Coaching competency and satisfaction with the coach: A multi-level structural equation model

Abstract

The purpose of this initial predictive validity study was to determine the ability of measures derived from the Athletes' Perceptions of Coaching Competency Scale II - High School Teams (APCCS II-HST) to predict satisfaction with the head coach. Specification of the statistical model was informed by the mediational model of coach-athlete interactions. The technical quality of the satisfaction measure was evaluated before testing the predictive validity of the coaching competency measures. Data were collected from athletes of seven sports. Athlete observations (N = 748) were clustered within teams (G = 74). Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) provided evidence for factorial invariance of a reduced version of the satisfaction measure by athlete gender. Multi-level CFA provided evidence of model-data consistency for a reduced version of the satisfaction measure. Multi-level structural equation modelling provided evidence for the ability of latent coaching competency to positively predict latent satisfaction at both the athlete level (technique competency and motivation competency) and the team level (coaching competency) and for close model-data fit. Implications of this study include: that the APCCS II-HST should be viewed as a replacement for the Coaching Competency Scale when the intended population is appropriate; a preliminary multi-level measurement model for satisfaction with one's coach that should be considered as a potential starting point in subsequent studies; and empirical support for a key relationship proposed in the mediational model of coach-athlete interactions.

Coaching competency and (exploratory) structural equation modeling: A substantive-methodological synergy

“…APCCS II-HST data from Myers et al (2010) were re-analyzed. Athlete-level sample size was 748 and team-level sample size was 74.…”

“…Thus, moving from either CES to the CES II-HST, or the CCS to the APCCS II-HST, resulted in non-equivalent measurement models. There is evidence that measures derived from the APCCS II-HST relate to theoretically relevant variables (Myers, Beauchamp, & Chase, 2011) in a doubly latent multilevel model (Marsh et al, 2012). …”

“…The measurement model for the APCCS II-HST occurred at two-levels in Myers et al (2010) because there was strong evidence for dependence due to the clustering of athletes ( N = 748) within teams ( G = 74). Specifically, ICCs ranged from .18 to .35, M = .29, SD = .05.…”

“…Physical conditioning (PC) was measured with two items and was defined as athletes’ perceptions of their head coach's ability to prepare her/his athletes physically for participation in her/his sport. Figure 2 depicts the athlete-level measurement model put forth by Myers et al (2010) - less the bolded arrow. 3 …”

Abstracts of the International Congress of Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences & Human Development (2016)

“…Coaching Competency; the 15-item Spanish version of the Sport Athletes' Perceptions of Coaching Competency Scale II-High School Teams was used (Myers et al, 2010). Satisfaction with the coach; the 3-item of the Spanish version of the Satisfaction with the head coach was used (Myers et al, 2011).…”