Interpersonal and Structural Features of Greek Coach–Athlete Dyads Performing in Individual Sports

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was two-fold. Firstly, a new interpersonal construct, namely, Co-orientation was proposed to be included in the recently developed Closeness, Commitment, and Complementarity (3 Cs) conceptual model of the coach–athlete relationship (Jowett & Cockerill, 2002 Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I. M. 2002. “Incompatibility in the coach–athlete relationship”. In Solutions in sport psychology, Edited by: Cockerill, I. M. 16–31. London: Thomson Learning. [Google Scholar]). Secondly, the factorial construct validity of the Greek Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART-Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2003 Jowett, S. 2003. When the honeymoon is over: A case study of a coach–athlete relationship in crisis. The Sport Psychologist., 17: 444–460. [CSA][Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), an instrument developed to measure coaches and athletes' direct perspective of the 3 Cs, and its modified version was assessed. The modified GrCART-Q was developed to measure the 3 Cs from a meta-perspective (e.g., athletes' perceptions of their coaches' closeness). The GrCART-Q and its modified version were administered to 280 participants (140 coaches and 140 athletes) from individual sports. Separate confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for the GrCART-Q and its modified version, as well as for coaches and athletes. Results revealed that both versions possess satisfactory factorial validity and reliability as a measure of the coach–athlete relationship construct for athletes and coaches of individual sports. In light of these results, conceptual, empirical and practical issues are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 69 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.