Unlocking the power of groups in youth sport: a proof-of-concept evaluation of the Together For Us (T4Us) intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Together For Us (T4Us) is a newly developed and evidence-informed social identity intervention for youth sport. Drawing on theoretical underpinnings of social identity theory and previous shared leadership intervention research in sport, T4Us leverages athlete leaders to foster a shared sense of social identity within the team. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to conduct an initial feasibility study (Study 1) and a proof-of-concept evaluation (Study 2) to determine whether T4Us enhanced social identity and assessed the intervention implementation. RESULTS: In Study 1, five competitive youth ice hockey teams (mean age = 13.0 years) completed T4Us at midseason. Overall, athlete leaders (n = 19) and coaches (n = 4) expressed support for the acceptability and feasibility of the initial T4Us workshop in a youth sport setting, including the creation of a unique team "trademark" and the shared leadership mapping exercise. Participants also recommended possible improvements to T4Us (e.g., intervention timing and follow-up booster sessions to reinforce content). In Study 2, a total of 14 competitive youth soccer teams (mean age = 14.7 years) completed the revised T4Us at midseason. Descriptive results highlight that athletes' perceptions of social identity were higher at post-intervention in comparison with pre-intervention. Post-intervention implementation evaluation results revealed that the teams used the game plan to support the team trademark, and athlete leaders and coaches encouraged team members to act according to the team game plan (scores > 5 on a 7-point scale). Interviews with athlete leaders described the different ways in which T4Us enhanced social identity within the team. CONCLUSION: Overall, the initial feasibility evidence and the proof-of-concept evaluation support the further development of T4Us, including a randomized-controlled T4Us protocol.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".