What is quality youth sport programming? A Delphi study of international scholar perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organized youth sport has long been considered a valuable developmental context. However, further empirical work is needed to capture the overarching attributes most representative of quality youth sport programs. Such empirical work is needed to better guide programming implementation and policy efforts globally. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to develop a practical set of indicators to understand and assess the quality of youth sport programs worldwide. A Delphi method was used to capture scholars’ perspectives. A total of 42 participants from 18 countries across six continents participated in the study across three rounds. The analysis conducted resulted in 82 indicators that were categorized into seven high order categories: (1) Appropriate organizational structure; (2) Deliberate and appropriate instructional design; (3) A safe and positive program climate; (4) Equity and accessability; (5) Focus on youth enjoyment and experience; (6) Development of holistic youth outcomes; and, (7) Inclusion and support of adult leaders and personnel. Based on these findings, practical implications are provided to help inform youth sport programming, research, and policy globally.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".