Does context matter? Unpacking differences in program quality and developmental experiences across competitive and recreational youth sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, little research has explored differences between competitive and recreational youth sport contexts beyond descriptions of inherent features. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine if differences existed between competitive and recreational youth sport on (a) observed quality delivery and (b) youth’s perceptions of basic psychological needs satisfaction and developmental experiences. Forty-six youth sport teams participated in the study from competitive ( n = 23) and recreational contexts. This study adopted a multi-method approach of self-report questionnaires and researcher observations. Teams agreed to be involved in observations ( n = 3), questionnaires ( n = 12) or both methods of data collection ( n = 31). Quality was assessed through 216 observations ( n = 134 competitive; M per team = 6.55), while basic psychological needs satisfaction and developmental experiences were examined through two questionnaires ( N = 413) completed at season end. Descriptive statistics and MANOVAs were calculated for all measures and associated subscales. Results revealed non-significant differences between competitive and recreational programs, despite high scores across the three measures. Significant effects are discussed related to of coaches’ years of coaching experience on program quality and ethnicity ratios on positive developmental experiences. Also discussed are notable effect sizes on opportunities for belonging and choice, where recreational contexts scored higher than competitive on each factor. Results offer understandings of how coach delivery can be enhanced, regardless of context, to optimize developmental benefits for youth. Implications are discussed for how future research can explore the complexities of different sport contexts, including associated 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".