Exploring the coaching context, needs, motivation, and coaching behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of three studies, we examined the contextual variables that lead coaches to engage in need-supportive and need-thwarting interpersonal behaviours. Study 1 looked at the coaching context for 56 multi-sport coaches through an online personal inventory in order to identify the contextual factors that had the largest impact on coaches. In Study 2, basketball coaches (N = 310) reported their psychological needs and motivation for coaching, along with their reported use of autonomy-supportive, autonomy-thwarting, competence-supportive, competence-thwarting, relatedness-supportive, and relatedness-thwarting interpersonal behaviours. In Study 3, multi-sport coaches (N = 225) completed the same measures as Study 2, along with measures of the factors that were identified as important in Study 1. The analysis showed that these factors within the coaching environment either supported or thwarted their psychological needs. In turn, coaches' need satisfaction predicted increased autonomous motivation for coaching, while coaches' need frustration predicted increased controlled motivation for coaching. Then coaches' autonomous motivation positively predicted coaches' reported use of the three types of supportive interpersonal behaviours, and negatively predicted use of the three types of thwarting interpersonal behaviours, and the opposite effects were found for controlled motivation. Overall, the results of these three studies provided additional support for understanding how the coaching context, coaches' psychological needs, and their motivation for coaching influence their behaviours with their athletes.Acknowledgments: This project was conducted with the support of a SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".