The parent perspective on the youth sport context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents play an important role in the youth sport experience. They are responsible for introducing athletes to their sport, providing them with the necessary tools and equipment to participate, and giving them the required financial and emotional support to succeed. Despite this importance, very few studies have examined parents in the sport context. The purpose of the present study was to examine parents’ perceptions of their child’s sport climate, within the framework of two leading motivational theories: Self-Determination and Achievement Goal Theory. The sample was comprised of 325 parents of basketball players participating in the Ontario Basketball provincial championships. Parents were invited to participate in the study through their child’s coach, following the team’s participation in the championship tournament. The results showed that the more parents perceived that the sport climate was task involved (compared to ego-involved), the more it was related to the perception of coaches' psychological needs supportive interpersonal behaviors (compared to needs thwarting), to their child self-determined motivation in, and in turn, to their perceptions of whether their child would continue playing basketball the following season. The model testing occurred in two phases. In the first phase the model examining the relationship between parents’ perceptions of the climate, coach behaviour, and athlete motivation was tested and had a good fit ( χ 2 (83) = 370.43, p < .001, SRMR = .037, CFI = .94, NFI = .92). In the second phase, the likelihood of continuing to play basketball was added to the model and it was tested using a subsample of the larger sample ( n = 139). Again, this model demonstrated adequate fit ( χ 2 (97) = 280.54, p < .001, SRMR = .052, CFI = .91, NFI = .90). The results support that SDT and AGT provide an appropriate framework for examining parents’ perceptions of the youth sport context . Acknowledgments: This research was conducted in collaboration with Ontario Basketball and was prepared while the first author was supported by a doctoral scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".