Validating a scale of youth sport coaching effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coaching in youth sport has been recognized to have tremendous impact on the beliefs and behaviors of the athletes. Although coaching behavior is mediated by the perceptions of youth sport participants (Horn, 2008; Smith & Smoll, 2002), coaching effectiveness is typically measured through either the self-assessment of coaches or the objective recording of behaviors. One scale that was designed to assess coaching from the athlete perspective is the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S; Cote et al., 1999). However, the scale has not been used much in the research literature and does not appear to have been validated as a measure of coaching effectiveness. The current study investigated the psychometric properties and validity of the CBS-S with a sample of 315 youth sport participants. Analyses examined the assumptions of multivariate data analysis (i.e., multicollinearity), convergent validity, and factor structure of the scale. These procedures resulted in a modified 24-item CBS-S that measures coaching effectiveness with respect to four interrelated factors – physical training and conditioning, technical skills, mental preparation, and competition strategies. The scale shows acceptable factor structure (CFI = .933, RMSEA = .044), and internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas ranging from .72 - .88). The result is a simple, valid and reliable instrument to assess youth sport coaching effectiveness from the athletes' perspective. Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the Social Sciences Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".