An Analysis of Personal Effectiveness Among Multi Level Indian Football Coaches

Abstract

The psychological and behavioural capabilities of football coaches may vary according to the level of professional preparation and certification through which they progress. The present investigation examined personal effectiveness among Indian football coaches holding AFC ‘B’, AIFF ‘C’, and AIFF ‘D’ coaching qualifications. A comparative cross-sectional approach was adopted involving 135 coaches, with 45 participants representing each qualification category. Personal effectiveness was examined both as an overall construct and through eleven constituent dimensions: patience, assertiveness, acceptability, pragmatism, agility, accomplishment, optimism, confidence, augmentative orientation, perseverance, and modesty. Normality of the overall scores was examined using the Shapiro–Wilk test, while differences among the three groups were evaluated through one-way analysis of variance followed by Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons. Personal effectiveness scores satisfied the assumption of normality in all three groups. A statistically significant difference was observed among qualification levels, F(2, 132) = 36.367, p < .001, with AFC ‘B’ coaches obtaining the highest overall mean score (M = 159.49, SD = 9.29), followed by AIFF ‘C’ coaches (M = 148.69, SD = 9.16) and AIFF ‘D’ coaches (M = 143.67, SD = 8.52). The corresponding eta-squared value was approximately .355, indicating that qualification-group membership accounted for a substantial proportion of variance in overall personal effectiveness. Significant group differences were also evident across all eleven dimensions. The findings suggest that coach qualification level is associated with distinct profiles of personal effectiveness, although the cross-sectional design does not establish that certification itself produces these differences. The results highlight the relevance of psychological and interpersonal development within football coach education.

Introduction

The text presents a study examining personal effectiveness among Indian football coaches at three qualification levels: AFC ‘B’, AIFF ‘C’, and AIFF ‘D’. It argues that effective football coaching requires not only technical and tactical knowledge but also psychological, interpersonal, and behavioural qualities.

• Background: Modern football coaches must manage athlete development, communication, decision-making, competitive pressure, relationships, and performance evaluation. Therefore, coaching effectiveness depends on professional knowledge as well as personal qualities such as confidence, patience, adaptability, perseverance, and interpersonal skills.

• Research context: Previous studies suggest that coaching education can improve perceived coaching efficacy, but coaching expertise also develops through practical experience, observation, informal learning, and continued professional development. Therefore, qualification level should not automatically be interpreted as the direct cause of differences in personal effectiveness.

• Purpose: The study compares the personal effectiveness of AFC ‘B’, AIFF ‘C’, and AIFF ‘D’ coaches and examines differences across various personal-effectiveness dimensions.

• Participants: The study included 135 Indian football coaches, equally divided into:

  • AFC ‘B’: 45 coaches
  • AIFF ‘C’: 45 coaches
  • AIFF ‘D’: 45 coaches

• Measurement: Personal effectiveness was measured using the Personal Effectiveness Scale developed by Upinder Dhar and Santosh Dhar. The scale contains 39 items covering 11 dimensions: patience, assertiveness, acceptability, pragmatism, agility, accomplishment, optimism, confidence, augmentative orientation, perseverance, and modesty.

• Methodology: A quantitative, cross-sectional comparative design was used. Researchers applied descriptive statistics, the Shapiro–Wilk normality test, one-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons.

• Overall results: The average personal-effectiveness scores followed a clear pattern:
  AFC ‘B’ > AIFF ‘C’ > AIFF ‘D’

  • AFC ‘B’: M = 159.49
  • AIFF ‘C’: M = 148.69
  • AIFF ‘D’: M = 143.67

• Statistical significance: ANOVA showed a significant difference among the three groups, F(2,132) = 36.367, p < .001. Therefore, the hypothesis that there was no difference in overall personal effectiveness was rejected.

• Post-hoc findings: Every pair of qualification groups differed significantly:

  • AFC ‘B’ vs. AIFF ‘C’: 10.80-point difference, p < .001
  • AFC ‘B’ vs. AIFF ‘D’: 15.82-point difference, p < .001
  • AIFF ‘C’ vs. AIFF ‘D’: 5.02-point difference, p = .027

• Component-level findings: The three groups showed different strengths across individual personal-effectiveness characteristics. For example:

  • Patience: AFC ‘B’ scored highest.
  • Assertiveness: AIFF ‘C’ scored highest.
  • Acceptability: AIFF ‘D’ scored highest.
  • Pragmatism: AFC ‘B’ scored highest.
  • Agility: AIFF ‘C’ scored highest.
  • Accomplishment: AFC ‘B’ scored highest.
  • Optimism: AIFF ‘C’ scored highest.

• Interpretation: The findings suggest that higher coaching qualification levels are associated with greater overall personal effectiveness in this sample, with AFC ‘B’ coaches showing the highest overall scores. However, the component-level results indicate that each qualification group has particular personal strengths, rather than one group being superior across every characteristic.

Overall conclusion

The study concludes that personal effectiveness differs significantly among Indian football coaches with AFC ‘B’, AIFF ‘C’, and AIFF ‘D’ qualifications. AFC ‘B’ coaches demonstrated the highest overall personal-effectiveness scores, followed by AIFF ‘C’ and AIFF ‘D’ coaches. At the same time, differences in individual qualities such as assertiveness, acceptability, agility, and optimism show that coach development is multidimensional.

The results support the importance of developing psychological, interpersonal, and behavioural competencies alongside technical coaching qualifications. However, because the study is cross-sectional and non-randomized, the findings show an association with qualification level rather than proving that higher certification directly causes greater personal effectiveness.

Conclusion

The study concludes that personal effectiveness differs significantly among AFC ‘B’, AIFF ‘C’, and AIFF ‘D’ football coaches. AFC ‘B’ coaches demonstrated the highest overall personal effectiveness, followed by AIFF ‘C’ and AIFF ‘D’ coaches. Significant differences were also observed across all eleven components of personal effectiveness. At the component level, AFC ‘B’ coaches showed greater strength in patience, pragmatism, accomplishment, confidence, and perseverance; AIFF ‘C’ coaches performed better in assertiveness, agility, and optimism; while AIFF ‘D’ coaches recorded higher scores in acceptability, augmentative orientation, and modesty. These findings indicate that coaching qualification level is associated with distinct personal-effectiveness profiles rather than a uniform progression across all psychological characteristics. The results emphasize the importance of psychological, interpersonal, and behavioural development within football coach-education programmes. However, since the study was cross-sectional, the observed differences should be interpreted as associations with qualification level rather than as direct effects of coaching certification. Future research may examine the influence of coaching experience, age, playing background, and other professional factors on personal effectiveness.

References

[1] Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765–776. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/91/4/765/ [2] Myers, N. D., Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029203000669 [3] Myers, N. D., Wolfe, E. W., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Coaching Efficacy Scale for coaches from the United States of America. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327841mpee0903_1 [4] Sullivan, P. J., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10413200305404 [5] Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I. D., Jutkiewicz, N., Vincent, S., & Ring, C. (2008). Coaching efficacy and coaching effectiveness: Examining their predictors and comparing coaches\' and athletes\' reports. The Sport Psychologist, 22(4), 383–404. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/tsp/22/4/article-p383.xml [6] Boardley, I. D., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2008). Athletes\' perceptions of coaching effectiveness and athlete-related outcomes in rugby union: An investigation based on the coaching efficacy model. The Sport Psychologist, 22(3), 269–287. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/tsp/22/3/article-p269.xml [7] Sullivan, P., Paquette, K. J., Holt, N. L., & Bloom, G. A. (2012). The relation of coaching context and coach education to coaching efficacy and perceived leadership behaviors in youth sport. The Sport Psychologist, 26(1), 122–134. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/tsp/26/1/article-p122.xml [8] Mesquita, I., Borges, M., Rosado, A., & De Souza, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, perceived training needs and coaching competences: The case of Portuguese handball. European Journal of Sport Science. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461391.2010.551413 [9] Duarte, D., Garganta, J., & Fonseca, A. M. (2014). Does the experience influence the efficacy of football coach? A perspective from coaches with different levels of experience as player and as coach. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3010/301031526003.pdf [10] Teques, P., Duarte, D., & Viana, J. (2019). Coaches\' emotional intelligence and reactive behaviors in soccer matches: Mediating effects of coach efficacy beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1629. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01629/full [11] Keatlholetswe, L., & Malete, L. (2019). Coaching efficacy, player perceptions of coaches\' leadership styles, and team performance in Premier League soccer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02701367.2018.1563277 [12] Santos, F., Corte-Real, N., Regueiras, L., Dias, C., & Fonseca, A. (2019). Coaching effectiveness within competitive youth football: Youth football coaches\' and athletes\' perceptions and practices. Sports Coaching Review. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21640629.2018.1459356 [13] Gomes, A. R., Gonçalves, A., Morais, C., & colleagues. (2021). Leadership efficacy in youth football: Athletes\' and coaches\' perspectives. International Sport Coaching Journal. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/iscj/9/2/article-p170.xml [14] Soto García, D., García Herrero, J. A., Carcedo, R. J., & colleagues. (2021). The impact of an authentic sports leadership program for coach development. Frontiers in Psychology. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701134/full [15] Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/174795409789623892 [16] Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800 [17] Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765–776. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/91/4/765/ [18] Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14(4), 410–417. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/tsp/14/4/article-p410.xml [19] Nelson, L. J., Cushion, C. J., & Potrac, P. (2006). Formal, nonformal and informal coach learning: A holistic conceptualisation. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(3), 247–259. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/174795406778604627 [20] Santos, S., Mesquita, I., Graça, A., & Rosado, A. (2010). Coaches\' perceptions of competence and acknowledgement of training needs related to professional competences. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 9(1), 62–70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3737976/ [21] Sullivan, P. J., Paquette, K. J., Holt, N. L., & Bloom, G. A. (2012). The relation of coaching context and coach education to coaching efficacy and perceived leadership behaviors in youth sport. The Sport Psychologist, 26(1), 122–134. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/tsp/26/1/article-p122.xml [22] Teques, P., Duarte, D., & Viana, J. L. (2019). Coaches\' emotional intelligence and reactive behaviors in soccer matches: Mediating effects of coach efficacy beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01629 [23] Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/174795409789623892 [24] Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800 [25] Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765–776. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/91/4/765/ [26] Lee, H., Wäsche, H., & Jekauc, D. (2018). Analyzing the components of emotional competence of football coaches: A qualitative study from the coaches\' perspective. Sports, 6(4), 123. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/6/4/123 [27] Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14(4), 410–417. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/tsp/14/4/article-p410.xml [28] Nash, C. S., & Sproule, J. (2009). Career development of expert coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(1), 121–138. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/1747-9541.4.1.121 [29] Nelson, L. J., Cushion, C. J., & Potrac, P. (2006). Formal, nonformal and informal coach learning: A holistic conceptualisation. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(3), 247–259. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/174795406778604627 [30] Sullivan, P. J., Paquette, K. J., Holt, N. L., & Bloom, G. A. (2012). The relation of coaching context and coach education to coaching efficacy and perceived leadership behaviors in youth sport. The Sport Psychologist, 26(1), 122–134. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/tsp/26/1/article-p122.xml [31] Teques, P., Duarte, D., & Viana, J. (2019). Coaches\' emotional intelligence and reactive behaviors in soccer matches: Mediating effects of coach efficacy beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01629 [32] Thelwell, R. C., Lane, A. M., Weston, N. J. V., & Greenlees, I. A. (2008). Examining relationships between emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671863

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Aditya Nath, Dr. Shailesh Kumar Singh. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.