Developing disability inclusive coaching principles within community recreational sport programming for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Positive sport experiences for children are essential to establish long-term sport engagement. Coaches play a key role in fostering quality sport experiences for all children. For children with disabilities, caregivers are often closely involved in their sport participation, particularly when additional support is needed, and their perspectives can offer valuable insight into sport program experiences. The purpose of this study was to understand the role coaches have in optimizing the participation experiences of children in recreation-level sport programs. Specifically, this study aimed to explore children's, caregivers', and coaches' perceptions of the coaching role in recreational sport programs that involve children with and without disabilities. Methods: Individual interviews were conducted with 14 children (seven with disabilities), 15 caregivers, and 12 recreational sport coaches. Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were generated during the analysis: (a) creating avenues for connection (two subthemes), (b) an environment focused on child empowerment (two subthemes), (c) autonomy-supportive coaching practices (three subthemes), and (d) flexibility and adapting the program to suit everyone (two subthemes). A family-centered coaching approach that prioritizes developing rapport with caregivers to enhance the child's participation needs is key, especially in sport settings that include children with diverse abilities. Conclusions: Coaches should employ autonomy-supportive coaching, supporting child connections without forcing them, and provide each child with opportunities for challenge and success. Doing so can help to foster quality participation experiences for children during this formative time to contribute to lasting sport involvement.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".