4.5 Article

Evaluating the Coaching for Life Skills online training program: A randomised controlled trial

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101649

关键词

Student-athlete; Competence; Autonomy; Relatedness; Youth; Development

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [435-2015-0116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: High school sport is considered a suitable context in which to develop life skills, yet most coaches are not equipped with the knowledge/tools needed to deliberately teach life skills. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Coaching for Life Skills online training program in helping coaches create environments conducive to the teaching of life skills. Design: Randomised controlled trial using a concurrent multiple baseline across groups design. Method: A total of 1,238 (58.8% male) Canadian high school coaches completed baseline testing examining coach-athlete relationship, coach interpersonal behaviours, and life skills teaching. Participants were then randomly assigned to an experimental, waitlist, or control group. A final sample of 285 (59.7% male) participants completed the trial (i.e., 36 experimental, 58 waitlist, and 191 control). Data were analysed using 3 x 3 repeated measures factorial analyses. Results: Across the three constructs assessed, there were no significant within-subject main effects for time, group, or for the interaction between time and group. Conclusions: Although the results were not statistically significant, visual analysis indicated positive directional changes for all three dependent variables, with increases in mean scores observed for both experimental and waitlist group participants following their completion of the Coaching for Life Skills online training program. Findings have implications for the design of online coach training programs aimed at helping coaches teach life skills through sport.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据