EVALUATING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS AND FIFA 11+ IMPLEMENTATION INTENTION IN YOUTH SOCCER COACHES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The FIFA 11+ program is efficacious in preventing lower extremity injuries in youth soccer players; however, its implementation remains a challenge. Coaches' beliefs and actions regarding injury prevention may influence program implementation. Objective To describe baseline psychosocial factors and evaluate their relationship with intended FIFA 11+ implementation amongst youth soccer coaches, using the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) behaviour change model. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Community youth soccer. Participants Seventy-nine youth soccer coaches from across Canada who attended a FIFA 11+ workshop (Spring 2016) during a nationwide program implementation initiative. Assessment of Risk Factors A HAPA-based questionnaire was used to measure risk perceptions (RP), outcome expectancies (OE) and task self-efficacy (TSE) on a 7-point Likert scale. Scale levels were combined (positive, negative and neutral) to describe baseline values. Spearman correlation was used to assess relationship between factors and intention (INT) (with Bonferroni correction). Main Outcome Measurements INT to implement the FIFA 11+ in the successive soccer season as measured by the questionnaire. Results In total, 92.4% of coaches completed the survey. Most coaches (84.6%) believed the overall risk of injury in youth soccer was high (RP). 80.6% of coaches believed soccer injuries were preventable (OE1) and 94.4% believed that the FIFA 11+ would decrease injury risk (OE2). 69.1% were confident in their understanding of the FIFA 11+ (TSE1) and 76.8% were confident in their ability to use it (TSE2). Most coaches (82.5%) intended to use the program (INT). Only TSE2 was found to be significantly associated with INT (rs=0.42, p=0.001). Conclusions This preliminary analysis demonstrates that task self-efficacy relating to youth soccer coaches' confidence in being able to use the FIFA 11+ correlates positively with their intention to implement the program. No other significant relations were found between the other psychosocial factors and coaches' intention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".