Understanding How the Self-Regulation in Sport Practice Survey is Received by Mental Performance Consultants for Prospective Use in Applied Practice
This study found that while most Canadian Mental Performance Consultants view the Self-Regulation in Sport Practice (SRSP) survey as a valuable tool for enhancing athlete self-awareness and case conceptualization, its prospective application is complicated by philosophical divisions and skepticism regarding quantitative assessment among some practitioners.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. It is not medical advice. Do not make health decisions based on this content. Read full disclaimer
In the high-stakes world of competitive sports, the difference between a good athlete and a great one is often found not in the final game, but in the quiet, repetitive hours of practice. While coaches focus on technique and physical conditioning, a growing number of specialists known as mental performance consultants work on the psychological side of training. These professionals help athletes manage their focus, motivation, and ability to learn from mistakes. A central idea in their work is "self-regulated learning," which simply means an athlete's ability to take charge of their own learning process: setting a goal, trying a task, checking how it went, and adjusting for next time. For young athletes, developing this skill is crucial because it allows them to become independent learners who can improve even when no one is watching. However, a gap has long existed between the academic tools designed to measure these skills and the real-world methods consultants use to help their clients. Many practitioners have grown skeptical of standardized questionnaires, fearing they feel too much like a clinical test and not enough like a conversation.
To bridge this gap, a team of researchers in Canada set out to see how these mental performance consultants would actually receive and use a specific new tool called the Self-Regulation in Sport Practice survey. This survey was designed to ask athletes about their habits during training, such as whether they plan their sessions, check their progress, or reflect on what went wrong. The researchers wanted to know if the consultants, who are the people actually doing the work with athletes, would find this survey useful or if they would dismiss it as another piece of paperwork. They gathered twelve experienced consultants from across Canada and asked them to do something unusual: they had to complete the survey themselves, but not as themselves. Instead, each consultant had to imagine a specific teenage athlete client and fill out the questions as if they were that young person. Afterward, the researchers sat down with each consultant for a long conversation to discuss what they thought of the survey, what information they believed it could reveal, and how they might use it in their daily work.
The results revealed a fascinating split in how these professionals view the role of numbers in their work. About half of the consultants approached the survey with hesitation. They described a deep-seated preference for talking to athletes rather than testing them. For these consultants, filling out a form felt impersonal, like a diagnostic test that might pigeonhole a young person into a box based on a score. They worried that relying on a survey would stop them from building the necessary rapport with an athlete or from hearing the full story behind the answers. They expressed a strong belief that understanding an athlete requires a narrative approach, where the consultant asks open-ended questions and listens to the athlete's unique experiences, rather than checking boxes on a page.
However, the other half of the group saw the survey as a powerful resource. These consultants viewed the questions not as a test to be graded, but as a map to guide a conversation. They believed that the survey could help them spot areas where an athlete might be struggling without realizing it. For instance, if an athlete gave a low score on a question about planning, it wouldn't necessarily mean the athlete was bad at planning; it would simply signal a topic worth exploring. These consultants imagined using the survey results to start a dialogue, asking the athlete, "I see you rated your preparation low; can you tell me what that looks like for you?" In this view, the numbers served as a starting point for a deeper discussion, helping to uncover the athlete's true feelings and habits. They saw the survey as a way to help young athletes become more aware of their own learning processes, giving them a vocabulary to describe what they were doing and why.
Even among those who were initially skeptical, the conversation shifted as they engaged with the specific content of the survey. Many of the hesitant consultants began to see that the questions themselves were valuable, even if they didn't want to use the final scores. They realized that the specific statements in the survey could be lifted out and used as prompts during a face-to-face meeting. Instead of handing an athlete a form to fill out alone, a consultant could sit with the athlete and discuss each question together, using the survey as a "think-aloud" tool. This approach allowed them to keep the conversation flowing while still gathering the structured information the survey provided. They found that the survey covered important ground that often gets missed in casual conversation, such as how an athlete handles unexpected changes in a practice or how they manage their effort when things get difficult.
The study also highlighted how the survey could help consultants understand the environment in which an athlete trains. Some consultants noted that the survey could reveal whether an athlete was truly learning on their own or simply following orders from a coach. If an athlete scored high on self-regulation, it might mean they had a supportive coach who encouraged independence, or it might mean the athlete was naturally driven. If they scored low, it could indicate that the training environment was too controlling, leaving the athlete with no space to practice making their own decisions. This insight allowed the consultants to look beyond the athlete's personal skills and consider the broader context of their training, including the coaching style and the team culture.
Ultimately, the research suggests that the value of a survey like this depends entirely on how it is used. The paper does not claim that the survey is a magic bullet that will solve all problems, nor does it suggest that every consultant should start using it immediately. Instead, it shows that the survey has "prospective practical validity," meaning it has the potential to be a useful tool if applied with care and creativity. The consultants who were open to it saw it as a way to structure their conversations and help athletes reflect on their own growth. Those who were resistant saw it as a potential barrier to genuine connection, but even they acknowledged that the specific questions could be useful if integrated into a broader, more personal approach. The study concludes that the future of mental performance consulting lies in blending these two worlds: using the structure of a survey to guide the conversation, while relying on the human connection between the consultant and the athlete to make sense of the answers. It is a reminder that in the complex world of sports psychology, the best tools are often the ones that can be adapted to fit the unique needs of the person using them.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.