A mixed methods evaluation of a season-long teamwork training intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, research on teamwork in sport has focused primarily on conceptualizing and measuring the multidimensional construct and testing its impact on salient consequences. Less attention has been devoted to examining how teamwork behaviors can be improved, although teamwork training has been identified as one potential antecedent. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a season-long teamwork training intervention with interdependent sport teams using a concurrent mixed methods design. Five university teams (n = 113; final longitudinal sample = 82) participated in the intervention. Quantitative data on teamwork behaviors (i.e., teamwork global, preparation, execution, evaluation, adjustments, and management of team maintenance), team cohesion, collective efficacy, and satisfaction with team performance were collected at three timepoints (start of season, midseason, end of season). Qualitative data were concurrently gathered through semi-structured interviews with coaches (n = 6) and focus groups with athletes (n = 23) at the second and third timepoints. Results from the quantitative analyses showed mixed effects: three teams demonstrated improvements in several variables, while two teams experienced limited or negative changes. The qualitative strand identified three themes regarding participants’ experiences of the intervention: (i) intervention engagement drivers and inhibitors; (ii) forging and sustaining optimal relationships; and (iii) leadership as a catalyst (or barrier) for change. Taken together, these findings provide insight into the conditions that may facilitate or hinder teamwork training in sport and offer practical guidance for the design and delivery of future interventions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".