Effects of an Imagery Workshop on Coaches' Encouragement of Imagery Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine whether an imagery workshop would increase recreational level coaches' encouragement of imagery to their athletes when compared to coaches attending a communication workshop. The workshops provided coaches with information, teaching tools, as well as role-playing opportunities. Recreational sport coaches ( n = 132; M age = 41.80 years, SD = 9.67) completed the Coaches Encouragement of Athletes Imagery Use Questionnaire (CEAIUQ)1,Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)2, and questionnaires assessing coaches' confidence, knowledge, and attitudes towards imagery. Repeated measure MANCOVAs, controlling for sex and highest level coached, revealed no group by time interactions for any of the five functions of imagery. However, group by time interactions were found for knowledge ( F(1, 132) = 5.45, p = .02, ηp2 = .040), attitudes ( F(1,132) = 4.45, p = .01, ηp2 = .055) and confidence ( F(1,132),= 7.10, p = .04, ηp2 = .032) towards imagery. The imagery group significantly increased their confidence from baseline to follow-up (t(65) = −2.75, p = .01). Findings provide direction for designing future coach education training programs and aid in understanding recreational sport coaches' views on encouraging their athletes to use imagery.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".