Experience, Effectiveness, and Perceptions Toward Sport Psychology Consultants: A Critical Review of Peer-Reviewed Articles

Abstract

The first scientific papers on sport psychology consultants (SPCs) focused primarily on the professional practice of experienced SPCs. Since then, the scientific literature on SPCs has greatly diversified. The purpose of this review is to summarize and critically examine the findings of three scientifically studied topics on SPCs: SPCs' experiences, perceptions toward SPCs, and SPCs' effectiveness. Peer-reviewed scientific articles published in English were found in the main sport and psychology databases. The primary results in relation to each topic and the limitations of these papers are presented. The discussion examines future avenues from which to develop research on SPCs.

Since Norman Triplett's first publication on the social facilitation of cyclists in 1897, the scientific study of sport psychology has greatly diversified. One aspect that has emerged from this field focuses on sport psychology consultants (SPCs) and their work. There are two main definitions of SPCs in the scientific literature. They can be seen as complementary because one focuses on the training requirements to become a SPC and the other on their role in applied sport psychology. Morris, Alfermann, Litunen, and Hall (2003) defined a SPC as a person trained in both psychology and sport science. Donohue et al. (2004) as well as Wrisberg, Simpson, Loberg, Withycombe, and Reed (2009) defined a SPC rather as a person who, during sport psychology consultations, supports athletes and coaches (stakeholders¹) in their development of mental and emotional skills with the aim to achieve optimal performance and improved well-being. A SPC might therefore be defined as a person who is trained in both psychology and sport and exercise science and who provides psychological support to stakeholders involved in sport. Note that, in addition to the term SPC, different terms in the scientific literature have a similar definition, such as sport psychologist or mental skills trainer. For reasons of brevity, the term SPC is used in this article but encompasses each of these titles.

From 1980 to 1990, several veteran SPCs (e.g., Botterill, 1990; Halliwell, 1990; Ravizza, 1988) published self-narrative papers to share their experiences and, as a result, guide the work of SPC neophytes. The first theoretical article published specifically on SPCs dates back to 1981 by Steven Danish and Bruce Hale (Danish & Hale, 1981). Some years later, Terry Orlick and John Partington (Orlick & Partington, 1987; Partington & Orlick, 1987, 1991) conducted the first empirical work on SPCs and focused on the experiences of the athletes, the coaches, and the SPCs during consultations.

However, to our knowledge, no researchers have reviewed the existing scientific literature on SPC. Such a review could highlight the established findings regarding the SPC profession and could identify areas where data are lacking and thus propose avenues of research. The purpose of the present narrative review is to summarize and critically examine some of the most predominant topics of the scientific literature on the SPC.

To accomplish this, six databases and one search engine were consulted: SPORTDiscus, PsycNET, PubMed, Web of Science, ERIC, Physical Education Index, and Google Scholar. These computerized databases cover a wide variety of research topics (e.g., sport, psychology, health) and were selected to ensure an exhaustive search of the SPC literature. As the first scientific publication relating specifically to the SPC dates back only to the 1980s, the database search was restricted to articles published between 1980 and 2015. Also, to ensure an updated and relevant review, the reference lists of recent articles (2010–2015) were examined. Furthermore, to promote the advancement of scientific knowledge about the SPC, only articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals were considered. Thus, books, theses, and memoirs were not included in this review. Finally, only articles published in English were retained.

The keywords (using truncatures) (consult^* OR practitio^* OR “mental skills trainer” OR “mental skills consult^*” OR “mental preparato^*”) AND (“sport psycholog^*”) were first used for each of the databases. These keywords identified 248 articles where SPC was the main focus of the study. The articles were then read and summarized by members of the research team who are experienced with qualitative analysis (four authors). Different types of articles were identified: narrative reviews, survey studies, self-narrative papers, and interview studies. Each article was assigned a main topic based on its primary focus. Situations of ambiguity were resolved with discussions (i.e., when an article had more than one primary focus, a vote was held to determine whether the article should be assigned more than one topic, or if there was enough specificity for it to be assigned a single topic).

Next, three of the most frequently studied topics were identified: (a) experiences of SPCs, (b) perceptions toward SPCs, and (c) effectiveness of SPCs. Only articles that highlight these three topics were included in the present review to assure a succinct article. Those topics were selected because they were frequently mentioned in the studies' objectives. In addition to the three mentioned topics, SPCs' training was also identified as a topic widely studied. This topic was judged too vast to fit in a single section of the present review because of the many intercountry differences in SPC training. To ensure that the most relevant articles on the three topics were reviewed, a second database search was conducted using the topics as keywords: (consult^* OR practitio^* OR “mental skills trainer” OR “mental skills consult^*” OR “mental preparato^*”) AND (“sport psycholog^*”) AND (experi^* OR percepti^* OR attitu^* OR effecti^*). Twelve articles that fall specifically in one of the three topics were added following the second database search.

First, the main results related to each topic are described in separate sections. These results are presented as a comparison of SPCs according to expertise (i.e., expert SPCs and neophytes), where appropriate. Each section concludes with a summary that includes a critical examination of the main findings and the inherent study limitations related to that topic. Second, to promote the growth of knowledge on SPCs, the discussion addresses directions for future research in light of the limitations of the scientific literature on the SPC.

Experiences of SPCs

Most available data about the experience of SPCs are based on the subjective work experiences of one or a few well-known SPCs obtained from interviews or self-narrative papers (e.g., McCann, 2008). According to Fifer, Henschen, Gould, and Ravizza (2008), interviewing expert SPCs is an effective way to learn about their work experience. Such experiences have been documented in various sport settings, such as professional tennis (Loehr, 1990), professional hockey (Botterill, 1990; Halliwell, 1990), and professional baseball (Ravizza, 1990). These experiences have also been investigated in track and field (Portenga, Aoyagi, & Statler, 2012; Vernacchia & Henschen, 2008), golf (Collins, Evans-Jones, & O'Connor, 2013), cricket (Bull, 1989), and gymnastics (Salmela, 1989). Other examples of SPCs' experiences were also reported with Olympic athletes (e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Elsborg, Diment, & Elbe, 2015; Moyle, 2014; Orlick, 1989; Portenga et al., 2012; Sharp & Hodge, 2011; Van Raalte, 2003), university and college athletes (Chamberlain, 2007), as well as in recreational sports (Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011). Finally, British and Australian researchers have also recently studied the experiences of neophyte SPCs (e.g., Owton, Bond, & Tod, 2013; Tod, 2007; Tod, Andersen, & Marchant, 2009, 2011). The present section highlights the main findings of the publications on SPCs' experiences, reflecting mainly the professional philosophy of SPCs, the work context in which they practice, the challenges and obstacles they encounter, and the assets they consider important to accomplish their work. For a summary of the results presented in this section, see Table 1.

Table 1 Outline of the Main Findings in Relation to Sport Psychology Consultants' (SPCs') Experiences

Experiences of SPCs
Professional philosophy
• Most SPCs adopt a cognitive-behavioral approach with mental-skills training
• The reality of the fieldwork requires SPCs to be flexible
• An approach centered on the athletes and their needs is preferred
Work context
• It is important to adapt interventions according to the athlete's needs and the sport setting (i.e., athlete's sport, level of the athlete, location [practices vs. competitions])
Challenges and obstacles
• Lack of financial resources or organizational and logistical constraints is common
• Increased workload during major competitions (many different teams)
• Neophyte SPCs should avoid a rigid expert approach
Important assets
• It is preferable to have experience before working with elite athletes
• Establishing a trust-based relationship with the stakeholders is important

Professional Philosophy

Professional philosophy refers to the beliefs and values that guide the SPCs in their professional practice (Poczwardowski, Sherman, & Ravizza, 2004). Specifically, this philosophy encompasses the approach that guides the practice chosen by the SPC (e.g., cognitive behavioral), the role of the SPC (e.g., educational or clinical), and the intervention techniques that the SPC adopts.

As reported by expert SPCs, the cognitive behavioral approach appears to be the most widely used in their practice (e.g., Gould, Tammen, Murphy, & May, 1989; Partington & Orlick, 1991; Sharp, Hodge, & Danish, 2014; Van Raalte, 2003; Winter & Collins, 2015). Nonetheless, other approaches are used by some experienced SPCs such as a humanistic perspective (Fifer et al., 2008; Harwood & Steptoe, 2012; Winter & Collins, 2015), a holistic approach (e.g., Collins et al., 2013; Friesen & Orlick, 2010; Henriksen, Larsen, Storm, & Ryom, 2014; Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011; Orlick, 1989), and an eclectic approach (Cropley, Miles, Hanton, & Niven, 2007; Sharp et al., 2014; Symes, 2014). Regardless of their approaches, several SPCs believe an individualized approach (i.e., adapted to and centered on each client) is optimal for intervention effectiveness (e.g., Collins et al., 2013; Sharp & Hodge, 2011; Van Raalte, 2003; Winter & Collins, 2015).

Many expert SPCs mention adopting an educational consulting role rather than a clinical consulting role, and do so by offering interventions that target mental skills training (MST) such as self-confidence, motivation, goal setting, and stress management (e.g., Botterill, 1990; Gould et al., 1989; Halliwell, 1990; Loehr, 1990; Ravizza, 1990; Rotella, 1990; Salmela, 1989). However, according to studies conducted among SPCs working during the Olympic Games (e.g., Birrer, Wetzel, Schmid, & Morgan, 2012; Collins et al., 2013; McCann, 2008; Moyle, 2014; Samulski & Lopes, 2008; Williams & Andersen, 2012), the interventions are not limited to MST and emotional support is often the main intervention provided. Indeed, SPCs report intervening for a variety of psychological problems such as stress adaptation, performance pressure, concentration issues due to external distractions (e.g., media, transportation problems), frustration following a poor performance, injuries, interpersonal conflicts or personal and clinical problems such as anxiety symptoms (Samulski & Lopes, 2008; Sullivan & Nashman, 1998). Occasionally, it appears that SPCs face situations that require immediate assistance (e.g., suicide ideations, athletes with a life-threatening illness, severe team conflicts, death in the athlete's family) and adopt a crisis response plan (Cogan, Flowers, Haberl, McCann, & Borlabi, 2012).

Finally, SPCs who work in community sport settings report providing MST but also report using psychosocial and cultural interventions (Henriksen et al., 2014; Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011). For example, SPCs schedule individual meetings with head coaches or players to assess the progress of the players and to identify their specific needs (Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011).

Studies conducted on neophyte SPCs reveal that their experiences often relate to learning how to adapt interventions and how to adopt a more athlete-centered approach (Owton et al., 2013; Tod & Bond, 2010; Tod et al., 2009, 2011). Indeed, these studies illustrate that in the very beginning of their career, SPCs tend to intervene strictly and “by the book,” in the way they were taught in graduate school (i.e., mostly MST with a cognitive-behavioral approach), but learned over time to be more flexible in their interventions. Neophytes mentioned that with the experience gained working with athletes, they learned to focus more on facilitating the athlete's personal growth rather than trying to fit the athlete into their service delivery approaches.

Overall, the scientific literature on SPCs' professional philosophies highlights that MST with a cognitive-behavioral approach seems to be adopted by most SPCs, regardless of their level of experience, but the reality of the fieldwork requires them to be flexible, which is gained through practical experience. Thus, it appears that an approach centered on the athletes and their needs is preferred.

Work Context

The work context of SPCs is determined primarily by the athlete's sport, the level of the athlete, and the location of the intervention (e.g., practices and competitions). With respect to the sport and the level of the athlete, British, American, and Australian SPCs mention that a sound knowledge of the sport setting contributes to the success of the intervention and that it is necessary to adapt one's methods of working to the particular setting (e.g., Batey, Cotterilm, & Symes, 2013; Fifer et al., 2008; Gould et al., 1989; Sharp & Hodge, 2011; Winter & Collins, 2015). For example, in an article where well-known SPCs discuss how they intervene, Ravizza reported that in professional baseball, group interventions are not encouraged, whereas they are generally welcomed when he works with Olympic athletes (Fifer et al., 2008).

Regarding the location of the intervention, several well-known SPCs shared their experiences working with athletes or teams during practices (e.g., Botterill, 1990; Fifer et al., 2008; Halliwell, 1990; Loehr, 1990; Rotella, 1990, Salmela, 1989). For example, Henschen, when interviewed by Fifer et al. (2008), stated that by integrating MST into the practice sessions of professional athletes, it conveys the message that mental preparation is important.

Relating to the work of SPCs during competitions, numerous researchers focused on the support of athletes and coaches during large-scale competitions, in particular the Olympic games (e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Birrer et al., 2012; Gould & Maynard, 2009; McCann, 2008; Sharp et al., 2014; Williams & Andersen, 2012; Wylleman & Johnson, 2012). These studies highlight certain particularities unique to interventions in the setting of elite sport competition given that the aspirations of the athletes and their entourage, as well as the media attention, are at their highest. In such a setting, SPCs mention occupying different roles not directly related to sport psychology, such as transporting athletes and cooking (e.g., Collins et al., 2013).

In these settings of both high-level competitions and practices, many SPCs report that they frequently intervene in an unplanned and brief manner (e.g., Cogan et al., 2012; Elsborg et al., 2015; Fifer et al., 2008; Halliwell, 1990). For example, consultations may take place on the ski lift or during transportation (Fifer et al., 2008). As in the literature focusing on SPCs' professional philosophy, these findings reflect the importance for SPCs to be flexible and to adapt their interventions according to the athlete's needs and the sport setting.

Regarding articles on neophyte SPCs, there appears to be few studies published specifically on work context. Participants interviewed by Tod et al. (2009) reported to have an interest in working with elite athletes. Among the same participants interviewed 4 years later, two out of seven were working full time with athletes (Tod et al., 2011). The only study that provides more specific information on work context is that of Tod and Bond (2010), where a neophyte SPC was followed for 2 years. This study revealed that the neophyte SPC worked in various contexts, such as with young athletes, amateurs, and professional athletes of various levels.

Challenges and Obstacles

The challenges and obstacles that expert SPCs face seem particularly important when consultations take place during major competitions, especially during the Olympic Games. These include, among others, lack of financial resources, organizational and logistical constraints (e.g., absence of consultation locales), dealing with ethical issues, a shortage of opportunities to interact with the coach, and a lack of time to work with the athletes given their busy schedules (e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Gould et al., 1989; Haberl & Peterson, 2006; Moyle, 2014; Pensgaard & Abrahamsen, 2012; Vernacchia & Henschen, 2008). SPCs who worked at the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games and who were interviewed by Elsborg et al. (2015) also reported the challenge of an increased workload, as they had to work with several different teams and stakeholders on top of managing the media attention they received while respecting the athletes' confidentiality. Another significant challenge for expert SPCs is knowing when to intervene and how to assume their duties during competitions while remaining unobtrusive and not to be a nuisance when the coaches, athletes, and other specialists are under pressure (e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Elsborg et al., 2015; Halliwell, 1990; Pensgaard & Abrahamsen, 2012).

It is important to note that working with high-level and professional athletes or during major competitions appears to be an infrequent occurrence (e.g., the Olympic Games occur once every 2 years), and this work is often only realized by the most renowned and highly experienced SPCs (Cogan et al., 2012; Devonport & Lane, 2014). Other than the challenges and obstacles encountered in elite sport, those encountered by SPCs working in other settings appear to be less well documented. An example of an obstacle faced by SPCs working in youth sport (Blom, Visek, & Harris, 2013) or with adolescents in conflicting cultures (Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011) would be the need to develop relationships with the adults revolving around the athletes in addition to the athletes themselves. However, given the less abundant literature on SPCs working in nonelite settings, it would be interesting to know more about their unique challenges and obstacles, particularly in relation to the different sports, the different athletic levels, and the different times in the season, as it would be more representative of most SPCs.

Finally, publications on neophyte SPCs highlighted a particular challenge. They feel they need to present themselves as competent but without adopting a rigid expert approach (Owton et al., 2013; Tod et al., 2009, 2011). Indeed, they report feeling anxious in the beginning of their career because they doubt their competence but want to appear credible. However, they also mention developing confidence in their competence as they gain experience. For example, they learned to listen more and to resist the urge to provide solutions to problems. They also learned that it is normal to experience some situations of anxiety. Finally, they learned to adapt their intervention to respond to client's needs, a result of less supervision and evaluations, enhanced individuation processes, and increased client experience (Tod et al., 2009, 2011).

Important Assets

Regarding important assets, several veteran SPCs mentioned that it is preferable to have practical experience and a good sport psychology expertise (e.g., counseling skills) before accepting employment contracts with elite athletes (e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Halliwell, 1990; Orlick, 1989). The need to be flexible and accessible has also been emphasized by SPCs, mainly when the consultation takes place during competitions (e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Collins et al., 2013; Elsborg et al., 2015; Moyle, 2014; Sharp & Hodge, 2011). The latter requires a particular skill set—the SPC must be able to adapt to the setting and to manage their own performance anxiety all while respecting the ethical principles of consultation (Elsborg et al., 2015; Haberl & Peterson, 2006; Tod et al., 2009).

Some authors also stressed the importance of having confidence in their skills and to emanate an air of assurance to help build a climate of trust with the athletes and coaches (Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Halliwell, 1990; Sharp & Hodge, 2011). Paradoxically, many SPCs raised an awareness against a rigid “expert” problem-solving intervention approach and recommend adopting a holistic approach, viewing the athlete as a whole and not only focusing on optimal performance with MST (e.g., Christensen & Aoyagi, 2014; Collins et al., 2013; Harwood & Steptoe, 2012; Henriksen et al., 2014; McCormick & Meijen, 2015). These considerations seem to be equally relevant to neophyte SPCs who mention that MST was not always suitable for the athlete and who tend to develop a flexible and client-centered approach as they gain experience (Owton et al., 2013; Tod et al., 2009, 2011; Tod & Bond, 2010). Incidentally, expert as well as neophyte SPCs consider that establishing a trusting relationship with the athlete is a fundamental element in the consultation process (e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Beaumont, Maynard, & Butt, 2015; Christensen & Aoyagi, 2014; Collins et al., 2013; Sharp, Hodge, & Danish, 2015; Tod et al., 2011). Experienced SPCs also recommend building relationships with the coaches to learn from them and to promote congruent interventions (Fifer et al., 2008; Winter & Collins, 2015). Along the same lines, SPCs working in community sport state that a good partnership between the SPC, the athlete, the coaches, and the parents warrants better communication and improves the athlete's well-being (Blom et al., 2013; Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011).

Another important asset involves cultural sensitivity. Indeed, an SPC working in a culturally diverse setting revealed that sharing the same culture and speaking the same language as the stakeholder are important assets to establish a trust-based relationship favorable to the success of the intervention (Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011). Furthermore, Egli, Fisher, and Gentner (2014) as well as Balague (1999) encourage SPCs to be aware of the influence of their own cultural identity as well as the stakeholder's in order to maintain a good relationship.

In sum, it appears evident that SPCs should have strong interpersonal skills. Such assets help the SPC gain the stakeholders' trust, which is essential in establishing professional credibility. A noteworthy challenge for SPCs is to maintain balance between showing professional confidence and expert knowledge.

Summary

Experienced SPCs published articles to share their and their colleagues' work experiences with elite athletes for the benefit of the less experienced SPCs. These articles inform about the particularities of the SPC's work and illustrate the behind-the-scene complexity of their task. Neophytes and SPCs who wish to work with the same clientele can benefit greatly from the expert knowledge depicted in these publications. Even if it is possible to find similarities between different SPCs' experiences, these articles also attest to their uniqueness and highlight the importance of the sport setting. For example, SPCs' work during the Olympic Games involves many challenges, like the need to remain flexible to adapt to the organizational constraints and distractions (e.g., media), to the performance pressures of the different stakeholders, and to the unique challenges that often cannot be planned in advance.

However, because some of these articles report on the lived experiences that date back to more than 20 years (e.g., Botterill, 1990; Halliwell, 1990; Ravizza, 1990), it is possible that certain elements reported by these authors have evolved over time. For example, current articles describing the experiences of neophyte SPCs reveal that they often find it difficult to demonstrate their competence without unintentionally trying to appear as experts (Tod et al., 2009, 2011). Therefore, beyond the ability to teach mental skills to stakeholders, the most important skill set for SPCs seems to be the development of fundamental interpersonal skills to facilitate the establishment of trust-based relationships. However, these articles on neophyte SPCs are limited in number and mainly concern trainees from Australia and the United Kingdom. Thus, studies on recently trained SPCs from different countries would be beneficial, especially if they document their work in the field, their successes, and their challenges. By continuing the effort to gain knowledge on neophyte SPCs' experiences, people wishing to build a career in sport psychology consultation could draw from these lessons learned and orient their first steps. Along the same line, because the majority of articles on SPCs' experiences relate to an elite clientele, it would be useful to understand the experiences of SPCs working at nonelite levels such as with children and adolescents practicing at competitive, recreational, or even development levels. This would depict a more global portrait of the SPCs' experience.

Finally, teaching life skills is a relatively new type of intervention that goes beyond performance-related preoccupations and considers the global development of the athlete (Gould & Carson, 2008). Thus, albeit the results from the studies included in this review indicate that many SPCs adopt a holistic philosophical approach, these studies did not identify that teaching life skills was an intervention strategy used by SPCs. Accordingly, it would be interesting to explore this avenue to determine if teaching life skills is indeed integrated in the SPC practice.

Perceptions Toward SPCs

In the present review, perceptions refer to the conception, thoughts, and feelings that different sport stakeholders might hold toward SPCs and their work. In the SPC literature, the terms attitude and perceptions are often used interchangeably, but in the interest of simplicity, the term perceptions is used to encompass both terms. Researchers have interviewed athletes, coaches, sport administrators (e.g., directors, presidents), and other sport professionals (e.g., sport physicians) and reported their perceptions toward SPCs (e.g., Barker & Winter, 2014; Chandler, Eubank, Nesti, & Cable, 2014; Green, Morgan, & Manley, 2012; Sharp & Hodge, 2014; Wilson, Gilbert, Gilbert, & Sailor, 2009). In addition to their perceptions toward SPCs, their perceptions toward access to SPC services emerged from these studies. The following sections present the scope of this knowledge. Table 2 highlights the results presented in this section.

Table 2 Outline of the Main Findings in Relation to Perceptions Toward Sport Psychology Consultants (SPCs)

Perceptions Toward SPCs
Perceptions of athletes
• Athletes perceive SPCs positively and are open to ask for their services
• Athletes are mainly motivated by enhanced performance outcomes
• Perceptions seem to vary according to nationality, gender and age
• Obstacles to hiring an SPC: lack of time and fear of being perceived as mentally weak
Perceptions of coaches
• Coaches perceive the work of SPCs as positive
• Some coaches prefer performance-related outcomes whereas others prefer personal development
• Obstacles to hiring an SPC: lack of knowledge of the services that SPCs provide and a lack of financial resources
Perceptions of administrators
• Administrators perceive the work of SPCs as positive, especially in performance improvement
• Obstacles to hiring an SPC: lack of financial resources and a lack of knowledge of the services SPCs provide
Perceptions of other sport professionals
• Sport physicians see the work of an SPC as positive

Perceptions of Athletes

Elite rugby athletes (Green et al., 2012), as well as National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 athletes (Martin, 2005; Wrisberg et al., 2009), high school athletes (Martin, 2005), and British female university athletes (Brooks & Bull, 1999) generally perceive the work of SPCs as positive and demonstrate an openness to call on their services. However, some results show that their willingness to work with a SPC is mainly motivated by enhanced performance outcomes (e.g., Green et al., 2012; Wrisberg et al., 2009). For example, in the study by Green et al. (2012), rugby players believed that the support of a SPC contributed to the achievement of an adequate mental state (e.g., positive thinking) that enabled the athletes to excel and to manage the performance-related pressures. In another line of thought, studies conducted among British university athletes (Van Raalte, Brewer, Matheson, & Brewer, 1996) and American football players (Van Raalte, Brewer, Brewer, & Linder, 1992) indicated that athletes perceived the work of SPCs to be similar to that of mental health practitioners (e.g., psychotherapists, psychiatrists). However, these athletes also perceived the work of SPCs to be similar to other sport-related professionals (e.g., coach, strength coach), a comparison not made for general mental health practitioners. At the time these studies were published, the authors argued that SPCs could benefit from the positive ratings of mental health professionals to increase athletes' knowledge of the services they offer.

Certain factors such as gender, nationality, and age of the athletes seem to modify their perceptions toward SPCs. In the study by Martin (2005), female athletes were less likely to stigmatize sport psychology consultation and SPCs and engaged more easily with the SPC than male athletes. In addition, a study conducted on NCAA athletes showed that female athletes might be more interested in the benefits related to communication (i.e., with their coaches or teammates) and to the management of negative emotions, whereas their male counterparts might be more interested in the benefits related to the ability to reproduce in competition what they achieve in training (Wrisberg et al., 2009). In terms of nationality, responses to the Sport Psychology Attitudes–Revised questionnaire (Martin, Kellman, Lavallee, & Page, 2002) revealed that American, British, and German athletes had generally the same positive perceptions (i.e., openness toward and confidence in SPCs), with only a few nuances (Martin, Lavallee, Kellman, & Page, 2004). For example, British athletes generally reported more trust in SPCs than other athletes. Finally, in terms of age, high school athletes interviewed by Martin (2005) with the Sport Psychology Attitudes–Revised questionnaire were more afraid of being judged by their peers if they sought a SPC compared to NCAA athletes.

In terms of the perceived obstacles related to the use of SPC services, NCAA Division 1 athletes reported that the biggest obstacle was a lack of time to both find a SPC and to use their services, given their busy schedules (López & Levy, 2013). Equivalently, several athletes identified the fear of being perceived as mentally weak by their peers or their coaches as another major obstacle (e.g., Green et al., 2012; López & Levy, 2013; Page, Martin, & Wayda, 2001; Wrisberg et al., 2009).

Perceptions of Coaches

Both British and American coaches working with young athletes (e.g., Barker & Winter, 2014; Zakrajsek, Martin, & Zizzi, 2011) as well as coaches working with NCAA Division 1 athletes (e.g., Wrisberg, Loberg, Simpson, Withycombe, & Reed, 2010; Zakrajsek, Steinfeldt, Bodey, Martin, & Zizzi, 2013) revealed that they have generally positive perceptions with regard to the services that SPCs provide and the resulting benefits. However, certain coaches seem to prefer the benefits that are performance related (e.g., NCAA Division 1; Wrisberg et al., 2010), whereas others believe that the focus should be on personal development (e.g., British youth coaches; Barker & Winter, 2014). In another line of thought, NCAA Division 1 coaches interviewed by Zakrajsek et al. (2013) wanted the SPCs to keep them informed of their work with the athletes so that they could work together to meet the athletes' needs. Haberl and McCann (2012) also observed among American Olympic coaches that some did not know if their athletes worked with a SPC or not but were pleased to be integrated in the work process when called upon to help meet their athletes' needs. Finally, the coaches from the study of Barker and Winter (2014) study mentioned that SPC services would be better suited for specific sports, namely those with a greater cognitive component such as motor racing, because SPCs work on mental rather than physical skills.

For coaches, the most often reported obstacle to access SPC services is their lack of knowledge of the services that SPCs provide. Indeed, Barker and Winter (2014) observed that coaches of British youth are skeptical regarding the utility and effectiveness of the SPC services in addition to not knowing the type of clientele (excluding athletes) SPCs are able to work with. Moreover, Swedish coaches from the study of Johnson, Andersson, and Fallby (2011) demonstrated a fear of losing their athletes' confidence because of the trust that the athletes would place in the SPCs and certainly did not want the SPC to interfere with their work. Finally, several coaches from different countries mentioned obstacles to the hiring of an SPC include the lack of financial resources and the lack of space and time allocated for these services (e.g., Baker & Winter, 2014; Johnson et al., 2011; Pain & Harwood, 2004).

Perceptions of Administrators

There seems to be fewer studies on the sport administrators' (i.e., directors, presidents) perceptions of SPCs compared to athletes and coaches. The results from two studies on NCAA Division 1 sport administrators (i.e., Wilson et al., 2009; Wrisberg, Withycombe, Simpson, Loberg, & Reed, 2012) revealed that they recognized that the athletes might benefit from SPC services, especially in the improvement of sports performance. However, in the study by Wilson et al. (2009), the college athletic directors did not consider the work of SPCs to be exclusive; they expected the coaches to be able to play a role similar to that of the SPC in meeting athletes' needs.

The results obtained in three studies (i.e., Kornspan & Duve, 2006; Wilson et al., 2009; Wrisberg et al., 2012) revealed that the lack of financial resources was the main obstacle faced by administrators concerning the hiring of SPCs. Another important obstacle was the lack of knowledge with regard to SPCs (Wilson et al., 2009). For example, administrators did not know what type of training SPCs have to pursue in order to practice.

Perceptions of Other Sport Professionals

One identified study conducted by Chandler et al. (2014) highlights the perceptions of five sport physicians from the United Kingdom regarding the work of SPCs. The authors observed that these sport physicians mainly see the work of SPCs as positive and that SPCs should be open, honest, trustworthy, professional, and, more important, able to build solid relationships with stakeholders. Furthermore, this study paved the way for a potential new area of research. Aside from the perceptions of athletes, coaches, and administrators toward SPCs, the perceptions of different sport professionals (e.g., physiotherapists, physical preparators) could also be investigated. This would provide a better understanding of the sport community's vision toward SPCs.

Summary

The scientific literature on the perceptions toward SPCs revealed similarities and differences between the different stakeholders involved in sport. In the aforementioned studies, stakeholders generally report positive perceptions toward SPCs. In addition, they mostly recognize the ability of the SPC to improve athletic performance. However, one discrepancy emerged between the factors that influenced the positive perceptions of athletes versus those of coaches and administrators. The athletes' perceptions toward SPCs seem to be influenced by their personal characteristics (i.e., age, nationality, gender), whereas for coaches and administrators, they are influenced more so by the resources available for hiring a SPC or environmental factors.

At first glance, such a divergence of views does not seem surprising given that the athletes can be seen as those who directly benefit from the hiring of a SPC, without having to worry about the financial constraints that surround such a decision. However, it appears logical to presume that coaches and administrators could benefit indirectly from the improved performance of the athletes by the positive light shone upon themselves and their sport institution. Moreover, although these studies report that coaches and administrators recognize the performance benefits associated with the SPC services (e.g., Barker & Winter, 2014; Wilson et al., 2009), these positive perceptions rarely result in the hiring of a SPC (Wilson et al., 2009). Thus, the contradiction between the positive perceptions of coaches and administrators toward SPCs and the low hiring rates of the latter demonstrates a potential need to better inform these specific stakeholders about the services SPCs can offer. Also, it shows that sport institutions might need financial restructuring in order to create SPC jobs for the greater benefit of everyone.

Three main limitations were found in the studies on perceptions of SPCs. First, certain studies had very few participants and prevent the generalization of the results to all the sport population (e.g., rugby athletes: Green et al., 2012; British coaches: Barker & Winter, 2014). Next, other studies were conducted by using homemade questionnaires (e.g., Wilson et al., 2009; Wrisberg et al., 2009; Wrisberg et al., 2012). Validating these questionnaires would ensure better construct validity. Finally, it appears that there is a lack of studies regarding the perceptions of other individuals revolving around SPCs. For example, because SPCs work not only with adult athletes but also with children and adolescents, the perceptions of the athletes' parents should be investigated. Another example could be the little research conducted on the perceptions of other sports professionals toward SPCs. Such studies would not only enrich the understanding of the SPCs in the sport community but also might help improve the service delivery, as parents could encourage their children to apply the skills they learned to other settings (e.g., school, home) and SPCs could more easily coordinate their work with other sport professionals.

Effectiveness of SPCs

A final topic that emerged from the literature concerns the effectiveness of SPC services, although literature available on this topic was lacking compared to the previous topics that emerged. Typically, researchers reported the characteristics that SPCs should possess (according to sport stakeholders) to facilitate the success of an intervention (e.g., Anderson, Miles, Robinson, & Mahoney, 2004; Lubker, Visek, Geer, & Watson, 2008). Indeed, aside from the characteristics that SPCs believe they should possess (as previously reported in SPC experiences, e.g., Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Sharp & Hodge, 2011; Sharp et al., 2014), different characteristics were identified from the perspectives of athletes and coaches and are reported in the present section. Table 3 illustrate a summary of the results presented in this section.

Table 3 Outline of the Main Findings in Relation to Sport Psychology Consultants' (SPCs) Effectiveness

Effectiveness of SPCs
Effectiveness according to athletes
• SPCs should have a positive attitude; have good communication skills; and be friendly/informal, trustworthy, and flexible
Effectiveness according to coaches
• SPCs should have knowledge of the sport, be trustworthy, and have good listening skills
• SPCs should be able to integrate the team's culture

However, Cropley, Hanton, Miles, and Niven (2010) went beyond such a characteristics approach and questioned six British SPCs (two trainees and four accredited) to provide an empirically generated definition of effective practice in applied sport psychology:

Effective practice in applied sport psychology concerns meeting the needs of the client(s). Effective practice is therefore a process where, (a) a working alliance is developed between client(s) and practitioner, (b) clients goals are clear and agreed by all stakeholders, (c) appropriate evidence-based interventions are undertaken to achieve goals, and (d) goals are achieved or reformulated. Honest evaluation and reflection on the process then occurs to inform future practice, which requires the consultant to pro-actively seek sincere feedback. (p. 527)

Such a multifaceted definition can be considered a complement to the literature addressing ideal SPCs' characteristics because it suggests a process that should be used to lead to effective practice, whereas the characteristics reflect the attributes required to engage in this process (Cropley et al., 2010).

Effectiveness According to Athletes

Anderson et al. (2004) interviewed 30 elite British athletes about the main characteristics that SPCs should possess to be effective. Their extensive and abundant qualitative data revealed that these athletes think SPCs should possess six main characteristics. First, SPCs should have a friendly and informal approach compared to a more formal and therapeutic approach found in a clinical psychology or counselling contexts. According to these authors, this casualness will help build a relationship with the athlete. Second, SPCs should be good communicators. To do this, they should possess good listening skills, be open to the ideas of others, and be able to communicate their knowledge in an accessible language. Third, SPCs should try to adapt their services to each athlete, including being available if the athlete needs them and to show enthusiasm toward the work that has to be done. Fourth, SPCs should be able to understand the reality that the athletes face and accomplish this by gaining knowledge of an athlete's sport. Fifth, SPCs should be trustworthy. To do this, SPCs should encourage the athletes to feel completely safe to disclose their problems relating as much to their sport as to their personal lives. Finally, SPCs should be positive and demonstrate to the athletes their ability to themselves use the same mental skills that they teach. Similar findings were obtained among NCAA athletes (Lubker et al., 2008), among New Zealand athletes (Sharp & Hodge, 2014), and among Canadian (Orlick & Partington, 1987) and American Olympic athletes (Haberl & McCann, 2012).

Effectiveness According to Coaches

Sharp and Hodge (2013) interviewed two coaches from New Zealand who stated that to be an effective SPC, they believe the SPC should first have knowledge of the sport as it promotes the development of the SPC–coach relationship. Furthermore, a SPC must be trustworthy and have good listening skills to encourage coaches to disclose their true concerns. Finally, these coaches believe that a SPC should be able to integrate into the team's internal culture, as this would promote the development of relationships with the athletes and the coaching staff. Many of these results are corroborated by those obtained several years ago by Partington and Orlick (1987) among Canadian Olympic coaches.

Summary

When evaluating the effectiveness of a SPC, it appears that athletes and coaches pay particular attention to the SPC–client relationship. Indeed, most of the personal characteristics that were identified as promoters of a successful consultation arose from the quality of this relationship (e.g., trustworthy, a good communicator, good listening skills). This conclusion is not particularly surprising given that in other areas of aid relationships (e.g., clinical psychology, counseling), the quality of the relationship between the professional and the client is often put forth as being the main factor facilitating a positive change in the client (e.g., Petitpas, Giges, & Danish, 1999). In light of this, it appears that SPCs, even though they are working in a sport setting, should continue to draw upon written works from other fields that involve aid relationships to improve their ability to build relationships with their clients. Graduate programs offered to future SPCs should ensure a training inspired by those of other areas of aid relationships.

It seems necessary, however, to report a nuance that is specific to the services that SPCs offer. The sport stakeholders who decide to invest in an aid relationship with a SPC seem to generally appreciate a more informal approach unlike the more formal approach in clinical psychology (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Lubker et al., 2008; Sharp & Hodge, 2014). Thus, the SPC should recognize this seemingly widespread preference. Such as Sharp and Hodge (2011) discussed, this aspect would help build trust with the client and would reduce their fears with regard to the judgment of their peers. The authors nevertheless add that the relationship maintains a certain structure that considers the limitations and weaknesses of the client and respects their privacy.

The main limitation of this review relates to the fact that there are not many studies published on the effectiveness of SPCs and information is lacking. Therefore, the definition, characteristics, and conclusions that were drawn regarding the effectiveness of SPC's should be carefully interpreted, as further empirical evidence is needed. Another limitation is that recent studies were mostly conducted on participants from the same countries. Indeed, even if some authors from different countries have significantly contributed to this topic (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Haberl & McCann, 2012; Lubker et al., 2008), the majority of the recent studies on this topic seem to have been conducted on participants from New Zealand (e.g., Sharp & Hodge, 2011, 2013, 2014). It would be interesting to obtain the point of view of the effectiveness of SPCs from sport stakeholders and SPCs from other countries to broaden the knowledge on and bring a complementary view to this topic.

Discussion and Directions for Future Research

The objective of the present article was to summarize and form a critical examination on three of the most studied topics within the SPC scientific literature: SPCs' experiences, perceptions toward SPCs, and SPCs' effectiveness. To continue the advancement of knowledge on these research topics, it is appropriate to highlight certain limitations inherent to these studies to permit an informed and nuanced interpretation of the results. Based on these limitations, future avenues of research are suggested throughout the present section in order to broaden the knowledge on SPCs and their work.

Future Research in the Study of SPCs

The present review reveals some general limitations of the scientific peer-reviewed literature on SPCs. First, even if some authors tried to define what a SPC is or does within this body of literature (i.e., Donohue et al., 2004; Morris et al., 2003; Wrisberg et al., 2009), there seems to be some confusion regarding the terms used to refer to the SPC (e.g., sport psychologist, mental skill coach). Therefore, it appears necessary to operationalize SPCs and what they do more precisely and explicitly and to focus on defining the different terms used in this field (regarding experiences, defining qualifications, effectiveness, perceptions, etc.). When conducting their studies, researchers could inspire from the works found in handbooks or textbooks in order to precisely define the SPC. More empirically, it would be interesting to conduct a qualitative study on SPCs from different levels of expertise to better understand the way they define themselves in their practice. Second, although the extant literature has produced an account of the SPC, additional aspects that surround the SPC and the topics presented herein need to be more thoroughly investigated (e.g., perceptions of other sport professionals toward SPCs) to ensure a better understanding of the reality faced by SPCs. Finally, the majority of these studies come from the same countries (i.e., Western countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia). Stakeholders and SPCs from other countries and different sport cultures should also be investigated in order to enable comparisons with the SPC's work that is already studied.

Future Research in the Studies on SPCs' Experiences

Overall, SPCs' experiences were studied mostly using a qualitative approach that allows for a more in-depth and rich analysis of the information. The main inherent limitation of these studies concerns their small sample sizes, often relating the experiences of only one SPC or a small group of experienced SPCs. Thus, it would be interesting to complement the results with studies that use self-report validated questionnaires on larger sample sizes. Such studies would verify if these results hold true for most SPCs.

Another limitation of the studies on SPCs' experiences concerns the populations studied. Indeed, the vast majority of the reviewed studies focus on SPCs who work with athletes and coaches involved in university-level sports or higher (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Arnold & Sarkar, 2014; Green et al., 2012; Portenga et al., 2012; Vernacchia & Henschen, 2008; Winter & Collins, 2015). Thus, very few researchers (e.g., Barker & Winter, 2014; Blom et al., 2013; Lidor & Blumenstein, 2011) seem to have addressed the experience of SPCs who work with younger athletes or with stakeholders at lower levels (e.g., student-athletes in high school). It would be enriching to compare their work experiences with those who work in a more competitive context. Moreover, knowing that working as a SPC for the Olympic Games is rare and reserved mainly for more experienced SPCs (Cogan et al., 2012; Devonport & Lane, 2014), more studies that focus on the consultations among these different clientele would help understand the different possible career paths of a SPC. Along the same line, it would be interesting to conduct longitudinal studies on SPCs' experiences to better understand how the profession evolves over the years. In addition to presenting the evolution of these experiences over time, such studies would also enrich the understanding of the evolution of the reality of the fieldwork. Being up-to-date on the reality in the field along with knowing the different types of clientele might help inform neophyte SPCs as to what kind of work awaits them after their training.

Future Research in the Studies on Perceptions Toward SPCs

Studies on perceptions toward SPCs have made it possible to question a large variety of sport stakeholders on how they feel about SPCs. However, the main limitation of these studies is that there are only a few studies on each of the different stakeholders. Indeed, when taken as a whole, this topic appears to be thoroughly studied, but when separated by stakeholders, few studies report the perceptions of each, making it difficult to have a clear portrait of the perceptions toward SPCs within the sport community. Researchers should continue the effort to gather such perceptions to enhance service delivery by SPCs to different clientele.

Another limitation regarding the studies on perceptions toward SPCs concerns the lack of studies on obstacles to access to SPCs' services. It appears that when stakeholders are questioned about their perceptions, they spontaneously mention such obstacles. In light of this, rather than studying obstacles trough perceptions, it seems relevant to conduct studies specifically on these obstacles to compare them to obstacles found in other types of services (e.g., counseling). Such a comparison might help understand the way other services overcame these obstacles and facilitate SPCs' service delivery. Also, longitudinal studies focusing specifically on obstacles would make it possible to indicate if the obstacles remain the same over time, if they change, and especially if they fade.

Finally, specifically to sport administrators' perceptions, it appears that they were only surveyed using quantitative design (e.g., Wilson et al., 2009; Wrisberg et al., 2012). To broaden knowledge on this particular topic, it appears important to complement the existing literature with qualitative studies. Indeed, it could be interesting to conduct individual interviews among administrators, considering it is they who obtain the financial resources and hire the SPCs. Such interviews could address in depth the reason why they decided to hire (or not to hire) a SPC or their knowledge on the SPCs' work. Based on these results, practical recommendations could be put forth to facilitate partnerships between sports administrators and SPCs.

Future Research in the Studies on SPCs' Effectiveness

Studies on SPCs' effectiveness made it possible to identify the characteristics of SPCs that sport stakeholders prefer as well as the kind of relationship they seek when working with them. Often, this body of literature presents subjective perceptions of stakeholders based on their own experiences working with a SPC. It could be interesting to objectify the approach using, for example, a quasi-experimental design and validated questionnaires administered before and after the follow-up to observe measurable benefits (e.g., general well-being, self-efficacy, athletic performances, level of satisfaction regarding the follow-up). Such studies would not only enrich the empirical understanding of SPCs' effectiveness, but also help service delivery, as SPCs might become more aware of what intervention can work in specific sport settings.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is appropriate to address the limitations of the current review. First, as only peer-reviewed articles were included in this scientific review, information from books, theses, and memoires could not be reviewed (e.g., increase in the demand for psychological services to overcome barriers to achieving optimal performance; Cremades & Tashman, 2014). Second, SPCs' training, another frequently studied topic on SPCs, could not be included. The literature on this topic was too vast and heterogeneous between countries. It appears relevant to conduct a review specifically on this topic in order to guide the training programs of future SPCs. Finally, as the present review was restricted to articles published in English between 1980 and 2015, it is possible that the most recent articles related to the SPCs, as well as those published in another language, were not included in the present review. Despite these limitations, this review presented a scientific body of knowledge on the SPC that was based on peer-review articles and enabled a critical examination of this literature.

The SPC profession constitutes a complex research topic because of the many relating aspects. Indeed, this profession invites many interactions with various sport stakeholders, whereas the stakeholders evolve in a variety of dynamic sports settings, thus making it hard to circumscribe in a single literature review. Nevertheless, the present review highlighted that research on the SPC is relatively new but that the existing research provides a rich foundation of information that future studies can build on. Indeed, it appears that there is space for future research to continue to explore this challenging profession in order to better understand the sport community's perceptions and improve service delivery to sport stakeholders.

Notes

1 For reasons of brevity, the term stakeholder is used to refer to athletes, coaches, sports administrators, and sport professionals all together.