Assessing gender essentialist beliefs towards youth athletes: Development and preliminary validation of the Gender Essentialist Beliefs Towards Girls in Sport Scale (GEGS)

Abstract

Despite evidence refuting the legitimacy of inherent and unchanging qualities and the existence of a gender sport continuum, a prevailing gender essentialist ideology persists among coaches. This ideology perpetuates the belief in a binary, hierarchical, and static structure of gender, which imparts higher cultural and social values to men's sport compared to women's and impacts girls’ development, participation, and enjoyment in sport. Some interventions have been proposed to address this issue; however, at present, no validated scale exists to assess intervention outcomes related to coaches’ gender essentialist beliefs. The aim of the current study was therefore to develop and validate the Gender Essentialist Beliefs Towards Girls in Sport Scale (GEGS), to assess gender essentialism among sport coaches. Content validity was judged by a panel of experts (N = 4) and through interviews with coaches (N = 5) across various sports and experience levels. Following initial item iteration, the GEGS was assessed with 633 coaches for reliability and validity. The final scale comprised 20 items and showed good reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, inter-item and item-total correlations), validity (convergent validity, differentiation between known groups), and factor structure. We also found partial support for the discriminant validity of the GEGS. Overall, the GEGS provides a valuable tool for addressing gender essentialism in sport coaching and informing coach education programs. Future research should further validate the scale and explore its sensitivity to change in gender essentialist beliefs over time.

Keywords

Cisgenderism sexual prejudice social dominance stereotypes transgender women

Introduction

Historically considered a masculine domain, girls and women are entering and engaging in sport in record numbers, allowing them to access the physical, social, and psychological benefits that sport provides.¹ While girls’ and women's inclusion and proven achievements in sport are beginning to challenge masculine hegemony, barriers for gender equity in sport persist. Although women athletes have proven their athletic excellence and capabilities within sport environments, girls and women drop out at higher rates than boys and men, and participate less compared to boys and men.^1–3 Gender diverse and transgender athletes also find themselves excluded, marginalized, and invalidated in essentialist, binary, and sex-segregated sport environments.^4,5 A significant reason for higher dropout, lower participation rates, and general inequalities among girls and women in sport are due, in part, to gender essentialist viewpoints imbued within sport structures.^6–8 In particular, gender essentialist stereotypes espoused by sport coaches and other key social agents within sport often go unchecked and deeply harm girls’ and women's sports experiences, contributing to their departure from sports.^6,7,9,10 The purpose of this study was therefore to develop and validate a tool to accurately measure levels of gender essentialism among sport coaches.

Gender essentialism in sport

Essentialism is the philosophical belief that things, including people or categories, such as men and women, have a particular inherent or fixed “essence” that define what they fundamentally are and naturally unifies its members and gives rise to specific characteristics. According to essentialism, the immutable essence determines the behavior, attributes, and identity of an entity or group that are seen as natural, universal, and unchanging.¹¹ Gender essentialism is a commonplace and pervasive gender ideology, which posits that gender is a binary, immutable, hierarchical, and static structure, wherein women and men have distinct and separate qualities, characteristics, and abilities. This perspective assumes that gender differences are innate, fixed, and universal, rather than shaped by cultural, social, or environmental influences. According to gender essentialism, women and men are naturally suited for distinct roles in society, often reinforcing traditional gender roles.^7,12,13 Essentialist beliefs prevail, despite evidence from scholars in psychology, neuroscience, and gender studies who refute the legitimacy of inherent and unchanging qualities and argue the existence of a gender sport continuum in which women and men's athletic abilities overlap due to both physical and social factors.^3,13,14 Nonetheless, a sex-segregated sport system, which permeates essentialist stereotypes imparting higher cultural and social values to men's sport compared to women's, persists.^15,16

In sport, gender essentialism manifests through beliefs of men's athletic superiority compared to women, men's greater suitability for sport leadership positions, and stereotypes of women and men in sport.^6,7,10,15 Gender essentialist stereotypes can also limit athlete choices, experiences, and participation in particular sports through gendered sport typing, where girls are encouraged to engage in sports that are viewed as feminized and socially acceptable, and avoid sports that are perceived as masculine.^17,18 Essentialism can have negative consequences on athletes’ sports experiences, such as stereotype threat, discrimination, lower enjoyment, dropout, and poor mental health.^8,12,19,20 Essentialist beliefs also serve to justify gender inequality, erase diversity of athlete experiences, and invalidate the identities of gender diverse and transgender athletes.^4,6,7,21 Although gender essentialism has negative impacts on boys and men in sport, through imposition of narrow standards of idealized masculine performance, essentialist stereotypes have particularly high negative effects on girls’ experiences in sport and contribute to their sport dropout.^7,8,22

The role of coaches

Sport coaches deeply impact athletes’ experiences in sport, including athletes’ mental health, body image, and retention in sport.^23–26 Coaches are also powerful mediators of societal gender norms and hierarchies in sport. Research on coach discourses has uncovered how coaches often perceive girls and women in sport through gender essentialist lenses, which in turn perpetuate stereotypes of girls and women as emotional, non-competitive, and inferior athletes compared to boys and men.^9,10,27–29 For instance, youth sport coaches often view girls as socially, physically, and psychologically different and deficient compared to boys in sport.¹⁰ Coaches’ gender essentialist beliefs can impact their ability to effectively support women athletes’ development, success, and sports enjoyment.^29,30 Specifically, gender essentialist coaching practices can limit girls’ potential in sport, protect unequal treatment of girls and boys in sport, police the gender performance of those who are viewed as not gender compliant, position girls as deviant to masculine standards, and uphold the hegemony of White, heterosexual, cisgender femininity in sport at the expense of racially diverse, non-cisgender, or non-heterosexual athletes.^2,6,15,27,31

Despite the risks associated with gender essentialist viewpoints on girls’ and women's sports experiences, education and tools to identify and dismantle essentialist and stereotypical coaching practices are limited.^10,26,29,30 Coaches are often unaware and uneducated on topics related to gender and social justice, which allows biases to go undetected and continue to negatively impact athletes.^23,32,33 Within gender studies and psychology research, validated measures to assess gender essentialist beliefs in society exist, such as the Gender Essentialism Scale (GES) and the Gender Essentialism Measure.^12,21 However, no sport-specific tool to assess gender essentialist biases currently exists, as these scales measure gender essentialism in general social environments and political contexts (e.g., “Mothers are naturally more sensitive to a baby's feelings than fathers are”¹²; “Men are naturally more suited for leadership roles than women”²¹). Current GESs are inadequate to assess gender essentialism in sport contexts, given that sport structures are uniquely positioned as highly masculine-dominated, separated by sex-segregation, rife with biological assumptions of athleticism and sport ability, and historically inaccessible to girls and women. The GES and the Gender Essentialism Measure thus fail to capture the specific intricacies of sport contexts.^12,21 Therefore, a research gap exists relating to a gender essentialism measure in sport. A sport-specific assessment of gender essentialism is necessary to identify gender essentialist beliefs in sport coaching at a variety of levels and environments, detect the extent to which coaches may perpetuate gender biases and stereotypes, and examine the effectiveness of potential educational tools seeking to address and correct gender essentialism in sport structures.^3,7,9,15

The current study

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Gender Essentialist Beliefs Towards Girls in Sport Scale (GEGS), which measures levels of coaches’ gender essentialist beliefs towards girls in sport-specific environments. The creation and validation of this scale aims to provide a rigorously tested, evidence-based tool to detect essentialist gender biases about girls among sport coaches, which can subsequently help address how coach development programs can begin to dismantle gender stereotypes, retain girls in sport, and improve environments for not just girls, but for all athletes.

Materials and methods

Study design

A combination of research methods was employed to develop and validate the GEGS. Recent recommendations for developing and validating the new scale, as well as when reporting the study findings were followed.^31,34 During the development phase (Phase 1), qualitative data were collected through expert input and cognitive interviews. In the testing phase (Phase 2), quantitative data were obtained via online surveys. The University of Minnesota – Twin Cities Institutional Review Board approved all procedures (ref no. STUDY00017483). Refer to Figure 1 for details on procedures, participant recruitment, and attrition.

Figure 1.

Study procedures, recruitment, and attrition.

Phase 1: development of scale items

Item development

The development of the initial scale items occurred in four stages. First, we drew from other existing measures on gender, sex, and sexuality to compile a list of items that were potentially relevant to the GEGS (see Appendix A, Supplementary Materials). All items were modified/adapted to the sports context, specifically for youth athletes (i.e., boys and girls). Second, we conducted a thorough review of the existing literature on gender in sport, to extract additional items relevant to this domain. Third, several items were included based on the expertise of the core research team, comprising seasoned researchers in gender, sport psychology, and coaching science, some of whom have personal experiences as athletes and coaches. Specifically, members of the research team have worked as coaches, coach educators, presenters at coaching conferences, and have conducted research on coach discourses about girls and women. This collective experience within the coaching realm inspired many of the items in the first iteration of the GEGS. Fourth, we ensured that items covered all dimensions of gender essentialism, specifically distinctiveness (e.g., “girls are less competitive than boys in sport”), naturalness (e.g., “boys are naturally stronger than girls”), and immutability (e.g., “differences between boys and girls in sport performance are largely determined by genetic predisposition”). The initial version of the GEGS consisted of 56 items, rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I Strongly Disagree) to 5 (I Strongly Agree). Importantly, we acknowledge that all items in the scale express essentialist viewpoints and conform to notions of a gender binary. Although the aim of the scale is to help identify and eradicate gender essentialist beliefs, most of sport is structured around a sex-segregated gender binary centered around gender essentialism.^7,15 Therefore, items were created that we believed would align with most coaches’ experiences, despite the risk, likelihood, and irony of the items reinforcing a gender essentialist perspective.

Expert reviews

Following the initial item generation, a diverse group of experts was assembled to evaluate the scale's content validity. Seven scholars spanning the fields of sport psychology, sport sociology, and sport management were identified and invited via email to assess the first draft of the GEGS. Feedback was received from four of the experts within the timeframe of this study (four women), who reviewed the initial 56-item scale. Following the expert reviews, 21 items were deleted due to irrelevance, lack of clarity, and being double-barreled and eight items were reworded or simplified. Moreover, two items were added related to transgender athletes, as expert reviewers highlighted the relation of gender essentialism to discrimination against transgender athletes. The scale post-expert feedback was comprised of 37 items.

Cognitive interviews

Cognitive interviewing assessed survey questions’ clarity and relevance with five youth and collegiate sport coaches who were recruited via convenience sampling. The sample comprised two female and three male coaches across basketball, softball, track and field, soccer, and tennis. One coach identified as Black, while four coaches identified as White. Coaches completed the scale before taking part in the interviews, followed by retrospective probing based on the Cognitive Model of Survey Response Process.^34,35 Interviews explored comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and response processes.

Following the cognitive interviews, an additional seven items were deleted due to being overly complex, not relevant to the coaches’ experiences, or lack of clarity. Additionally, scale completion instructions were simplified and clarified based on the coaches’ feedback and definitions were added for terms that may be confusing for some coaches, such as the differences between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’, as well as definitions of transgender woman and transgender man. Therefore, the final scale at the end of phase 1 comprised 30 items (Appendix B, Supplementary Materials).

Phase 2: testing the scale

Sampling

The sample size was predetermined based on prior recommendations, suggesting 200–300 respondents for factor analysis.^31,34–36 Participants were recruited through emails to various sports organizations and university newsletters. Inclusion criteria required participants to be over 18 years old, identify as a coach in any sport, and have coached at any level or age group within the past two years. Surveys were administered twice, one week apart (Time 1 and Time 2). Coaches did not receive financial compensation for taking part in the study.

Measures

Gender Essentialist Beliefs Towards Girls in Sport Scale (GEGS). The GEGS was developed for the purposes of this research. Participants rated 30 items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I Strongly Disagree) to 5 (I Strongly Agree). Example items included: “Girls are less competitive than boys in sports” and “Sports that are associated with grace and beauty are more appropriate for girls (e.g., dance, skating, gymnastics)”. Higher scores on the GEGS indicate greater gender essentialist beliefs towards girls in sport.

Gender Essentialism Scale (GES). The GES examines individuals’ gender essentialist beliefs,¹² comprises 25 items, and is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Example items include: “People tend to be either masculine or feminine: there's not much middle ground” and “Women and men are fundamentally different”. Higher scores on the GES indicate greater gender essentialist beliefs. The GES has shown good validity and reliability in previous research and in the current study (Cronbach's α= .903).^12,37 For the purposes of the current research, the GES was used as a measure of convergent validity.

Sexual Prejudice in Sport Scale (SPSS). The SPSS assesses attitudes toward lesbian women and gay men in sports.³⁸ It comprises 19 items and is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). The SPSS includes three subscales: (1) Open Rejection, which assesses the blatant prejudice expressed toward lesbian and gay (LG) people (e.g., “LG persons should not be allowed to be trainers/coaches”); (2) Denial of Visibility, which evaluates attitude toward the coming out of LG people (e.g., “I’d feel uncomfortable if LG athletes talked about their sexual orientation openly”); and (3) Gendering Performance, which corresponds to gender stereotypes about the performance/skills of LG people (e.g., “Gay men could not be strong in a combat sport”). Higher scores on the SPSS indicate greater sexual prejudice in sport. The SPSS has shown good validity and reliability in previous research and in the current study (Cronbach's α = .850).³⁸ For the purposes of the current research, the SPSS was used as a measure of discriminant validity.

Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDOS). The SDOS examines social dominance orientation, or the extent to which one desires that one's in-group dominate and be superior to out-groups and one's degree of preference for inequality among social groups.³⁹ It comprises 16 items and is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Negative) to 7 (Very Positive). Example items include: “To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups” and “It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom”. Higher scores on the SDOS indicate a higher degree of preference for inequality among social groups. The SDOS has shown good validity and reliability in previous research and in the current study (Cronbach's α = .892).^39,40

Demographic Information. We gathered the following demographic information: (1) age; (2) gender identity; (3) racial identity; (4) country (and state) of residence; (5) coaching tenure; (6) sport(s) coached; (7) coaching level; (8) athletes’ gender; (9) athletes’ age; and (10) information about previous training or education around gender or gender stereotypes.

Qualitative Feedback. At the end of the survey, we asked coaches the following question to gain additional feedback about the survey: “Do you have any other thoughts about this survey that you would like to share with us?”.

Data analyses

Data analyses were conducted in SPSS (version 27.0) and AMOS (version 28.0). Initially, analyses were performed to check for normality (skewness and kurtosis ≤ ± 2.58). All questionnaires (i.e., GEGS, GES, SPSS, SDOS) showed normal distributions. The dataset was randomly split into approximately equal halves for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the resultant factor structure.

Using recent guidelines for factor analysis^34,41 in order to ascertain the factor structure of the GEGS, initially, a parallel analysis was conducted using the rawpar.sps script developed by O’Connor.⁴² Based on permutations of the raw data, 1000 datasets were generated using a common factor analysis approach, indicating nine eigenvalues, or factors, from the raw data that were above the 95th percentile estimates created by the Monte Carlo simulation. Based on the results of the parallel analysis, an initial EFA was conducted using a Maximal Likelihood (ML) extraction method with Promax rotation and Kaiser normalization, specifying a nine-factor solution. However, in analyzing the results of the EFA, it became evident that five of the nine factors contained too few items (< 3), with one factor comprising only one item. Subsequently, an unrestricted EFA was conducted, considering the Guttman-Kaiser criterion (the number of eigenvalues above 1) and the scree plot to determine how many factors to retain.^34,40,43,44 The minimum factor loading criteria was set to .40.^12,31,34 The communality of the scale, which indicates the amount of variance in each dimension, was also assessed to ensure acceptable levels of explanation.³⁴

Subsequently, model fit was assessed via CFA. Relative and absolute fit indices of the models were computed to determine how many factors to retain and to assess the model fit to the data. The goodness of fit indices included the relative chi-square (χ²/df: values ≤ 3 and ≤ 2 indicate acceptable and good fit, respectively), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA 90% CI: values ≤ .08 and ≤ .06 indicate acceptable and good fit, respectively), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI: values ≥ .90 and ≥ .95 indicate acceptable and good fit, respectively), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI: values ≥ .90 and ≥ .95 indicate acceptable and good fit, respectively), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR: values ≤ .10 and ≤ .08 indicate acceptable and good fit, respectively).^34,41,45

Test-retest reliability was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient, to evaluate the stability of the scale from Time 1 to Time 2 (one week later); linear regression, to assess whether Time 1 scores on the GEGS predicted GEGS scores at Time 2; and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha (α ≥ .80 was considered acceptable) and adjusted and non-adjusted item-total correlations. Cohen's guidelines of small (r ≥ .10), moderate (r ≥ .30), and large (r ≥ .50) were used when interpreting correlations.^31,46 The ICC⁴⁷ measures the reliability or agreement between symmetrical measurements within a group.³⁴ ICC values range from 0 to 1, with values below 0.40 indicating poor agreement, 0.40–0.59 indicating fair to moderate agreement, 0.60–0.74 indicating good to very good agreement, and values above 0.75 indicating excellent agreement.^31,47

Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed by correlating the total score of the GEGS with the total score of the GES and the SPSS, respectively.^11,37 Convergent validity is evidenced by moderate to strong correlations of the total scores of scales that measure similar or related constructs, while discriminant validity is provided by small to moderate correlations between scores of scales that measure distinct constructs.³¹ We also explored the relationship between our scale and the SDOS, although no prior hypotheses were made for this relationship. Furthermore, we conducted a series of independent t-tests to assess differences in GEGS scores based on known groups, including coach gender (1 = male, 2 = female) and previous training on gender and/or gender stereotypes (1 = yes, 2 = no). Cohen's guidelines of small (d ≥ .20), medium (d ≥ .50), and large (d ≥ .80) were used when interpreting t-tests.⁴⁸ Finally, we conducted simple linear regression to predict GEGS scores based on coaches’ age.

Results

Participants

Participant recruitment yielded 820 responses. Responses were removed prior to analysis due to duplicate data (n = 17), failing the reCAPTCHA test (n = 9), response identified as fraudulent or bot (n = 26), missing data on primary outcome (n = 111), failing two or more attention checks (out of four; n = 19), and failing the consistency check (i.e., age and year of birth; n = 5), leaving 633 participants on the Time 1 survey. For the follow-up survey (Time 2), of the initial 240 responses, forty responses were removed due to duplicate data (n = 5), response identified as fraudulent or bot (n = 6), missing data on primary outcome (n = 11), and inability to match response to Time 1 data (n = 18).

The majority of participants in the final sample identified as women (n = 289, 53.7%), White (n = 443, 82.3%), and residing in the United States (US; n = 521, 97.0%). Participants ranged in age (18–81 years; M_age= 45.63, SD = 13.67 years) and coaching experience (0–54 years; M_experience= 19.05, SD = 12.38 years). Most coaches reported having received previous education or training on the topic of gender and/or gender stereotypes (n = 289, 54.4%). Participants worked across a wide range of sports including, but not limited to, yoga, wrestling, basketball, soccer, volleyball, softball, lacrosse, track and field, ultimate frisbee, fencing, cross country, cheer and dance, tennis, triathlon, swimming, sailing, rowing, running, skiing, baseball, rugby, golf, gymnastics, and ice hockey. The data were randomly split into two independent samples for EFA (sample 1; N = 320) and CFA (sample 2; N = 313). Follow-up data from the Time 2 survey were matched with the Time 1 survey for participants who completed both assessment time points (sample 3; N = 200). Full participant characteristics for each sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant demographics across study samples.

	Sample 1 (N = 320)		Sample 2 (N = 313)		Sample 3 (N = 200)
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Age (years)	45.33	13.30	45.95	14.06	45.74	14.14
Total tenure (years)	18.86	12.00	19.24	12.79	19.30	12.34
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender identity
Cisgender Man	112	35.0	119	38.0	84	42.0
Cisgender Woman	153	47.8	136	43.5	112	56.0
Non-binary	6	1.9	0.0	0.0	2	1.0
Prefer not to say	4	1.3	3	1.0	1	0.5
Prefer to self-describe	2	0.6	3	1.0	1	0.5
Missing data	43	13.4	52	16.6	0	0.0
Racial identity
Asian	7	2.2	10	3.2	4	2.0
Biracial or multiracial	8	2.5	3	1.0	5	2.5
Black	9	2.8	7	2.2	4	2.0
Caucasian/ White	226	70.6	217	69.3	173	86.5
Latino/a or Hispanic	13	4.1	11	3.5	7	3.5
Native American or Indigenous	3	0.9	2	0.6	1	0.5
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	1	0.3	1	0.3	1	0.5
Prefer not to say	7	2.2	3	1.0	3	1.5
Prefer to self-describe	3	0.9	7	2.2	2	1.0
Missing data	43	13.4	52	16.6	0	0.0
Country
Canada	1	0.3	3	1.0	2	1.0
Germany	1	0.3	0	0.0	0	0.0
Greece	1	0.3	0	0.0	0	0.0
Hong Kong	2	0.6	0	0.0	1	0.5
Hungary	0	0.0	1	0.3	0	0.0
Ireland	0	0.0	1	0.3	0	0.0
Netherlands	2	0.6	0	0.0	1	0.5
Sweden	1	0.3	0	0.0	0	0.0
United Kingdom	1	0.3	2	0.6	1	0.5
United States	268	83.8	253	80.8	195	97.5
Missing data	43	13.4	53	16.9	0	0.0
Athlete age
Children (0–10 years)	156	48.8	136	43.5	108	54.0
Adolescents (11–17 years)	252	78.8	237	75.7	187	93.5
Adults (18 + years)	157	49.1	140	44.7	117	58.5
Athlete gender
Women and/or girls	223	69.7	186	59.4	159	79.5
Men and/or boys	131	40.9	133	42.5	107	53.5
Co-ed	115	35.9	126	40.3	95	47.5
Competition level
Professional	12	3.8	12	3.8	4	2.0
Collegiate	57	17.8	40	12.8	34	17.0
High school	181	56.6	188	60.1	147	73.5
Club or travel	88	27.5	63	20.1	56	28.0
Recreational	50	15.6	48	15.3	28	14.0
Youth	81	25.3	65	20.8	53	26.5
Previous training around gender or gender stereotypes
Yes	137	42.8	152	48.6	118	59.0
No	107	33.4	78	24.9	57	28.5
Unsure	30	9.4	27	8.6	25	12.5
Missing data	46	14.4	56	17.9	0	0.0

Factor structure and invariance

Exploratory factor analysis

Results of the unrestricted EFA indicated that all communalities were above .40 and there was no cross-loading of items. The size of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .850) revealed that the GEGS items had adequate common variance for factor analysis, and the significance of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, χ²(n = 276) = 2749.719, p < .001, indicated that the correlation matrix was factorable.⁴⁶ The factor solution derived from this analysis yielded seven factors, which accounted for 51.20% of the variation in the data (factor 1 = 10.22%; factor 2 = 17.92%; factor 3 = 8.69%; factor 4 = 4.61%; factor 5 = 3.76%; factor 6 = 3.49%; factor 7 = 2.51%). However, seven items failed to load onto any dimension significantly and were removed from further analysis one by one (items 4, 5, 14, 17, 22, 25, 28). EFA was repeated after excluding these items, showing a seven-factor structure (KMO = .851) that explained a total of 52.71% of the variance among the items (factor 1 = 10.51%; factor 2 = 18.42%; factor 3 = 8.96%; factor 4 = 4.71%; factor 5 = 3.92%; factor 6 = 3.64%; factor 7 = 2.53%). Bartlett's Test of Sphericity proved to be significant, χ²(n = 253) = 2683.091, p < .001, and all communalities were over the required value of .40. All eigenvalues were over the required criterion of 1 (factor 1 = 6.527; factor 2 = 2.220; factor 3 = 1.569; factor 4 = 1.519; factor 5 = 1.187; factor 6 = 1.043; factor 7 = 1.014).

However, several factors contained a relatively low number of items. Researchers have recommended an absolute minimum of three items per factor to allow for further exploration through CFA and at least five items for future measurement tools.³⁴ This is because factors with only two or three items may encounter identification issues in CFA due to overidentified models. In the current iteration of the GEGS, only factor 1 comprised five items, factors 2 and 5 comprised four items, factors 6 and 7 comprised three items, and factors 3 and 4 comprised two items each. Therefore, in line with these recommendations and previous scales assessing similar constructs, we opted to proceed with a single-factor solution.^12,34 This solution aligns with theoretical considerations related to gender essentialism as a complex phenomenon in sport and with other validated scales that examine gender essentialism in other contexts.^6,7,12 Similar to Skewes et al., a single-factor solution reflects the GEGS's ability to capture a coherence of gender essentialism in the sport context and sport coaches’ views of girls in sport.¹² A single-factor solution further aligns with the principles of parsimony and interpretability, allowing for a simplified interpretation of the construct being assessed.³⁴ The full scale post-EFA showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .892) and consisted of 23 items. A summary of the EFA results is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Exploratory factor analysis summary.

	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5	Factor 6	Factor 7	Communalities
GESS_1	.010	−.065	−.004	−.022	.038	.639	−.005	.378
GESS_2	−.134	.365	.112	−.047	.036	.424	.031	.460
GESS_3	.040	−.008	−.021	−.021	−.086	.812	−.065	.581
GESS_6	.007	.434	−.040	.047	.105	.181	.030	.373
GESS_7	−.088	.920	−.067	.008	−.045	−.147	.146	.745
GESS_8	.049	−.059	−.027	.004	.291	.021	.624	.615
GESS_9	.235	−.041	.099	.061	.064	.069	.589	.716
GESS_10	.143	.409	.206	.026	−.091	−.077	.208	.459
GESS_11	.053	.187	−.043	−.112	−.001	−.108	.433	.256
GESS_12	−.168	−.049	−.020	.045	.539	−.019	.094	.248
GESS_13	.068	.629	−.025	.020	−.021	.055	−.112	.396
GESS_15	.548	−.021	−.067	−.019	−.154	.023	.328	.465
GESS_16	−.200	−.012	−.096	−.016	.528	−.002	.265	.316
GESS_18	.738	−.013	−.062	−.023	−.045	.033	.009	.499
GESS_19	.798	−.065	−.004	.025	−.054	−.040	.027	.565
GESS_20	.705	.162	−.055	.012	.030	−.035	−.056	.558
GESS_21	.586	−.067	.073	−.013	−.037	.057	.081	.403
GESS_23	.280	.119	.073	−.076	.487	−.007	−.140	.451
GESS_24	.206	−.033	.042	.023	.621	−.037	−.056	.505
GESS_26	−.009	−.054	1.024	−.011	−.027	−.097	−.025	.903
GESS_27	−.071	.020	.670	.020	−.009	.150	.001	.549
GESS_29	.087	.006	−.054	.660	−.011	.252	−.023	.684
GESS_30	−.050	.028	.030	1.067	.024	−.136	−.056	.999

Confirmatory factor analysis

Thereafter, we performed CFA to confirm the 23-item solution. In the original CFA, three variables showed loadings < .40 (items 1, 11, and 12) and were therefore removed from the model. The subsequent model with 20 items was assessed, and initially showed poor model fit, χ²(170) = 1035.428, p < .001; χ²/df = 6.091; TLI = .585; CFI = .629; RMSEA = .128, p < .001; SRMR = .0960. After reviewing suggested modification indices, covariances were added between the item error terms. The revised model with modification indices showed good model fit, χ²(133) = 259.883, p < .001; χ²/df = 1.954; TLI = .922; CFI = .946; RMSEA = .055, p = .185; SRMR = .0528, and was therefore retained. All item loadings were strong, ranging from .40–.69 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Model and factor loadings for the GEGS.

Reliability

Reliability analyses showed high internal consistency for the 20-item GEGS (α = .883). Item-total correlations revealed significant positive correlations between each item and the total score (rs = .447–.699, p < .01), indicating that higher scores on individual items were associated with a higher total GEGS score. Adjusted item-total correlations revealed a similar pattern (rs = .379–.648, p < .01). Deletion of any one item resulted in marginally lower Cronbach's alpha values (αs = .873–.881). These findings suggest that each item contributes meaningfully to the overall construct measured by the GEGS, supporting its reliability. Further, Time 1 and Time 2 GEGS scores showed a large, significant correlation (r = .861, p < .01; ICC = 0.924, p < .001) and Time 1 scores predicted GEGS scores one week later, F(199) = 569.303, p < .001, R² = .742, indicating high test-retest reliability (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Range, means, standard deviations (SD), and Pearson's correlation coefficients for the GEGS, GES, SPSS, and SDOS at baseline (T1) and after one week (T2).

T1	Range	Mean^a	SD ^a	1	2	3	4	5	6	T2
1. GEGS	1–5	2.44	0.66							.861**
2. GES	1–5	2.68	0.57	.667**						.695**
3. SPSS DV	1–7	3.04	1.15	.408**	.495**					.489**
4. SPSS OR	1–7	1.81	0.59	.644**	.540**	.536**				.641**
5. SPSS GP	1–7	1.88	0.75	.674**	.559**	.463**	.726**			.672**
6. SPSS Total	1–7	1.91	0.66	.527**	.595**	.810**	.813**	.815**		.596**
7. SDOS	1–7	1.82	0.77	.420**	.507**	.439**	.498**	.485**	.575**	.494**

Note. ^aBased on the CFA sample (sample 2). GEGS = Gender Essentialist Beliefs Towards Girls in Sport Scale; GES = Gender Essentialism Scale; SPSS = Sexual Prejudice in Sport Scale; SPSS DV = Sexual Prejudice in Sport Scale – Denial of Visibility subscale; SPSS OR = Sexual Prejudice in Sport Scale – Open Rejection subscale; SPSS GP = Sexual Prejudice in Sport Scale – Gendering Performance subscale; SDOS = Social Dominance Orientation Scale.

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

Validity

Convergent and discriminant validity

A higher GEGS score was strongly associated with higher general gender essentialism as measured by the GES (r = .667, p < .01) with a strong effect, supporting convergent validity. With regards to discriminant validity, our hypothesis was partially supported as we found relatively strong correlations between the GEGS and sexual prejudice in sport as measured by the SPSS (r = .527, p < .01), particularly with the open rejection (r = .644, p < .01) and gendering performance subscales (r = .674, p < .01). Finally, we found moderate correlations between the GEGS and social dominance orientation as measured by the SDOS (r = .420, p < .01) (see Table 3). All correlations remained stable at Time 2 and were consistent across coach gender.

Differentiation by known groups

GEGS scores were significantly higher among male coaches (M = 2.64, SD = 0.55), compared to female coaches (M = 2.29, SD = 0.65), t(253) = 4.622, p < .001, d = .60. Further, coaches who had received previous training on gender and/or gender stereotypes reported lower GEGS scores (M = 2.36, SD = 0.64), compared to coaches with no previous training (M = 2.55, SD = 0.64), t(228) = –2.085, p = .019, d = .64. Coach age did not predict total GEGS score, F(258) = 2.148, p = .077, R² = .012.

Discussion

The current study describes the development and validation of the GEGS, which assesses levels of gender essentialism among sport coaches. The GEGS provides a novel contribution to the literature on gender essentialism in sport, which has highlighted the prevalence of gender essentialism as a structuring element of sport. Further, the GEGS complements existing measures of gender essentialism outside of sport contexts and extends measurement within the context of sport.^3,6,11,20 Sport coaching, practices, discourses, and methodologies are shaped by gender essentialist perspectives and this new measure allows for coaches and sport stakeholders to identify areas in which gender essentialist beliefs are most prevalent.^7,10

The GEGS was developed based on recent guidelines for scale development and validation.^31,34 The 20-item scale showed good reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, item-total correlations), validity (convergent validity, differentiation between known groups), and factor loadings. Convergent validity was established by correlating the GEGS with general gender essentialism, as measured by the GES.¹² A higher score on the GEGS was related to higher general gender essentialism in the current sample. This finding provides preliminary support for the ability of the GEGS to tap into the construct of gender essentialism; however, the GEGS is unique in that it captures essentialism within the sport context, unlike the GES. Furthermore, the association between gender essentialism in sport and general gender essentialism suggests that coaches who have gender essentialist tendencies in general are also more likely to bring such attitudes to a sport setting.

We also found partial support for discriminant validity, as the GEGS showed relatively strong positive correlations with sexual prejudice, as measured via the SPSS.³⁸ Although discriminant validity is usually evidenced by low correlations between scores,³¹ moderate to strong correlations (e.g., .40 or .50) can be more meaningful when they show the scale can effectively differentiate closely related traits.³⁴ Therefore, these findings need to be interpreted in light of several considerations. First, no gold-standard measure of discriminant validity currently exists for the GEGS. The SPSS was chosen to explore whether attitudes towards gender and gender identity (as measured by the GEGS) would differ from attitudes towards sexuality (as measured by the SPSS), which are distinct constructs. However, prior research has suggested that prejudice towards sexuality may be associated with gender essentialist beliefs.⁴⁹ Second, it is possible that participants conflated gender identity and sexuality. Previous studies exploring differences between these constructs have highlighted that individuals, such as coaches, often confuse and/or equate the concepts of gender, sex, and sexuality.³³ This could partially explain the moderately strong correlations found between the GEGS and the SPSS in the current study. Overall, our findings suggest that coaches who endorsed gender essentialism were also more likely to endorse prejudiced attitudes towards LG athletes.

No hypotheses were made comparing GEGS scores to the SDOS, but the results showed that higher scores on the GEGS were moderately correlated with higher scores on the SDOS. In other words, participants who endorsed greater gender essentialist beliefs also reported stronger beliefs in social hierarchies and preference for social inequality. Notably, the GEGS is a unique construct compared to SDOS as the GEGS attempts to measure gender essentialism specifically, while the SDOS measures beliefs of social group dominance and inequalities.

Observed differences between groups supported the validity of the GEGS, exhibiting expected outcomes. Specifically, female coaches and coaches who indicated that they had previously received training on gender and/or gender stereotypes scored significantly lower on the GEGS, compared to male coaches and coaches with no previous training. The finding of female coaches scoring lower on the GEGS is similar to other studies related to assessing gender essentialism, where women were found to show lower levels of essentialism compared to men.^12,21 Qualitative work on gender essentialism in sport has also found how sport stakeholders, including athletes and coaches, can exert agency to challenge and resist essentialist ideologies.^2,7,50 Specifically, research on women coaches’ experiences has highlighted how personal experiences of discrimination and marginalization in sport forces women to have to “prove” themselves within a masculinized sports environment and directly challenge gender stereotypes and gender limitations caused by essentialist sport structures.^50,51 Our findings further align with previous research where coaches who engaged with coach education programs related to gender equity exhibited lower levels of gender essentialism.^9,26 However, it is important to note that many coach education programs related to gender equity may inadvertently replicate gender norms, gender essentialism, and stereotypes or protect masculine hegemony in sport.^52,53 Therefore, coach education programs must intentionally challenge essentialist beliefs and take a gender responsive approach to coaching in order to be most effective in decreasing levels of gender stereotypes in sport coaching, which can foster environments where girls feel safe, valued, and affirmed.^9,10,26,29 Notably, no significant effect was found for age, suggesting that gender essentialism can manifest in coaches across all age groups.

A notable contribution of the GEGS lies in its addition of items related to the inclusion of transgender athletes in sport and its links with gender essentialist beliefs. The inclusion of transgender athletes in sport has been a hotly contested and politicized topic in the last decade.^5,54 Research on coach perceptions of transgender athlete inclusion has found that coaches exhibit a variety of opinions, ranging from staunchly anti-trans and invalidating of trans identities, to uncertain, to firmly inclusive of trans athletes.³² Furthermore, coaches are less likely to support the sport participation of transgender women compared to transgender men, reflecting a ‘protect women's sport’ ethos rooted in essentialist stereotypes of women's athletic abilities.^5,32 Although transphobia and essentialism may be distinct concepts, research suggests there are overlaps between transphobia, cisgenderism, and essentialism, as essentialism would uphold a belief in an immutable gender binary.^4,54 Given how antipathy towards transgender athletes is due to varying types of gender essentialisms, cisgenderism, and transphobia, we do not intend to reduce discrimination of transgender athletes to just gender essentialism, but instead highlight the commonalities to how gender essentialism in coaching impacts both cisgender and transgender athletes, albeit in slightly different ways. Essentialism in sport contexts invalidates transgender identities and leads to discrimination, backlash, and abuse of transgender and gender diverse individuals, such as an inflation, exaggeration, and misrepresentation of transgender women's athletic intentions and abilities, and produces inferiorizing assumptions of cisgender women's athletic suitability.^4,5

The inclusion of transgender items in the GEGS is justified by the theoretical connections between cisgenderism and essentialism, as well as the harm that essentialist beliefs of trans athletes pose for upholding similarly essentialist stereotypes of cisgender girls and women. Protectionist notions against transgender women replicate essentialist beliefs that athleticism lies on an immutable gender binary and cisgender girls are inferior in sport.⁵ In the present study, the two items relating to transgender athletes (i.e., “Transgender girls should not play on girls’ sports teams”, “Transgender boys should not play on boys’ sports teams”) showed strong correlations with the total GEGS score, indicating that higher levels of essentialism are positively associated with greater anti-trans attitudes in sport. Notably, although a thorough qualitative analysis was not conducted, in response to the optional, qualitative, open-ended question “Do you have any other thoughts about this survey that you would like to share with us?”, many participants specifically shared their opinions on transgender athlete inclusion. Some responses asserted trans-inclusive opinions, such as “I feel that transgender athletes should be included in sport…At the end of the day, all kids deserve the right to participate regardless of any of these matters” (Participant #260). Others expressed essentialist tones that invalidated trans identities and replicated essentialist stereotypes, such as “If biological males who become females are allowed to compete against biological females it will destroy all progress made in women's sports” (Participant #245). The wide range of opinions expressed voluntarily by participants in an optional open-ended question reflects prior research, highlights how more research is needed to substantiate this association of transphobia, cisgenderism, and essentialism in the sport context, and illustrates the need to develop a new scale that explicitly assesses attitudes towards transgender athletes in sport.³²

Overall, our scale provides a novel measure to assess the prevalence of gender essentialism among sport coaches and sport practitioners that can be applied to a variety of sport levels and contexts. A scale assessing gender essentialism in sport is helpful to address and remedy coaching opinions and methodologies that might have deleterious effects on athletes’ sports experiences, retention, and enjoyment.^9,26 Additionally, the GEGS can help inform and evaluate coach education programs aimed to support coaches, practitioners, and administrators in identifying gaps in the understanding of socio-cultural topics, such as gender equity and gender bias. Improving awareness in areas related to social equity and gender stereotypes can be beneficial in strengthening coach-athlete relationships, retaining athletes in sport, improving athlete development and well-being, and challenging masculine norms in sports environments.^29,30

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

The findings of the present study need to be interpreted in light of several strengths and limitations. In terms of strengths, we meticulously followed stringent guidelines for the development and validation of our scale, ensuring its robustness and reliability.^31,34 Additionally, our inclusion of a substantial sample size, in line with established recommendations, bolsters the statistical power of our analyses. Furthermore, the assessment of test-retest reliability affirms the stability of our scale over time.

While our study provides a novel measure to assess gender essentialism towards girls in sport, several limitations warrant acknowledgment. Foremost among these is the absence of an appropriate measure of discriminant validity, which we recognize as a crucial aspect in scale validation. For the purposes of the current study, we proposed the SPSS as a measure of discriminant validity, given inherent differences in the constructs of sexuality and gender. However, our findings showed strong correlations between the GEGS and sexual prejudice in sport as measured by the SPSS. It is plausible that individuals who report higher gender essentialist beliefs are also more likely to exhibit greater levels of sexual prejudice. This is particularly evident given the high correlations between the GEGS and the gendered performance subscale of the SPSS. Second, certain elements of gender essentialism are more prevalent than others within the scale. In particular, items focus on the distinctiveness and naturalness of gender essentialism more than the immutability of gender essentialism. Throughout the scale validation process, scale items related to immutability were removed during expert review, cognitive interviews, and/or the EFA/CFA process. All original items can be found in Appendix B within the supplementary materials. This may potentially raise questions regarding the comprehensive nature of the GEGS. However, the detailed scale development process done in collaboration with coaches may have meant items related to immutability might not be viewed as relevant to the sport coaching context compared to items focused on distinctiveness and naturalness. Third, although two items assessing attitudes towards transgender athletes were included in the GEGS based on expert feedback in the initial phases of scale development, further research is needed to refine and validate these additions. We acknowledge that two items are unlikely to fully capture the nuance in attitudes towards transgender athletes, particularly in girls’ sport, especially given how essentialism is just one structure impacting transgender antipathy. Novel scales are needed to explicitly measure transphobia and trans inclusion in sport settings. Fourth, our sample is predominantly composed of White coaches based in the US and includes no trans women or men, which limits the generalizability of our findings to broader populations. Relatedly, given convenience sampling was used to recruit participants, bias may be introduced as respondents self-select to participate. This can potentially exclude participants who have strong gender essentialist beliefs or who are not interested in the topic. Given participants who did not complete the GEGS were removed from analysis, the sample may also be vulnerable to non-response bias. Fifth, this study focuses on the construction and validation of the GEGS but does not demonstrate predictive validity with specific outcomes associated with gender essentialism in sport. We suggest there is opportunity for future research to illustrate the utility of the GEGS in predicting various outcomes in sport (e.g., athlete performance, the coach-athlete relationship).

Moving forward, there are several avenues for future research that stem from the insights gained in this study. Continued testing and validation efforts will further bolster the reliability and validity of our scale, enhancing its utility within the field. As noted above, the GEGS should be tested for predictive validity with associated outcomes related to gender essentialism. For instance, future research could explore if coaches who score high on the GEGS also report more antipathy toward professional women's sport or transgender athlete inclusion, or whether the teams of coaches who score high on the GEGS report less satisfaction with their sports experiences. Further, exploring the invariance of our scale across diverse demographic groups (e.g., coach gender) will shed light on potential variations in gender essentialist attitudes and perceptions. Additionally, future efforts should aim to adapt and validate the GEGS to assess gender essentialism towards different athlete populations (e.g., adult and male athletes). Finally, pre- and post-intervention scores were not assessed in this study, which would determine if the GEGS is sensitive enough to detect changes in gender essentialist beliefs after education or an intervention targeted at coaches. Future research should assess GEGS scores before and after an intervention, to not only evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, but to determine the pre- and post-test (predictive) validity of the GEGS.

Conclusions

The GEGS developed in this study provides a valuable tool for assessing gender essentialism among sport coaches. Our findings support the reliability and validity of the GEGS, demonstrating its potential to identify areas where gender essentialist beliefs are prevalent among coaches. Significant differences between groups supported the validity of the GEGS, with female coaches and those with previous gender training scoring lower on the scale. This underscores the importance of coach education programs in challenging essentialist beliefs. The inclusion of items related to transgender athlete inclusion in the GEGS revealed associations between gender essentialism and anti-trans attitudes. However, further research is needed to validate this connection. Overall, the GEGS is a valuable tool that can be utilized by sport coaches, organizations, administrators, and other related stakeholders to help address and alleviate the ways in which gender essentialism negatively impacts girls’ sport experiences. By identifying gender essentialist beliefs in sport, the GEGS can help document and educate coaches and sport administrators on existing biases, which can lead to practical solutions, such as coach education initiatives, that can help challenge stereotypes, improve experiences, and retain girls in sport.^9,25 Future research should continue to refine and validate the scale and explore its sensitivity to changes in gender essentialist beliefs over time.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541241307935 - Supplemental material for Assessing gender essentialist beliefs towards youth athletes: Development and preliminary validation of the gender essentialist beliefs towards girls in sport scale (GEGS)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541241307935 for Assessing gender essentialist beliefs towards youth athletes: Development and preliminary validation of the gender essentialist beliefs towards girls in sport scale (GEGS) by Anna Goorevich, Jekaterina Schneider, Courtney Boucher and Nicole M. LaVoi in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Dunja Antunovic, Dr. Cheryl Cooky, Dr. Annelies Knoppers, and Dr. Vicki Schull for their time and contribution as expert reviewers in the initial development of the scale items; the coaches who took part in the cognitive interviews; the participants who took part in the survey; the Tucker Center Directed Study Team for their help with participant recruitment; and the manuscript reviewers whose thoughtful comments strengthened the paper.

Authors’ contributions

Anna Goorevich: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Visualization, Project Administration. Jekaterina Schneider: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Visualization, Project Administration. Courtney Boucher: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing. Nicole M. LaVoi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision, Funding Acquisition.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Anna Goorevich

Jekaterina Schneider

Nicole M. LaVoi

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

LaVoi

. Introduction to the Tucker Center research report. In: LaVoi

(eds) Developing physically active girls: an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach. Minneapolis, MN: The Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport, 2018, pp.xvii–xxiv.

Allison

. Privileging difference: negotiating gender essentialism in U.S. women’s professional soccer. Sociol Sport J 2021; 38: 158–166.

Kane

. Resistance/transformation of the oppositional binary: exposing sport as a continuum. J Sport Soc Issues 1995; 19: 191–218.

Afroozeh

Phipps

Afrouzeh

, et al. “The spectators ask, is it a boy or a girl? What is it?”: cultural cisgenderism and trans men’s sporting experiences in Iran. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2023; 58: 1221–1240.

Greey

Lenskyj

(eds). Justice for trans athletes: challenges and struggles. 1st ed. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing, 2023.

Allison

. Kicking center: gender and the selling of women’s professional soccer. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2018.

Messner

. Gender ideologies, youth sports, and the production of soft essentialism. Sociol Sport J 2011; 28: 151–170.

Women in Sport. Sport, stereotypes, and stolen dreams: why girls still feel like they don’t belong in sport. Women in Sport, https://womeninsport.org/resource/sport-stereotypes-and-stolen-dreams/ (2023).

Goorevich

Boucher

Schneider

, et al. Acceptability and preliminary efficacy testing of a web-based coach development program addressing gender essentialism among coaches of adolescent girls. Int Sport Coach J 2023; 11(3): 356–368.

10.

Goorevich

LaVoi

. Essentially different or equally the same: uncovering sport coach discourses about coaching girls. Sport Coach Rev 2024: 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2024.2309786

11.

Greene

. Biological determinism and essentialism. In: Naples

(ed) Companion to feminist studies [Internet]. 1st ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2020, pp.13–34. [cited 2024 Sep 19]. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/10.1002/9781119314967.ch2

12.

Skewes

Fine

Haslam

. Beyond Mars and Venus: the role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLoS ONE 2018; 13: e0200921.

13.

Lorber

. Believing is seeing: biology as ideology. Gend Soc 1993; 7: 568–581.

14.

Hyde

. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol 2005; 60: 581–592.

15.

Allison

Love

. “We all play pretty much the same, except. . .”: gender-integrated quidditch and the persistence of essentialist ideology. J Contemp Ethnogr 2022; 51: 347–375.

16.

Love

Kelly

. Equity or essentialism?: U.S. Courts and the legitimation of girls’ teams in high school sport. Gend Soc 2011; 25: 227–249.

17.

Jakubowska

Byczkowska-Owczarek

. Girls in football, boys in dance. Stereotypization processes in socialization of young sportsmen and sportswomen. Qual Sociol Rev 2018; 14: 12–28.

18.

Plaza

Boiché

Brunel

, et al. Sport = male… but not all sports: investigating the gender stereotypes of sport activities at the explicit and implicit levels. Sex Roles 2017; 76: 202–217.

19.

Felton

Jowett

. “What do coaches do” and “how do they relate”: Their effects on athletes’ psychological needs and functioning. Scand Med Sci Sports 2013; 23: 130–139.

20.

Sue

Capodilupo

Torino

, et al. Racial microaggressions in everyday life: implications for clinical practice. Am Psychol 2007; 62: 271–286.

21.

Lee

Reis

Rogge

. Seeing the world in pink and blue: developing and exploring a new measure of essentialistic thinking about gender. Sex Roles 2020; 83: 685–705.

22.

Adams

. Humour, masculinities and youth sport coaching: ‘good morning, ladies!’. Sport Educ Soc 2020; 25: 463–474.

23.

Ferguson

Swann

Liddle

, et al. Investigating youth sports coaches’ perceptions of their role in adolescent mental health. J Appl Sport Psychol 2019; 31: 235–252.

24.

Langan

Blake

Lonsdale

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

25.

Newman

Lower-Hoppe

Burch

, et al. Advancing positive youth development-focused coach education: contextual factors of youth sport and youth sport leader perceptions. Mang Sport Leis 2021; 26: 326–340.

26.

Schneider

Matheson

Tinoco

, et al. Body confident coaching: a pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating the acceptability of a web-based body image intervention for coaches of adolescent girls. J Appl Sport Psychol 2023; 36: 231–256.

27.

de Haan

Knoppers

. Gendered discourses in coaching high-performance sport. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2020; 55: 631–646.

28.

Gosai

Jowett

Rhind

DJA

. Coaching through a “gender lens” may reveal myths that hinder female athletes: a multistudy investigation. Int Sport Coach J 2022; 9: 222–233.

29.

Norman

. Is there a need for coaches to be more gender responsive? A review of the evidence. Int Sport Coach J 2016; 3: 192–196.

30.

Jones

Mills

Avner

. Learning to problematise ‘the way things are’ when coaching female athletes. In: Cope

Partington

(eds) Sports coaching. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2019, pp.135–145.

31.

Boateng

Neilands

Frongillo

, et al. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 2018 Jun 11; 6: 49.

32.

Arnold

Chambers

Petrie

. NCAA Coaches’ perceptions of the inclusion of transgender athletes: a qualitative analysis. Sport Educ Soc 2023; 23: 1–17.

33.

Scheadler

Anderson-Butcher

Bates

. College coaches’ engagement in advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other gender and sexual minorities (LGBTQIA+) rights and racial justice: Experiences, facilitators, and barriers. J Divers High Educ 2024: 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000559

34.

Vitoratou

Uglik-Marucha

Hayes

, et al. An introductory comprehensive guide for assessing measurement tool quality: The Contemporary Psychometrics (ConPsy) Checklist [Internet], https://osf.io/t2pbj (2023 [cited 2024 Apr 29]).

35.

Tourangeau

. Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Jabine

Straf

Tanur

Tourangeau

(eds) Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1984, pp.73–100.

36.

Comrey

. Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. J Consult Clin Psychol 1988; 56: 754–761.

37.

Schudson

Van Anders

. Gender/sex diversity beliefs: scale construction, validation, and links to prejudice. Group Processes Intergroup Relat 2022; 25: 1011–1036.

38.

Baiocco

Pistella

Salvati

, et al. Sexual prejudice in sport scale: a new measure. J Homosex 2020 20; 67: 489–512.

39.

Pratto

Sidanius

Stallworth

, et al. Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994; 67: 741–763.

40.

Aichholzer

Lechner

. Refining the Short Social Dominance Orientation scale (SSDO): a validation in seven European countries. J Soc Polit Psych 2021; 9: 475–489.

41.

Wood

Akloubou Gnonhosou

Bowling

. Combining parallel and exploratory factor analysis in identifying relationship scales in secondary data. Marriage Fam Rev 2015; 51: 385–395.

42.

O’Connor

. SPSS And SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2000; 32: 396–402.

43.

Hendrickson

White

. Promax: a quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1964; 17: 65–70.

44.

Yeomans

Golder

. The Guttman-Kaiser criterion as a predictor of the number of common factors. Statistician 1982; 31: 221.

45.

Bollen

. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989.

46.

Cohen

. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112: 155–159.

47.

Shrout

Fleiss

. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.

48.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013.

49.

Vanessa Hettinger. Reconceptualizing the role of essentialism in attitudes toward gays and lesbians: The intersection of gender and sexual orientation. [Internet]. University of South Florida, https://core.ac.uk/reader/154470560 (2014).

50.

Norman

. Bearing the burden of doubt: female coaches’ experiences of gender relations. Res Q Exerc Sport 2010; 81: 506–517.

51.

Norman

Rankin-Wright

. Surviving rather than thriving: understanding the experiences of women coaches using a theory of gendered social well-being. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2018; 53: 424–450.

52.

Allen

Kaestle

Goldberg

. More than just a punctuation mark: how boys and young men learn about menstruation. J Fam Issues 2011; 32: 129–156.

53.

Norman

. The impact of an “equal opportunities” ideological framework on coaches’ knowledge and practice. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2016; 51: 975–1004.

54.

Gleaves

Lehrbach

. Beyond fairness: the ethics of inclusion for transgender and intersex athletes. J Philos Sport 2016; 43: 311–326.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

3.76 MB