Butler and Hardy (1992) created a strategy of performance profiling usable by coaches, athletes, and sport psychology consultants alike.  It involves the subject’s perspectives of necessary qualities for elite performance in relational importance with one another. Then, the subject assesses him/herself on each of these constructs and conversation flows into areas resistant to change and readily malleable.  Yesterday, I interviewed identical twins by use of performance profiling.  These female, 28 year old competitive volleyball coaches are more alike than different; they went to the same college, played on the same D-2 collegiate team, started a business together, live together, and currently coach together.

Their ideas of qualities and characteristics most important for a successful competitive volleyball coach were very different. Twin A’s constructs had the goal in mind of winning matches. Twin B’s constructs has the goal in mind of developing quality human beings for the world. After the assessments, the three of us sat down and discussed similarities and differences, while I tried to source the reasons for these patterns.  They both immediately came to the same conclusion; the differences were due to the age group each was currently coaching. Twin A, an older college, D-1 bound team :: Twin B, a younger developmental team. They agreed that their coaching philosophies are almost identical and that the differences were due to primacy effects. (see attachment)

With this information, it is important to note that performance profiling, as suggested by Butler and Hardy (1992), assesses the here and now of subjects’ perceptions.

Butler & Hardy. (1992). The performance profile: theory and application. The Sport Psychologist, 6(3), 253 – 264.

http://www.getcited.org/pub/103341196The use of a performance profiling technique in