What Predicts the Sport Event Volunteer Experience? Examining Motivation, Satisfaction, Commitment, And Sense of Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the large body of literature on sport event volunteers, researchers have a poor understanding of the volunteer experience despite studies claiming direct and indirect relationships involving motivation, satisfaction, commitment, and sense of community towards the volunteer experience. In fact, most studies fail to statistically measure experience as a dependent variable. As such, the importance of these four antecedents as predictors of the volunteer experience remains assumed and uncertain. The purpose of this study was to empirically test if and how sport event volunteers' motivation, satisfaction, commitment, and sense of community predict their experience. Following the 2019 Osprey Valley Open, 161 volunteers (65% response rate) completed an online self-administered questionnaire. A two-step structural equation model analysis tested the hypothesized linear relationships. Results indicated direct (i. e., motivation and satisfaction) and indirect (i. e., commitment and sense of community) relationships between antecedents and the volunteer experience. Commitment had an indirect relationship to the volunteer experience through motivation's direct relationship, while the indirect relationship of sense of community occurred through satisfaction's direct relationship to the volunteer experience. Confirmatory factor analysis also indicated motivation and sense of community had poor factor loadings, while satisfaction and commitment loaded adequately. Moreover, only the egoistic motivation factor was supported in this study motivation's direct relationship to the volunteer experience. These findings empirically support previous claims for motivation and satisfaction's direct relationship to the volunteer experience but dispute previous claims of direct relationships involving sense of community and commitment. Contributions include the need to move beyond investigating individual antecedents of the volunteer experience as it requires a multifaceted analysis due to conceptual interrelationships. Event managers should understand their volunteers' experience as being complex and develop strategies aimed at each of the four antecedents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".