Examining the respect in sport parent program in minor hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is promising evidence that interventions and education programs targeting parents in youth sport positively influence athlete outcomes. However, to date there has been no systematic evaluation of the Respect in Sport Parent Program (RiSPP) regarding its association with athletes' sport experiences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the RiSPP among minor hockey athletes over three years. Athletes completed an online survey at least once during the three-year study period (N = 366; 84.2% males; 14-19 years of age; M = 15.4 years); 83 athletes also completed multiple surveys for longitudinal analyses. Surveys included measures of positive and negative developmental experiences, prosocial and antisocial behaviours towards teammates and opponents, parental support and pressure, sport enjoyment, and commitment. ANOVA results comparing athletes in leagues that adopted the RiSPP at different time points indicated significant differences in prosocial behaviours toward teammates among athletes in leagues that implemented the program in 2010-2012 compared to 2013-2014, F(3, 328) = 2.68, p < .05, ?2 = .02. Multilevel longitudinal analyses revealed overall improvements in athletes' initiative, goal setting, and cognitive skills over time. Athletes in leagues that implemented the RiSPP during the study reported improvements in antisocial behaviours toward opponents (p = .047) and marginally significant changes in personal and social skills (p = .065) and goal setting (p = .10). There were no differences in the other outcome variables. Based on these findings it appears that a web-based educational parent program was positively associated with some changes in athletes' sport experiences.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Partnership Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".