Preliminary Criterion Validity for the Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey: Associations with Key Psychosocial Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative studies highlight the use of adult-oriented coaching as an alternative to traditional pedagogical practices when coaching Masters athletes (MAs; Callary et al., 2017). Studies have yet to quantitatively assess associations between various adult-oriented coaching practices and MAs' psychosocial outcomes. Four-hundred-and two MAs (Mage = 55.91, SD = 10.41) completed an online questionnaire comprising the Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey (AOSCS; Rathwell et al., 2019), Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sports and Psychological Needs Thwarting scales, Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CARQ), and items for liking, commitment, and investment. Cross-sectional relationships were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Considering MAs' individuality associated with autonomy satisfaction (Blocus causality = .42; Bvolition = .43), as did respecting MAs' for effort, accountability and feedback (Bchoice = .43); these same practices related to autonomy frustration (Bs > -.40). Respecting preferences associated with competence frustration (B = -.37) as did framing learning situations (.38). Creating personalized programming related to CARQ commitment (B = .40). Considering individuality (B = .31) and respecting preferences (.36) each associated with CARQ closeness, with the latter also relating to CARQ complementarity (.37). MAs' liked to go to practice because of their coach when they reported having coaches who were respecting their preferences (B = .46), and they wanted to invest in sport more because of their coach when their coach created personalized programming (.27). Results support criterion validity for the AOSCS by demonstrating relations between discrete factors representing adult-oriented coaching and key outcomes for psychological needs, and indicators of a quality coach-athlete relationship.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by 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 | 0.035 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".