IABot a noté :
Dafotec Récupération De Données

Le 2025-04-20 21:20:14

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 certification levels, age-specific modules, and continued learning opportunities (Fawver e