Moderators of the coach leadership and athlete motivation relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine whether the relationship between coach leadership and athlete motivation was moderated by age, gender, competition level, and seasons spent with a coach. This study involved data from two previous studies that explored this relationship yet provides a novel perspective through the lens of important moderators. Three‐hundred and three athletes ( M age = 17.6 years; SD = 3.20; 49.7% women and 50.3% men) responded to questionnaires pertaining to their coaches’ leadership behaviours and their own sport motivation. Multiple regression analyses using moderators were conducted. Age, competition level, and seasons spent with the coach significantly moderated the relationships of interest. Coach transformational leadership predicted intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to a greater extent when athletes were younger than 20.8 and 18.2 years of age, respectively. Further, coach transactional leadership predicted intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to a greater extent when athletes had trained for more than two seasons with their coach. Results emphasize the need to consider athlete characteristics from both research and practitioner perspectives. Herein, we advocate for increased awareness amongst key sport stakeholders on the influence that a coach can have on younger athletes’ motivation and the importance of developing coach‐athlete relationships over time.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".