Assessing the effectiveness of the transformational coaching workshop using behavior change theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study assessed how participation in the Transformational Coaching Workshop (TCW) influenced youth sport coaches’ perceived capability, opportunity, and motivation to incorporate transformational coaching behaviors into their coaching practices. Sixty-three volunteer youth sport coaches participated in the study as part of an intervention ( n = 31; M age = 45.65 years; SD age = 8.82 years) or comparison group ( n = 32; M age = 44.59 years; SD age = 11.86 years). The study employed a two-arm, pre- and post-intervention, non-randomized intervention design. Dependent- and independent-sample t-tests were conducted to assess within and between-group differences. Results indicated that participants in the intervention group reported slight improvements in their perceived capability and opportunity to use transformational coaching behaviors post-intervention. There were no significant differences between groups post-intervention. This study provides support for the effectiveness of the TCW, and the application of behavior change frameworks to evaluate coach development programs.
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 | 0.024 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".