Adult-oriented coaching practices are positively associated with quality sport experience criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey (AOSCS; [Rathwell, S., Young, B. W., Callary, B., Motz, D., Currie, C., & Hoffmann, M. D. (2020). The adult-oriented sport coaching survey: A measurement tool designed to assess coaching behaviours tailored for adult athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 42(5), 5]) reliably assesses coaching practices tailored to Masters athletes (MAs). It recognises the uniqueness of coaching adults [Callary, B., Young, B. W., & Rathwell, S. (2021a). Coaching Masters athletes: Advancing Research and Practice in adult sport. Taylor & Francis; Callary, B., Young, B. W., & Rathwell, S. (2021b). Adult learning in sport: Implications for psycho-social coaching competencies. In B. Callary, B. Young, & S. Rathwell (Eds.), Coaching Masters Athletes: Advancing Research and Practice in adult sport (pp. 15–30). Routledge] and has good face validity and factorial validity. We tested the construct validity of the AOSCS by determining whether adult-oriented practices were associated with criteria indicative of quality sport experiences. MAs (N = 402, M age = 55.91, SD = 10.41) completed the AOSCS, the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire [Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4), 245–257], and items measuring practice-liking, sport commitment, investment, and enjoyment. We analyzed relationships using structural equation modelling, separately for overall use of AOSCS practices, and for five specific practices within the AOSCS. Overall, when MAs experienced more adult-oriented practices, they reported greater commitment (β = .79), complementarity (β = .64), and closeness (β = .63) with their coach, greater investment (β = .60) and practice-liking (β = .52) because of their coach, and greater enjoyment (β = .22) and sport commitment (β = .22). Regarding specific practices, “creating personalised programming”, “respecting preferences for effort, accountability and feedback”, and “considering individuality” were positively associated with aspects of the coach-athlete relationship. “Respecting preferences” was also related to practice-liking, and “framing learning” was related to sport investment. The findings support the specific and collective use of adult-oriented practices to strengthen coach-athlete relationships for MAs and create enhanced Masters sport experiences. The results demonstrate the criterion validity of the AOSCS, further positioning it as a coach development tool in competitive adult sport.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".