Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
What is this?
Less
More
Owned by Wendell
A Clear Path to studying for Certified Mental Performance Consultants® (CMPCs)Exam
For young adults seeking clarity and peace—The Anchored Life helps you build a steady foundation before life gets busy.
Skoolers
151.1k
Free
19 contributions to CMPC Mentorship Lab
1 like • 29d
@George Smith You nailed the main idea: assessment lets us see what the athlete does well, where they need support, and what’s going on in their world. That way, we can build a plan that actually fits them. I also appreciate how you mention that assessment isn’t a one-time thing. Every conversation, every observation, all those check-ins—each one deepens our understanding and helps us respond if things shift. For the CMPC exam, it’s important to spell out that assessment isn’t something we do to the athlete, but with them. We ask for their take on the results, link those results to their own goals, and use all of it to steer our work as a team.
Sep 14 •
Goal Setting
If an athlete establishes process goals but does not consistently practice them, how would you revise the goal-setting plan so the goals are collaborative, behaviorally specific, flexible, and integrated into the athlete’s daily training routine?
1 like • Sep 17
@George Smith You provide a strong rationale for having an open conversation with the athlete before revising the plan. Exploring whether the goals are too difficult, insufficiently challenging, unclear, or experienced as imposed can reveal the source of the athlete’s disengagement. Your use of Self-Determination Theory is appropriate because autonomy, competence, and relatedness offer a helpful framework for evaluating how well the plan fits the athlete. I especially appreciate your description of the athlete as part of the “architecture” of the program. Offering several options and allowing the athlete to help select and modify the process goals can restore ownership and strengthen trust. As a next step, you could translate that collaboration into one behaviorally specific goal connected to an existing training cue, along with a simple tracking method and regular opportunities for adjustment. This would preserve the supportive relationship while making the revised plan practical and measurable.
0 likes • 29d
@Faye Matt I like that you’re adjusting your approach for each athlete instead of just jumping straight into an assessment for everyone. The gym reminder example is great, it turns a shared goal into something the athlete actually runs into during their real life. Plus, when you use their own words, it just means more to them. If I were in this situation, I’d suggest taking it further. Pair the reminder with a concrete action, like saying, “When I get to the gym, I’ll start my warmup.” After that, you might ask the athlete where that cue would help most, what might get in the way, and how they’d scale the action down if they’re having an off day. Then, after a few sessions, a quick check-in gives you both a chance to tweak things based on what’s really happened.
Sep 17 •
Assessments
If an athlete interprets their results differently from you, what questions could you ask to better understand their perspective and collaboratively connect the findings to meaningful goals and action steps?
0 likes • 29d
@George Smith You make a good point, it’s one thing to look at the numbers, but hearing how an athlete actually views their results tells you something the assessment can’t. I really like your idea to ask what felt true, what didn’t, and if their role on the team has changed. When you repeat their answer back and really listen, it opens up space for them to clarify and trust you’re on the same page. If you want to make your process even stronger, end with a more concrete question. Try asking, “After everything we’ve talked about, what’s one thing you want to focus on?” From there, pick a small step to test in practice, and agree on how you’ll both know if it’s working. That way, everything you’ve uncovered stays tied to something the athlete actually cares about.
0 likes • Jun 3
I agree that self-report questionnaires can be very useful, especially as a starting point for understanding an athlete’s perceptions, thoughts, and experiences. As you noted, their value is often tied to the athlete’s willingness to answer honestly and engage in self-reflection. I also like your mention of imagery assessments. They can provide valuable insight into how athletes mentally rehearse performance, the quality of their imagery, and whether they are using imagery effectively as part of their preparation. One point I would add is that interviews and conversations are often where the richest information emerges. Questionnaires and assessments can tell us what an athlete is experiencing, but a quality interview often helps us understand why. Combining self-report measures with observations and a strong intake interview can provide a more complete picture of the athlete and help guide intervention planning. As practitioners, I often view assessments as pieces of a puzzle rather than standalone answers. The more sources of information we can thoughtfully integrate, the better we can understand and support the athlete.
0 likes • Sep 21
@Jordan Hendrix You are taking a thoughtful approach by exploring assessments that help you better understand athletes and team dynamics. The DISC can be a useful starting point for conversations about communication, leadership, and working preferences, while measures such as the Mach-IV and MPS may offer additional insight when used for a clear purpose and interpreted carefully. As you expand your assessment toolkit, you might also explore sport-specific measures related to confidence, motivation, competitive anxiety, coping, and attentional control. Combining assessment results with interviews, observations, and athlete feedback can provide a more complete and athlete-centered understanding of each individual and team.
Jun 25 •
A Reflection on Neutrality
Hi Friends, I wrote a reflection for Dr. Otto this week, then thought it might be a worthy discussion for the group. Below are some thoughts on an area I have been grappling with plus a few questions to you all on the matter. Looking forward to sharing thoughts together! Faye *************************************************************************************** The Canadian Sport Psychology Association code of Ethics defining Avoidance of Harm, asks that practitioners: "Are neutral while working with clients and refrain from imposing any religious, spiritual, political, or social beliefs." This measure of avoiding harm can be a delicate line for a practitioner like myself who is oriented with Liberation Psychology foundations. Liberation Psychology practitioners are interested in, and positioned to support clients in the interrogation of oppressive systems related to their performance. In a recent case, a client perceived that they were being treated by their coach in a way that was insensitive to their race and cultural background. The client observed that they were being held to a standard that was relative to a common social trope that was harmful and related to her race. Reflecting on this session, I can see how I was leaning toward demonstrating my own social and political views through my method of validating her experience. While I may not have outright offered my social or political opinions, my enthusiasm and interest in her observation may have implied my alignment. When I reflect upon maintaining neutrality, I do find there is a thinner line for those whose theoretical orientation is inherently political. Simply by understanding that one's performance experience is shaped by political and social influence, it could be said that there is inherently an absence of neutrality. With that in mind, I have considerations for how I can retain the important elements of my theoretical orientation while delivering competent and neutral service to the client. I am making the following considerations for maintaining objectivity while providing validation:
0 likes • Jun 26
Faye, I really appreciate your vulnerability and self-awareness in reflecting on this. I don't think neutrality means becoming emotionally detached or pretending not to see what a client is experiencing. Rather, it means resisting the urge to lead the client toward our conclusions instead of helping them arrive at their own. When a client raises concerns about discrimination or oppression, I believe our role is to validate the impact of their lived experience without imposing our own interpretation. Questions like, "How did that experience affect you?" or "What meaning are you making of that?" allow the client to remain the expert on their experience while we facilitate exploration. If a client's performance is being affected by systemic or interpersonal barriers, avoiding those conversations altogether would not be serving the client either. For me, neutrality is most important when my own values could unintentionally shape the client's narrative or decisions. Validation and neutrality are not opposites—they can coexist when our focus remains on the client's perspective, goals, and autonomy rather than our own beliefs.
1-10 of 19
@wendell-otto-6222
Wendell Otto, Ed.D., CMPC is a sport psychology practitioner, educator, and author helping athletes build resilience, focus, and performance skills.
Active 20d ago
Joined Dec 25, 2025