Examining the relationship between intra-team communication and team cohesion in competitive youth soccer athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is recognized that the group property of cohesion can be assessed through the perceptions of group members (Carron et al., 1985). Further, this requires members to consider the social exchanges that take place around them when forming perceptions of cohesiveness (e.g., McGrath, 1978). In terms of exchanges, youth athletes acknowledge effective communication among members as an indicator of a cohesive team (Eys et al., 2009a). While research with adults (Sullivan & Short, 2011) revealed relationships between different types of intra-team communication (acceptance and positive conflict) and group cohesion, this relationship has not been examined with youth. This study was designed specifically to test the relationship between different types of communication and cohesion in a sample of youth athletes. Participants (N = 160, age range 14-17) completed measures of intra-team communication (Sullivan & Short, 2011) and group cohesion (Eys et al., 2009b) in the middle of a competitive soccer season. Results from canonical correlation revealed a significant overlap in the variability of the two construct sets, Wilks' l = .51 F(8, 266) = 13.37, p < .001, accounting for 46% of the variance. Examination of the relationships revealed perceptions of acceptance- and positive conflict-related communication among members was positively associated with task cohesion perceptions (.72 = r = .87). When communication between teammates demonstrated greater acceptance of teammates, and when differences in opinion (i.e., conflicts) were met with constructive communication, individuals perceived greater task cohesion. While needing replication, this suggests unique relationships between these two multidimensional constructs.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".