IABot

Avis sur

Dafotec Récupération De Données

Dépanneur informatique · Villeneuve-d'Ascq

A Randomized Need-Supportive Intervention with U.S. Youth Hockey Coaches : A Randomized Need-Supportive Intervention with U.S. Youth
Hockey Coaches
Diane Benish
West Virginia University
Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd
Part of the Sports Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Benish, Diane, "A Randomized Need-Supportive Intervention with U.S. Youth Hockey Coaches" (2024).
Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 12442.
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/12442
This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research
Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is
permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain
permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license
in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses,
Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU.
For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu.
A Randomized Need-Supportive Intervention with U.S. Youth Hockey Coaches
Diane Benish, M.S., M.A.
Dissertation submitted
to the College of Applied Human Sciences
at West Virginia University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in
Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
Sam Zizzi, Ed.D., Chair
Ashley Coker-Cranney, PhD.
Peter McGahey, Ed.D.
Christine Schimmel, Ed.D.
School of Sport Sciences
Morgantown, West Virginia
2024
Keywords: autonomy-supportive, self-determination theory, coaching, mixed-methods
Copyright 2024 Diane Benish
Abstract
A Randomized Need-Supportive Intervention with U.S. Youth Hockey Coaches
Diane Benish, M.S., M.A.
Coach behaviors impact several essential athlete factors such as the quality of athlete
motivation and psychological functioning and yet, many youth coaches remain untrained in
motivation and athlete-centered principles. This study’s aim was to explore the efficacy of a
need-supportive intervention on youth hockey coaches’ attitudes toward, and reported use of,
need-supportive and/or need-thwarting approaches. Participants included 25 youth hockey
coaches randomly assigned to an intervention or delayed control condition. Grounded in Self
Determination Theory, the intervention included four sessions within which coaches learned how
to adopt need-supportive coaching strategies and reduce need-thwarting tactics. A mixed
methods approach guided the evaluation of the program’s effectiveness via an integration of pre-
and post-test measures of coaches’ self-reported coaching style and written reflections. At post
test, intervention participants showed significant improvements in self-reported autonomy
supportive coaching and significant reductions in controlling and chaotic coaching behaviors
when compared with the delayed control group. Coaches reported how program enhancers,
barriers, and their implementation efforts contributed to the overall training experience. Overall,
the findings indicate that the present intervention approach may be suitable for training other
youth sport coaches to adopt need-supportive behaviors and reduce need-thwarting tactics which
can enhance youth sport experiences.
Acknowledgements
iii
I am deeply grateful to the individuals who selflessly gave their time to be a part of this project
and support my educational journey. Overall, I feel truly blessed to have encountered so many
wonderful people during my doctoral studies and I extend my appreciation to those mentors,
colleagues, friends, and family members who believed in me and supported my efforts prior to
this dissertation.
To Dr. Zizzi: Thank you for your incredible mentorship and support. Call it serendipity, but I
believe you became my mentor at just the right time. You have truly helped me take ownership
of my research and my career. I leave WVU feeling inspired to support and impact youth coaches
through my applied work in the years to come and I owe much of that to you for taking a chance
on this project.
To committee members: Dr. McGahey, the enthusiasm and genuine encouragement you offered
me in the early stages of this project fueled my passion and helped me create something special.
Dr. Coker-Cranney and Dr. Schimmel, I appreciated your listening ear, counsel, and thoughtful
advice as I pursued the perils of data collection and analysis. Thank you all.
To Sarah and Holly: Thank you for your efforts in this project and your willingness to join me on
this journey. You both have bright futures ahead of you!
To my classmates and especially, my cohort, Kim, Jaxson, Suzanne, and Chip: Thank you for
your unwavering support, kindness, and genuine friendship. You made my time at WVU truly
special and I’m thankful to be in your corner to witness all the wonderful things you have done
and surely will do!
To my family: Thank you all for your prayers and loving advice as I navigated my doctoral
studies. To my siblings, Kristina, Matthew, Lilleann, and Daniel, I’m so thankful for your
lighthearted humor and the unique ways that you show your love and support. You help me
remember the most important things in life. To my mom and dad especially, your belief in me
never wavered. I am so thankful that you were there to keep me grounded in my faith and to
encourage me to pursue the dreams God placed on my heart.
To JB: God knew exactly who I needed alongside of me every step of the way and blessed me
with you. I know that no matter what challenges we face, nothing is impossible when we hold on
to our faith. I love you with all my heart. Here’s to new adventures!
“Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of
God’s grace in its various forms.” – 1 Peter 4:10 NIV
iv

A Randomized Need-Supportive Intervention with U.S. Youth Hockey Coaches .................. 1
Self-Determination Theory ......................................................................................................3
Supplemental Education for Coaches .......................................................................................5
Method ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Research Approach ..................................................................................................................8
Procedures ...............................................................................................................................8
Sampling and Recruitment ...................................................................................................8
Intervention Pilot .................................................................................................................9
Intervention Details ............................................................................................................ 10
Quantitative Measures ........................................................................................................... 12
Qualitative Data Collection .................................................................................................... 13
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 14
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 15
Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 16
Perceptions of the Program ................................................................................................ 17
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 23
Applied Considerations.......................................................................................................... 25
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 27
References................................................................................................................................ 29
Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 1. Mixed-Method Research Design ......................................................................... 37
Figure 2. Intervention Timeline and Measurement Administration ..................................... 38
Figure 3. Change in Mean Values for Autonomy-supportive Coaching by Time and
Condition ........................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4. Change in Mean Values for Controlling Coaching by Time and Condition .......... 40
Tables....................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 1: Overview and Intervention Details: A Need-Supportive Intervention for Youth
Hockey Coaches ................................................................................................................ 42
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation Values Across the Subscales of the SISQ-sport...... 43
Appendix A: Extended Literature Review ............................................................................. 44
The Youth Sport Coach in the U.S. ........................................................................................ 44
Coach Education.................................................................................................................... 45
v

Models of Youth Athlete Development .................................................................................. 48
Long-term Athlete Development ........................................................................................ 48
Developmental Model of Sport Participation ...................................................................... 49
Positive Youth Athlete Development ................................................................................. 50
USA Hockey Coach Training Context ................................................................................... 52
Self-determination Theory ..................................................................................................... 53
Need-supportive Coaching Interventions in Youth Sport Contexts ......................................... 58
References................................................................................................................................ 68
Appendix B: Intervention Materials ...................................................................................... 76
Workshop 1 ........................................................................................................................... 76
Workshop 2 ........................................................................................................................... 78
Workshop 3 ........................................................................................................................... 80
Workshop 4 ........................................................................................................................... 82
Appendix C: Assessment Battery ........................................................................................... 84
Part 1. Demographics ............................................................................................................ 84
Part 2. Situations-in-Sport Questionnaire ............................................................................... 85
Part 3. Reflections 1, 2, & Stop-light ..................................................................................... 93
Part 4. Program Evaluation Questionnaire.............................................................................. 94
Appendix D: Handouts ........................................................................................................... 95
Workshop 1 – Handout .......................................................................................................... 96
Workshop 2 – Practice Plan ................................................................................................... 97
Workshop 2 – Developmental Considerations ........................................................................ 98
Workshop 3 – Myth Busting ................................................................................................ 102
Workshop 3 – Coaching Behavior Checklist ........................................................................ 103
Workshop 4 – Maintaining IMPACT ................................................................................... 105
Appendix E: Scenarios .......................................................................................................... 106
Scenarios used in Workshop 2 ............................................................................................. 107


Youth Coach Intervention
1
A Randomized Need-Supportive Intervention with U.S. Youth Hockey Coaches
The average youth athlete in the U.S. quits their sport due to a lack of fun and enjoyment
by age 11 after participating in sport for three years (Solomon, 2019). Meanwhile, determinants
of youth athletes’ experience of fun include trying hard, positive team dynamics, and positive
coaching (Visek et al., 2020). Fortunately, positive coaching and positive team dynamics are both
external fun-factors that can be addressed through coach education and training (Visek et al.,
2015). In fact, exceptional strides have been made in recent years to improve the youth sport
experience through coach training initiatives. For example, the Million Coaches Challenge (n.d.)
is a collective effort that aims to create and deliver evidence-based training in areas of youth
development (e.g., motivation, relationship building) to a million coaches by 2025. The
provision of accessible and affordable theory-driven coach education opportunities is important
to address the current deficiencies in coach training in the U.S. (Fawver et al., 2020) and ensure
quality sport experiences for youth on a broader level (Million Coaches Challenge, n.d.).
A national survey of 10,485 U.S. youth sport coaches (Anderson-Butcher & Bates, 2022)
revealed those in volunteer roles were less likely to have participated in training in areas of youth
development (i.e., supporting mental health, building life skills), were more likely to never
receive an evaluation of their coaching, and were less confident in their coaching practices when
compared to paid coaches. Additionally, many youth coaches appeared to lack backgrounds in
child development and education which are essential competencies when working with youth.
Encouraging to note is coaches’ desire to receive such opportunities as 66–70% of respondents
indicated an interest in being educated in areas such as motivational techniques, relationship
building, and effective communication (Anderson-Butcher & Bates, 2022). Anderson-Butcher
and Bates (2022) suggest that access to coach training opportunities should be strengthened for
Youth Coach Intervention
2
volunteer and community-based coaches and, if possible, be delivered through a sport-specific
national governing body to improve youth sport experiences and retention rates.
USA Hockey has set itself apart as a National Governing Body that is committed to
implementing a research-to-practice model. After recognizing deficiencies in their own coach
and athlete development systems, leaders within USA Hockey set out to implement a
comprehensive grassroots initiative grounded in long-term athlete development principles and
child development best practices. Since its implementation in 2009, youth hockey coaches have
been required to complete online modules that are age-specific for the level being coached upon
registering as a USA Hockey coach (Martel, 2015). Additionally, coaches are expected to
progress through three levels of certification (one per year) in areas of technical and tactical
skills (Level 1), practice planning and coaching philosophy (Level 2), and coaching physiology
and psychology (Level 3, valid for 2 years). Coaches of national tournament bound teams1 are
expected to continue their training in areas of motivational, psychological, and teaching
components of coaching (Level 4, valid for 3 years) and team play, player skill development, and
physiological aspects of working with youth athletes (Level 5, valid for 4 years; Martel, 2015).
With these adaptations in coach training alongside other programmatic shifts (e.g., age
appropriate playing surface size), USA Hockey’s overall participation numbers continue to climb
(i.e., 547,429 players in 2021-22 and 556,186 in 2022-23, USA Hockey, n.d.).
Nevertheless, youth hockey coaches believe further improvement is needed in hockey
coach education and expertise so that high quality coaching is delivered at all levels of youth
1Tier I 14U, 16U, and 18/19U and Tier II 16U and 18/19U
Youth Coach Intervention
3
participation and not primarily in the upper levels of player development (Smolianov et al.,
2020). Such experiences could be supported with continuing education opportunities that focus
on topics not currently emphasized in Levels 1–5. While coaches’ professional knowledge is
prioritized by USA Hockey, there is likely some opportunity to expand coaches’ interpersonal
knowledge in areas of relationship building and motivation. The quality of the coach-athlete
relationship is believed to be a fundamental component to athletes’ sport experience and success
(Anderson-Butcher & Bates, 2022) and relies on the interpersonal knowledge of the coach. In
some respects, the youth coach is viewed as a key social agent above the influence of parents and
peers as athletes move toward higher levels of performance (McCann et al., 2022). Indeed, the
behaviors and practices of the coach impact several essential athlete factors such as the quality of
athlete motivation, well-being, and psychological functioning (McCann et al., 2022; Chu &
Zhang, 2019). Unfortunately, youth coaches without appropriate training in athlete-centered
principles may perpetuate harmful coaching practices that contribute to athlete burnout, drop-out,
and even depression (Bartholomew et al., 2011).
Self-Determination Theory
A framework commonly used to understand the relationship between coaching behaviors
and the psychological well-being and motivation of athletes is Self-Determination Theory (SDT;
Ryan & Deci, 2017). According to the theory, all people possess three basic psychological needs:
competence (i.e., sense of effectiveness), relatedness (i.e., sense of belonging), and autonomy
(i.e., sense of volition). The quality of an athlete’s motivation is dependent upon the fulfillment
and frustration of these three needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Athletes’ basic psychological needs can
be fostered with need-supportive coaching which includes two different styles: autonomy
supportive and structuring.
Youth Coach Intervention
4
Coaches exercising an autonomy-supportive style (Delrue et al., 2019; Mageau &
Vallerand, 2003) acknowledge athletes’ feelings, provide opportunities for choice, and display
warmth and empathy in their communication to nurture athletes’ sense of psychological freedom.
Specifically, an autonomy-supportive style includes a participative (e.g., prioritizing the input
and interests of the athlete through opportunities for meaningful decision making and coach
athlete dialogue) and an attuning approach (e.g., an acknowledgement and acceptance of
athletes’ emotional responses and perspectives, providing explanations that are meaningful,
attempting to make activities of interest to athletes). Meanwhile, a structuring style supports
athletes’ sense of mastery and growth through a process-focused approach to instruction and
feedback (Delrue et al., 2019). This style is made up of a clarifying (e.g., communication of
clearly set goals and expectations, monitoring athlete growth) and guiding approach (e.g.,
offering help and constructive feedback to support athletes’ progress).
Coaches can also frustrate the psychological needs of athletes through the intentional or
unintentional use of need-thwarting coaching, which is also comprised of two distinct styles:
controlling and chaotic (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Delrue et al., 2019). Behaviors such as
communicating with athletes in an authoritarian manner and utilizing pressure and manipulation
to obtain a desired response are characteristic of controlling coaching. The pressure experienced
from the coach becomes the basis for athlete behavior which, in turn, undermines athlete’s sense
of autonomy and self-determination (Bartholomew et al., 2009). The controlling style is
segmented into a demanding (e.g., use of rewards, commanding language, threats, and a focus on
athlete obligations) and domineering approach (e.g., manipulative tactics to drive athlete
behavior that invoke feelings of shame and anxiety). On the other hand, chaotic coaching is often
a confusing experience for athletes as the coach will lack consistency in their interpersonal tone
Youth Coach Intervention
5
and instructional goals. Expectations may remain unclear with this type of style and may
negatively impact athletes’ goal achievement and skill acquisition. A chaotic style is divided into
an abandoning (e.g., giving up on athletes after intervening) and awaiting approach (e.g., waits
for athletes to take initiative and does not plan much; Delrue et al., 2019).
Supplemental Education for Coaches
Mossman et., al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis of 131 independent samples (N =
38,844) and analyzed correlation effect sizes for coach need support in exercise and sport
settings. The authors confirmed strong positive correlations for need support and basic
psychological need satisfaction, autonomous athlete motivation, and general well-being while
moderate negative correlations were reported for need support and basic psychological need
frustration and burnout. To improve athlete outcomes of well-being and autonomous motivation,
authors recommended the development of coach training programs to improve coaches’ use of
need-supportive behaviors.
Typically, coaches will use a combination of need-supportive and need-thwarting
behaviors (Benish et al., 2023; Carroll & Allen, 2021) but can be taught how to enhance their
need-supportive behaviors and limit need-thwarting tendencies (Readdy & Raabe, 2016). In a
systematic review of 21 interventions in youth and physical education (PE) contexts (published
in years 2006 – 2018), need-supportive training programs were deemed effective in positively
impacting PE teacher’s and youth coaches’ need-supportive behavior, students’ and athletes’
basic psychological need satisfaction, students’ and athletes’ motivation, and burnout (Raabe et
al., 2019). To date, seven need-supportive interventions have been specifically implemented in
youth sport contexts with varying degrees of effectiveness (Cece et al., 2021; Langdon et al.,
2015; Langan et al., 2015; Mahoney et al., 2016; Pulido et al., 2017; Reynders et al., 2019;
Youth Coach Intervention
6
Wachsmuth et al., 2022). For example, Reynders and colleagues (2019) reported improvements
in Belgium coaches’ need-supportive behavior, and enhanced perceptions of athlete engagement
and autonomous motivation after four workshops across a period of nine weeks. In a high
performance context, Cece and colleagues (2021) found their coach intervention program
meaningfully increased youth elite table tennis athletes’ experience of positive emotions (i.e.,
happiness, excitement) and reduced negative emotional responses (i.e., anger, anxiety).
Additionally, the program helped athletes maintain their self-determined motivation with authors
suggesting the program helped buffer the pressures of their intense training environment.
Athletes have also reported reductions in their perceptions of need thwarting and improvements
in perceptions of need satisfaction after their soccer coaches completed a 12-hour need-support
training (Pulido et al., 2017).
While several need-supportive coaching interventions have demonstrated some favorable
coach and athlete outcomes (Cece et al., 2021; Cheon et al., 2015; Pulido et al., 2017; Reynders
et al., 2019), in youth contexts, several interventions have been limited in their effectiveness
(Langan et al., 2015; Langdon et al., 2015; Mahoney et al., 2016). Collective barriers recognized
included coaches’ skepticism, relapses in coaching behavior, training length, dissonance between
the content of the training and the coaching environment, and limited opportunities to reflect on
their implementation of skills (Langan et al., 2015; Mahoney et al., 2016; Wachsmuth et al.,
2022). Specifically, in Wachsmuth and colleague’s (2022) work, the degree to which
interventions directly addressed how to incorporate need support in youth contexts was unclear
but was noted as a critical area for improvement. Furthermore, need-supportive trainings
conducted in the U.S. are especially lacking (e.g., Langdon et al., 2015).
Recently, researchers advocated that youth sport coaches may need additional guidance
Youth Coach Intervention
7
on how to best implement strategies that foster need-support and reduce need-thwarting for
athletes of varying ages and developmental experiences (Benish et al., 2023). For example,
coaches working with athletes in middle childhood (ages 6–10; Vernon & Chen, 2024) can
meaningfully support self-esteem development and competence by focusing on athletes’
improvements in skill in their feedback while limiting critiques of athlete performance (Côté et
al., 2010). Similar guidelines could potentially address the incongruence many youth athletes
experience in what they want and need out of their sport experience (e.g., sense of belonging,
enjoyment) and what sport clubs offer (e.g., emphasis on winning, limited playing time for those
less skilled; Persson et al., 2020). Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to explore the
efficacy of a need-supportive intervention on youth hockey coaches’ attitudes toward, and
reported use of, need-supportive and/or need-thwarting approaches. The primary research
question is “what is the efficacy of a need-supportive coach training on youth hockey coaches’
reported use of autonomy-supportive and controlling styles?” A secondary research question is
“what are youth hockey coaches’ perceptions of a need-supportive coach training program?” It is
hypothesized that participants in the intervention group, relative to members of the delayed
control group, will report becoming more autonomy-supportive from pretest to posttest (H1) and
will report a reduction in controlling practices from pretest to posttest (H2).
Method
The current study used a quasi-experimental mixed methods design with a delayed
control. Both sequential and concurrent data collection methods guided the gathering of
quantitative and qualitative data over the course of a 7-week intervention to assess the program’s
efficacy in improving coach need-supportive behavior and reducing controlling coaching
approaches (see Figure 1). These data collection methods enhance the literature as few need
Youth Coach Intervention
8
supportive interventions with youth coach populations have explored program outcomes from a
mixed-methods perspective (e.g., Langdon et al., 2015).
Research Approach
A post-positivist research paradigm guided the current study. This approach views
objectivity as relative and data as imperfect and inherently biased. Examining the effectiveness
of a need-supportive intervention from more than one angle (quantitative and qualitative) thereby
aims to reduce the uncertainty of the results and accommodate for the limitations of certain data
collection methods (Panhwar et al., 2017). Lastly, the first author/workshop facilitator used
reflexive journaling (Watt, 2007) after each workshop to ensure consistent delivery of program
content and to bring forward any observations or initial interpretations of participants’ program
perceptions. This method served to minimize bias in the final interpretation of study findings.
Procedures
Sampling and Recruitment
Upon IRB approval, participants were recruited through purposive and convenience
sampling methods. All 8U–14U head coaches (N = 217) representing 27 member associations in
a USA Hockey recognized regional league were emailed and invited to participate in the study.
Additionally, recruitment flyers were disseminated through the primary author’s professional and
social media accounts (e.g., LinkedIn) and personal network. Coaches self-selected to enroll in
the need-supportive training and were required to submit the following demographic
information: age, level of hockey coaching (e.g., 10U), name of the team currently coaching, and
current coaching role (i.e., head coach, assistant/volunteer). Twenty-nine individuals expressed
interest in the training, however, three did not meet the study criteria and were excluded from
data collection. Participants (N = 26) were randomly assigned to the intervention condition (n =
Youth Coach Intervention
9
11) or delayed control condition (n = 15) at the end of the enrollment period. When both a head
coach and assistant coach from the same team agreed to participate in the study, both were
included in a condition together (i.e., intervention group, delayed control group) to ensure the
fidelity of the intervention and control groups. A group of four coaches (one head coach and
three assistant coaches) from the same team were randomly assigned to the intervention group.
Upon group assignment, the lead author contacted participants via phone and asked them to
confirm their participation. The recruitment email informed the coaches of the study’s purpose
and the potential benefits of participating in the training program. Participants were delimited to
include coaches who were currently (1) members of USA hockey, (2) registered as a head or
assistant/volunteer coach for the 2023–2024 season, and (3) working with hockey players
between the ages of 6–14 years. One member of the intervention group dropped out before the
start of the training, one member of the control group stopped attending after the second
workshop, and three members of the control group opted to complete the delayed training
asynchronously and therefore did not complete a post-intervention assessment. Participant
consent was obtained from all coaches before data collection.
Intervention Pilot
The intervention protocol was piloted with a sample of hockey coaches with youth
coaching experience (N = 9). Coaches engaged with all workshop material and were asked to
provide feedback on session information and activities. Information from this pilot intervention
informed adaptations in module structure, session activities, options for engagement, post
session handouts, and use of reflection tools to allow for an enhanced participant experience. No
data was collected from the pilot group; however, reflexive journaling was utilized by the first
author/workshop facilitator after each workshop to record any coach feedback, personal
Youth Coach Intervention
10
observations, and note the rationale for any changes to the final intervention protocol.
The pilot revealed a need to bolster the integration of hockey-specific scenarios
applicable to the youth coaching context to help coaches better understand how to implement the
strategies offered in Workshops 1 and 2. From this feedback, three scenarios were created
(Appendix E) and integrated into the second workshop and were informed by the motivation
related challenges described by coaches during the pilot sessions. Scenarios highlighted the
developmental level of the player(s) (i.e., 10U, 12U, and 14U) and guided coaches to consider
the athlete(s) degree of need fulfillment when deciding what motivational strategies might
resonate with player(s) in the given situation. Finally, the pilot also revealed areas for
improvement such as the inclusion of a reflection tool at the conclusion of each workshop (e.g.,
Stop-light reflection: “From today’s workshop, name 1-2 things you plan to stop doing [Red], 1
2 things you plan to continue doing [Yellow], 1-2 things you plan to start or go do” [Green])
which provided coaches with the opportunity to consider future changes in behavior as a result of
their learning. Workshops 2, 3, and 4 were also adjusted to have all coaches sharing their
reflections of how they were implementing various motivational strategies as one group instead
of in breakout rooms to save time and allow coaches to hear other’s creative approaches to
applying program content. Lastly, the workshop supplemental materials (Appendix D) were
expanded from two pages to ten after the pilot. This approach allowed more time in sessions for
coaches to share experiences with one another while still receiving the necessary content.
Intervention Details
The intervention (see Appendix B for outline) was led by the first author who has ten
years of experience coaching group and individual figure skating and basic hockey skills, five
years of experience in applied mental performance consulting with athlete populations, one year
Youth Coach Intervention
11
of experience counseling, five years of research experience in need-supportive coaching and one
previous virtual workshop which was facilitated for coach developers of USA Soccer using a
Self-Determination Theory lens. Her theoretical orientation combines cognitive behavioral
therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and Self-Determination Theory. As such, she
sought to promote a need-supportive environment for all coaches by demonstrating empathy,
providing positive feedback and choices, and being open to coaches’ perspectives.
The intervention was entitled ‘Driven on Ice: A Motivation Masterclass’ and was
informed by current research on the use of need-supportive and need-thwarting coaching in sport
(Bartholomew et al., 2011; Benish et al., 2023; Delrue et al., 2019; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
Adapted from Reynders and colleagues’ (2019) design, the seven-week intervention (see Figure
2 for timeline) consisted of four, one-hour workshops that were delivered virtually with one
week in between each workshop. Coaches could choose to attend one of three group workshop
time offerings each week (i.e., afternoon and evening options available; 22 total group sessions
delivered). Group session size ranged from 2–8 participants (M = 3.5). Multiple time offerings
allowed coaches to attend the session that was most convenient and reduced drop-out. In the
event a coach could not attend a group workshop, a make-up session was offered in which the
coach viewed a recorded group session on Zoom with the lead facilitator and responded to
workshop prompts and activities in a one-on-one format. Four coaches utilized one make-up
session and two coaches utilized two make-up sessions. If a coach could not accommodate a
make-up session, the coach was instructed to watch a recording of the session and submit any
required survey measures or reflection responses. Four coaches engaged in one session
asynchronously. Coaches had to attend at least two of the four workshops during a scheduled
group offering for their data to be included in analysis. All but one coach met this threshold and
Youth Coach Intervention
12
stopped attending after workshop 2. All group and make-up sessions were video recorded.
An overview of workshop elements and activities can be found in Table 1. The acronym,
IMPACT, was created for the intervention using existing guidelines for need-supportive coaching
(Delrue et al., 2019; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) to help coaches practically implement the
approach: Independent work and initiative taking, Magnify individual improvement, Positive
and informative feedback, Accept and incorporate athlete input, Choice with limits, and Tune in
and validate athlete’s emotions and interests. Each strategy was supported with sport-specific
examples and age-related adaptations as relevant. Throughout the workshops, coaches could
reflect on the barriers to implementing coaching strategies, participate in group and individual
reflections, respond to scenarios and discussion prompts, and verbally share their application
experiences with one another. Participants of the control group fully participated in the training
starting at week 7 after completing their second baseline of the SISQ-sport (see below).
Quantitative Measures
Descriptive Variables. At the start of the intervention, participants’ age, self-identified
gender, self-identified race and ethnicity, years coaching, age group(s) coached (e.g., 10U),
current coaching title (e.g., head coach), and current level of USA Hockey certification were
collected. At post-intervention, coaches reported the total number of practice sessions they
attended while engaging in the intervention.
Situations-in-Sport Questionnaire. The Situations-in-Sport Questionnaire (SISQ-sport;
Delrue et al., 2019) is constructed to measure coaches’ perceived use of need-supportive and
need-thwarting coaching styles through responses to a series of sport-scenarios involving coach
athlete communication. The SISQ-sport has been previously implemented as a form of
assessment after coaches participated in an intervention that was designed to change participants’
Youth Coach Intervention
13
(de)motivating style (Reynders et al., 2019). The SISQ-sport was administered at two time points
for the intervention group (Week 1 and Week 7) and three time points for the delayed control
group (Week 1, Week 7, and Week 13) to assess coaches’ self-rated need-supportive (i.e.,
autonomy-supportive, structuring) and need-thwarting (i.e., controlling, chaotic) behaviors (see
Figure 2). After reviewing each of fifteen sport scenarios, coaches indicate on a 7-point Likert
scale how well each of the four possible responses would describe them (i.e., 1 = does not
describe me at all to 7 = described me extremely well). Of the four responses to each vignette,
each corresponds to a type of motivational approach: autonomy-supportive (i.e., participative or
attuning), structuring (i.e., clarifying or guiding), controlling (i.e., demanding or domineering),
or chaotic (i.e., abandoning or awaiting). Vignettes reflect either the pedagogical role of coaches,
situations within training, or situations within competition that all require coach intervention.
Internal consistency evidence within the current sample at the varying time points ranged from α
= 0.84 to 0.85 for autonomy support, α = 0.54 to 0.75 for structure, α = 0.70 to 0.79 for control,
and 0.73 to 0.76 for chaos. Two items were dropped from the structuring subscale (Situation 3.2
and 15.4) to reach an acceptable alpha of at least 0.7 for two of the three time points.
Qualitative Data Collection
In between each workshop, coaches had two weeks to apply strategies learned in the
previous workshop into their daily practice and record written reflections of their use of
interpersonal behaviors (2 total reflections). Participants reflected using specific prompts (e.g.,
“What motivational technique(s) did you try to implement this week?”) and electronically
submitted those reflections at the start of the second and third workshop. Participants’ reflective
responses to the “stop-light” tool were also gathered at the end of the third workshop to capture
the behaviors coaches intended to reduce.
Youth Coach Intervention
14
A program evaluation questionnaire was administered to both groups at the conclusion of
the fourth and final workshop. This final assessment utilized open-ended questions to capture
participants’ perceptions of the program’s importance (e.g., “How important do you consider the
topic of the intervention and why?”), the developmental components and application (e.g., “How
was your understanding of athlete development and motivation impacted by the training?”), the
learning experience (e.g., “What aspects of the training supported your overall learning and
implementation of knowledge? How does this compare to other coach trainings you have
participated in?”), and recommendations for improvement (e.g., “What, if anything, would you
have liked to be different about the training?”).
Data Analysis
The data was checked for missing values and three open items were present in the second
administration of the SISQ-sport accounting for 0.2% of values reported by participants. An
average subscale score was calculated and manually imputed for each missing item. Descriptive
statistics were calculated for the demographic information. Chi-square tests were used to check
for significant differences between the intervention and control conditions regarding participant
demographics. Then, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess the reliability of the SISQ-sport
subscales (i.e., autonomy-supportive, controlling, structuring, chaotic). A 2x2 mixed measures
ANOVA was used to determine differences in coaches’ perceived need-supportive and need
thwarting coaching responses (SISQ-sport scores) from pre-test to post-test in the intervention
and control conditions (i.e., time*condition). The alpha level for this statistical analysis was set
to p < .05. Tests for normality and homogeneity were checked.
Three members of the research team conducted the qualitative analysis before the
quantitative results were calculated to prevent any unnecessary influence of one source’s results
Youth Coach Intervention
15
on the other. To explore participants perceptions, participant’s written reflections and program
evaluation questions were deductively analyzed by question or content focus (e.g.,
implementation efforts) with inductive coding across responses (i.e., hybrid approach; Fereday &
Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Provisional codes (see Saldana, 2016) were created to correspond with
the content of each question and additional in vivo codes were added by each member of the
analysis team during the independent portion of the coding process. Researchers then met to
discuss and reconcile codes and refine code names. All codes were compared across the sources
of data and themes were developed. A member of the research team acted as a critical friend
(Smith & McGannon, 2017) to encourage reflexivity and aid in theme development, refinement,
and the final labeling of lower- and higher-order theme names. As an example, when discussing
coaches’ implementation efforts, the first author drew attention to the frequency and types of
strategies coaches reported using in comparison with how strategies were taught during
workshops. While reflecting with the critical friend, it was noted that coaches’ implementation
was, in fact, more deeply driven by contextual factors such as athlete development, the
environment, and a coaches’ preferred style. Such discussions contributed to the rigor of the
qualitative analysis through the challenging and developing of interpretations and helped to
minimize the bias of the first author/workshop facilitator, consistent with established guidelines
(see Smith & McGannon, 2017). For reporting purposes, participants were assigned a
pseudonym to protect their identity. As the manuscript was composed, the quantitative and
qualitative results were compared, and complimentary findings were integrated in the discussion.
Results
Participants
A total of 25 youth hockey coaches (21 male, 4 female) participated in the study. All
Youth Coach Intervention
16
coaches self-identified as White/Caucasian and represented 15 different youth hockey
associations and 35 youth teams across five US states. Coaches were on average 43.4 years old
(SD = 9.01, range = 24–64) and had coached for 8.26 years on average (SD = 6.16, range = 0.5
25). Twenty-one coaches indicated they held the title of head coach (18 male, 3 female) while the
remaining four coaches were exclusively in an assistant coaching role (3 male, 1 female).
Thirteen coaches (52%) were actively coaching 2–3 age groups while the remaining twelve
coaches (48%) worked with one age group. Coaches worked with 8U (n = 4), 10U (n = 12), 12U
(n = 7), 14U (n = 11), and high school aged (n = 5) athletes. Participants held the following USA
Hockey certifications: Level 1 (n = 3), Level 2 (n = 3), Level 3 (n = 2), Level 4 (n = 14), Level 5
(n = 3). Participants reported directing an average of 13.1 total practices (SD = 5.96, range = 6
30) during the seven-week intervention. No significant differences between the intervention and
control group were observed on age, years of coaching, coaching role, or gender.
Program Effectiveness
To address the first research question, a 2x2 mixed measures ANOVA was run to
determine differences in coaches’ perceived need-supportive and need-thwarting coaching
responses (SISQ-sport scores) from pre-test to post-test in the intervention (n = 21) and the
waitlist control (n = 15) conditions. The alpha level for this statistical analysis was set to p < .05
and assumptions for normality and homogeneity were met. Three of the four Condition X Time
interaction effects were significant (see Figures 3 & 4). The intervention group showed a
significant interaction for coaches’ self-reported autonomy-supportive coaching (medium effect;
ηp2 = .11, p < .05), controlling coaching (large effect; ηp2 = .20, p = .007), and chaotic coaching
(large effect; ηp2 = .22, p = .004). There was not a significant interaction for coaches’ structuring
behaviors (ηp2 = .002, p = .79). Interpretation of these results indicated that the program had a
Youth Coach Intervention
17
moderate to large effect on most self-reported coach behaviors. Specifically, the hypotheses for
the current study were supported in that the intervention group, relative to the members of the
control group, improved their autonomy-supportive coaching from pre-test to post-test (H1) and
reduced their controlling practices from pre-test to post-test (H2). See Table 2 for the full mean
and standard deviation values at pre- and post-test by condition and subscale.
A closer look at the mean values shows participants’ autonomy-supportive coaching
increased (Δ = 0.54) for the intervention group while the control group showed negligible
improvement (Δ = 0.10). Meanwhile, the intervention group decreased their controlling coaching
(Δ = –0.44) while the control group increased in controlling coaching (Δ = 0.23). Likewise, the
intervention group decreased their chaotic coaching (Δ = –0.15) while the control group
increased these behaviors (Δ = 0.28).
Perceptions of the Program
The qualitative content analysis resulted in four primary themes that captured
participants' viewpoints of and engagement in the need-supportive intervention: positive view of
training, program enhancers, program barriers, and training experiences. Supporting quotes are
presented below and interpreted alongside SISQ-sport results as appropriate to address research
question two. Coach’s pseudonym and the age group(s) they coached are noted with each quote.
Positive View of Training. The following subthemes contributed to participants’ positive
view of the training: positive experience, topic importance, and comparison with other trainings.
Youth coaches offered comments related to their enjoyment of the training both at the mid-point
and final assessment, as evidenced by the following, “This has been a great course and learning
opportunity,” (Simon 12U). Others noted how the program affirmed practices they currently
implemented, “I think [the training] reaffirmed a lot of what I already believed and try to
Youth Coach Intervention
18
practice,” (Christine 14U). This finding aligns with coaches’ above average (M = 5.15, SD = .89)
reported use of autonomy-supportive coaching practices at baseline. Further, coaches considered
program content significant to their work with young children, “With kids, the psychological
aspect to their development is arguably more important than the tangible skills,” (Kevin 10U)
and “paramount to a coach's success” (Charley 8U/10U). Combined, these findings indicate
coaches who chose to participate may have already been interested in supporting youth athletes’
needs given pre-existing beliefs of what coaching approaches support athlete development.
In the program evaluation reflection, many participants expressed their belief that
knowledge of athlete motivation was key to effective coaching and positively impacting youth
athlete engagement. In fact, several coaches commented that other coaches “need this type of
training,” (Bruce 14U) and how “it should be a part of USA Hockey's coaching development
program” (Devon 8U/12U). Finally, a few coaches commented on their other training
experiences when reflecting on their time in the current intervention and noted that their USA
Hockey trainings served as a good foundation for the age-related content in the workshops. That
said, coaches felt the depth of Driven on Ice enhanced their knowledge of the “soft skills” of
coaching and “far exceeds the content [USA Hockey] has for motivating players” (Devon
8U/12U). Interpretation of these findings indicates that participants found the training to be
valuable, detailed, and supportive to their work with youth athletes.
Program Enhancers. Several program elements were highlighted by participants as
facilitative to their learning, represented within the program modalities including practical
strategies, small group interaction, and reflection opportunities. Practical strategies offered
throughout the training were illustrated with sport-specific examples and presented as
memorable acronyms (e.g., IMPACT, CAR), metaphors (e.g., fueling athlete motivation), and
Youth Coach Intervention
19
short phrases (e.g., 5:1 feedback ratio) to support coach learning. Patrick (14U) appreciated how
“there was actionable things taken away from the training and ideas that could be implemented
immediately.” Kevin (10U) noted how the structure of the strategies was useful in funneling his
approach, “IMPACT helps me direct and give purpose to the positivity to better nourish [athlete]
growth.” Coaches would often refer to acronyms in their reflections, “some kids required a little
more positive and informative feedback than others,” (Dustin 12U/16U) further illustrating the
accessibility of how strategies were delivered.
Small group interaction and discussion appeared to be another program enhancer as it
allowed coaches to effectively share experiences, act as a source of validation, and allow coaches
to offer each other guidance or receive help. Bruce (14U) noted how interacting with other
coaches supported his learning experience, “It’s always better to hear and listen to peers as well
as an instructor. More involvement from the students makes for deeper learning.” Adrian (10U)
similarly shared, “I appreciated the group aspect along with the conversational tone, as compared
to watching stale videos and slide decks with fewer group discussions.”
Finally, coaches expressed that the reflection opportunities (e.g., homework, written,
verbal) across multiple sessions enhanced their experience. Isaiah (12U/14U) valued the multiple
opportunities to debrief his application of learned material, “Most other training you were
remembering back [information] and couldn’t implement and report back. I loved this aspect of
the training.” Meanwhile, Devon (8U/12U) felt that “the concepts, approaches, and reflections
within this course have helped me to change my mindset on how to be a more effective coach.”
Lastly, Darrell (10U) found that other coaches reporting back to the group helped his own sense
of competence, “I like having the topics and then hearing the input of other coaches. It really
helps with confidence in what we are doing and that you can make a difference with players.”
Youth Coach Intervention
20
From these perspectives, the practical nature of the content, the learning environment, and the
activities provided were beneficial to coaches’ learning.
Program Barriers. As expected, participants identified a few key elements that served as
barriers or limiting factors to their use of program content: other coaches, environmental factors,
and personal factors. Several coaches when implementing IMPACT coaching commented on
their role as an assistant or head coach and how this occasionally limited their ability to exercise
learned material. For instance, Isaiah (12U/14U) stated he could not use choice with limits as an
assistant coach for his 14U team because, “the head coach (barrier) wanted to be structured in his
practices before games.” Many assistants recognized that they did not control the overall
coaching environment and needed additional support getting group consensus, “Arming us with
the data to convince other coaches that these approaches are more successful than traditional
approaches [would] enable better buy-in and proliferation of the concepts” (Charley 8U/10U).
Head coaches also experienced challenges with assistant coaches when implementing strategies:
“We don’t have a lot of time to discuss or work through to consensus…that's caused some
friction or frustration…[the assistant coach] kind of tuned out during practice and I had to
make a decision of dealing with the kids’ emotional needs or his" (Martin 12U/14U).
Generally, “blending coaching styles can be a challenge on teams when there are larger coaching
staffs” (Stephen 12U/14U/16U) and, as noted by participants, may extinguish efforts to employ
new and evidence-based strategies. Conversely, a group of four coaches from one team all
participated in the program which appeared to allow for a more comprehensive use of tools, “I
implemented all [IMPACT strategies] or other coaches did” (Gary 10U).
Further, environmental factors such as limited time in practice was occasionally
perceived as a barrier, as illustrated by Charley (8U/10U) who reflected that when there is “only
Youth Coach Intervention
21
so much time, [it’s] hard to maintain 5:1 when you are in a game and working to correct
mistakes.” Coaches also noticed that situations dictated what need-supportive strategies could be
implemented, “[I used] M & P given we were in the end of year contests and there were fewer or
no practice slots…other [strategies] tend to apply a little better for younger athletes” (Adrian
10U). Consequently, coaches may not have tried specific strategies if the tool did not match the
needs or constraints of their coaching environment.
Personal factors such as alignment with personal coaching style and self-efficacy
appeared to occasionally restrict coaches’ use of program material. A few coaches noted how
some strategies were uncomfortable to try or were a stretch from their normal coaching
behaviors, “IMPACT does conflict [with my style] in that it requires me to allow the athlete a
larger say in how and what they do…I am still skeptical on how well some of these concepts will
work long term.” (Patrick 14U). Jacob (8U/10U) noted a similar experience, “It felt a little
disorganized for me personally as someone who overdoes practice planning, but [I] embraced it
and enjoyed more of the back and forth than usual. [I] felt more connected.” Meanwhile, Dustin
(12U/16U) recognized that some motivational strategies involved effort and “required some
strategic planning” to offer choices in-line with the skills athletes needed to develop. A few
coaches like Jacob (8U/10U) seemed overwhelmed with the task of consciously supporting
athlete needs, explaining, “…there's so much on our plate as coaches already that it feels like
more to do to think about how I practically implement all of these concepts…the iterations and
techniques feel like a lot at the moment.”
Training Experiences. During their participation, coaches expressed their training
related experiences in three main areas: new learning, implementation efforts, and perceived
athlete outcomes. Several participants identified that the training supported their previous
Youth Coach Intervention
22
knowledge with greater depth, “[I] learned a few things to keep doing (and why) and learned a
few new ones” (Kevin 10U). Coaches reported that they learned the importance of reducing
demotivating practices like yelling. For instance, Dustin (12U/16U) commented, “It’s easy to
yell and scream at them, to try and motivate them, but that has limited usage and success." Other
demotivating practice coaches reflected on included exercise as punishment, critical feedback,
and comparison (e.g., “[I want to] stop comparing individuals, especially when the comparison
isn’t asked for” (Adrian 10U)). Overall, coaches increased their awareness of the impact of their
behaviors and the environment they create on athlete motivation, reflecting, "every little thing
matters. The words that are said, the tone they are said with, body language while speaking, the
setting when talking all come into play on the impact a coach can have on an athlete" (Bill 10U).
During the intervention, coaches tried specific behaviors with their teams from the
IMPACT framework to support athlete motivation with some reporting low implementation, like
Jacob (8U/10U) who explained, “Maybe my lack of creativity but didn’t feel that I had a chance
to really implement in the last week with our schedule…[I] was maybe a little more positive than
usual but that was it.” Other coaches like Gary (10U) reported moderate implementation as he
reflected, “We switched lines and asked players what position they wanted to play (choice with
limits). I gave thoughtful, positive feedback after shifts during the games.” Finally, a few coaches
engaged in high implementation, stating, “I tried to implement all of them” (Martin 12U/14U).
As they reflected on their efforts, many coaches found value in the variety of approaches they
learned. According to Bill (10U), “Having all of the different IMPACT behaviors allows [me] to
utilize what works best with different athletes.” Similarly, coaches could identify how certain
strategies applied to athletes of certain ages. As observed by Stephen (12U/14U/16U), “At the
U12 level, athletes are very sensitive to positive feedback. They are still developing emotionally
Youth Coach Intervention
23
and are very perceptive regarding tone.” These implementation efforts as described were
reflected in significant improvements in autonomy-supportive coaching and significant
reductions in controlling coaching behaviors in the SISQ-sport from pre- to post-test.
Finally, coaches were instructed to attend to how the use of program content impacted
their players. Several reported observing positive outcomes including positive emotional
responses (e.g., excitement, happiness), improvements in confidence, a deeper connection with
players, resilience through challenge, and increased engagement. Darrell (10U) noticed enhanced
effort after having athletes choose the last practice activity, stating, “they wanted to do a
scrimmage and we went an extra 40 minutes. They wanted to keep going, but the Zamboni driver
had to go home.” Meanwhile, Gary (10U) started to “notice the negative responses from players
when not implementing [IMPACT] techniques.” On occasion, coaches perceived more mixed
results as noted by Jim (10U) who implemented positive and informative feedback, and noticed,
“You can see some kid’s eyes glaze over, and you lose their attention. Others are receptive. It has
to do with individual attitudes.” Nevertheless, many participants could identify advances in their
own knowledge and observed positive athlete outcomes while exercising program material.
Discussion
This intervention merged components of Reynders and colleagues’ (2019) successful,
four-session training design with several innovative approaches (i.e., virtual delivery, small
group discussion, practical strategies, age-related guidelines, flexible-time slots) and the addition
of psychoeducation regarding controlling coaching to meet the learning needs of youth sport
coaches while they were in-season. Consistent with Reynders et al.’s (2019) intervention, youth
hockey coaches significantly improved their autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors and
significantly reduced their use of controlling approaches when compared with a delayed-control
Youth Coach Intervention
24
group. Likewise, no significant changes were observed for coaches’ structuring behavior in either
condition, with coaches reporting high levels of this approach at pre-test (M = 5.84, SD = .46),
which may indicate pre-existing training from USA Hockey or another source that could have
imposed ceiling effects. In contrast with Reynders et al. (2019), coaches who completed the
intervention significantly reduced their chaotic coaching behaviors. This effect may be attributed
to the present program’s direct approach of instructing coaches to reduce need-thwarting
approaches and use consistent communication. Also of note, the control condition revealed that
without the training, coaches increased in both controlling and chaotic coaching approaches over
a seven-week period. This effect may be explained by the time of the season as many coaches
were preparing for playoffs and may have experienced increased pressure and/or stress during
this period.
In the qualitative data, youth coaches appeared to have a positive experience with the
program and found the topic of motivation to be critical to their work with children. Other SDT
based programs, however, have received mixed responses. Wachsmuth and colleagues (2022)
found that coach coordinators who were responsible for facilitating need-supportive educational
program across a talent development program viewed the program favorably and important to
the context with which it was delivered. Unfortunately, the youth coaches who were receiving
the material demonstrated low engagement, skepticism, and viewed the need-supportive style as
time-consuming. It appears important for coach training initiatives to establish buy-in, relate to
coaches’ immediate context and needs, and ensure learned concepts are transferred into the sport
setting (Gilbert et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2017). In the present study, coaches could articulate
how the program content benefitted them and their role, which appeared to be driven by coaches’
iterative implementation efforts and subsequent observations of personal and athlete outcomes,
Youth Coach Intervention
25
many of which were positive (e.g., improvements in athlete engagement). Program content also
seemed to fit well with coaches’ previous knowledge of youth athlete development which was
likely due to USA Hockey’s rigorous training structures for its youth coaches with progressive
certificat