Assessing the Effectiveness of a Transformational Coaching Workshop for Changing Youth Sport Coaches' Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need for coach development programs that target coaches’ interpersonal behaviours (Lefebvre et al., 2016) and that are informed by behaviour change techniques (Allan et al., 2017). In addition, current and future coach development programs could benefit from comprehensive evaluations to determine their impact on the coaches and athletes involved (Evans et al., 2015). Recently, Turnnidge and Côté (2017a) developed the Transformational Coaching workshop to fill these gaps in the literature. Informed by the full-range leadership model (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and the Behaviour Change Wheel (Michie et al., 2011), the workshop offers coach education on a range of interpersonal behaviours using a leadership perspective. Considering that the Transformational Coaching workshop has yet to be evaluated, the purpose of this study was to evaluate its impact by systematically observing coaches’ behaviours before and after their involvement in the workshop. \n\tParticipants included eight male head coaches of youth competitive soccer teams with an average of 14.25 years of coaching experience. Systematic observation and coding using the Coach Leadership Assessment System (CLAS; Turnnidge & Côté, 2016b) was employed pre- and post-workshop participation to examine the duration of coaches’ leadership behaviours. \n\tPaired samples t-tests, bootstrapped confidence intervals, and effect sizes indicated that idealized influence (p = .067, d = .76), inspirational motivation (p = .087, d = .70), and intellectual stimulation (p = .132, d = .60) behaviours had confidence intervals that did not cross zero, thus approaching statistical significance. However, from a pragmatic perspective, the workshop significantly influenced these behaviours considering the medium to large effect sizes observed. Furthermore, following the workshop, coaches displayed less neutral behaviours (p = .007, d = 1.34). Coaches also spent significantly more time, after the workshop, displaying leadership behaviours through instruction/feedback (p = 0.013, d = 1.17) and significantly less time displaying leadership behaviours through organization (p = .001, d = 1.90). There were no significant differences in other leadership behaviours, modifiers, or recipients. These findings offer detailed descriptions of how coaches’ behaviours changed after participating in the Transformational Coaching workshop. Practical implications for the workshop and future research opportunities are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".