Proposed Sources of Coaching Efficacy: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coaching efficacy refers to the extent to which a coach believes that he or she has the capacity to affect the learning and performance of his or her athletes. The purpose of the current study was to empirically synthesize findings across the extant literature to estimate relationships between the proposed sources of coaching efficacy and each of the dimensions of coaching efficacy. A literature search yielded 20 studies and 278 effect size estimates that met the inclusion criteria. The overall relationship between the proposed sources of coaching efficacy and each dimension of coaching efficacy was positive and ranged from small to medium in size. Coach gender and level coached moderated the overall relationship between the proposed sources of coaching efficacy and each of the dimensions of coaching efficacy. Results from this meta-analysis provided some evidence for both the utility of, and possible revisions to, the conceptual model of coaching efficacy.
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 | 0.034 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".