4.1 Article

Coaching Behaviors and Adolescent Athletes' Sportspersonship Outcomes: Further Validation of the Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors Scale (SCBS)

期刊

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0029802

关键词

coaches; youth sport; moral development; measurement; positive youth development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N. D. Bolter and M. R. Weiss (2012, Coaching for character: Development of the Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors Scale (SCBS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 73-90) created and provided initial validity for the Sportsmanship Coaching Behavior Scale (SCBS) to assess adolescent athletes' perceptions of coaches' behaviors that promote or deter sportsperson-like behaviors. The present study provided additional factorial and criterion validity for the SCBS with a sample of 418 adolescents (211 female, 207 male) participating in a variety of team sports. Participants completed the SCBS and a measure of prosocial and antisocial behaviors toward teammates and opponents (M. Kavussanu and I. D. Boardley, 2009, The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 97-117). A confirmatory factor analysis established factorial validity and gender invariance for a 6-factor model of the SCBS. Criterion validity was shown in that four coaching behaviors (modeling, reinforcing, teaching, and prioritizing winning) were related to athletes' prosocial and antisocial behaviors in theoretically consistent ways. Unique findings emerged for boys and girls in the pattern of relationships between coaching behaviors and sportspersonship outcomes. Teaching and modeling were important coaching mechanisms for explaining girls' sportspersonship behaviors, whereas reinforcing and prioritizing winning were significantly related to boys' sportspersonship behaviors. Results provide support for a valid and reliable tool for assessing coaches' influence in promoting athletes' sportspersonship outcomes.

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

4.1
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