Youth athletes’ perspectives on developmental influences of relationships in individual and team sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the sport context, critical social agents, such as coaches and peers have a significant impact on youth developmental outcomes as well as participation decisions. While youth’s interpersonal relationships with coaches and peers in sport have received considerable attention, to-date, there remains a lack of research examining the impact of such dynamics for youth development and participation decisions according to sport type. The purpose of this study therefore was to explore youth’s relationships with coaches and peers in individual and team sports and the perceived influence of such dynamics on their developmental experiences and participation decisions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 youth athletes (10 boys and 10 girls), 13-19 years of age and data were analyzed through a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Regardless of sport type, all athletes highlighted the critical importance of coaches and peers for youth development and participation decisions. However, team sports were perceived to better satisfy youth’s developmental outcomes, such as meaningful connections, fun and enjoyment, athletic worth, and motivation and interest. The lack of connections beyond the coach-athlete relationship in individual sports reportedly contributed to decisions to leave sport. To optimize positive developmental experiences and sport participation for youth, coaches are encouraged to prioritize opportunities for youth to experience interpersonal connections with peers; specifically, nurturing peer connections beyond competition outcomes in individual sports remains an important area of interest. Recommendations for future research and practice are suggested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".