Attachments
Here are my scorings for the two tests. I did each twice, one from a coaching point of view, the other from a rugby playing point of view. It was interesting for me becuase if I was asked the same questions a couple of seasons ago, or possibly even less, the rugby answers would be vastly different.
I preferred the GRIT test to the PCDE. I found the PCDE revealed less about the individual and looked more at the support and environment. It didn't translate as well to the coaching PoV which is understandable as it was developed more with performers in mind, but with such a focus on supporting figures the score could be vastly different depending on the coach they're thinking of. I actually would use the PCDE to evaluate the coach and environment from the players point of view rather the psychological character of the athlete. I preferred the GRIT test, it was shorter, this tends to be perceived as simplicity, at least within the rather slower mental circles of rugby players, so athletes are more likely to do it. The questions are short, to the point, and most importantly in my eyes, all focused on the athlete. If I'm trying to evaluate an athlete I don't see the benefit in spending most of my time looking at coach/teacher input. I do feel that both can probably be improved upon, and that the optimum combination of questions could be quite fluid depending on the context.
Looking at the two tests I would use the GRIT with athletes I currently coach if I wanted to evaluate psychological characteristics. I'd use the PCDE to evaluate two things; the players perception of the coach input/views and the environment being created. And if I had new athlete's coming in; to gauge what kind of coaching and environment they're coming from and to gauge what input I'll need to have the impact and develop the values and character I see as critical for sporting excellence.
What I think could possibly provide insight is the spread of the answers as well as the answers specifically. For instance when I was doing my first test (I didn't use this one as my context was mixed and so a bit vague) I couldn't bring myself to put 'very much like me' for several of the positive answers ( e.g I am a hard worker) because for me I think people can nearly always push a bit harder and on top of that I always know when I've taken the easier option, not necessarily the wrong one, just easier. For instance I'll sometimes completely change one of my gym sessions because I feel beaten down and am really struggling. If it was someone I coach I probably wouldn't bat an eye at reducing the session, but I struggle to view my own training in that impartial manner. It was a similar story on some of the more negative questions and putting 'Not like me at all', as I would almost put it then a single example would pop in my head. So I found it difficult to talk in those more absolute terms, this could possibly give an insight into players thinking if it revealed itself as a constant. For me I think it highlights something I have always struggled with, especially when analysing a rugby performance; my ability to recognise and acknowledge the positives within my performance. As a person I tend to focus on the negatives, it's nice when someone compliments me on something but I actually get frustrated when I ask someone to analyse a performance in something and they say something on the lines of 'I did fine/it's good, relax'. I always want something I can be focusing on and improving. So I feel that maybe this could be plotted in questionnaires like these but it would likely require an already strong understanding of the athlete and at least a couple questionnaires spread out over several months or over a year to see if the answers tend to stay around that pattern.
I did have some more thoughts on this but my brain doesn't seem to be working much just now so I'll leave it there for now.
