Evaluating relationships between Canadian university athletes' perceptions of full range leadership coaching behaviours and their personal and socio-emotional development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although university coaches claim to prioritize athletes' personal and socio-emotional development (Flett et al., 2010), a lack of empirical research exists on the degree to which athletes' developmental outcomes are influenced by coaches. The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between coaches' full range leadership behaviours (Avolio & Bass, 2004) and university athletes' personal and socio-emotional development. A total of 605 Canadian university athletes (237 male, 368 female) completed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio & Bass, 2004) and the Personal Development Scale for University Sport (Rathwell & Young, 2015). Using AMOS 21 software, we tested a structural model where coaching behaviours predicted seven developmental outcomes from sport. Results showed good model fit, CFI = .908, RMSEA = .040 (90% CI: .038-.041), and SRMR = .089. Structural path results indicated athletes' ratings for their coach's transformational leadership behaviours were positively related to their perceived development of identity (SE= .62), initiative (SE= .44), and contribution (SE= .21), and negatively related to experiences of negative leadership (SE= -.18). No relationships were found between athletes' ratings for their coach's transactional behaviours and developmental outcomes. Coaches' laissez faire behaviours had significant positive relationships with athletes' perceived development of initiative (SE= .27) and contribution (SE= .29), as well as their experiences of stress (SE= .32) and negative leadership (SE= .44). The current results provide support for the benefits of transformational coaching behaviours (Vella et al., 2013), and suggest that university sport may be a unique setting where laissez faire leadership can produce positive outcomes. Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) through a Joseph Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded to the first author.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".