Authors: Joshua S. Greer1, Nicholas Zoroya2, and Tim Wilson3
1Cumberland University
2Wayne State University
3Middle Tennessee State University
Joshua S. Greer. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2890-1673
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
ABSTRACT
This explanatory mixed-methods case study explored the relationship between accreditation, curriculum design, and student performance in sport sales education within undergraduate sport management programs. Using archival data from the 2024–2025 National Collegiate Sports Sales Championship (NCSSC), the study compared outcomes among 25 institutions, including COSMA- and non-accredited programs. Quantitative analysis found no significant relationship between accreditation status and Top-10 finishes in either the Ticket Sales or Corporate Partnerships divisions (p > .05). Qualitative findings indicated that student performance was more closely associated with experiential learning depth, faculty expertise, and the integration of customer relationship management and analytics tools. Grounded in Experiential Learning Theory, Competency-Based Education, Human Capital Theory, and Communities of Practice, the study concludes that accreditation provides useful structure but does not independently predict competitive success. Program-level factors such as applied pedagogy, simulation-based learning, and industry partnerships appear to be stronger indicators of professional readiness and employability in sport sales.
KEYWORDS: Experiential Learning Theory, Competency-Based Education, Human Capital Theory, Communities of Practice
INTRODUCTION
The goal of supporting positive outcomes for younger people (i.e., generativity; Erikson, 1950) is one that is both widely and cross-culturally relevant, yet despite this, the understanding for how to best support young people and the strategies employed to do so are still in flux. Only recently have developmental psychology and social research begun to place an emphasis on fostering positive outcomes for youth, as opposed to the prevention of negative outcomes and problematic behaviors (Larson, 2000). Within the areas of social and developmental research, this emphasis has led to the creation of diverse approaches to and philosophies of developmental youth programming (Lerner et al., 2011), which often provide opportunities for life skill development (i.e., explicit positive youth development). That said, the translation of such knowledge to spaces where youth development is view as a secondary priority, such as sport, tends to be challenging (Jones et al., 2011). The primary aim of the present pilot study was to test a grounded theory of implicit positive youth development through sport by examining the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences in a small, single-organization sample. In doing so, the present study offers a novel examination of the collective social climate (i.e., PYD climate) and its relationship to athlete developmental outcomes. We hypothesized the following:
- Athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) will be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of the coach-athlete relationship, peer cohesion, and parental involvement across a sport season.
At two time points (e.g., beginning of the season, end of the season), athletes’ ratings of their relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement were collected. Subsequently, athletes’ perceptions of skill development across four areas (e.g., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting, initiative) were regressed on changes to the relationship variables. Both the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement were shown to significantly predict social skill development, not only offering partial support for a theory of implicit PYD through sport and underscoring the critical developmental role of relationship building in sport but also pointing to the need for stakeholders to prioritize a high-quality social climate in the sport context to better support youth development.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Historically, adolescence and adolescent development has been regarded as a period during which youth are at risk and laden with problematic behaviors (Benson et al., 2006), therefore implying that the role of adults was to manage and prevent the problems that arise from adolescent development, also known as a deficit-focused approach to youth development (Clonan et al., 2004; Lerner, 2005). However, preventing such problems through a focus on treatment or intervention often failed to yield positive results (Catalano et al., 2008). Appearing concurrently with positive psychology’s focus on human strengths and flourishing, positive youth development theory offered that youth are “resources to be developed,” presenting a path toward positive youth outcomes through youth enrichment and the promotion of adolescent strengths (Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005). Positive youth development is a broad term, but generally refers to “processes, approaches, and instances” (Lerner et al., 2011) which seek to optimally prepare young people for adulthood, with the targeted outcomes being well-being and the fulfillment of their potential (Catalano et al., 2008). Contexts which aim to support positive youth development vary widely, to include agricultural programming (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005), volunteer and service programming (McBride et al., 2011), tutoring (Worker et al., 2019), aquatics (Storm et al., 2017), adventure-based programming (Sibthorp & Morgan, 2011), and sport (Bruner et al., 2021).
Youth sports are generally touted as tools for healthy and positive development, yet research aimed at validating this claim or understanding the processes by which it occurs is ambiguous (Holt et al., 2017). PYD theory was developed outside of the sport context (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005) and researchers have struggled to apply PYD models and measures to sporting contexts (Jones et al., 2011). One reason for this may be that PYD researchers have failed to acknowledge keyfeatures of the sport environment (Holt et al., 2017). In a systematic review of qualitative data, Holt and colleagues (2017) proposed that PYD through sport occurs via two distinct pathways. In the first, programs offer explicit education to youth sport participants aimed at life skill development. In the second pathway, PYD occurs implicitly via positive relationships with coaches, peers, and parents (i.e., the creation of a ‘PYD climate’). Holt and colleagues concluded that further research is needed to not only investigate the validity of this framework but also understand additional nuances for when and how PYD may occur through explicit and implicit factors. The need for further research was bolstered by a systematic review of sport-based PYD programming, conducted by Whitley and colleagues (2019), who concluded the benefit of explicit PYD programming in sport is not clear enough to support the implementation of a standardized intervention. Therefore, while the field’s understanding of how to best implement explicit PYD programming through sport is still evolving, there also exists a need to test the proposed model of implicit PYD through positive relationships within sport. While the specific role positive relationships play in supporting PYD within sport is unclear, it is generally accepted that these relationships are all valuable, if not necessary, for positive athlete outcomes (Burns et al., 2019).
Coach-Athlete Relationship
Arguably the primary relationship in the sporting context (Jowett, 2017), the dyadic relationship between coach and athlete has been shown to be instrumental to numerous athlete outcomes. In a systematic review of the coach-athlete relationship literature, Nikolina and Đorić (2023) reported that a positive coach-athlete relationship was not only predictive of increased motivation, satisfaction, and performance, but also protective from athlete stress, burnout, and negative affect. Davis and Jowett (2014) have reported that the quality of the coach-athlete relationship is directly related to athlete positive and negative affect. Furthermore, in a systematic review of the literature, McShan and Moore (2023) found that a positive coach-athlete relationship, as reported by coaches, was associated with coach’s beliefs of fostering an environment supportive of athlete life skill development. In Holt and colleague’s (2017) grounded theory of implicit PYD, the authors posit that strong, positive relationships between athletes and coaches can create a developmentally supportive social environment.
Peer Cohesion
Paralleling the coach-athlete relationship research, research on the role of peer relationships in the sport environment have shown these relationships to be highly influential on athlete experiences and outcomes (Smith & Ullrich-French, 2020). Peer support has been shown to be related to elite sport participation, athlete motivation, and reduced withdrawal from sport (Sheridan et al., 2014). Additionally, researchers have shown that peer cohesion is not only associated with performance (Carron et al., 2002; Filho et al., 2014), but also athlete need satisfaction and learning (Erikstad et al., 2018). Furthermore, Smith and Ulrich-French (2020) have posited that peer relationships in the sport context are likely to be influential to individual athlete development, to include character, moral, social, and life skill development. In proposing strong peer relationships as influential of an implicit PYD climate, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted how strong peer relationships in the sport context often result in feelings of belongingness and support, which may provide developmental benefit.
Parental Involvement
While not always directly involved in the training environment, researchers have shown that parents are highly influential to youth athletes’ experiences and outcomes in sport. Youth who perceive their parents as satisfied with their performance and who experience low parental pressure are more likely to report sport enjoyment and positive affect (Dorsch et al., 2021). Additionally, parental involvement has also been associated with youth sport enjoyment, perceptions of competence, and self-esteem (Dorsch et al., 2021). Parental involvement in sport has also been found to be associated with youth athlete need satisfaction (Felber Charbonneau & Camiré, 2020). Furthermore, parental involvement in sport has also been connected to athletes’ development, to include socialization and value adoption (Danioni et al., 2017). In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted the reinforcing role that parental involvement plays to creating a PYD climate; while coaches may be responsible for delivering lessons and values to athletes in the sport context, the authors noted that it is important that parents support, not contradict, these messages.
Study Aims
In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) posited that these three relationships (i.e., coaches, peers, parents) collectively create a social climate supportive of implicit positive youth development. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to examine the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences and youth athletes’ perceptions of developmental skills gained, thereby piloting a test of Holt and colleagues’ (2017) grounded theory model. Should these relationships be predictive of positive youth development, it could be expected that athletes who experience positive changes to these relationships (e.g., increased peer cohesion, increased parental involvement) across a sport season should also receive increased benefit from their participation compared to athletes whose relationships did not improve. As such, we hypothesized that athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) would be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of their peer relationships, coach-athlete relationships, and parental involvement across a sport season.
METHODS
Participants
Participants included 67 youth athletes from a competitive soccer club in the northwest region of the United States. In total, 41 athletes (Mage = 11.85) completed data collection at both time points. Participants represented 13 teams from four separate age categories. Additionally, 65.9% of the athletes identified as white and 61.0% of the athletes identified as boys.
Measures
Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)
To measure athlete perceptions of their relationship with their coach, the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004) was utilized. The 11-item scale measured the nature of the athlete’s relationship with their coach (a = 0.97). Using a seven-point Likert scale, athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I trust my coach.”
Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ)
Athletes’ perceptions of their relationship with teammates were measured utilizing the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ; Eys et al., 2009). The scale, which has been shown to be both valid and reliable, measured group cohesion and peer relationship quality. The YSEQ contains 16 statements, such as, “I am happy with my team’s level of desire to win” (a = 0.93). Athletes rated their agreement with these statements utilizing a seven-point Likert scale.
Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ)
The Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ; Lee & MacLean, 1997) is a valid and reliable 19-item scale (a = 0.87), which captures athletes’ perceptions of parental involvement across three subscales: directive behavior, praise and understanding, and active involvement. Utilizing a five-point Likert scale, athletes rated their level of agreement with statements such as, “Do your parents push you to practice harder?”
Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S)
Employed only at the second time point, the short form Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S; MacDonald et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2015) is 16-item scale that measured the perceptions of athletes’ experiences participating in sport across the previous season, and was utilized in the present study to operationalize PYD. The scale measures whether athletes perceived any benefit to their participation across four subscales: personal and social skills (a = 0.78), cognitive skills (a = 0.78), goal setting (a = 0.81), and initiative (a = 0.71). Athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I learned to push myself” on a five-point Likert scale.
Procedure
Ahead of the start of the summer season, the first author attended the club’s tryouts and parent meetings to share information about the study and recruit participants. During this time, parental consent was obtained through the completion of a written consent form and household demographic survey. The first survey was completed electronically one month into the summer season. Subsequently, 14 weeks later, the research team returned to conduct the second survey during the final week of the fall season. At both time points, the surveys collected demographic information, athlete perceptions of relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement. At the second time point, the survey collected measurements of athletes’ perceptions of their experiences playing sport across the previous season, particularly focused on skills gained.
The dataset contained 0.3% missingness, and results of an MCAR test were not significant (X2(1386) = 0.00, p = 1.00), suggesting data was missing at random. For cases with missingness, scales were prorated based on completed items. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each scale and notable demographic differences are reported in Table 1. For each of the relationship variables (i.e., CART-Q, PISQ, YSEQ), a difference score was calculated (MT2 – MT1) to measure changes in these relationships across the season. While the utilization of difference scores has been criticized for its negative, summative impact on reliability (Edwards, 1994), researchers have noted that difference scores can be an appropriate choice in research, particularly for nonrandomized, theory-driven analyses (Castro-Schilo & Grimm, 2018). Assumptions testing revealed issues regarding multicollinearity as there was a high correlation between coach-athlete relationship and the peer cohesion change scores (r = 0.801), which resulted in unstable beta coefficients. This instability indicated that the presence of the peer cohesion variable in the model was distorting the estimation of other predictors, undermining the reliability and interpretability of the model. As such, the peer cohesion variable was removed from primary analyses. Following this, we regressed the four subscales of the YES-S (i.e., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting skills, initiative) on changes in relationship quality across the season, while controlling for age, race, and gender.
Table 1
Sample Characteristics and Descriptive Statistics
| CART-Q | YSEQ | PISQ | YES-S Social Skills | YES-S Cog. Skills | YES-S Goal Setting | YES-S Initiative | ||||||
| Variable | n | % | T1 – M(SD) | T2 – M(SD) | T1 – M(SD) | T2 – M(SD) | T1 – M(SD) | T2 – M(SD) | T2 – M(SD) | T2 – M(SD) | T2 – M(SD) | T2 – M(SD) |
| Age | ||||||||||||
| 10 | 3 | 7.3 | 5.61(1.24)* | 5.97(1.47)* | 4.25(2.01)* | 5.08(1.98)* | 2.39(0.18) | 2.91(0.45) | 3.58(0.52) | 3.67(0.58) | 4.25(0.58) | 4.58(0.52) |
| 11 | 9 | 22.0 | 5.46(1.73) | 6.36(0.39) | 4.74(1.52) | 5.53(0.83) | 3.02(0.60) | 3.13(0.52) | 4.00(0.60) | 3.69(1.05) | 4.00(0.85) | 4.50(0.45) |
| 12 | 20 | 48.8 | 6.10(0.40) | 5.96(0.85) | 5.10(0.75) | 5.30(0.91)* | 2.92(0.60) | 3.25(0.74)* | 4.17(0.75) | 3.53(1.16) | 3.93(0.90) | 4.25(0.59) |
| 13 | 9 | 22.0 | 5.71(1.04)* | 5.15(1.26)* † | 4.69(1.40) | 4.89(1.18) | 3.16(0.69) | 3.30(0.58) | 4.03(0.57) | 3.56(0.69) | 4.25(0.57) | 4.43(0.66) |
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Boy | 25 | 61.0 | 6.03(0.61) | 6.17(0.69)† | 4.91(1.03)* | 5.26(0.89)* | 2.92(0.62)* | 3.24(0.66)* | 4.12(0.66) | 3.72(0.85) | 4.11(0.71) | 4.43(0.41) |
| Girl | 16 | 39.0 | 5.56(1.43) | 5.41(0.99)† | 4.81(1.42) | 5.22(1.25) | 3.01(0.62) | 3.17(0.62) | 3.96(0.89) | 3.35(1.19) | 3.90(0.94) | 4.27(0.76) |
| Race | ||||||||||||
| White | 27 | 65.9 | 5.77(1.13) | 5.97(0.83) | 4.75(1.21)* | 5.24(1.03)* | 2.95(0.61) | 3.14(0.57) | 4.07(0.69) | 3.52(1.04) | 3.99(0.85) | 4.43(0.54) |
| Black | 1 | 2.4 | ||||||||||
| Asian | 4 | 9.8 | 5.50(1.38) | 5.41(1.85) | 4.77(1.85)* | 5.30(1.64)* | 2.74(0.90) | 3.29(0.90) | 4.00(0.35) | 3.94(0.43) | 3.94(0.43) | 3.94(0.66) |
| Hispanic | 4 | 9.8 | 6.27(0.45) | 5.86(1.12) | 5.50(0.89) | 5.55(0.74) | 2.99(0.57) | 3.41(0.83) | 4.50(0.41) | 4.25(0.54) | 4.69(0.47) | 4.63(0.32) |
| Other | 5 | 12.2 | 6.13(0.31) | 5.65(1.20) | 5.05(0.83) | 4.99(1.04) | 2.99(0.45) | 3.31(0.52) | 3.80(0.89) | 3.15(1.29) | 3.80(0.94) | 4.15(0.74) |
| Total | 41 | 100.0 | 5.84(1.02) | 5.87(0.99) | 4.87(1.18)* | 5.24(1.03)* | 2.96(0.62)* | 3.21(0.64)* | 4.06(0.67) | 3.58(1.00) | 4.03(0.80) | 4.37(0.57) |
Notes. n = 41; CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement; YSEQ = Ratings of Peer Cohesion; YES-S = Perceptions of Developmental Experiences, *Difference is significant between time points; †Difference is significant between groups.
RESULTS
The model examining personal and social skills was significant and explained 45.4% of variance in the outcome (R2 = 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001).
Regression Results for Perceptions of Social Skills Gained by Athletes
| 95% CI | ||||||
| Variable | b | b | SE | LL | UL | p |
| Intercept | 0.774 | 1.268 | -1.802 | 3.350 | 0.546 | |
| Gender | -0.129 | -0.175 | 0.184 | -0.550 | 0.199 | 0.348 |
| Age | 0.369 | 0.291 | 0.110 | 0.067 | 0.515 | 0.012 |
| Race | -0.024 | -0.008 | 0.042 | -0.094 | 0.078 | 0.858 |
| DCART-Q | 0.482 | 0.250 | 0.074 | 0.099 | 0.400 | 0.002 |
| DPISQ | 0.326 | 0.382 | 0.160 | 0.580 | 0.707 | 0.022 |
Notes. n = 41; R2= 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.
**When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (R2 = 0.317, F(4,35) = 4.063, p = 0.008).
Within this model, both changes to the coach-athlete relationships (b= 0.482, p = 0.002) and changes to parental involvement (b= 0.326, p = 0.022) across the season were significant predictors of personal and social skills. Additionally, the covariate age was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (b = 0.369, p = 0.012). The model examining cognitive skills explained 25.1% of the variance, however was only marginally significant (R2 = 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069). Within this model the change in coach-athlete relationship was a statistically significant predictor (b= 0.403, p = 0.022), whereas changes to parental involvement was not (b= 0.158, p = 0.330).
Table 3
Regression Results for Perceptions of Cognitive Skills Gained by Athletes
| 95% CI | ||||||
| Variable | b | b | SE | LL | UL | p |
| Intercept | 2.048 | 2.221 | -2.465 | 6.561 | 0.363 | |
| Gender | -0.155 | -0.315 | 0.323 | -0.972 | 0.342 | 0.337 |
| Age | 0.143 | 0.169 | 0.193 | -0.224 | 0.561 | 0.389 |
| Race | -0.066 | -0.032 | 0.074 | -0.182 | 0.119 | 0.670 |
| DCART-Q | 0.403 | 0.312 | 0.130 | 0.048 | 0.576 | 0.022 |
| DPISQ | 0.158 | 0.277 | 0.280 | -0.292 | 0.845 | 0.330 |
Notes. n = 41; R2= 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.
** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.
The models predicting goal setting skills (R2 = 0.183, F(5,34) = 1.528, p = 0.207) and initiative (R2 = 0.185, F(5,34) = 1.542, p = 0.203) were not statistically significant.
DISCUSSION
The present study provides partial support to Holt and colleague’s (2017) proposition that there is an implicit pathway of PYD in sport that takes place through positive relationships. In particular, changes to the coach-athlete relationship significantly predicted youth athletes’ perceptions of social skills and cognitive skills gained; and changes to perceptions of parental involvement also predicted social skills gained. Additionally, when analyzed separately due to issues of multicollinearity, changes to peer cohesion also significantly predicted social skill perceptions. As such, data in the current study reinforce the importance of relationships within the sport environment, and extend previous research by highlighting their value to the specific area of PYD through sport.
While research has shown the coach-athlete relationship to be associated with motivation (Adie & Jowett, 2010), collective-efficacy (Hampson & Jowett, 2014), and team cohesion (Turman, 2003), its role in the social and cognitive development of athletes is less understood. That said, research has shown that coaches seem to intuitively understand the developmental value of a positive coach-athlete relationship as coaches have reported a positive relationship with their athletes led to social and emotional development and resilience (White & Bennie, 2015). Furthermore, Davis and colleagues (2019) proposed a bidirectional relationship between communication skills and the coach-athlete relationship, where communication skills not only helped to improve the relationship, but also improved as a product of a high-quality coach-athlete relationship. When examining the more expansive literature on the impact of a high-quality relationships, researchers have documents that teacher-student relationships can promote cognitive development (Davis, 2003) and social adjustment (Dong et al., 2021) through positive and trusting learning environments. Data in the current study suggest coaches hold a responsibility to ensure the development and sustainment of positive relationships in the sport environment to support similarly positive developmental outcomes for youth athletes. This is particularly important as social skills have been shown to be associated with academic performance (Sung & Chang, 2010), increased mental health (Greenberg et al., 2003), wellbeing (Sancassiani et al., 2015), and self-esteem (Riggio et al., 1990).
The present study also highlights the important yet specific role that parents play in positive youth development through sport. Parental styles have been shown to be associated with social skill development; youth with democratic and permissive parents have been shown to score higher on social skills measures than those with neglectful or authoritative parents (Salavera et al., 2022). As such, it could be hypothesized that parents with more developmentally supportive parenting styles are more likely to be involved in their child’s sport and supportive of their child’s social skills. That said, data in the current study suggests the need to delineate the roles of parents and coaches, as these relationships may provide different benefits for youth. For example, Knight and colleagues (2011) reported that athletes consistently prefer parents to fill a supportive and encouraging role, as opposed to a coaching role. This is supported by data in the current study in that while change to parental involvement predicted athletes’ perceptions of social skill development, it did not predict their cognitive skill perceptions.
Finally, it is important to note that girls rated their relationship with their coach significantly lower than their peers who identified as boys; and older athletes were also significantly less likely to rate their coach-relationships higher than younger athletes. As such, should there exist any developmental benefit to high-quality, coaching relationships, the present findings would suggest that girls and older youth athletes are less likely to receive those benefits. Given that a positive coach-athlete relationship can be protective from poor mental health outcomes for girl athletes specifically (Massey et al., 2024), it is important that positive coach-athlete relationships are prioritized for female athletes, particularly adolescent female athletes. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that as athletes get older, the sporting environment shifts from a focus on fun to a focus on competition. Be that as it may, research has shown that the true shift lies within how athletes are treated; Kipp and Bolter (2020) found that while both older and younger athletes equally perceived their sporting environments to be focused on effort and learning, older athletes were more likely to report being punished or disciplined for mistakes. It is possible that such climates explain the decreasing trend of the coach-athlete relationship observed in the present study. Speaking strictly to the proposed developmental role of the coach-athlete relationship within sport, the present findings would offer that sports become less beneficial and developmentally supportive over time.
Despite the present study’s value to the literature base on PYD through sport, its small, homogenous sample limits its generalizability. In addition to being predominantly white, the sample derived from a singular, pay-to-play soccer organization within an affluent community. Additionally, the present sample predominantly identified as boys, which may parallel youth sport participation trends, but limits the generalizability of the findings to non-boy athlete populations. The age rage of the sample was also limited, clustered into the soccer organizations U11 and U13 age groupings, and as such, the findings may be in part reflective of the natural development occurring in this age range.
Furthermore, most athletes in the present study were satisfied with their relationship with their coach and peers, and the mean parental involvement score was slightly above the midpoint of the scale. Depending on sport or community context, it is possible that more athletes would report more dissatisfaction with these relationships or less parental involvement, thereby affecting the nature of the findings. With respect to age and gender differences, it is possible that these differences could be explained by confounding variables, such as coach gender, competition level, or position, which could not be differentiated in the present study due to the small sample size. Lastly, while multicollinearity necessitated the removal of the peer cohesion variable from the analyses, it should be acknowledged that doing so also limits the completeness of the model by excluding a theoretically important dimension of the sport environment, and one which should continue to be examined in this line of research. As such, future studies should not only continue to examine the nuanced roles of parents and coaches in sport-based PYD, but also peer relationships, and doing so in larger and more diverse samples.
CONCLUSION
The social context of the sport environment, which includes coaches, parents, and peers, plays a significant role in shaping athletes’ perceived development through sport. In the present study, athletes’ perceived social skill development was significantly predicted by positive changes to the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement. The quality of the coach-athlete relationship also emerged as a meaningful predictor of athletes’ perceived cognitive development, highlighting the broader developmental impact of adult figures in the sport context. Furthermore, while peer cohesion was omitted in analyses due to multicollinearity, its interconnectedness with the coach-athlete relationship should be acknowledged, and researchers should continue to utilize it as a variable of interest as theory would dictate. Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of considering the full network of sport-based relationships when seeking to support athletes’ development through sport participation.
APPLICATIONS IN SPORT
In addition to providing support for Holt and colleagues’ (2017) theory of implicit PYD through sport, the present study highlights the interconnected nature of youth sport’s social context. We offer the following recommendations to stakeholders seeking to utilize these findings to develop their youth sport organization’s PYD climate:
- Provide coaches with education and training that supports their development of communication and relationship-building skills (see Barnett et al., 1992; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003).
- Provide education and clear expectations for parents’ involvement in the organization, as well as opportunities for involvement (see Knight et al., 2011).
Prioritize relationship building and psychological safety at the outset of the season, to include team-building activities and the development of team norms, rituals, and goals (see Carron et al., 1997; Senécal et al., 2008).
REFERENCES
1. Adie, J. W., & Jowett, S. (2010). Meta‐perceptions of the coach–athlete relationship, achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation among sport participants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2750-2773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00679.x
2. Barnett, N. P., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.6.2.111
3. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma Jr., A. (2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence 3(1), 1-13.
4. Bruner, M. W., McLaren, C. D., Sutcliffe, J. T., Gardner, L. A., Lubans, D. R., Smith, J. J., & Vella, S. A. (2021). The effect of sport-based interventions on positive youth development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(1), 368-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1875496
5. Burns, L., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Cohen, M. (2019). Supportive interpersonal relationships: a key component to high-performance sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(22), 1386-1389. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100312
6. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.168
7. Carron, A. V., Spink, K. S., & Prapavessis, H. (1997). Team building and cohesiveness in the sport and exercise setting: Use of indirect interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415384
8. Castro-Schilo, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Using residualized change versus difference scores for longitudinal research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 32-58.
9. Catalano, R. F., Toumbourou, J. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2008). Positive youth development in the United States: History, efficacy, and links to moral and character education. In L. Nucci & T. Krettenauer (Eds.) Handbook of moral and character education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203114896
10. Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461
10. Clonan, S. M., Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2004). Positive psychology goes to school: Are we there yet? Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10142
11. Danioni, F., Barni, D., & Rosnati, R. (2017). Transmitting sport values: The importance of parental involvement in children’s sport activity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i1.1265
12. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2
13. Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2014). Coach–athlete attachment and the quality of the coach–athlete relationship: Implications for athlete’s well-being. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.898183
14. Davis, L., Jowett, S., & Tafvelin, S. (2019). Communication strategies: The fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02156
15. Dong, Y., Wang, H., Luan, F., Li, Z., & Cheng, L. (2021). How children feel matters: Teacher–student relationship as an indirect role between interpersonal trust and social adjustment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 581235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581235
16. Dorsch, T. E., Wright, E., Eckardt, V. C., Elliott, S., Thrower, S. N., & Knight, C. J. (2021). A history of parent involvement in organized youth sport: A scoping review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(4), 536. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000266
17. Edwards, J. R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20(3), 683-689.
18. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Co.
19. Erikstad, M. K., Martin, L. J., Haugen, T., & Høigaard, R. (2018). Group cohesion, needs satisfaction, and self-regulated learning: A one-year prospective study of elite youth soccer players’ perceptions of their club team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.013
20. Eys, M., Loughead, T., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(3), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.3.390
21. Felber Charbonneau, E., & Camiré, M. (2020). Parental involvement in sport and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs: Perspectives from parent–child dyads. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(5), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1570533
22. Filho, E., Dobersek, U., Gershgoren, L., Becker, B., & Tenenbaum, G. (2014). The cohesion–performance relationship in sport: A 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Sciences for Health, 10(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-014-0188-7
23. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466
24. Hampson, R., & Jowett, S. (2014). Effects of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on collective efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(2), 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01527.x
25. Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2017). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704
26. Jones, M. I., Dunn, J. G., Holt, N. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Exploring the ‘5Cs’ of positive youth development in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34(3). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-17095-003
27. Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: The coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006
28. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medalists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00011-0
29. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART‐Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x
30. Kipp, L. E., & Bolter, N. D. (2020). Motivational climate, psychological needs, and personal and social responsibility in youth soccer: Comparisons by age group and competitive level. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101756
31. Knight, C. J., Neely, K. C., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Parental behaviors in team sports: How do female athletes want parents to behave? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.525589
32. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170
33. Lee, M., & MacLean, S. (1997). Sources of parental pressure among age group swimmers. European Journal of Physical Education, 2(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898970020204
34. Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.
35. Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development A view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604273211
36. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., 37.
37. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Schmid, K. L., & Napolitano, C. M. (2011). Positive youth development: Processes, orograms, and problematics. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.174
38. MacDonald, D. J., Côté, J., Eys, M., & Deakin, J. (2012). Psychometric properties of the youth experience survey with young athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 332-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.001
39. Massey, W. V., Veliz, P. T., Zarrett, N., & Farello, A. (2024). Thriving through sport: The transformative impact on girls’ mental health. Women’s Sport Foundation.
40. McBride, A. M., Johnson, E., Olate, R., & O’Hara, K. (2011). Youth volunteer service as positive youth development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.009
41. Nikolina, K., & Đorić, V. (2023). Relations of coach-athlete relationship quality and athlete psychosocial functioning: A systematic review. SportLogia, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.7251/SGIA2319002K
42. Riggio, R. E., Throckmorton, B., & Depaola, S. (1990). Social skills and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(8), 799-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90188-W
43. Salavera, C., Usán, P., & Quilez-Robres, A. (2022). Exploring the effect of parental styles on social skills: The mediating role of affects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063295
44. Sancassiani, F., Pintus, E., Holte, A., Paulus, P., Moro, M. F., Cossu, G., Angermeyer, M. C., Carta, M. G., & Lindert, J. (2015). Enhancing the emotional and social skills of the youth to promote their wellbeing and positive development: A systematic review of universal school-based randomized controlled trials [Special issue]. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 11, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901511010021
45. Senécal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.186
46. Sheridan, D., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A systematic review of social support in youth sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 198-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.931999
47. Sibthorp, J., & Morgan, C. (2011). Adventure‐based programming: Exemplary youth development practice. New Directions for Youth Development, (130), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.400
48. Smith, A. L., & Ullrich-French, S. (2020). Peers and the sport experience. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.) Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 410–428). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119568124.ch19
49. Storm, M. K., Williams, K. N., Shetter, E. M., Kaminsky, J., Lowery, C. M., Caldas, S. V., & Winch, P. J. (2017). Sink or swim: Promoting youth development through aquatics programs in Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 35(1), 66-79. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I1-7295
50. Sullivan, P. J., LaForge-MacKenzie, K., & Marini, M. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Youth Experiences Survey for Sport (YES-S). Open Journal of Statistics, 5(05), 421. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.55044
51. Sung, Y. Y., & Chang, M. (2010). Which social skills predict academic performance of elementary school students. Journal on Educational Psychology, 3(3), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.3.3.1078
52. Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 26(1), 86-104. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-01497-007
53. White, R. L., & Bennie, A. (2015). Resilience in youth sport: A qualitative investigation of gymnastics coach and athlete perceptions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 10(2-3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-3.379
54. Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., Camiré, M., Boutet, M., & Borbee, A. (2019). Sport-based youth development interventions in the United States: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 19, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6387-z
55. Worker, S. M., Iaccopucci, A. M., Bird, M., & Horowitz, M. (2019). Promoting positive youth development through teenagers-as-teachers programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(1), 30-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418764089
Appendix A
Supplemental Materials
Table 4
Correlation Matrix of Study Variables
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1. Age | |||||||
| 2. CART-Q | -0.34* | ||||||
| 3. PISQ | 0.15 | 0.23 | |||||
| 4. YSEQ | -0.14 | 0.66** | 0.31* | ||||
| 5. Social Skills | 0.14 | 0.62** | 0.35* | 0.47** | |||
| 6. Cognitive Skills | -0.05 | 0.40* | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.66** | ||
| 7. Goal Setting | 0.03 | 0.43** | 0.13 | 0.42** | 0.57** | 0.70** | |
| 8. Initiative | -0.10 | 0.53** | 0.18 | 0.47** | 0.51** | 0.40* | 0.70** |
Notes. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement, YSEQ = Peer Relationships
Table 5
Regression Results for Perceptions of Goal Setting Skills Gained by Athletes
| 95% CI for B | ||||||
| Variable | b | SE | LL | UL | b | p |
| Intercept | 2.053 | 1.862 | -1.731 | 5.836 | 0.278 | |
| Gender | -0.228 | 0.271 | -0.779 | 0.322 | -0.140 | 0.405 |
| Age | 0.186 | 0.162 | -0.143 | 0.515 | 0.196 | 0.259 |
| Race | 0.011 | 0.062 | -0.115 | 0.137 | 0.028 | 0.863 |
| DCART-Q | 0.230 | 0.109 | 0.008 | 0.451 | 0.369 | 0.042 |
| DPISQ | 0.175 | 0.235 | -0.302 | 0.651 | 0.124 | 0.462 |
Notes. R2= 0.183, p = 0.207; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement
** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.
Table 6
Regression Results for Perceptions of Initiative Gained by Athletes
| 95% CI for B | ||||||
| Variable | b | SE | LL | UL | b | p |
| Intercept | 4.000 | 1.315 | 1.328 | 6.671 | -0.120 | 3.043 |
| Gender | -0.138 | 0.191 | -0.527 | 0.250 | 0.062 | -0.723 |
| Age | 0.042 | 0.114 | -0.191 | 0.274 | 0.035 | 0.365 |
| Race | 0.010 | 0.044 | -0.079 | 0.099 | 0.389 | 0.221 |
| DCART-Q | 0.171 | 0.077 | 0.015 | 0.327 | 0.087 | 2.224 |
| DPISQ | 0.086 | 0.166 | -0.251 | 0.423 | -0.120 | 0.520 |
Notes. R2= 0.185, p = 0.203; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement
** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.
