Efficacy Beliefs in Coach–Athlete Dyads: Prospective Relationships Using Actor–Partner Interdependence Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall purpose of the study was to investigate prospective actor and partner effects (cf. ) of interpersonal efficacy beliefs in relation to relationship commitment, satisfaction, and effort within coach–athlete dyads. Fifty youth tennis players (mean age = 15.52 years, SD = 1.45) and their coaches (mean age = 40.17 years, SD = 13.71) provided data related to their self‐efficacy, other‐efficacy, and relation‐inferred self‐efficacy (RISE) beliefs mid‐way through the competitive season. Three months later, participants provided data regarding personal effort, as well as relationship commitment and satisfaction. Actor–partner interdependence model analyses revealed positive actor effects for self‐efficacy in relation to effort, and for other‐efficacy in relation to commitment, effort, and satisfaction. Partner effects for other‐efficacy were found in relation to relationship commitment and effort. Finally, actor and partner effects were also evident for RISE beliefs; however, these relationships were moderated by the individual's role (i.e. athlete or coach), such that the direction of actor and partner effects differed for athletes and coaches. Implications for fostering effective coach–athlete relationships are discussed. Cette recherche avait pour objectif général l’étude des retombées éventuelles sur l’acteur et son partenaire (Cf.: ) des croyances en l’efficience interpersonnelle en relation avec l’implication, la satisfaction et l’effort au sein de la dyade entraîneur‐athlète. Cinquante jeunes joueurs de tennis (âge moyen = 15,52; σ= 1,45) et leurs entraîneurs (âge moyen = 40,17; σ= 13,71) ont fourni des données relatives à leurs représentations concernant l’auto‐efficience, l’efficience d’autrui et l’auto‐efficience émanant de la relation (RISE), cela au milieu de la période des compétitions. Trois mois plus tard, les sujets ont donné des informations se rapportant à leur effort personnel, leur implication relationnelle et leur satisfaction. Les analyses relevant du modèle de l’interdépendance acteur‐partenaire ont révélé des conséquences positives pour l’acteur en ce qui concerne l’auto‐efficience en relation avec l’effort et l’efficience d’autrui en relation avec l’implication, l’effort et la satisfaction. Les effets du partenaire pour l’efficacité d’autrui étaient en relation avec l’effort et l’implication relationnelle. Finalement, les effets du partenaire et de l’acteur apparaissaient également pour les croyances RISE; ces relations étaient toutefois modulées par les rôles individuels (athlète ou entraîneur), de telle sorte que le sens des effets acteur‐partenaire différait pour les athlètes et les entraîneurs. On réfléchit aux applications permettant d’améliorer l’efficacité des relations athlète‐entraîneur.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".