Coach Behaviors and Athlete Satisfaction in Team and Individual Sports

The coach can have a profound impact on athlete satisfaction, regardless of the level of sport involvement. Previous research has identified differences between coaching behavior preferences in team and individual sport athletes. The present study examined the moderating effect that an athlete's sport type (i.e., individual or team) may have on the relationships among seven coaching behaviors (mental preparation, technical skills, goal setting, physical training, competition strategies, personal rapport, and negative personal rapport) for predicting coaching satisfaction. Moderated multiple regression analyses indicated that each of the seven coaching behaviors were significant main effect predictors of coaching satisfaction. However, sport type (i.e., team or individual sports) was found to moderate six of the seven relationships: mental preparation, technical skills, goal setting, competition strategies, personal rapport, and negative personal rapport in predicting satisfaction with the coach. These findings indicate that high coaching satisfaction for athletes in team sports is influenced to a greater extent by the demonstration of these behaviors than it is for individual sport athletes.

Team Building Interventions in Sport: A Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis of team building interventions in sport was completed. Seventeen studies containing 180 effect sizes were retrieved. The overall effect (Hedges g) was .427. Analyses of possible moderator variables showed the largest effect sizes were in interventions where: (a) non-experimental designs were used (g=.474); (b) the data were unpublished (g=.539); (c) goal setting only was used (g=.714); (d) the coach/manager directed the delivery (g=.446); and (e) the teams were at the university level (g=.482). Finally, team building had the greatest influence on cognitions (g=.799

An investigation of lower limb joint powers as a predictive measure of countermovement vertical jump height.

Measuring and tracking athletic performance is crucial to an athlete’s development and the countermovement vertical jump is often used to measure athletic performance, particularly lower limb power. The linear power developed in the lower limb is estimated through jump height. However, the relationship between angular power, produced by the joints of the lower limb, and jump height is not well understood. This study examined the contributions of the kinetic value of angular power, and its kinematic component, angular velocity, of the lower limb joints to jump height in the countermovement vertical jump. Kinematic and kinetic data were gathered from twenty varsity-level basketball and volleyball athletes as they performed six maximal effort jumps in four arm swing conditions: no-arm involvement, single-non-dominant arm swing, single-dominant arm swing, and two-arm swing. The displacement of the whole body centre of mass, peak joint powers, peak angular velocity, and locations of the peaks as a percentage of the jump’s takeoff period, were computed. Linear regressions assessed the relationship of the variables to jump height. Results demonstrated that knee peak power (p = 0.001, ß = 0.363, r = 0.363), its location within takeoff period (p = 0.023, ß = -0.256, r = 0.256), and peak knee peak angular velocity (p = 0.005, ß = 0.310, r = 0.310) were moderately linked to increased jump height. Additionally, the location, within the takeoff period, of the peak angular velocities of the hip (p = 0.003, ß = -0.318, r = 0.419) and ankle (p = 0.011, ß = 0.270, r = 0.419) were positively linked to jump height. These results highlight the importance of training the velocity and timing of joint motion beyond traditional power training protocols as well as the importance of further investigation into appropriate testing protocol that is sensitive to the contributions by individual joints in maximal effort jumping.