How Do Adult-Oriented Coaching Practices Change Over Time and Correspond With Changes in Key Criterion Outcomes? An 8-Week Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey assesses how often coaches use practices tailored to adult and older adult athletes. Cross-sectionally, said practices contribute to a quality masters sport experience for masters athletes (MAs); however, the stability of adult-oriented coaching over time and whether changes in coaching over time correspond with psychosocial outcomes for MAs is unknown. Therefore, coaches (N = 32; Mage = 49.0) and MAs (N = 103; Mage = 51.5) completed the Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey twice 8 weeks apart. MAs also completed criterion measures for facets of the coach–athlete relationship, basic needs satisfaction, and thwarting. Our first question was whether mean group values for adult-oriented coaching changed over time. Repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated stability of coaches’ and MAs’ scores. Our second question was whether changes in adult-oriented coaching corresponded with changes on criterion measures. Path analyses showed increased perceived frequency of adult-oriented coaching that, generally, was associated with enhancing three facets of the coach–athlete relationship, relatedness satisfaction, autonomy satisfaction, and reducing competency thwarting. The discussion centers on how adult-oriented coaching might facilitate quality sporting relationships, empowerment, and mastery in adult sport programming. These nonintervention results are interpreted with an eye toward considerations in future Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey-based coaching interventions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".