A longitudinal analysis of adult-oriented coaching practices in masters sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult-oriented coaching practices have been described qualitatively by Masters athletes (MAs) as a preferred method to receive coaching (Callary et al., 2017) and to foster hallmarks of Quality Masters Sport Experiences (QMSE; Young et al., 2021). The development of the Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey (AOSCS; Rathwell et al., 2020) provides researchers with a tool to quantitively assess adult-oriented coaching practices. The purpose of this study was to longitudinally examine relationships between adult-oriented coaching practices and three hallmarks of QSME (i.e., quality relationships, feeling empowered, and mastery). Over eight weeks during their sporting seasons, 103 MAs (Mage = 51.5, SD = 9.9) completed a survey at two-time points consisting of the AOSCS, the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004), the Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (Ng et al., 2011), the Psychological Needs Thwarting Scale (Bartholomew et al., 2011). Path analyses using change scores showed that MAs' perceptions of their coaches' general use of adult-oriented coaching practices over time were related to all aspects of quality coach-athlete relationships and the satisfaction of MAs' basic needs with small to medium effect sizes (B = .18 to .41). Cross-sectionally, path analyses at both time points revealed similar results with small to large effect sizes (B = -.46 to .68). We also interpret and discuss the relationships between the five specific adult-oriented coaching practices and the same criterion outcomes. Our findings provide evidence of criterion-validity for the AOSCS and suggest a degree of causality between adult-oriented coaching practices and hallmarks of QMSE.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada #227348.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".