MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7026856633

Assessing the Effectiveness of a Transformational Coaching Workshop on Athlete Outcomes

2019· dissertation· en· W7026856633 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingTransformational leadershipIntrapersonal communicationAthletesRepeated measures designInterpersonal communicationCompetence (human resources)Grounded theory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positive youth development (PYD) through sport is a person-centered approach that aims to develop a variety of assets. Coaches can play a significant role in this process but often require training to develop their professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal skills and knowledge. Recently, a coaching development program (CDP) grounded in Transformational Leadership theory (TFL) has been shown to increase coaches’ interpersonal behaviors that focus on the development of the person. However, how this training affects athletes’ outcomes has yet to be tested. The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to test the effects of a Transformational coaching workshop for developing athletes’ competence, confidence, connection, and character—also known as the 4Cs. Fifty-three soccer athletes (Mage = 13.7, SD = 1.91 ) completed four questionnaires before and after their coaches participated in the workshop. Seventy-two soccer athletes (Mage = 14.24, SD = 1.27 ) served as a comparison group and had coaches that did not participate in the workshop. Four separate tests were run to analyze differences in the 4Cs at two time points during the season across the two groups. Two repeated measures ANOVAs were run for competence and confidence, while two repeated measure ANCOVAs were run for connection and character while controlling for age and gender respectively. The results show that the intervention had no significant effects on athletes 4Cs. Athletes in both groups appeared to be situated in a nurturing environment before the workshop and continued to benefit from this environment after the workshop. The findings add to the growing body of research that shows CDPs may not benefit those who are already developing optimally and who perceive their environment positively. However, the high averages for both groups at both time points indicate that the ceiling effect and social desirability bias might be influencing the findings. These constraints on the results appear to be a growing trend in CDP and PYD research and thus open a discussion to suggest the need for more sensitive instruments and rigorous methodologies in future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207