Methodological intervention with soccer coaches to improve athlete-perceived coaching competency,satisfaction with the coach,enjoyment and intention to persist

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of the study was to assess the effect of a coaching intervention on soccer athletes’ perceptions of the coaches’ competencies, enjoyment, satisfaction, and intention to persist in the sport.

Equipment and methods: The sample consisted of 117 young male soccer players and eight of their coaches who were divided into two groups: group receiving the coaching effectiveness intervention (EG) (n = 4; M_age = 32.50 years, SD = 14.24) with an average of 3.00 years of training experience (SD = 2.44); and control group (CG) (n = 4; M_age = 28.50 years, SD = 13.67) with an average of 6.25 years of training experience (SD = 2.87), and their 117 young male soccer players from 45 teams, aged between 10 and 16 years (M_age = 13.78, SD = 1.38). Focused on coach-effectiveness, coaches from EG received a 12-hour training program. Self-report questionnaires were administered to the athletes both at the beginning and the end of the intervention. A repeated-measures ANOVA was carried out for each dependent variable.

Results

The results showed significant changes in coaches’ game strategy competency, technique competency, and character-building competency as perceived by the players from the EG compared with the players from the CG. Also, both the CG and the EG athletes decreased their satisfaction with the coach. Thus, these types of interventions are effective for improving and maintaining over time variables related to athletes’ perception of their coaches’ competency, their own enjoyment, and intention to persist practicing sports.

Keywords

Association football,character building,coach effectiveness,motivation,youth sport

Extracurricular sport practice is one of the most powerful tools to encourage youths’ physical activity levels. Previous studies have evaluated the impact of intervention programs in coaches’ methodological and motivational strategies to improve youths’ adherence to practice, in many cases without a solid theoretical framework.¹ In addition, many of these works have focused on the evaluation of variables referring to the athletes (i.e., motivation, engagement, satisfaction…), without evaluating the players’ perception of coach behaviors. In this sense, this study implements an intervention to improve coach competency providing methodological strategies from the coaching effectiveness model,² assessing from athletes' perceptions of their coach and actual coach outcomes the effectiveness of the program.^3–5

Intervention programs developed so far to promote coaching competency have been based on different theoretical approaches, from motivational theories such as the Self-Determination Theory (SDT)⁶ and the Achievement Goal Theory (AGT)⁷,⁸ to theories focused on the effectiveness of coaches (2), such as Coach Effectiveness Training.^3–5

Embedded in the SDT and AGT, the Promoting Adolescent Physical Activity project,⁹ developed in five European countries, aimed to provide the coaches with a series of strategies to perform more supportive behaviors and reduce behavior control, improving young athletes’ motivational processes and well-being.⁹ Specifically, the sub-dimensions of a coach-created controlling motivational climate are negatively related to indices of athletes’ health and optimal functioning, whereas and facets of a supporting climate are positively related.¹⁰ Likewise, Pulido et al.¹¹ developed an SDT-based intervention program to improve sport commitment in young soccer players through the development of strategies to promote autonomy, competency, and relatedness need satisfaction. The results showed a decrease in competence and perceived relatedness thwarting behavior in the participants belonging to the experimental group (EG), whereas need competence and need relatedness and sport commitment increased significantly. Intrinsic motivation declined in both groups, but this decrease was greater in the control group (CG). In the same line, Reynders et al.¹² examined the effect of an intervention with youth sport coaches. Specifically, in the athletes’ reports, multilevel modelling showed that athletes of coaches in the EG, compared to those of coaches in the CG, perceived their coach to be more autonomy-supportive, more structuring, and less chaotic from pre- to posttest, and these effects were more pronounced for athletes of team sports. Furthermore, athletes of coaches in the EG reported being more autonomously motivated and more engaged compared to those of coaches in the CG.

Within the framework of the CET, diverse intervention programs were developed in which different strategies were used to improve coach behaviors.¹ Most of the interventions employed a combination of training techniques, such as behavioral techniques, cognitive-behavioral therapy, educational training, and role-playing.¹,¹³,¹⁴ These interventions followed a similar training protocol, facilitating a series of strategies for coaches in a group meeting. Three interventions had a CG without treatment and another intervention had a CG with placebo, consisting of two hours of training in injury prevention.¹⁵ Only a few interventions examined the players’ perception of their coach’s behavior in relation to the CET guidelines.^3–5 The results showed that the coaches of the EG obtained better ratings in adaptive behaviors and lower ratings in maladaptive behaviors compared to the CG trainers. However, despite being CET-based, in these intervention programs, the improvement of specific factors of coaching competency was not evaluated.

Based on the CET, Myers et al.¹⁶ developed an instrument to evaluate coach competencies. Specifically, Myers et al.¹⁷ defined coaching competency through five characteristics: (i) it affects players’ psychological mood and skills (i.e., motivation competency); (ii) it positively influences players’ character development through sport (i.e., character-building competency); (iii) it leads players during competitions (i.e., game strategy competency), and; (iv) it instructs and diagnoses players during practice (technique competency). In this sense, a coach with a greater degree or level in each of these competencies will be perceived as a better coach and, consequently, will achieve more adaptive behaviors in the players. In fact, the athlete-perceived coaching competency has been associated with higher levels of satisfaction with the coach and the role, greater levels of effort, commitment, enjoyment, prosocial behavior, and cohesion and lower levels of conflict in different sporting contexts.^18–22

The players’ variables studied to assess the effectiveness of a program are very varied, including anxiety, self-esteem, fear of failure, or motivational orientations.²³ However, few studies have focused on satisfaction with the coach or enjoyment, although they have been identified as a key element in maintaining a regular practice of physical activity.²⁴

Most SDT-based interventions have been aimed at improving diverse athlete cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes, but they have not analyzed changes in players’ perception of their coaches. Despite the importance of the coaches’ behavioral and cognitive modifications, the change in the players’ perception of their coaches is still more important, as we will be training coaches with methodological resources to continue achieving players committed to sports. SDT⁶ distinguishes between two broad interpersonal styles (i.e., supportive and thwarting styles) that are relevant for athletes’ motivation and well-being.²⁵,²⁶ These styles are reflected in a set of distinct behaviors when adopted by individuals in a position of authority or leadership. Coaches could create an effective coaching environment by including strategies such as allowing choice and providing athletes with opportunities for initiative,²⁷ promoting a clear structure during training sessions, and giving enough time to achieve task success. They could also provide positive feedback or encourage skill improvement,²⁸ promoting cooperative and interdependent tasks, and showing affection towards the athletes.²⁹ Conversely, coaches could also adopt a coaching style characterized by using controlling rewards and making demands,³⁰ emphasizing faults and expressing doubts about athletes’ abilities, or remaining cold and distant towards them.²⁸ In this line, coaches’ interpersonal style could influence athletes’ perceptions of coaching competency, satisfaction with the head coach, enjoyment, and intention to persist in the sport.

The present study

This study contributes new knowledge to scientific literature about intervention programs focused on coach effectiveness. As confirmed in the literature, there are few studies of SDT-based methodological intervention programs on diverse coach and athlete-related variables. Most intervention programs did not use solid theories or were based on other theories assessing player outcomes, but they did not measure benefits for the coaches.

Therefore, the main aim of the study is to analyze the effect of an intervention program focused on coach effectiveness for coaching competency and on players’ outcomes. In this sense, satisfaction with the coach, enjoyment, and intention to persist have been included as outcomes, as these variables could partially explain the influence on participation patterns in sports or dropout.³¹ The main hypothesis of this study is that, following the coach training program, the EG will exhibit higher levels of athlete-perceived coaching competency, satisfaction with the coach, enjoyment, and intention to persist practicing soccer compared to the CG.

Method

Participants

Coaches. Participants were eight male soccer coaches divided into experimental group (EG) (n = 4; M_age = 32.50, SD = 14.24) with an average of 3.00 years of training experience (SD = 2.44) and control group (CG) (n = 4; M_age = 28.50, SD = 13.67) with an average of 6.25 years of training experience (SD = 2.87). The coaches’ sample was intentionally selected, considering that none of them had any training (academic degree or any federative certificate) related to sport. Next, a random peer distribution was performed to establish a normal partition of the categories of training and years of training experience (two coaches for players aged 11 to 13 years, and two coaches for players aged 14 to 16 years for each group).

Soccer players. The sample also consisted of 117 young male soccer players from 45 recreational teams, aged between 10 and 16 years old (M_age = 13.78, SD = 1.38) who played at a regional competition level. The players were divided into two age categories: 10–13 year-olds (n = 55) and 14–16 year-olds (n = 62), and into two groups related to the coaches’ groups: EG = 59 (M_age = 13.57, SD = 1.48) and CG = 58 (M_age = 13.86, SD = 1.28).

Instruments

Coaching competency. Athlete-perceived coaching competency was measured using the Spanish version³² of the Sport Athletes’ Perceptions of Coaching Competency Scale II-High School Teams (APCCS II-HST).¹⁶ This is a 15-item instrument starts with the stem-phrase “How competent is your head coach in his or her ability to…” and is designed to assess the four dimensions of athlete-perceived coaching competency: motivation competency (4 items; e.g., “…help athletes maintain confidence in themselves”), game strategy competency (4 items; e.g., “…make critical decisions during competition”), technique competency (4 items; e.g., “….demonstrate the skills of his/her sport”) and character building competency (3 items; e.g., “…instill an attitude of respect for others”). The rating scale ranges from 1 (completely incompetent) to 5 (completely competent). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine construct validity of the scale at both the measures, using maximum likelihood method. CFAs showed that the models fits were acceptable. Baseline: χ²(105) = 711.99, p < .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .04, 90% CI [.00, .07], and SRMR = .05; Post-program: χ²(105) = 393.17, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.04, .09], and SRMR = .05.

Satisfaction with the head coach. Player’s perceptions of their satisfaction with the coach were assessed using the Spanish version³³ of the Satisfaction with the Head Coach Scale (SHC-S).²² This scale includes the following 3 items: How much do you like playing for your coach? (s1); If you were able to play next year, how much would you like to have the same coach again? (s2); and How much does your coach know about this sport (s3). Ratings were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (a lot). CFAs showed adequate fit of both measures: Baseline: χ²(3) = 151.06, p < .001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI [0.00, 0.00], and SRMR = .00; Post-program: χ²(3) = 103.80, p < .001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI [.00, .00], and SRMR = .00.

Enjoyment. The dimension of enjoyment was analyzed using an adaptation to the sport setting of the Spanish version³⁴ of the Sport Satisfaction Instrument³⁵,³⁶ from the Physical Education context. The original words referring to Physical Education were modified (e. g., “Normally, I have fun during Physical Education classes” was replaced by “Normally, I have fun during training sessions”). The enjoyment dimension contains 5 items. Rating were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). CFAs presented adequate fit indices in the two measures: Baselin: χ²(10) = 79.01, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.00, .15], and SRMR = .03; Post-program: χ²(10) = 129.31, p < .001, CFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.00, .16], and SRMR = .03.

Intention to persist. The intention to persist in soccer was measured³⁷ using an ad hoc question: “How long do you think you are going to persist in this sport?” with four response possibilities: 1 (less than one year); 2 (between one and two years); 3 (between three and four years); and 4 (more than four years).

Procedure

The researchers held meetings with clubs to request collaboration and provide information to the coaches who trained for each club. After obtaining permission from the clubs and verifying that the coaches were eligible to participate in the study, the managers, coaches and athletes were also informed about the study. Before data collection, they were provided with detailed information sheets about what their participation would imply. They were also informed of the confidential treatment of results, where the guidelines of the American Psychological Association were followed. The clubs were provided with a model of informed consent for parents to sign to allow the players to participate. Specifically, parents and guardians were given two weeks to decide whether to allow or refuse their child’s participation in the study. The procedure was divided into the following steps: 1) Baseline data collection, 2) Training program, 3) Follow-up, and 5) Post-program data collection.

Baseline and post-program data collections (i.e., demographic data, and variables included in the present study) typically took place at the site of athletes training, either on the field, in the locker rooms, or in another comfortable room. Baseline data were collected three months after the beginning of the competition to ensure that (a) the players and teams had competed in some official matches and (b) there was enough time to form and develop coach-athlete interactions. Post-program data were approximately collected at the mid-season, just at the end of the six weeks of follow-up after the intervention. Moreover, at both measures, the coaches were asked to remain at some distance from the children when they were completing their questionnaires, so that their presence would be less likely to influence the children’s answers. The completion of the questionnaire typically took 15-35 minutes, depending on the child’s age and reading skill. Data collectors worked one-on-one with children who found it difficult to read and understand the items, or to sustain concentration when necessary.

Training program

The training program (see Table 1) was conducted at the middle of the season and had a total duration of 12 hours and was developed in a lecture-type room (three days) and in an indoor sports hall (one day) of the first author’s university, divided into two parts: 1) Contextualization and theoretical framework (one session); 2) Methodological and motivational strategies with activities and general examples (three sessions). This intervention was conducted by two university professors, experts in the field of sport psychology research, who were also soccer coaches (i.e., UEFA PRO license) and it is based on previous programs developed in sport and educational settings.¹¹,³⁸,³⁹ Various audio-visual media were used, such as videos, pictures, and dynamic presentations, as well as practical workshops.

Table 1.
Intervention program with coaches.

Session 1 (lecture-type room) Contextualization and theoretical backgrounds

– Contextualization. The current role of soccer in our society and youth sport expectations.

– Knowledge about soccer: tactics, technical planning, strategy…

– Motivational theories: self-determination theory, coach-effectiveness training, achievement goal theory, and the model of the coach-athlete relationship

– Studies that have demonstrated the incidence of the coaching setting on several outcomes in youth sport.

Sessions 2 and 3 (lecture-type room) Methodological strategies

Strategy Contents and guidelines

Leadership and coaching styles possibilities Using coaching styles as a function of athletes’ personalities and situations

Promoting players’ decision-making and self-supervision

Encouraging initiative to participate

Promoting active listening Promoting athletes’ engagement

Information about the task goals (e.g., absence of “I have to")

Improving communication skills

Giving players responsibility Allowing the choice of some activities (e.g., warm-up)

Taking the athletes perspective

Adapting the learning of the game Individualizing the contents, proposing achievable challenges

Achieving a balance between task difficulty and players’ abilities

Allowing enough time to successfully complete the tasks

Importance of feedback and reinforcements Giving positive feedback

Private and meaningful assessment to improve in the sport

Adequate communication

Promoting a positive influence on players Respect towards the game, teammates, referees…

Adopting exemplary behavior both within and outside the training context

Developing a positive personality in the players

Adopting an empathic attitude Being close, friendly and offering help

Improving adequate communication

Proposing interdependent activities Group dynamics, role playing, activities to promote trust, problem-solving

Variability in the strategy to form groups.

Session 4 (indoor sports hall) Workshops

Role games Adopting roles that exemplify behaviors to be performed in training sessions

Assuming inappropriate behaviors not to be used in training sessions

Group dynamics and trust activities Promoting the coaches’ own initiative (carrying out their proposal)

Solving problems for coaching, improving social skills

In the first session, contextualization, including the current role of the soccer in our society (i.e., “false” performance expectations in sport initiation categories) and a few highlights about other knowledge of sport regarding soccer technical training (e.g., training periodization), as well as the motivational theoretical frameworks (i.e., SDT, AGT, CET, model of coach-athlete relationship…) were explained, focusing on the importance of the coach for athletes’ behaviors and educational development.

During the second and third sessions, various methodological strategies were discussed. The following relationships were established between the strategy training program and the variables analyzed: coaches’ information about the general and specific coaching and leadership style possibilities—from the perspective of action, decision making, and supervision—to help athletes feel that they are the protagonists of their activities may be directly related to the players’ motivation, athlete-perceived coaching competency, enjoyment, and intention to persist. On the other hand, by improving their communicative skills, adapting them to the athletes’ capacity or level and focusing on the athletes’ progress, time, and the objectives of the training sessions, coaches will show a high capacity to adapt the content to the different levels. For instance, coaches could directly boost the game strategy and technique competencies, adapting the team’s game to its level, providing positive, significant feedback related to the content. In addition, coaches could directly encourage their players’ character building with relatedness, group dynamics, role-playing strategies, while also improving other coaching competencies. Finally, the outcomes of satisfaction with the coach, enjoyment, or intention to persist in soccer would be indirectly related to all the methodological and motivational strategies.

Next, to achieve this level of knowledge, in the fourth session carried out in an indoor sports hall, several workshops were carried out, teaching coaches how to develop these strategies while performing their function, adopting roles that exemplified behaviors to be performed and also inappropriate or counterproductive behaviors. For instance, to improve the players’ perceptions of satisfaction with the head coach, the coaches could develop behaviors and communications skills characterized by closeness, respect, and complementarity⁴⁰ or activities such as group dynamics, role-playing games, trust activities, problem solving, and social skills.

After the training program, a period of six weeks was allowed for the coaches to consolidate and apply these strategies. In this time interval, a follow-up recorded by assistant researchers of each coach was conducted to ensure and confirm the application of these strategies during the training sessions. Specifically, during the six weeks implementation period, independent observation recordings of the training sessions were done by assistant researchers, and telephone contacts and face-to-face discussion meetings for each coach were conducted to guarantee the coaches’ engagement in the training program and that they changed their behavior to conform to the training program recommendations (i.e., fidelity).

Data analysis

To test the effect of the intervention program on athletes’ perceptions, we used the SPSS 23.0 software.⁴¹ First, the descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of each variable at baseline and post-program were calculated according to the groups to which the athletes belonged. Then, to calculate the main effect of the interaction, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each dependent variable in the study, with Group and Time as factors. The data were treated as a two-level model, given the clustering of athletes within teams.⁴² For each analysis, we estimated seven effect: four fixed effects (Intercept, Group, Time, and GroupTime) and three random effects (within-team variability, between-team intercept variability, and between-team slope variability). Repeated measures were treated with an Autoregressive Homogeneous (AR1) covariance structure, Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) was used as an estimation method, and random effects were analyzed with diagonal covariance types and a Wald test.⁴³

Results

Preliminary analysis

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of all the variables. At baseline, all values were close to the highest score of each scale, and we underline the enjoyment and athlete-perceived character-building coaching competency, respectively. At post-program, again, all scores were high, but lower than at baseline (except for motivation competency), with the enjoyment and character-building coaching competencies considered the most valued. The Cronbach internal reliability coefficients of all scales/subscales were satisfactory at baseline (alpha ranging from .71–.86) and at post-program (.70–.87) with all values above .70.⁴⁴

Table 2.
Descriptive statistics and baseline and post-program reliability.

Baseline
Post-program

Variables M (SD) α M (SD) α

Coaching Competency

1. Motivation 4.00 (1.28) .71 4.00 (1.19) .70

2. Game strategy 3.90 (1.25) .78 3.70 (1.30) .81

3. Technique 3.94 (1.19) .82 3.92 (1.04) .82

4. Character building 4.17 (0.89) .75 4.13 (0.98) .74

Satisfaction with the coach 4.14 (1.03) .86 3.87 (1.30) .87

Enjoyment 4.37 (0.68) .72 4.22 (0.86) .80

Intention to persist 3.85 (0.51) – 3.77 (0.61) –

Regarding the correlational analysis (see Table 3), at baseline, all variables were positively related. Specifically, the four athlete-perceived coaching competency dimensions were related to players’ satisfaction with the coach, enjoyment, and intention to persist. In addition, these three variables were positively associated to each other. At post-program, the four athlete-perceived coaching competency subscales were positively related to players’ satisfaction with the coach and enjoyment, whereas only the game strategy and technique coaching competencies were positively associated with the intention to persist. A nonsignificant relationship was also found between players’ satisfaction with the coach and intention to persist. Finally, enjoyment and intention to persist were positively correlated.

Table 3.
Correlations baseline (above the diagonal) and post-program (below the diagonal) of the all variables of the study.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Coaching Competency

1. Motivation – .73 .75 .76 .46 .24^ .26

2. Game Strategy .73 – .77 .76 .65 .30 .22^*

3. Technique .72 .82 – .76 .45 .27** .24^*

4. Character Building .65 .63 .69 – .50 .30 .27

5. Satisfaction with the Coach .31 .34 .41** .19^* – .30** .19^*

6. Enjoyment .39 .36 .50 .48 .32 – .35

7. Intention to persist .14 .22^* .30 .14 .17 .35 –

Note: *p < .05. **p < .001.

Main analysis

Before implementing mixed models, a series of unconditional models (intercept only) for each variable under investigation were tested to examine possible between-group variations.⁴² This parameter is a quantification of the degree of between-group variability compared with the variability between athletes of the same team and therefore, it shows the degree of differences in the outcome between Level 2 units.⁴⁵ Because the intercepts vary significantly across teams in all the dependent variables (1.46 < Wald Z < 4.43, p < .01), the development of a multilevel model was warranted.⁴³

Table 4 presents the scores obtained in the analysis of variance for each dependent variable. The first column (i.e., intercept) refers to the estimation of CG at baseline, and significant values mean that the estimation is significantly different from zero (p < .001). The second column (i.e., Group) is the estimation of EG at baseline when compared to the CG, that is, it represents the differences between EG and CG at baseline. The third column (i.e., Time) represents the slope for the CG, whereas the fourth column (GroupTime interaction) represents the comparison between slopes shown by CG and EG, that is, it allows testing the effect of the intervention by comparing the EG and CG.

Table 4.
Results of mixed repeated-measures ANOVA in all variables.

Fixed effects
Pairwise comparisons
Random effects

Control
Experimental
Within-Team
Between-Team

Intercept Group Time GroupTime Mean differences Mean differences Intercept Intercept Slope

Motivation Comp. 4.08 –0.21 –0.10 0.27 –0.10 0.16 0.33 (0.04) 0.29 (0.07) 0.01 (0.02)

Game Strategy Comp. 3.97 –0.15 –0.34** 0.34* –0.34 0.00 0.32 (0.05) 0.40 (0.08) 0.04 (0.03)

Technique Comp. 4.11 –0.36* –0.16 0.33* –0.16 0.17 0.37 (0.05) 0.26 (0.07) 0.06 (0.05)

Character-Building Comp. 4.29** –0.26 –0.27* 0.51** –0.27* 0.24* 0.34 (0.05) 0.23 (.06) 0.03 (0.03)

Satisfaction with the Coach 4.20 –0.15 –0.17 –0.06 –0.17 –0.19 1.21 (0.17) 0.32 (0.15) 0.18 (0.12)

Enjoyment 4.43 –0.08 –0.34 0.38 –0.34 0.04 0.26 (0.04) 0.11 (0.04) 0.01 (0.01)

Intention to Persist 3.89 –0.04 –0.17 0.15 –0.17* –0.01 0.15 (0.02) 0.15 (.03) 0.01 (0.02)

Note: **p < .01. p < .05. Comp. = competency.

Coaching competency. At baseline, only between-group significant differences were found for technique competency, where athletes belonging to the CG scored 4.11, whereas athletes belonging to the EG showed significantly lower scores at baseline (4.11 – 0.36 = 3.75; p < .05). Regarding the time effects, participants belonging to the CG significantly decreased game strategy and character-building competencies over time. Furthermore, the GroupTime effects were significant for game strategy, technique, and character-building competencies. That is, the intervention was effective in the EG for these variables when compared to the CG. Analyzing mean differences for each group, participants belonging to the CG decreased all types of coaching competencies over time (between –0.10 and –0.34), whereas participants belonging to the EG increased motivation, technique, and character-building competencies (between 0.16 and 0.24) and they maintained their scores for game strategy competency over time.

Satisfaction with the coach. At baseline, the groups did not differ in satisfaction with the coach (CG = 4.20; EG = 4.20 – 0.15 = 4.05; p > .05). Participants belonging to the CG decreased their satisfaction with the coach from 4.20 to 4.03 over time, although this difference was not significant. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the slopes for CG and EG (β_CG = –0.17; β_EG = –0.19; p > .05).

Enjoyment. At baseline, the groups did not differ in enjoyment (CG = 4.43; EG = 4.20 – 0.08 = 4.12; p > .05). Participants belonging to the CG significantly decreased enjoyment over time (baseline = 4.43; post-program = 4.43 – 0.34 = 4.09; p < .05). Furthermore, the slope for CG was significantly different when compared to the EG (β_CG = –0.34; β_EG = 0.04; p < .05).

Intention to persist. CG and EG did not differ in their intention to persist at baseline (CG = 3.89; EG = 3.89 –0.04 = 3.85; p > .05). Participants belonging to the CG decreased their satisfaction with the coach from 3.89 to 3.72 over time, although this difference was not significant. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the slopes for CG and EG (β_CG = –0.17; β_EG = –0.01; p > .05).

Regarding the random effects, we estimated intercept differences within teams (i.e., the variability of the dependent variable scores between players on the same teams), intercept differences between teams (i.e., the variability of the dependent variable scores between teams), and slope differences between teams (i.e., the variability of the slopes for the dependent variable between teams). Table 4 also displays how the intercepts for all the variables showed significant within-team and between-team variability. However, there were no significant between-team variability in the slopes for any of the dependent variables.

Discussion

The main aim of this study was to analyze the effect of an intervention program focused on coaching effectiveness with respect to athlete-perceived coaching competency, athletes’ satisfaction with the coach, enjoyment, and intention to persist. After the intervention, despite pool data reported from all the participants (see Table 2) shows static or decreasing mean scores in which a “j effect” could account for all those changes, the results showed a positive trend in favor of the EG when compared with the CG, despite the fact that some values decreased in both groups.

Specifically, and in accordance with our hypothesis, the intervention program produced significant changes in EG players’ perception of the game strategy, technique, and character-building competencies compared with the CG players. In addition, all four athlete-perceived coaching competency factors decreased over time in the CG players (significantly for game strategy competency and character-building competency). Related to the current study, González-Ponce et al.²⁰ reported that athlete-perceived coaching competency decreased throughout the season but, in this study, all four coaching competency factors increased or else maintained their scores in the EG players after the training program. In other words, the communicative and structure strategies taught to the coaches to motivate, correct technical and tactical errors, and build the character of their soccer players led to greater athlete-perceived coaching competency. Thus, although several studies have found that some group dynamics variables (i.e., role clarity, team cohesion and collective efficacy) deteriorate over the season from the players’ perspective,⁴⁶ the intervention program observed no decrease in athlete-perceived coaching competency, as found in previous research.²⁰ More specifically, no changes in athlete-perceived motivation competency were found after the intervention. This may be due to the fact that motivational coaching is influenced by the top-down effect between motivation at the contextual and situational levels proposed by Vallerand,⁴⁷ for example, the players’ level of self-determined motivation. If players’ practice is externally motivated—for instance, the initial aims at the beginning of the season are not achieved—, this may explain why the coach could not improve baseline were high in all the coaching competency variables, so a tendency to maintain these values can be considered positive.

However, according to the results in players’ satisfaction with the coach, both EG and CG players reported a decrease after the intervention. Although both groups showed lower perceptions at post-program, the scores obtained at baseline were considerably higher. As suggested by González-Ponce et al.,²⁰ a general deterioration in the coach-athlete relationship occurs throughout the season. In addition, other aspects of the coaching context, such as opportunities for personal development, job security, work-life conflict, and club pressures to achieve the proposed objectives⁴⁸ or situational factors (e.g., losing the last match), could also emerge and determine players’ satisfaction with the coach during the season.

On the other hand, a positive impact on players’ enjoyment after the intervention was obtained. This variable may be closely related to intrinsic motivation. In this line, Reynders et al.¹² found an increase of autonomous motivation levels in EG athletes. In addition, taking into account that no significance differences in coaching motivation competency were found, it can be considered that the methodological and motivational strategies developed during the training program increased the players’ enjoyment. So, despite the fact that the players did not perceive their coaches as more competent to motivate them, they found that the training tasks or soccer practice were more enjoyable. This variable may be a key aspect for a player to decide to devote time to performing an activity, developing more self-determined motivation and greater adherence to its practice.¹¹ However, according to the changes produced in the intention to persist, the key may not always be to try to increase the variables, but to provide means for these values recorded at the initial measure to be maintained during the season and also in the following ones. This is also related to the work of Pulido et al.¹¹ in which autonomous motivation decreased in both groups. However, the decrease was less pronounced for the EG, which maintained values slightly below the initial ones. Thus, interventions with coaches could make this decline more gradual or maintain the initial values over time with oscillations.

Strengths, limitations of the study, and future lines of research

The main strength of this study is the development of an intervention program with a quasi-experimental design (control and experimental group) where changes in athlete-perceived coaching competency, players’ satisfaction with the coach, enjoyment and intention to persist were analyzed. To our knowledge, these variables had not been previously analyzed in a sports context after the application of an intervention program. The variables analyzed are dynamic, and prior research has shown how they decrease throughout the season, but this intervention program maintained the values over time, and some even increased their scores, with the exception of satisfaction with the coach. In addition, it should be noted that this program was followed up for six weeks to verify that the strategies taught to the coaches were being carried out correctly.

Although this novel research revealed a series of benefits in the EG with respect to the CG after the intervention program, it is not without limitations. Firstly, there were few study participants, four teams in the EG and four teams in the CG. In this sense, as it is a quasi-experimental design, we did not have access to all the teams to be able to implement the intervention with the coach and follow up by continuing to record and analyze their training sessions. Secondly, a follow-up evaluation was not carried out after the end of the extinction period to corroborate the long-term effect of the intervention program. However, all training sessions were recorded to analyze what competencies the coaches really developed. Moreover, despite that the rest of the scales employed follow a multi-item structure, athletes’ intention to persist in sports was analyzed by a single item. Finally, another limitation of the current study is that it included only male athletes.

As a future prospect, it would be interesting to develop this intervention program in teams of different levels of training as well as in the performance of both male and female teams and coaches. It would also be appropriate to check whether the intervention program also produces benefits in other collective sports. In other words, future research might be needed to identify which components of the program were most effective and which ones were not. On the other hand, as a future line of research, it would be interesting to use mixed methodology, including both the qualitative and quantitative approach to research, in order to obtain more information about the benefits of the intervention program.

Conclusion

The findings of this study provide some evidence of the effects of intervention programs with young soccer players to improve or maintain relevant variables for physical activity. Due to the high values registered at baseline, it would be advisable to carry out initial measurements and detect which teams really need intervention programs of this type to optimize motivational variables. However, this type of program is also effective in maintaining over time optimal levels of variables that are related to practice adherence. Therefore, we must take into account that the age range for this study encompassed young athletes whose age ranged from 10 to 16 years. Potentially, there could be a developmental confusion in the sense that younger players may need/want different coach behaviors than older players. Finally, interventions with young athletes are necessary to reduce dropout rates and to change the purely competitive and non-educational/formative approach to sports are sometimes taught at these ages.

	Baseline	Post-program
Coaching Competency
1. Motivation	4.00 (1.28)	.71	4.00 (1.19)	.70
2. Game strategy	3.90 (1.25)	.78	3.70 (1.30)	.81
3. Technique	3.94 (1.19)	.82	3.92 (1.04)	.82
4. Character building	4.17 (0.89)	.75	4.13 (0.98)	.74
Satisfaction with the coach	4.14 (1.03)	.86	3.87 (1.30)	.87
Enjoyment	4.37 (0.68)	.72	4.22 (0.86)	.80
Intention to persist	3.85 (0.51)	–	3.77 (0.61)	–

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Coaching Competency
1. Motivation	–	.73**	.75**	.76**	.46**	.24^*	.26**
2. Game Strategy	.73**	–	.77**	.76**	.65**	.30**	.22^*
3. Technique	.72**	.82**	–	.76**	.45**	.27**	.24^*
4. Character Building	.65**	.63**	.69**	–	.50**	.30**	.27**
5. Satisfaction with the Coach	.31**	.34**	.41**	.19^*	–	.30**	.19^*
6. Enjoyment	.39**	.36**	.50**	.48**	.32**	–	.35**
7. Intention to persist	.14	.22^*	.30**	.14	.17	.35**	–


Motivation Comp.	4.08**	–0.21	–0.10	0.27	–0.10	0.16	0.33 (0.04)**	0.29 (0.07)**	0.01 (0.02)
Game Strategy Comp.	3.97**	–0.15	–0.34**	0.34*	–0.34**	0.00	0.32 (0.05)**	0.40 (0.08)**	0.04 (0.03)
Technique Comp.	4.11**	–0.36*	–0.16	0.33*	–0.16	0.17	0.37 (0.05)**	0.26 (0.07)**	0.06 (0.05)
Character-Building Comp.	4.29**	–0.26	–0.27*	0.51**	–0.27*	0.24*	0.34 (0.05)**	0.23 (.06)**	0.03 (0.03)
Satisfaction with the Coach	4.20**	–0.15	–0.17	–0.06	–0.17	–0.19	1.21 (0.17)**	0.32 (0.15)**	0.18 (0.12)
Enjoyment	4.43**	–0.08	–0.34**	0.38**	–0.34**	0.04	0.26 (0.04)**	0.11 (0.04)**	0.01 (0.01)
Intention to Persist	3.89**	–0.04	–0.17	0.15	–0.17*	–0.01	0.15 (0.02)**	0.15 (.03)**	0.01 (0.02)

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded with support from the European Social Fund and Government of Extremadura, Spain (PO17012).

ORCID iDs

Juan J Pulido

Francisco M Leo

References

Langdon

Schlote

Harris

, et al. Effects of a training program to enhance autonomy supportive behaviors among youth soccer coaches. J Hum Sport Exerc 2015; 10: 1–14.

Horn

TS.

Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In: Horn TS (ed.) Advances in sport psychology. 2nd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2002, pp.309–354.

Barnett

Smoll

Smith

RE.

Effects of enhancing coach-athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. Sport Psychol 1992; 6: 111–127. 10.

Smith

Smoll

Curtis

Coach effectiveness training: a cognitive-behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. J Sport Psychol 1979; 1: 59–75.

Smoll

Smith

Barnett

, et al. Enhancement of children’s self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78: 602–610.

Deci

Ryan

RM.

The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 2000; 11: 227–268.

Ames

Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In: Roberts

(ed.) Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1992, pp.161–176.

Nicholls

JG.

The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Duda

JL.

The conceptual and empirical foundations of empowering coaching™: setting the stage for the PAPA project. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2013; 11: 311–318.

10.

Appleton

Duda

JL.

Examining the interactive effects of coach-created empowering and disempowering climate dimensions on athletes’ health and functioning. Psychol Sport Exerc 2016; 26: 61–70.

11.

Pulido

Sánchez-Oliva

Leo

, et al. Effects of an interpersonal style intervention for coaches on young soccer players’ motivational processes. J Hum Kinet 2017; 59: 107–120.

12.

Reynders

Vansteenkiste

Van Puyenbroeck

, et al. Coaching the coach: intervention effects on need-supportive coaching behavior and athlete motivation and engagement. Psychol Sport Exerc 2019; 43: 288–300.

13.

Smith

Smoll

FL.

Psychosocial interventions in youth sports. In: Van JL and Brewer BW (eds) Exploring sport and exercise psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1996, pp.287–315.

14.

Smoll

Smith

Cumming

SP.

Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on changes in young athletes’ achievement goal orientations. J Clin Sport Psychol 2007; 1: 23–46.

15.

Conroy

Coatsworth

JD.

Coach training as a strategy for promoting youth social development. Sport Psychol 2006; 20: 128–144.

16.

Myers

Chase

Beauchamp

, et al. Athletes’ perceptions of coaching competency scale II-high school teams. Educ Psychol Meas 2010; 70: 477–494.

17.

Myers

Feltz

Maier

, et al. Athletes’ evaluations of their head coach’s coaching competency. Res Q Exerc Sport 2006; 77: 111–121.

18.

Boardley

Kavussanu

Ring

Athletes’ perceptions of coaching effectiveness and athlete-related outcomes in rugby union: an investigation based on the coaching efficacy model. Sport Psychol 2008; 22: 269–287.

19.

Bosselut

Heuzé

Eys

, et al. Athletes’ perceptions of role ambiguity and coaching competency in sport teams: a multilevel analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 34: 345–364.

20.

González-Ponce

Leo

Jiménez

, et al. Athletes’ perceptions of coaching competency and team conflict in sport teams: a multilevel analysis. Eur J Sport Sci 2018; 18: 851–860.

21.

Kao

Tsai

CY.

Transformational leadership and athlete satisfaction: the mediating role of coaching competency. J Appl Sport Psychol 2016; 28: 469–482.

22.

Myers

Beauchamp

Chase

MA.

Coaching competency and satisfaction with the coach: a multi-level structural equation model. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 411–422.

23.

Langan

Blake

Lonsdale

Systematic review of the effectiveness of interpersonal coach education interventions on athlete outcomes. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013; 14: 37–49.

24.

Pulido

Sánchez-Oliva

Sánchez-Miguel

, et al. Sport commitment in young soccer players: a self-determination perspective. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2018; 13: 243–252.

25.

Matosic

Ntoumanis

Quested

Antecedents of need supportive and controlling interpersonal styles from a self-determination theory perspective: a review and implications for sport psychology research. In: Raab M, Wylleman P, Seiler R, et al. (eds) Sport and exercise psychology research: from theory to practice. Cambridge: Elsevier, 2016, pp.145–180.

26.

Rocchi

Pelletier

The antecedents of coaches’ interpersonal behaviors: the role of the coaching context, coaches’ psychological needs, and coaches’ motivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2017; 39: 366–378.

27.

Mageau

Vallerand

RJ.

The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational model. J Sports Sci 2003; 21: 883–904.

28.

Sheldon

Filak

Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: new evidence that all three needs matter. Br J Soc Psychol 2008; 47: 267–283.

29.

Sparks

Dimmock

Whipp

, et al. “ Getting connected”: high school physical education teacher behaviors that facilitate students’ relatedness support perceptions. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2015; 4: 219–236.

30.

Bartholomew

Ntoumanis

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

A review of controlling motivational strategies from a self-determination theory perspective: implications for sports coaches. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2009; 2: 215–233.

31.

Lavallee

Sheridan

Coffee

, et al. A social support intervention to reduce intentions to drop-out from youth sport: the GAA super games Centre. Psychosoc Interv 2019; 28: 11–17.

32.

González-Ponce

Jiménez

Leo

, et al. Validation into Spanish of the athletes’ perceptions of coaching competency scale. J Sport Pshychology 2017; 26: 95–103.

33.

González-Ponce

Jiménez

Leo

, et al. Relationship between athlethes’ perceptions of coach justice and satisfaction with the coach: validation of the satisfaction with the coach questionnaire. In: II international congress of optimization training and sport physical rehabilitation, Sevilla, Spain, 14-16 May 2015.

34.

Baena

Granero-Gallegos

Bracho-Amador

, et al. Spanish version of the sport satisfaction instrument (SSI) adapted to physical education. Rev Psicodidact 2012; 17: 377–396.

35.

Balaguer

Atienza

Castillo

, et al. Factorial structure of measures of satisfaction/interest in sport and classroom in the case of Spanish adolescents. In: Abstracts of 4th European conference of psychological assessment, Lisbon: Portugal, 1997, p.76.

36.

Duda

Nicholls

JG.

Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. J Educ Psichol 1992; 84: 290–299.

37.

Pulido

Sanchez-Oliva

Amado

, et al. Influence of motivational processes on enjoyment, boredom and intention to persist in young sportspersons. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreat 2014; 36: 135–149.

38.

García-Calvo

Sánchez-Oliva

Leo

, et al. Effects of an intervention programme with teachers on the development of positive behaviours in Spanish physical education classes. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog 2016; 21: 572–588.

39.

Sánchez-Oliva

Pulido

Leo

, et al. Effects of an intervention with teachers in the physical education context: a self-determination theory approach. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0189986.

40.

Jowett

Cockerill

IM.

Olympic medallists’ perspective of the althlete-coach relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc 2003; 4: 313–331.

41.

IBM Corp. Released. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. New York: IBM Corp, 2015.

42.

Singer

Willett

JB.

Survival analysis. In: Schinka JA and Velicer WF (eds) Handbook of psychology: research methods in psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2003, pp.555–580.

43.

Heck

Thomsa

Tabata

LN.

Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2014.

44.

Tabachnick

Fidell

LS.

Using multivariate statistics title: using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2007.

45.

Hox

Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2010.

46.

Leo

González-Ponce

Sánchez-Miguel

, et al. Role ambiguity, role conflict, team conflict, cohesion and collective efficacy in sport teams: a multilevel analysis. Psychol Sport Exerc 2015; 20: 60–66.

47.

Vallerand

RJ.

A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for sport and physical activity. In: Hagger MS and Chatzisarantis NLD (eds). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007, pp.255–279.

48.

Stebbings

Taylor

Spray

, et al. Antecedents of perceived coach interpersonal behaviors: the coaching environment and coach psychological well-and ill-being. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 34: 481–502.

Session 1 (lecture-type room) Contextualization and theoretical backgrounds
– Contextualization. The current role of soccer in our society and youth sport expectations.
– Knowledge about soccer: tactics, technical planning, strategy…
– Motivational theories: self-determination theory, coach-effectiveness training, achievement goal theory, and the model of the coach-athlete relationship
– Studies that have demonstrated the incidence of the coaching setting on several outcomes in youth sport.
Sessions 2 and 3 (lecture-type room) Methodological strategies
Strategy	Contents and guidelines
Leadership and coaching styles possibilities	Using coaching styles as a function of athletes’ personalities and situations
	Promoting players’ decision-making and self-supervision
	Encouraging initiative to participate
Promoting active listening	Promoting athletes’ engagement
	Information about the task goals (e.g., absence of “I have to")
	Improving communication skills
Giving players responsibility	Allowing the choice of some activities (e.g., warm-up)
	Taking the athletes perspective
Adapting the learning of the game	Individualizing the contents, proposing achievable challenges
	Achieving a balance between task difficulty and players’ abilities
	Allowing enough time to successfully complete the tasks
Importance of feedback and reinforcements	Giving positive feedback
	Private and meaningful assessment to improve in the sport
	Adequate communication
Promoting a positive influence on players	Respect towards the game, teammates, referees…
	Adopting exemplary behavior both within and outside the training context
	Developing a positive personality in the players
Adopting an empathic attitude	Being close, friendly and offering help
	Improving adequate communication
Proposing interdependent activities	Group dynamics, role playing, activities to promote trust, problem-solving
	Variability in the strategy to form groups.
Session 4 (indoor sports hall) Workshops
Role games	Adopting roles that exemplify behaviors to be performed in training sessions
	Assuming inappropriate behaviors not to be used in training sessions
Group dynamics and trust activities	Promoting the coaches’ own initiative (carrying out their proposal)
	Solving problems for coaching, improving social skills

	Baseline		Post-program
Variables	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	α
Coaching Competency
1. Motivation	4.00 (1.28)	.71	4.00 (1.19)	.70
2. Game strategy	3.90 (1.25)	.78	3.70 (1.30)	.81
3. Technique	3.94 (1.19)	.82	3.92 (1.04)	.82
4. Character building	4.17 (0.89)	.75	4.13 (0.98)	.74
Satisfaction with the coach	4.14 (1.03)	.86	3.87 (1.30)	.87
Enjoyment	4.37 (0.68)	.72	4.22 (0.86)	.80
Intention to persist	3.85 (0.51)	–	3.77 (0.61)	–


	Fixed effects				Pairwise comparisons		Random effects
					Control	Experimental	Within-Team	Between-Team
	Intercept	Group	Time	Group*Time	Mean differences	Mean differences	Intercept	Intercept	Slope
Motivation Comp.	4.08**	–0.21	–0.10	0.27	–0.10	0.16	0.33 (0.04)**	0.29 (0.07)**	0.01 (0.02)
Game Strategy Comp.	3.97**	–0.15	–0.34**	0.34*	–0.34**	0.00	0.32 (0.05)**	0.40 (0.08)**	0.04 (0.03)
Technique Comp.	4.11**	–0.36*	–0.16	0.33*	–0.16	0.17	0.37 (0.05)**	0.26 (0.07)**	0.06 (0.05)
Character-Building Comp.	4.29**	–0.26	–0.27*	0.51**	–0.27*	0.24*	0.34 (0.05)**	0.23 (.06)**	0.03 (0.03)
Satisfaction with the Coach	4.20**	–0.15	–0.17	–0.06	–0.17	–0.19	1.21 (0.17)**	0.32 (0.15)**	0.18 (0.12)
Enjoyment	4.43**	–0.08	–0.34**	0.38**	–0.34**	0.04	0.26 (0.04)**	0.11 (0.04)**	0.01 (0.01)
Intention to Persist	3.89**	–0.04	–0.17	0.15	–0.17*	–0.01	0.15 (0.02)**	0.15 (.03)**	0.01 (0.02)