My parents think I can play...kind of: Relationships between rise, self-efficacy and parent other-efficacy within youth sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE) beliefs (appraisals of how another views one’s competence) are thought to be important in relationships where there is a power differential (e.g., coach-athlete, parent-child). While the importance of RISE beliefs have been demonstrated in multiple physical-activity domains, there is little understanding of RISE beliefs within youth sport, a context which captures both coach-athlete and parent-child relationships. As part of a larger project examining youth sport, the current work explored the relationships between RISE beliefs and youth’s self-efficacy and potential predictors of RISE beliefs. Youth participating in recreational sport (N=219, Mage=12yrs) completed measures of RISE as referenced to perceptions of parents’, as well as coach’s, self-efficacy, sport satisfaction, family support and parental overprotection; their parents completed measures of other-efficacy (confidence in their child’s abilities). Children reported high RISE (parents: M=8.29) and high self-efficacy (M=8.25) while parents reported comparatively lower other-efficacy (M=7.83, p<.001). Both parent and coach referenced RISE beliefs were positively associated with children’s self-efficacy and sport satisfaction and higher self-efficacy was associated with greater satisfaction (p’s<.001). Regression analyses revealed RISE (parents) and RISE (coach) to be significant predictors of self-efficacy accounting for 54% and 9% of the overall variance respectively. Further, family support (B=.39) and parents’ other-efficacy (B=.18) were significant predictors of RISE (R2adj=.20). This data provides an initial demonstration of these theorized relationships within youth sport, highlighting the discrepancy between youth and parent perceptions. Further, these findings give rise to the question “Who has the more accurate view of the children’s abilities; parents, coaches or the children?” Depending on the answer there are different implications.Acknowledgments: The project is supported by a Sport Participation Research Initiative (SPRI) grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC 862-2011-0006) and Sport Canada.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".