Invariance Testing of the Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey Across Masters Athletes’ Age, Gender, Competition Level, and Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey (AOSCS) is a valid and reliable measure of coaches’ and Masters athletes’ perspectives of how often adult-oriented coaching practices are used. However, Masters athletes’ heterogenous traits have been acknowledged as barriers to generalizing research findings on coaching behaviors. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct invariance testing of the AOSCS across groups of Masters athletes based on age, gender, competition level, and sport grouping variables. A sample of 616 Masters athletes (61.9% female, 37.5% male; Mage = 54.47 years, SD = 10.82) completed the AOSCS-A (athlete version) and demographic questions. The results indicated the AOSCS-A demonstrates configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance across Masters athletes that differed on age, gender, competition level, and sport. This evidence advances the AOSCS-A as an assessment tool by ensuring confidence in the measurement and interpretation of adult-oriented coaching practices reported by Masters athletes, irrespective of age, gender, competition level, and 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".