Follow-up evaluation of the Coaching for Life Skills online training program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coach education has been positioned as an important catalyst in enabling coaches to maximise the positive influence of high school sport on student-athlete development. The purpose of the study was to conduct a subsequent season follow-up evaluation, examining longer-term changes in coach-athlete relationship, coach interpersonal behaviours, and life skills teaching in coaches who completed the Coaching for Life Skills (CLS) online training program. A 2 × 2 prospective causal comparative design was used. Coaches ( n = 285) were asked to complete follow-up measures during the high school sport season that followed their completion of the trial. The response rate was 36.84%, with the final sample consisting of 64 participants. Data were analysed using independent sample t -tests. From baseline to subsequent season follow-up, scores for coach-athlete relationship and coach interpersonal behaviours significantly increased for the CLS group and significantly decreased for the comparison group. No significant differences in scores were found on life skills teaching from baseline to subsequent season follow-up. The results suggest that the intervention may have helped CLS group coaches remain consistent in their use of relational coaching behaviours.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".