Testing a Brief Coping Intervention for High-Performance Youth Soccer Players and Their Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of young athletes to effectively cope with stressors is crucial for sustained sport enjoyment and participation, and parents play a key role in providing coping support. However, there is limited evidence for coping interventions directed at both youth athletes and their parents. The purpose of this study was to implement a coping workshop for youth athletes and also engage parents to provide them with information to support the development of coping skills among young athletes. Athlete–parent dyads from a high-performance soccer academy were assigned to either a 4-wk coping intervention or a control group using a matched quasi-experimental design. Survey data were analyzed using 2-factor repeated-measures ANOVAs and multiple-regression analyses. Results indicated that lower parental pressure and greater coping self-efficacy predicted lower stress in youth athletes. However, findings for the intervention in reducing overall stress and perceptions of parental pressure were not significant. Future coping intervention studies should address study design considerations related to timing, intervention modalities, and skill level of youth athletes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".