Defining psychosocial strength and conditioning coaching competencies: A participatory action research approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strength and conditioning (S&C) practitioners need to know and apply varying and diverse psychosocial competencies in their practice. The definitions of psychosocial coaching competencies are poorly understood and multiple interpretations exist. The purpose of this study was to define psychosocial S&C practice terms (i.e. pedagogical, philosophical, psychological, sociocultural) from the perspectives of S&C researchers and practitioners. Using a participatory action research approach, qualitative data were collected from 13 researchers and 30 stakeholders with the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Association (UKSCA). A qualitative summative content analysis was used to analyze the researchers’ and UKSCA stakeholders’ definitions of psychosocial competencies. Pedagogical competencies were defined related to the themes of instruction, learning, skill acquisition, feedback, and design structure. Philosophical competencies were defined related to themes of beliefs, values, and style. Psychological competencies were defined related to communication, mindset, relationships, motivation, emotions, learning, and behavior. Sociocultural competencies were defined related to sport norms, understanding differences and different backgrounds, adapting to culture, and coaching behavior and biases. Significant differences existed between researchers’ and practitioners’ definitions of these terms, particularly with pedagogical, philosophical, and sociocultural competencies. Practitioners often associated psychological coaching competencies with subject matter outside of biophysical knowledge or many aspects spanning diverse social and behavioral sciences.
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 | 0.100 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".