Managing parental involvement within competitive youth tennis coach-athlete relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful coach-athlete relationships contribute to enhanced performance and personal outcomes. Especially in individual sports, a coach and athlete form a dyadic relationship where their thoughts, emotions, and behaviours are mutually interdependent. Additionally, in youth sport, parents are often actively involved in their child's sporting experience. However, it remains unclear how coaches build and maintain successful coach-athlete-parent relationships within the elite youth sport setting. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how tennis coaches developed high-quality relationships with their athletes, including their parents. Five elite tennis coaches were purposefully recruited based on the recommendation of Tennis Canada. Data were collected through two semi-structured interviews and three story completion tasks. A thematic analysis was used to generate themes across the semi-structured interviews and story-completion tasks. Results outlined that coaches established close, trusting relationships with tennis players, by prioritizing the management of parental involvement. Coaches believed parents played an instrumental role in their child's athletic experience and needed parents to communicate similar, constructive messages to the athletes. In order to facilitate cooperation between the parent(s), athlete, and primary coach, coaches shared their athlete-centered philosophy by helping parents adopt supportive communication and behaviours. More specifically, coaches explained athletes' long-term goals, emphasizing the importance of praising effort over performance outcomes, and encouraging parents to control their emotions throughout competition. Overall, it appeared that tennis coaches believed managing parental involvement played a crucial role in their ability to establish successful coach-athlete relationships.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".