Content uploaded by Alexander Tibor Latinjak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexander Tibor Latinjak on Jul 05, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 1
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
#SportPsychMapping: An Exploratory Interview
Framework for Sport and Exercise Psychology
Alexander T. Latinjak University of Suffolk, UK;
EUSES – School of Health and Sport Sciences, Salt,
Catalonia, Spain;
Eduardo Morelló-Tomás Villarreal C.F., Spain
Lucia Figal-Gómez University of Suffolk, UK
Corresponding author
Alexander T. Latinjak, School of Social Sciences and
Humanities, University of Suffolk. Waterfront
Building, 19 Neptune Quay, IP4 1QJ Ipswich, UK. E-
mail: a.latinjak@uos.ac.uk. Phone: +44 7979343965.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Manuscript has been published online as Ahead of Print:
Accepted author manuscript version reprinted, by permission, from The Sport Psychologist,
2021, https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120. © Human Kinetics, Inc.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to present an exploratory interview framework called #SportPsychMapping, that can
serve practitioners as guidance in exploring the psychological reality of individuals and collectives. To meet our
aim, in this article we address (a) the context in which the exploratory interview framework was developed, (b)
the theoretical structure used to select topics and questions, (c) the structure of the interview, (d) the topics and
questions in the central section of the interview, (e) the summary section of the interview, and (f) different ways
the exploratory interview framework has been applied. The hallmarks of #SportPsychMapping are: the structure
that includes an opening, central, and summary section; the central section, in which external variables, bio-
psychological states and traits, as well as psychological skills are explored; and the summary section, where an
individual map is created with key concepts and phrases that reflect the interviewee’s main responses.
Keywords: assessment; athletes; professional practice; professional development;
Exploring people’s psychological reality related to
general performance and well-being, or to specific
topics, is part of the applied practice of sport and
exercise psychologists. Poczwardowski and
Sherman (2011) called these conceptualising
concerns and potential interventions. Practitioners
use various methods to examine psychological
realities, including observations, questionnaires, and
interviews, the latter being what this article focuses
on. In the context of the present study, we use the
term psychological reality to denote people's
individually and collectively constructed
representation of themselves and the environment in
which they find themselves (Pavese, 2019). We
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 2
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
therefore recognise the existence of multiple,
constructed, and thought-dependent realities (i.e.,
ontological relativism; Sparkes & Smith, 2009).
Therefore, we implicitly see the client-as-expert in
applied practice, although we believe that the quality
of psychological realities can be improved, for
example through guidance from practitioners.
Both the art of practitioners and the science
of sport psychology contribute to success of
exploratory interviewing (Poczwardowski, 2019).
The art is mainly about building a positive work
alliance with sport psychology users so that they can
disclose important aspects of their experiences
related to sports and exercise (for counselling skills
guides see, Katz & Hemmings [2009] or Longstaff
& Gervis [2016]; for interviewer skills and attitudes
see, Mack et al. [2017]). The science behind
exploratory interviews includes, among other things,
the theoretical framework that is used as a guide for
exploration (Poczwardowski & Sherman, 2011),
regarding the selection of topics to be examined and
the specific questions to be asked.
To cover the need for interviewing
guidelines, several groups of authors have created
exploratory interview scripts (e.g., Aoyagi et al.,
2017; Gardner & Moore, 2007; Taylor & Schneider,
1992). Most of these scripts consist of key topics that
holistically describe psychological realities. For
example, the Performance Interview Guide (PInG) is
a semi-structured framework developed by Aoyagi
et al. for initial sports and performance
psychological consultations. The PInG is divided
into seven sections (e.g. reason for consultation at
this point), each with a mixture of specific questions
(e.g. why are you looking for a consultation now?)
and topics to be examined (e.g., mentality/emotional
states/skills desired to be improved). In addition, the
authors discuss in detail fundamental aspects such as
an interview philosophy or multiculturalism.
Regardless of the merits of previous scripts like the
PInG (e.g., the strength-based approach), we have
developed our own framework for exploratory
interviews to solve specific challenges in our
professional practice. The PInG was specially
developed for intake sessions in performance-based
consultations with athletes. In our practice, at the
beginning and in different phases of the consultancy,
we looked for a framework for individual and focus
group interviews that focused on performance and
well-being as well as on various specific topics (e.g.,
dual careers challenges) of athletes, coaches, and
parents. In our applied practice, we have developed
an exploratory interview framework to examine the
psychological reality of individuals and collectives
in the sport and exercise context in relation to general
performance and well-being or specific
performance-related or well-being topics. The
framework should be based on a holistic theory and
be presented to users as a task to complete with their
sports and exercise psychologist that leads to the
production of a graphical summary that is
informative for both users and practitioners. The aim
of this article is to present and describe that
exploratory interview framework,
#SportPsychMapping, as an alternative for
practitioners who look for guidance in exploring the
psychological reality of individuals and collectives.
A disclaimer: #SportPsychMapping is not intended
for diagnosing clinical disorders. If clinical issues
arise, appropriate diagnostic tools must be used, and
referrals made if necessary (for further guidelines
see, Reardon et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2016).
To meet our aim, in this article we address
(a) the context in which #SportPsychMapping was
developed, (b) the theoretical structure used to guide
the selection of topics and questions, (c) the structure
of the interview, (d) the topics and questions in the
central section of the interview, (e) the summary
section of the interview, and (f) different ways
#SportPsychMapping has been applied. The present
work is a report on our professional practice and
most suggestions, from the name to the structure of
the exploratory interview framework, are based on
our experience working with sport psychology users.
Once we present the framework, we highlight some
ways in which #SportPsychMapping differs from
other options in the literature.
The context in which the framework was
developed
Recognising the importance of the socio-cultural
context in which applied work takes place (Ryba,
2017; Schinke et al., 2016), we briefly refer to the
team that contributed to the development of
#SportPsychMapping and their professional practice
at that time. The authors come from a mixture of
European contexts with Anglo-Saxon, Hispanic,
Germanic, and Magyar origins. Each author
contributed to the development of the framework
from a specific expert role: The first author had
worked on the development of the theoretical
structure on which the interview is based. The
second author led a team of sport psychologists in a
professional football academy. The third author was
a neophyte sport psychologist who had just started
working in sports and performance contexts. In
addition to the authors of this work, two experts, who
are, among other roles, editorial board members of
specialist journals for applied sports psychology,
acted as critical friends (see, Acknowledgement
section). These editors of books on professional
practice and development made critical and
constructive comments on previous versions of the
framework and the article. Overall, the professional
philosophy of the authors influenced the
development of the framework and, most
importantly, how each author used the interview in
their practice. Therefore, we encourage interested
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 3
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
practitioners to use the suggestions in the framework
in a way that best suits their personal style and the
preferences and needs of the users of their services.
#SportPsychMapping was developed in the
context of applied practice. See Table A1 for a
detailed description of the interview framework
development process, including what we did and
who we worked with, what evidence we gathered,
and what decision we made based on that evidence.
First, the framework was developed by the first
author for one-on-one consultation with adult
athletes, coaches, and parents, most of whom came
from Western European contexts and related to
various contexts in which sport was practiced at least
at a semi-professional level. The first author kept a
reflective diary and met for informal peer
discussions with various colleagues, including the
co-authors. In this phase we developed the interview
format, specific questions, and the visual
representation of the interview summary. In a next
step, the framework was tested by all authors in sport
and performance contexts, with competitive athletes
from Spain, England, and France. We kept detailed
practice diaries and held formal peer discussion
sessions to further develop the framework. At this
stage we found that while the specific questions in
the framework were helpful, each one of us had to
adapt them to their preferences and to athletes’
needs. We have therefore adjusted the wording of the
questions and thought about different uses of the
interview. Finally, the framework was presented to
different practitioners and used large scale in a
Spanish professional football club. In training others
to use the framework, we found that less experienced
practitioners were using the framework as we
presented it, while more experienced practitioners
were using the framework more in their own style.
In the context of the football club and in various
individual consultation sessions, innovative uses of
the framework were also tested (see the section of
different uses of the framework).
The theoretical structure underlying the
framework
Background
To maintain a holistic view during the rapid growth
of sport and exercise psychology, the first author,
together with a team of co-authors (Latinjak &
Hatzigeorgiadis, 2021), carried out a global
synthesis to graphically depict what this area is about
today. The result of a broad literature review was
called the Knowledge Map of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, on which most of the key concepts used
in the scientific field are synthesised in four key
clusters (external variables, bio-psychological states
and traits, psychological skills, and psychological
interventions). The knowledge map is a pedagogical
tool that enables students to identify how the topics
they are studying relate to the broader literature of
sport and exercise psychology. In addition, the
knowledge map also shows key areas that should be
targeted when exploring psychological realities from
a holistic perspective. Certainly, there are other
theoretical models that could influence the
development of exploratory interview guides (e.g.,
Dohme et al., 2017), but in the present case, it was
the work on the knowledge map that implicitly led to
the development of #SportPsychMapping.
External variables
The first cluster of the knowledge map contains
variables that describe different types of external
influences on individuals and groups. These
variables pertain to physical environments (e.g.,
aromas, lights, sounds, temperature, outdoor
environment; Laborde et al., 2018), social and
organisational influences (e.g., coaches, parents, and
peers; Sheridan et al., 2014), and task characteristics
and competitive factors (e.g., number of players
involved, field dimensions and locations of play,
number of goal-scoring targets used, and rules;
Ometto et al., 2018). Although the map clearly
distinguishes observable and measurable external
variables from the perception and appraisal of these
variables, only the latter can be captured in
exploratory interviews. It is therefore important that
information on external variables collected in
interviews should be contrasted with field
observations and other measures.
Bio-psychological states and traits
This cluster of the knowledge map includes variables
needed to describe (a) how people are at certain
moments and (b) who they are more generally. Bio-
psychological states and traits can be roughly
divided into physical (e.g., height, injury, or
biological gender), physiological (e.g.,
neurocognitive mechanisms, hormonal responses, or
neural oscillation), and psychological (e.g., body
image, attitudes, or irrational beliefs) variables.
Concepts in this cluster also vary in terms of
temporal stability, ranging from more stable traits
(e.g., age, personality, and gender) to more unstable
states (e.g., effort, attention, and self-efficacy).
Lastly, bio-psychological states and traits describe
individuals (e.g., individual identity, goals, or pain)
and groups, the latter ranging in numbers from few
individuals (e.g., group cohesion, interpersonal
conflict, or motivational climate) to broad societies
(e.g., ideologies, cultural norms, or social
inequalities). In particular, psychological variables
are examined in interviews, while physical and
physiological variables usually require different
analysis approaches (e.g., physiological measures).
Psychological skills
Psychological skills (e.g., emotion control) can be
described as learned intentional mental processes
that control bio-psychological states (e.g.,
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 4
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
emotions), either to regulate those states (e.g.,
control emotions to cope with anxiety) or to
indirectly influence related inter- and intrapersonal
bio-psychological states and traits (e.g., control
emotions to improve focus of attention).
Psychological skills are both interpersonal (e.g.,
leadership, persuasion, and social emotion control
skills) and intrapersonal (e.g., goal-directed self-talk,
imagery, or self-acceptance). Self-awareness and
metacognition, which trigger skill use, as well as
resilience and mental toughness, which summarise
skill effectiveness, are further concepts closely
related to psychological skills. Importantly,
however, psychological skills may also be
detrimental when strategies are badly chosen (e.g.,
avoidance coping; Madigan et al., 2020) or when
they lead to states of ego-depletion (Ong, 2015).
Psychological interventions
The fourth knowledge map cluster summarises
psychological interventions. There were three
groups of concepts included in this cluster, all of
which describe field work of applied practitioners:
strategic actions (e.g., integrating into a team’s
internal culture), targeted interventions (e.g.,
biofeedback training), and therapeutic frameworks
(including professional philosophies; e.g., Cognitive
Behavioural Therapy). In the interview, we typically
do not ask users about their prior history of
psychological interventions unless we suspect that
this is a relevant question in their case. However, we
recognised early on that identifying external
variables, bio-psychological states and traits, and
psychological skills within interviewees’ narratives
leads to an individualised version of the knowledge
map (see summary section) that helps practitioners
select following actions, interventions, and even
frameworks.
The structure of the interview
We wanted #SportPsychMapping to be a structured
task that sport psychology users and practitioners
engage with collaboratively. This approach was
inspired by the idea of the didactic or pedagogical
triangle (Mong & Standal, 2019) consisting of
content, teacher, and students (in our case: interview,
practitioner, and users). In this sense, the task is
physically represented by an empty layout of the
knowledge map (Appendix B), in which the
practitioner notes keywords and phrases reflecting
the responses of the interviewee. In addition, we
have prepared a card for each topic, which contains
a proposed question, some illustrative icons, and
written clues (Appendix C). Using the cards is
optional, although they have been very well
received, especially because some users perceived
greater control over the interview by literally holding
the questions in their hands.
Overall, the interview is divided into three
sections: an opening section, a central section, and a
summary section. Each of the three sections of the
exploratory interview is meant to offer specific
opportunities to foster a successful collaboration
between practitioners and users by addressing three
critical components of high-quality sport and
exercise psychology services (Tod et al., 2019): (a)
bonding with users, mainly during the opening
section, to initiate a working alliance; (b)
establishing mutual roles, especially in the more
structured central section; and (c) returning
information, foremost in the summary section, where
practitioners and users elaborate tentative
explanations about the user’s case.
In the opening section, we ask a series of
questions to ensure empathic understanding of our
interlocutors (Katz & Hemmings, 2009). After
collecting the necessary descriptive data, especially
about new users (e.g., their age or sport experience;
we resorted often to the Identifying Information
section in Aoyagi et al. [2017]), we invite them for
example, (a) to talk about why they have opted for
sport and exercise psychology services, (b) what
topic they want to address in subsequent sessions, or
(c) what expectations they have of the session. Much
more than in any other part of the interview, the
questions in this section depend heavily on who
users are (e.g. new or well-known) and why they are
attending the session (e.g. on their own initiative or
because someone else organised it). Although we
believe that each exploratory interview should have
an opening section to lay the foundation for
successful collaboration, the length and content of
this section may change completely due to
circumstances.
Compared to the opening section, the
following sections are less dependent on the
circumstances. In the central section (see the next
section), we examine a number of topics, and even
propose specific questions, related to external
variables, bio-psychological states and traits, and
psychological skills. While the exploration of all
three clusters is characteristic to
#SportPsychMapping, the order of the clusters, the
specific topics, and the wording of the questions are
only suggestions that can and sometimes have to be
adapted to the circumstances. Similarly, in the
summary section (see the section following the
next), creating an individualised map that shows
users' responses from the central section is a key
element of #SportPsychMapping, while specific
questions may again vary depending on the
circumstances.
Topics and questions in the central section of the
interview
General considerations
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 5
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Before referring to specific questions or topics, there
are two cross-cutting issues that require
consideration: the number of responses and the mode
of response and interaction. In terms of the number
of responses we preferred to request a certain
number of responses to each question, as some
interviewees need to be encouraged to report their
sport and exercise experiences with some depth
while others lose themselves in too specific details.
After testing in applied practice different options, we
preferred asking for three responses mainly because
when we asked for more responses, some users felt
compelled to find irrelevant answers and only when
we asked for three responses, the interview almost
always fitted smoothly within our 90-minutes
sessions. Asking for three responses is a general
suggestion, but practitioners are advised to choose at
their own discretion whether to ask for a concrete
number of answers and what that number should be.
In terms of the mode of response and
interaction, users in our professional practice almost
always answer the questions in conversation and we
take only very short notes. We prefer eye contact,
where possible, for most of the time at the expense
of detailed notes (for more detail on interviewer
skills and attitudes we follow, for example, Mack et
al., 2017). With regard to the notes, we summarise
each response by transforming the long and more
detailed answers into one or two key concepts that
interviewees have focused on. While a more detailed
analysis of the session is often completed with the
help of audio recordings (in case they are available)
once users have left the office, these brief notes are
very important for the final part of the interview
session (see the Summary section).
Questions about external variables
In this section we ask about (a) the physical
environment, (b) organisational and cultural
influences, (c) social, interpersonal influences, and
(d) task characteristics and competitive factors. For
each topic we suggest one question, plus a what-else-
question in last place (see Table 1). In our applied
practice, most users found it easy to answer these
questions, although some needed the clues on the
cards (Appendix C). Sometimes, interviewees may
even make specific suggestions for changes that they
want to see in their environment. Although it would
be hasty to draw conclusions from the exploratory
interview alone, the answers in this section often
suggest simple practical solutions (e.g., to change
training hours on weekends or play background
music in the gym) to improve users' sport and
exercise experiences by modifying concrete
environmental factors.
Questions about bio-psychological states and
traits
In this section we ask users to describe themselves in
terms of (a) physical characteristics, (b)
psychological traits, (c) psychological states, and (d)
differential traits. For each topic we suggest one
question, plus a what-else-question in last place (see
Table 1). It is important though to acknowledge that
any attempt to comprehensively explore bio-
psychological states and traits is futile. In this
cluster, we need to respect the exploratory character
of the interview even more than in the other clusters.
We must limit our goals and expectations to
exploring the few bio-psychological states and traits
that users are aware of and which they believe are
most relevant. It is important to remember that the
interview is only a first step to study someone’s case,
which is concluded with a thorough analysis in
various ways. For example, complimentary data
collections in the form of additional interviews,
inventories, and observations are often required to
complete the first exploration of a user’s case (for an
overview of the broader process of assessment and
intervention see, Gardner & Moore, 2005). In these
future steps, the information of the participants about
their bio-psychological states and traits is often
contrasted and expanded. Moreover, it is also worth
going beyond words, interpreting non-verbal
communication, how people respond, and what they
omit in their response. For example, it is interesting
that some interviewees only talk about negative
aspects, while others mainly emphasise positive
aspects about themselves.
Questions about psychological skills
In this section, we ask users to describe their
psychological skills in terms of (a) strengths, (b)
weaknesses, and (c) dysfunctional coping strategies.
For each topic we suggest one question, plus a what-
else-question in last place (see, Table 1). Compared
to the other sections, we have experienced often that
people fall shorter in the number of responses.
Interestingly, anecdotal evidence indicates that
highly skilled athletes and coaches have much less
difficulties to respond to this section than others (c.f.,
research on metacognition and expert-novice
differences; MacIntyre et al., 2014).
Notwithstanding, to avoid users’ frustration, we
recommend practitioners to acknowledge that this
part is the most difficult to complete. For the same
reason, we do not end this section with a specific
question about other aspects related to psychological
skills people would like to address. Instead, we ask a
more open question, if there are any other aspects
they would like to disclose as they are relevant to
delving into their case.
The summary section of the interview
In the summary section we use the layout of the
knowledge map (Appendix B), which contains the
notes the practitioner has made of the interviewee’s
responses during the central section, to finalise the
individualised map that users take home after the
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 6
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
interview. In our practice, this takes up to three steps
(there is also a card with these steps, see Appendix
C). First, we ask users to check the map if there are
any key concepts that have not been discussed, or
which are not noted down and that they believe to be
relevant. Second, we ask them to verbally rate all
concepts and phrases on the map. We looked at
different scales and decided that in our practice the
simplest, but most useful option was a five-point
bipolar scale (Wells & Smith, 1960) that ranges
between very problematic and very helpful. For
example, when somebody talks about their friends,
we ask whether these friends are very problematic,
more problematic than helpful, just as problematic as
helpful, more helpful than problematic, or very
helpful in relation to the case (the scale is shown on
the map). As can be seen in the example in Figure 1,
we normally use a colour code to represent people’s
ratings, as this was the most attractive option for
them. In addition, in many cases we asked users also
to verbally rate each concept or phrase on the map
for its perceived relevance to their case (i.e.,
important, regular, or minor). When working with
computer screens, we used the font size to represent
importance ratings as this was the most attractive
option for users (see, Figure 1). Third and last, after
the individualised map is ready, we ask if there are
any final aspects of the summary users want to
discuss before we end the session. At this point, we
usually remind them of the purpose and scope of
#SportPsychMapping. In particular, we emphasise
that the exploratory interview should provide a
simplified presentation of potential key aspects of
their case, and that further assessments may be
needed before we can select the best intervention
strategy.
Different uses of the framework
In our applied practice, we have used
#SportPsychMapping not only for different
population groups (a diversity of athletes, coaches,
and parents), but also in different ways and for
different reasons. To illustrate the versatility of the
framework, we briefly comment on the use of the
interview in: (1) intake sessions with new users, (2)
regular screening sessions with individuals from
larger cohorts such as clubs or federations, (3)
follow-up exploration sessions of specific problems
that have been previously identified, and (4) focus
group sessions. In addition, we used the
individualised map (5) in post-interview sessions to
monitor changes in aspects highlighted on the map.
Intake sessions
The intake session is the first time that we meet new
users. To adapt the exploratory interview to the
characteristics of these sessions, we often have
expanded the opening section to collect the required
descriptive information (see, Aoyagi et al., 2017)
and establish a positive work relation (Sharp et al.,
2015). We usually planned a longer session or two
regular sessions to conduct the interview to allow
enough time for a good opening section, a sensitive
exploration, and an insightful summary. Amid
mostly positive experiences, it was especially the
inexperienced practitioners in our teams who
reportedly benefited more from following a script
during the intake session. In addition, users
frequently found these procedures to be very
informative, sometimes even surprisingly insightful.
The individualised map was particularly valued by
users and seen by practitioners as a useful guide for
deciding on further exploration steps and sometimes
even interventions.
Regular screening sessions
When working with larger groups of individuals, for
example in clubs or federations, we used
#SportPsychMapping in the regular screening
sessions that we organise half-yearly or quarterly
with staff and athletes. In these circumstances, the
goal of the interview includes monitoring
psychological well-being and identifying issues that
require further attention. It is important that for few
individuals repeating the same interview initially
seemed monotonous and discouraging. In the great
majority of cases, this was counteracted simply by
explaining in the opening section the advantages that
we expect from this structured procedure. In effect,
by using the interview in regular screening sessions,
we were able to compare individualised maps that
were collected over time, even when different
practitioners had conducted the sessions. The
framework has helped the work of one practitioner
to be available to other practitioners working in the
same team or with the same individual (following
ethical guidelines related to confidentiality, always;
see Aoyagi & Portenga, 2010).
Follow-up exploration sessions
Follow-up exploration sessions were useful to
further investigate specific issues (e.g., performance
anxiety) identified in previous, less focused
exploratory interviews (e.g., on wellbeing). In the
rare cases where someone did not enjoy the less
focused exploratory interview, we naturally opted
for other methods to track certain issues (e.g., field
observations). The main difference between our
more and less focused interviews was the wording of
the questions: in the former we asked about
performance and well-being (e.g., Could you
mention three mental skills that you feel you need to
improve to perform better?), while in the latter we
asked about more specific topics (e.g., Could you
mention three mental skills that you feel you need to
improve to better cope with anxiety?). When using
follow-up interviews, we found that individuals who
became familiar with the interview procedures
became more autonomous and comfortable
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 7
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
answering the questions. Most individuals also took
greater ownership of the interview after using it
several times. For example, they determined the
sequence of the questions by ordering the cards, or
they turned their own answers into key concepts and
phrases and wrote them down on the map. In some
cases, individuals have even chosen to create a
summary map on their own and bring it to the session
to discuss their responses with the practitioner.
Focus group sessions
When working with teams or groups, we sometimes
used #SportPsychMapping in focus group sessions
to explore collective aspects of psychological
realities. We have divided team members into groups
of up to six people to answer the questions in view
of the team or group to which they belong. Naturally,
the questions were adjusted to focus on the team or
group (e.g., Could you mention three aspects that
differentiate your team from other teams…?). In
addition, special care was taken to ensure that a
constructive language is used, that all individuals
contribute equally to the discussion, and that all
opinions are respected (inspired by readings on
compassionate pedagogy; Gibbs, 2017). Generally,
in group sessions, people discussed various
collective concepts (e.g., social identity, cohesion,
communication, conflict, and leadership) that were
less common in one-on-one interviews. In this
regard, many participants perceived
#SportPsychMapping to be a team-building
experience that led to a better understanding of, for
example, others' perspectives, common goals, and
individual roles within a team. Lastly, when working
with teams or groups of younger athletes, focus
group sessions were an effective alternative to, or
preparation for, one-on-one interviews.
Monitor change in relation to aspects in the map
In general, the individualised map served
practitioners as a summary of interview sessions and
guide for future decisions, while users valued it as a
learning experience and something to think about
and work on even after the session ended. In
addition, we were able to use the map to monitor
developments in the weeks and months after the
interview. In selected cases, we have asked users to
make adjustments to their individualised map in later
sessions by routinely changing ratings and adding or
removing concepts and phrases. This procedure was
particularly helpful when some concepts on the
initial map (e.g. poor self-talk skills) were targeted
in subsequent sessions (e.g. through self-talk
training). Monitoring changes in key variables
provided information on the effectiveness of
interventions and procedures that needed to be
adjusted.
A brief comparison with other frameworks
#SportPsychMapping is just one of several options
that practitioners can resort to (see also, Aoyagi et
al., 2017; Gardner & Moore, 2007; Taylor &
Schneider, 1992). Each approach has its merits and
limitations, and practitioners who choose to follow
one of these procedures need to find out which one
best suits their personal style and needs. Compared
to other options, our framework differs in a few
ways. While some frameworks have suggested fairly
long lists of topics to be examined (which can also
be very helpful as a checklist; e.g., Aoyagi et al.,
2017), we have chosen less but broader topics and
even suggested specific questions. However, our
questions are only suggestions and should help in
particular less experienced practitioners to start
using the framework. In addition, two rather unique
features of our framework are the cards with
questions and clues and the individualised map. In
addition to some of the advantages we mentioned
earlier, the cards and the map help individuals see
the practitioner as a guide who helps them
accomplish a self-exploration task that has an
implicit value for them.
Practitioners may of course also resort to
different frameworks and combine any aspects they
like. In our case, although we have used the
exploratory interview framework described here, we
have often consulted Aoyagi et al.’s (2017) work to
get information on building a safe, trusting, and
collaborative relationship with users, and Gardner
and Moore (2007) to get information about
complementary assessment methods. While we
expect some practitioners to prefer none or their own
interview guides, we also expect some practitioners
to use the interview guides available in the literature,
including #SportPsychMapping, or blend aspects of
one framework (e.g., the individualised map) with
other frameworks or their own procedures.
Final remarks
With this report, we have introduced an exploratory
interview framework that can be used for different
populations, including athletes, coaches, and
parents, in different settings, including intake,
screening, follow-up, and focus group sessions.
Overall, we present #SportPsychMapping as an
option for practitioners who can choose to use this, a
different, or no framework, and who can also choose
to change and adapt some parts of our interview to
suit their specific preferences and needs. For
example, some moments in a practitioner-user
relationship require a more didactic approach, while
in other situations the session needs to be more
person-centred. In the former case, we often guided
reflection by reading questions and suggesting
examples. In the latter case, we had the user select
the next question and fill out the map. When
necessary, we contributed with positive and
inquiring feedback.
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 8
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
It is important for practitioners to consider
that this framework has not yet been scientifically
tested. We tested the framework practically and
developed it with the help of feedback from other
practitioners and interviewees. So far, the evidence
we have is anecdotal; it has not been systematically
collected and may be biased. Once the framework
has been presented, practitioners have the
opportunity to use it and present case studies that
either explore its use directly or integrate its use into
a broader applied practice, for example to identify
interventions to be used in a specific case. Given the
flexibility of all interview frameworks, which are
designed as a series of proposals rather than
prescriptions, we do not believe that the present
interview framework can be validated in the same
way as questionnaires or inventories.
The interview serves to examine the
psychological reality of one or more individuals,
although, like all interviews, it does not provide
absolute or exhaustive truths (which we believe
rarely exist in psychology). Instead, the interview
summarises the aspects of psychological reality that
people are aware of and that they want to share.
Sometimes, less experienced colleagues hastily
judged experiences as failed interviews, just because
users disclosed only few or superficial information.
In addition to the literal meaning of users' responses,
we found that the quality of the psychological reality
portrayed by individuals indicates much more.
Among other things, it is indicative of different
levels of self-awareness and metacognition, ratios of
positive to negative self-image, and extremely
despair eagerness to talk about oneself. Moreover,
regardless of the quality of the psychological
realities presented in an interview, we never
understood #SportPsychMapping as an end point,
but always as inspiration for further exploration.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our colleagues at Ipswich
Town F.C., Villarreal C.F., and the Marc Gasol
Basketball School, as well as in the independent
practice, who contributed to the development of the
framework. We would also like to thank Dr. David
Tod and Prof. Ani Chroni for the critical and
constructive comments they have provided for
earlier versions of this article.
References
Aoyagi, M. W., & Portenga, S. T. (2010). The role of positive ethics and virtues in the context of sport and
performance psychology service delivery. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(3), 253–259.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019483
Aoyagi, M. W., Poczwardowski, A., Statler, T., Shapiro, J. L., & Cohen, A. B. (2017). The Performance
Interview Guide: Recommendations for initial consultations in sport and performance psychology.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(5), 352−360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000121
Dohme, L. C., Backhouse, S., Piggott, D., & Morgan, G. (2017). Categorising and defining popular
psychological terms used within the youth athlete talent development literature: A systematic review.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 134-163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1185451
Gardner, F. L., & Moore, Z. E. (2005). Using a case formulation approach in sport psychology consulting. The
Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 430-445. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.19.4.430
Gardner, F. L., & Moore, Z. E. (2007). The psychology of enhancing human performance: The mindfulness-
acceptance-commitment (MAC) approach. Springer Publishing Company.
Gibbs, P. (Ed.). (2017). The pedagogy of compassion at the heart of higher education. Springer Publishing
Company.
Katz, J., & Hemmings, B. (2009). Counselling skills handbook for the sport psychologist. Available at
www.bps.org.uk.
Laborde, S., Mosley, E., & Ueberholz, L. (2018). Enhancing cardiac vagal activity: Factors of interest for sport
psychology. Progress in Brain Research, 240, 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.09.002
Latinjak, A. T., & Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2021). The knowledge map of sport and
exercise psychology: An integrative perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 661824.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661824
Longstaff, F., & Gervis, M. (2016). The use of counselling principles and skills to develop practitioner-athlete
relationships by practitioners who provide sport psychology support. The Sport Psychologist, 30(3), 276-289.
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2015-0029
MacIntyre, T. E., Igou, E. R., Campbell, M. J., Moran, A. P., & Matthews, J. (2014). Metacognition and action: a
new pathway to understanding social and cognitive aspects of expertise in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,
1155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01155
Mack, R., Breckon, J., Butt, J., & Maynard, I. (2017). Exploring the understanding and application of
motivational interviewing in applied sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 31(4), 396-409.
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2016-0125
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 9
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Madigan, D. J., Rumbold, J. L., Gerber, M., & Nicholls, A. R. (2020). Coping tendencies and changes in athlete
burnout over time. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 48, 101666.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101666
Mong, H. H., & Standal, Ø. F. (2019). Didactics of health in physical education–a review of literature. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(5), 506-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1631270
Ometto, L., Vasconcellos, F. V., Cunha, F. A., Teoldo, I., Souza, C. R. B., Dutra, M. B., O’Sullivan, M., &
Davids, K. (2018). How manipulating task constraints in small-sided and conditioned games shapes emergence
of individual and collective tactical behaviours in football: A systematic review. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 13(6), 1200-1214. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1747954118769183
Ong, N. C. H. (2015). The use of the Vienna Test System in sport psychology research: A review. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8(1), 204-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2015.1061581
Pavese, C. (2019). The psychological reality of practical representation. Philosophical Psychology, 32(5), 784-
821. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1612214
Poczwardowski, A., & Sherman, C. P. (2011). Revisions to the sport psychology service delivery (SPSD)
heuristic: Explorations with experienced consultants. The Sport Psychologist, 25(4), 511-531.
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.25.4.511
Poczwardowski, A. (2019). Deconstructing sport and performance psychology consultant: Expert, person,
performer, and self-regulator. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 427−444.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1390484
Reardon, C. L., Hainline, B., Aron, C. M., Baron, D., Baum, A. L., Bindra, A., Budgett, R., Campriani, N.,
Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., Currie, A., Derevensky, J. L., Glick, I. D., Gorczynski, P., Gouttebarge, V., Grandner,
M. A., Han, D. H., McDuff, D., Mountjoy, M., Polat, A., ... & Engebretsen, L. (2019). Mental health in elite
athletes: International Olympic Committee consensus statement (2019). British journal of sports medicine,
53(11), 667-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-100715
Roberts, C. M., Faull, A. L., & Tod, D. (2016). Blurred lines: Performance enhancement, common mental
disorders and referral in the UK athletic population. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1067.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01067
Ryba, T. V. (2017). Cultural sport psychology: A critical review of empirical advances. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 16, 123-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.003
Schinke, R. J., Fisher, L. A., Kamphoff, C., Gould, D. R., & Oglesby, C. (2016). Certified consultants' attempts
at cultural inclusiveness: An examination of four tales through the lens of the International Society of Sport
Psychology Position Stand on Cultural Competence. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
14(4), 353-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1041544
Sharp, L. A., Hodge, K., & Danish, S. (2015). Ultimately it comes down to the relationship: Experienced
consultants’ views of effective sport psychology consulting. The Sport Psychologist, 29(4), 358-370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0130
Sheridan, D., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A systematic review of social support in youth sport.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 198-228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.931999
Taylor, J., & Schneider, B. A. (1992). The sport-clinical intake protocol: A comprehensive interviewing
instrument for applied sport psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 318−325.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.4.318
Tod, D., Hardy, J., Lavallee, D., Eubank, M., & Ronkainen, N. (2019). Practitioners’ narratives regarding active
ingredients in service delivery: Collaboration-based problem solving. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43,
350-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.04.009
Wells, W. D., & Smith, G. (1960). Four semantic rating scales compared. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44(6),
393-397. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0047419
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 10
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Table 1
The central section of the #SportPsychMapping: Clusters, topics, questions, hints, and examples
Topics
Questions, as they appear on the cards
Clues, as they are illustrated on the cards
Examples of responses from athletes and coaches
External variables
Physical
environment
Could you mention 3 things about the
physical and environmental conditions in your
sport/ exercise context that you believe to be
the most relevant (in your case)?
You could mention weather, facilities, distance,
transport, location, kit, technology, food, clothing,
noise, entertainment options, heat and cold,
illumination, smells, green areas and nature....
…I miss an area where I can relax, rest, lie down,
meet other players, play some games, listen to
music, read, ... feel at home in the club…
Organisational/
cultural factors
Could you mention 3 things about the
organisations that make up your sport/
exercise context that you believe to be the
most relevant (in your case)?
You could mention clubs, federations,
professional associations, governments, Olympic
committees, academies, schools and universities,
finances, health services, sport culture, religion,
media, country…
…In my club, it’s pretty frustrating that our salary
does not depend on our performance, but on the
time we’ve spent in the team…
Social,
interpersonal
factors
Could you mention 3 things about people
related to your sport/ exercise context that you
believe to be the most relevant (in your case)?
You could mention family, partners, children,
friends, teammates, training partners, coaches,
mentors, managers, agents, idols, … even people
you no longer see.
…You know, without [my wife] I sometimes feel
more lost than normal; but I don’t want to go back
to work for [home club], not even to be closer to
her. I sometimes feel bad for it…
Tasks and
competitive
factors
Could you mention 3 things about your sport/
exercise, related to training and competitions
which you think are the most relevant (in your
case)?
• My sport is special because…
• Training is typically…
• Some exercises…
• In my sport, competitions are…
…we train many hours every day, leaving little
time for anything else. The training is also
physically exhausting…
Final open
question
Are there any other aspects of your sport/
exercise context that you believe to be
relevant (in your case)?
Mention any other external factors that you think
we need know to understand your case.
One thing I’ve not mentioned yet is that I get
many other offers that sometimes mentally
destabilise me…
Bio-psychological states and traits
Physical
characteristics
Could you mention 3 things that describe you
physically that you believe to be the most
relevant (in your case)?
Health, injuries, recovery, pain, fatigue,
appearance, height, weight, fitness, strength,
speed, agility, flexibility…
I have had a lot of injuries lately. I have been
missing games again and again for over a year…
Psychological
traits
Could you mention 3 things about yourself
that you believe to be the most relevant (in
your case)?
• I am very/ often/ never/…
• I would describe myself as…
• Those who know me well say that I am…
• I typically do/ think/ value/ want…
…I want to prove that I can, and I want the
recognition of others, although I know that it is not
a great thing for me…
Psychological
states
Could you mention 3 things in yourself that
are typical in better or worse moments related
to your sport/exercise and that you believe to
be the most relevant (in your case)?
• When I perform good/ bad, I am usually…
• I usually feel better/ worse when I …
• If I am/ think/ do…, then I usually do
better/worse.
When I’m well, I have the self-confidence to
dream the world. When I’m down, I don’t think
I’m worth anything…
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 11
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Topics
Questions, as they appear on the cards
Clues, as they are illustrated on the cards
Examples of responses from athletes and coaches
Bio-psychological states and traits
Differential
traits
Could you mention 3 aspects that differentiate
you from others in your sport/ exercise
context that you believe to be the most
relevant (in your case)?
• Compared to my teammates (other people), I
am more/less…
• One thing that makes me special is…
• I am more/less … compared to most others.
…I think one thing that differentiates me is that I
know what I want and that I’ll do everything I can
to get it…
Final open
question
Are there any other aspects about yourself
that you believe to be relevant (in your case)?
Mention other aspects that characterise you or
that describes you in important or frequent
moments of your sport/ exercise and that you
think we need to know to understand your case.
…I often feel alone; I feel like nobody is listening
to me or understanding what I want and who I am.
But I know that’s wrong…
Psychological skills
Strong points
Could you mention 3 mental skills that you
believe are your psychological strengths and
that you believe to be the most relevant (in
your case)?
• I am very good at …
• I can most of the time …
• I successfully try to …
• I almost always manage to avoid …
…I am able to recover from failure. I can set new
goals and find new things to keep going…
Weak points
Could you mention 3 mental skills that you
feel you need to improve and that you believe
to be the most relevant (in your case)?
• I feel it’s very hard to …
• I often fail to…
• I belief to be very bad at …
• I hardly ever manage to avoid …
I can’t deal with emotions, including nervousness,
anger, and excitement. I make stupid decisions and
I’m often blocked…
Dysfunctional
coping
strategies
Could you mention 3 strategies that you use
in challenging situations that you know are
wrong and that you later regret and that you
believe to be the most relevant (in your case)?
• Although I would rather not do it, sometimes I
have deliberately ...
• Unfortunately, sometimes I do... on purpose to
cope with [something].
• I feel bad about solving [a problem] by doing /
thinking / saying ...
• I think I should stop using … to improve or be
successful
…I always blame others. I can pretty much make
everyone believe that others have made a mistake,
and it makes me feel better. In the long run,
however, people tend to find out, and then I feel
guilty and ashamed.
Final open
question
Is there anything else you want to point out
before we finish that you believe to be
relevant (in your case)?
Mention other aspects related to external factors,
yourself, and your mental skills that you think we
need to know to understand your case.
…I’d need to learn from someone who is very
experienced and successful in how to do that:
What is the path to success?
Note. In relation to the questions, the phrase in parentheses must be replaced by the topic discussed: performance and/or well-being, or a specific topic such as
performance anxiety, coach-athlete conflict, or lack of concentration.
1
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 13
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Appendix A
1
Table A1
A detailed account of the development process of #SportPsychMapping in three stages: Inception, development, and implementation
Stage, actions, and users
Information collected
Decisions made
In the inception stage, the basic structure of the
interview framework was developed for the first
author's personal consultation only. It started with
another project which was to conduct a global
synthesis of the literature on sport and exercise
psychology.
This stage included: (a) The review of more than 500
reviews to create a theoretical synthesis of sport and
exercise psychology; (b) One-on-one intake sessions
with the first author (30) who kept a reflective diary
with notes on the adequacy of the three-cluster
framework and questions that worked better and worse
when examining the three clusters; (c) Informal peer
discussions during coffee breaks, social events, and
conferences where the first author explored colleagues'
intuitive responses to the three-cluster framework and
asked them about insightful questions to use in
exploratory interviews.
At this stage, the interview was used with: (a) 18
athletes who practiced tennis (4), athletics (3), football
(3), golf (2) and six other sports (6), and came from
Spain (9), the UK (5), Germany (2), Hungary (1), and
Switzerland (1); (b) 5 coaches who worked in tennis
(3), football (1), and athletics (1), and came from Spain
(2) and the UK (3); (c) 12 parents who came from
Spain (7), the UK (2) and Switzerland (2), and
Germany (1).
From the literature review: (a) Interviews are usually
divided into three parts: and introduction, central, and
summary section; (b) Psychological realities can be
structured, and according to one structure, the central part of
the interview contains three subsections: external variables,
bio-psychological states and traits and psychological skills.
From the reflexive diary: (a) The three clusters were always
sufficient to summarise users’ psychological realities; (b) A
pool of questions that worked well for all users was put
together; (c) Asking about external variables before the
other two clusters seemed the most convenient order for
users; (d) The psychological skills questions seemed to be
the most difficult, so they fitted best at the end of the central
section; (e) In the introductory section it was important to
find a main topic for the interview, which can be more
general or specific; (f) Due to the vague language of the
user, it was sometimes unclear whether a concept was a bio-
psychological state or trait or a psychological skill; (g)
Discussions about ambiguous terms often led to interesting
insights from users; (h) Users seemed intrigued by the way
their responses were presented in three clusters, and they
appreciate taking away a copy of the visual summary from
the interview.
From informal discussions: (a) Senior colleagues with
leading roles in international sports and exercise psychology
boards and journals endorsed the three-cluster framework;
(b) Neophyte practitioners and trainees felt that the three
clusters summarised sport and exercise psychology in a very
informative way; (c) Several specific questions were added
to the reflexive journal question pool and tested in
consultation sessions.
Regarding the interview framework generally: (a) The
interview framework is useful for intake sessions of
athletes, coaches, and parents; (b) The interview has
three sections: opening, central, and summary; (c) The
theoretical synthesis of sport and exercise psychology
is the basis for the selection of topics and questions in
the central section; (d) Developing a summary map
depicting users' psychological reality is a hallmark of
the interview framework.
Regarding the sections, topics, and questions,
specifically: (a) In the opening section, reasons for a
consultation, topics of interest and expectations are
examined; (b) In the central section, external variables
are examined first, biopsychological states and traits
second, and psychological skills last; (c) Four
questions about external variables examine physical
conditions, social influences, organizational
influences, as well as task characteristics and
competitive factors; (d) Three questions examine bio-
psychological states and traits in terms of
characteristic traits, relevant states, and distinctive
states or features; (e) Two questions examine strengths
and weaknesses related to psychological skills; (f)
Each group of questions is complemented by an open-
ended question; (g) As users respond, key concepts or
short phrases are written down on a blank layout map
outlining the three clusters; (h) In the summary
section, users are asked to rate each concept using a 5-
point colour code ranging from green (very helpful) to
red (very problematic); (i) Users keep the summary
map from the session while practitioners keep a copy.
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 14
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
During the development stage the interview
framework was used by all co-authors and some close
collaborators (co-workers, members of the research
group, and PhD students). Information was specifically
collected in order to introduce the interview
framework to a wider audience of practitioners through
publication.
This stage included: (a) One-on-one consultation with
adult athletes using the interview framework for intake
(13), regular screening (29), and follow-up sessions
(>16); (b) After the interview, the athletes were asked
open-ended questions about their perception of the
interview, including strengths and weaknesses and
possible improvements; (c) Reflexive diaries were kept
by all co-authors with notes of instructions,
explanations, and questions formulated by the
practitioner, and discussions with the athletes during
the interview; (d) Regular team meetings (4) with at
least two of the three authors and close collaborators
were held in person or online with the agenda to
compare the interview experiences and the feedback
from athletes.
At this stage, the interview was used with 28 athletes
who practiced football (8), basketball (7), handball (5),
tennis (4), cycling (2), and running (2) and came from
Spain (12), the UK (10) and France (6).
From athletes’ feedback: (a) The feedback from the athletes
was overwhelmingly positive, to the point that some asked
for follow-up sessions with the same interview framework;
(b) Cards showing questions were used sometimes, and
athletes who physically interacted with those cards found
the experience extremely interesting and comforting, and
intuitively began to take on more ownership over the
interview; (c) The athletes particularly liked the summary
map, which reflected them in a holistic way, led to
important insights, and triggered autonomous self-reflection.
From reflective diaries and the regular team meetings: (a)
Most practitioners preferred to tailor the wording of the
questions to their personal style and the athlete they were
working with; (b) The questions in the opening section were
adapted in intake sessions where athletes came at the request
of third parties, as well as in regular screening and follow-
up sessions; (c) All interviewers explained the three clusters
to the athletes before starting the central section; (d) A
question about the physical characteristics of athletes was
deemed necessary and therefore added in practice; (e) A
question about dysfunctional coping strategies was use to
complete the questions about psychological skills; (f) The
questions about psychological skills appeared to be the most
difficult for athletes and sometimes caused frustration,
although elite athletes handled themselves noticeably better
than less advanced ones; (g) It seemed like an interesting
paraphrasing exercise showing the athletes the map while
practitioners added notes and allowing them to correct those
notes; (h) Some practitioners suggested asking a certain
number of responses to encourage some athletes to reflect
and to encourage other athletes to choose the most relevant
from several potential answers; (i) Some practitioners have
tried additional ratings in the summary section, of which a
relevance rating was deemed the most valuable.
Regarding the interview framework generally: (a) The
interview framework consists of suggestions that can,
and sometimes need to be tailored to the preferences
of the practitioner and the needs of the user; (b) The
interview framework is useful for intake, regular
screening, and follow-up sessions; (c) The question
cards with hints and clues are another hallmark of the
interview framework.
Regarding the sections, topics, and questions,
specifically: (a) The questions in the opening section
need to be adjusted depending on the user or the type
of session; (b) An explanation before moving on to the
central section should let users know about the three
clusters that summarise their psychological reality; (c)
In the central section, users are asked to give three
answers to each question, although a flexible attitude
on the part of the interviewer is recommended; (d)
Writing on the map in sight of the user is similar to
paraphrasing and gives them the opportunity to
comment on the notes; (e) A question about physical
variables has been added to the questions on bio-
psychological states and traits; (f) It is helpful to
inform users about the greater difficulty of the
psychological skills questions to avoid frustrations; (g)
A question about dysfunctional coping strategies has
been added to the questions on psychological skills;
(h) The open-ended question at the end of the
psychological skills questions has been rephrased to
relate to all three clusters; (i) In the summary section,
a relevance rating has been added, for example used
with a numeric code or different font sizes when
working with screens; (j) Before users receive the
map, an explanation will remind them that the map is
part of a larger exploration process.
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 15
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
In the implementation stage, the goal was to teach
other practitioners to use the interview framework, to
integrate it into a high-performance environment on a
large scale, and to develop and test applications in
sessions other than one-on-one interviews.
This stage included: (a) Seminars in which the
interview framework was presented and taught to other
practitioners; (b) The use of the interview framework
in a high performance environment; (c) The use of the
interview framework within the consultancy of the
authors, including group session and for monitoring
purposes; (d) Regular team meetings (16) to discuss
experiences in seminars, in the high-performance
environment, and in consultancy; (e) Manuscript
development sessions to prepare this document for
submission and address comments from anonymous
reviewers.
At this stage, the interview was taught to 18 sport
psychologists from Spain (8), the UK (8), Germany (1)
and Greece (1). Furthermore, the interview was
applied in a high-performance Spanish football club
with: (a) Over 45 staff members including coaches
(32), strength and conditioning staff (10), and sport
psychologists (3); (b) Over 60 players, aged between
12 years and 23 years. The interview was also applied
in one-on-one sessions with: (a) 15 athletes who
practiced tennis (7), basketball (5) and football (3) and
came from Spain (5), the UK (4), Germany (2) and
four other countries; (b) 6 coaches from the UK who
worked in football; (c) 2 pairs of parents from the UK;
Finally, the interview was applied in group sessions
with: (a) 5 athlete-coach dyads who practiced tennis
(3) and athletics (2) and came from Spain (3), the UK
(1) and mixed backgrounds (1); (b) 3 teams with 52
athletes and 4 coaches, who practiced basketball (2)
and football (1) and came from Spain (2) and the UK
(1).
From seminar participants’ feedback: (a) Even experienced
participants appreciated the three-cluster framework because
it organises information efficiently; (b) Participants assessed
positively that the framework was presented as a series of
suggestions; (c) Some experienced practitioners have shown
interest in incorporating aspects such as the question cards
or the summary map into their own interview scripts; (d)
Most participants appreciated the summary map for
choosing interventions, although they sometimes forgot that
the interview framework needs to be part of a larger
exploratory process; (e) After practicing with the interview
framework, inexperienced participants in particular were
sometimes frustrated when summary maps contained only
few concepts; experienced participants saw those maps as
evidence of users reduced self-awareness or disposition for
self-disclosure.
From regular team meetings: (a) In the high-performance
club, the summary map made it easier to share information
about staff and players between practitioners; (b) The
repeated use of the interview with the same user seemed to
serve as a self-awareness building exercise; (c) The
summary map can be revised over time to make changes to
concepts and their ratings, to monitor the impact of
professional practice and interventions; (d) Using the
interview framework with groups revealed many
interpersonal variables describing collective psychological
realities and was valued as a team building activity by
athletes and coaches.
From manuscript development sessions: (a) The interview
framework needed a name; (b) All available evidence for
the interview framework is anecdotal and does not meet
scientific standards; (c) As a series of suggestions, the
interview framework cannot be validated, but its usefulness
could be addressed in case studies; (d) The interview
framework could be interpreted as practitioner-oriented and
is therefore unattractive for practitioners who prefer a user-
oriented approach; (e) The interview framework was not
intended for diagnosing clinical disorders.
Regarding the interview framework generally: (a) The
interview framework is called #SportPsychMapping to
reflect the goal of graphing psychological realities
related to sport and exercise; (b) The interview
framework is useful in focus group sessions with
groups of two to six participants and can potentially be
effective as a team building exercise; (c) The
Summary map of an interview session can be used in
subsequent sessions to monitor changes to concepts
and their evaluations.
The description of the interview framework should
clearly state: (a) That the interview framework has not
been scientifically tested and that although it cannot be
validated, its usefulness needs to be critically assessed
in future case studies; (b) That the interview is not
intended for diagnosing clinical disorders; (c) That the
interview framework is part of a wider exploratory
process; (d) The interview was conceived as a task
that practitioners and users work with together and in
which, depending on the preferences and needs, more
practitioner or user-oriented approaches can be
implemented; (e) Practitioners can use parts of the
interview framework such as the question cards or
summary map in combination with other frameworks
or their own procedures; (f) The quantity of concepts
on the summary map is not an indicator of the quality
of an interview, although it may be evidence of users'
self-awareness or openness to talk about themselves.
1
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 17
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Appendix C
1
#SportPsychMapping Cards with Questions or Instructions and Clues
2
Figure C1. Suggested questions for the opening
section.
Figure C2. Suggested question and clues to explore
physical and environmental conditions within external
variables.
Figure C3. Suggested question and clues to explore
organisational factors within external variables.
Figure C4. Suggested question and clues to explore
interpersonal factors within external variables.
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 18
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Figure C5. Suggested question and clues to explore
task characteristics and competitive factors within
external variables.
Figure C6. Suggested open question to end the cluster
on external variables.
Figure C7. Suggested question and clues to explore
physical characteristics within bio-psychological
states and traits.
Figure C8. Suggested question and clues to explore
psychological traits within bio-psychological states
and traits.
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 19
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Figure C9. Suggested question and clues to explore
psychological states within bio-psychological states
and traits.
Figure C10. Suggested question and clues to explore
differential traits within bio-psychological states and
traits.
Figure C11. Suggested open question to end the
cluster on bio-psychological states and traits.
Figure C12. Suggested question and clues to explore
strong points within psychological skills.
EXPLORATORY INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK 20
PRE-PRINT VERSION - Published online in The Sport Psychologist
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0120
Figure C13. Suggested question and clues to explore
weak points within psychological skills.
Figure C14. Suggested question and clues to explore
dysfunctional coping strategies within psychological
skills.
Figure C15. Suggested open question to end the
cluster on bio-psychological states and traits.
Figure C16. Suggested questions for the summary
section.
1
