
coaching. Specifically, if one removes
the term athlete from Martin and
Hrycaiko’s six characteristics, then
their behavioral coaching strategy
can encompass both the sports liter-
ature and the improved performance
of managers. That is, in all cases, a
general framework that focuses on
frequent measurement of target be-
haviors of participants, development
and maintenance of target behaviors,
comparison of an individual’s im-
provement to the individual’s previous
performance, the consistent use of
behavioral procedures for which effec-
tiveness has been experimentally dem-
onstrated, self-monitoring and self-
evaluation by the coach, and a vigilant
assessment of social validity should be
applicable and useful in any subdo-
main of behavior analysis. Stated
simply, there is no aspect of Martin
and Hrycaiko’s six characteristics that
belong exclusively to athletics, and
thus can be used effectively in other
areas of research and application. Our
argument, then, is one that enables
more effective analysis within and
across domains when these strategies
are employed in a single packaged
intervention.
Furthermore, the characteristics
outlined by Martin and Hrycaiko
(1983) allow better packaging and
dissemination of behavioral coach-
ing. Having a packaged framework
enables practitioners to implement
effective guidelines that address sev-
eral areas of concern. The results of
these interventions, if shared among
researchers, is more readily con-
sumed and integrated into the grow-
ing body of literature on this ap-
proach to performance improvement.
Behavioral Coaching versus
Alternative Strategies
Given the current lack of a con-
sensus on the term behavioral coach-
ing and what is encompassed by that
term, we suggest that a clear defini-
tion of the term be determined. We
suggest the use of the characteristics
of Martin and Hrycaiko (1983) as a
starting point. As mentioned above,
this would create a term that is broad
enough to encompass both sports
and OBM, yet be specific enough to
allow replication in each domain.
We recognize that a great amount
of work is being conducted that
involves guidance provided by a
behavior specialist, leader, or coach
in both sports and OBM. However,
this work does not always meet the
criteria set out by Martin and Hry-
caiko (1983) and therefore should not
be called behavioral coaching. This
work is valuable and should contin-
ue; however, it is recommended that
this sort of work be labeled some-
thing more appropriate, such as
behavior consultation (see Williams,
2000), or be analyzed based on the
components used (e.g., public posting
in sports). Maintaining a distinction
between behavioral coaching and
other intervention strategies is neces-
sary to advance our science. As
mentioned previously, for further
ON TERMS 171
research to be conducted on behav-
ioral coaching, the first step is to
determine a clear definition to permit
replication. From there we can ex-
amine the effectiveness of behavioral
coaching in various settings. To date
the best conclusion that we can make
is that behavioral approaches in
sports and organizations are effec-
tive. However, the right to make
claims about the effectiveness of
behavioral coaching is not yet ours.
REFERENCES
Allison, M. G., & Ayllon, T. (1980). Behav-
ioral coaching in the development of skills
in football, gymnastics, and tennis. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis,13, 297–314.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R.
(1968). Some current dimensions of applied
behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis,1, 91–97.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R.
(1987). Some still-current dimensions of
applied behavior analysis. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis,20, 313–327.
Boyer, E., Miltenberger, R. G., Batsche, C., &
Fogel, V. (2009). Video modeling by experts
with video feedback to enhance gymnastics
skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
42, 855–860.
Brown, P. L. (2001). Communicating the
benefits of the behavioral approach to the
business community. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior Management,20(3–4), 59–72.
Continuous Learning Group. (2013a). CLG
methodology. In The Science of Behavior.
Retrieved from http://www.clg.com/Science-
Of-Success/CLG-Methodology.aspx
Continuous Learning Group. (2013b). Execu-
tive coaching helps business unit achieve
dramatic turnaround in sales, cost and
profitability. In Case studies. Retrieved from
http://www.clg.com/Measurable-Results/
Resources/Case-Studies/Executive-Coaching-
Process.aspx
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L.
(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educa-
tion.
Daniels, A. (2013). Coaching for rapid change.
In Aubrey Daniels International. Retrieved
from http://aubreydaniels.com/Coaching-for-
Rapid-Change
Emmert, G. D. (1978). Measuring the impact
of group performance feedback versus
individual performance feedback in an
industrial setting. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management,1(2), 134–141.
Fitterling, J. M., & Ayllon, T. (1983). Behav-
ioral coaching in classical ballet: Enhancing
skill development. Behavior Modification,7,
345–368.
Goldsmith, M. (2000). Coaching for behav-
ioral change. In M. Goldsmith, L. Lyons, A.
Freas, & R. Witherspoon (Eds.), Coaching
for leadership: How the world’s greatest
coaches help leaders learn (pp. 21–26). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goomas, D. T., Smith, S. M., & Ludwig, T.
D. (2011). Business activity monitoring:
Real-time goals and feedback using an
overhead scoreboard in a distribution cen-
ter. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management,31(3), 196–209.
Komaki, J., & Barnett, F. T. (1977). A
behavioral approach to coaching football:
Improving the play execution of the offen-
sive backfield on a youth football team.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,10,
657–664.
Martin, G., & Hrycaiko, D. (1983). Effective
behavioral coaching: What’s it all about?
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,5,
8–20.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.
(2011). Sport. Retrieved from http://oald8.
oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/
sport
Shapiro, E. S., & Shapiro, S. (1985). Behav-
ioral coaching in the development of skills
in track. Behavior Modification,9, 211–224.
Skiffington, S., & Zeus, P. (2003). Behavioral
coaching. North Ryde, Australia: McGraw-Hill.
Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive coaching: A
working definition. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research,56, 154–162.
Stokes, J. V., & Luiselli, J. K. (2010).
Functional analysis and behavioral coach-
ing intervention to improve tackling skills of
a high school football athlete. Journal of
Clinical Sport Psychology,4, 150–157.
Stokes, J. V., Luiselli, J. K., & Reed, D. D.
(2010). A behavioral intervention for teach-
ing tackling skills to high school football
athletes. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-
ysis,43, 509–512.
Stokes, J. V., Luiselli, J. K., Reed, D. D., &
Fleming, R. K. (2010). Behavioral coaching
to improve offensive line pass-blocking
skills of high school football athletes.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,43,
463–472.
Williams, W. L. (2000). Behavioral consulta-
tion. In J. Carr & J. Austin (Eds.), Handbook
of applied behavior analysis (pp. 375–398).
Reno, NV: Context Press.
Wittkopp, C. J., Rowan, J. F., & Poling, A.
(1991). Use of a feedback package to reduce
machine set-up time in a manufacturing
setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management,11(2), 7–22.
172 HOLLY A. SENIUK et al.
