The Performance Interview Guide [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2017, Vol. 48, No. 5, 352–360

© 2017 American Psychological Association 0735-7028/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000121

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The Performance Interview Guide: Recommendations for Initial Consultations in Sport and Performance Psychology Mark W. Aoyagi and Artur Poczwardowski

Traci Statler

University of Denver

California State University, Fullerton

Jamie L. Shapiro

Alexander B. Cohen

University of Denver

U.S. Olympic Committee

The Performance Interview Guide (PInG) is a semistructured approach to initial sport and performance psychology (SPP) consultations. The PInG is designed to be person centered and strengths based with a focus on performance excellence. We emphasize building a safe, trusting, and collaborative relationship with the client, and provide an overview of information to gather when forming an initial conceptualization of the client. There are 7 components to the PInG: (a) identifying information, (b) reason for seeking consultation, (c) background of areas for improvement, growth, or concern, (d) details of sport/performance, (e) life/identity outside of sport/performance, (f) significant relationships/support, and (g) self-care. As foundations for the PInG, a philosophy of interviewing, guidance on gathering information, and pragmatic considerations such as holistic consulting (i.e., attending to the person and the performer), multiculturalism, and connecting interviewing to a theoretical orientation to performance excellence are presented. Keywords: intake interview, initial consultation, performance excellence

The ability to conduct an effective interview with clients is the foundation for all subsequent interventions and is a prerequisite for providing beneficial psychological services (Rosqvist, Bjorgvinsson, & Davidson, 2007). The working alliance is formed during the initial consultation, often referred to in psychology as the intake session, and information is collected that allows for understanding the client (case conceptualization) and collaboratively developing

the goals for the consultation. Aside from client factors (e.g., motivation), the working relationship has been demonstrated to be the most important factor (accounting for 30% of the variance) in positive counseling outcomes (Asay & Lambert, 1999). While analogous data are not readily available for sport and performance psychology (SPP) outcomes, the importance of the working relationship has similarly been asserted as a critical component of

This article was published Online First February 9, 2017. MARK W. AOYAGI received his PhD in counseling psychology with an emphasis in sport psychology from the University of Missouri. He is director of the Sport & Performance Psychology program at the University of Denver. His areas of professional interest include theories of performance excellence; multicultural and diversity issues; professional issues, training, and ethics in sport psychology; individual growth, development, and fulfillment through sport; and sport as a mechanism for social change. ARTUR POCZWARDOWSKI received his PhD in exercise and sport science with specialization in psychosocial aspects of sport from University of Utah, Salt Lake City. He is a professor at the University of Denver and Director of Field Placements. His publications and professional presentations focus on sport psychology practice for performance enhancement and psychological well-being, coach–athlete relationships, and coping strategies in elite performers. TRACI STATLER received her PhD in Exercise and Sport Science with a specialization in Psychosocial Aspects of Sport from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. She is the Graduate Program Coordinator and an associate professor in the Kinesiology Department at California State University, Fullerton, and also serves as the Lead Sport Psychology Consultant for USA Track and Field. Her research interests include the “art” of excellence in performance, the training and preparation of effective sport psychology practitioners, and the psychology of high performance in a variety of settings.

JAMIE L. SHAPIRO received her PhD in Sport and Exercise Psychology and her Master’s degree in Community Counseling from West Virginia University. She is a faculty member and Assistant Director of the Master of Arts in Sport and Performance Psychology program at the University of Denver. Her areas of professional interest include psychological skills training, mental training for athletes who have disabilities, psychology of sport injury, learning life skills through sport, psychology of performing arts, exercise psychology, and ethics and training in sport and performance psychology. ALEXANDER B. COHEN received his PhD in counseling psychology and his Master’s degree in sport/performance psychology from Florida State University. He is a Senior Sport Psychologist with the U.S. Olympic Committee in Park City, UT. His areas of professional interest include assisting coaches in creating mastery performance environments that promote psychological and physical skill acquisition and execution; working directly with athletes to maximize performance readiness through consistent preparation, enhanced resilience, and mindful self-regulation; and competency-based education, training, supervision, and mentorship. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Mark W. Aoyagi, Graduate School of Professional Psychology, University of Denver, 2450 South Vine Street, Denver, CO 80208-4101. E-mail: [email protected] 352

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERFORMANCE INTERVIEW GUIDE

successful SPP consultation (Petitpas, 2014; Poczwardowski & Sherman, 2011). Clearly, having agreement on the goals and the focus of the relationship between the consultant and the client is also an important characteristic of effective consultations. Despite the aforementioned evidence of the importance of initial consultation, the topic has garnered sparse interest in the SPP literature. Still, sport psychology trainees have recognized the importance of the consultant– client relationship (Stambulova & Johnson, 2010), and the topics of intakes and treatment planning were two of the six lower-order themes identified as issues on which sport psychology trainees want supervision (Hutter, Oldenhof-Veldman, & Oudejans, 2015). Thus, the goals of this article will be to (a) briefly review the extant literature on initial consultations drawing primarily from psychology and the few SPP-specific accounts, (b) translate best practices from the literature into a format appropriate for performance-focused consultation, and (c) present a framework for initial consultations in SPP called the Performance Interview Guide (PInG).

Philosophy of Interviewing Prior to delving into the mechanics of interviewing, it is important to understand its philosophical underpinnings. The overarching goal of the initial session is to establish an effective working relationship and allow the client to tell his or her story (Andersen, 2000). Other objectives of the initial session such as exploring the presenting issue, obtaining data related to the client’s history, and evaluating current functioning (Sommers-Flanagan & SommersFlanagan, 2014), while important, remain secondary to establishing the working alliance. Consistent with many aspects of elite performance, the skill of effectively conducting an interview relies upon balancing many seemingly opposing variables. Do I follow the client or do I need to refocus the client back to gathering data? Do I dive deeper into the presenting issue or broaden out to understand other aspects of the client’s life? When and how should I describe my approach, including competence and boundaries, while maintaining the focus of the session on the client? Clearly, in writing an article on the importance of initial consultations, we value the process of gathering data that may at times be overlooked in SPP consulting. At the same time, we also advocate for a philosophical approach consistent with motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2013), which is based on a strengths-focused foundation that is fitting for performance consultation. From this perspective, the implicit message being sent to the client is consistent with humanistic theory and emphasizes the belief that clients have within them the resources and capacities necessary to implement the changes they seek, and the consultant’s job is to understand people’s strengths and values rather than probe for weaknesses and impose directions for behavior change (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). Therefore, regarding information gathering, we recommend approaching initial consultations with the mentality of gathering the minimum amount of information necessary for understanding the person and agreeing upon a starting point to focus the consultation (understanding that this focus can, and often will, shift as the relationship and conceptualization deepen over time). Determining what constitutes the minimum amount of information necessary is an advanced skill, and therefore noteworthy that it is common for developing or less experienced SPP consultants to move too quickly to an intervention when the athlete/performer

353

and presenting issues are only superficially understood (Hatcher & Lassiter, 2007). Thus, identifying the minimum amount of necessary information harkens back to our analogy of the balance necessary for expert performance. To illustrate the point, as Mark Wilson noted when reflecting on his early experiences as a consultant, Even though I tried to be a good listener, I was always in a rush to get round to delivering the magic bullet. I think patience is, therefore, a key skill—it takes patience to put together a holistic picture of the athlete based on what you hear and what you observe. (McCormick & Meijen, 2015, p. 44)

The next section provides more specifics concerning what might be considered the minimum amount of information necessary for a starting point. Reinforcing that it is just a starting point, Fifer, Henschen, Gould, and Ravizza (2008) advocated a need for a thorough (although ongoing) assessment and case conceptualization before engaging in interventions. In line with McWilliams (1994), we do not believe in teaching a particular technique in the absence of understanding the person to whom one is applying the technique.

Gathering Information: How and What To understand how to best obtain information about a person, we have found it instructive to put ourselves (figuratively or literally) into the role of the client. This can be a particularly important experience for beginning consultants as the natural tendency is to focus (worry) about the self rather than the client (Rønnestad & Skovholt, 2003; Tod, 2007). There are many valuable lessons that can come from this experience such as gaining a sense of the unusualness of the situation from the client’s perspective, the feeling of vulnerability, and the anxiety of the unknown. Consistent with our experiences, Miller and Rollnick (2013) poignantly captured the feelings of many clients by stating, “while the counselor is busy getting started, the client is often pondering whether to stay” (p. 40). We have found this to be true of some performance clients (especially, experts and elite; see also Jones & Spooner, 2006), who may have a tendency to view consulting as too “slow” or “soft” in comparison to the coaching or instruction they are accustomed to receiving. Conversely, and again emphasizing the balancing act of consultation, many performers appreciate the opportunity to slow down, reflect, and be genuinely listened to by an objective professional (Sharp, Hodge, & Danish, 2015). Fortunately, in either case, an effective technique is to ask open-ended questions and reflect on the client’s responses (Mears, 2009). Beginning consultants have a tendency to focus on questions, and it is the reflective comments that are often missing and lead to the feeling of an inquisition on the part of the client (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). While a full discussion of the types (e.g., simple, complex, overshooting, undershooting) and techniques (e.g., straight, amplified, double-sided, length, direction) of reflection is beyond the scope of this article, Miller and Rollnick provided excellent resources for better understanding and practice. They also provide the helpful recommendation of two reflections per question as a way to engage the client, build the relationship, and gain understanding. This ensures that what Andersen (2000)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

354

AOYAGI, POCZWARDOWSKI, STATLER, SHAPIRO, AND COHEN

called the “cardinal rule in beginning interviews” will be followed, “don’t make the client take a quiz right off the bat” (p. 5). Concerning what information to gather, there have been few recommendations in the SPP literature. Andersen (2000) and Simons (2012) have provided personal accounts of approaches to initial consultations, and Taylor and Schneider (1992) have contributed a structured protocol aimed at obtaining both sportspecific and clinical information. Andersen (2000) provided useful examples and an experiential approach to the underlying philosophy of letting the client’s story emerge. We agree with Andersen’s philosophy and hope to build from this foundation with more (but not too much) guidance and structure. Consistent with another aim of the present article, Simons (2012) took a performance-focused approach to intakes and emphasized that athletes seek out or are referred to SPP consultation with the expectation that the consultation will help them perform better. Taylor and Schneider (1992) have provided the only structured initial guide for SPP to date, the Sport-Clinical Intake Protocol (SCIP). The SCIP is a comprehensive and useful instrument in settings where it is probable or likely that athlete clients will seek clinical services (e.g., college counseling center). While the SCIP incorporates some sport-related information, it has been noted that it may be too clinically focused for clients seeking performance consultation (Andersen, 2000; Simons, 2012). Consistent with this critique, as well as with a clinical model, we would add that the philosophical approach of the SCIP seems to come from a problem-focused or deficit model as opposed to the personcentered, strengths-based model we are advocating. Hence, the Performance Interview Guide (PInG) was developed to assist SPP consultants in navigating initial consultations for the purpose of establishing an effective working relationship focused on performance excellence.

Pragmatic Considerations of the Performance Interview Guide Before outlining the various components of the PInG, a few more practical issues require attention. First, we want to highlight that although the PInG was developed for the purpose of performance consultation, we do not believe in a simplistic performance/ clinical dichotomy. We all consider ourselves to be holistic practitioners, focused primarily on the well-being of the people with whom we work including, but not limited to, their abilities as performers. That being said, the balance is once again to respect the wishes and desires of our clients with the education that is often necessary for people to understand what psychological processes may be impacting their lives and performances. In other words, we are acknowledging that all aspects of the performance/ clinical conversation are valued and do occur. Performers may present with a “performance issue” (e.g., inability to focus appropriately during competition) that is actually a symptom of a psychiatric disorder (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression). Similarly, performers may present with what they believe to be a psychiatric disorder (e.g., depression), and it is a symptom of their performance (e.g., overtraining). And of course, it is often the case that performers have a good idea about what is going on (either performance, clinical, or both) and are simply seeking support in ameliorating, improving, resolving, or preventing a particular outcome or situation.

Our philosophy, and the underlying philosophy of the PInG, is once again a strengths-based, humanistic understanding of people. This means that we trust and empower clients to decide upon the course of action they feel is appropriate for them. We balance this with the understanding that clients often do not have all the information or knowledge necessary to make an informed decision. For example, if a client presents with the desire for a performance consultation, we will still conduct the initial interview to gain a holistic understanding of the client. Furthermore, we recognize that clients are not experts in psychopathology, and they may not recognize or report some symptoms (Segal & Hutchings, 2007). Therefore, it is important for us to ask questions that will provide an understanding of whether or not there may be a clinical or subclinical psychological factor that is causing or exacerbating a performance issue. If these questions lead to concern about psychopathology, we will discuss this with the client and make sure they have a good understanding of what we have assessed. Assuming the psychological issue is not markedly impairing the judgment and well-being of the client, we will follow clients’ wishes regarding whether or not they want to begin working through the psychological issue at this point in time. Of course, treating psychopathology is a separate competency from performance excellence (Aoyagi, Portenga, Poczwardowski, Cohen, & Statler, 2012), and consultants’ training and credentialing will dictate what services they may provide. It is the philosophy and context of the PInG that make it strengths-based, not specifically the number of questions provided as examples for given topics. For instance, while the PInG and the SCIP both include an assessment of a client’s family history, the way this information is gathered can look and feel quite different when approached from a strengths-based foundation rather than from a problem-focused orientation. Thus, the key differences lie in the way the questions are asked and the probes are articulated (e.g., asking about family support, the ways the family celebrates success, or about how the family focuses on lessons learned from setbacks and failures) and the purposes for asking the questions (e.g., elicit present or latent resources) rather than in the questions themselves. A second pragmatic consideration is recognizing that initial consultations, and SPP consultations in general, are multicultural encounters. Indeed, few activities bring diverse groups of individuals together as do sport and performance, although power in these arenas tends to be located within historically privileged groups (Coakley, 2017). Therefore, initiating and inviting a conversation about personal and cultural identities may be critical to correctly assessing factors relevant to personal or performance excellence (Parham, 2005) and perhaps more importantly is simply consistent with the humanistic perspective of the PInG. We have found the multicultural guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2003) to be useful in navigating multicultural aspects of initial and ongoing consultations. Of particular relevance to initial consultations is Guideline 1: “psychologists are encouraged to recognize that, as cultural beings, they may hold attitudes and beliefs that can detrimentally influence perceptions of and interactions with individuals who are ethnically and racially different from themselves” (APA, 2003, p. 17). Hence, integrating the collection of cultural data with the collection of other data is essential to multiculturally competent assessment (McKitrick, Ed-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERFORMANCE INTERVIEW GUIDE

wards, & Sola, 2007) and forming accurate case conceptualizations (Ridley, Hill, & Wiese, 2001). Third, despite the connotations of the initial consultation, we want to acknowledge and emphasize that the PInG is not limited to the first session (this is why we prefer the term initial consultation as opposed to initial session). It is not uncommon for an initial consultation or intake interview to last several sessions. This does not mean that the consultant is doing nothing but gathering information for the first several sessions. In fact, it may mean the opposite. Given our philosophical approach of gathering the minimal amount of information necessary initially, it means that the first few sessions are likely to be a mixture of time spent focusing on the agreed-upon goals and continuing to gather information to develop a richer understanding and conceptualization of the client. Lastly, building upon the idea of conceptualization, usage of the PInG should occur within the context of the theoretical orientation to performance excellence (TOPE) of the consultant (Aoyagi, 2013; Aoyagi & Poczwardowski, 2012). While the PInG is designed to be general enough to support any theoretical orientation, some areas may be more or less emphasized based on one’s specific TOPE. The critical point is that practitioners develop and utilize their TOPE to filter the information gathered with the PInG and develop a working conceptualization of the client.

The Performance Interview Guide Depending on the setting or situation, some of what follows could be gathered prior to the initial consultation, for example, via a phone screen/interview or presession paperwork. We want to emphasize once again that the primary objective of the PInG is to gather essential information while building relationships with clients and instilling a sense of trust and safety such that they will feel comfortable with consultation and with the consultant. To this end, we often inquire about previous experiences with psychology generally and sport psychology specifically. If clients have had prior experience, we like to understand what worked, what they liked, what did not work, or what they did not like. We then transition into sharing information about what we do and how the process will look and feel, integrating what we learned from clients’ previous experiences as appropriate (e.g., continuing to build from what worked or avoiding what they did not like). Within this brief dialogue, we look for a good entry point for discussing confidentiality and informed consent. For many clients, this is often enough to get them off and running on what brought them in that day. If they have questions, concerns, or seem a bit unsure about the process, we will engage them in a conversation and perhaps utilize some self-disclosure to make the situation feel more normal, as people are accustomed to conversations where there is an exchange of information rather than one talker and one listener. To reiterate, we do not want clients’ initial impressions to be of an interrogation or a one-sided question-and-answer exchange (Andersen, 2000). With clients feeling comfortable and the beginning of the session underway, we next outline each of the different components of the PInG (see the Appendix). It is important to note here that interviewing is not a linear process, and the PInG is not meant to be followed in an orderly step-by-step manner. In fact, the PInG is not meant to be followed so much as merely providing general guidance and direction within which the consultant and client

355

embark on their own journey. Thus, we advocate for following the client whenever feasible, as it is often difficult to discern when the client is going to reveal a critical piece of information or make an unexpected connection between what appeared to be an irrelevant story and the presenting issue. A key lesson described by McCormick and Meijen (2015) in their summary of advice shared by experienced sport psychologists is the importance of be(ing) patient when providing psychological assistance. Instead of rushing into providing a solution, take the time to ask questions, to learn about your client, and to develop a relationship. It may take a while for the client to tell you about the “real” problem or for you to understand the client’s situation well enough to identify what you can do to help. As suggested by Marc Jones, consider relieving yourself of some pressure by explaining that you do not expect to offer solutions during the first session. (p. 54)

Of course, this advice is applicable to all practitioners, but may be of particular relevance in sport situations where barriers to gaining entry have been noted as particularly salient (Ravizza, 1988).

Identifying Information Obtaining some basic identifying information about the client is helpful, and also demonstrates the importance of the whole person (Balague, 2012). In terms of demographics, it is common to ask about age, gender, relationship status, race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation. While it is standard in some settings for the client to complete this information on a form prior to the session, it is still often helpful to discuss some of the ways the client identifies, particularly in cross-cultural consultant– client relationships. Furthermore, it is important for the client to self-identify, as the consultant should never assume how the client identifies based on appearances or other superficial indicators. Oftentimes it is helpful to initiate a conversation on cultural identity, as discussing identity is contrary to social norms. Many clients have expressed relief and gratitude at having the opportunity to openly discuss cultural identities that they did not feel safe or welcome discussing in their performance environment.

Reason for Seeking Consultation at This Time This question begins to address the presenting reason for why the client is seeking SPP consulting. Again, one area in which the PInG differs from the SCIP and general mental health intakes is there is not necessarily an assumption that a problem or a concern exists. It is common (and in many cases desirable) for clients to seek SPP consultation as a form of skill building, performance development, or as an additional resource to add to their performance support system/team. Therefore, the generic “What brings you in today?” is a better opening question than “What can I help you with?” or “What concerns do you have?” or similar questions that imply there is or should be a problem. A generic opening question allows for clients to discuss the mental or emotional skills they desire to add or improve and the mentality or mindset they wish to develop (Vernacchia, 2012). Of course, problems or concerns may also be motivating factors for seeking consultation; therefore, the PInG addresses these issues as well. An additional point of importance beyond the reason for coming in is the timing of coming in (i.e., What brings you in today?). Typically,

356

AOYAGI, POCZWARDOWSKI, STATLER, SHAPIRO, AND COHEN

clients respond with their reasons for meeting but do not elaborate on the timing aspect of the question. We have found that reemphasizing “Why now?” often provides helpful insights into what situations or circumstances fueled the motivation to add SPP consultation into what are typically already overloaded schedules. Furthermore, it is common with this question to gain useful information regarding what the client may have already tried or worked on before seeking consultation, and supporting these efforts can be a meaningful intervention in and of itself (Duncan, Miller, & Sparks, 2004).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Background of Areas for Improvement and Concern In this section of the interview, the goal is to gain a better understanding of the area(s) where clients would like to improve and/or problems they would like to address. It is helpful to clarify what they are hoping to accomplish and to get specifics about how they will know when their goals have been met. For example, what will they think like, act like, or feel like? How will their thoughts, behaviors, or emotions be different? These questions then lead to an assessment of what the current state of the skill or concern is. In this assessment, it is helpful to keep the common fitness acronym of FID (frequency, intensity, duration) in mind as general guidance for the information you want to acquire. How often is the issue occurring? How much is it impacting you/your performance? How long has this been happening? These questions are particularly relevant to performance concerns, but may also be modified for use in assessing skills that are desired. Consistent with our strengths-based philosophy of consultation, in this section of the interview it is also important to assess the strengths and resources that clients possess. Thus, asking questions such as, “What are your strengths as a person and performer?”; “How can you use them to get where you want to go?”; and “What resources do you have to support getting where you want to go?” are critical in acknowledging to clients that what they already have within them is going to be the foundation from which growth and change will occur (McCann, 2012).

Details of Sport/Performance It is often useful to gain some contextual information about why and how clients started in their sport or performance domain and what they enjoy and are passionate about (Balague, 2012). Additionally, it is important to note that each sport or performance domain has a unique culture, and consultants being willing to learn and engage in the language of the client is of great value (Ravizza, 1988). Indeed, a consultant’s contextual intelligence is a key factor in successful consultations. By having a framework and language for assessing context, sport psychologists can more effectively develop contextually intelligent and culturally appropriate interventions (Brown, Gould, & Foster, 2005). For example, the experiences of those following in the footsteps of a parent who performed at a high level and who understands the performance environment are often very different from those who are in a performance arena unfamiliar to their families (and which they sometimes struggle to understand). Another noteworthy example is performers considered to be talented or gifted. For these clients, we like to ask about when they first recognized they were in some way exceptional and also what changed both for them and for their support system when this realization occurred. Sometimes this line of inquiry leads to innocuous responses, but often meaningful

connections emerge that become relevant to the performance consultation. Inquiries into career progression, strengths/areas for improvement in performance, role, aspirations, and goals facilitate conceptualizing performance excellence (Balague, 2012). Of course, as we have emphasized throughout, performance excellence is a delicate balance and with this in mind, part of contextual intelligence is picking up on what may not be present. It is not uncommon for performers to seek consultation because they are no longer (or perhaps never were) passionate about their performance and may be interested in exploring performance or life transitions. Particularly if the consultant is working for the performance team, this can be a sensitive issue and one that performers are not always forthright with. We find approaching consultations with the humanistic perspective helps to cultivate our awareness and clients’ perceptions of a safe environment where all relevant topics may be explored.

Life/Identity Outside of Sport/Performance Many performers come to consultation focused on their performance, and it can be easy to overlook who they are outside of their identity as athlete or performer. We find it beneficial to take some time to understand the client holistically, as a person for whom performance is but one facet of identity (Henschen, 2012). What activities do they engage in outside of performance (e.g., school, work, hobbies)? What areas for growth or areas for concern do they have as a person? We have found that many performers find it relieving to be able to talk about themselves aside from their performance identity though some prefer to keep things performance focused. Either way, clients have always appreciated our efforts to acknowledge them as people, not just performers. To reiterate, in our work, we value both performance and personal excellence (see the 2002 special issue of the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology) and with permission from the client, we enable transfer of performance lessons learned in consultation to life outside of one’s performance domain by making this connection explicit. Furthermore, having a balance between sport/performance and other areas of life has been identified as an important aspect by Olympic champions (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002), in dealing with failure and success (Poczwardowski & Conroy, 2002), and in transitions (Poczwardowski, Diehl, O’Neil, Cote, & Haberl, 2014).

Significant Relationships and Support System In order for most performers to be successful, they must have support from people both inside their performance circle (e.g., teammates/fellow performers, coach/instructor, sport science team, artistic directors) and outside their performance realm (e.g., family, friends, mentors, romantic partner; Orlick, 2012). The process of performance excellence requires significant investment of time and energy by the performer, which can often be perceived as selfish and cause strain on interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, there is often a difficult balance between a necessary investment versus an overinvestment in the performance (see Vallerand’s work on the dualistic model of passion, e.g., Vallerand et al., 2008). The extent of the performance investment, and corresponding degree (or lack thereof) of investment in areas outside of the performance, should vary at different points in the performance development process. For example, for those pursuing expert or elite performance, there are critical phases of performance development where the performer’s life is not going to be

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERFORMANCE INTERVIEW GUIDE

balanced. The challenge is to recognize when these phases shift and have supportive relationships with people willing to accept the performer “back” when he or she is ready to rebalance his or her life. It is common for challenges to arise when performers remain immersed in their performance beyond these critical developmental periods, and in so doing, become invested to a degree that is detrimental to their performance and neglectful of other important aspects of their life, development, and relationships. An important role that a SPP consultant can play is in helping performers educate and manage their support system and helping to ensure the system is working to the benefit of the performer. There are many ways this can be accomplished, and it can often be difficult for performers to discern what is helpful and what is not within their system as they are part of the system. As an example, we are referring to system here in the singular, and for some performers it is most effective to have their performance team and their personal team function as a singular system. However, for others, this can be a source of stress and it works better to have their performance team and personal team function relatively independently as separate systems. In either case, communication is vital as performance coach, strength and conditioning coach, agent, athletic trainer, nutritionist, and masseuse often have overlapping roles and responsibilities. Similarly, parents, teammates, friends, and romantic partner often have their own viewpoints on what the performer needs as well as what they need from the performer. Thus, having a well-functioning support system(s) can be a vital part of effective performance.

Self-Care A final area for exploration, and oftentimes a good way to draw an initial consultation to a close, is to inquire about self-care (Hays, 2012). This is an effective and nurturing transition to the end of the session as it brings the performer into the “here and now” and provides some tangible information regarding the current functioning of the performer. Typical areas for inquiry have to do with sleep, recovery, fun and relaxing activities, nutrition, fitness, injuries, medications, substance use, and general mood. For each of these areas, it is important to gain specifics in terms of how much, how often, and the quality. In concluding each session, we like to leave about five minutes to ask how things went today and leave space for any topics the clients may want to touch upon that have not yet been addressed. Although we try hard not to make the initial consultation an inquisition (as discussed earlier), there are nonetheless many questions that we have typically asked by this point. Consistent with people’s need for autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000), leaving time at the end of the session is an effective way to allow clients space to make sure they accomplished what they had hoped for in the meeting and will be engaged in the process moving forward.

Summary We hope that the PInG provides an alternative to the few models of initial consultation that exist in the SPP literature. Foremost, the PInG is designed specifically for performance-focused consultations. In addition, the focus on clients’ strengths and seeking a balance between the humanistic notion of following clients and the need to collect important information seems to address well the specific needs of performers. Moreover, nonperformance life and identity explora-

357

tions effectively build on the holistic approaches advocated by SPP practitioners. Finally, the self-care part of initial consultations, as with other PInG components, intends both to nurture the welfare of clients as well as attend to the need to build the working alliance. Some of the recommendations we made are dependent upon the professional development and competencies of consultants who need to balance their growth (especially earlier in their career) with the needs of their clients. Though not stated elsewhere in the article, for developing consultants the oversight of a competent supervisor is both essential and helpful. Future proposals of how to approach initial consultation will benefit from data-based projects and rigorous self-reflective accounts. Another future consideration is the developmental level of the performer, as the PInG is designed for adults and the needs of younger performers might differ from what is presented here. Overall, the field of SPP needs more collaborative reports (e.g., Halliwell, Orlick, Ravizza, & Rotella, 2003) on how to approach the dynamic process of consultation of which the central points are both performance and personal excellence.

References American Psychological Association (APA). (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377– 402. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377 Andersen, M. B. (2000). Beginnings: Intakes and the initiation of relationships. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Doing sport psychology (pp. 3–16). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Aoyagi, M. W. (2013). Teaching theories of performance excellence to sport & performance psychology consultants-in-training. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4, 139 –151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 21520704.2013.792895 Aoyagi, M. W., & Poczwardowski, A. (Eds.). (2012). Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Aoyagi, M. W., Portenga, S. T., Poczwardowski, A., Cohen, A. B., & Statler, T. (2012). Reflections and directions: The profession of sport psychology past, present, and future. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 32–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025676 Asay, T. P., & Lambert, M. J. (1999). The empirical case for the common factors in therapy: Quantitative findings. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 23–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11132-001 Balague, G. (2012). Dr. Gloria Balague. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence (pp. 1–18). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Brown, C. H., Gould, D., & Foster, S. (2005). A framework for developing contextual intelligence (CI). Sport Psychologist, 19, 51– 62. http://dx.doi .org/10.1123/tsp.19.1.51 Coakley, J. (2017). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (12th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., & Sparks, J. A. (2004). The heroic client: A revolutionary way to improve effectiveness through client-directed, outcome-informed therapy (rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fifer, A., Henschen, K., Gould, D., & Ravizza, K. (2008). What works when with athletes. Sport Psychologist, 22, 356 –377. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1123/tsp.22.3.356 Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10413200290103482

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

358

AOYAGI, POCZWARDOWSKI, STATLER, SHAPIRO, AND COHEN

Halliwell, W., Orlick, T., Ravizza, K., & Rotella, B. (2003). Consultant’s guide to excellence. Chelsea, Quebec, Canada: Zone of Excellence. Hatcher, R. L., & Lassiter, K. D. (2007). Initial training in professional psychology: The practicum competencies outline. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1, 49 – 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 1931-3918.1.1.49 Hays, K. F. (2012). Dr. Kate F. Hays. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence (pp. 71– 89). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Henschen, K. (2012). Dr. Keith Henschen. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence (pp. 91–105). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Hutter, R. I., Oldenhof-Veldman, T., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2015). What trainee sport psychologists want to learn in supervision. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 101–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport .2014.08.003 Jones, G., & Spooner, K. (2006). Coaching high achievers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58, 40 –50. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.1.40 McCann, S. (2012). Dr. Sean McCann. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence (pp. 107–127). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. McCormick, A., & Meijen, C. (2015). A lesson learned in time: Advice shared by experienced sport psychologists. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 11, 43–54. McKitrick, D. S., Edwards, T. A., & Sola, A. B. (2007). Multicultural issues. In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of clinical interviewing with adults (pp. 64 –78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412982733.n6 McWilliams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mears, G. (2009). Conducting an intake interview. In I. Marini & M. A. Stebnicki (Eds.), The professional counselor’s desk reference (pp. 127– 134). New York, NY: Springer. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Orlick, T. (2012). Dr. Terry Orlick. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence (pp. 167–184). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Parham, W. D. (2005). Raising the bar: Developing an understanding of athletes from racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse backgrounds. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Sport psychology in practice (pp. 201–215). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Petitpas, A. (2014). It’s all about relationships: A counseling approach to sport psychology consulting. In P. McCarthy & M. Jones (Eds.), Becoming a sport psychologist (pp. 75– 83). New York, NY: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group. Poczwardowski, A., & Conroy, D. E. (2002). Coping responses to failure and success among elite athletes and performing artists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 313–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10413200290103581 Poczwardowski, A., Diehl, B., O’Neil, A., Cote, T., & Haberl, P. (2014). Successful transitions to the Olympic Training Center, CO Springs: A mixed-methods exploration with six resident-athletes. Journal of Ap-

plied Sport Psychology, 26, 33–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200 .2013.773950 Poczwardowski, A., & Sherman, C. P. (2011). Revisions to the sport psychology service delivery (SPSD) heuristic: Explorations with experienced consultants. Sport Psychologist, 25, 511–531. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1123/tsp.25.4.511 Ravizza, K. (1988). Gaining entry with athletic personnel for season-long consulting. Sport Psychologist, 2, 243–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ tsp.2.3.243 Ridley, C., Hill, C., & Wiese, D. (2001). Ethics in multicultural assessment: A model of reasoned application. In L. Suzuki, J. Ponterotto, & P. Meller (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical psychology and educational applications (2nd ed., pp. 29 – 45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5– 44. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/089484530303000102 Rosqvist, J., Bjorgvinsson, T., & Davidson, J. (2007). Philosophical underpinnings of clinical interviewing. In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of clinical interviewing with adults (pp. 2– 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412982733.n1 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.55.1.68 Segal, D. L., & Hutchings, P. S. (2007). Writing up the intake interview. In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of clinical interviewing with adults (pp. 114 –132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4135/9781412982733.n9 Sharp, L., Hodge, K., & Danish, S. (2015). Ultimately it comes down to the relationship: Experienced consultants’ views of effective sport psychology consulting. Sport Psychologist, 29, 358 –370. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1123/tsp.2014-0130 Simons, J. (2012). The applied sport psychology intake. Routledge Online Studies on the Olympic and Paralympic Games: Book Chapters, 1, 81– 89. Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2014). Clinical interviewing (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Stambulova, N., & Johnson, U. (2010). Novice consultants’ experiences: Lessons learned by applied sport psychology students. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 295–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport .2010.02.009 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, 318 –325. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.4.318 Tod, D. (2007). The long and winding road: Professional development in sport psychology. Sport Psychologist, 21, 94 –108. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1123/tsp.21.1.94 Vallerand, R. J., Mageau, G. A., Elliot, A. J., Dumais, A., Demers, M.-A., & Rousseau, F. (2008). Passion and performance attainment in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 373–392. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.psychsport.2007.05.003 Vernacchia, R. A. (2012). Dr. Ralph A. Vernacchia. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence (pp. 235–253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

(Appendix follows)

PERFORMANCE INTERVIEW GUIDE

359

Appendix The Performance Interview Guide (PInG) iv. How pervasive is the issue (e.g., occurring in or affecting other areas)?

I. Identifying information a. Demographic info

c. Strengths/resources i. Age i. What are your strengths as a performer and person?

ii. Racial/ethnic identity

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

iii. Gender identity

ii. How can you use them to get where you want to go?

iv. Additional important aspects of client’s cultural identity (e.g., sexual orientation, relationship status, religion, acculturation, ability status) v. Sport/performance domain

iii. What resources do you have to support your getting where you want to go? IV. Details of sport/performance

b. Referral source

a. When and how did they begin their involvement?

c. Previous experience with sport and performance psychology or mental health care

b. Why do they play/What are they passionate about?

i. What worked/what did they like?

c. When did they know they were good/talented?

ii. What didn’t work/what did they not like?

d. What changed when they (or those around them) considered them good/talented?

II. Reason for seeking consultation at this time e. How has your performance/career progression developed (e.g., early talent, late bloomer, discovered/specialized in performance area “late,” indoctrinated by parents early on)?

a. Mentality/emotional states/skills desired to be improved b. Concerns/problems/issues to be addressed

f. Describe your game/performance (strengths, areas for improvement, etc.).

c. Why are you seeking consultation now (timing)? III. Background of areas for improvement/growth or concerns

g. What is your role on the team/performance group?

a. Areas for growth

h. What are your aspirations for your performance/What do you hope to accomplish?

i. What are they hoping to accomplish? ii. How will they know when they are there (what will they think like, act like, feel like)?

i. What is your dream/stretch goal? V. Life/identity outside of sport/performance

b. Concerns (if applicable) a. School/work i. How long has this been an issue? b. Hobbies ii. What changes or significant events (if any) coincided with the start of the issue? iii. What is the course of the issue (e.g., becoming more severe/problematic, cyclical, worse in the morning/ evening, exacerbated during practice/competition)?

(Appendix continues)

c. Areas for growth (could be same or different from those within sport/performance) d. Concerns (if applicable; again, could be same or different)

AOYAGI, POCZWARDOWSKI, STATLER, SHAPIRO, AND COHEN

360

VI. Significant relationships/support

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

a. Family of origin

VII. Self-care a. Sleep/rest/recovery

i. Parents

b. Fun and relaxing activities

ii. Siblings

c. Nutrition

b. Friends

d. Fitness/exercise/injuries

c. Romantic relationship

e. Medications

d. Teammates/fellow performers

f. Substance use

e. Coach/instructor

g. General mood/emotional state

f. Mentors g. Agent h. Sport science/support i. Strength and conditioning ii. Nutrition iii. Massage iv. Athletic trainer

(For all of the above: how much? how often? quality? other specifics.) All directions of exploration and topics should connect to one’s theoretical approach to performance excellence and theoretical paradigm regarding human behavior change (when appropriate). There is also a balance with following the client. Thus, not all initial sessions will look the same (i.e., the order of questions and the included content will vary). Received August 29, 2016 Revision received November 8, 2016 Accepted November 8, 2016 䡲