A qualitative analysis of Swedish sport psychology practitioners' experience of a continued professional development program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although sport psychology practitioners and researchers acknowledge the importance of continued professional development (CPD) for professional effectiveness and excellence, few studies have explored the influence of CPD activities on the practitioners' practice and thinking. This study examined qualified Swedish sport psychology practitioners' experiences of engaging in a CPD program and how it impacted their professional development. The Swedish Sports Confederation offers a CPD program that targets performance enhancement services and psychotherapy for sport psychology practitioners. We explored the influence of this CPD program on the professional development of 13 graduates (five females; age in years: M = 41.2, SD = 8.3) via semi-structured interviews. Our stance involved a realist ontology and constructionist epistemology. We followed the six-step Reflexive Thematic Analysis procedures to analyze data. We identified four themes of CPD: (1) Critique (participants decided to do the CPD program because of perceived gaps in their knowledge and skills), (2) Change (participants discussed several changes as a result of the CPD program), (3) Context (participants discussed the aspects of the CPD program that promoted change), and (4) Challenge (participants mentioned issues related to having completed the program). The study provides insights into the value of CPD activities for sport psychology practitioners, advances current knowledge on practitioner maturation, and illustrates how CPD fits within a practitioner's lifelong learning. Future research could investigate the professional development of mid-career sport psychology practitioners engaging in other CPD programs to confirm or extend this work.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".