Unlocking the Power of Groups in Youth Sport: A Proof Concept Evaluation of the Together For Us (T4Us) Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (Tafjel & Turner, 1979) and previous shared leadership intervention research in sport psychology (5Rs; Fransen et al., 2020), T4Us leverages athlete leaders to foster a shared sense of social identity within the team. The purpose of this study was to build off initial feasibility research (McLaren et al., 2021) and conduct a proof-of-concept evaluation to assess whether the T4Us intervention workshop enhanced social identity and to further test the implementation of T4Us. A total of 14 competitive youth soccer teams (Mage = 14.71 years) completed the T4Us intervention at midseason. The proof-of-concept evaluation encompassed multiple components including pretest-posttest social identity perceptions, post-intervention implementation assessment, and qualitative interviews with athletes and coaches. Results revealed that T4Us significantly increased athletes’ perceptions of social identity (t(69) = 3.02, p < .05). 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 athletes and coaches supported the development of greater team identity by engaging in the interactive components of T4Us (e.g., team trademark, game plan). Overall, this proof-of-concept evaluation supports initial feasibility evidence with youth and research in other sport settings, presenting the opportunity to further develop and implement a randomized-controlled T4Us intervention 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 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 | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".