Positive youth development related athlete experiences and coach behaviors following a targeted coach education course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine if a positive youth development (PYD) coach education course would (i) result in more positive developmental experiences perceived by athletes of participant coaches and (ii) increase the frequency of PYD-oriented behaviors exhibited by participant coaches. A total of 14 coaches and 270 athletes participated in the study. Eight coaches ( M age = 38.0 years) overseeing 154 athletes ( M age = 13.8 years) were in the control group, while six coaches ( M age = 36.7 years) overseeing 116 athletes ( M age = 13.9 years) were in the experimental group. The 10-week intervention combined a group-based PYD coach education course with individualized coach meetings. Seven practices per coach were observed and recorded at baseline ( n = 2), intervention ( n = 3), and follow-up ( n = 2). Athletes completed measures of coach-athlete relationships and sport experiences at the three time points. Results of the 2 × 3 (group × time) mixed ANOVAs demonstrated that coaches in the intervention group increased the frequency of their PYD-oriented behaviors during the intervention but returned to levels slightly above baseline at follow-up. Coaches in the control group did not change their behaviors over the same period. Athlete reports of their developmental experiences were high at all time points and did not change over time. Findings suggest PYD coach education has the potential to influence coach behavior, but further research is required to determine how to create sustained changes for coaches and increases in athletes’ perceived positive developmental experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".