“Building the Roots”: A Delphi Study Examining the Aims of a Multicultural Competency Graduate Course in Sport and Exercise Psychology : “Building the Roots”: A Delphi Study Examining the Aims of a
Multicultural Competency Graduate Course in Sport and Exercise
Psychology
Multicultural Competency Graduate Course in Sport and Exercise
Psychology
Matthew Paul Gonzalez
West Virginia University, mg0041@mix.wvu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd
Part of the Sports Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Gonzalez, Matthew Paul, "“Building the Roots”: A Delphi Study Examining the Aims of a Multicultural
Competency Graduate Course in Sport and Exercise Psychology" (2023). Graduate Theses, Dissertations,
and Problem Reports. 11907.
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/11907
This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research
Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is
permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain
permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license
in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses,
Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU.
For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu.
“Building the Roots”: A Delphi Study Examining the Aims of a Multicultural Competency
Graduate Course in Sport and Exercise Psychology
Matthew P. Gonzalez
Dissertation submitted
to the College of Applied Human Sciences
at West Virginia University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in
Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
Sam Zizzi, Ph.D., Chair
Terilyn C. Shigeno, Ph.D.
Jack C. Watson, II, Ph.D.
James Wyant, Ph.D.
Department of Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
Morgantown, West Virginia
2023
Keywords: multicultural, competencies, education, training
Copyright 2023 Matthew P. Gonzalez
Abstract
“Building the Roots”: A Delphi Study Examining the Aims of a Multicultural Competency
Graduate Course in Sport and Exercise Psychology
Matthew P. Gonzalez
Historically, opportunities to develop cultural competency in sport and exercise psychology
graduate programs have been limited (Lee, 2015). Recently, major sport psychology
organizations across the world have started to require cultural competency in their credentialling
requirements. While this represents progress, these requirements can be met with a single course,
which falls below the ideal of integrated cultural competency education (Martens et al., 2000).
The present study investigated how to maximize the quality of a single course by coming to
agreement on a proposed set of impactful and feasible learning outcomes and assessments in that
proposed single course related to cultural competency. Eleven sport and exercise psychology
professionals with significant expertise in teaching and/or researching cultural competency
development completed a three-round Delphi study which resulted in 71 learning outcomes and
33 learning assessments. Of those, the panel fully agreed on the impact and feasibility of 11
learning outcomes and 3 assessments. Further, these professionals provided critical feedback on
how to continue to enhance cultural competency in sport and exercise psychology graduate
education.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 5
Methods ................................................................................................................................. 5
Research Design ............................................................................................................................... 5
Sampling and Recruitment ............................................................................................................... 6
Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................................................. 8
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 11
Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 12
Consensus Achievement ................................................................................................................ 12
Tripartite Model and Full Consensus Items .................................................................................... 13
Issues of Debate Among Panelists .................................................................................................. 14
Thematic Analysis of Round Three Open Comments ...................................................................... 16
Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Practical Implications ..................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 24
References ............................................................................................................................ 26
Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................ 32
iv
Appendix A – Extended Results ............................................................................................. 38
Research Question #3 .................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix B - Extended Tables and Figures ............................................................................ 42
Appendix C – Extended Review of Literature ......................................................................... 46
Sport Psychology and Culture: A Story of Two Developmental Stages ............................................ 47
Developmental Stage #1: Cultural Awareness ................................................................................ 47
Professional Accreditation, Certification, and Multicultural Competencies .................................... 56
Developmental Stage #2: From Definitions and Research to Cultural Praxis ................................... 59
Cultural Competence ..................................................................................................................... 60
Consequences of Cultural Incompetence ........................................................................................ 64
Culturally Competent Sport Psychology Applied Practice ............................................................... 67
Cultural Competency Development ............................................................................................... 73
Cultural Competency Education and Training ................................................................................. 75
Multicultural Competency Education Outcomes ............................................................................ 80
Measurement of Cultural Competency ........................................................................................... 82
Issues of Measurement and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 88
Critiques of Cultural Competency ................................................................................................... 90
Summary and Future Research ...................................................................................................... 90
Extended Review of Literature References ............................................................................ 92
v
Appendix D - American Psychological Association Multicultural Guidelines (APA, 2017) ..... 105
Appendix E – Round One Survey ......................................................................................... 107
Appendix F – Round Two Survey ......................................................................................... 109
Appendix G – Round Three Personalized Survey Example .................................................... 113
Appendix H – Debriefing Round Survey ............................................................................... 125
Acknowledgements
vi
First and foremost, I would like to thank the chair of this dissertation and my advisor
through the program, Dr. Zizzi. Numerous times throughout this process I did things on my own
time and probably in a much less conventional way than you would have hoped. I appreciated
your patience and guidance the entire time and there is no way this gets done without you.
To the members of my dissertation committee… Dr. Shigeno, Dr. Watson, and Dr.
Wyant, I likewise appreciate your patience and commitment to helping me finish the job I started
years ago. Your insight and guidance have been so invaluable in making this happen.
To the members of the Delphi panel… I was humbled by your depth of engagement
throughout the lengthy Delphi method. You have truly set the example for me about what it
means to be a selfless professional in our field. Thank you so much for being the most integral
piece of this whole project.
To Dr. Etzel… you invited me into this program six years ago to the month of the date of
the defense of this document. Without you taking me on, I would have literally never have gotten
the chance to make any of this happen. Thank you so much for getting it all started!
To my dear friends in the SEP program… each of you helped keep me afloat in one way
or another throughout this process. I treasured your friendship and support the whole way
through and am so glad that our paths crossed when they did.
To Ari… thank you so much for your help along the way during the multiple rounds of
data analysis. Your feedback and perspective contributed so much richness to the data and I am
forever appreciative of your willingness to help!
To Sofia… there isn’t enough space to properly thank you for all you have done over the
last six years. You’ve somehow always known how to push my buttons just the right way and,
while it irritated me to the end of my wits at times, I’ve appreciated that so much. While you
vii
may have beaten me to the finish line on this by a couple years, we tied the race to the
counseling masters, and I will hear nothing of it!
To Erika… you have been my opposite since I met you. Through the significant
differences in our personalities and thoughts about life, I can honestly say that your perspective
has deeply widened mine. Thank you for that and for your ever continuing support!
To Bobby… you were absolutely the perfect mentor to help get me through this program.
You were there every time I needed you, even up until the submission of this document nearly a
full six years after first taking me on. I appreciate you man.
To Dr. Butryn and Dr. Semerjian, you both saw in me this possibility way before I even
could even remotely see it for myself. Your belief and support started this process and at many
times you both helped me see it through to the end. Thank you so much.
To Zach, Kaylyn, Mike, and Lori… I can’t even begin to say how enormously lucky I am
to have you in my life, to have experienced the love of your family, and to watch you spread that
love to my son. I love you all so much.
To Ken and Cindy… you’ve been part of my family for more than half my life and at
some points there I think I may have accounted for more than half of your grocery bills! Thank
you for your unending support as I whisked your daughter across the country, back, and then
back again across the country to chase down this dream. I love you both so much.
To my Mom and Dad… there isn’t enough space here to even remotely come close to
expressing how much I love you both and how important your support has been throughout the
entirety of my schooling. It would be an outright lie to say I was good student with any sense of
direction student until way later in my life. Even so, you both pushed me and stood by me as I
made one frustrating decision after another. Mom, it wasn’t until you pointed out to me that I
viii
could study and make a career out of sports that life started to finally make a little bit of sense.
From there the rest, as they say, was history.
To my loving wife Jordan… writing this is hard because I’m not even sure where to start.
You’ve been my biggest cheerleader in the moments that I have been my biggest critic; my
grounding point when my confidence has on occasion floated towards arrogance; and the anchor
to our young family while I have been off on various adventures. You’ve done this so willingly
and with so little resistance when you probably had every reason to along the way. Nevertheless,
you have stood by my side from the beginning and have been my rock through it all. I would
have never dreamed that this would have been our life path when I caught you staring at me in
sophomore high school English all those years ago and I can’t wait to see what life brings us
next. I love you.
Lastly, to my son Max… I hope one day I can support you the same way these dear
people above have supported me and hope you too find your team of people who will help you
reach a goal you never thought possible. If there is anything I have learned from this process of
school that I would like for you know, it is this… Life may not always make sense and
sometimes internal sense of direction may be hard to come by; but if you focus on bringing your
fullest self to the things that matter to you and march to a beat that maybe only you hear, things
just seem to shake out in the end. And oftentimes in ways that you didn’t even know were
possible. I never even remotely thought sport psychology would have any part of my life; and yet
at this point in my life it is somehow it is exactly where I am supposed to be. I dedicate this
dissertation to you.
Introduction
1
Western foundations of psychological theory have a history of being rooted in European,
ethnocentric assumptions (Parham, 2005). The various mental health disciplines, including sport
and exercise psychology (SEP), have been critiqued and modified over the past few decades to
better meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population. To address this, professionals from a
variety of mental health disciplines are investing time and resources towards researching how
culturally salient factors may influence clinical relationships and outcomes. One of the critical
issues related to service delivery that has been demonstrated is the difference in client retention
rates when the cultural background of the client and clinician differ from each other. Overall,
about one out of five clients will terminate too early, regardless of identity and culturally salient
factors (Swift & Greenburg, 2012). There is evidence, however, that clients identifying as Black,
Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC) tend to terminate after the first session significantly
more than white clients (Cooper & Conklin, 2015; Kilmer et al., 2019). A potential explanation
for this discrepancy is that culturally incompetent mental health practitioners unknowingly
micro-aggress during their sessions (Capodilupo, 2019). Further, an incomplete understanding of
multicultural issues could lead clinicians to oversimplify cultural differences and make mistakes
such as “sensitive stereotyping” (Kantos & Breland-Noble, 2002, p. 299) or “ethnic gloss”
(Trimble & Bhadra, 2013, p. 500). Both terms refer to when a clinician or researcher falsely
make a homogenous assumption about a racial and/or ethnic group.
The professional discipline of psychology made significant strides in ratifying the
importance of multicultural competency (MCC) by publishing multicultural guidelines three
decades ago (APA, 1993). The design of these guidelines was significantly influenced by the
work of Sue and his colleagues and their theoretical conceptualization of MCC (Sue et al., 1992).
The American Psychological Association (APA) has revised their multicultural guidelines twice
2
more since 1993 to keep current with the latest multicultural research (APA, 2003, 2017). In
general, contemporary MCC frameworks across the spectrum of mental health disciplines are
informed by the tripartite model (Sue et al., 1992), which states that MCC is influenced by three
factors: awareness, knowledge, and skills. In brief, culturally competent awareness is helping
someone understand their own cultural identity and how it influences their interactions with the
world, while culturally competent knowledge involves gaining an understanding of the rich
variety of cultures and the ways in which those cultural worldviews influence peoples’ lives.
Culturally competent skills refer to an individual’s capability to identify the appropriateness of
interventions and adapt them to better meet the needs of those with relevant culturally salient
factors (Sue et al., 2019). While the majority of professionals continue to use the tripartite model
to define what is needed to become multiculturally competent, recently, researchers have
suggested that the tripartite model can be supplemented with the development of a multicultural
orientation, which includes the concepts of cultural humility (a lifelong commitment to the
openness and willingness to reflect upon the cultural nature of ourselves and others), cultural
comfort (a sense of non-defensive ease in discussing cultural conversations), and cultural
opportunities (a willingness to discuss cultural conversations as they arise in session; Hook et al.,
2013; Watkins et al., 2019). Recently, some scholars have begun questioning if cultural humility
should supplant cultural competency as the aim of multicultural education in SEP (Curvey et al.,
2022; Quartiroli et al., 2021).
There is a historical pattern documenting a lack of consideration of culturally salient
factors in SEP research (Duda & Allison, 1990; Ram et al., 2004) and in presentations at the
annual conference of North America’s flagship sport psychology organization (Bejar et al., 2021;
Kamphoff et al., 2010), the Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP). In response to
3
this recognition, a specialized sub-discipline of Cultural Sport Psychology (CSP) was
formalized, and two critical texts were published (Ryba et al., 2010; Schinke & Hanrahan, 2009).
These CSP scholars, in addition to the many others who contributed to the development of CSP,
through their research and advocacy efforts—created the momentum needed to help the field
move towards formally adopting cultural considerations into credentialling requirements.
Unfortunately, there appears to be a subset of sport psychology professionals who report a
general attitude of hesitancy regarding the integration of CSP’s findings into applied practice
(Hacker & Mann, 2017; Quartiroli et al., 2021).
Lack of pressure from the leading organizations had been speculated as a potential cause
for the sub-standard priority of MCC in SEP (Lee, 2015). Partially in response to the criticism,
AASP required a diversity/cultural competency course to have been completed at the graduate
level in their updated certification standards in 2017. Furthermore, individuals looking to renew
their certification are required to complete at least six continuing education credit hours every
five years in diversity. Internationally, similar measures have been taken with organizations such
as the International Society for Sport Psychology (ISSP) and European Federation of Sport
Psychology (FEPSAC) by including cultural competency in their respective requirements for
practice credentials.
Since AASP and the international sport psychology community is beginning to formally
ratify the importance of cultural competency proficiency in its certification programs, the
attention now needs to be turned to examining the quality of the MCC education being provided.
There has been research in the sister disciplines of SEP (e.g., psychology, counseling), showing
ways in which those disciplines have approached the matter of training and education of MCC.
In general, MCC educated through one or more of the following ways: taking and/or teaching
4
courses, attending and/or presenting at conferences, attending workshops, reading texts, and
publishing manuscripts (Gillem et al., 2016). In the development of the Multicultural Counseling
and Psychotherapy Test (MCPT), researchers suggested that all of these methods except for
multicultural courses are correlated with the development of MCC (Gillem et al., 2016). The
authors suggested that this exception may be due to the fact that all other options for training
represent personal choices as opposed to requirements not necessarily borne of personal interest.
Another possible explanation may reflect quality. The lack of congruence between multicultural
courses and the development of MCC may be because the practice of multicultural pedagogy
seems to emphasize only two-thirds of the tripartite model in practice. More specifically,
researchers suggest a majority of faculty who teach about MCC tend to focus on multicultural
awareness and knowledge but seem to under-emphasize multicultural skill development
(Reynolds, 2011). This finding is of particular concern in SEP since the primary requirement for
initial certification as a CMPC is a single course in the diversity domain.
Findings from reviews of the effectiveness of MCC training and education have been
mixed. One systematic review of the available psychology MCC training literature reinforces
Reynolds’ (2011) findings, stating that MCC education and training only reliably increases
multicultural knowledge (Benuto et al., 2018). Another more recent review found significant
improvement across all facets of the tripartite model in the 37 studies it analyzed (Chu et al.,
2022).
Research conducted in these disciplines has relied on the application of several different
self-report surveys such as the Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI; Sodowsky et al.,
1994). For a full list of these types of instruments, see the extended review of literature in
5
Appendix C. It is not uncommon to see these self-reports also being used to assess MCC training
effectiveness (Chu et al., 2022) in the clinical and counseling psychological fields. At the
moment, however, it seems that graduate SEP programs are reticent to evaluate the development
of MCC at all (Lee, 2015). For the few programs that do assess for development, evaluation took
place through one-on-one meetings with the mentor and mentee, and/or through comprehensive
exams.
While there is a wealth of information about cultural competency in other fields and
MCC momentum building in SEP, there is still a reported lag in SEP in MCC education when
compared to psychology and counseling (Curvey et al., 2022). Given all the aforementioned
factors and considerations, the purpose of the present study was to determine how a single course
in MCC can be optimized, while the field as a whole continues its slow march towards the more
favored integrated model whereby cultural considerations are more purposefully emphasized in
each course of a program (Martens et al., 2000).
Research Questions
1. What are the discrete learning outcomes that SEP educators should design this course
around?
2. How can SEP educators assess the development of cultural competencies in this course?
3. How can multicultural skill development be more emphasized in this course? (See
extended results)
Research Design
Methods
The current study used the Delphi method to secure consensus among a group of experts
by “structuring a group communication process” (Lindstone & Turoff, 2002, p. 3). When this
6
method was originally developed, Delphi “exercises” were conducted by hand in vivo. However,
given the advent and widespread use of modern technology, the Delphi method is often
conducted digitally through the internet. The Delphi method can be especially helpful when
trying to secure consensus about a topic that is highly complex and/or assured to involve some
level of disagreement that might hinder the communication process (Lindstone & Turoff, 2002)
such as can be predicted in discussing multicultural competencies and education. Delphi studies
have already been used in the past to address questions of multicultural competencies in other
fields including, but not limited to, nursing (e.g., Jirwe et al., 2009), mental health (e.g., Baima &
Sude, 2019), education (e.g., Sprott, 2014), and physical education (e.g. Wyant et al., 2020).
Sampling and Recruitment
Participants were purposely targeted through two main approaches. First, published
articles were searched based on the terms “cultural competency”, “culture”, “cultur[sic]”, and
“cultural sport psychology” in the title. These searches targeted publications that dealt
exclusively with exploring general cultural competency in sport psychology applied practice. All
published authors’ names were added to a database. Second, conference abstracts from major
sport psychology conferences over the past five years were searched for presentations, sessions,
symposia, workshops, etc. that focused on cultural competency in sport psychology applied
practice. In addition, those who conducted more specific cultural competency work (e.g., papers
related to a specific dimension of identity) were also noted. These presenters were then added to
the database. Within the database, the professionals were scored based on their repeated
appearances in the published literature and conference abstracts. Authors publishing or
presenting directly on cultural competency education were scored with a two, whereas authors
publishing or presenting on a culturally salient variable were scored with a one. The scoring
produced a list of 316 authors and/or presenters with at least one entry. The 26 top scoring
7
authors/presenters were sent invitations to participate in the study as well as an additional seven
authors/presenters scoring in the top 50 who the author recognized as having significant
expertise which was not adequately reflected through the scoring system. From these 33
invitations, 14 responded with interest in participating. All but one of the 14 completed the
informed consent and demographics collection survey, thus leaving the formal expert panel with
a starting membership of 13.
Participant Personal and Professional Demographics
The personal demographics of the panel are presented here in a collective format to
ensure panel member confidentiality. Panel member age ranged from someone in their mid 30’s
to a panel member who identified their age as “65+”. The panel was comprised of five cisgender
women, four cisgender men, one panel member who identified as genderqueer, and one panel
member who identified as nonbinary. Racially, the panel was comprised of eight members who
identified as white, one who identified as Black, one who identified as Asian, and one who
identified as biracial. Ethnic identification of the panel members has been withheld for purposes
of confidentiality. Panel member sexual orientations were composed of five who identified as
gay/lesbian, four who identified as straight/heterosexual, one who identified as queer, and one
who declined to respond to that question.
The majority of the panel identified as either primarily sport and exercise psychology
educators (n = 5) or as researchers (n = 3). The remaining three panel members identified as
either an even combination of educator and researcher (n = 2) or applied sport psychology
professional (n = 1). As a collective, the average professional experience spent researching
cultural competency/diverse experiences in sport psychology was 15.09 years (SD = 9.08; range
= 5 years – 31 years) and the average time teaching about cultural competency/diverse
8
experiences in sport psychology was 12.64 years (SD = 11.49; range = 0 years – 35 years).
Lastly, three of the panel members reported ever having had the opportunity to teach a graduate
course specifically with the purpose of enhancing cultural competency in sport psychology
students, several reported having taught a continuing education course in this area (n = 6), and
most had led at least one presentation at a conference in this area (n = 9).
Data Collection Procedures
The Delphi method often occurs in three rounds of data collection and data analysis. In
this version of a Delphi study, a modified framework was adopted by using both Qualtrics and
Word documents to gather responses from the expert panel asynchronously. Each data collection
interval (i.e., round) was three weeks long followed by two weeks of data analysis in preparation
for the next round. To prompt the completion of the surveys, members of the expert panel were
emailed at regular intervals during each round. The present study finished with an attrition rate of
15.3% by having 11 out of 13 panelists finish. This rate compares favorably with previously
published Delphi studies in this area which have ranged from 15-25% attrition through three
rounds (Baima & Sude, 2019; Wyant et al., 2020).
Round One
In the first round of the Delphi process, the finalized panel of experts were provided with two
open-ended questions and asked to provide up to 15 responses to each question.
1. In a graduate sport psychology course designed specifically to develop the cultural
competency of its students, what learning outcomes would you choose to primarily
design the course around?
2. In a graduate sport psychology course designed specifically to develop the cultural
9
competency of its students, what assessment types or strategies would you choose to
measure the students for their learning progress in the course?
Once responses from all 13 panel members were submitted, they were processed through a
limited editing process with the assistance of a second researcher as demonstrated in Wyant et al.
(2020). The following editing occurred: compound responses were broken into their component
pieces, duplicate or near duplicate responses were removed, select words or phrases were edited
to enhance clarity, erroneous defining information was removed, and a select few responses were
recategorized as a learning outcome or assessment. At the end of the editing process, 70 learning
outcomes and 32 learning assessments were generated.
Round Two
In round two of the Delphi process, the statements (referred hereto as items) were
returned to the 13-member panel. The panel was asked to rate each item on two separate 7-point
Likert-type scales from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The results from the Likert-type
answers were the primary factor in determining consensus. Baima and Sude (2019) and Wyant et
al. (2020) determined group consensus to have been obtained if the item reached an average
greater than or equal to 6 on a 7-point Likert-type scale. In the present study, any item averaging
a rating of 6 or above was considered to have reached consensus; any items that did not meet this
benchmark were not considered to have met consensus. At the conclusion of this round, panelists
were given an opportunity to add or revise items that may have been missed. In the present
study, only two items were added at the end of round two; bringing the final total of learning
outcomes to 71 and learning assessments to 33.
Consensus in Delphi studies can take on different meanings in different studies. Often,
10
consensus will simply mean a rating of agreement between the participants (e.g. Jirwe et al.,
2009). In the present study, participants rated each item relative to both impact (i.e., the capacity
for this recommendation to make a positive change relative to the question) and feasibility (i.e.,
the likelihood that this recommendation could be effectively delivered and taught to sport
psychology students within the constraints of a single course). Consensus was considered to be
reached only if both ratings for impact and feasibility averaged above a 6 out of a possible 7.
Items meeting consensus in only one dimension were considered to have met partial consensus
and were tabulated as such in the results.
Round Three
In the third round, all learning outcomes and assessments were returned to the panelists
alongside their personal ratings and the group rating for each item. The panelists were
encouraged to reflect on the difference between their scores and the group cumulative score and
from that reflective process, they were allowed to re-evaluate and re-rate these statements.
Panelists were also encouraged to provide rationale into why their scores may have differed from
that of the group’s. Panelists were provided the opportunity to add rationale to any item, but were
specifically encouraged to add this rationale for any items where their score deviated from the
group’s by more than 1.5 points. Of the 204 opportunities to re-rate an item, panel members
averaged 7.18 re-rated items (range = 0-18). Lastly, panel members were asked to provide
Likert-type scores for the two new items constructed in round two.
Debriefing Round
This Delphi study also included a structured debriefing round for the participants. After
the conclusion of round three, final scores for all recommendations were calculated and the final
11
lists were organized. These final results were sent back to all participants along with a message
of gratitude for their participation in the study. From there, participants were asked to complete
an open-ended survey containing a few questions designed to illicit their thoughts about the
results (see Appendix H). Because this fourth round was an organized debrief and not part of the
active Delphi process, this round was not counted in the attrition rate for the Delphi study.
However, some of the qualitative data generated from the debriefing round was used to illustrate
the findings in the results. Nine of the final 11 members completed the debriefing survey.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis was ongoing throughout the iterative process of completing the
Delphi method by calculating average scores for both impact and feasibility. The final list of
learning outcomes and assessments are organized in tables by the amount of consensus they
reached (i.e., full, impact-only, feasibility-only, or none).
Qualitative data collected on the third round of the survey from the panel about their
justification for not ratifying one of the statements was descriptively coded and then inductively
arranged into themes (Saldaña, 2016). The coding strategy of the qualitative data was designed to
describe the panel’s more nuanced thoughts about MCC education in SEP and was not
necessarily organized by the individual item that the participant was commenting on. The
qualitative data corpus included 110 open-ended comments. These comments were parsed into
171 meaning units, refined into 111 distinguishable codes, then organized into 19 sub-themes,
five themes, and lastly into two final super-ordinate themes. The entire process of the qualitative
data analysis was conducted with a co-researcher over the course of five meetings.
Results and Discussion
12
Consensus Achievement
Learning outcomes and assessments were sorted based on whether they achieved full
consensus, consensus in impact only, consensus in feasibility only, or no consensus at all. Eleven
learning outcomes met full consensus (Table 1), 25 met consensus for impact only (Table 2),
eight met consensus for feasibility only (Table 3), and 27 did not meet any consensus (see Table
1 in Appendix B). Of the 33 learning assessments: three met full consensus, one met consensus
for impact only, 16 (Table 4) met consensus for feasibility only, and 13 (see Table 2 in Appendix
B) did not meet any consensus. The three assessments that met full consensus were: Role play
exercises that allow students to confront and challenge others using oppressive languages or
actions (M-I: 6.38; SD-I: 0.77; M-F: 6.54; SD-F: 0.78), Develop interview guides/intake forms
that are inclusive and gather cultural information about clients (M-I: 6.15; SD-I: 1.21; M-F:
6.15; SD-F: 1.07), and Complete a reflexive diary of own values, beliefs, and practices (M-I:
6.08; SD-I: 0.86; M-F: 6.23; SD-F: 0.73). The single assessment that met impact consensus only
read: Shadow a professional working in a setting with students/clients that is different from
student’s background and experience (M-I: 6.08; SD-I: 0.64; M-F: 4.92; SD-F: 1.04).
The data show a notable pattern whereby the primary barriers in learning outcomes and
assessments are opposite to each other. For learning outcomes, the primary barrier for an item to
meet consensus was being considered a feasible option, whereas impactful learning assessments
were much harder to come by. The primary barrier to feasibility for the learning outcomes is the
time constraint imposed by a single course (discussed below). Findings related to the impact
barriers associated with the assessments was much less clear. Input from the debriefing round of
the survey was split between panel fatigue (given the length of the survey and multiple rounds)
and the generally challenging nature of quality assessment relative to designing learning
13
outcomes.
Tripartite Model and Full Consensus Items
The text of the 11 consensus achieving learning outcome statements lean heavily towards
the attitudes and knowledge subscales of the tripartite model (Sue et al., 1992). Notably missing
are any learning outcomes directly representative of the skills subscale. Possible reasoning for
the lack of skills is described later. However, an argument can be made that the fourth (“Apply
learned concepts to various real-life scenarios”) and eleventh (“Articulate ways they can become
more culturally competent practitioners”) consensus achieving learning outcomes can include
portions of skill development depending on the ways learning outcomes are designed to be met
in the course. Interestingly, the three consensus achieving learning assessments were equitably
distributed across the tripartite model. The development of an interview guide can be considered
an exercise in developing knowledge, the completion of a reflexive diary can be considered an
exercise in developing attitudes, and role play of confronting others can be considered an
exercise in developing skills.
Commentary provided in the debriefing round helped illuminate the reasons for why
multicultural competency skills seems to be largely absent from the consensus achieving learning
outcomes. Reports from the panel indicated that multicultural competency skills are not aimed at
or considered to be feasible due to a lack of time given to multicultural development with respect
to the entire program. If the prevailing assumption is that a student comes into the course without
stable footing in multicultural competency knowledge and multicultural competency awareness,
then those must be addressed first since multicultural competency skills requires a foundation in
the former two. This hierarchical approach to MCC development has been described in the
14
literature before. Wells (2000) described a six-stage developmental process ranging from cultural
incompetence to cultural proficiency. The author’s stages reflect that knowledge and awareness
necessarily come before culturally competent skills and the present study’s results seem to
corroborate that. The present study indicated that multicultural competency skills outcomes are
perceived to be extremely impactful, however, not feasible in a single course. For example, a
review of the 25 learning outcomes that met impact consensus only (Table 2) shows several
potential learning outcomes that are skill-based or somewhat skill-based in their aim. This
criticism of time constraints of the current education model for MCC development in SEP will
be revisited in the qualitative analysis below. Additionally, this uneven attention of the
constructs of the tripartite model in education and training has been documented in sister
disciplines (e.g., Reynolds, 2011) and is not necessarily a specific criticism of SEP curricula.
Issues of Debate Among Panelists
Standard deviations were calculated for all items (impact and feasibility individually) as a
measure of how contested an item was among the expert panel. A selection of the highest
standard deviation of each (learning outcome – impact; learning outcome – feasibility; learning
assessment – impact; and learning assessment – feasibility) as well as the lowest rated item for
each are presented here to illustrate some of the disagreement among the panel.
The item with the highest standard deviation for learning outcomes for impact scores
was: Describe the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge (M-I: 4.62; SD-I: 2.10). This same
item was also the lowest rated item for impact overall and the highest standard deviation for
feasibility (SD-F = 1.75). The lowest item rated for feasibility was “Demonstrate effective skills
to appropriately handle situations involving cultural differences” (M-F: 4.08).
15
Some members of the panel questioned the placement of the learning outcome (“Describe
the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge”) within the scope of this course, and hoped that
these concepts would be, “initiated, addressed, or reinforced in other courses as well, such as
qualitative methodologies or philosophy courses.” However, several other of the panel urged
educators to consider how having a fundamental grasp of the philosophy of knowledge
necessarily impacts the way in which we interact with our clients. One member wrote:
I think it is paramount to be able to have a clear understanding of the ontological and
epistemological framework leading our work. Such knowledge helps us to be aware of
how we engage with our client. For example, do we see multiple realities as coexisting?
Do we believe in one reality that can be experienced in different ways? Do we believe in
one reality and in one way to understand it? All these approaches impact the work we do.
This disagreement will be further highlighted in the thematic analysis that follows. Other items
that generated significant open-ended input and debate were “Engage in exploration and
commitment to one’s cultural background” and “Be able to work with people of different
cultures”, both of which solicited the voluntary input of five of the 11 members.
The learning assessment item with the highest standard deviation for impact was
“Participate in a cultural activity that is different from the learner’s cultural identities” (M-I =
5.00; SD-I = 1.91). The lowest rated item for impact overall was “Show an understanding of
cultural competency issues via exam questions” (M-I = 3.69). The learning assessment item with
the highest standard deviation for feasibility was “Complete quizzes on language and concepts
associated with cultural competency” (M-F = 6.15; SD-I = 1.77). The lowest rated item for
feasibility was “Do sport psychology work with a population that is largely different from
student’s background; write a scholarly and culturally informed reflection paper about the
16
experience” (M-F: 4.31).
Thematic Analysis of Round Three Open Comments
The open-ended comments from the panel in round three were qualitatively analyzed and
organized into two superordinate themes, five themes, and 19 subthemes. The full thematic map
is presented in Table 5. A large proportion of the commentary was dedicated to critiquing the
single course approach to MCC education in SEP; this commentary is reflected in the first two
themes presented below. Additionally, a significant portion of the comments were directed at
reflecting upon MCC education overall which are reflected in the final three themes.
Single Course Critiques
One of the most frequently communicated comments directed throughout the whole
process of the study was that the panel wanted to ensure that they were heard that the single
course model of MCC education was simply not enough to make any significant and lasting
progress in developing MCC in SEP students. This opinion is not overwhelmingly surprising
given that the single course model was identified as a sub-optimal strategy over two decades ago
(Martens et al., 2000). Specifically, the panel felt as if three areas could not be adequately
addressed in a single course. First, the panel voiced their opinion that several broad topics (e.g.,
developing the capability to create inclusive spaces; identifying the differences in norms, beliefs,
values, and perceptions between cultures; and understanding the nature of structural
discrimination in sport and education) could simply not be done justice in such a short amount of
time. The natural consequence of this is that SEP students could be exposed to MCC education
that is not adequately deep enough or substantially biases some topics in MCC education over
others. Indeed, there is evidence in the MCC training literature that suggests there is already a
bias towards training about race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and more general multicultural
17
identity information and a dearth of trainings that adequately discuss gender, religion, ability,
and socioeconomic status (Chu et al., 2022). Further, the bias towards discussing and/or
assessing the knowledge and attitudes components over the skills component has likewise been
documented (Benuto et al., 2019; Reynolds, 2011).
Second, the panel also noted that MCC skill development could not occur in a single
semester course either, with several of the panel members explaining later in the debriefing
round that skill development requires a strong foundation of MCC knowledge and awareness.
One panel member expressed:
Skill development requires more than a semester. If programs are only allotting one
course to develop multicultural competency, which most programs seem to be, then the
focus will remain on knowledge and awareness. This is why it is important to have the
development of cultural competency imbedded in the full program so that these skills can
be developed throughout a degree program.
As mentioned before, this hierarchical theorization of cultural competency development has been
previously described (Wells, 2000). To that end, it is possible the uneven application of the
tripartite model in MCC education and training may be less a reflection of instructor or
curriculum deficiencies, and more a factor of limited time to work through the hierarchy as
needed.
Lastly, the panel emphasized the importance of “personal” or “reflective” work to
develop MCC. This type of work was also something that the panel felt was limited in the span
of only one semester.
Single Course Opportunities
18
The main purpose of this study was to identify the ways in which the effectiveness of a
single course of MCC development in SEP could be maximized. While the prevailing opinion of
the panel was that a single course is insufficient in MCC development, the reality is that few
programs exceed this model (Lee, 2015) and fewer still reach the preferred integrated model
proposed by Martens and colleagues (2000). With that in mind, the panel highlighted several
critical opportunities available in a single-course model.
First, the panel noted that a single course could be a dedicated platform for which a
student could begin their personal journey into MCC. The panel felt that even though a single
course was generally insufficient, the dedicated course represented an opportunity to build the
foundation to begin the process of MCC development. In support of this point, the idea of a
single course serving as a starting point was consistent throughout many of the comments made
in both round three and the debriefing round. Second, the panel shared that a single MCC course
could help students make reasonable progress towards developing the knowledge and awareness
components of the tripartite model. Lastly, a couple of the panel members reported that a
possible objective that could be met is the development of learning skills to continue self
directed MCC learning and development throughout their careers.
The single course as a standalone approach is clearly insufficient. However, the desire for
such a course by SEP students, especially early in the graduate program, has been documented in
the literature (Curvey et al., 2022). From this insight of the panel, it is clear that a goal of this
course must be to help the student understand that this is a process that lasts well beyond a
semester and to teach the tools necessary to do the on-going learning required. Previous SEP
scholars have advocated that, “sport psychology instructors should aim to instill values related to
lifelong learning, multiculturalism, and social justice” (Curvey et al., 2022, p. 14) which is
19
echoed in these findings.
Points of Emphasis for MCC Education in SEP
In addition to providing input pertaining to a single multicultural competency course, the
panel also provided a significant amount of insight into the nature of MCC education in sport and
exercise psychology. These insights were broken into three categories: (1) points of emphasis,
(2) challenges, and (3) points of uncertainty. In the first category, the panel centered their
commentary on five different things to emphasize while teaching MCC in SEP.
First, the panel directed a good portion of their focus on the importance of
transformational learning while teaching MCC over memorization-based learning. To that end,
members of the panel suggested that active, more applied learning could be effective in creating
more lasting MCC changes in students. A limited investigation of different styles of teaching
activities in MCC education has been explored in a review, but the effectiveness of one activity
over another is unclear with the limited evidence available to be reviewed (Benuto et al., 2018).
Second, members of the panel stressed that learning outcomes and assessments need to be clearly
defined and explained. At times, some panel members seemed unsure of what another panel
member had suggested as a learning outcome or assessment. To that end, making sure that
learning goals and the language used to discuss MCC topics are made clear is imperative. Third,
the panel stressed that MCC education needs to focus on not only being a space to begin personal
work and reflection, but to create a space where personal work and reflection are lasting
outcomes. The importance of reflectivity and reflexivity have been discussed in the literature
previously for its importance (Curvey, 2022; Schinke et al., 2012) and has been theorized into a
SEP specific model (Terry, 2009) which makes this recommendation well suited to emphasize
20
throughout the course of MCC education in SEP.
Fourth, members of the panel emphasized that critical pedagogy—as it pertains to the
practice of sport and exercise psychology—must be central to the learning of MCC. Examples of
this included nuanced discussions of power, oppression, and privilege, as well as interrogations
of psychology’s western foundation of practice. Lastly, members of the panel stressed that an
aim of MCC education should be inspiring life-long learning, development, and assessment of
oneself. The panel was abundantly clear that a single course would never be fully sufficient to
develop MCC, however, if the course could inspire students to continue their own learning after
completing the course, then the course could be seen as more successful in meeting its primary
goal.
Challenges in MCC Education in SEP
Given the panel’s many collective years of expertise, they also detailed a series of
challenges they have recognized and/or encountered in the education of MCC in SEP students.
First, the panel pointed to a series of constraints of the present educational model that limits the
ability to fully educate an SEP student about MCC. One of these limits is the perceived emphasis
on momentarily retaining rote knowledge for the purposes of passing an exam and, thereby, the
course. This issue can set the stage for performative MCC practices from the student for
purposes of passing the course, but not necessarily retaining the skillset to be used later. One
panel member pointed out that MCC is “not a check box” and cannot be treated as such. Panel
members suggested that lasting MCC development can be more readily achieved if abundant
time was dedicated to it in additional courses and practicum or internship programs; or, better
yet, lasting MCC development could be integrated across the entire scope of the program as
described in Martens et al. (2000). Second, panel members spoke to the inherent complexity of
21
MCC education and spoke truthfully about the difficulty of not only teaching this area, but for
students to meaningfully engage with the personal work required to start becoming more MCC.
One panel member spoke about this, and the further inherent difficulties of shifting from theory
to practice when discussing one of the learning outcomes:
To implement these strategies, the practitioners must have first engaged in personal and
professional work leading them to understand that the lack of inclusion and adversity
toward diversity actually exist and that they play a role in it. This is not a simple journey.
While I wish this was something easily implementable, the reality [is] that once we
practitioners are asked to make the switch between theory and practice, we do struggle…
This difficulty in actively engaging with MCC education has been described previously. Sue et
al. (2019) wrote extensively about the wide range of expected cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral resistance that a new student might experience when first coming across MCC
education. The authors likewise noted that exploration of this resistance is part of the education
process as well.
Third, panel members reported that a primary challenge they have faced is that there is
simply not enough time in the current model of MCC education to provide the requisite amount
of practice necessary to become MCC. Some of the panel members spoke about MCC with
taxonomical language, suggesting that there are a series of steps required to becoming more
MCC. If students are coming into graduate programs with limited MCC knowledge and
awareness, then the emphasis of the education has to be placed there. However, as mentioned
earlier, MCC skills can only be developed once there is a stable foundation of knowledge and
awareness, leaving no time to learn or practice MCC skills. Lastly, a few of the panel members
22
reported a challenge of there simply not being enough SEP professionals or mentors with MCC
expertise to deliver quality learning experiences at the graduate level. The mentorship
component is particularly concerning given that quality of the similar process of supervision in
clinical psychology has been closely connected to overall student satisfaction of their cultural
competency training (Benuto et al., 2019). Work investigating MCC development through SEP
mentorship is substantially limited and the findings are not promising as results seem to indicate
that SEP trainees are largely dissatisfied with the MCC component of the mentorship they
receive (Foltz et al., 2015) and that it is largely absent from the process (Fogaca et al., 2018).
Points of Uncertainty
Lastly, the panel itself presented a variety of MCC opinions that either stood alone or
were debated amongst the members of the panel throughout the Delphi process. These
deliberations were organized into three subthemes. First, there were general, individual
perspectives of MCC education. A few of these comments were emblematic of recent shifts in
culturally competent practices. For example, one member pointed out that “safe spaces” were
being phased out in favor of the more realistic “brave spaces” (see Arao & Clemens, 2013) for
more on that reconceptualization) within the context of one of the proposed learning outcomes.
However, several of these standalone comments raised critical questions that could use further
introspection in future studies. An example of two of these comments included questions about
the critical role of foundational counseling skills in MCC, and cultural variability in what is and
is not considered effective assessment.
Second was the argument surrounding the role of philosophy of knowledge in the course.
As mentioned earlier, this single outcome generated substantial debate among the panel
members. In no certain order, panel members in favor of integrating the philosophy of
knowledge into the course stated that if someone comes to better understand knowledge, they
23
will also: better understand privilege and oppression, feel an influence in their applied work and
client engagement, recognize what is considered “truth”, and better understand how something
becomes the status quo. Indeed, this complexity of MCC founded more deeply in these
philosophical tenets of CSP has been forwarded as a possible explanation of the resistance to
incorporating CSP more widely (Hacker & Mann, 2017). Nevertheless, understanding the basics
of the philosophy of knowledge opens up opportunity to discuss more nuanced concerns such as
how to rectify the tensions between evidence-based practice in mental health care and cultural
competency (Kirmayer, 2012).
Lastly, there was a subset of responses throughout the open-responses that cautioned
educators about the potential risks of traditional cultural exposure projects, cautioning others that
these types of projects can be, “…harmful and dehumanizing to the exposed “cultural other.”
This theme included a powerful comment that stated, “Traditionally marginalized communities
do not exist to serve as educational material.”
Limitations
Every study has its limitations. A limitation of this study, and all studies using the Delphi
method, is that the final results are only reflective of the panel sitting on the study. It is not only
possible, but likely that a different group of people would have ranked these items differently.
However, it is unlikely that another sample would have exceeded the total quantity and quality of
experience of this group of professionals. Further, a different panel may have created similar
items using different language or different items entirely. Another limitation of this study was in
its attempt to focus on two separate—but connected—topics in learning outcomes and
assessments combined. This factor, paired with the lengthy nature of a Delphi study, and the
depth of responses provided panel members may have led to fatigue, specifically towards
24
questions about assessment which were always the second portion of the survey. Similar studies
in the future should either split the topics into separate studies or counter-balance the design of
the Delphi surveys.
Practical Implications
The primary implications of this study are threefold. First, it remains clear that
opportunities for full-scale graduate education in this area remains few as even a paucity of the
panel members reported ever having done that. For sport psychology educators on the fence
about deploying such a course, the learning outcomes in Table 1 and assessments in Table 4 can
provide a vetted roadmap to start the design process of the course. Second, for those who are not
yet able to deploy a full course, they are invited to pick one or two of the learning outcomes or
assessments to integrate into their existing courses. And third, it is hoped that the findings of this
study can help continue a conversation about cultural competency education in SEP among our
graduate students. Specifically, a discussion about the ways in which we can continue to advance
towards the integrated model proposed by Martens and colleagues (2000) must continue. A
critical theme of these panel findings and discussions was the need for time to develop MCC and
the lack of time that is presently provided for it. Addressing this logistical shortcoming remains a
key consideration for all SEP graduate program administrators and faculty to take under
advisement.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to secure consensus about how to optimize an MCC course
in SEP. Through the reflections of 11 expert professionals, a series of agreed upon learning
outcomes, learning assessments, and a subset of reflections about how to enhance MCC
education have been forwarded. Patterns in the results indicate that time allotted for a single
25
course may not be enough to develop robust MCC. However, careful design of this course can
promote a lifelong pattern of learning that can help a SEP student continue quality self-directed
learning. It is hoped that these results will both develop the quality of multicultural competency
education provided at the graduate level as well as continue a conversation about how to better
strengthen multicultural competency education overall in graduate programming.
References
26
American Psychological Association (1993). Guidelines for providers of psychological services
to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. American Psychologist, 48, 45
48.
American Psychological Association (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training,
research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist,
58, 377-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377
American Psychological Association (2017). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological approach to
context, identity, and intersectionality. Retrieved from:
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation
(pp. 135-150). Stylus Publishing.
Baima, T., & Sude, M. S. (2019). What White mental health professionals need to understand
about whiteness. A Delphi study. Journal of Martial and Family Therapy, 46, 62-80.
https://www.doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12385
Bejar, M. P., Shigeno, T. C., Larsen, L. K., & Lee, S. (2021). The state of diversity in the
Association for Applied Sport Psychology: Gaining momentum or still swimming
upstream? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 1-15.
https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2021.1913452.
Benuto, L. T., Casas, J., & O’Donohue, W. (2018). Training culturally competent psychologists:
A systematic review of the training outcome literature. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 12(3), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000190.
27
Benuto, L. T., Singer, J., Newlands, R. T., & Casas, J. B. (2019). Training culturally competent
psychologists: Where are we and where do we need to go? Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 13(1)
Les avis et les commentaires de PegaAI
How do college student-athletes’ understanding and expectations of mindfulness and self-compassion change through an intervention? How do college student-athletes’ understanding and expectations
of mindfulness and self-compassion change through an
intervention?
of mindfulness and self-compassion change through an
intervention?
Blake Costalupes
West Virginia University, bc0104@mix.wvu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd
Part of the Cognitive Psychology Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Costalupes, Blake, "How do college student-athletes’ understanding and expectations of mindfulness and
self-compassion change through an intervention?" (2023). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem
Reports. 11748.
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/11748
This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research
Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is
permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain
permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license
in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses,
Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU.
For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu.
How do college student-athletes’ understanding and expectations of mindfulness and self
compassion change through an intervention?
Blake Costalupes, M.A.
Dissertation submitted
to the College of Applied Human Sciences
at West Virginia University
School of Sport Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in
Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
Sam Zizzi, Ed.D., Chair
Dana K. Voelker, Ph.D.
Monica Leppma, Ph.D.
Melissa Sherfinski, Ph.D.
School of Sport Sciences
Morgantown, West Virginia
2023
Keywords: mindfulness, self-compassion, qualitative research
Copyright 2023 Blake Costalupes
Abstract
How do college student-athletes’ understanding and expectations of mindfulness and self
compassion change through an intervention?
Blake Costalupes
In the last two decades, mindfulness has permeated sport, exercise, and performance
psychology (SEPP). Mindfulness research in SEPP primarily focuses on the efficacy of
manualized protocols on various outcomes related to performance and wellbeing; how athletes
understand this complex construct, though, is largely unexplored in the literature. Additionally,
some researchers suggest that the potentially paradoxical adoption of mindfulness in Western
psychology may be contributing to limited outcomes, low engagement in, and poor adherence to
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs). In addition, the exploration of self-compassion as a
mechanism for change through mindfulness practice has increased in recent years, making it an
important component to consider. The purpose of the present study was to investigate what
college student-athletes (SAs) expect to gain from participating in a MBI, how they understand
the concepts of mindfulness and self-compassion, and how these expectations and
understandings change from beginning to end of an intervention. Intervention supported shifts in
understanding were viewed through a constructivist-interpretivist lens. Individual interviews (n =
42) were conducted with all SAs on an NCAA DII swim team at the beginning and end of a 7
week MBI. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed multiple levels of change across members of the
team, indicating that expectations may be tied to outcomes, and understanding may be a limiting
factor for perceived outcomes. Results provide some evidence that SA expectations and
understanding of mindfulness and self-compassion may be related to ambiguity caused by the
blending of traditional Eastern mindfulness with Western psychological interventions.
Keywords mindfulness, self-compassion, qualitative research, understanding,
expectations, intervention
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
iii
Acknowledgements
I have many individuals for whom I am extremely grateful for their unconditional support
through the process of this doctoral degree. First, I would like to thank Dr. Zizzi – your sustained
guidance and ability to hold perspective, positive regard, and see both sides of the fence have
been, and will always be, incredibly important to me. Thank you for your mentorship, and the
lasting impact you have made in my life. It is, in fact, the best day of the year.
Thank you to my wonderful cohort. To Tommy – thank you for allowing me to be of
witness to your unparalleled persistence, work ethic, and acceptance toward others. I would
absolutely not have completed this journey when I did without your help. To Luna – thank you
for your friendship and for being a voice of comfort and reason when I needed it most. I will be
forever grateful.
Thank you to all my friends, colleagues, and mentors in the SEPP program at West
Virginia University. The culture of this program got me in the door, it fueled me the last four
years, and it will be something I miss and cherish forever. Programs such as this are only as good
as the people that make it, and I can only hope that others get to keep experiencing this as well.
Lastly, thank you to my family. To Audrey – thank you for your unconditional love and
support, for picking me up when I fall down, and enduring my struggles at every step of the way.
To mom and dad – thank you for your continued support and allowing me to persist in my
dreams. To Brock – thank you for testing the way, making me feel that I had a place in higher
education, and lighting the fuse for what I thought possible for myself.
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION iv
Table of Contents
How do college student-athletes’ understanding and expectations of mindfulness and self
compassion change through an intervention? ................................................................................. 1
Methods........................................................................................................................................... 7
Design.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Paradigm...................................................................................................................................... 7
Research Team Positionality ....................................................................................................... 9
Participants and Recruitment .................................................................................................... 10
Data Collection Instruments ...................................................................................................... 12
Demographics and Expectations ........................................................................................... 12
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 13
Mindfulness Intervention ....................................................................................................... 14
Pilot Intervention ................................................................................................................... 15
Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 16
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 18
Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 20
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 20
Change in Expectations ............................................................................................................. 21
Change in Mindfulness.............................................................................................................. 25
Change in Self-Compassion ...................................................................................................... 28
Limitations and Future Directions ................................................................................................ 32
Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 33
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 35
Mindfulness ............................................................................................................................... 35
Mindfulness - What is it? Where did it come from, and how did it get here? ....................... 35
Mindfulness-Based Interventions outside sport .................................................................... 38
Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Sport ........................................................................... 41
Self-Compassion ....................................................................................................................... 47
Self-Compassion in Sport ...................................................................................................... 50
Combining Mindfulness and Self Compassion ..................................................................... 54
Expectations and Experiences of MBIs .................................................................................... 57
References ..................................................................................................................................... 61
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION v
Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 74
Demographics and Expectations Questionnaire ........................................................................ 77
Part 1. Tell us a little bit about yourself and your sport experiences .................................... 77
Interview Guide (T1) ................................................................................................................. 79
Interview Guide (T2) ................................................................................................................. 81
Extended Methods ..................................................................................................................... 84
Researcher Positionality ........................................................................................................ 84
Extended Results ....................................................................................................................... 87
Time 1: Beginning of Intervention ........................................................................................ 87
Time 2: End of intervention................................................................................................. 102
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
1
How do college student-athletes’ understanding and expectations of mindfulness and self
compassion change through an intervention?
In recent decades, the concept of mindfulness has been increasingly adopted by Western
psychology. As a concept and practice, mindfulness dates back thousands of years and is rooted
in Eastern (e.g., Hindu and Buddhist) philosophical teachings. This migration of mindfulness
from east to west is due, in part, to Jon Kabat-Zinn and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction
(MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1982), which was designed to mitigate human suffering through an eight
week manualized training. MBSR demonstrates efficacy in improving wellbeing in a variety of
settings with diverse populations (Haller et. al., 2021; Kabat-Zinn et. al., 1985; Zhang et al.,
2019; Zou et al., 2020;). Researchers in the field of sport and exercise psychology (SEP) have
similarly adopted mindfulness for use in enhancing wellbeing and performance among sport
participants. For example, Noetel et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review of mindfulness
based interventions (MBIs) in SEP and found that such approaches can promote flow states and
anxiety reduction. Moreover, Wang and colleagues (2023) meta-analyzed existing randomized
trials including MBIs, with the most compelling evidence suggesting that MBIs can promote
aspects of mindfulness, flow states, and psychological flexibility—though only 32 studies were
included and little research exists suggesting practicing mindfulness directly improves sport
performance.
Although promising results have been found regarding MBIs in sport, some critiques
should be noted. Current reviews and commentaries have questioned the rigor of MBI research
in SEP (McAlarnen & Longhshore, 2017). Specifically, much of the mindfulness literature in
SEP, and in general psychology, consists of small sample sizes with varied effects, inconsistent
outcomes, few randomized controlled trials, lack of replicability, and ambiguous language
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
2
surrounding terms like mindfulness and meditation (Noetel et al., 2019; Van Dam et al., 2018).
Additionally, some authors suggest that engaging in mindfulness practices can lead to adverse
effects (AEs) for some individuals (Farias et al., 2020). Additionally, some studies show that
athletes completing an MBI report difficulties with lack of immediate results and feeling
uncomfortable during meditation practices (Cote et al., 2019), or show decreases in performance
(Zadkhosh et al., 2018). and a more realistic, less dogmatic interpretation of potential benefits of
the practice is needed particularly given what extant literature communicates (Britton et al.,
2019; Van Dam et al., 2018).
In addition to inconsistent research quality, possible AEs, and lack of research suggesting
MBIs directly increase performance, some have suggested that the very nature of mindfulness in
in SEP may be “paradoxical” in that it is being integrated into a cultural paradigm that is focused
on controlling specific outcomes—like sport performance (Andersen, 2020). Further,
Roychowdhury et al. (2021, p. 2) discussed the “transnational migration” of mindfulness from
ancient Indian Hinduism and Buddhism to the modern Western view. The authors suggested that
traditional aspects of mindfulness teachings that may result in greater benefits could have been
lost as a result of the reappropriation of mindfulness in the modern, outcome-focused
conceptualization. These traditional teachings of mindfulness include letting go of ego,
embracing impermanence, practicing nonjudgement of thoughts and feelings, and acceptance and
compassion towards self and others, which may contrast with how mindfulness may be marketed
in the West (Andersen, 2020). Although both Eastern and Western conceptualizations of
mindfulness are aimed at easing human suffering, the mechanisms for achieving this may be
distinctly different and perhaps even conflicting. Further, current framing of mindfulness in
Western-based interventions may limit the benefits participants could gain from a fuller
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
3
understanding of traditional mindfulness (Andersen, 2020; Khong 2009, 2021; Roychowdhury et
al., 2021; Segall, 2021). To fully discern the effects of these two distinct conceptualizations of
mindfulness, it may first be important to assess what concepts are most salient to those practicing
with little to no formal experience or understanding. Becoming aware of ones’ baseline
conceptual understanding, and how it changes through practice, may be foundational in
determining how mindfulness ‘gains’ are realized and implemented in various life domains.
Although experts in SEP and related fields are integrating mindfulness consistently, little
research has investigated what conceptual components of the practice actually mediate or
moderate changes related to wellbeing and performance. Some promising descriptive research,
however, may provide insights into how mindfulness connects with outcomes related to
performance and wellbeing. For example, self-compassion has been noted in the literature as one
of the core concepts of, not separate from, mindfulness (Khong, 2021). Mosewich et al. (2013)
observed significant improvements, with moderate-to-strong effects, in rumination, concern with
mistakes, and self-criticism among female athletes who engaged in a self-compassion
intervention compared to controls. Additionally, Lyon and Plisco (2020) explored cross-sectional
associations between self-compassion, mindfulness, dispositional flow, and sport anxiety among
elite athletes. Results indicated that self-compassion significantly predicted athletes’ levels of
flow beyond the predictive value of mindfulness. The combined effect of mindfulness and self
compassion accounted for 27% of the variance in participants' flow state experience. These
studies indicate that self-compassion may play a role in enhancing the sport experience by
decreasing disruptors of performance and wellbeing. Specifically, self-compassion may interrupt
negative thinking by helping individuals to practice mindful awareness and self-kindness rather
than self-criticism or mechanisms for stopping or controlling thoughts. Of note, MBI research in
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
4
SEP with prominent programs such as Mindfulness, Acceptance, and Commitment (MAC;
Gardner & Moore, 2004) and Mindfulness Sport Performance Enhancement (MSPE; Kaufman et
al., 2009) have not explored self-compassion as a moderator of MBI effectiveness (with the
exception of Pineau, 2014). Although self-compassion may be a crucial element of Eastern
mindfulness, it is often excluded from MBI research in sport and treated as a distinct construct.
However, the research investigating the relationship between mindfulness and self
compassion in SEP is emerging, and it presents an argument for its important role in wellbeing
and performance outcomes. The construct of self-compassion has been defined in Western
psychology by Neff (2003) as, “being touched by and open to one’s own suffering, not avoiding
or disconnected from it, generating the desire to alleviate one’s suffering and to heal oneself with
kindness” (p. 87). Further, Neff’s conceptualization of self-compassion includes three main
components, namely, self-kindness (employing a warm and nonjudgmental nature to self),
common humanity (normalizing adversity and perceived failures as part of the human condition),
and mindful awareness (being open and accepting to thoughts and feelings that arise). Further,
this conceptualization of self-compassion has been investigated as an attitude that can be
developed over time (Ingstrup et al., 2017; Doorely et al., 2022; Mosewhich et al., 2013; Reis et
al., 2015; Voelker et al., 2019).
Although some interventions outside of sport exist to teach self-compassion (Neff &
Germer, 2013), there is only one sport MBI that highlights compassion as a key theme. The
Mindfulness Meditation Training for Sport 2.0 program (MMTS; Baltzell & Summers, 2018)
was developed to promote mindfulness and self-compassion among sport participants. Most
research investigating this program has been qualitative in nature, and explored experiences of
student-athletes (SAs) after having completed the MMTS 2.0 program—with a specific focus on
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
5
self-compassion (e.g., Cote et al., 2019; Baltzell et al., 2014; Baltzell, 2015). Overall,
participants across MMTS 2.0 studies noted that the program was enjoyable and helped them
learn emotion regulation strategies. However, the results also showed that the athletes struggled
with meditation at times, had low fidelity to engagement outside of sessions, and felt confused
about the application of meditation to sport performance (Cote et al., 2019; Baltzell et al., 2014).
One study investigating coaches’ experience in the intervention noted that they viewed the
program as a useful means of mental training but were unable to attribute any positive changes in
their athletes directly to the intervention (Baltzell et al., 2015). No qualitative research has
explored the changing conceptual understanding, and how perceptions differ from pre- to post
intervention.
Although investigating the experience of athletes completing MBIs is important,
mindfulness literature in sport has been focused predominantly on outcomes and program
evaluations. Although important, this focus on outcome studies may be limiting the full
understanding of for whom, and why, mindfulness is effective or ineffective. A few recent
studies, however, have investigated participants’ expectations and understanding of mindfulness.
For example, Mistretta et al. (2017) asked 45 college SAs to state their top three expectations
before completing the MSPE program. The athletes indicated that they expected to gain benefits
related to mental toughness, self-regulation of mood, stress, and anxiety, and overall increases in
sport performance. Similarly, Tifft et al. 2022 conducted a cross-sectional study with college
students (n = 98) and gathered information related to their expectations for mindfulness practice.
Although outside of sport, they found that those who were interested in outcomes related to self
regulation and control, such as getting rid of or reducing anxiety, achieved less effective results
and reported greater negative affect, depression, and anxiety than those seeking to learn about
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
6
things like acceptance and nonjudgment (Tifft et al., 2022). These studies highlight that
expectations among participants for mindfulness practice may affect outcomes. Specifically, it is
possible that expectations about control over thoughts and feelings may conflict with
mechanisms of change in mindfulness practice surrounding acceptance and letting go. It may be
important for practitioners, then, to seek to assess for participants’ understanding of mindfulness
and the mechanisms that may be involved in positive change through practice. Although few
studies exist investigating participant understanding of mindfulness, Goisbault et al. (2022)
conducted a study with 40 elite French female basketball players (M = 16.33 years old) after
completing a 15-week MBI. Post-MBI participant interviews revealed that the athletes’
understanding of concepts like acceptance, stress, and satisfaction were related to positive
improvements in those areas and changed during the intervention. Additional research that
explores the connection between athletes’ understanding of mindfulness and intervention
outcomes is necessary to document these potential moderating effects.
In sum, the post-intervention experiences of athletes participating in MBIs has been
studied with some frequency. What is missing from the literature is an understanding of how
participants’ understanding of mindfulness changes over time; specifically, no studies have
jointly explored what athletes expect to gain from MBIs, how athletes understand mindfulness
and self-compassion conceptually, and how these connect to their changing understanding of
these concepts. The connection between expectations and understanding of mindfulness and self
compassion may be foundational to understanding how and why MBIs are effective or
ineffective. It may also help practitioners learn how to best frame and implement mindfulness
and self-compassion practices with athletes relative to the outcomes they are looking to achieve.
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
7
To address these gaps, the primary purpose of the present study was to investigate college
SAs’ expectations and understandings of mindfulness and self-compassion before and after a
MBI. The MBI, adapted from MMTS 2.0 and combined with other MBI protocols in sport, was
implemented as part of a larger study investigating the connection between mindfulness and
thriving. The research questions in the present study were: (1) What do SAs expect to gain from
completing a mindfulness and self-compassion intervention? (2) How do SAs understand
mindfulness and self-compassion? (3) How do expectations and understandings of mindfulness
and self-compassion change as a result of participating in a MBI, if at all?
Methods
Design
This study was conceptualized as a qualitative examination of an intervention supporting
shifts in participants’ expectations and understandings of mindfulness and self-compassion.
Grossman and Van Dam (2011) discuss the significance of using individual interviews to
understand the complexities of mindfulness that may not be gathered in brief self-report
measures, which have garnered criticism (Van Dam et al., 2018). Semi-structured interviews
were thus the primary source of data collection. This approach to interviewing allowed for
enough structure to make comparisons in themes across time, while creating the flexibility to ask
probing and follow-up questions to capture participants’ unique understandings. Further, this
approach allowed results to be grounded in participant explanations, rather than coming to any
objective “truth” about their experiences.
Paradigm
Ontologically, this study was viewed through the lens of relativism, such that multiple
meanings can be made from the same observable phenomenon, and none are more or less valid
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
8
(Harper, 2011). For example, the research team remained open to the notion that participants
would most likely experience change from the intervention on a spectrum. This spectrum may
range from no change at all to some change, to significant. Further, a constructivism
interpretivism epistemology framed the qualitative inquiry in this study. Ponterottro (2005)
posits that in constructivism, the nature of reality is created cognitively through participants’ own
experience rather than a single truth that is produced outside the individual’s perception. This
position also asserts the idea that reflection by the participant is essential to uncover the lived
reality of their experience. Further, this reflection can be sparked by the interaction between the
researcher and the participant. This framework guided the research team by keeping the focus on
the participants and their subjective experiences with the intervention, without a focus on
uncovering any objective reality that is the same for each individual. Patterns of data were
created through analysis solely to highlight changes that occurred for each individual from
beginning to end of the intervention. Because this inquiry was focused on each participant's
unique expectations and understandings of the intervention across time, a constructivist paradigm
was most appropriate. Constructivism stems from the original idea of Kant (1966), in that the
perceptions of humans are characterized by both the senses, and cognitions and perceptions of
those senses. Therefore, claims about reality can only be understood through the cognitions of
others. The intervention protocol was the same for each participant; however, the complexities of
their understanding of the concepts taught through this program was unique to the individual.
Additionally, it should be noted that the participants’ experience of the intervention, and
meanings derived, were impacted, in part, by the levels of society in which they operate. The
application of constructivism in this study, therefore, also includes interpretivism, or the idea that
the reality of each individual’s understanding is situated historically, at one moment in time, and
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
9
culturally. Specifically, the experiences for each individual were shaped by their sport culture,
university, family structure, and the ideals inherent within Western society and/or that of which
they have experienced personally. Although the present study did not analyze the data solely as a
derivative of social construction, contextual realities of each participant were noted, and it is
important to highlight that these influences were likely in effect to some degree for each
participant, respectively.
Research Team Positionality
The current study was conducted by a research team consisting of the primary author,
four faculty members, a doctoral candidate engaging in data analysis coding, two additional
doctoral students conducting interviews, and an undergraduate research assistant (for a full
positionality statement for the primary author and research team, see Appendix D). In conducting
a qualitative study such as this, it is important to fully situate the research team, as they are
positioned within the study, including the subject to be investigated, the research participants,
and the methods used. It is important to understand that each member of the research team
carries with them their own identities, world views, and preconceived notions towards the
current study, its participants, and the methods of data collection and analysis. For example, the
primary author and additional doctoral candidate engaged in data analysis have a prior affinity
towards mindfulness and self-compassion in their work, including past research projects, SEP
consulting, and psychotherapy. In addition, both researchers were engaged in the world of sport
culture through athletics participation and coaching. Researcher reflexivity was important
through the process of this project to mitigate potential influences of these experiences in the
data analysis process. For example, each researcher kept their own written notes on potential
biases and pre-conceived notions throughout their exposure to the data. When the researchers
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
10
met to discuss progress through the analysis process, collaborative dialogue on reflexivity was
present.
Participants and Recruitment
Braun and Clarke (2019) suggest that meaning through qualitative exploration,
specifically Thematic Analysis (TA), is created through interpretation rather than extracted from
the data, and therefore knowing when enough data is collected before the analysis process can
prove difficult. Therefore, in determining the appropriate sample size for a study using TA, it
may be most appropriate to use the information power concept (Malterud et al., 2016).
Information power suggests that the more information the sample contains, the lower the amount
of participants necessary. In this approach, appropriate sample size is determined by the scope or
purpose of the study, theoretical framework, specificity, quality and depth of data, and
implementation methods for analysis (Malterud et al., 2016). Because the present study included
one college athletic team, the methods used for this study was aimed at capturing all voices of its
members. This study attempted to gain insight into the understanding of concepts that may have
been new to participants, and included interviews at both at the beginning and post-intervention.
Therefore, the research team expected the depth of responses in the first interview related to
understanding of mindfulness and self-compassion and the role it currently plays in their life, to
be quite low in power. For this reason, it became important to ensure that the data reflected the
majority of voices on the team. To ensure most voices were captured, the interviews were framed
as part of the intervention itself. At post-intervention, it was hypothesized that participants would
have more to say having gone through the MBI, and therefore typical attrition that may occur in
this kind of study could still yield high information power due to increase depth of responses.
Additionally, many previous qualitative studies of MBI’s (Baltzell et al., 2014, 2015; Worthen &
MINDFULNESS AND SELF-COMPASSION
11
Luiselli, 2016) have primarily included individuals who volunteered to complete interviews. This
method may have led to biased results, missing accounts from others that had neutral or negative
experiences. The intention in the present study was to advertise the interviews to participants as
a reflective activity embedded in the program to garner a more diverse set of experiences and the
greatest number of responses. However, participants did have the choice whether to engage in
interviews, and completion, or lack thereof did not exclude them from participation in the
intervention itself.
Convenience and purposive sampling were used to recruit one mixed-sex NCAA
Division II college varsity athletic team in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. This
team was chosen based on availability of schedule and proximity to the research team. Larger
teams, including those with both male and female members were given primary consideration
due to more diversity in the sample and potential for generalizability of the data. Although the
entire team participated in the intervention, each individual on the team was considered a distinct
case in the present study and asked to complete both interviews. Of the total sample that
completed the intervention (n = 31), 28 completed at least one interview and were included in
the study. A total of 26 completed the T1 pre-intervention interviews (83.8% completion rate),
and 16 completed the T2 post-intervention interviews (51.6%). The total number of participants
that completed both interviews was 14. The total sample (n = 28) was composed of 16 females
and 12 males, age ranged between 17 and 22 (