A survey of contextual factors and psychological needs satisfaction as correlates of youth athletes’ developmental outcomes in the Ethiopian sports academy context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the contextual factors associated with psychological need satisfaction (PNS) and the predictability of the PNS components, together with the contextual factors, on the developmental outcomes of elite young athletes in the Ethiopian sports academies, and further identified differences in perception of PNS from a comparative perspective. The study used a cross-sectional survey design applying developmental and PNS theories as guiding frameworks. Samples of elite young Ethiopian athletes participated (n = 257, 47.47% were women with a mean age of 17.44 years and SD = 0.87, and 52.53% were men with a mean age of 18.25 years and SD = 1.14). RESULTS: Structural equation modeling showed that the three PNS domains, together with the five contextual factors positively predicted the three developmental outcomes measured (41-54% explained variance). Moreover, there were higher differences in PNS (0.55 ≤ Cohen's d ≥ 0.71) among young athletes classified by the sport types. DISCUSSION: As per the findings of this study, young athletes may differ in the levels of PNS they obtained depending on the type of sports enrolled in sports academies. Also, the results of this study indicated that PNS attained may be modestly influenced by some contextual factors. It also evidenced that those developmental outcomes in elite young athletes are significantly positively associated with contextual and PNS factors. Stakeholders such as young athlete coaches, parents, sports psychologists, and administrators must consider the differing implications of program type during the elite young athletes' participation in sports academics and the significant positive association between contextual factors, PNS, and developmental outcomes of elite young athletes. CONCLUSIONS: In sum, the PNS of youth athletes may differ across sports types and the talent development of elite young athletes should emphasize the individual nature of the processes. Also, it can be concluded that the PNS components than the contextual factors had higher predictions of developmental outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".