Perception of coaching behaviors, coping, and goal attainment in a sport competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of good coach-athlete relationship to promote optimal performance and well-being among athletes has often been highlighted by sport scientists. This short-term prospective study examined the mediating role of coping during a sport competition in the relationship between perceived coaching (i.e., supportive and unsupportive behaviors) and goal attainment. A total of 80 athletes involved in various individual sports participated in this study. At Time 1 (i.e., a few days before a competition), participants were invited to evaluate the behaviors of their coaches. At Time 2 (i.e., within three hours after a competition), they were asked to complete measures of coping and goal attainment. Results from multiple regression demonstrated that supportive coaching behaviors was positively associated to both task-oriented coping and goal attainment. Similarly, unsupportive coaching behaviors was associated to disengagement-oriented coping. Furthermore, both task- and disengagement-oriented coping were associated with goal attainment. As expected, the relationship between supportive coaching behaviors and goal attainment was significantly mediated by task-oriented coping. However, disengagement-oriented coping was not a significant mediator in the relationship between unsupportive coaching behaviors and goal attainment. This study lent credence for the importance of athletes' social environment on their coping processes during a competition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".