Preventing Interpersonal Violence in Sport Through Coach Training: A Needs Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of the coach–athlete relationship is an important factor in athletes’ sporting experience and development. However, not all coach–athlete relationships are positive, with studies indicating a concerning prevalence of coach-perpetrated interpersonal violence (IV) toward athletes reaching up to 70.5%. One way of contributing to the prevention of violence is coach education and training. The aim of the study was to conduct a training needs assessment in Quebec coaches regarding IV in sport. Through three focus groups involving 18 coaches, thematic analysis revealed seven key themes: (1) ways to reach coaches, (2) training structure, (3) theoretical aspects, (4) practical aspects, (5) additional support following training, (6) working in collaboration, and (7) protecting coaches. Overall, results highlight the coaches’ needs to have access to more training and support regarding IV in sport. They expressed a need for a clear theoretical understanding of IV, collaborative work among all sport actors, and protection for coaches. Our results suggest that IV in sport is perceived as a systemic issue influenced by multiple factors that should all be addressed in training. Results can be used to inform the development of training programs designed to meet coaches’ needs regarding prevention and response to violence in 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".