MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414606609 · doi:10.1080/02701367.2025.2563903

Coaches’ Full Range Leadership Behaviors and University Athletes’ Personal Development and Negative Experiences: Is It All About Relationship Building?

2025· article· en· W4414606609 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Rathwell, Keegan Brantner, Bradley W. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingTransformational leadershipLeadership developmentPositive Youth DevelopmentInterpersonal communicationAthletesContext (archaeology)Personal developmentInterpersonal relationship

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sport coaches can facilitate positive youth development in athletes. However, little is known about how coach behaviors that span the full range leadership model (i.e. FRLM) impact development. In this study, we asked whether FRLM coaching behaviors promote positive development outcomes and mitigate negative experiences in the university sport context and whether these effects are mediated by perceptions of a quality coach-athlete relationship. In total, 605 Canadian university athletes (Mage = 20.09 SD = 1.74) completed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, the University Sport Experience Survey, and the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire. Mediation analyses assessed the explanatory role of athletes’ perceived coach-athlete relationship in associations between coaches’ leadership behaviors and athletes’ reports of personal developmental outcomes and negative experiences. The coach-athlete relationship was positively associated with positive development outcomes in university athletes (i.e. initiative, basic skills, interpersonal relationships, teamwork and social skills, and adult network and social capital) and inversely associated with negative experiences (i.e. stress, negative peer interactions, social exclusion, and negative leadership). Findings only partially supported the assertion that transformational leadership promotes positive development and reduces negative experiences by enhancing the coach-athlete relationship. The results support benefits of transformational coaching when targeting positive development, similar to youth sport, but suggest the coach-athlete relationship has little explanatory value when examining associations between coach leadership and positive development outcomes in university sport. Instead, the coach-athlete relationship does help account for the mitigation of negative experiences in the university sport context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and SportSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207