Practical coaching and athlete development
Understanding SPQ20 Scores
Read SPQ20 scorecards in context and turn a relative score into a useful development question.
A score is a comparison, not a mark out of ten
The SPQ20 report uses Standard Ten, or sten, scores to describe an athlete’s self-reported approach relative to the reference group. A score of 7 does not mean 70 percent ability, and a score of 3 does not mean the athlete has failed.
Begin with the report’s scoring explanation and the definition of each scale. Those definitions tell you what the score refers to. Sporting ability, technical competence and future results cannot be read directly from the scorecard.
Read the description alongside the number
A scale name may sound familiar while having a specific meaning within the questionnaire. Visualization concerns the athlete’s reported use of imagery; it is not a test of how accurately they can visualise. Power concerns interest in authority and leadership positions; a high score does not by itself demonstrate effective leadership.
The manual provides descriptions of low, moderate and high results, example items and relationships between scales. Reading these details helps keep interpretation tied to the assessment rather than assumptions about everyday words.
Higher is not a universal target
It is tempting to imagine an ideal profile with every score near the top. That approach overlooks the demands of the sport and how characteristics are expressed. Competitive intensity may be useful, but its value depends partly on how the athlete handles frustration and respects others.
Ask what a characteristic looks like in action. Does it help preparation, decision-making or relationships? Are there situations where a strength needs more flexibility? Development should address relevant behaviour rather than chase a particular number.
Look across the profile
Combinations can suggest better questions than isolated scores. An athlete may report strong achievement drive and thorough preparation but limited use of self-talk or imagery. Another may report confident performance while finding structured goal setting less natural.
Neither pattern identifies a defect. The first might prompt a conversation about adding a simple mental routine to existing preparation. The second might prompt a discussion of whether clearer process goals would help turn enthusiasm into consistent practice.
Check the profile against experience
Suppose a runner’s pressure-management feedback seems less positive than expected. Ask about different events: local races, championships, selection trials and unfamiliar distances. The athlete’s answers may reveal that the difficulty is specific to one context.
Also ask when the finding does not fit. Contrasting examples help avoid turning a relative score into a fixed identity. Coach observations can add perspective, but differences between views should be explored rather than settled by declaring one person right.
Respect uncertainty and the comparison group
Scores are estimates, and small differences should not automatically drive different coaching decisions. Consult the manual’s reliability and measurement-error discussion before interpreting close scores or apparent changes.
The reference group also matters. Read its age range, sporting backgrounds and collection period in the research and evidence overview. A comparison is more useful when its relevance to the athlete is understood.
Turn interpretation into a question
A useful note has three parts: what the report says, what you think it might mean and what you need to ask. For example: “The feedback suggests less frequent use of goal setting. Would a weekly process goal help, or does the athlete already use an effective approach that the questionnaire has not captured?”
If using AI, supply the scoring explanation and scale definitions along with the feedback. Ask it to keep report findings separate from hypotheses and to avoid inventing percentiles, diagnoses or performance predictions. Check its interpretation against the complete report.
Explore SPQ20 coaching applications · Read the evidence overview · All articles