The Sport Psychologist, 1992, 6,287-296
Certification of Consultants
in Sport Psychology: A Rebuttal to Anshel
Leonard D. Zaichkowsky
Frank M. Perna
Boston University
U.S. Olympic Training Center
The purpose of this paper is to respond to the arguments against certification in sport psychology presented by Anshel(1992). Anshel's central arguments were (a) certification will diminish rather than promote the field of sport psychology, (b) Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychol- ogy (AAASP) certification favors professionals trained in psychology, and (c) AAASP certification is inappropriately reliant on clinical psychology as a model for the practice of sport psychology. These criticisms of certification are rebutted by clearly defining certification and related terms, professing an adequate scientific knowledge base in sport psychology to support practice, identifying fraudulent practice as unrelated to certification, clarifying proce- dures used in developing AAASP certification criteria, and presenting evi- dence that sport psychology professionals trained in the sport sciences are not less favored for AAASP certification and that clinical psychology is not used as the model for practice in sport psychology.
The development of sport psychology from a small academic subdiscipline to a growing professional field in which services are provided to athletes and coaches has sparked an ongoing debate in the literature as to whether services should be provided and who is qualified to provide them (e.g., Danish & Hale, 1981; Dishman, 1983; Gardner, 1991; Harrison & Feltz, 1979; Monahan, 1987; Orlick & Partington, 1987; Partington & Orlick, 1987; Silva, 1989; R.E. Smith, 1989). Particularly controversial have been discussions regarding the certification of consultants in sport psychology. In 1989, the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology (AAASP) approved a certification process that provides AAASP members with an opportunity to be designated as Certified Consultants, as recognized by that organization. A description of the AAASP certification criteria and procedures may be found in back issues of the organiza- tion's newsletters (e.g., AAASP Newsletter's winter issues of 1990 and 1991).
Recently, Anshel (1992) has argued that certification of consultants in sport psychology is inappropriate and unwarranted. Specifically, he offered three
L.D. Zaichkowsky is with the Department of Counseling Psychology at Boston University, 605 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02215. F.M. Pema is at the U.S. Olympic Training Center, Sport Psychology Department, 1750 East Boulder St., Colorado Springs, CO 80909.
central arguments. First, Anshel asserted that certification will diminish rather than promote the field of sport psychology. Second, he stated that AAASP certification favors professionals trained in psychology. Finally, he argued that AAASP certification is inappropriately reliant on clinical psychology as a model for the practice of sport psychology.
The purpose of this paper is to speak in favor of certification for consultants in sport psychology and to specifically support the certification criteria and procedures developed by AAASP. In addressing Anshel's (1992) criticisms of AAASP certification, five areas of discussion and clarification are presented. First, we believe it is necessary to clearly define differences between certification as a nonstatutory process and licensure as a statutory process. Despite prior delineation of these functions ("Questions," 1991; M.F.R. Smith, 1986), An- shel's confusion regarding these distinctions inappropriately formed the basis for many of his arguments against certification. Second, we dispute Anshel's position that the field of sport psychology lacks an adequate knowledge base upon which to base practice. Third, we examine Anshel's claims that certification may lead to fraudulent practice in sport psychology. Fourth, we clarify procedures that were used in the development of the AAASP certification criteria. Finally, we present evidence that sport psychology professionals trained in the sport sciences are not less favored for AAASP certification and that clinical psychology is not used as the model for practice in sport psychology.
Defining Certification and Related Terms
In the "Question and Answer" section of the AAASP Newsletter (the 1991 winter issue), an attempt was made to clarify the nomenclature associated with the credentialing process. Important terms such as statutory and nonstatutory were defined in the newsletter and have been defined elsewhere (American Psychologi- cal Association, 1987; Fretz & Milles, 1980; M.F.R. Smith, 1986). The distinc- tions between these terms are critical to understanding certification and should be reviewed.
Credentialing is a broad, generic term used in all professional fields to refer to a process of granting recognition or certification. Credentialing includes statutory designations that are protected by law, enacted by a legislative body, as well as nonstatutory designations, such as recognition by organizations and registries, that are not protected by law.
Certification is typically a nonstatutory designation granted by an organiza- tion rather than by a legislative body. M.F.R. Smith (1986) has described certifica- tion as a transitional designation that may serve as a preliminary step toward statutory standards for that profession. The National Coaching Certification Pro- gram in Canada and AAASP certification are nonstatutory; construction trade certification (e.g., pressure welding) and public school teaching are examples of statutory certification.
Registry is a nonstatutory designation indicating "that an individual has been publicly identified as meeting qualifications as specified by the organization and is eligible for formal listing" (M.F.R. Smith, 1986, p. 13). The United
States Olympic Committee (USOC), Sports Medicine Council, Sport Psychology Registry, and the Canadian Registry for Sport Behavioral Professionals are ex- amples of registries.
Rebuttal 289
Licensure is a statutory process and is the most restrictive of all these terms. The statutory designation of licensure indicates a state or provincial process that is designed to regulate professional conduct within a particular field. At times, a state may adopt a professional organization's admission standards or code of ethics, and it may even relegate the monitoring of the field to a professional board of the organization. However, the state legislature retains legal authority and determines the professional organization's involvement. Licensure as a psycholo- gist is an example of a statutory process that protects the use of title (e.g., psychologist) and scope of practice (e.g., psychological test interpretation).
In his paper, Anshel(1992) used credentialing terms interchangeably, con- fused statutory and nonstatutory credentials, and misidentified protected and unprotected scopes of practice in making the case against AAASP certification. For example, he used the term certification when discussing the USOC Registry and the term registration of clinical psychologists when he probably meant licensed. He also incorrectly stated that "only persons certified by their country's respective national psychological organization can hold certification as clini- cians" (Anshel, 1992, p. 273). In the United States, the American Psychological Association (APA) does not certify or license. This is a function of state psycho- logical boards. Also, certification does not begin with the premise that individuals possess qualifications to practice legally, nor does it necessarily imply that certi- fied individuals have met state or national criteria for professional practice.
Anshel(1992) was also inaccurate in stating that the provision of counseling by unlicensed individuals is a violation of law because counseling/psychotherapy is not regulated by the state as a protected scope of practice. Individuals would be legally liable only if they used the title of psychologist in the provision of any direct or indirect health service. Furthermore, he inaccllrately implied that "dealing with pathological problems" (Anshel, 1992, p. 267) is the only protected scope of practice for a psychologist, stating that as long as psychopathology is not present, no intrusion into a protected scope of practice exists. Scope of practice is not defined by the condition or state of the client but rather by the action or behavior of the professional.
The Knowledge Base in Sport Psychology
Anshel(1992) claimed that credentialing an individual as a Certified Consultant by AAASP has the potential to diminish rather than promote quality service. One assumption upon which Anshel made this claim is his position that the field of sport psychology does not have an established knowledge base demonstrating efficacy of techniques to improve performance. He cited several references that question the efficacy of performance-enhancement techniques as reason to protest AAASP certification (Morgan, 1988; Rotella & Connelly, 1984). However, he failed to comment on more recently accumulated evidence supporting the use of several strategies or techniques to enhance performance (Druckrnan & Bjork, 1991; Greenspan & Feltz, 1989; Kendall, Hrycaiko, Martin, & Kendall, 1990; Meyers, Schleser, & Okwumabua, 1982; Zaichkowsky & Fuchs, 1988). Anshel also presented a rather narrow depiction of sport psychology consultants as being only concerned with performance enhancement.
Anshebe(1992) inaccurately stated that the delineation between right and wrong in medicine and other "sciences" is u&ally clear. He used this argument
to state that certification is not advisable in sport psychology because there can be no clarification of acceptable (right) and unacceptable (wrong) practice. First, it is not the case that medical decisions are made with any more certainty (i.e., probability of successful diagnosis and treatment) than decisions in the social sciences. For example, effect sizes for many widely accepted drugs used to treat medical conditions are frequently quite small and are typically smaller than those found in the social sciences, such as in outcome studies in counseling (Rosenthal, 1990). Additionally, Anshel suggested that refinements to practice cannot be made because the knowledge base of sport psychology is not "scientific." He mistakenly appears to have defined science by the object and means of study rather than by the method employed to derive conclusions. As in all sciences, facts accumulate daily in sport psychology that may have a direct relationship to applied practice. Professionals may regularly apprise themselves of new develop- ments through journals, conferences, and workshops and may then incorporate these developments into their practice.
Therefore, Anshel's (1992) conclusion that sport psychology lacks an em- pirical body of knowledge specifying effective techniques and a scientific method from which to garner further information to enhance applied practice is unfounded. Whether or not individuals appropriately employ techniques or seek to adjust their practice as new evidence accumulates is not an issue plaguing certification, but rather an issue of professional integrity.
Fraudulent Practice in Sport Psychology
Another assumption that Anshel (1992) made in his case against certification is that it would somehow allow certain individuals to make unsubstantiated claims regarding the utility of sport psychology techniques, which could lead to the discrediting of competent and ethical practitioners and the field in general. Anshel noted that the formal relationships between a client and a counselor are generally open to dispute and that AAASP guidelines cannot adequately define appropriate from inappropriate behaviors. AAASP certification guidelines, similar to all professional fields, clearly but necessarily broadly describe the boundaries of practice for an individual who possesses only AAASP certification. For example, the AAASP Certification Role Definition clearly states that a certified consultant should not engage in certain activities because they are outside the scope of certified services. These activities include, for example, diagnoses of psychopa- thology and psychological test interpretation (unless the consultant has additional, appropriate credentials). Although it is true that some guidelines are left to interpretation, this is the case for codes of conduct in all fields. Broad language is necessary because codes attempt to convey concepts or heuristics to govern practice rather than concretely specify the myriad of potential situations that would constitute wrongful practice. One's peers determine if adherence to the spirit of the code was followed. This allows guidelines to be sensitive to the professional group's (or the public's) views, which may change as a function of new information. Thus, AAASP guidelines are no different from other profes- sional codes.
Other fraudulent practices in sport psychology include practitioners who engage in practice without proper training and those who misrepresent the efficacy of sport psychology intervention. Misrepresentation or inadequate background is
Rebuttal 291
either unintentional or intentional. In either case, we contend that certification would likely minimize rather than promote unethical practice. AAASP certifica- tion guidelines specify course work and describe types of required experiences in sport and exercise settings, Professionals who are interested in expanding their practice or those who are new to the field (e.g., graduate students) can thus structure their training accordingly without mistakenly or unintentionally neglect- ing necessary requirements. Similarly, M S P is currently structuring a continu- ing-education program to help ensure that certified consultants remain current in their knowledge.
Contrary to Anshel's (1992) claim that individuals with limited knowledge and experience would, benefit from certification, it is the Case that individuals who have not met the ~ o m m i t t e e ' ~ ~ qualifications or provisionst of grandparenting would not be eligible for AAASP certification, Anshel spent undue time dis- cussing situations in which psychologists with no formal training in sport psychol- ogy are eligible for certification when, in fact, they are not certifiable. Although AAASP has no legal jurisdiction over professionals who inappropriately practice sport psychology, having publicly stated AAASP certification criteria, the organi- zation is in a better position to help prevent practice that is detrimental to our field. It would be possible to report individuals to their respective certifying or licensing boards for practicing outside their scope of expertise. Individuals would then potentially be liable to censure by their professional organizationcfor violating a professional ethical code. For example, the ethics committee of APA recently reported that 16% of individuals who had their licenses revoked received this
censure because they engaged in practice outside their area of competence (Ethics Committee of the APA, 1991).
We do agree with Anshel's (1992) position that the public should be educated regarding sport psychology and its consultants. Certification, as designed by AAASP, provides the public with standard criteria that certified consultants have met and a means by which certified and noncertified professionals can be compared. With time, the professional and the public will be able to decide if distinction by AAASP certification is important; during this time, they are also being protected, to the extent possible, from fraud. However, as is the case with credentialing in other professional fields such as law and medicine, certification does not, and never was intended to, guarahtee expertise or personal integrity. All professional organizations contain isolated individuals who have conducted themselves unethically and, at times, criminally. To state that certification per se potentially promotes inappropriate behavior detimental to the field, as Anshel has done, is unsubstantiated and defies logical reason.
Perhaps the most irresponsible statement in Anshel's (1992) paper is his suggestion that the market should determine competence. We believe his analogy to the health club industry's not requiring certification is inaccurate and based on flawed logic. The health club industry has several certifying organizations, such as the American College of Sports Medicine, and some agencies that provide fitness services (e.g., the Department of Federal Employee Occupational Health) have certification as a prerequisite to employment. Health clubs that do not require certification of their employees are typically driven by a profit motive. They feast
on the fact that the market (i.e., the consumer) is in no position to judge compe- , tence. The alternative to certification is having no procedures at all for quality control,*To do what Anshel suggested, that is, let the marketadetermine quality,
would prove disastrous. What profession today regulates quality using this pro- cedure?
Development and Representativeness
of the AAASP Certification Criteria
The third assumption used by Anshel (1992) in his case against certification is that the criteria upon which individuals are evaluated for AAASP certification are inappropriate and poorly operationalized. Although Anshel never approached the AAASP certification committee for documentation of how standards were formed, he claimed that the criteria were not derived by consensus and that they did not include objective criteria. We contend, and could document, that representative experts from psychology, sport science, and the legal and medical disciplines as well as the general AAASP membership had input at several junctures over the course of several years with regard to current AAASP certifica- tion guidelines. Anshel also stated that sport psychology educators, researchers, and clinicians are not in agreement about the AAASP certification criteria. Al- though it is true that AAASP certification committee members disagreed on several points, there was final acceptance of the criteria by all committee members, the Executive Board, and the Fellows of AAASP. As previously stated, we see disagreement and readjustment of criteria as necessary and desirable because certification is a process that evolves over time.
Anshel (1992) asserted that the AAASP certification criteria are poorly operationalized. We believe this criticism arises out of Anshel's confusion and merging of grandparenting and standard application procedures and from his failure to thoroughly read the certification document. For example, in the section "A Critique of Current Certification Programs" (Anshel, 1992), he suggested that a doctoral degree that is clearly related to sport psychology or psychology comprises the only objective standard under the grandparenting provisions. There are eight criteria to be met for grandparenting, requiring many clearly operational- ized components such as course work, publications, presentations, and docu- mented practice administering sport-related psychological interventions with ath- letes, coaches, or exercise participants. We refer readers to the AAASP Newsletter ("Questions," 1991) for a listing of these criteria. Anshel was also critical of the eighth criterion under the standard application that refers to "supervised experi- ence with a qualified person." He maintained that qualified is not properly defined. At this point in evaluating applicants for certification, the committee has had no difficulty in determining a qualified supervisor.
In a related, but flawed, argument, Anshel seemed to have inferred that "clinicians" who serve as supervisors do not have a research background and do not publish, which leads to inadequate supervision. Once again, accurate presentation by Anshel of competing arguments is lacking. Although it is true that counseling and clinical psychologists publish fewer journal articles than their experimental-program peers, this does not mean that a research background is missing in clinically trained psychologists. On the contrary, statistical and re- search-design expertise in practitioner-oriented psychology programs compare quite well with nonpractitioner-oriented programs (Aiken, West, Sechrest, & Reno, 1990). All professional fields have those who primarily practice and those who primarily conduct research. We do not conclude that a lawyer or physician
Rebuttal * 293
is any less trained because she or he does not conduct and publish research. It appears that Anshel has missed the spirit in which a research background was deemed important as a certification criterion. Training in research and statistical analysis is important primarily as a tool by which one can evaluate the quality and generalizability of a given research study.
Reliance on Psychology as a Model
for Sport Psychology
Perhaps Anshel's (1992) biggest assumption in arguing against certification in sport psychology is his belief that clinical psychology has been adopted as the model for practice in sport psychology and therefore professionals trained in the sport sciences are less favored for certification. Anshel discussed the USOC Registry, as well as other national certification or registry criteria, in an attempt to demonstrate several criteria that place obstacles in the path of nonpsychologists who want to practice and enter professional organizations concerned with sport psychology. He then proceeded to attack the rationale behind these criteria. Although a discussion of these issues may be interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article to address other nations' rationale or practices that do not have relevance to AAASP certification. In cases such as Australia and Britain, we simply do not have the same rules. With respect to the USOC, a registry was
developed for a specific, limited purpose, and there is no evidence that suggests that sport scientists are less favored when it comes to attaining registry status.
Anshel(1992) incorrectly stated in his discussion of the USOC that psychol- ogists can receive financial compensation for services rendered and would be at an advantage when entering practice. Specifically, he argued that the registry requirement of APA eligibility is intended to pose difficulty for nonpsychologists in gaining the opportunity to practice sport psychology. The USOC does not certify individuals; rather, it lists those individuals who have met specific criteria in three areas (clinical, educational, and research) as an informational aid to USOC administrators, coaches, and athletes. Also, individuals registered with the USOC may not advertise their affiliation for commercial purposes, and they sign an agreement to that effect. Furthermore, anyone may provide counseling because it is not a protected scope of practice. Psychologists also possess no advantage over sport science-trained individuals as far as third-party payment because sport
psychology consultation or counseling is not reimbursable unless consultation was sought for a DSMIII-R .disorder,
Perhaps the most ovemding criticism to be addressed concerns Anshel's (1992) premise that present certification procedures allow persons with limited background and experience in the sport and exercise sciences to be the primary practitioners of sport psychology. If this statement were true, one would expect a difference in the AAASP certification and rejection rates of individuals trained in sport science and in psychology. A review of 72 applications for certification by AAASP in 1991 showed the following: 32 applicants received their doctorates in psychology or medicine, and 11 of them received certification; 40 applicants
received their doctoral training in the sport sciences, and 31 of them achieved
certification. Chi-square calculation showed this breakdown to be significant (p<.01); however, it is in a direction opposite to that posited by Anshel. The objective data show quite clearly that more sport science-trained con~nltants than
psychology-trained consultants achieved criteria for certification by AAASP. Also, in perusing the latest (1992) USOC Registry, approximately 40% of the 55 regis-
trants received their doctoral training in the sport sciences. This is certainly not compelling evidence in support of bias against sport science-trained consultants. Lastly, Anshel's (1992) sensationalism of one Australian practitioner's experience with a disturbed athlete is inappropriate and providesquestionable support for his arguments against "clinical" skills and certification. Having seen the bullet holes in the hallway of the Australian Institute of Sport and being familiar with the case, we can be clear on a couple of points. First, this is unquestionably an extreme and unique case to the field of sport psychology. Second, it provides a lesson for all of us in that training and experience may or may not help practitioners in extreme situations. Certainly this case does not teach us that "clinical" skills are not essential or that certification is not beneficial. We believe Anshel has once again confused issues, viewing therapy and being therapeutic as the same thing. The requirement for training in counseling is not intended so that an AAASP consultant can provide therapy. Rather, skills taught and practiced in a counseling course and practicum are meant to be generalizable to situations in which the consultant often is therapeutic. Furthermore, Anshel stressed the importance of referral. We agree and bilieve the clinical component of the certification guidelines will help serve this purpose.
In his section on "Future Recommendations," Anshel (1992) made some good points for improving the field of sport psychology, although not all of these points pertained to certification. For instance, it is difficult to argue against such recommendations as establishing guidelines for successful practice, establishing required knowledge and educational experience, knowing when to refer, providing flexible graduate programs, providing continuing education, educating the public, and developing a code of ethical standards. AAASP, as a young professional sport psychology organization in North America, is doing its utmost to enhance the field by advocating and promoting these same concerns.
Summary and Conclusions
The paper by Anshel (1992) presented an argument against certifying sport psychology professionals. He based his argument on several assumptions that are open to question, and he also presented a great deal of misinformation or incom- plete information about the AAASP certification process. We have attempted to refute his criticisms of certification by clarifying statements that appeared confus- ing to us and by correcting what we perceive to be inaccurate statements. Creden- tialing is a difficult process, particularly in a multidisciplinary field such as sport psychology. However, this does not mean that as professionals we should not strive to maintain high standards of professional conduct while rendering con- sulting services, conducting research, and training individuals. The founders of AAASP bravely undertook the important yet arduous task of certification, and they should be commended for their foresight. As chair of the Certification Committee since 1989, Zaichkowsky has been charged with implementing the policies established by the committee first chaired by Dan Kirschenbaum. This committee, along with the Executive Board and the Fellows of AAASP, imple- mented a certification program that is perhaps not perfect, but it does provide many benefits, including accountability, recognition, credibility, professional
Rebuttal 295
preparation, and public awareness. These benefits were initially outlined in the AAASP Newsletter ("Questions," 1991). It seems appropriate to restate them here.
Accountability. The primary objective of the certification program is to provide a standard that athletes, sport administrators, coaches, psycholo- gists, health care professionals, the media, and the public accept as reliable evidence that an individual has attained specified standards of education and experience. In this way, AAASP is promoting high standards of perfor- mance in sport psychology.
Recognition. Upon certification, each individual meeting the requirements for a consultant will be listed in a registry of certified specialists. They are recognized for having fulfilled prescribed standards of training and performance. This registry will be made available to all amateur and profes- sional sport organizations as well as to other professional groups. In this way, certification serves to provide a vehicle for identifying trained con- sultants.
Credibility. Certification procedures for identifying trained professionals are objective and based on peer review. Additionally, through the use of recertification procedures, the upgrading of skills and continued monitoring of professionals by AAASP will assure the public that the field of sport psychology is maintaining high standards of performance.
Professional Preparation. Specifying what is considered to be the minimal appropriate preparation of professionals, the AAASP certification process will provide colleges and universities with guidelines for programs, courses, and practicum experiences in the field of sport psychology.
Public Awareness. Certification will raise awareness and understanding about sport psychology for all members of the sport community as well as for the public at large. Increased awareness, coupled with credibility, could serve as an important impetus for increased consumer demand for sport and exercise psychology services and thus result in more career opportunities and in overall expansion of the field.
References
Aiken, S.A., West, S.G., Sechrest, L., & Reno, R.R. (1990). Graduate training in statistics, methodology and measurement in psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 721- 734.
American Psychological Association. (1987). Model act for state licensure of psycholo- gists. American Psychologist, 42, 696-703.
Anshel, M.H. (1992). The case against the certification of sport psychologists: In search of the phantom expert. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 265-286.
Danish, S.J., & Hale, B.D. (1981). Toward an understanding of the practice of sport psychology. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 90-99.
Dishman, R.K. (1983). Identity crisis in North American sport psychology. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 123-134.
Druckman, D., & Bjork, R.A. (1991). In the mind's eye: Enhancing human performance.
Ethics Committee of the American Psychological Association. (1991). Report of the ethics committee, 1989-1990. American Psychologist, 46, 750-757.
Fretz, B.R., & Milles, D.H. (1980). Licensing and certification of psychologists and counselors: A guide to current policies, procedures and legislation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, F.L. (1991). Professionalization of sport psychology: A reply to Silva. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 55-60.
Greenspan, J.J., & Feltz, D.L. (1989). Psychological interventions with athletes in competi- tive situations: A review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219-236.
Harrison, R.P., & Feltz, D.L. (1979). The professionalization of sport psychology: Legal considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 182-190.
Kendall, G., Hrycaiko, D., Martin, G.L., & Kendall, T. (1990). The effects of imagery rehearsal, relaxation, and self-talk package on basketball game performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 157-166.
Meyers, A.W., Schleser, R., & Okwumabua, T.M. (1982). A cognitive behavioral interven- tion for improving basketball performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53, 344-347.
Monahan, T. (1987). Sport psychology: A crisis of identity? The Physician and Sportsmedi- cine, 15, 203-212.
Morgan, W.P. (1988). Sport psychology in its own context: A recommendation for the future. In J.S. Skinner, C.B. Corbin, D.M. Landers, P.E. Martin, & C.L. Wells (Eds.), Future directions in exercise and sport science (pp. 97-1 10). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1987). The sport psychology consultant: Analysis of critical components as viewed by Canadian Olympic athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 1,
4-17.
Partington, J., & Orlick, T. (1987). The sport psychology consultant: Olympic coaches' views. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 95-102.
Questions regarding certification. (1991, Winter) AAASP Newsletter, pp. 3-4.
Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology? American Psychologist, 45, 775-778.
Rotella, R.J., & Connelly, D. (1984). Individual ethics in the application of cognitive sport psychology. In W.F. Straub & J.M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology
(pp. 102-112). Lansing, NY: Sport Science Associates.
Silva, J.M. (1989). Toward the professionalization of sport psychology. The Sport Psychol- ogist, 3, 265-273.
Smith, M.F.R. (1986, October). Background to the proposal for a Canadian registry for sport psychology. Paper presented at the CASSISCAPPS conference, Ottawa. Smith, R.E. (1989). Applied sport psychology in an age of accountability. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 1, 166- 180.
Zaichkowsky, L.D., & Fuchs, C.Z. (1988). Biofeedback applications in exercise and athletic performance. In K. Pandolf (Ed.), Exercise and sport sciences reviews (pp. 38 1-421 f. New York: Macmillan.
