Content uploaded by Gordon A. Bloom
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gordon A. Bloom on Nov 07, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
RQES: September 2007 339
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
Key words: coaching expertise, disability sport, quali-
tative research
In the last decade there has been an increase in
empirical research pertaining to coaching science
and education (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). Much of this
research has focused on elite-level coaches of able-bod-
ied athletes, most commonly at the university or Olym-
pic level (e.g., Bloom, Crumpton, & Anderson, 1999;
Bloom, Durand-Bush, & Salmela, 1997; Côté, Salmela,
Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995; d’Arripe-Longueville,
Fournier, & Dubois, 1998; Gilbert & Trudel, 2000; Val-
lée & Bloom, 2005). Despite this, there is a paucity of
empirical research on coaches of athletes with physical
disabilities; in fact, literature pertaining to their exper-
tise is almost nonexistent (DePauw & Gavron, 1991).
However, the need for empirical-based research on
these coaches is undisputed, especially with the recent
increase in sporting events and opportunities for ath-
letes with a physical disability (DePauw & Gavron, 2005;
Reid & Prupas, 1998). For example, the Paralympics
have grown from 400 athletes in its 1960 debut, to ap-
proximately 4,000 athletes from 130 countries at the
2004 Athens Paralympics (International Paralympic
Committee, n.d.).
Within able-bodied sport in Canada, empirically
based research on elite coaches’ knowledge has primar-
ily been conceptualized using Coaching Model (CM) of
Côté et al. (1995). The CM is a theoretical framework
for establishing connections between the accumulated
knowledge on how and why coaches perform as they
do. The CM suggests that coaches begin by constructing
a mental model of their athlete’s or team’s potential.
This mental model dictates how the coach applies the
primary components of organization, training, and
competition to their athletes. This model is influenced
by three peripheral components: coach’s personal char-
acteristics, athlete characteristics, and contextual factors.
Coaches integrate these into their operational strategies
to determine which of the three primary components
must be used to maximize the athlete’s and team’s
development. Creating a successful environment often
requires adaptations to multiple contextual factors, such
as training facilities and conditions, parents, financial
resources, and administrative responsibilities (Côté et
al., 1995; Davies, Bloom, & Salmela, 2005). The CM
has been applied to research in individual (Côté et al.,
1995), team (Vallée & Bloom, 2005; Gilbert & Trudel,
2000), and combative sport settings (Moraes & Salmela,
2001) of elite coaches of able-bodied athletes.
While the CM has never been applied to disability
sport research, there is reason to believe it would be
Career Evolution and Knowledge of Elite Coaches
of Swimmers With a Physical Disability
Kerry Cregan, Gordon A. Bloom, and Greg Reid
Submitted: March 17, 2006
Accepted: November 22, 2006
Kerry Cregan, Gordon A. Bloom, and Greg Reid are with
the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at
McGill University.
In the last decade there has been an increase in empirical research on coaches of elite able-bodied athletes, while coaches of
athletes with a disability have generally been overlooked. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to address this oversight
by examining the career evolution and knowledge of these coaches. Six elite coaches of swimmers with a physical disability
were interviewed using an unstructured, open-ended interview format. Results revealed information pertaining to the coach-
es’ backgrounds, career evolution, and knowledge in training and competition. As well, all coaches stressed the importance of
coaching their athletes as an elite swimmer as opposed to coaching a swimmer with a disability.
Psychology
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
©2007 by the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 339–350
Cregan.indd 339 7/27/2007 1:03:15 PM
340 RQES: September 2007
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
beneficial. One might argue that coaching an elite able-
bodied athlete is similar in many respects to coaching
an elite athlete with a disability. Coaching athletes with
a disability requires many of the same skills as coach-
ing able-bodied athletes, such as helping athletes set
realistic goals, developing reasonable skill progressions,
and providing consistent and appropriate feedback
(DePauw & Gavron, 2005). For example, elite athletes
with a physical disability must also be challenged and
motivated in practice and competition. Although their
disability may limit them physically, mentally they are the
same as elite able-bodied athletes and, thus, should be
coached accordingly (DePauw & Gavron, 2005).
Although similarities between coaching able-bodied
athletes and athletes with a disability have been identi-
fied, researchers have alluded to numerous circumstanc-
es and considerations specific to coaching athletes with
a disability, such as understanding the nature of the dis-
ability or necessary biomechanical adaptations (DePauw
& Gavron, 2005; Lee, 1994; Quade, 1999; Sherrill, 1993).
Moreover, the need for individualized training plans is
important to meet each athlete’s condition (Moeller,
1993). All coaches must be aware of their athletes’
living accommodations, transportation, medical con-
ditions, and nutritional demands to create an optimal
stress-free training situation, but their importance may
be magnified in disability sport (Quade, 1999). While
self-coaching is common in disability sport, (Bradbury,
1999; DePauw & Gavron, 2005; Liow & Hopkins, 1996),
an investigation of trained coaches is warranted.
In sum, although researchers have suggested numer-
ous guidelines for coaching an athlete with a disability
(Bradbury, 1990; DePauw & Gavron, 2005), there are rela-
tively few empirical studies on the knowledge of elite-level
coaches of athletes with a disability (DePauw, 1990). Us-
ing Côté and colleagues’ (1995) CM as the conceptual
framework, the purpose of this study was to identify the
career evolution and knowledge specific to coaching
elite-level swimmers with a physical disability.
Method
Participants
Six elite-level coaches of swimmers with a physical
disability were interviewed. The coaches were identified
by a member of the board of directors of the Canadian
Paralympic Committee and a prominent executive from
Swim Canada. All participants were the current head
coach of their programs, had at least 10 years of head
coaching experience, including at least 3 years with
swimmers with a disability (SWAD), and had developed
at least one athlete who had won a gold medal at the
Paralympics or World Championships. All participants
were men, likely due to the larger population of Cana-
dian male coaches in swimming. They were contacted by
e-mail and informed of the nature of the investigation
and invited to participate. All agreed to participate.
According to the International Paralympic Com-
mittee (n.d.), SWAD are ranked on a scale of 1–13 with
other athletes who have a similar disability level. S1
represents athletes with the most severe disabilities (e.g.,
quadriplegic), and S11–S13 those with the least severe
disabilities (e.g., visual impairments). Five coaches in
the present study worked with athletes ranging from
S5 to S13 (i.e., higher functioning athletes). One coach
worked with athletes ranging from S2–S10. Additionally,
it should be noted that Swim Canada is an organization
governing both able-bodied athletes as well as those with
a physical disability. Swimmers with a physical disability
are eligible to receive funding and aid from Swim Can-
ada, to train and use the same facilities as able-bodied
swimmers, and to have access to the same coaches as
able-bodied swimmers (Lee, 1994). Table 1 summarizes
participants’ history and accomplishments.
Instrument
A four-part interview guide with open-ended ques-
tions was created specifically for this study. The first
part, an introductory question (e.g., “How did you get
involved in disability sport?”), was designed to initiate
discussion and preface the main topic. The second
part consisted of six key questions developed from the
Côté et al. (1995) CM. These focused on the coaches’
knowledge, including organizational components, such
as goal setting, issues involved in training, their role in
competition, and factors and considerations specific to
coaching SWAD. The third part consisted of a summary
question that tied together the most important points
(e.g., “What are the key elements of coaching swim-
mers with a physical disability?”), and the fourth part
included a concluding question that gave participants
the opportunity to add information. Interview probes
and follow-up questions were implemented to add depth
and clarity to participants’ responses, pursue the central
themes discovered, elaborate on the context of answers,
and explore the implications of their responses(Rubin &
Rubin, 1995). Each interview lasted between 60 and 120
min and took place at a mutually convenient location in
Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, or Vancouver, Canada.
To put the participant at ease each interview session
began with an informal conversation between the re-
searcher and participant (Fontana & Frey, 1994). Then,
each participant read and signed a consent form and
completed a demographic questionnaire. The principle
investigator informed the participant that the interview
would be audio recorded and a full verbatim transcript
Cregan.indd 340 7/27/2007 1:03:15 PM
RQES: September 2007 341
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
would be sent to him for approval and editing before
analyses. Audio recording began at this point. The par-
ticipant’s confidentiality was protected by using a coding
system replacing each name with a number (i.e., #1–6);
also, any potentially identifying information (e.g., name
of coach, home town) was replaced or disguised.
Data Analysis
The procedures outlined by Côté, Salmela, Baria,
and Russell (1993) were used to analyze the interview
data after the transcripts wee returned to the primary
investigator. This method consists of four steps: creating
meaning units, tags, properties, and finally categories.
The transcripts were divided into 541 quotes called
meaning units (MU), which were separate pieces of text
containing one idea, concept, or piece of information
(Tesch, 1990). At the same time, each MU was given a
tag based on its content. A tag was a descriptive name
for the MU. A total of 57 tags emerged from the data.
Following this, the tags were listed, compared, and then
combined into distinct higher order groups called prop-
erties. A new name or tag was given to each newly formed
property. Properties were named according to the com-
mon features their tags shared (Côté et al., 1993). In this
stage, the 57 tags were grouped into 12 properties. The
final stage of analysis involved regrouping the properties
identified in the previous stage into broader conceptual
categories. The data were examined until saturation was
reached and no new levels of information emerged
(Côté et al., 1993). By the final stage, the 12 properties
had been organized into four larger categories.
Trustworthiness
The trustworthiness of this analysis was increased
by following the suggestions proposed by Lincoln and
Guba (1985). First, the researcher used prolonged
engagement researcher to learn and become familiar
with the participant’s culture and build trust with the
participant. In this study, the principal investigator had
extensive experience as a coach and athlete at varying
of swimming levels and had worked extensively with
individuals with a physical disability. Thus, our inter-
viewer was familiar with the culture and the individuals
involved in our study.
Second, persistent observation was used to identify
relevant elements of the participant’s responses and
pursue them to ensure the interview brought about
all pertinent information (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In
this study, the coaches were probed on relevant points
to ensure all fundamental issues related to coaching
evolution and knowledge were examined.
Third, peer review was used to improve the cred-
ibility of this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This process
took place independently of the principal researcher. A
peer assistant examined 25% of the MUs created from
the data and matched each with a tag previously estab-
lished by the researcher. The peer assistant matched the
MUs with the tags based on what he or she felt were the
most appropriate combinations. A reliability rate of 83%
was reached for this analysis. After a discussion between
the researcher and the peer assistant, it was agreed that
three tags in question would be combined due to the
similar, if not repetitive, nature of each. This procedure
Table 1. History and accomplishments of each head coach
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Number of years SWAD: 12 SWAD: 3 SWAD: 5 SWAD: 22 SWAD: 11 SWAD: 6
coaching AB: 19 AB: 25 AB: 20 AB: 22 AB: 6 AB: 15
SWAD & AB
Classification of S5, S6, S8, S10 S13 S5, S7, S13 S2–S10 S13, S7
athletes coached S9, S10, S13
Highest Gold Multiple Gold Multiple Gold Gold
accomplishment medalist at medals at medalist at medals at medalist medalist
of SWAD athlete Paralympics Paralympics Paralympics Paralympics Worlds Paralympics
coached
Coaching Swimming Petro Petro Petro Swimming Swimming
awards Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada
coach of Coaching Coaching Coaching coach of coach of
the year Excellence Excellence Excellence the year the year
(SWAD) (SWAD) (SWAD)
Note. P1–P6 = Participants 1 through 6; SWAD = swimmers with a disability; AB = able-bodied swimmers.
Cregan.indd 341 7/27/2007 1:03:15 PM
342 RQES: September 2007
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
also took place when the properties and categories were
created. The peer assistant classified the 57 tags into
12 properties. A 91% rate of reliability was achieved.
All classification discrepancies between the principal
researcher and the peer assistant were discussed until a
common understanding was reached. A reliability rate
of 100% was then achieved for the categories.
Fourth, member checks were used to allow par-
ticipants to verify the researchers’ understanding of the
information they provided (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In
this study, member checks occurred on three differ-
ent occasions. The first took place at the end of each
interview during a debriefing session. At this point,
the participant had the opportunity to add or alter any
answer or idea communicated during the interview.
The second occurred when the participant received a
full verbatim transcript of the interview. At this time,
the participant had the opportunity to clarify, add, or
eliminate any portions of the interview. The final check
consisted of sending the participants a summary of the
results in which they were asked to state any concerns,
questions, or comments. Of the 6 participants, 5 did not
change anything, and 1 did not reply.
Results
A total of 541 MUs resulted from the six interviews.
From this, four higher order categories emerged from
the data, which described the coaches’ career evolu-
tion and knowledge. The categories were called coach
background and characteristics, training, competition, and
contextual factors. Table 2 shows a breakdown of subcom-
ponents within each category. Categories are explained
in the following section.
Coach Background and Characteristics
Coach background and characteristics included ele-
ments of the coaches’ interpersonal characteristics and
beliefs, their background and experiences in aquatics,
and how they got involved in coaching both able-bodied
and SWAD. It was the basis for understanding them
as coaches and how they got there. This category was
composed of three properties: coaching background/
experience, coach attributes, and coaching style.
Coaching background/experience included aquat-
ics, their involvement in coaching able-bodied and
SWAD, and their view on coaching as a profession. The
participants had diverse experiences in aquatics. One
was a nationally and world-ranked Paralympic swimmer,
while the others were all able-bodied swimmers. Of this
group, two competed at the national level, one com-
peted just below the national level for another country,
and one swam recreationally. Although their athletic ex-
periences and accomplishments varied, all participants
began coaching able-bodied swimmers:
I’ve always coached able-bodied athletes.
I went from starting coaching in [another
country] to coaching in [name of Cana-
Table 2. Categories and properties with frequencies of occurrence for each participant
Categories and properties Total P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Coach background and characteristics
Coaching background/experience 41 10 3 5 2 14 7
Coach attributes 34 6 4 7 5 5 7
Coaching style 32 2 4 13 4 1 8
Training
Training accommodations 64 9 5 9 12 18 11
Training routines 47 7 8 2 2 12 16
Goal setting 53 10 4 10 8 7 14
Competition
Pre- and during competition/race 23 3 2 5 5 4 4
Postcompetition/race 40 6 3 3 4 9 15
Contextual factors
Special considerations (to coaching SWAD) 64 10 1 10 7 24 12
SWAD context 11 3 0 2 4 1 1
Equality between SWAD & AB athletes 100 16 5 12 23 24 20
Athlete characteristics 30 6 4 4 11 1 4
Total 541 88 44 82 87 120 120
Note. P1–P6 = Participants 1 through 6; SWAD = swimmers with a disability; AB = able-bodied swimmers.
Cregan.indd 342 7/27/2007 1:03:16 PM
RQES: September 2007 343
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
dian city]. Then I came to [name of Ca-
nadian city] and I started coaching for a
couple of years. I had a bit of a break, and
then I went to work for the school board
as a swim coach—all with able-bodied
swimmers. (P5)
Even coach P6, who was a former Paralympian, began
coaching able-bodied swimmers because he was involved
as an athlete with an integrated program:
I had no intent on coaching as a career. I
started coaching at the club that I swam
for because I felt I had a debt of gratitude,
since it had done so much for me. I had
just finished my university degree, and I
did not get accepted into medical school. I
had a year to do what I wanted to, and they
needed a swim coach [in my home town].
I went back and started coaching [near my
home town]. The rest is history. (P6)
Furthermore, all participants did not intend to coach
SWAD. They coached able-bodied athletes until a SWAD
arrived at one of their practices:
I don’t think anybody goes out and inten-
tionally decides they’re going to become
a coach for swimmers with a disability. I
think the kids show up, and you do your
job. I’m sure if you asked any coach,
they would tell you that it was never their
intention to go down this road. It just
happens. (P3)
Although participants did not initially see coach-
ing as their career, most expressed an extreme level of
enjoyment and love for the sport of swimming and the
profession of coaching:
I do it because I love it. I’ve stayed with
swimming; I’ve stayed around the pool.
I’ve been in swimming ever since I was 4
or 5 years of age. I can’t stay away from it.
I can’t not coach. (P5)
Coach attributes encompassed key qualities pos-
sessed by the participants. One such common coaching
quality was confidence each had as a coach:
One of my athletes had to do a speech on
me two weeks ago, because I had won an
award. He said I bring him confidence.
When he moved from his old club to my
program, he knew that he was with the best
coach in [name of city]. There may be a
coach better than me in the world, but for
what he could do, I was the best. (P2)
Participants’ qualities specific to coaching SWAD ac-
counted for the majority of coaching attributes. Building
autonomy was important for ensuring that SWAD were
able to take part in everyday training as well as improve
their lifestyle:
We have an obligation as coaches and as
providers of swimming services to ensure
that we provide them with the best service
possible. If you can get a person that can
go from not swimming at all to swimming
a mile, you’ve given them that ability, then
you’ve successfully done what you said
you were going to do—empowered them,
taught them how to be autonomous, and
given them an improved lifestyle, because
what they are doing is only going to help
them in the end. (P3)
In addition to building autonomy, several participants dis-
cussed the importance of creativity when coaching SWAD
athletes. The following is a representative quote:
Sometimes with the disabled kids, de-
pending on the disability, you have got
to be a little more creative. There is no
manual that tells you exactly how to coach
a swimmer with no lower arm; you have
to think of how to do it on your own. You
have to be more creative. (P4)
Coaching style included participants’ interaction
and the coaches’ relationship with their athletes. The
coaches in this study possessed similar coaching styles.
Although some were more authoritarian while others
were “laid back,” all felt that at different times and with
different athletes varied coaching styles were required
to create an optimal learning environment:
Some of them you need to stand over and
stay on them. One athlete can do his own
thing. He doesn’t require a lot feedback.
But then another guy, he tends to get
lost if I don’t give him feedback. So I’ve
come to realize over a period of time that
I have to be more hands on and be over
the top for some swimmers, but not for
others. (P1)
Possibly unique to coaching SWAD athletes, were
the coaches’ experiences of a shared relationship, in
Cregan.indd 343 7/27/2007 1:03:16 PM
344 RQES: September 2007
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
which both the coach and athlete had equal input into
the coaching process. This relationship was the result
of the athlete knowing his or her disability more than
the coach:
When I first started coaching this SWAD, I
think very much so [had a sharing role in
the coach-athlete relationship], because
I really wasn’t sure what to do with her.
She set me straight on a few things that I
was unsure of. (P4)
Training
Training included how to break down the training
season, the intervention style and different types of
training implemented into the program (e.g., physical,
technical, and mental), the participants’ goal-setting
process, and accommodating athlete’s individual needs.
This category comprised the properties of training
routines, training accommodations, and goal setting.
Training routines encompassed how the coach planned
the season and the different types of training the athletes
endured. All coaches cited a similar process of breaking
down the season:
We go through a cycle of about 12 to 15
weeks. We try to start the process where
it’s general development; we call it base
training. After that, it’s training in prepa-
ration for competition, and then we have
a competition, and then transition where
they stay active but they don’t swim as
hard. And then we go back and start over.
We go through this maybe three to four
times a year. (P2)
As a result of coaching both SWAD and able-bodied
athletes concurrently, two distinct issues with regard
to training accommodations emerged: how the coach
adjusted training sessions to meet each athlete’s general
needs, and how the coach modified practices to accom-
modate SWAD varying ability levels. For instance, all
6 participants noted that swimming was an individual
sport, and, as such, each athlete possessed individual
needs. These needs surfaced in different training de-
mands, often characterized by the stroke they swam:
I have five lanes here and every lane is
different. I have distance swimmers who
are women that don’t have nationals, so I
give them sets. The boys that go to nation-
als have different sets. I have the middle
distance, like the flyers, the backstrokers,
and IM’ers, they have their set. After that
I have the sprinters. So every lane is dif-
ferent. (P2)
In addition to general training demands, coaches
also cited issues specific to SWAD. For example, coaches
often accommodated varying abilities by modifying the
distance, interval, type, and location of training:
Where we do need to modify is with the
S5 girl that we have; she’s considerably
slower. So we put her against the wall, and
she swims up and down almost hugging
the wall. She kind of has her own very
narrow lane. That’s what works for her.
To try and put her in a circle with five or
six other people, passing her every 100
m, doesn’t help anybody, including her.
So she basically half’s what the rest of the
group does. (P4)
Goal setting involved the goals coaches’ had for
themselves, their athletes, their club, and their process
for setting these goals. Of significance was each coach’s
view that setting goals for SWAD athletes was no dif-
ferent from that of able-bodied athletes, for example,
“the individual goals that we set is [sic] the same for
our athletes with a physical disability, absolutely. If you’re
for integration, then you have to be that way.” (P6) Of
further interest was the commonality between the par-
ticipants’ goals in all three domains. For example, most
coaches discussed reaching their potential as a coach
and enabling their athletes to reach their potential.
The participants set the goal of generating a welcoming
environment conducive to all ability levels:
For myself, my goals are to make this
team great for the kids. We have a lot of
swimmers that come here because they
can’t go elsewhere. Not many coaches
are there, ready to coach people with a
disability. It’s not that they don’t want to,
it’s just I think there is a bit of a fear still,
especially with swimmers with a disability
in the lower classes. So I’m here for them,
basically to be welcoming to them and to
make it sort of a family situation so they
can feel comfortable. (P5)
Of particular importance to the goal-setting process
was each athlete’s individuality. One participant stressed
the importance of knowing the athlete’s internal make-
up before setting goals:
Well, we’re all very unique, regardless of
whether there is a disability or not, and
Cregan.indd 344 7/27/2007 1:03:16 PM
RQES: September 2007 345
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
you have to get to know the athletes first
and see where they want to go in swim-
ming. For me, I try to get to know them
as a person first, in order for me to un-
derstand the athletes and where they’re
going and where they’re coming from.
Then, what they want to achieve in their
career as a swimmer. (P5)
Competition
Competition referred to the key tasks that occurred
prior to, during, and after competition, relating to both
the coach and athlete. It included the properties of pre-,
during, and postcompetition/race. Each coach slightly
adjusted his prerace routines based on his athlete prefer-
ences. Some athletes preferred to discuss their race plan
with their coach, while others distanced themselves from
everyone. Further still, certain athletes required a lot
of feedback prior to the race, whereas others required
nothing. The only similarity was that each routine was
based on the individual, and it was the coach’s respon-
sibility to adapt to each athlete:
Three of my swimmers like very specific
things to do for warm-up. One girl is
actually pretty good at knowing how she
should be swimming her races, so she
doesn’t get a lot of prerace one-on-one.
Another girl really likes to have that inter-
action, to get herself set up and pumped
for the race. What I do is tell her: “Ok,
let’s not get too bogged down on this,
here’s what we want to do, just go ahead
and do it. Don’t over analyze it.” One guy
is not very good actually at implementing
a race plan, so I have to make sure that
I’m very specific, because the moment I
slip, he’ll just go all out for as long as he
can. In the meet setting it becomes indi-
vidualized for everyone’s needs. (P1)
With regard to coach-athlete communication be-
fore the race, coaches felt each athlete should discuss
the race evolution, rather than being told how to swim
it, as evidenced in the following quote: “Usually what
happens before competition is rather than me telling
them what to do, I ask them to tell me what they see
happening.” (P3)
During their athlete’s race, the participants focused
on aspects such as stroke analysis, split taking, and race
execution, which varied from athlete to athlete. Coaches
often described their role as an “analyzer.” They would
watch for aspects of their athlete’s stroke or race strategy
that had been practiced in training and see how it was
implemented in the race:
Just taking splits, watching strokes, stuff
like that. And for each of them they
have their technical keys, too. So for one
girl, she’s got cerebral palsy, most of the
involvement with the disability is on the
right side. So she has to get herself rolling
and being balanced and getting her arms
underneath on her freestyle. With this
one guy it’s making sure that he is getting
his arms deep. Usually when he is going
too hard, his arms start splashing, pulling
water inefficiently. With another girl, it
is more head position, keeping her head
still on the freestyle and making sure that
she stays settled down as well. (P1)
Postrace, athletes took part in one of two routines:
warm down followed by coach feedback or vice versa.
The order depended on the outcome of the race and
the athlete’s personality and preferences.
SWAD athletes were integrated into able-bodied
competitions at the regional, provincial, and national
level, while international competitions were held
separately. To race at these competitions, SWAD had
to achieve qualifying standards. However, qualifying
standards were separated into two groups, one per-
taining to able-bodied athletes and one for SWAD
athletes (based on the athlete’s classification level).
Most participants believed SWAD should compete as
an able-bodied athlete if they could make the standard.
“If they can swim able-bodied, they swim able-bodied.
If they’re not fast enough, then they’ll swim SWAD.
Otherwise, they’re integrated.” (P6)
Contextual Factors
While the previous categories demonstrated the
similar way participants interacted with SWAD and
able-bodied athletes, the current category contained
information specific to coaching SWAD. The properties
that made up this category were special considerations,
SWAD context, and equality between SWAD and able-
bodied athletes. Although participants believed coach-
ing SWAD was similar to coaching able-bodied athletes,
certain differences existed. For example, SWAD coaches
had to learn about accessibility, the different types of dis-
abilities, and the best ways to communicate with parents
and support staff. With regard to accessibility, coaches
learned about the user-friendliness of training facilities,
competition sites, and hotel and travel accommodations.
They often arrived early at the competition site to ensure
it was accessible for their athletes:
Cregan.indd 345 7/27/2007 1:03:16 PM
346 RQES: September 2007
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
We have to take accessibility into consid-
eration when we’re getting vans—how
many wheel chairs are we going to have
in our vans. Or when we go to restaurants,
are they wheelchair accessible, or do we
need to look for another restaurant? We
have to make sure we are staying at a hotel
that has an elevator with rooms that are
wheelchair friendly. Vans, restaurants, all
of that stuff, we’re going to have to make
sure are accessible. (P3)
Accessibility also referred to the social environment. It
was crucial for coaches to create an atmosphere that en-
abled SWAD acceptance within an able-bodied club:
You also have to make sure there is a cult-
ural environment that is accepting of these
kids. You have to imagine what it is like
for a young female swimmer who has
a physical disability. That is past being
overweight and being sick. What you are
doing is you are showing everybody your
disability and saying there is a level of ac-
ceptance that you have come to and that
you are prepared to show everybody. If
a culture is not accepting of it, you just
potentially destroyed her, because that
athlete is not coming back. (P6)
Another factor that emerged was the unique re-
lationships participants formed with SWAD parents.
Specifically, SWAD parents were a source of information
and providers of transportation for their child-athlete:
With these swimmers, you rely a lot on the
parents. The only time we go away is in
March for a training camp, and that is the
only time that I get to spend a lot of time
with these swimmers. Before I go, I do my
homework so I know what I will need in
terms of medication, sleeping patterns,
and what makes them tick. To do this,
I have a lot of contact with my parents
to find out what’s what and who’s doing
what and what they need to do and who
likes to sleep in, etc. I rely on the parents
for this information. (P5)
In addition, due to restrictions imposed by their
disability, several lower level athletes depended on their
parents to provide transportation to and from training
and competitions. Participants indicated that certain
SWAD athletes’ participation would have been nonex-
istent without this parental provision:
A lot of these kids are depending on Mom
and Dad to get them to practice and to
get them home from practice. For some
there would be no way of getting to prac-
tice without their parents. So a lot of that
goes with this part of my job. You’re not
just working with the kids, but you’re also
working with the parents. (P4)
All participants indicated that knowledge of their
athlete’s disability was crucial for coaching success:
If you’re coaching a swimmer with a disabil-
ity it’s important to have a good knowledge
of what the disability is, that way you can
make the distinction between what they
can’t do because of the disability or be-
cause they chose not to. It can be a fine line
figuring how far you can push the athlete,
but you have to understand the disability so
you can make the right decisions. (P1)
As noted by the coaches, a great challenge when
coaching SWAD was issues related to athletes of lower
classification levels, such as those with severe coordina-
tion problems in all four limbs, those with little or no
use of their legs, trunk, or hands, or those who were
completely blind. It was at these levels that coaching dif-
ferences between SWAD and able-bodied athletes were
perceived. Interestingly, relatively few athletes at this
level exist in Canada, and, as such, most participants did
not coach an athlete at this level. However, all coaches
felt that athletes with more severe disabilities required
more space, more time to finish sets, and more indi-
vidual attention. As a result, such requirements could
present coaches with several coaching challenges:
Athletes with lower level disabilities
require more space. A blind swimmer
essentially needs the lane to themselves,
[sic] otherwise there can be trouble.
And then people with greater disabili-
ties, they swim slower, they need more
time to get sets done, they need more
one-on-one attention just to make sure
they are doing things properly. It can be
a bit of a challenge to be able to have
the manpower to make it work and to
be able to have the resources financially
to rent the pool time, to make sure you
can have a dedicated lane for swimmers
with lower disabilities. (P3)
Perhaps the essence of the entire study was the
property of equality between SWAD and able-bodied
Cregan.indd 346 7/27/2007 1:03:16 PM
RQES: September 2007 347
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
athletes: all coaches felt that coaching SWAD, with the
exception of the disability, should be no different from
coaching able-bodied athletes:
I think a lot of people have to get over the
idea of “Oh my Goodness!” “What am I
going to get myself into if I coach a swim-
mer with a disability?” The swimmer, the
pool, it’s a swimmer with one leg, what is
the difference other than one leg? Figure
it out and get on with it. You are a coach
and coaching is what you do. Coaching
a swimmer with a disability is really no
different than coaching an able-body
swimmer. (P1)
Despite this, many felt SWAD competition was not at a
level comparable to able-bodied athletes. Participants
identified a current lack of depth in competition,
which resulted in the same SWAD winning multiple
events at major competitions, with little upward pres-
sure on the top Paralympians to improve:
When you are talking about disabled kids
being competitive in different events, I
think that is largely because the world
standard in disabled swimming is so low.
Somebody who is a decent swimmer can
be competitive in free, back, fly, or IM.
It is not because they are good in all of
them; it is just that there is nobody bet-
ter than them. The fastest in the world
is not the same as it is with able-bodied
swimmers. (P4)
Despite this lack of depth, participants acknowledged
SWAD performances as examples of athletic excel-
lence. Still, there are ways to improve equality between
SWAD and able-bodied athletes:
People would say that Sugar Ray Leonard
is one of the best boxers in the world,
but he’d get killed by Mike Tyson, so we
don’t do that. Yet we appreciate the fact
of how great he is. The same holds true
with disability sports. We recognize that
someone with one leg can’t compete
against somebody with two, but what they
do is still great. But the world record for
the S9 100 freestyle for men is 57. That’s
not fast, but it is fast if you only have
one leg. And I think that’s important for
coaches and the general public to realize.
The difficulty for SWAD swimming is that
it’s in the same light as able-bodied swim-
ming, it’s right beside, and that’s what
makes it hard for coaches to see SWAD
excellence. (P6)
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to reveal the
career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches of
swimmers with a physical disability. The results of the
inductive analysis revealed that despite varied athletic
backgrounds, all participants followed a similar path
to become an elite-level coach. These findings were
in agreement with past research on expert team sport
coaches’ career development, where it was found they
were typically successful, but not superior, athletes who
had begun coaching at the novice level before progress-
ing to their current elite positions (Miller, 1996; Schin-
ke, Bloom, & Salmela, 1995). Additionally, the current
study supported the findings of DePauw and Gavron
(1991) that few coaches of athletes with a disability were
disabled themselves; also, most had coached able-bodied
athletes longer than athletes with a disability.
The current study also examined the philosophy,
coaching style, and personal qualities that shaped coach-
es of SWAD. Participants identified building autonomy
as an essential characteristic in coaching athletes with
a physical disability. In doing so, coaches felt their ath-
letes were better able to participate not only in sport
but in all aspects of life. Furthermore, the data revealed
these coaches were creative and in constant pursuit of
knowledge. Past research has identified similar qualities
of expert coaches (Bloom & Salmela, 2000; Schinke et
al, 1995; Vallée & Bloom, 2005), although the path to
acquire knowledge differed with the current sample of
coaches. Coaching manuals, clinics, and seminars were
not as abundant in disability sport and, therefore, did
not provide coaches with the same resources as able-
bodied sport coaches. This may also help to explain why
coaches identified creativity as a vital characteristic for
coaching SWAD. Additionally, the current coaches said
that both the athletes and parents were vital sources of
knowledge acquisition. Current findings underscore the
need for coaching resources in disability swimming.
The training category highlighted the importance
and value of a coach’s intervention style. Participants
identified using a wide spectrum of coaching styles that
they implemented at different times to accommodate
their athletes’ needs and preferences. An autocratic
style was used with certain athletes who had difficulty
following the focus of the training set, whereas other
swimmers required a more democratic style as a result
of wanting more control over how they trained. This
finding supported the Côté et al. (1995) research on
Cregan.indd 347 7/27/2007 1:03:17 PM
348 RQES: September 2007
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
intervention style of elite gymnastic coaches, whereby
the coach adjusted leadership styles to both their per-
sonality and athlete needs.
Along the same line, all 6 participants of the cur-
rent study highlighted the importance of accommodat-
ing athletes’ individualized training needs, including
preferred stroke (i.e., butterfly, breast stroke, freestyle)
and distance (i.e., sprint, middle distance, or long dis-
tance), as well as limitations imposed by the different
disabilities. Depending on the level of disability, certain
athletes were unable to participate in the same train-
ing regimes as their able-bodied teammates. Coaches
adapted their workouts by adjusting the training inter-
val, minimizing the training distances, or sometimes
changing the training location. Similarly, research on
expert Canadian coaches of able-bodied athletes identi-
fied the importance of accommodating the individual’s
needs during training (Côté et al., 1995; Durand-Bush,
1996). Coaches of SWAD accommodated their ath-
letes’ needs, yet did so with the additional objective of
creating an environment that allowed participation in
training to occur regardless of physical limitations. In
sum, although coaches in the current study performed
many of the same tasks in training as coaches of elite
able-bodied athletes, they were often required to modify
their training techniques based on their athletes’ dis-
abilities and needs.
The current results revealed that coaches of SWAD
identified the importance of setting realistic goals for
themselves, their athletes, and the team. Not surpris-
ingly, research on both team and individual sport
coaches of able-bodied athletes has also identified goal
setting as an important coaching component. Goals
were motivated by the coach’s vision of the athletes’
potential, which served as a crucial variable in achieving
team success (Côté & Salmela, 1996; Vallée & Bloom,
2005). Possibly unique to the present study, all coaches
cited the goal of creating an environment conducive
and welcoming to all ability levels, likely a result of the
integrative nature of swimming in Canada, where both
able-bodied and SWAD train together.
The competition category included tasks that oc-
curred prior to, during, and after competition for both
coaches and athletes. Many of the results from the
current study were similar to those on expert coaches
of able-bodied team sport athletes (e.g., Bloom, 1996;
Bloom et al., 1997; Gilbert & Trudel, 2000). For ex-
ample, the current participants implemented individual-
ized prerace routines to accommodate each athlete. A
difference was that SWAD coaches also had to adjust to
their athlete’s different mobility levels. Participants’ per-
ceptions of their behaviors during and postcompetition
also revealed many similarities with elite coaches of able-
bodied athletes. For example, the current participants
mentioned the importance of controlling their emo-
tions during the competition and implementing pos-
trace strategies to deal with the athletes’ performance
and outcome (Bloom, 1996; Bloom et al., 1997).
While results of the previous three categories iden-
tified many similarities between coaches of SWAD and
able-bodied athletes, the fourth category, contextual fac-
tors, revealed many circumstances and considerations
exclusive to coaches of SWAD. These coaches had to
consider the user-friendliness of training facilities, com-
petition sites, and travel accommodations prior to each
swim meet. They often arrived early at the competition
site to ensure the location was wheelchair accessible or
to notify competition managers that SWAD would be
attending the swim meet. Accessibility also pertained
to the social environment. Specifically, it was vital for
coaches to create an atmosphere that facilitated SWAD
acceptance, so the athletes were at ease with their
physical appearance, which often differed from their
able-bodied teammates. These results lend empirical
evidence to previous qualitative research on accept-
ability (Stewart, 1999), especially the aspect of creating
a welcoming environment.
Participants also discussed their relationship with
parents and support staff, including their role of liaison
between therapist and athlete. All coaches accepted re-
sponsibility for what happened in and out of the water
with their athletes. Coaching literature within disability
sport has alluded to the importance of coaches form-
ing a sound relationship with support staff in which
the coach works closely with both the occupational
and physiotherapists to obtain a comprehensive un-
derstanding of their athletes (“Coaching Athletes With
Disabilities,” 1999). Participants also identified the
relationship with their athletes’ parents as a crucial for
achieving coaching success. Parents provided valuable
information pertaining to the athlete’s disability, such as
medications and eating patterns. Furthermore, parents
provided transportation to and from training and com-
petition venues for lower class athletes (S1–S5), whose
participation would otherwise be impossible (Quade,
1999). The roles of parents, coaches, and athletes in
able-bodied sport is complex, revealing some positive
(i.e., financial, social support) and negative (i.e., stress)
aspects (Bloom, 1985; Côté, 1999; Hellstedt, 1987; Kirk
et al., 1997). Our results mirror these findings, although
coaches in our study generally perceived parents as
fundamentally supportive in all stages of athlete devel-
opment. Nonetheless, future research could investigate
the impact of the coach-parent relationship on coaching
success in disability sport.
Participants of the present study noted the majority
of SWAD in Canada were of the higher classifications
levels (S6–S10) and in these cases felt that coaching
was similar to coaching able-bodied athletes. However,
while few swimmers in lower classifications exist, all
Cregan.indd 348 7/27/2007 1:03:17 PM
RQES: September 2007 349
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
participants noted that at these levels greater coaching
differences occurred. For example, swimmers of lower
disability classes required more pool space, more indi-
vidual attention, and more specific training equipment
and facilities. These findings support previous research
that found the more severe the disability the more indi-
vidual coaching attention was required for the athlete
(Blair, Kohl, & Goodyear, 1987; Marti, Abelin, & Minder,
1988; Liow & Hopkins, 1996).
Although self-coaching in swimming was not part of
this study, it was interesting that there was no mention
of it. This is possibly due to the integrative nature of Ca-
nadian swimming. Participants’ programs were open to
able-bodied athletes and SWAD alike, in which coaching,
training, and funding were similar for both categories
of athletes. These findings were in accordance with past
research on integrating elite athletes with a disability into
high performance programs (DePauw & Gavron, 2005;
Lee, 1994). For instance, Lee found the greatest successes
in disability sport were achieved when an athlete with a
disability accessed the expertise of a high-performance
coach. Perhaps self-coaching in disability sport is begin-
ning to disappear, as it has historically been viewed as
problematic (Bradbury, 1999; DePauw & Gavron, 2005;
Liow & Hopkins, 1996),
Along the same line, all participants felt that SWAD
should compete with able-bodied swimmers. Specifically,
if SWAD made the qualifying standard to compete at an
able-bodied competition, then they competed with able-
bodied swimmers. However, integrated competition is
not always possible, nor is it practiced at major competi-
tive events, such as World Games and the Paralympics
(Steadward & Foster, 2003). Also, the coaches felt SWAD
competition overall was not yet at a level comparable
to able-bodied athletes. Participants believed disability
swimming needed a greater competitive population to
rectify the current lack of depth and minimal upward
pressure placed on top Paralympians to improve. These
findings were in accord with past research that identified
more intense training regimes and a greater number
of competitors as a means to improve competition in
disability sport (DePauw & Gavron, 2005; Moeller, 1993;
Sparling, Wilson, & Pate, 1987).
Interestingly, Côté and colleagues’ (1995) also cited
contextual factors as a major influence on elite-level
coaching. In their case, financial resources, training re-
sources, family context, and competitive environments
were examples of contextual factors. Similarly, the Davies
et al. (2005) examination of stressors affecting an elite
coaches’ job satisfaction revealed that contextual factors
such as financial resources, administrative responsibilities,
and relationship with athletic directors affected a coaches’
job satisfaction and overall goal of creating an optimal
training environment. While the current results also
revealed the importance of contextual factors, it did so
with a particular emphasis on coaching SWAD. More
specifically, knowledge of the disability, transportation,
equality, and dealing with parents and support staff
were vital challenges to SWAD coaches. Because of this,
one might argue that contextual factors in the present
study may have had a greater impact on the participants’
coaching process than in able-bodied coaching (i.e.,
Côté et al., 1995; Davies et al., 2005). The athletes’ dis-
abilities required coaches to adapt in all aspects of their
profession, including organizing and planning, training
practices and regimes, and competition routines. De-
spite the constant challenge of adapting to contextual
factors associated with their athletes’ disabilities, all
SWAD coaches enjoyed what they were doing. They also
noted that when coaching an athlete with a disability it
was important to remember one thing: the individual
was an athlete first and disabled second; thus, the athlete
should be coached as an elite swimmer rather than as a
swimmer with a disability.
References
Blair, S. N., Kohl, H. W., & Goodyear, N. N. (1987). Rates
and risks for running and exercise injuries: Studies in
three populations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
58, 221–228.
Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New
York: Ballantine
Bloom, G. A. (1996). Ready, set, go: Preparing for and operat-
ing in competition. In J. H.
Salmela (Ed.), Great job coach! Getting the edge from proven
winners (pp. 138–178). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Po-
tentium.
Bloom, G. A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J. E. (1999). A
systematic observation study of the teaching behaviors
of an expert basketball coach. The Sport Psychologist, 13,
157–170.
Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (1997). Pre-
and post competition routines of expert coaches of team
sports. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 127–141.
Bloom, G.A., & Salmela, J. H. (2000). Personal characteristics
of expert team sport coaches. Journal of Sport Pedagogy,
6, 56–76.
Bradbury, T. (1999). Athletes doing it for themselves: Self-
coaching guidelines for elite athletes. In R. D. Steadward
et al. [AQ: Include all names of editors.] (Eds.),
VISTA ‘99: The outlook (pp. 81–89). Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: The University of Alberta Press.
Coaching athletes with disabilities. (1999). Sports Coach, 22,
34–35.
Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the devel-
opment of talent in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 13,
395–417.
Côté, J. & Salmela, J. H. (1996). The organizational tasks of
high-performance gymnastic coaches. The Sport Psycholo-
gist, 10, 247–260.
Cregan.indd 349 7/27/2007 1:03:17 PM
350 RQES: September 2007
Cregan, Bloom, and Reid
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. J. (1993).
Organizing and interpreting unstructured qualitative
data. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 127–137.
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Trudel, P., Baria, A. & Russell, S. J.
(1995). The coaching model: A grounded assessment
of expert gymnastic coaches’ knowledge. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 17, 1–17.
d’Arrippe-Longueville, F., Fournier, J. F., & Dubois, A. (1998).
The perceived effectiveness of interactions between
expert French judo coaches and elite female athletes.
The Sport Psychologist, 12, 317–332.
Davies, M. J., Bloom, G. A., & Salmela, J. H. (2005). Job
satisfaction of accomplished male university basketball
coaches: The Canadian context. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 36, 173–192.
DePauw, K. P. (1990). Teaching and coaching individuals with
disabilities: Research findings and implications. Physical
Education Review, 13, 12–16.
DePauw, K. P., & Gavron, S. J. (1991). Coaches of athletes
with disabilities. The Physical Educator, 48, 33–40.
DePauw, K. P., & Gavron, S. J. (2005). Disability and sport (2nd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Durand-Bush, N. (1996). Training: Blood, sweat, tears. In
J. H. Salmela (Ed.), Great job coach! Getting the edge from
proven winners (pp. 103–137). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:
Potentium.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of
science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 361–375). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2000). Validation of the Coach-
ing Model (CM) in a team sport context. International
Sports Journal, 4, 120–128.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching
science research published from 1970–2001. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 388–399.
Hellstedt, J. C. (1987). The coach/parent/athlete relation-
ship. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 151–160.
International Paralympic Committee. (n.d.). [AQ: Include
title of information.] Retrieved November 4, 2005,
from http://www.ipcswimming.org [AQ: Include full
URL from page within the site where this informa-
tion was located.]
Kirk, D., Carlson, T., O’Connor, A., Burke, P. Davis, K., &
Glover, S. (1997). The economic impact on families of
children’s participation in junior sport. Australian Jour-
nal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 29, 27–33.
Lee, K. (1994). Integration of elite athletes with a disability
into high performance programs. 1994 the year of the coach:
National coaching conference proceedings (pp. 104–106). Can-
berra, Australia: Australian Coaching Council.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
London: Sage.
Liow, D. K., & Hopkins, W. G. (1996). Training practices of
athletes with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quar-
terly, 13, 372–381.
Marti, B., Abelin, T., & Minder, C. E. (1988). Relation-
ship of training and life-style to 16 km running time
of 4,000 joggers. The ‘84 Berne “Grand-Prix” Study.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 9, 85–91.
Miller, P. S. (1996). In the beginning. In J. H. Salmela (Ed.),
Great job coach! Getting the edge from proven winners (pp.
1–34). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Potentium.
Moeller, R. (1993). Training program design: An athlete’s
perspective. In R. D. Steadward et al. [AQ: Include all
names of editors.] (Eds.), VISTA ’93: The outlook (pp.
135–145). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: The University
of Alberta Press.
Moraes, L. C., & Salmela, J. H. (2001). Influences of the Ca-
nadian context on beliefs of expert Canadian, Japanese,
and European judo coaches. In M. Pirritano & A. Cei
(Eds.), Psicologia dello sport [Psychology of sport] (pp.
61–74). Rome: CONI Institute of Sport.
Quade, K. (1999). Training and performance. In R. D. Stead-
ward et al. [AQ: Include all names of editors.] (Eds.),
VISTA ‘99: The outlook (pp. 73–76). Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: The University of Alberta Press.
Reid, G., & Prupas, A. (1998). A documentary analysis of
research priorities in disability sport. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 15, 168–178.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, S. I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing:
The art of hearing data. London: Sage.
Schinke, R. J., Bloom, G. A., & Salmela, J. H. (1995). The
career stages of elite Canadian basketball coaches.
Avante, 1, 48–62.
Sherrill, C. (1993). Coaches in the paralympic movement:
Training, roles, responsibilities, and ethics. In R. D.
Steadward et al. [AQ: Include all names of editors.]
(Eds.), VISTA ‘93: The outlook (pp. 445–451). Edmonton,
AB: The University of Alberta Press.
Sparling, P. B., Wilson, G. E., & Pate, R. R. (1987). Project
overview and description of performance, training, and
physical characteristics in elite women distance runners.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 8, 73–76.
Steadward, R. D., & Foster, S. L. (2003). History of disability
sport. In R. D. Steadward, G. D. Wheeler, & E. J. Wat-
kinson (Eds.), Adapted physical activity (pp. 471–495).
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: The University of Alberta
Press.
Stewart, P. (1999). Opening doors. Retrieved June 15th,
[AQ: Include year.] from http://www.ausport.gov.
au/fulltext/1999/acc/icce/stewart.htm
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research analysis types and software
tools. New York: Falmer.
Vallée, C. N., & Bloom, G. A. (2005). Building a successful
program: Key and common elements of expert coaches.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 179–196.
Authors’ Note
Please address all correspondence concerning this ar-
ticle to Gordon A. Bloom, Department of Kinesiology
and Physical Education, McGill University, 475 Pine
Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2W 1S4.
E-mail: gordon.bloom@mcgill.ca
Cregan.indd 350 7/27/2007 1:03:18 PM
