Exploring sport stakeholders’ interpretations of the term dropout from youth sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dropout is the term used by researchers and policy makers when referring to youth leaving or withdrawing from sport participation. To-date, the predominant use of quantitative approaches to researching dropout has limited our understanding of sport stakeholders’ experiences and whether or not researchers’ and stakeholders’ perspectives of the dropout phenomenon are aligned. The purpose of this study therefore was to examine athletes’, parents’, and coaches’ interpretations of the term dropout from youth sport through qualitative inquiry. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 participants: 15 athletes (eight males and seven females, 11–19 years of age), 10 parents (five fathers and five mothers, 40–55 years of age), and 7 youth sport coaches (four males and three females, 28–58 years of age). Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The participants expressed a lack of familiarity with the use of the word dropout in sport and when asked to reflect on the potential theoretical implications of the term in the sport domain, the participants’ perceptions were informed primarily by their preexisting understanding of dropout in the scholastic setting. Given their beliefs regarding the voluntary nature of sport and that decisions to leave sport may represent developmentally appropriate transitions for youth, the term dropout was often perceived to lack relevance to the participants. By exploring stakeholders’ perspectives, these findings advance our understanding of withdrawal from youth sport. Recommendations for future research and practice are suggested.Lay summary: Youth athletes’, parents’, and coaches’ views of the term dropout were examined. Participants associated dropout with failure: a lack of commitment, unrealized athletic potential, and inappropriate reasons for leaving. Participants suggested the term dropout lacked relevance in sport, citing the voluntary nature of sport and leaving as developmentally appropriate transitions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".