Sport Psychology Interview Guide for Initial Consultations

The Performance Interview Guide: Recommendations for Initial
Consultations in Sport and Performance Psychology
Mark W. Aoyagi and Artur Poczwardowski
University of Denver
Traci Statler
California State University, Fullerton
Jamie L. Shapiro
University of Denver
Alexander B. Cohen
U.S. Olympic Committee
The Performance Interview Guide (PInG) is a semistructured approach to initial sport and performance
psychology (SPP) consultations. The PInG is designed to be person centered and strengths based with a
focus on performance excellence. We emphasize building a safe, trusting, and collaborative relationship
with the client, and provide an overview of information to gather when forming an initial conceptual-
ization of the client. There are 7 components to the PInG: (a) identifying information, (b) reason for
seeking consultation, (c) background of areas for improvement, growth, or concern, (d) details of
sport/performance, (e) life/identity outside of sport/performance, (f) significant relationships/support, and
(g) self-care. As foundations for the PInG, a philosophy of interviewing, guidance on gathering
information, and pragmatic considerations such as holistic consulting (i.e., attending to the person and the
performer), multiculturalism, and connecting interviewing to a theoretical orientation to performance
excellence are presented.
Keywords: intake interview, initial consultation, performance excellence
The ability to conduct an effective interview with clients is the
foundation for all subsequent interventions and is a prerequisite for
providing beneficial psychological services (Rosqvist, Bjorgvins-
son, & Davidson, 2007). The working alliance is formed during the
initial consultation, often referred to in psychology as the intake
session, and information is collected that allows for understanding
the client (case conceptualization) and collaboratively developing
the goals for the consultation. Aside from client factors (e.g.,
motivation), the working relationship has been demonstrated to be
the most important factor (accounting for 30% of the variance) in
positive counseling outcomes (Asay & Lambert, 1999). While
analogous data are not readily available for sport and performance
psychology (SPP) outcomes, the importance of the working rela-
tionship has similarly been asserted as a critical component of
This article was published Online First February 9, 2017.
MARK W. AOYAGI received his PhD in counseling psychology with an
emphasis in sport psychology from the University of Missouri. He is
director of the Sport & Performance Psychology program at the University
of Denver. His areas of professional interest include theories of perfor-
mance excellence; multicultural and diversity issues; professional issues,
training, and ethics in sport psychology; individual growth, development,
and fulfillment through sport; and sport as a mechanism for social change.
ARTUR POCZWARDOWSKI received his PhD in exercise and sport science
with specialization in psychosocial aspects of sport from University of
Utah, Salt Lake City. He is a professor at the University of Denver and
Director of Field Placements. His publications and professional presenta-
tions focus on sport psychology practice for performance enhancement and
psychological well-being, coach–athlete relationships, and coping strate-
gies in elite performers.
TRACI STATLER received her PhD in Exercise and Sport Science with a
specialization in Psychosocial Aspects of Sport from the University of Utah in
Salt Lake City. She is the Graduate Program Coordinator and an associate
professor in the Kinesiology Department at California State University, Ful-
lerton, and also serves as the Lead Sport Psychology Consultant for USA
Track and Field. Her research interests include the “art” of excellence in
performance, the training and preparation of effective sport psychology prac-
titioners, and the psychology of high performance in a variety of settings.
JAMIE L. SHAPIRO received her PhD in Sport and Exercise Psychology
and her Master’s degree in Community Counseling from West Virginia
University. She is a faculty member and Assistant Director of the Master
of Arts in Sport and Performance Psychology program at the University of
Denver. Her areas of professional interest include psychological skills
training, mental training for athletes who have disabilities, psychology of
sport injury, learning life skills through sport, psychology of performing
arts, exercise psychology, and ethics and training in sport and performance
psychology.
ALEXANDER B. COHEN received his PhD in counseling psychology
and his Master’s degree in sport/performance psychology from Florida
State University. He is a Senior Sport Psychologist with the U.S.
Olympic Committee in Park City, UT. His areas of professional interest
include assisting coaches in creating mastery performance environ-
ments that promote psychological and physical skill acquisition and
execution; working directly with athletes to maximize performance
readiness through consistent preparation, enhanced resilience, and
mindful self-regulation; and competency-based education, training, su-
pervision, and mentorship.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to
Mark W. Aoyagi, Graduate School of Professional Psychology, University
of Denver, 2450 South Vine Street, Denver, CO 80208-4101. E-mail:
mark.aoyagi@du.edu
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 48, No. 5, 352–360 0735-7028/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000121
352

successful SPP consultation (Petitpas, 2014; Poczwardowski &
Sherman, 2011). Clearly, having agreement on the goals and the
focus of the relationship between the consultant and the client is
also an important characteristic of effective consultations. Despite
the aforementioned evidence of the importance of initial consul-
tation, the topic has garnered sparse interest in the SPP literature.
Still, sport psychology trainees have recognized the importance of
the consultant–client relationship (Stambulova & Johnson, 2010),
and the topics of intakes and treatment planning were two of the
six lower-order themes identified as issues on which sport psy-
chology trainees want supervision (Hutter, Oldenhof-Veldman, &
Oudejans, 2015). Thus, the goals of this article will be to (a) briefly
review the extant literature on initial consultations drawing pri-
marily from psychology and the few SPP-specific accounts, (b)
translate best practices from the literature into a format appropriate
for performance-focused consultation, and (c) present a framework
for initial consultations in SPP called the Performance Interview
Guide (PInG).
Philosophy of Interviewing
Prior to delving into the mechanics of interviewing, it is impor-
tant to understand its philosophical underpinnings. The overarch-
ing goal of the initial session is to establish an effective working
relationship and allow the client to tell his or her story (Andersen,
2000). Other objectives of the initial session such as exploring the
presenting issue, obtaining data related to the client’s history, and
evaluating current functioning (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-
Flanagan, 2014), while important, remain secondary to establish-
ing the working alliance. Consistent with many aspects of elite
performance, the skill of effectively conducting an interview relies
upon balancing many seemingly opposing variables. Do I follow
the client or do I need to refocus the client back to gathering data?
Do I dive deeper into the presenting issue or broaden out to
understand other aspects of the client’s life? When and how should
I describe my approach, including competence and boundaries,
while maintaining the focus of the session on the client?
Clearly, in writing an article on the importance of initial con-
sultations, we value the process of gathering data that may at times
be overlooked in SPP consulting. At the same time, we also
advocate for a philosophical approach consistent with motivational
interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2013), which is based on a
strengths-focused foundation that is fitting for performance con-
sultation. From this perspective, the implicit message being sent to
the client is consistent with humanistic theory and emphasizes the
belief that clients have within them the resources and capacities
necessary to implement the changes they seek, and the consultant’s
job is to understand people’s strengths and values rather than probe
for weaknesses and impose directions for behavior change (Miller
& Rollnick, 2013). Therefore, regarding information gathering, we
recommend approaching initial consultations with the mentality of
gathering the minimum amount of information necessary for un-
derstanding the person and agreeing upon a starting point to focus
the consultation (understanding that this focus can, and often will,
shift as the relationship and conceptualization deepen over time).
Determining what constitutes the minimum amount of informa-
tion necessary is an advanced skill, and therefore noteworthy that
it is common for developing or less experienced SPP consultants to
move too quickly to an intervention when the athlete/performer
and presenting issues are only superficially understood (Hatcher &
Lassiter, 2007). Thus, identifying the minimum amount of neces-
sary information harkens back to our analogy of the balance
necessary for expert performance. To illustrate the point, as Mark
Wilson noted when reflecting on his early experiences as a con-
sultant,
Even though I tried to be a good listener, I was always in a rush to get
round to delivering the magic bullet. I think patience is, therefore, a
key skill—it takes patience to put together a holistic picture of the
athlete based on what you hear and what you observe. (McCormick &
Meijen, 2015, p. 44)
The next section provides more specifics concerning what might
be considered the minimum amount of information necessary for a
starting point. Reinforcing that it is just a starting point, Fifer,
Henschen, Gould, and Ravizza (2008) advocated a need for a
thorough (although ongoing) assessment and case conceptualiza-
tion before engaging in interventions. In line with McWilliams
(1994), we do not believe in teaching a particular technique in the
absence of understanding the person to whom one is applying the
technique.
Gathering Information: How and What
To understand how to best obtain information about a person,
we have found it instructive to put ourselves (figuratively or
literally) into the role of the client. This can be a particularly
important experience for beginning consultants as the natural
tendency is to focus (worry) about the self rather than the client
(Rønnestad & Skovholt, 2003; Tod, 2007). There are many valu-
able lessons that can come from this experience such as gaining a
sense of the unusualness of the situation from the client’s perspec-
tive, the feeling of vulnerability, and the anxiety of the unknown.
Consistent with our experiences, Miller and Rollnick (2013) poi-
gnantly captured the feelings of many clients by stating, “while the
counselor is busy getting started, the client is often pondering
whether to stay” (p. 40). We have found this to be true of some
performance clients (especially, experts and elite; see also Jones &
Spooner, 2006), who may have a tendency to view consulting as
too “slow” or “soft” in comparison to the coaching or instruction
they are accustomed to receiving. Conversely, and again empha-
sizing the balancing act of consultation, many performers appre-
ciate the opportunity to slow down, reflect, and be genuinely
listened to by an objective professional (Sharp, Hodge, & Danish,
2015).
Fortunately, in either case, an effective technique is to ask
open-ended questions and reflect on the client’s responses (Mears,
2009). Beginning consultants have a tendency to focus on ques-
tions, and it is the reflective comments that are often missing and
lead to the feeling of an inquisition on the part of the client (Miller
& Rollnick, 2013). While a full discussion of the types (e.g.,
simple, complex, overshooting, undershooting) and techniques
(e.g., straight, amplified, double-sided, length, direction) of reflec-
tion is beyond the scope of this article, Miller and Rollnick
provided excellent resources for better understanding and practice.
They also provide the helpful recommendation of two reflections
per question as a way to engage the client, build the relationship,
and gain understanding. This ensures that what Andersen (2000)
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.
353
PERFORMANCE INTERVIEW GUIDE

called the “cardinal rule in beginning interviews” will be followed,
“don’t make the client take a quiz right off the bat” (p. 5).
Concerning what information to gather, there have been few
recommendations in the SPP literature. Andersen (2000) and Si-
mons (2012) have provided personal accounts of approaches to
initial consultations, and Taylor and Schneider (1992) have con-
tributed a structured protocol aimed at obtaining both sport-
specific and clinical information. Andersen (2000) provided useful
examples and an experiential approach to the underlying philoso-
phy of letting the client’s story emerge. We agree with Andersen’s
philosophy and hope to build from this foundation with more (but
not too much) guidance and structure. Consistent with another aim
of the present article, Simons (2012) took a performance-focused
approach to intakes and emphasized that athletes seek out or are
referred to SPP consultation with the expectation that the consul-
tation will help them perform better.
Taylor and Schneider (1992) have provided the only structured
initial guide for SPP to date, the Sport-Clinical Intake Protocol
(SCIP). The SCIP is a comprehensive and useful instrument in
settings where it is probable or likely that athlete clients will seek
clinical services (e.g., college counseling center). While the SCIP
incorporates some sport-related information, it has been noted that
it may be too clinically focused for clients seeking performance
consultation (Andersen, 2000; Simons, 2012). Consistent with this
critique, as well as with a clinical model, we would add that the
philosophical approach of the SCIP seems to come from a
problem-focused or deficit model as opposed to the person-
centered, strengths-based model we are advocating. Hence, the
Performance Interview Guide (PInG) was developed to assist SPP
consultants in navigating initial consultations for the purpose of
establishing an effective working relationship focused on perfor-
mance excellence.
Pragmatic Considerations of the Performance
Interview Guide
Before outlining the various components of the PInG, a few
more practical issues require attention. First, we want to highlight
that although the PInG was developed for the purpose of perfor-
mance consultation, we do not believe in a simplistic performance/
clinical dichotomy. We all consider ourselves to be holistic prac-
titioners, focused primarily on the well-being of the people with
whom we work including, but not limited to, their abilities as
performers. That being said, the balance is once again to respect
the wishes and desires of our clients with the education that is
often necessary for people to understand what psychological pro-
cesses may be impacting their lives and performances. In other
words, we are acknowledging that all aspects of the performance/
clinical conversation are valued and do occur. Performers may
present with a “performance issue” (e.g., inability to focus appro-
priately during competition) that is actually a symptom of a psy-
chiatric disorder (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, de-
pression). Similarly, performers may present with what they
believe to be a psychiatric disorder (e.g., depression), and it is a
symptom of their performance (e.g., overtraining). And of course,
it is often the case that performers have a good idea about what is
going on (either performance, clinical, or both) and are simply
seeking support in ameliorating, improving, resolving, or prevent-
ing a particular outcome or situation.
Our philosophy, and the underlying philosophy of the PInG, is
once again a strengths-based, humanistic understanding of people.
This means that we trust and empower clients to decide upon the
course of action they feel is appropriate for them. We balance this
with the understanding that clients often do not have all the
information or knowledge necessary to make an informed deci-
sion. For example, if a client presents with the desire for a
performance consultation, we will still conduct the initial interview
to gain a holistic understanding of the client. Furthermore, we
recognize that clients are not experts in psychopathology, and they
may not recognize or report some symptoms (Segal & Hutchings,
2007). Therefore, it is important for us to ask questions that will
provide an understanding of whether or not there may be a clinical
or subclinical psychological factor that is causing or exacerbating
a performance issue. If these questions lead to concern about
psychopathology, we will discuss this with the client and make
sure they have a good understanding of what we have assessed.
Assuming the psychological issue is not markedly impairing the
judgment and well-being of the client, we will follow clients’
wishes regarding whether or not they want to begin working
through the psychological issue at this point in time. Of course,
treating psychopathology is a separate competency from perfor-
mance excellence (Aoyagi, Portenga, Poczwardowski, Cohen, &
Statler, 2012), and consultants’ training and credentialing will
dictate what services they may provide.
It is the philosophy and context of the PInG that make it
strengths-based, not specifically the number of questions provided
as examples for given topics. For instance, while the PInG and the
SCIP both include an assessment of a client’s family history, the
way this information is gathered can look and feel quite different
when approached from a strengths-based foundation rather than
from a problem-focused orientation. Thus, the key differences lie
in the way the questions are asked and the probes are articulated
(e.g., asking about family support, the ways the family celebrates
success, or about how the family focuses on lessons learned from
setbacks and failures) and the purposes for asking the questions
(e.g., elicit present or latent resources) rather than in the questions
themselves.
A second pragmatic consideration is recognizing that initial
consultations, and SPP consultations in general, are multicultural
encounters. Indeed, few activities bring diverse groups of individ-
uals together as do sport and performance, although power in these
arenas tends to be located within historically privileged groups
(Coakley, 2017). Therefore, initiating and inviting a conversation
about personal and cultural identities may be critical to correctly
assessing factors relevant to personal or performance excellence
(Parham, 2005) and perhaps more importantly is simply consistent
with the humanistic perspective of the PInG. We have found the
multicultural guidelines of the American Psychological Associa-
tion (APA, 2003) to be useful in navigating multicultural aspects
of initial and ongoing consultations. Of particular relevance to
initial consultations is Guideline 1: “psychologists are encouraged
to recognize that, as cultural beings, they may hold attitudes and
beliefs that can detrimentally influence perceptions of and inter-
actions with individuals who are ethnically and racially different
from themselves” (APA, 2003, p. 17). Hence, integrating the
collection of cultural data with the collection of other data is
essential to multiculturally competent assessment (McKitrick, Ed-
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.
354 AOYAGI, POCZWARDOWSKI, STATLER, SHAPIRO, AND COHEN

wards, & Sola, 2007) and forming accurate case conceptualiza-
tions (Ridley, Hill, & Wiese, 2001).
Third, despite the connotations of the initial consultation, we
want to acknowledge and emphasize that the PInG is not limited to
the first session (this is why we prefer the term initial consultation
as opposed to initial session). It is not uncommon for an initial
consultation or intake interview to last several sessions. This does
not mean that the consultant is doing nothing but gathering infor-
mation for the first several sessions. In fact, it may mean the
opposite. Given our philosophical approach of gathering the min-
imal amount of information necessary initially, it means that the
first few sessions are likely to be a mixture of time spent focusing
on the agreed-upon goals and continuing to gather information to
develop a richer understanding and conceptualization of the client.
Lastly, building upon the idea of conceptualization, usage of the
PInG should occur within the context of the theoretical orientation
to performance excellence (TOPE) of the consultant (Aoyagi,
2013; Aoyagi & Poczwardowski, 2012). While the PInG is de-
signed to be general enough to support any theoretical orientation,
some areas may be more or less emphasized based on one’s
specific TOPE. The critical point is that practitioners develop and
utilize their TOPE to filter the information gathered with the PInG
and develop a working conceptualization of the client.
The Performance Interview Guide
Depending on the setting or situation, some of what follows
could be gathered prior to the initial consultation, for example, via
a phone screen/interview or presession paperwork. We want to
emphasize once again that the primary objective of the PInG is to
gather essential information while building relationships with cli-
ents and instilling a sense of trust and safety such that they will feel
comfortable with consultation and with the consultant. To this end,
we often inquire about previous experiences with psychology
generally and sport psychology specifically. If clients have had
prior experience, we like to understand what worked, what they
liked, what did not work, or what they did not like. We then
transition into sharing information about what we do and how the
process will look and feel, integrating what we learned from
clients’ previous experiences as appropriate (e.g., continuing to
build from what worked or avoiding what they did not like).
Within this brief dialogue, we look for a good entry point for
discussing confidentiality and informed consent. For many clients,
this is often enough to get them off and running on what brought
them in that day. If they have questions, concerns, or seem a bit
unsure about the process, we will engage them in a conversation
and perhaps utilize some self-disclosure to make the situation feel
more normal, as people are accustomed to conversations where
there is an exchange of information rather than one talker and one
listener. To reiterate, we do not want clients’ initial impressions to
be of an interrogation or a one-sided question-and-answer ex-
change (Andersen, 2000).
With clients feeling comfortable and the beginning of the ses-
sion underway, we next outline each of the different components
of the PInG (see the Appendix). It is important to note here that
interviewing is not a linear process, and the PInG is not meant to
be followed in an orderly step-by-step manner. In fact, the PInG is
not meant to be followed so much as merely providing general
guidance and direction within which the consultant and client
embark on their own journey. Thus, we advocate for following the
client whenever feasible, as it is often difficult to discern when the
client is going to reveal a critical piece of information or make an
unexpected connection between what appeared to be an irrelevant
story and the presenting issue. A key lesson described by McCor-
mick and Meijen (2015) in their summary of advice shared by
experienced sport psychologists is the importance of
be(ing) patient when providing psychological assistance. Instead of rush-
ing into providing a solution, take the time to ask questions, to learn about
your client, and to develop a relationship. It may take a while for the
client to tell you about the “real” problem or for you to understand the
client’s situation well enough to identify what you can do to help. As
suggested by Marc Jones, consider relieving yourself of some pressure by
explaining that you do not expect to offer solutions during the first
session. (p. 54)
Of course, this advice is applicable to all practitioners, but may be
of particular relevance in sport situations where barriers to gaining
entry have been noted as particularly salient (Ravizza, 1988).
Identifying Information
Obtaining some basic identifying information about the client is
helpful, and also demonstrates the importance of the whole person
(Balague, 2012). In terms of demographics, it is common to ask
about age, gender, relationship status, race, ethnicity, and religious
affiliation. While it is standard in some settings for the client to
complete this information on a form prior to the session, it is still
often helpful to discuss some of the ways the client identifies,
particularly in cross-cultural consultant–client relationships. Fur-
thermore, it is important for the client to self-identify, as the
consultant should never assume how the client identifies based on
appearances or other superficial indicators. Oftentimes it is helpful
to initiate a conversation on cultural identity, as discussing identity
is contrary to social norms. Many clients have expressed relief and
gratitude at having the opportunity to openly discuss cultural
identities that they did not feel safe or welcome discussing in their
performance environment.
Reason for Seeking Consultation at This Time
This question begins to address the presenting reason for why
the client is seeking SPP consulting. Again, one area in which the
PInG differs from the SCIP and general mental health intakes is
there is not necessarily an assumption that a problem or a concern
exists. It is common (and in many cases desirable) for clients to
seek SPP consultation as a form of skill building, performance
development, or as an additional resource to add to their perfor-
mance support system/team. Therefore, the generic “What brings
you in today?” is a better opening question than “What can I help
you with?” or “What concerns do you have?” or similar questions
that imply there is or should be a problem. A generic opening
question allows for clients to discuss the mental or emotional skills
they desire to add or improve and the mentality or mindset they
wish to develop (Vernacchia, 2012). Of course, problems or con-
cerns may also be motivating factors for seeking consultation;
therefore, the PInG addresses these issues as well.
An additional point of importance beyond the reason for coming in
is the timing of coming in (i.e., What brings you in today?). Typically,
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.
355

clients respond with their reasons for meeting but do not elaborate on
the timing aspect of the question. We have found that reemphasizing
“Why now?” often provides helpful insights into what situations or
circumstances fueled the motivation to add SPP consultation into
what are typically already overloaded schedules. Furthermore, it is
common with this question to gain useful information regarding what
the client may have already tried or worked on before seeking con-
sultation, and supporting these efforts can be a meaningful interven-
tion in and of itself (Duncan, Miller, & Sparks, 2004).
Background of Areas for Improvement and Concern
In this section of the interview, the goal is to gain a better under-
standing of the area(s) where clients would like to improve and/or
problems they would like to address. It is helpful to clarify what they
are hoping to accomplish and to get specifics about how they will
know when their goals have been met. For example, what will they
think like, act like, or feel like? How will their thoughts, behaviors, or
emotions be different? These questions then lead to an assessment of
what the current state of the skill or concern is. In this assessment, it
is helpful to keep the common fitness acronym of FID (frequency,
intensity, duration) in mind as general guidance for the information
you want to acquire. How often is the issue occurring? How much is
it impacting you/your performance? How long has this been happening?
These questions are particularly relevant to performance concerns, but
may also be modified for use in assessing skills that are desired.
Consistent with our strengths-based philosophy of consultation,
in this section of the interview it is also important to assess the
strengths and resources that clients possess. Thus, asking questions
such as, “What are your strengths as a person and performer?”;
“How can you use them to get where you want to go?”; and “What
resources do you have to support getting where you want to go?”
are critical in acknowledging to clients that what they already have
within them is going to be the foundation from which growth and
change will occur (McCann, 2012).
Details of Sport/Performance
It is often useful to gain some contextual information about why
and how clients started in their sport or performance domain and
what they enjoy and are passionate about (Balague, 2012). Addi-
tionally, it is important to note that each sport or performance
domain has a unique culture, and consultants being willing to learn
and engage in the language of the client is of great value (Ravizza,
1988). Indeed, a consultant’s contextual intelligence is a key factor
in successful consultations. By having a framework and language
for assessing context, sport psychologists can more effectively
develop contextually intelligent and culturally appropriate inter-
ventions (Brown, Gould, & Foster, 2005). For example, the expe-
riences of those following in the footsteps of a parent who per-
formed at a high level and who understands the performance
environment are often very different from those who are in a
performance arena unfamiliar to their families (and which they
sometimes struggle to understand). Another noteworthy example is
performers considered to be talented or gifted. For these clients,
we like to ask about when they first recognized they were in some
way exceptional and also what changed both for them and for their
support system when this realization occurred. Sometimes this line
of inquiry leads to innocuous responses, but often meaningful
connections emerge that become relevant to the performance con-
sultation. Inquiries into career progression, strengths/areas for im-
provement in performance, role, aspirations, and goals facilitate
conceptualizing performance excellence (Balague, 2012).
Of course, as we have emphasized throughout, performance excel-
lence is a delicate balance and with this in mind, part of contextual
intelligence is picking up on what may not be present. It is not
uncommon for performers to seek consultation because they are no
longer (or perhaps never were) passionate about their performance
and may be interested in exploring performance or life transitions.
Particularly if the consultant is working for the performance team, this
can be a sensitive issue and one that performers are not always
forthright with. We find approaching consultations with the human-
istic perspective helps to cultivate our awareness and clients’ percep-
tions of a safe environment where all relevant topics may be explored.
Life/Identity Outside of Sport/Performance
Many performers come to consultation focused on their perfor-
mance, and it can be easy to overlook who they are outside of their
identity as athlete or performer. We find it beneficial to take some
time to understand the client holistically, as a person for whom
performance is but one facet of identity (Henschen, 2012). What
activities do they engage in outside of performance (e.g., school,
work, hobbies)? What areas for growth or areas for concern do they
have as a person? We have found that many performers find it
relieving to be able to talk about themselves aside from their perfor-
mance identity though some prefer to keep things performance fo-
cused. Either way, clients have always appreciated our efforts to
acknowledge them as people, not just performers. To reiterate, in our
work, we value both performance and personal excellence (see the
2002 special issue of the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology) and
with permission from the client, we enable transfer of performance
lessons learned in consultation to life outside of one’s performance
domain by making this connection explicit. Furthermore, having a
balance between sport/performance and other areas of life has been
identified as an important aspect by Olympic champions (Gould,
Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002), in dealing with failure and success
(Poczwardowski & Conroy, 2002), and in transitions (Poczwar-
dowski, Diehl, O’Neil, Cote, & Haberl, 2014).
Significant Relationships and Support System
In order for most performers to be successful, they must have
support from people both inside their performance circle (e.g., team-
mates/fellow performers, coach/instructor, sport science team, artistic
directors) and outside their performance realm (e.g., family, friends,
mentors, romantic partner; Orlick, 2012). The process of performance
excellence requires significant investment of time and energy by the
performer, which can often be perceived as selfish and cause strain on
interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, there is often a difficult
balance between a necessary investment versus an overinvestment in
the performance (see Vallerand’s work on the dualistic model of
passion, e.g., Vallerand et al., 2008). The extent of the performance
investment, and corresponding degree (or lack thereof) of investment
in areas outside of the performance, should vary at different points in
the performance development process. For example, for those pursu-
ing expert or elite performance, there are critical phases of perfor-
mance development where the performer’s life is not going to be
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.

balanced. The challenge is to recognize when these phases shift and
have supportive relationships with people willing to accept the per-
former “back” when he or she is ready to rebalance his or her life. It
is common for challenges to arise when performers remain immersed
in their performance beyond these critical developmental periods, and
in so doing, become invested to a degree that is detrimental to their
performance and neglectful of other important aspects of their life,
development, and relationships.
An important role that a SPP consultant can play is in helping
performers educate and manage their support system and helping to
ensure the system is working to the benefit of the performer. There are
many ways this can be accomplished, and it can often be difficult for
performers to discern what is helpful and what is not within their
system as they are part of the system. As an example, we are referring
to system here in the singular, and for some performers it is most
effective to have their performance team and their personal team
function as a singular system. However, for others, this can be a
source of stress and it works better to have their performance team and
personal team function relatively independently as separate systems.
In either case, communication is vital as performance coach, strength
and conditioning coach, agent, athletic trainer, nutritionist, and mas-
seuse often have overlapping roles and responsibilities. Similarly,
parents, teammates, friends, and romantic partner often have their
own viewpoints on what the performer needs as well as what they
need from the performer. Thus, having a well-functioning support
system(s) can be a vital part of effective performance.
Self-Care
A final area for exploration, and oftentimes a good way to draw
an initial consultation to a close, is to inquire about self-care
(Hays, 2012). This is an effective and nurturing transition to the
end of the session as it brings the performer into the “here and
now” and provides some tangible information regarding the cur-
rent functioning of the performer. Typical areas for inquiry have to
do with sleep, recovery, fun and relaxing activities, nutrition,
fitness, injuries, medications, substance use, and general mood.
For each of these areas, it is important to gain specifics in terms of
how much, how often, and the quality.
In concluding each session, we like to leave about five minutes
to ask how things went today and leave space for any topics the
clients may want to touch upon that have not yet been addressed.
Although we try hard not to make the initial consultation an
inquisition (as discussed earlier), there are nonetheless many ques-
tions that we have typically asked by this point. Consistent with
people’s need for autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000), leaving time at
the end of the session is an effective way to allow clients space to
make sure they accomplished what they had hoped for in the
meeting and will be engaged in the process moving forward.
Summary
We hope that the PInG provides an alternative to the few models of
initial consultation that exist in the SPP literature. Foremost, the PInG
is designed specifically for performance-focused consultations. In
addition, the focus on clients’ strengths and seeking a balance be-
tween the humanistic notion of following clients and the need to
collect important information seems to address well the specific needs
of performers. Moreover, nonperformance life and identity explora-
tions effectively build on the holistic approaches advocated by SPP
practitioners. Finally, the self-care part of initial consultations, as with
other PInG components, intends both to nurture the welfare of clients
as well as attend to the need to build the working alliance. Some of the
recommendations we made are dependent upon the professional de-
velopment and competencies of consultants who need to balance their
growth (especially earlier in their career) with the needs of their
clients. Though not stated elsewhere in the article, for developing
consultants the oversight of a competent supervisor is both essential
and helpful. Future proposals of how to approach initial consultation
will benefit from data-based projects and rigorous self-reflective ac-
counts. Another future consideration is the developmental level of the
performer, as the PInG is designed for adults and the needs of younger
performers might differ from what is presented here. Overall, the field
of SPP needs more collaborative reports (e.g., Halliwell, Orlick,
Ravizza, & Rotella, 2003) on how to approach the dynamic process of
consultation of which the central points are both performance and
personal excellence.
References
American Psychological Association (APA). (2003). Guidelines on multi-
cultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational
change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377
Andersen, M. B. (2000). Beginnings: Intakes and the initiation of relation-
ships. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Doing sport psychology (pp. 3–16).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Aoyagi, M. W. (2013). Teaching theories of performance excellence to
sport & performance psychology consultants-in-training. Journal of
Sport Psychology in Action, 4, 139–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
21520704.2013.792895
Aoyagi, M. W., & Poczwardowski, A. (Eds.). (2012). Expert approaches
to sport psychology: Applied theories of performance excellence. Mor-
gantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Aoyagi, M. W., Portenga, S. T., Poczwardowski, A., Cohen, A. B., &
Statler, T. (2012). Reflections and directions: The profession of sport
psychology past, present, and future. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 43, 32–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025676
Asay, T. P., & Lambert, M. J. (1999). The empirical case for the common
factors in therapy: Quantitative findings. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan,
& S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in
therapy (pp. 23–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
ciation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11132-001
Balague, G. (2012). Dr. Gloria Balague. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwar-
dowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories
of performance excellence (pp. 1–18). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Infor-
mation Technology.
Brown, C. H., Gould, D., & Foster, S. (2005). A framework for developing
contextual intelligence (CI). Sport Psychologist, 19, 51–62. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1123/tsp.19.1.51
Coakley, J. (2017). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (12th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., & Sparks, J. A. (2004). The heroic client: A
revolutionary way to improve effectiveness through client-directed,
outcome-informed therapy (rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fifer, A., Henschen, K., Gould, D., & Ravizza, K. (2008). What works
when with athletes. Sport Psychologist, 22, 356–377. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1123/tsp.22.3.356
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological charac-
teristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Ap-
plied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10413200290103482
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.
357

Halliwell, W., Orlick, T., Ravizza, K., & Rotella, B. (2003). Consultant’s
guide to excellence. Chelsea, Quebec, Canada: Zone of Excellence.
Hatcher, R. L., & Lassiter, K. D. (2007). Initial training in professional
psychology: The practicum competencies outline. Training and Educa-
tion in Professional Psychology, 1, 49–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1931-3918.1.1.49
Hays, K. F. (2012). Dr. Kate F. Hays. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski
(Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories of
performance excellence (pp. 71–89). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Infor-
mation Technology.
Henschen, K. (2012). Dr. Keith Henschen. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwar-
dowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied theories
of performance excellence (pp. 91–105). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Hutter, R. I., Oldenhof-Veldman, T., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2015). What
trainee sport psychologists want to learn in supervision. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 16, 101–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport
.2014.08.003
Jones, G., & Spooner, K. (2006). Coaching high achievers. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58, 40–50. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.1.40
McCann, S. (2012). Dr. Sean McCann. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski
performance excellence (pp. 107–127). Morgantown, WV: Fitness In-
formation Technology.
McCormick, A., & Meijen, C. (2015). A lesson learned in time: Advice
shared by experienced sport psychologists. Sport & Exercise Psychology
Review, 11, 43–54.
McKitrick, D. S., Edwards, T. A., & Sola, A. B. (2007). Multicultural
issues. In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of clinical
interviewing with adults (pp. 64–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412982733.n6
McWilliams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis. New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Mears, G. (2009). Conducting an intake interview. In I. Marini & M. A.
Stebnicki (Eds.), The professional counselor’s desk reference (pp. 127–
134). New York, NY: Springer.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping
people change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Orlick, T. (2012). Dr. Terry Orlick. In M. Aoyagi & A. Poczwardowski
performance excellence (pp. 167–184). Morgantown, WV: Fitness In-
formation Technology.
Parham, W. D. (2005). Raising the bar: Developing an understanding of
athletes from racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse backgrounds. In
M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Sport psychology in practice (pp. 201–215).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Petitpas, A. (2014). It’s all about relationships: A counseling approach to
sport psychology consulting. In P. McCarthy & M. Jones (Eds.), Be-
coming a sport psychologist (pp. 75–83). New York, NY: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group.
Poczwardowski, A., & Conroy, D. E. (2002). Coping responses to failure
and success among elite athletes and performing artists. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 313–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10413200290103581
Poczwardowski, A., Diehl, B., O’Neil, A., Cote, T., & Haberl, P. (2014).
Successful transitions to the Olympic Training Center, CO Springs: A
mixed-methods exploration with six resident-athletes. Journal of Ap-
plied Sport Psychology, 26, 33–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200
.2013.773950
Poczwardowski, A., & Sherman, C. P. (2011). Revisions to the sport
psychology service delivery (SPSD) heuristic: Explorations with expe-
rienced consultants. Sport Psychologist, 25, 511–531. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1123/tsp.25.4.511
Ravizza, K. (1988). Gaining entry with athletic personnel for season-long
consulting. Sport Psychologist, 2, 243–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/
tsp.2.3.243
Ridley, C., Hill, C., & Wiese, D. (2001). Ethics in multicultural assess-
ment: A model of reasoned application. In L. Suzuki, J. Ponterotto, & P.
Meller (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical psychol-
ogy and educational applications (2nd ed., pp. 29–45). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor
and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional devel-
opment. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5–44. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/089484530303000102
Rosqvist, J., Bjorgvinsson, T., & Davidson, J. (2007). Philosophical un-
derpinnings of clinical interviewing. In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas
(Eds.), Handbook of clinical interviewing with adults (pp. 2–6). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412982733.n1
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.68
Segal, D. L., & Hutchings, P. S. (2007). Writing up the intake interview.
In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of clinical interviewing
with adults (pp. 114–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4135/9781412982733.n9
Sharp, L., Hodge, K., & Danish, S. (2015). Ultimately it comes down to the
relationship: Experienced consultants’ views of effective sport psychol-
ogy consulting. Sport Psychologist, 29, 358–370. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1123/tsp.2014-0130
Simons, J. (2012). The applied sport psychology intake. Routledge Online
Studies on the Olympic and Paralympic Games: Book Chapters, 1,
81–89.
Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2014). Clinical inter-
viewing (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Stambulova, N., & Johnson, U. (2010). Novice consultants’ experiences:
Lessons learned by applied sport psychology students. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 11, 295–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport
.2010.02.009
Taylor, J., & Schneider, B. A. (1992). The sport-clinical intake protocol: A
comprehensive interviewing instrument for applied sport psychology.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 318–325. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.4.318
Tod, D. (2007). The long and winding road: Professional development in
sport psychology. Sport Psychologist, 21, 94–108. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1123/tsp.21.1.94
Vallerand, R. J., Mageau, G. A., Elliot, A. J., Dumais, A., Demers, M.-A.,
& Rousseau, F. (2008). Passion and performance attainment in sport.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 373–392. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.psychsport.2007.05.003
Vernacchia, R. A. (2012). Dr. Ralph A. Vernacchia. In M. Aoyagi & A.
Poczwardowski (Eds.), Expert approaches to sport psychology: Applied
theories of performance excellence (pp. 235–253). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.
(Appendix follows)
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.

Appendix
The Performance Interview Guide (PInG)
I. Identifying information
a. Demographic info
i. Age
ii. Racial/ethnic identity
iii. Gender identity
iv. Additional important aspects of client’s cultural
identity (e.g., sexual orientation, relationship sta-
tus, religion, acculturation, ability status)
v. Sport/performance domain
b. Referral source
c. Previous experience with sport and performance psy-
chology or mental health care
i. What worked/what did they like?
ii. What didn’t work/what did they not like?
II. Reason for seeking consultation at this time
a. Mentality/emotional states/skills desired to be im-
proved
b. Concerns/problems/issues to be addressed
c. Why are you seeking consultation now (timing)?
III. Background of areas for improvement/growth or concerns
a. Areas for growth
i. What are they hoping to accomplish?
ii. How will they know when they are there (what
will they think like, act like, feel like)?
b. Concerns (if applicable)
i. How long has this been an issue?
ii. What changes or significant events (if any) coin-
cided with the start of the issue?
iii. What is the course of the issue (e.g., becoming more
severe/problematic, cyclical, worse in the morning/
evening, exacerbated during practice/competition)?
iv. How pervasive is the issue (e.g., occurring in or
affecting other areas)?
c. Strengths/resources
i. What are your strengths as a performer and per-
son?
ii. How can you use them to get where you want to
go?
iii. What resources do you have to support your get-
ting where you want to go?
IV. Details of sport/performance
a. When and how did they begin their involvement?
b. Why do they play/What are they passionate about?
c. When did they know they were good/talented?
d. What changed when they (or those around them)
considered them good/talented?
e. How has your performance/career progression devel-
oped (e.g., early talent, late bloomer, discovered/spe-
cialized in performance area “late,” indoctrinated by
parents early on)?
f. Describe your game/performance (strengths, areas for
improvement, etc.).
g. What is your role on the team/performance group?
h. What are your aspirations for your performance/What
do you hope to accomplish?
i. What is your dream/stretch goal?
V. Life/identity outside of sport/performance
a. School/work
b. Hobbies
c. Areas for growth (could be same or different from
those within sport/performance)
d. Concerns (if applicable; again, could be same or dif-
ferent)
(Appendix continues)
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.
359

VI. Significant relationships/support
a. Family of origin
i. Parents
ii. Siblings
b. Friends
c. Romantic relationship
d. Teammates/fellow performers
e. Coach/instructor
f. Mentors
g. Agent
h. Sport science/support
i. Strength and conditioning
ii. Nutrition
iii. Massage
iv. Athletic trainer
VII. Self-care
a. Sleep/rest/recovery
b. Fun and relaxing activities
c. Nutrition
d. Fitness/exercise/injuries
e. Medications
f. Substance use
g. General mood/emotional state
(For all of the above: how much? how often? quality? other
specifics.)
All directions of exploration and topics should connect to one’s
theoretical approach to performance excellence and theoretical
paradigm regarding human behavior change (when appropriate).
There is also a balance with following the client. Thus, not all
initial sessions will look the same (i.e., the order of questions and
the included content will vary).
Received August 29, 2016
Revision received November 8, 2016
Accepted November 8, 2016 䡲
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.

Sport Psychology Interview Guide for Initial Consultations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sport Psychology Interview Guide for Initial Consultations

Similar to Sport Psychology Interview Guide for Initial Consultations (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sport Psychology Interview Guide for Initial Consultations