An Evaluation of the Coach Segment of a Story-Based Positive Youth Development Program for Youth Ice Hockey Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coaches help shape sport environments and athlete experiences. However, many coach development programs do not adequately teach the knowledge and skills necessary for holistic athlete development. Accordingly, a positive youth development program, the 1616 Program (1616), was created to foster developmentally rich opportunities for youth ice hockey players. To overcome many current coach development program shortcomings, 1616 includes a coach-specific segment grounded in coaching effectiveness, leadership, and behavior change literature. We explored the coach segment’s impact using a mixed-method convergent parallel design with coaches across North America. In total, 36 coaches ( n = 3 females; M age = 43.8 years; SD = 5.33 years) with an average of 10.1 years ( SD = 8.04) of coaching experience completed questionnaires. We interviewed nine coaches ( n = 1 female; M age = 43.0 years; SD = 8.04 years) with an average of 8.5 years ( SD = 3.73) of coaching experience. Results suggest that coaches felt that athlete personal assets improved while describing improvements in their own behavior change markers, efficacy beliefs, and interpersonal and leadership skills. Despite noting areas for improvement, coaches who completed the 1616 Program generally improved their self-perception, experienced more positive athlete interactions, and appreciated the high-quality program design and delivery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".