Youth Sport Coaches’ Reflections on Leadership Behaviours During Games and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth sport coaches shape the developmental sporting experience for their athletes (Camir, Trudel, & Forneris, 2014).Specifically, coaches who form individualized, supportive relationships with their athletes can increase the development of personal and social skills (Fraser-Thomas, Ct, & Deakin, 2005).In light of the value of these relationships, increasing evidence is prompting the application of leadership theories, such as Transformational Leadership (TFL), in youth sport (Vella et al., 2013).The aim of this study was to explore coach perceptions related to how and why leadership behaviours are applied in the youth sport context.Eleven coaches (M age = 42.3,SD= 15.2) were recruited from competitive youth soccer and volleyball clubs (athletes' M age = 15.8,SD= 1.9) in Eastern Ontario and participated in a stimulated recall interview.During the interviews, coaches reflected upon their own coaching behaviours and provided insight into the application of leadership behaviours in youth sport.Responses were prompted by relevant video sequences from recorded practice and game sessions.Findings of the study revealed that; i) coach leadership behaviours are observable within the youth sport setting, ii) the application of leadership behaviours vary across sport contexts and settings, and iii) contrasting leadership styles (e.g., transformational vs transactional) are associated with distinctive coach objectives (e.g., promoting confidence vs. establishing respect).These findings identify gaps within coach education, and provide theoretical insight for applying leadership theories, and more specifically TFL, to improve the sport experiences of young athletes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".