Initial development and validation of the Italian version of the Coaching Life Skills in Sport Questionnaire (IT-CLSS-Q)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have stated that coaches’ ability to teach life skills to their athletes intentionally is associated with various aspects of positive youth development. This study aimed to adapt and validate the English version of the Coaching Life Skills in Sport Questionnaire in the Italian context (IT-CLSS-Q), a tool developed to assess the intentionality of coaches in teaching and transferring life skills through sport. The original English version was adapted to Italian using the back-translation procedure. A sample of 590 youth sport coaches completed the IT-CLSS-Q. The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the five-factor structure of the original questionnaire, and the reliability analyses demonstrated high internal consistency for all subscales. Measurement invariance testing showed consistency between groups with different coaching experience, while significant correlations with empathy and leadership self-efficacy supported the construct validity of the questionnaire. Overall, the results indicate that IT-CLSS-Q is a useful tool for evaluating life skills coaching in Italy, providing a foundation for future research and interventions to improve positive youth development through sport. Future research should include a more balanced representation of disciplines and genders, integrating athletes’ perspectives and longitudinal studies to deepen understanding of the long-term impact of life skills transfer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".