How Coaches Can Prevent and Address Alcohol Consumption Among Student-Athletes

Abstract

This manuscript seeks to offer insight about how coaches can better address drinking among collegiate student-athletes. Using a mixed-methods design, 519 NCAA coaches reported their attitudes and behaviors toward student-athlete drinking, and responded to open-ended questions about their perceived role, strategies, and challenges to addressing problems in this population. Three dimensions of coaches’ attitudes and behaviors toward student-athlete drinking emerged that were consistent regardless of the players’ or coach’s gender or division: Concerned Communication, Conditional Leniency, and Enforcement. Effective strategies identified by coaches included enforcement of policy, education about consequences of drinking, establishment of quality coach-athlete relationships, and management of athletes’ schedules. Coaches indicated the need to play a role in managing, educating, influencing, and supporting the student-athletes to prevent alcohol misuse. Coaches reported challenges regarding the culture of drinking on college campuses, individual differences (e.g., age) among student-athletes, acceptance and enforcement of the alcohol policy, lack of awareness about student-athletes’ activities, and identification of alcohol misuse.

Full text

Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 2019, 13, 524–542
https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2018-0083
© 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc. INVITED
How Coaches Can Prevent and Address
Alcohol Consumption Among
Student-Athletes
Graig M. Chow, Matthew D. Bird, Stinne Soendergaard, and
Yanyun Yang
Florida State University
This manuscript seeks to offer insight about how coaches can better address
drinking among collegiate student-athletes. Using a mixed-methods design, 519
NCAA coaches reported their attitudes and behaviors toward student-athlete
drinking, and responded to open-ended questions about their perceived role,
strategies, and challenges to addressing problems in this population. Three
dimensions of coaches’attitudes and behaviors toward student-athlete drinking
emerged that were consistent regardless of the players’or coach’s gender or
division: Concerned Communication, Conditional Leniency, and Enforcement.
Effective strategies identified by coaches included enforcement of policy, educa-
tion about consequences of drinking, establishment of quality coach-athlete
relationships, and management of athletes’schedules. Coaches indicated the
need to play a role in managing, educating, influencing, and supporting the
student-athletes to prevent alcohol misuse. Coaches reported challenges regarding
the culture of drinking on college campuses, individual differences (e.g., age)
among student-athletes, acceptance and enforcement of the alcohol policy, lack of
awareness about student-athletes’activities, and identification of alcohol misuse.
Keywords:coaching, mental health, mixed-methods, substance use
Alcohol use represents an important mental health issue for student-athletes.
Specifically, 77% of student-athletes consume alcohol and 42% engage in binge
drinking (i.e., 4 or more drinks for women and 5 or more drinks for men; NCAA,
2018). As a result of alcohol use, student-athletes report negative consequences
such as experiencing blackouts, which are red flags for developing alcohol
addiction, as well as academic and athletic performance consequences
(Hainline, Bell, & Wilfret, 2014;Brenner & Swanik, 2007). Given the potential
negative impact on performance, coaches have an opportunity to prevent and
Chow, Bird, Soendergaard, and Yang are with the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning
Systems, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Address author correspondence to Graig M. Chow
at gchow@fsu.edu.
524
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

manage the alcohol consumption of their student-athletes. Therefore, the current
study investigates the role of coaches in addressing this important issue.
Coaches play a pivotal role in the mental health and well-being of their athletes
(Rice et al., 2016). Coaches report observing mental health concerns, although at
lower rates than athletes report experiencing such issues (Biggin, Burns, & Uphill,
2017). While the primary responsibility of a coach centers on developing players’
athletic skills and winning, there is growing belief that the truly exceptional
coaches also focus on the development of their athletes as human beings (Jowett,
2005). This not only includes promoting character development, ethical behavior,
and a balanced lifestyle, but also recognizing the signs and symptoms of mental
illness and substance use (Biggin et al., 2017). Collegiate coaches are in a prime
position to identify mental health problems in their athletes and deter maladaptive
behaviors because they spend so much quality time with them and have consider-
able power and influence (Thompson & Sherman, 2007). Although materials exist
to educate coaches about the effects of alcohol on performance and student-athlete
drinking motives, little is known about how coaches prevent and manage their
student-athletes’alcohol use.
There are several theoretical explanations supporting a coach’sinfluence on
their athletes’drinking behaviors and the mechanism in which coaches’attitudes
and behaviors may influence athlete drinking. The Social Ecology Model for
Alcohol Use Among College Athletes (Williams, Perko, Belcher, & Leaver-Dunn,
2006) proposes that head coach’s rules, beliefs, and attitudes about athlete drinking
influence athletes’alcohol consumption. For example, coaches’discouragement of
alcohol use may lead to restricted consumption by athletes. Team-specific rules
enforced by coaches that delineate alcohol limitations shape group norms and
subsequent drinking behavior. From a social identity perspective, an influential in-
group member (e.g., head coach) cultivates group identity and encourages
members to adopt values to motivate collective action that affirms social identifi-
cation (Slater, Coffee, Barker, & Evans, 2014). Research adopting a social identity
perspective highlights the importance of leaders who can serve a protective
function against maladaptive alcohol-related behaviors (Zhou & Heim, 2014,
2016).
Scholars have long identified coaches as key agents for impacting the alcohol
consumption of athletes (Williams et al., 2006), and some have gone as far as
recommending the inclusion of coaches in comprehensive alcohol prevention and
intervention programs (Martens, Dams-O’Connor, & Beck, 2006). However, a
better understanding of the specific coach attitudes and behaviors that exert
influence on athletes’alcohol use is needed. Few studies have examined the
extent to which coaches are instrumental in deterring or inadvertently permitting
athlete drinking. For instance, coaches may establish and enforce alcohol policies
in an attempt to manage athletes’alcohol consumption, but the effectiveness of
such rule-based strategies are inconclusive (Pitts, Chow, & Yang, 2018;Williams
et al., 2008). Conversely, coaches who approve of, or are lenient toward, alcohol
use may unknowingly contribute to the high prevalence of drinking among athletes
(Mastroleo, Marzell, Turrisi, & Borsari, 2012;Seitz, Wyrick, Rulison, Strack, &
Fearnow-Kenney, 2014).
Most studies examining the extent to which coaches impact their athletes’
drinking lacked a valid and reliable measure of coaches’attitudes and behaviors
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 525
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

toward athlete alcohol use (e.g., Mastroleo et al. 2012;Seitz et al. 2014). However,
Pitts et al. (2018) recently developed and tested such a measure and found three
factors: Enforcement (e.g., coach has clearly defined rules about athlete alcohol use
including explicit consequences for violation, and fair enforcement of policies),
Conditional Leniency (e.g., coach acts permissively or is accepting of athlete
drinking under certain circumstances, and lacks general discouragement), and
Concerned Communication (e.g., coach talks about the consequences of alcohol
use, discusses safe drinking strategies, is actively aware of athlete drinking
attitudes and behaviors, and creates a comfortable and approachable climate).
Multilevel modeling results revealed that higher concerned communication and
lower conditional leniency were associated with less athlete alcohol use and heavy
episodic drinking, whereas enforcement had no effect. It is important to note that
the measure created by Pitts et al. (2018) assessed athletes’evaluations of their
head coach’s attitudes and behaviors regarding athlete alcohol use rather than head
coaches’self-reports. Validating a measure of coaches’own perceptions is
necessary to advance this line of inquiry and would be particularly beneficial
for using as an outcome measure for intervention programs targeted at coaches
(e.g., Pierce, Liaw, Dobell, & Anderson, 2010).
Coaches have reported that training and education about athlete mental
health is needed (Biggin et al., 2017). To this end, programs have been designed
for coaches that focus on student-athlete alcohol use including how to recognize
signs and symptoms of misuse, communicate with athletes suspected of misuse,
and provide appropriate referral for services (Nolt, Sachs, & Brenner, 2013;
Wyrick, Wilfert, Milroy, & Burley, 2013). However, psychometrically valid
measures are needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of such programs.
Optimal measures are those that demonstrate invariance across important
demographic characteristics (e.g., coach gender, gender of team, and NCAA
division).
A stronger empirical basis is needed to inform interventions designed for
coaches to better manage student-athletes’alcohol use. Coaches have varying
beliefs regarding their role in the identification and management of athlete mental
health. Some coaches believe it is their role to be part of the identification and
referral process, but not their role to intervene (Ferguson, Swann, Liddle, & Vella,
2019). Another perceived role of the coach is considered a proactive one which
involves talking to the athlete if concerned (Ferguson et al., 2019). Conversely, a
coach-athlete relationship role characterized by increased conflict and decreased
support has been found to contribute to increased mental illness (Shanmugam,
Jowett, & Meyer, 2013). In addition to understanding coaches’perceived role it is
imperative to examine the barriers and challenges coaches face in the prevention
and management of athlete alcohol use. Very few studies have addressed this
area. For example, challenges reported by some coaches are that they do not feel
adequately educated to intervene and that student-athletes may be susceptible to
buying into the cultural myth that campus life is about heavy and frequent alcohol
use (Hainline et al., 2014).
This study aims to examine coaches’attitudes and behaviors toward athlete
alcohol consumption, as well as perceived role, effective strategies, and barriers
in managing athlete alcohol use. The following research questions were posed:
(a) What is the factor structure of the Coach Attitudes and Behaviors toward
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
526 Chow et al.
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

Athlete Alcohol Use scale and is it invariant across coach gender, team gender, and
NCAA division? (b) What role should coaches play in managing alcohol use of
their student-athletes? (c) What strategies do coaches find to be effective in
managing alcohol use of their student-athletes? (d) What challenges have coaches
experienced in managing alcohol use of their student-athletes?
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study were 519 NCAA head coaches (male =346, female =173)
representing Division I (n=160), Division II (n=129), and Division III (n=230)
institutions. Head coaches worked with spring sport teams including baseball
(n=74), softball (n=138), men’sandwomen’s golf (n
men’s only
=42, n
women’s only
=
58, n
both
=27), men’sandwomen’stennis(n
men’s only
=11, n
women’s only
=30, n
both
=
38), and men’sandwomen’s track and field (n
men’sonly
=11, n
women’sonly
=14,
n
both
=76). Coaches were 44.81 years of age on average (SD =12.12, range =23–75),
and identified as being Caucasian (n=467), African American (n=19), Hispanic
(n=7), Multi-ethnic/Mixed (n=10), Asian (n=4), Other (n=4), American Indian
(n=2), Middle Eastern (n=1), and PacificIslander(n=1), while 4 chose not to
disclose their race. Participants reported an average of 16.60 years (SD =10.31,
range =1–50) coaching their current sport, and 8.95 years (SD =8.62, range =1–50)
coaching at their current institution. In terms of their previous education/training in
student-athlete alcohol use, a majority of coaches had received training from their
athletic department (n=254) or University (n=204). Other sources of training
included a course while in college (n=122), conference workshop (n=98), or an
online course (n=71). Additionally, 47 coaches reported they had received some
other form of training, while 116 coaches reported they had not received any form of
education on student-athlete alcohol use.
Measures
Coach attitudes and behaviors toward athlete alcohol use. To measure head
coach attitudes and behaviors toward athlete drinking, the Athlete Perceptions of
Coach Attitudes and Behaviors toward Athlete Alcohol Use scale was modified
(Pitts et al., 2018). The stem “My head coach”was substituted for “I”to measure
head coaches’perceptions of their own attitudes and behaviors. In a study with
897 collegiate softball players from 63 NCAA teams using EFA with the design-
effect adjusted standard errors approach (e.g., Hahs-Vaughn, 2005), Pitts et al.
(2018) found support for three factors: Concerned Communication, Conditional
Leniency, and Enforcement. Internal consistency reliabilities of the three sub-
scales were all above α=.90. Head coaches rate each item on a six-point Likert-
type scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to6(strongly agree). Example items include
“I talk to my players about alcohol use throughout the year”(Concerned
Communication), “I do not mind if my players drink, as long as they drink
responsibly”(Conditional Leniency), and “I have a strict policy about alcohol
use”(Enforcement).
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 527
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

Qualitative open-ended questions. To complement the quantitative data, three
open-ended questions were asked to better understand head coaches’perceived
role, effective strategies, and challenges related to managing athletes’alcohol use.
Questions included: What role should coaches play in preventing or managing
alcohol use of their student-athletes?, What strategies or approaches do you find to
be effective in preventing or managing alcohol use of your student-athletes?, and
What challenges have you experienced, if any, in preventing or managing alcohol
use of your student-athletes?
Procedure
Following university institutional review board approval, 5,183 head coaches
representing baseball, softball, golf, tennis, and track and field at all NCAA
Division I, II, and III institutions were contacted via an initial email during the
spring season requesting their voluntary participation in the study. Head coaches
who consented to participate completed an electronic survey comprised of a
short demographics questionnaire, Coach Attitudes and Behaviors toward Athlete
Alcohol Use, and the qualitative open-ended questions. After the initial email to
head coaches, participants were sent three follow-up emails reminding them of
the opportunity to participate in the study. Follow-up emails were sent on three
separate occasions at two-week intervals from the initial email. Data collection
occurred during the middle of the competitive season to provide a standardized
time point.
Analysis
Quantitative analysis. An exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM)
framework was used to examine the factor structure of the Coach Attitudes and
Behaviors toward Athlete Alcohol Use scale. Robust maximum likelihood with
geomin rotation (an oblique rotation) was performed using Mplus version 7.31. To
determine the factor structure, weconsidered a combination of the following criteria:
simple structure, salience of factor loadings (greater than .40 on the target factor
and smaller than .30 on the untarget factor), conceptual clarity, and interpretability.
Based on the final ESEM model, measurement invariance testing was conducted for
coach gender (male =346, female =173), gender of team coached (men’steam
only =138, women’s team only =240, both men’s and women’s team =141) and
division (DI =160, DII =129, DIII =230). Specifically, three nested models with
increasing number of parameter constraints were tested: configural invariance
model tests whether groups demonstrate the same factor structure, metric invari-
ance model examines whether the factor loadings are the same across groups, and
scalar invariance model further examines whether the item intercepts are the same
across groups.
Qualitative analysis. For the open-ended responses, content analysis using
inductive methods was employed to identify salient themes from participants’
responses (Côté, Salmela, Baria, & Russell, 1993). After initial data collection, the
second and third authors worked independently to label independent meaning
units. Meaning units represented complete quotes which were interpretable as a
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
528 Chow et al.
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

stand-alone unit of data. The researchers met to discuss any discrepancies in their
labeling until consensus was reached. If the two researchers could not reach
consensus, the first author was included until a final decision was made. Labels
were then categorized inductively by the second and third author to produce second
level themes. The researchers worked independently on the second level themes
and met to discuss any discrepancies in categorization. If agreement could not be
reached, the first author was again included until a decision was made. Second
level themes were then categorized inductively to produce third level themes
following the same procedure.
Quantitative Results
Coach Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Athlete Alcohol Use
Based on the factor structure found in Pitts et al. (2018), a three-factor model
with 27 items was examined. The model demonstrated adequate fit: χ
2
=756.14,
df =273, p<.001, CFI =.923, TLI =.900, RMSEA =.058 (90% CI =.053, .063),
SRMR =.036. However, modification indexes suggested adding a residual
covariance between x18 and x19. This was conceptually justified as both items
pertain to players violating the alcohol policy. This added parameter significantly
improved model fit. The final model consists of three factors and one residual
covariance: χ
2
=698.24, df =272, p<.001, CFI =.932, TLI =.912, RMSEA =
.055 (90% CI =.050, .060), SRMR =.035. Table 1presents the standardized
factor loadings. The residual correlation between x18 and x19 was .371. Factor 1
was Concerned Communication and loadings ranged from .502 to .758 (all cross
loadings under .29). Factor 2 was Conditional Leniency and loadings ranged from
.502 to .888 (all cross loadings under .17). Factor 3 was Enforcement and loadings
ranged from .478 to .865 (all cross loadings under .26). Factor intercorrelations
revealed that Concerned Communication was negatively associated with Condi-
tional Leniency (r=−.264) and positively associated with Enforcement (r=.415).
Conditional Leniency was negatively correlated with Enforcement (r=−.286).
A model-based internal consistency reliability, coefficient omega (ω;McDonald,
1999), was computed for each subscale. Coefficient ωwas .905, .931, and .783
for Concerned Communication (10 items), Conditional Leniency (10 items) and
Enforcement (7 items), respectively. Coefficient omega can be interpreted as the
percentage of variance in the subscale scores explained by the target factor.
Measurement Invariance Testing
Based on the three-factor model with a residual covariance, measurement invari-
ance test was conducted across coach gender, gender of team coached, and
division. Invariance was tenable if the added cross-group equality constraints
on parameters did not deteriorate model-data fit as evidenced by an overlapped
confidence interval of RMSEA and the absolute difference in CFI being smaller
than .01. As shown in Table 2, configural, metric, and scalar invariance held across
groups. We can conclude that the scale measures the same three factors equally
well across groups. Last, we computed the standardized mean difference in three
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 529
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

Table 1 Standardized Factor Loadings and Factor Correlations for
Coach Attitudes and Behaviors (N=519)
Item Item
Concerned
Communication
Conditional
Leniency Enforcement
9 I talk to my players about
alcohol use throughout the
year
.758 .072 .035
27 I talk to my players about
the negative consequences
of drinking
.751 −.038 .076
2 I talk to my players about
how to handle offers of
alcoholic drinks
.710 .004 −.016
23 I use stories to illustrate
how others have been
affected by alcohol use
.658 −.003 −.156
36 I ask my players directly
about their alcohol use
.643 .104 −.056
13 I talk to my players about
how drinking is inconsis-
tent with their goals
.640 −.169 .000
7 I talk to my players about
the effect alcohol has on
physical performance
.631 .152 .053
1 I ask my players about
their thoughts and opinions
about alcohol use
.625 .095 −.090
26 I try to be aware of the
extent of alcohol use on my
team
.519 −.007 .254
10 I use personal experiences
to deter my players from
drinking
.502 .000 −.162
6 I do not mind if my players
drink, as long as they drink
responsibly
.041 .888 .006
15 I do not mind if my players
drink once in a while
.019 .883 −.004
11 I think it is okay if my
players of legal age drink
.000 .864 .087
35 I think it is okay if my
players drink during the
off-season
−.027 .854 .097
22 I do not mind if my players
drink on special occasions
.036 .838 .020
(continued)
530 JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

latent factors across groups, that is, Cohen’sdeffect size. The results are shown in
Table 3. All effect sizes were small (<.30).
Qualitative Results
Coaches were asked about their perceived role, effective strategies, and challenges
experienced in managing student-athlete alcohol use. Results are presented in
Table 1 (continued)
Item Item
Concerned
Communication
Conditional
Leniency Enforcement
24 I am very much against my
players drinking alcohol
RS
−.108 .768 −.027
4 I believe that drinking is
part of the college experi-
ence for my players
.085 .703 .027
42 I acknowledge that drink-
ing occurs on my team
.286 .553 −.004
5 I occasionally make com-
ments that I drink
.120 .505 −.034
14 I prohibit my players from
drinking during the season
of competition
RS
−.118 .502 −243
34 I have a strict policy about
alcohol use
−.008 −.152 .865
25 I have clearly defined
consequences for violating
the alcohol policy
.032 −044 .840
16 I have a clear policy about
alcohol use
.072 .033 .776
19 I punish my players who
violate the alcohol policy
.035 −.014 .621
43 I am clear and consistent in
my expectations of alcohol
use by my players
.273 .001 .578
30 I have specific rules about
my players drinking before
practices and competitions
.099 .002 .516
18 I do not make exceptions
for my players who violate
the alcohol policy
.031 .029 .478
Factor Correlation:
Conditional Leniency
−.264***
Enforcement .415*** −.286***
Note.RS=Item is reverse scored.
***p<.001.
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 531
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

terms of the themes and meaning units endorsed by coaches. Direct quotes are
presented to elucidate particular themes.
What role should coaches play in preventing or managing
alcohol use of their student-athletes? (N=369)
Responses were coded into 580 stand-alone meaning units (see Table 4). Roles
fell into five third-level themes: management,educational,behavioral-influence,
supportive,andcoach-athlete relationship.Somecoaches(n=27) simply expressed
that their role was important without further elaboration, and 11 gave responses that
did not fit into any themes.
The highest endorsed was a management role (n=147; meaning units =162;
see 2
nd
level breakdown meaning units in table) consisting of three subthemes.
The first involved setting an alcohol use policy or expectations (n=104 [106]),
Table 2 Model-Data Fit Evaluation Using ESEM
Model χ2
MLR df
Correction
Factor CFI RMSEA
RMSEA
90% C.I. SRMR
Total sample
3-factor model 756.135* 273 1.1794 .923 .058 [.053, .063] .036
Revised
3-factor model
(×18 with ×19)
698.244* 272 1.1752 .932 .055 [.050, .060] .035
Measurement invariance by coach gender
Configural
invariance
1107.195* 544 1.0991 .916 .063 [.058, .068] .041
Metric
invariance
1209.972* 616 1.1041 .911 .061 [.056, .066] .060
Scalar
invariance
1255.298* 640 1.1003 .908 .061 [.056, .066] .061
Measurement invariance by team gender
Configural
invariance
1382.376* 816 1.0663 .918 .063 [.058, .069] .044
Metric
invariance
1528.783* 960 1.0788 .917 .059 [.053, .064] .071
Scalar
invariance
1614.403* 1008 1.0742 .912 .059 [.054, .064] .076
Measurement invariance by division
Configural
invariance
1474.204* 816 1.0544 .905 .068 [.063, .074] .045
Metric
invariance
1597.227* 960 1.0669 .908 .062 [.057, .067] .061
Scalar
invariance
1656.125* 1008 1.0629 .906 .061 [.056, .066] .063
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
532 Chow et al.
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

while the second involved enforcing the alcohol use policy or expectations (n=41
[42]). One coach stated that “coaches should abide by and follow the NCAA
alcohol policy, as well as communicate/enforce this with the student-athletes.”
The third subtheme involved creating a team culture of alcohol use standards
(n=13 [14]), as “the culture of the team begins with the coach.”
The second most endorsed was an educational role (n=133 [145]), which
contained four subthemes. The first involved teaching athletes about the negative
consequences of alcohol use (n=62 [67]), particularly how it impacts academic
and athletic performance. As one coach stated, “coaches need to make sure their
athletes understand the negative effects on athletic and academic performance of
alcohol abuse.”The second subtheme involved providing general alcohol use
information (n=37 [37]), aimed at helping athletes make informed decisions
regarding their drinking behavior, or understanding their own behavioral tenden-
cies. As one coach stated, “I feel it is important to give them as much information as
possible and hope that they make good decisions.”The third subtheme involved
teaching responsibility (n=35 [35]), which emphasized student-athlete autonomy
and making good decisions. One coach stated, “I feel we are here to help each
student understand the importance of them taking ownership of their decisions.”
The last subtheme involved teaching athletes how to be healthy by being a positive
influence (n=6 [6]). One coach claimed their role is to “keep our players healthy,
but to also impact their lives in a positive manner.”
The next endorsed was a behavioral-influence role (n=98 [107]) consisting of
four subthemes. The first involved guiding or advising (n=39 [42]) by making
effective recommendations regarding alcohol use while serving in a parental or
mentor role. As one coach stated, “the coaches’role should be as mentor, teacher,
and create a safe environment to discuss issues such as drinking.”The second
subtheme involved being a role model (n=30 [30]) by focusing on setting a good
example both on and off the field and modeling proper alcohol use behavior. The
third subtheme involved communicating about alcohol use (n=21 [21]) by talking
directly about alcohol use, abuse, and policy as a way to influence behavior. As one
Table 3 Standardized Mean Difference in Latent Factors Across
Groups
Concerned
Communication
Conditional
Leniency Enforcement
Coach Gender
Female −.071 .156 .274
Division
II .063 −.236 .128
III −.089 −.005 −.019
Team Gender
Women −.277 .021 .101
Both −.126 −.012 −.056
Note. The reference group was male coach group, Division I, and Men Team, respectively.
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 533
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

Table 4 Qualitative Themes and Meaning Units Endorsed by
Coaches
Third Level
Theme N(MU) Second Level Theme N(MU)
Perceived Roles
Management 147 (162) Set alcohol policy/expectations 104 (106)
Enforce alcohol policy/expectations 41 (42)
Set team culture/values 13 (14)
Educational 133 (145) Educate on the consequences of alcohol use 62 (67)
Provide information/education 37 (37)
Teach responsibility 35 (35)
Health education/positive influence 6 (6)
Behavioral-
influence
98 (107) Guide/advise 39 (42)
Be a role model 30 (30)
Communicate about alcohol use 21 (21)
Use position to influence athletes 14 (14)
Supportive 62 (74) Be attentive 35 (36)
Handle alcohol use issues appropriately 20 (21)
Support student-athlete 14 (17)
Coach-athlete
relationship
48 (54) Have trust/openness with athletes 24 (25)
Involvement/care 14 (14)
Treat athletes like adults 8 (8)
Be approachable 7 (7)
Perceived Strategies
Policy 171 (214) Alcohol use policy 144 (176)
Open communication/comfortable
environment
30 (30)
Flexibility 7 (8)
Education 167 (199) Communication about alcohol use 81 (88)
Education on negative alcohol effects 54 (56)
Education about alcohol use 21 (21)
Institutional educational resource 20 (20)
Share personal experiences 13 (14)
Relationships 109 (120) Empowering athletes to make good
decisions
56 (59)
Open, honest, trusting relationship 19 (19)
Show attentiveness 17 (17)
Understanding 9 (9)
Compassion 9 (9)
Role model 7 (7)
(continued)
534 JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

coach said, “I feel that it is critical in our student-athletes’development to speak
with them regarding alcohol use.”The last subtheme involved using their leader-
ship position to influence athletes’behaviors (n=14 [14]). As stated by one coach:
“I feel they should play a big role as the student athletes spend a lot of time with the
team and coaches can have a big impact on player’s behaviors.”
The fourth endorsed was a supportive role (n=62 [74]), which consisted of
three subthemes. The first involved being attentive to signs of alcohol use among
their athletes (n=35 [36]) by identifying whether alcohol use is interfering with
functioning. As one coach claimed, “a coach should be aware if alcohol is affecting
a student-athlete not only on the playing field but if it is making his/her life
unmanageable.”The second subtheme involved handling alcohol use issues in an
appropriate manner (n=20 [21]), and focused on proactively handling instances
of misuse, putting the athlete first, and suggesting resources for help. The last
subtheme was providing general support to athletes (n=14 [17]), with a focus on
being there for those who misuse alcohol and being someone they could turn to.
The final endorsed role was coach-athlete relationship (n=48 [54]) consisting
of four subthemes. The first was having trust or being open with athletes (n=24
[25]) by focusing on establishing an environment where they feel comfortable
talking about alcohol use issues. As one coach said, “create an environment where
athletes can discuss their use or misuse issues to promote moderate consumption.”
The second subtheme was being involved or showing care (n=14 [14]) to create
and maintain close coach-athlete relationships. As one coach stated: “get to know
Table 4 (continued)
Third Level
Theme N(MU) Second Level Theme N(MU)
Athlete
management
64 (72) Team culture management 26 (27)
Schedule management 17 (18)
Alternative activities 14 (14)
Selective recruiting 7 (7)
Institutional mental health resource 6 (6)
Perceived Challenges
Environment 69 (79) College alcohol culture 68 (76)
Providing alternate activities 3 (3)
Athlete 68 (75) Influence athletes’attitudes 49 (53)
Individual differences of athletes 19 (22)
Policy 66 (68) Acceptance of policy/Consequences 40 (41)
Deciding/Enforcing policy 27 (27)
Lack of
awareness
33 (34) Being kept in the dark 23 (24)
Not monitoring athletes 24/7 10 (10)
Misuse
identification
31 (31) Supporting athletes not to drink 26 (26)
Identifying signs of misuse 5 (5)
Note. Coach Nfor second level theme does not always equal coach Nfor corresponding third level
theme, as some coaches endorsed multiple second level themes within the third level theme.
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 535
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

the athlete and have a decent background on how to approach that particular
individual when having to deal with issues like alcohol abuse.”The third subtheme
involved treating athletes like adults (n=8 [8]), as this allows them to make their
own decisions about alcohol use. The last subtheme involved being approachable
(n=7 [7]). For instance, one coach said that student-athletes should feel “com-
fortable reaching out to us in the case that they need us to help them be safe.”
What strategies or approaches do you find to be effective in
preventing or managing alcohol use of your student-athletes?
(N=366)
Responses were coded into 616 stand-alone meaning units (Table 4). Strategies fell
into four third-level themes: policy, education, relationships, and athlete-management.
Five coach responses were coded as other, while six coaches indicated no strategy.
Most endorsed were policy strategies (n=171 [214]), consisting of three
subthemes. The first was employing alcohol use policies (n=144 [176]) to manage
or prevent athlete alcohol use. This mostly involved setting and communicating
clear expectations with varying degrees of strictness/leniency. One coach stated,
“we have a no-drinking policy which has seemed to be effective. If a player is
caught drinking, then he serves a one-year suspension while doing community
service work.”The next policy subtheme involved establishing an open and
comfortable environment (n=30 [30]) as a strategy. One coach strives to, “create
a culture where athletes are comfortable talking about alcohol use with coaches.”
The last subtheme involved flexibility (n=7 [8]) by intentionally having fewer or
more fluid rules, thereby allowing the coach to intervene on an individual basis. As
one coach stated, “I am strong believer in not having too many rules because rules
can paint you into a corner.”
Second endorsed were education strategies (n=167 [199]) consisting of five
subthemes. The first involved communicating about alcohol use and health (n=81
[88]) by talking directly and openly with individuals or as a group. The second
subtheme involved education about the negative effects that alcohol use has (n=54
[56]) on body, health, academics, and/or athletic performance. The third subtheme
involved general education about alcohol use (n=21 [21]), including safe practices
and appropriate usage. As one coach said, “educate the athletes about all aspects
of alcohol use/misuse, and don’t sensationalize the information.”The fourth
subtheme involved educating athletes about alcohol use through institutional
resources (n=20 [20]), such as campus or athletic department. As one coach
said, “our university does a great job with Alcohol Education programs. I just try to
reinforce these.”The last subtheme involved the coach sharing personal experi-
ences with alcohol use/abuse (n=13 [14]) as a strategy. As one coach stated, “...I
let them know my story! I only hope it helps them to manage their use of alcohol.”
Third endorsed were relationship strategies (n=109 [120]), consisting of six
subthemes. The first involved empowering athletes to make good decisions (n=59
[59]). As one coach said, “I simply let them know the rule and that common sense
will be the ultimate rule. I believe that zero-tolerance policies are destructive and
unrealistic.”The second subtheme was establishing open, honest, and trusting
relationships with athletes (n=19 [19]). As one coach suggested, “know your
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
536 Chow et al.
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

athletes and let them know they can talk to you about anything. They should also
know that you will talk to them about anything.”The third involved being attentive
of athletes’alcohol use and looking for signs of abuse (n=17 [17]). The remaining
subthemes were showing care and concern for athletes who need help (n=9 [9]),
being understanding that athletes will consume alcohol and make mistakes
(n=9 [9]), and being a role model that leads by example when it comes to alcohol
use (n=7 [7]).
Fourth endorsed were athlete management strategies (n=64 [72]) consisting
of five subthemes. The first was managing team values and culture (n=26 [27]).
One coach mentioned having “standards and values that the entire team provides at
the beginning of the year and they live those standards and values. They all have to
be on board.”The second subtheme involved managing schedules in a way that
makes alcohol use difficult (n=17 [18]) (e.g., scheduling early morning practices).
The last three subthemes involved directing athletes to alternative “dry”activities
(n=14 [14]), selective recruiting of athletes who do not drink or who the coach
deemed as responsible people (n=7 [7]), and utilizing institutional mental health
resources by referring student-athletes when problems arise (n=6 [6]).
What challenges have you experienced, if any, in preventing or
managing alcohol use of your student-athletes? (N=241)
Responses were coded into a total of 288 stand-alone meaning units (Table 4).
Challenges fell into five third level themes: environment, athlete, policy, lack of
awareness, and misuse identification.
Most endorsed were environment challenges (n=69 [79]) consisting of two
subthemes. Most environmental challenges involved dealing with the culture of
alcohol use on college campuses (n=68 [76]), such as social norms and peer
pressures. The other subtheme involved the challenge of providing athletes with
alternative activities to drinking (n=3 [3]). Coaches endorsing this theme found
it challenging to present athletes with ideas for fun events they could participate in
where alcohol would not be consumed.
Second endorsed were athlete challenges (n=68 [75]), consisting of two
subthemes. The first involved the challenge of influencing athletes’attitudes and
behaviors regarding alcohol use (n=49 [53]). As one coach stated, “I feel that if
athletes want to drink then they will drink, despite our wishes and concerns.”The
second subtheme involved the challenge of dealing with individual differences
on the team such as age, culture, background, or levels of maturity (n=19 [22]).
As one coach stated, “I am challenged by cultural differences in alcohol use. For
example, I have Europeans on my team who have a much more liberal view of
alcohol use than we do in America.”
Third endorsed were policy challenges (n=66 [68]), consisting of two
subthemes. The first involved the challenge of enforcing policy when it was
violated (n=27 [27]). As one coach said, “the challenges always come on the back
end. When they drink too much and get in trouble. Then there must be con-
sequences for their actions. . .removal from the team/school is always hard.”The
second subtheme involved the challenge of lack of acceptance or support of
the policy and its consequences on athletes from outside sources (n=40 [41]).
For example, administrators (e.g., athletic department) (n=14 [15]), athletes
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 537
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

(n=14 [14]), or parents (n=12 [12]). As one coach claimed, “the challenge I have
is the parents they tolerate it and expect me to tolerate it as well.”Another coach
claimed that, “school doesn’t do much against athletes who are caught. Coaches
have to do everything.”
Fourth endorsed were lack of awareness challenges (n=33 [34]), consisting
of two subthemes. The first was being in the dark (n=23 [24]) in terms of not
knowing how much alcohol their athletes consume, whether alcohol rules are being
broken, not being informed when problems arise, or when athletes get in trouble for
drinking. As one coach stated, “student athletes lying seems to be very prominent.
Also, there seems to be a disconnect with the school handling alcohol problems and
making the coaches aware.”The other subtheme involved student-athlete moni-
toring challenges (n=10 [10]). That is, not being able to keep track of their student-
athletes at all times. As one coach stated, “we cannot be with the athlete 24-7 and
your words only go so far. If an athlete wants to drink, then they will drink.”
Last endorsed were misuse identification challenges (n=31 [31]), consisting
of two subthemes. The first subtheme involved supporting and helping athletes
not to drink (n=26 [26]). Coaches seemed to find it particularly challenging to
deal with alcohol problems that arise and making the student-athlete understand
that they support them. As one coach stated, “the challenge is to make the players
aware that you are here to help them with this and that they shouldn’t fear any
repercussions.”The second involved the challenge of identifying signs of alcohol
use (n=5 [5]). As one coach stated, “athletes could have had substance abuse
issues before even coming to college and we wouldn’t know,”while another coach
expressed the challenge of “identifying the signs if you’re not familiar with it.”
Discussion
A 3-factor, 27-item measure of coaches’attitudes and behaviors toward athlete
drinking was found to havesound factorial validity and psychometric properties. The
three factors (Concerned Communication, Conditional Leniency, and Enforcement)
were consistent with Pitts et al.’s(2018) measure of athletes’perceptions. Measure-
ment invariance was found for coach gender, team gender, and division. This makes
the Coach Attitudes and Behaviors toward Athlete Alcohol Use Scale ideal to use for
basic and applied research as well as developing intervention programs designed to
change coach attitudes and behaviors.
Qualitative results suggest that many coaches believe they should play a
management role when attempting to regulate alcohol consumption of their
student-athletes. Within this role, coaches indicated that it was their responsibility
to both set and enforce an alcohol use policy or expectations. Although an alcohol
use policy was considered to be the most effective strategy in managing student-
athlete alcohol use, challenges were associated with level of acceptance and ability
to enforce expectations. From a theoretical standpoint, The Social Ecology Model
for Alcohol Use Among College Athletes (Williams et al., 2006) identifies
multilevel influences on student-athlete alcohol use including organizational
factors and policy (McLeroy, Bibeau, Stekler, & Glanz, 1988). Therefore, if a
coach implements an alcohol use policy by setting clear alcohol standards and
regulations for their student-athletes, it would be expected that drinking behavior
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
538 Chow et al.
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

would be controlled. Although many coaches view their role as managing alcohol
use through a policy and believe this to be an effective strategy, there is inconclusive
evidence demonstrating its effectiveness (Pitts et al., 2018;Williams et al., 2008).
While many coaches in the current study utilized an alcohol policy, there was some
disparity between the strictness of these regulations with some setting fixed rules,
and others being more lenient. These different approaches to setting and enforcing
policy might help explain the inconsistent results found in previous studies.
Many head coaches believed they should play an educational role in managing
their student-athletes’alcohol consumption. This role consisted of teaching athletes
about the consequences of alcohol use, providing general alcohol use information,
teaching responsibility, and educating athletes on how to be healthy. To fulfill the
role of an educator, coaches implemented strategies such as communicating with
athletes about alcohol use, providing education about the negative effects of alcohol
use, and sharing their personal experiences with alcohol use or abuse. This is
consistent with the Concerned Communication quantitative dimension. Coaches
who use concerned communication talk with athletes directly about alcohol use, and
emphasize that drinking is inconsistent with athletes’goals and values (Pitts et al.,
2018).
The most common challenge coaches faced when managing student-athletes’
alcohol consumption was the culture of alcohol use on college campuses. Research
has found that this culture is influenced by environmental factors such as housing
where students reside, and the availability of alcohol to students. Students are more
likely to binge drink if they are living in campus housing (Weitzman, Nelson, &
Wechsler, 2003), while lower sales prices and an increased number of promotions
at locations which distribute alcohol around campus are correlated with higher
binge drinking rates on-campus (Kuo, Wechsler, Greenberg, & Lee, 2003). As
these factors are largely outside of coaches control, it is not surprising that none
mentioned trying to manage the college culture as a strategy directly. Coaches,
however, did identify managing the culture within their team as something that was
effective. Other strategies to effectively manage the culture included controlling
athletes’schedules in a way that makes alcohol use difficult, and providing
or directing athletes to alternative “dry”activities. Furthermore, a few coaches
believed an effective strategy to manage alcohol use was to selectively recruit
student-athletes who do not drink. A noticeable strategy that was not identified was
shaping student-athletes’attitudes toward alcohol use. Intrapersonal and interper-
sonal factors, such as student-athletes’own attitudes, and attitudes of other student-
athletes have a large influence on college athlete drinking (Williams et al., 2008).
In the current study, student-athletes’attitudes were mentioned as a challenge, but
coaches did not report shaping these attitudes to be a role of theirs, nor did they
mention any strategies to change athletes’attitudes towards alcohol use. Future
alcohol management trainings might highlight the importance of student-athlete
attitudes toward alcohol use, while simultaneously preparing coaches to identify
and change maladaptive attitudes.
Limitations and Future Directions
Coaches who volunteered to participate may be more likely to believe that
managing student-athlete alcohol use is their responsibility and that implementing
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 539
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

effective strategies is important representing a limitation related to self-selection
bias. Although a large sample of coaches was obtained, coaches less concerned
about this issue may have been less likely to participate in the study. Furthermore,
this study yielded a 10% response rate of the 5,183 coaches who were initially
contacted via email, which is consistent with large sample studies that distributed
surveys via email (Griffis, Goldsby, & Cooper, 2011;Kim, Gerber, Patel,
Hollowell, & Bales, 2001), however, this may bring into question the representa-
tiveness of the sample. Another limitation was that qualitative data in this study
were obtained using open-ended questions in which participants typed their
response. While this method allowed us to obtain a large sample size, future
research investigating coaches’management of alcohol use of their student-
athletes could include semi-structured interviews to gain a more in-depth under-
standing behind coaches’responses. For example, since coaches believed it was
their role to set an alcohol use policy and believed this was an effective strategy,
future studies should be conducted to gain a deeper view as to what type of policies
coaches are setting (e.g., differences in outcomes between coaches who set strict
policies and those who adopt a more flexible approach). Further studies should
include coaches from fall sports such as football, soccer, and volleyball to gain a
more comprehensive perspective.
Future research investigating coaches’management of alcohol use amongst
student-athletes might benefit from the development of quantitative measures of
alcohol literacy similar to those used to measure mental health literacy (O’Connor
& Casey, 2015). This would not only provide a quantitative way to measure
coaches’knowledge about student-athlete alcohol use, but would also supplement
the attitudes and behaviors scale employed in the current study, as an assessment of
the effectiveness of interventions aimed at coaches. Lastly, future research should
address the role of sport psychology professionals in educating and training
coaches and athletes about alcohol use and misuse.
Practical Implications
Coaches can be instrumental in helping to address the culture of alcohol consump-
tion among student-athletes on college campuses, but only if they are sufficiently
educated and trained. Programs must be based on findings from sound research,
which is currently scarce. This may explain why many college coaches believe that
alcohol training is ineffective and ultimately why they lack the knowledge and
ability to adequately address student-athlete alcohol use (Nolt et al., 2013). Sport
psychology professionals who are competent in alcohol use issues and understand
the culture of sport can use the findings from this study to develop programs to
prepare coaches to address student-athlete alcohol use and misuse. For example, the
derived coaches’attitudes and behaviors dimensions and items can be targeted for
intervention, especially because these dimensions have been found to predict athlete
alcohol use and excessive drinking (Pitts et al., 2018). As many of the qualitative
findings regarding effective strategies were similar to the subscales of the quantita-
tive measure, sport psychology professionals can teach and train coaches on how
to use these. Although prevention programs targeting student-athletes have been
shown to be effective, educating and training coaches may offer greater utility and
represents a cost-effective strategy for sport psychology professionals and athletics
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
540 Chow et al.
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

departments. This is because collegiate coaches have considerable influence
and frequent interactions with their athletes throughout the year; thus having the
capacity to influence hundreds to thousands of athletes during their coaching
careers. Preparing coaches to manage athlete alcohol consumption is essential for
positively impacting student-athlete psychosocial well-being and mental health.
References
Biggin, I.J., Burns, J.H., & Uphill, M. (2017). An investigation of athletes’and coaches’
perceptions of mental ill-health in elite athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology,
11, 126–147. doi:10.1123/jcsp.2016-0017
Brenner, J., & Swanik, K. (2007). High-risk drinking characteristics in collegiate athletes.
Journal of American College Health, 56, 267–272. PubMed ID: 18089508 doi:10.
3200/JACH.56.3.267-272
Côté, J., Salmela, J.H., Baria, A., & Russell, S.J. (1993). Organizing and interpreting
unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 127–137. doi:10.1123/tsp.
7.2.127
Ferguson, H.L., Swann, C., Liddle, S.J., & Vella, S.A. (2019). Investigating youth
sports coaches’perceptions of their role in adolescent mental health. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology.31, 235–252. doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1466839
Griffis, S.E., Goldsby, T.J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Web-based and mail surveys:
A comparison of response, data, and cost. Journal of Business Logistics, 24, 237–258.
doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2003.tb00053.x
Hahs-Vaughn, D.L. (2005). A primer for using and understanding weights with national
datasets. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 221–248. doi:10.3200/JEXE.73.
3.221-248
Hainline, B., Bell, L., & Wilfert, M. (2014). Substance use and abuse. In Mind, body and
sport: Understanding and supporting student-athlete mental wellness (pp. 40–45).
NCAA: Indianapolis, IN.
Jowett, S. (2005). The coach-athlete partnership. The Psychologist, 18, 412–415.
Kim, H.L., Gerber, G.S., Patel, R.V., Hollowell, C.M., & Bales, G.T. (2001). Practice
patterns in the treatment of female urinary incontinence: A postal and internet survey.
Urology, 57, 45–48. PubMed ID: 11164141 doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00885-2
Kuo, M., Wechsler, H., Greenberg, P., & Lee, H. (2003). The marketing of alcohol to college
students: The role of low prices and special promotions. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 25, 204–211. PubMed ID: 14507526 doi:10.1016/S0749-
3797(03)00200-9
Martens, M.P., Dams-O’Connor, K., & Beck, N.C. (2006). A systematic review of college
student-athlete drinking: Prevalence rates, sport-related factors, and interventions.
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31, 305–316. PubMed ID: 16996393 doi:10.
1016/j.jsat.2006.05.004
Mastroleo, N.R., Marzell, M., Turrisi, R., & Borsari, B. (2012). Do coaches make a
difference off the field? The examination of athletic coach influence on early college
student drinking. Addiction Research & Theory, 20, 64–71. PubMed ID: 24639626
doi:10.3109/16066359.2011.562621
McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McLeroy, K.R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on
health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351–377. PubMed ID:
3068205 doi:10.1177/109019818801500401
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2018). NCAA national study on substance use
habits of college student-athletes. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
Coach Managing Alcohol 541
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC

Nolt, K.L., Sachs, M.L., & Brenner, J.W. (2013). The effects of collegiate head coaches’
knowledge and attitudes toward alcohol consumption by student-athletes. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 5, 7–16.
O’Connor, M., & Casey, L. (2015). The Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS): A new
scale-based measure of mental health literacy. Psychiatry Research, 229, 511–516.
doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2015.05.064
Pierce, D., Liaw, S.T., Dobell, J., & Anderson, R. (2010). Australian rural football club
leaders as mental health advocates: An investigation of the impact of the coach the
coach project. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 4, 10. PubMed ID:
20482809 doi:10.1186/1752-4458-4-10
Pitts, M., Chow, G.M., & Yang, Y. (2018). Athletes’perceptions of their head coach’s
alcohol management strategies and athlete alcohol use. Addiction Research & Theory,
26, 174–182. doi:10.1080/16066359.2017.1341976
Rice, S.M., Purcell, R., De Silva, S., Mawren, D., McGorry, P.D., & Parker, A.G. (2016).
The mental health of elite athletes: A narrative systematic review. Sports Medicine, 46,
1333–1353. PubMed ID: 26896951 doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0492-2
Seitz, C.M., Wyrick, D.L., Rulison, K.L., Strack, R.W., & Fearnow-Kenney, M. (2014). The
association between coach and teammate injunctive norm reference groups and college
student-athlete substance use. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 58, 7–26.
Shanmugam, V., Jowett, S., & Meyer, C. (2013). Eating psychopathology amongst athletes:
The importance of relationships with parents, coaches and teammates. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 24–38. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2012.
724197
Slater, M.J., Coffee, P., Barker, J.B., & Evans, A.L. (2014). Promoting shared meanings in
group memberships: A social identity approach to leadership in sport. Reflective
Practice, 15, 672–685. doi:10.1080/14623943.2014.944126
Thompson, R.A., & Sherman, R.T. (2007). Managing student-athletes’mental health
issues. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Weitzman, E.R., Nelson, T.F., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Taking up binge drinking in college:
The influences of person, social group, and environment. Journal of Adolescent Health,
32, 26–35. PubMed ID: 12507798 doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00457-3
Williams, R.D., Jr., Perko, M.A., Belcher, D., & Leaver-Dunn, D.D. (2006). Use of social
ecology model to address alcohol use among college athletes. American Journal of
Health Studies, 21, 228–237.
Williams, R.D., Jr., Perko, M.A., Usdan, S.L., Leeper, J.D., Belcher, D., & Leaver-Dunn,
D.D. (2008). Influences on alcohol use among NCAA athletes: Application of the
social ecology model. American Journal of Health Studies, 23, 151–159.
Wyrick, D.L., Wilfert, M., Milroy, J.J., & Burley, J. (2013). Coaches assist: A substance
abuse resources of NCAA coaches. Talk presented at the meeting of the APPLE
Conference; Charlottesville, VA.
Zhou, J., & Heim, D. (2014). Sports and spirits: A systematic qualitative review of emergent
theories for student-athlete drinking. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 49, 604–617. PubMed
ID: 25249539 doi:10.1093/alcalc/agu061
Zhou, J., & Heim, D. (2016). A qualitative exploration of alcohol use among student
sportspeople: A social identity perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology,
46, 581–594. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2195
JCSP Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019
542 Chow et al.
Brought to you by JCSP Board Membership (1/3) | Authenticated gchow@fsu.edu | Downloaded 12/03/19 02:07 PM UTC