The Sport Psychologist, 1992, 6,287-296
Certification of Consultants
in Sport Psychology: A Rebuttal to Anshel
Leonard D. Zaichkowsky
Boston University
Frank M. Perna
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 Psychology (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 procedures used in developing AAASP certification criteria, and presenting 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.
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 organization'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.
288
Zaichkmsky and Perna
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), Anshel'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 Psychological Association, 1987; Fretz & Milles, 1980; M.F.R. Smith, 1986). The distinctions 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 organization rather than by a legislative body. M.F.R. Smith (1986) has described certification as a transitional designation that may serve as a preliminary step toward
statutory standards for that profession. The National Coaching Certification Program 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 examples 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 psychologist 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,confused 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 clinicians" (Anshel, 1992, p. 273). In the United States, the American Psychological
Association (APA) does not certify or license. This is a function of state psychological boards. Also, certification does not begin with the premise that individuals
possess qualifications to practice legally, nor does it necessarily imply that certified 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
290
Zaichkowsky and Perna
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 developments through journals, conferences, and workshops and may then incorporate
these developments into their practice.
Therefore, Anshel's (1992) conclusion that sport psychology lacks an empirical 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 psychopathology 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 professional codes.
Other fraudulent practices in sport psychology include practitioners who
engage in practice without proper training and those who misrepresentthe 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 certification 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 neglecting necessary requirements. Similarly, M S P is currently structuring a continuing-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 ~ommittee'~~
qualifications or provisionst of grandparenting
would not be eligible for AAASP certification, Anshel spent undue time discussing situations in which psychologists with no formal training in sport psychology 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 organization 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 professionalorganizationcfor 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 competence. The alternative to certification is having no procedures at all for quality
control,*Todo what Anshel suggested, that is, let the marketadeterminequality,
,
292
Zaichkowsly and Perna
would prove disastrous. What profession today regulates quality using this procedure?
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 certification guidelines. Anshel also stated that sport psychology educators, researchers,
and clinicians are not in agreement about the AAASP certification criteria. Although 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 grandparentingprovisions. There
are eight criteria to be met for grandparenting,requiring many clearly operationalized components such as course work, publications, presentations, and documented practice administering sport-related psychological interventions with athletes, 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 experience 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 research-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 psychologists 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~nltantsthan
294
Zaichkowsky and Perna
psychology-trained consultants achieved criteria for certification by AAASP. Also,
in perusing the latest (1992) USOC Registry, approximately 40% of the 55 registrants 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 educationalexperience, 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 incomplete information about the AAASP certification process. We have attempted to
refute his criticisms of certification by clarifying statements that appeared confusing to us and by correcting what we perceive to be inaccurate statements. Credentialing 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 consulting 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, implemented 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, psychologists, 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 performance 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 professional sport organizations as well as to other professional groups. In this
way, certification serves to provide a vehicle for identifying trained consultants.
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, 721734.
American Psychological Association. (1987). Model act for state licensure of psychologists. 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.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
296
Zaichkowsky and Pernn
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 competitive 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 intervention 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 Sportsmedicine, 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. 97-110). 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 professionalizationof sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 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 1-421f. New York: Macmillan.