The Relationship Between the Congruency in Perceptions of Coach Leadership Behaviours and Perceptions of Cohesion and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between perceptual congruency of coaching leadership and perceptions of cohesion and performance. Sixty coaches and 199 athletes responded to two leadership inventories: the Differentiated Transformational Leadership Inventory (DTLI; Callow et al., 2009) measuring transformational leadership and the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) measuring transactional leadership. Additionally, athletes indicated perceptions of cohesion by completing the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron et al., 1985) and perceptions of personal performance through a self-report performance measure (Spalding, 2010). Results indicated that over-evaluative athletes (i.e., those who rated the coach favourably) held greater perceptions of all four dimensions of cohesion (all p’s ≤ .05) and the dimension of Performance Achievement (p < .001) than did under-evaluative athletes (i.e., those who rated the coach less favourably). The findings provide evidence of the role congruency has upon perceptions of the group environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".