MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116320823 · doi:10.14288/1.0451021

Stress and coping among sport psychology consultants

2025· article· en· W7116320823 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kieran McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisSport psychologyStressorReflexivityPassionCoping (psychology)PerceptionCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of coach and athlete wellbeing has been a focal point in recent sport psychology research, in part, as a response to the recognition that participation in sport can potentially lead to detrimental psychological outcomes. A proposed way to help abate negative outcomes in sport has been to introduce more sport psychology consultants (SPCs) into these contexts to promote optimal performance and wellbeing. However, there is limited evidence pertaining to the perspectives of practicing SPCs and their experiences with stress and coping. Framed by cognitive motivational relational theory, the aim of this study was to explore SPCs’ experiences with stress (i.e., identify key stressors that SPCs face and how they tend to cope with these stressors). Eleven SPCs practicing in Canada shared their experiences at two time-points via semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. The first interview involved building rapport with participants before exploring their personal and professional journey in becoming a SPC. Discussions around their experiences with stress along that journey were embedded throughout that interview. The second interview involved a more specific investigation of SPCs’ experiences with stress and coping. The discussions in this interview were guided by the cognitive motivational relational theory. Using reflexive thematic analysis with abductive coding, three themes were constructed from the qualitative dataset. Anchored by a Passion for Helping in Sport related to the development of SPCs’ desire to help others in sport and how this passion shaped, and continues to shape, their experiences with stress. Navigating the Currents of (Shifting) Sociocultural Tides pertained to SPCs’ perceptions of stress working in contexts rife with nescience relating to their work, conflicting expectations from others, and tensions between efforts to enact ‘safe sport’ versus more ‘old school’ (i.e., performance-focused) priorities. Finally, Seeking Elusive Stability in Choppy Waters outlined experiences of stress as a function of working within the incessant job- and financial-insecure SPC job landscape in Canada. Insights regarding experiences of stress and coping among SPCs help shed light on the sparsely researched perspectives of SPCs working in Canada, thus responding to calls for progressing evidence-based knowledge on the perspectives of other non-athlete/coach participants in sport.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicSport Psychology and Performance→French-language works237,207→