Relationship Between Having a Coach and Masters Athletes’ Motivational Regulations for Sport and Achievement Goal Orientations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine differences in motivational regulations and achievement goal orientations between Masters athletes who do and do not have a coach. Elite Masters athletes (N = 71) were surveyed at the Canadian and USA Masters Track and Field Championships. The Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) and Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (Duda & Nicholls, 1992) assessed motivational regulations and achievement goals, respectively. For motivational regulations, multiple analyses of variance revealed that there was a significant main effect for having a coach (p < .01) and for gender (p < .05), as well as a significant interaction for having a coach by gender (p < .01). Specifically, females who had a coach reported the highest levels of intrinsic motivation to accomplish and intrinsic motivation to know. Further, females who did not have a coach reported highest levels of amotivation for sport. For goal orientations, multiple analyses of variance also revealed a significant main effect for having a coach (p < .05). Specifically, Masters athletes who did not train with a coach reported higher ego orientation than those who had a coach. Findings from this study suggest the existence of a positive relationship between training with a coach and having self-determined motives among Masters athletes, especially for females, as well as on placing less importance on normative comparisons of performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".