The Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey: An Instrument Designed to Assess Coaching Behaviors Tailored to Adult Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult sportspersons (Masters athletes, aged 35 years and older) have unique coaching preferences. No existing resources provide coaches with feedback on their craft with Masters athletes. Three studies evaluated an Adult-Oriented Coaching Survey. Study 1 vetted the face validity of 50 survey items with 12 Masters coaches. Results supported the validity of 48 items. In Study 2, 383 Masters coaches completed the survey of 50 items. Confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling indicated issues with model fit. Post hoc modifications improved fit, resulting in a 22-item, five-factor model. In Study 3, 467 Masters athletes responded to these 22 items reflecting perceptions of their coaches. Confirmatory factor analysis (comparative fit index = .951, standardized root mean square residual = .036, and root mean square error of approximation = .049) and exploratory structural equation modeling (comparative fit index = .977, standardized root mean square residual = .019, and root mean square error of approximation = .041) confirmed the model. The resultant Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey provides a reliable and factorially valid instrument for measuring adult-oriented coaching practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".